Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Did the author of the GJW use Grondin's website?(2)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    An addition and correction to my previous note: The Coptic text of Thomas, line-by-line, first became available in English in 1959, with The Gospel According
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 26, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      An addition and correction to my previous note:
       
      The Coptic text of Thomas, line-by-line, first became available
      in English in 1959, with The Gospel According to Thomas
      (Guillamont, Puech, Quispel, Till, et al). I have a copy of the 1998
      reprint - Coptic on the left side, English on the right. It goes by
      plate number, rather than page number, but that's inconsequential.
      The beginning of 41.02 ('rwme shaf.eine') seems more suggestive
      than 41.05, since it contains the word 'rwme' ('man') also in 41.17
      after 'mare'.
       
      Which leads to the correction: I said that GJW6 doesn't make
      sense with 'shaf.eine', but it does if we read 'mare' in the sense
      of negation: "No wicked man brings ...". So that would make
      a conflation of 41.17 and 41.02 more likely than I had thought.
      The interpretation of 'mare' is thus closely connected with our
      assessment of 'shafe' vs. 'shaf'. If we think it's 'shafe' (as does
      King and her team), the 'mare' has to mean 'let/permit', but if
      it's 'shaf.e[i]ne' that follows, then the 'mare' must be negation.
       
      Mike
    • Andrew Bernhard
      Much to comment on. For the moment, I just wanted to share that I posted a new (very brief) article asking the question: Does Line 6 of The Gospel of Jesus
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 27, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Much to comment on. For the moment, I just wanted to share that I posted a new (very brief) article asking the question: "Does Line 6 of The Gospel of Jesus' Wife Reveal the Author's Dependence on Grondin's Interlinear Translation of The Gospel of Thomas?"
         
         
        Will be especiallly curious for a reaction from Mike himself!
         
        More soon! :-)
         
        Cheers,
        Andrew


         
        On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
         

        An addition and correction to my previous note:
         
        The Coptic text of Thomas, line-by-line, first became available
        in English in 1959, with The Gospel According to Thomas
        (Guillamont, Puech, Quispel, Till, et al). I have a copy of the 1998
        reprint - Coptic on the left side, English on the right. It goes by
        plate number, rather than page number, but that's inconsequential.
        The beginning of 41.02 ('rwme shaf.eine') seems more suggestive
        than 41.05, since it contains the word 'rwme' ('man') also in 41.17
        after 'mare'.
         
        Which leads to the correction: I said that GJW6 doesn't make
        sense with 'shaf.eine', but it does if we read 'mare' in the sense
        of negation: "No wicked man brings ...". So that would make
        a conflation of 41.17 and 41.02 more likely than I had thought.
        The interpretation of 'mare' is thus closely connected with our
        assessment of 'shafe' vs. 'shaf'. If we think it's 'shafe' (as does
        King and her team), the 'mare' has to mean 'let/permit', but if
        it's 'shaf.e[i]ne' that follows, then the 'mare' must be negation.
         
        Mike


      • Mark Goodacre
        Interesting possibility, Andrew. Here are two more possible (and I emphasize *possible*!) signs of dependence on Mike s website: (1) Why is the M missing in
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 28, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Interesting possibility, Andrew.  Here are two more possible (and I emphasize *possible*!) signs of dependence on Mike's website:

          (1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment? Could it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable? Mike's interlinear has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm).  Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in the interlinear rendered the M superfluous to requirements?

          (2) Line 3 has MARIAM rather than Thomas's MARI2AM, which is unusual given the extensive parallels to Thomas in the fragment.  But Mike's interlinear gives "Mariam" in translation in both 21 and 114 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log114.htm) so the author might have chosen to delete the hori?

          Pure speculation, but offered as part of the continued discussion.

          All best
          Mark

          On 27 September 2012 14:32, Andrew Bernhard <gospels.net@...> wrote:
           

          Much to comment on. For the moment, I just wanted to share that I posted a new (very brief) article asking the question: "Does Line 6 of The Gospel of Jesus' Wife Reveal the Author's Dependence on Grondin's Interlinear Translation of The Gospel of Thomas?"
           
           
          Will be especiallly curious for a reaction from Mike himself!
           
          More soon! :-)
           
          Cheers,
          Andrew


           
          On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
           

          An addition and correction to my previous note:
           
          The Coptic text of Thomas, line-by-line, first became available
          in English in 1959, with The Gospel According to Thomas
          (Guillamont, Puech, Quispel, Till, et al). I have a copy of the 1998
          reprint - Coptic on the left side, English on the right. It goes by
          plate number, rather than page number, but that's inconsequential.
          The beginning of 41.02 ('rwme shaf.eine') seems more suggestive
          than 41.05, since it contains the word 'rwme' ('man') also in 41.17
          after 'mare'.
           
          Which leads to the correction: I said that GJW6 doesn't make
          sense with 'shaf.eine', but it does if we read 'mare' in the sense
          of negation: "No wicked man brings ...". So that would make
          a conflation of 41.17 and 41.02 more likely than I had thought.
          The interpretation of 'mare' is thus closely connected with our
          assessment of 'shafe' vs. 'shaf'. If we think it's 'shafe' (as does
          King and her team), the 'mare' has to mean 'let/permit', but if
          it's 'shaf.e[i]ne' that follows, then the 'mare' must be negation.
           
          Mike





          --
          Mark Goodacre           
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org


        • Bob Schacht
          ... This conjecture raises an interesting question in my mind, having to do with textual criticism (TC). In TC, texts are divided into text families, wherein
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 28, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            At 04:20 PM 9/28/2012, Mark Goodacre wrote:


            Interesting possibility, Andrew. Â Here are two more possible (and I emphasize *possible*!) signs of dependence on Mike's website:

            This conjecture raises an interesting question in my mind, having to do with textual criticism (TC).
            In TC, texts are divided into text families, wherein it is assumed that a later version in a text family is presumed dependent on an earlier example of the same text family. I assume that similar arguments to Mark's are made in assessing the minor differences within each text family.

            Judgments about which text family a mss. belongs to must also utilize such assessments.

            But modern times are not the only occasions during which manuscript copies were made from something other than an original copy (i.e., an actual physical copy of the manuscript). For some reason, Tatian's Diatessaron comes to mind-- but that's not a proper parallel to this situation.

            Bob Schacht
            Northern Arizona University

            Well, this may be a digression, but for some reason, textual criticism issues have always interested me.


            (1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment? Could it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable? Mike's interlinear has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 ( http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm).  Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in the interlinear rendered the M superfluous to requirements?

            (2) Line 3 has MARIAM rather than Thomas's MARI2AM, which is unusual given the extensive parallels to Thomas in the fragment. Â But Mike's interlinear gives "Mariam" in translation in both 21 and 114 ( http://gospel-thomas.net/log114.htm) so the author might have chosen to delete the hori?

            Pure speculation, but offered as part of the continued discussion.

            All best
            Mark

            On 27 September 2012 14:32, Andrew Bernhard <gospels.net@...> wrote:
             

            Much to comment on. For the moment, I just wanted to share that I posted a new (very brief) article asking the question:Â "Does Line 6 of The Gospel of Jesus' Wife Reveal the Author's Dependence on Grondin's Interlinear Translation of The Gospel of Thomas?"
            Â
            http://www.gospels.net/gjw/GJW6.pdf
            Â
            Will be especiallly curious for a reaction from Mike himself!
            Â
            More soon! :-)
            Â
            Cheers,
            Andrew


            Â
            On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
             

            An addition and correction to my previous note:
            Â
            The Coptic text of Thomas, line-by-line, first became available
            in English in 1959, with The Gospel According to Thomas
            (Guillamont, Puech, Quispel, Till, et al). I have a copy of the 1998
            reprint - Coptic on the left side, English on the right. It goes by
            plate number, rather than page number, but that's inconsequential.
            The beginning of 41.02 ('rwme shaf.eine') seems more suggestive
            than 41.05, since it contains the word 'rwme' ('man') also in 41.17
            after 'mare'.
            Â
            Which leads to the correction: I said that GJW6 doesn't make
            sense with 'shaf.eine', but it does if we read 'mare' in the sense
            of negation: "No wicked man brings ...". So that would make
            a conflation of 41.17 and 41.02 more likely than I had thought.
            The interpretation of 'mare' is thus closely connected with our
            assessment of 'shafe' vs. 'shaf'. If we think it's 'shafe' (as does
            King and her team), the 'mare' has to mean 'let/permit', but if
            it's 'shaf.e[i]ne' that follows, then the 'mare' must be negation.
            Â
            Mike





            --
            Mark Goodacre          Â
            Duke University
            Department of Religion
            Gray Building / Box 90964
            Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
            Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

            http://www.markgoodacre.org




          • Mike Grondin
            ... I haven t wanted to say anything about this topic previously, because, well, it makes me uncomfortable. But my attention has recently been drawn to the
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 10, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              
              [from Mark Goodacre, 09/28]:
              > (1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment?
              Could
              > it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable?
              Mike's interlinear
              > has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 (
              href="">http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm).
              >  Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in
              the interlinear
              > rendered the M superfluous to requirements?
               
              > (2) Line 3 has MARIAM rather than Thomas's MARI2AM, which is unusual
              given
              > the extensive parallels to Thomas in the fragment.  But
              Mike's interlinear gives
              > "Mariam" in translation in both 21 and 114 (
              href="">http://gospel-thomas.net/log114.htm)
              > so the author might have chosen to delete the hori?

              I haven't wanted to say anything about this topic previously, because,
              well, it makes me uncomfortable. But my attention has recently been
              drawn to the fact that the page-by-page version of my interlinear (as
              opposed to the interactive saying-by-saying version) is missing the 'M'
              preceding PWN2 at line 50:01 - which is the line that has been linked
              to line 1 of the fragment. This must have been something that I fixed
              in the one version but not in the other. The spelling 'Mariam' is also
              suggestive, since no other translation I'm aware of used that.
               
              I feel that I should also mention something that I did at my first (of two)
              SBL conventions - in Toronto, late November 2002. Naively thinking to
              impress Thomas experts, I had prepared maybe 6-8 copies of two types
              of handout. One was a packet of loose papers which included copies of
              GThomas messages I'd written, containing the URL of my website. The
              other was a copy of my page-by-page interlinear (as evidenced by its date
              of Nov 22, 2002). I don't recall everyone I gave this stuff to, but it was to
              people who had spoken about or were interested in Thomas. Not that I
              suspect an SBL member of being involved in forgery, and it would have
              been easy enough to find my site through other means, but I guess there's
              an outside possibility - assuming the thing is a forgery - that these materials
              might somehow have played a role.
               
              Mike Grondin
            • Mark Goodacre
              Oh my goodness, Mike. I am afraid that this might just be the smoking gun. Well spotted. And thank you for that typo! No shame attached there; we all do
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 10, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Oh my goodness, Mike.  I am afraid that this might just be the smoking gun.  Well spotted.  And thank you for that typo!  No shame attached there; we all do that all the time, and you corrected your text in the main website version.  This definitely needs blogging. Cheers, Mark

                On 10 October 2012 13:02, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                 

                

                [from Mark Goodacre, 09/28]:
                > (1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment? Could
                > it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable? Mike's interlinear
                > has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm).
                >  Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in the interlinear
                > rendered the M superfluous to requirements?
                 
                > (2) Line 3 has MARIAM rather than Thomas's MARI2AM, which is unusual given
                > the extensive parallels to Thomas in the fragment.  But Mike's interlinear gives
                > "Mariam" in translation in both 21 and 114 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log114.htm)
                > so the author might have chosen to delete the hori?

                I haven't wanted to say anything about this topic previously, because,
                well, it makes me uncomfortable. But my attention has recently been
                drawn to the fact that the page-by-page version of my interlinear (as
                opposed to the interactive saying-by-saying version) is missing the 'M'
                preceding PWN2 at line 50:01 - which is the line that has been linked
                to line 1 of the fragment. This must have been something that I fixed
                in the one version but not in the other. The spelling 'Mariam' is also
                suggestive, since no other translation I'm aware of used that.
                 
                I feel that I should also mention something that I did at my first (of two)
                SBL conventions - in Toronto, late November 2002. Naively thinking to
                impress Thomas experts, I had prepared maybe 6-8 copies of two types
                of handout. One was a packet of loose papers which included copies of
                GThomas messages I'd written, containing the URL of my website. The
                other was a copy of my page-by-page interlinear (as evidenced by its date
                of Nov 22, 2002). I don't recall everyone I gave this stuff to, but it was to
                people who had spoken about or were interested in Thomas. Not that I
                suspect an SBL member of being involved in forgery, and it would have
                been easy enough to find my site through other means, but I guess there's
                an outside possibility - assuming the thing is a forgery - that these materials
                might somehow have played a role.
                 
                Mike Grondin




                --
                Mark Goodacre           
                Duke University
                Department of Religion
                Gray Building / Box 90964
                Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                http://www.markgoodacre.org


              • abernhar
                Mike- I would like to assert categorically that if someone used your Interlinear to create a forgery: IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT! In fact, I see things quite
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 10, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike-

                  I would like to assert categorically that if someone used your Interlinear to create a forgery: IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT!

                  In fact, I see things quite differently: if your Interlinear was in fact used, it shows how widely used a resource it has become over the years. I know of a lot of scholars who've used it (and acknowledged their use of it) in preparing their own translations of Thomas over the years. I admit, the fact that you disseminated it at SBL is an interesting twist to everything. But still, there's just no shame in creating a very useful tool (or a minor typo)!

                  Anyway, let's talk about this more after I release my article tomorrow. You and Mark have both now seen the near final draft now, and Mark has graciously agreed not to blog about it until then.

                  More soon . . .

                  Best always,
                  Andrew




                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Oh my goodness, Mike. I am afraid that this might just be the smoking gun.
                  > Well spotted. And thank you for that typo! No shame attached there; we
                  > all do that all the time, and you corrected your text in the main website
                  > version. This definitely needs blogging. Cheers, Mark
                  >
                  > On 10 October 2012 13:02, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > **
                  > > [from Mark Goodacre, 09/28]:
                  > > > (1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment?
                  > > Could
                  > > > it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable?
                  > > Mike's interlinear
                  > > > has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm
                  > > ).
                  > > > Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in the
                  > > interlinear
                  > > > rendered the M superfluous to requirements?
                  > >
                  > > > (2) Line 3 has MARIAM rather than Thomas's MARI2AM, which is unusual
                  > > given
                  > > > the extensive parallels to Thomas in the fragment. But Mike's
                  > > interlinear gives
                  > > > "Mariam" in translation in both 21 and 114 (
                  > > http://gospel-thomas.net/log114.htm)
                  > > > so the author might have chosen to delete the hori?
                  > >
                  > > I haven't wanted to say anything about this topic previously, because,
                  > > well, it makes me uncomfortable. But my attention has recently been
                  > > drawn to the fact that the *page-by-page* version of my interlinear (as
                  > > opposed to the interactive *saying-by-saying* version) is missing the 'M'
                  > > preceding PWN2 at line 50:01 - which is the line that has been linked
                  > > to line 1 of the fragment. This must have been something that I fixed
                  > > in the one version but not in the other. The spelling 'Mariam' is also
                  > > suggestive, since no other translation I'm aware of used that.
                  > >
                  > > I feel that I should also mention something that I did at my first (of two)
                  > > SBL conventions - in Toronto, late November 2002. Naively thinking to
                  > > impress Thomas experts, I had prepared maybe 6-8 copies of two types
                  > > of handout. One was a packet of loose papers which included copies of
                  > > GThomas messages I'd written, containing the URL of my website. The
                  > > other was a copy of my page-by-page interlinear (as evidenced by its date
                  > > of Nov 22, 2002). I don't recall everyone I gave this stuff to, but it was
                  > > to
                  > > people who had spoken about or were interested in Thomas. Not that I
                  > > suspect an SBL member of being involved in forgery, and it would have
                  > > been easy enough to find my site through other means, but I guess there's
                  > > an outside possibility - assuming the thing is a forgery - that these materials
                  > >
                  > > might somehow have played a role.
                  > >
                  > > Mike Grondin
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > Mark Goodacre
                  > Duke University
                  > Department of Religion
                  > Gray Building / Box 90964
                  > Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                  > Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
                  >
                  > http://www.markgoodacre.org
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.