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
    ... 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 1 of 7 , Oct 10, 2012
    • 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 2 of 7 , Oct 10, 2012
      • 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 3 of 7 , Oct 10, 2012
        • 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.