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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.