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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.