Re: [GTh] Is There Really A Letter Missing From GJW Line 1?
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:I think that I am largely to blame for making a big deal of the typo in MIke's interlinear alongside its parallel in the Jesus Wife Fragment. I do find it really striking. Of course on its own it would not tell one much. But as part of a cluster of remarkable parallels with Coptic Thomas from NHII, I think it's telling.The way I like to think about the typo is: It is not so much that there's a typo in the GJW fragment itself (as some seem to talk about) but the fact that there is a type on Mike's interlinear right where have one of the few places that the GJW does not parallel Thomas in such a way that the typo can explain an apparently rare construction otherwise outside of the ken of an ordinary forger.--Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala
Mark G writes:
>And of course Bill would have difficulty seeing a direct link between two strikingly similar texts!And of course Mark would have no difficulty seeing source dependence where there isn't any! I thinking I'm noticing an odd pattern here.
Seriously, though, as to this point: I am NOT taking a position on either the authenticity of the fragment (MS is too strong a word) or on its source relationship to other texts. I'm NOT a defender of its authenticity. I just think people are jumping the gun here, and that at this stage it is a mistake to say that the absence (I won't say it's "missing") of N/M object-marker before PW--- is a grammatical error.
seen on it is in Leo Depuydt's report sent to HTR. He argues that it is a real blunder. Unfortunately, his study won't see the light of >day until Karen King's article is published, which now may be some way away. If he is right, then of course the parallel between the fragment and Mike's interlinear becomes all the more striking.>On the grammatical issue of the missing mu, the best study I'veNow that's interesting -- I assume that Depuydt's comments are not generally available. But I take it that he DOES address/contest Layton's placement of "tina-" among double-object verbs? A point both King and Bernhard take as given? It would be kind of amazing -- I say this with awe at the world's weirdness, and not argumentatively -- if a point of Coptic grammar were to be clarified or REVISED as a result of a debate over whether a scrap of papyrus was forged or not. Best potential headline: "Jesus' Wife forces revision of Layton's Coptic Grammar."
University of Regina
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:02:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [GTh] Is There Really A Letter Missing From GJW Line 1?Interesting conversation. And of course Bill would have difficulty seeing a direct link between two strikingly similar texts!I think that I am largely to blame for making a big deal of the typo in MIke's interlinear alongside its parallel in the Jesus Wife Fragment. I do find it really striking. Of course on its own it would not tell one much. But as part of a cluster of remarkable parallels with Coptic Thomas from NHII, I think it's telling.Mark
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530