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

[gthomas] Re: "Jesus Says"

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Bernhard
    Hi Odell, It seems we now both understand each other and just have a simple disagreement about how to translate the historical present. I m not convinced
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 17, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Odell,

      It seems we now both understand each other and just have a simple
      disagreement about how to translate the historical present. I'm not
      convinced that we do usually use the historical present in the same
      manner as the Greeks _in our writing_ (there is no doubt that we do in
      our speech). The historical present is often corrected in translations
      of the canonical gospels and I see no reason that it shouldn't be in
      Thomas. I still think translating the historical present as a present
      can lead to unjustified interpretations, but competant scholars have
      seen it both ways. Bethge (althogh inconsistently) has seen fit to
      correct the Coptic to "Jesus says," while Attridge has corrected the
      Greek to "Jesus said"!

      Andrew

      odell mcguire wrote:
      >
      > Andrew Bernhard wrote:
      >
      > > Before reading too much into the Greek present tense, legei, one should
      > > consider the following;
      > >
      > > 1. The Greek fragments do use the past tense eipen in the prologue -
      > > "These are the hidden saying that the the living Jesus spoke (eipen)."
      > >
      > > 2. It is not only Jesus who speaks (legei) in the present tense in the
      > > Greek fragments, but also his disciples. In saying 37 (POxy
      > > 655.col.i.17), "His disciples say (legousin) to him..."
      > >
      > > 3. The Coptic has the past tense - I'm no expert in Coptic but I can
      > > appeal to the authority of Fitzmeyer. See his comments on POxy 654.5
      > > for a discussion of this very issue.
      > >
      > > In short, I'm saying that I think the "legei" is the historical present
      > > and thus should probably be rendered into English as "Jesus said" to
      > > avoid leading people to unjustified interpretations. However, it should
      > > also be noted that the edition of the Greek Fragments of Thomas found in
      > > Kloppenborg, Meyer, Patterson, and Steinhauser's _Q-Thomas Reader_ has
      > > elected to translate Ihsous legei with "Jesus says."
      > >
      > > Best wishes,
      > > Andrew
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > Andrew,
      >
      > I agree with much of what you say and it needed saying. But I still think
      > IH- LEGEI is better translated >Jesus says< because the historical present
      > is frequently used in English with almost exactly the same weight as this
      > use in Greek. It rhetorically vivifies the speaker. Why should I or any
      > reader attach a different tense meaning to >Jesus says< than >Aristotle
      > says< or >Darwin says< or even >Groucho says<? --oops! But literalists
      > don't read Thomas anyway, I don't think. In short, I do think a switch to
      > the past from the historical present when translating Greek into English is
      > a little patronizing. I don't mean to imply that *any* Greek present should
      > be left to stand, but the historical present should.
      >
      > Best, Odell, Lexington, VA
      > omcguire@...
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
      > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Patterson, Steve by way of Mike Grondin
      Dear Thom-Folk: The Berlin group thought that the verb connoted drawing or pulling. I make it policy never to argue with their knowledge of the Coptic
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 22, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Thom-Folk:
        The Berlin group thought that the verb connoted "drawing" or "pulling." I
        make it policy never to argue with their knowledge of the Coptic language.
        In this case, their problem was with the English language. I suggested
        "draw her in" as the appropriate way to capture their sense of the word in
        English.
        Yours,
        Steve P.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mike Grondin [mailto:mgrondin@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 8:09 PM
        To: GThomas@egroups.com
        Subject: [gthomas] Re: Dragging Mariam


        Steve Patterson writes (or wrote):

        > On the translation in general... The SQE
        >15 had some rather gruesome translational problems in the ET (e.g. in GTh
        >114 Peter is heard to say of Mary, "I will drag her to make her male"),
        >which Jim and I, together finally with Hans-Martin Schenke, tried to clear
        >up. The final product will appear in SQE 16. In the meantime, we have,
        >together with Bethge, published this ET in a volume entitled The Fifth
        >Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age (Trinity, 1998). ...

        ... wherein #114 reads "I will draw her in..." (said by Jesus, not Peter).
        But why not simply "I will lead her..."? Nothing gruesome about that. Of
        course, 'SOK' CAN mean 'draw' or 'pull in', as in #8. But it can also mean
        'lead', as in #3 and #34 (leading a blind man). Why should #114 have been
        so difficult, when there seems to have been no corresponding difficulty
        with the same verb in #3 and #34?

        Mike-
        The Coptic GThomas, saying-by-saying
        http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm




        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
      • Jim Gambrill
        ... What was the German translation of the Coptic? Jim ... eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 1 10:14 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          "Patterson, Steve (by way of Mike Grondin )" wrote:
          >
          > Dear Thom-Folk:
          > The Berlin group thought that the verb connoted "drawing" or "pulling." I
          > make it policy never to argue with their knowledge of the Coptic language.
          > In this case, their problem was with the English language. I suggested
          > "draw her in" as the appropriate way to capture their sense of the word in
          > English.

          What was the German translation of the
          Coptic?

          Jim

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
          http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.