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

Re: [gthomas] saying#13

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    ... Good question. What do *you* think the answer to it might be? Do you think perhaps it relects a primitive tradtion from the beginning of the Thomean
    Message 1 of 23 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      joe lieb wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
      > Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com
      > ----------
      >
      >
      > Rick,
      > If the beginning of saying 13 has been tacked on then there must have been a
      > reason. I cannot possibly be the first to offer the explanation that Mathew
      > represents the gospel of St Mathew which portrays Jesus as a wise
      > philosopher, and Peter represents the Catholic church which portrays Jesus
      > as a righteous angel looking down on the earth from his crucifix. Thus the
      > reason for the tacking on would have been to advance the status of the
      > Christianity that the Thomas sect followed as against the other main
      > forms of that era. Could the previous saying, 12, also have been played
      > with? Why is James appointed to be Jesus' successor instead of Peter?

      Good question. What do *you* think the answer to it might be? Do you
      think perhaps it relects a primitive tradtion from the beginning of the
      Thomean community when it might have been aligned with the James
      community in Jerusalem? Again, I'd like to invite dialogue on the list
      about the possibility you have raised.

      > However there is another explanation. Instead of the hiatus being due to
      > extra material added in, perhaps something has been missed out between the
      > two manuscript pages, perhaps Thomas' reply which so impressed Jesus.

      Given the *possible* location of this logion in earlier mss., I would
      say that this is not an impossibility. Proving it is however quite
      another matter.

      > There is even another explanation. Perhaps the hiatus is deliberate.
      > Perhaps the reader has been invited to insert his own attempt at a
      > comparison of Jesus.

      Deliberate or not, the present text does extend that kind of invitation.

      Rick Hubbard
    • Rick Hubbard
      ... Perhaps I *do* need to clarify my suggestion. I don t think anyone seriously disputes that Logion 13 is unique in its structure. In its present form, it
      Message 2 of 23 , Dec 31, 1969
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael Grondin wrote:
        >
        > Rick Hubbard wrote:
        > >The beginning of saying 13 is located at the end of
        > >the manuscript page depicted in plate 80 published by Labib. Could the
        > >first half of logia 13 (containing Jesus' initiating statement and the
        > >ensuing conversations with Matthew, Simon Peter and Thomas) be the work
        > >of an editor of an earlier recension?
        >
        > I'm confused by this line of reasoning, Rick. The split between the pages
        > occurs in the middle of Matthew's name, so that we have:
        >
        > bottom pg. 34: Said-he to-him, namely-Math-
        > top of pg. 35: thew this: "You-resemble a-man ..."
        >
        > In other words, the page-break doesn't come at any particular logical
        > separation point within the saying. In fact, it splits what you call "the
        > first half of logion 13" into two parts. So what does the physical
        > page-break have to do with the logical break between first-half-saying and
        > last-half-saying that you're talking about?
        >
        Perhaps I *do* need to clarify my suggestion.

        I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Logion 13 is unique in its
        structure. In its present form, it resembles something akin to
        "narrative", not a "saying" of the kind found elsewhere in GThom. It is
        therefore conspicuous.

        Whenever something is conspicuous, one's attention is inevitably drawn
        to it and the question, "Why is this different?" arises. In this case,
        some (of perhaps several?) of the possibilities that exist is that this
        logion represents the work of an editor who inserted the entire unit,
        who conflated portions of it with other material or who simply bungled
        the copying of it. Arguing that any of these possibilities are
        probabilities would be difficult, that I admit. There is however some
        things that keep these possibilities alive. First, it is obvious that
        there are differences between both the textual content and arrangement
        of GThom in Coptic and those fragments of it which exist in Greek (POxy
        1, 654, 655). Some of the most notable examples would be POxy655 24
        compared to Coptic GThom 24, POxy1 30 compared to Coptic GThom 30 and
        POxy655 36 compared to Coptic GThom 36. It is safe to say, working from
        this evidence, that the text of GThom seems to have not been normative
        except in a general way. Stated another way, it is apparent that there
        are diffences between manuscripts.

        I am not a paleographer, however I do remember reading about a principle
        used in that discipline which says something to the effect that, when
        text is dislocated in a manuscript (intentionally or otherwise) it is
        most likely to happen at the beginning or at the very end of a leaf.
        Assuming (perhaps inappropriately) that there was at least some
        standardized size of codex leaf which was commonly used, then Logion 13
        could conceivably have been at approximately at the end/begginning of
        some manuscripts earlier than that which was preserved in the NHC
        library. In the NHC ms., as you correctly observe, there is no direct
        evidence of this, however given the differences in scribal hands, leaf
        sizes, etc., it is conceivable that the break may have been precisely at
        this point in one of the ancestors of this ms.

        It would not be judicious to flatly assert that logion 13 is an
        insertion, a conflation or any other "editorial evidence." Nevertheless,
        it would be equally injudicious to deny the possibility.

        So, once again to state my original suggestion, logion 13 is a goat
        amongst a flock of sheep and therefore needs to be read with
        circumspection and a healthy amount of skepticism if one expects to find
        in it traces of the earliest Thomean tradition.

        Rick Hubbard
      • Kanefer@aol.com
        Rick wrote:
        Message 3 of 23 , May 10 7:14 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Rick wrote: <<If so, and if we were left only with the part of 13 beginning
          with, "Jesus said, ' I am not your teacher/master..." then 13 compares well
          (structurally) to the majority of the other logia. It is also less resistant
          to comprehension.>>

          Perhaps the question then is - to whom did Jesus say, "I am not your
          teacher/master" ??

          The people present are named where they are not in accord. Thomas
          having recorded these sayings, he is separate, and he refers to himself
          objectively, "Thomas said...." So, he is also separate from himself.
          He responded in such a way that caused Jesus to take him apart from the
          group; it would be important to show that differentiation. Naming shows
          individuation.

          Some groups, one wants to be differentiated from. In this saying, Jesus
          quotes Isaiah (46:5), of comparing God to idols. But Peter and Matthew take
          it that Jesus was actually asking them this thing. Their responding would
          only acknowledge Jesus as a vain idol. As if Jesus would ask such a thing,
          as if Jesus was preening in a mirror or basking in their adulation.
          Thomas' inability to respond is thus righteous, (and also fits well with
          the next (46:7) of Isaiah, where the idol is unable to speak), in that it
          would not reduce Jesus' teaching. Thomas would not participate in/support a
          vanity. So, Thomas is not an idol worshipper, but one who wishes to learn.
          This shows cause for Jesus to take him separately from the group for more
          instruction.

          There would be no cause for Jesus to take Thomas aside if the saying
          were recorded:
          > Jesus said: "I am not your master. Because you have drunk
          you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
          > He took Thomas aside, and said three words to him. When Thomas returned,
          his companions asked: What did Jesus tell you? And he replied: "If I related
          even one of the words he told me, you would gather stones, and hurl them at
          me, whereupon fire would leap from the stones,and burn you.">

          Sincerely, Patti
        • Michael Grondin
          Sorry, but I don t buy this comparison of #13 to Isaiah 46. In the first place, there s no suggestion that Peter s and Matthew s answers have anything to do
          Message 4 of 23 , May 10 8:23 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry, but I don't buy this comparison of #13 to Isaiah 46. In the first
            place, there's no suggestion that Peter's and Matthew's answers have
            anything to do with idols. But anyway, idols are only incidental to Isaiah
            46. The main point is that the god of Israel can't be compared to anything
            - he's unique ("There is none like me"). Admittedly, one might think that
            this was precisely the point of #13 were it not for the fact that this
            interpretation seems to be contravened by Th108, where J is made to say
            that it's possible for others to become like him. Certainly the god of
            Israel would have never have been made to say such a thing.

            Thomas' inability to say what J is like is not, I think, presented as his
            yet having attained a correct knowledge of J - in fact, J attributes
            Thomas' inability to his (T's) being "drunk on the words". But J makes a
            point of saying something he doesn't have to say, namely, "I'm not your
            master". Why is he made to say that? My contention is (and has been for a
            long time, as those on this list know) that he's made to say that because
            the three words/sayings that he says to Thomas in secret have some
            connection to that assertion. No, he is no longer Thomas' master, because
            Thomas has "drunk from my mouth" (108) to such an extent that he has become
            "drunk on the bubbling spring I have measured out" (13). Thomas has become
            like Jesus (108). Jesus is no longer his master. Instead, he is now his
            disciple (or they've become equals, if you will). So it seems that the
            proper followup to "I'm not your master" is "I'm your disciple", three
            words that are present, but glaringly out of place, in #61, which is almost
            exactly halfway between 13 and 108. Indeed, if this statement is removed
            from #61, the two parts of J's response to Salome are made into one, as
            they clearly should be.

            Mike

            The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
            http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm
          • Kanefer@aol.com
            Mike wrote:
            Message 5 of 23 , May 10 10:46 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Mike wrote: <<Sorry, but I don't buy this comparison of #13 to Isaiah 46.>>>
              It is not a comparison.
              >>>In the first place, there's no suggestion that Peter's and Matthew's
              answers have anything to do with idols.>>>
              By answering as if Jesus had asked them such a question, they clearly
              regarded Jesus as mere idol.
              >>>>But anyway, idols are only incidental to Isaiah 46.>>>
              This is not so.
              >>>>The main point is that the god of Israel can't be compared to anything-
              he's unique>>>> I do not agree that this is the main point. I think the
              main point of Isaiah 37 - 57+ is that idols are not Living nor can they
              impart Life.
              >>>>>Thomas' inability to say what J is like is not, I think, presented as his
              yet having attained a correct knowledge of J - in fact, J attributes Thomas'
              inability to his (T's) being "drunk on the words". But J makes a point of
              saying something he doesn't have to say, namely, "I'm not your master". Why
              is he made to say that? My contention is (and has been for a long time, as
              those on this list know) that he's made to say that because the three
              words/sayings that he says to Thomas in secret have some connection to that
              assertion. No, he is no longer Thomas' master, because Thomas has "drunk from
              my mouth" (108) to such an extent that he has become "drunk on the bubbling
              spring I have measured out" (13). Thomas has become like Jesus (108). Jesus
              is no longer his master. Instead, he is now his disciple (or they've become
              equals, if you will). So it seems that the proper followup to "I'm not your
              master" is "I'm your disciple", three words that are present, but glaringly
              out of place, in #61, which is almost exactly halfway between 13 and 108.
              Indeed, if this statement is removed from #61, the two parts of J's response
              to Salome are made into one, as they clearly should be.>>

              Well, how do you resolve this with #28?(which is also an echo of Isaiah)
              "...I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul
              ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts
              and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to
              depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake
              off their wine, then they will change their ways."

              It could be that Jesus was referring to Matthew and Peter in saying, "I am
              not your Master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the
              bubbling spring which I have measured out." It calls to mind when Jesus
              added water to the empty wine barrels, and the guests so drunk, they did not
              recognize the water, here - the Living Water. By their answers, Matthew &
              Peter were drunk but not thirsty. But Thomas, having no answer, was thirsty.

              Sincerely, Patti
            • William Arnal
              ... This assumes that Thomas use of particular metaphors and images is consistent. In fact, Thomas use of images is consistently INconsistent: look at the
              Message 6 of 23 , May 10 12:01 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 01:46 PM 5/10/00 EDT, Kanefer@... wrote:

                >Well, how do you resolve this with #28?(which is also an echo of Isaiah)
                >"...I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul
                >ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts
                >and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to
                >depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake
                >off their wine, then they will change their ways."
                >
                >It could be that Jesus was referring to Matthew and Peter in saying, "I am
                >not your Master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the
                >bubbling spring which I have measured out."

                This assumes that Thomas' use of particular metaphors and images is
                consistent. In fact, Thomas' use of images is consistently INconsistent:
                look at the way, for instance, he uses "children," "mother," "interest,"
                "robber," "strong mnan," and so on. The image will be used both positively,
                and, in another saying, negatively, and to make different points. This is a
                striking feature of Thomas' literary style and technique, and should not be
                ignored. Thus I see NO reason at all to make #13 so consistent with #28 that
                "drunkenness" must be a negative quality in both.

                >It calls to mind when Jesus
                >added water to the empty wine barrels, and the guests so drunk, they did not
                >recognize the water, here - the Living Water.

                What?? No doubt John intends the water to invoke "the living water" --
                that's just his style. But to claim that the reason the guests took it to be
                wine (and excellent wine at that) was because of their drunkenness, well,
                that strikes me as just wild rationalization. Surely you don't take this
                story to be historical??

                Bill
                __________________________________
                William Arnal wea1@...
                Religion/Classics New York University
              • Rick Hubbard
                Regardless of the attempts to make some sense of this unit, the fact remains that Logion 13 is a goat among a flock of sheep. I think the question of its
                Message 7 of 23 , May 11 7:27 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Regardless of the attempts to make some sense of this unit, the fact
                  remains that Logion 13 is a goat among a flock of sheep.

                  I think the question of its integrity needs to be satisfactorily
                  resolved before much effort is exerted in trying to interpret it.

                  I suggest the following:

                  1.) I am convinced that this unit, in its present form, represents a
                  textual displacement of some kind. The statement in 13.5 "I am not your
                  teacher..." interrupts the entire flow of the cluster. Mike G. observes
                  that, "So it seems that the proper followup to "I'm not your master" is
                  "I'm your disciple", three words that are present, but glaringly out of
                  place, in #61, which is almost exactly halfway between 13 and 108.
                  Indeed, if this statement is removed from #61, the two parts of J's
                  response to Salome are made into one, as they clearly should be." In
                  particular, some attention should be given to the position of these
                  portions of text on the NHC facsimile.

                  2.) The persistent suggestion that the opening statement of Logion 13
                  (which is attributed to Jesus), "Compare me to..." reflects Is 46.5 is
                  intriguing, but I doubt that there is compelling evidence to make the
                  connection persuasive.

                  3.) Finally, I am skeptical from the outset that anything in Logion 13
                  reflects the actual words of Jesus. This entire saying is the invention
                  of someone within an early "Thomean" community.

                  Rick Hubbard
                • Rick Hubbard
                  ... + I agree! ... + I d be interested in evidence that can be used to account for this apparent dislocation. ... Rick hubbard
                  Message 8 of 23 , May 11 7:33 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Michael Grondin wrote:
                    >
                    > Sorry, but I don't buy this comparison of #13 to Isaiah 46. In the first
                    > place, there's no suggestion that Peter's and Matthew's answers have
                    > anything to do with idols. But anyway, idols are only incidental to Isaiah
                    > 46. The main point is that the god of Israel can't be compared to anything
                    > - he's unique ("There is none like me"). Admittedly, one might think that
                    > this was precisely the point of #13 were it not for the fact that this
                    > interpretation seems to be contravened by Th108, where J is made to say
                    > that it's possible for others to become like him. Certainly the god of
                    > Israel would have never have been made to say such a thing.
                    >
                    + I agree!

                    > ......... So it seems that the proper followup to "I'm not your master" is "I'm your disciple", three
                    >words that are present, but glaringly out of place, in #61, which is almost exactly halfway between 13 >and 108. Indeed, if this statement is removed from #61, the two parts of J's response to Salome are >made into one, as they clearly should be.
                    >

                    + I'd be interested in evidence that can be used to account for this
                    apparent dislocation.
                    >
                    Rick hubbard
                  • joe lieb
                    Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com ... Rick Hubbard wrote: The beginning of saying 13 is
                    Message 9 of 23 , May 12 6:21 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
                      Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com
                      ----------

                      Rick Hubbard wrote: >The beginning of saying 13 is located at the end of
                      the manuscript page depicted in plate 80 published by Labib. Could the
                      first half of logia 13 (containing Jesus' initiating statement and the
                      ensuing conversations with Matthew, Simon Peter and Thomas) be the work
                      of an editor of an earlier recension? If so, and if we were left only
                      with the part of 13 beginning with, "Jesus said, ' I am not your
                      teacher/master..." then 13 compares well (structurally) to the majority
                      of the other logia. It is also less resistant to comprehension.
                      I'd like to hear from list members about this issue.

                      Rick,
                      If the beginning of saying 13 has been tacked on then there must have been a
                      reason. I cannot possibly be the first to offer the explanation that Mathew
                      represents the gospel of St Mathew which portrays Jesus as a wise
                      philosopher, and Peter represents the Catholic church which portrays Jesus
                      as a righteous angel looking down on the earth from his crucifix. Thus the
                      reason for the tacking on would have been to advance the status of the
                      Christianity that the Thomas sect followed as against the other main
                      forms of that era. Could the previous saying, 12, also have been played
                      with? Why is James appointed to be Jesus' successor instead of Peter?
                      However there is another explanation. Instead of the hiatus being due to
                      extra material added in, perhaps something has been missed out between the
                      two manuscript pages, perhaps Thomas' reply which so impressed Jesus.
                      There is even another explanation. Perhaps the hiatus is deliberate.
                      Perhaps the reader has been invited to insert his own attempt at a
                      comparison of Jesus.

                      Regards,
                      - Joe.

                      

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Michael Grondin
                      ... I m confused by this line of reasoning, Rick. The split between the pages occurs in the middle of Matthew s name, so that we have: bottom pg. 34: Said-he
                      Message 10 of 23 , May 12 8:04 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rick Hubbard wrote:
                        >The beginning of saying 13 is located at the end of
                        >the manuscript page depicted in plate 80 published by Labib. Could the
                        >first half of logia 13 (containing Jesus' initiating statement and the
                        >ensuing conversations with Matthew, Simon Peter and Thomas) be the work
                        >of an editor of an earlier recension?

                        I'm confused by this line of reasoning, Rick. The split between the pages
                        occurs in the middle of Matthew's name, so that we have:

                        bottom pg. 34: Said-he to-him, namely-Math-
                        top of pg. 35: thew this: "You-resemble a-man ..."

                        In other words, the page-break doesn't come at any particular logical
                        separation point within the saying. In fact, it splits what you call "the
                        first half of logion 13" into two parts. So what does the physical
                        page-break have to do with the logical break between first-half-saying and
                        last-half-saying that you're talking about?

                        Regards,
                        Mike

                        The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
                        http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm
                      • Kanefer@aol.com
                        Patti: It was as if (or probably so) that Matthew and Peter were drunk, and so ... Mike: As I indicated in a message I inadvertently sent to you, rather
                        Message 11 of 23 , May 13 12:32 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Patti: > It was as if (or probably so) that Matthew and Peter were drunk,
                          and so
                          >this measure of Jesus' teaching was received only as an intoxicant by them
                          >rather than a quenching to their "thirst." >

                          Mike: >As I indicated in a message I inadvertently sent to you, rather than
                          to the
                          list, this interpretation isn't at all likely, since J's words "you have
                          become drunk" are directed at a singular 'you' (Thomas), not a plural 'you'
                          (all three).

                          Patti: Well, the "you all" would not quite work here, as it did not pertain
                          to all three (IMHO) but only to Matthew & Peter, (and might also have been
                          spoken to one of the two directly, while implying both, if they were not
                          close together side by side).

                          Mike:>The implication is that Thomas has drunk from J's mouth ("the
                          bubbling spring I've measured*"), and hence become his "twin" (or close to
                          it, anyway). There is no such implication for Peter or Matthew. ?>

                          Patti: I disagree. I feel the implication is that Matthew & Peter have not
                          learned this teaching which was given at some previous time. They are just
                          getting high on what Jesus says, idolizing Jesus as they do (IMHO). We've
                          all seen such disciples of modern-day cults. Intoxicated to the point of
                          drinking that purple kool-aid or climbing up a mountain to greet the UFO's.

                          But Thomas wishes to "drink from the mouth" of Jesus, and so incorporate the
                          teachings. He says he cannot answer, showing a ready learner. Or, it could
                          be that he has somewhat remembered what comes next, the idol of Isaiah being
                          unable to respond, and presents this in a subjective way - in keeping with
                          the manner of response of the others.

                          With the stones and fire-from-the-stones, I'd say, the other two'd be
                          inclined to stone him if Thomas quoted from his own unidolized mouth,
                          whereupon such an act (those stones) would be as hot coals upon the other
                          two's heads, because this is knowledge they are supposed to share.
                          Hot coals are "stones" that have fire, suggesting a poetic transition.

                          Sincerely, Patti
                        • Michael Grondin
                          [Joe Lieb:] ... [Rick Hubbard:] ... While I do believe that the reader of Thomas was supposed to DO something with the text, I think you guys are on the wrong
                          Message 12 of 23 , May 14 8:53 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            [Joe Lieb:]
                            > There is even another explanation. Perhaps the hiatus is deliberate.
                            > Perhaps the reader has been invited to insert his own attempt at a
                            > comparison of Jesus.

                            [Rick Hubbard:]
                            >Deliberate or not, the present text does extend that kind of invitation.

                            While I do believe that the reader of Thomas was supposed to DO something
                            with the text, I think you guys are on the wrong track here. Th13 piques
                            the curiosity of the reader, and the rather obvious response would be for
                            the reader to try to FIND elsewhere within the text the three words/sayings
                            that J spoke to Thomas. ("Seek and you will find." "Recognize what's before
                            your face, and what's hidden from you will be revealed to you." etc.)

                            Mike

                            The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
                            http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm
                          • Rick Hubbard
                            ... I suppose I am being persuaded. I must agree with what you have identified as the function of the text. It does what you describe, which is to goad the
                            Message 13 of 23 , May 15 4:05 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Michael Grondin wrote:
                              >
                              > [Joe Lieb:]
                              > > There is even another explanation. Perhaps the hiatus is deliberate.
                              > > Perhaps the reader has been invited to insert his own attempt at a
                              > > comparison of Jesus.
                              >
                              > [Rick Hubbard:]
                              > >Deliberate or not, the present text does extend that kind of invitation.
                              >
                              > While I do believe that the reader of Thomas was supposed to DO something
                              > with the text, I think you guys are on the wrong track here. Th13 piques
                              > the curiosity of the reader, and the rather obvious response would be for
                              > the reader to try to FIND elsewhere within the text the three words/sayings
                              > that J spoke to Thomas. ("Seek and you will find." "Recognize what's before
                              > your face, and what's hidden from you will be revealed to you." etc.)

                              I suppose I am being persuaded. I must agree with what you have
                              identified as the function of the text. It does what you describe,
                              which is to goad the mind into activity (C.H. Dodd). In that respect it
                              performs as parable, although it is distinct from the parables
                              associated with Jesus. That being the case, the argument for
                              dislocation cannot be attributed to scribal blunder. It does not,
                              however, remove the plausibility of the argument that logion 13 is an
                              insertion which is alien to most of the rest of the collection.

                              Therefore, it is STILL a goat in a herd of sheep.

                              Shalom

                              Rick Hubbard
                            • Nanna Liv Elkjær Olsen
                              At 23:53 14-05-00 -0400, you wrote: Mike, Th13 piques ... Your point is pretty dazzling indeed, .. there is just one problem: The words I am your disciple is
                              Message 14 of 23 , May 16 5:06 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 23:53 14-05-00 -0400, you wrote:


                                Mike,


                                Th13 piques
                                >the curiosity of the reader, and the rather obvious response would be for
                                >the reader to try to FIND elsewhere within the text the three words/sayings
                                >that J spoke to Thomas. ("Seek and you will find." "Recognize what's before
                                >your face, and what's hidden from you will be revealed to you." etc.)
                                >
                                Your point is pretty dazzling indeed, .. there is just one problem: The
                                words "I am your disciple" is in Coptic not three in number, but two: ANOK
                                TEKMATHÊTÊS - and the poss.art. TEK is feminine, not masculine. It could of
                                course be explained by the fact that our Nag Hammadi-text is probably a
                                translation from Greek - but still this text is the only complete
                                manuscript we have.

                                Nanna
                              • Michael Grondin
                                ... Ah, what a pleasure to be able to discuss the Coptic! Thank you, Anna. You raise two specific points, one of which is pretty easy to dispose of, the other
                                Message 15 of 23 , May 16 7:58 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Anna writes:
                                  >Your point is pretty dazzling indeed, .. there is just one problem: The
                                  >words "I am your disciple" is in Coptic not three in number, but two: ANOK
                                  >TEKMATHÊTÊS - and the poss.art. TEK is feminine, not masculine. It could of
                                  >course be explained by the fact that our Nag Hammadi-text is probably a
                                  >translation from Greek - but still this text is the only complete
                                  >manuscript we have.

                                  Ah, what a pleasure to be able to discuss the Coptic! Thank you, Anna. You
                                  raise two specific points, one of which is pretty easy to dispose of, the
                                  other of which is a weak point in my argument. The easy point is that the
                                  possessive pronoun 'TeK' is feminine not because the speaker is feminine,
                                  but because the noun 'MAThETES' is feminine. Any speaker, whether male or
                                  female, would use 'TeK' with a feminine noun. Therefore, there's no hint of
                                  the gender of the speaker.

                                  Your other point - that there are two words, not three - is a weak point in
                                  my argument, and here I have to take refuge in the presence of an
                                  apostrophe after the possessive 'TeK'. Of course, apostrophes abound in the
                                  text, but this is not a normal place for one, nor is there any reason that
                                  I can see why one should be placed there. PERHAPS the intention was to
                                  separate two words into three. Pretty weak, I know, but there's the added
                                  uncertainty of what the Copts counted as a "word". I've joined possessives
                                  with their companion nouns, but it's not entirely clear that the Copts of
                                  this period would have regarded the resulting combination as a single "word".

                                  I'd like to add also that I personally take the "translation hypothesis"
                                  with a great deal of caution, in the absence of any evidence that the
                                  Coptic was a straight translation from the Greek. I seem to recall spots
                                  where there are plays on Coptic words that are unlikely to be a reflection
                                  of the same feature in Greek.

                                  Regards,
                                  Mike

                                  The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
                                  http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm
                                • Michael Grondin
                                  A followup to my previous note to Nanna (not Anna , sorry): In Coptic, the word is/am is often omitted. This is so with the sentence I (am) your
                                  Message 16 of 23 , May 16 8:22 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    A followup to my previous note to Nanna (not 'Anna', sorry):

                                    In Coptic, the word 'is/am' is often omitted. This is so with the sentence
                                    "I (am) your disciple/student." Even if we take 'your-disciple' to be a
                                    single word, there's still the omitted word 'am' that could conceivably
                                    have been taken as the missing "third word". The bottom line for me is that
                                    there's enough uncertainty about whether this sentence would count as three
                                    words or not, that I'm loathe to dismiss it on grammatical grounds alone,
                                    when it otherwise fits so well as a followup to "I'm not your
                                    master/teacher," and with Th108 (about the teacher becoming like the
                                    student, and vice versa).

                                    Mike
                                  • Kanefer@aol.com
                                    Mike: Th13 piques the curiosity of the reader, and the rather obvious response would be for the reader to try to FIND elsewhere within the text the three
                                    Message 17 of 23 , May 16 10:05 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mike: > Th13 piques the curiosity of the reader, and the rather obvious
                                      response would be for the reader to try to FIND elsewhere within the text the
                                      three words/sayings that J spoke to Thomas. ("Seek and you will find."
                                      "Recognize what's before your face, and what's hidden from you will be
                                      revealed to you." etc.).>

                                      Nanna: > Your point is pretty dazzling indeed, .. there is just one problem:
                                      The words "I am your disciple" is in Coptic not three in number, but two: ANOK
                                      TEKMATHTHS - and the poss.art. TEK is feminine, not masculine. It could of
                                      course be explained by the fact that our Nag Hammadi-text is probably a
                                      translation from Greek - but still this text is the only complete
                                      manuscript we have.>>

                                      I am intrigued by this and am wondering what it is all about. Could you
                                      please fill us readers in on what this 'two versus three in number' means?
                                      Thanks! Sincerely, Patti
                                      ----------------------------
                                      Patti (and others):
                                      I'd suggest going to my site at http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/splitv.htm
                                      and bringing up #13 in one half of the screen and #61 in the other. Scroll down
                                      in saying 13 to line 92 of the interlinear (35:05). In the other half of the
                                      screen, scroll down to about line 393 (43:28). You can now compare the relevant
                                      portions of the two sayings. The break in #13 is at line 95, and the interjection
                                      in #61 that seems out of place is at line 395. (It's a curious coincidence that
                                      the sentence occurs exactly 300 lines later, and that the number of letters at
                                      the end of line 395 [seven] is the same as the number at the end of line 95.)

                                      Nanna is right to point out that 'ANOK TeK-MAThHTHS' would probably have been
                                      considered to be two words, not three. However, there is the apostophe after
                                      'TeK', and there is the missing word 'am' (='pe' or 'Te' in Coptic), so it's not
                                      entirely clear how many "words" the authors would have counted here. I suppose
                                      it could be anywhere from 2 to 4.

                                      Mike
                                    • Nanna Liv Elkjær Olsen
                                      The easy point is that the ... Oops! Embarrassing!
                                      Message 18 of 23 , May 18 11:01 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The easy point is that the
                                        >possessive pronoun 'TeK' is feminine not because the speaker is feminine,
                                        >but because the noun 'MAThETES' is feminine. Any speaker, whether male or
                                        >female, would use 'TeK' with a feminine noun. Therefore, there's no hint of
                                        >the gender of the speaker.
                                        >
                                        Oops! Embarrassing!
                                      • Nanna Liv Elkjær Olsen
                                        ... Now that you ve explained that little detail - the apostrophe - the theory sounds much more plausible to me. I m glad you didn t make use of the
                                        Message 19 of 23 , May 18 11:54 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I wrote:
                                          >Anna writes:
                                          >>Your point is pretty dazzling indeed, .. there is just one problem: The
                                          >>words "I am your disciple" is in Coptic not three in number, but two: ANOK
                                          >>TEKMATHÊTÊS

                                          Mike answered:
                                          >Your other point - that there are two words, not three - is a weak point in
                                          >my argument, and here I have to take refuge in the presence of an
                                          >apostrophe after the possessive 'TeK'. Of course, apostrophes abound in the
                                          >text, but this is not a normal place for one, nor is there any reason that
                                          >I can see why one should be placed there. PERHAPS the intention was to
                                          >separate two words into three. Pretty weak, I know, but there's the added
                                          >uncertainty of what the Copts counted as a "word". I've joined possessives
                                          >with their companion nouns, but it's not entirely clear that the Copts of
                                          >this period would have regarded the resulting combination as a single "word".
                                          >

                                          Now that you've explained that little detail - the apostrophe - the theory
                                          sounds much more plausible to me. I'm glad you didn't make use of the
                                          "translation-explanation" since that would indeed be a weak argument
                                          because differences between the Oxyrhynchus-fragments and the Nag
                                          Hammadi-manuscript are too big - and because a consequence would be, that
                                          the Copts who read and copied the GoTh probably couldn't catch the point
                                          and one should virtually have to "stumble over the meaning of these words"
                                          (log.1)

                                          I've been thinking about other explanations to the three words:

                                          S. Giversen draws in a note to log. 13 in his 1959-ed. attention to two
                                          places in the Gospel of John where Jesus is talking to Thomas only:
                                          John.14,5-7: "I am the way, the truth, and the life"
                                          and John.20,27-29: "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands;
                                          and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side:
                                          and be not faithless, but believing."
                                          It hits me that both of these places puts Thomas in a rather negative
                                          light, and I'm definetly sure that that is not the intention with log.13.

                                          To a Neoplatonic (post-Plotininan) reader, these three words would most
                                          likely be interpreted as "remaining - procession - returning" (monê -
                                          proodos - epistrophê). Or if it was a Christian Neoplatonic reader
                                          "procession - returning -remaining (sic!)" as the triad is transformed into
                                          because of a Christian emphasis on the redemption. This latter could very
                                          well be harmonized with John.14.6.
                                          But this theory doesn't give any sense to the question about the _original_
                                          meaning of the Gospel, only the _possible_ meaning to a much later reader.

                                          Anyway it does seem much more plausibel to find the three words within the
                                          GoTh itself. Further this sounds so blasphemous that it gives a good reason
                                          to hide these three words a complete other place in the text.

                                          Which leads me to my questions: Do you or other members of this list know
                                          other examples from the GoTh? or other examples of this "genre"? I can name
                                          Maimonides' "Guide to the Perplexed" from the 13th century, but it could me
                                          that this was a special, and very esoteric, way of writing.

                                          Nanna
                                        • Nanna Liv Elkjær Olsen
                                          Mike wrote: I seem to recall spots ... Yeah! like log.3 and 33 for instans! Nanna
                                          Message 20 of 23 , May 18 12:00 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Mike wrote:
                                            I seem to recall spots
                                            >where there are plays on Coptic words that are unlikely to be a reflection
                                            >of the same feature in Greek.
                                            >
                                            Yeah! like log.3 and 33 for instans!

                                            Nanna
                                          • Mike Grondin
                                            ... Congratulations! You ve joined the ranks of those who ve embarassed themselves - but you ve got a long way to go to catch up with me! I once stated, for
                                            Message 21 of 23 , May 19 12:10 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Nanna Liv Elkjær Olsen wrote:
                                              > Oops! Embarrassing!

                                              Congratulations! You've joined the ranks of those who've embarassed
                                              themselves - but you've got a long way to go to catch up with me! I
                                              once stated, for example, that if Revelations was removed from the
                                              canon, there'd be only three gospels left.(!) More recently, I was
                                              responsible for one of the classic embarassing titles of all time -
                                              "The Thinking Behind" (it should have been "The Thinking Behind IT",
                                              but evidently God wanted to humble me.) And, of course, I called you
                                              'Anna' instead of 'Nanna'. The mind plays its tricks, and we just
                                              have to put up with it. But I do believe that it takes courage and
                                              self-confidence to be able to publicly admit to these embarassing
                                              bungles, so again, congratulations! May you have the courage to risk
                                              making many more such mistakes!

                                              Regards,
                                              Mike
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.