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

Re: [GTh] #95 & #109

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    ... ... This contradiction in the use of imagery is a point I ve also noted, and I think it has significance, possibly in two different
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 7 6:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jim:

      >I reread the entire Gospel of Thomas earlier this evening looking for
      > >interesting sayings that have not been considered by the group yet. >#95
      >reads, "Jesus said, 'if you have money, do not lend it at >interest, but
      >give it to one from whom you will not get it back". It >strikes me that
      >some of this may be along the same lines as, "If thy >one eye offend
      >thee.." in the canonical sources. Just as no one is

      <material snipped>

      >Note also that #109 draws from a similar scheme: a man's son inherits >a
      >field where his father (God the Father?) has buried a treasure, >finds it,
      >only in this case he loans it out at interest. It seems to >me that there
      >may have been two different authors for these two quotes >and that #95 is
      >the older as it more closely represents the radical >side of Jesus'
      >message, perhaps even marking it as one of the elusive >sayings in Thomas
      >which are authentic to Jesus.

      This contradiction in the use of imagery is a point I've also noted, and I
      think it has significance, possibly in two different ways. First, I'm quite
      in agreement with you that if we are to do tradition-historical or
      stratification analysis of Thomas, looking at these different uses of the
      same image is definitely part of the relevant evidence. It seems to indicate
      two different perspectives on much the same issues, and often these issues
      seem to have a social orientation -- that is, some Thomas material seems to
      assume a fairly counter-cultural stance, while some is rather conservative
      (if that's the right way to frame the issue -- it may not be). This is an
      approach I took to Thomas in a long-ago article in HTR (1995?), in which I
      attempt a preliminary stratification of the text, partly on this basis.

      On the other hand, it occurred to me later that Thomas involves these sorts
      of contradictions WAY too often for the phenomenon to be just an accidental
      by-product of different layers of tradition. It occurs, for instance, in the
      valuation of "drunkeness" (once a positive image, once a negative one);
      likewise in the valuation of "wealth", "division," and so on. (This
      observation doesn't NECESSARILY eliminate the values of these contradictions
      for tradition-historical observations, I think -- and hope!) I've written an
      article on this as well, much more recently, but unfortunately it's still in
      press. I MIGHT have even posted a version of it to this list. (I don't
      remeber.) Anyway, this sort of deliberate opposition of images strikes me as
      one of Thomas' key redactional characteristics, and a decidely
      under-recognized one at that.

      Bill
      ___________________________
      William Arnal
      Department of Religion
      University of Manitoba

      "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
      -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



      _________________________________________________________________
      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
    • David C. Hindley
      ... said, if you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to one from whom you will not get it back of GoT 95 versus son finding a treasure, and
      Message 2 of 25 , Mar 7 7:29 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill Arnal said:

        >>This contradiction in the use of imagery [i.e., "Jesus
        said, 'if you have money, do not lend it at interest, but
        give it to one from whom you will not get it back" of GoT 95
        versus son finding a treasure, and loans it out at interest
        of GoT 109) is a point I've also noted, and I think it has
        significance, possibly in two different ways. First, I'm
        quite in agreement with you that if we are to do
        tradition-historical or stratification analysis of Thomas,
        looking at these different uses of the same image is
        definitely part of the relevant evidence. It seems to
        indicate two different perspectives on much the same issues,
        and often these issues seem to have a social orientation --
        that is, some Thomas material seems to assume a fairly
        counter-cultural stance, while some is rather conservative
        (if that's the right way to frame the issue -- it may not
        be).<<

        But is it really a contradiction? Lending at interest is
        forbidden in the torah - but only between Jews. It was
        perfectly "legal" to lend (with interest) to Gentiles. The
        two sayings may well refer to two different, and unstated,
        contexts: inter-ethnic charity (GoT 95) and unexpected
        bounty/change in status (GoT 109).

        In other words, does concentrating on the issue of lending
        money at interest result in a comparison between apples and
        oranges?

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA

        PS: Recently obtained a copy of your book. Very impressive!
      • Candace Jones
        This is a short piece on the Gospel of Thomas that I wrote that I d like some feedback on. Jean Jones The interesting Gospel of Thomas by Jean Jones According
        Message 3 of 25 , Mar 7 11:32 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          This is a short piece on the Gospel of Thomas that I wrote that I'd like
          some feedback on. Jean Jones

          The interesting Gospel of Thomas by Jean Jones

          According to the book jacket of The Gospel of Thomas The Hidden Sayings of
          Jesus with a new translation introduction & notes by Marvin Meyer, "The
          Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 among the Gnostic texts at Nag
          Hammadi in Upper Egypt. Reportedly dictated by Jesus to his brother, Judas
          Thomas the Twin, founder of the churches of the East, Thomas reveals a Jesus
          who merges with the wisdom of the sophists, with Diogenes, Plato, and
          Socrates."
          Explaining the discovery of The Gospel of Thomas in more detail, Ian Wilson,
          author of Jesus: The Evidence, writes,
          Four hundred miles south of Oxyrhynchus, in a cave-dotted mountainside near
          the Upper Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi, a group of Arab peasants were
          digging for natural fertilizer beneath a boulder when they came across a
          large, sealed earthenware jar. Hoping for gold, one of the group eagerly
          smashed this open with a mattock, but to their disappointment, all that
          tumbled out was a collection of thirteen leather-bound papyrus books and
          some loose papyri, mostly written in Coptic, the language of Egypt after
          than spoken during the time of the pharaohs. When, following various
          adventures, these reached scholarly scrutiny, they turned out to be mostly
          apocryphal works of the fourth century - an 'Apocalypse of Paul', a 'letter
          of Peter to Philip', an 'Apocalypse of Peter', a 'Secret Book of James',
          etc. - thought to have been part of the library of one of the fringe Gnostic
          groups which proliferated during Christianity's earliest centuries. (19)
          Wilson continues however, that "one work beginning 'These are the secret
          sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote
          down', was qualitatively different. It seemed nothing spectacular, simply
          comprising some 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, and without any account of
          his crucifixion and resurrection." Wilson writes that this "'Gospel of
          Thomas', as it became labeled, (was discovered that it) could . . . be dated
          as a whole back to second century AD, bringing it to within a century and a
          half of the lifetime of Jesus."
          The reason why the Gospel of Thomas could be dated so far back was because
          fragments of the Gospel of Thomas had been discovered earlier in 1895 (that
          date back to the second century AD) but no one knew for sure until the
          complete text was discovered and published after 1945.
          The question is what does this all mean? Well, the Gospel of Thomas has no
          account of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. In fact, according to Harold
          Bloom (who wrote an interpretation of The Gospel of Thomas), "unlike the
          canonical gospels, that of Judas Thomas the Twin spares us the crucifixion,
          makes the resurrection unnecessary, and does not present us with a God named
          Jesus."
          The question to ask is "How is this possible?" Marvin Meyer, author of the
          new translation of the Gospel of Thomas, writes, "an excellent case can be
          made of the position that the Gospel of Thomas is not fundamentally
          dependent upon the New Testament gospels, but that it preserves sayings that
          at times appear to be more original than the New Testament parallels" (13).
          To prove this point, Meyer quotes from the Gospel of Thomas saying 9: (which
          reads as follows) Jesus said, "Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of
          seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and
          pecked them up. Others fell on rock, and they did not take root in the soil
          and did not produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked
          the seeds and worms devoured them. And others fell on good soil, and it
          brought forth a good crop: It yielded sixty per measure and one hundred
          twenty per measure" (14).
          Meyer writes that "this saying, known as the parable of the sower, is also
          preserved in all three synoptic gospels: Matthew 13:3-9, Mark 4: 2-9, Luke
          8: 4-8. In each instance in the New Testament gospels, the parable itself is
          followed by an allegorical interpretation (see Matthew 13:18-23, Mark
          4:13-20, Luke 8:11-15) that applies the elements of the parable to the life
          of the church. It is widely acknowledged among scholars that these
          allegorical interpretations were produced by the early church as Christians
          attempted to apply the details of a parable about farming in rural Palestine
          to features of church life during the latter half of the first century"
          (14). Meyer continues by writing that "the absence of allegorical
          interpretations in connection with this and other parables in the Gospel of
          Thomas helps confirm that such elements were added later" (14).
          Marvin Meyer also believes that Jesus was different than John the Baptist
          who warned others about the upcoming Kingdom of Heaven. In Meyer's view,
          "especially in Jesus' sayings of wisdom we may glimpse something of the
          historical Jesus. According to this way of understanding Jesus, he may not
          have been an apocalyptic figure at all. In the Gospel of Thomas and the
          first version of Q, Jesus does not use apocalyptic images to announce the
          coming of God's kingdom, but rather declares that the kingdom is already a
          present reality" (16). Meyers then argues that the historical Jesus was most
          likely a "Cynic teacher" and that the "Cynics emerged from the philosophical
          tradition of Socrates as social critics and popular philosophers who lived a
          simple life and employed sharp, witty sayings in order to make people raise
          questions about their own lives" (17).
          Was Jesus then no more than a Socratic teacher, in the tradition of Socrates
          himself, who was a great philosopher, but in the end, was only a man?
          This depends on how far back you date the Gospel of Thomas. If it dates back
          to when the original Gospels where written (which seems to be the case) this
          leaves a person in a quandary. Generally, conservative scholars date the
          Gospel of Thomas later, or consider the document as "Gnostic." According to
          The Five Gospels What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic
          Words of Jesus by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar,
          "gnosticism was a religious movement in antiquity that infiltrated a number
          of religious traditions, including Judaism and Christianity. Fundamental to
          the Gnostic outlook was the conviction that the world is evil." These men
          contend that "perhaps it is best to describe Thomas as reflecting an
          incipient Gnosticism. There are, after all, a number of ways in which Thomas
          is not Gnostic at all. Thomas has no doctrine of the creation; it provides
          no account of the fall" (501).
          As for dating the Gospel of Thomas, Helmut Koester from Harvard University
          writes that the Gospel of Thomas "in its most original form. . .may well
          date from the first century" (125).
          Thus, the Gospel of Thomas is maybe older than the gospels of the Bible. And
          what kind of Jesus populates the Gospel of Thomas? A Jesus who has not been
          Christianized. A Jesus who gave wise sayings and whose life was not as
          important as what he said. Was the original Jesus (the historical Jesus) a
          wise sayer of sayings or a Socrates figure? Based on what I've seen, the
          case for Jesus being a Socratic human being only is a compelling one, one
          that the Gospel of Thomas seems to prove.




          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 10:29 AM
          Subject: RE: [GTh] #95 & #109


          > Bill Arnal said:
          >
          > >>This contradiction in the use of imagery [i.e., "Jesus
          > said, 'if you have money, do not lend it at interest, but
          > give it to one from whom you will not get it back" of GoT 95
          > versus son finding a treasure, and loans it out at interest
          > of GoT 109) is a point I've also noted, and I think it has
          > significance, possibly in two different ways. First, I'm
          > quite in agreement with you that if we are to do
          > tradition-historical or stratification analysis of Thomas,
          > looking at these different uses of the same image is
          > definitely part of the relevant evidence. It seems to
          > indicate two different perspectives on much the same issues,
          > and often these issues seem to have a social orientation --
          > that is, some Thomas material seems to assume a fairly
          > counter-cultural stance, while some is rather conservative
          > (if that's the right way to frame the issue -- it may not
          > be).<<
          >
          > But is it really a contradiction? Lending at interest is
          > forbidden in the torah - but only between Jews. It was
          > perfectly "legal" to lend (with interest) to Gentiles. The
          > two sayings may well refer to two different, and unstated,
          > contexts: inter-ethnic charity (GoT 95) and unexpected
          > bounty/change in status (GoT 109).
          >
          > In other words, does concentrating on the issue of lending
          > money at interest result in a comparison between apples and
          > oranges?
          >
          > Respectfully,
          >
          > Dave Hindley
          > Cleveland, Ohio, USA
          >
          > PS: Recently obtained a copy of your book. Very impressive!
          >
          >
          >
          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
          > To unsubscribe from this group,
          > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • William Arnal
          ... I would certainly regard this as a possibility if I felt that Thomas were, say (as just one example), recording snippets from the life of Jesus -- one s
          Message 4 of 25 , Mar 7 1:21 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            David Hindley wrote:

            >But is it really a contradiction? Lending at interest is
            >forbidden in the torah - but only between Jews. It was
            >perfectly "legal" to lend (with interest) to Gentiles. The
            >two sayings may well refer to two different, and unstated,
            >contexts: inter-ethnic charity (GoT 95) and unexpected
            >bounty/change in status (GoT 109).

            I would certainly regard this as a possibility if I felt that Thomas were,
            say (as just one example), recording snippets from the life of Jesus --
            one's first task would be to try to iron out apparent contradictions in such
            a portrait. The problem with this suggestion here, however immediately
            plausible it may be (and it is, I think), is that, first, I see Thomas as a
            literary work, and so imagine that the author would have consciously filled
            in the blanks for us if indeed he were presenting a consistent "take" on
            interest. Neither saying, however, specifies to WHOM the interest-bearing
            loans are given, a critical datum, and one that clearly cannot be taken for
            granted, if one wishes to read the sayings as you've suggested. Indeed, in
            neither case is the motif of "interest" required by the story, or by the
            story's basic point: in the first, you can just say, give without expecting
            to recieve; and in the second, you can just say, and the man had lots of
            money, and (e.g.) engaged in commerce, or some such thing. Which suggests to
            me that the "interest" here is important and central to the author, since
            its appearance is not just dictated by the structure of the stories
            themselves.

            The other reason I'm hesitant to accept this interpretation (at least HERE,
            in Thomas) is because this example is not the ONLY case where Thomas uses
            metaphors or images in self-contradictory ways. The same is true of
            "wealth," "poverty," "drunkeness," and a bunch of others. So it seems most
            economical to me, in light of Thomas' penchant for contradictory images, to
            assume that when we encounter something like this, it is indeed
            contradictory.

            Bill
            ___________________________
            William Arnal
            Department of Religion
            University of Manitoba

            "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
            -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



            _________________________________________________________________
            Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
          • Tom Saunders
            I think Bill and all the others in this particular discussion are missing two distinct facts that can serve to clear up the mystery of monitary wealth. First
            Message 5 of 25 , Mar 7 9:09 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I think Bill and all the others in this particular discussion are missing two distinct facts that can serve to clear up the mystery of monitary wealth. First there are more references to the concept of wealth than just 95, and 109.
              (100) "They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to Him : "Caesar's men demand taxes from us." He said to them : "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give Elohîm what belongs to Elohîm, and give Me what is Mine."

              There is also the rich man that filled his storehouse so he would not want, but then died before he could save his soul. The point is the moral implications of money was so arbitrary at the time that the early Christians probably did not know how to deal with it. Even as late as Thomas Aquinas (Christian History Mag. this month) recognized the evil of money changers. It is a sin to take money without rendering a fair service, being a shylock.

              In Mathew 25 there is another reference to money in the Parable about the servent with the money given him by his master. Things did not go as planned. I think the concept of personal wealth and how it effected different people just served to confuse anyone who was trying to figure out the moral implications of wealth in repidly changing economies. Now and then. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle........"

              In the Temple of Jesus time you could not spend money in the temple that was not 'temple money." You changed your money at the door and got ripped off by the Tony Sopranos of the time. Inside were Tony's guys that sold you 'temple fair." The needy, and those that really needed help could not get in. (History Channel's Christian History series)

              I think the sentiment in these days might go like, "if you have money do not be a shylock. Do not fill your storehouse with evil."

              Tom







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David C. Hindley
              ... that Thomas were, say (as just one example), recording snippets from the life of Jesus -- one s first task would be to try to iron out apparent
              Message 6 of 25 , Mar 7 10:21 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill Arnal said:

                >>I would certainly regard this as a possibility if I felt
                that Thomas were, say (as just one example), recording
                snippets from the life of Jesus -- one's first task would be
                to try to iron out apparent contradictions in such a
                portrait. The problem with this suggestion here, however
                immediately plausible it may be (and it is, I think), is
                that, first, I see Thomas as a literary work, and so imagine
                that the author would have consciously filled in the blanks
                for us if indeed he were presenting a consistent "take" on
                interest.

                The other reason I'm hesitant to accept this interpretation
                (at least HERE, in Thomas) is because this example is not
                the ONLY case where Thomas uses metaphors or images in
                self-contradictory ways. The same is true of "wealth,"
                "poverty," "drunkeness," and a bunch of others.<<

                Snippets can be made use of out of their original context,
                and literary use of such snippets may involve relationships
                not inherent in the original accounts.

                What strikes me about many of the Thomas sayings and
                parables, as well as some of the canonical sayings and
                parables, are that they seem to have the same sort of folksy
                earthiness reminiscent of country life. Only a few, if any,
                seem to require a town/city (versus a village) context.

                These seem to be platforms upon which to anchor commentary.
                But where did they come from? I am not ready to say "Well,
                it must be Jesus." Neither, it appears, does your mentor
                Kloppenborg-Verbin, based upon the seminar of the prior
                year. At least he is being cautious with that kind of
                speculation.

                Since you have evidently engaged in quite a bit of research
                into the economic life of the peasant society of
                Galilee/Judea, I am interested in your perspective about the
                relevance for this. I believe there is a chapter or so in
                your book about this, so maybe I should take a look. You may
                already have there answered my question, but perhaps a
                lurker or two would like to be keyed in.

                Respectfully,

                Dave Hindley
                Cleveland, Ohio, USA
              • Rick Hubbard
                [Bill wrote:] This contradiction in the use of imagery is a point I ve also noted, and I think it has significance, [snip] This is an approach I took to Thomas
                Message 7 of 25 , Mar 8 4:53 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  [Bill wrote:]
                  This contradiction in the use of imagery is a point I've also noted, and I
                  think it has significance,
                  [snip]
                  This is an
                  approach I took to Thomas in a long-ago article in HTR (1995?), in which I
                  attempt a preliminary stratification of the text, partly on this basis.

                  For those who wish to read this article which I definitely encourage) it is
                  "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalyptisim, Gnosticism, and Sayings
                  Gospels." _Harvard Theological Review_ 88:4 (1995)471-494.

                  [Bill wrote:]
                  On the other hand, it occurred to me later that Thomas involves these sorts
                  of contradictions WAY too often for the phenomenon to be just an accidental
                  by-product of different layers of tradition.
                  [snip]
                  I've written an
                  article on this as well, much more recently, but unfortunately it's still in
                  press. I MIGHT have even posted a version of it to this list. (I don't
                  remeber.)

                  A version of Bill's article is in fact still posted on the GThomas
                  discussion group's home page at:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files/reviews/ThomRhet.htm

                  Bill's remark below serves as an appropriate point of departure for those
                  who may wish to explore his thesis in further detail.

                  Anyway, this sort of deliberate opposition of images strikes me as
                  one of Thomas' key redactional characteristics, and a decidely
                  under-recognized one at that.

                  Rick Hubbard
                  Humble Maine Woodsman
                • Rick Hubbard
                  [Bill Arnal wrote:] ... said, if you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to one from whom you will not get it back of GoT 95 versus son
                  Message 8 of 25 , Mar 8 6:01 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [Bill Arnal wrote:]

                    >>This contradiction in the use of imagery [i.e., "Jesus
                    said, 'if you have money, do not lend it at interest, but
                    give it to one from whom you will not get it back" of GoT 95
                    versus son finding a treasure, and loans it out at interest
                    of GoT 109) is a point I've also noted, and I think it has
                    significance,

                    [David Hindley wrote:]
                    But is it really a contradiction? Lending at interest is
                    forbidden in the torah - but only between Jews. It was
                    perfectly "legal" to lend (with interest) to Gentiles. The
                    two sayings may well refer to two different, and unstated,
                    contexts: inter-ethnic charity (GoT 95) and unexpected
                    bounty/change in status (GoT 109).

                    Agreed. The two sayings may arise from different social circumstances. The
                    issue, however, is that they are clearly juxtaposed in Thomas AND that
                    juxtapositions in Thomas are not isolated to the practice of usury. It seems
                    to me that Bill has identified a characteristic feature in GTh that invites
                    much closer scrutiny. Throughout GTh there are contradictory assessments
                    about poverty, wealth, commercial enterprise, political power, and other
                    social behaviors. In my opinion, Bill is right when he confers significance
                    to this phenomenon.

                    I am eager to see Bill's revised article on this subject (where will it be
                    published, Bill?). In particular, I am interested in whether there are any
                    correlations between the strata identified in the 1995 HTR article and the
                    refined dichotomies which he presumably discusses in his forthcoming paper.



                    Rick Hubbard
                    Humble Maine Woodsman
                  • William Arnal
                    ... I m not sure what you re getting at here. Of course, I agree with this statement (above) as it stands, but don t quite see how you would apply this to the
                    Message 9 of 25 , Mar 8 6:04 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      David Hindley wrote:

                      >Snippets can be made use of out of their original context,
                      >and literary use of such snippets may involve relationships
                      >not inherent in the original accounts.

                      I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course, I agree with this
                      statement (above) as it stands, but don't quite see how you would apply this
                      to the sayings at issue. IF your point is that both (contradictory) sayings
                      could have been spoken by Jesus, in different contexts, and not originally
                      have contradicted each other, well, I agree that this is possible, though
                      (as per below), I also have no reason to think that everything (or anything,
                      for that matter) that Thomas attributes to Jesus was really spoken by him.

                      >These seem to be platforms upon which to anchor commentary.
                      >But where did they come from? I am not ready to say "Well,
                      >it must be Jesus." Neither, it appears, does your mentor
                      >Kloppenborg-Verbin, based upon the seminar of the prior
                      >year. At least he is being cautious with that kind of
                      >speculation.

                      We might be talking past each other again. Did I seem to imply that Thomas
                      sayings must or should go back to Jesus? No, like you and like Kloppenborg,
                      I can't see Thomas as testimony to the historical Jesus -- it, like the
                      canonicals, is a theological-literary production, I assume.

                      >Since you have evidently engaged in quite a bit of research
                      >into the economic life of the peasant society of
                      >Galilee/Judea, I am interested in your perspective about the
                      >relevance for this. I believe there is a chapter or so in
                      >your book about this, so maybe I should take a look. You may
                      >already have there answered my question, but perhaps a
                      >lurker or two would like to be keyed in.

                      I'm still not sure what your question is!

                      Bill
                      ___________________________
                      William Arnal
                      Department of Religion
                      University of Manitoba

                      "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
                      -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
                    • William Arnal
                      ... Not much revised at all, actually. The version that s posted in connection with this list is essentially the final version. The things was originally
                      Message 10 of 25 , Mar 8 8:05 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rick Hubbard wrote:

                        >I am eager to see Bill's revised article on this subject (where will >it be
                        >published, Bill?).

                        Not much revised at all, actually. The version that's posted in connection
                        with this list is essentially the "final" version. The things was originally
                        written for last year's meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies,
                        in Edmonton, Alberta, in connection with a larger session on Rhetoric in the
                        NT organized by Willi Braun. After it was all over, Willi decided to publish
                        the papers in a forthcoming volume from Wilfrid Laurier University Press. I
                        have no idea when this will be completed, or when it's likely to see the
                        light of day.

                        >In particular, I am interested in whether there are >any
                        >correlations between the strata identified in the 1995 HTR article and >the
                        >refined dichotomies which he presumably discusses in his forthcoming
                        > >paper.

                        No! I haven't. This is an issue I'm afraid to touch, at least for the
                        moment.

                        Bill
                        ___________________________
                        William Arnal
                        Department of Religion
                        University of Manitoba

                        "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
                        -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
                        http://www.hotmail.com
                      • David C. Hindley
                        ... I guess I was questioning the literary or theological priority that you put on the shared word interest over socio-economic factors that might explain
                        Message 11 of 25 , Mar 8 9:15 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bill Arnal asks, quizzically:

                          >>I'm still not sure what your question is!<<

                          I guess I was questioning the literary or theological
                          priority that you put on the shared word "interest" over
                          socio-economic factors that might explain two apparently
                          contradictory statements about lending money. Your heart of
                          your interest in Thomas apparently has more to do with the
                          finished product rather than the origin of its source(s).
                          The latter is where my interest lies.

                          My comments about peasant economy were to suggest that quite
                          a few sayings/parables in Thomas have such a setting in
                          mind. The implication, which I did not state but was
                          alluding to, is that the sayings/parables (whatever their
                          origin) drawn upon by the author(s) and/or editors of Thomas
                          may have alluded to a wide range of situations. However, the
                          way that the author(s) and/or editors of Thomas chose to
                          associate them (by pairing them in order to emphasize
                          oppositions based upon keywords like "interest") may, then,
                          be secondary to their origins.

                          >>Neither saying, however, specifies to WHOM the
                          interest-bearing loans are given, a critical datum, and one
                          that clearly cannot be taken for granted, if one wishes to
                          read the sayings as you've suggested. Indeed, in neither
                          case is the motif of "interest" required by the story, or by
                          the story's basic point: in the first, you can just say,
                          give without expecting to receive; and in the second, you
                          can just say, and the man had lots of money, and (e.g.)
                          engaged in commerce, or some such thing. Which suggests to
                          me that the "interest" here is important and central to the
                          author, since its appearance is not just dictated by the
                          structure of the stories themselves.<<

                          You reasoned that since there are no overt statements in
                          these sayings about the context of the lending activity,
                          then such contexts "cannot be taken for granted." I would
                          disagree. Few statements, especially if they are trying to
                          make a rhetorical point, expressly state all their premises.
                          The author/speaker often intends for context to be assumed
                          by the reader/hearer's imagination, so as to get them
                          personally involved in the conclusion (as in the enthymeme).

                          The use to which such sayings were put by a later author,
                          such as the author of Thomas, may deliberately (and I would
                          think probably did, in this case) ignore or modify those
                          original contexts, if only to make a new, and different,
                          point.

                          Since you have apparently invested a large amount of time
                          and resources reading on the subject of peasant economy (and
                          I agree with almost everything you said in _Jesus and the
                          Village Scribes_), I had hoped you would have a greater
                          appreciation for the implied circumstances of some of these
                          sayings. Or do they only help us understand why and how
                          Galilean village scribes preserved sayings traditions, such
                          as Q?

                          I do not think that it is an uncritical assumption to
                          understand GoT 95 as a critique of Jewish landowners or
                          government retainers who lend to fellow Jews at interest (a
                          practice that the literary and papyri evidence clearly shows
                          was happening in the 1st century CE) which by extension
                          means the saying was suggesting that such people lend money
                          at interest to Gentiles (a practice also known from literary
                          evidence), and understand GoT 109 to be a representation of
                          the joy someone might feel to be unexpectedly released from
                          a subsistence existence (specifically, as a freeholding
                          peasant farming a family plot) to the much more secure
                          position of a wealthy man with money to lend to Gentiles.

                          The message of these two sayings seems to have been an
                          examination of just who was one's brother was supposed to be
                          and how one treated him: Charity voluntarily extended to
                          fellow-Jews vs economic exploitation extended to Gentiles.
                          It clearly suggests a reversal of normal roles between Jews
                          and Gentiles. Perhaps this is not, today, a politically
                          correct position for the original author(s) of these sayings
                          to have had, but it does appear to me to be what he/they was
                          thinking.

                          Respectfully,

                          Dave Hindley
                          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                        • Jim Bauer
                          I was just digging around in Strong s exhaustive concordance trying to find a line of scripture which I think relevant to this discussion. It was the line,
                          Message 12 of 25 , Mar 8 2:24 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I was just digging around in Strong's exhaustive concordance trying to find
                            a line of scripture which I think relevant to this discussion. It was the
                            line, spoken to Peter(?), "Go, sell all that you have and come follow me."
                            The idea is that encouraging people to give away their money and join a
                            group led by a wandering itinerant wisdom teacher may be part of some
                            general ascetic slant on the part of the authors of Thomas. I didn't find
                            the passage I wanted but instead found the following. Matthew 13:44, which
                            parallels Thomas very strikingly:
                            "The Kingdom of Heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found
                            and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys
                            that field."

                            The material here is recognizably similar to the version in Thomas, but
                            Thomas seems more complete, more complex, adds more detail. One argument
                            often made about Thomas as a possible source of original sayings/historical
                            Jesus material for the Bible is that the canonical ones seem to have been
                            fleshed out, that Thomas is more primitive. Yet in this case it seems like
                            the opposite happened and loss of components has actually made it more
                            adaptive to its audience. As in Matthew 13:52, it seems a mixture of "what
                            is new and old". Ideas only survive if they are selected-for, so possibly
                            the saying had to be pared down to make it acceptable to a Gentile audience,
                            which in turn allowed it to survive as a creed (Christianity) and not a cult
                            (Gnosticism and related ideas).

                            (45) continues with a similar theme:

                            "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a man in search of fine pearls, who,
                            on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and
                            bought it."

                            I am particularly impressed between the resemblance's here between this
                            scripture and the Gnostic "The Hymn of the Pearl". I am not well acquainted
                            enough with this particular scripture to objectively comment on this
                            particular bit of speculation.

                            #47 repeats a theme from Thomas--a net being cast into the sea by a wise
                            fisherman--but at a different location in the text. In Thomas this
                            particular parable, #8, is removed from the two sayings, #95 and #109, which
                            were originally being discussed here. In this case it does seem to resemble
                            the idea that Thomas was put together somewhat randomly, or perhaps that the
                            author of Matthew deliberately chose to cluster these sayings purely as a
                            literary device.

                            Jim Bauer
                          • William Arnal
                            ... Okay, I ve got it now. What I d say in response is this: at the very least, my comments on the interest mtoif were focused on Thomas as a finished
                            Message 13 of 25 , Mar 8 4:07 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              David Hindley wrote:

                              >I guess I was questioning the literary or theological
                              >priority that you put on the shared word "interest" over
                              >socio-economic factors that might explain two apparently
                              >contradictory statements about lending money. Your heart of
                              >your interest in Thomas apparently has more to do with the
                              >finished product rather than the origin of its source(s).
                              >The latter is where my interest lies.

                              Okay, I've got it now. What I'd say in response is this: at the very least,
                              my comments on the "interest" mtoif were focused on Thomas as a finished
                              product, and were made without prejudice to the earlier significance,
                              sources, context, etc. of these two sayings. I am not UNinterested in the
                              question of the origin of Thomas' sources; I just wasn't addressing that in
                              my comments.

                              >My comments about peasant economy were to suggest that quite
                              >a few sayings/parables in Thomas have such a setting in
                              >mind. The implication, which I did not state but was
                              >alluding to, is that the sayings/parables (whatever their
                              >origin) drawn upon by the author(s) and/or editors of Thomas
                              >may have alluded to a wide range of situations. However, the

                              Yes, I have no problem with this.

                              >way that the author(s) and/or editors of Thomas chose to
                              >associate them (by pairing them in order to emphasize
                              >oppositions based upon keywords like "interest") may, then,
                              >be secondary to their origins.

                              Again, I completely agree. In fact, I might be inclined to state this even
                              more emphatically: what the author/editor did with these sayings is PROBABLY
                              secondary to their origins, and probably recasts this import considerably.

                              >You reasoned that since there are no overt statements in
                              >these sayings about the context of the lending activity,
                              >then such contexts "cannot be taken for granted." I would
                              >disagree. Few statements, especially if they are trying to
                              >make a rhetorical point, expressly state all their premises.
                              >The author/speaker often intends for context to be assumed
                              >by the reader/hearer's imagination, so as to get them
                              >personally involved in the conclusion (as in the enthymeme).

                              Fair enough, though I'm not sure how well this observation applies in this
                              case. Again, I was talking about the import of the sayings IN THOMAS, and
                              not their original point. I would think that UNLESS the wording and context
                              really make a particular external but supposedly implicit interpretive move
                              "natural" (e.g., if there were much talk about Jew-Gentile distinctions in
                              Thomas; and if the sayings in question more flatly contradicted each other
                              [as in, "Jesus said, do not lend moeny at interest" and "Jesus said, lend
                              money at interest"]; etc.), it's most safe to avoid invoking such a thing
                              FOR THE TEXT IN QUESTION (I'm not shouting, just underlining). I don't know
                              if that's very clear.

                              >The use to which such sayings were put by a later author,
                              >such as the author of Thomas, may deliberately (and I would
                              >think probably did, in this case) ignore or modify those
                              >original contexts, if only to make a new, and different,
                              >point.

                              Yes, again. I think our "disagreement" here is really just a function of my
                              having originally misunderstood your point.

                              >Since you have apparently invested a large amount of time
                              >and resources reading on the subject of peasant economy (and
                              >I agree with almost everything you said in _Jesus and the
                              >Village Scribes_), I had hoped you would have a greater
                              >appreciation for the implied circumstances of some of these
                              >sayings.

                              Ouch! But the problem here is that I can't for the life of me really figure
                              out what the context of Thomas -- as a text! -- might be. I assume that the
                              sayings that appear in Thomas (at least the ones the author didn't compose
                              himself) do derive from a Galilean, peasant, rural context. But I'm not at
                              all confident that Thomas as a document SHARES that context. Maybe so, maybe
                              not. Even if it does, the text strikes me as having such a "spiritualizing"
                              religiosity as to make the links between its theology and context
                              extraordinarily difficult to make out. To put this as sharply as possible: I
                              think Thomas can indeed tell us a great deal about peasant ideology and
                              context; but I do not think (or at least, have yet to be convinced) that
                              peasant ideology and context can tell us a lot about Thomas (in its final
                              form)!

                              >The message of these two sayings seems to have been an
                              >examination of just who was one's brother was supposed to be
                              >and how one treated him: Charity voluntarily extended to
                              >fellow-Jews vs economic exploitation extended to Gentiles.
                              >It clearly suggests a reversal of normal roles between Jews
                              >and Gentiles. Perhaps this is not, today, a politically
                              >correct position for the original author(s) of these sayings
                              >to have had, but it does appear to me to be what he/they was
                              >thinking.

                              As I say, I have no difficulty with this interpretation as it applies to the
                              "original" context of the individual sayings. But for me to be convinced
                              that it applies to Thomas, as a literary work, I would want to see some
                              evidence that Thomas assumes and cares about the Jew-Gentile distinction.

                              Bill
                              ___________________________
                              William Arnal
                              Department of Religion
                              University of Manitoba

                              "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
                              -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
                            • mwgrondin
                              ... But Dave, the person who finds the treasure in Th109, and who then proceeds to lend money at interest, is not the one who originally owned the family plot,
                              Message 14 of 25 , Mar 10 9:13 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- Dave Hindley wrote:
                                > I do not think that it is an uncritical assumption to
                                > understand ... GoT 109 to be a representation of
                                > the joy someone might feel to be unexpectedly released from
                                > a subsistence existence (specifically, as a freeholding
                                > peasant farming a family plot) to the much more secure
                                > position of a wealthy man with money to lend to Gentiles.

                                But Dave, the person who finds the treasure in Th109, and who then
                                proceeds to lend money at interest, is not the one who originally
                                owned the family plot, and evidently is not a peasant. For all we
                                know, this buyer might have been a Gentile.

                                Regards,
                                Mike
                              • David C. Hindley
                                ... who then proceeds to lend money at interest, is not the one who originally owned the family plot, and evidently is not a peasant. For all we know, this
                                Message 15 of 25 , Mar 10 11:49 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mike Grondin says:

                                  >>But Dave, the person who finds the treasure in Th109, and
                                  who then proceeds to lend money at interest, is not the one
                                  who originally owned the family plot, and evidently is not a
                                  peasant. For all we know, this buyer might have been a
                                  Gentile.<<

                                  You are right that I assumed the ethnicity of the subject of
                                  the story was a Jew. In a way, you have uncovered a problem
                                  in my way of interpretation of these sayings. Ironically, it
                                  is the same problem I complained that others were doing.
                                  <oops!>

                                  I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say the
                                  man who finds the treasure was "not a peasant."

                                  109) Jesus said, "The Kingdom is like a man who had a
                                  [hidden] treasure in his field without knowing it. And
                                  [after] he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know
                                  (about the treasure). *He inherited the field and sold
                                  [it].* And the one who bought it went plowing and found the
                                  treasure. He *began* to lend money at interest to whomever
                                  he wished."

                                  First, the son who inherited the field went on to sell it.
                                  Generally, in this period (1st century CE) peasants had a
                                  propensity to sell land and elites to buy or otherwise
                                  acquire control over it. That tells me that the seller (the
                                  inheriting son) was likely not himself an elite/wealthy
                                  landowner, although still a freeholder. Where his father's
                                  treasure came from is a puzzle. It would seem that the son
                                  was not as affluent as the father was.

                                  Using what we do know about the economics of that time (and
                                  I am basing this on what I am currently reading, David A.
                                  Fiensy, _The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian
                                  Period_, 1991, and Jack Pastor, _Land and Economy in Ancient
                                  Palestine_, 1997) I reconstruct the following scenario:

                                  The father, facing confiscation of his good land, tries to
                                  hedge his future prospects by hiding money in the poor lands
                                  he expected to retain (possibly part of ancestral lands),
                                  but ultimately did not survive the transition, never having
                                  the chance of telling his son about the treasure. Loss of
                                  status by an elite family often accompanied changes in
                                  government. The best land was often confiscated from the
                                  retainers of the former rulers and turned into royal
                                  estates.

                                  Another possibility is that the father acquired the treasure
                                  by brigandage, and was thus himself a poor peasant who had
                                  nothing but crappy land to farm. He is caught and executed
                                  before telling his son what he secreted.

                                  That the buyer discovers it when the inheriting son did not
                                  suggests that he discovered it while trying to plough/work
                                  the land. This would imply that the inheriting son did not
                                  do so, or he would likely have found his father's treasure
                                  himself. This in turn suggests that the son was not used to
                                  working poor land, so I am inclined to think his father was
                                  a dispossessed elite of an old order. The inheriting son,
                                  then, unaware of the treasure his father secreted, and
                                  facing the prospect of farming poor land as a common
                                  peasant, throws up his hands and gives up farming entirely,
                                  likely moving to a town or city to become a retainer for the
                                  elite classes, or worse.

                                  That the buyer only begins to lend money at interest after
                                  discovering the treasure suggests that he was also not
                                  already an elite/wealthy landowner. But why would a peasant
                                  buy crappy land? According to James C. Scott, peasants in SE
                                  Asia will invest quite a lot of physical effort and capital
                                  just to eke a little more productivity out of land and meet
                                  family subsistence needs. This includes buying or leasing
                                  additional sub-par land that requires more intense farming
                                  effort than the other land he already owns or leases. Scott
                                  notes that the less land a family owns, the more they are
                                  willing to pay for more. [_The Moral Economy of the
                                  Peasant_, 1976, pg. 13-14] If there is any correspondence
                                  between these cultures, the inheriting son saw a good
                                  opportunity to unload the land, and ran with it.

                                  But to get back to your other point, yes these could well
                                  have been Gentiles. I guess that the nationality of the
                                  subjects of the stories hinges on where these stories
                                  originated (e.g., from the Jesus movement in rural Galilee,
                                  as many seem to think, or maybe borrowed for rhetorical
                                  purposes from oral/written lore of Gentile origin, as I
                                  think). It also hinges on how the author or editors of
                                  Thomas intended these stories to be understood by the
                                  readers and hearers of the book, and here I would think that
                                  he intended the stories to be understood in a Jewish
                                  context, which also presumes that the readers & hearers
                                  would have a minimal awareness of Jewish land tenancy
                                  practices.

                                  Respectfully,

                                  Dave Hindley
                                  Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                • mwgrondin
                                  ... Well, I said that he was _evidently_ not a peasant, since he had money to buy the land. The price of the land, however, was evidently not nearly as great
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Mar 10 1:33 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- Dave Hindley wrote:
                                    > I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say the
                                    > man who finds the treasure was "not a peasant."

                                    Well, I said that he was _evidently_ not a peasant, since
                                    he had money to buy the land. The price of the land, however,
                                    was evidently not nearly as great as the value of the treasure.

                                    > The father, facing confiscation of his good land, tries to
                                    > hedge his future prospects by hiding money in the poor lands
                                    > he expected to retain (possibly part of ancestral lands),
                                    > but ultimately did not survive the transition, never having
                                    > the chance of telling his son about the treasure. ...
                                    > Another possibility is that the father acquired the treasure
                                    > by brigandage, and was thus himself a poor peasant who had
                                    > nothing but crappy land to farm. He is caught and executed
                                    > before telling his son what he secreted.

                                    But Dave, you're forgetting that the father _didn't know_ about
                                    the treasure! Looks like you'll have to redo this part of your
                                    elaborate construction. I'd say you're right, however, about
                                    the nature of the land, the Coptic word suggesting wilderness or
                                    undeveloped land, as in Th78 ("Why did you come out into the
                                    field?") and Th21 ("[My disciples] are like little children
                                    dwelling in a field that isn't theirs.") The problem with the
                                    word 'field' is that it's an open question whether it would be
                                    developed or undeveloped, whereas the Coptic word and the Greek
                                    underlying it apparently could only have meant undeveloped land
                                    (hence when the buyer in Th109 "comes plowing", he's doing
                                    something that the original owners hadn't done to that piece
                                    of land). In simplistic terms, I think the moral of the story
                                    isn't "Don't sell your land", but rather "Use the land you got."

                                    M.
                                  • tsgnosis
                                    Hi Dave, This, to me, is the danger of taking too intellectual an approach to the Gospel of Thomas. According to the logion, the father did not know he had a
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Mar 10 2:32 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Dave,

                                      This, to me, is the danger of taking too intellectual an approach to
                                      the Gospel of Thomas. According to the logion, the father did not
                                      know he had a treasure, so he couldn't have hidden it himself.

                                      This logion seems to speak more of the treasure hidden within all of
                                      us. When we go 'plowing' within, we find the treasure to which this
                                      logion refers. Unfortunately, neither the father nor the son made the
                                      effort.

                                      Mike's translation from the Coptic actually says the person who
                                      bought the land "Did he begin to give money (at interest) to those he
                                      loves." This seems reasonable enough, that he would share the wealth,
                                      since we have a fine example of this in Jesus. What I'm curious about
                                      is the (at interest). Mike, could you shed some light on this?

                                      Laura
                                    • David C. Hindley
                                      ... about the treasure! Looks like you ll have to redo this part of your elaborate construction. I was concentrating on the fact that
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Mar 11 9:44 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mike Grondin notes:

                                        >>But Dave, you're forgetting that the father _didn't know_
                                        about the treasure! Looks like you'll have to redo this part
                                        of your elaborate construction.<<

                                        Details, details! <g>

                                        I was concentrating on the fact that the text *also* says
                                        that the son knew nothing of the treasure. Why did the
                                        author repeat that the father and the son both did not know
                                        of it? It still seems as if the story is meant to form a
                                        neat contrast: wealth to poverty to wealth.

                                        The delay in response was due to my feeble attempt to try
                                        and look at the Coptic, but I have "two" many distractions
                                        competing for my attention (ages 9 & 2).

                                        I noticed the word forms in your interlinear sounded funny:

                                        The-kingdom * she-is-comparable * to-a-man * who-had-he *
                                        [t]here * in *his-field * a-treasure * hid[ing] * [he-bein]g
                                        * not-knowing * about him

                                        I take it "she" is the field and "he" is the treasure.
                                        "Hidden" is partly conjectural (unless it is the only
                                        possible word that fits). The word you translate
                                        "not-knowing" is in the word index, with the meaning "to
                                        know (obj)".

                                        I am still curious whether the statement that is usually
                                        translated "without knowing it" could be also rendered
                                        something like "without disclosing it." Is a meaning like
                                        this possible, based upon your knowledge of Coptic?

                                        Respectfully,

                                        Dave Hindley
                                        Cleveland, Ohio, USA

                                        PS: John Moon pointed out, off list, that read the way it is
                                        usually rendered, GoT 109 could be thought of as a lesson
                                        about a heir who is unaware of the riches if his inheritance
                                        and sells it, only to see another benefit from it's riches.
                                        The "replacement theology" found in the canonical gospels
                                        comes to mind, yet it does not seem that this was what the
                                        editor of Thomas wanted to emphasize, as I cannot think of
                                        any overtly anti-Jewish sayings in the entire book. Bill
                                        Arnal, for his part, (seems to have) considered the emphasis
                                        of 109 (when compared to 95) to be loan interest!
                                      • William Arnal
                                        ... Not at all. In fact I m not sure why you d say this. The saying *mentions* interest, and I noted that this (apparently) contradicts another saying in
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Mar 12 6:50 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          David Hindley wrote:

                                          >any overtly anti-Jewish sayings in the entire book. Bill
                                          >Arnal, for his part, (seems to have) considered the emphasis
                                          >of 109 (when compared to 95) to be loan interest!

                                          Not at all. In fact I'm not sure why you'd say this. The saying *mentions*
                                          interest, and I noted that this (apparently) contradicts another saying in
                                          valuation of interest. That's all. It doesn't mean that I think that
                                          interest is the central point of this saying.

                                          Bill
                                          ___________________________
                                          William Arnal
                                          Department of Religion
                                          University of Manitoba

                                          "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
                                          -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                          Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
                                          http://www.hotmail.com
                                        • Grondin
                                          ... I assume that the author wanted to make it clear to the reader that the son was ignorant also. But as to why the story requires both father and son, I
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Mar 12 9:52 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dave Hindley writes:
                                            > I was concentrating on the fact that the text *also* says
                                            > that the son knew nothing of the treasure. Why did the
                                            > author repeat that the father and the son both did not know
                                            > of it?

                                            I assume that the author wanted to make it clear to the reader that the son
                                            was ignorant also. But as to why the story requires both father and son, I
                                            don't know. Seems to me that it must be of some importance, but what?

                                            > I noticed the word forms in your interlinear sounded funny:

                                            > The-kingdom * she-is-comparable * to-a-man * who-had-he *
                                            > [t]here * in *his-field * a-treasure * hid[ing] * [he-bein]g
                                            > * not-knowing * about him
                                            >
                                            > I take it "she" is the field and "he" is the treasure.
                                            > "Hidden" is partly conjectural (unless it is the only
                                            > possible word that fits). The word you translate
                                            > "not-knowing" is in the word index, with the meaning "to
                                            > know (obj)".

                                            The root word in the verbal phrase means 'to know' (or 'to be aware of'),
                                            but the prefix 'NAT' is a negation, transforming it into its opposite 'to be
                                            ignorant of', lit., 'to not know'.

                                            > I am still curious whether the statement that is usually
                                            > translated "without knowing it" could be also rendered
                                            > something like "without disclosing it." Is a meaning like
                                            > this possible, based upon your knowledge of Coptic?

                                            Not that I'm aware of.

                                            Regards,
                                            Mike
                                          • dchindley
                                            ... *mentions* interest, and I noted that this (apparently) contradicts another saying in valuation of interest. That s all. It doesn t mean that I think that
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Mar 13 10:33 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In gthomas@y..., "William Arnal" <warnal@h...> wrote:

                                              >>Not at all. In fact I'm not sure why you'd say this. The saying
                                              *mentions* interest, and I noted that this (apparently) contradicts
                                              another saying in valuation of interest. That's all. It doesn't mean
                                              that I think that interest is the central point of this saying.<<

                                              Sorry, I did not mean to impute an idea to you.

                                              Out of curiosity, could you provide a brief summary of the criteria
                                              you used to base your published (1995?) analytical breakout of GoT
                                              mentioned in earlier posts? I have not yet had a chance to find a
                                              copy of the journal it is in, but am interested in what would have
                                              been written there.

                                              Thanks!

                                              Dave Hindley
                                              Cleveland, OH (USA)
                                            • Rick Hubbard
                                              [Dave asked:] Out of curiosity, could you provide a brief summary of the criteria you used to base your published (1995?) analytical breakout of GoT mentioned
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Mar 14 11:00 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                [Dave asked:]

                                                Out of curiosity, could you provide a brief summary of the criteria
                                                you used to base your published (1995?) analytical breakout of GoT
                                                mentioned in earlier posts?

                                                I did my best to try to summarize Bill's article last summer. Although there
                                                is always the danger that I have missed something altogether, or that I have
                                                mis-stated Bill's position, the "breakout" of the strata is close to
                                                accurate (at least). Here's the link:
                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/3998

                                                Rick Hubbard
                                                Humble Maine Woodsman
                                              • William Arnal
                                                ... Thanks for this, Rick. I wasn t able to reply to Dave s original message yet because any copies of the article I have are back at the office, and I m at
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Mar 14 1:22 PM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hey all:

                                                  >[Dave asked:]
                                                  >
                                                  >Out of curiosity, could you provide a brief summary of the criteria
                                                  >you used to base your published (1995?) analytical breakout of GoT
                                                  >mentioned in earlier posts?
                                                  >
                                                  >[and Rick replied]
                                                  >
                                                  >I did my best to try to summarize Bill's article last summer. Although
                                                  > >there
                                                  >is always the danger that I have missed something altogether, or that >I
                                                  >have
                                                  >mis-stated Bill's position, the "breakout" of the strata is close to
                                                  >accurate (at least). Here's the link:
                                                  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/3998

                                                  Thanks for this, Rick. I wasn't able to reply to Dave's original message yet
                                                  because any copies of the article I have are back at the office, and I'm at
                                                  home today. But this saves me the necessity of a (belated) reply.

                                                  Bill
                                                  ___________________________
                                                  William Arnal
                                                  Department of Religion
                                                  University of Manitoba

                                                  "Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
                                                  -- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg



                                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                                  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
                                                • David C. Hindley
                                                  ... summer. Although there is always the danger that I have missed something altogether, or that I have mis-stated Bill s position, the breakout of the
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Mar 14 4:31 PM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Rick Hubbard said:

                                                    >>I did my best to try to summarize Bill's article last
                                                    summer. Although there is always the danger that I have
                                                    missed something altogether, or that I have mis-stated
                                                    Bill's position, the "breakout" of the strata is close to
                                                    accurate (at least). Here's the link:
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/3998 <<

                                                    I must have missed this one! Well, at least I now have
                                                    something to do over the weekend. Still have to find the
                                                    article, though.

                                                    Thanks again!

                                                    Respectfully,

                                                    Dave Hindley
                                                    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                                  • Michael Mozina
                                                    ... sayings must or should go back to Jesus? No, like you and like Kloppenborg, I can t see Thomas as testimony to the historical Jesus -- it, like the
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jun 19, 2002
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      William Arnal Wrote on 3/08/02:

                                                      >>We might be talking past each other again. Did I seem to imply that Thomas
                                                      sayings must or should go back to Jesus? No, like you and like Kloppenborg,
                                                      I can't see Thomas as testimony to the historical Jesus -- it, like the
                                                      canonicals, is a theological-literary production, I assume.

                                                      I'm at work at the moment, and I can't seem to locate your posts about the
                                                      oral traditions of Thomas. I'll look again at home for these posts since I
                                                      am very curious about your analysis of this issue.

                                                      I did however run across this comment of yours about the origins of Thomas,
                                                      and I'm curious if you wouldn't mind giving me me a short explanation of
                                                      *WHY* you can't see this as a testimony to the historical Jesus, and instead
                                                      "assume" it's a theological-literary production. From my vantange point,
                                                      Thomas seems very randomly slapped together and I don't see much of an
                                                      underlying "production" to it. The randomness of these sayings, as opposed
                                                      to grouped "themes", seems to lend credence to the notion that these were
                                                      recorded at different times as the author happened to pen them down, rather
                                                      than this list representing a well thought out "production" per se.

                                                      [Michael Mozina]
                                                      [sig added by ed. Contributors should sign messages.]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.