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

RE: [GTh] #95 & #109

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Mar 8, 2002
    • 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 2 of 25 , Mar 8, 2002
      • 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 3 of 25 , Mar 8, 2002
        • 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 4 of 25 , Mar 8, 2002
          • 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 5 of 25 , Mar 8, 2002
            • 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 6 of 25 , Mar 8, 2002
              • 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 7 of 25 , Mar 10, 2002
                • 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 8 of 25 , Mar 10, 2002
                  • 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 9 of 25 , Mar 10, 2002
                    • 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 10 of 25 , Mar 10, 2002
                      • 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 11 of 25 , Mar 11, 2002
                        • 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 12 of 25 , Mar 12, 2002
                          • 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 13 of 25 , Mar 12, 2002
                            • 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 14 of 25 , Mar 13, 2002
                              • 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 15 of 25 , Mar 14, 2002
                                • 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 16 of 25 , Mar 14, 2002
                                  • 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 17 of 25 , Mar 14, 2002
                                    • 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 18 of 25 , Jun 19 11:32 AM
                                      • 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.