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

RE: [GTh] #95 & #109

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.