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

Re: [GTh] #95 & #109

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.