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

Re: [GTh] I still don't understand

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] I still don t
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:47 PM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] I still don't understand

      > [Tom Saunders]:
      > > Thank you Mike for explaining ''catch phrase." I was using the term
      > a Sociolinguist would about language codes. So the term 'catch phrase' is
      > being used to mean 'marker.' I assume this is a usage to note parts of
      > syntax, or semantic content of the language that stand out in certain
      > No. Look, a catch-word (or "key-word") is simply a word or phrase that
      > occurs in both of two contiguous sayings. For example, the word 'blessed'
      > occurs in both 68 and 69. A certain amount of this would inevitably result
      > from random coincidence, but Patterson suggested that it was an
      > principle* behind GTh - that is, that sayings were arranged so that every
      > pair of contiguous sayings would have some "key-word" in common. Of
      > this isn't so in the Coptic, so the suggestion is that the *earliest*
      > version of GTh (which we don't have) was arranged by key-word, but then
      > pattern was obliterated in translating GTh into other languages. The case
      > for this hypothesis is seemingly strengthened by Perrin's more recent
      > success in finding a set of Syriac words which can plausibly (I assume) be
      > taken to join every pair of Syriac "back-translations" of these sayings.

      I've been reading Perrin over the weekend, and it is
      not quite accurate to say that he links every saying
      to the one following and preceding.
      sayings 1 to 56 are linked as a chain
      as are sayings 57 to 62, 63 to 88,
      89 to 104 and 105 to 114.
      I'm not sure what to make of this but my first
      thoughts are that Perrin is using catchwords
      loosely enough that two random sayings would
      in all probability be connected, i.e. only long
      chains are significant. If I'm right then Perrin's
      evidence is a good deal more impressive for the
      first portion of Thomas e.g. up to saying 56 than
      it is for the rest of the gospel.

      Andrew Criddle
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.