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

Re: [GTh] Recent on-line changes

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... Thanks for asking, Maurice. When I started my website, I was using small letters to designate sub-sayings, so that, for example, the parts of 30 would be
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 13, 2003
      [Maurice]:
      > ... could you give me/us the correct protocol for quoting a
      > logion "in part". For example, using logion #30, does one refer to
      > "Where there are three gods they are gods" as being simply Thomas #30a

      Thanks for asking, Maurice. When I started my website, I was using small
      letters to designate sub-sayings, so that, for example, the parts of 30
      would be 30a and 30b. I still think this is the most elegant and logical way
      to go, but the standard convention is the numerical breakdown in my
      page-by-page presentation. Thus, the parts of 30 are 30.1 and 30.2. (These
      subsayings numbers can be found in "The Fifth Gospel" and several other
      places.) I'm in the process of revising my saying-by-saying presentation,
      and when that gets done, you'll see the numbers there as well. In the
      meantime, you'll be pretty safe to take 'c' as '3', 'd' as '4', etc.

      > ... what is the generally accepted protocol for breaking down a
      > logia's composing elements. Does one segment the logia into (a), (b),
      > (c), at points where there "appears" to be a period, or where an idea or
      > a notion "appears" to begin or end, or what-have-you?

      If you're asking how the scholars decided where to break each saying, I
      don't know. A lot of it seems pretty straightforward, but there's a
      significant number of questionable break-points (and non-break-points) of
      the reasoning behind which I'm unaware. But if you're asking how to know
      where the break-points are in my interlinear, they're usally indicated by a
      '>' within the English text.

      > Just now, in re-reading Thomas #30b. (I think I am designating it
      > properly), I noticed that this segment (b) ends with the word "him" (in
      > the singular). Seems non-sensical to me as there is/are no singular
      > subjects possible in the sentence as constructed .... (id est) ... the
      > "him" (singular) could not refer to the "two" (plural) nor to the "one"
      > + Jesus (still plural) ... Are we to read this as a scribal error, or in
      > Coptic, do "one and one" make "one" ?

      Well, there's some awkwardness there, but the same awkwardness seems to be
      present when we try to express the same thought in English. Which is more
      correct:

      1. Where there are two or one, I am with him.
      2. Where there are two or one, I am with them.

      Or is there some better way to put it? It may also be that the 'him' in
      question is "the place" (which is masculine in Coptic) "which has two or
      one" - which is the more literal reading.

      Regards,
      Mike
    • Michael Mozina
      Michael Mozina writes: How about Where there are two or one I am with YOU. ... MG responds: I really don t think this is any more satisfactory than the other
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 13, 2003
        Michael Mozina writes:
        How about "Where there are two or one I am with YOU.

        ------------------------------

        MG responds:
        I really don't think this is any more satisfactory than the other two possibilities I mentioned. By trying to refer to BOTH "two" and "one", it seems to succeed in referring to neither. (Consider this: Is the "you" in question among the "two or one" or not? The answer may seem clear at first glance, but think about counter-examples, e.g., "Wherever there's two folks sitting at a table at Denny's, I'm with YOU!") Better might be:

        Where there are two or one, I am there.

        This is unambiguous, and it may be, as I said, that the phrase 'with him' in the Coptic was intended to mean something like 'in that place' (where the two or one are). But bear in mind that Th30 is about *gods*, and that the Coptic differs considerably from the Greek. The conventional wisdom has it that Coptic Th30 is just a bad translation.
      • lordsbaine
        I guess the question of punctuation is a large factor that effects what a sentence in English conveys, how they managed this in Greek, Aramaic and Coptic, is
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 18, 2003
          I guess the question of punctuation is a large factor that effects
          what a sentence in English conveys, how they managed this in
          Greek, Aramaic and Coptic, is beyond me right now, but my jist is
          that it would lead to alot of heated arguments.
          For example:
          Said YS this: the place which has three gods there, in god they are;
          the place which has two or one, I myself exist with him.

          Change the punctuation slightly
          Said YS this: the place which has three, gods there, in god they are.
          the place which has two or one, I myself exist with him.

          "him" now belongs to the object which can be "two or one". Implying
          that people are three parts, once together, they are with god, and in
          god. When they are not complete ("two or one"), then YS will be
          there for him. This of course does not imply YS is not with the
          three in god as well, but the journey is complete as the three.
          Mike Pemberton
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.