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

Re: [GTh] Progression of translations of saying 70

Expand Messages
  • Manfred Peters
    Hi Mike, I never realised the full implications of the more or less inclusive plural - aspect here, great thanks. I also do find that the 70.2 might be
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 1 2:29 AM
      Hi Mike,

      I never realised the full implications of the more or less inclusive
      "plural"- aspect here, great thanks.

      I also do find that the 70.2 might be illustrating another aspect. If
      I take the Pagels/Lambdin77 – "..what you do not BRING FORTH
      will…" as
      compared to the rest that display different varieties of –
      "…what you
      do not HAVE will…"I also see the difference as the LACK of "it"
      killing you as compared to the INABILITY TO UTILIZE "it" which would
      kill you, leading, not only to a "select" vs "everybody" debate but
      also to a very interesting distinction between "having it"- but not
      bringing it forth/utilizing it and therefore still being destroyed and
      "having it" – bringing it forth/utilizing it and being saved. In
      my
      opinion the "not bring forth" version also ties in rather better for
      instance with the 24:3 "Man of light" saying."There is light within a
      man of light, and he becomes light to all the world. If he doesn't
      become light, he is darkness." that you mentioned, than the "not have"
      varieties.

      It seems that the specific act of "bringing it forth" has some
      importance here. From a psychological perspective this could be seen
      as the difference between, say, "Inner work leading to salvation" or
      "applying your enlightened-ness on the outer world is good/will save
      you" on the one hand and (put harshly) "as long as you got it, it
      doesn't matter if you bring it forth or not, you're still ok"
      on the
      other…or am I jumping to conclusions?
      Manfred
    • Michael Grondin
      Hi Manfred, I m enjoying this discussion, and your approach to these issues. Wish we had more discussions like this. ... If this is Lambdin s 1977 translation,
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 1 9:57 PM
        Hi Manfred,

        I'm enjoying this discussion, and your approach to these issues. Wish we had
        more discussions like this.

        > I also do find that the 70.2 might be illustrating another aspect. If
        > I take the Pagels/Lambdin77 - "..what you do not BRING FORTH
        > will." as compared to the rest that display different varieties of -
        > ".what you do not HAVE will."

        If this is Lambdin's 1977 translation, he's since changed his mind. His 1988
        translation of 70.2 reads "That which you do not have within you [will] kill
        you if you do not have it within you." (Again, the "you's" are plural.) This
        is apparently one of the errors in his earlier translation which were
        corrected in the 1988 version. I recommend that folks don't use the 1977
        version. (BTW, can you give title and page of the Pagels book you're
        quoting?)

        > I also see the difference as the LACK of "it" killing you as compared
        > to the INABILITY TO UTILIZE "it" which would kill you, leading,
        > not only to a "select" vs "everybody" debate but also to a very
        > interesting distinction between "having it"- but not bringing it
        > forth/utilizing it and therefore still being destroyed and "having it" -
        > bringing it forth/utilizing it and being saved. In my opinion, the
        > "not bring forth" version also ties in rather better for instance with
        > the 24:3 "Man of light" saying."There is light within a man of light,
        > and he becomes light to all the world. If he doesn't become light,
        > he is darkness." that you mentioned, than the "not have" varieties.

        Yes, but "not have" is clearly the correct translation. And this "something"
        that the unfortunates don't have is something that has to be "begotten"
        (JPE). So it's not intrinsic. This much seems firm enough, but I'm not at
        all sure what else we can say about Th70 with any confidence. Was it
        intended to be an analogue of Th41? If so, why was it felt to be necessary?
        So that Th41 would have a paired saying, as so many others do? Is it
        coincidental that Coptic Th41 is composed of 73 letters, and Th70 of 107, so
        that the total is 180? I'm led to these considerations because the word PH
        ('that one') in Th70 seems to be _intentionally_ cryptic, and I don't know
        why. Was the reader supposed to figure out what PH was? If so, does it refer
        to Th41's seemingly less-cryptic, but no more specific "something in his
        hand"?

        > It seems that the specific act of "bringing it forth" has some
        > importance here. From a psychological perspective this could be seen
        > as the difference between, say, "Inner work leading to salvation" or
        > "applying your enlightened-ness on the outer world is good/will save
        > you" on the one hand and (put harshly) "as long as you got it, it
        > doesn't matter if you bring it forth or not, you're still ok"
        > on the other.or am I jumping to conclusions?

        No, it's not that. It's just that pinning this one down seems to involve
        subtleties of the language that are beyond me. I know that I suggested
        "bring forth" as a translation of JPE, but I'm not at all sure now that this
        might not be misleading. After all, Th70 doesn't say "JPE-PH _from_
        yourselves" or "_out of_ (EBOL heN) yourselves". It's the analogy to 24.3
        that led me in that direction, and that may have been a mistake. (Sorry to
        waffle on this, but I really don't have a strong intuition about it [yet?],
        and there's no sense pretending that I do.)

        Regards,
        Mike G.
      • fmmccoy
        ... From: Manfred Peters To: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: [GTh] Progression of
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 6 9:01 AM
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Manfred Peters" <mihabek@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:55 PM
          Subject: [GTh] Progression of translations of saying 70


          Manfred:

          I'm inclined to render Th 70 something like this, "When you should
          beget that one in you, him, the one which you have, he will save you. If
          you do not have that one within you, he, the one who is not within you, he
          will kill you."

          I'm also inclined towards intepreting Th 70 in light of II Cor 3:17-18, "Now
          the Lord is the Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
          freedom. Now, we all, with a face having been unveiled, seeing, reflected in
          a mirror, the glory of the Lord, into the same image are being transformed,
          from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.

          In II Cor 3:17-18, Paul speaks of both (1) the Spirit of the Lord.and (2)
          the Lord being the Spirit

          I interpret there to be two different Lords here. The first Lord is God.
          The second Lord is the Christ (i.e., Jesus). This second Lord is the Image
          of *the* Lord, i.e., God. The Spirit, too, is the Image of God. So, there
          is the first Lord, i.e., God, who has the Spirit. There is also the second
          Lord, i.e., the Christ, who is this Spirit in the sense that he, like the
          Spirit, is the Image of God.

          We see, reflected in a mirror, the glory of the Lord. That is to say, we
          see the Image of *the* Lord (i.e., God). That is to say, we see the Lord
          (i.e., the Christ) who is the Image of God and, so, is also the Spirit.

          We, into the same image, are being transformed. That is to say, we are
          internally being reborn as images after the Image of God. That is to say,
          we are being reborn as christs after the Christ and as spirits after the
          Spirit.

          Compare Gal 4:19, where Paul speaks of the Galatian Christians as "my
          children, for whom again I suffer birth pains until christ is formed in
          you." Also compare Jn 3:6-7, where Jesus states, "The thing having been
          born of the flesh is flesh, and the thing having been born of the Spirit is
          spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'It is necessary for you to be
          reborn again.'"

          Viewed from this perspective, II Cor 3:17-18 tells of how we become what we
          see. Seeing the Christ, we become christs. Seeing the Spirit, we become
          spirits. In a deeper sense, since the Christ and the Spirit are the Image,
          Gods after GOD, we, by seeing them, become gods.

          Compare Philip (61), "You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw
          Christ, you became christ. You saw [the FATHER, you] became father. So [in
          this place] you see everything and [do] not [see] yourself, but [in that
          place] you do see youself--and what you see you shall [become]."

          In Thomas thought, Jesus is not the Christ. Rather, he is the Son of the
          Living One. So, in Thomas thought, "You saw Christ, you became christ", is
          this, "You saw the Son of the Living One, you became the son of the Living
          One.

          Let us re-look at Th 70, "When you should beget that one in you, him, the
          one which you have, he will save you. If you do not have that one within
          you, he, the one who is not within you, he will kill you."

          Here is how I am inclined to intepret it:
          1. "When you should beget that one in you" This refers to each one of them,
          through seeing the Son of the Living One, being reborn as a son of the
          Living One, thereby becoming the image of the Image.
          2. "him, the one which you have". The "him" has a double meaning. He is
          the image, i.e., the son of the Living One. But, since there is a sence in
          which the image is the same thing as the Image, he is also the Son of the
          Living One.
          3. "he will save you". The "he" refers to him/he in the second sense,
          i.e., the Son of the Living One, the Image. He will save you as a son of
          the Living One, an image.
          4. "If you do not have that one within you". Here, "that one" is the son of
          the Living One, the image.
          5. "he, the one who is not within you". Here, "he" has a double meaning.
          He is the image, i.e., the son of the Living One. But, since there is a
          sense in which is the image is the same thing as the Image, he is also the
          Son of the Living One.
          6. "he will kill you." The "he" refers to him/he in the second sense, i.e.,
          the Son of the Living One. He will kill you because you have not become
          him/he in the first sense, the son of the Living One.

          In this case, Th 70 relates that each of us who sees the Son of the Living
          One causes himself to be reborn as a son of the Living One and will be saved
          for eternal life by the Son of the Living One, while each of us who fails to
          do this will be consigned to eternal death by the Son of the Living One.

          How, though, in this case, can one see the Son of the Living One and,
          thereby, cause oneself to be reborn as a son of the Living One?

          The answer is found in 37, "His disciples said, 'When will You becomes
          revealed to us and when shall we see you?' Jesus said, 'When you disrobe
          without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your
          feet like little chldren and tread on them, then [will you see] the Son of
          the Living One and you will not be afraid.'"

          So, I suggest, in 70, the thought is that there are two classes of humanity.
          There are those who have overcome and mastered the "clothing" of the body of
          flesh and see the Son of the Living One, thereby causing themselves to be
          reborn as sons of the Living One, and these are saved for eternal life by
          the Son of the Living One. There are those who are still of the body of
          flesh and they are condemned to eternal death by the Son of the Living One.

          In this case, 70 might directly relate to 71, "Jesus said, 'I shall destroy
          this house, and no one will be able to build it." If "house" has the
          meaning it has in the Johannine version of this saying, i.e., the meaning of
          "body", then Jesus, the Son of the Living One, is declaring that he can
          irrevocably destroy a body. In this case, then, what 70 means is that,
          unless you can be reborn as a son of the Living One, you are nothing but a
          body of flesh and Jesus, the Son of the Living One, will irrevocably destroy
          you.

          Also see 3:4-5, "When you come to know yourselves, then you will become
          known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the Living
          Father. But if you do not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is
          you who are that poverty.

          There are two classes of humanity. There are those who are the sons of the
          Living Father. They have come to know themselves through seeing the Image
          (i.e.., the Son of the Living Father), of whom they are copies. The rest of
          humanity dwell in their bodies and have become a part of their bodies.
          Those belonging to the first class of humanity become known to the Son of
          the Living One. The second class of humanity are in ignorance, even of
          themselves.

          So, to conclude, it is possible that, in 70, two classes of human beings are
          posited: (1) those who are bodies of flesh, and (2) those who have been
          reborn as sons of the Living One/Father. Those who are bodies of flesh are
          permanently destroyed by the Son of the Living One/Father. Those who are
          sons of the Living One/Father will be saved for eternal life by the Son of
          the Living One/Father. In this case, 70 relates to such other passages as
          37, 71 and 3:4-5.

          Frank McCoy
          1809 N. English Apt 15
          Maplewood, MN USA 55109

          Hi everybody,

          I was wondering if anyone had thoughts regarding the ambiguity of the
          different translations of saying 70. I compiled a few versions (below)
          and found that the one that might have been the most widespread
          previously (Pagels - which she takes from the 1977 edition of
          NHL) now
          seems to be the deviant one. Was there ever a specific occasion when
          the standpoint shifted from the one to the others or was there a
          steady trickle of new ones, all leading in the same direction?

          I assume (and please correct me if you disagree) that the implications
          of these differences in translation are clear, at least from a
          psychological viewpoint. In the one case the saying implies that we
          all have something in us (which might be "The world", "Jesus", "A
          godlike nature", et.c.) which, if not brought out and utilized, will
          go sour and kill us. In the other cases considerable room is left to
          argue that the saying could imply that, well, you might not have what
          it takes (to become one of the chosen ones et.c.), in which case you
          die. A world of difference to me.
          Does anyone have a different take on this one?

          Pagels (Ref NHL 1977)
          Jesus said: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring
          forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you,
          what you do not bring forth will destroy you".
          Blatz
          Jesus said: "If you have gained this within you, what you have will
          save you. If you do not have this in [you], what you do not have in
          you [will] kill you".
          Layton
          Jesus said, "If you (plur.) produce what is in you, what you have will
          save you. If you do not have what is in you, what you do not have
          [will] kill you."
          Doresse
          Jesus says: "When you have something left to share among you, what you
          possess will save you. But if you cannot share [among you], that which
          you have not among you, that [ ... ? ... will ...] you.
          Grondin
          Jesus said, "That which you have will save you, if you bring it forth
          from yourselves. That which you do not have within you [will] kill you
          if you do not have it within you".

          Cheers
          Manfred Peters
        • Your Friend
          Hi Mike, the place in Pagels The Gnostic Gospels that you asked for is Page 15 in the 1979 Penguin paperback with the reference note GTh 32.10-11 in NHL(New
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 7 2:26 AM
            Hi Mike, the place in Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels that you asked for is Page
            15 in the 1979 Penguin paperback with the reference note "GTh 32.10-11 in
            NHL(New York 1977) 118".

            Interestingly I have seen several later instances where she quotes this
            translation and says its "One of her favourite sayings" It is also a very
            popular version of the translation in more peripheral contexts on the net.

            Thanks for your input.

            Manfred

            >From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
            >Reply-To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            >To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: Re: [GTh] Progression of translations of saying 70
            >Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:57:41 -0500
            >
            >
            >Hi Manfred,
            >
            >I'm enjoying this discussion, and your approach to these issues. Wish we
            >had
            >more discussions like this.
            >
            > > I also do find that the 70.2 might be illustrating another aspect. If
            > > I take the Pagels/Lambdin77 - "..what you do not BRING FORTH
            > > will." as compared to the rest that display different varieties of -
            > > ".what you do not HAVE will."
            >
            >If this is Lambdin's 1977 translation, he's since changed his mind. His
            >1988
            >translation of 70.2 reads "That which you do not have within you [will]
            >kill
            >you if you do not have it within you." (Again, the "you's" are plural.)
            >This
            >is apparently one of the errors in his earlier translation which were
            >corrected in the 1988 version. I recommend that folks don't use the 1977
            >version. (BTW, can you give title and page of the Pagels book you're
            >quoting?)
            >
            > > I also see the difference as the LACK of "it" killing you as compared
            > > to the INABILITY TO UTILIZE "it" which would kill you, leading,
            > > not only to a "select" vs "everybody" debate but also to a very
            > > interesting distinction between "having it"- but not bringing it
            > > forth/utilizing it and therefore still being destroyed and "having it" -
            > > bringing it forth/utilizing it and being saved. In my opinion, the
            > > "not bring forth" version also ties in rather better for instance with
            > > the 24:3 "Man of light" saying."There is light within a man of light,
            > > and he becomes light to all the world. If he doesn't become light,
            > > he is darkness." that you mentioned, than the "not have" varieties.
            >
            >Yes, but "not have" is clearly the correct translation. And this
            >"something"
            >that the unfortunates don't have is something that has to be "begotten"
            >(JPE). So it's not intrinsic. This much seems firm enough, but I'm not at
            >all sure what else we can say about Th70 with any confidence. Was it
            >intended to be an analogue of Th41? If so, why was it felt to be necessary?
            >So that Th41 would have a paired saying, as so many others do? Is it
            >coincidental that Coptic Th41 is composed of 73 letters, and Th70 of 107,
            >so
            >that the total is 180? I'm led to these considerations because the word PH
            >('that one') in Th70 seems to be _intentionally_ cryptic, and I don't know
            >why. Was the reader supposed to figure out what PH was? If so, does it
            >refer
            >to Th41's seemingly less-cryptic, but no more specific "something in his
            >hand"?
            >
            > > It seems that the specific act of "bringing it forth" has some
            > > importance here. From a psychological perspective this could be seen
            > > as the difference between, say, "Inner work leading to salvation" or
            > > "applying your enlightened-ness on the outer world is good/will save
            > > you" on the one hand and (put harshly) "as long as you got it, it
            > > doesn't matter if you bring it forth or not, you're still ok"
            > > on the other.or am I jumping to conclusions?
            >
            >No, it's not that. It's just that pinning this one down seems to involve
            >subtleties of the language that are beyond me. I know that I suggested
            >"bring forth" as a translation of JPE, but I'm not at all sure now that
            >this
            >might not be misleading. After all, Th70 doesn't say "JPE-PH _from_
            >yourselves" or "_out of_ (EBOL heN) yourselves". It's the analogy to 24.3
            >that led me in that direction, and that may have been a mistake. (Sorry to
            >waffle on this, but I really don't have a strong intuition about it [yet?],
            >and there's no sense pretending that I do.)
            >
            >Regards,
            >Mike G.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >--------------------------------------------------------------------
            >Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
            >To unsubscribe from this group,
            >send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            _________________________________________________________________
            Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
          • Michael Grondin
            Sometime back, we had a discussion initiated by Manfred Peters, one of the issues in which was the dating of various English translations of Thomas. At the
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 21 7:47 AM
              Sometime back, we had a discussion initiated by Manfred Peters, one of the
              issues in which was the dating of various English translations of Thomas. At
              the time, I couldn't locate the dates of the Doresse and Blatz translations
              appearing on Peter Kirby's site. Since then (and with Peter's help), I've
              been able get that information. Here's the list of translations mentioned
              earlier, with title and first (English) publication date as I now believe it
              to be:

              > 1. Guillamont, et al (_The Gospel According to Thomas_, 1959)
              > (republished by Brill, 1998)
              >
              > 2. Jean Doresse (_The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics_, 1960?)
              > (republished 1986, 1997)
              >
              > 3. Thomas Lambdin (NHL, 1977)
              > (used by Elaine Pagels in _The Gnostic Gospels_, 1979)
              >
              > 4. Bentley Layton (_The Gnostic Scriptures_, 1987)
              >
              > 5. Thomas Lambin (NHL revised edition 1988)
              >
              > 6. Beate Blatz (_New Testament Apocrypha_, Schneemelcher, 1991)
              >
              > 7. Patterson/Robinson/Bethge (_The Fifth Gospel_, 1998)

              Notes:
              Doresse's book was originally published in French in 1958. Although I'm not
              certain of its first English publication date, I believe that it was after
              Guillamont's translation had appeared in English, so I think that the first
              English translation was Guillamont's. The date of Blatz's translation given
              above also reflects the first English publication date, though it was
              originally published in German some time (but probably not more than a few
              years) earlier. Corrections welcome. (Bear in mind that this is not a
              complete list of English translations. I tried to do that once and never
              could straighten out even Marvin Meyer's many translations.)

              Mike Grondin
              The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
              http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
              The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
              http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm
            • sarban
              ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Progression of
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 23 2:58 PM
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
                To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:47 PM
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Progression of translations of saying 70


                >
                > Sometime back, we had a discussion initiated by Manfred Peters, one of the
                > issues in which was the dating of various English translations of Thomas.
                At
                > the time, I couldn't locate the dates of the Doresse and Blatz
                translations
                > appearing on Peter Kirby's site. Since then (and with Peter's help), I've
                > been able get that information. Here's the list of translations mentioned
                > earlier, with title and first (English) publication date as I now believe
                it
                > to be:
                <SNIP>
                > Notes:
                > Doresse's book was originally published in French in 1958. Although I'm
                not
                > certain of its first English publication date, I believe that it was after
                > Guillamont's translation had appeared in English, so I think that the
                first
                > English translation was Guillamont's. The date of Blatz's translation
                given
                > above also reflects the first English publication date, though it was
                > originally published in German some time (but probably not more than a few
                > years) earlier. Corrections welcome. (Bear in mind that this is not a
                > complete list of English translations. I tried to do that once and never
                > could straighten out even Marvin Meyer's many translations.)
                >
                One of the earliest English translations of Thomas is one apparently
                originally made by William R Schoedel of the University of Chicago
                in May 1959 (From the Coptic apparently with some reference to
                the 1958 German translation of Johannes Leipoldt.

                Schoedel's translation (which follows Leipoldt's idiosyncratic system
                for numbering the sayings of Thomas), was first published in 1960
                as part of 'The Secret Sayings of Jesus' by Robert M Grant and
                David Noel Freedman.

                This renders saying 70 as 'Jesus said: 'When you beget in yourselves
                him whom you have, he will save you. If you do not have him within
                yourselves, he whom you do not have within yourselves will kill you.'

                By using 'he' instead of 'it' this translation seems close to Frank
                McCoy's suggestion earlier in this thread.

                Andrew Criddle
              • Michael Grondin
                ... Unfortunately, the word that Schoedel translates as him in the phrase When you beget in yourselves HIM ... is a demonstrative pronoun - namely, PH
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 23 10:09 PM
                  Andrew writes:
                  >
                  > [Schoedel's translation] renders saying 70 as 'Jesus said: 'When you beget
                  > in yourselves him whom you have, he will save you. If you do not have him
                  > within yourselves, he whom you do not have within yourselves will kill
                  > you.'
                  >
                  > By using 'he' instead of 'it' this translation seems close to Frank
                  > McCoy's suggestion earlier in this thread.

                  Unfortunately, the word that Schoedel translates as 'him' in the phrase
                  "When you beget in yourselves HIM ..." is a demonstrative pronoun - namely,
                  PH (meaning 'that' or 'that one'). Since all nouns are gendered in Coptic,
                  there isn't any true non-gendered 'it', so we don't know (unless the context
                  makes it clear - which in this case it doesn't) whether the object to which
                  a masculine pronoun refers is a male person or a masculine noun (still less,
                  of course, WHICH person or thing the pronoun stands for). In other words, we
                  know that the object of PH is masculine (the feminine form being TH), but we
                  don't know whether it's a 'him' (to our way of thinking) or what we (but not
                  the Copts) would call an 'it'. Because of this, it can't be counted either
                  for or against a given interpretation that it assumes 'him' instead of 'it',
                  or vice versa.

                  (BTW, this problem is rampant throughout Coptic and any other language with
                  gendered nouns and pronouns. In my own interlinear, the reason I favored
                  'he'/'him' for masculine pronouns in most cases, is because it more
                  accurately reflects the thought patterns of the native speakers, even though
                  it sometimes gives a misleading impression to our own minds. Interestingly,
                  however, I think the interlinear gives some idea of how native Copts might
                  speak English if they weren't very fluent in it. A native Copt, like a
                  native Italian, say, might be prone to transfer his/her own grammatical
                  structures into English, resulting in such utterances as "The city, she is
                  beautiful". True, we ourselves sometimes refer to ships and other things
                  with gendered pronouns, but it's not a systematic feature of our language.)

                  Regards,
                  Mike Grondin
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.