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

[gthomas] Re: Book Recommendation/105

Expand Messages
  • S. Patterson
    Dear Steve: Sounds interesting. Yes, I agree that the Barbelognostic explanation seems a reach for me as well. I would recommend Schaberg s book to you then.
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 5 6:30 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Steve:

      Sounds interesting. Yes, I agree that the Barbelognostic explanation
      seems a reach for me as well. I would recommend Schaberg's book to you
      then. All of the issues you raise are dealt with in detail, if memory
      serves me right.

      Yours,
      Steve P.

      On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Stevan Davies wrote:

      >
      > > Re: Schaberg's book:
      > > Thesis: Jesus was the illigitimate child of a Roman soldier. Sounds wild,
      > > but surprisingly well argued based on the texts and social history.
      > > Especially good on the social history of illegitimacy in the ancient
      > > world. In the end, I wasn't convinced, but impressed. Also: her car was
      > > bombed after it was published. Can't say that of many books.
      > > Steve Patterson
      >
      > Hi Steve!
      >
      > I was thinking of getting into this question re: 105
      > "He who will know the father and the mother
      > will be called 'the Son of harlot'."
      >
      > If a variety of things are put together:
      >
      > 1. Considerably later and often obscure Jewish references
      > to Jesus' illegitimacy (Mary's honor defended, though,
      > in Toledoth Jesu) --
      > Against Celsus 1.28,32 "Origin cites the tradition that Jesus was
      > the illegitimate son of Mary who 'bore a child from a certain
      > soldier named Panthera.'"
      > (cf. Meyer pg 106 and a discussion in M. Smith "J the Magician")
      >
      > 2. The striking (to me) absence of references to Jesus by his
      > patronymic in Christian writings (two instances in GJn and
      > that's it that I know of)
      >
      > 3. Mark's "son of Mary" reference strongly implying his father
      > was not known (cf. M. Smith)
      >
      > 4. Matthew and Luke independently conceding that Jesus was
      > not impregnated by a legitimate father
      >
      > 5. Jn 8:41 (followed immediately by the Jews asking if Jesus
      > was a Samaritan or possessed).
      >
      > All this may indicate that a saying whereby Jesus defends
      > the fact that he knows who his father and mother are against
      > a charge that he is the son of the harlot is either from Jesus
      > or a defense of Jesus constructed to counteract accusations
      > that he was illegitimate.
      >
      > I do think this perspective on the saying is more likely to
      > be reasonable than are perspectives derived from speculations
      > deriving from Barbelognosticism.
      >
      > Steve Davies
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Backing up has never been easier. Here's an automatic,
      > Hassle free way to protect your valuable data without
      > Extra hardware. Download, install and try @Backup.
      > http://offers.egroups.com/click/215/1
      >
      > eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
      > Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
      >
      >
      >


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
    • Sytze van der Laan
      ... I think we both know that there are multiple ways for translating GTh 105 (with or without articles/capitals) and that it s a matter of what perspective
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 7 3:57 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike Grondin wrote:
        >So I guess my counter-charge would be that to analyze it strictly
        >as a response to charges of illegitimacy amounts to under-interpretation.
        >[snip] Problem is, the translator often goes with what he/she thinks
        >the saying means, regardless of the actual wording, which in turn confirms
        >other folks' predispositions to think the same way. We WANT GThom to sound
        >like the canon, so we tend to do things to make it so. Personally, I think
        >we should be aware of, and resist, that tendency.

        I think we both know that there are multiple ways for translating GTh
        105 (with or without articles/capitals) and that it's a matter of what
        perspective one brings to the study of the GThomas. I think that in the
        field of NT language, literature & theology, we are forced to take a
        more cautious stance; under-interpreting, if you will. I study the
        GThomas as a source that is relevant to the NT writings, so it's
        probably true that my bias possibly would be to understand the language
        of the Greek and Coptic GThomas texts in close relation to Biblical
        writings. The good thing, IMO, may be the consistency of translating
        that way, though. Biblical scholars may use some awkward translations
        for certain terms in the GThomas, but it is very easy to see where
        they're coming from. That's often not the case with translators who have
        a different agenda.

        Re: GTh 101 Mike wrote:
        >No, but we do know that whoever/whatever gave J "(the) Life" is feminine,
        >because of the feminine article in the verb (AS|Ti), which rules out, for
        >example "my father". And we do know that the lacuna in question will hold
        >about six letters, just enough for "my mother" (TA|MAAY). So your defense
        >here seems pretty slim, unless you have another candidate for filling in
        >the gap.

        I know there's a fat chance that I'll be able to put anything else than
        "TA|MAAU" in the lacuna of GTh 101 (NHC II, 50:1), I'll give you that,
        but "my true mother" has an equal chance pointing at an earthly mother
        as at a heavenly one. Thus, I'll feel inclined to chose the former and
        translate without capitals (and yes, showing my bias). Perhaps if others
        are interested as well, we should discuss this (bias, agenda,
        self-fulfilling translations) some more in a thread with a new subject
        line.

        - Sytze

        Gospel of Thomas Bibliography @ http://huizen.dds.nl/~skirl/
        ECTHN EN MECW TOY KOCMOY

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
        Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.