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

Re: Using L

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Bernhard
    ... I ... this ... I personally don t think I ve ever seen L used as the abbreviation for logion . However, I think l is a common abbreviation for line .
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 6, 2006
      > It's interesting what one takes for granted! In my reading, I've seen
      > logion/logia abbreviated as L frequently enough to assume that it was a
      > commonly-accepted abbreviation in GThos discussions. My supervisor
      > certainly hasn't questioned it when I've presented written work. Now that
      I
      > come to think of it, though, I've also seen a reasonable number of people
      > refer to sayings rather than logia and not abbreviate. How unusual is
      this
      > use of L?

      I personally don't think I've ever seen L used as the abbreviation for
      "logion". However, I think "l" is a common abbreviation for "line". That, in
      and of itself, could be a reason for avoiding l for logion.

      However, I did know what Mike meant with the "L" and just wanted to bring
      the topic up for discussion. I see logion/logia used regularly in Thomas
      studies (by top scholars) and it has become one of my pet peeves. The term
      logia was first applied to the Gospel of Thomas with Grenfell and Hunt's
      1897's publication _Logia Iesou_ (P.Oxy. 1) and the term itself has a long
      history with a meaning something like "oracle". However, when P.Oxy. 654 was
      published in 1904, it became clear that the logia/logion terminology was
      inappropriate because the first line of the Greek text designates the
      sayings in the gospel as _logoi_ not _logia_. Thus, calling the sayings
      logia is in distinct contrast to Thomas' explicit self-designation for them.

      As Joseph Fitzmyer pointed out and Peter Kirby quotes on his website,
      "logoi: The use of this word to designate the 'sayings' of Jesus in these
      fragments should be noted. Nowhere do we find logia used of these sayings;
      Grenfell and Hunt were, therefore, not accurate in entitling the preliminary
      publication of Oxy P 1 Logia Iesou, which did not, of course, become
      apparent until the discovery of Oxy P 654. From the time of Herodotus on
      logion meant 'oracle', 'a saying derived from a deity'. In the LXX it
      denotes the 'word of God', having lost the Greek nuance of 'oracle' and
      acquired that of OT revelation. In this sense we find it in Acts 7:38; Rom
      3:2; 1 Pt 4:11; Heb 5:12 (see G. Kittel, TDNT 4, 137-41). In A. Resch's
      collection of Agrapha (TU 30 [1906]) we find the word used only twice, and
      in each case it refers to the OT. See further J. Donovan, The Logia in
      Ancient and Recent Literature (Cambridge, 1927). The use of logoi here for
      the sayings of Jesus can be compared to Mt 15:12 and especially to Acts
      20:35, mnemoneuein te ton logon tou Kyriou Iesou hoti autos eipen. See also
      Clement of Rome, Ad. Cor. 13:1; 46:7 (ed. K. Bihlmeyer, pp. 42, 60) for the
      use of this word to designate the sayings of Jesus. Now that we know that
      the Greek fragments belong to a text of the Gospel according to Thomas,
      there is no longer room for the speculation that possibly they contain part
      of the Logia on which Papias wrote his commentary or of the Logia that
      Matthew collected (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3, 39, 1 and 16). Consequently, it
      is better not to refer to the sayings either in the Oxyrhynchus fragments or
      in the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas (where the word used is sage,
      'word, saying') as logia, pace R. North (CBQ 24 [1962] 164, etc.)"

      This observation was also made some 50 years prior to Fitzmyer's article by
      Kirsopp Lake: K. Lake, 'The New Sayings of Jesus and the Synoptic Problem',
      HibJ 3 (1904-1905), pp. 332-41 (332-33).

      The persistent use of the "logion" terminology by competent scholars for
      more than a century is beyond my comprehension. Calling the "Sayings" logia
      does nothing. "Logion" takes longer to say than "saying" (has more
      syllables). "Logion" means very little to the average person (i.e. is
      nothing but obfuscating). AND "logion" is INCORRECT terminology .

      Please, for my sake, just stop using it.

      Thanks,
      Andrew





      > Judy
      >
      > --
      > "One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
      > tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
      > Plato
      >
      > Rev Judy Redman
      > Uniting Church Chaplain
      > University of New England
      > Armidale 2351
      > ph: +61 2 6773 3739
      > fax: +61 2 6773 3749
      > web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
      > email: jredman@...
      >
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin
      > > Sent: Monday, 6 March 2006 6:12 PM
      > > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Block Sizes
      > >
      > >
      > > [Andrew B]:
      > > > Alright, I'm probably going to regret this, but go ahead and try to
      > > > convince me from the relationship between L42 and L11.1 that your
      > > > design theory is plausible (and clarify what "L" stands
      > > for). I don't
      > > > have time to go digging through archives so you'll have to restate
      > > > your case. Please be succinct and clear.
      > >
      > > I'll do my best, but I'm very much afraid you'll find the
      > > result unsatisfactory, Andrew. There are quite a few textual
      > > features related to sayings 42 and 11.1, and I haven't yet
      > > been able to figure the best way to organize them for
      > > presentation. In addition, there are two items that need to
      > > be clarified - one about probability and one about
      > > "gematria-values". Hopefully, I can work those in without too
      > > much loss of succinctness.
      > >
      > > Let's concentrate on the following three features involving
      > > the number 70 (bearing in mind that saying 42 occupies line
      > > 280 and saying 11.1 occupies all of line 70 and most of line 69):
      > >
      > > 1. The Greek word PARAGE occurs at the end of both lines 70
      > > and 280. 2. Line 280 contains the 42nd occurrence of 'IS' and
      > > 42 +280/10 = 70. 3. The total size of sayings 42 and 11.1 is
      > > 70 letters (24 + 46).
      > >
      > > There are independent reasons for believing that the number
      > > 42 might have meant something special to the authors of CGTh,
      > > but I'll leave that aside for now. What I want to discuss
      > > here is probability. I used the phrase "independent but
      > > interrelated [features]" three times in my note to Dave
      > > Hindley, because it's important. In assessing the probability
      > > of more than one feature (or event) occurring randomly in the
      > > same time and place, the general formula is to take the
      > > product of the individual probabilities. But that's only the
      > > case if the features/events are _independent_ of each other -
      > > that is, that for each feature F in the list, no other
      > > feature or combination of features either causes F or
      > > otherwise significantly affects its individual probability.
      > > So my first claim is that the features 1-3 above are
      > > independent of each other. Any one or two of them could have
      > > occurred without the third one occurring, and without
      > > increasing its probability of occurring.
      > >
      > > This is leading up to something. I'm not sure that you and
      > > other realize the kind of results one gets when calculating
      > > the probability of a _group_ of independent features/events
      > > occuring at the same time and place (in this case, the text
      > > of CGTh). Admittedly, I'm not sure what the individual
      > > probability of each of the features 1-3 occurring randomly
      > > is, but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they're
      > > all 10%. Then the probability of 1-3 ALL occurring in CGTh
      > > randomly is .1 x .1 x .1 = .001, i.e., one tenth of one
      > > percent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't assent to a proposition
      > > if you knew that its chances of being true were only one in
      > > 1000, so the only out seems to be to show that the individual
      > > probabilities of 1-3 are significantly greater than 10%.
      > > Personally, from the investigations I've done, they don't
      > > seem to be, but I would welcome further discussion on that
      > > point, since it seems to me to be crucial.
      > >
      > > One other thing on probability: In my phrase "independent but
      > > interrelated", the word 'interrelated' is imporant as well,
      > > since it, too, affects the probability of intentionality. The
      > > features 1-3 all involve the number 70. If they hadn't, then
      > > the probability of randomness would be as above. But since
      > > they do, the probability of intentionality increases
      > > significantly, even beyond the hypothetical 99.9%. For what
      > > are the chances that the same number 70 would be involved in
      > > all three features if that hadn't been intentional?
      > >
      > > Realizing at this point that I've probably already failed the
      > > succinctness test, I may at least be able to remove one
      > > impediment to the persuasiveness of the case. On several
      > > occasions, I've used the phrase 'gematria-value' (e.g., the
      > > "gematria-value" of IS is 210, of KOSMOS 600), and I fear
      > > that the word 'gematria' may be off-putting. There's nothing
      > > mysterious about it, though - and maybe a better phrase would
      > > be 'letter-value' - since I'm basically talking about the
      > > value of a word based on the value of its letters within the
      > > Greek letter-number system in wide use at the time. (A
      > > picture being worth a thousand words, I'd suggest that folks
      > > not acquainted with the system take a look at
      > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/x_fonts.htm ). (The
      > > Hebraic letter-number system - the basis of gematria - was
      > > similar in structure, but gave a different value to some
      > > Hebraic letters than the Greek system assigned to their counterparts.)
      > >
      > > Frankly, I haven't undertaken the tedious task of calculating
      > > the letter-values of all the words - or even all the Greek
      > > words - in CGTh. Of the ones I have calculated, not many of
      > > them have such nice values as IS and KOSMOS, so I don't
      > > expect to find nice letter-values behind every key word in
      > > CGTh, but I did get a surprise today when I calculated the
      > > letter-value of PARAGE. Turns out that it's 190. Not very
      > > suggestive in itself, but (1) IS + PARAGE = 400, and (2) the
      > > IS numbers in the four line set 66-70 are 9 and 10 - the end
      > > of the units level in the Greek number system, and the
      > > beginning of the 10's level. That's going astray from what
      > > you wanted, Andrew, but since it's a new item relevant to the
      > > L42-L11.1 connection, I thought I'd mention it.
      > >
      > > Hopefully, all this - though more than you wanted - at least
      > > passes the clarity test. The case isn't easy to state
      > > succinctly, but more importantly, unless one understands the
      > > ideas of probability behind it, and accepts that the authors
      > > were very likely much more sensitive to the symbolism of
      > > numbers - and of the numeric values of words - than we are, a
      > > succint statement would certainly fail to persuade. Aren't
      > > you glad you asked, though? (:-)
      > >
      > > Mike Grondin
      > > Mt. Clemens, MI
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > 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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.