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

Re: [GTh] Design of the Coptic Prologue and Title

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    Fascinating, Mike. Where would Thomas studies be without you? I hope Thomas scholars appreciate all that you have done as much as this amateur. Of course you
    Message 1 of 32 , Jan 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Fascinating, Mike. Where would Thomas studies be without you? I hope
      Thomas scholars appreciate all that you have done as much as this amateur.
      Of course you realize what you have done? In addition to my looking for
      Aramaic syntactic and lexical interference in canonical and non-canonical
      Greek "Jesus said.." stuff...and now Coptic, I have a whole new area.
      Syntactic chiastic structure....brilliant!

      Jack


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:46 AM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Design of the Coptic Prologue and Title


      >I hadn't intended to write another note on this subject,
      > since I thought I had said everything that could be said
      > about the structure of the Prologue. How wrong I was!
      > I didn't look at it carefully enough the first time round.
      > It turns out that not only is the Prologue divisible into
      > three segments of words of 21 letters per segment,
      > but these three segments also have a syntactical
      > chiastic structure that's unmistakeable and symbolically
      > significant. That I didn't notice this on first analysis was
      > probably caused by my jumping too quickly ahead of
      > the game, to look for other sayings which were divisible
      > into equal segments of whole words. (I found a few, but
      > about what you'd expect from randomness.)
      >
      > What is a "syntactical chiastic structure"? Well, since
      > I've coined the term myself, I'll be glad to tell you. I
      > assume that most folks here are familiar with chiastic
      > structures, i.e., segments of a text that take the form
      > ABCBA - sometimes shorter or longer, and sometimes
      > with a double-middle, but having the feature of doubling
      > back on themselves from a midpoint. The thing is, in the
      > usual chiastic structure, the elements are related to each
      > other semantically - the first B contains a word or thought
      > which is echoed in the somewhat-different second B, etc.
      > Syntactically, however, the related segments are almost
      > always of different length. What occurs in the Prologue
      > of the Coptic Thomas, however, is the opposite kind of
      > chiastic structure. The related elements are of the
      > _same length_, but have a different meaning. This I call
      > "syntactical chiastic structure" as opposed to the usual
      > kind of chiastic structure that's semantically-based.
      >
      > Without further ado, then, I present the syntactical chiastic
      > structure of the Prologue to the Coptic Thomas, with break
      > points indicated by a slash (and using Stephen Carlson's
      > transliteration scheme):
      >
      > (1) NAEI NE N.$AJE / EQHP ENTA.IS
      > These are the-words / hidden which-IS
      >
      > (2) ET.ON2 JO.OU / AUW / A4.S2AISOU
      > who-lives spoke-them / and / he-wrote-them
      >
      > (3) N6I DIDUMOS / IOUDAS QWMAS
      > viz. Didymos / Judas Thomas
      >
      > Assuming that the above comes out fairly close to the
      > way I formatted it, it can be seen that segment 1 contains
      > two sub-segments of sizes 11 and 10 letters, segment 2
      > contains three sub-segments of sizes 9, 3, and 9, and that
      > segment 3 contains two sub-segments of sizes 10 and 11.
      > In all, there are seven sub-segments in the Prologue with
      > sizes arranged in chiastic order: 11-10-9-3-9-10-11.
      > Arranged hierarchically, it looks like this:
      > 11-10
      > 9-3-9
      > 10-11
      >
      > It's of some importance that the number of segments (3)
      > times the number of sub-segments (7) equals the length
      > of each segment (21 letters). This would be an incredible
      > coincidence if it were a coincidence, but of course it isn't.
      > The Prologue was obviously designed very carefully to
      > feature the numbers 3, 7, and 21, and those in turn gain
      > significance as being factors of 210, the numerical value
      > of the sacred name 'IS'. (Recall also that 210 is the product
      > of the sizes of the three names Didymos Judas Thomas.)
      >
      > (In case anyone is wondering about the title, it divides the
      > same way as segment 1, i.e., into two sub-segments of
      > sizes 11 and 10, respectively. So if segment 1 be considered
      > the beginning of the beginning, then the end (title) is like that
      > in this respect.)
      >
      > I won't get into speculation about the implications of all
      > this, but I will add that long ago on this list I hypothesized that
      > certain gross letter-counts (total number of letters in CGTh,
      > the number of letters in Greek words, and the net number
      > of letters other than that) indicated that the Coptic authors
      > were counting letters. IMO, the above result is at least
      > partially confirming evidence of that. Sorry it took so long
      > for me to finally get around to analyzing the Prologue.
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Mike
    • FMMCCOY@msn.com
      In his paper on Luke 11//27-28//Thomas 79:1-2, Goodacre lists five foil comments and questions from anonymous individuals in Luke: 1. 9:57 2. 11:27 3. 12:13 4.
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In his paper on Luke 11//27-28//Thomas 79:1-2, Goodacre lists five foil
        comments and questions from anonymous individuals in Luke:


        1. 9:57
        2. 11:27
        3. 12:13
        4. 13:23
        5. 14:15 <outbind://91/#_ftn1> [1]

        He goes on to state, "Now foil comments and questions are common in the
        Synoptics and they are common in Thomas too (e.g. 91, 99, 100 and 104).
        The distinctive features of the five cases listed above is that these
        are the only places in the Synoptic tradition where a teaching is
        introduced by foil comments from anonymous individuals, always with tis.
        This feature comes at least five times in Luke and it is probably due to
        his own redaction, especially since three of the occasions (9.57, 13.23
        & 14.15) there is a contrast with Q/Matthew. It only occurs twice in
        Thomas (Thom. 72, Thom. 79) both times parallel to Luke."



        It is noteworthy that four of these five Lukan examples are foil
        comments. Only one is a foil question, i.e., Luke 13:23. So, it is an
        oddball and does not belong with the other four.



        Now, when we look at the other four, which are all foil comments, we
        find that each is a part of a Lukan passage with a parallel in Thomas:

        1. Luke 9:57 is a part of 9:57-58 which, in turn, has a parallel in
        Thomas 86
        2. Luke 11:27 is a part of 11:27-28 which, in turn, has a parallel
        in Thomas 79
        3. Luke 12:13 is a part of 12:13-15 which, in turn, has a parallel
        in Thomas 72
        4. Luke 14:15 is a part of 14:15-24 which, in turn, has a parallel
        in Thomas 64

        The implication is clear-there is a reversed literary relationship
        between the four Lukan passages of 9:57-58, 11:27-28, 12:13-15 and
        14:15-24 and their parallels in Thomas so that either (1) Thomas is
        utilizing Luke by moving backwards through it from 14:15 to 12:13-15 to
        11:27-28 to 9:57-58 or else (2) Luke is utilizing Thomas by moving
        backwards through it from 86 to 79 to 72 to 64.



        What is not readily apparent is the direction of the dependency. Is
        Luke following Thomas or is Thomas following Luke?



        A clue comes from these two observations:

        1. Luke 9:57-58 has a parallel in Matthew 8:19-20
        2. Luke 14:15-24 has a parallel in Matthew 22:1-10

        As a result, when: (1) A = a Lukan passage with a parallel in both
        Thomas and Matthew and when (2) B = a Lukan passage with a parallel only
        in Thomas, this is what we have for the four Lukan passages which are
        foil comments:

        1. 9:57-58 = A
        2. 11:27-28 = B
        3. 12:13-15 = B
        4. 14:15-24 = A

        This is a chiastic ABBA sequence, suggesting that Luke, in creating his
        four passages containing foil comments by anonymous individuals,
        deliberately did so utilizing a source chiastic format.



        In this case, Luke used Thomas and Matthew as his sources for creating
        his four passages containing foil comments by anonymous
        individuals-utilizing Matthew for 9:57-58 and 14:15-24 and utilizing
        Thomas for all four.



        Indeed, in strong support of this suggestion, there is evidence that
        Luke did use Mark, Matthew and Thomas as sources and did, on occasion,
        utilize them in a source chiastic fashion.



        For example, let us take Luke 11:24-12:12.



        When we have:
        A = A group of three Lukan passages, the first of which has a parallel
        in
        Mt, the second of which has a parallel in Th, and the third of which has
        a
        parallel in Mt and with the two Matthean parallels being in reverse
        order
        B = a Lukan passage with parallels in Mt, Mk, and Th and with a doublet
        in
        Chapter 8 of Lk
        C = a Lukan passage with a parallel in Mt
        D = a Lukan passage with no parallels
        E = A Lukan passage with a parallel in both Chapter 23 of Mt and Th
        F = A group of three Lukan passages, each of which has a parallel in
        Chapter
        23 of Mt
        then this is how Lk 11:24-12:12 looks:

        1 11:24-32 A <outbind://91/#_ftn2> [2]
        2 11:33 B <outbind://91/#_ftn3> [3]
        3 11:34-36 C <outbind://91/#_ftn4> [4]
        4 11:37-38 D
        5 11:39-41 E <outbind://91/#_ftn5> [5]
        6 11:42-44 F <outbind://91/#_ftn6> [6]
        7 11:45 D----------mirror plane
        6' 11:46-51 F <outbind://91/#_ftn7> [7]
        5' 11:52 E <outbind://91/#_ftn8> [8]
        4' 11:53-12:1a D
        3' 12:1b C <outbind://91/#_ftn9> [9]
        2' 12:2 B <outbind://91/#_ftn10> [10]
        1' 12:3-12 A <outbind://91/#_ftn11> [11]



        The implication of this elaborate, even baroque, schema is that Luke
        used Mk, Mt and Th as sources and that he deliberately constructed Lk
        11:24-12:12 the way he did so that it would have a source chiastic
        structure.



        Since Lk 11:27-28 is a part of this source chiastic structure, the
        implication is that Luke based it on Th 79.



        To conclude, there is a source chiastic structure to the four Lukan
        passages with foil comments which implies that Luke used Th 79:1-2 in
        writing Lk 11:27-28. This is also implied by a more elaborate source
        chisastic structure found in Lk 11:24-12:12.



        Frank McCoy
        St Paul, MN

        _____


        <outbind://91/#_ftnref1> [1] Pp. 9-10

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref2> [2] The first Lukan passage with a Matthean
        parallel is Lk 11:24-26//Mt 12:43-45, the Lukan passage with a Thomasine
        parallel is Lk 11:27-28//Th 79:1-2, and the second Lukan passage with a
        Matthean parallel is Lk 11:29-32//Mt 12:28-32, so that the two Matthean
        parallels are in reverse order: (1) Mt 12:33-35, (2) Mt 12:28-32

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref3> [3] The three parallels are Mt 5:15//Mk
        4:21//Th 33:2-3 and the doublet is Lk 8:16

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref4> [4] The Matthean parallel is 6:22-23

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref5> [5] The Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is 23:25-26
        and the Thomasine parallel is 89

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref6> [6] The three Lukan passages with Matthean
        parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:42//Mt 23:23, Lk 11:43//Mt 23:6, and Lk
        11:44//Mt 23:27--which coupling the IQP does take to be valid, despite
        the verbal differences

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref7> [7] The three Lukan passages with Matthean
        parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:46//Mt 23:4, Lk 11:47-48//Mt 23:29-31 and
        Lk 11:49-51//Mt 23:24-26

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref8> [8] The Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is 23:23
        and the Thomasine parallel is 39.

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref9> [9] The Matthean parallel is 16:11b

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref10> [10] The three parallels are Mt 10:26//Mk
        4:22//Th 6:5-6 and the doublet is Lk 8:17

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref11> [11] The first Lukan passage with a Matthean
        parallel is Lk 12:3-9//Mt 10:27-33, the Lukan passage with a Thomasine
        parallel is Lk 12:10//Th 44, and the second Lukan passage with a
        Matthean parallel is Lk 12:11-12//Mt 10:19-20, so that the two Matthean
        parallels are in reverse order: (1) Mt 10:27-33, (2) Mt 10:19-20




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.