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

Th79 vs. Lk 11:27-28 + 23:29

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Since April DeConick s work has been mentioned in connection with Mark Goodacre s proposed paper on this subject, I thought I d pass along the two references
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 31, 2007
      Since April DeConick's work has been mentioned in
      connection with Mark Goodacre's proposed paper
      on this subject, I thought I'd pass along the two
      references I've found to Th79 in her paper "The
      Original Gospel of Thomas". (I don't have a copy
      of her latest book; if anyone else does, perhaps
      they can do the same with that.)

      The first mention of Th79 (she uses the abbreviation
      'L.' for logion) I can find pretty much sums up why
      she has put it in the kernel. Although Th79 is shown
      as a single item in her sayings list (as opposed to
      other sayings broken into parts), it seems clear from
      the following that the major factor in her assigning it
      to the kernel was the third part of it (79.3=Lk23:29):

      ------------- begin quote ---------------------
      > My preliminary analysis of this kernal gospel and
      the various later layers ... suggests a "probable"
      scenario that begins with a very old gospel of sayings
      of Jesus that likely originated from the Jerusalem
      church. ... It orginally was apocalyptic in orientation,
      anticipating the imminent judgment of God and the
      end of the world since, by and large, it consists of
      eschatological sayings warning about the impending
      destruction and the need to prepare for battle (i.e.,
      L. 11a, 16a-b, 35, 64, 65, 68a, 69b, 71, 74, 79, 81,
      82, 98, 103, 111a). It seems that the original
      community believed that it was living in a very late
      stage in history that was characterized by general
      chaos and the reversal of normalcy. The day of
      Judgment and the coming Kingdom were imminent
      (i.e., L. 8, 15,20, 23a, 40, 61a, 57, 76, 96, 97, 107,
      109). The end time conditions were severe and
      chaotic; relief would only come to those who
      persevered ... <

      > Of course, this understanding of the original
      community as a thoroughly apocalyptic community
      is quite the opposite of the accepted scholarly
      hypothesis that the Thomasine gospel and
      community was non-apocalyptic. We discover
      with the application of this [her] new model that
      it is not until the outer layers of _Thomas_ that we
      find the non-apocalyptic (or better: "de-apocalyp-
      ticizing") materials introduced into the kernal in
      order to reinterpret the strong eschatological
      hopes. < end quote >

      The second mention of Th79 is two pages later,
      in a list of parallels to Tatian's Diatessaron:

      ------------- begin quote ---------------------
      > When the sayings that make up the orginal
      kernal gospel are compared to other ancient
      sources, a couple of fascinating connections
      emerge. First, when aligned with both Quispel's
      and Baarda's work on Tatian's _Diatessaron_,
      in every case that Tatian's version parallels
      Thomas' version, the saying is located in the
      kernel gospel rather than in any of the later
      layers with the exception of 113 ...
      [lists from Quispel and Baarda follow, both
      containing L. 79]
      ... this striking agreement between Tatian and
      the kernel _Thomas_ cannot be coincidence
      especially since other Syrian witnesses seem
      to be aware of many of the sayings found in
      the later layers of _Thomas. ... This may provide
      some evidence that an early form of the _Gospel
      of Thomas_ similar to the one I have reconstructed
      was known to Tatian. Or could the kernel _Thomas_
      be related to the common "Jewish Christian"
      gospel source which Quispel long ago postulated
      was used by Tatian and the compilers of the old
      Syriac gospels? It is certainly tempting to regard
      it as such. < end quote >

      OK, but something disturbs me here. I have a
      copy of J. Hamlyn Hill's translation of the Arabic
      Diatessaron. Imperfect though it may be, it shows
      a separation of Lk 11:27-28 (hence Th 79.1-2)
      from Lk 23:29 (hence Th79.3). If an early form
      of Thomas was known to Tatian - a form in which
      79.1-3 was a unified whole - there's no indication
      of that. Tatian splits the parts of it just as if he
      knew Luke and didn't know Thomas.

      Mike
    • David Renfro
      Recovering the Original GTh. pg 140: Jesus in the Kernel Gospel of Thomas also is a strong advocate for the reversal of normalcy in a world rapidly coming to
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
        Recovering the Original GTh.
        pg 140:
        Jesus in the Kernel 'Gospel of Thomas' also is a strong advocate
        for the reversal of normalcy in a world rapidly coming to an end.
        Thus he blesses the maiden and the barren womb, "the womb that
        has not conceived and the breast that have not given milk." rather
        than blessing the mother (l.79), an expectation quite pronounced
        in other apocalyptic texts including the Synoptics (Lk 23.29;
        Mk 13.17-19//Mt 24.19-21/Lk 21.20-24; Baruch 10.13b-16;
        Apoc. Elijah [C] 2.38. ... <end quote>

        Mike, this is the only reference to L.79 I've found, other than
        the two previous you've mentioned.
        Dave

        Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
        Since April DeConick's work has been mentioned in
        connection with Mark Goodacre's proposed paper
        on this subject, I thought I'd pass along the two
        references I've found to Th79 in her paper "The
        Original Gospel of Thomas". (I don't have a copy
        of her latest book; if anyone else does, perhaps
        they can do the same with that.)

        The first mention of Th79 (she uses the abbreviation
        'L.' for logion) I can find pretty much sums up why
        she has put it in the kernel. Although Th79 is shown
        as a single item in her sayings list (as opposed to
        other sayings broken into parts), it seems clear from
        the following that the major factor in her assigning it
        to the kernel was the third part of it (79.3=Lk23:29):

        ------------- begin quote ---------------------
        > My preliminary analysis of this kernal gospel and
        the various later layers ... suggests a "probable"
        scenario that begins with a very old gospel of sayings
        of Jesus that likely originated from the Jerusalem
        church. ... It orginally was apocalyptic in orientation,
        anticipating the imminent judgment of God and the
        end of the world since, by and large, it consists of
        eschatological sayings warning about the impending
        destruction and the need to prepare for battle (i.e.,
        L. 11a, 16a-b, 35, 64, 65, 68a, 69b, 71, 74, 79, 81,
        82, 98, 103, 111a). It seems that the original
        community believed that it was living in a very late
        stage in history that was characterized by general
        chaos and the reversal of normalcy. The day of
        Judgment and the coming Kingdom were imminent
        (i.e., L. 8, 15,20, 23a, 40, 61a, 57, 76, 96, 97, 107,
        109). The end time conditions were severe and
        chaotic; relief would only come to those who
        persevered ... <

        > Of course, this understanding of the original
        community as a thoroughly apocalyptic community
        is quite the opposite of the accepted scholarly
        hypothesis that the Thomasine gospel and
        community was non-apocalyptic. We discover
        with the application of this [her] new model that
        it is not until the outer layers of _Thomas_ that we
        find the non-apocalyptic (or better: "de-apocalyp-
        ticizing") materials introduced into the kernal in
        order to reinterpret the strong eschatological
        hopes. < end quote >

        The second mention of Th79 is two pages later,
        in a list of parallels to Tatian's Diatessaron:

        ------------- begin quote ---------------------
        > When the sayings that make up the orginal
        kernal gospel are compared to other ancient
        sources, a couple of fascinating connections
        emerge. First, when aligned with both Quispel's
        and Baarda's work on Tatian's _Diatessaron_,
        in every case that Tatian's version parallels
        Thomas' version, the saying is located in the
        kernel gospel rather than in any of the later
        layers with the exception of 113 ...
        [lists from Quispel and Baarda follow, both
        containing L. 79]
        ... this striking agreement between Tatian and
        the kernel _Thomas_ cannot be coincidence
        especially since other Syrian witnesses seem
        to be aware of many of the sayings found in
        the later layers of _Thomas. ... This may provide
        some evidence that an early form of the _Gospel
        of Thomas_ similar to the one I have reconstructed
        was known to Tatian. Or could the kernel _Thomas_
        be related to the common "Jewish Christian"
        gospel source which Quispel long ago postulated
        was used by Tatian and the compilers of the old
        Syriac gospels? It is certainly tempting to regard
        it as such. < end quote >

        OK, but something disturbs me here. I have a
        copy of J. Hamlyn Hill's translation of the Arabic
        Diatessaron. Imperfect though it may be, it shows
        a separation of Lk 11:27-28 (hence Th 79.1-2)
        from Lk 23:29 (hence Th79.3). If an early form
        of Thomas was known to Tatian - a form in which
        79.1-3 was a unified whole - there's no indication
        of that. Tatian splits the parts of it just as if he
        knew Luke and didn't know Thomas.

        Mike






        ---------------------------------
        Don't pick lemons.
        See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Renfro
        Applying my less than scholarly lay-criteria: is it simplistic? is it pastoral? I ve found that L.79.1-2 can be easily winnowed other GTh material. L79.3
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
          Applying my less than scholarly lay-criteria: "is it simplistic?
          is it pastoral?" I've found that L.79.1-2 can be easily winnowed
          other GTh material. L79.3 seems an unnecessary addendum.

          If L79.3 is a Hellenize addition, as I suspect, this suggests
          L79.1-2 is at least pre-Pauline.

          Of course, Mark Goodacre's proposal doesn't address L79.3,
          but a scholarly point by point comparison of .1-2 and Luke.
          As I'm unqualified to comment on these points, I can only suggest
          that these "things" seem to move chronologically from the
          simple to the complex. If these qualities can be ascertained,
          some insight might gained.

          Dave Renfro
        • Michael Grondin
          By happy coincidence, April DeConick started a new Blog this last Sunday, Jan 28th. This morning, she posted a piece in response to an offlist note I had sent
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
            By happy coincidence, April DeConick started a new
            Blog this last Sunday, Jan 28th. This morning, she
            posted a piece in response to an offlist note I had
            sent to Wade Greiner asking if she might comment
            on Mark Goodacre's prospective paper. See:

            http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/

            Unfortunately, Goodacre's first name is shown as
            'Michael'. Hopefully, that'll be soon corrected. More
            importantly, I had hoped that she might comment
            on what I take as an essential component of Mark's
            argument, namely that the singular P-LOGOS ('the-
            word') of Th79.2 seems to be at odds not only
            syntactically, but thematically, with other sayings
            which invariably use the plural 'the-words' or
            'my-words'. This difference between singular
            and plural is emphasized by the fact that only
            in 79.2 is the word LOGOS used, as opposed to
            the equivalent Coptic word. This argument is
            particularly relevant to DeConick's position, since
            she regards Th79 as part of the original kernel.
            (If we were talking about the oddity of Th77, for
            example, it would be no problem for her, since
            she regards that saying as a later accretion.)
            But DeConick's comments are rather of a more
            general nature, and don't address this particular
            point. Anyway, take a look and see what you think.

            Mike
          • Michael Grondin
            ... I have to confess that I don t quite understand this. It seems to be pointing to some difference between Th79 and the other texts listed, but I m not sure
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
              David Renfro quotes:
              > Recovering the Original GTh. (pg 140):
              > Jesus in the Kernel 'Gospel of Thomas' also is a strong
              > advocate for the reversal of normalcy in a world rapidly
              > coming to an end. Thus he blesses the maiden and the
              > barren womb, "the womb that has not conceived and
              > the breast that have not given milk." rather than blessing
              > the mother (l.79), an expectation quite pronounced in
              > other apocalyptic texts including the Synoptics (Lk 23.29;
              > Mk 13.17-19//Mt 24.19-21/Lk 21.20-24; Baruch 10.13b-16;
              > Apoc. Elijah [C] 2.38. ... <end quote>

              I have to confess that I don't quite understand this.
              It seems to be pointing to some difference between
              Th79 and the other texts listed, but I'm not sure what
              that difference is. That Th79 doesn't bless the mother,
              but the other texts do? But Lk 23:29 doesn't bless the
              mother either. Maybe someone can clear this up.

              As an addendum to my earlier message, please
              note that April's Blog is incorrect in referring to
              me as THE moderator of this list. The list/group
              would be poor indeed if that were the case. Instead,
              we have an embarassment of riches, what with Bill
              Arnal, Rick Hubbard, Andrew Criddle, and Jacob
              Knee. It's just that I usually have more time on my
              hands than they do.

              Also, apologies to purists (of which I'm one) for my
              use of the equal sign in earlier posting. It should,
              of course, be slashes (indicative of parallelism).
              So, for example, it should be 'Th79.3//Lk23:29',
              not 'Th79.3=Lk23:29'. Hopefully, y'all knew what
              was meant.

              Mike
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... Yeah, I think we should get April to change it to big wig or something like that. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                At 03:14 PM 2/1/2007 -0500, Michael Grondin wrote:
                >As an addendum to my earlier message, please
                >note that April's Blog is incorrect in referring to
                >me as THE moderator of this list.

                Yeah, I think we should get April to change it
                to "big wig" or something like that.

                Stephen

                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
              • sarban
                ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:53 AM Subject: [GTh] Th79 vs. Lk 11:27-28 + 23:29 Since April
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                  ----- Original Message -----

                  From: Michael Grondin

                  To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com

                  Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:53 AM

                  Subject: [GTh] Th79 vs. Lk 11:27-28 + 23:29



                  Since April DeConick's work has been mentioned in
                  connection with Mark Goodacre's proposed paper
                  on this subject, I thought I'd pass along the two
                  references I've found to Th79 in her paper "The
                  Original Gospel of Thomas". (I don't have a copy
                  of her latest book; if anyone else does, perhaps
                  they can do the same with that.)

                  <SNIP>


                  The second mention of Th79 is two pages later,
                  in a list of parallels to Tatian's Diatessaron:

                  ------------- begin quote ---------------------
                  > When the sayings that make up the orginal
                  kernal gospel are compared to other ancient
                  sources, a couple of fascinating connections
                  emerge. First, when aligned with both Quispel's
                  and Baarda's work on Tatian's _Diatessaron_,
                  in every case that Tatian's version parallels
                  Thomas' version, the saying is located in the
                  kernel gospel rather than in any of the later
                  layers with the exception of 113 ...
                  [lists from Quispel and Baarda follow, both
                  containing L. 79]
                  ... this striking agreement between Tatian and
                  the kernel _Thomas_ cannot be coincidence
                  especially since other Syrian witnesses seem
                  to be aware of many of the sayings found in
                  the later layers of _Thomas. ... This may provide
                  some evidence that an early form of the _Gospel
                  of Thomas_ similar to the one I have reconstructed
                  was known to Tatian. Or could the kernel _Thomas_
                  be related to the common "Jewish Christian"
                  gospel source which Quispel long ago postulated
                  was used by Tatian and the compilers of the old
                  Syriac gospels? It is certainly tempting to regard
                  it as such. < end quote >

                  OK, but something disturbs me here. I have a
                  copy of J. Hamlyn Hill's translation of the Arabic
                  Diatessaron. Imperfect though it may be, it shows
                  a separation of Lk 11:27-28 (hence Th 79.1-2)
                  from Lk 23:29 (hence Th79.3). If an early form
                  of Thomas was known to Tatian - a form in which
                  79.1-3 was a unified whole - there's no indication
                  of that. Tatian splits the parts of it just as if he
                  knew Luke and didn't know Thomas.

                  Mike



                  I was looking at the analysis in Baarda of the parallels between Thomas and the Diatessaron in saying 79 and it is notable that for both 79.1-2 and 79.3 the parallels are parallels with the Old Syriac tradition as a whole. Typically both S and C agree with the reading shared between Thomas and the Diatessaron.

                  On the other hand there are, for this saying, no apparent parallels with the Pseudo-Clementines, Justin Martyr and other witnesses to non-Tatianic probably pre-Tatianic Gospel harmonies.

                  IMHO the parallels with the Diatessaron for saying 79 merely point to the Syriac origins of both works. (IMHO other parallels involving other sayings DO provide evidence of the common use by Thomas and Tatian of a very early Gospel harmony but not saying 79.)



                  Andrew Criddle .




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... In case people are wondering, by bigwig I meant the most important person in a group or undertaking. See the definition on http://wordnet.princeton.edu
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                    At 04:00 PM 2/1/2007 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                    >Yeah, I think we should get April to change it
                    >to "big wig" or something like that.

                    In case people are wondering, by "bigwig" I meant
                    "the most important person in a group or undertaking."
                    See the definition on http://wordnet.princeton.edu

                    Stephen
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                    Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... Thanks very much for this helpful point. I ve added a footnote to draw this out too. It is interesting that we have the sole use of LOGOS here in Thomas
                    Message 9 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                      On 01/02/07, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                      > . . . .I had hoped that she might comment
                      > on what I take as an essential component of Mark's
                      > argument, namely that the singular P-LOGOS ('the-
                      > word') of Th79.2 seems to be at odds not only
                      > syntactically, but thematically, with other sayings
                      > which invariably use the plural 'the-words' or
                      > 'my-words'. This difference between singular
                      > and plural is emphasized by the fact that only
                      > in 79.2 is the word LOGOS used, as opposed to
                      > the equivalent Coptic word.

                      Thanks very much for this helpful point. I've added a footnote to
                      draw this out too. It is interesting that we have the sole use of
                      LOGOS here in Thomas where it usually uses WAxE. Incipit and 1 both
                      apparently translate LOGOS (plural) in the Greek with WAxE (plural),
                      though, so I am inclined to agree with you that the most interesting
                      thing is the singular / plural difference. This is the only place
                      that Thomas has word (either LOGOS or WAxE) singular, and that is
                      worth noting, especially when it is characteristic of Luke.

                      Mark
                      --
                      Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
                      Associate Professor
                      Duke University
                      Department of Religion
                      118 Gray Building / Box 90964
                      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                      http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
                    • Michael Grondin
                      ... Yes, but on the other hand, the Sahidic translation of Lk 11:27 contained on the Coptic CD I have* (which is supposed to be from old manuscripts) has WAxE
                      Message 10 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                        Mark wrote:
                        > It is interesting that we have the sole use of LOGOS
                        > here in Thomas where it usually uses WAxE.

                        Yes, but on the other hand, the Sahidic translation
                        of Lk 11:27 contained on the Coptic CD I have* (which
                        is supposed to be from old manuscripts) has WAxE
                        as translation of Luke's LOGOS. Wouldn't that suggest
                        that if the Copts were translating from Greek, they would
                        normally have used WAxE? What do you make of that?
                        (What I would make of it is that at this particular point in
                        Coptic Thomas, the translators may have specifically
                        wanted to use LOGOS, though WAxE was the norm.)

                        Mike
                        *NKCSC-CD1, St. Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society, 1998
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        ... Thanks for that interesting point. Yes, and we can further gather that from the choice of WAxE to translate LOGOS in Thomas Incipit and 1. I don t have
                        Message 11 of 12 , Feb 2, 2007
                          On 02/02/07, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                          > Yes, but on the other hand, the Sahidic translation
                          > of Lk 11:27 contained on the Coptic CD I have* (which
                          > is supposed to be from old manuscripts) has WAxE
                          > as translation of Luke's LOGOS. Wouldn't that suggest
                          > that if the Copts were translating from Greek, they would
                          > normally have used WAxE? What do you make of that?
                          > (What I would make of it is that at this particular point in
                          > Coptic Thomas, the translators may have specifically
                          > wanted to use LOGOS, though WAxE was the norm.)

                          Thanks for that interesting point. Yes, and we can further gather
                          that from the choice of WAxE to translate LOGOS in Thomas Incipit and
                          1. I don't have an explanation except to add that it makes the case
                          for LOGOS in Thomas's Vorlage here strong.

                          Mark
                          --
                          Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
                          Associate Professor
                          Duke University
                          Department of Religion
                          118 Gray Building / Box 90964
                          Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                          Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                          http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
                        • Benedict Lo
                          We find some places in GTh that the same word in GTh has a different meaning in its Synoptic counterparts. Can somebody tell us what is Word of God / Father
                          Message 12 of 12 , Feb 2, 2007
                            We find some places in GTh that the same word in GTh has a different meaning in its Synoptic counterparts.
                            Can somebody tell us what is "Word of God / Father" in singular meant in GTh79 and in the same time making sense to the entire GTh?
                            This question is open for discussion. Certainly Mark and Mike's comments are most welcome.

                            Thanks.

                            Benedict


                            ----- Original Message ----
                            From: Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...>
                            To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2007 11:58:24 PM
                            Subject: Re: [GTh] Th79 vs. Lk 11:27-28 + 23:29

                            On 01/02/07, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@comcast. net> wrote:

                            > . . . .I had hoped that she might comment
                            > on what I take as an essential component of Mark's
                            > argument, namely that the singular P-LOGOS ('the-
                            > word') of Th79.2 seems to be at odds not only
                            > syntactically, but thematically, with other sayings
                            > which invariably use the plural 'the-words' or
                            > 'my-words'. This difference between singular
                            > and plural is emphasized by the fact that only
                            > in 79.2 is the word LOGOS used, as opposed to
                            > the equivalent Coptic word.

                            Thanks very much for this helpful point. I've added a footnote to
                            draw this out too. It is interesting that we have the sole use of
                            LOGOS here in Thomas where it usually uses WAxE. Incipit and 1 both
                            apparently translate LOGOS (plural) in the Greek with WAxE (plural),
                            though, so I am inclined to agree with you that the most interesting
                            thing is the singular / plural difference. This is the only place
                            that Thomas has word (either LOGOS or WAxE) singular, and that is
                            worth noting, especially when it is characteristic of Luke.

                            Mark
                            --
                            Mark Goodacre Goodacre@duke. edu
                            Associate Professor
                            Duke University
                            Department of Religion
                            118 Gray Building / Box 90964
                            Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                            Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                            http://NTGateway. com/goodacre





                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                            Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
                            Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                            http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

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