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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- 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 7 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 12 , Feb 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 12 , Feb 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 12 , Feb 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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.