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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      ... 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.