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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.