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 6:52 AM
    • 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
    • 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 2 of 12 , Feb 1 3:26 PM
      • 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 3 of 12 , Feb 1 8:58 PM
        • 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 4 of 12 , Feb 1 10:13 PM
          • 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 5 of 12 , Feb 2 4:50 AM
            • 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 6 of 12 , Feb 2 2:30 PM
              • 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.