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
      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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.