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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.