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

Re: [GTh] Thomas 79//Luke 11:27-28

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... Two factors might count against this: (1) if the Coptic translators (or, as I would say, designers ) were looking at the Sahidic translation of Luke, they
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 5, 2007
      Frank McCoy writes:
      > The expectation is that, since makarios is used in
      > Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have, in this case,
      > the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat.

      Two factors might count against this: (1) if the Coptic translators
      (or, as I would say, "designers") were looking at the Sahidic
      translation of Luke, they would have seen NEEIATx, and
      (2) the use of Greek terms in Coptic Thomas seems to
      have been very carefully measured, both as to number
      of Greek words used, and as to the total number of letters
      in those words.

      As to the first factor - and bearing in mind my discussion
      with Mark about the use of WAxE in the Sahidic translation
      of Luke instead of LOGOS - it occurred to me that I hadn't
      determined whether the Sahidic translation _ever_ uses a
      Greek word. That's an important thing to determine, since
      if it _never_ uses a Greek word, we can't infer anything
      from its use of the Coptic in a particular case. OK, so I've
      got that on my list of things to do, but if anyone else can
      answer that crucial question before I can find time to get
      to it, it'd be much appreciated.

      As to the second factor, I've determined that Coptic
      GTh essentially uses 500 Greek words and names
      composed of 2400 letters. Given that, a particular
      choice between the use of a Greek word or its Coptic
      equivalent in a particular saying might well have been
      governed by mathematical considerations.

      Mike
    • benedictlo1
      ... Three words in Coptic may be translated as blessed, lucky, fortunate, congratulations, etc. They are - SMOU: used as a verb MAKARIOUS (Greek-loan
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 5, 2007
        > Frank McCoy writes:
        > The expectation is that, since makarios is used in
        > Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have, in this case,
        > the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat.

        Three words in Coptic may be translated as "blessed, lucky,
        fortunate, congratulations, etc." They are -
        SMOU: used as a verb
        MAKARIOUS (Greek-loan Coptic): used as a noun
        NAIAT or NEEIAT: derived from Coptic "NAA IAT". [Lit. Great are your
        eyes!]

        Coptic word NAIAT or NEEIAT means "You have such a great sense of
        eyes,so you are blessed." which has a subtle difference of meaning
        from MAKARIOUS.
        (Ref. Plumley Grammar book)

        Several examples were given in the early Christian writings:

        "Congratulations [NAIAT] to you, Simon - Son of Jona, for this was
        not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Mt 16:17)

        "Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, "Congratulations
        [NAIAT] to the eyes that see what you see." (Lk 10:23)

        And she (Mary) began to speak to them these words: "I," she said, "I
        saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today in
        a vision.' He answered and said to me,' Congratulations [NAIATE] to
        you, that you did not waver at the sight of me.'"(GMary p.10)

        Why did Jesus praise Simon Peter (Mt 16:17), his disciple (Lk 10:23),
        and Mary? Because something inspired Peter and Mary and led them to
        have a special vision to understand thing behind the surface. This
        kind of inspiration and vision is the main thing that Jesus wants the
        seekers to get it in many GTh sayings. Since the content of the
        sayings in Mt 16:17, Lk 10:23 and GMary already have mentioned that
        kind of vision, the word (abbreviated expression) in English
        translation works there; but not for those sayings when the meaning
        of NEEIAT or NAIAT is not clearly appreciable.

        The translation of "Congratulations, Blessed or Lucky" in English
        does not represent the complete meaning of "NAIAT - NEEIAT". One way
        to put GTh79 (so to the above Mt, Lk, and GMary) in English would be:

        A woman is the crowd said to him, "Congratulations to the womb/belly
        that bore you and the breasts that nourished you, (for they are
        blessed)! He said to her "Congratulations to those who (with a great
        sense of eyes and) has listened to the Logos of Father and have kept
        It in truth. For there will be days when you will
        say, 'Congratulations to the womb/belly that has not conceived
        and the breasts that have not given milk, (for they have a great
        sense of eyes)!'"

        It is also worth pointing that when "giving birth or earth family
        thing" was mentioned in GTh, Jesus always turned the discussion to
        something related to Father.

        GTh79 (as above)
        GTh99. The disciples said to him, ¡§Your brothers and your mother
        are standing outside.¡¨ He said to them, ¡§Those who do the will of
        my Father are my brothers and my mothers. They are the ones who will
        enter the Kingdom of my Father.¡¨
        GTh15. Jesus said, ¡§Whenever you see one who was not born of woman,
        fall on your faces and worship him. That one is your Father.¡¨

        It seems that in many occasions Jesus was repeatedly telling readers,
        a MAKARIOUS is he who lives beyond the earthen life and NEEIATx those
        who would bring the sense of inner (spiritual) one that sees one
        supposes to see.


        Comments on the issues of source connection:

        1. In Mark Goodacre's new paper, "Luke 11.27-28 // Thom. 79a: A case
        of Thomasine Dependence", I found that his most intriguing argument
        is that a unique feature of Lukan "Logos of God" which // "Logos of
        Father" in GTh79. Indeed, "LOGOS or WAJE" in singular is used only
        once in GTh here and used several times in Luke and many times in
        Acts. However, the meaning of Logos of God here may not be referred
        to Jesus sayings nor the scripture. It could mean something else.
        One possibility is the inner one that God puts it in human being
        which is the focus of GTh. (Luke might mean differently here as he
        and Matthew did to other sayings.) In addition, one possibility to
        interpret "the womb/belly that has not conceived and the breast that
        has not given milk" in GTh79b is referred to those who transform
        themselves to angel-like beings in the heaven (Mk 12:24-25; Mt 22:29-
        20; Lk 20:34-36a) and children of God / children of resurrection (Lk
        20:36b)

        Specifically, Luke 11.27-28 // Thom. 79a:
        A woman in the crowd said to him, "Unp1 is the womb/belly that bore
        you and the breasts that Unp2." He said to her, "Unp1 Unp3 are those
        who have heard the Word (logos) of God/Father and have kept it
        Unp4."

        The alternative terms used in the paired sayings are:
        Unp1: MAKARIOUS - NEEIAT.
        Unp2: you sucked - nourished you.
        Unp3: rather ¡V (none)
        Unp4: (none) - in a truth.

        Sometime we find that the Coptic translator wants the reader to pay
        attention to the special meaning of a saying, he would carefully
        choose words and many times use different kind of special terms in
        his translation. In GTh79, they are "NEEIAT (instead of
        MAKARIOUS)", "logos (instead of WAJE) of Father", and "in a truth (HN
        OU ME ¡V used here and Th69 only)".

        We should not ignore a fact that for many years no body links Luke
        11.27-28 and Luke 23:29 together [to the best of my knowledge].
        However, GTh79 itself (alone with many GTh sayings) represents a
        typical form of Jesus sayings in allegorizing pattern of double
        parables and double metaphors.

        2. It is highly convincing that words used in GTh are somewhat
        closer to Syrian Christian writings [providing those early ones] than
        their Greek counterparts. However, I found interesting for those
        theories that try to connect Diatessaron to GTh, but they don't pass
        my logic processing yet! Not even close.

        (I would like to thank Michael Gordin for his comments before posting
        the above.)
      • Frank McCoy
        ... From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:52 PM To:
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 5, 2007
          -----Original Message-----
          From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Michael Grondin
          Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:52 PM
          To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas 79//Luke 11:27-28

          Frank McCoy writes:
          > The expectation is that, since makarios is used in
          > Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have, in this case,
          > the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat.

          Two factors might count against this: (1) if the Coptic translators
          (or, as I would say, "designers") were looking at the Sahidic
          translation of Luke, they would have seen NEEIATx, and
          (2) the use of Greek terms in Coptic Thomas seems to
          have been very carefully measured, both as to number
          of Greek words used, and as to the total number of letters
          in those words.



          Mike:

          Might the Coptic translators/designers have been responsible for a
          highly unusual situaion?

          Here is the situation: Mark Goodacre notes in his paper that there are
          five passages in Luke's gospel where there are foil comments or
          questions with the Greek word tis. Four of these are foil comments with
          tis, so I think that they form a set, while the fifth one is an oddball.
          Each of the four foil comments with tis, that together constitute a set,
          is a part of a passage with a parallel in Thomas:

          Lukan Passage # // Thomas Saying #
          1. 9:57-58 // 86
          2. 11:27-28 // 79
          3. 12:13-15 // 72----->immediately followed by 12:16-21 // 63
          4. 14:15-25 // 64----->immediately followed by 14:26-27 // 55
          Note these features:
          1. The 4 Lukan passages are limited to the first half of Luke's special
          section of Lk 9:51-18:14
          2. The 4 Thomas sayings are limited to a zone from 64 to 86
          3. The 4 Lukan passages and the 4 Thomas sayings are in reversed order
          of each other.
          4. The math of the four Thomas sayings is this: 86 ( - 7) = 79 (- 7) =
          72 (- 8) = 64 .
          5. That the final gap is 8 rather than 7 appears to be deliberate
          because the math of the secondary sequence is: 63 (- 8) = 55.

          I think it highly improbable that all this is sheer coincidence. So,
          we appear to have deliberate design involving even some mathematics (at
          least to the extent of carefully counting the sayings in Thomas, just
          like we do today). But, who is/are the designer(s) of this design?

          I have been thinking that the prime suspect is Luke. As Goodacre points
          out, Luke's writing of four passages containing foil comments with tis
          is unique, indicating that such passages are pleasing to him alone--at
          least among the gospel writers. Since these four passages, apparently
          pleasing to him alone, are the framework upon which this design is
          built, he is logical one to have created the design, using Thomas as a
          source.

          But, if the Coptic editors of Thomas had been interested in mathematical
          considerations, even when they involve Greek words (such as tis?), might
          they have studied Luke interntly, noted the four relevant passages, and
          so constructed the Coptic version of Thomas (e.g., by moving sayings
          around) that this design came into being? What is your read on the
          situation?

          Puzzled,

          Frank McCoy
          St. Paul, MN



          63 ( -8) = 55








          :




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Michael Grondin
          Frank, Two observations - one of which seems to strengthen your case, the other to weaken it. Good news first? OK, in the sayings between 64 and 72 (where your
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 6, 2007
            Frank,
            Two observations - one of which seems to strengthen your
            case, the other to weaken it. Good news first? OK, in the
            sayings between 64 and 72 (where your suggested pattern
            is thrown off by 1) is saying 71 ("I will destroy this house and
            no one will be able to build it up again"). You may recall that
            in the past, I've suggested that Th71 might be taken as
            talking about itself, i.e., that it itself is "a house which will
            be destroyed". There are several reasons for thinking so.
            For one thing, if two lines are removed from CGTh, the
            total size of ApJn+GTh+GPh is 1100+666+1234=3000
            lines, and that may be intentional. Furthermore, the removal
            of the 48 letters of Th71 leaves almost exactly 16800,
            which is 8*2100 (here the numeric value of 'IS' involved).
            Also, Th71 lends itself to "destruction" because it's a
            single block by itself, and its removal would thus not
            result in any partial lines from surrounding sayings.
            Furthermore (if more is needed), Th71 occurs on a
            boundary line, 400 lines distant from "I watch over [the
            world]" in Th10, and the last block of the first twelve
            (of 24). If you were to remove Th71 from consideration,
            the pattern of gaps of 7 between the four Lukan parallels
            you mention would hold also for Th64-72 (minus 71).

            The bad news is briefer: You exclude Lk 13:23 (one of
            the five cases of "foil questions and comments" that
            Mark G. mentions), apparently because you think that
            it doesn't include the word TIS. But it does.

            Mike
          • Michael Grondin
            ... Whoops, sorry, Frank. I misinterpreted your remarks. As I now understand it, you exclude Lk 13:23 because it s a question, not a comment like the other
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 6, 2007
              [me to Frank]:
              > The bad news is briefer: You exclude Lk 13:23 (one of
              > the five cases of "foil questions and comments" that
              > Mark G. mentions), apparently because you think that
              > it doesn't include the word TIS. But it does.

              Whoops, sorry, Frank. I misinterpreted your remarks.
              As I now understand it, you exclude Lk 13:23 because
              it's a question, not a comment like the other four. OK,
              then. All the news is good.

              Mike
            • Frank McCoy
              ... From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:20 PM To:
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 6, 2007
                -----Original Message-----
                From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of Michael Grondin
                Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:20 PM
                To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas 79//Luke 11:27-28


                Whoops, sorry, Frank. I misinterpreted your remarks.
                As I now understand it, you exclude Lk 13:23 because
                it's a question, not a comment like the other four. OK,
                then. All the news is good.


                Mike:

                Yes, I think Lk 13:23 an oddball because, while the other four are foil
                comments with tis, it is a foil question with tis.

                Note that:
                (1) Lk 9:51-56, which immediately precedes the first of four foil
                comments with tis in 9:57, relates how Jesus turned his face to
                Jerusalem and, after his messengers were rebuffed by a Samaritan
                village, went on to another village
                (2) None of the other three foil comments with tis is immediately
                preceded with a passage relating how Jesus went through one or more
                villages or towns on his way to Jerusalem
                (2) Lk 13:22, which immediately precedes the first and only foil
                question with tis in 13:23, relates how Jesus was going through towns
                and villages on his way to Jerusalem.

                This suggests that Luke made a distinction between the foil comments
                with tis and foil questions with tis and, so, deliberatedly "announced"
                the occurrence of the first example of each of these two distinct types
                through the device of making a comment about Jesus going through one or
                more villages or towns on his way to Jerusalem.

                And, if Luke made a distinction between foil comments with tis and foil
                questions with tis, then I think we should as well.

                Frank McCoy
                St Paul, MN



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mark Goodacre
                Mike, Many thanks for this useful critique of my section on the crowd . I very much like your point about the importance of taking 78 seriously. Although I
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 7, 2007
                  Mike,

                  Many thanks for this useful critique of my section on "the crowd". I
                  very much like your point about the importance of taking 78 seriously.
                  Although I did not claim that 78 was addressed to the disciples, it
                  is worth asking who the implied audience of the "you" is in 78. The
                  most recent explicit mention of audience was in 72 where Jesus turns
                  to his disciples and addresses them. Of course one cannot rely much
                  on that kind of thing, and narrative coherence is hardly a feature of
                  Thomas, but in so far as there is an explicit indicator in Thomas, it
                  is the disciples. Outside of that observation, perhaps 78 should be
                  read together with 79 and anticipate its narrative setting, but it is
                  difficult to judge these things in Thomas. The synoptic parallel
                  doesn't get us very far with 78 because the whole context about John
                  the Baptist has gone and the meaning of the saying is now quite
                  different (a good illustration of Sanders's point about how context
                  and nuance make huge differences to the interpretation of a given
                  saying of Jesus).

                  Thanks again
                  Mark

                  On 02/02/07, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The purpose of this note is to discuss the section "The
                  > Crowd" on page 11 of Mark Goodacre's proposed paper.
                  > (I hope it won't be offputting to Mark that I've used the
                  > impersonal mode here; it just seemed easiest.)
                  >
                  > General considerations:
                  > On p.7, Mark gives two criteria for establishing dependence
                  > for a given Thomasine parallel "beyond reasonable doubt":
                  > (1) The saying in question must bear "the pervasive,
                  > distinctive stamp of an evangelist", and
                  > (2) "The saying in question needs to be in some way
                  > uncharacteristic or anomalous in Thomas".
                  >
                  > Since I'm not qualified to discuss applications of the first
                  > criterion, I'll just be addressing applications of the second.
                  >
                  > Mark finds four Lukan features in Th79a (79.1-2):
                  >
                  > (a) Foil Questions and Comments from Anonymous Individuals
                  > (b) The Crowd
                  > (c) Gynaecology
                  > (d) Hearing the Word of God and Keeping It
                  >
                  > As per the subject of this note, (b) is in view here. Since
                  > the section is fairly short, I'll quote it in its entirety:
                  >
                  > "One of the most striking features of the parallel is the
                  > occurrence in Thomas of the term 'the crowd' (PMHWE),
                  > its sole occurrence in the text. We inevitably find ourselves
                  > asking 'What crowd?' for it is the first and last we hear of
                  > them. Indeed in the previous saying (Thomas 78), it is
                  > implied that Jesus and his disciples are not part of the
                  > kind of large group traveling through Israel that we see
                  > in Luke's Central Section but are, rather, those who have
                  > 'come out to the countryside'. There is a marked contrast
                  > with Luke where 'the crowd/s' are present throughout,
                  > and no more so that in the Central Section [9 mentions
                  > from 11.14 to 14.25, plus 18.36]. They are, then,
                  > superfluous and irrelevant here in Thomas but
                  > coherent, important and pervasive here in Luke."
                  >
                  > In this paragraph, Mark isn't arguing that "the crowd"
                  > is superfluous and irrelevant to/in the entirety of
                  > Thomas (though he might have), but that it is so
                  > "here" - namely in the context of Th78. Now "here's"
                  > aren't all that frequent in Thomas, where one saying
                  > is often preceded/succeeded by another which seems
                  > to have no connection with it. But I do think that Th78
                  > should be taken as related to Th79 - though not in
                  > the way that Mark suggests. What I would suggest
                  > is that in Th78, the authors understood that Jesus
                  > was speaking to a crowd, and that it's that implied
                  > crowd which makes sense of the explicit mention
                  > of a crowd in Th79.
                  >
                  > Mark's reasoning is based on the assumption that
                  > Jesus is addressing his disciples in Th78. But Jesus
                  > presumably knows full well why _his disciples_ have
                  > come out to a "deserted area". In fact, in the Q
                  > parallel of Th78 (Lk 7.24-25, Mt 11:7-8), Jesus is
                  > addressing a crowd (about John the Baptist). So
                  > ironically, if Mark succeeds in showing that Th79a
                  > is dependent on Luke, he will have increased the
                  > probability that Th78 is also dependent on Luke,
                  > which would imply that there IS a crowd in Th78,
                  > which would in turn undercut Mark's reason for
                  > believing that there ISN'T one there! In other words,
                  > if his conclusion succeeds, it will have put into
                  > question one of the premises on which it depends.
                  > Obviously, there's something wrong there, and I
                  > think what's wrong is the assumption that Th78
                  > is addressed to the disciples. They are themselves
                  > in a deserted area, no doubt, but they aren't the
                  > ones being addressed. The ones being addressed
                  > are those who have come out to see them.
                  >
                  > Aside from Th78, is the notion of a crowd "superfluous
                  > and irrelevant" to the entirety of Thomas? I'd say not.
                  > It's only mentioned the once, I suggest, because the
                  > Thomasines didn't consider it a good thing to be part
                  > of "the crowd". It's the few, the single-ones who were
                  > chosen, that would enter the kingdom. "The crowd"
                  > may in fact have represented to them the mass of
                  > believers belonging to more orthodox churches.
                  >
                  > These comments aren't intended to undercut Mark's
                  > entire case, but rather to point to a weakness I see
                  > in it. I know that Mark welcomes such comments, as
                  > I would in his place, on the Nietzchean principle
                  > that what doesn't destroy (a theory or a paper) makes
                  > it stronger - by anticipating and thus dealing before-
                  > hand with objections. But even if one's theory were to
                  > be destroyed (which isn't the case here), I'm confident
                  > that Mark is one of those rare folks who believes that
                  > the evidence should be followed, wherever it leads.
                  > He is not, in short, part of "the crowd".
                  >
                  > Mike
                  > p.s.: In an earlier note, I referred to the Sahidic
                  > translation of Lk 11:27. That should have been 11:28.
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  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
                • Mark Goodacre
                  Bill, Thanks for your useful comments. I think the ideal is to look for distinctive features, and one often has to do that by looking for the way that certain
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 7, 2007
                    Bill,

                    Thanks for your useful comments. I think the ideal is to look for
                    distinctive features, and one often has to do that by looking for the
                    way that certain characteristic elements cluster together in a given
                    passage. With respect to crowds, of course this is not a distinctive
                    element in Luke (I argue that it is "coherent, important and
                    pervasive", not that it is distinctive), but in concert with other
                    features, and with its uncharacteristic nature in Thomas, I think it's
                    worth isolating for comment.

                    On the question of Luke 1-2, I am not persuaded by those who want to
                    isolate it too strongly from Luke 3-24, though it clearly has its own
                    self-contained narrative identity, with some points of contact with
                    the body of Luke and some points of divergence. Conzelmann had to
                    isolate it from Luke 3-24 because it contradicted his entire
                    salvation-historical scheme for Luke, especially the mixing of John
                    the Baptist and Jesus in Luke 1-2.

                    Thanks for the helpful comments on methodology too. I appreciate the
                    way that people are asking the bigger questions about how this little
                    piece of Thomas fits into the larger history of Thomas's origin and
                    development and I'd only add that this particular paper has a limited
                    goal, to argue for Thomasine familiarity with Luke in this one
                    example.

                    Mark

                    On 02/02/07, William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi all:
                    >
                    > As a supplement to Mike Grondin's comments on "the crowd" -- with which I am
                    > in total agreement -- let me add that for Mark Goodacre's argument on this
                    > point to be compelling, "crowd" would not only have to be *TYPICAL* of Luke
                    > (which it surely is), but also *DISTINCTIVE* of Luke. Otherwise (reductio ad
                    > absurdum), one could argue, for instance, that references to "Jesus", with
                    > which Luke is certainly redactionally interested, prove that texts in which
                    > this word occurs are Lukan compositions or have been altered by Luke, and
                    > therefore that other texts in which these texts concur in speaking of Jesus
                    > must be drawn from Luke. As it happens, while "crowd" is unquestionably a
                    > Lukanism, it isn't a distinctive Lukanism -- all of the other gospel writers
                    > use the term frequently, and Q has a few (two or three?) doubly-attested
                    > instances as well (providing one grants Q, which Mark G. of course doesn't).
                    > The figures I have at hand (they're probably very slightly off) are:
                    > Matthew: 50x; Mark: 38x; Luke: 41x; John 20x. So not only is the term not
                    > distinctive of Luke (it seems deeply embedded in the tradition, worldview,
                    > narrative, or what have you, of all the gospels); in addition it is actually
                    > MORE frequent in Matthew, and proportionately more frequent in Mark (given
                    > Mark's brevity over against Luke). I therefore don't find its occurrence in
                    > an L pericope to be an unquestionable Lukanism.
                    >
                    > Another side note about Lukanisms -- I'd be careful about basing too much of
                    > an argument re. a pericope in Luke proper (Luke 3 to 24) on vocabularic and
                    > stylistic features of Luke 1-2. Back in the day, no less a figure than
                    > Conzelmann doubted the properly Lukan nature of these chapters; and this
                    > idea is far from dead (more recently, Tyson's Luke and Marcion). Even if
                    > these chapters are original, they are also very distinctive in their
                    > subject-matter.
                    >
                    > I should also add that I completely agree with Mike's appreciation of Mark's
                    > work in this piece. I'd like to have contributed more to this discussion,
                    > but I'm swamped right now. Still, I should make one additional point: it
                    > would be a huge mistake to dismiss or criticize Mark's argument here -- as
                    > has occurred on-list -- on the grounds that it contradicts April DeConick's
                    > reconstruction of Thomas' literary history. In fact, that question (Thomas'
                    > stratification, or literary development) is necessarily SECONDARY TO and
                    > necessarily MORE SPECULATIVE than discussion of Thomas' literary
                    > relationship to the evangelists. As a result, the kind of prior question
                    > raised by Mark must be considered first, and on its own terms. Whatever
                    > one's assessment of his argument may be, then, will subsequently reflect
                    > (positively, neutrally, or negatively) on DeConick's assessment of the place
                    > of this pericope, and, by implication, for her entire hypothesis. For what
                    > it's worth (and worth that much less, since I don't have time at the moment
                    > to justify this assertion), I find the idea that saying #79 is from the
                    > earliest layer of Thomas to be frankly incredible.
                    >
                    > regards,
                    > Bill
                    > ______________________
                    > William Arnal
                    > University of Regina
                    >
                    > _________________________________________________________________
                    > Don't waste time standing in line—try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN
                    > Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                    > Interlinear translation: http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    --
                    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
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.