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

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

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... I presume you refer to the online version at Metalogos: http://www.metalog.org/files/plumley/html/home.htm Can you give a page number? The Coptic in the
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 6, 2007
      Benedict Lo writes:
      > 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)

      I presume you refer to the online version at Metalogos:
      http://www.metalog.org/files/plumley/html/home.htm

      Can you give a page number? The Coptic in the index is
      so small that I couldn't read it. What I gather from Lambdin's
      ISC is that EIA is a noun meaning 'eye' that occurs mostly
      in compounds, and that one of those compounds is NAIATx.
      Also, that NAA is a predicate adjective meaning 'great'. But
      NA/NAA can also mean 'to have pity' or 'to go into', so I'd
      like to check if the NAA that means 'great' is the one in
      question. Even if it is, however, the meaning of words that
      go to make up a compound don't necessarily get retained
      when that compound is translated. Your suggested meaning
      is defective in that respect and at least two others, including
      the fact that it can't mean 'YOU are blessed' because
      NAIATx has a pronoun on the end of it and it's THAT person
      or thing that's blessed, not necessarily 'you'.) The deficiencies
      of your definition become apparent when you try to plug it
      into Th79. You had to go through all sorts of contortions -
      including adding parts of your definition to points in the text
      where the word NAIATx doesn't even appear.

      > (I would like to thank Michael Gordin for his comments
      > before posting the above.)

      I don't know who this Gordin fellow is, but I advised offlist
      that your suggested meaning wasn't satisfactory, and yet
      here it is, modified only by the elimination of two words.

      Mike Grondin
    • Michael Grondin
      ... Confirmed. By blowing up Plumley s index to 150% on my browser, I was able to read the Coptic and locate the portion of the book that Benedict was
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 7, 2007
        [Benedict Lo]:
        > 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)

        [Mike]:
        > I presume you refer to the online version at Metalogos:
        > http://www.metalog.org/files/plumley/html/home.htm
        >
        > ... I'd like to check if the NAA that means 'great' is the one
        > in question.

        Confirmed. By blowing up Plumley's index to 150% on my
        browser, I was able to read the Coptic and locate the portion
        of the book that Benedict was referring to. On p.182 is this:

        §183. Note: The idiomatic use of naa- in the compound naiat= 'Blessed'.
        This is a contracted form of naa-i+at, lit. 'Great is the eye'. It is always
        followed by the Suffix Pronoun, which agrees with the subject in number and
        person; e.g. naiatk- simwn bariwna 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona' (Mt
        16:17), naiatn- anon (m-)penka6 'Blessed are we in our land' (Budge, Misc.
        433.1). When the subject is in the 3rd person singular or plural, the noun
        is introduced by the particle n-; e.g. naiat3-m-prwme 'Blessed is the man'
        (Ps 1:1), naiatoun-n-bal 'Blessed are the eyes' (Lk 10:23, §94).
        http://www.metalog.org/files/plumley/html/conjugation_a.htm#%c2%a7182
        (Original Coptic comes out in English lettering above.)

        I would have thought "great TO the eye", but Crum's _Coptic
        Dictionary_ confirms Plumley's literal rendition. NAIATx is
        given on p.74 (left-hand column, about half-way down) under
        the main entry EIA ("_eye_ and its sight"). Crum indicates that
        NAIATx is the Sahidic and Bohairic form, while NEEIETx is
        the Achmimic and Sub-Achmimic form. Coptic Thomas is
        mostly a mixture of Sahidic and Sub-Achmimic, but the word
        used in Th79 (and only there) is NEEIATx, a form not shown
        in Crum's Dictionary. At any rate, Crum's translation of NAIATx
        (in King James English; ugh) is "blessed art, is, etc., lit. great
        thy, his eye.".

        Ref: Paterson Brown's Metalogos site (as with Plumley):
        http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/074.gif
        (hint: blow up the image)

        How they got from "great [is] x's eye" to "blessed is x" is
        beyond me*, but as I said earlier, the literal components of
        a compound often disappear into the new meaning of the
        compound. (Note that the last item in Plumley's section 183
        - naiatou n-n-bal 'Blessed are the eyes' - doesn't make much
        sense if we plug 'eyes' into NAIATOU, because that's followed
        immediately by another 'eyes' - N-BAL. "Great are the
        eyes of the eyes"?)

        Could NAIATx mean "great is the VISION of x"? We could
        then read NAIATOU NN-BAL as "great is the vision of the
        eyes ...". But in other contexts, it seems a stretch ("Great is
        the vision of the womb that bore you..."?) So while the
        etymology of the compound is interesting, it's hard to see
        how the literal meaning of the compound's components
        relates to various contexts in which the word is used,
        including Th79, and including all the cases in the Coptic
        NT which equate NAIATx to MAKARIOS. A mystic might
        be able to imagine interpretations that would fit "great
        [are] the eyes of x" into some selected contexts, but this
        could hardly account for the general equivalence of the
        Coptic word with the Greek MAKARIOS (presuming that
        that word has no direct connection to "eyes".)

        Mike Grondin

        * one remote possibility: if MAKARIOS is understood to
        mean "happy", and "great" is understood to mean "large",
        AND if we observe that happy people have "bigger eyes"
        than those who aren't ... well, ok, I said it was remote. <g>
        But then again, metaphor sometimes enters into the
        creation of new meanings. How did "blow up" come to
        have as one of its meanings "increase the size of"?
      • Judy Redman
        ... I find that it generally doesn t pay to try to find the logic behind idiom, although sometimes it helps in remembering idiomatic uses. If you can get
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 7, 2007
          Mike says:
          >
          > How they got from "great [is] x's eye" to "blessed is x" is
          > beyond me*, but as I said earlier, the literal components of
          > a compound often disappear into the new meaning of the
          > compound. (Note that the last item in Plumley's section 183
          > - naiatou n-n-bal 'Blessed are the eyes' - doesn't make much
          > sense if we plug 'eyes' into NAIATOU, because that's followed
          > immediately by another 'eyes' - N-BAL. "Great are the eyes of
          > the eyes"?)

          I find that it generally doesn't pay to try to find the logic behind idiom,
          although sometimes it helps in remembering idiomatic uses. If you can get
          back far enough from a lot of English idiom, it doesn't make much sense,
          either (eg Mike's "blow up" but there are worse ones). They are very
          striking in languages other than one's first though. My daughter's current
          favourite is "Du hast ein Vogel". The literal translation from German into
          English is "you have a bird", but the idiomatic meaning is "you're crazy".
          I guess you can tell yourself a story about why you'd have to be crazy to
          have a bird, but... :-)

          Judy
        • Benedict Lo
          ... ... - Background information - Although I registered at this forum 1/2006, I rarely post. I am still in a learning status. Last December, I tried to post
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 7, 2007
            Mike Grondin writes:
            >I presume you refer to the online version at Metalogos:
            >http://www.metalog org/files/ plumley/html/ home.htm

            >Can you give a page number? The Coptic in the index is
            >so small that I couldn't read it. What I gather from Lambdin's
            >ISC is that EIA is a noun meaning 'eye' that occurs mostly
            >in compounds, and that one of those compounds is NAIATx.
            ...

            - Background information -

            Although I registered at this forum 1/2006, I rarely post. I am still in a learning status. Last December, I tried to post a message in this forum to discuss about three terms 'Kingdom of Father' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God' used in the early Christian writings. I put a long list with the terms and number of time used collected from canonical and many non-canonical writings. One reason I wanted to discuss about these in the forum is because I saw several well known scholars quoting 'Kingdom of God' instead of 'Kingdom of Father' for GTh. My message was not proved. I have no problem with that because I was convinced by a response that
            "My own take is that it's just different preferred ways of referring to basically the same thing. Which is probably
            why the scholars you mention felt free to use one of the alternatives (KoG) which never occurs in CGTh and only once in the Gk fragments." Yes, indeed they may be just different expressions, although CGTh seems to favor KoF.

            Last Thursday, I wanted to get more sense to know what a post-able message is. So I e-mailed Mike Grondin the first draft of my message regarding GTh79. His returned comments were very helpful. I then added reference at key place, put more statements to explain my points, and tried to revise my message. The second draft through e-mail did not get response for about three days. I thought that the revised one probably was OK, so I sent it out through the forum system 2/4/07 afternoon. I measured that the worst case is to get rejected again. However, the message showed up 2/5/07 morning but it seems that it still needs some improvement.

            Although I am not familiar with posting message in a forum like this, I have been working in my academic profession for 20 years involving scientific research, paper publication and proposal writings as an author, as a collaborator, and many times as a reviewer. Since my last message was not satisfactory in this forum, let me use the format that I am familiar with to respond to the questions. If I have made any mistakes, please forgive my ignorance as a new comer.

            - End of background information -


            Dear Editor in Chief of the GTh Forum:

            Thank you very much for reading and commenting my message submitted 2/4/07 posted 2/5/07 and its early draft version sent to you 2/1/07.

            Before responding to your questions, I would like to express my sincere apology on misspelling your last name in my last message.

            Regarding to our recent discussion, I am listing my further comments as following:

            Criticism/Question #1:
            >I presume you refer to the online version at Metalogos:
            >http://www.metalog org/files/ plumley/html/ home.htm

            >Can you give a page number? The Coptic in the index is
            >so small that I couldn't read it. What I gather from Lambdin's
            >ISC is that EIA is a noun meaning 'eye' that occurs mostly
            >in compounds, and that one of those compounds is NAIATx.
            >Also, that NAA is a predicate adjective meaning 'great'. But
            >NA/NAA can also mean 'to have pity' or 'to go into', so I'd
            >like to check if the NAA that means 'great' is the one in
            >question.

            Response:
            Your comments are fully shared with my understanding in these Coptic terms.

            The Plumley Grammar book has been complied into several Electronic versions; page numbers can be significantly shifted. Let me use item number for our communication.
            NAA- appears at item #37 and # 182.
            NAIATx appears at item #183.
            EIATx appears at item #38.

            In addition to EIA-, EIAT means eye, NAIATx can be translated as "x'eye" or "blessed x" as indicated in several Coptic-English Lexicon/dictionaries.

            Criticism/Question #2:
            >Even if it is, however, the meaning of words that
            >go to make up a compound don't necessarily get retained
            >when that compound is translated. Your suggested meaning
            >is defective in that respect and at least two others, including
            >the fact that it can't mean 'YOU are blessed' because
            >NAIATx has a pronoun on the end of it and it's THAT person
            >or thing that's blessed, not necessarily 'you'.) The deficiencies
            >of your definition become apparent when you try to plug it
            >into Th79. You had to go through all sorts of contortions -
            >including adding parts of your definition to points in the text
            >where the word NAIATx doesn't even appear.

            Response:
            I agree with your criticism in the first deficiency which I was not supposed to put 'you' (I consider that I was in a casual discussion mode). The revision for this is
            NAIATx or NEEIATx: derived from Coptic "NAA IAT". [Lit. Great is the x's eye!]

            Since none of us spoke ancient Sahidic Coptic (with a potential mix of Coptic dialect), the second deficiency that you pointed to requires our study together.
            I could not find specific definition for NEEIATx. However, in Richard Smith's C/E Lexicon this Coptic word can be found and associated with NAIATx, EIA-, EIATx and is considered as a non-standard Sahidic Coptic word (using the Crum's dictionary as the gold-standard).

            With EIAT as its root, if one considers NE- as plural article, NEEIATx literally means 'The (multiple) eyes of x'. [Other examples: NEPROFHTHS is plural of PROFHTHS and NESNHU (brethren) is plural of SON (brother), etc.] (Can anybody tells us if NE- here is not used as the plural article for EIATx, what else it can be?)

            Since NEEIATx has root EIAT, Coptic readers may have a sense to interpret that the word NEEIATx does not only have its derived meaning of blessed (congratulations, fortunate, lucky) but also the meaning based on its root that may refer to certain vision or spiritual understanding. Carrying meaning from root word in a derived/compound word is commonly seen in oriental languages. As foreign interpreters like us, who wish to translate accurate meaning of NEEIATx, I would at least make a note and explain to the reader that this compound word is derived from EIATx which means 'eye'. I did that to my Chinese audiences.

            You indicated that
            >The deficiencies of your definition become apparent
            > when you try to plug it into Th79.

            If it is because my imperfect English expression causes your misunderstanding, I apologize and ask you permission for me to clarify my point. If I have committed put my own definition in Th79, please let me know more specifically so I can remove the note of associating NEEIATx from 'eye' in the next edition of my publication which is important to me and to my audiences.

            I understand that our discussion on an ancient language term in the mid-east can be superficial and unsatisfactory/inconclusive. In a way, I consider that we are doing verbalism approximation. But when it potentially comes to an important point of the GTh, we need to be cautious. I welcome your and others' further comments on this interesting point.

            - The END of my response | Beginning of some reflection -

            I have read many posts and have learned a lot from you and members. I wish to have more time to read and to write my comments. After all we also need to be sensitive to the spirit of GTh. As a seeker we all need to learn how to listen and how to interact with our presence.
            GTh52 - His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you." You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."


            Sincerely yours,


            Benedict Lo










            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Bored stiff? Loosen up...
            Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
            http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Michael Grondin
            ... Or maybe it s the German equivalent of calling someone bird-brained ? That comes, I suppose, from observing the behavior of birds and imagining what their
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 7, 2007
              Judy writes:
              > My daughter's current favourite is "Du hast ein Vogel". The
              > literal translation from German into English is "you have a bird",
              > but the idiomatic meaning is "you're crazy". I guess you can tell
              > yourself a story about why you'd have to be crazy to have a bird,
              > but... :-)

              Or maybe it's the German equivalent of calling someone
              "bird-brained"? That comes, I suppose, from observing the
              behavior of birds and imagining what their brains must be
              like to act as they do (nervous, fidgety, flighty?) I shouldn't
              have said 'metaphor', BTW. What I should have said is that
              new meanings can arise in a wide variety of roundabout
              ways (one of which being: THIS is sort of like THAT).
              As you say, trying to figure out how the literal meaning of
              a word or phrase relates to its meaning-in-use can be very
              tricky, and oft-times fruitless in the end.

              Mike
            • Michael Grondin
              Hi Benedict, Your message provides much food for thought. So much, in fact, that I won t be able to respond to all of it in this writing. I did want to make a
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 7, 2007
                Hi Benedict,
                Your message provides much food for thought. So much, in
                fact, that I won't be able to respond to all of it in this writing.
                I did want to make a start at it, however, by answering one
                specific question that you posed, and then addressing two
                general issues raised by your note.

                The specific question:
                > With EIAT as its root, if one considers NE- as plural article,
                > NEEIATx literally means 'The (multiple) eyes of x'. [Other
                > examples: NEPROFHTHS is plural of PROFHTHS and
                > NESNHU (brethren) is plural of SON (brother), etc.] (Can
                > anybody tells us if NE- here is not used as the plural article
                > for EIATx, what else it can be?)

                Well, the obvious answer is that given by Plumley and Crum:
                it's a modified form of NAA. The plural article (normally 'N',
                but 'M' before BLMNeRs) generally takes the form NE-
                only when the noun it modifies begins with two consonants.
                (Notice that both PROFHTHS and SNHU are of that kind.)
                Consequently, I see no reason at all to suppose that the first
                two letters of NEEIATx should be taken as the plural article.

                General issue #1: How do the moderators operate?

                Most of the time, we work independently of each other.
                If one of the moderators feels that a particular issue or
                decision calls for joint discussion, he (alas, no she's yet)
                will contact the others and an offlist discussion will ensue
                among the moderators available at the time. We've had
                a few of these discussions over the years, but most of
                what we do can and is decided by whoever gets to it first.

                What do we do? (1) approve or reject new membership
                requests, (2) change the posting-privileges of members,
                and (3) approve or reject new messages. All of these
                activities arise from safeguards that we've put in place
                at Yahoogroups to prevent internet whackos from posting
                whatever they want on our list.

                (1) We've defined our group as requiring pre-approval of
                all new members. That basically keeps out spammers
                with false addresses. But it also gives us an opportunity
                to read a little something from the prospective subscriber
                on why he/she wants to join the group. I've found that in
                a large number of cases, the prospective subscriber doesn't
                really know what kind of a group this is, and their comments
                indicate that what they're really looking for is something
                like the GospelofThomas group. If I'm doing the approval,
                I send them a response indicating what kind of a group
                we are, giving them an alternative, and asking for a reply
                if they really do want to join the group. In very many other
                cases, however, the subscriber's reasons for wanting to
                join make it pretty easy to decide.

                (2/3) Each Yahoogroup grants members one of three
                message posting privileges: moderated, unmoderated,
                or "Can't Post". The default for our group is "moderated",
                so every new member gets that to begin with. This is our
                second safeguard - that we want to see at least one
                message from the new member to determine what kind
                of thing they're likely to post. (If someone has lied in
                their subscription request in order to get in to post spam,
                this second check-point will prevent that.) If all goes well,
                the new member's first message will be reasonably
                coherent, and one of the moderators will then change
                that member's posting privilege from "moderated" to
                "unmoderated", and their subsequent messages will be
                automatically and quickly posted. In other cases, however,
                a member's first message may be deemed unacceptable
                or "borderline" - in which case their messages continue
                to be moderated until such time as it's determined that
                that's no longer needed.

                (3) If a message is rejected, that simply means that the
                message is unacceptable in its current form - in the
                judgment of the moderator reviewing it. Members
                are free to revise and resubmit such messages, based
                on comments from the reviewing moderator. Which brings
                us to the second general issue I wanted to address,
                which is one reason why a message might be rejected.

                General issue #2: "Spiritual Content"

                The "mission statement" for GThomas is this:

                "This list is dedicated to the scholarly discussion of the Gospel
                of Thomas and provides an online forum for those working or
                interested in New Testament, History, or Religious Studies."

                Our approach to the Gospel of Thomas is thus historical
                and text-critical, not "spiritual". This is not the place to engage
                in discussions of our personal religious and/or spiritual beliefs.
                The beliefs of the authors of GThom are of course a proper
                subject for the historian, as are the beliefs expressed in the
                text to the text-critic, but it's improper to advocate or promote
                those beliefs here, or to inject or project our own. If one
                thinks of oneself as seeking "spiritual enlightenment" in the
                ordinary sense of that phrase, this is almost certainly not
                the place to be.

                If, then, a given message crosses over into what we regard
                as "spiritual territory", it'll probably be rejected. This is a
                problem that I think some of your messages have had, and
                what I think might be suggested by your closing remarks:

                > ... we also need to be sensitive to the spirit of GTh. As a
                > seeker we all need to learn how to listen and how to interact
                > with our presence. [followed by Th52, relevance uncertain]

                I'm not sure what is meant here exactly. "Seeker" is usually
                used to designate a seeker after "spiritual truths" (though
                most everyone is a "seeker" after something-or-other).
                But if this is intended as a recommendation to get into
                "spiritual territory", rest assured that that won't happen.

                Mike Grondin
              • Michael Grondin
                Hi Benedict, ... I don t see anything wrong with such a note, though I do think it s problematic to work the literal meaning into a translation. But allow me
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 8, 2007
                  Hi Benedict,
                  Some further comments on your latest note. You wrote:

                  > Since NEEIATx has root EIAT, Coptic readers may have
                  > a sense to interpret that the word NEEIATx does not only
                  > have its derived meaning of blessed (congratulations, fortunate,
                  > lucky) but also the meaning based on its root that may refer to
                  > certain vision or spiritual understanding. Carrying meaning from
                  > root word in a derived/compound word is commonly seen in
                  > oriental languages. As foreign interpreters like us, who wish to
                  > translate accurate meaning of NEEIATx, I would at least make
                  > a note and explain to the reader that this compound word is
                  > derived from EIATx which means 'eye'. I did that to my
                  > Chinese audiences.

                  I don't see anything wrong with such a note, though I do think
                  it's problematic to work the literal meaning into a translation.
                  But allow me to compare and contrast that situation with what
                  I did with another word in my interlinear - NTOOTx ('N' overstroked).
                  Here also, x is a pronoun, and the word as normally translated
                  ('from x') doesn't reflect its root in a word that meant 'hand'.
                  But noticing as I did that TOOT is sometimes used in the text
                  to mean 'hand' (e.g., "[the sower] fills his hand" in Th9), but that
                  that is intermingled with 6IJ (also 'hand') occurring especially
                  in the cryptic clause "when you make a hand (6IJ) instead of
                  a hand (6IJ)" in Th22, AND suspecting as I did that that might
                  be a cryptic way of suggesting certain alterations in the text -
                  say replacing some occurrence of '6IJ' with 'TOOT' or vice
                  versa - I decided to translate NTOOTx in such a way as to
                  reveal its relationship to 'hand'. But that resulted in some
                  awkwardness, such as in Th12 (my "we know you will go
                  from our hand" rather than "we know you will go from us"),
                  which in retrospect may be unjustified and unnecessary.
                  (Also, I've developed somewhat different suspicions
                  about what Th22 might mean.)

                  BTW, there is one saying in which both 6IJ and NTOOTx
                  appear - Th41 ("He who has it [?] in his hand [6IJ] will be
                  given to, but he who has it not, what little he has will be taken
                  from him [NTOOTF]". Here, translating NTOOTF as 'from
                  his hand' does make sense, but I still think that in general
                  it wasn't necessary to deviate from the norm in translating
                  NTOOTx in order to draw attention to the 6IJ/TOOT connection.
                  (Note tangentially that Th41 avoids the contradiction of its
                  parallels by speaking of a mysterious "it", so that a person
                  who doesn't have "it" still has something to be taken away.)

                  Mike
                  p.s. How does that thing go about a tutor who tutored
                  two tooters to toot?
                • Benedict Lo
                  Hi Mike: I am grateful for your long message which clearly explains to me (and other new members) how the moderators function in this forum. I have a very
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 8, 2007
                    Hi Mike:

                    I am grateful for your long message which clearly explains to me (and other new members) how the moderators function in this forum. I have a very good picture now. Thank you so much for the message which you posted 2-3 am, I feel highly honored but deeply sorry for your late awake just to write me the message.

                    Only a couple of points to communicate:
                    >If one thinks of oneself as seeking "spiritual enlightenment" in the ordinary
                    >sense of that phrase, this is almost certainly not the place to be.
                    I understand this guidance very well.

                    >If, then, a given message crosses over into what we regard
                    >as "spiritual territory", it'll probably be rejected. This is a
                    >problem that I think some of your messages have had, and
                    >what I think might be suggested by your closing remarks:
                    Yes, I understand that without a study component it should go somewhere else and one should not advocate one's own view of "spiritual territory". But I would suggest that moderators should consider that a general sense of spiritual expression and discussion associated with the study of the sayings is benign to this forum. And sometimes it is important for the academic/analytic discussion because the message in GTh contains nothing but unified one, inner one, bring one's living one, transforming oneself to, the kingdom is …, etc.

                    I found that your confirmation message (posted 2/7/07 1:05 pm) contains a lot of information. Some of them I slipped off because I did not have concrete evidences. It is well known to the scholars that S and A-2 (Achimimic & Subachimimic) texts are mixed in GTh. A-2 features possess many lexical ambiguities especial in vocalization, for examples:
                    (BAL for BOL, MMAU for MMOOU, NKE for NKA, SAN for SON, MAROU for MEY),
                    NEEIATx for NAIATx or NAEIATx is highly possible (but is not definite to me yet). I missed that NE- used as plural article is only applied to a noun beginning with two consonants. Any way, NAIATx (and its variants NAEIATx, NEEIATx) is associated with EIA- [eye and its sight].

                    I still love the beautiful example of using the term NAIATx shown in Gospel of Mary. "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, 'NAIATE! You did not waver at the sight of me.'" The author did not use MAKARIOS. I recalled that when I read this example, I came back to study GTh79 and checked all dictionaries and Grammar books around.

                    You indicated that
                    >Crum indicates that
                    >NAIATx is the Sahidic and Bohairic form, while NEEIETx is
                    >the Achmimic and Sub-Achmimic form.
                    I could not find this. Could you tell me which page that I can find this?

                    One more compound word associated with EIA- or EIATx :
                    TOUNIATx (its variants TOUNEIATx and TOUNOUEIATx)
                    TOUNO means 'make to open'. The above compound word means 'Instruct x'. (Lit. open eyes of)

                    >Could NAIATx mean "great is the VISION of x"? We could
                    >then read NAIATOU NN-BAL as "great is the vision of the
                    >eyes ...". But in other contexts, it seems a stretch ("Great is
                    >the vision of the womb that bore you..."?) So while the
                    >etymology of the compound is interesting, it's hard to see
                    >how the literal meaning of the compound's components
                    >relates to various contexts in which the word is used,
                    >including Th79, and including all the cases in the Coptic
                    >NT which equate NAIATx to MAKARIOS. A mystic might
                    >be able to imagine interpretations that would fit "great
                    >[are] the eyes of x" into some selected contexts, but this
                    >could hardly account for the general equivalence of the
                    >Coptic word with the Greek MAKARIOS (presuming that
                    >that word has no direct connection to "eyes".)

                    The above message you put is exactly what I meant. However,
                    it is a good point to discuss:
                    >But in other contexts, it seems a stretch ("Great is
                    >the vision of the womb that bore you..."?)

                    I have several suggestions:
                    1. We need to investigate whether there are Aramaic or Hebrew terms close to the meaning of MAKARIOS & NEEIATx.
                    2. It is possible that the use of NEEIATs was due to the Coptic translator’s interpretation for this particular Jesus saying. He wanted the reader to bring up one’s vision (NEEIATx ) to earn the blessing. Otherwise, he would have used MAKARIOS as many other places in the CGTh.
                    3. It is common for a lay people to express their message in general sense without thinking their hidden meaning. Compound word NEEIATx (or NAEIATx) and Greek-loan word MAKARIOS could be mixture of use in the public. But a lay people may prefer to use NEEIAT or NAIAT with their native tongue as in Th79-1. NEEIATx in Th79-2 and Th79-3 were translated from Jesus sayings which the reader may want to take them differently suggested by the Coptic translator. If one reads CGTh carefully, the Coptic translator has quite a few verbalism suggestions including CGTh77b (deliberately moved from CGTh30b). Whether these were original meanings of Jesus sayings remained to be investigated. Nevertheless, I find that his verbalism suggestions are highly intriguing.

                    Thank you for such a highly pleasant communication.


                    Benedict



                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
                    Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Tom Hickcox
                    ... You kind of left me hanging here. I moderate a humanism group and when we reject a post, we send it to the poster with the reasons why it was rejected.
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 8, 2007
                      At 01:40 2/8/2007 , Mike Grondin wrote:

                      >(3) If a message is rejected, that simply means that the
                      >message is unacceptable in its current form - in the
                      >judgment of the moderator reviewing it. Members
                      >are free to revise and resubmit such messages, based
                      >on comments from the reviewing moderator. Which brings
                      >us to the second general issue I wanted to address,
                      >which is one reason why a message might be rejected.

                      You kind of left me hanging here.

                      I moderate a humanism group and when we reject a post, we send it to the
                      poster with the reasons why it was rejected. You don't specifically say
                      that here, but it seems to be implied. Obvious spam is sent directly to
                      trash w/o a note to the sender.

                      We don't require a person to give us a reason for joining but we do have
                      them on moderation for the same reasons you enumerated.

                      My granddaughter's kindergarten teacher has a Yahoo list specifically for
                      posting snapshots of the class and it is by invitation only and very
                      restrictive. <bg>

                      I think the owners/moderators here are doing a good job.

                      Tom Hickcox, Baton Rouge
                    • Michael Grondin
                      ... Yes, that s right. ... Yep, that would be the Delete option. We use that sometimes. ... Well, we don t exactly require a reason, either. All we did was to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Feb 8, 2007
                        Tom Hickcox writes:
                        > I moderate a humanism group and when we reject a post,
                        > we send it to the poster with the reasons why it was rejected.
                        > You don't specifically say that ... but it seems to be implied.

                        Yes, that's right.

                        > Obvious spam is sent directly to trash w/o a note to the sender.

                        Yep, that would be the Delete option. We use that sometimes.

                        > We don't require a person to give us a reason for joining but
                        > we do have them on moderation for the same reasons you
                        > enumerated.

                        Well, we don't exactly require a reason, either. All we did was to
                        specify that new members had to be approved, and apparently
                        that causes the Yahoogroups software to put a little box on the
                        screen for comments when a person requests membership.
                        At least, that's what I surmise from the fact that all the new
                        requests we receive seem to have a comment.

                        It might seem to be overkill to require membership-approval,
                        but I recall a case in the past (before we had this safeguard)
                        where a spammer added an automated-response address to
                        our membership roll, so that whenever a message was sent
                        from the list to that address, it sent a message back. In another
                        case, somebody evidently wanted to annoy some company
                        by putting them on our list (and maybe others) so they would
                        get unwanted email. We added membership-approval because
                        message-approval alone couldn't stop either of these things
                        from happening, and we haven't had a problem like that since.

                        Mike
                      • Judy Redman
                        ... I don t think it s overkill to require membership approval as well as message approval. The message approval tends to stop most spam, but some people are
                        Message 11 of 13 , Feb 9, 2007
                          Mike writes:
                          >
                          > It might seem to be overkill to require membership-approval,
                          > but I recall a case in the past (before we had this
                          > safeguard) where a spammer added an automated-response
                          > address to our membership roll, so that whenever a message
                          > was sent from the list to that address, it sent a message
                          > back. In another case, somebody evidently wanted to annoy
                          > some company by putting them on our list (and maybe others)
                          > so they would get unwanted email. We added
                          > membership-approval because message-approval alone couldn't
                          > stop either of these things from happening, and we haven't
                          > had a problem like that since.

                          I don't think it's overkill to require membership approval as well as
                          message approval. The message approval tends to stop most spam, but some
                          people are more persistent. Until I put membership approval on a list for
                          university chaplains that I moderate, we had people joining so that they
                          could send us invitations to view all sorts of "interesting" things on
                          "adults only" websites. This annoyed most of us and seriously offended
                          some.

                          Judy
                        • Michael Grondin
                          Benedict, Sorry to be delayed in replying to your message of the 8th. ... If that is what GThom says, then of course it s discussable. But one must be careful
                          Message 12 of 13 , Feb 12, 2007
                            Benedict,
                            Sorry to be delayed in replying to your message of the 8th.

                            > ... I would suggest that moderators should consider that a
                            > general sense of spiritual expression and discussion associated
                            > with the study of the sayings is benign to this forum. And sometimes
                            > it is important for the academic/analytic discussion because the
                            > message in GTh contains nothing but unified one, inner one, bring
                            > one's living one, transforming oneself to, the kingdom is ., etc.

                            If that is what GThom says, then of course it's discussable. But
                            one must be careful not to mix translation with interpretation. In
                            particular, if one doesn't maintain a proper analytical distance
                            from the object of the analysis, confusion between "what they
                            thought" and "what I think" can easily result. Also, of course,
                            your interpretation isn't the only one out there.

                            [Mike]:
                            > Crum indicates that NAIATx is the Sahidic and Bohairic form,
                            > while NEEIETx isthe Achmimic and Sub-Achmimic form.
                            [Benedict]:
                            > I could not find this. Could you tell me which page that I can find this?

                            As I said, it's on page 74, about halfway down left-hand column.
                            Crum uses 'S' for Sahidic, 'B' for Bohairic, 'A' for Achmimic, and
                            'A2' for Sub-Achmimic.

                            > It is possible that the use of NEEIATs was due to the Coptic
                            > translator's interpretation for this particular Jesus saying. He
                            > wanted the reader to bring up one's vision (NEEIATx ) to earn
                            > the blessing. Otherwise, he would have used MAKARIOS as
                            > many other places in the CGTh.

                            Well, I think there's other reasons for the use of NEEIATx in
                            Th79. In any case, however, I feel sure that it can't have been
                            for the _reader_ to "earn the blessing". He or she would
                            presumably have earned the blessing not by recognizing
                            some etymological fact about NEEIATx, but rather by listening
                            to "the LOGOS of the Father". I doubt if NEEIATx was supposed
                            to be the Word of the Father.

                            > If one reads CGTh carefully, the Coptic translator has quite
                            > a few verbalism suggestions including CGTh77b (deliberately
                            > moved from CGTh30b).

                            It's not clear to me exactly what you mean by "verbalism
                            suggestions". Are you referring to the fact that both 77a and
                            77b (i.e., 77.2-3) contain the catch-word PW2 ('split open',
                            'reach'), and that that may have been the reason why 77b
                            was put with 77a in the Coptic text, whereas it appears with
                            L.30 in the Greek fragments?

                            If this is what you're referring to, I'd like to draw your attention
                            to other uses of PW2, especially Th47.5 ("An old patch is not
                            sewn onto a new garment, because a tear [PW2] will result.")
                            Now we don't know whether 77a was in the Greek versions,
                            but suppose it wasn't. It seems very heavily Johannine - which
                            would be consistent with conceptualizing _Jesus himself_ as
                            "the LOGOS of the Father". Is it possible, then, that the Coptic
                            translators/designers thought of Th77 as a case of putting an
                            old patch (77b) on a new garment (77a)? If anything, the
                            positioning of the word PW2 in Th77 heightens this possibility,
                            since its two occurrences are on the same line (496), and
                            that is precisely where 77a splits/tears-away from 77b.

                            Mike
                          • Benedict Lo
                            In GTh, there are several antonyms of MAKARIOS and NEEIATx. I am not sure that these examples help us better understand the two words used in GTh or make us
                            Message 13 of 13 , Feb 12, 2007
                              In GTh, there are several antonyms of MAKARIOS and NEEIATx. I am not sure that these examples help us better understand the two words used in GTh or make us even confusing.

                              BWTE [BHT] means "foul, pollute"
                              (GTh4-b)
                              …And foul is the man whom a lion will eat and the lion will become human.


                              TALAIPWROS (a Greek-load word) means "miserable – wretched"
                              (GTh87)
                              Jesus said, "Wretched (miserable) is the body that depends on a body, and wretched is the soul that depends on these two."


                              OUOI [OUAEI, OUOEI] means "woe"
                              (GTh 102)
                              Jesus said, "Woe to the Pharisees! They are like a dog lying in the manger of the cattle. He neither eats nor does he allow the cattle to eat."

                              (GTh 112)
                              Jesus said, "Woe! The flesh depends on the soul. Woe! The soul depends on the flesh."


                              GTh 87 and GTh112 show very subtle difference of using 'wretched (TALAIPWROS)' and 'woe (OUOEI)' as well as the content between the two sayings.



                              ____________________________________________________________________________________
                              Be a PS3 game guru.
                              Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
                              http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.