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

What About Saying 71?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Had an interesting interchange this morning on April s latest blog entry: http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-about-saying-71.html It s about the
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 22, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Had an interesting interchange this morning on April's latest blog entry:


      It's about the lacuna at the end of saying 71. The first English translation
      of CGTh ("The Gospel According to Thomas", Guillaumont et al, 1959),
      indicates that it should be filled in '[AN NKESO]P' ('not another time',
      "this house" can't be rebuilt). The final P isn't enclosed in brackets;
      rather, it has a dot under it in Guillamont's text. This indicates that he
      thought he saw enough of the letter to make it reasonably certain. I agree
      with DeConick, however, that there doesn't seem to be even a smidgen
      of that letter in the manuscript (at least from the facsimile). That doesn't
      mean that Guillaumont's reconstruction is wrong, but rather that he
      probably should have put the P within his brackets.

      Now come to Bentley Layton's take in "Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7".
      Layton generally lists reconstructions of lacunae suggested by other
      scholars, but he doesn't show Guillaumont's (or any other for the lacuna
      in logion 71, for that matter). Why not? I think it's because he believes
      (as he implies) that the first letter in the lacuna can't be an 'A'. More
      specifically, he thinks it has to be a G, H, I, K, M, N, or P. Now he has
      looked at the original manuscript carefully, and I haven't, but I must say
      that it appears from the facsimile that the left-edge of first letter in the
      lacuna (which is all we can see) is slanted, rather than straight vertical.
      That would open the possibility that it's an 'A' and that therefore
      Guillaumont's reconstruction should be seriously considered. On the
      other hand, if Layton is right (which I have to admit is prima facie much
      more likely than me being right), then we'll have to come up with some
      other reconstruction. Curious, though, that Layton doesn't show ANY
      possible reconstructions? (p.80, NHC)

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