> When you talk of "subject redundency" are you talking of a formal
> grammatical rule here, or are you merely referring to a convention
> or a "given" generally accepted in Coptic translations?
I'm talking about the Coptic wording. As I said, translators typically
ignore the redundancy. To take one example, the verb phrase
Ti-NA-SWK ('I-will-lead') in L114.2 (line 663) contains the subject
'I', but it's preceded by ANOK, which also means 'I'. It's an
allowable construction in Coptic which has parallels in English, the
purpose evidently being that of emphasizing the subject.
> Presuming your connection of logion 108 to logion 13 is because
> the discussion there has to do with "things which went unsaid" (i.e.
> things which are hidden) and not for grammatical reasons, could
> one not also argue that 108 is similarly tied to logia 6, 32, 33, 39,
> 109 for the same reason ... and might there be a common thread or
> theme here about what / or who - see below - is hidden ?
The thematic connection that I had in mind between L108 and L13
is rather more direct. L108 talks about drinking from J's mouth, and
that's evidently what Thomas has done, since in L13, he's said to be
drunk on the "bubbling spring" that J has measured out. This apparently
alters their relationship, in keeping with L108, so that J is no longer
Thomas' teacher/master - except that he then reveals three "words"
which are apparently hidden from everyone except those who attain
the status that Thomas has.
> I find it interesting that contrary to all other major translators,
> in logion 5, Henri Charles Puech translates "Recognize what is in
> your sight" by the words "Recognize WHO is in your sight ..." For
> dogmatic reasons I believe Puech to have the edge here, but
> gramatically I am not sure how he comes to this translation. Any
> ideas ? ...
Sure. Coptic suffers from lack of a neuter gender. So it has to make
do with either masculine or feminine. In the case in question, the
morpheme involved is PET- (the masculine form of ET-), which can
mean either 'he who is' or 'that which is', i.e., either 'who' or 'what'.
The translator has to make a judgement, depending on the referent of
PET- in the context. In L5, however, there's no referent, so it probably
means 'what' rather than 'who' - in spite of the fact that I myself (:-)
initially chose to use 'he who is' for all occurrences of PET-, because
of wanting to capture the flavor of the original language. (I'm not so
keen on that as I once was, since it seems to have led to confusion.)
> As a footnote, in your geocities site (logion 13) you point out that
> the saying (13) is one of seven sayings which contain more than one
> occurance of the name Jesus ... would you know the others offhand so
> as to save me the time to find them ... I find this interesting.
Gosh, I had forgotten that I did that. In fact, my more recent notes to
myself indicate that there are SIX such sayings: 13, 18, 22, 61, 104,
and 111. All of these contain two occurrences, except L13, which has
three. Because of these multiple occurrences, the number of sayings
which DON'T contain IS or IHS is 16 (=114-105+7), rather than (as one
might think) 9 (=114-105). Aside from saying 1 (which we'll lump in with
the prologue), the 16 sayings that don't contain the sacred name are as
follows: 8,24,27,43,51,52,53,60,65,72,74,79,91,99,101, and 113.