- One of the projects I alluded to last night in my note to Jack
Kilmon was to _finally_ get images of the Brill facsimiles
of the GoT pages of Codex II online. Well, I've done it.
I had to cut out the pages from my copy of the Facsimile
edition in order to get good scans, but unless and until the
Brill lawyers come calling (their copyright was 1977), these
scans will be available from my main page under "Images"
AND (tadah!) I've figured a way to view them in split-screen
mode as well. This is really cool. Try it out at:
At the right side of the screen, you'll see some new lines
labelled "Facsimiles of pages". You can now bring up the
facsimile page containing the saying that you're looking at.
There's only one difficulty, and I can't figure out how to
do anything about it without a heck of a lot more work -
you'll have to count down to the correct line of the image.
What I mean is this: suppose you're looking at logion 19,
for example. The page and line numbers given in the
presentation indicate that it begins on line 17 of page 36
of Codex II. No problem in bringing up page 36 in the
bottom half of the screen, but you _will_ have to count
down to line 17 to match it up. Well, hey, that's what I
had to do, so I don't wanna hear any whining (:-)
For those of you who don't have the Brill Facsimile Edition
(and my guess is that most members don't), and who want
the facsimiles for home use, you may be wise to print them
from your browser sooner rather than later - just in case
the Brill lawyers DO come calling, and convince me to
remove them from my website. In the meantime, the
enlargements are mostly really nice, if I do say so myself -
though a couple of them aren't so nice because the Brill
facsimile isn't so nice.
Mt. Clemens, MI (where spring is in the air)
p.s.: What happened to earlychristianwritings.com?
- Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the Metzer translation, which is mildly
embarassing, given the area of my PhD. :-) Mind you, there is nothing about
the title of the book or the publication details that would suggest that I
might find an English translation of anything in it and I'm trying to avoid
other people's English translations as much as possible until I've done my
own, so I haven't gone looking.
I would also respect Metzger's opinion, but it remains the opinion of one
scholar (as does Turner's or Quispel's or anyone else's) and there are
other, equally eminent scholars who disagree with him and have put their
reasons in writing. I actually don't have a particularly firm position on
this, but I would find it much more helpful to hear *why* particular
scholars hold particular opinions - the name alone isn't convincing.
Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351 Australia
ph: +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web: http://www.une.edu.au/chaplaincy/uniting/ and
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:53 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [GTh] Facsimiles Online!
> Judy wrote:
> > Coptic is *crawling* with Greek loanwords.
> The double and triple names of Thomas are a special case. But
> I'll return to that in a later message (hopefully soon).
> > Incidentally, can I suggest that "I once asked X"
> > isn't a particularly convincing argument unless X has actually
> > published on the particular issue?
> Feel free to suggest away. Personally speaking, I would respect Dr.
> Metzger's opinion even if he hadn't published on this issue,
> but I asked him specifically because he had published an
> English translation of the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas
> in Aland, Kurt (ed.) Synopsis quattuor
> evangelium: locus parallelis evangeliorum apocryphon et
> patrum adhibitis, Thirteen revised edition. (Stuttgart,
> Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985).
> There's also a website that quotes Dr. Metzger (from the
> book, The Case For Christ, by Lee Strobel) as saying the following:
> "The Gospel of Thomas came to light in a fifth-century copy
> in Coptic, which I've translated into English. It contains
> 114 sayings attributed to Jesus but no narrative of what he
> did, and seems to have been written in Greek in Syria in
> about AD 140. In some cases I think this gospel correctly
> reports what Jesus said, with slight modifications." (pp. 67-68)
> - Kevin Johnson
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> Interlinear translation:
> Yahoo! Groups Links