Re: [GTh] Facsimiles Online!
- Hi, Mike -
> The pagination occurred sometime between 1949 and 1956.I can confirm that the page numbers do not appear on the?first two pages of the gospel in?the picture in Doresse's book, which?was probably taken in 1948 when Doresse was?making what he referred to as "incomplete decipherments."?Doresse recounts the history of the manuscripts (as much as he knew of it by 1957) but I have not yet found any mention of page numbers being added. By the way, the history of the codices during this time, as detailed by Doresse,?is complex and involves ownership by a certain Miss Dattari, negotiations with the Coptic Museum at Cairo, political strife, war, and so on.
Does the entire codex contain the page numbering or is it just restricted to the Gospel of Thomas? I'm guessing it's the entire codex. If so, do the other codices have page numbering as well?
> one can't confirm that it was done by the dealer,From 1949 to 1952, according to Doresse, the collection was sealed in a travelling bag in the care of the Service of Antiquities for the Coptic Museum, of which Pahor Labib had become the director (wasn't Labib the person who originally created authorized photos the text?), so the pagination could not have occurred during that span.?It seems to me at least as likely that the page numbers?were added while in the museum's care after the travelling bag was unsealed in 1952 as it is that they were added before the bag was sealed in 1949 but, until we have further evidence on this point, it is all just conjecture.
> though of course one hopefully assumes so
In response to my suggestion that maybe the cellophane tape (if that's what it was) has been removed by now, you wrote:
> Probably not, since they wouldn't have been able to do that withoutOne would hope but, as with the page numbers, reality shows otherwise. At any rate, it is difficult for me to believe that the Gospel of Thomas is still sitting in a museum in Egypt with cellophane tape holding one of the pages together some 50+ years later.
> further damaging the manuscript - very possibly obliterating some
> letters entirely. The thing is, any responsible person should have
> known the distorting and damaging effects of ordinary cellophane
- Kevin Johnson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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