Re: [GTh] Facsimiles Online!
- Hi Roger,
In answer to your questions, some of the seven tractates of
Codex II have symbols similar to those on the last line of
GThom, others don't. I don't think any of these have symbolic
significance. They seem to be just filling out the last line of
the text, since they extend just to the right margin of the text
on the line above. The row of symbols just above the title
of ApocJn is different, however. It's the only line of symbols
that is set off by itself, and it extends significantly beyond the
right-hand margin of the text above it. So yes, I do think that
that line has symbolic significance, particularly as it contains
21 tripartite doo-dads, and (as I'm sure you remember) the
incipit or prologue of GThom is a chiastic structure containing
three segments of 21 letters each. Thanks for bring this to
- 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