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

A question about Logion 114.

Expand Messages
  • CJED5@aol.com
    I note that my Patterson and Meyer s Scholars Translation of the Gospel of Thomas claims that Logion 114 is a [s]aying added to the original collection at
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I note that my Patterson and Meyer's Scholars' Translation of the Gospel of
      Thomas claims that Logion 114 is a '[s]aying added to the original collection
      at a later date'.
      This would seem to call into question some secondary material I'm looking
      at. But is this later addition theory incontrovertible?
      I can see that this logion is somewhat at variance with logion 22, where
      both male and female are to be discarded in the return to One-ness. I don't as
      yet have any particular vested interest in whether logion 114 postdates the
      rest of the Gospel or not ... but I don't want to back the wrong horse here!

      Thank you for considering my question.

      [J.S. Chandler]
    • ariadne
      I don t believe that logion 114 was a later addition.  And I don t see it as incongruent with saying 22.  Saying 22, in my opinion, does not suggest
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't believe that logion 114 was a later addition.  And I don't
        see it as incongruent with saying 22.  Saying 22, in my opinion, does
        not suggest discarding male and femaleness as much as unifying the
        consciousness of both,  a complete transformation in which spiritual
        unity is accomplished.  I would look at  the Gospel of Philip,
        the passages surrounding the initiation of the bridal chamber to better
        understand saying 22.  Saying 114 in my opinion is a statement about
        a woman's spiritual worth and perhaps could be considered a bit of
        sarcasm.
        Ariadne Green.
      • Michael Grondin
        ... Nope. Almost nothing in this field is incontrovertible. One has to assess the strength of the reasons given for any theory. In this particular case, it
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          J.S. Chandler asks:
          > But is this later addition theory [for L.114] incontrovertible?

          Nope. Almost nothing in this field is incontrovertible. One has
          to assess the strength of the reasons given for any theory. In
          this particular case, it seems to be merely a translator's opinion,
          which implies that the "original collection" was 113 sayings, and
          that, over its history, only one other saying was added. To my mind,
          that's quite unlikely.

          Mike G.
        • Kevin Johnson
          Hello - While I cannot say why Patterson and Meyer made this explicit claim here, I have seen a couple different arguments against this saying. The first
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello -

            While I cannot say why Patterson and Meyer made this explicit claim here, I
            have seen a couple different arguments against this saying. The
            first argument is that the original collection probably began with Logion 3
            and ended with Logion 113. Since the subject matter of these two sayings is
            somewhat similar, the argument is sometimes made that they probably framed
            the collection as a whole. Against this logic is the fact that, to make this
            schema fit, you would also have to omit the first two sayings. The second
            argument that is sometimes made is that the saying is a deliberate
            construction intended to symbolize the orthodox church through the figure of
            Peter and some form of gnosticism in the figure of Mary.

            Of course, neither of these arguments is incontrovertible.

            Regards,

            - Kevin Johnson


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Judy Redman
            This isn t something I have an opinion on because I really haven t looked at it in any detail, but DeConick has it listed as one of the group of later
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              This isn't something I have an opinion on because I really haven't looked at
              it in any detail, but DeConick has it listed as one of the group of later
              accretions 80-120CE that have been added in response to the death of
              eyewitnesses, christiological developments and continued eschatological
              crisis (with incorporation of encratic and hermetic traditions).

              Judy

              --
              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
              http://blog.une.edu.au/unitingchaplaincy/
              email: jredman@...


              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Johnson
              > Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2008 4:46 AM
              > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [GTh] A question about Logion 114.
              >
              > Hello -
              >
              > While I cannot say why Patterson and Meyer made this explicit
              > claim here, I have seen a couple different arguments against
              > this saying. The first argument is that the original
              > collection probably began with Logion 3 and ended with Logion
              > 113. Since the subject matter of these two sayings is
              > somewhat similar, the argument is sometimes made that they
              > probably framed the collection as a whole. Against this logic
              > is the fact that, to make this schema fit, you would also
              > have to omit the first two sayings. The second argument that
              > is sometimes made is that the saying is a deliberate
              > construction intended to symbolize the orthodox church
              > through the figure of Peter and some form of gnosticism in
              > the figure of Mary.
              >
              > Of course, neither of these arguments is incontrovertible.
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > - Kevin Johnson
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------------------
              > ----------
              > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
              > Interlinear translation:
              > http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • Michael Grondin
              ... And, in light of the fact that the question has been raised whether L.114 is consistent with L.22, it should be noted that DeConick listed L.22 also as
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                [Judy Redman]:
                > ... DeConick has it [L.114] listed as one of the group of later
                > accretions 80-120CE that have been added in response to the death of
                > eyewitnesses, christiological developments and continued eschatological
                > crisis (with incorporation of encratic and hermetic traditions).

                And, in light of the fact that the question has been raised whether L.114
                is consistent with L.22, it should be noted that DeConick listed L.22 also
                as part of her group 2 accretions, without any indication that she felt that
                the two might be inconsistent.

                With respect to calling DeConick's second group of accretions, "the
                group of later accretions", this is the kind of misleading description which
                is invited by her over-lapping dates. It's a kind of "have your cake and
                eat it too" dating. If someone happens to demonstrate, for example,
                that saying A of group 1 must be later than saying B of group 2, AD is
                covered; she has only to respond that A must have been a late member
                of group 1 and B an early member of group 2, during that 20-year
                period in which accretions from both groups accrued. But when such
                a challenge isn't in the offing, the dating invites wording which implies
                that the whole of group 1 is earlier than the whole of group 2 - an
                implication which is false. Since any justification of accretion-dating
                (which she apparently doesn't even give, however) would be somewhat
                nebulous anyway, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for the
                questionable device of over-lapping date-ranges. Why not just lop
                10 years off the end of group 1 and the beginning of group 2?

                Mike Grondin
                Mt. Clemens, MI
              • Judy Redman
                ... Point taken. ... Because her groups of accretions are not primarily about *dating*, but about *content*. She says that one group of accretions are put
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 14, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike says:
                  >
                  > With respect to calling DeConick's second group of
                  > accretions, "the group of later accretions", this is the kind
                  > of misleading description which is invited by her
                  > over-lapping dates.

                  Point taken.

                  > It's a kind of "have your cake and eat it
                  > too" dating. If someone happens to demonstrate, for example,
                  > that saying A of group 1 must be later than saying B of group
                  > 2, AD is covered; she has only to respond that A must have
                  > been a late member of group 1 and B an early member of group
                  > 2, during that 20-year period in which accretions from both
                  > groups accrued. But when such a challenge isn't in the
                  > offing, the dating invites wording which implies that the
                  > whole of group 1 is earlier than the whole of group 2 - an
                  > implication which is false. Since any justification of
                  > accretion-dating (which she apparently doesn't even give,
                  > however) would be somewhat nebulous anyway, there doesn't
                  > seem to be any good reason for the questionable device of
                  > over-lapping date-ranges. Why not just lop 10 years off the
                  > end of group 1 and the beginning of group 2?

                  Because her groups of accretions are not primarily about *dating*, but about
                  *content*. She says that one group of accretions are put there in response
                  to a particular set of circumstances which were prevalent within a certain
                  date range and that the other group of accretions were put there in response
                  to another set of circumstances that were prevalent in another, overlapping
                  date range.

                  Judy

                  --
                  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
                  http://blog.une.edu.au/unitingchaplaincy/
                  email: jredman@...
                • Michael Grondin
                  ... I understand that, but where is the specific support for the claim that these sets of circumstances were prevalent in the given time-frames? Mike
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 14, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [I wrote]:
                    > Why not just lop 10 years off the end of group 1 and the beginning of
                    > group 2?

                    [Judy wrote]:
                    > Because her groups of accretions are not primarily about *dating*, but
                    > about
                    > *content*. She says that one group of accretions are put there in
                    > response
                    > to a particular set of circumstances which were prevalent within a certain
                    > date range and that the other group of accretions were put there in
                    > response
                    > to another set of circumstances that were prevalent in another,
                    > overlapping
                    > date range.

                    I understand that, but where is the specific support for the claim that
                    these
                    sets of circumstances were prevalent in the given time-frames?

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