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

Son of Man

Expand Messages
  • jmgcormier
    Greetings all … I continue to be amused if not entirely mystified at what I call existent or apparent quirks in the Gospel of Thomas as I probe deeper and
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings all …

      I continue to be amused if not entirely mystified at what I
      call existent or apparent "quirks" in the Gospel of Thomas as I
      probe deeper and deeper into its likely intended thrust or true
      message ... Accordingly, perhaps some of you can possibly help me
      resolve one nagging oddity in particular which repeatedly tweaks my
      interest when I come across it, even if it is only to express your
      rough guess or gut feeling about it as this one has stumped me for a
      very long while …

      The expression "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is
      usually thought to have two possible meanings. The more traditional
      interpretation (certainly the Christian one) is to suggest that "Son
      of Man" as used in the New Testament is generally a way of linking
      up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised Messiah as announced by the
      prophets of the Old Testament (especially in Ezekiel where the
      expression is used unsparingly – close to a hundred times). The
      other (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of Man" is to
      suggest that because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of Adam" (Ben-
      Adam), that it is meant to convey the human or material nature of
      Jesus as opposed to his spiritual nature. ( e.g. Matthew 11:19
      suggests that " the Son of man … the material Jesus … came eating
      and drinking, and people may even have known him as "a glutton and a
      drunkard". Yet again, Luke 12: 39-40 seems to largely compare him to
      a hoarder of material goods and even "thief like" … attributes often
      characteristic of a "human being" and not those of a "spiritual
      being" … and the list goes on, even in Thomas where the "Son of Man"
      has no place to lay his head (i.e. physically rest) etc,etc.

      In the Gospel of Thomas, however, "Son of Man" seems to have
      yet a variety of different rings to it. For example, in saying 106,
      the redactor of Thomas suggests that "When you make the two one, you
      will become the "sons" of man. … almost as to imply that virtually
      anyone (not only the announced Messiah) can be graced with the
      title "Son of Man". Similarly, in logion # 28, Jesus' soul again
      seemingly becomes afflicted for the "sons of men" (a plurality of
      them and not just the Messiah), and yet again, in logion # 86, Jesus
      refers to himself as "the" Son of Man (seemingly the only one). As a
      result, all of these Thomas references appear to be at odds with
      either of the New Testament's two main traditions and popular
      interpretations regarding the "Son of Man" expression.

      Having said all of the above, the quirk which strikes me the
      most is that of the expression's use (or lack thereof) as recorded
      by Thomas in logion # 44. (Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against
      the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son
      will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
      will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.") Most scholars
      and students of the Gospel of Thomas, of course, would suggest to
      us that this rendering is likely taken from either Matt 12:31 or
      Luke 12:10, but if this is so (and this is what raises the "quirk"
      issue) why would Thomas completely disregard either of the two
      traditional expressions of "Son of Man" as recorded in either of
      the Matthew of Luke originals and simply refer to Jesus / himself
      as "the Son" with no designator (i.e. without "of Man")? After all,
      if Thomas is Gnostic in slant as many would tend to agree … and if
      one of gnosticism's main trademarks is the human / spiritual
      duality, why would Thomas "miss his golden opportunity" to flaunt
      this view in logion #44 and shy away from referring to Jesus as "the
      Son of Man" as did Matthew and Luke (and perhaps even other authors
      in non canonic manuscripts) Is this merely a scrivener or a
      translator's slip-up, or is Thomas' Jesus no longer to be
      considered "the Messiah", or does "Son of Man" no longer refer to
      the physical / human / material Jesus … or did the Gospel of Thomas
      truly predate Matthew and Luke and did both of these evangelists
      later incorrectly misquote Jesus of the New Testament in their NT
      renditions of his saying?

      Thoughts or comments, anyone?


      Maurice Cormier
    • Steven Ring
      Dear Maurice, As a Syricist, I can help you out here. The term, bar nasha = son of man is idiomatic in Aramaic and unique to that language and its
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Maurice,

        As a Syricist, I can help you out here.
        The term, 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' is idiomatic in Aramaic and unique
        to that language and its dialects, like Syriac. It has no single
        translation into English, but it often works the same way as the
        indefinite pronoun 'one' in an English sentence, for example: 'One has
        no-where to rest ones head' (Sorry about the pretentious way this
        sounds, but this is how 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' often works in Aramaic.)
        In other gospel contexts, 'bar nasha' can mean 'someone' or 'anyone' or
        even just 'a human being' as it does in the Aramaic OT book of Daniel,
        (Dan7.13).
        Although I am a Christian and I agree that many Christians interpret
        this term just as you say, I would say that the usual Christian
        definitions of this term are quite wrong.
        Michael Sokoloff's dictionary of Palestinian Aramaic and Jastrow's
        dictionary are very useful books. Should you want to look them up these
        references are:

        A dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period / by
        Michael Sokoloff. 1990
        A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
        Midrashic literature. / by Marcus JASTROW. 1886-1903

        Best regards,
        Steven Ring.

        jmgcormier wrote:
        >
        > Greetings all …
        >
        > I continue to be amused if not entirely mystified at what I
        > call existent or apparent "quirks" in the Gospel of Thomas as I
        > probe deeper and deeper into its likely intended thrust or true
        > message ... Accordingly, perhaps some of you can possibly help me
        > resolve one nagging oddity in particular which repeatedly tweaks my
        > interest when I come across it, even if it is only to express your
        > rough guess or gut feeling about it as this one has stumped me for a
        > very long while …
        >
        > The expression "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is
        > usually thought to have two possible meanings. The more traditional
        > interpretation (certainly the Christian one) is to suggest that "Son
        > of Man" as used in the New Testament is generally a way of linking
        > up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised Messiah as announced by the
        > prophets of the Old Testament (especially in Ezekiel where the
        > expression is used unsparingly – close to a hundred times). The
        > other (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of Man" is to
        > suggest that because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of Adam" (Ben-
        > Adam), that it is meant to convey the human or material nature of
        > Jesus as opposed to his spiritual nature. ( e.g. Matthew 11:19
        > suggests that " the Son of man … the material Jesus … came eating
        > and drinking, and people may even have known him as "a glutton and a
        > drunkard". Yet again, Luke 12: 39-40 seems to largely compare him to
        > a hoarder of material goods and even "thief like" … attributes often
        > characteristic of a "human being" and not those of a "spiritual
        > being" … and the list goes on, even in Thomas where the "Son of Man"
        > has no place to lay his head (i.e. physically rest) etc,etc.
        >
        > In the Gospel of Thomas, however, "Son of Man" seems to have
        > yet a variety of different rings to it. For example, in saying 106,
        > the redactor of Thomas suggests that "When you make the two one, you
        > will become the "sons" of man. … almost as to imply that virtually
        > anyone (not only the announced Messiah) can be graced with the
        > title "Son of Man". Similarly, in logion # 28, Jesus' soul again
        > seemingly becomes afflicted for the "sons of men" (a plurality of
        > them and not just the Messiah), and yet again, in logion # 86, Jesus
        > refers to himself as "the" Son of Man (seemingly the only one). As a
        > result, all of these Thomas references appear to be at odds with
        > either of the New Testament's two main traditions and popular
        > interpretations regarding the "Son of Man" expression.
        >
        > Having said all of the above, the quirk which strikes me the
        > most is that of the expression's use (or lack thereof) as recorded
        > by Thomas in logion # 44. (Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against
        > the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son
        > will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
        > will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.") Most scholars
        > and students of the Gospel of Thomas, of course, would suggest to
        > us that this rendering is likely taken from either Matt 12:31 or
        > Luke 12:10, but if this is so (and this is what raises the "quirk"
        > issue) why would Thomas completely disregard either of the two
        > traditional expressions of "Son of Man" as recorded in either of
        > the Matthew of Luke originals and simply refer to Jesus / himself
        > as "the Son" with no designator (i.e. without "of Man")? After all,
        > if Thomas is Gnostic in slant as many would tend to agree … and if
        > one of gnosticism's main trademarks is the human / spiritual
        > duality, why would Thomas "miss his golden opportunity" to flaunt
        > this view in logion #44 and shy away from referring to Jesus as "the
        > Son of Man" as did Matthew and Luke (and perhaps even other authors
        > in non canonic manuscripts) Is this merely a scrivener or a
        > translator's slip-up, or is Thomas' Jesus no longer to be
        > considered "the Messiah", or does "Son of Man" no longer refer to
        > the physical / human / material Jesus … or did the Gospel of Thomas
        > truly predate Matthew and Luke and did both of these evangelists
        > later incorrectly misquote Jesus of the New Testament in their NT
        > renditions of his saying?
        >
        > Thoughts or comments, anyone?
        >
        > Maurice Cormier
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
        > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1702 - Release Date: 01/10/2008 09:05
        >
        >
      • Judy Redman
        Thanks for this, Steven, It s helpful not just here.... Judy -- Rev Judy Redman Uniting Church Chaplain University of New England Armidale 2351 Australia ph:
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for this, Steven, It's helpful not just here....

          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 Steven Ring
          > Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2008 9:14 AM
          > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man
          >
          > Dear Maurice,
          >
          > As a Syricist, I can help you out here.
          > The term, 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' is idiomatic in Aramaic
          > and unique to that language and its dialects, like Syriac. It
          > has no single translation into English, but it often works
          > the same way as the indefinite pronoun 'one' in an English
          > sentence, for example: 'One has no-where to rest ones head'
          > (Sorry about the pretentious way this sounds, but this is how
          > 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' often works in Aramaic.) In other
          > gospel contexts, 'bar nasha' can mean 'someone' or 'anyone'
          > or even just 'a human being' as it does in the Aramaic OT
          > book of Daniel, (Dan7.13).
          > Although I am a Christian and I agree that many Christians
          > interpret this term just as you say, I would say that the
          > usual Christian definitions of this term are quite wrong.
          > Michael Sokoloff's dictionary of Palestinian Aramaic and
          > Jastrow's dictionary are very useful books. Should you want
          > to look them up these references are:
          >
          > A dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine
          > period / by Michael Sokoloff. 1990 A Dictionary of the
          > Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic
          > literature. / by Marcus JASTROW. 1886-1903
          >
          > Best regards,
          > Steven Ring.
          >
          > jmgcormier wrote:
          > >
          > > Greetings all .
          > >
          > > I continue to be amused if not entirely mystified at what I call
          > > existent or apparent "quirks" in the Gospel of Thomas as I probe
          > > deeper and deeper into its likely intended thrust or true
          > message ...
          > > Accordingly, perhaps some of you can possibly help me resolve one
          > > nagging oddity in particular which repeatedly tweaks my
          > interest when
          > > I come across it, even if it is only to express your rough guess or
          > > gut feeling about it as this one has stumped me for a very
          > long while
          > > .
          > >
          > > The expression "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is usually
          > > thought to have two possible meanings. The more traditional
          > > interpretation (certainly the Christian one) is to suggest
          > that "Son
          > > of Man" as used in the New Testament is generally a way of
          > linking up
          > > Jesus of Nazareth with the promised Messiah as announced by the
          > > prophets of the Old Testament (especially in Ezekiel where the
          > > expression is used unsparingly - close to a hundred times).
          > The other
          > > (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of Man" is to
          > suggest that
          > > because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of Adam" (Ben-
          > Adam), that
          > > it is meant to convey the human or material nature of Jesus
          > as opposed
          > > to his spiritual nature. ( e.g. Matthew 11:19 suggests that
          > " the Son
          > > of man . the material Jesus . came eating and drinking, and
          > people may
          > > even have known him as "a glutton and a drunkard". Yet
          > again, Luke 12:
          > > 39-40 seems to largely compare him to a hoarder of material
          > goods and
          > > even "thief like" . attributes often characteristic of a
          > "human being"
          > > and not those of a "spiritual being" . and the list goes
          > on, even in
          > > Thomas where the "Son of Man"
          > > has no place to lay his head (i.e. physically rest) etc,etc.
          > >
          > > In the Gospel of Thomas, however, "Son of Man" seems to have yet a
          > > variety of different rings to it. For example, in saying 106, the
          > > redactor of Thomas suggests that "When you make the two
          > one, you will
          > > become the "sons" of man. . almost as to imply that
          > virtually anyone
          > > (not only the announced Messiah) can be graced with the
          > title "Son of
          > > Man". Similarly, in logion # 28, Jesus' soul again
          > seemingly becomes
          > > afflicted for the "sons of men" (a plurality of them and
          > not just the
          > > Messiah), and yet again, in logion # 86, Jesus refers to himself as
          > > "the" Son of Man (seemingly the only one). As a result, all
          > of these
          > > Thomas references appear to be at odds with either of the New
          > > Testament's two main traditions and popular interpretations
          > regarding
          > > the "Son of Man" expression.
          > >
          > > Having said all of the above, the quirk which strikes me
          > the most is
          > > that of the expression's use (or lack thereof) as recorded
          > by Thomas
          > > in logion # 44. (Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father
          > > will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be
          > > forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
          > will not be
          > > forgiven either on earth or in heaven.") Most scholars and
          > students of
          > > the Gospel of Thomas, of course, would suggest to us that this
          > > rendering is likely taken from either Matt 12:31 or Luke
          > 12:10, but if
          > > this is so (and this is what raises the "quirk"
          > > issue) why would Thomas completely disregard either of the two
          > > traditional expressions of "Son of Man" as recorded in
          > either of the
          > > Matthew of Luke originals and simply refer to Jesus /
          > himself as "the
          > > Son" with no designator (i.e. without "of Man")? After all,
          > if Thomas
          > > is Gnostic in slant as many would tend to agree . and if one of
          > > gnosticism's main trademarks is the human / spiritual duality, why
          > > would Thomas "miss his golden opportunity" to flaunt this view in
          > > logion #44 and shy away from referring to Jesus as "the Son
          > of Man" as
          > > did Matthew and Luke (and perhaps even other authors in non canonic
          > > manuscripts) Is this merely a scrivener or a translator's
          > slip-up, or
          > > is Thomas' Jesus no longer to be considered "the Messiah", or does
          > > "Son of Man" no longer refer to the physical / human /
          > material Jesus
          > > . or did the Gospel of Thomas truly predate Matthew and
          > Luke and did
          > > both of these evangelists later incorrectly misquote Jesus
          > of the New
          > > Testament in their NT renditions of his saying?
          > >
          > > Thoughts or comments, anyone?
          > >
          > > Maurice Cormier
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          > > --
          > >
          > >
          > > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
          > > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1702 - Release Date:
          > > 01/10/2008 09:05
          > >
          > >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
          > Interlinear translation:
          > http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Steven Ring To: Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man ... Hi
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Steven Ring" <steven.ring@...>
            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:14 PM
            Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man


            > Dear Maurice,
            >
            > As a Syricist, I can help you out here.
            > The term, 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' is idiomatic in Aramaic and unique
            > to that language and its dialects, like Syriac. It has no single
            > translation into English, but it often works the same way as the
            > indefinite pronoun 'one' in an English sentence, for example: 'One has
            > no-where to rest ones head' (Sorry about the pretentious way this
            > sounds, but this is how 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' often works in
            > Aramaic.)
            > In other gospel contexts, 'bar nasha' can mean 'someone' or 'anyone' or
            > even just 'a human being' as it does in the Aramaic OT book of Daniel,
            > (Dan7.13).
            > Although I am a Christian and I agree that many Christians interpret
            > this term just as you say, I would say that the usual Christian
            > definitions of this term are quite wrong.
            > Michael Sokoloff's dictionary of Palestinian Aramaic and Jastrow's
            > dictionary are very useful books. Should you want to look them up these
            > references are:
            >
            > A dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period / by
            > Michael Sokoloff. 1990
            > A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
            > Midrashic literature. / by Marcus JASTROW. 1886-1903
            >
            > Best regards,
            > Steven Ring.

            Hi Steven:

            I think the Bar Nasha designation may go a bit deeper than theidiom for "a
            human."

            Forgive me for the length of this and also, as the "follow the Aramaic" guy,
            for use of "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus."

            There is a ton of literature on Yeshua's use of his self-description as the
            bar nasha (Son of Man) and disagreements on what that meant. If the Dead
            Sea Scroll corpus is a good barometer, the late 2nd temple period saw an
            emergence of Daniel-Enochian fervor. In both Daniel and the Enochian
            literature, the "son of man" plays a central role.

            Yeshua himself, NOT ONCE, refers to himself with certainty as the Messiah
            but instead refers to himself as the bar nasha/ben adam of Daniel and
            Enoch..."coming on the clouds, etc." It was Paul of Tarsus...hostile to the
            Nazarenes, who conferred the name of XRISTOS on Yeshua in his reconstruction
            of Yeshua as the Pauline "Christ Crucified."

            The cradle from which both Jewish and Christian "mysticism" arose was
            Enochian apocalypticism, the same cradle from which post-destruction Ma'asei
            Merkavah (which would eventually develop into Kabbala) and the Hekhalot
            literature arose which deals with "mystical" ascents into heaven.

            Anyone pursuing the ancient Jewish sources from which the Nazarenes arose,
            should read the considerable Enochian literary corpus now available thanks
            to the Qumran texts. The Books of Enoch and their related texts, Jubilees,
            Giants, Weeks, Parables, Watchers, Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs, Dreams,
            etc. Enochian apocalypticism is a reflection of a Mesopotamian alternative
            to Mosaic" Judaism with its focus on Enmeduranki, the 7th antediluvian king
            of Sippar in the Sumerian Chronicles and a counterpart (or model) for Enoch.

            There was a considerable influence by Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result
            to the Babylonian Captivity after which they brought the Enochian traditions
            to Jerusalem upon the return. The Jerusalem priests at that time hated the
            Enochian Jews (and it is my position that Jesus was an Enochian Jew) who
            supported the Maccabees thereby gaining favor with the Hasmoneans. These
            Enochian Jews became, IMO, the Essenes who subsequently developed serious
            issues with the Hasmonean priest-kings. I don't think anyone would argue
            that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not strongly Enochian.

            The Jewish Nazarenes ("branchers") were heirs, IMO, to the Enochian
            traditions but Gentile Christianity imported a constellation of influences
            from Graeco-Roman sources. That Enochian Judaism was alternative to Mosaic
            nomian Judaeism can explain why Paul appears anti-nomian and why Enoch was
            not included in the Rabbinical canon.

            Quoted in the Book of Jude:

            "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
            judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
            of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And
            of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
            (Enoch 1:9)

            Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

            "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like
            wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
            a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2
            And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
            concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
            went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This
            is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness,
            And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the
            Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before
            the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever." (Part 8 Chapter 46:1-3)

            1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was
            inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the
            thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were
            with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man
            was named In the presence of the Lord of Hosts, And his name before the
            Ancient of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before
            the stars of the heaven were made, His name
            was named before the Lord of Hosts. 4 He shall be a staff to the righteous
            whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the
            Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5 All who dwell
            on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless
            and celebrate with song the Lord of Hosts. 6 And for this reason hath he
            been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for
            evermore. 7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the
            holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because
            they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
            all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his name
            they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to
            their life. (Part 8 Chapter 48:1-7)

            The Book of Daniel, like Enoch, was written originally in Aramaic. It
            contains the most famous reference to the SON OF MAN.

            Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)
            13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא
            מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה
            יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ

            13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
            the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
            the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
            given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
            and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
            which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
            destroyed.

            Yeshua spoke of himself, just as above in Daniel, at Matthew 24:30 And
            then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all
            the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
            the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

            .....and at Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:
            nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
            on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

            As you can see, Yeshua refers to himself as the SON OF MAN (Aramaic bar
            nasha) of Daniel and Enoch andnot, IMO, as simply the bar nash/a idiom for
            "just a guy."


            Now let's see how many times Yeshua calls himself the bar nasha (son of
            man)...he never referred to himself with certainty or non-cryptically as
            the Messiah.

            Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds
            of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his]
            head.

            Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
            forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy
            bed, and go unto thine house.

            Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
            another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
            of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

            Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold
            a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
            wisdom is justified of her children.

            Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

            Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall
            be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
            be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

            Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
            belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
            of the earth.

            Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed
            is the Son of man;

            Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
            gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
            iniquity;

            Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked
            his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

            Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
            his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

            Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
            shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
            kingdom.

            Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them,
            saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from
            the dead.

            Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew
            him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also
            the Son of man suffer of them.

            Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son
            of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

            Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

            Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
            which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
            the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
            twelve tribes of Israel.

            Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
            betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn
            him to death,

            Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
            minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

            Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even
            unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

            Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
            and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son
            of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (this is
            right out of Enoch 7)

            Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of
            the Son of man be.

            Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so
            shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

            Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think
            not the Son of man cometh.

            Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour
            wherein the Son of man cometh.

            Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
            angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

            Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover,
            and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

            Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto
            that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man
            if he had not been born.

            Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep
            on now, and take [your] rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of
            Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

            Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto
            you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
            power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

            Yeshua is reported by Matthew alone to have claimed to have been the SON OF
            MAN (bar nasha) of Daniel and Enoch THIRTY TIMES....so why don't we believe
            him? Why do we believe Paul of Tarsus instead?

            An Enochian Jew, in the late second temple period, is one who believed in
            the Enochian apocalyptic such as the Essenes and Yohanan haMatbil.

            Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, an apocalyptic herald of the imminent malkutha
            d'alaha (Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of
            "normative" Mosaic Judaism. I think there are other indicators that this
            "Son of Man" from the ancient of days could be "Lord of the Sabbath" as well
            as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula "It is written" or "You have
            heard"...ABC "but *I* tell you"...XYZ).

            So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a "sage" but THE bar
            nasha that was expected by Yohanan/John (Matthew 11:3), the apocalyptic
            redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.

            The Gospel of Thomas, as wisdom literature, shows clear evidence of having
            had an Aramaic pre-cursor which I think was pre-Markan. I think Logion 86
            should be viewed in this aspect.

            shlama

            Jack

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX
          • jmgcormier
            Thank you Steven and Jack for your thoughts on the Son of Man . I hope other members will be just as forthcoming as both of you have been while I struggle to
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you Steven and Jack for your thoughts on the "Son of Man". I
              hope other members will be just as forthcoming as both of you have
              been while I struggle to keep pace with your flood of "great leads"
              ….

              On Steven's points, could I perhaps ask your opinion on the effect
              you see in Thomas having dropped the "of Man" part of "Son of Man"
              in logion 44 from its likely sources in Matt 12:31 and Luke 12:10 to
              the average Aramaic / Syriac reader … in short, if "Son of Man"
              rings of "someone" or perhaps "anyone" (essentially "a" person
              largely unspecified) in these early languages, then, as logion 44
              reads from the pen of Thomas, who might "the" Son (more specifically
              designated) sound as though its referring to when read by the same
              Aramaic / Syriac raders? Thomas does not mention anyone specific
              as "a" or "the" son throughout his gospel, so we have no reason to
              believe that "son" necessarily refers to Jesus except for the
              capitalized "S" later utilized by the manuscript's translators … in
              fact, in logion 16, "Father" and "Son" are not even in agreement in
              their persuasions, which suggests even further that we might not be
              talking here of God the Father and Jesus the Son ! So what might you
              think Thomas is implying in logion 44 (if anything) when he drops
              the "of Man" part of his source material and simply refers to "the
              Son"?

              And on Jack's point about "There was a considerable influence by
              Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result to the Babylonian Captivity
              after which they brought the Enochian traditions to Jerusalem upon
              the return." (which I think may be very closely related to Steven's
              explanation), I am left wondering if Zoroastrianism in turn might
              have had an idiomatic grammatical expression or perhaps a "son of
              deity designation" similar to that of the Aramaic / Syriac's "Son of
              Man" which was brought back to Jerusalem following the captivity,
              and which might have given a prominent rise to this expression and
              its use in the Judeo-Christian milieu ? Thoughts Jack ? (or from
              any of the other members on the list ?)

              Maurice Cormier


              PS - thank you Steven for your source material and dictionary
              references, and Jack for your Matthean incidence of "Son of Man"
              references.
            • Jack Kilmon
              ... From: jmgcormier To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man ... There is
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "jmgcormier" <cobby@...>
                To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:48 AM
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man


                >
                > Thank you Steven and Jack for your thoughts on the "Son of Man". I
                > hope other members will be just as forthcoming as both of you have
                > been while I struggle to keep pace with your flood of "great leads"
                > ..
                >
                > On Steven's points, could I perhaps ask your opinion on the effect
                > you see in Thomas having dropped the "of Man" part of "Son of Man"
                > in logion 44 from its likely sources in Matt 12:31 and Luke 12:10 to
                > the average Aramaic / Syriac reader . in short, if "Son of Man"
                > rings of "someone" or perhaps "anyone" (essentially "a" person
                > largely unspecified) in these early languages, then, as logion 44
                > reads from the pen of Thomas, who might "the" Son (more specifically
                > designated) sound as though its referring to when read by the same
                > Aramaic / Syriac raders? Thomas does not mention anyone specific
                > as "a" or "the" son throughout his gospel, so we have no reason to
                > believe that "son" necessarily refers to Jesus except for the
                > capitalized "S" later utilized by the manuscript's translators . in
                > fact, in logion 16, "Father" and "Son" are not even in agreement in
                > their persuasions, which suggests even further that we might not be
                > talking here of God the Father and Jesus the Son ! So what might you
                > think Thomas is implying in logion 44 (if anything) when he drops
                > the "of Man" part of his source material and simply refers to "the
                > Son"?
                >
                > And on Jack's point about "There was a considerable influence by
                > Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result to the Babylonian Captivity
                > after which they brought the Enochian traditions to Jerusalem upon
                > the return." (which I think may be very closely related to Steven's
                > explanation), I am left wondering if Zoroastrianism in turn might
                > have had an idiomatic grammatical expression or perhaps a "son of
                > deity designation" similar to that of the Aramaic / Syriac's "Son of
                > Man" which was brought back to Jerusalem following the captivity,
                > and which might have given a prominent rise to this expression and
                > its use in the Judeo-Christian milieu ? Thoughts Jack ? (or from
                > any of the other members on the list ?)
                >
                > Maurice Cormier
                >
                >
                > PS - thank you Steven for your source material and dictionary
                > references, and Jack for your Matthean incidence of "Son of Man"
                > references.

                'There is a paper called "Enmeduranki and Related Matters" in the Journal of
                Cuneiform Studies. See:

                http://hamblinwj.byu.edu/class/Ascent/03Mesop/03Mtexts/Enmeduranki.pdf

                ...and see if you think that the......."Foremost son, [....], king of
                justice, reliable shepherd, who keeps the land's foundations secure,"
                ...might sound like Enoch's (counterpart to Enmeduranki) Bar Nasha.

                Idioms are cultural and often change over time and geographically. Daniel
                and Enoch were originally written in "Biblical Aramaic" a form of Achaeminid
                Imperial and Old Judean Aramaic...as was the language of Jesus and the
                lingua franca of the 1st century was a Western Dialect. I don't know if
                "bar nasha" later meant the same in Syriac which is a later Eastern form.
                That could explain the "just a regular guy" meaning in Syriac into which I
                think the original Western Aramaic "proto-Thomas" may have been translated
                somewhere around Edessa. If that is the case, the GoT may have had a
                trajectory and editing life from Judean Aramaic to Syriac to Greek to Coptic
                and that is tough on idiom...sort of like the Logion 55 "HATE (Coptic
                Meste/Greek Misei) your mom and dad.." thing for Aramaic SANAH for "set
                aside."

                Sure gets tricky.

                Jack

                Jack Kilmon
                San Antonio, TX
              • Paul Lanier
                ... is to suggest that Son of Man as used in the New Testament is generally a way of linking up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised Messiah as announced by
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "jmgcormier" <cobby@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The more traditional interpretation (certainly the Christian one)
                  is to suggest that "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is
                  generally a way of linking up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised
                  Messiah as announced by the prophets of the Old Testament (especially
                  in Ezekiel where the expression is used unsparingly – close to a
                  hundred times). The other (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of
                  Man" is to suggest that because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of
                  Adam" (Ben-Adam), that it is meant to convey the human or material
                  nature of Jesus as opposed to his spiritual nature.

                  Hi Maurice,

                  Thank you for your post. I think the short answer is basically what
                  you state, although I believe "son of man" usually means simply
                  "person" or "human being" (no contrast with spirit intended). A
                  literal rendering would be "descendant of Adam." At least that seems
                  to be the clear context in the older Hebrew scriptures. So Job 25:5-6:

                  Behold, even the moon has no brightness,
                  And the stars are not pure in his sight;
                  How much less man ['enowsh], who is a worm!
                  The son of man [ben-'adam], who is a worm!

                  Let us hope "worm" does not refer to a future messiah! This example,
                  and others, are cited in a Wikipedia article that includes many fine
                  examples, all interlinear:

                  Son of man. (2008, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
                  Retrieved 16:37, October 2, 2008, from
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Son_of_man&oldid=240799337

                  (One thing this article lacks is a summary of LXX usage. I have not
                  made a complete study, but it appears LXX simply carries over "son of
                  man" as "uie anthrwpou").

                  In my opinion, usage in more recent Hebrew scriptures reflects the
                  same basic meaning: human being. In Ezekiel "son of man," although
                  used repeatedly, does not seem to be any sort of title. It seems to
                  serve as a constant reminder to Ezekiel that he is a mere human being
                  who receives instruction from a superior spiritual being. And despite
                  differing Christian interpretation, "son of man" in Daniel (c.
                  mid-second century BCE) still refers to a human being:

                  * As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being
                  coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and
                  was presented before him (Dan 7:13, NRSV).

                  * But he said to me, `Understand, O mortal [uie "son" (G5207);
                  anthrwpou "of man" (G444)], that the vision is for the time of the
                  end' (Dan 8:17).

                  Arguments that identify Daniel's "son of man," as Jesus, while
                  ubiquitous, do not convince. I would argue that widespread reference
                  to Dan 7:13, as if usage there somehow differs from that in Dan 8:17,
                  demonstrates only that adherents of this argument have no real case.

                  The real trajectory that develops "son of man" as some sort of title,
                  possibly messianic, begins in 1 Enoch (c.200 BCE - 50 CE). For example:

                  (The translation of 1 Enoch here is that of RH Charles, online at:
                  http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm)

                  And there I saw One who had a head of days,
                  And His head was white like wool,
                  And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
                  a man,
                  And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
                  And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden
                  things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was,
                  (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
                  This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
                  With whom dwelleth righteousness,
                  And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
                  Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
                  And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in
                  uprightness for ever.
                  (1 Enoch 46:1-3)

                  Here the author begins an elaboration of Dan 7:13 that looks like the
                  source of a later Christian doctrine of final judgment:

                  For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
                  And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
                  And revealed him to the elect.
                  And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
                  And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
                  And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule
                  the earth
                  Shall fall down before him on their faces,
                  And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
                  And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.
                  (1 Enoch 62:7-9)

                  However this Son of Man is often associated with a "Lord of Spirits"
                  in 1 Enoch. Two examples that illustrate how closely 1 Enoth themes
                  resemble those of the New Testament:

                  And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
                  And with that Son of Man shall they eat
                  And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.
                  And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth,
                  And ceased to be of downcast countenance.
                  And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,
                  And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits:
                  And your garments shall not grow old,
                  Nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits.
                  (1 Enoch 62:14-16)

                  When the congregation of the righteous shall appear,
                  And sinners shall be judged for their sins,
                  And shall be driven from the face of the earth:
                  And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous,
                  Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits,
                  And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the
                  earth,
                  Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners,
                  And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits?
                  It had been good for them if they had not been born.
                  When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners
                  judged,
                  And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
                  From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be
                  powerful and exalted:
                  And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
                  For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
                  On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.
                  (1 Enoch 38:1-4)

                  These I think clearly demonstrate that usage of "son of man" as a
                  messianic title began with 1 Enoch and was carried into the New
                  Testament by the gospel authors. Paul never uses this term.

                  I agree with your important observations on "son of man" in Thomas.
                  L.44 could have employed the term but does not. L.86 observes the
                  irony that animals have homes but people do not. L.106 usage is not
                  messianic. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with "son of man" as a
                  messianic title.

                  regards,
                  Paul Lanier
                • Steven Ring
                  Hi Paul, It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic idiom bar
                  Message 8 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Paul,

                    It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from
                    middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic
                    idiom 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' away from the semantic range previously
                    indicated, i.e. 'one', 'someone' 'anyone' and 'human being'. In
                    Christian circles there are other factors at play which we should
                    perhaps bear in mind. These make it almost irresistible for Christians
                    not to identify 'son of man' in some way or other with the Son, as the
                    second person in the trinitarian theological system. Personally I think
                    this theological factor has interfered with the way the idiom, 'son of
                    man' has come to be understood.

                    There, I opened another can of worms. But perhaps it is better to find
                    out what scripture really says and struggle with that, than it is to
                    seek easy comfort and the company of the many.

                    That Paul never uses 'son of man' is (I think) because he wrote his
                    letters in Greek, a language where this Aramaic idiom has no meaning.
                    The gospels on the other hand are full of Aramaic idioms which have been
                    sometimes rendered into Greek literally and sometimes interpreted,
                    sometimes differently in different Greek gospels. 'son of man' is one
                    such idiom, other examples include;
                    Aramaic --------------- English
                    'to know visitation' = 'to know' or 'to recognize'
                    'the head' = 'the name' This idiom found in Matthew was also embedded in
                    Paul's mind as a bilingual and he interpreted it in his Greek letters.
                    'the eye' = 'the inner self'' Perhaps Paul got his 'crucify the carnal
                    nature' terminology from here.
                    'the hand' = 'companion/friend/spouse' How different would the history
                    of king Henry VIIIth have been if he had known this one?

                    Food for thought anyway.

                    All the best,
                    Steven.



                    Paul Lanier wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:gthomas%40yahoogroups.com>,
                    > "jmgcormier" <cobby@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > The more traditional interpretation (certainly the Christian one)
                    > is to suggest that "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is
                    > generally a way of linking up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised
                    > Messiah as announced by the prophets of the Old Testament (especially
                    > in Ezekiel where the expression is used unsparingly – close to a
                    > hundred times). The other (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of
                    > Man" is to suggest that because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of
                    > Adam" (Ben-Adam), that it is meant to convey the human or material
                    > nature of Jesus as opposed to his spiritual nature.
                    >
                    > Hi Maurice,
                    >
                    > Thank you for your post. I think the short answer is basically what
                    > you state, although I believe "son of man" usually means simply
                    > "person" or "human being" (no contrast with spirit intended). A
                    > literal rendering would be "descendant of Adam." At least that seems
                    > to be the clear context in the older Hebrew scriptures. So Job 25:5-6:
                    >
                    > Behold, even the moon has no brightness,
                    > And the stars are not pure in his sight;
                    > How much less man ['enowsh], who is a worm!
                    > The son of man [ben-'adam], who is a worm!
                    >
                    > Let us hope "worm" does not refer to a future messiah! This example,
                    > and others, are cited in a Wikipedia article that includes many fine
                    > examples, all interlinear:
                    >
                    > Son of man. (2008, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
                    > Retrieved 16:37, October 2, 2008, from
                    > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Son_of_man&oldid=240799337
                    > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Son_of_man&oldid=240799337>
                    >
                    > (One thing this article lacks is a summary of LXX usage. I have not
                    > made a complete study, but it appears LXX simply carries over "son of
                    > man" as "uie anthrwpou").
                    >
                    > In my opinion, usage in more recent Hebrew scriptures reflects the
                    > same basic meaning: human being. In Ezekiel "son of man," although
                    > used repeatedly, does not seem to be any sort of title. It seems to
                    > serve as a constant reminder to Ezekiel that he is a mere human being
                    > who receives instruction from a superior spiritual being. And despite
                    > differing Christian interpretation, "son of man" in Daniel (c.
                    > mid-second century BCE) still refers to a human being:
                    >
                    > * As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being
                    > coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and
                    > was presented before him (Dan 7:13, NRSV).
                    >
                    > * But he said to me, `Understand, O mortal [uie "son" (G5207);
                    > anthrwpou "of man" (G444)], that the vision is for the time of the
                    > end' (Dan 8:17).
                    >
                    > Arguments that identify Daniel's "son of man," as Jesus, while
                    > ubiquitous, do not convince. I would argue that widespread reference
                    > to Dan 7:13, as if usage there somehow differs from that in Dan 8:17,
                    > demonstrates only that adherents of this argument have no real case.
                    >
                    > The real trajectory that develops "son of man" as some sort of title,
                    > possibly messianic, begins in 1 Enoch (c.200 BCE - 50 CE). For example:
                    >
                    > (The translation of 1 Enoch here is that of RH Charles, online at:
                    > http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm
                    > <http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm>)
                    >
                    > And there I saw One who had a head of days,
                    > And His head was white like wool,
                    > And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
                    > a man,
                    > And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
                    > And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden
                    > things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was,
                    > (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
                    > This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
                    > With whom dwelleth righteousness,
                    > And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
                    > Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
                    > And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in
                    > uprightness for ever.
                    > (1 Enoch 46:1-3)
                    >
                    > Here the author begins an elaboration of Dan 7:13 that looks like the
                    > source of a later Christian doctrine of final judgment:
                    >
                    > For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
                    > And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
                    > And revealed him to the elect.
                    > And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
                    > And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
                    > And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule
                    > the earth
                    > Shall fall down before him on their faces,
                    > And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
                    > And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.
                    > (1 Enoch 62:7-9)
                    >
                    > However this Son of Man is often associated with a "Lord of Spirits"
                    > in 1 Enoch. Two examples that illustrate how closely 1 Enoth themes
                    > resemble those of the New Testament:
                    >
                    > And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
                    > And with that Son of Man shall they eat
                    > And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.
                    > And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth,
                    > And ceased to be of downcast countenance.
                    > And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,
                    > And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits:
                    > And your garments shall not grow old,
                    > Nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits.
                    > (1 Enoch 62:14-16)
                    >
                    > When the congregation of the righteous shall appear,
                    > And sinners shall be judged for their sins,
                    > And shall be driven from the face of the earth:
                    > And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous,
                    > Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits,
                    > And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the
                    > earth,
                    > Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners,
                    > And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits?
                    > It had been good for them if they had not been born.
                    > When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners
                    > judged,
                    > And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
                    > >From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be
                    > powerful and exalted:
                    > And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
                    > For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
                    > On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.
                    > (1 Enoch 38:1-4)
                    >
                    > These I think clearly demonstrate that usage of "son of man" as a
                    > messianic title began with 1 Enoch and was carried into the New
                    > Testament by the gospel authors. Paul never uses this term.
                    >
                    > I agree with your important observations on "son of man" in Thomas.
                    > L.44 could have employed the term but does not. L.86 observes the
                    > irony that animals have homes but people do not. L.106 usage is not
                    > messianic. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with "son of man" as a
                    > messianic title.
                    >
                    > regards,
                    > Paul Lanier
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                    > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1702 - Release Date: 01/10/2008 09:05
                    >
                    >
                  • Michael Grondin
                    ... I would say rather that the author has used sons of Man (capital M ) as a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for example, it surely
                    Message 9 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Paul writes to Maurice:
                      > I agree with your important observations on "son of man" in Thomas.
                      > L.44 could have employed the term but does not. L.86 observes the
                      > irony that animals have homes but people do not. L.106 usage is not
                      > messianic. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with "son of man" as a
                      > messianic title.

                      I would say rather that the author has used 'sons of Man' (capital 'M') as
                      a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for example, it
                      surely would have been seen as patently false that people in general
                      don't have homes. But itinerants don't, and that seems to have been
                      the recognized life-style of Jesus and his early disciples, and one that
                      was recommended in GTh. (L.42 can be read as "Become itinerant.")

                      In Thomas, the definite article 'the' apparently tells us when the authors
                      were thinking of human beings, and when they were thinking of this special
                      class of (holy) itinerants. In L.28.3, for example, it's just 'sons of men',
                      so that's anybody. But in saying in L.106 that "You will become sons of Man"
                      (capitalization indicating presence of definite article), it's doubly
                      apparent that what's being talked about is becoming something that one
                      is _not_ to begin with. But since everyone is a child of small-m man to
                      begin with, being a child of big-m Man must be something else. This is
                      reinforced by the theme that when one is born, he/she is "two", but that
                      by "making the two one", one becomes a "son of Man". If "the two" be
                      identified as materiality versus spirituality, then the GTh advice is
                      plainly to choose the spiritual over the material, rather than attempt to
                      satisfy both. A natural result of this advice would be to have no fixed
                      home, but rather to become an itinerant preacher (the speaking against
                      whom, since that person would presumably be a voice of the holy spirit,
                      would be unforgiveable, ala L.44.)

                      What would be important to know, in terms of this analysis, is whether
                      Aramaic or the Syriac family had a definite article, or something that
                      functioned as such. Hopefully, Steven or Jack can advise.

                      Mike Grondin
                      Mt. Clemens, MI
                    • Steven Ring
                      Hi Michael, Syriac and Aramaic nouns don t really take the article anything like the way they do in English, rather in an English translation, the article
                      Message 10 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Michael,

                        Syriac and Aramaic nouns don't really take the article anything like the
                        way they do in English, rather in an English translation, the article
                        (definite or indefinite) can normally be worked out from the Aramaic
                        context. The definite article would normally be attached to an Aramaic
                        noun in an English translation, unless there are signs in the context
                        that this would be inappropriate. Where we would insist on the
                        indefinite article in English, there are less direct ways of doing the
                        same thing in Aramaic. I have put an example below..

                        If GT started from, or was transmitted through the Syriac language, it
                        may not be very secure to build an argument on the article appearing in
                        a subsequent English translation!

                        Best regards,
                        Steven.

                        Aramaic can express ideas like a single instance of something or a
                        particular kind of something which, depending on the context, would
                        demand the indefinite article when translated into English. An adjective
                        or a number can be associated with a noun to convey the indefinite
                        article, for example;
                        'naphsha kina' = 'upright man' This would normally attract the
                        indefinite article in a translation, 'an upright man' if the context was
                        trying to distinguish him from the others using the adjective 'kina' =
                        'upright'
                        'nasha _h_ad' = 'one man' or 'a man' i.e a particular man in a group of men.
                        There are also other, more subtle ways to convey the indefinite article
                        idea in Aramaic using the absolute state of a noun.

                        Michael Grondin wrote:
                        >
                        > Paul writes to Maurice:
                        > > I agree with your important observations on "son of man" in Thomas.
                        > > L.44 could have employed the term but does not. L.86 observes the
                        > > irony that animals have homes but people do not. L.106 usage is not
                        > > messianic. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with "son of man" as a
                        > > messianic title.
                        >
                        > I would say rather that the author has used 'sons of Man' (capital 'M') as
                        > a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for example, it
                        > surely would have been seen as patently false that people in general
                        > don't have homes. But itinerants don't, and that seems to have been
                        > the recognized life-style of Jesus and his early disciples, and one that
                        > was recommended in GTh. (L.42 can be read as "Become itinerant.")
                        >
                        > In Thomas, the definite article 'the' apparently tells us when the authors
                        > were thinking of human beings, and when they were thinking of this special
                        > class of (holy) itinerants. In L.28.3, for example, it's just 'sons of
                        > men',
                        > so that's anybody. But in saying in L.106 that "You will become sons
                        > of Man"
                        > (capitalization indicating presence of definite article), it's doubly
                        > apparent that what's being talked about is becoming something that one
                        > is _not_ to begin with. But since everyone is a child of small-m man to
                        > begin with, being a child of big-m Man must be something else. This is
                        > reinforced by the theme that when one is born, he/she is "two", but that
                        > by "making the two one", one becomes a "son of Man". If "the two" be
                        > identified as materiality versus spirituality, then the GTh advice is
                        > plainly to choose the spiritual over the material, rather than attempt to
                        > satisfy both. A natural result of this advice would be to have no fixed
                        > home, but rather to become an itinerant preacher (the speaking against
                        > whom, since that person would presumably be a voice of the holy spirit,
                        > would be unforgiveable, ala L.44.)
                        >
                        > What would be important to know, in terms of this analysis, is whether
                        > Aramaic or the Syriac family had a definite article, or something that
                        > functioned as such. Hopefully, Steven or Jack can advise.
                        >
                        > Mike Grondin
                        > Mt. Clemens, MI
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        >
                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                        > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 02/10/2008 07:46
                        >
                        >
                      • Michael Grondin
                        ... Thanks for the information, Steven. No, I wasn t arguing from an English translation. I never do. In Coptic, the letter p attached to a masculine noun
                        Message 11 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > If GT started from, or was transmitted through the Syriac language, it
                          > may not be very secure to build an argument on the article appearing
                          > in a subsequent English translation!

                          Thanks for the information, Steven. No, I wasn't arguing from an English
                          translation. I never do. In Coptic, the letter 'p' attached to a masculine
                          noun
                          like 'rwme' ('man') represents the definite article 'the'. But if the noun
                          isn't
                          qualified by a who-phrase (as in, e.g., 'the man who came to dinner'),
                          then the definite article functions as an untranslated capitalizer. Thus, in
                          my
                          note, whenever I used 'Man' instead of 'man', the capital 'M' indicated that
                          the word in that context was 'p-rwme', and that it was unqualified.

                          The difference between Coptic and Greek, which had the definite article,
                          and the Syriac languages (also Latin, I think), which didn't, may account
                          for some interesting twists of interpretation. It seems fairly clear,
                          however,
                          that what the GThom authors were trying to say was that anyone could
                          become a "son/child of Man", which apparently for them meant an
                          itinerant preacher/healer on the model of Jesus.

                          Regards,
                          Mike
                        • Paul Lanier
                          ... middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic idiom bar nasha = son of man away from the semantic range previously indicated,
                          Message 12 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Steven Ring <steven.ring@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from
                            middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic
                            idiom 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' away from the semantic range previously
                            indicated, i.e. 'one', 'someone' 'anyone' and 'human being'. In
                            Christian circles there are other factors at play which we should
                            perhaps bear in mind. These make it almost irresistible for Christians
                            not to identify 'son of man' in some way or other with the Son, as the
                            second person in the trinitarian theological system. Personally I think
                            this theological factor has interfered with the way the idiom, 'son of
                            man' has come to be understood.

                            Hi Steven,

                            I completely agree theology has distorted 'son of man' by using the
                            phrase as a title rather than an idiom for 'human being.' In the NT
                            this peculiar usage begin with Mark, but I think it has strong roots
                            in 1 Enoch. That is the way I read the context in 1 Enoch, but I agree
                            it is not always clear. For example:

                            * When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory (62:5)

                            * And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was
                            given unto the Son of Man (69:27)

                            * And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice,
                            and said unto me ' This is the Son of Man who is born unto
                            righteousness, And righteousness abides over him (71:14)

                            In these 'son of man' carries attributes later applied to Jesus.
                            Interestingly, it is not clear that 'messiah' is one of those attributes.

                            I do think it is interesting that some very early
                            church fathers apparently approved of 1 Enoch. I would suggest their
                            doctrines of hell are difficult to derive from the NT, but obvious in
                            1 Enoch. And of course Jude 14-15 parallels 1 Enoch 1:9. All of this
                            indicates 1 Enoch was authoritative for some early church leaders.

                            This leads me to wonder how doctrines of 1 Enoch became authoritative
                            for some communities. Was 1 Enoch authoritative for some Jewish
                            Christian communities, but not for Thomas? And why would that be? Did
                            early Jewish Christians who held 1 Enoch authoritative, but who never
                            met Jesus, adapt Enochian theology? Even Paul uses several Enochian
                            themes. But not apparently 'son of man.' I would suggest Paul was
                            unfamiliar with that designation (although his opponents may have used
                            it, if the Enochian 'son of man' title derives from a Qumran community
                            of righteousness). LXX repeatedly renders 'son of man' as 'uie
                            anthrwpou,' so Paul must have been familiar it. Paul's title for
                            Jesus, of course, is 'Christos.'

                            regards,
                            Paul Lanier
                          • Paul Lanier
                            ... M ) as a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for example, it surely would have been seen as patently false that people in general don t
                            Message 13 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I would say rather that the author has used 'sons of Man' (capital
                              'M') as a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for
                              example, it surely would have been seen as patently false that people
                              in general don't have homes. But itinerants don't, and that seems to
                              have been the recognized life-style of Jesus and his early disciples,
                              and one that was recommended in GTh. (L.42 can be read as "Become
                              itinerant.")

                              Thanks, Mike, for this, and also for your convincing observation on
                              p-rwme (post 8247). Back to the drawing board!

                              regards,
                              Paul Lanier
                            • Steven Ring
                              Hi Paul, In the vast literature surrounding the DSS, I remember reading somewhere that the book of Enoch (amongst other DSS messianic works) plays upon the
                              Message 14 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Paul,

                                In the vast literature surrounding the DSS, I remember reading somewhere
                                that the book of Enoch (amongst other DSS messianic works) plays upon
                                the imagery and terminology of the OT book of Daniel. Anyway, in my
                                view, this could explain the interpretive elements around 'son of man'
                                in the further quotations you cite. In other words, in the post-Daniel
                                but still pre-Christian period, the author of 1 Enoch explores who this
                                person described by Daniel might be. The gospels also employ the imagery
                                of Daniel and Isho` directly quotes Daniel in his teaching, e.g. in
                                Mt24, so 1 Enoch and the gospels come from a similar Aramaic cultural
                                context.

                                So, coming to the quotations you mentioned. These appear to me to be
                                closely linked to ideas in Daniel and not any attempt in Aramaic to turn
                                'son of man' into a proper noun associated with a specific person.

                                The subject of the use of 1 Enoch in early Christianity is a very
                                interesting one and I agree, it appears to have been an influential
                                text. In slow-time I will have a look around to see if there is any
                                evidence of 1 Enoch leaking into the Syriac tradition. It would not
                                surprise me if such evidence does exist, but I have never seen anything
                                published on that subject. The clincher in this case would be to find
                                precise quotations from surviving DSS Aramaic book of 1 Enoch embedded
                                in a Syriac patristic text. This would be further evidence, (and I have
                                already found plenty anyway) that the Syriac tradition preserves
                                primitive Semitic Christian texts from the pre-AD 70 period.

                                Best regards,
                                Steven.

                                Paul Lanier wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:gthomas%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                > Steven Ring <steven.ring@...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from
                                > middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic
                                > idiom 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' away from the semantic range previously
                                > indicated, i.e. 'one', 'someone' 'anyone' and 'human being'. In
                                > Christian circles there are other factors at play which we should
                                > perhaps bear in mind. These make it almost irresistible for Christians
                                > not to identify 'son of man' in some way or other with the Son, as the
                                > second person in the trinitarian theological system. Personally I think
                                > this theological factor has interfered with the way the idiom, 'son of
                                > man' has come to be understood.
                                >
                                > Hi Steven,
                                >
                                > I completely agree theology has distorted 'son of man' by using the
                                > phrase as a title rather than an idiom for 'human being.' In the NT
                                > this peculiar usage begin with Mark, but I think it has strong roots
                                > in 1 Enoch. That is the way I read the context in 1 Enoch, but I agree
                                > it is not always clear. For example:
                                >
                                > * When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory (62:5)
                                >
                                > * And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was
                                > given unto the Son of Man (69:27)
                                >
                                > * And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice,
                                > and said unto me ' This is the Son of Man who is born unto
                                > righteousness, And righteousness abides over him (71:14)
                                >
                                > In these 'son of man' carries attributes later applied to Jesus.
                                > Interestingly, it is not clear that 'messiah' is one of those attributes.
                                >
                                > I do think it is interesting that some very early
                                > church fathers apparently approved of 1 Enoch. I would suggest their
                                > doctrines of hell are difficult to derive from the NT, but obvious in
                                > 1 Enoch. And of course Jude 14-15 parallels 1 Enoch 1:9. All of this
                                > indicates 1 Enoch was authoritative for some early church leaders.
                                >
                                > This leads me to wonder how doctrines of 1 Enoch became authoritative
                                > for some communities. Was 1 Enoch authoritative for some Jewish
                                > Christian communities, but not for Thomas? And why would that be? Did
                                > early Jewish Christians who held 1 Enoch authoritative, but who never
                                > met Jesus, adapt Enochian theology? Even Paul uses several Enochian
                                > themes. But not apparently 'son of man.' I would suggest Paul was
                                > unfamiliar with that designation (although his opponents may have used
                                > it, if the Enochian 'son of man' title derives from a Qumran community
                                > of righteousness). LXX repeatedly renders 'son of man' as 'uie
                                > anthrwpou,' so Paul must have been familiar it. Paul's title for
                                > Jesus, of course, is 'Christos.'
                                >
                                > regards,
                                > Paul Lanier
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                >
                                >
                                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                                > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 02/10/2008 07:46
                                >
                                >
                              • Jack Kilmon
                                ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Son of Man
                                Message 15 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
                                  To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:42 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Son of Man


                                  > Paul writes to Maurice:
                                  >> I agree with your important observations on "son of man" in Thomas.
                                  >> L.44 could have employed the term but does not. L.86 observes the
                                  >> irony that animals have homes but people do not. L.106 usage is not
                                  >> messianic. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with "son of man" as a
                                  >> messianic title.
                                  >
                                  > I would say rather that the author has used 'sons of Man' (capital 'M') as
                                  > a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for example, it
                                  > surely would have been seen as patently false that people in general
                                  > don't have homes. But itinerants don't, and that seems to have been
                                  > the recognized life-style of Jesus and his early disciples, and one that
                                  > was recommended in GTh. (L.42 can be read as "Become itinerant.")
                                  >
                                  > In Thomas, the definite article 'the' apparently tells us when the authors
                                  > were thinking of human beings, and when they were thinking of this special
                                  > class of (holy) itinerants. In L.28.3, for example, it's just 'sons of
                                  > men',
                                  > so that's anybody. But in saying in L.106 that "You will become sons of
                                  > Man"
                                  > (capitalization indicating presence of definite article), it's doubly
                                  > apparent that what's being talked about is becoming something that one
                                  > is _not_ to begin with. But since everyone is a child of small-m man to
                                  > begin with, being a child of big-m Man must be something else. This is
                                  > reinforced by the theme that when one is born, he/she is "two", but that
                                  > by "making the two one", one becomes a "son of Man". If "the two" be
                                  > identified as materiality versus spirituality, then the GTh advice is
                                  > plainly to choose the spiritual over the material, rather than attempt to
                                  > satisfy both. A natural result of this advice would be to have no fixed
                                  > home, but rather to become an itinerant preacher (the speaking against
                                  > whom, since that person would presumably be a voice of the holy spirit,
                                  > would be unforgiveable, ala L.44.)
                                  >
                                  > What would be important to know, in terms of this analysis, is whether
                                  > Aramaic or the Syriac family had a definite article, or something that
                                  > functioned as such. Hopefully, Steven or Jack can advise.
                                  >
                                  > Mike Grondin
                                  > Mt. Clemens, MI

                                  Hi Mike:

                                  In Biblical and Judean Aramaic, in addition to the absolute and construct
                                  state there is a determined state. The emphatic -a is postfixed rather than
                                  prefixed as in the hebrew "ha-" as an aleph or a heh to act as the definite
                                  article. In later dialects...to a lesser degree in Judean..and Steven can
                                  talk about Syriac...the post-fixed determinative lost its "definite
                                  articleness" in some cases to become the normal state of the noun. Son of
                                  Man = Bar Nash; THE Son of Man = Bar Nasha.

                                  Jack Kilmon
                                • Judy Redman
                                  Mike you say ... Isn t this a bit too definitive? I think you need to say that when there is no who-phrase, the p (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mike you say
                                    >
                                    > Thanks for the information, Steven. No, I wasn't arguing from
                                    > an English translation. I never do. In Coptic, the letter 'p'
                                    > attached to a masculine noun like 'rwme' ('man') represents
                                    > the definite article 'the'. But if the noun isn't qualified
                                    > by a who-phrase (as in, e.g., 'the man who came to dinner'),
                                    > then the definite article functions as an untranslated
                                    > capitalizer. Thus, in my note, whenever I used 'Man' instead
                                    > of 'man', the capital 'M' indicated that the word in that
                                    > context was 'p-rwme', and that it was unqualified.

                                    Isn't this a bit too definitive? I think you need to say that when there is
                                    no who-phrase, the p (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or maybe even
                                    *often* or *usually* funcitons as an untranslated capitalizer, depending on
                                    the context. It is certainly possible to use prwme and tpolis in a sentence
                                    that would be translated "the man visited his brother in the city". To
                                    translate this as "Man visited his brother in City" would clearly not be
                                    sensible.

                                    I think that the problem here is that both translations appear to be
                                    possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so the
                                    reader needs to make decisions about which is the right one in the
                                    particular context. Although I have not had time to look at the texts in
                                    question, it would seem to me entirely possible that Thomas might sometimes
                                    use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a human being". And, of
                                    course, what we decide makes more sense in any given context will depend on
                                    our particular understandings of what kind of text Thomas is - gnostic,
                                    mystic etc.

                                    Judy

                                    --
                                    "Politics is the work we do to keep the world safe for our spirituality" -
                                    Judith Plaskow, Phoenix Rising, 2000

                                    Rev Judy Redman
                                    Uniting Church Chaplain
                                    University of New England Armidale 2351
                                    ph: +61 2 6773 3739
                                    fax: +61 2 6773 3749
                                    web: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jredman2 and
                                    http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                                    email: jredman2@...
                                  • Michael Grondin
                                    ... Agreed. From within Thomas, I m reminded of L.78.1 ( Why did you come out to the wilderness? ). ... If we re talking about p-rwme , then I think Man ,
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Judy, you wrote:

                                      > I think you need to say that when there is no who-phrase, the p
                                      > (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or maybe even *often*
                                      > or *usually* funcitons as an untranslated capitalizer, depending
                                      > on the context.

                                      Agreed. From within Thomas, I'm reminded of L.78.1 ("Why did
                                      you come out to the wilderness?").

                                      > I think that the problem here is that both translations appear to be
                                      > possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so the
                                      > reader needs to make decisions about which is the right one in the
                                      > particular context. Although I have not had time to look at the texts in
                                      > question, it would seem to me entirely possible that Thomas might
                                      > sometimes use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a human being".

                                      If we're talking about 'p-rwme', then I think 'Man', 'Humanity', 'Human
                                      beings', even 'the human being' are pretty much interchangeable, but
                                      not '_a_ human being', which I wouldn't use for that.

                                      > And, of course, what we decide makes more sense in any given context
                                      > will depend on our particular understandings of what kind of text Thomas
                                      > is - gnostic, mystic etc.

                                      Oh, I don't know about that. I think one can make these decisions based
                                      on thematic consistency with other sayings whose meaning is pretty clear,
                                      without having any particular understanding of what kind of text Thomas is.
                                      At least, that's what I think I'm doing (:-)

                                      Regards,
                                      Mike
                                    • Judy Redman
                                      Mike, ... I was actually thinking about son of man, but you re right. I don t think p-rwme can be *a* human being. ... Sorry - what I was trying to say (I m
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mike,
                                        >
                                        > > I think that the problem here is that both translations
                                        > appear to be
                                        > > possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so
                                        > > the reader needs to make decisions about which is the right
                                        > one in the
                                        > > particular context. Although I have not had time to look
                                        > at the texts
                                        > > in question, it would seem to me entirely possible that
                                        > Thomas might
                                        > > sometimes use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a
                                        > human being".
                                        >
                                        > If we're talking about 'p-rwme', then I think 'Man',
                                        > 'Humanity', 'Human beings', even 'the human being' are pretty
                                        > much interchangeable, but not '_a_ human being', which I
                                        > wouldn't use for that.

                                        I was actually thinking about son of man, but you're right. I don't think
                                        p-rwme can be *a* human being.

                                        >
                                        > > And, of course, what we decide makes more sense in any
                                        > given context
                                        > > will depend on our particular understandings of what kind of text
                                        > > Thomas is - gnostic, mystic etc.
                                        >
                                        > Oh, I don't know about that. I think one can make these
                                        > decisions based on thematic consistency with other sayings
                                        > whose meaning is pretty clear, without having any particular
                                        > understanding of what kind of text Thomas is.
                                        > At least, that's what I think I'm doing (:-)

                                        Sorry - what I was trying to say (I'm fighting a head cold and not thinking
                                        as clearly as I might) is that we bring particular assumptions about a text
                                        to the text and they influence how we translate it because, I think, they
                                        can influence what we see as pretty clear meanings. At the most general
                                        level, as was pointed out in the Thomas and Tatian thread, people who
                                        assume that Thomas is dependent tend to see as obvious that any verbatim
                                        bits demonstrate that Thomas follows the synoptics, when all that can really
                                        be said is that the passages are the same. I'm not accusing you of doing
                                        this, Mike, just saying that we need to be very careful to examine our
                                        preconceptions when we need to make choices about translation and, indeed,
                                        in deciding which passages are actually thematically consistent.

                                        Judy
                                      • rj.godijn
                                        ... verbatim ... really ... Hi Judy, I realize your post wasn t really about synoptic-thomas relationship, but I really must respond to what you are saying
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > At the most general
                                          > level, as was pointed out in the Thomas and Tatian thread, people who
                                          > assume that Thomas is dependent tend to see as obvious that any
                                          verbatim
                                          > bits demonstrate that Thomas follows the synoptics, when all that can
                                          really
                                          > be said is that the passages are the same.

                                          Hi Judy,

                                          I realize your post wasn't really about synoptic-thomas relationship,
                                          but I really must respond to what you are saying here.

                                          Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of the
                                          Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and the Synoptics do
                                          not necessarily do this because of a canonical bias, they do this
                                          because the redactional work of one or more of the evangelists can be
                                          found in Thomas. Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what
                                          is redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up with
                                          alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who favors an
                                          independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or Lukan redaction can
                                          be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a proponent of the Farrer
                                          hypothesis would add many more to this list). This should not be
                                          brushed away so easily. The question of course remains what explains
                                          these instances? Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or
                                          perhaps secondary orality.

                                          Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the Synoptics also
                                          does not mean that one considers every parallel between them as a sign
                                          that Thomas is secondary. It can very well be the case that some of the
                                          sayings in Thomas are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the
                                          popularity of the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not
                                          be at all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to the
                                          Thomas collection.

                                          Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                          conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will favor Thomas'
                                          dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical manner in
                                          which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work nicely illustrates this.
                                          However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the counter-
                                          reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.

                                          Regards, Richard Godijn
                                        • Judy Redman
                                          Hi Richard, ... I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the ways in which the perspective from which people approach a text, the questions
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Richard,

                                            You say:
                                            >
                                            > Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of
                                            > the Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and
                                            > the Synoptics do not necessarily do this because of a
                                            > canonical bias, they do this because the redactional work of
                                            > one or more of the evangelists can be found in Thomas.
                                            > Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what is
                                            > redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up
                                            > with alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who
                                            > favors an independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or
                                            > Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a
                                            > proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
                                            > this list). This should not be brushed away so easily. The
                                            > question of course remains what explains these instances?
                                            > Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or perhaps
                                            > secondary orality.

                                            I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the ways in
                                            which the perspective from which people approach a text, the questions they
                                            bring to it, if you like, can influence the way they interpret it. So, if
                                            you approach Thomas asking "what evidence can I find that Thomas is
                                            dependent on the synoptic material?" you will potentially reach different
                                            conclusions to the ones you will reach if you ask "are there any passages in
                                            Thomas that are similar to and/or the same as those in the synoptics and if
                                            so, what might that mean?" The answer you give, especially to the first
                                            question will be further influenced by whether or not you have anything
                                            invested in the outcome. That is, if you want the answer to be "lots of
                                            evidence" you are more likely to include tenuous evidence. If you want it
                                            to be "none at all", then you will discard anything that could reasonably be
                                            considered tenuous.

                                            > Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the
                                            > Synoptics also does not mean that one considers every
                                            > parallel between them as a sign that Thomas is secondary. It
                                            > can very well be the case that some of the sayings in Thomas
                                            > are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the popularity of
                                            > the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not be at
                                            > all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to
                                            > the Thomas collection.

                                            I think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and say that
                                            the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics does not
                                            mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the synoptics.
                                            It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that they
                                            shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the material that I
                                            am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that have
                                            parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the parable of
                                            the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in Thomas that
                                            compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.

                                            >
                                            > Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                            > conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will
                                            > favor Thomas'
                                            > dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
                                            > manner in which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work
                                            > nicely illustrates this.
                                            > However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
                                            > counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.

                                            No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good evidence
                                            by asking the right questions in the first place. That's certainly true
                                            when you're questioning eyewitnesses.

                                            Judy
                                          • Paul Lanier
                                            ... influence how we translate it because, I think, they can influence what we see as pretty clear meanings. Hi Judy, I agree, and would add that two biases
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > we bring particular assumptions about a text to the text and they
                                              influence how we translate it because, I think, they can influence
                                              what we see as pretty clear meanings.

                                              Hi Judy,

                                              I agree, and would add that two biases apply to any historical
                                              reconstruction: the bias of the historian, and the general social
                                              paradigms of the intended readers. I think most historians would agree
                                              there is no such thing as a truly objective history. Recognizing the
                                              bias of the historian and her or his culture is a necessary basis for
                                              interpretation of the historian's work.

                                              Of course, by the law of accretion, texts which elaborate on a simpler
                                              text are probably later. This can lead to a reasonable presumption of
                                              dependency.

                                              It is of course possible (although far less likely) that an elaborated
                                              text is the earlier one. I would suggest that sort of argument is more
                                              of an apologetic, because it seeks to preserve doctrine by proposing
                                              how a much less likely event could still have occurred.

                                              regards,
                                              Paul Lanier
                                            • rj.godijn
                                              ... ways in ... questions they ... So, if ... different ... passages in ... synoptics and if ... first ... anything ... be lots of ... want it ... reasonably
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Hi Richard,
                                                >
                                                > You say:
                                                > >
                                                > > Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of
                                                > > the Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and
                                                > > the Synoptics do not necessarily do this because of a
                                                > > canonical bias, they do this because the redactional work of
                                                > > one or more of the evangelists can be found in Thomas.
                                                > > Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what is
                                                > > redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up
                                                > > with alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who
                                                > > favors an independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or
                                                > > Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a
                                                > > proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
                                                > > this list). This should not be brushed away so easily. The
                                                > > question of course remains what explains these instances?
                                                > > Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or perhaps
                                                > > secondary orality.
                                                >
                                                > I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the
                                                ways in
                                                > which the perspective from which people approach a text, the
                                                questions they
                                                > bring to it, if you like, can influence the way they interpret it.
                                                So, if
                                                > you approach Thomas asking "what evidence can I find that Thomas is
                                                > dependent on the synoptic material?" you will potentially reach
                                                different
                                                > conclusions to the ones you will reach if you ask "are there any
                                                passages in
                                                > Thomas that are similar to and/or the same as those in the
                                                synoptics and if
                                                > so, what might that mean?" The answer you give, especially to the
                                                first
                                                > question will be further influenced by whether or not you have
                                                anything
                                                > invested in the outcome. That is, if you want the answer to
                                                be "lots of
                                                > evidence" you are more likely to include tenuous evidence. If you
                                                want it
                                                > to be "none at all", then you will discard anything that could
                                                reasonably be
                                                > considered tenuous.

                                                RG: Absolutely! I think we can all agree on this. We should simply be
                                                looking for the model that best accounts for the data (with the
                                                strongest constraints - something typically neglected in New
                                                Testament Studies). Why should we 'want' any kind of answer? That is
                                                of course completely unscientific. Coming from experimental
                                                psychology I must say that the common desire to find certain answers
                                                in this field has been quite shocking for me. While many seem to want
                                                Thomas to be late and secondary others seem to want Thomas to be
                                                early and independent of the canonical Gospels. Both groups appear to
                                                be neglecting (perhaps downplaying is a better word) part of the
                                                evidence (which gives away my position - if that was not already
                                                clear - that part of it is early, pre-synoptic, and part of it is
                                                late, post-synoptic)


                                                >
                                                > > Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the
                                                > > Synoptics also does not mean that one considers every
                                                > > parallel between them as a sign that Thomas is secondary. It
                                                > > can very well be the case that some of the sayings in Thomas
                                                > > are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the popularity of
                                                > > the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not be at
                                                > > all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to
                                                > > the Thomas collection.
                                                >
                                                > I think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and
                                                say that
                                                > the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics
                                                does not
                                                > mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the
                                                synoptics.
                                                > It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that
                                                they
                                                > shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the
                                                material that I
                                                > am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that
                                                have
                                                > parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the
                                                parable of
                                                > the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in
                                                Thomas that
                                                > compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.

                                                RG: It is not just verbatim agreement that suggests influence, it is
                                                finding an evangelists redaction in Thomas. Thus, if there is
                                                evidence that in a certain pericope one of the evangelists has
                                                redacted one of his sources and that piece of redaction is also found
                                                in Thomas then the data can best be accounted by the hypothesis that
                                                Thomas has somehow been influenced by that evangelists Gospel. This
                                                cannot be explained by a common source.

                                                One further point: you can have influence without having any verbatim
                                                agreement. It just becomes harder (if not sometimes virtually
                                                impossible) to detect. That is why we start with the strongest cases
                                                and look at those instances where there is verbatim agreement and
                                                (this is very important) when one author's redaction can be found in
                                                the other Gospel.

                                                Examples would obviously help here (although the literature is filled
                                                with good examples), but I will save these for a later time when my
                                                work load is reduced (I am teaching two new courses for a cognitive
                                                neuropsychology masters) and I have more time to go into specifics.


                                                >
                                                > >
                                                > > Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                                > > conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will
                                                > > favor Thomas'
                                                > > dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
                                                > > manner in which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work
                                                > > nicely illustrates this.
                                                > > However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
                                                > > counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.
                                                >
                                                > No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good
                                                evidence
                                                > by asking the right questions in the first place.

                                                RG: Agreed, but I'm curious as to what you mean by 'asking the right
                                                questions'? What kind of questions do you have in mind?

                                                Richard
                                              • Judy Redman
                                                Richard, ... JR: Indeed. But if you come from within a theological framework that has been built on a particular set of texts and that is likely to be called
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Richard,

                                                  > RG: Absolutely! I think we can all agree on this. We should
                                                  > simply be looking for the model that best accounts for the
                                                  > data (with the strongest constraints - something typically
                                                  > neglected in New Testament Studies). Why should we 'want' any
                                                  > kind of answer? That is of course completely unscientific.

                                                  JR: Indeed. But if you come from within a theological framework that has
                                                  been built on a particular set of texts and that is likely to be called into
                                                  question if a particular non-canonical text is found to be "more authentic"
                                                  (whatever that means), then you have quite a lot invested in finding that
                                                  the problematic text is "less authentic", whereas if you are researching to
                                                  discredit the prevailing theological framework, you are invested in finding
                                                  the problematic text "more authentic".

                                                  > > > Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the
                                                  > Synoptics also
                                                  > > > does not mean that one considers every parallel between them as a
                                                  > > > sign that Thomas is secondary. It can very well be the case that
                                                  > > > some of the sayings in Thomas are prior to their synoptic
                                                  > parallel.
                                                  > > > Given the popularity of the Synoptic Gospels in the
                                                  > second century
                                                  > > > it would not be at all surprising that some of their sayings were
                                                  > > > then added to the Thomas collection.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and
                                                  > say that
                                                  > > the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics
                                                  > does not
                                                  > > mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the
                                                  > synoptics.
                                                  > > It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that
                                                  > they
                                                  > > shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the
                                                  > material that I
                                                  > > am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that
                                                  > have
                                                  > > parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the
                                                  > parable of
                                                  > > the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in
                                                  > Thomas that
                                                  > > compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.
                                                  >
                                                  > RG: It is not just verbatim agreement that suggests
                                                  > influence, it is finding an evangelists redaction in Thomas.
                                                  > Thus, if there is evidence that in a certain pericope one of
                                                  > the evangelists has redacted one of his sources and that
                                                  > piece of redaction is also found in Thomas then the data can
                                                  > best be accounted by the hypothesis that Thomas has somehow
                                                  > been influenced by that evangelists Gospel. This cannot be
                                                  > explained by a common source.

                                                  JR: Having spent quite a lot of time recently reading psychological
                                                  eyewitness literature, I am no longer convinced that all the differences
                                                  that have been attributed to redaction actually are due to redaction ie a
                                                  deliberate decision by an editor to make additions, subtractions etc..
                                                  Quite a number could as easily be attributed to the sorts of changes that
                                                  can be expected when eyewitnesses retell their stories over time. Then, I
                                                  think, a common source is still a tenable explanation.

                                                  > One further point: you can have influence without having any
                                                  > verbatim agreement. It just becomes harder (if not sometimes virtually
                                                  > impossible) to detect. That is why we start with the
                                                  > strongest cases and look at those instances where there is
                                                  > verbatim agreement and (this is very important) when one
                                                  > author's redaction can be found in the other Gospel.
                                                  >
                                                  > Examples would obviously help here (although the literature
                                                  > is filled with good examples), but I will save these for a
                                                  > later time when my work load is reduced (I am teaching two
                                                  > new courses for a cognitive neuropsychology masters) and I
                                                  > have more time to go into specifics.

                                                  JR: I am in a similar situation - too busy to produce specific examples.

                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                                  > > > conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will favor
                                                  > > > Thomas'
                                                  > > > dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
                                                  > manner in
                                                  > > > which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work nicely illustrates
                                                  > > > this.
                                                  > > > However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
                                                  > > > counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good
                                                  > evidence
                                                  > > by asking the right questions in the first place.
                                                  >
                                                  > RG: Agreed, but I'm curious as to what you mean by 'asking
                                                  > the right questions'? What kind of questions do you have in mind?

                                                  JR: Simply the kinds of things you've mentioned - instead of asking "What
                                                  evidence do we have for dependence/independence?" we should ask "What
                                                  differences and similarities do we see in these texts and what is the best
                                                  explanation for the available data?"

                                                  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@...
                                                • jmgcormier
                                                  Hello Richard .... In your post # 8255 on Thomas vs the Synoptics, you point out Even Stephen Patterson (who favors an independence view) agrees that Markan,
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Oct 5, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hello Richard ....

                                                    In your post # 8255 on Thomas vs the Synoptics, you point out "Even
                                                    Stephen Patterson (who favors an independence view) agrees that
                                                    Markan, Matthean or Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10
                                                    places (a proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
                                                    this list)"

                                                    Might it be possible for you (in just a few words) to capsulize for
                                                    those of us who are unfamiliar with Farrer the essential jist of his
                                                    hypothesis ????

                                                    Maurice Cormier
                                                  • Judy Redman
                                                    Hi Maurice, Wikipedia (which in this case is quite reliable) says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis): The Farrer theory (also called the
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Oct 5, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hi Maurice,

                                                      Wikipedia (which in this case is quite reliable) says
                                                      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis):

                                                      "The Farrer theory (also called the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis) is a possible
                                                      solution to the synoptic problem. The theory is that the Gospel of Mark was
                                                      written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then by the Gospel of
                                                      Luke.

                                                      "It has mainly been advocated by English biblical scholars. It is named for
                                                      Austin Farrer, who wrote _On Dispensing With Q_ in 1955, but it has been
                                                      picked up by other scholars including Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre.

                                                      "The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for
                                                      hypothetical sources to be created by academics. Instead, advocates of the
                                                      Farrer theory argue, the Gospel of Mark was used as source material by the
                                                      author of Matthew. Lastly, Luke used both of the previous gospels as sources
                                                      for his Gospel."

                                                      And if you are interested in a summary of the multiplicity of theories about
                                                      the sources of the gospels, you can visit Stephen Carlson's blog which has
                                                      colour-coded summaries, complete with diagrams.

                                                      http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/overview-of-proposed-so
                                                      lutions.html

                                                      Incidentally, whilst searching for something succinct on google, I came
                                                      across a site that offers the following:

                                                      "For over seven years, our Farrer Hypothesis term paper experts have helped
                                                      university students worldwide by providing the most extensive, lowest-priced
                                                      service for Farrer Hypothesis thesis papers and research paper writing.
                                                      Regardless of your deadline, budget, specifications, or academic level, we
                                                      can provide immediate help for your Farrer Hypothesis essay, term paper,
                                                      book report, research paper, dissertation, thesis, or university
                                                      coursework."
                                                      (http://www.essaytown.com/topics/farrer_hypothesis_essays_papers.html)

                                                      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 jmgcormier
                                                      > Sent: Monday, 6 October 2008 8:29 AM
                                                      > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > Subject: [GTh] Re: Thomas vs Synoptics
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Hello Richard ....
                                                      >
                                                      > In your post # 8255 on Thomas vs the Synoptics, you point out
                                                      > "Even Stephen Patterson (who favors an independence view)
                                                      > agrees that Markan, Matthean or Lukan redaction can be found
                                                      > in Thomas in about 10 places (a proponent of the Farrer
                                                      > hypothesis would add many more to this list)"
                                                      >
                                                      > Might it be possible for you (in just a few words) to
                                                      > capsulize for those of us who are unfamiliar with Farrer the
                                                      > essential jist of his hypothesis ????
                                                      >
                                                      > Maurice Cormier
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ------------------------------------
                                                      >
                                                      > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                                                      > Interlinear translation:
                                                      > http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
                                                      >
                                                      > ------------------------------------
                                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                    • rj.godijn
                                                      ... Hi Maurice, I agree with Judy that wikipedia gives a good description here. Mark Goodacre s website http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ is an excellent place to
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Oct 5, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "jmgcormier" <cobby@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Might it be possible for you (in just a few words) to capsulize for
                                                        > those of us who are unfamiliar with Farrer the essential jist of his
                                                        > hypothesis ????
                                                        >
                                                        > Maurice Cormier
                                                        >

                                                        Hi Maurice,

                                                        I agree with Judy that wikipedia gives a good description here. Mark
                                                        Goodacre's website http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ is an excellent place to
                                                        learn more about this source hypothesis.

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