Re: [GTh] Seek and You Will Find Mandaean Parallels to Thomas
- Hi James,
Enthralling. Let me try to convince you and any others to continue.
My opinion is that the sayings in Thomas, not in the Christian Bible,
that, by coincidence, most folks say isn't genuine, is at least
loosely paralleled in the Mandaean religion. Coming from the light,
the Father hidden in his light, this world will pass away, and the
one above it will pass away, the Father is the Son of the Great
Life...putting the Great Life/Holy Spirit/Breath of God above the
Concepts/parallels found no where else, except the Mandaeans and the
lost Gospel of Thomas, buried for 1600-1800 years. It's the smoking
gun that demonstrates much of the parts of Thomas not in the
Christian Bible are genuine.
I wrote something about it, but it's not appropriate for here, too
much time explaining the basics, and too much personal opinion. I'll
clean it up and post it as soon as I get the time.
Rick Van Vliet
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "McGrath, James" <jfmcgrat@...> wrote:
> Since I've been doing some work on the Mandaeans lately, I thought
I'd chime in.
> First, the Lidzbarski translations of the Ginza, the Book of John
and the Mandaean Liturgy can be found on archive.org, as can Pognon's
classic book on inscriptions.
> Second, the publication of translations into modern languages
depends on scholars knowledgeable about Mandaic and the Mandaeans and
working on the relevant texts. There was definitely a lull, but
currently Bogdan Burtea seems to be working hard on getting some
previously unpublished works in the Drower Collection translated in
German. There's definitely a need for someone to work on translations
into English of many Mandaean texts, both major and minor.
> Since this is only tangentially related to the Gospel of Thomas,
I'll say no more!
> Best wishes,
> James McGrath
> Associate Professor of Religion
> Butler University
> Indianapolis, IN, USA
- Paul wrote:
> It is interesting that in this translation of Haran Gawaita it isAs you pointed out in a later post, King apparently has "Nasoreans," leaving only two forms. As far as the Haran Gawaita is concerned, there is only one word, which Drower consistently transliterates with an "s" with a dot under it. She describes it as a "heavy s" which could also be transcribed as "z", which would give "Nazoreans/Nazoraeans." It is customary when transcribing Mandaic to use an underdotted "s" for this letter, which is put in the same place in the alphabet where one would find the Hebrew letter Tzadi (tz) or the Syriac letter Çadhe, which also is often mispronounced by Europeans (under influence of the Hebrew alphabet) as "tz." So Pritz really shouldn't have written "Natzoraean," but rather "Nazoraean." Drower, by the way, derives these names from the Hebrew root "ntzr," meaning "to keep, observe, guard." (E.S. Drower, The Secret Adam, p. XIV). Other roots such as "nsr/n$r," "fall, or fall away," have also been suggested.
> 'Nasoreans' who migrate, rather than 'Natzoreans.' (King has it
> 'Nazoreans'). It would seem that all three of these terms are
> indistinguishable and derive from the Aramaic for 'branch' (cf.
> Isa11.1). Is this correct?
But the usage of the name in the Haran Gawaita should not be confused with correct usage in Palestine, or in the writings of Epiphanius, etc. On this subject, I think Pritz deserves the last word: "If to the Nazerini and Nu[underdotted s]airi and Nazoraioi/Nazareni we add the Nasaraioi of Epiphanius and the Nazorei of Filaster, we have all the ingredients for a scholastic free-for-all." (Nazarene Jewish Christianity, p. 17-18)