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

Re: [GTh] Origen and Thomas 3: Methodology

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... As you can tell, I don t know much about this, but if you don t mind, I have a followup question based solely on trying to follow your reasoning. If
    Message 1 of 9 , May 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      > Origen's homilies on Luke have mainly survived in a Latin translation
      > by Jerome. It has also partially survived in Greek, in the form of
      > "catenae" or brief excerpts combined with other patristic quotations ...

      As you can tell, I don't know much about this, but if you don't mind,
      I have a followup question based solely on trying to follow your reasoning.
      If Origen's homilies on Luke (how many?) survived in a Latin translation
      by Jerome, why do you write about the Origen statement in question:

      > Though this declaration does not appear among the Greek catenae
      > extracted from the homily, it is probably original because a similar
      > statement in Ambrose's commentary on Luke, which borrows heavily
      > from Origen, is present in the same context.

      Do you ignore Jerome's Latin translation here because the statement
      in question isn't in it? In that case, wouldn't it be better to describe
      the situation as being one in which the declaration appears in
      _neither_ the Greek catenae nor in Jerome's translation (the latter
      being presumably more complete, hence if anything perhaps even
      more worthy of mention in this context than the catenae)?

      Cheers,
      Mike
    • sarban
      ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Origen and Thomas 3: Methodology ... As you can
      Message 2 of 9 , May 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Michael Grondin
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:27 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Origen and Thomas 3: Methodology





        > Origen's homilies on Luke have mainly survived in a Latin translation
        > by Jerome. It has also partially survived in Greek, in the form of
        > "catenae" or brief excerpts combined with other patristic quotations ...

        As you can tell, I don't know much about this, but if you don't mind,
        I have a followup question based solely on trying to follow your reasoning.
        If Origen's homilies on Luke (how many?) survived in a Latin translation
        by Jerome, why do you write about the Origen statement in question:

        > Though this declaration does not appear among the Greek catenae
        > extracted from the homily, it is probably original because a similar
        > statement in Ambrose's commentary on Luke, which borrows heavily
        > from Origen, is present in the same context.

        Do you ignore Jerome's Latin translation here because the statement
        in question isn't in it? In that case, wouldn't it be better to describe
        the situation as being one in which the declaration appears in
        _neither_ the Greek catenae nor in Jerome's translation (the latter
        being presumably more complete, hence if anything perhaps even
        more worthy of mention in this context than the catenae)?


        Hi Mike


        The statement is in Jerome but not the Greek catenae.

        At first sight this would just mean that the statement was not one of the extracts selected for the catenae. However there is a general problem that Jerome and Rufinus 'translated' freely in line with the theological concerns of a later age. Hence there is a potential concern that 'orthodox' passages in the Latin translations not found in the Greek extracts may have been added by the Latin translator. However, the parallel in Ambrose seems to rule that out.

        Andrew Criddle





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... No, the statement is in Jerome s translation. I m just arguing that it wasn t something Jerome added during his translation. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson
        Message 3 of 9 , May 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          On May 6, 2009 4:27 PM, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
          >Do you ignore Jerome's Latin translation here because the statement
          >in question isn't in it?

          No, the statement is in Jerome's translation. I'm just arguing that
          it wasn't something Jerome added during his translation.

          Stephen

          --
          Stephen C. Carlson
          Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
          Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
        • Michael Grondin
          Thanks, Andrew. That clears up that question nicely, to my mind. (Confirmation from Stephen just came in, but I was already quite sure that it would be
          Message 4 of 9 , May 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks, Andrew. That clears up that question nicely, to my mind.
            (Confirmation from Stephen just came in, but I was already quite
            sure that it would be confirmed.) Stephen's SBL audience would
            no doubt understand why that passage was written as it was. For
            our audience, (including myself), I think it was good that it be
            spelled out.

            Mike
          • Judy Redman
            Stephen, Thanks for your postings. I am finding them interesting. As I read this your treatment of whether Origen had only heard about Thomas or had actually
            Message 5 of 9 , May 10, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Stephen,

              Thanks for your postings. I am finding them interesting.

              As I read this your treatment of whether Origen had only heard about Thomas or had actually read it, it occurred to me that one of the possibilities was that he had had access to some of the oral traditions in circulation which Thomas used, rather than having read Thomas. This is because I am interested in the field, but so are quite a few other scholars.

              Of course, Origen actually names "According to Thomas", rather than simply quoting material from it, so he is aware of the existence of the actual document and certainly implies that he's read it, so it is highly unlikely that he is quoting from orally traditions when he uses non-canonical Thomas material. This may be worth mentioning in passing, or storing in your mind in case someone asks. :-)

              Judy

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

              Rev Judy Redman
              PhD candidate & 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@...
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... Great question, Judy. As we ll see in the next excerpt, Origen explicitly said that he read the source. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D. student,
              Message 6 of 9 , May 11, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                On May 10, 2009 10:00 PM, Judy Redman <jredman@...> wrote:
                >Thanks for your postings. I am finding them interesting.
                >
                >As I read this your treatment of whether Origen had only heard about
                >Thomas or had actually read it, it occurred to me that one of the
                >possibilities was that he had had access to some of the oral traditions
                >in circulation which Thomas used, rather than having read Thomas. This
                >is because I am interested in the field, but so are quite a few other scholars.
                >
                >Of course, Origen actually names "According to Thomas", rather than simply
                >quoting material from it, so he is aware of the existence of the actual
                >document and certainly implies that he's read it, so it is highly unlikely
                >that he is quoting from orally traditions when he uses non-canonical Thomas
                >material. This may be worth mentioning in passing, or storing in your mind
                >in case someone asks. :-)

                Great question, Judy. As we'll see in the next excerpt, Origen explicitly
                said that he "read" the source.

                Stephen

                --
                Stephen C. Carlson
                Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
                Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.