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

Re: [GTh] Logion # 68 - more

Expand Messages
  • jmgcormier
    ... My findings of very careful design in Coptic Gos.Thom. lead me to believe that the likeliest scenario is that the way it actually reads therein is the way
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote: etc, etc followed by:

      "My findings of very careful design in Coptic Gos.Thom. lead me to
      believe that the likeliest scenario is that the way it actually reads
      therein is the way the Copts wanted it to read, or thought it should.
      In the latter case, I think it more likely that the source of the
      Coptic version had it that way, than that the Copts mistranslated."



      --------------------------------------------

      Hello again Mike ... two curiosities re the above statement ....



      Have you ever stopped to consider that the GoT found at Nag Hammadi may not have been a translation made by Copts from an original but that it may have been a translation into Coptic made by a "missionary" from "afar" or such (say a Hebrew with a knowledge of isopsephia, a Greek with a knowledge of gematria or some other mystic scribe with a knowledge of the Coptic language ...) and that he or she might have done the translation rather than the Copts ???

      Egypt, after all, was largely Christianized by the apostle Mark (he actually went there in 61 C.E.)who knew Hebrew and likely Greek (thus necessarily isopsephia and germatria)and in fact was the founder of the Coptic Church while there. There is no record (as far as I know) that the apostle Thomas ever went to Egypt (he clearly went to India - and if you believe Pope Benedict's speech of 2006 he went to Syria and Persia as well) ... and if he (Thomas) wrote the GoT, why would Copts be translating Thomas' gospel all the while Mark would have been there (as the founder of the Coptic church)to do all of the translating needed ? Indeed, if Mark were there to do the translating, why would the Coptic version differ so greatly from the accounts of the gospel of Mark (or better stated why would the GoT contain so little original material from the gospel of Mark ???)

      My second curiosity is if you have ever been able to "fit" an acceptable isopsephia or gematria numerical value to a Thomas logion or sequence by removing existent wording in the GoT and replacing it with borrowed wording (on the same topic) from the apocrypha or agrapha such as the Clement of Alexandria reference to the wording of logion #68 discussed earlier ....

      Regards,

      Maurice
    • Michael Grondin
      ... Hi Maurice: My understanding is that there were Jewish Christians in the monastery or monasteries near where the jar was hidden. These are the Copts I
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > Have you ever stopped to consider that the GoT found at Nag
        > Hammadi ... may have been a translation into Coptic made by a
        > "missionary" from "afar" or such (say a Hebrew with a knowledge
        > of isopsephia, a Greek with a knowledge of gematria or some
        > other mystic scribe with a knowledge of the Coptic language ...) and
        > that he or she might have done the translation rather than the Copts ???

        Hi Maurice: My understanding is that there were Jewish Christians
        in the monastery or monasteries near where the jar was hidden.
        These are the "Copts" I have in mind when I use that term (perhaps
        incorrectly), not necessarily native Egyptians, who would presumably
        not have the requisite background, as you suggest. These Jewish
        Christians might have been former missionaries, I suppose, but they
        were probably at the monasteries for the purpose of taking refuge
        from war or persecution occuring either in Alexandria (where there
        was a large Jewish population) or elsewhere.

        As to your questions on Mark, I'm not aware of any evidence
        that Mark had anything to do with the Gospel of Thomas, and
        so I work from the presumption that he didn't.

        > My second curiosity is if you have ever been able to "fit" an
        > acceptable isopsephia or gematria numerical value to a Thomas
        > logion or sequence by removing existent wording in the GoT and
        > replacing it with borrowed wording (on the same topic) from the
        > apocrypha or agrapha such as the Clement of Alexandria reference
        > to the wording of logion #68 discussed earlier ....

        Not exactly. The work I did recently on L100 ("Gimme What's Mine")
        is the first of that nature that I've done. As you know, the transformation
        of L100 involves the removal of some verbiage, which makes it agree
        with other sources, but without adding anything to the text. I've looked
        at L68, but am unable to see how it could be subjected to similar
        treatment.

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