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

Re: [GTh] Logion # 68 - more

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Aug 16, 2009
      > 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.