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

Re: [GTh] Gos Thom Structure

Expand Messages
  • Adrian
    Yes Micheal, when i refer to the order in which sources were combined i am talking about the chronological order, and i am invisioning a series of
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 27, 2010
      Yes Micheal, when i refer to "the order in which sources were combined" i am talking about the chronological order, and i am "invisioning a series of developmental stages in the history of GosThom", though i am weighing in favour of the idea that more than one source was being incorporated at each stage.
      Thankyou for pointing me in the DeConick direction. I am finding the group interplay over time fascinating. I have yet to read her book (don't know if i can afford it yet). The group postings from herself and others is instructive for me (I hope, till i can read her books for myself), in as much it is amazing just how much the methodology employed can yield such different results when the same hypothesis is being tested. Back to the linguistic analysis for me, i think.
      I am currently analyzing linguistic forms within NH (Coptic) Thomas from a Functional Grammar point of view, and looking at the ways certain grammatical forms echo each other throughout the text. This has become an interest for me because i find interpretative aspects within Thomasine research to be as frustrating when i can see it happening in others as it does when i do it myself. I think, at the end of the day, I need numbers, not intuition, when it comes to making a decision about what is true and what is not.
      Will it come down to numbers in the debate about Thomas in terms of how most people come to regard it? 10:1 it doesn't.
      Still... I just can't walk away from this text. There's just something about it's structure that's just bugging me.

      Adrian Millar


      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Just to gloss some of my ideas re: Gos Thom structure.
      > > 1. The haphazard structure of Thomas is primarily a function [of]
      > > several sources being combined by multiple scribes with different
      > > agendas (as opposed to a group recording oral reminescences
      > > or a singular code-maker). ...
      > > 3. The order in which sources were combined may be indicated by
      > > internal scribal redactions.
      >
      > Hi Adrian,
      > I'm somewhat unclear about the scenario you envision here, though
      > I think that when you mention "order" in #3, you're talking about
      > chronological order, so that you seem to be envisioning a series
      > of developmental stages in the history of GosThom, wherein a
      > different source would have been brought in at each stage?
      >
      > At any rate, I'd suggest that you read the stuff in our archives and
      > elsewhere relating to April DeConick's views. In her model, Gos Thom
      > developed over time as a sort of "rolling corpus" (her term). It would
      > probably be a good start to compare your model with hers, so that you
      > could describe wherein the differences lie.
      >
      > Mike Grondin
      > Mt. Clemens, MI
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.