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

Re: [GTh] Listing the "Twins"

Expand Messages
  • George
    Bruce, You seemed to be summarizing my alternate theory on the inclusion of twin sayings by a compiler or later editor of Thomas when you wrote: The
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 16, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce, You seemed to be summarizing my "alternate" theory on the inclusion of twin sayings by a compiler or later editor of Thomas when you wrote:


      The alternate
      > explanation is that the original compiler of the text - conceived as one
      > person who finished his work in a single afternoon - intentionally concluded
      > his text by summoning up recollections of what he meant to be taken as key
      > sayings occurring at various earlier points.


      I think I made it clear that it could have been a later editor, not necessarily the compiler, who moved these less favored twins to the end of his list. It would be impossible, I think, to say who did it. I also don't remember writing that it happened in a "single afternoon." That's a rather silly thing to say. I also don't recall writing that this compiler or editor was "summoning up recollections." But, leaving this aside, I'll get to the point in question.

      My theory doesn't depend on the doublets having the same precise meaning. It only depends on them *seeming* to be the same saying, only slightly different. That slight difference might indeed alter the meaning somewhat. It might broaden the meaning or define it more carefully, as in GTh 101. The point is that these twins *seem* to be the same sayings, though restated slightly differently. It is perfectly reasonable then for someone to set them aside initially and finally tack them on the end.

      I think your argument, Bruce, would be stronger if you stated precisely what the changes were that Pokorny noted in the second appearance of these sayings that made them significantly different and therefore later accretions.

      Thank you,

      George Duffy



      > We now have two theories, and how shall we decide between them? First, what
      > exactly are the theories? (1) The original compiler recalled some sayings as
      > a conclusion to his work. The meaning of those sayings in their second
      > appearance will presumably be the same as it was on their first appearance.
      > (2) A later person, in charge of the text at that time, which then consisted
      > of Th 1-100, undertook to update it in a revisionist spirit, adding a group
      > of references to earlier sayings, but at least sometimes changing their
      > meaning.
      > To decide between the two, we need only compare the meanings of the first
      > and second occurrences of the paired sayings. Most of the pairs (and some
      > others) are noticed in the Pokorny commentary, and an easy first test is
      > simply to read what Pokorny says on the second occurrences of the sayings in
      > question. Does he find identity of message, or does he (at least sometimes)
      > find change?
      > The answer is that he sometimes finds change. Then as far as this test goes,
      > the second theory turns out to be better supported by the evidence of the
      > text itself.
      > Bruce
      > E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      >
    • M.W. Grondin
      ... Hi Ian, The message in question is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/9076 As to the suggested pairings in your previous note, I didn t get a
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 16, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        > Oops, I don't think that link will actually take you to my old post.
        At any rate,
        > the title was "The Literary Unity of Thomas" and it was posted
        12/3/09.
        Hi Ian,
        As to the suggested pairings in your previous note, I didn't get a chance to put them
        up today, but I intend to do so at the earliest opportunity, so that we all can look at
        them and try to reach some decisions about what constitutes a "doublet", or perhaps
        different types of sayings-pairs. To answer your question about why some pairs
        weren't included in my initial list, it was because the list was based on a perceived
        significant degree of similarity of wording and structure, not necessarily thematic
        connections and similarities. But I do want to get into that area as well, since I think
        there are some really important pairs there, though they may end up being seen as
        doublets of another kind.
         
        Cheers,
        Mike G.
      • M.W. Grondin
        Hi Ian, I ve created a new webpage to handle the doublets thingy: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/doublets.htm One can go back and forth between this page and the
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 17, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Ian,
           
          I've created a new webpage to handle the doublets thingy:
          One can go back and forth between this page and the keywords page
          (which no longer contains the doublets list). I've added your suggested
          pairings, but it should be noted, I think, that you chose them because
          they're all in the range 101-114. I'm sure you have many others not in
          that range. That actually wasn't the case with my original list. I started from
          notes I had made in my copy of The Fifth Gospel, and only discovered
          after I had made the list that all of them except 6-14 connected with 101-114.
          If we're to be systematic about it, we need to take a closer look at possible
          pairs where one of the two isn't in the range 101-114. Some of them are
          right next to each other, such as 25 and 26, which share the words 'eye'
          and 'brother'. These are so-called 'catch-words' that some think are a key
          to the organization of GTh, which is fine except that catchwords are defined
          as being in adjacent sayings. The examination of possible doublets opens up
          the possibility of "catchwords at a distance" if you will.
           
          As we look these over, I think the question to ask is what the criteria are
          and how stringent we want to be. We might, for example, demand that a
          supposed pair share two or more exact words. Or we might set up different
          types of doublets, with different criteria for each type. At the far end, if
          we're too loose about it, we may find that almost every saying has one or
          more partners of sorts. That may in fact be the case, but even if it is, I don't
          think we're ready for such a possibility yet.
           
          Best,
          Mike
        • M.W. Grondin
          My recent work on multi-saying words has sometimes yielded unexpected results. While working on the Coptic word-pair ouNte and mNte ( have and have not )
          Message 4 of 16 , May 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            My recent work on multi-saying words has sometimes yielded unexpected results.
            While working on the Coptic word-pair ouNte and mNte ('have' and 'have not')
            Friday, I came across two short sayings (L41 and L70) in which these words occur
            three times each. Consulting the notes I had written in my copy of The Fifth Gospel,
            I saw that I had written above L41 "see 70?", and a similar note above L70. Because
            of the question marks, I hadn't included 41 & 70 in my initial list of pairs, but now
            I think it's clear that these do constitute a pair, so I've added them at
             
            Interestingly, L41 has 'have' twice and 'have not' once, while L70 has 'have' once
            and 'have not' twice. Both sayings have roughly the same structure and the same
            theme (if you have something, it'll be good for you, if not, it won't). FWIW, the
            total number of letters in the two sayings is 180 (73+107).
             
            I should also say that I now agree with Plisch and Ian Brown that there is a definite
            connection between L104 ("when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber", etc)
            and the L6/14 halves. Although the structures are different, the sharing of three
            relatively infrequent words ('fast', 'pray', and 'sin') is too significant to ignore. ('Fast'
            and 'pray' do occur elsewhere, but only in one other saying each, while 'sin' occurs
             
            Mike Grondin
          • M.W. Grondin
            ... Sorry, it wasn t my intention to ground my observations in the English, but in this case I inadvertently did. I overlooked the fact that the Coptic word
            Message 5 of 16 , May 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              > ('Fast' and 'pray' do occur elsewhere, but only in one other saying
              each, while 'sin'
              > occurs only in L14 and 104. Ref:
              href="http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/fastpray.htm">http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/fastpray.htm)
               
              Sorry, it wasn't my intention to ground my observations in the English, but in this case
              I inadvertently did. I overlooked the fact that the Coptic word for 'pray' in L73 is different
              than that in L14 and 104. One of the things I've tried to do with these word-displays is to
              include under each main entry other words that are synonymous with or otherwise closely
              related to the main word, especially if they're frequently translated with the same English
              word. Among other benefits, this allows the inclusion of some single-occurrence words
              like sopS that wouldn't otherwise be included in these displays, although in this case it
              tripped me up a bit. That only strengthens the case for pairing 6/14 & 104, however.
               
              Mike G.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.