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

RE: [GTh] Editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    Hi Andrew- Koester s Ancient Christian Gospels (note 2, p 78) references an edition by Jacque-E. Menard L Evangile selon Thomas published by Brill in 1975
    Message 1 of 11 , May 11, 2011

      Hi Andrew-

       

      Koester’s “Ancient Christian Gospels” (note 2, p 78) references an edition by Jacque-E. Menard “L’Evangile selon Thomas” published by Brill in 1975 (NHS 5). I’ve never laid eyes on the book myself, but from what I can tell it is the predecessor to Layton’s 1989 Critical Edition. Maybe you can chase this down to see if it is a true Coptic edition.

       

      Also, there is a rather confusing table in Kasser’s L’Evangile selon Thomas (Editions Delachaux & Niestle, 1961) that tries to cross reference different numbering schemes of the logia proposed by Leipoldt, Garitte, Doreese and Till. Whether these proposals were from studies by these scholars or whether any of them had actually published the Coptic text I have no idea.  Leipoldt, I’m fairly sure published only a German translation.

       

      I hope this helps.

       

      Rick

       

      From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bernhard
      Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:22 AM
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [GTh] Editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

       

       

      Hi all,

       

      I’ve been compiling a list of all the editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas that I know about, and something strange occurred to me: I don’t know of any editions that were created between 1959 and 1989. Guillaumont et al. published the editio principes and then 30 years later Layton released a thorough critical edition.

       

      Were there no other complete editions made during this time period? Anybody know?

       

      Thanks,

      Andrew

    • Andrew Bernhard
      Hi Rick- You got my hopes up there for a second . . . and in this digital age, a second means little more than that. Good books gives a preview of Menard s
      Message 2 of 11 , May 11, 2011
        Hi Rick-

        You got my hopes up there for a second . . . and in this digital age, a second means little more than that.

        Good books gives a preview of Menard's book, which is just a translation and commentary:

        http://books.google.com/books?id=3rUfAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&cd=1&source=gbs_ViewAPI#v=onepage&q&f=false

        I am curious about the different numbering systems. I'll try to look in Kasser when I get home tonight and see if any of the sources he references are full fledged editions. I've heard about the different numbering systems of the sayings before, but never actually encountered them. As far as I can tell, Guillaumont's first edition uses basically our numbering system. But if you have Kasser handy, can you tell me: doesn't he use a different numbering system? I seem to recall that he did.

        Thanks,
        Andrew

        On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Rick Hubbard <rhubbard@...> wrote:
         

        Hi Andrew-

         

        Koester’s “Ancient Christian Gospels” (note 2, p 78) references an edition by Jacque-E. Menard “L’Evangile selon Thomas” published by Brill in 1975 (NHS 5). I’ve never laid eyes on the book myself, but from what I can tell it is the predecessor to Layton’s 1989 Critical Edition. Maybe you can chase this down to see if it is a true Coptic edition.

         

        Also, there is a rather confusing table in Kasser’s L’Evangile selon Thomas (Editions Delachaux & Niestle, 1961) that tries to cross reference different numbering schemes of the logia proposed by Leipoldt, Garitte, Doreese and Till. Whether these proposals were from studies by these scholars or whether any of them had actually published the Coptic text I have no idea.  Leipoldt, I’m fairly sure published only a German translation.

         

        I hope this helps.

         

        Rick

         

        From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bernhard
        Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:22 AM
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [GTh] Editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

         

         

        Hi all,

         

        I’ve been compiling a list of all the editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas that I know about, and something strange occurred to me: I don’t know of any editions that were created between 1959 and 1989. Guillaumont et al. published the editio principes and then 30 years later Layton released a thorough critical edition.

         

        Were there no other complete editions made during this time period? Anybody know?

         

        Thanks,

        Andrew


      • abernhar
        Oh, also, I wrote to Claremont to find out why they don t have Codex II up received the following response: Thank you for using the Claremont Colleges Digital
        Message 3 of 11 , May 11, 2011
          Oh, also, I wrote to Claremont to find out why they don't have Codex II up received the following response:

          "Thank you for using the Claremont Colleges Digital Library (CCDL) and contacting us. We are pleased you are so happy with the Nag Hammadi Archive collection within the CCDL. We do plan to continue to add to this collection depending upon funding and/or volunteer support. There are several "series" of negatives of the Nag Hammadi codices. As you can see from the collection, we have already uploaded the J-series, M-series and this most recent Jung Codex series. We have started with the P-series – but we have many more to go. Unfortunately, I can't tell you which negative series specifically has the Gospel of Thomas and other important pages."

          It sounds like they're proceeding systematically and they were very cordial. But I wonder how we find out which series of negatives has Codex II.

          Cheers,
          Andrew

          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Bernhard" <gospels.net@...> wrote:
          >
          > The omission of Codex II is hardly a small one!
          >
          >
          >
          > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          > Rick Hubbard
          > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 5:08 AM
          > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [GTh] Digital NHC Codices
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Just a note that, according to April DeConick's Blog, the Claremont
          > Colleges Libraries have on-line digital copies of the Nag Hammadi codices
          > available here:
          >
          > http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm4/toc.php?CISOROOT=/nha
          > <http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm4/toc.php?CISOROOT=/nha&CISONICK=cod
          > ex> &CISONICK=codex
          >
          > Interestingly, there are no images for Codex II wherein resides the Gospel
          > of Thomas. I wonder why?
          >
          > Rick Hubbard
          >
        • Rick Hubbard
          Hi Andrew- Thanks for clearing it up about Menard. I guess it must have just a translation, huh? Kasser s numbering system is vastly different from the
          Message 4 of 11 , May 11, 2011

            Hi Andrew-

             

            Thanks for clearing it up about Menard. I guess it must have just a translation, huh?

             

            Kasser’s numbering system is vastly different from the conventional one. He divides the text into 250 “versets”. That sounds like a lot, I know, but consider that if you count up all the “sub-sayings” in newer editions there are 316!

             

            Rick

             

            From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bernhard
            Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:22 PM
            To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [GTh] Editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

             

             

            Hi Rick-

            You got my hopes up there for a second . . . and in this digital age, a second means little more than that.

            Good books gives a preview of Menard's book, which is just a translation and commentary:

            http://books.google.com/books?id=3rUfAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&cd=1&source=gbs_ViewAPI#v=onepage&q&f=false

            I am curious about the different numbering systems. I'll try to look in Kasser when I get home tonight and see if any of the sources he references are full fledged editions. I've heard about the different numbering systems of the sayings before, but never actually encountered them. As far as I can tell, Guillaumont's first edition uses basically our numbering system. But if you have Kasser handy, can you tell me: doesn't he use a different numbering system? I seem to recall that he did.

            Thanks,
            Andrew

            On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Rick Hubbard <rhubbard@...> wrote:

             

            Hi Andrew-

             

            Koester’s “Ancient Christian Gospels” (note 2, p 78) references an edition by Jacque-E. Menard “L’Evangile selon Thomas” published by Brill in 1975 (NHS 5). I’ve never laid eyes on the book myself, but from what I can tell it is the predecessor to Layton’s 1989 Critical Edition. Maybe you can chase this down to see if it is a true Coptic edition.

             

            Also, there is a rather confusing table in Kasser’s L’Evangile selon Thomas (Editions Delachaux & Niestle, 1961) that tries to cross reference different numbering schemes of the logia proposed by Leipoldt, Garitte, Doreese and Till. Whether these proposals were from studies by these scholars or whether any of them had actually published the Coptic text I have no idea.  Leipoldt, I’m fairly sure published only a German translation.

             

            I hope this helps.

             

            Rick

             

            From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bernhard
            Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:22 AM
            To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [GTh] Editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

             

             

            Hi all,

             

            I’ve been compiling a list of all the editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas that I know about, and something strange occurred to me: I don’t know of any editions that were created between 1959 and 1989. Guillaumont et al. published the editio principes and then 30 years later Layton released a thorough critical edition.

             

            Were there no other complete editions made during this time period? Anybody know?

             

            Thanks,

            Andrew

             

          • Judy Redman
            I actually own a copy of Menard and it doesn t contain any version of the Coptic text - just a translation into French and a commentary. It s interesting in
            Message 5 of 11 , May 12, 2011

              I actually own a copy of Menard and it doesn’t contain any version of the Coptic text – just a translation into French and a commentary. It’s interesting in that he sets it out according to the page and line numbers of NHII,2 with the saying numbers in parentheses in the text, and in a variety of places he includes Greek words in parentheses after various of the French words. I am unsure about exactly what they signify because the footnote tells me that “That which is in brackets is a conjecture or an addition from our hand”. He goes on to say that “A recent collation made by J M Robinson on the Cairo manuscript did not provide anything essentially new from the text established by the first editors. Also, our translation does not differ from theirs on points of detail. It is principally (provided) to serve as a base for our commentary.” – Sorry, not a particularly nice translation from the French, but I’m in a hurry.

               

              The reason I am offering this is because it suggests that in 1975, Robinson had recently made a “collation” on the ms. Was this an edition of the Coptic text?

               

              Judy

               

              --

              Judy Redman
              PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
              University of New England
              Armidale 2351 Australia
              ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
              mob: 0437 044 579
              web: 
               http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
              email: 
               jredman2@...
               

            • Judy Redman
              [ ] Andrew says I am curious about the different numbering systems. I ll try to look in Kasser when I get home tonight and see if any of the sources he
              Message 6 of 11 , May 12, 2011

                 

                 

                [>] Andrew says

                I am curious about the different numbering systems. I'll try to look in Kasser when I get home tonight and see if any of the sources he references are full fledged editions. I've heard about the different numbering systems of the sayings before, but never actually encountered them. As far as I can tell, Guillaumont's first edition uses basically our numbering system.

                [>]

                I don’t have the text in front of me and am very busy until after the weekend, but my memory is that Guillamont’s text has a different number of sayings to the one we’re used to. Not radically different, but different

                Judy

                [>]--

                Judy Redman
                web: 
                 http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                email: 
                 judyr54@...

                 

              • Andrew Bernhard
                Hi Judy, I suspect the collation referred to is the publication of the Facsimile edition of Codex II in 1974. As for Guillaumont, he has a prologue and 114
                Message 7 of 11 , May 13, 2011

                  Hi Judy,

                   

                  I suspect the collation referred to is the publication of the Facsimile edition of Codex II in 1974.

                   

                  As for Guillaumont, he has a prologue and 114 sayings. The page numbering is completely different, though.

                   

                  So I think I’ve located two Coptic editions (both from Layton’s bibliography) that were made between 1959 and 1989.

                   

                  One is German: Leipoldt, Johannes. 1967. Das Evangelium nach Thomas koptisch und deutsch. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

                   

                  The other French:  Suarez, Philippe de. 1974. L'evangile selon Thomas. Marsanne: Editions Metanoia. According to google books, the subtitle of this book is: traduction, présentation et commentaries.

                   

                  Thus, it would seem to be that there was a German/Coptic Edition and a French Coptic edition. But apparently a thirty year gap in editions in the English-speaking world.

                   

                  Anyone seen these books or have easy access to them?

                   

                  Thanks,

                  Andrew

                   

                   

                  From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Judy Redman
                  Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:49 AM
                  To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [GTh] Editions of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

                   

                   

                  I actually own a copy of Menard and it doesn’t contain any version of the Coptic text – just a translation into French and a commentary. It’s interesting in that he sets it out according to the page and line numbers of NHII,2 with the saying numbers in parentheses in the text, and in a variety of places he includes Greek words in parentheses after various of the French words. I am unsure about exactly what they signify because the footnote tells me that “That which is in brackets is a conjecture or an addition from our hand”. He goes on to say that “A recent collation made by J M Robinson on the Cairo manuscript did not provide anything essentially new from the text established by the first editors. Also, our translation does not differ from theirs on points of detail. It is principally (provided) to serve as a base for our commentary.” – Sorry, not a particularly nice translation from the French, but I’m in a hurry.

                   

                  The reason I am offering this is because it suggests that in 1975, Robinson had recently made a “collation” on the ms. Was this an edition of the Coptic text?

                   

                  Judy

                   

                  --

                  Judy Redman
                  PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
                  University of New England
                  Armidale 2351 Australia
                  ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
                  mob: 0437 044 579
                  web:  http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                  email:  jredman2@...
                   

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