Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas
- [Andrew S.]:
<father's> domain",> ... I glanced at Valantasis' translation which glosses it as "the
out [it] isn't in Coptic> and assumed that "<father>" was a lacuna, but as you point> Thomas 27. The pOxy 1 version has "kingdom of God".I see that Valantasis used the so-called "Scholar's Version", which of coursewas the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasisexplains the pointed brackets as indicating "a word implied in the original languageand supplied by the translators of the Scholars Version".Of course, if the JSem had used the word 'kingdom', there would have been no needfor adding "<Father's>". But since they used the unfamilar language of 'domain' (or'imperial rule') instead of 'kingdom', they then had to add something to the unfamiliarlocutions to make sense of them when they appear in the subject texts without a qualifier.So in all 12 cases where the Coptic text has simply 'kingdom', the SV (and hence Valantasis)has either '<Father's> domain' or '<Father's> imperial rule'. Pretty ugly, IMO - and inthis case (where we're interested in the exact wording), downright misleading.Best wishes,Mike G.
- ----- Original Message -----From: M.W. GrondinSent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PMSubject: Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in ThomasHi Mark, Andrew, et al:I've enjoyed reading this discussion.<SNIP>Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htmBest,Mike G.
The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous.
It is not clear (at least to me) whether God in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.
- [Andrew C.]:> The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous. It is not clear (at least to me) whether God> in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn't used, and forthat and other reasons, I don't know what to make of it. On the interpretation you suggest,though, it would appear to be good to be "one or two" but not good to be "three", whichseems a mite odd, but perhaps that could be worked out. As to L100.3, the definitearticle is used there (thus big-G 'God'), and the suggested interpretation would make senseof the addition of the non-canonical "give me what's mine" clause (100.4), which is in itsfavor, but I'm rather intrigued with the fact that if the clause is removed, it leaves asymmetrical structure of 4 lines totalling 100 letters. Of course, it could be just a coincidencethat L100 would be reducible to a 100-letter structure with the removal of the non-canonicalportion, but given the design of the prologue and other features, I have to wonder if it was.Be that as it may, I should point out for our readers, that you aren't the Andrew who has so farcontributed to this thread. We have in fact three prominent Andrews on our list: yourself andAndrew Bernhard are moderators and bloggers (in your case, a contributor to Stephen Carlson'sblog), while Andrew Phillip Smith (the "Andrew" who has participated up to this point) is alsowell-known here as a publisher and blogger widely-versed in gnosticism.I should also mention that I've changed a folder name at my site. The sublogia-display forthe word 'god', e.g., is now http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords/god.htm(It was previously 'htmfiles' instead of 'keywords'). The main directory (which is slowlynearing completion) is still http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords.htmBest wishes,Mike Grondin
- I had always interpreted this "extra" bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader's support in his opposition to the romans and the Sanhedrin. Remember, Jesus was regarded as a heretic of the Jewish faith.