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

Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • M.W. Grondin
    ... I see that Valantasis used the so-called Scholar s Version , which of course was the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasis
    Message 1 of 19 , May 24 9:35 PM
      [Andrew S.]:
      > ... I glanced at Valantasis' translation which glosses it as "the
      <father's> domain",
      > and assumed that "<father>" was a lacuna, but as you point
      out [it] isn't in Coptic
      > Thomas 27. The pOxy 1 version has "kingdom of God".
       
      I see that Valantasis used the so-called "Scholar's Version", which of course
      was the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasis
      explains the pointed brackets as indicating "a word implied in the original language
      and supplied by the translators of the Scholars Version".
       
      Of course, if the JSem had used the word 'kingdom', there would have been no need
      for 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 unfamiliar
      locutions 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 in
      this case (where we're interested in the exact wording), downright misleading.
       
      Best wishes,
      Mike G.
    • sarban
      ... From: M.W. Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Kingdom of heaven in Thomas Hi Mark, Andrew, et
      Message 2 of 19 , May 25 12:32 PM
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

         

        Hi 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.htm
        Best,
        Mike G.

         

        Hi Mike

        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 Criddle 

      • Mike Grondin
        ... Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn t used, and for that and other reasons, I don t know what to make of it. On
        Message 3 of 19 , May 25 11:52 PM
          [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 for
          that 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", which
          seems a mite odd, but perhaps that could be worked out. As to L100.3, the definite
          article is used there (thus big-G 'God'), and the suggested interpretation would make sense
          of the addition of the non-canonical "give me what's mine" clause (100.4), which is in its
          favor, but I'm rather intrigued with the fact that if the clause is removed, it leaves a
          symmetrical structure of 4 lines totalling 100 letters. Of course, it could be just a coincidence
          that L100 would be reducible to a 100-letter structure with the removal of the non-canonical
          portion, 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 far
          contributed to this thread. We have in fact three prominent Andrews on our list: yourself and
          Andrew Bernhard are moderators and bloggers (in your case, a contributor to Stephen Carlson's
          blog), while Andrew Phillip Smith (the "Andrew" who has participated up to this point) is also
          well-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  for
          the 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 slowly
          nearing completion) is still http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords.htm
           
          Best wishes,
          Mike Grondin
        • steve
          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
          Message 4 of 19 , May 26 12:07 AM
            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.

            [Steve Oxbrow]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.