The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
mbuckley3
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:47 am

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by mbuckley3 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:11 pm

A question for the always-excellent DCHindley. Your notion that the Nag Hammadi trove is an heresiologist's research library is intriguing. But I'm puzzled by your suggestion that the 'clean' texts are an indication of this. A modern would scrawl all over working copies. From Tony Grafton's work, we know that Isaac Casaubon profusely annotated both books he treasured and books he read to demolish. Of ancient research practices, all that immediately comes to mind is that description of Pliny the Elder having slaves read aloud to him, stopping them whenever he wanted a passage writing down. Are you aware of any evidence, literary or physical, of how an Epiphanius might go about his work ?

John2
Posts: 3400
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by John2 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:13 pm

Ben wrote:

So, obviously, the answer to my question about the Nag Hammadi texts could hypothetically be that those texts (and not others) formed somebody's ancient canon. And, in that case, I would ask the inevitable next questions. Whose? How do we know? Is the same list attested elsewhere? Why were those books considered canonical and not others? And so on. If, however, these works are not (part of) a canon, then I am forced to explore other avenues.

For me the big picture in this case is that whoever liked the Nag Hammadi texts liked Thomas, and Hippolytus says that the Naassenes liked Thomas, and they were Gnostics. And I figure that by the mid-fourth century CE Thomas and other Gnostic writings had become part of a collection of non-canonical/Gnostic-y writings (for edification, curiosity or refutation) until, as Pagels puts it, "someone, possibly a monk from a nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction."

The logic behind the collection would be then that they are all non-canonical/Gnostic-y writings that were arranged according to someone's fancy in the fourth century CE. If they were collected for that reason, it wouldn't matter if this one is Valentinian and that one is Sethian or whatever. They were all outsider Gnostic-y writings that someone in Egypt (perhaps in the monastery of St. Pachomius) thought should be preserved for whatever reason until it became too dangerous to keep them.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2847
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by DCHindley » Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:36 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:41 am
DCHindley wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:21 pm
But when I looked at the passage from Plato's Republic I was struck by the strange way that the text was translated into Coptic. The translator grasped the tripartite nature of the human condition expressed by Plato, but in other ways seemed to miss the mark. Of course, I had to do most of my thinkin' usin' English translations (I read 2-3 well respected ones). There is quite a difference between ETs of this passage, so I am not surprised the E.T. of the Coptic also seems so far from what the Greek seems to say.
I myself have never looked at this version of (part of) the Republic, but I do remember reading somewhere that the translator does not seem to have understood the work.
The following was how I hashed it out. But look at the significant differences between the two English translations of Plato that I used:

NHL Codex VI, 5. The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. Translated by James Brashler, James M. Robinson, ed., HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990
The Republic: With an English translation by Paul Shorey. Revised Loeb Edition: Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969 (sic) [1937]
Translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Republic of Plato: translated into English, with introd., analysis, marginal analysis, and index, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd revised edition, 1888
NHL Codex VI, 5. Coptic paraphrase of Plato's Republic 588a-589b Plato, Republic, Book IX (588a-589b) Plato, Republic, Book IX (588a-589b)
"Since we have come to this point in a discussion, let us again take up the first things that were said to us. [588a] “… And now that we have come to this point in the argument, [588b] let us take up again the statement with which we began and that has brought us to this pass. and now having arrived at this stage of the argument, we may revert to the words which brought us hither:
And we will find that he says, 'Good is he who has been done injustice completely. He is glorified justly.' Is not this how he was reproached?" It was, I believe, averred that injustice is profitable to the completely unjust man who is reputed just. Was not that the proposition?” Was not some one saying that injustice was a gain to the perfectly unjust who was reputed to be just?
"This is certainly the fitting way!" “Yes, that.” Yes, that was said.
And I said, "Now then, we have spoken because he said that he who does injustice and he who does justice each has a force." “Let us, then, reason with its proponent now that we have agreed on the essential nature of injustice and just conduct.” Now then, having determined the power and quality of justice and injustice, let us have a little conversation with him.
''How then?" “How?” he said. What shall we say to him?
"He said, 'An image that has no likeness is the rationality of soul,' so that he who said these things will understand. “By fashioning in our discourse a symbolic image of the soul, that the maintainer of that proposition may see precisely what it is that he was saying.” Let us make an image of the soul, that he may have his own words presented before his eyes.
He [...] or not? [588c] “What sort of an image?” he said. Of what sort?
We [...] is for me. But all [...] who told them [...] ruler, these now have become natural creatures - even Chimaera and Cerberus and all the rest that were mentioned. They all came down and they cast off forms and images. And they all became a single image. “One of those natures that the ancient fables tell of,” said I, “as that of the Chimaera or Scylla or Cerberus, and the numerous other examples that are told of many forms grown together in one.” An ideal image of the soul, like the composite creations of ancient mythology, such as the Chimera or Scylla or Cerberus, and there are many others in which two or more different natures are said to grow into one.
It was said, 'Work now!' “Yes, they do tell of them.” There are said of have been such unions.
Certainly it is a single image that became the image of a complex beast with many heads. Some days indeed it is like the image of a wild beast. Then it is able to cast off the first image. And all these hard and difficult forms emanate from it with effort, since these are formed now with arrogance. “Mould, then, a single shape of a manifold and many-headed beast that has a ring of heads of tame and wild beasts and can change them and cause to spring forth from itself all such growths.” Then do you now model the form of a multitudinous, many-headed monster, having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts, tame and wild, which he is able to generate and metamorphose at will.
And also all the rest that are like them are formed now through the word. For now it is a single image. [588d] “It is the task of a cunning artist,” he said, “but nevertheless, since speech is more plastic than wax and other such media, assume that it has been so fashioned.” You suppose marvelous powers in the artist; but, as language is more pliable than wax or any similar substance, let there be such a model as you propose.
For the image of the lion is the one thing and the image of the man is another. [...] single [...] is the [...] of [...] join. And this [...] much more complex than the first. And the second is small." “Then fashion one other form of a lion and one of a man and let the first be far the largest and the second second in size.” Suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion, and a third of a man, the second smaller than the first, and the third smaller than the second.
"It has been formed." “That is easier,” he said, “and is done.” That, he said, is an easier task; and I have made them as you say.
"Now then, join them to each other and make them a single one - for they are three - so that they grow together, “Join the three in one, then, so as in some sort to grow together.” And now join them, and let the three grow into one.
“They are so united,” he said. That has been accomplished.
and all are in a single image outside of the image of the man just like him who is unable to see the things inside him. But what is outside only is what he sees. And it is apparent what creature his image is in and that he was formed in a human image. “Then mould about them outside the likeness of one, that of the man, so that to anyone who is unable [588e] to look within but who can see only the external sheath it appears to be one living creature, the man.” Next fashion the outside of them into a single image, as of a man, so that he who is not able to look within, and sees only the outer hull, may believe the beast to be a single human creature.
“The sheath is made fast about him,” he said. I have done so, he said.
"And I spoke to him who said that there is profit in the doing of injustice for the man. He who does injustice truly does not profit nor does he benefit. “Let us, then say to the speaker who avers that it pays this man to be unjust, and that to do justice is not for his advantage, And now, to him who maintains that it is profitable for the human creature to be unjust, and unprofitable to be just,
But what is profitable for him is this: that he cast down every image of the evil beast and trample them along with the images of the lion. that he is affirming nothing else than that it profits him to feast and make strong the multifarious beast and the lion and all that pertains to the lion, let us reply that, if he be right, it is profitable for this creature to feast the multitudinous monster and strengthen the lion and the lion-like qualities,
But the man is in weakness in this regard. And all the things that he does are weak. As a result he is drawn to the place where he spends time with them. [...]. [589a] but to starve the man and so enfeeble him that he can be pulled about whithersoever either of the others drag him, but to starve and weaken the man, who is consequently liable to be dragged about at the mercy of either of the other two;
And he [...] to him in[...]. But he brings about [...] enmity [...]. And with strife they devour each other among themselves. and not to familiarize or reconcile with one another the two creatures but suffer them to bite and fight and devour one another.” and he is not to attempt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another --he ought rather to suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another.
Yes, all these things he said to everyone who praises the doing of injustice." “Yes,” he said, “that is precisely what the panegyrist of injustice will be found to say.” Certainly, he said; that is what the approver of injustice says.
"Then is it not profitable for him who speaks justly?" “And on the other hand he who says that justice is the more profitable affirms that To him the supporter of justice makes answer that
"And if he does these things and speaks in them, within the man they take hold firmly. all our actions and words should tend to give the man within us [589b] complete domination over the entire man he should ever so speak and act as to give the man within him in some way or other the most complete mastery over the entire human creature.
Therefore especially he strives to take care of them and make him take charge of the many-headed beast— He should watch over the many-headed monster
and he nourishes them just like the farmer nourishes his produce daily. like a farmer who cherishes and trains the cultivated plants like a good husbandman, fostering and cultivating the gentle qualities,
And the wild beasts keep it from growing." but checks the growth of the wild— and preventing the wild ones from growing;
and he will make an ally of the lion's nature, and caring for all the beasts alike will first make them friendly to one another and to himself, and so foster their growth.” he should be making the lion-heart his ally, and in common care of them all should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/plato.html http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ion%3D588a http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.10.ix.html


User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:10 am

DCHindley wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:36 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:41 am
DCHindley wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:21 pm
But when I looked at the passage from Plato's Republic I was struck by the strange way that the text was translated into Coptic. The translator grasped the tripartite nature of the human condition expressed by Plato, but in other ways seemed to miss the mark. Of course, I had to do most of my thinkin' usin' English translations (I read 2-3 well respected ones). There is quite a difference between ETs of this passage, so I am not surprised the E.T. of the Coptic also seems so far from what the Greek seems to say.
I myself have never looked at this version of (part of) the Republic, but I do remember reading somewhere that the translator does not seem to have understood the work.
The following was how I hashed it out.
Because of course you did. :lol: :cheers: I love your synopses and other textual presentations. Man after my own heart.
But look at the significant differences between the two English translations of Plato that I used....
Well, yes, on top of the usual differences in translational strategy (dynamic versus formal equivalence, retaining the archaic versus updating for modern ears, and so on), there is also the matter that Plato and other Greek philosophical writing can be hard both to understand and to make clear. Honestly, it may be my least favorite kind of Greek to read or to translate. Thucydides is complex, but elegant and sometimes just plain fun (trebly nested modifying clauses, for example). Plato? I do not recall ever having much "fun" with a passage in Plato.

Do you have this translation of Plato available in a file? That would be great.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:49 pm

On page 243 of Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Michael A. Williams gives a figure grouping the Nag Hammadi codices by scribal hand:

Michael A. Williams, Figure 3, Scribes of the Nag Hammadi Codices.png
Michael A. Williams, Figure 3, Scribes of the Nag Hammadi Codices.png (69.86 KiB) Viewed 3830 times

There are three groups: A, B, and C. Some of the codices do not belong to a group.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:51 pm

On pages 47-48 of Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Michael A. Williams gives a table categorizing the works in each codex as Gnostic or Nongnostic; also used are labels like Valentinian and Sethian. I have manually added, in red typeface, the scribal group for each codex:

Michael A. Williams, Table 2, NH Tractates as Gnostic or Nongnostic (Marked).png
Michael A. Williams, Table 2, NH Tractates as Gnostic or Nongnostic (Marked).png (213.66 KiB) Viewed 3830 times

There is quite a lot of crossover between various labels in the same scribal group. Do any patterns emerge?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:05 pm

I guess group C is mostly Sethian; group A has one volume that is mostly Sethian, another that is mostly Valentinian, and another that is split down the middle between the two. Group B is kind of all over the place.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2847
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by DCHindley » Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:21 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:10 am
DCHindley wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:36 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:41 am
DCHindley wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:21 pm
But when I looked at the passage from Plato's Republic I was struck by the strange way that the text was translated into Coptic. The translator grasped the tripartite nature of the human condition expressed by Plato, but in other ways seemed to miss the mark. Of course, I had to do most of my thinkin' usin' English translations (I read 2-3 well respected ones). There is quite a difference between ETs of this passage, so I am not surprised the E.T. of the Coptic also seems so far from what the Greek seems to say.
I myself have never looked at this version of (part of) the Republic, but I do remember reading somewhere that the translator does not seem to have understood the work.
The following was how I hashed it out.
Because of course you did. :lol: :cheers: I love your synopses and other textual presentations. Man after my own heart.
But look at the significant differences between the two English translations of Plato that I used....
Well, yes, on top of the usual differences in translational strategy (dynamic versus formal equivalence, retaining the archaic versus updating for modern ears, and so on), there is also the matter that Plato and other Greek philosophical writing can be hard both to understand and to make clear. Honestly, it may be my least favorite kind of Greek to read or to translate. Thucydides is complex, but elegant and sometimes just plain fun (trebly nested modifying clauses, for example). Plato? I do not recall ever having much "fun" with a passage in Plato.

Do you have this translation of Plato available in a file? That would be great.
Here's a PDF version. I had planned to also include a column with the Greek, but I got bogged down in figuring out the syntax, and it never came to be.
For those who know Greek better than I do (that's you, Ben), the Greek is as follows:

[588α] ἀμηχάνῳ μέντοι νὴ Δία, ἔφη.

[588β] εἶεν δή, εἶπον: ἐπειδὴ ἐνταῦθα λόγου γεγόναμεν, ἀναλάβωμεν τὰ πρῶτα λεχθέντα, δι᾽ ἃ δεῦρ᾽ ἥκομεν.

ἦν δέ που λεγόμενον λυσιτελεῖν ἀδικεῖν τῷ τελέως μὲν ἀδίκῳ, δοξαζομένῳ δὲ δικαίῳ:

ἢ οὐχ οὕτως ἐλέχθη;

οὕτω μὲν οὖν.

νῦν δή, ἔφην, αὐτῷ διαλεγώμεθα, ἐπειδὴ διωμολογησάμεθα τό τε ἀδικεῖν καὶ τὸ δίκαια πράττειν ἣν ἑκάτερον ἔχει δύναμιν.

πῶς; ἔφη.

εἰκόνα πλάσαντες τῆς ψυχῆς λόγῳ, ἵνα εἰδῇ ὁ ἐκεῖνα λέγων οἷα ἔλεγεν.

[588ξ] ποίαν τινά;

ἦ δ᾽ ὅς. τῶν τοιούτων τινά, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ,

οἷαι μυθολογοῦνται παλαιαὶ γενέσθαι φύσεις,

ἥ τε Χιμαίρας καὶ ἡ Σκύλλης καὶ Κερβέρου,

καὶ ἄλλαι τινὲς συχναὶ λέγονται συμπεφυκυῖαι ἰδέαι πολλαὶ εἰς ἓν γενέσθαι.

λέγονται γάρ, ἔφη.

πλάττε τοίνυν μίαν μὲν ἰδέαν θηρίου ποικίλου καὶ πολυκεφάλου,

ἡμέρων δὲ θηρίων ἔχοντος κεφαλὰς κύκλῳ καὶ ἀγρίων,

καὶ δυνατοῦ μεταβάλλειν καὶ φύειν ἐξ αὑτοῦ πάντα ταῦτα.

[588δ] δεινοῦ πλάστου,

ἔφη,

τὸ ἔργον:

ὅμως δέ, ἐπειδὴ εὐπλαστότερον κηροῦ καὶ τῶν τοιούτων λόγος,

πεπλάσθω.

μίαν δὴ τοίνυν ἄλλην ἰδέαν λέοντος,

μίαν δὲ ἀνθρώπου:

πολὺ δὲ μέγιστον ἔστω τὸ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον τὸ δεύτερον.

ταῦτα,

ἔφη,

ῥᾴω,

καὶ πέπλασται.

σύναπτε τοίνυν αὐτὰ εἰς ἓν τρία ὄντα,

ὥστε πῃ συμπεφυκέναι ἀλλήλοις.

συνῆπται,

ἔφη.

περίπλασον δὴ αὐτοῖς ἔξωθεν ἑνὸς εἰκόνα,

τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,

ὥστε τῷ μὴ δυναμένῳ τὰ ἐντὸς ὁρᾶν,

ἀλλὰ τὸ [588ε] ἔξω μόνον ἔλυτρον ὁρῶντι,

ἓν ζῷον φαίνεσθαι, ἄνθρωπον.

περιπέπλασται, ἔφη.

λέγωμεν δὴ τῷ λέγοντι ὡς λυσιτελεῖ τούτῳ ἀδικεῖν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ,

δίκαια δὲ πράττειν οὐ συμφέρει,

ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φησὶν ἢ λυσιτελεῖν αὐτῷ τὸ παντοδαπὸν θηρίον εὐωχοῦντι ποιεῖν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ τὸν λέοντα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν λέοντα,

τὸν [589α] δὲ ἄνθρωπον λιμοκτονεῖν καὶ ποιεῖν ἀσθενῆ,

ὥστε ἕλκεσθαι ὅπῃ ἂν ἐκείνων ὁπότερον ἄγῃ,

καὶ μηδὲν ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ συνεθίζειν μηδὲ φίλον ποιεῖν,

ἀλλ᾽ ἐᾶν αὐτὰ ἐν αὑτοῖς δάκνεσθαί τε καὶ μαχόμενα ἐσθίειν ἄλληλα.

παντάπασι γάρ,

ἔφη,

ταῦτ᾽ ἂν λέγοι ὁ τὸ ἀδικεῖν ἐπαινῶν.

οὐκοῦν αὖ ὁ τὰ δίκαια λέγων λυσιτελεῖν φαίη ἂν δεῖν ταῦτα πράττειν καὶ ταῦτα λέγειν,

ὅθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ἐντὸς [589β] ἄνθρωπος ἔσται ἐγκρατέστατος,

καὶ τοῦ πολυκεφάλου θρέμματος ἐπιμελήσεται ὥσπερ γεωργός,

τὰ μὲν ἥμερα τρέφων καὶ τιθασεύων,

τὰ δὲ ἄγρια ἀποκωλύων φύεσθαι,

σύμμαχον ποιησάμενος τὴν τοῦ λέοντος φύσιν,

καὶ κοινῇ πάντων κηδόμενος,

φίλα ποιησάμενος ἀλλήλοις τε καὶ αὑτῷ,

οὕτω θρέψει;

κομιδῇ γὰρ αὖ λέγει ταῦτα ὁ τὸ δίκαιον ἐπαινῶν.

κατὰ πάντα τρόπον δὴ ὁ μὲν τὰ δίκαια ἐγκωμιάζων ἀληθῆ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:06 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:21 pm
Here's a PDF version. I had planned to also include a column with the Greek, but I got bogged down in figuring out the syntax, and it never came to be.

(Hindley, David C) Analysis of Plato Republic Bk IX (588a-589b) NHL & 2 Translations (2013-02-16).pdf

For those who know Greek better than I do (that's you, Ben), the Greek is as follows....
Perfect. Thanks, David. If you want to add the Greek to your table, you can either just send me the Word document or add it yourself according to the following sense units, which I have divided up according to the table cells in the middle column (Paul Shorey's translation) in the PDF. I hope I did not combine any by mistake, but I count 28 content cells in the column and 28 separate lines in the text below, so it should all come out right (I trimmed the Greek text, front and back, to conform it to the English sense units):

Plato, Republic, Book IX (588b-589b):

588β ... ἐπειδὴ ἐνταῦθα λόγου γεγόναμεν, ἀναλάβωμεν τὰ πρῶτα λεχθέντα, δι᾽ ἃ δεῦρ᾽ ἥκομεν.

ἦν δέ που λεγόμενον λυσιτελεῖν ἀδικεῖν τῷ τελέως μὲν ἀδίκῳ, δοξαζομένῳ δὲ δικαίῳ: ἢ οὐχ οὕτως ἐλέχθη;

οὕτω μὲν οὖν.

νῦν δή, ἔφην, αὐτῷ διαλεγώμεθα, ἐπειδὴ διωμολογησάμεθα τό τε ἀδικεῖν καὶ τὸ δίκαια πράττειν ἣν ἑκάτερον ἔχει δύναμιν.

πῶς; ἔφη.

εἰκόνα πλάσαντες τῆς ψυχῆς λόγῳ, ἵνα εἰδῇ ὁ ἐκεῖνα λέγων οἷα ἔλεγεν.

588ξ ποίαν τινά; ἦ δ᾽ ὅς.

τῶν τοιούτων τινά, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, οἷαι μυθολογοῦνται παλαιαὶ γενέσθαι φύσεις, ἥ τε Χιμαίρας καὶ ἡ Σκύλλης καὶ Κερβέρου, καὶ ἄλλαι τινὲς συχναὶ λέγονται συμπεφυκυῖαι ἰδέαι πολλαὶ εἰς ἓν γενέσθαι.

λέγονται γάρ, ἔφη.

πλάττε τοίνυν μίαν μὲν ἰδέαν θηρίου ποικίλου καὶ πολυκεφάλου, ἡμέρων δὲ θηρίων ἔχοντος κεφαλὰς κύκλῳ καὶ ἀγρίων, καὶ δυνατοῦ μεταβάλλειν καὶ φύειν ἐξ αὑτοῦ πάντα ταῦτα.

588δ δεινοῦ πλάστου, ἔφη, τὸ ἔργον: ὅμως δέ, ἐπειδὴ εὐπλαστότερον κηροῦ καὶ τῶν τοιούτων λόγος, πεπλάσθω.

μίαν δὴ τοίνυν ἄλλην ἰδέαν λέοντος, μίαν δὲ ἀνθρώπου: πολὺ δὲ μέγιστον ἔστω τὸ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον τὸ δεύτερον.

ταῦτα, ἔφη, ῥᾴω, καὶ πέπλασται.

σύναπτε τοίνυν αὐτὰ εἰς ἓν τρία ὄντα, ὥστε πῃ συμπεφυκέναι ἀλλήλοις.

συνῆπται, ἔφη.

περίπλασον δὴ αὐτοῖς ἔξωθεν ἑνὸς εἰκόνα, τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὥστε τῷ μὴ δυναμένῳ τὰ ἐντὸς ὁρᾶν, ἀλλὰ τὸ 588ε ἔξω μόνον ἔλυτρον ὁρῶντι, ἓν ζῷον φαίνεσθαι, ἄνθρωπον.

περιπέπλασται, ἔφη.

λέγωμεν δὴ τῷ λέγοντι ὡς λυσιτελεῖ τούτῳ ἀδικεῖν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, δίκαια δὲ πράττειν οὐ συμφέρει,

ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φησὶν ἢ λυσιτελεῖν αὐτῷ τὸ παντοδαπὸν θηρίον εὐωχοῦντι ποιεῖν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ τὸν λέοντα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν λέοντα,

τὸν 589α δὲ ἄνθρωπον λιμοκτονεῖν καὶ ποιεῖν ἀσθενῆ, ὥστε ἕλκεσθαι ὅπῃ ἂν ἐκείνων ὁπότερον ἄγῃ,

καὶ μηδὲν ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ συνεθίζειν μηδὲ φίλον ποιεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐᾶν αὐτὰ ἐν αὑτοῖς δάκνεσθαί τε καὶ μαχόμενα ἐσθίειν ἄλληλα.

παντάπασι γάρ, ἔφη, ταῦτ᾽ ἂν λέγοι ὁ τὸ ἀδικεῖν ἐπαινῶν.

οὐκοῦν αὖ ὁ τὰ δίκαια λέγων λυσιτελεῖν φαίη ἂν

δεῖν ταῦτα πράττειν καὶ ταῦτα λέγειν, ὅθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ἐντὸς 589β ἄνθρωπος ἔσται ἐγκρατέστατος,

καὶ τοῦ πολυκεφάλου θρέμματος ἐπιμελήσεται

ὥσπερ γεωργός, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα τρέφων καὶ τιθασεύων,

τὰ δὲ ἄγρια ἀποκωλύων φύεσθαι,

σύμμαχον ποιησάμενος τὴν τοῦ λέοντος φύσιν, καὶ κοινῇ πάντων κηδόμενος, φίλα ποιησάμενος ἀλλήλοις τε καὶ αὑτῷ, οὕτω θρέψει;

(Your text started with [588α] ἀμηχάνῳ μέντοι νὴ Δία, ἔφη, and the English translation in that column implied that some of the text belongs to 588a, but the Greek corresponding to the English does not kick in until three or four words into 588b.)

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The logic of the Nag Hammadi collection.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:38 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:21 pm
Here's a PDF version.
File received! Thanks. I am adding the Greek text now.

Post Reply