If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Peter Kirby »

Carlos wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:09 pm Hi! I'm a new member who just registered.
Welcome!
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:50 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:05 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:33 pm I see that the Mythicist Norman Simms agrees with the Mythicist Dubourg (precursor of both Mergui and Charbonnel) about the Earliest Gospel as allegory written in Hebrew.
Can you narrow the reference down a bit, please? Page? Thanks.
p. 129 of this book (Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, Zev Garber, Routledge, 2014), Simms writes:

The so- called Champs de Midrash school in France, a Christian group, considers that they can pick apart the Gospels, Epistles, and other early Christian documents by two processes: one, by translating them back into Aramaic to find various word- plays, common idioms, and other linguistic turns that were either lost or mistranslated when these texts were published in Greek as canonical books; the other, by using various rabbinical modes of exegesis to re- assemble the narratives and rhetorical arguments into stories and speeches more appropriate to the political and religious beliefs at the time of Jesus’s putative life. It may seem possible therefore to
consider the daughter religion named after Christ as the product of seeing ancient and Second Temple Judaism through the filter of Hellenistic philosophies, from Stoicism through Neoplatonism. Reinach points out that Saul/Paul goes so far as to call the Judaism he supposedly learned from Rabbi
Gamaliel radix stultiæ, the root of all madness or foolishness. Moreover, throughout the period between the formation of the Church and canonization of its New Testament, other legends and mythical amplifications were put together to fit the official version of Jesus’s life and Christ’s Passion; and whereas some of these extra-Scriptural episodes were stripped away by the Reformation in its effort to focus on the canonical books, the result was hardly a version true to Second Temple or early rabbinical Judaism, or what Schmiedel called “the error of a religion of servility and from the error of a
religion of pretensions.”
The Jesus, like the Christ, that emerges from such historical procedures can only be taken as Jewish after a much more recent shift in sensibility and ideology that takes place to bring in the need for modern historicity of a
different kind altogether,...

(my bold)
Thanks, Giuseppe. Are you sure, though, that Simms agrees with the "Hebrew-allegorical" viewpoint or does he simply present it as one field that is part of the discussion in France and as one among a number of the approaches that he would teach -- without expressing any personal view on its validity?
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:44 pm I apologize, Neil.
I was very impressed with your question.

Endings, Constructions and so on have played such a part in figgerin' out the Intentions in the Greek NT text. I have read that there are people who can read a Passage in the NT and guess the Primary Language of certain writers based on how they framed their thoughts - "Throw the horse over the fence some hay", etc. I have asked whether "TURN as a child" and "CHANGE as a child" have a common Base-Word in Aramaic and Greek, odd as it may seem. There are Latin Loan Words ("Soudarion") that point to what the Empty Tomb story is actually telling us.

I focus so much on the Story and the Logic that the thought of composing a complex Greek Argument on the fly seems a very difficult task if Greek is not your primary language. As an aside, you gave a very good Review of Jay Raskin's book and I find his ideas fascinating. I admire Maccoby for his Talent in this as well. I write with Capitals a lot to identify Labels as an aid to understanding. Currently, I find a tremendous amount of information in Teeple. You ask a great question for what it implies.

Cross-Cultural, Cross-Linguistic Questions and Word-Plays are important. My favorite is "Immar" - "Immer": "Lamb" => "16th Mishmarot Group", as in "Behold, the Immar-Yah, the "Lamb of God" (Pssst! This isn't about a savior-god, it's about something else...)". Possibly from a Latin Linguist composing in Greek about a Semitic Phrase that goes back over a 1000 years prior to the NT times to Sumer. There were some smart - and very cynical - people back then.

So when you wrote your question, my first thought was the quote above since there was an important Latin Historical figure who could compose an Argument in Greek on the fly and impress a Tacitus. Mucianus was a vicious man and formidable opponent. i believe he plays an important part in the creation of the NT (and not "merely" in the creation on the Flavian Dynasty.). Tacitus is telling something that he didn't have to tell. When Suetonius tells us that Vespasian confided in a common friend concerning Mucianus that, "I, at least, am a man...", he is communicating some Set of Facts that are important about this character Mucianus.

In effect, he is answering your question by providing an answer, not with a single example but with the implication that there were those who could accomplish this difficult Task as a matter of course.

I apologize for being so Opaque.

CW
Thanks for the explanation, Charles
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:50 am . . . .

p. 129 of this book (Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, Zev Garber, Routledge, 2014), Simms writes:

The so- called Champs de Midrash school in France, a Christian group, considers that they can pick apart the Gospels, Epistles, and other early Christian documents by two processes: one, by translating them back into Aramaic to find various word- plays, common idioms, and other linguistic turns that were either lost or mistranslated when these texts were published in Greek as canonical books; the other, by using various rabbinical modes of exegesis to re- assemble the narratives and rhetorical arguments into stories and speeches more appropriate to the political and religious beliefs at the time of Jesus’s putative life. . . . .

(my bold)

Am I right in thinking that this approach has not been taken up in English language venues?

I find some of the details interesting. One example is the author's interest in marking when it is "sunset" or "sunrise" or before or after the sun setting/rising in the gospels. In Exodus Rabbah 50 (I am relying on a French translation here because I cannot find it translated into English online) we read that the setting/rising of the sun is related to the coming of the Messiah
And if you transgress these commandments, I will take the two dwellings as a pledge, as it is written: "If you hold in pledge your neighbour's wealth, I will take them as a pledge. - No," he replied, "you shall return it to him at sunset. That is to say, at the coming of the Messiah, for it is written: "But to you who fear my name the sun of justice will shine, with healing, etc." (Malachi 4:2). Exodus Rabba 50
If this is a fair translation (I am translating French that is apparently a translation of the Hebrew) -- then it appears that setting of the sun and rising of the sun are somehow equated as both being representative of the Messiah's advent.

Does anyone more knowledgeable in Hebrew have any comment on the apparent equating of setting and rising of the sun in the language and its reference here?

(The point here takes on some significance given that it is part of a larger constellation of puns and images -- but one point at a time.)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:19 am I am reminded of the foolish idiot Nicholas Perrin who allegedly discovered treasures of catch words in Thomas after "translating it back into Aramaic" . . . .

And people got really excited over all that incompetent tinkering
I found Perrin's book very interesting. Have you read it? Certainly scholars disagree but those who published critical reviews did so with civility and professionalism. Other scholars did not see his arguments as idiotic at all:
It is an important and well-argued thesis that cannot be ignored in any future critical study of Thomas
  • -- Carlson, Stephen. “Tatian and Thomas.” Crosstalk2, October 20, 2002.
Presumably there will be doubters, but Perrin appears to have made an important step forward in Thomas and Tatian, and established a date and context for the composition of the Gospel of Thomas more firmly than earlier scholarship had managed to.
  • -- McKechnie, Paul. “Review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian (Atlanta, 2002).” Prudentia 36, no. 1 (2004): 64–66.
Perrin's monograph is undeniably a detailed and sophisticated study of GT, and it is impossible within the context of this review to discuss the value of his reconstruction of the Syriac background of the Coptic gospel. . . . First of all, it must be said that this book is a very valuable contribution to the elucidation of the unmistakable Semitic, i.e., Aramaic or Syriac, character of GT. Perrin has added a number of important pieces of evidence pointing towards a Syriac original to those already collected by Guillaumont and others.
  • -- Poirier, Paul-Hubert. Review of Perrin, Nicholas, Thomas and Tadan: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (’’Academia Biblica,” 5), 2002. Pp. xii + 216., by Nicholas Perrin. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 6, no. 2 (July 2003): 6.

By means of his thorough linguistic analysis in Coptic, Greek and Syriac, Nicholas Perrin has demonstrated that the Gospel of Thomas is a finely crafted Syriac text, knit together by catchwords. . . . No doubt the arguments on both sides will go on for some time to come. Perrin’s contribution
to the discussion, however, is highly significant.
To his credit, Perrin recognizes the difficulties inherent in his approach and even raises the question himself of whether his reconstructions will be tendentiously skewed. He responds that since Syriac offers a limited range of lexicological options, this is not as big a problem as first appears. . . .

Despite the considerable problems with this work, it is generally well-written, and it is worth engaging the arguments put forth. . . . he has revived the theory of GT as a Syriac composition and extended it through his analysis of catchwords. Though most GT scholars will probably not find this argument convincing, the evidence Perrin presents should not be ignored. It deserves closer scrutiny and an informed response. Perrin explicitly lays down the gauntlet. Will Thomas scholars accept the challenge?
  • -- Shedinger, Robert F. Review of Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, by Nicholas Perrin. Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 2 (2003): 387. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268457.
Now, Nicholas Perrin, who is a professor of the New Testament at the Marquette University in Milwaukee, has written a well-researched and elegantly
written book . . . .

. . . his thesis deserves serious consideration, because in such philological disputes about priority everything is possible.
  • -- Quispel, Gilles. Review of Review of Thomas and Tatian. The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (G. Quispel, reviewer), by Nicholas Perrin. Vigiliae Christianae 58, no. 2 (2004): 205–6.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Giuseppe »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:43 pmAre you sure, though, that Simms agrees with the "Hebrew-allegorical" viewpoint or does he simply present it as one field that is part of the discussion in France and as one among a number of the approaches that he would teach -- without expressing any personal view on its validity?
the immediate context seems to be a rehabilitation of Reinach's minimalist view (I remember that Reinach was a Jesus Agnostic until he arrived to believe that the Slavonic Testimonia, recently discovered, were genuine) against Loisy's criticisms. For example:

Reinach, for instance, sees much of the language and conceptual framework of belief in the New Testament as a result of misunderstandings of Hebrew as a language, a way of thought, and a means of exegetical playfulness.
...
If I were to teach a seminar on the Jewish Jesus, it would look like the section part of this chapter.

(my bold)
Am I right in thinking that this approach has not been taken up in English language venues?
You can say it strong.

This is the second time I see that the French research had overcomed, at least on a point, the English scholarship.

The first time has been when Doherty wrote that he was influenced more by Couchoud than by Drews or W.B.Smith.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:13 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:19 am I am reminded of the foolish idiot Nicholas Perrin who allegedly discovered treasures of catch words in Thomas after "translating it back into Aramaic" . . . .

And people got really excited over all that incompetent tinkering
I found Perrin's book very interesting. Have you read it? Certainly scholars disagree but those who published critical reviews did so with civility and professionalism. Other scholars did not see his arguments as idiotic at all:
I think we can agree that my two-word comment is neither, can we?
It is an important and well-argued thesis that cannot be ignored in any future critical study of Thomas
  • -- Carlson, Stephen. “Tatian and Thomas.” Crosstalk2, October 20, 2002.
Presumably there will be doubters, but Perrin appears to have made an important step forward in Thomas and Tatian, and established a date and context for the composition of the Gospel of Thomas more firmly than earlier scholarship had managed to.
  • -- McKechnie, Paul. “Review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian (Atlanta, 2002).” Prudentia 36, no. 1 (2004): 64–66.
Perrin's monograph is undeniably a detailed and sophisticated study of GT, and it is impossible within the context of this review to discuss the value of his reconstruction of the Syriac background of the Coptic gospel. . . . First of all, it must be said that this book is a very valuable contribution to the elucidation of the unmistakable Semitic, i.e., Aramaic or Syriac, character of GT. Perrin has added a number of important pieces of evidence pointing towards a Syriac original to those already collected by Guillaumont and others.
  • -- Poirier, Paul-Hubert. Review of Perrin, Nicholas, Thomas and Tadan: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (’’Academia Biblica,” 5), 2002. Pp. xii + 216., by Nicholas Perrin. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 6, no. 2 (July 2003): 6.

By means of his thorough linguistic analysis in Coptic, Greek and Syriac, Nicholas Perrin has demonstrated that the Gospel of Thomas is a finely crafted Syriac text, knit together by catchwords. . . . No doubt the arguments on both sides will go on for some time to come. Perrin’s contribution
to the discussion, however, is highly significant.
To his credit, Perrin recognizes the difficulties inherent in his approach and even raises the question himself of whether his reconstructions will be tendentiously skewed. He responds that since Syriac offers a limited range of lexicological options, this is not as big a problem as first appears. . . .

Despite the considerable problems with this work, it is generally well-written, and it is worth engaging the arguments put forth. . . . he has revived the theory of GT as a Syriac composition and extended it through his analysis of catchwords. Though most GT scholars will probably not find this argument convincing, the evidence Perrin presents should not be ignored. It deserves closer scrutiny and an informed response. Perrin explicitly lays down the gauntlet. Will Thomas scholars accept the challenge?
  • -- Shedinger, Robert F. Review of Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, by Nicholas Perrin. Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 2 (2003): 387. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268457.
Now, Nicholas Perrin, who is a professor of the New Testament at the Marquette University in Milwaukee, has written a well-researched and elegantly
written book . . . .

. . . his thesis deserves serious consideration, because in such philological disputes about priority everything is possible.
  • -- Quispel, Gilles. Review of Review of Thomas and Tatian. The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (G. Quispel, reviewer), by Nicholas Perrin. Vigiliae Christianae 58, no. 2 (2004): 205–6.
I have read his dissertation, that seemed to me a valid and concise abstract. I have also read a handful of reviews of his book - I don't have the time to read all the hundreds of books published on Thomas, and related works, so I scan what I can - but I don't hand out opinions like this on things that I'm unfamiliar with.
His is the typical "scholarship" that is completely argument-free and only points to others claiming the same in footnotes that only mention DOI and such. in other words: only claims are made, wholly unsubstantiated. And I'm not surprised that Stephen Carlson would like that kind of writing, because that is where his ceiling is at as well.
For example:
Although the reasons for locating GT in this setting have been called into question and other possibilities have been proffered, the evidence — at least to the satisfaction of most scholars — points to Syrian, if not specifically Edessene, provenance. 12

’’Those who subscribe to Syrian provenance include Guillaumont, van Unnik, Schippers, Baarda, Montcfiore, Haenchcn. Strobel, Schrage. Baker, Koester, Vielhauer. and Kaestli. The concerns raised by Barbara Ehlers (“Kami das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen?” NovT 12 [1970] 284-317) seem to have been adequately addressed by Klijn (“Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas: On Barbara Ehlers. Kann das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen?” NovT 14 [1972] 70-77). See bibliographical notes in Bruce Lincoln, ‘Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community: A New Approach to a Familiar Text,” NovT 19 (1977) 65.
Throwing around names and numbers - that is the poor performance of biblical academics, and it mirrors Churchianity: the Pope says so or the Church Fathers say so or that authority here and there says so hence it is true. Is this research? Hell no. Is this academic? Hell no. Is this convincing? Hell no

Funny that you should cite Quispel, as Perrin based his entire book on Quispel's (that even has an identical title)

Poirier? He is much more explicit after the initial customary praise: To put it in his own words, "since Tatian's harmony was presumably the only gospel record available in the Syriac language at that time, the evidence points ineluctably to Diatessaronic influence" (17; see also 193: "Tatian's Diatessaron is the only Syriac text of the Synoptic tradition that could have been available to Thomas"). In order to validate this post hoc propter hoc argument, a side-by-side comparison of the Coptic GT and its Syriac retroversion with the actual text of the Diatessaron—provided that it can be reconstructed with some certainty—would be necessary. Paradoxically, however, Tatian (and his Diatessaron) is the most noticeable absentee from this book. Perrin's endeavour has made out his case for a Tatianic dependence but the case still has to be tried. There is no doubt that the discussion resulting from his study will provoke will help clarifying the matter. Whatever the issue, Dr. Perrin has made a noteworthy contribution to the study of GT and its Aramaic/Syriac background.

Many errors are noticed and raised. To cite Peter Williams:

Though this conclusion may seem impressively supported, in fact recurring problems in his reconstructions considerably reduce its support. Firstly, the reconstructions are not straightforward. Thus from the Coptic word 'earth' (saying 9) and the Coptic word 'world' (saying 10) he reconstructs the Syriac word 'earth', despite the fact that Syriac has a perfectly good word for 'world' (pp. 65-66). When it suits Perrin to render Coptic 'world' by Syriac 'earth' it is so rendered (p. 78), but on other occasions the Coptic word 'world' is rendered by Syriac 'world' (p. 83). The author is thus selecting the words used in his retroversion in order to create catchwords. Similarly tendentious renderings from Coptic back to Syriac are 'corpse' rendered by 'flesh' (p. 106), 'evening' rendered by 'night' (p. 115), and 'belongings' rendered by 'house' (p. 124). A significant proportion of the catchwords discovered can be accounted for in a similar way. (139-40).

Jan Joosten's is even more concise: In the end, the compilation appears to be almost entirely useless. Nothing proves that the network of Syriac catchwords ever existed outside of Perrin’s imagination.

One final word: it is absolute rubbish to gamble and guess at the origin and date of a text without being able at the least to say what is in it. How on earth did Perrin think it useful to have a go at catchwords without being able to know the value of each word in the text? Catchwords and other meta-attributes of a text are somewhere at level 9 or 10, whereas a basic understanding of a text comes at level 6 or so (just making up the numbers as I go), on a scale of 1 to 10. It is pretty much like talking about marriage when you're not even dating the girl

And you know, of course, that the Diatessaron that we have is the 1881 reconstruction of Zahn. What Perrin has had in mind would be the same as me matching Thomas catchwords with the reconstruction of Marcion on this forum, and it would be an attempt to match a finished product to less than an intermediate good. Hell, I could match Marcion with Q and it would be just as sensible!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:13 pm I found Perrin's book very interesting. Have you read it? Certainly scholars disagree but those who published critical reviews did so with civility and professionalism.
I'm happy with the promotion though. Less than two weeks ago you said the following:
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:15 am I knew you were enthusiastic but I did assume you were also sincerely interested in scholarly works. You're obviously too smart to waste your time with serious scholarship.
It's a bit of a trade-off, going from enthusiastic and non-scholar to an uncivilised and unprofessional scholar, but I guess it'll just have to do
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:34 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:13 pm Certainly scholars disagree but those who published critical reviews did so with civility and professionalism. Other scholars did not see his arguments as idiotic at all:
I think we can agree that my two-word comment is neither, can we?
No. Your list of criticisms only proves my point: none of those scholars called Perrin a fool or idiotic. There is room for disagreement with respect for those with whom we disagree. Your insults of people much smarter than you only show your own ignorance of not only the subject matter but how to engage with different views. You try to excuse yourself by saying you don't have time to read everything. Most of us don't -- but that realization leads us to being a bit more willing to acknowledge that we are not in a position to call others fools and idiots.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

How Nicholas Perrin "foolged" his Syriac Thomas

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:29 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:34 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:13 pm Certainly scholars disagree but those who published critical reviews did so with civility and professionalism. Other scholars did not see his arguments as idiotic at all:
I think we can agree that my two-word comment is neither, can we?
No. Your list of criticisms only proves my point: none of those scholars called Perrin a fool or idiotic. There is room for disagreement with respect for those with whom we disagree. Your insults of people much smarter than you only show your own ignorance of not only the subject matter but how to engage with different views. You try to excuse yourself by saying you don't have time to read everything. Most of us don't -- but that realization leads us to being a bit more willing to acknowledge that we are not in a position to call others fools and idiots.
A few quotes from his work (because I am way, WAY more knowledgeable on Thomas than Perrin and you together, of course):

(A)
It is noteworthy, for instance, that Gos. Thorn. 10 contains the word "fire," while the following logion contains the word "light": in Syriac, the two words "fire" and "light," nurä and nuhrä, would have been almost indistinguishable to the ear. The collocation of these two homophones might be written off as mere coincidence, except that precisely the same word pairing occurs again in Gos. Thorn. 82.1 and 83.1 (bis), 2. And again we have a third occurrence of "fire" in Gos. Thorn. 16.2, this time linked to 17 not with "light" per se, but— through a more indirect word play—"eyes," a standard metaphor for "light" (Matt 6:22-23). Words for "fire" occur four times in the collection (Gos. Thorn. 10; 13.8; 16.2; 82.1); "light" is found in seven sayings (11.3; 24.3 [4x]; 33.3; 50.1 [2x]; 61.5; 77.1; 83.1 [2x], 2). The statistical probability that these pairings are incidental is 6.8%.18
Let's check my concordance (https://www.academia.edu/42110001):

Code: Select all

fire     ⲕⲱϩⲧ  Subst. m.   Logion 10, 13, 16
fire(F)* ⲥⲁⲧⲉ   Subst. f.   Logion 82
There are two completely different words for fire in Thomas! But Perrin is happy to count them as one, of course, without spending any attention to their great differences

Code: Select all

light    ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ  Subst. m.   Logion 11, 24, 33, 50, 61, 77, 83
Perrin mentions "eyes" in logion 17 above as a reference to light, but doesn't include it in this list? He likely uses it to calculate his 6.8% though, I reckon - or his mention of it all would have been in vain.

(B)

Again, the word "wealth" (Coptic emm entr emmao = Syriac c etar) occurs twice in the sayings collection (29.3, 85.1); both times in conjunction with the like-sounding word "place" (Coptic ma = Syriac y atar) (30.1, 2; 86.2). Coptic words meaning "place" (ma, topos) occurs in twelve logia (4.1; 18.2; 22.6 [4x]; 24.1; 30.1, 2; 33.2; 50.1; 60.6; 64.12; 67; 68.2; 86.2). Given these facts, there is a 3.8% chance that its repeated connection withemm e ntremmao is fortuitous


ⲙ̄ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲣⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲟ, dear Nick, does not mean "wealth". In fact, the first M is an N, changed into an M because it is followed by one. In logion 29 as well as 85 it is an adjective linker that links the adjective to its noun: "[al] reign-of rich-man" is what it means, with ⲣⲙ̄ being short for ⲣⲱⲙⲉ, a typical Coptic feature.
Of course the Coptic Dictionary (https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3104) translates it with "riches, wealth" but it is really a very brusque way to treat this very rich word combination (no pun intended). And it is a grave error to include the M, of course

"Coptic words meaning "place" (ma, topos)", Nick? Really now?

Code: Select all

place    ⲙⲁ    Subst. m.   Logion 12, 18, 22, 30, 33, 50, 65, 67, 68, 75, 76, 86, 99
Place    ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ  Subst.      Logion 4, 24, 60, 64, 68
The second word is a Greek loanword, and greek loanwords have a special meaning in Thomas, one of a higher metaphysical meaning. You really (really, really) can't treat these two completely different words in the same way, as everyone will see: the Place of Life (4), the Place where IS is (24), the Place inward to a Repose (60), the Places of my father (64), and "they will fall not to Place in the place which did they Persecute [dop] you" (68). These are not just ordinary places, these really are Places Nick - and if you had tried to follow the correct order, of first making sense of the text and then going up to a higher level, you would have noticed that. But you haven't, and now you club these two together just like they are regular words. But they aren't, they are two utterly different words with incredibly different Meaning

It is evident that Perrin takes the English translation of Thomas and thus "matches the Coptic" with Syriac. And it is also evident that he omits matches whenver it suits him, as in the above, where the occurrence of ⲙⲁ in logia 65, 75, 76 and 99 is discarded by Nick for reasons unknown

65: ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ - place of grape. Perhaps Nick treats this as one word, "vineyard"? Yet this is how Coptic forms its nouns, Nick.
75: ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ ϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ` - place of marriage. Likely read as "bridal chamber", Nick? Because your Coptic ain't so good?
76: ⲙⲏⲛ` ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲡ ⲙⲁ - continuing outward the place. No slack for Nick here, this word really means place
99: ⲛⲉⲧ ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲙⲁ - they-who of these places. You're really caught now Nick, this is even copied by the canonicals and others: Mk 3.31–35; Matt. 12.46–50; Lk. 8.19–21; Gos.Eb. in Epiphanius, Pan. 30.14.5

(C)
The word "women" (= Syriac: nesse) is found in only three logia in the collection (Gos. Thom. 15, 46.1, 114.1). Each of these logia, interestingly, also falls next to a saying which, when on the basis of the OS is translated back into Syriac, contains the word nas, that is, "someone" (Gos. Thorn. 14.5, 47.1, 113.4).
Nick, you are so very, very wrong. You really know nothing of Coptic. Here is reality:

Code: Select all

woman    ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ  Subst. f.   Logion 15, 22, 46, 79, 96, 97, 114
7 logia, Nick - yet that is the word regardless of its form. "Women", you say? Plural, right? Coptic writes that as (ⲥ)ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ, and Thomas has a typo there: he writes ⲥϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ in logion 114 but ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ in logion 46. Logion 15? ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ, Nick, just the singular, and that occurs in 4 logia - and the funny thing is that the singular ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ as well as the plural (ⲥ)ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ BOTH occur in logion 114 - shouldn't that be mentioned, Nick?
What are you doing Nick? Ah, I know now! It is beyond the shred of a doubt now that you based all your scribblings on the English translation of Thomas, Nick, although you did look a bit here and there at the Coptic, just to give us all the impression that you did your homework

And if anyone else would have done his homework, he would have called you a foolish idiot, Nick, and that is a very kind way to label what you have done, really. Don't you think so?
Last edited by mlinssen on Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply