According to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mbdin.htmlThere are other instances of the same. The word "women" (= Syriac: nesse) is found in only three logia in the collection (Gos. Thorn. 15, 46.1, 114.1).
Funny thing is, the canonicals got their biology lessons wrong and turn the singular woman into the plural women:
Luke 7:28 Λέγω (I say) ὑμῖν (to you), μείζων (a greater) ἐν (among) γεννητοῖς (those born) γυναικῶν (of women) Ἰωάννου (than John) οὐδείς (no one) ἐστιν (is); ὁ (-) δὲ (yet) μικρότερος (the least) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) βασιλείᾳ (kingdom) τοῦ (of) Θεοῦ (God), μείζων (greater) αὐτοῦ (than he) ἐστιν (is).”
Now, the Coptic is clear:
Code: Select all
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ ϫⲉ ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ϣⲁⲛ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲙ̅ⲡ ⲟⲩ ϫⲡⲟ ϥ` ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄
said IS : Whenever if you(PL) "should" behold [dop] he-who there-is-not they beget he from
ⲧ ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲡⲉϩⲧ` ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄ ⲉϫⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄ ϩⲟ ⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ ⲛⲁ ϥ` ⲡⲉⲧ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ`
the(F) woman bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship [dop] he he-who therein is your(PL.) father
It would appear that Nicholas Perrin is so utterly careless and sloppy that he not only bases his "Syriac translation" on the English translation of Thomas, but even confuses that with the copies in the canonicals
Such is the state of biblical academic