mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:28 pm
Well, 3 pics from the book. Seems to be max for a post
20210717_232954_1.jpg
Very bad translations, by the way.
First pic
1. The Zizanion is only plural on the last occasion. No comment from Goodacre on Matthew 13:25 changing the seed into wheat prior to it growing - pity hey
2. I will make-be Use [dop] my(PL) Need in-order-that I will sow and mow and plant and fill [dop] my(PL) treasure of Fruit So-that : (not) myself make-be need [dop] anyone
Need is my pick, possessions is a fine alternative. But "sow my field"?! ⲥⲱϣⲉ is Coptic for field as it appears throughout Thomas, and in 63 there's a scribal error: ⲱ{ϩ}ⲥϩ - the scribe first wrote the Sahidic variant ⲱϩⲥ and corrected it to the Akhmimic.
Barn with harvest?! It's the Greek loanword Karpos, how on earth can he mistake that for harvest - most definitely when he mentions both words on page 76...
Barn? Treasure!!! And that appears in 4 logia, 3 times in this exact form and 1 time in its plural:
treasure ⲁϩⲟ Noun masculine 45, 63, 76, 109
It is hilarious that Goodacre tries to make a case for Matthew creating this parable out of Mark's secretly growing seed. He is correct in that Mark's is conflated from that of the sower, and even asserts that Thomas could not do what Matthew allegedly has done in his eyes - but naturally Mark conflated his version from Thomas. The fact that only Thomas and Matthew have the Zizanion, of all the people in the entire world, is not mentioned by Goodacre, and that is more than suspicious because Goodacre is not a fool. Where on earth would Matthew get the Zizanion from, a unique and unknown word, never heard before?
3. On the missing middle: the superfluous middle in the canonicals naturally raises the question how the man knows that his enemy did it - and why then he didn't stop him. All those words add nothing but confusion.
It fits perfectly in the concise sayings of Thomas that someone just voices his thoughts without further ado, like the slaveowner who speaks only once in the dramatic logion 65 (heir / vineyard).
Regarding the rich man: what, pray tell, is so very crucial about the missing middle that the canonicals add? It's mere chatter
20210717_233006_1.jpg
Second pic
1. Caesar's agents? There's no noun there. Wordplay, and incredibly fun too. But no noun
100. did they show IS [dop] a(n) gold and said they to he : they-who be-valuing [dop] Caesar they demand of we [dop] the(PL) tax said he to they : give those-of Caesar to Caesar give those-of the god to the god and he-who mine is give! you(PL) to I he
It is of the ultimate importance that YOU give it.
2. The word is gold, and either you take it literally or figuratively, but not both. Gold coin is double
3. On the missing middle: again, nothing to add to the logion but the canonicals trip over their own words trying to demonstrate that it's Caesar's portrait on the coin, whereas that naturally follows in Thomas. Of course they use a denarius, because the average Joe wouldn't know a gold coin - whereas that detail is important in Thomas: whatever the price, just pay the deities, whether they're called Caesar or god - but You give to IS what is his
20210717_233022_1.jpg
Third pic
1. Goodacre picks the fragmentary Oxy version, where the word "is" is added at the end of the logion. He doesn't say why, although he does say that he does do so
26. said IS : the speck who/which in the eye of your brother you behold [dop] he the beam However who/which in your eye you behold not [dop] he Whenever if you "should" cast [dop] the beam from your eye Then you will behold outward to cast [dop] the speck from the eye of your brother
3. On the missing middle: again, again and again; what on earth is so incredibly important in the missing middle that the canonicals add? It's superfluous chatter and nothing else, and the sign of a first copier, and it's done over and over again (with the exception of copying Thomas literally) throughout the Synoptics
At the end of this logion Goodacre makes the surprising statement
"Producing a less coherent, secondary version" - but Thomas is perfectly coherent here and the canonicals only over explain by adding superfluous stuff.
A very disappointing book by Goodacre, where he utterly fails to make a case. But at least he has spotted that Luke and Thomas are closest, which comes to no surprise when one presumes that Luke is a copy of Marcion, who took Thomas and built a narrative around it
Goodacre, who is sharp enough, must know by now that Thomas is the original. Naturally, he can't say that. But it is telling that he doesn't say anything about some things that are truly untold and unheard of, like the wonderful Zizanion. Goodacre, so full of verbatim agreement, misses out on this alien anomaly?
Impossible