Just seen this.....oh my...someone has a way with words.....
Oh my! 
Dating works in the Coptic language
-
maryhelena
- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
Thanks Stephen, I read that of course. Goodacre doesn't advance beyond demonstrating verbatim agreement, which is odd, as his pivotal point always is "directing of dependence".StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:58 am mlinssen, you wrote, in part, above:
"...the canonicals are heavily dependent on Coptic Thomas - and no one is contesting that...."
Yet, as you probably know, "contesting that" for example is:
Thomas and the Gospels : the case for Thomas's familiarity with the Synoptics
Goodacre, Mark S.
Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012.
Also, dating papyri is not all down to paleography. Sometimes there is carbon 14, there is archaeological context, and/or internal text references or dating, for example, of contracts.
I don't have the time nor interest nor expertise to attempt to argue in detail--for or against--with all the assertions made in this forum.
I try to comment, for one reason, when I imagine some reader (not always the ones named in the thread) might possibly find it relevant. But I also make mistakes.
I didn't even finish it, to tell you the truth - it was greatly disappointing
I'll dust it off and see which examples I can give. It's a nice night for some light reading
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
Oh, it's Thomas and the gospels that I have. I remember not getting the other after having read some reviews:
https://www.academia.edu/4332947/Mark_G ... pany_2012_
The first pieces of testimony assembled by Goodacre are the verbatim agreements between the Thomasine sayings and their Synoptic counterparts.
Working from the understanding that Thomas was originally authored in Greek, the three Oxyrhynchus fragments that preserve an early Greek form are used to compare the sayings with the Synoptic pericopes. Several places of verbatim agreement are discussed but the longest is at saying 26 which exhibits a remarkable thirteen word agreement with Mat 7:5 and Luke 6:42. It is common practice in Synoptic studies to use verbatim agreements between pericopes as criteria to recognize inter-Synoptic links (p. 32). In the same way, these verbatim agreements in Thomas reveal “a direct link between Thomas and the Synoptics” (p.
48). The direction of this link is discovered by searching “for distinctive, redactional features of one text appearing in another” (p. 49). Goodacre refers to these redactional features” as “diagnostic shards” (p. 49) There are several sayings in Thomas that do in fact exhibit both Matthean and Lukan special material. Saying 57 contains many elements of Matthew’s “wheat and tares” parable (Mat 13:24-30) which is an expansion of Mark’s parable of the sower (p. 77-78).
Thomas also uses characteristic Matthean imagery and phrases such as “kingdom of the heavens” (p. 81). There are even more examples of Lukan redaction in Thomas than there are for Matthew. Saying 5 and 31 are particularly striking as the Greek fragments reveal a verbatim agreement with Luke over their parallel in Mark (p. 82-84). And the parallels between Lukan special material and saying 79 are so remarkable that an entire chapter is given over to discussing them.
And:
Another characteristic pointing to familiarity with the Synoptics are the many “missing middle” segments of the parables and narratives found in Thomas (p.109). The author of Thomas “redacts the material he takes over from the Synoptics” and then “fails to narrate the middle part of a given parable or saying” (p. 109). Several of the sayings that have already been discussed, containing verbatim agreement with the Synoptics and “diagnostic shards,” are shown to also lack these “missing middle” elements of the narrative. Saying 57, the “wheat and the tares,” lacks several key elements of the story in order to make adequate sense of the pericope. The “tribute to Caesar” narrative in saying 100 reveals that “the missing middle is a characteristic feature of Thomas’s apparent lack of storytelling ability and not an effect of Thomas’s closeness to raw, primitive oral traditions of Jesus’ parables” (p.112). Justin Martyr also exhibits this “missing middle” tendency when quoting from the Synoptics. Just as in Thomas, these missing narrative elements point to an author who is familiar with the Synoptic narratives.
I got to hand it to Goodacre that he cleverly turns this concern into a benefit: Needless to say, every single version of a parallel in Thomas is shorter than the canonicals, one of the usual arguments for priority of course
But I love the Martyr detail, of course!
To be followed up by some of my own findings from the book that I have - that is pretty much exactly like this one, to be honest
https://www.academia.edu/4332947/Mark_G ... pany_2012_
The first pieces of testimony assembled by Goodacre are the verbatim agreements between the Thomasine sayings and their Synoptic counterparts.
Working from the understanding that Thomas was originally authored in Greek, the three Oxyrhynchus fragments that preserve an early Greek form are used to compare the sayings with the Synoptic pericopes. Several places of verbatim agreement are discussed but the longest is at saying 26 which exhibits a remarkable thirteen word agreement with Mat 7:5 and Luke 6:42. It is common practice in Synoptic studies to use verbatim agreements between pericopes as criteria to recognize inter-Synoptic links (p. 32). In the same way, these verbatim agreements in Thomas reveal “a direct link between Thomas and the Synoptics” (p.
48). The direction of this link is discovered by searching “for distinctive, redactional features of one text appearing in another” (p. 49). Goodacre refers to these redactional features” as “diagnostic shards” (p. 49) There are several sayings in Thomas that do in fact exhibit both Matthean and Lukan special material. Saying 57 contains many elements of Matthew’s “wheat and tares” parable (Mat 13:24-30) which is an expansion of Mark’s parable of the sower (p. 77-78).
Thomas also uses characteristic Matthean imagery and phrases such as “kingdom of the heavens” (p. 81). There are even more examples of Lukan redaction in Thomas than there are for Matthew. Saying 5 and 31 are particularly striking as the Greek fragments reveal a verbatim agreement with Luke over their parallel in Mark (p. 82-84). And the parallels between Lukan special material and saying 79 are so remarkable that an entire chapter is given over to discussing them.
And:
Another characteristic pointing to familiarity with the Synoptics are the many “missing middle” segments of the parables and narratives found in Thomas (p.109). The author of Thomas “redacts the material he takes over from the Synoptics” and then “fails to narrate the middle part of a given parable or saying” (p. 109). Several of the sayings that have already been discussed, containing verbatim agreement with the Synoptics and “diagnostic shards,” are shown to also lack these “missing middle” elements of the narrative. Saying 57, the “wheat and the tares,” lacks several key elements of the story in order to make adequate sense of the pericope. The “tribute to Caesar” narrative in saying 100 reveals that “the missing middle is a characteristic feature of Thomas’s apparent lack of storytelling ability and not an effect of Thomas’s closeness to raw, primitive oral traditions of Jesus’ parables” (p.112). Justin Martyr also exhibits this “missing middle” tendency when quoting from the Synoptics. Just as in Thomas, these missing narrative elements point to an author who is familiar with the Synoptic narratives.
I got to hand it to Goodacre that he cleverly turns this concern into a benefit: Needless to say, every single version of a parallel in Thomas is shorter than the canonicals, one of the usual arguments for priority of course
But I love the Martyr detail, of course!
To be followed up by some of my own findings from the book that I have - that is pretty much exactly like this one, to be honest
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
LOL. It's late! It's the same book, I have the UK version from SPCK. Well, I'll give it a try nonetheless, Goodacre deserves it. I like the man a lot and he's read some of my work - just no feedback as of yet but then again his patience far outweighs mine. So I'll just wait
Goodacre's missing middle in Thomas 1/2
Well, 3 pics from the book. Seems to be max for a post
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
Second pic
1. Caesar's agents? There's no noun there. Wordplay, and incredibly fun too. But no noun
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
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
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
- 20210717_232954_1.jpg (1020.01 KiB) Viewed 1861 times
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 (977.05 KiB) Viewed 1861 times
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 (1.02 MiB) Viewed 1861 times
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
Last edited by mlinssen on Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Goodacre's missing middle in Thomas 2/2
From my "72 logia":
1. The parable of the seed and the weed
Matthew being practically the first copier makes the usual mistakes: he becomes longwinded and over-explains, introducing verses 26-28 (which of course have to have servants in it), whereas Thomas just needs anyone so he can voice his thoughts. Whether those are servants, slaves, sons or daughters, friends or foes is completely irrelevant - it is personnel that receives instructions regarding the way to handle the sowing of the weeds, with the sole purpose that the man doesn't have to talk to himself in order to voice the action of the parable.
Matthew spends too much eye on detail: the bearing of grain, his sleeping men, the enemy going away again - those are all irrelevant details without cause and effect, contributing nothing to the story. Thomas is completely comfortable with merely mentioning that the enemy came by night and sowed the seed; no need to explain how someone could know that without having stopped the enemy - that is simply how short stories, parables, work. Matthew tries enormously hard to "make it intelligible" by letting the weeds first grow so they become visible and can become noticed, upon which the servants have a pretext to question their appearance (naturally stressing the dogma that the dear God brought forth only good "seeds").
So then their master can tell that an enemy has done it, but is that any better than what Thomas does? No, it's futile and useless, because now the master is theoretically still tasked with explaining how he could know without having stopped the enemy - did the enemy just leave a note?
Thomas' perfectly sensible burning of the weeds (you can't throw away weeds nor e.g. drown them nor hammer them to a pulp, they will just persist and keep spreading and growing) inspires Matthew to his first gathering up the weeds and (of course) binding and burning them, on which he elaborates in 13:37-43, ending with 'furnace of fire. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'. Matthew really is fond of stressing the impending Judgment Day punishment while flogging his much beloved theme of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
2. The rich man
The verse is unusually lengthy for Luke, who widely expands the original logion and suffers the pioneer's fate - I have emphasised what he shares with Thomas, trying to match Thomas' content that he so greatly expanded. We have seen it before in Mark: if you're the first to copy a logion, you tend to trip over your own tongue, explaining at length the why and how and whatnot. Of course Luke finds a goal to apply the logion to: verse 21 (So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.")
Note the word treasure, and while we're at it, why doesn't Goodacre give us the Greek and the Coptic?
The Karpos is clear, and the bible translation fraudulous.
But it is typical of Luke copying this from Thomas that he makes them up as he goes: he wonders what to do with his karpos and then decides to (...) in order to store his siton and agatha - that doesn't match up, and agatha is the usual word for good, and the translation should at least have been "good things" as the word is an adjective, not a noun.
But evidently, Luke gets the treasure from Thomas as it so nearly fits with the plousios, while he doesn't use the word treasure in his bible verse
3. Luke swaps 'honest' for 'right' but sticks to 'truly teach the way of God'. Matthew undoes his first change and nudges up the other to 'teach the way of God in truth'.
With regards to the story: praising Jesus for his particular ability to teach God's way and then questioning him about something so trivial, mundane and worldly as paying taxes strikes me as a wondrous pretext, but the Pharisees probably are supposed to play with the word Law.
I commented before that the gospel-writers once more miss the point of Thomas and go to extreme lengths in order to link the image on the coin to the punch line, thus introducing a silver coin (the denarius) instead of a gold one - most people would know that a denarius bears his image, and most people would have almost never even seen a gold coin. In Thomas it is unclear whether or not Caesar's image is on the coin and it is a trivial detail: who cares who you pay taxes to, it is part of the rules of society that you do so: this Caesar will die but he will just be replaced by another Caesar. Likewise it is part of the rules of society that you give to God, and that is equally as insignificant; this God might be replaced by another God but that won't change the System, you will still always be required to give to (a) God just as you're always required to give to (a) Caesar. Only one thing is most significant in your entire life, and that is you yourself: me - give me what is mine.
Yet both Luke as well as Matthew follow Mark's scene almost to the letter; where I labelled Mark as longwinded earlier, apparently his verses perfectly serve the gospel-writers' goal.
Praising Jesus, putting down the tricky Pharisees (and Herodians) and showing Jesus' marvellous cunning (and hostile attitude towards them) all at once: that is how they want it.
Given their close similarity, what about the order? The threads I have for Mark-Luke-Matthew are merely two. The end result in Mark is marvelled Pharisees, in Luke they marvel and become silent, in Matthew they marvel, leave him and go away; Luke expands Mark and Matthew expands Luke there. Similarly 'hypocrisy', 'craftiness' and 'wickedness' show a gradual change from just slightly evil and hiding it to outright evil.
Matthew's utmost accomplishment naturally is the fact that Jesus demands to see a tax coin, presumably unprepared, and on apparently suddenly seeing that it bears Caesar's face instantly creates the cunning one-liner - a perfection like that is highly unlikely to come from a first strike. Matthew certainly is last, Mark certainly comes before him, and Luke probably is in between. And Thomas undeniably is first with his beautifully concise version lacking any and all Church motive, directed solely at the true punch line of 'give me what is mine'.
4. Once again, Matthew perfects what Luke says in very subtle ways. The double occurrence of 'brother' disappears, as does the somewhat awkward and overdone mention of 'when you yourself do not see'. Matthew is by far the most eloquent of all the three. Could it be possible that Matthew came before Luke and that Luke decided to undo his condensed beauty? Luke may have insisted on adding his 'chaff' to Matthew, and might have disliked 'and behold'.
Both do a fairly literal copy of Thomas and advance their case by directing that towards the Pharisees, yet since Thomas doesn't have any such case it could also be argued that he came last and thus had to leave out that little detail. The two arguments I have for Thomas being first is that he is by far the most concise and has two sentences: one with a repetition of 'see', and one repeating 'cast' (and containing the same 'see' in a whole different meaning). Luke and Matthew miss that beauty and turn the first sentence into 'see' and 'consider' (breaking the repetition) while Luke suffers the pioneer's fate by superfluously adding an intermediate sentence with 'remove' and 'see' that Matthew omits.
It is evident that Thomas usually is the most articulate and concise, beautifully mastering the Wizardry of Words, and that Matthew is close competition in that field. But none of that can ever be a sole argument for either of them being last; although I do frequently argue for Matthew being last while he makes everything concise and beautiful and is so very eloquent - but only because he then uses words from Mark as well as Luke.
Why is Thomas so beautiful? The mote is the imperfection or misconceptions you perceive someone else to have, their opinions - called truths - that don't correlate to yours. The beam is the collection of your own truths that you equally take for granted, considering them to be logical and correct. You see some of the other and focus on them but disregard all of your own - hence the difference in size. The first 'see' literally means seeing, focussing, whereas the second 'see' means observing, perceiving.
The second sentence uses the word 'cast' for a very specific reason: it means to distance yourself from something rather than removing something, taking something out: the action of 'cast' is targeted towards changing yourself whereas the action of 'remove' is targeted towards changing something else. The Coptic ⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ occurs 14 times in 9 logia in Thomas, and is one of the crucial words: to cast from you, to discard. It is a beautiful, very perceptive and meaningful word in Thomas.
You have to consider your own truths, concepts, perceptions, and cast those from you that don't survive close scrutiny - and then you will really 'see' - that the mote that you focussed on in someone else's eye was only bothering you because you felt your own semi-truths threatened by them: their truths made you doubt your truths, and that felt rather inconvenient. But now you've really 'seen' how your collection of truths is merely a heritage that has accumulated during your life by reacting to actions of others and yourself, you value them quite differently - and distance yourself from them. They're a large part of the 'world' of Thomas, and they make up his 'house': all our mental models.
And when you have done so, it has become impossible to feel threatened by other people's truths. The mote from your brother's eye wasn't in his eye, it existed only in your mind.
Everything Thomas talks about is about you: me. What the gospel-writers are doing here with this very logion is exactly the opposite of what Thomas does. There's only one hypocrite, and that is you: me
That, from my
https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins
You see that the pointers in the opposite direction are overwhelming, and if Goodacre were really interested in determining the direction he would discuss them. But he's determined to demonstrate that the canonicals are better that Thomas - which comes with the job title - so he desperately tries to make a case for that. And utterly fails, although his "missing middle" is a clever find that fools most
1. The parable of the seed and the weed
Matthew being practically the first copier makes the usual mistakes: he becomes longwinded and over-explains, introducing verses 26-28 (which of course have to have servants in it), whereas Thomas just needs anyone so he can voice his thoughts. Whether those are servants, slaves, sons or daughters, friends or foes is completely irrelevant - it is personnel that receives instructions regarding the way to handle the sowing of the weeds, with the sole purpose that the man doesn't have to talk to himself in order to voice the action of the parable.
Matthew spends too much eye on detail: the bearing of grain, his sleeping men, the enemy going away again - those are all irrelevant details without cause and effect, contributing nothing to the story. Thomas is completely comfortable with merely mentioning that the enemy came by night and sowed the seed; no need to explain how someone could know that without having stopped the enemy - that is simply how short stories, parables, work. Matthew tries enormously hard to "make it intelligible" by letting the weeds first grow so they become visible and can become noticed, upon which the servants have a pretext to question their appearance (naturally stressing the dogma that the dear God brought forth only good "seeds").
So then their master can tell that an enemy has done it, but is that any better than what Thomas does? No, it's futile and useless, because now the master is theoretically still tasked with explaining how he could know without having stopped the enemy - did the enemy just leave a note?
Thomas' perfectly sensible burning of the weeds (you can't throw away weeds nor e.g. drown them nor hammer them to a pulp, they will just persist and keep spreading and growing) inspires Matthew to his first gathering up the weeds and (of course) binding and burning them, on which he elaborates in 13:37-43, ending with 'furnace of fire. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'. Matthew really is fond of stressing the impending Judgment Day punishment while flogging his much beloved theme of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
2. The rich man
The verse is unusually lengthy for Luke, who widely expands the original logion and suffers the pioneer's fate - I have emphasised what he shares with Thomas, trying to match Thomas' content that he so greatly expanded. We have seen it before in Mark: if you're the first to copy a logion, you tend to trip over your own tongue, explaining at length the why and how and whatnot. Of course Luke finds a goal to apply the logion to: verse 21 (So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.")
Note the word treasure, and while we're at it, why doesn't Goodacre give us the Greek and the Coptic?
Luke 12:16 Εἶπεν (He spoke) δὲ (then) παραβολὴν (a parable) πρὸς (to) αὐτοὺς (them), λέγων (saying), “Ἀνθρώπου (Of a man) τινὸς (certain) πλουσίου (rich) εὐφόρησεν (brought forth abundantly) ἡ (the) χώρα (ground).
17 καὶ (And) διελογίζετο (he was reasoning) ἐν (within) ἑαυτῷ (himself), λέγων (saying), ‘Τί (What) ποιήσω (shall I do), ὅτι (for) οὐκ (not) ἔχω (I have) ποῦ (where) συνάξω (I will store up) τοὺς (the) καρπούς (fruits) μου (of me)?’
18 καὶ (And) εἶπεν (he said), ‘Τοῦτο (This) ποιήσω (will I do): καθελῶ (I will tear down) μου (my) τὰς (-) ἀποθήκας (barns) καὶ (and) μείζονας (greater) οἰκοδομήσω (will build), καὶ (and) συνάξω (will store up) ἐκεῖ (there) πάντα (all) τὸν (the) σῖτον (grain) καὶ (and) τὰ (the) ἀγαθά (goods) μου (of me).
19 καὶ (And) ἐρῶ (I will say) τῇ (to the) ψυχῇ (soul) μου (of me), “Ψυχή (Soul), ἔχεις (you have) πολλὰ (many) ἀγαθὰ (good things) κείμενα (laid up) εἰς (for) ἔτη (years) πολλά (many); ἀναπαύου (take your rest); φάγε (eat), πίε (drink), εὐφραίνου (be merry).”’
20 Εἶπεν (Said) δὲ (then) αὐτῷ (to him) ὁ (-) Θεός (God), ‘Ἄφρων (Fool)! ταύτῃ (This) τῇ (-) νυκτὶ (night), τὴν (the) ψυχήν (soul) σου (of you) ἀπαιτοῦσιν (is required) ἀπὸ (of) σοῦ (you); ἃ (what) δὲ (now) ἡτοίμασας (you did prepare)— τίνι (to whom) ἔσται (will it be)?’
21 Οὕτως (So is) ὁ (the one) θησαυρίζων (treasuring up) ἑαυτῷ* (for himself), καὶ (and) μὴ (not) εἰς (toward) Θεὸν (God) πλουτῶν (being rich).”
17 καὶ (And) διελογίζετο (he was reasoning) ἐν (within) ἑαυτῷ (himself), λέγων (saying), ‘Τί (What) ποιήσω (shall I do), ὅτι (for) οὐκ (not) ἔχω (I have) ποῦ (where) συνάξω (I will store up) τοὺς (the) καρπούς (fruits) μου (of me)?’
18 καὶ (And) εἶπεν (he said), ‘Τοῦτο (This) ποιήσω (will I do): καθελῶ (I will tear down) μου (my) τὰς (-) ἀποθήκας (barns) καὶ (and) μείζονας (greater) οἰκοδομήσω (will build), καὶ (and) συνάξω (will store up) ἐκεῖ (there) πάντα (all) τὸν (the) σῖτον (grain) καὶ (and) τὰ (the) ἀγαθά (goods) μου (of me).
19 καὶ (And) ἐρῶ (I will say) τῇ (to the) ψυχῇ (soul) μου (of me), “Ψυχή (Soul), ἔχεις (you have) πολλὰ (many) ἀγαθὰ (good things) κείμενα (laid up) εἰς (for) ἔτη (years) πολλά (many); ἀναπαύου (take your rest); φάγε (eat), πίε (drink), εὐφραίνου (be merry).”’
20 Εἶπεν (Said) δὲ (then) αὐτῷ (to him) ὁ (-) Θεός (God), ‘Ἄφρων (Fool)! ταύτῃ (This) τῇ (-) νυκτὶ (night), τὴν (the) ψυχήν (soul) σου (of you) ἀπαιτοῦσιν (is required) ἀπὸ (of) σοῦ (you); ἃ (what) δὲ (now) ἡτοίμασας (you did prepare)— τίνι (to whom) ἔσται (will it be)?’
21 Οὕτως (So is) ὁ (the one) θησαυρίζων (treasuring up) ἑαυτῷ* (for himself), καὶ (and) μὴ (not) εἰς (toward) Θεὸν (God) πλουτῶν (being rich).”
The Karpos is clear, and the bible translation fraudulous.
But it is typical of Luke copying this from Thomas that he makes them up as he goes: he wonders what to do with his karpos and then decides to (...) in order to store his siton and agatha - that doesn't match up, and agatha is the usual word for good, and the translation should at least have been "good things" as the word is an adjective, not a noun.
But evidently, Luke gets the treasure from Thomas as it so nearly fits with the plousios, while he doesn't use the word treasure in his bible verse
3. Luke swaps 'honest' for 'right' but sticks to 'truly teach the way of God'. Matthew undoes his first change and nudges up the other to 'teach the way of God in truth'.
With regards to the story: praising Jesus for his particular ability to teach God's way and then questioning him about something so trivial, mundane and worldly as paying taxes strikes me as a wondrous pretext, but the Pharisees probably are supposed to play with the word Law.
I commented before that the gospel-writers once more miss the point of Thomas and go to extreme lengths in order to link the image on the coin to the punch line, thus introducing a silver coin (the denarius) instead of a gold one - most people would know that a denarius bears his image, and most people would have almost never even seen a gold coin. In Thomas it is unclear whether or not Caesar's image is on the coin and it is a trivial detail: who cares who you pay taxes to, it is part of the rules of society that you do so: this Caesar will die but he will just be replaced by another Caesar. Likewise it is part of the rules of society that you give to God, and that is equally as insignificant; this God might be replaced by another God but that won't change the System, you will still always be required to give to (a) God just as you're always required to give to (a) Caesar. Only one thing is most significant in your entire life, and that is you yourself: me - give me what is mine.
Yet both Luke as well as Matthew follow Mark's scene almost to the letter; where I labelled Mark as longwinded earlier, apparently his verses perfectly serve the gospel-writers' goal.
Praising Jesus, putting down the tricky Pharisees (and Herodians) and showing Jesus' marvellous cunning (and hostile attitude towards them) all at once: that is how they want it.
Given their close similarity, what about the order? The threads I have for Mark-Luke-Matthew are merely two. The end result in Mark is marvelled Pharisees, in Luke they marvel and become silent, in Matthew they marvel, leave him and go away; Luke expands Mark and Matthew expands Luke there. Similarly 'hypocrisy', 'craftiness' and 'wickedness' show a gradual change from just slightly evil and hiding it to outright evil.
Matthew's utmost accomplishment naturally is the fact that Jesus demands to see a tax coin, presumably unprepared, and on apparently suddenly seeing that it bears Caesar's face instantly creates the cunning one-liner - a perfection like that is highly unlikely to come from a first strike. Matthew certainly is last, Mark certainly comes before him, and Luke probably is in between. And Thomas undeniably is first with his beautifully concise version lacking any and all Church motive, directed solely at the true punch line of 'give me what is mine'.
4. Once again, Matthew perfects what Luke says in very subtle ways. The double occurrence of 'brother' disappears, as does the somewhat awkward and overdone mention of 'when you yourself do not see'. Matthew is by far the most eloquent of all the three. Could it be possible that Matthew came before Luke and that Luke decided to undo his condensed beauty? Luke may have insisted on adding his 'chaff' to Matthew, and might have disliked 'and behold'.
Both do a fairly literal copy of Thomas and advance their case by directing that towards the Pharisees, yet since Thomas doesn't have any such case it could also be argued that he came last and thus had to leave out that little detail. The two arguments I have for Thomas being first is that he is by far the most concise and has two sentences: one with a repetition of 'see', and one repeating 'cast' (and containing the same 'see' in a whole different meaning). Luke and Matthew miss that beauty and turn the first sentence into 'see' and 'consider' (breaking the repetition) while Luke suffers the pioneer's fate by superfluously adding an intermediate sentence with 'remove' and 'see' that Matthew omits.
It is evident that Thomas usually is the most articulate and concise, beautifully mastering the Wizardry of Words, and that Matthew is close competition in that field. But none of that can ever be a sole argument for either of them being last; although I do frequently argue for Matthew being last while he makes everything concise and beautiful and is so very eloquent - but only because he then uses words from Mark as well as Luke.
Why is Thomas so beautiful? The mote is the imperfection or misconceptions you perceive someone else to have, their opinions - called truths - that don't correlate to yours. The beam is the collection of your own truths that you equally take for granted, considering them to be logical and correct. You see some of the other and focus on them but disregard all of your own - hence the difference in size. The first 'see' literally means seeing, focussing, whereas the second 'see' means observing, perceiving.
The second sentence uses the word 'cast' for a very specific reason: it means to distance yourself from something rather than removing something, taking something out: the action of 'cast' is targeted towards changing yourself whereas the action of 'remove' is targeted towards changing something else. The Coptic ⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ occurs 14 times in 9 logia in Thomas, and is one of the crucial words: to cast from you, to discard. It is a beautiful, very perceptive and meaningful word in Thomas.
You have to consider your own truths, concepts, perceptions, and cast those from you that don't survive close scrutiny - and then you will really 'see' - that the mote that you focussed on in someone else's eye was only bothering you because you felt your own semi-truths threatened by them: their truths made you doubt your truths, and that felt rather inconvenient. But now you've really 'seen' how your collection of truths is merely a heritage that has accumulated during your life by reacting to actions of others and yourself, you value them quite differently - and distance yourself from them. They're a large part of the 'world' of Thomas, and they make up his 'house': all our mental models.
And when you have done so, it has become impossible to feel threatened by other people's truths. The mote from your brother's eye wasn't in his eye, it existed only in your mind.
Everything Thomas talks about is about you: me. What the gospel-writers are doing here with this very logion is exactly the opposite of what Thomas does. There's only one hypocrite, and that is you: me
That, from my
https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins
You see that the pointers in the opposite direction are overwhelming, and if Goodacre were really interested in determining the direction he would discuss them. But he's determined to demonstrate that the canonicals are better that Thomas - which comes with the job title - so he desperately tries to make a case for that. And utterly fails, although his "missing middle" is a clever find that fools most
-
andrewcriddle
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
When we speak of the date of the earliest coptic texts we are talking of an alphabet for writing late Egyptian rather than the language itself. It is unlikely that there was a 2nd century CE Thomas written in what became the standard Coptic alphabet.
As the use of demotic script became less frequent, writers from the 1st century CE began using a form of the Greek alphabet to write late Egyptian, This is known as Old Coptic and uses a somewhat different alphabet to the standard Coptic alphabet in which Thomas is written.
The standard Coptic alphabet developed in the 3rd century CE probably in Christian circles. Our oldest example of a Christian text using a version of the Greek alphabet to write late Egyptian, a 3rd century Chester Beatty manuscript, uses the old Coptic alphabet. Apparently what became the standard Coptic alphabet was unknown at that time to the writer.
Andrew Criddle
As the use of demotic script became less frequent, writers from the 1st century CE began using a form of the Greek alphabet to write late Egyptian, This is known as Old Coptic and uses a somewhat different alphabet to the standard Coptic alphabet in which Thomas is written.
The standard Coptic alphabet developed in the 3rd century CE probably in Christian circles. Our oldest example of a Christian text using a version of the Greek alphabet to write late Egyptian, a 3rd century Chester Beatty manuscript, uses the old Coptic alphabet. Apparently what became the standard Coptic alphabet was unknown at that time to the writer.
Andrew Criddle
-
davidmartin
- Posts: 1609
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
what difference does it make if Coptic was 2nd century or 1st or 3rd, isn't the key the language itself, ie Egyptian?
who cares what alphabet it was written in whether Greek letters or Demotic or Hieroglyphs. It doesn't matter fundamentally
it is the same language, who cares?
who cares what alphabet it was written in whether Greek letters or Demotic or Hieroglyphs. It doesn't matter fundamentally
it is the same language, who cares?
-
StephenGoranson
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
davidmartin does not care. Duly noted.
I welcome and appreciate that and almost all comments from Andrew Criddle.
It this case it matters, to some, given some proposals on this forum and on "academia.edu" concerning the composition or translation of Coptic Gospel of Thomas and on abbreviations within it and within other texts.
I welcome and appreciate that and almost all comments from Andrew Criddle.
It this case it matters, to some, given some proposals on this forum and on "academia.edu" concerning the composition or translation of Coptic Gospel of Thomas and on abbreviations within it and within other texts.
Re: Dating works in the Coptic language
Basically you're right, david: the provenance is Egyptian indeed.davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:28 am what difference does it make if Coptic was 2nd century or 1st or 3rd, isn't the key the language itself, ie Egyptian?
who cares what alphabet it was written in whether Greek letters or Demotic or Hieroglyphs. It doesn't matter fundamentally
it is the same language, who cares?
I imagine Thomas being a Samaritan refugee (of whatever generation) like many other Samarians who fled the forced circumcision and other brutal means of domination after Mount Gerizim and most of Samaria got destroyed
It would explain his hatred towards the Pharisees and Judeans, and it would explain the Hellenistic influences in his text
What it doesn't explain is his extremely original thoughts on liberating oneself from dualism.
But yes, it is Egyptian at the core - although he likely rejects Egyptian theology and ideology with his explicit reference to acacia nilotica and the worm in the parable of the sower