Dating works in the Coptic language

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by StephenGoranson »

According to James P. Allen, A grammar of its Six major Dialects (Eisenbrauns, 2020) page 1:
“Coptic is the name of the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language, spoken and written from the third century AD until perhaps sometime in the seventeenth century. It is still used today in the rituals of the Coptic (Egyptian Christian) Church.”

According to Jean-Luc Fournet, The Rise of Coptic: Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (Princeton UP, 2020) page 3:
“The Egyptian Situation (250-550). During the first three centuries of its history, Coptic was limited exclusively to nonregulated written exchanges.”

According to Robert K. Ritner, “The Coptic Alphabet” in The World’s Writing Systems, ed. P. T. Daniels et al. (Oxford UP, 1996) page 287:
“’Coptic’ designates the final stage of the Egyptian language and script, which flourished in Egypt from the fourth through the tenth centuries C. E and still survives in restricted liturgical use by the Coptic Orthodox Church.”

I am not an expert in Coptic. I copy these statements above from those who are expert. I start a new topic. But anyone interested may read the end of the “Rabbi Wise” thread.

The question arose whether the Coptic “Gospel of Thomas” as dated by mlimssen is too early to be plausible.

At the end (or, specifically Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:18 pm), mlinssen wrote:
Indeed, Coptic Thomas is the original, and the Greek fragments that have been found are copies - and sloppy ones at that, as I set out in viewtopic.php?p=124634#p124634 - the evidence for logion 6 is very clear

I don't consider any gospels to precede Thomas, other than the DSS and Odes and such - but none of what we know today as "Christian"

Thomas is just a text, not a gospel. It most certainly is not about Jesus, his I(H)S is just a concept, a "helping hand". The only thing that it has to do with Christianity is that highly likely Marcion turned it into something like a Markan or Lukan narrative, after which "the whole Christian thing started"

Being awfully concise here, but that is my standpoint - as inconvenient as it is, because Coptic being written in 1st or 2nd CE is one of those things that isn't widely supported. But at least a dozen Thomas logia demonstrate absolute priority over their NT copies - it's not that I particularly like to put forth this view, it's just that it's the only plausible view, when looking at Thomas and the canonicals
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Hold a candle to your ear? Or eye?!

Post by mlinssen »

Indeed, Stephen, those are the general viewpoints: 3rd CE at the earliest for Coptic to be in any use whatsoever

There are still Copts today, they speak the Bohairic dialect

I am well aware of those positions, hence my last few sentences in what you quote in your post above.
But when I look at Thomas, I find a few extraordinary lines that have clearly been mistranslated by the canonicals.
Let's start with one logion, a familiar one:

33. said IS he-who you will hear [dop] he in your ear in the other ear proclaim [dop] he from-upon your(PL.PL) roof
not-usually anyone Indeed ignite candlestick and he place he at ear
Nor not-usually he place he in place he be-hiding
Rather "habitually" he place he from-upon the(F) Lampstand in-order-that every-one who/which going-inward and who/which be-coming outward they will behold [dop] his light

Focus on the italic part, especially on the bold. The joke is evident: you don't light a lamp and hold it to your ear (ya dummy!), you hold it to your eye.
What does the Coptic say for the italic part?

ⲙⲁⲣⲉ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ` ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉⲣⲉ ϩⲏⲃ̅ⲥ̄ ⲛ̄ ϥ` ⲕⲁⲁ ϥ` ϩⲁ ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉⲣⲟ ϩⲏⲃⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲕⲱ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϩⲁ- ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ

As usual, transcript in the first row, KELLIA CDO entry in the second, which leads directly to Crum

ⲕⲁⲁ ϥ` ϩⲁ ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ - place him to ear, ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, the word that is so very present throughout Thomas:

ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ - Noun masculine ear 8, 17, 21, 24, 33, 63, 65, 96, 97

The so very well-known "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" is a more than famous admonition in Thomas as well as the canonicals.
In the canoniclas, this word right here is translated quite differently

Mark 4:21 He said to them, "Is the lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Isn't it put on a stand?

Luke 8:16 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light.

Matthew 5:15 Neither do you light a lamp and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.

You don't light a lamp and then hold it to your ear: to your eye, ya dummy! It is hilarious, but they didn't get it. The Coptic word is ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... e&lang=any

And as you can see it is a homonym, meaning either ear or 'a measure'. I'm quite familiar with Crum now and he has easily over a dozen words that could mean measure but which get a question mark behind them because he's unsure. I guess he didn't have a sense of humour either

Now it gets even more interesting, because the word in the Synoptics is a Latin loanword, modius.

Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς (No one) δὲ (now) λύχνον (a lamp) ἅψας (having lighted), καλύπτει (covers) αὐτὸν (it) σκεύει (with a vessel), ἢ (or) ὑποκάτω (under) κλίνης (a bed) τίθησιν (puts it)

Mark 4:21 Καὶ (And) ἔλεγεν (He was saying) αὐτοῖς (to them) 〈ὅτι〉(-), “Μήτι (Not) ἔρχεται (is brought in) ὁ (the) λύχνος (lamp) ἵνα (so that) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (the) μόδιον (basket) τεθῇ (it might be put), ἢ (or) ὑπὸ (under) τὴν (the) κλίνην (bed)?

Matthew 5:15 οὐδὲ (Nor) καίουσιν (do they light) λύχνον (a lamp) καὶ (and) τιθέασιν (put) αὐτὸν (it) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (-) μόδιον (a basket), ἀλλ’ (but) ἐπὶ (upon) τὴν (the) λυχνίαν (lampstand), καὶ (and) λάμπει (it shines) πᾶσιν (for all) τοῖς (those) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) οἰκίᾳ (house).

A modius (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try=modius) can hold 8.5 litres of grain - and Luke has σκεύει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... skeu%3Dos0) - a thingy, so to say: a vessel or implement of any kind, Ar., Thuc., etc.:—pl. in collective sense, furniture, house-gear, utensils, chattels

The only residue from Marcion that we have is καλύπτει, "covers". So Marcion also didn't get it - but it is very plausible that he had σκεύει and that Luke just copied it, whereas Mark and Matthew, being written by Romans, inserted the Roman loanword because it's not a very helpful word.
The exact same will happen with yet another Coptic homonym, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5883

This is what textual criticism leads me to, and it is impossible that Thomas saw this mess, copied it, and decided that it would be cunningly clever to use the word ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ as a vague homonym meaning either ear or measure, thus playing a word joke on the canonicals - apart from many other particulars to this logion alone.
So, Stephen, what is your opinion on this demonstration? Don't start with "oh I don't know Coptic", you have my translation and you can click and read, that's all it takes. Four words here, or rather, one
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by StephenGoranson »

m, your textual criticism above does not persuade me that gThomas was composed in Coptic at a time earlier than known writing in Coptic.
So far I agree with Simon Gathercole (The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2014), page 9, who quoted Stephen Emmel:
“The Gospel of Thomas was translated from Greek into Coptic ‘no earlier than the mid-to-late third century (when, to the best of our present knowledge, Coptic literature had its beginnings).’” Note 43
Note 43: “Emmel, ‘The Coptic Gnostic Texts as Witnesses,’ 35.”
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by mlinssen »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:42 am m, your textual criticism above does not persuade me that gThomas was composed in Coptic at a time earlier than known writing in Coptic.
So far I agree with Simon Gathercole (The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2014), page 9, who quoted Stephen Emmel:
“The Gospel of Thomas was translated from Greek into Coptic ‘no earlier than the mid-to-late third century (when, to the best of our present knowledge, Coptic literature had its beginnings).’” Note 43
Note 43: “Emmel, ‘The Coptic Gnostic Texts as Witnesses,’ 35.”
Stephen, you greatly disappoint in this conversation as well, as in so many others as of late.
You perfectly portray the biblical academic: lost for words, unable to come up with any arguments, incapable of thinking for himself, and impotent in a general way; parroting parts of your peers' prized proclamations pathetically presenting perfectly pointless platitudes, free from any and all arguments

Hearsay. Gossip. That is what biblical academic does, and little but that.
Stephen Emmel will dive into the stirogram whence he has time, he said, and perhaps that will lead somewhere. In the meantime, you won't refute anything I say about Thomas and the canonicals, and so be it; the silence is deafening
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by lclapshaw »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:31 am peers' prized proclamations pathetically presenting perfectly pointless platitudes
:lol: Oh my! :lol:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by StephenGoranson »

Though I may be mistaken in thinking your analysis of a few texts (and injection of Dutch humour) is insufficient to date Coptic Thomas so early--texts which I may be mistaken in thinking can and have been explained differently--and though I admit that I have failed to read everything available online, please do tell if Stephen Emmel has new thoughts and/or publications on Coptic Thomas.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by StephenGoranson »

Much of Egypt is quite arid.
That preserves many ancient things, including papyrus.
If there were Coptic writing in the first and second centuries CE, chances are some of that would have been found by now.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by Secret Alias »

Agreed.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by mlinssen »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:53 am Much of Egypt is quite arid.
That preserves many ancient things, including papyrus.
If there were Coptic writing in the first and second centuries CE, chances are some of that would have been found by now.
I'm not into paleography, and I don't play the dating game of Christianity.
I go by textual criticism, and that tells me that the canonicals are heavily dependent on Coptic Thomas - and no one is contesting that, most certainly not you even though I have asked you more than a few times now to do so

If you want to refute the literal dependency of the canonicals on Coptic Thomas by coming up with arguments of incredulity, then by all means, help yourself out.
You have a bystander, I see - good luck with that
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Dating works in the Coptic language

Post by StephenGoranson »

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.
Last edited by StephenGoranson on Sat Jul 17, 2021 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply