The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by mlinssen »

Thomas logion 96:

[ⲡⲉϫⲉ] ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ ϫⲉ ⲧ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲙ̄ ⲡ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ` ⲉ ⲥ ⲧⲛ̄ⲧⲱ[ⲛ ⲉ ⲩ] ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲥ ϫⲉ- ⲧ- ⲙⲛⲧ- ⲣⲣⲟ ⲛ- ⲡ- ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲉ- ⸗ⲥ ⲧⲟⲛⲧⲛ+ ⲉ- ⲟⲩ- ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ
said IS : the(F) reign-of(F) king of the father she is-comparable to a woman

ⲁ ⲥ ϫⲓ ⲛ̄ ⲟⲩ ⲕⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ [ⲁ ⲥ ϩⲟ]ⲡ ϥ` ϩⲛ̄ ⲟⲩ ϣⲱⲧⲉ
ⲁ- ⸗ⲥ ϫⲓ ⲛ- ⲟⲩ- ⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲛ- ⲥⲓⲣ ⲁ- ⸗ⲥ ϩⲱⲡ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϩⲛ- ⲟⲩ- ϣⲱⲧⲉ
did she take [dop] a little [al] first-milk did she hide him in a(n) dough

ⲁ ⲥ ⲁⲁ ϥ ⲛ̄ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛ[ⲟϭ ⲛ̄] ⲛ ⲟⲉⲓⲕ` ⲡⲉⲧ ⲉⲩⲙ̄ ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ ϥ ⲙⲁ[ⲣⲉ ϥ ⲥⲱ]ⲧⲙ̄
ⲁ- ⸗ⲥ ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛ- ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲟϭ ⲛ- ⲛ- ⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲡⲉⲧ ⲟⲩⲛ- ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲙⲟ⸗ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲥⲱⲧⲙ
did she make-be him of some(PL) great [al] loaf he-who there-be ear within he let! he hear

The usual recipe from my translation: first row is MS transcript, second row is Crum (and KELLIA CDO) dictionary entry, third row is translation

You'll all be familiar with it, its parallels can be found in the NT:

Matthew 13:33 Ἄλλην (Another) παραβολὴν (parable) ἐλάλησεν (spoke He) αὐτοῖς (to them): “Ὁμοία (Like) ἐστὶν (is) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τῶν (of the) οὐρανῶν (heavens) ζύμῃ (to leaven), ἣν (which) λαβοῦσα (having taken), γυνὴ (a woman) ἐνέκρυψεν (hid) εἰς (in) ἀλεύρου (of flour) σάτα (measures) τρία (three), ἕως (until) οὗ (of it) ἐζυμώθη (was leavened) ὅλον (all).”

Luke 13:20 Καὶ (And) πάλιν (again) εἶπεν (He said), “Τίνι (To what) ὁμοιώσω (shall I liken) τὴν (the) βασιλείαν (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God)? 21 ὁμοία (Like) ἐστὶν (it is) ζύμῃ (to leaven), ἣν (which) λαβοῦσα (having taken), γυνὴ (a woman) ἔκρυψεν (hid) εἰς (in) ἀλεύρου (of meal) σάτα (measures) τρία (three) ἕως (until) οὗ (it) ἐζυμώθη (was leavened) ὅλον (all).”

Leaven is the word there, and the text of Thomas has ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ: that word can be found under one and the same dictionary entry for a few words, and that dictionary entry is https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... e&lang=any

ⲥⲓⲣ is what the second row says. click the link, and KELLIA will show the following:

ⲥⲓⲣ ⲥⲁⲓⲣ, ... first milk (colostrum), butter
ⲥⲓⲣ ⲥⲉⲣ leaven
ⲥⲓⲣ -- hair, line, stripe
ⲥⲓⲣ -- a malady
ⲥⲓⲣ -- jar

The top word looks pretty much like the word in Thomas, but the second word is what is in the canonicals: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3686 - and it is leaven, Crum page 353a (https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C3686)

The word in Thomas is to be found via https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3685 - and it is colostrum, Crum page 353a also (https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C3685)

Crum has two entries for ⲥⲓⲣ, of which the one translated as 'first milk (colostrum), butter' is the main entry.
As variants he names ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ, ⲥⲏⲣⲉ (S), ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (A), ⲥⲉⲓⲣⲉ (A2).
The second entry translates to 'leaven' and notes as variants ⲥⲉⲣ, ⲥⲉⲣⲉ (S), ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (A), ⲥⲉⲓⲗ (F).

The letters between parentheses represent Coptic dialects: Sahidic (S), Akhmimic (A), Sub-Akhmimic (A2 or L - for Lycopolitan), Fayyumic (F).
Thomas is considered to be a text mainly in Sahidic, with some Akhmimic and Sub-Akhmimic

There are a few other dictionaries that attest to both words: CED 160; KoptHWb 193, 539; DELC 195; ChLCS 46b:
  • J. Černý - "Coptic Etymological Dictionary", Cambridge, 1976 (CED)
  • W. Westendorf - "Koptisches Handwörterbuch", Heidelberg, 1965 / 1977 (KoptHWb)
  • W. Vychicl - "Dictionnaire Étymologique de la langue Copte", Leuven, 1983 (DELC)
  • P. Cherix - "Lexique copte sahidique", V.18.1, 2006-2018 (ChLCS)
These are considered the "go-to dictionaries", so let's go there. As you can see, Westendorf has two pages on it, and those are rather far apart. There is a long story to it, so I'm saving it for last.
I am ignoring any other entries for ⲥⲓⲣ that lead to the other definitions above like hair, malady, jar and such
  • Černý has two entries for ⲥⲓⲣ, of which the one translated as 'first milk (colostrum), butter' is the main entry.
    The sub-entry to that is also ⲥⲓⲣ, translated as 'leaven'. Černý doesn't name any variants of either, so isn't helpful in that regard: he doesn't attest to the word in Thomas
  • Vychicl (page 195!) also has two entries for ⲥⲓⲣ, of which the one translated as 'colostrum, first milk of a female after parturition' is the first entry.
    As variants he names ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ, ⲥⲏⲣⲉ (S), ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (A), ⲥⲉⲉⲓⲣⲉ (L) - and that is an exact copy of what Crum has there.
    The sub-entry to that is also ⲥⲓⲣ, translated as 'leaven'. As variants he names ⲥⲉⲓⲗ (F), ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (A), ⲥⲉⲣ, ⲥⲉⲣⲉ (S), and a probability for ⲥⲉⲉⲣ (S)
  • Cherix (page 47a!) has a main entry for ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ with variants ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, ⲥⲏⲣⲉ; he translates that to 'first milk, colostrum; cream, butter'.
    The sub-entry to that is ⲥⲓⲣ with variants ⲥⲉⲣ, ⲥⲉⲣⲉ; he translates that to 'leaven, sourdough'.
Crum, Vychicl and Cherix attest to the word in Thomas, ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, as a (very close) variant of the main word ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ: colostrum or first milk, butter - and Cherix adds cream.
What's the story with Westendorf?

Wolfhart Westendorf also published a Coptic dictionary, yet he did that in parts - a lot of them, actually. Nine parts, published in between 1965 and 1977. 679 pages, consisting of the main dictionary and an addendum. Now it's not extraordinary to publish an addendum, not at all. A page or two perhaps, depending on the size of your book. Yet what does Westendorf have?
A main book consisting of 482 pages, and an addendum of 197 pages: nearly half of that

So on page 193 there is the entry for ⲥⲓⲣ and ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, and on page 539 there's the "fixed entry". Now it is unclear whether that overrides the first entry or not, but here is the first page, 193:
  • Westendorf has two entries for ⲥⲓⲣ, and both of them are labelled ⲥⲓⲣ - but the variants differ and so do the translations.
    First entry: ⲥⲓⲣ with variants ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ(ⲉ), ⲥⲏⲣⲉ (S), ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (A), ⲥⲉⲉⲓⲣⲉ (A2); he translates it as 'butter, cream'.
    Second entry: ⲥⲓⲣ with variants ⲥⲉⲣⲉ (S), ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (A), ⲥⲉⲓⲗ (F); he translates it as 'leaven'.

So Westendorf also attests to the word in Thomas and out of the 5 go-to dictionaries (naturally including Crum) this variant is attested for by 4, translated as colostrum or first milk, butter - and Cherix adds cream, whereas Westendorf has only cream and butter.
Now that is a very, very safe bet to at least exclude 'leaven' as a translation, and the most probable translation is colostrum or first milk, or butter, with a possibility for cream as well. Is there anyone who has this variant under the entry for 'leaven'? No, most certainly not


Now what's with Westendorf's addendum, and why is it so incredibly large? I don't know the story there, but I do know that his "fixed" entry looks quite different from the first:

Westendorf page 539:

Only entry: ⲥⲓⲣ translated as 'butter' with variants ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ(ⲉ) translated as 'leaven' and it is immediately followed by an explicit pointer to (Till, Thomas 97,4) which refers to the edition princeps by Guillaumont et al, 1959.
A variant ⲥⲓⲉⲓⲣ is attested to (Sa, "Sahidic with Akhmimic tendencies"), also translated to 'leaven'

So Westendorf's "fixed entry" translates the word in Thomas with 'leaven' because that is what the editio princeps translated it with - and he corrects, or expands (?) his original entries with this one.
That's a never-ending circular reasoning, of course, and it can only be discarded, especially because there is nothing like a note or anything else to this alleged editio princeps, a flimsy work that promised an editio major - which never came, for reasons that aren't hard to imagine

So the word in Thomas is colostrum, attested for not only by the main and major authority in the field, Water E. Crum, but also by the majority of the "go-to dictionaries". Westendorf must either be discarded, given his circular reasoning, and then the score is 3 out of 4. Or he must be included and only his original entry counts, and then the score is 4 out of 5 - while adding a translation of 'cream, butter' without 'colostrum (first milk) in the case of Westendorf

One thing is absolutely uncontested: no one attests to the word in Thomas as 'leaven'

Now Thomas is fond of wordplay, and his text contains infants drinking milk (logion 22), as well as lactating breasts (logion 79) that also give milk - a copy of which is in the canonicals (see viewtopic.php?p=119209#p119209). It is not strange in his text to have a woman put colostrum into dough in order to get great loaves out of it, and it is very understandable that someone saw that and mistook the word for 'leaven' while translating it into Greek.
Which would make a solid case for Coptic Thomas being the source to the canonicals, and the original over any Greek version


Wouldn't it?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by gryan »

Are you saying if the original was in Greek, and it said "leaven", there is no way the translator would have turned that into "colostrum"; but the other way around, it is not only possible but easy to make such a mistake?

Of course there could have been a three step process: from Greek "leaven", to Coptic "leaven", to another manuscript in Coptic--"colostrum".

Am I missing something?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Likelihood of mistranslating ζύμη with ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ (and vv)

Post by mlinssen »

I just wrote half a book as usual, hit Submit, had to log in, and all was lost. Happens to me a few times a day, I usually think of it, not always.
So here's the concise version:

Thank you for asking, dear gryan. You have a valid point, and anything is possible, but let me calculate the chance(s) to each of the two scenarios then:

106 occurrences of 'leaven' (just these letters, in any form of noun or verb) in the Tanakh and NT, 31 of those are in the NT. I checked the first handful in Exo, Lev, etc, and just like all occurrences in the NT, they're based on the Greek root ζύμη. So I left it at that

In Coptic, there are 3 words for 'leaven':

ⲕⲱⲃ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C1098
ⲑⲁⲃ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C4778
ⲥⲓⲣ - we've been through that one, haven't we

The other two simply mean that, no choices, no variants, no funny bunnies.

Scenario 1: from Greek to Coptic

A choice of 1 out of 3 there: 33.3%
On top of that, you have to pick the root word, not the real word. That only happens when you're a Greek translating into Coptic with a dictionary in your hand, which is highly unlikely, but let's make it a Yes-or-No choice nonetheless, I'm generous today: 50% off.
Then, in the next copy step, ⲥⲓⲣ has to be mistaken for colostrum instead of leaven - there is a perfectly normal binary choice there, it's a homonym. Now, you have to make the "wrong" choice and choose colostrum over leaven, but again, I am very Zen today, and we'll make it a 50% chance, shall we?
So we divide that 33.3% by 2, and then again by 2: an 8.3% chance of getting from Greek ζύμη to Coptic ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, and that is being very generous and objective

We're not there yet, but I will return to this scenario after having done the other one


Scenario 2: from Coptic to Greek

From Coptic 'colostrum' to Greek 'leaven' - that is basically impossible, in the normal world. But we're not in the normal world, we're in the biblical world. The brutally biased biblical bickering biotope of dominant, frustrated males who are always (more) RIGHTeous than anyone else.
People like Guillaumont, Quispel, Doresse, Blatz (hey we have a woman too!), Layton, Lambdin, Davies, Patterson, Meyer - the Yeshuah types. The Crossans, the Grondins, and even the dear departed Dr. Thomas Paterson Brown: all of them, ALL, didn't hesitate to translate this Coptic 'colostrum' with 'leaven' - because that simply was the RIGHTeous thing to do.
Did they have doubts? Sure they did, they must have, the dictionary says 'colostrum' and not 'leaven', most certainly not. But see, these are the kind of people who are so innately insecure that they overcompensate that fear of being wrong by ruthlessly righting everything that comes across their path, they simply are always right and never wrong. The scribe is wrong, the author is wrong, the papyrus is wrong, the ink is wrong, the pen is wrong - everything is wrong but them.
So. They translated colostrum with leaven. Did they leave a note? Make it an official emendation? Write about it? Did anyone spend even one single letter on it?
No

What are the chances of Coptic 'colostrum' being translated into (Greek or any other language for that matter) 'leaven'? A whopping 100.000%, and not a fraction less than that

So, let's return to Scenario 1: what are the chances of this text surviving in the state it is in, in the neighbourhood of a Christian?
Tell me now, go on, don't be shy, say it: what are the bloody stinking chances of the Coptic "parable of the colostrum" surviving in a Christian environment?

None. Nothing. Nowt. Zilch. Nada, nichts, rien, niks niet niets niet, null, nill. 0.00000000000000000000000000000% and not a fraction more than that

This is the real text, the original text, like hell it was passed down in a Coptic monastery, created there, or based on anything Christian, or even within a mile distance of anything xtian

And that, my dear gryan, is the short version
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by gryan »

Re: mixing milk and leaven (a practical side note for the making of comfort food)

"Milk-based Sourdough:

This starter is sweeter than water-based sourdough and contains lactic acid, a by-product of fermentation on milk sugar. Because lactic acid weakens gluten strands, it helps to create an exceptionally tender crumb structure.

2 cups milk
2 cups all-purpose flour, scoop measured
1 cup sugar
1 package dry yeast, dissolved in ¼ cup warm water
In a large glass or ceramic bowl, combine 1 cup of milk, 1 cup of flour, the sugar, and the dissolved yeast. Using a nonmetal spoon, beat until smooth and creamy. Stir in the remaining 1 cup milk and 1 cup flour. Cover with a clean kitchen towel and set in a moderately warm spot (about 70ºF). Allow to stand for 24 hours, at which point the batter should smell pleasantly sour."
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by neilgodfrey »

There is no Coptic to Greek translation nor is there any Greek to Coptic translation.

Matthew and Luke introduce a parable likening the kingdom to leaven that is put into dough; Thomas has a parable likening it to a woman who does certain things. The two parables are clearly related but have diverged on the basis of reinterpretation of the symbols and analogical meaning of the kingdom itself.

(The colostrom in Thomas -- if that's the original word -- is very much a side point: it is not the point of comparison with the kingdom as the leaven is in the canonical gospels.)

Besides, transcriptions (which is what are reproduced in this thread) are not translations. The two are quite different.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:35 pm There is no Coptic to Greek translation nor is there any Greek to Coptic translation.

Matthew and Luke introduce a parable likening the kingdom to leaven that is put into dough; Thomas has a parable likening it to a woman who does certain things. The two parables are clearly related but have diverged on the basis of reinterpretation of the symbols and analogical meaning of the kingdom itself.

(The colostrom in Thomas -- if that's the original word -- is very much a side point: it is not the point of comparison with the kingdom as the leaven is in the canonical gospels.)

Besides, transcriptions (which is what are reproduced in this thread) are not translations. The two are quite different.
You perfectly portray the fantastic failure of any intrinsic investigation into the Christ cult: you ignore the texts and start off right away at its interpretation

You ignore the content and jump right into the context - and the latter is dictated by Churchianity, and thus the circle is round.
You engage in contextual criticism Neil, and you clearly show a gross misunderstanding of what transcription and translation is, and couldn't even be bothered to look up a word in a dictionary by simply clicking on it - so perhaps you should just stick to whatever it is that you're doing

How could you possibly forfeit such an ominous opportunity at direction of dependence by blabbing along its apologetic distractions?
Last edited by mlinssen on Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 5:27 pm Re: mixing milk and leaven (a practical side note for the making of comfort food)

"Milk-based Sourdough:

This starter is sweeter than water-based sourdough and contains lactic acid, a by-product of fermentation on milk sugar. Because lactic acid weakens gluten strands, it helps to create an exceptionally tender crumb structure.

2 cups milk
2 cups all-purpose flour, scoop measured
1 cup sugar
1 package dry yeast, dissolved in ¼ cup warm water
In a large glass or ceramic bowl, combine 1 cup of milk, 1 cup of flour, the sugar, and the dissolved yeast. Using a nonmetal spoon, beat until smooth and creamy. Stir in the remaining 1 cup milk and 1 cup flour. Cover with a clean kitchen towel and set in a moderately warm spot (about 70ºF). Allow to stand for 24 hours, at which point the batter should smell pleasantly sour."
Yes, in ancient times they made sourdough / yeast from milk, hence why the two words are so intimately related in Coptic.
Context is what you sketch here

Now can you get into the content?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Likelihood of mistranslating ζύμη with ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ (and vv)

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:18 am
Scenario 1: from Greek to Coptic

Then, in the next copy step, ⲥⲓⲣ has to be mistaken for colostrum instead of leaven - there is a perfectly normal binary choice there, it's a homonym. Now, you have to make the "wrong" choice and choose colostrum over leaven, but again, I am very Zen today, and we'll make it a 50% chance, shall we?...


Scenario 2: from Coptic to Greek

From Coptic 'colostrum' to Greek 'leaven' - that is basically impossible, in the normal world. But we're not in the normal world, we're in the biblical world. The brutally biased biblical bickering biotope of dominant, frustrated males who are always (more) RIGHTeous than anyone else.
People like Guillaumont, Quispel, Doresse, Blatz (hey we have a woman too!), Layton, Lambdin, Davies, Patterson, Meyer - the Yeshuah types. The Crossans, the Grondins, and even the dear departed Dr. Thomas Paterson Brown: all of them, ALL, didn't hesitate to translate this Coptic 'colostrum' with 'leaven' - because that simply was the RIGHTeous thing to do.
Did they have doubts? Sure they did, they must have, the dictionary says 'colostrum' and not 'leaven', most certainly not.

You have my sympathy when you say that the modern scholarly translators should at least make a note that in Coptic, according to such and such dictionary, it says "colostrum".

Nevertheless, I place my bet that the change of meaning originated with a scribal error in making a copy in Coptic: "a perfectly normal binary choice there, it's a homonym. Now, you have to make the "wrong" choice and choose colostrum over leaven..."

I'll go with that one. Of course that suits my working hypothesis that the text of gThomas originated in Greek too.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven')

Post by neilgodfrey »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:17 amyou ignore the texts and start off right away at its interpretation
I do? Well, the texts themselves say exactly what I said they say -- am I wrong? If so, can you point out where I failed to accurately represent what the texts actually say?
mlinssen wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:17 amYou ignore the content
I do? Well, perhaps your answer to my query above will also answer what content I have actually ignored.
mlinssen wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:17 amand you clearly show a gross misunderstanding of what transcription and translation is, and couldn't even be bothered to look up a word in a dictionary by simply clicking on it
I do? Well, transcription by standard English language definition is the act of transcribing word for word from one language to another -- a process that anyone can do by consulting the appropriate dictionary -- but the result is generally devoid of actual meaning. Word order, syntax, linguistic context, that sort of thing. Translation by definition is conveying the meaning of a text in one language into the corresponding meaning of the other.

You need more than a dictionary and a word by word transcription to do a genuine translation.

mlinssen wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:17 amHow could you possibly forfeit such an ominous opportunity at direction of dependence by blabbing along its apologetic distractions?
You're not very good at handling serious challenges to your hobby horse, are you. But you've already made it clear that you believe you are smarter than anyone else here or in the field of GThomas studies, so perhaps you can tell us that no-one but you knows the difference between transcription and translation.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Likelihood of mistranslating ζύμη with ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ (and vv)

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:00 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:18 am
Scenario 1: from Greek to Coptic

Then, in the next copy step, ⲥⲓⲣ has to be mistaken for colostrum instead of leaven - there is a perfectly normal binary choice there, it's a homonym. Now, you have to make the "wrong" choice and choose colostrum over leaven, but again, I am very Zen today, and we'll make it a 50% chance, shall we?...


Scenario 2: from Coptic to Greek

From Coptic 'colostrum' to Greek 'leaven' - that is basically impossible, in the normal world. But we're not in the normal world, we're in the biblical world. The brutally biased biblical bickering biotope of dominant, frustrated males who are always (more) RIGHTeous than anyone else.
People like Guillaumont, Quispel, Doresse, Blatz (hey we have a woman too!), Layton, Lambdin, Davies, Patterson, Meyer - the Yeshuah types. The Crossans, the Grondins, and even the dear departed Dr. Thomas Paterson Brown: all of them, ALL, didn't hesitate to translate this Coptic 'colostrum' with 'leaven' - because that simply was the RIGHTeous thing to do.
Did they have doubts? Sure they did, they must have, the dictionary says 'colostrum' and not 'leaven', most certainly not.

You have my sympathy when you say that the modern scholarly translators should at least make a note that in Coptic, according to such and such dictionary, it says "colostrum".

Nevertheless, I place my bet that the change of meaning originated with a scribal error in making a copy in Coptic: "a perfectly normal binary choice there, it's a homonym. Now, you have to make the "wrong" choice and choose colostrum over leaven..."

I'll go with that one. Of course that suits my working hypothesis that the text of gThomas originated in Greek too.
Thank you, gryan. I consider it a sign of the bovine bias of biblical "translators" to not do what you and I agree would be "the proper thing to do".
We both have our working hypotheses indeed, and make the choices which suit them.
Yet I think I plausibly demonstrated the survival chance of Thomas' colostrum to be nill, which of course leaves open the possibility that this just happens to be the (likely only) one version in which leaven got changed to colostrum by an obnoxious scribe. An extraordinarily rare and slim chance, but a chance it is nonetheless
Post Reply