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:

Re: The peculiar case of the parable of the colostrum (aka 'leaven') (P75 and Chester Beatty)

Post by mlinssen »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:11 am Nestle Aland notes MEGA in Luke 13:19 as a reading of many manuscripts including P45

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add I think you may be using an online Nestle Aland without footnotes you really need a proper Nestle Aland.
It is so peculiar! I have read almost every book, paper and article about the parables of Thomas vs the canonicals, but never ever has this been brought up.
I think that this is, well, "rather telling"

Thank gawdness I'm an amateur and can afford to not be using NA as a pillow... or something
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') (P75 and Chester Beatty)

Post by mlinssen »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:11 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:47 pm
Luke 13:20 Καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν “Τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ; 21 ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ, ἣν
λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία, ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.”

That's what we have now, here's what Chester Beatty II has:

THE CHESTER BEATTY BIBLICAL PAPYRI DESCRIPTIONS AND TEXTS OF TWELVE MANUSCRIPTS ON PAPYRUS OF THE GREEK BIBLE
FASCICULUS II
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
BY FREDERIC G. KENYON

https://chesterbeatty.ie/assets/uploads ... xt-Opt.pdf

The book is almost a century old so the font can't be copy-pasted, and I don't feel like transcribing the Greek, so here's a screenshot:

Chester Luke 13-19.png

Highlighted what is added in the MSS, bold what is absent, underlined what's different, separated by /
Again, I have just pasted the Greek here so forgive me the presence of diacritics, please:

Luke 13:20 Καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν “Τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ; 21 ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ, ἣν
λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία, ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.”

A 100% match, for a change

P75 has exactly what our Greek has:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... r.Verbi%29
1B.8r

Screenshot attached, I have marked the verse with red lines at its start and end:

Mater verbi P75 Luke 13-20.png

Well, exactly the same! There is something in the lacuna, which is underlined in red, and given the commentary in Chester Beatty it highly likely says ενεκρυψεν

So very odd and awkward that the Nestle-Aland 28 attests to the latter, whereas it completely misses out on the marvelous opportunity of noticing the MEGA tree (viewtopic.php?p=125634#p125634) in the preceding verse, isn't it?

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/onlin ... 192cc882d/
Nestle Aland notes MEGA in Luke 13:19 as a reading of many manuscripts including P45

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add I think you may be using an online Nestle Aland without footnotes you really need a proper Nestle Aland.
Well, thanks again Andrew, fixed that now.
Interesting to see this very impressive work, the online version can't even be called flimsy, compared to the real stuff

When I look at the MSS that attest to MEGA, I see IVth CE throughout XIIIth CE! I wonder why they removed it though, and that even 2452 didn't get the memo - extraordinary

I'll be having some great fun these next days; I can tell you right now that there won't be any MSS that Thomas could have used to copy from, but it is always nicer to be able to put some solid arguments behind such. Luke 8:16 gives us one or two MSS that are around the date of Coptic Thomas (and none before that!), IV/Vth CE - but with P45 and P75 (IIIrd CE) both attesting to MEGA in this case, the plot thickens LOL
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 »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:49 pm 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?
A concise version of this, for those with a short attention span:

Thomas has the parable of the colostrum, the first milk that breasts produce, which lasts for 1-3 days at max just about.
Very Thomasine of course, with his infants taking milk

In related news, I have found the Fayyumic Matthew that Crum based all of his dictionary entry on, and it is AF 12764 from the Louvre.
5th-7th CE, and of the entire word only the initial S is visible.
There are no MSS that use the word that exists in Thomas, the default is either the purely native Coptic ⲑⲁⲃ or a loanword like ϣⲏⲙⲉⲣ which evidently is based in Hebrew

Naturally, all "translators" use the English leaven, for which there is no basis whatsoever - even though Cherix has now added that to his dictionary as well, given a recent exchange with me.
So we have Westendorf and Cherix who both have both words as saying colostrum AND leaven
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Crum 353a:

Post by mlinssen »

Crum 353a:
Screenshot_20221207-210108_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20221207-210108_Chrome.jpg (738.85 KiB) Viewed 538 times
The word in Thomas is ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ

https://metalogos.org/files/th_scan/18.jpg

Fourth line from the top right before the lacuna
Screenshot_20221207-211558_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20221207-211558_Chrome.jpg (1 MiB) Viewed 538 times
The MS that Crum points to for that is

https://archive.org/details/miscellaneo ... 1/mode/2up
Screenshot_20230306_103923_Chrome~2.jpg
Screenshot_20230306_103923_Chrome~2.jpg (274.53 KiB) Viewed 401 times
ⲥⲁⲓⲣⲉ is the word transcribed, I have to locate the MS in order to verify. One thing is for sure: there is no 'leaven' coming out of the breasts of the holy virgin

1 line above Folio 31 b 2, first word. The translation is on page 719

https://archive.org/details/miscellaneo ... 9/mode/2up

"My womb grew large without [the help of] a man, and my breasts became full of milk."
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:09 am 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?
I don't see such a solid case but I could be missing something. I can accept that your transcription of "colostrum" was missed by earlier translators. However allow me to play devil's advocate. How do you respond to this alternative logic:

If Thomas was fond of wordplay and he alludes a number of times to infants and milk then what is to prevent Thomas finding "leaven" in the Greek canonicals and word-playing this to become "colostrum" in his Coptic "gospel"?
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 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:29 pm
mlinssen wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:09 am 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?
I don't see such a solid case but I could be missing something. I can accept that your transcription of "colostrum" was missed by earlier translators. However allow me to play devil's advocate. How do you respond to this alternative logic:

If Thomas was fond of wordplay and he alludes a number of times to infants and milk then what is to prevent Thomas finding "leaven" in the Greek canonicals and word-playing this to become "colostrum" in his Coptic "gospel"?
Thanks Pete

1. Surely it's not a question of missing anything Pete, this is not a word that is so well known that nobody needs to look it up in a dictionary.
Surely you realise damn well that this word is deliberately hidden and mistranslated without any emendation by those who do know their Coptic, and subsequently copied as-is by those who don't

2a. It would miraculously well will fit in with the theme in Thomas of infants taking milk, wouldn't it? And it would be a crazy word play really, to go from the expected leaven to the completely unexpected and seemingly senseless colostrum
2b. That is perfectly possible of course, but then why do we have 1? Why doesn't anyone emend this word?

3. Surely the likelihood of changing colostrum into leaven is a few times greater than vice versa, is it not?
It is never about either-or, almost always everything is possible: it always is about the likelihood. And even if you will (and likely are going to) argue that the likelihood isn't significantly different for either scenario, then why doesn't this word get treated properly by the lying and falsifying Layton's of this world?
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'): Layton, Guillaumont, Plisch

Post by mlinssen »

Screenshot_20230306_102321_ReadEra Premium~2.jpg
Screenshot_20230306_102321_ReadEra Premium~2.jpg (260.23 KiB) Viewed 402 times
This is how Layton handles the critical apparatus, and how Lambdin translates the text. Obviously the separation of tasks here is very convenient, as these two can pretend to operate independently of one another: Layton doesn't need to emend because ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ is a perfectly legit word, Lambdin can pretend to "have missed the proper translation" as Pete would like to see it

Guillaumont et al then?
092-97~2.jpg
092-97~2.jpg (690.78 KiB) Viewed 402 times
No emendation, no attracting any attention. Identical to the boiling fountain of logion 13, Thomas gets completely falsified without a single trace here. Deliberately, stealthily, deviously, unprofessionally, wholly unacademically

Plisch, publishing for Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft? We shouldn't even have to check, should we
20230306_111949~2.jpg
20230306_111949~2.jpg (1009.53 KiB) Viewed 394 times
As you can see, "nothing to see here" either, identical to the boiling fountain, translated correctly by Schenke once (page 484, footnote 20)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

To repeat myself (again) it must be clear by now to yourself and everyone else that you are simultaneously prosecuting two separate and distinct theses. The first is that the Coptic to English translations of the Gospel of Thomas (and other tracts in the NHL) are seriously impaired because the translators have imposed unacceptable and erroneous transcriptions on the Coptic sources which they are carrying over from the canonical gospels. The second thesis is the argument for Thomasine priority over the canonical gospels.

Thesis One - You must know that I have been and still am a strong supporter of this thesis, and that many of the contributors in this discussion forum are on side with this to varying degrees. I look forward to reading further on what you find in Thomas and elsewhere in the NHL (and outside it) in regard to removing the Christian bias that currently plagues the Coptic transcriptions and translations. (EG: Thomas writes "colostrum")

Thesis Two - As I have stated before this is a far more difficult thesis to prosecute. I have stated it cannot be ruled out but it also cannot be ruled in. Especially by arguments via probability because these cut two ways and by definition cannot guarantee the objective certainty which you are associating with its truth value.

I apply exactly the same provisional conclusion about my own thesis that the "NTA" are a post Nicene literary reaction to the "NTC". Here is what I recently wrote about my own theory:
LC wrote:Neither claim can be proven. Both are viable. Further evidence is required.

SEE: viewtopic.php?p=150680#p150680
I have a few questions about redaction criticism and your claim that Thomasine priority is solely based on redaction criticism

Redaction criticism,
also called Redaktionsgeschichte, Kompositionsgeschichte or Redaktionstheologie, is a critical method for the study of biblical texts. Redaction criticism regards the author of the text as editor (redactor) of the source materials. Unlike its parent discipline, form criticism, redaction criticism does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original genre. Instead, it focuses on how the redactor shaped and moulded the narrative to express theological and ideological goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction_criticism

I am wondering whether redaction criticism is the tool by which Thomasine priority can be successfully argued. On the above page is a link to:

Historical criticism

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

Whereas redaction criticism uses material internal to the texts historical criticism has the capacity to look external to the texts and ask questions like when did the texts first appear as objects in antiquity. Questions concerning priority and textual dependence IMO probably need the application of both forms of criticism - internal and external.

So in summary I think your thesis 1 is on solid ground and I look forward to seeing it take off among new academics who can perceive that the earlier Christian transcribers and translators of Coptic manuscripts are heavily biased by their canonical gospel centricity.
In regard to your thesis 2 and the claims for and against it, neither the claims for or against it can IMO be proven with any degree of certainty. Both sides of the arguments are viable, and further evidence will be required to advance one side over the other.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:58 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:29 pm Which would make a solid case for Coptic Thomas being the source to the canonicals, and the original over any Greek version[/size]

Wouldn't it?
I don't see such a solid case but I could be missing something.
1. Surely it's not a question of missing anything Pete, this is not a word that is so well known that nobody needs to look it up in a dictionary.
This is how Layton handles the critical apparatus, and how Lambdin translates the text. Obviously the separation of tasks here is very convenient, as these two can pretend to operate independently of one another: Layton doesn't need to emend because ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ is a perfectly legit word, Lambdin can pretend to "have missed the proper translation" as Pete would like to see it
My comment about "missing something" refers to the "solid case" status your thesis 2 (Thomasine priority) and NOT about your thesis 1 ---- missing the transcription acrobatics of Layton et al over the colostrum. Your argument for bad transcription is solid and there's no real way to actually miss that. I agree with your thesis 1.
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 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 11:07 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:58 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:29 pm Which would make a solid case for Coptic Thomas being the source to the canonicals, and the original over any Greek version[/size]

Wouldn't it?
I don't see such a solid case but I could be missing something.
1. Surely it's not a question of missing anything Pete, this is not a word that is so well known that nobody needs to look it up in a dictionary.
This is how Layton handles the critical apparatus, and how Lambdin translates the text. Obviously the separation of tasks here is very convenient, as these two can pretend to operate independently of one another: Layton doesn't need to emend because ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ is a perfectly legit word, Lambdin can pretend to "have missed the proper translation" as Pete would like to see it
My comment about "missing something" refers to the "solid case" status your thesis 2 (Thomasine priority) and NOT about your thesis 1 ---- missing the transcription acrobatics of Layton et al over the colostrum. Your argument for bad transcription is solid and there's no real way to actually miss that. I agree with your thesis 1.
Thanks, all clear now
Post Reply