The peculiar case of binding the strong man

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 binding the strong man

Post by mlinssen »


Matthew 12:29 Or how is anyone able to enter into the house of the strong man, and to plunder his goods, unless first he binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Mark 3: But no one is able, having entered into the house of the strong man, to plunder his goods, unless first he binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

Luke 11:21 When the strong man being armed might guard his house, his possessions are in peace.
22 But when one stronger than he, having come upon him, shall overcome him, he takes away his complete armor in which he had trusted, and he divides his plunder.

The strong man: one of those cases where we have disagreement within agreement; Luke often is the odd one out there, but this time he strongly disagrees - or rather, weakly agrees.
The word is ἰσχυρός, strong, and it occurs with remarkable patterns throughout the NT. It is used by all three to put the words in John B's mouth about someone "mightier" than he coming: ἰσχυρότερός, and Luke 14:15 uses it to describe the famine.
Yet 1 Corinthians 1:15, 27, 1 Corinthians 4:10, 1 Corinthians 10:22, 2 Corinthians 10:10, Hebrews 5:7, Hebrews 6:18, Hebrews 11:34, 1 John 2:14, Revelation 6:15, Revelation 10:1, Revelation 18:2, 8, 10, 21 and Revelation 19:6, 18 use it too. A quite remarkable division there, isn't it?
Regarding this verse, all three have it preceded by the Beelzebub pericope.
As usual, because bible translations aren't accurate, consistent or reliable, the interlinear Greek:

Matthew 12:29 Ἢ (Or) πῶς (how) δύναταί (is able) τις (anyone) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (the) οἰκίαν (house) τοῦ (of the) ἰσχυροῦ (strong man) καὶ (and) τὰ (the) σκεύη (goods) αὐτοῦ (of him) ἁρπάσαι (to plunder), ἐὰν (if) μὴ (not) πρῶτον (first) δήσῃ (he bind) τὸν (the) ἰσχυρόν (strong man)? καὶ (And) τότε (then) τὴν (the) οἰκίαν (house) αὐτοῦ (of him) διαρπάσει (he will plunder).

Mark 3:27 ἀλλ’ (But) οὐ (not) δύναται (is able) ⇔ οὐδεὶς (no one), εἰς (into) τὴν (the) οἰκίαν (house) τοῦ (of the) ἰσχυροῦ (strong man) εἰσελθὼν (having entered), τὰ (the) σκεύη (goods) αὐτοῦ (of him) διαρπάσαι (to plunder), ἐὰν (if) μὴ (not) πρῶτον (first) τὸν (the) ἰσχυρὸν (strong man) δήσῃ (he binds). καὶ (And) τότε (then) τὴν (the) οἰκίαν (house) αὐτοῦ (of him) διαρπάσει (he will plunder).

Luke 11:21 Ὅταν (When) ὁ (the) ἰσχυρὸς (strong man) καθωπλισμένος (being armed) φυλάσσῃ (might guard) τὴν (-) ἑαυτοῦ (his) αὐλήν (house), ἐν (in) εἰρήνῃ (peace) ἐστὶν (are) τὰ (the) ὑπάρχοντα (possessions) αὐτοῦ (of him);
22 ἐπὰν (when) δὲ (however) ἰσχυρότερος (one stronger) αὐτοῦ (than he), ἐπελθὼν (having come upon him), νικήσῃ (shall overcome) αὐτόν (him), τὴν (the) πανοπλίαν (complete armor) αὐτοῦ (of him) αἴρει (he takes away) ἐφ’ (in) ᾗ (which) ἐπεποίθει (he had trusted), καὶ (and) τὰ (the) σκῦλα (plunder) αὐτοῦ (of him) διαδίδωσιν (he divides).

Highlighting for the verbatim agreement.
Verbatim agreement? Very much so, between Mark and Matthew - Luke is entirely out there on his own, however, and to keep it brief he will be ignored - although there is a clear connection of "inspiration" between him and the others on a (vague) contextual level, he just won't play along this time. Fine

The interesting bit about this story has always been the silliness of it: it just doesn't make sense, at all, whatsoever.
The entering the house of a strong man is only an issue when he is present, but when he is, you're facing a strong man. And a strong man is ... strong. So what do you do to him so you can go about your business? Well, you knock him out, kill him, shoot him, send your dogs after him - anything. And when he is out cold, alive or not, or merely firmly incapacitated - then it is that you can bind him. But simply binding a strong man, just like that? That is even harder than just confronting him.
Oh yes, it is a metaphor, isn't it? It is related to the Beelzebub pericope, and "binding the strong man" is done via "casting out demons" because the strong man is thought, or meant, to represent Satan / Beelzebub? That's the usual story, at least, and in that sense it is explained that Satan is actually weakened by casting out his little helpers from living souls - but that is nothing like binding a strong man, that is more like chopping off his fingers or limbs. Sure, the allegory can be stretched a bit further than it already is, but in my view the rubber band snaps at that point.
It is one of those frequent occassions on which the NT makes no sense at all, whether taken at face value or through the usual apologetics

As very, very often, the answer lies in Thomas: and just for fun I will use Lambdin's translation for a change, as yet another demonstration of how the biased Thomas translators, esteemed professors of Religion, Coptology, Egyptology or all of the above, magnificently managed to misunderstand the mundane mysteries of Thomas:

(35) Jesus said, "It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be able to) ransack his house."

Well, that is almost verbatim what the canonicals have, only the underlined parts are additional: "take it by force", and "his hands" in stead of him. Why would Thomas add that? Binding just the hands of a strong man is even harder than binding the man himself, he didn't understand the canonicals at all; this must clearly be plagiarism by Thomas!!!
No, actually, what Thomas has makes more than perfect sense, it is the canonicals who mistranslated him - from the Coptic, as this is another peculiar case that demonstrates Coptic provenance of Thomas - and yes, I know what the general opinion says about Coptic being late and all that, but textual criticism tells me that Thomas precedes the canonicals here. If that means that those couldn't have existed prior to 150 or even 200-250 CE, that's fine by me, I don't care about dates, I don't play that game; it's all based on hearsay and paleography anyway and it is widely assumed that Greek hands and Coptic hands should be treated equally - yet why (and when!) that is the case, nobody really knows, or can tell...
Christian Askeland has a very instructive paper on all that, ‘Dating early Greek and Coptic literary hands’ - https://www.academia.edu/11164615/_Dati ... ary_hands_

So again, as always, because Thomas translations aren't accurate, consistent or reliable, here is mine. First row is MS transcript, second row is KELLIA CDO / Crum entry, third is translation

Code: Select all

ⲡⲉϫⲉ  ⲓ̅ⲥ̅   ⲙⲛ̄          ϭⲟⲙ`     ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ   ⲟⲩⲁ  ⲃⲱⲕ` ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ  ⲉ  ⲡ   ⲏⲉⲓ    ⲙ̄  ⲡ   ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ   ⲛ̄   ϥ   ϫⲓⲧ   ϥ`   ⲛ̄  ϫⲛⲁϩ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲥ   ⲙⲛ-         ϭⲟⲙ      ⲛⲧⲉ-  ⲟⲩⲁ  ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲡ-  ⲏⲓ     ⲛ- ⲡ-  ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ   ⲛⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϫⲓ    ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛ- ϫⲛⲁϩ
said IS there-is-not strength of    one  go-inward to the house  of the strong  and  he  take he   of forearm

Code: Select all

ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ    ⲛ̄   ϥ    ⲙⲟⲩⲣ   ⲛ̄     ⲛⲉϥ    ϭⲓϫ`  ⲧⲟⲧⲉ  ϥ    ⲛⲁ   ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ  ⲉⲃⲟⲗ  ⲙ̄  ⲡⲉϥ  ⲏⲉⲓ
ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ    ⲛⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲙⲟⲩⲣ   ⲛ-    ⲛⲉϥ    ϭⲓϫ   ⲧⲟⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛⲁ-  ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) ⲛ- ⲡⲉϥ  ⲏⲓ
Unless and   he  bind [dop] his(PL)  hand  Then he  will move-out    of  his  house
Always a bit of tinkering involved to get these three rows out here, it won't look pretty for everyone, apologies. If you have any hints on how to improve on it, I'd much appreciate it.
Interesting parts can't be highlighted this way, but there are two words at issue: forearm and move-out; let's first see whether those are any good as possible translation options

ϫⲛⲁϩ: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C7271
  1. forearm, wing
  2. strength, violence
That's correct, forearm (or wing!) even is the primary translation. What are the options in Coptic for the word 'force' that Lambdin chose?

ⲃⲓⲁ - force, violence
ⲕⲱⲱⲃⲉ - compel, seize by force
ⲛϭⲟⲛⲥ - by force, forcibly, violently
ϫⲉⲙϫⲱⲣⲓ - use strength, force
ϫⲓ ⲛϫⲛⲁϩ ϫⲓϫⲛⲁϩ - use violence, force, compel

There are a few more that mean "strength, violence" and such, but not force. The word that frequents Thomas is:
strength - ϭⲟⲙ, Noun feminine, Logion 32, 35, 47

It appears that there are plenty of choices to pick from, and Lambdin's translation appears to be a rather liberal stretch: force him or compel him are the applicable definitions.
Did Thomas purposely pick an ambivalent word again, to make good on his promise of hidden words in his Prologue? Impossible!
Of course, Lambdin's translation makes even less sense than that of the canonicals: if you manage to bind a strong man's hands, there is no need at all anymore to use force, strength, or violence: you have to use a boatload of force in order to bind a strong man's hands, but after that most anyone can handle him just fine - this is either incredible incompetence at translating Thomas, or intent. Or a bit of both.
But whence the forearm?
T. Saunders, Collaborations and Connections Between an Aboriginal Organisation and Endangered Language Speakers: Interpreting and Translating in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia, Australia https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217612024.pdf

Look at the example of the Aboriginals. The language at hand (no pun this time) is
'Ngarinyin, a language of the Worrorran (also known as North Kimberley) family':
a-ayal nya2-ma(ra)-y1i
3mbpp-forear 3FO3sgA-take/bring OPT

Literally: Let him take his forearm, we will get him for language. ... is more complex than the English phrase ‘to help’. The meaning of ‘help’ is translated by the figurative sense ‘take by the forearm’.

Granted, Australia is not near Egypt - but it makes an awful lot of sense that in order to take a strong man by the forearm, you have to bind his hands. In Thomas he uses this specific word, ϭⲓϫ, for hand on this occassion, which is the metaphysical hand - the other word is derived from ⲧⲱⲣⲉ and that is the mere physical hand. Help the man, is what the message is, the "hidden" one, by binding his spiritual hands.
And yes, this is the only "hit" that I could come up with, and it is nothing like overwhelming evidence indeed. But regardless of what "taking by forearm" could mean, the logion makes sense this way, and grammatically it is a perfectly possible translation.
What about the second word then, that should be plunder, shouldn't it?

ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C2839
  1. move out, go forth
  2. carry out, remove
It is in fact the exact same composite verb as in logion 48, another famous one where a mountain is spoken to:

48. said IS : "should" two make-be Peace with their(.PL) companion in this house single they will say it to the mountain : turn outward and he will turn

Yes, that turned out slightly differently in the canonicals, and logion 106 is a fairly identical copy of this. But I digress: the verb clearly means to move out / turn outward (and this is how it works; upon closer inspection of a logion, details reveal themselves and I have to modify my Translation yet again, which was to be expected and will happen many times to come).
Okay, moving out of a house makes sense, because when the goal is to enter the house of a strong man, you really like to leave it again - horizontally, not vertically. Can't we use remove then, in order to get close to what the canonicals have? That could be the case, but it would be a transitive use of the verb, and there is no direct object in sight: remove what from the house? And there are plenty of other words:

ⲕⲱⲗⲡ - steal, rob
ⲥⲣⲓⲧ - glean, plunder
ⲧⲱⲣⲡ - plunder

Thomas likes his ambivalence, it is part and parcel of his text, but he does make sense - as long as one makes the right choice, as everything always is about making the right choice.
Does Lambdin make sense with his translation, which by the way is identical to all other Thomas translations? No, not all.
Do the canonicals make sense with their translation? Certainly not. With their added context? Not even then, or rather, much less so

Did they misunderstand Coptic Thomas? It would seem to be that way, exactly like the parable of the colostrum - not leaven - and the story about the hidden lamp.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8133&p=125061
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8137&p=125496

I have a few more
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:41 pm
So again, as always, because Thomas translations aren't accurate, consistent or reliable, here is mine. First row is MS transcript, second row is KELLIA CDO / Crum entry, third is translation

Code: Select all

ⲡⲉϫⲉ  ⲓ̅ⲥ̅   ⲙⲛ̄          ϭⲟⲙ`     ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ   ⲟⲩⲁ  ⲃⲱⲕ` ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ  ⲉ  ⲡ   ⲏⲉⲓ    ⲙ̄  ⲡ   ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ   ⲛ̄   ϥ   ϫⲓⲧ   ϥ`   ⲛ̄  ϫⲛⲁϩ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲥ   ⲙⲛ-         ϭⲟⲙ      ⲛⲧⲉ-  ⲟⲩⲁ  ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲡ-  ⲏⲓ     ⲛ- ⲡ-  ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ   ⲛⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϫⲓ    ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛ- ϫⲛⲁϩ
said IS there-is-not strength of    one  go-inward to the house  of the strong  and  he  take he   of forearm

Code: Select all

ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ    ⲛ̄   ϥ    ⲙⲟⲩⲣ   ⲛ̄     ⲛⲉϥ    ϭⲓϫ`  ⲧⲟⲧⲉ  ϥ    ⲛⲁ   ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ  ⲉⲃⲟⲗ  ⲙ̄  ⲡⲉϥ  ⲏⲉⲓ
ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ    ⲛⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲙⲟⲩⲣ   ⲛ-    ⲛⲉϥ    ϭⲓϫ   ⲧⲟⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛⲁ-  ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) ⲛ- ⲡⲉϥ  ⲏⲓ
Unless and   he  bind [dop] his(PL)  hand  Then he  will move-out    of  his  house
Always a bit of tinkering involved to get these three rows out here, it won't look pretty for everyone, apologies. If you have any hints on how to improve on it, I'd much appreciate it.
Interesting parts can't be highlighted this way, but there are two words at issue: forearm and move-out; let's first see whether those are any good as possible translation options...
I'm not clear what "the right choice" implies in terms of your interpretation of the original meaning of the gThom text as a whole. Could you give a smooth, idiomatic English translation to indicate what you think the text originally meant?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:21 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:41 pm
So again, as always, because Thomas translations aren't accurate, consistent or reliable, here is mine. First row is MS transcript, second row is KELLIA CDO / Crum entry, third is translation

Code: Select all

ⲡⲉϫⲉ  ⲓ̅ⲥ̅   ⲙⲛ̄          ϭⲟⲙ`     ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ   ⲟⲩⲁ  ⲃⲱⲕ` ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ  ⲉ  ⲡ   ⲏⲉⲓ    ⲙ̄  ⲡ   ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ   ⲛ̄   ϥ   ϫⲓⲧ   ϥ`   ⲛ̄  ϫⲛⲁϩ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲥ   ⲙⲛ-         ϭⲟⲙ      ⲛⲧⲉ-  ⲟⲩⲁ  ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲡ-  ⲏⲓ     ⲛ- ⲡ-  ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ   ⲛⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϫⲓ    ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛ- ϫⲛⲁϩ
said IS there-is-not strength of    one  go-inward to the house  of the strong  and  he  take he   of forearm

Code: Select all

ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ    ⲛ̄   ϥ    ⲙⲟⲩⲣ   ⲛ̄     ⲛⲉϥ    ϭⲓϫ`  ⲧⲟⲧⲉ  ϥ    ⲛⲁ   ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ  ⲉⲃⲟⲗ  ⲙ̄  ⲡⲉϥ  ⲏⲉⲓ
ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ    ⲛⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲙⲟⲩⲣ   ⲛ-    ⲛⲉϥ    ϭⲓϫ   ⲧⲟⲧⲉ  ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛⲁ-  ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) ⲛ- ⲡⲉϥ  ⲏⲓ
Unless and   he  bind [dop] his(PL)  hand  Then he  will move-out    of  his  house
Always a bit of tinkering involved to get these three rows out here, it won't look pretty for everyone, apologies. If you have any hints on how to improve on it, I'd much appreciate it.
Interesting parts can't be highlighted this way, but there are two words at issue: forearm and move-out; let's first see whether those are any good as possible translation options...
I'm not clear what "the right choice" implies in terms of your interpretation of the original meaning of the gThom text as a whole. Could you give a smooth, idiomatic English translation to indicate what you think the text originally meant?

IS said: one doesn't have the strength
to move into the house of the strong
and take him by (the) forearm
unless he binds his hands
then he will (= can) move out of his house

That's a negation, if we reverse that into a positive it says:

IS said: one only has the strength
to move into the house of the strong
if he binds his hands;
then he will (= can) move out of his house
and take him by (the) forearm

The bold words are what change then.
I always try to make as small steps as possible from the literal translation in order to leave the traceability intact; unfortunately, a really smooth translation always is an interpretation, because it is the destination language that dictates smoothness.
This is what a Lambdin could have:

IS said: one doesn't have the strength
to move into the house of a strong man
and help him
unless he binds his hands
then he can move out of his house

or

IS said: one only has the strength
to move into the house of a strong man
if he binds his hands;
then he can move out of his house
and help him

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

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by mlinssen »

Of course "to help" is a far reaching interpretation.
To grab one by the forearm merely is a "manly" handshake:

https://www.primermagazine.com/2010/fie ... -handshake
First of all, masculinity increases exponentially as you go back in time, just by virtue of the fact that surviving on Earth has only gotten easier as time rolls on (though if we start to colonize space, the barometer may be reset somewhat) – there’s a rough hierarchy of manliness that correlates directly to chronology:
  • Ancient Egyptians
  • Ancient Greeks
  • Romans
  • Huns
  • Vikings
  • Knights of the Round Table
  • Mongols
  • Aztecs
  • American settlers
  • Pirates
  • Cowboys
  • Troops who stormed Normandy
  • The guys on Deadliest Catch
Although there seems to be no evidence of that:

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2018/ ... ach-other/
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:41 pm
Well, that is almost verbatim what the canonicals have, only the underlined parts are additional: "take it by force", and "his hands" in stead of him. Why would Thomas add that? Binding just the hands of a strong man is even harder than binding the man himself, he didn't understand the canonicals at all; this must clearly be plagiarism by Thomas!!!
No, actually, what Thomas has makes more than perfect sense, it is the canonicals who mistranslated him - from the Coptic, as this is another peculiar case that demonstrates Coptic provenance of Thomas - and yes, I know what the general opinion says about Coptic being late and all that, but textual criticism tells me that Thomas precedes the canonicals here.
I could go either way on this one, since there is not much difference. If Thomas was better than the canonicals--you've convinced me to think that it was better--then I could take that as an indication that it is later. The later could improve on the former.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:31 am
mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:41 pm
Well, that is almost verbatim what the canonicals have, only the underlined parts are additional: "take it by force", and "his hands" in stead of him. Why would Thomas add that? Binding just the hands of a strong man is even harder than binding the man himself, he didn't understand the canonicals at all; this must clearly be plagiarism by Thomas!!!
No, actually, what Thomas has makes more than perfect sense, it is the canonicals who mistranslated him - from the Coptic, as this is another peculiar case that demonstrates Coptic provenance of Thomas - and yes, I know what the general opinion says about Coptic being late and all that, but textual criticism tells me that Thomas precedes the canonicals here.
I could go either way on this one, since there is not much difference. If Thomas was better than the canonicals--you've convinced me to think that it was better--then I could take that as an indication that it is later. The later could improve on the former.
Sure it could, in fact that's what usually happens.
Thanks gryan. I think we both agree that at least my translation of Thomas is better than those of the Lambdins and such, whereas in essence both the canonicals and Thomas have the same predicament: how do you bind a strong man? That's mighty difficult. The Beelzebub pericope is hardly a perfect fit for that metaphor, yet naturally Thomas doesn't have any explanation at all. Or does he
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by mlinssen »

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.26.11-13:

[12] Merito igitur applicuit ad parabolam fortis illius armati, quem validior alius oppressit, principem daemoniorum, quem Beelzebub et satanam supra dixerat, significans digito dei oppressum, non creatorem ab alio deo subactum.

[12] Well, therefore, did He connect with the parable of "the strong man armed," whom "a stronger man still overcame," the prince of the demons, whom He had already called Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was overcome by the finger of God, and not that the Creator had been subdued by another god.

Of course, it's not like Thomas adds the "taking by force / forearm", it is clearly attested by Luke.
And then - then, the odds of Thomas translating that "overcoming" / "oppressere" with a word that means both forearm a well as force, where the primary translation actually gives meaning to the logion, are once again fatally flimsy
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:41 am Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.26.11-13:

[12] Merito igitur applicuit ad parabolam fortis illius armati, quem validior alius oppressit, principem daemoniorum, quem Beelzebub et satanam supra dixerat, significans digito dei oppressum, non creatorem ab alio deo subactum.

[12] Well, therefore, did He connect with the parable of "the strong man armed," whom "a stronger man still overcame," the prince of the demons, whom He had already called Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was overcome by the finger of God, and not that the Creator had been subdued by another god.

Of course, it's not like Thomas adds the "taking by force / forearm", it is clearly attested by Luke.
And then - then, the odds of Thomas translating that "overcoming" / "oppressere" with a word that means both forearm a well as force, where the primary translation actually gives meaning to the logion, are once again fatally flimsy
I wonder if there is a series development of language found in Coptic dictionaries that flows something like this: 1) gThomas originated in Greek, 2) was translated into Coptic and 3) along with the NT gospels shaped the culture so that 4) words like forearm that originally had a single simple meaning took on double meanings: forearm/force.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:24 pm I wonder if there is a series development of language found in Coptic dictionaries that flows something like this: 1) gThomas originated in Greek, 2) was translated into Coptic and 3) along with the NT gospels shaped the culture so that 4) words like forearm that originally had a single simple meaning took on double meanings: forearm/force.
That's a highly interesting remark!

I have Westendorf and two pieces from Crum.
Westendorf attests to the Egyptian but my hieroglyphs vocabulary is not so good (LOL).
Screenshot_20210804-082952_ReadEra_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-082952_ReadEra_1.jpg (436.97 KiB) Viewed 1777 times
Crum has two pages:
Screenshot_20210804-083145_Chrome_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-083145_Chrome_1.jpg (533.66 KiB) Viewed 1777 times
which is the main entry; as you can see by the abbreviations for the MSS consulted, there is relatively little Tanakh or NT here. Now...
Screenshot_20210804-083239_Chrome_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-083239_Chrome_1.jpg (459.96 KiB) Viewed 1777 times
There are a lot more Bible citations here...

Very good point gryan, I will see what a proper text search will lead to. Thank you
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of binding the strong man (Chester Beatty)

Post by mlinssen »


Luke 11:21 Ὅταν ὁ ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισμένος φυλάσσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν, ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ
22 ἐπὰν δὲ ἰσχυρότερος αὐτοῦ ἐπελθὼν νικήσῃ αὐτόν, τὴν πανοπλίαν αὐτοῦ αἴρει ἐφ’ ᾗ ἐπεποίθει, καὶ τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ διαδίδωσιν.

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:
Screenshot_20210804-124709_ReadEra_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-124709_ReadEra_1.jpg (504.2 KiB) Viewed 1767 times
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 11:21 Ὅταν ὁ ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισαμένος φυλάσσεἰ/ῃ τὴν αυτοῦ α[ὐλή]ν, ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ·
22 ἐπὰν δὲ ἰσχ[υρότερο]ς αὐτοῦ ἐπανελθὼν νικήσῃ αὐτόν, τὴν πανοπλίαν αὐτοῦ [αἴρει ἐφ’ ᾗ ἐπ]εποίθε[ι], καὶ τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ διαδίδωσιν.

P75 has nearly what our Greek has, it just spells ελθὼν without any prefix, and writes σκῦλλα with double L:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... r.Verbi%29
1B.3r

Screenshot attached, the verse starts just above the house icon on the right:
Screenshot_20210804-163220_Chrome_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-163220_Chrome_1.jpg (500.34 KiB) Viewed 1748 times
Post Reply