StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:08 am
If I wrote "a gross assumption and exaggeration," then my apologies.
No need for that Stephen, you didn't: I reacted to your post
"If one starts with an
assumptiom such as NT scripture was basically assembled by Constantine
(or
that Coptic gThomas is in effect the be all and end all for understanding Greek gospels; or similar examples, not far to seek)"
It would be a
gross assumption and exaggeration to assume
that Coptic gThomas is in effect the be all and end all for understanding Greek gospels. Is it clear that way what my statement intended to convey?
My rationale behind that statement is that there is hardly any relation -
in meaning - between Thomas and the canonicals. Content is shared in abundance, yes - but in my view (and 500+ page motivation aka The Commentary) Thomas is about something entirely different, the content of which got relocated (in)to a completely different context.
I reckon that such started with Marcion already - but the only thing that Thomas helps with in understanding the canonicals (and as you omitted to answer my question about what your definition of "Greek gospels" is, I am forced - at least for the time being - to presume that such is how you refer to the 4 Christian gospels alone in this specific matter) is textual dependence, certainly not any theological derivation or message: what the canonicals "proclaim" is entirely of their own making when compared to Thomas
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment (in Did Mark Bottom Out... thread, Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:55 am) on your Thomas research:
"What I propose is not just a tiny and insignificant shift in the origins of Christianity about which 99.9% won't give a damn - what I propose is the very end of Christianity." (You did comment further in that thread.)
I stated that, yes - but what is the relation between that and the above, or this?
Above, in this thread, you wrote: "And because I didn't know any Coptic (and still don't know much really)[....]"
I am not an expert in Coptic, though I have long found gThomas interesting.
To insist on a translation from Coptic, might it require familiarity with Coptic, Sprachgefühl?
Most certainly at the very least, yes. How long do you think it would take for someone to acquire said "
familiarity with Coptic, Sprachgefühl" in case they someone is fluent in Dutch, German, English, used to be fluent in French, Spanish and German, graduated from Grammar School with among others Latin and Greek, and who has been bi- and trilingual on a daily basis for the past 25 years?
Perhaps it would be advisable not to pass a verdict on someone else's ability of having (or not) acquired the required level of Coptic knowledge for presenting a translation of Coptic Thomas unless you have that yourself - which may or may not be the case, but to the best of my knowledge you have never commented on any of my translations of Coptic Thomas, so I can only assume that you either posses that level and agree completely with everything that I have presented - or that you do neither
In dating Coptic Thomas before Greek gospels (I mean gospels written in Greek, such as in NT) the question seems to arise about when writing in Coptic began. In other words, when do you date Coptic Thomas and the earliest Greek gospel you propose was influenced by it?
You are leading the witness, dear Stephen.
I will run it by you once more, as you appear to have missed the point: if I present an overwhelming abundance of content on exactly how and why Coptic Thomas precedes Greek Thomas (for starters) and all you can do in response to that is completely evade any and all of that content, and entirely take refuge to a context of your own making (by playing the Churchian dating game which has no relevance at all whatsoever to any textual dependence claim I have made) then you have already conceded
If you want to refute my claim, engage with the arguments that I present: if you don't want to do the latter, please care to explain to me your motivation for that
(I guess we can dismiss the fake claim--made elsewhere, not by you--of Thomas in Demotic, discussed before.)
I don't see the relevance of that, as you rightly state that I have never made that claim