Gospel of Thomas Logion 30 Semitic Vorlage?: Possible Greek Mistranslation of Semitic Vorlage?: Not Necessarily (original) (raw)
In an earlier paper regarding the Gospel of Thomas (GosThom), I argued that some modern difficulties in translation are due to the Coptic’s overly-literal rendition of a Semitic-language original, one which notably lacks its common idiom.[1] All previously examined mistranslations have been argued for most ingeniously by scholars but are clear examples of ad hoc exegesis: e.g. “the All” as implying Metaphysical Monism or Pan(en)theism, “single one(s)” as mystical hermaphroditic[2] union or sexual intercourse, and “strip(ping) naked” as a Metaphysical Dualist liberation from the material world.[3] This paper will continue in that vein, exposing further unsound readings of the Coptic using the same method of mirror-retrotranslation, but narrowing down the possibilities to specify Hebrew[4] as the language behind the Coptic text (to the exclusion of Syriac and Western Aramaic).[5] In the process other unwarranted imputations of strange dogma to the work will be refuted—such as the alleged lack of a resurrection of the dead and affirmation of self-generated Deity—while also demonstrating GosThom’s reliance on a Hebrew vorlage underlying the synoptics, which hypothesis scholars have overlooked in their eagerness for theological profundity at the cost of popularizing defective translations. Lastly, an early stage of Simonian syncretism will be uncovered as the likely culprit for the text’s continuing heterodox status. [1] See Joseph Gebhardt-Klein, Evidence for a Semitic-Language (Hebrew or Aramaic) Original behind the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (self-pub., academia.edu, 2022). [2] For the sake of precision and clarity, “hermaphroditic” is used for doctrines entailing mixed sex—just like in the biological sciences—in contradistinction to the broader term “androgynous,” which commonly signifies any variation between binary gender norms: e.g. a man who wears lipstick and high heels is androgynous, but tomato plants are true hermaphrodites. [3] The case was not that no one later (and probably quite early) interpreted the text accordingly, but that the Semitic substratum was originally without such imputations. [4] Therein is also demonstrated the relative priority of GosThom to the New Testament’s synoptic gospels, while simultaneously refuting Nicholas Perrin’s argument for a late production of the text from the Diatessaron. See Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (Boston: Brill, 2002). [5] Despite the elimination of hypothetical Syriac originality, Syriac is nevertheless reconstructively valuable due to the attestation of a Syriac translation which did at one time exist: see René Falkenberg, “A Manichaean Reading of the Gospel of Thomas” (Brill, 2021). Accordingly, Syriac retrotranslations will continue to be given alongside Hebrew for comparative purposes and for students of Manichaeism.
Evidence for a Semitic-Language (Hebrew or Aramaic) Original behind the Coptic Gospel of Thomas
2022
While no other document of New Testament Apocrypha has received greater attention and critical study in the last 70 years since its discovery than the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, neither has any other document remained such a mystery to its students and critics alike. Academic consensus has been unable to agree on the most basic of issues, from its original language, to the interpretation of its many cryptic logia. Some have suggested a Greek, Syriac, or even Coptic original, but so far none of these hypotheses has facilitated the text in yielding up its secrets. This paper will present evidence that the original language was Hebrew (or Aramaic) based on some formerly unintelligible expressions that are actually very plain in meaning when understood from the hypothesis of being an overly-literal translation of a Semitic-language vorlage—one which notably lacks its original idiom.
This paper, which deals with Christology and Anthropology of the Greek Acts of Thomas, focuses on one central point, namely the terminological use and meaning of the words σῶμα, σάρξ, and material reality in this apocryphal writing. The occurrences of these words are organized in the following four sections: (1) creational / cosmological, (2) Christological, (3) sacramental, and (4) anthropological / soteriological. The analysis of the terms from these angles allows us to draw some conclusions regarding the primitive thought of the ATh, especially in relation to such themes as Anthropology and Christology.
Is there a way to connect the polyphony of attitudes and diversity of strategies that late antique Christian authors display in writing about Jews and Judaism into a discursive whole? This essay offers one possible answer by focusing on the rhetorical effects of contradiction within Christian rhetorical constructions of the Jews. Using Eve Sedgwick’s theory of the double bind—the idea that discourses gain power over their productions through the rhetoric of incoherence—I argue that Christian writers constructed a Judaism that was marked by contradiction, ambiguity, and incongruity. With specific attention to the writings of John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, and the Theodosian Code, this paper shows how the construction of Christianity’s Judaism was built upon rhetorical, exegetical, theological, and legal tensions that were neither reconcilable nor intended to be. The very irresolution of Christian discourse about the Jews—the construction of their history, cult, or tradition as fundamentally incoherent—functioned, in effect, as a form of anti-Judaism.