Gospel of Thomas Logion 30 Semitic Vorlage?: Possible Greek Mistranslation of Semitic Vorlage?: Not Necessarily (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Gospel of Thomas Logia 5 and 6: Commentary
Gospel of Thomas Logia 5 and 6: Gospel of Thomas Logia 5 and 6: This is an excerpt from my forthcoming The Gospel of Thomas: Exploring the Semitic Alternatives. Revised pdf added...
Theological Reflexion, 2022
This is en English translation of a paper originally published in the peer-reviewed Czech journal Theological Reflextion. The similarity of materials recorded in Mk 6:6–6a and GTh 31 speaking of the rejection of the prophet among people who are close to him reveals in dialogue with synoptic parallels new findings. Currently, the close connection between Thomas' logion and Luke's version leads some researchers to conclusions about the obvious literary dependence of Thomas' gospel on the version according to Luke. In this paper, we offer an alternative view that convincingly demonstrates through the analysis of the canonical parallels and the Greek fragment of Thomas' logion no. 31 that the supposed Lukanisms are more likely to be original references to an ancient, pre-Markan literary source. Thanks to redactional layers apparent in the versions of Mark and Matthew, independent testimonies can be seen in the Gospels of Luke and Thomas, which lead us up to the old literary roots of the written Gospels.