P
patrick457
Guest
(Continued from last post)
Line 4 is the center of the controversy, because it explicitly mentions Jesus referring to TAϩIME ta-hime ‘my woman’ (i.e. “my wife”) which is the only word in the fragment that does not have a direct parallel in Thomas, although “women” (N̄.CϨIOME ne-s’hiome) does appear in Saying 114. Ta-hime is a relatively simple construction: the first person possessive article ta- ‘my’ plus the singular feminine noun hime (‘woman’, ‘wife’). The change could have simply been brought - supposing the forger has at least some idea of how Coptic works - by modifying “women” and appending the prefix ta- onto it. Alternatively, any possible forger could have determined the word for “wife” using Crum’s Coptic Dictionary (really the authoritative dictionary of Coptic), which had English, Greek, and Arabic indices in the back - even a person with limited understanding of how Coptic dictionaries are organized could easily have arrived at the pertinent entry.
(5) http://i62.tinypic.com/20pddv6.jpg
s-nashri-mathētēs nai ago
“She will be able to become a disciple to me, and…”
All decipherable words have a parallel in Sayings 55 and 101 of Thomas: http://i59.tinypic.com/2ilnajb.jpg *f-nashri-mathētēs an nai ago / f-nashri-mathētēs nai an ago * (42.26-27; 49.33, 35) The only change is that the third-person masculine singular prefix (ϥ) has been changed to feminine (C), with the word an ‘not’ being deleted. So whereas the original phrase goes literally “he-can-become-a-disciple not to me,” the phrase in GoJW is “she can-become-a-disciple to me.”
He who does not hate his father and his mother
cannot be a disciple to me.
And (he who does not) hate his brothers and sisters
and take up his cross like me, will not be worthy of me. (55)
He who does not hate his father and his mother like me
cannot be a [disciple] to me.
And he who does [not] love [his father] and his mother like me
cannot be a [disciple] to me.
For my mother …], but [my] true [mother] gave me life. (101)
(6) http://i60.tinypic.com/2rersjb.jpg
…] ma-re-rome ethoou shaf-e(i)ne …]
“No wicked man brings out… / Let [the] wicked man bring out…”
This line’s closest equivalent comes from Sayings 47 (41.17) and 45 (41.2-3).
Jesus said:
Grapes are not harvested from thorn-bushes, nor are figs gathered from hawthorns,
[f]or they yield no fruit.
[A go]od man brings forth good from his treasure;
a bad man brings forth (http://i59.tinypic.com/13z1xzk.jpg ou ka[kos] r-rome shafeine ebol) evil things from his evil (http://i58.tinypic.com/28rhdea.jpg ethoou) treasure,
which is in his heart, and he says evil things,
for out of the abundance of his heart he brings forth evil things. (45)
Jesus said:
It is not possible for a man to ride two horses or stretch two bows;
and it is not possible for a servant to serve two masters,
unless he honours the one and insults the other.
No one (http://i57.tinypic.com/24gktok.jpg marerome) drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.
And new wine is not poured into old wineskins, lest they burst;
nor is old wine poured into a new wineskin, lest it spoil.
An old patch is not sewn on a new garment, for a rent would result. (47)
This line is very problematic grammatically. One the one hand, it is possible that the author became over-reliant on Grondin’s text, which renders MAPEPωME (marerome) as “no-man,” and it could be that the he was trying to write “No wicked man brings…” here. Thus, based on the English alone, it would appear one noun phrase (“no man which is wicked,” marerome + ethoou) could simply be exchanged for another (ou kakos r-rome “an evil man”) as the subject of the sentence. However, Coptic grammar does not work the same way as English.
A single infinitive (eine) is modified by two verbal prefixes (mare- and shaf-), which is ungrammatical. The forger didn’t realize marerome had a verbal prefix because Grondin’s translation of marerome (“no man”) would suggest that it is a noun phrase. In reality, it is the negative aorist pre-nominal prefix mare- (Sahidic mere-) combined with the noun rome (“man”). A literal translation would thus be something like, “(Any) man does not.”
The non-definite noun rome (note the absence of the article r- found in Thomas) is modified by ethoou, a simple attributive relative clause. Ordinarily, only a definite antecedent (e.g., p-) may be modified by a relative clause in Coptic; non-definite antecedents (e.g., ou-) are modified by the circumstantial. Ethoou has been moved up a has been moved up a line from 41.3, where it followed the definite (and possessive) antecedent ΠEϤEϩO (pef-eho ‘his treasure’).
Alternatively, one might understand mare- as the injunctive/optative/jussive prefix (“Let the man…”), hence giving the translation “Let the wicked man bring out…” But even then, its being paired with the habitual shaf- in shafe(i)ne “bring” is also grammatically impossible. In this case, the absence of the article r- from rome is also a problem.
Line 4 is the center of the controversy, because it explicitly mentions Jesus referring to TAϩIME ta-hime ‘my woman’ (i.e. “my wife”) which is the only word in the fragment that does not have a direct parallel in Thomas, although “women” (N̄.CϨIOME ne-s’hiome) does appear in Saying 114. Ta-hime is a relatively simple construction: the first person possessive article ta- ‘my’ plus the singular feminine noun hime (‘woman’, ‘wife’). The change could have simply been brought - supposing the forger has at least some idea of how Coptic works - by modifying “women” and appending the prefix ta- onto it. Alternatively, any possible forger could have determined the word for “wife” using Crum’s Coptic Dictionary (really the authoritative dictionary of Coptic), which had English, Greek, and Arabic indices in the back - even a person with limited understanding of how Coptic dictionaries are organized could easily have arrived at the pertinent entry.
(5) http://i62.tinypic.com/20pddv6.jpg
s-nashri-mathētēs nai ago
“She will be able to become a disciple to me, and…”
All decipherable words have a parallel in Sayings 55 and 101 of Thomas: http://i59.tinypic.com/2ilnajb.jpg *f-nashri-mathētēs an nai ago / f-nashri-mathētēs nai an ago * (42.26-27; 49.33, 35) The only change is that the third-person masculine singular prefix (ϥ) has been changed to feminine (C), with the word an ‘not’ being deleted. So whereas the original phrase goes literally “he-can-become-a-disciple not to me,” the phrase in GoJW is “she can-become-a-disciple to me.”
He who does not hate his father and his mother
cannot be a disciple to me.
And (he who does not) hate his brothers and sisters
and take up his cross like me, will not be worthy of me. (55)
He who does not hate his father and his mother like me
cannot be a [disciple] to me.
And he who does [not] love [his father] and his mother like me
cannot be a [disciple] to me.
For my mother …], but [my] true [mother] gave me life. (101)
(6) http://i60.tinypic.com/2rersjb.jpg
…] ma-re-rome ethoou shaf-e(i)ne …]
“No wicked man brings out… / Let [the] wicked man bring out…”
This line’s closest equivalent comes from Sayings 47 (41.17) and 45 (41.2-3).
Jesus said:
Grapes are not harvested from thorn-bushes, nor are figs gathered from hawthorns,
[f]or they yield no fruit.
[A go]od man brings forth good from his treasure;
a bad man brings forth (http://i59.tinypic.com/13z1xzk.jpg ou ka[kos] r-rome shafeine ebol) evil things from his evil (http://i58.tinypic.com/28rhdea.jpg ethoou) treasure,
which is in his heart, and he says evil things,
for out of the abundance of his heart he brings forth evil things. (45)
Jesus said:
It is not possible for a man to ride two horses or stretch two bows;
and it is not possible for a servant to serve two masters,
unless he honours the one and insults the other.
No one (http://i57.tinypic.com/24gktok.jpg marerome) drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.
And new wine is not poured into old wineskins, lest they burst;
nor is old wine poured into a new wineskin, lest it spoil.
An old patch is not sewn on a new garment, for a rent would result. (47)
This line is very problematic grammatically. One the one hand, it is possible that the author became over-reliant on Grondin’s text, which renders MAPEPωME (marerome) as “no-man,” and it could be that the he was trying to write “No wicked man brings…” here. Thus, based on the English alone, it would appear one noun phrase (“no man which is wicked,” marerome + ethoou) could simply be exchanged for another (ou kakos r-rome “an evil man”) as the subject of the sentence. However, Coptic grammar does not work the same way as English.
A single infinitive (eine) is modified by two verbal prefixes (mare- and shaf-), which is ungrammatical. The forger didn’t realize marerome had a verbal prefix because Grondin’s translation of marerome (“no man”) would suggest that it is a noun phrase. In reality, it is the negative aorist pre-nominal prefix mare- (Sahidic mere-) combined with the noun rome (“man”). A literal translation would thus be something like, “(Any) man does not.”
The non-definite noun rome (note the absence of the article r- found in Thomas) is modified by ethoou, a simple attributive relative clause. Ordinarily, only a definite antecedent (e.g., p-) may be modified by a relative clause in Coptic; non-definite antecedents (e.g., ou-) are modified by the circumstantial. Ethoou has been moved up a has been moved up a line from 41.3, where it followed the definite (and possessive) antecedent ΠEϤEϩO (pef-eho ‘his treasure’).
Alternatively, one might understand mare- as the injunctive/optative/jussive prefix (“Let the man…”), hence giving the translation “Let the wicked man bring out…” But even then, its being paired with the habitual shaf- in shafe(i)ne “bring” is also grammatically impossible. In this case, the absence of the article r- from rome is also a problem.
