Let's discuss that infamous "Fifth Gospel", attributed to the apostle Thomas. Mostly associated with Egypt, in some Greek fragments and (upstream) in a near-full Sahidic Coptic codex. The Coptic was found later and its codex was later.
It was always noted in studies of Egyptian Christianity that Thomas was not their saint. Mark was, if anyone; and as Gnostic studies kicked in, John and Paul were adduced as well. As Matthew got attached to Antioch, James to Palaestina, and Luke to Rome (and maybe Damascus); Thomas was the Syrian saint (thence India).
And indeed the Coptic Nile communicated with the rest of classical antiquity in those two languages, Greek and Aramaic. Latin wasn't involved any more than Persian before it. Both were some steps removed by sea and by land, respectively.
Certainly the canonical Sahidic Bible was largely a Greek translation, from the Septuagint Old-Testament and from that ancient "Western text" for the New. Also found was that the Sahidic Thomas wasn't composed in Coptic, containing some strikingly non-Kemic turns of phrase and a coracle-load of Christian Greek. Case closed: translated, from Greek.
Well maybe not so closed. Also found are parallels with the Diatesseron, Tatian's great harmony into Edessene Syriac. So Tatian used Thomas!, said the scholars. A note of caution is needed here.
Nicholas Perrin offers that note (pdf). Some of Coptic-Thomas' turns-of-phrase like hos ebol hen-oua (#61), lit. "as from one", work better as Syriac idiom in this case min-hda which is just "suddenly". And overall the linked keywords look better in Syriac. I have some notes to file on Perrin, though.
First note: the Edessene form of Aramaic is late in this game. Idumaea-Judaea had her own Aramaic which that consciously-non-Jewish Roman Palaestina certainly had the motive to maintain, if only against Hebrew. Palaestina was/is physically closer to the Delta. Why are we talking Syriac, then? Is it just the Tatian parallelism? Thomas' adventures across the upper Euphrates?
Also: if Perrin is right that Coptic-Thomas is that late, then the Coptic-NT already existed so (near-certainly) tainted the translation from whatever its original language was.
As for #61, it has no parallel to the known Gospel canon. But. Mark's own catchphrase euthys springs to mind. And Salome is in it. Which would lead one down Morton Smith's rabbithole of Secret Gospels.
If I had been tagged to review Perrin, I'd outright tell the man I am on his side, as being no Thomasbro myself. But I'd ask Perrin if he might reorganise his argument. He should hold off on Tatian (whose own text is by no means solid) and concentrate on general classical-era Aramaics-plural. If it turns out that Syriac is a better fit than any other Aramaic - great! - but Perrin needs to make that case. And #61 might not be the ideal test-case given that it isn't canonical so hasn't the best Gospel / antiGospel parallels. I understand that April DeConick already lodged similar complaints; to which Perrin had to respond in 2008, p 50f here.
Either way since 2017 we have J Gregory Given, "“Finding” the Gospel of Thomas in Edessa", Journal of Early Christian Studies 25.4, 501-30; doi:10.1353/earl.2017.0051. Given's calumnies against "Orientalism" aside, we do need to expand our understanding of pre-Nicaea Aramaic Christianities beyond muh 'dessa.
No comments:
Post a Comment