Gospel of Thomas

Actually, the most common online, so-called "Scholars' Translation" is the version from: Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer, “The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version.” Copyright © 1992, 1994 by Polebridge Press. (This is not the Q Thomas reader I first thought.) At least one site I've seen (a US university) states that is 'reprinted with permission'. I would refer to that work as the "Scholars' Version" rather than the "Scholars' Translation," which I would apply only to the Brill/Harper-Collins text for the entire (?) Nag Hammadi Library. I shall (try to) contact them (many thanks for the Westar link, BTW) and see what their policy is. I shall report back, here.
 
and they are invariably horrendously expensive
Click to expand...

Yeah - I once paid Brill 35 euros for a digital text only to find that it was just a single-page list of references to the book for which I was actually seeking text! I emailed them, claiming it was mis-sold, and demanded either the actual text (100+ pages) or a refund. They gave me a refund (eventually).
 
Aargh!

I had some notes from a lecture by the scholar Brian E Daley on Leontius of Byzantium.

I emailed him, asking if I could post an edited version on a website. He asked that I would not, as he was about to publish a book. So I didn't.

The book costs £217.00 hardback / £50.00 paperback.
 
If you're looking, I'd go for more up-to-date translations than those you list.

Studies of the New Testament Apocrypha has picked up pace in recent years, and the value now is studies who put the Gospel of Thomas in its context, rather than just a translation.

As discussed here, the only complete version we have is Coptic, and relatively late, and probably worked over to align it with the ideas and teachings of the Desert Fathers who were most likely responsible for that version. The commentaries note that the more enigmatic sayings are better understood in the context of Coptic Christian spirituality and especially ascetic practice.
 
Yeah - there are more recent translations but that of Meyer & Patterson is still pretty accurate. My website includes 'a' translation along with the (full) Coptic text and the Greek text that can be recovered from the Papyrus Oxyrynchus fragments. It also includes (for each book) a parallel/annotated version, where I: (a) take some liberties with the published translations; and (b) make notes about divergences between source texts (in this case, Coptic vs Greek).

To me (and I'm a mere 'amateur') it seems that the Nag Hammadi text is a Gnostic expansion of an original Greek text (possibly very early); where there is text in both witnesses, the NH almost always adds to the PO ... and the additions are generally quite clearly Gnostic.

I know the idea that GoT is the "Q" source is now 'out of fashion' but maybe there is some evidence that the (much older) Greek text, partly preserved in PO, is just that. Dunno.
 
Anyway, your welcome has been fantastic. I came across this forum when I was searching for various texts of what I call "Non-Canonical Early Christian Writings" - and I was impressed by the list linked near the top of this thread. But - as I have said before - I have some concerns about how those texts are presented, especially the complete lack of attribution (I work in academia - but in an unrelated field - so I appreciate the value of proper attribution/acknowledgement).

Let me browse this forum for a week or two and, then, maybe I can approach you, or another like-minded member, and we can work together to get both our collections better. (My whole shebang is released under CC BY-SA agreement, except where the sources have more restrictive licences.)

This is a decent forum and I would be very happy to help out with its resources, any way I can; but, as the saying goes: "You scratch my back..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top