light of the three fragments. Greenlee carefully overturns this view, stating that Oxyrhynchus the was composed in Greek or translated from a Greek original. Diatessaron If there is limited evidence that the Aramaic and Syriac languages were the original languages of the stream of thought holding to the anti-gnostic influence and the Thomas, independence of from the canonical texts has more potential within a hypothesis of a Thomas Greek origin, as the complete text was translated from a Greek text. The Nag Hammadi text preserved in Greek and Coptic should, therefore, be more credible, rather than Thomas following assumptions of non-existing texts (no Aramaic or Syriac exists at Gos. Thom. present) just as the questions suggest a negative response, despite unclear traces of both – languages contained in those texts: whether any NT text, including Paul’s was Letters, originally written in Aramaic or Syriac; or whether the original Q was written in one of these languages. No objections among Q scholars, including Kloppenborg, have been made against the view that Q was originally written in Greek. Since Q and are valued on an equal Thomas level in studies of the Jesus tradition, this view should also be adopted with regard to Logia the original language of The existence of the Oxyrhynchus Greek fragments Thomas. themselves justifies the possibility that the text in the first edition was concerned not Logia only with the Jewish-Christians who were the bilingual members of the community but also with the newly converted Gentiles. The composition of the Thomasine community, which was mainly Jewish-Christian with an increasing percentage of Gentile-Christians, is significant in that the post-disciple leader of the community had to decide whether to use the prevailing Greek language within the Eastern Roman Empire. The meaning of gnosis in the Coptic phrase (the keys of knowledge: ‘=nsast`=ntgnwcic Logion 39)’ is also not derived from any dialect of Aramaic or particularly Syriac, but from the Greek term ; this is consistent with the fact that 60 percent of the words of the γνώσις Coptic text were derivatives of Greek words. Where the sacred names became the major
light of the three Oxyrhynchus fragments. Greenlee carefully overturns this view, stating that the Diatessaron was composed in Greek or translated from a Greek original. If there is limited evidence that the Aramaic and Syriac languages were the original languages of Thomas, the stream of thought holding to the anti-gnostic influence and the independence of Thomas from the canonical texts has more potential within a hypothesis of a Greek origin, as the complete Nag Hammadi text was translated from a Greek text. The Thomas text preserved in Greek and Coptic should, therefore, be more credible, rather than following assumptions of non-existing texts (no Aramaic or Syriac Gos. Thom. exists at present) – just as the questions suggest a negative response, despite unclear traces of both languages contained in those texts: whether any NT text, including Paul’s Letters, was originally written in Aramaic or Syriac; or whether the original Q was written in one of these languages. No objections among Q scholars, including Kloppenborg, have been made against the view that Q was originally written in Greek. Since Q and Thomas are valued on an equal level in studies of the Jesus Logia tradition, this view should also be adopted with regard to the original language of Thomas. The existence of the Oxyrhynchus Greek fragments themselves justifies the possibility that the Logia text in the first edition was concerned not only with the Jewish-Christians who were the bilingual members of the community but also with the newly converted Gentiles. The composition of the Thomasine community, which was mainly Jewish-Christian with an increasing percentage of Gentile-Christians, is significant in that the post-disciple leader of the community had to decide whether to use the prevailing Greek language within the Eastern Roman Empire. The meaning of gnosis in the Coptic phrase ‘=nsast`=ntgnwcic (the keys of knowledge: Logion 39)’ is also not derived from any dialect of Aramaic or particularly Syriac, but from the Greek term γνώσις ; this is consistent with the fact that 60 percent of the words of the Coptic text were derivatives of Greek words. Where the sacred names became the major
el-kim.docx