tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312737172024-03-08T10:32:39.560-08:00Coptic John 1:1-18Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-62693561760122396722009-05-10T17:18:00.000-07:002009-05-10T17:40:55.760-07:00The Importance of the Sahidic Coptic version<strong>The distinguished grammarian and Coptic scholar <em>John Martin Plumley</em>, former professor of Egyptology at Cambridge University and author of <em>Introductory Coptic Grammar</em>, (London: Home & Van Thal, 1948), had this to say about the significance of the Sahidic Coptic version:<br /><br />"While there are limitations to the use which can be made of the Coptic version as an aid to the recovery of the original Greek text of the New Testament . . . it should also be recognized that by and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine." -- Quoted in <em>The Early Versions of the New Testament</em>, by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger </strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-51969715422695621182008-12-17T05:11:00.000-08:002008-12-26T14:50:45.611-08:00Erroneous Eisegesis<strong><em>Eisegesis</em> refers to interpreting a text by reading into it one's own ideas, or other ideas foreign to the text itself. Some apologists continue in a futile attempt to do that with Coptic John 1:1c.<br /><br />For example, it is claimed that the indefinite <em>ou.noute </em>of Coptic John 1:1c should be translated as 'the one and only God,' because the indefinite article denotes unity, not 'a god.' As a "proof," 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 are quoted, where <em>ou.noute n.ouwt </em> is usually rendered as "one God."<br /><br />But that is erroneous eisegesis. It is a blatant attempt to read philosophical dogma into Coptic grammar. The Coptic indefinite article <em>ou</em> does not of itself 'denote unity.' It simply means "a" when bound with a common or count Coptic noun like <em>noute</em>, "god." The Coptic text of the New Testament contains hundreds of examples that prove this. (For example, see Coptic Acts 28:6, where the anarthrous Greek <em>theos</em> is rendered by <em>ou.noute </em>in Sahidic (Sahidica) and <em>ou.nouti </em>in the Coptic Bohairic version. Horner and Greek-based English versions including the KJV render this as "a god.")<br /><br />Further, it is not the Coptic indefinite article <em>ou</em> that means "one," but the <em>bound idiom </em> ou______n.ouwt. This idiom literally means "a single, an only," and is used in Coptic to denote "one," adjectivally: "one god," "one man," "one spirit," etc. (For example, see Coptic Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 17)<br /><br />Therefore, <em>ou.noute n.ouwt</em> simply means "one god." It is the <em>context</em>, not the grammar, of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 that mandates the translation "one God" because the specific and definite reference in those verses is <em>p.eiwt</em>, "the Father," whom the Lord Jesus identifies as <em>p.noute m.me m.mauaa.F </em>, "the true God alone" (John 17:3 <em>Horner</em>), "the only true God."<br /><br />Neither the grammar nor meaning of Coptic 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Ephesians 4:6 is the same as Coptic John 1:1c, so those verses cannot be used to exegete Coptic John 1:1c. Whereas <em>ou.noute n.ouwt</em> means a single god, i.e, "one god" or "one God" (in context, with reference to the Father), the fact remains that <em>ou.noute</em> means "a god." It does not mean some philosophical unity that calls for translating it as 'the one and only God.'<br /><br />It would be far more honest to read Coptic John 1:1c for what <em>it</em> says, instead of trying to import foreign concepts into it.<br /><br />And what Coptic John 1:1c clearly says is "the Word was a god." Or, if you prefer, "the Word was divine." But definitely <em>not</em>, "the Word was God."</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-36870716117932503142008-10-31T11:25:00.000-07:002011-01-30T06:20:29.463-08:00A Contemporary English Translation of Coptic John 1:1-18<strong>A <em>Contemporary </em>English Translation of Coptic John 1:1-18<br />© Copyright 2006 </strong><br /><br /><strong>1. In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being. 2. This one existed in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him; without him nothing that exists came to be. What came to be 4. through him is life, the life that is the light of mankind. 5. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overtake it.<br /><br />6. There came a man who was sent by God, his name is John. 7. This one came to bear witness, to bear witness about the light, so that everyone may actively believe through him. 8. He was not the light, but his purpose was to bear witness about the light.<br /><br />9. The real light which gives light to everyone was about to come into the world. 10. He was in the world, the world which came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.<br /><br />10. He came to those who were his own, yet those who were his own did not receive him. 12. But he gave authority to become children of God to those who did receive him, to those actively believing in his name. 13. The origin of these was not flesh and blood, nor human will; they were begotten from God.<br /><br />14. The Word became flesh and lived among us. We saw his dignity, the dignity possessed by a Father’s only Son; he was filled with divine loving-kindness and truth. 15. John bore witness about him, calling out and declaring, “This was the one concerning whom I said, ‘He who comes behind me has come to be ahead of me, because he existed prior to me.’” 16. From his fullness we all received life, and divine loving-kindness upon divine loving-kindness. 17. The Law was given through Moses, but the divine loving kindness and the truth came to be though Jesus, the Christ. 18. No one has ever seen God at any time. The divine being, the only Son who is in the bosom of his Father, is the one who has revealed him.<br /><br />Notes:<br />Verse 1c. Coptic, ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ <em>neunoute pe pSaje</em>, literally, “the Word was a god.” Alternatively, “the Word was divine.”<br /><br />Verse 14, dignity. Or, “glory.”<br /><br />Verses 14, 16, 17, divine loving-kindness. Or, “unmerited favor.” (Greek, charis)<br /><br />Verse 18. The Coptic text here (“divine being…only Son”) is apparently a conflation of the early Greek variant readings for this verse: <em>monogenhs theos </em>(Vaticanus; p66, etc.); <em>ho monogenhs theos </em>(Sinaiticus (c); p75, etc.) and <em>ho monogenhs huios </em>(Alexandrinus, etc.)<br /><br /><em>The Coptic text translated is based on the texts of George W. Horner, and J. Warren Wells (by permission)</em>.</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-38430384771192985992008-09-13T09:50:00.000-07:002008-09-13T10:08:32.603-07:00Magazine article about Coptic John 1:1<strong>The November 1, 2008 issue of <em>The Watchtower</em> magazine, currently printing 37.1 million copies per issue in 169 different languages, has a significant article that mentions the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1.<br /><br />The title of the article is: <em>Was the Word “God” or “a god”?</em><br /><br /><br />SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1<br /><br /><em>Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje<br />Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute<br />Auw neunoute pe pshaje </em><br /><br />A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:<br /><br />In the beginning existed the word<br />And the word existed in the presence of the god<br />And a god was the word<br /><br />Unlike the contemporaneous versions in Syriac and Latin, the Sahidic Coptic language has both the definite and indefinite grammatical articles in its syntactical system. The Coptic translators used the <em>Coptic definite article </em>in identifying the God that the Word was with, and they used the <em>Coptic indefinite article </em> in identifying the divinity of the Word. This is a feature in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic Coptic versions.</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-73708822900382987542008-04-23T06:50:00.000-07:002008-04-23T07:35:25.482-07:00James Moffatt and Coptic John 1:1, 18<strong>Dr. James Moffatt (1870-1944) was a notable scholar of Biblical Greek and translator of the 1934 Bible version which bears his name. I've had him on the shelf for some time and recently looked at his translation of John 1:1 and John 1:18.<br /><br />What interested me is that Moffatt's English translation of the Greek text(s) was quite close to what an accurate English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text would say, the Coptic text itself being based upon ancient Greek texts.<br /><br />In other words, it appears that Moffatt took a similar message from those Greek texts that the Coptic translators did when they rendered their Greek texts into their own Egyptian Coptic language.<br /><br />At John 1:1 <em>Moffat </em>renders:<br /><br />The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.<br /><br />The Sahidic Coptic text, with my 2006 <em>Contemporary Translation</em>:<br /><br /><em>Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe</em><br />In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being.<br /><br />At John 1:18 <em>Moffatt</em> renders:<br /><br />Nobody has ever seen God, but God has been unfolded by the divine One, the only Son, who lies upon the Father's breast.<br /><br />The Sahidic Coptic text, with my 2006 <em>Contemporary Translation</em>:<br /><br /><em><em>pnoute mpelaau nau eroF eneH. pnoute pShre nouwt petSoop Hn kounF mpeFeiwt petmmau pe ntaFSaJe eroF</em></em><br />No one has ever seen God at any time. The divine being, the only Son who is in the bosom of his Father, is the one who has revealed him.<br /><br />I was translating the Coptic, Moffatt was translating the Greek, but this similarity is amazing. Perhaps it is simply that both Moffatt and the Coptic translators were concerned with grammatical accuracy in these verses or had the same understanding of their meaning in the context of John's Gospel as a whole.<br /><br />It is worth noting that, unlike John 1:1, the ancient Greek texts for John 1:18 exist in a number of variants, the notable ones being 1) <em>monogenhs theos</em>; 2) <em>ho monogenhs theos</em>; 3) <em>ho monogenhs huios</em>, i.e., "only [- begotten] god," "the only [- begotten] god," and "the only [- begotten] son."<br /><br />Translators today usually put their preferred rendering in their main text and others in their footnotes. However, it appears that the Coptic translators did not footnote the variants, but conflated them. Perhaps they believed there was equal weight for both the "son" and the "god" readings found variously in manuscripts or papyri like the Vatican 1209, p66, p75 ("god") and Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, etc. ("son"). <br /><br />It is less likely that they postulated "son" from <em>monogenhs</em> alone, since this Greek term appears in the New Testament along with <em>huios</em>, which would give a redundant reading, something like "only-son son." At any rate, what is known for sure is that both the "son" and the "god" readings are attested in the ancient Greek manuscripts, and those manuscripts or their predecessors were likely available to the 2nd/3rd century Sahidic Coptic translators.</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-20370320915119761282008-01-21T13:42:00.000-08:002008-01-22T08:11:48.174-08:00Notable use of Sahidic Coptic prepositions in John 1<strong>I note that the Sahidic Coptic version translates the Greek preposition <em>pros</em> at John 1:1, 2 by two different Coptic prepositions.<br /><br /><em>Pros </em>itself has several meanings. It is often rendered into English as "with," as in "with God." (John 1:1, 2) According to the Greek lexicon abbreviated as BDAG, at John 1:1 the significance of <em>pros</em> is 'by, at, near; <br />be (in company) with someone.' (page 875)<br /><br />In the Sahidic Coptic version, <em>pros</em> at John 1:1 is rendered by the Coptic<br />preposition <em>nnahrn</em>. This word comes from the Coptic word for "face," and implies "in the presence of," "before." (Crum 649b; Lambdin, pp. 10, 23)<br /><br />However, in the Sahidic Coptic version, the Greek <em>pros </em>at John 1:2 is rendered by the Coptic preposition <em>hatn</em>. This preposition is said to derive from the Coptic word for "hand" (Crum 428b), and has the significance of "under the hand of; beside; with." The later (6th century) Coptic Bohairic version uses <em>hatn</em> (<em>haten</em>) in both verses.<br /><br />All of which means that, although we could translate both John 1:1 and John 1:2 in the Coptic to say merely that the Word was "with" God, a careful translation of the Sahidic more clearly shows that the Word was distinct from the God whom he was "in the presence of" or "under the hand of" or "beside." <br /><br />I don't know why the Coptic translators of the Sahidic version used two different prepositions in their text of John 1:1, 2 to translate the one Greek preposition <em>pros</em>. But it surely could indicate that they did not believe the Word and the God he was "with" were one and the same. <br /><br />And if the Sahidic translators meant <em>hatn</em> instead of <em>nnahrn</em> in verse 2 in its significance that implies "under the hand of," it could even signal that they believed the Word to be definitely subordinate to God. Otherwise, why use two different prepositions at all?</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-6376879280984674772007-11-28T17:22:00.000-08:002009-02-24T17:33:29.331-08:00On the Date of the Coptic Version<strong>"The Sahidic is probably the earliest of the [Coptic] translations,<br />and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no<br />later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a<br />manuscript from about the end of that century."</strong><br /><br /><strong>http://www.glasspath.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html</strong><br /><br /><strong>20th century Coptic scholar and New Testament translator George W. Horner gives a date closer to 188 CE, based on "the internal character of the Sahidic [version]," which, he says, "supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century." <br /><br />Coptic scholar C. S. Malan said, "The Sahidic Version was made when Greek was a living language even in Egypt, possibly in the second century." <br /><br />The Coptic Church gives the date of 200 A.D.<br /><br />The Sahidic Coptic version is likely as old, and as valuable, as the more well-known Old Italian, Vulgate, and Syriac versions. </strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-20709756247876432362007-07-22T10:06:00.000-07:002007-12-20T05:28:57.063-08:00Bentley Layton on John 1:1c<strong>In his new grammar book, <em><strong>Coptic in 20 Lessons</strong></em> (Peeters Leuven, 2007) Bentley Layton has a valuable comment on Coptic John 1:1c, which says <em><strong>auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje</strong></em>. He shows it can be diagrammed in this manner:<br /><br /><em><strong>auw </strong></em>= and<br /><em><strong>ne</strong></em> = past tense marker, "was"<br /><em><strong>u.noute </strong></em>= a god<br /><em><strong>pe </strong></em>= is<br /><strong>p.Saje </strong>= the Word<em></em><br /><br />Thus, literally, the Coptic sentence says "and a god was the Word."<br /><br />True, Layton includes the traditional English "and the Word was God." But it can be noted that the traditional translation is inconsistent with his own grammatical exposition on page 7. "A god" does not equal "God." And elsewhere, in other examples in his grammar, Layton translates the Coptic construction of indefinite article + common noun into English as "a" + noun. <br /><br />So clearly, the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c's indefinite construction is "and the Word was a god." This is especially so since John's context of the Word is that of an entity, not just an abstract idea. (Cf. Layton, page 34) <br /><br /><em>The Coptic indefinite syntactical pattern at John 1:1c does not support the traditional definite reading, "the Word was God."</em><br /><br />It is now confirmed by yet another reputable Coptic grammatical resource that the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c is "and the Word was a god." This is what the Coptic text actually says.<br /><br />Anything beyond that is commentary and paraphrase.</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-26609271009564204492007-05-10T09:02:00.000-07:002011-03-26T18:00:18.285-07:00The Sahidic Coptic Indefinite Article at John 1:1<strong>“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, <strong><em>corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English</em></strong>.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, <em><strong>Introduction to Sahidic Coptic</strong></em>, page 5 (my emphasis) <br /><br />What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *<strong>me</strong>*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5) <br /><br />These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *<strong>noute</strong>*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *<strong>Noute</strong>* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *<strong>ou</strong>*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”. <br /><br />Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *<strong>n ounoute an pe</strong>*, translatled in the key as “He is not <strong>a god</strong>.” On page 18 we have the sentence *<strong>ntof ounoute pe</strong>*, which Lambdin translates as “He is <strong>a god</strong>.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is <strong>a god</strong>.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *<strong>auw neunoute pe pSaje</strong>* <br /><br />Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “<strong>a god</strong> was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *<strong>ne</strong>* is elided with the "o" in *<strong>ou</strong>* giving <strong>neunoute</strong> instead of <strong>neounoute</strong> when the words are spelled together.) <br /><br />Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it <strong>says</strong>, so why should that not be what it <strong>means</strong>? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support. <br /><br />True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt. <br /><br />The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that <em><strong>they have the burden of proof</strong></em> to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *<strong>noute</strong>*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning. <br /><br />Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial. <br /><br />It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures. <br /><br />On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *<strong>noute</strong>*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English. <br /><br />In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand. <br /><br />Show us the proof of your assertions <strong>from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses</strong>, if you have any.</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-83591099857254431272006-11-03T10:01:00.001-08:002008-06-27T05:14:46.972-07:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Coptic John 1:1-18 Interlinear and<br />Modern English translation (Link at this Site):<br /></span></strong><br /><a href="http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com">http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com</a>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-27244368300628909162006-11-03T10:01:00.000-08:002006-11-03T10:39:20.820-08:00Coptic Resources Blog<span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Biblia Sahidica</strong>,</span> <strong><span style="font-size:130%;">a Coptic Resources blog</span></strong><br /><br /><a href="http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com">http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com</a>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-43577094678477865242006-09-29T14:10:00.000-07:002006-12-13T06:24:15.216-08:00Value of the Coptic Version<strong>In <em>The Fourth Gospel</em>, the late Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, Bart., D.D. (St. Andrews), Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, writes concerning John 1:1:<br /><br />" It is impossible to reproduce in English this contrast [between hO QEOS and QEOS]. <em>The Coptic version alone has been able to reproduce the meaning of the original Greek</em>. The Word is distinguished from the Father, without, however, thereby introducing any suggestion of lack of complete union between them....The Word of God is no neuter thing, no mere power: He acts with personal consciousness and will....The emphasis upon the transcendent dependence of the Word upon the Father conditions the whole narrative which follows. As the incarnate Word or Son of God, the words and actions of Jesus are the manifestation to men of what He has seen with the Father (i. 18, vi. 46, viii. 38). Finally, the revelation completed, He prays that He may be glorified again with the glory that was His before the Creation (xvii. 5)."<br />-- (emphasis added) -- ( Faber and Faber Limited, London, Second edition 1947), pp. 141, 142<br /><br />Why would Hoskyns state that "the Coptic version (of John 1:1) alone has been able to reproduce the meaning of the original Greek"? No doubt because he appreciated the precision of this ancient version that possessed both definite and indefinite articles in its grammatical structure, unlike the contemporaneous versions in Latin and Syriac. The Coptic version was and is able to clearly distinguish the nuance of meaning between the Word as a divine being and the divine Being the Word was with or, as the Coptic says literally, was "in the presence of."<br /><br />Yet until recently, it has been the Latin and Syriac versions which have been getting the scholarly attention and adulation, whereas by contrast, the Coptic version has been slighted. In the October 22, 2001 edition of <em>Christianity Today, </em>in an article titled "Raising the Bar," scholars were advised to give more attention to the study of Coptic and the Coptic versions, and in the past few years new impetus has been given especially to critical scholarly study of the Coptic New Testament. The Sahidica Project of J. Warren Wells is a prime example of this.<br /></strong><strong><br /><br />"The ancient versions are significant in the search for the most likely original Greek text, especially the three earliest ones, Coptic, Syriac, and Latin." -- Stanley E. Porter, ed.,</strong> <strong><em>Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament</em>, pp. 67, 68<br /><br />The Latin and Syriac versions have had their day; it's time for the Coptic text to step into the limelight of New Testament scholarship and appreciation.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#990000;">Update:</span> The importance of the Sahidic New Testament is being greeted in the scholarly world by offerings from Logos Bible Sofware, featuring the Coptic New Testament of J. Warren Wells in several editions. See:</strong><br /><strong><a href="http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/10/sahidic_coptic_why_1.html">http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/10/sahidic_coptic_why_1.html</a></strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-1153611751851847152006-07-22T16:06:00.000-07:002008-01-07T06:18:25.414-08:00The Johannine Prologue, 1:1-18<strong>There are many interesting facets to the Sahidic Coptic translation of John's Koine Greek text at chapter 1, verses 1-18.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>In verse <em>one</em>, it has been noted that the anarthrous Greek text's KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS is rendered with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article. This is significant, because the Coptic could have left the text without any article, or could have used the definite article, if the translators had so understood the verse. While a noun without any article is infrequent in Sahidic Coptic, there are examples of this in the Nag Hamadi corpus of works. It is to be observed, therefore, that the Coptic translators found that verse one did not identify the Logos with the Person hO QEOS. Rather, the Logos is qualitatively QEOS.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Verse <em>fourteen</em> is a strong affirmation in both the Greek and the Coptic texts that the Logos was incarnate in the man Jesus Christ. This was a refutation of some of the Gnostic teachings of that time. The heavenly Word, Logos, did become human, "flesh," and lived among mankind in order to perform his salvific work.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Verse <em>eighteen</em> is the subject of various theories. Coptic scholar and translator George W. Horner suggested in 1911 that in this verse the translators combined the variant readings of the Greek texts at their disposal. Others have suggested that they may possibly have used only one Greek text, perhaps one that read hO MONOGENHS QEOS (as in p75 or some mss. of Sinaiticus), where both QEOS and hUIOS can be adduced -- hUIOS by implication from -GENHS. The later Bohairic version of verse eighteen reads closer to that found in p66 and Vaticanus, and in many modern critical texts. But the Sahidic Coptic translators lived and worked at a time -- the 2nd or 3rd century C.E. -- when believers wished to grasp the meaning of the Logos as both QEOS and hUIOS.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>The Johannine Prologue expresses the primitive faith that the one known as the Lord Jesus Christ was divine in his origin, even as he was human in his work. In Jesus, divine intervention reached into the human situation and transformed it anew, producing a regeneration, a re-creation, finally opening the way for God's loving-kindness to manifest itself fully in the world.</strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-1153329368688219672006-07-19T10:14:00.000-07:002007-04-16T21:39:11.523-07:00Translation and Theology<strong>Issues in Translation: The Sahidic Coptic Text of 2 Corinthians 4:4<br /><br />At the time the Sahidic Coptic translation was being produced, leaders in the church were combating a brand of "Christian" Gnosticism called Marcionism. Marcion (died about 154 CE) was excommunicated from the church in Rome in 144, after which he formed his own church. His teachings became widely disseminated all over the Roman empire by the year 150<br /></strong><br /><strong>Among other things that conflicted with orthodox belief, Marcion taught the Gnostic idea that the Creator God of the "Old Testament" was a separate, inferior God to the God of the "New Testament," and that this inferior God was the one responsible for all the evils of the world.<br /></strong><br /><strong>Irenaeus and other leaders of the church fiercely combated this view of two Gods, so much so that Irenaeus did not accept that the "God of this world" mentioned at 2 Corinthians 4:4 could be other than God himself. In <em>Against Heresies </em>book 3, chapter 7, he writes: "The true sense...is contained in the expression, "God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world."....For Paul does not say, "the God of this world," as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, "the unbelievers of this world," because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of those that believe not."<br /></strong><br /><strong>This effort to combat Gnostic Marcionism and "the intolerable absurdities of Gnosticism" (<em>ANF,</em> volume 1, page 310) appears to be behind the rendering of 2 Corinthians 4:4 that is found in some texts of the ancient Syriac Peshitta and Sahidic Coptic versions. The Peshitta according to George Lamsa’s Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text: "To those in this world whose minds have been <em>blinded by God</em>, because they did not believe, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the likeness of God, should shine on them." (Emphasis added)<br /><br />The Sahidic Coptic text of 2 Corinthians 4:4 says: "Therefore, <em>God has closed the minds </em>of the unbelievers of this world , so that they might not see the light of the glorious Good News of the Christ, who is the image of God." (Emphasis added)<br /></strong><br /><strong>It is not known if there is any Greek text that reads this way. Most versions of 2 Corinthians 4:4 appear to be based on a Greek text that says: "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers."<br /></strong><br /><strong>However, 14th century English translation made by John Wycliffe, based on the Old Latin version reads similarly, linking "of this world" with the unbelievers or "unfaithful men," and linking God with the blinding or closing of their minds or "souls": "In whiche god hath blende the soulis of vnfeithful men of this world, that the liztnynge of the gospel of the glorie of crist, whiche is the ymage of god schyne not." In more modern English, Wycliffe’s translation says: "In which God has blinded the souls of unfaithful men of this world, that the lightings of the gospel of the glory of Christ, which is the image of God, shine not." For a scan of Wycliffe's original in Old English, see:</strong><br /><strong><a href="http://www.richard-2782.com/cor.htm">http://www.richard-2782.com/cor.htm</a></strong><br /><strong><br /><strong>It appears that the Coptic translators wished to clarify the truth of a verse of Scripture that was currently being misinterpreted by Gnostics. Perhaps like Irenaeus, they believed that in so doing, they had the support of other verses in the Bible. For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 indicated that God "allowed" spiritual blindness to occur on the part of unbelievers. John 12:39, 40 stated that God had "hardened" the hearts and "pasted together" the ears of others who rejected truth.<br /><br />The Coptic translators obviously rejected the Gnostic Marcionite interpretation that some God other than the true God was responsible for creating and ruling the world, that this God in turn was evil, and the Coptic translators apparently translated 2 Corinthians 4:4 with this anti-heretical purpose in mind.<br /></strong><br /><strong>We may appreciate now that Satan is the "god of this world" only God’s allowance until he is defeated decisively by the victorious Jesus Christ. But the Coptic translators were reacting to a widespread heresy of their times, to which they did not wish to give any inadvertent aid, or any interpretation to twist. At the same time, this particular translational curiosity is helpful in positively dating the Sahidic Coptic version to the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.<br /></strong><br /><strong>Likewise today, translators often make decisions on the basis of what they perceive to be not only the grammar of a text, but also the intent and purpose of the text. In modern critical texts, translators have sometimes rearranged (emended) whole sentences according to their best estimate of what the text was or should be saying. In such cases, judgment calls are made, the validity of which can sometimes be assessed only by the passing of time. </strong><br /><br /><br /></strong><p><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">"If you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."</span> –- Coptic John 8:31, 32 </p></strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31273717.post-1153313616394203532006-07-19T05:17:00.000-07:002006-07-19T20:20:22.816-07:00The Coptic Text<strong>"The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt. The Alexandrian and Egyptian text types are not only of the greatest importance by far, but the special climatic conditions of Egypt have also preserved for us nearly 100 percent of all the known witnesses to the New Testament text from the period up to the fourth century." –– Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), page 200 </strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Modern translators know the value of having a good text from which to translate. The New Testament versions found in newer Bibles are based on Greek texts that have been constructed on the basis of the earliest known Greek manuscripts available, as well as insights from early translations into other languages, such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>The Coptic text also indicates that its translators were skilled textual critics. They had variant readings from several different Greek texts before them, and some of these they incorporated into their master text. There are readings in the Coptic text that give evidence of knowledge of readings presently preserved in ancient Greek manuscripts such as p66 (P. Bodmer II, 2nd century), Sinaiticus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th century), Ephraemi (5th century) and Bezae (5th century), among others. These are considered to be among the most accurate of the early witnesses to the New Testament text.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Consider, for example, John chapter 8. At verse 38, many translations follow a Greek text that read: A EGW <em>EWRAKA</em> PARA TW PATRI LALW KAI hUMEIS OUN A <em>HKOUSATE </em>PARA TOU PATROS POIETE. However, the Coptic text follows a Greek text that read: A EGW <em>EWRAKA</em> PARA TW PATRI LALW KAI hUMEIS OUN A <em>EWRAKATE</em> PARA TOU PATROS POIETE. The Coptic text follows the reading of the earliest extant witness to John's Gospel, that found in p66.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>There are many such gems of early textual criticism to be found in the Coptic text of John, making it a fascinating subject for further research.</strong><br /><strong></strong>Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.com0