About a Coptic Manuscript on Jn 1:1

by poki 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  poki

  Hi to all. What do you think about the version of John 1:1, accordig to a sahidic coptic manuscript:

  Transliteration:

  1:1a Hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje (in the beginning was the word)

  1:1b Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute (and the word was to the god)

  1:1c Auw neunoute pe pshaje ( ans a god was the word)

  auw	“and”
  ne	Verbal Prefix which denote past tense, to wit, “was”
  u	Indefinitive article in coptic, “a”
  noute	“god”

  Other example on indefinitive article in coptic, Jn 18:40,

  barabbas de neusoone pe

  but Barrabas was a thief (ne-u-soone)

  There is some commentary on this subject, perhaps someone did a searching in this post? Thanks.
• 

  Narkissos

  Welcome.

  Please check http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/106960/1.ashx
• 

  Forscher

  There was already a discussion on this topic which even Leolaia weighed in on

  I cannot readily link you to it. She stated that it would all depend on just exactly how the Coptic used the indefinite article. However, I seem to recall that she admitted to not enough about Coptic at the time to say much about it. Plumley's Introductory Coptic Grammar may be found here. It appears that the indefinite article is used pretty much the same as in English, though it does get used to form adverbs and it gets omitted with serial nouns and certain other constructions, none of which applies to John 1:1c.

  Coptic is the only one of the earliest languages the NT appears in which uses the indefinite article Greek, Aramaic, and Latin do not. Therefore the use of it by those so close to the original, who knew the original language far better than we can, is significant. I suspect that the appearance of the indefinite article in that translation, as well as other rather trinitarian unfriendly renderings (Rev 3:14, where the Coptic uses Houeite {first}, rather than arche {begining, origin, etc.}, which was a Greek loan word available to them with the same meanings as the Greek being one example) is one of the reasons why it is marginalized and largely not available as a resource for many people.

  Forscher
• 

  onacruse

  Nark, when was the last time I said that you are one really sharp poster?

  Edit to add: Oh yeah, and Leolaia too...and Forscher, LOL Too many dang smarts people here.

  Whenever it was, it wasn't recently enough.
• 

  Forscher

  Well, it looks like Narc posted the link While I was still composing my post.

  Forscher
• 

  Leolaia

  Yeah, I don't know much about Coptic grammar per se...my comment pertains rather to the fact that the usage of articles in many languages vary considerably from English usage, so one should attempt to understand how indefinite articles are used in Coptic and, even better, within this particular Coptic translation. Also, there is the possibility that there is a theological Tendenz that lies behind the Coptic rendering, and that it is interpretive of the original Greek (as translations often are). It would be great if there are any comments on the Coptic translation in the critical literature.
• 

  glenster

  A few of many articles on the issue of "sahidic coptic John 1:1" I found with
  Google:
  http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/Ancient-Coptic-Translation-John1.htm
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-February/037663.html
  http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/SL-RH%20Coptic%20John.htm

  One idea that comes through in them is that the sahidic coptic article used
  in John 1:1 is sort of like the word "firstborn." Either view might see it the
  way they want without it deciding much. (The word "First" at Rev.3:18, men-
  tioned above, is similar, what with God called "first and last" in Revela-
  tion....) The Sahdic Coptic John 1:18 sounds mainstream, though, so that's
  likely the way it meant to see the disputed article of John 1:1.

  The JWs leaders' view support seems to force the point about it as with the
  word "firstborn," early Christian history, etc.--that the article must refer to
  the JWs leaders' stance.
  http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/SL-RH%20Coptic%20John.htm
  http://commentary.copticjohn.com/

  What I have on deciding who has the better case for the originally intended
  view meant by a belief in the Bible, the JWs leaders' or mainsteam view, etc.,
  is on pp.4 and 7 to 10 of my "GTJ Brooklyn" article (sorry about posting all the
  links--the nav bar is down while freewebs tries a new server).
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn4.htm
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn7.htm
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn8.htm
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn9.htm
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn10.htm

  If it's a gripping deliberation you really want, the future of PC pinball is
  on the last page.
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/freepcpinballetc.htm
• 

  Terry

  Well now, isn't this actually all backwards?

  The reason we have so many DIFFERENT versions of translations is because people began with a belief and THEN justified it through what they saw fit to write down.

  The JW bible is simply a recent example of what denominations, sects, cults, etc. have done all through history.

  The split in "The" Catholic Church led to the Orthodox ("right") division.

  The rule of thumb is this. Opinion first; holy text committed to manuscipt second.

  Afterward, in an apologetic argument each side refers to their own cherry picked version for "proof".

  What are "accretions" anyway?

  Religion evolves as the tribe bumps into the outside world and other reality intrudes.

  The core idea can't cope with sophistication unless a bit of polishing occurs.

  The Semites banged around the Mediterranean for centuries encountering larger ideas than their own. Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman religious conception was impactful.

  If you look at the Hebrew concept of God/worship BEFORE the captivity to Babylon and compare it to AFTER the release you witness a rift, a tear, a huge gulf in thinking and conceptual imaginings. This happened again when Alexander tore through the swathe of the East overlaying Greek superiority. By the time the Roman world had gobbled all that down and shat out their own ecumenical residue the Jews had transformed into a cosmopolitan chimera of a religion. Christianity was just one more shard.

  Whatever you may think orthodoxy is you are wrong!
• 

  Leolaia

  That first link has some interesting comments along the lines of what I was talking about....

  How can Horner say that the indefinite article, while present in the Sahidic original, is not required in English?

  The answer lies in the usage of the Sahidic indefinite article itself. We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect, p. 12). An example of this usage may be found in John 1:16, which Horner translates:

  Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in place of [a] grace.

  More importantly, the indefinite article does not always denote class membership. It can also used to attribute qualities or characteristics (what in Greek grammars is called a "qualitative usage" [e.g., Wallace, p. 244]):

  Indefinite Article

  one specimen of the lexical class of ... ;

  one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of ... (Layton, Bentley, A Coptic Grammar With Chrestomathy and Glossary - Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edition, p. 43, "..." in original).

  Dr. Layton explains further:

  The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: "is divine") or an entity ("is a god"); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3

  I know at least Layton is a good scholar who specializes in translating Coptic gnostic works, and Walters would be a good confirmation, I will see if I can find scans of these works.
• 

  Syntaxo

  "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English....Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English....Abstract nouns, such as ME, truth, often appear with either article (OYME, TME} where English employs no article." -- Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, by Thomas O. Lambdin (Mercer University Press, 1983) p. 5

  "HN TEHOYEITE NE.FSHOOP NGI PSHAJE

  In the beginning -past tense marker- He exists -subject marker- the Word

  AYW NEYNOUTE PE PSHAJE

  And past tense marker - a-god is the Word." (John 1:1a, 1:1c)

  -- Coptic in 20 Lessons, by Bentley Layton (Peeters Leuven, 2007) p. 7

  Both Thomas Oden Lambdin and Bentley Layton are recognized Coptic scholars and grammarians. Layton actually diagrams John 1:1c on page 7 of his new book, released this year. I can't reproduce the Coptic fonts here, but you can see that he diagrams Coptic John 1:1c to say literally, "And was a god is the Word." Or in more smooth English, "And the Word was a god."

  The Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, when before a common Coptic noun that is not abstract or representing a substance or a quality, is routinely rendered in English with the English indefinite article, "a." This can be verified by translations of the the Sahidic Coptic New Testament and other Sahidic Coptic literature.

  If the context calls for it, OYNOUTE, "a god" literally, can be rendered into English adjectivally as "divine," according to Layton's grammar, page 34.

  However, in the Coptic translation of John 1:1c, those are the only Coptic options: either "the Word was a god/divine being" or "the Word was divine." The Coptic indefinite construction cannot support the definite English translation: "the Word was God."

  See also:

  http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com