Posts by Syntaxo

22

Attn: JW's and Bible Students - Lets Discuss John 1:1

by lovelylil in

this verse came up on the thread about whether or not jesus is michael the archangel.

i wanted to discuss it in further detail on a new thread because i think raised on the other thread was an important point about how jw's and bs translate john 1:1.

1in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.. as we know the nwt adds an "a" to say "and the word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient greek manuscripts.

Syntaxo

Just two other (and for me, final) points: To add an "a" in English translation to bring out the sense of the Greek, even when the Greek grammar has no "a" but is without the Greek definite article, is a standard translation practice. All Bibles do this, when the translators feel it is necessary. Maybe not at John 1:1, but certainly elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with this, because English is not Greek, and to properly translate Greek sentences into fluent English, words may have to be added for proper English understanding.

The other thing is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not actually deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to what is written in appendix 6A of the New World Translation Reference Bible (1984). They admit that Jesus is called theos, "god/God," in the New Testament and "mighty God" prophetically at Isaiah 9:6. The objection is not to presenting Jesus as divine or deity, but to the claim that Jesus is God Almighty or the same as the Father in every respect, as Trinitarians claim.

Being a created being does not detract from divinity in the Hebrew world-view, which would have been the apostle John's primary world-view as well, inasmuch as angels are also created, divine (i.e., spirit) beings. For example, the angels are called "sons of God" and are represented in Hebrew thought and theology as part of a divine counsel. A problem I see with viewing John 1:1 as Trinitarians do, is that it would make the apostle John a Greek philosopher rather than originally an adherent of Judaism -- even the diverse Judaism of the first century.

22

Attn: JW's and Bible Students - Lets Discuss John 1:1

by lovelylil in

this verse came up on the thread about whether or not jesus is michael the archangel.

i wanted to discuss it in further detail on a new thread because i think raised on the other thread was an important point about how jw's and bs translate john 1:1.

1in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.. as we know the nwt adds an "a" to say "and the word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient greek manuscripts.

Syntaxo

I agree with Forscher's comments. Even modern Trinitarian grammarians like Daniel Wallace {Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) are less than satisfied with the "Word was God" translation, preferring a "qualitative" one, although their theological definition of "qualitative" goes beyond the standard dictionary meaning.

Both professor Jason BeDuhn and apologist Patrick Navas, neither of whom is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, have defended the "a god" or "divine" options in their books, Truth in Translation (BeDuhn, 2003) and Divine Truth or Human Tradition? (Navas, 2007)

A subject like this can be (and has been) argued to infinity. But you really can't base the "Word was God" reading on just the Greek grammar of John 1:1. Grammatically, there are other options. Even theologically, there are other options.

11

About a Coptic Manuscript on Jn 1:1

by poki in

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).

Syntaxo

That's a fair way of expressing what Layton does, as long as it is clear that the "more smooth English" version is simply rearranging the syntax of the glosses and does not itself constitute a "translation" (no more than the lexical glosses themselves necessarily provide a translation when grouped together), nor does Layton provide the latter as his translation as well. It might be worth finding out why Layton makes the translation choices he does here.

Perhaps one indication is found on page 34 of Layton's new grammar book. In section 38 he writes, "'Adjectival' predicates in the nominal sentence are normally formulated with an indefinite article (OY-, HEN-), which is not translated into English when it has adjectival meaning....Such predicates are ambiguous, since they might also be interpreted as referring to entities."

Layton gives two examples on this same page, wherein Coptic ANG OY NOUTE may be rendered into English as "I am divine" if that meaning is intended/understood, or as "I am a god" if that meaning is intended/understood.

In the context of John 1:1c, one issue in the Greek text is whether the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun theos functions qualitatively or as a "count noun." In translating the Coptic text, it might be simply a matter of whether the Coptic scribes understood the Greek theos to function here adjectivally, or as specifying an entity, "the Word." (The Coptic terminlogy is "adjectival," as "qualititive" in Coptic is a syntactical referent to verbs, not nouns.)

The point of agreement would appear to be that it is more likely that John's Gospel is introducing "God," ho theos in Greek, p.noute in Coptic translation, and then introduces someone else who is "with God" (Greek), "in the presence of God" (Coptic), who is theos or ou.noute, i.e., in some way "like" God.

Everything beyond that appears to be commentary.

11

About a Coptic Manuscript on Jn 1:1

by poki in

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).

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."