The problem with the Apostolic Fathers is that they were not the Apostles, and the teaching of the Apostles themselves takes precedence over what came later. The apostle Paul warned of later deviations of the truth. So, to the extent that the Apostolic Fathers agree with what the Apostles themselves wrote, well and good. Where they deviate, that also must be taken into account. But this is going off-topic. The topic is the Sahidic Coptic text and its rendering of John 1:1 from the Koine Greek. The Coptic text is just as valuable for Bible students as are the Syriac Version and the Latin Vulgate, or the Greek Septuagint.
rmnnoute
JoinedPosts by rmnnoute
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
rmnnoute
Thanks. Yes, I have read the Apostolic Fathers, as well as the Greek New Testament itself. Of interest is the fact that the church father Origen wrote a "Commentary on the Gospel of John" which mentioned the significance of the use and non-use (anarthrous construction) of the Greek article in John 1:1. Origen, who lived for a while in Egypt, was also roughly contemporaneous with the Egyptian Sahidic Coptic translators, and they may have held theological concepts similar to those of Origen.
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
rmnnoute
This thread begins by quoting the translation of Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 by Dr. Lance Jenott of Princeton University, whereby he translates it to say:
"In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God," as found, with Coptic characters, at this link:
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml
My interpretation of this is quite simple: Dr. Jenott gives a clear and accurate translation of what the Coptic text says.
And by so doing, he accurately demonstrates how the ancient Sahidic translators understood and/or interpreted the Greek text of John 1:1. As with the readings of other ancient translations -- the Syriac and Latin Vulgate, for example -- an understanding of how early Christians understood John's Christology has both historical and exegetical value.
It is a valid point of information, whether this thread "goes" anywhere or not.
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
rmnnoute
The point and motive is to share information. I have posted a translation of Coptic John 1:1 by a respected scholar that is accurate and thoughtful. It's information, for those who wish to know it.
I disagree that the Coptic is of little relevance. New Testament scholars have been including Coptic renderings in their treatments of the New Testament text for nearly one hundred years. Get a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece or Dr. Bruce M. Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, and you will see that this is so.
Translations have great value, especially ancient translations. They demonstrate how the original text was understood by the people and translators who lived at the time. In the case of the Sahidic Coptic versions, it sheds light on the Christology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that translation was used by the early Christian church. It was even quoted by the apostle Paul and other New Testament writers.
The Sahidic Coptic translators did their work at a time when Koine Greek was still a living language among the Egyptians. That gives them an advantage in understanding the nuances of that language that not even modern Koine scholars possess.
I would rather deal with facts in this thread, not with innuendo.
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
rmnnoute
True, Christianity is a Monotheistic religion, but the Middle Eastern concept of Monotheism is not the same as the Western concept, which you presuppose is the Monotheism of the New Testament.
The Hebrew Bible is Monotheistic, but several of its verses speak of gods besides God; even the angels are called gods and "sons of God." Jesus even quoted one such verse, where men acting on God's authority were called "gods."
I recommend to you, on this matter, the excellent treatment of Biblical Monotheism in the recent book by Professor James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context (University of Illinis Press, 2009).
The article in The Watchtower of 1981 does not at all negate my statement that the early Bible Students, the precursors of Jehovah's Witnesses, came out of Christendom before there was WT literature. That article deals with the specific issue of those who leave and seek other affiliation. Your statement does not "hijack" this thread, but it is totally irrelevant to it.
When one thinks about it, it is not calling the Logos "a god" that is polytheistic. Philo of Alexandria, a Jew, also called the Logos a god. But what is clearly polytheistic is the worship of three Gods, all equal and eternal. Asserting that these three Gods are "one" is mere special pleading.
Regardless, the Coptic was not produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, and apart from Jehovah's Witnesses, the Coptic translation literally says "the Word was a god." This is the Coptic translation from the Koine Greek text, not from the New World Translation.
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
rmnnoute
"Coptic" comes from an Arabic word that means "Egyptian," i.e., Christian Egyptian rather than Arab Egyptian. The Egyptian Christians are the natives ones, the descendants of the Pharaohs. The Egyptian language was heavily influenced by Greek after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, and the Coptic language is essentially the Egyptian language, written in Greek letters, with many Greek loan-words.
In Sahidic Coptic, the adjective "divine" is normally written with the linking suffix n- as in "divine grace": pHmot n.noute. However, ou.noute ("a god"), used as a predicate adjective, can also be Englished as "divine" if the context calls for it. But such usage is not found in the Coptic New Testament, where ou.noute is routinely treated as a count noun: "a god."
Noute, of itself, does not mean "God," but simply "god." In the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, "God," specifically, normally requires the Coptic definite article p-, i.e., p.noute, as in the first reference to the Deity whom the Logos was with in John 1:1: Hn te.Houeite neFSoop nCi p.SaJe auw p.SaJe neFSoop nnaHrm p.noute, where we have "the word": p.Saje, "the god": p.noute, but "a god" (or "divine"), ou.noute, using the Coptic indefinite article ou-, when the Word is mentioned.
However, p.noute ("the god," "God") may grammatically also be anaphoric or demonstrative, and whether it means "God" or "the god" (i.e., the one previously referred to) can be determined by context. An example is found at Acts 7:34, where p.noute raifan does not mean "God Rephan," but, contextually, "the god Rephan," and it is so translated in English Bibles. It is also translated as "the god Rephan" in George W. Horner's Coptic version.
Incidentally, the Sahidic Coptic New Testament is not a Gnostic work. It is the Coptic translation of the canonical Greek New Testament, and is not related to the Gnostic gospels of Thomas, Philip, or Judas.
-
30
Coptic John 1:1, Revisited
by rmnnoute in1:1 ?
in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
-
-
rmnnoute
1:1 ?Ν Τ??ΟΥ?ΙΤ? Ν???ΟΟΠ Ν?ΙΠ?Α??, ΑΥ? Π?Α?? Ν???ΟΟΠ Ν ΝΑ?Ρ Μ ΠΝΟΥΤ?. ΑΥ? Ν?ΥΝΟΥΤ? Π? Π?Α??
In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
--- Dr. Lance Jenott, Princeton University
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml
-
25
Do JW's Put More Faith in the Watchtower or in the Bible?
by Sour Grapes init just drives me crazy when the brothers giving the public.
talk on sunday morning will say "the june 1, 1984 watchtower.
on page 10 paragraph 6 says........" the witnesses, in my.
-
-
rmnnoute
If it were true that JWs studying the Bible without WT literature would revert back to the teachings of Christendom, how is it that the early Bible Students, their precursors, came out of Christendom before there was WT literature?
http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/
How is it that many still come out of Christendom when they compare what the Bible says with what Christendom teaches?
Nor is it true that researching in secular sources is discouraged or forbidden. How many articles in the WT literature could be written without such research in secular sources?
JWs appreciate the utility of studying the Bible topically that WT literature provides, but faith is not put in a magazine, which its publishers readily admit is uninspired and human.
-
75
Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.
by slimboyfat inwt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".
online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.
in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.
-
-
rmnnoute
Kaz, thanks for your comments. I agree that translations of John 1:1 should honestly note or footnote the various ways it can be translated in harmony with the Greek text and the Johannine corpus of writings as a whole. That way, students of the Scriptures are able to make informed decisions as to what John meant to say relative to the Lord Jesus.
As for the Coptic, whereas it is not the original composition, it does fill out the picture of how ancient translators understood the original, and what it declared to them. Sahidic Coptic translators worked with a living Koine Greek, coming from a 500-year acquaintance with the language. That put them in a unique position to understand their text. It is an advantage that not even scholars today enjoy.
Also, a translated text, like the Coptic version, should not be underestimated. The early gentile Christian church liberally utilized the Greek Septuagint for their Old Testament. The LXX was not the original Hebrew. Still, the New Testament writers quoted from it as God's word.
-
75
Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.
by slimboyfat inwt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".
online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.
in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.
-
-
rmnnoute
Reading John 1:1 as "the word was a god" instead of "the Word was God" makes perfect sense, not only in light of the Gospel of John, but in light of the New Testament and the Bible as a whole. None of the "proof texts" for the Trinity unambiguously support that doctrine, nor does the Greek grammar of John 1:1c.
As for Coptic John 1:1, it clearly says "the Word was a god," and no real case has been made for translating that Coptic verse "qualitatively" or adjectivally. There is no use of ou.noute ("a god") adjectivally anywhere else in the Coptic New Testament; noute ("god") is clearly a common or count noun there.
Even Coptic scholar Bentley Layton translates (o)u.noute as "a-god" in his interlinear translation of Coptic John 1:1c. -- Coptic in 20 Lessons, (Peeters/Leuven, 2007), page 7.