[B-Greek] NWT: Is it an accurate translation of the Greek?
Awohili at aol.com
Awohili at aol.com
Thu Feb 23 14:29:39 EST 2006
In a message dated 02/23/2006 10:00:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
hholmyard at ont.com writes:
So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not
necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have
written "a god." He was not equating the Word with the proper name
God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a
qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton
says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication
in the immediate context to help us?
True, the Coptic translator(s) "could have understood" a qualitative sense
at John 1:1, but that cannot be said definitely on the basis of the grammar.
What the translator did do, apparently, was to faithfully translate what he
saw in the Greek of John 1:1c. He "could have" made an interpretive
paraphrase at John 1:18 instead of a translation, or even "could have" had two of the
existing textual variants in mind, one reading MONOGENHS QEOS and another
reading MONOGENHS hUIOS. Or even other possibilities.
As for a qualitative sense in the Greek, this is a reading some Greek
scholars favor, while others do not. It may be noted that the NWT Committee was
not adverse to a qualitative rendering of John 1:1c, as in "the Word was
Divine." (NWT Reference Bible Appendix, 6A, page 1579)
It is of note that the same Coptic construction found at John 1:1c is also
at the Sahidic Coptic version of John 18:40. At John 1:1c, we have (the
Word) *neunoute pe*. At John 18:40 we have (Barabbas) *neusoone pe.* I don't
know of anyone who would hesitate to translate this as "(Barabbas) was a
robber." In the Greek, "robber," LHSTHS, is anarthrous, and the Coptic employs
the indefinite article. So, is the difference in translation does not appear
to be one of grammar and syntax.
Best regards,
Solomon Landers
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list