[B-Greek] Sahidic Coptic Version (was "Another example of a qualitative QEOS")

Robert Newman rob at designceramics.co.uk
Mon Jul 10 18:58:27 EDT 2006


Hello Solomon and all,



As I understand it, the Greek NT was translated into Coptic whilst Greek was 
still very much the predominant language. The same can be said of Latin and 
Syriac.



Sometimes when we are struggling with decisions about nuances of 'meaning' 
when working with what is sometimes deemed a 'dead' language, we may wish 
that we could inquire of someone from antiquity to instruct us, someone who 
was immersed in the language every day of their lives.



In an earlier post with regard to this verse in question, James, thinking 
along these lines, suggested to consult the Patristic evidence, because they 
'knew Greek'.



The same can be said of the translators of the Coptic version. The Coptic 
version whilst having a large number of Greek loan words is significantly 
different to Greek in terms of grammar. The differences may be useful. I 
wonder if on occasion, they can shed light on the Greek.



I'm sure at times the Greek text is deliberately ambiguous, other times 
there is ambiguity in our understanding. In those cases, perhaps the ancient 
translators can reveal their understanding by means of their versions, when 
these communicate with clarity.



It seems to me that the Coptic version is well placed to be such an aid, and 
the textual base of the Sahidic Coptic version is considered to be of 
exceptional quality. It is a shame that such little study of the Coptic NT 
has been done.



We may wonder if an ancient authority really did understand correctly the 
Greek they translated or commented on, or whether they were misguided by 
some theological objective. In the case of the Coptic version we have that 
entire corpus of the NT on which to determine the translator's competence 
and accuracy.



It is very interesting that these translators, who were in a good position 
to know the Greek of the NT very well, and perhaps with more natural 
intuition than even the most competent of today's scholars, saw a basis for 
an indefinite rendering at John 1:1c.



Regards

Robert Newman



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Awohili at aol.com>
To: <furuli at online.no>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: <Awohili at aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS


>
> Over the centuries there have been translators who took note of the 
> omission
> of the article in John l:1c, and translated accordingly in their 
> language.
> For example,  roughly 1,700 years ago, Sahidic Coptic translators 
> rendered
> John 1:1c as:
>
> auw ne.u.noute pe pSaje.
>
> This Sahidic Coptic phrase ne.u.noute means literally, "was a god."   The
> entire sentence means literally, "and was a god the Word."
>
> Coptic scholar George W. Horner ("<NOBR>The Coptic  V  <NOBR>of the New Te
> <NOBR>in the Southern Dia<NOBR>Otherwise   <NOBR>Sahidic and Thebaic," 
> Oxford,
> translated the Coptic of John 1:1c as "and [a] God was the Word,"  putting
> unnecessary brackets around the "a."  The Coptic word noute is not  an 
> abstract
> noun nor any other category of Coptic noun that calls for the Coptic
> indefinite article to be left untranslated.  For example, Horner himself 
> has no
> brackets around the "a" where the same construction is found at John 
> 18:40:  Here,
>
> ne.u.soone pe
>
> is literally translated "was a robber":  Horner has  correctly "Barabbas 
> was
> a robber," with no brackets around the "a."
>
> Thus, grammatically and literally, the Sahidic Coptic  version of John 
> 1:1c
> translates the Greek anarthrous QEOS by the Coptic  indefinite article: "a 
> god"
> or "a God."
>
> The later (6th-8th centuries) Bohairic Coptic version  also employs the
> Coptic indefinite article to render the anarthrous QEOS, giving
>
> ne ounouti pe: "was a god" or "was a God."
>
> Solomon Landers
>
>
James wrote:

Has anybody thought about checking the Patristic evidence? They knew
Greek :) And, they argued all this stuff out extensively, for about two
hundred years (B-Greek hasn't been doing it that long--yet!).

Unfortunately the IVP ACCS volume on John isn't done, so I don't know of
an easy way to get it all.  Maybe a search for John 1:1 in an electronic
version of the Nicene/Ante-Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers?

I realize that some of you will claim theological bias on the part of
the fathers, but Eusebius wasn't exactly Nicene in theology.

Just a thought.

James




More information about the B-Greek mailing list