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

Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com
Mon Jul 10 19:16:05 EDT 2006


 
I agree that the Sahidic Coptic version is very valuable.  According  to J. 
Warren Wells of the Nova Sahidica Project, both Bruce Metzger and the  Alands 
highly praise the Coptic text as an aid to understanding the GNT and for  
critical studies of it.  Wells notes also:
 
"Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that  
has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite  article 
that was produced during the Koine Greek period. 

The is of  interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly 
translated "the word  was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic 
indefinite article; with  some variation in word order.

In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus  Bodmer III, the text of which was 
partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser)  the first occurrence of "God" in 
John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas  the second occurrence is spelled 
out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one  has seen) is in the Nomina 
Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is  spelled out."
 
It's really a fascinating version, closely following the Greek text for the  
most part, and showing interesting variations from modern critical texts, that 
 reflect the ancient texts the Coptic translators had at their disposal, one 
of  which was very much like p66, the earliest extant witness to the Gospel of 
 John.
 
Kind regards,
 
Solomon Landers



In a message dated 07/10/2006 3:58:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
rob at designceramics.co.uk writes:

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.......








More information about the B-Greek mailing list