[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