[B-Greek] Sahidic Coptic Version (was "Another example of a qualitative Q...
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Mon Jul 10 19:51:58 EDT 2006
But I thought that an indefinite article in Coptic was used with both with abstract nouns and nouns of substance. I'm no expert but I thought that the indefinite article does not always denote class membership. It can also used to attribute qualities or characteristics.
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Awohili at aol.com
>
> 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.......
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list