[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