tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post8099560678230701112..comments2023-08-31T17:58:42.151-07:00Comments on John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions: Insight on Coptic John 1:1 from Acts 28:6Memrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-26016829166780251662010-12-20T06:10:20.116-08:002010-12-20T06:10:20.116-08:00Yes, translating the Greek of John 1:1 into anothe...Yes, translating the Greek of John 1:1 into another language honestly is a tradition that goes back 1,700 years. The NWT follows the faithful example of the Coptic translators.<br /><br />As Jason BeDuhn wrote, the Greek grammar of John 1:1 is easy to understand and translate if not influenced by biased traditions.Memrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-75666803092059552282010-12-20T02:48:15.171-08:002010-12-20T02:48:15.171-08:00I wasn't even thinking it when I wrote that po...I wasn't even thinking it when I wrote that post, but the footnote on John 1:1 in the NWT says just that:<br /><br />"the Word was a god/god-like/divine."Brusting Wulfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13572407631277141271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-66685021479994545542010-12-19T15:14:10.026-08:002010-12-19T15:14:10.026-08:00Abernathy,
Excellent points. Thanks.
Some Trini...Abernathy,<br /><br />Excellent points. Thanks.<br /><br />Some Trinitarian apologists were just too quick to write defensively about the Coptic version without actually having learned Coptic, and therefore published obvious errors.Memrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-90656674008881820422010-12-19T07:50:50.467-08:002010-12-19T07:50:50.467-08:00Note that Bentley Layton, on page 34 of "Copt...Note that Bentley Layton, on page 34 of "Coptic in 20 Lessons," mentions the exact syntax of Acts 28:6 -<br />ou-noute pe<br /><br />He says there are two possible meanings:<br />He is a god<br />He is divine<br /><br />However, neither translation would have us believe that the natives thought that Paul was God Himself. If the natives thought that Paul was "divine" in this verse, they were thinking more along the lines of Paul being "a god-like one," one having the qualities of a god.<br /><br />In no way could we derive from the text that Paul shared the same nature, essence, or substance of the true God. He was just a god, a god-like one, divine.<br /><br />Those reading the Trinity into the Sahidic of John 1:1 are reading their theology into the text, because the Sahidic is only saying that the Word is a god, a god-like one, divine.Brusting Wulfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13572407631277141271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-10157547479877842422009-07-24T06:28:04.096-07:002009-07-24T06:28:04.096-07:00Thanks for your kind words. Anything closer to th...Thanks for your kind words. Anything closer to the time of the original writings is likely to reflect their meaning. The Coptic does this many times.<br /><br />As for Acts 28:6 in the Greek texts, it corresponds to John 1:1c in that it is anarthrous, and many translations render it as "a god."<br /><br />However, Acts 28:6 is a text that has variant readings. Some of the variants put "theos" before the verb "enai" (to be), making it exactly parallel to John 1:1c, where "theos" is also pre-verbal. Other variants put "theos" after the verb. <br /><br />Either way the meaning is the same, but it is the variant readings that put "theos" before the verb that correspond exactly, in Greek, to the construction found at John 1:1c.<br /><br />I have also bookmarked your blog. Very interesting reading.Memrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-62202475887047300232009-07-23T22:03:06.047-07:002009-07-23T22:03:06.047-07:00Thanks for this. I have used Acts 28:6 before in t...Thanks for this. I have used Acts 28:6 before in the ministry, as a verse that is constructed in exact parallel to the wording found at John 1:1c. Of course, no one said about Paul that he was God.<br /><br />But I haven't used that verse lately because I want to be sure I am portraying its grammatical construction accurately. Am I?<br /><br />Yours is a real specialty - blogging on the Coptic. A much appreciated resource.tom sheepandgoatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519896568648043000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-4009554494131206972008-08-04T09:22:00.000-07:002008-08-04T09:22:00.000-07:00Your comments are appreciated. The pre-verbal ana...Your comments are appreciated. The pre-verbal anarthrous variant QEON AUTON EINAI rather than AUTON ENAI QEON is noted in "The Complete Biblical Library: Acts" (Springfield Missouri, USA, 1986, 1989), page 662.<BR/><BR/>This reference work cites the 4th century majiscule (large Greek letters) manuscript 01Aleph, majiscule manuscript 0201, the printed edition of Tischendorf, and texts in the Byzantine text family.<BR/><BR/>Since this is a variant, it is not the main point under discussion, just an interesting note. The main point is that in other instances of Coptic *ou.noute* in the New Testament, it is customary to render this in English as "a god," whether the Greek QEOS is pre-verbal or not.Memrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-20308857878586377002008-08-04T08:54:00.000-07:002008-08-04T08:54:00.000-07:00Lots of good information here involving translatio...Lots of good information here involving translation issues on Jn. 1:1 and the ancient Coptic N.T. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for all the work Memra.<BR/><BR/>I was surprised though at your mention in this blog article that the grammar of Acts 28:6 has a pre-verbal syntax reading like Jn. 1:1c in some Greek texts.<BR/> <BR/>This is the first I've heard of this. <BR/><BR/>Could you please expand on that a bit. As to what specific texts or manuscripts have this variant reading?simplybiblicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237694530092524955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-19518663854131491952008-07-28T06:43:00.000-07:002008-07-28T06:43:00.000-07:00Thank you for your comments. However, Mantey is o...Thank you for your comments. However, Mantey is on shaky ground when he "refutes" the NWT, yet says that the Greek of John 1:1 points to a quality rather than an identity.<BR/><BR/>You might also update Mantey with the same conclusions reached by Philip B. Harner and Daniel Wallace.<BR/><BR/>Of course Trinitarians do not like the NWT translation of John 1:1, because it does not support the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>But the only relevant question is, Does the NWT faithfully translate the Koine Greek of John 1:1?<BR/><BR/>You might note, however, that Greek professors are not necessarily competent in Coptic. They are two separate languages.Memrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-78503290796249124522008-07-28T00:27:00.000-07:002008-07-28T00:27:00.000-07:00I just checked back in to my blog and noticed that...I just checked back in to my blog and noticed that you posted a comment about my post on the John 1:1 verse mistranslation and Dr. Mantey's refuting of the Jehovah's Witnesses referring to his work as something supporting their claims. The whole point of that post is to show that he does not agree at all with their claims, I am not necessarily arguing greek becasue I've only taken 1 semester of it and couldn't argue it if I wanted to. Having said that I would certainly say that the Jehovahs Witnesses claims to Jesus not being God in the flesh and in their view actually being Micheal the Arch Angel I would say that they are completely misguided and confused. I will make a note of your page and share it with my Greek professors and get their opinions on it.SWEET TRAVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07107431842725617541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-47483913438044068772008-06-29T12:56:00.000-07:002008-06-29T12:56:00.000-07:00Your comments are deeply appreciated.I find the Bi...Your comments are deeply appreciated.<BR/><BR/>I find the Bible to be its own best interpreter, and for that reason I value those translations -- ancient and modern -- that faithfully render the original texts.Memrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8691200308558083967.post-11621026757255571182008-06-29T10:12:00.000-07:002008-06-29T10:12:00.000-07:00Thanks again for the benefits of your research int...Thanks again for the benefits of your research into the Coptic translations.<BR/><BR/>I always find it interesting.Garethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778510175408662916noreply@blogger.com