- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Anyway, instead of sidestepping this topic and hurling accusations as the NWT, why not discuss the actual topic here: The “coptic” version. Why do we want to avoid this?
The Greek of John 1:1c has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
It was translated from Greek (which has no indefinite article) into other languages such as Latin, syriac, aramaic (which also have no indefinite article.)
But around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article. Those first English Bibles did not translate it with an indefinite article. (But then again, people were being burned at the stake for less.)
What people don't know:
1300 years before those English translations began, it was translated into Coptic, which like English does have the indefinite article in it's language.And so how did those Coptic translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it…how did they translate John 1:1c?
This way: “a god.”
david
most of them will not accepted ,because this would mean that the WORD his a being ,and so identified to Christ , and so teaches the preexistence of the son of God ,and this is rejected by many ;
so they rather believe in a lie than the truth
1800 years ago, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language (unlike Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, and most every language that existed for a millenium). And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
The VERY EARLIEST TRANSLATION OF THE JOHN 1:1 where the translators came up against the choice of “God” or “a god” chose ……………….THAT'S RIGHT………”a god.”
Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2008,13:14) https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=1342;st=1250 Thanks T8. I was thinking of making a thread on this myself. The link above is where we started discussing it in the other thread (just for my own record.)
FOR A SIMPLE INTRODUCTION TO THIS, START HERE:
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/What is certain, and some might find it disturbing, is that the translation that has stood for centuries as the traditional English rendering, namely “the Word was God” can not be got from the Sahidic text. It just can not stretch to it.
http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/.
ON WHEN THE COPTIC WAS TRANSLATED: (taken from the link in middle of page)“The Sahidic is probably the earliest of the [Coptic] translations,
and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no
later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a
manuscript from about the end of that century.”http://www.glasspath.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html
“20th century Coptic scholar and New Testament translator George W. Horner gives a date closer to 188 CE, based on “the internal character of the Sahidic [version],” which, he says, “supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.”
Coptic scholar C. S. Malan said, “The Sahidic Version was made when Greek was a living language even in Egypt, possibly in the second century.”
The Coptic Church gives the date of 200 A.D.
The Sahidic Coptic version is likely as old, and as valuable, as the more well-known Old Italian, Vulgate, and Syriac versions.”
NO LATER THAN 3d century.
Horner says 188 CE
COPTIC CHURCH SAYS 200 CELETS just says:
Somewhere between 200 and 300 CE
Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2008,13:20) Was the Word “God” or “a god”? “That question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.” – The Holy Bible – New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:”Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidi Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.”
(This is taken from a Watchtower article and can be found on this blog half way down page, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/165941/1.ashx)WHAT FOLLOWS THAT ARTICLE ON THE WEBSITE I TOOK THIS FROM IS SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO KNOW LANGUAGE AND TO HAVE EVEN STUDIED THE COPTIC LANGUAGES.
SHE ARGUES AGAINST THE JW'S TRANSLATION, OR AT LEAST, SHE EXPLAINS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE–“DIVINE.”
Note what she says:
“Had the Society examined the recent Coptic grammar by Bentley Layton (Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic [Leuven: Peeters, 2007]), or even Layton's older Coptic grammar, they would have known that noute “god” is one of the nouns that could be used qualitatively to mean “divine”, which would have an indefinite article in predicate position.”
She goes on:
“The Watchtower article is thus wrong about Coptic grammar and does not acknowledge that the Coptic rendering in John 1:1 is actually ambiguous between an indefinite “The Word was a god” and a qualitative “The Word was divine”.”
Ok, so it could either be “a god” or “divine” according to the coptic translation of a couple hundred years after Christ. Got it.
Going on, she says:
“Both options would require the indefinite article in Coptic and thus the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic text does not by itself favor an English rendering with an indefinite article versus one with a qualitative expression. The value of the Coptic version is rather in confirming the linguistic findings of Harner and subsequent writers that the theos in John 1:1 is not to be understood as definite.”http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/165941/1.ashx
We definitely have someone here who argues against the Watchtower and what it said, but notice what she acknowledges–it has to be translated either “a god” OR “divine” but not “God.” This apparently is what we learn from the coptic translation, a language that is far less ambiguous than Greek or Latin.
So, we're getting closer to understanding how the earliest Christians (those before the councels of trinity belief) understood this verse.–john 1:1
Reading further on, she states:
The Coptic translation is valid evidence against the interpretation of the anarthrous theos as definite, i.e. “The Word was God”. The Watchtower article came to a similar conclusion but (grossly) oversimplified the issue by portraying the use of the indefinite article in Coptic as itself meaning that the Word was “a god”.
For a rebuttal of what she says, see:
http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2794
Re-reading these threads. I found this post interesting.“We definitely have someone here who argues against the Watchtower and what it said, but notice what she acknowledges–it has to be translated either “a god” OR “divine” but not “God.” This apparently is what we learn from the coptic translation, a language that is far less ambiguous than Greek or Latin.”
1800 years ago, (“no later than the third century”) John 1:1 was translated into Coptic, a language which does have the indefinite article (unlike Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, and most every language that existed for a millenium). And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
The VERY EARLIEST TRANSLATION (that we know of) OF THE JOHN 1:1 where the translators came up against the choice of “God” or “a god” chose ……………….THAT'S RIGHT………”a god.”
HERE'S THE REAL KICKER:
They understood koine Greek better than anyone today, as it was still a spoken language back then.
Not just that, but they actually used the Greek alphabet and a few other letters in their own language. It even shared some of the same words.The only real question is of course this: what did “a god” mean to them?
Did it mean “a god” or did it mean “a godlike one/divine.”
Either way, it didn't mean “the God,” like it did in the first part of that verse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
