- This topic is empty.
- Posts
TO ALL,
On another thread Mike said this to WJ about the Coptic versions of John 1:1:
Quote Anyway, the scholars I quoted have more than enough credentials to prove the grammatical possibility of “a god”. Add those guys to the Coptic version (AS SUPPORTED BY THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS FROM THE COPTIC) and to the lack of any particular rule of Greek or English grammar that prohibits it, and it's a done deal.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y289965Now Mike thinks he has an open and shut case about the Coptics but he is wrong. The indefinite article in the Coptics indicated the QUALITY and not quantity in John 1:1c
Quote If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to
have written “and the Word was a god,” this would appear to be
evidence in favor of the NWT's rendering. But, as we shall see,
appearances can be deceiving.The full citation of Horner's Coptic New Testament is as follows:
The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect
otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 4 Volumes (Oxford, 1911).Horner's English translation of John 1:1c is as follows:
“…and [a] God was the Word.”
Horner's critical apparatus defines the use of square brackets as
follows: “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not
required by the English” (p. 376).How can Horner say that the indefinite article, while present in the
Sahidic original, is not required in English?The answer lies in the usage of the Sahidic indefinite article
itself. We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite
article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of
substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic
Dialect, p. 12). An example of this usage may be found in John
1:16, which Horner translates:Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in
place of [a] grace.More importantly, the indefinite article does not always denote
class membership. It can also used to attribute qualities or
characteristics (what in Greek grammars is called a “qualitative
usage” [e.g., Wallace, p. 244]):
Indefinite Article
one specimen of the lexical class of … ;
one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of … (Layton,
Bentley, A Coptic Grammar With Chrestomathy and Glossary – Sahidic
Dialect, 2nd edition, p. 43, “…” in original).Dr. Layton explains further:
The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This
pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article
in English: “is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”); the reader
decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT
predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is
always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence
of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not
necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have
written “a god.” He was not equating the Word with the proper name
God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a
qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton
says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication
in the immediate context to help us?I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative
reading. In the Sahidic version of John 1:18b, the anarthrous theos
in the Greek is translated with the definite article. Horner's
translation reads as follows:“God, the only Son.”
It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would
understand John to have designated the Word “a god” in John 1:1 and
“the God” in John 1:18. Instead, his use of the definite article in
verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing
the qualities of Deity to the Word in John 1:1.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-February/037663.htmlOkay friends there you have it! The indefinite article in the Coptics may attribute quality and not count to a noun. This means that if the indefinite 'a god' in the Coptics may not have indicated that Jesus was a separate god from the God. Look at the example given from verse 16. The Coptic says,
“Because out of fulness we all of us took a life and a grace.”
Does this mean that out of Christ's fulness we have receive a separate 'life' and a separate 'grace' that is other than the life and the grace that God gives? Of course not!
Then the Coptic translation renders verse 18 as “God the only Son.”
BANG! BOOM!
We see that a Coptic translation uses the indefinite article for 'life' and 'grace' when it is VERY CLEAR that only DEFINITIVE 'life' and 'grace' can be in view. The indefinite article attributes QUALITY to that 'life' and 'grace.'
And we see also that the Coptic translation renders verse 18 as “GOD, THE ONLY SON.”
DO YOU SEE THAT MIKE! A COPTIC TRANSLATION RENDERS VERSE 18, “GOD THE ONLY SON.” THIS ALSO SUPPORTS THE SEPTUAGINT'S TREATMENT OF 'MONOGENES' AS “ONLY“
WEEP MIKE WEEP!
TO ALL:
Even a JW website acknowledges that the ancient Coptic translation of John 1:1c may be understood as “the Word was a god” OR “the Word was DIVINE.”
Quote The ancient Coptic version of John 1:1 does not say that “the Word was God” but rather “the Word was a god” OR “the Word was divine.” Is it not time for Bible translators to revise their work?
http://en.allexperts.com/q….n-1.htmNote that this JW site acknowledges that the Coptic indefinite may mean “the Word was divine.” Then they say that it is time for Bible translators to revise their work. Well, that's exactly what some translators have done:
“…and the Word was what God was.” NEB
Good stuff Jack.
David doesn't come around as much since I had that long debate with him about the Coptic and proved that his argument was ambiguous. But you have found some new evidence that I had not seen. Thanks!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,08:38) Good stuff Jack. David doesn't come around as much since I had that long debate with him about the Coptic and proved that his argument was ambiguous. But you have found some new evidence that I had not seen. Thanks!
WJ
Keith,Because of Mike's comment I had to post something other than my “cheerleader role.” Seriously though I am tired of discoursing with Mike and so I have chosen to root you on instead.
Jack
TO ALL,
The statement below appears in my op.
“Okay friends there you have it! The indefinite article in the Coptics may attribute quality and not count to a noun. This means that if the indefinite 'a god' in the Coptics may not have indicated that Jesus was a separate god from the God.”
The bolded 'if' was unintentional. I meant to say,
“Okay friends there you have it! The indefinite article in the Coptics may attribute quality and not count to a noun. This means that the indefinite 'a god' in the Coptics may not have indicated that Jesus was a separate god from the God.”
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,15:55) Seriously though I am tired of discoursing with Mike and so I have chosen to root you on instead.
Thank God! Remember what I told you in the pm, Jack. I like you around for the same reason I like Steve Martin's old comedy movies. You both crack me up!Your arguments in favor of a triune God are usually idiotic, nonsensical, and rarely exceed a third grade academic level.
I also have first hand experience of your deceptive nature, and don't really care to discuss something as important as scripture with people like you. So stick to cheerleading for Keith, and we'll both be happy.
As far as your Coptic post, just know this: For John 1:1, Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives “a god” for the literal interlinear translation of ΟΥ.ΝΟΥΤЄ (“ou.noute”).
But who is “Bentley Layton” you might ask: Bentley Layton (born 1941), is Professor of Religious Studies (Ancient Christianity) and Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (Coptic) at Yale University (since 1983).
For specialists, Layton's Coptic grammar is a standard text. He catalogued all the Coptic manuscripts in the British Library. He is a board member on the Harvard Theological Review and the Journal of Coptic Studies.
There are also other English translators that render the Coptic of 1:1 as “a god”, but do we really need more than good old Bentley?
mike
To all,
If this is about the coptic version of John then it should be in the forum titled “The Bible”.
If this is instead about the correct interpretation of John 1 then there are other threads about that.
Please try to make it easier on others by posting in the apropriate areas and makeing as few threads as possible about the same general topic. Thank you.
Agreed, Kerwin.
We are in a discussion about John 1:1 in yet another thread that Jack has started. And he has started 2 or 3 other ones dealing with the same issues since that time.
He starts a thread, usually containing a title with something derogatory about me, and I'm lead into it to defend myself.
I will try to ignore them in the future unless they really are about a new subject.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:10) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,15:55) Seriously though I am tired of discoursing with Mike and so I have chosen to root you on instead.
Your arguments in favor of a triune God are usually idiotic, nonsensical, and rarely exceed a third grade academic level.
JackCan you see the arrogance of this guy? We simply teach the scriptures and quote what 1000s of experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek teach and Mike says that it “rarely exceeds a third grade academic level”.
Hey Mike, Jack and I have some academic credentials in Biblical studies how about you?
WJ
Mike wrote:
Quote There are also other English translators that render the Coptic of 1:1 as “a god”, but do we really need more than good old Bentley?
Mike,You did not pay attention. The “a god” reading in the Coptics does not necessarily infer a lesser god because it may be about QUALITY rather than quantity. The indefinite in the Coptics is not necessarily equivalent to the indefinite in the English. So the fact that the English literally translates “a god” is inconclusive because in the Coptics it may have been quantative rather than qualitative.
And what about the Coptic rendering of 1:18? It reads, “God the Only Son.” This destroys the your claim that the indefinite in 1:1c in the Coptic must mean what you mean by it. It may mean “a God” (qualitatively with a capital “G”) and not necessarily a lesser god qualitatively.
The Coptic reading also proves that other ancient translations treated “monogenes” simply as “only.” It reads, “God the only Son”. This reading of “monogenes” is in agreement with the Septuagint's equation of it with the Hebrew “yachid” (only).
You did not answer these specific points. Yet you are always bullying others to reply to your points. When you don't answer me I just move on.
Instead of answering my points you insult me which is a form of the Ad hominen:
You said:
Quote Your arguments in favor of a triune God are usually idiotic, nonsensical, and rarely exceed a third grade academic level. About the Argument by insult:
Quote This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemIt is your Argument by insult that is “idiotic” and “third grade level.”
David disappeared when Keith showed that his argument from the Coptics was ambiguous and now you employ the Argument by insult method as your reply.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,02:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:10) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,15:55) Seriously though I am tired of discoursing with Mike and so I have chosen to root you on instead.
Your arguments in favor of a triune God are usually idiotic, nonsensical, and rarely exceed a third grade academic level.
JackCan you see the arrogance of this guy? We simply teach the scriptures and quote what 1000s of experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek teach and Mike says that it “rarely exceeds a third grade academic level”.
Hey Mike, Jack and I have some academic credentials in Biblical studies how about you?
WJ
Keith,Mike employed the Argument by insult method because he had no reply. It is a form of the Ad hominen argument. See the link in my post above for a definition of Argument by insult.
And Mike has been going on and on and on ad infinitum with his argument from the “possible.” SF is correct in noting that he has been avoiding having to deal with FACTS. Mike don't want to face the facts so he must argue the “possible.” Go back to the op to the freak Greek thread. I pointed out how he blundered in saying that John 1:1c and 8:44 are written identically. He went straight to diverting our attention from his blunder with his argument from the “possible” and has been annoying everyone since.
Mike really is a piece of work.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,11:15) Mike wrote: Quote There are also other English translators that render the Coptic of 1:1 as “a god”, but do we really need more than good old Bentley?
Mike,You did not pay attention. The “a god” reading in the Coptics does not necessarily infer a lesser god because it may be about QUALITY rather than quantity. The indefinite in the Coptics is not necessarily equivalent to the indefinite in the English. So the fact that the English literally translates “a god” is inconclusive because in the Coptics it may have been quantative rather than qualitative.
JackNot to mention todays modern “Coptic” Christians that use the Coptic are “Trinitarians”, Go figure.
WJ
TO ALL,
The bolded words below are incorrect in my post above. The correct wording is next to each in brackets
“You did not pay attention. The “a god” reading in the Coptics does not necessarily infer a lesser god because it may be about QUALITY rather than quantity. The indefinite in the Coptics is not necessarily equivalent to the indefinite in the English. So the fact that the English literally translates “a god” is inconclusive because in the Coptics it may have been quantative [qualitiative] rather than qualitative [quantitative].
And what about the Coptic rendering of 1:18? It reads, “God the Only Son.” This destroys the your claim that the indefinite in 1:1c in the Coptic must mean what you mean by it. It may mean “a God” (qualitatively with a capital “G”) and not necessarily a lesser god qualitatively [quantitatively].”
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,13:15) And what about the Coptic rendering of 1:18? It reads, “God the Only Son.” This destroys the your claim that the indefinite in 1:1c in the Coptic must mean what you mean by it. It may mean “a God” (qualitatively with a capital “G”) and not necessarily a lesser god qualitatively [quantitatively].”
Exactly, in fact it probably means when they read John 1:1 as “a god” to them it meant that qualitatively what ever the Father was the Word was, meaning ” he is God in nature”.We need to search and see if there are some Coptic Christians that can verify this.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,08:29) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,13:15) And what about the Coptic rendering of 1:18? It reads, “God the Only Son.” This destroys the your claim that the indefinite in 1:1c in the Coptic must mean what you mean by it. It may mean “a God” (qualitatively with a capital “G”) and not necessarily a lesser god qualitatively [quantitatively].”
Exactly, in fact it probably means when they read John 1:1 as “a god” to them it meant that qualitatively what ever the Father was the Word was, meaning ” he is God in nature”.We need to search and see if there are some Coptic Christians that can verify this.
WJ
Keith,Yesterday on another discussion board a JW used an example from Mark 6:49 which says that the disciples thoughht they had seen a ghost. I replied asking him to show how the indefinite 'a' in the Coptic proves that the perceived ghost was quantitatively lesser or greater than any other ghost.
In 1:1c the indefinite 'a' in the Coptic may have referred to quality without any reference to quantity whatsoever. In the Coptics the 'a' is used in reference to grace and truth. “From His fulness we have all received a grace and a truth.” Are we to necessarily infer that these are quantitatively less than or greater than THE grace and THE truth?
Seeing that John 1:18 in the Coptic reads, “God the only Son” the Coptics become ambiguous at best as you have said because 1:18 cannot be ignored as sister Kathi has said.
Jack
Hi WJ,
From my research I believe the Coptics understood The Word(Logos) as just that, the divine communication/expression of God. So to them the Logos was in quality a thing of or from God. The Logos manifested itself in Jesus' person. This:Quote Prior to the “Great” East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Coptics were separated from the rest by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The council met to discuss the Incarnation of Christ and declared that Christ was “one hypostasis in two natures” (i.e., one person who shares two distinct natures). This became standard orthodoxy for Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches from then on. The Coptic understanding is that Christ is one nature from two natures: “the Logos Incarnate.” In this understanding, Christ is from, not in, two natures: full humanity and full divinity. Some in the Coptic Orthodox Church believe that their position was misunderstood at the Council of Chalcedon and take great pains to ensure that they are not seen as Monophysitic (denying the two natures of Christ), but rather “Miaphysitic” (believing in one composite/conjoined nature from two). Some believe that perhaps the council understood the church correctly, but wanted to exile the church for its refusal to take part in politics or due to the rivalry between the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. To this day, 95 percent of Christians in Alexandria are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
I found here Coptic-Christianity
Hope that helps.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 25 2011,00:25) Hi WJ,
From my research I believe the Coptics understood The Word(Logos) as just that, the divine communication/expression of God. So to them the Logos was in quality a thing of or from God. The Logos manifested itself in Jesus' person. This:Quote Prior to the “Great” East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Coptics were separated from the rest by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The council met to discuss the Incarnation of Christ and declared that Christ was “one hypostasis in two natures” (i.e., one person who shares two distinct natures). This became standard orthodoxy for Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches from then on. The Coptic understanding is that Christ is one nature from two natures: “the Logos Incarnate.” In this understanding, Christ is from, not in, two natures: full humanity and full divinity. Some in the Coptic Orthodox Church believe that their position was misunderstood at the Council of Chalcedon and take great pains to ensure that they are not seen as Monophysitic (denying the two natures of Christ), but rather “Miaphysitic” (believing in one composite/conjoined nature from two). Some believe that perhaps the council understood the church correctly, but wanted to exile the church for its refusal to take part in politics or due to the rivalry between the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. To this day, 95 percent of Christians in Alexandria are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
I found here Coptic-Christianity
Hope that helps.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
HiFrom your quote it seems to state that current day Coptic Christians now agree with the creeds which says Jesus is God.
The Orthodox Church believes in the Trinity.
WJ
Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 25 2011,16:25) Hi WJ,
From my research I believe the Coptics understood The Word(Logos) as just that, the divine communication/expression of God. So to them the Logos was in quality a thing of or from God. The Logos manifested itself in Jesus' person. This:Quote Prior to the “Great” East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Coptics were separated from the rest by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The council met to discuss the Incarnation of Christ and declared that Christ was “one hypostasis in two natures” (i.e., one person who shares two distinct natures). This became standard orthodoxy for Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches from then on. The Coptic understanding is that Christ is one nature from two natures: “the Logos Incarnate.” In this understanding, Christ is from, not in, two natures: full humanity and full divinity. Some in the Coptic Orthodox Church believe that their position was misunderstood at the Council of Chalcedon and take great pains to ensure that they are not seen as Monophysitic (denying the two natures of Christ), but rather “Miaphysitic” (believing in one composite/conjoined nature from two). Some believe that perhaps the council understood the church correctly, but wanted to exile the church for its refusal to take part in politics or due to the rivalry between the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. To this day, 95 percent of Christians in Alexandria are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
I found here Coptic-Christianity
Hope that helps.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
Hi W,Good source…thanks.
KJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
