- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,10:15) 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.
Hi Jack,I understand what you and the scholars are saying. I only ask that you understand this:
Professor Bentley translated the Coptic version into English as “a god”. He seems to be the world's foremost expert on the Coptic language, from what I've read. And apparently he thought they understood the Word to be “a god”. It doesn't make Bentley right without a doubt, but it does make clear that “a god” is a possible meaning of 1:1c in the Coptic language as well as the Greek.
Wispring's info seems to teach that the Coptics believed Jesus to be FROM two natures, which is scriptural. There is also info in his quote about exiling the church for refusing to “play politics”. So whether or not the Coptic Church has now “conformed” to the Orthodox church of Rome's way of thinking is neither here nor there. For many have been threatened or tortured into accepting this trinity doctrine throughout history. So displaying the beliefs that they have now “conformed” to, says little about their original understanding of John 1:1.
mike
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
Why is it that people always ascribe my absence to themselves? WJ, It is highly ridiculous to conclude that my not being on here very much any more is in any way connected to our conversations about Coptic. That is absurd to the highest degree if that is what you are saying.Your argument if I recall was essentially that the coptic can not be trusted because it has many errors.
I have never said that the coptic definitively proves anything one way or the other. I have repeatedly stated that it is interesting in the extreme that the first people who had the opportunity to write it “a god” did in fact do so. (And, these being people that lived at the time when ancient common Greek was still understood.) And since John 1:1 seems to be a primary if not the primary “proof text” for trinitarians, this makes the coptic quite interesting.
As for KJ's post, I'm not so certain as to why you are positive about it, or why you think it helps your beliefs. There are points made on both sides.
Quote (david @ April 01 2011,02:17) 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
Why is it that people always ascribe my absence to themselves? WJ, It is highly ridiculous to conclude that my not being on here very much any more is in any way connected to our conversations about Coptic. That is absurd to the highest degree if that is what you are saying.Your argument if I recall was essentially that the coptic can not be trusted because it has many errors.
I have never said that the coptic definitively proves anything one way or the other.
Hi DavidDon't get your pantys in a wad.
It was merely my observation that it seemed to me you left after admitting it was ambiguous.Now you admit it again and that it doesn't prove anything.
Thanks!
WJ
David said:
Quote I have never said that the coptic definitively proves anything one way or the other.
An honest man! What a breath of fresh air!Thumbs up David.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,07:59) 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!
John 1:18American standard version
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.Quote “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.”—kj
Yes, it would seem unlikely. But when you quote: “God, the only son,” you presume in this short quote that the “Go
d” is “the only son.”It's not saying : god, the son.
Many bibles translate this verse as above.
It's saying: No one has seen “GOD. THE ONLY SON” explained him.
To take those few words out and say that:
It's talking about “the” God (Jesus) in John 1:18 so it's unlikely it would be talking about “a” god (Jesus) in John 1:1, is weak.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 05 2011,06:16) David said: Quote I have never said that the coptic definitively proves anything one way or the other.
An honest man! What a breath of fresh air!Thumbs up David.
KJ
This post deserves a bump.After days of research, I am going to confidently say to kerwin:
–Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that uses the indefinite article!!
And equally important:
–Coptic was the only language that uses indefinite articles that was produced while koine Greek was spoken.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
