|
This
brief exchange took place between Robert Hommel and one of Jehovah's
Witnesses whose initials are SL on
Robert Bowman's Evangelicals
and JWs discussion board in the spring of 2006. It touches on points
raised in the George Horner section of the article found here
regarding an early translation of the New Testament in the Coptic
dialect called Sahidic.
We begin
with a post SL made to another member of the
forum:
From:
"SL"
Date: Mon Apr 24 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: Question for EV's...
> None the less,it would be interesting to know why they rendered
John
> 1:18 the way that they did. Why not use either "monogenos"
or "uios"
> why the appellation of "Theos" and "uios" ? Why
the same formula as
> the Trinity ?
As was already stated, they likely had Greek texts with both
MONOGENHS and hUIOS before them. Swanson's _New Testament Greek
Manuscripts_ lists 6 ancient Greek mss with the MONOGENHS QEOS
reading and 4 with the MONOGENHS hUIOS reading. Rather than
discarding one reading for the other, it is probable that they
combined them. Reverend George Horner makes the same conclusion in
the Introduction of his English translation of the Coptic text, made
in 1911.
Incidentally, the Coptic Bohairic version, made a little later than
the Sahidic version, has only one reading at John 1:18: *pimonogenes
nnouti*, "the only-begotten (Son) of God," with
"Son" being
understood in *monogenes* There is no ambiguity in the Bohairic
version. "God" is dropped, "Son" is used.
> Please read what Dr. Layton wrote with regard to
> the use "artice" in the Coptic versions :
>
> "The indefinite 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".
You should also re-read what Dr. Layton said, specifically:
1- "This pattern indicates *either* a quality (we'd omit the
Englilsh
article, in English: "is divine")" OR
2- "an entity ("is a god").
3- "In Coptic, God is always *without exception* supplied with the
def. article." (My emphasis)
Yet that is the precise point, noute, "god," DOES NOT HAVE THE
DEFINITE ARTICLE in Coptic John 1:1c. It has the INDEFINITE ARTICLE.
Dr. Layton agrees that if it means "God" it has the definite
article. But it doesn't here, so what does it mean? As he says, we
can either translate "is divine" or "is a god."
Frankly, "is a god"
is preferable grammatically, since the Coptic noun noute,
"god" is
not in the class of words generally rendered qualitative by using the
Coptic indefinite article.
> Also in my Modern Greek New Testament their seems to be no use of
the
> indefinite articles "mia" and "ena" before
"Theos" at John 1:1.
There doesn't have to be. The QEOS of John 1:1c is anarthrous, in
contrast with the articular ho QEOS of John 1:1b. The force of the
anarthrous QEOS is "a divine being" or "a god."
> So with the above in mind we can see that the article in the Coptic
> version has no bearing on the English translation and that the
Modern
> Greek versions omit the indefinite article.
I disagree. The indefinite article in the Coptic version of John
1:1c has great bearing on an *accurate* English translation of the
verse.
> Peace and Blessings
Same to you.
SL
From:
Robert Hommel
Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:51 am
Subject: Re: Question for EV's...
Hello, SL
You wrote:
SL:
As was already stated, they likely had Greek texts with both
MONOGENHS and hUIOS before them. Swanson's _New Testament Greek
Manuscripts_ lists 6 ancient Greek mss with the MONOGENHS QEOS
reading and 4 with the MONOGENHS hUIOS reading. Rather than
discarding one reading for the other, it is probable that they
combined them. Reverend George Horner makes the same conclusion in
the Introduction of his English translation of the Coptic text, made
in 1911.
Incidentally, the Coptic Bohairic version, made a little later than
the Sahidic version, has only one reading at John 1:18: *pimonogenes
nnouti*, "the only-begotten (Son) of God," with
"Son" being
understood in *monogenes* There is no ambiguity in the Bohairic
version. "God" is dropped, "Son" is used.
RH:
SL, why cannot the Sahidic translators have understood
MONOGENHS as including the idea of "Son," just as you say the
Bohairic translators did? If they did, we do not need to resort to
textual conflation, but simply conclude that they had MONOGENHS QEOS
in front of them. This is the view expressed to me by Coptic
scholar PJ Williams in private email.
Even if we allow for textual conflation, the translation as we have
it in the Sahidic is "the God the only Son," (using NOUTE with
the
definite article) which seems a pretty clear affirmation of Christ's
Deity to me.
SL:
Yet that is the precise point, noute, "god," DOES NOT HAVE THE
DEFINITE ARTICLE in Coptic John 1:1c. It has the INDEFINITE ARTICLE.
Dr. Layton agrees that if it means "God" it has the definite
article. But it doesn't here, so what does it mean? As he says, we
can either translate "is divine" or "is a god."
Frankly, "is a god"
is preferable grammatically, since the Coptic noun noute,
"god" is
not in the class of words generally rendered qualitative by using the
Coptic indefinite article.
RH:
Your last sentence goes far beyond what Dr. Layton says. If we
consider John 1:1c in light of how the Sahidic translators rendered
John 1:18b (even allowing for textual conflation), I think the
evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a qualitative reading.
Best regards,
Robert
|
