Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i think id better leave you with you perceptions, for to be sure, not only are you able to tell others what you think, but you seem to be possessed of the uncanny ability of telling others what they think as well, its really quite amazing.
i suggest that you look up the sahidic coptic text, then you may come back to the forum a little bet ...[text shortened]... own conclusions, rather than me telling you what it is you should think, isn't that refreshing?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1 —
Interestingly, Origen of Alexandria, who was a teacher in Greek grammar in the third century wrote about the use of the definite article here:[16]
"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God......The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."
It might suggest that an ancient Greek reader could take the anarthrous noun theos applied to the Word as indefinite. The Coptic translators comtemporaries to Origen seemed to understand it in the same sense. For instance, The SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1 says :
Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute Auw neunoute pe pshaje
A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:
In the beginning existed the word And the word existed in the presence of the god And a god was the word
The Coptic noun "noute" means "god". Also, unlike the ancient Greek and latin the Sahidic Coptic language had an indefinite article. Here those translators used the definite article "p" for the first theos (as the Koine Greek does), but they used the indefinite article "u" before the second theos. Unlike the English language, this indefinite article may be also applied to mass nouns, which could not be translated into English. Accordingly, some have argued that "noute" in John 1:1c should be regarded as a mass noun, thus it would suggest that this noun should be taken as purely qualitative, rather than indefinite. So according to this view the translation should be "The Word was Divine". Nonetheless, others have argued that here "noute" is a count noun, thus the Coptic indefnite article is the same as the english indefinite article.
Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun "noute" in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as "a god." For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has "a god." Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives "a god" for the literal interlinear translation of "u.noute" in his grammar book, "Coptic in 20 Lessons," page 7. (Peeters, Leuven, 2007)
Coptic grammar does not apply the term "qualitative" to nouns. But it does recognize adjectival usage of nouns, in which case, if the context called for it, "u.noute" could be rendered into English as "divine." However, at John 1:1 in Coptic, we have a distinction between "p.noute," or "the god," i.e., "God" in English, and another entity, the Logos or Word (Shaje in Coptic) identified as "u.noute," or "a god."
Whereas "divine" could fit here as a paraphrase, there is no contextual or grammatical reason to overlook the entirely proper literal translation, "a god."
______________________________________________
I also read the site that you referenced before, which notes that the Sahidic text is a translation from the Greek. As a very early translation, it can certainly serve well as a commentary on the Greek. But it is still a translation, and so the Greek retains primacy. I do not know whether the Sahidic word
pshaje captures all the meanings of the Greek word
logos; the English word “word” does not. (All I could find searching the web was the logos => pshaje => word formulation; if you can give me someplace else to look, I will.)
Whether
noute should be rendered with or without the definite article certainly bears on the question of whether
pshaje is “the God” or simply another divine being, to be sure (and I have not argued your theology here). But that does not support your interpolation making
logos to refer to the Bible in John 17:17. I see no textual support for thinking that John meant to use
logos here in such a different sense as the earlier verses.
However—I’ll grant you this—any divine speech (oral or written), as
logos in the narrow sense, would have to be consistent with any of the broader meanings of
logos as applied to the divinity.
_________________________________________________
If I sounded condescending it was because I allowed myself to be piqued by your sarcastic remark about my ability to understand “the function” of the English word “word”.
07 Jun '09 20:333 edits
Let's discuss the diety of Jesus Christ
Back to Top