It is difficult to get permission from Thomas Nelson Publishers. You have to do all sorts of business research and explain how you're going to use it and how much money you expect to make etc.
@Bishoy_Labib, the Bible was not published or worked on by any Oriental Orthodox clergymen. To me, to us in the coptic church, it's like any other translation.
I do not think it is a good idea to introduce a new version. The church should choose an existing version of the bible. I think the Greek Orthodox Bible most likely to be adopted by the church. We just need need it to be approved by the Diocese.
HHSIII always recommended NKJV and next NIV. I like NKJV to.....but when it comes to the psalms, the text doesn't match at. Which is understandable due to the sources of the translations.....but if the psalms do not match, you can't really chant it. So i guess I care a little more about chanting the psalm.
In the area of biblical criticism, every bible falls short. Every translation falls short. What makes us assume there is one good version of the bible? Even the Septugaint OT in Greek has multiple versions. It has taken almost 100 years to get the version we have now and it is based on many assumptions. The Greek NT has multiple versions, and you will likely find all of them listed in most polyglot websites.
The Coptic NT is no different. There are multiple versions. What Rev Horner did was consolidate a bunch of manuscripts and come up with the most likely Coptic version.
The situation is worse when it comes to translations. Each translation operates by certain assumptions and it becomes apparent that no one version is a perfect translation. There are now multiple versions of the NKJV and NIV.
The Orthodox Bible is a good edition, but it is really no different than any other English translation. All translations have shortcomings, regardless of language.
Origen was one of the very first people to collect the Biblical translations together into a "Hexapla" for his commentaries. I think that's what we need today, an English version of a "Hexapla" for completeness sake. It would be nice for an academic study on the variations of translations. It has been told that a translation in and of itself is a form of commentary/interpretation.
@minasoliman - You may find the SWORD Project interesting. It and a handful of other open source initiatives provide for something like that; side by side comparisons of different Bible Translations, and even the underlying source texts. I think it has Westcott & Hort's Greek NT & Rahlf's LXX available for importing.
@Remnkemi - It's true, no translation is perfect; but some are definitely better than others. Horner's Coptic NT is actually nice starting point as it's an attempt at a critical edition, and his English translation is considered to be of a "formal equivalence" type, meaning it's fairly literal. I've also seen some work available under the names of Sahidica and Boharica; but I'm not sure what their status in copyright is :-\.
On the whole, what's truly lacking is solid scholarship on the Alexandrian Textual Tradition after it migrates into the Coptic Language and scholars are eagerly working to prepare tools & technology to pursue this research as it will shed light on both the Septuagint & New Testament in a language that is so very close to the Greek.
I guess part of me is just afraid we'll see our heritage pilfered & plundered and placed under copyright unless we actively participate in the process :-\.
We had 1500+ years to get our heritage worked out and disseminated properly and we didn't. The problem is us, not anyone else. Either way, a heritage in the truest sense cannot be plundered and copyrighted. People have tried but we are still here with our heritage.
I like Horner's Coptic NT. I attended a lecture about another manuscript of Coptic John (I forget which chapter). The theory is the scribe intentional changed things around to show a more gnostic theology (especially with the list of Apostles). There were even hints of magic text inserted also. The point is there are so many non-traditional (semi-apocryphal) texts out there that illustrate that biblical texts simultaneously developed and did not conform to any standard. (Not even chapter and verse divisions, much less word divisions and "spelling"). That's the way its supposed to be.
@Remnkemi - You make a good point. In the truest sense, our heritage can't be plundered. I simply meant that I don't want to see happen to the Coptic Scriptures what has happened to the whole of the Bible in modern times; with manuscripts scattered to the four winds in museums who only let scholars in a handful of universities view them, so they can publish editions that nobody can use without significant financial investment.
Also, when you have a chance, could you elaborate a bit more on this: "The point is there are so many non-traditional (semi-apocryphal) texts out there that illustrate that biblical texts simultaneously developed and did not conform to any standard."
Comments