Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Coptic experts and theologians - John 1:1
Hey all,
a friend of mine recently drew my attention to this article; http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf
It's a Jehovah's Witness article that attacks Orthodox doctrine by looking at the translation of John's Gospel, and this is obviously a big problem. This is well above my understanding of the language, so I'm wondering if anyone here is able to take a look at this and explain it. I'm sorry if this has been seen before and I'm just very slow, but it's the first time I've seen it :P
Matthew
a friend of mine recently drew my attention to this article; http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf
It's a Jehovah's Witness article that attacks Orthodox doctrine by looking at the translation of John's Gospel, and this is obviously a big problem. This is well above my understanding of the language, so I'm wondering if anyone here is able to take a look at this and explain it. I'm sorry if this has been seen before and I'm just very slow, but it's the first time I've seen it :P
Matthew
Comments
GB
Matthew
Please play nice.
We have the blessing of having a few JW brothers and sisters participating in this forum. Disagreeing with them is well and right, but hoping God's wrath on them is rash and unchristian . . .
George
I found this sit to be interesting:
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god
Info from the website (the first part is paraphrased and I commented in brackets[]:
The Gospel of John, as well as the rest of the bible teaches us that there is only one God. If the text of john 1:1 were to be interpreted "a god" that would imply either henotheism or polytheism; this would be inconsistent. [Not only that but if Jesus were "a god" and not God then wouldn't honoring him in any way would be in direct violation of the second commandment.]
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
1. "In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
2. "and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
3. "and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
George
LondonCopt,
I found this sit to be interesting:
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god
Info from the website (the first part is paraphrased and I commented in brackets[]:
The Gospel of John, as well as the rest of the bible teaches us that there is only one God. If the text of john 1:1 were to be interpreted "a god" that would imply either henotheism or polytheism; this would be inconsistent. [Not only that but if Jesus were "a god" and not God then wouldn't honoring him in any way would be in direct violation of the second commandment.]
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
1. "In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
2. "and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
3. "and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
George
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
you can use the coptic john 1:1 in a sense has divine or a god. The grammar in the Sahidic Coptic strongly suggest a god.
This website explain what we believe what god mean in Hebrew http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=440.
Which explain that Elohim which is god in Hebrew can mean mighty being. Which give you example were angel, demon and human are call god. Such has John 10:34 and 35
That is Colwell's rule your useing. Wallace argues that the value of Colwell's is not for exegesis since it does not establish definiteness but only suggest probable word order in certain cases. Rather, "it is validity is for textual criticism is as follow: if it is obvious that a pre-verbal pn is definite, the MSS which lack the article are more likely to support the original reading." (Wallace, 188.) This does not help, of course. When the variant involves not just the article, but also word order. See the example (CR 16) were b and evidence this combination pattern.
This website has alot more info on Collwell's rule http://www.ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf
also the Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 was translated when the Greek in the bible was a spoken language And around 1700 year ago
We know from the very beginning that the Church has always confessed that Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, the Son of God and one of the Holy Trinity. We do not need to determine whether or not the entire community of faithful believers was mistaken in understanding that the Word of God is truly God Himself.
There are various modern groups who perpetuate some of the ancient Christological heresies. They remain heresies and Coptic Orthodox should be careful of them and not believe that the substance of our Faith is liable to a simple textual analysis.
Father Peter
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
you can use the coptic john 1:1 in a sense has divine or a god. The grammar in the Sahidic Coptic strongly suggest a god.
This website explain what we believe what god mean in Hebrew http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=440.
Which explain that Elohim which is god in Hebrew can mean mighty being. Which give you example were angel, demon and human are call god. Such has John 10:34 and 35
That is Colwell's rule your useing. Wallace argues that the value of Colwell's is not for exegesis since it does not establish definiteness but only suggest probable word order in certain cases. Rather, "it is validity is for textual criticism is as follow: if it is obvious that a pre-verbal pn is definite, the MSS which lack the article are more likely to support the original reading." (Wallace, 188.) This does not help, of course. When the variant involves not just the article, but also word order. See the example (CR 16) were b and evidence this combination pattern.
This website has alot more info on Collwell's rule http://www.ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf
also the Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 was translated when the Greek in the bible was a spoken language And around 1700 year ago
Like Fr. Peter said, the Orthodox don't "need" to argue over translation issues like this because the Orthodox faith is "bigger" than minute debates of translations. The Church is older than the Bible, and while the Scriptures are indeed the supreme icon of Christ, for many decades the Church existed without the Gospel of John. Secondly, I know people who can not only READ Koine Greek, but can actually carry on a conversation in koine Greek, and they do not translate John 1:1 as "a god"....the mistake modern scholars influenced by scholastic scholarship tend to make, is they look at the words and translate "word for word", a small few translate in line with the NWT Bible....however a key issue of language is being left out in this scholarly method, and that is "thinking" in said language.
You either become fluent in a language, to the point you can converse in that language, or you don't. Most scholars simply do not have that ability in koine Greek, that's why you hear them talk about "the most accurate translation" and such phrases....someone who can actually converse in koine Greek (and there are truly very few of these people in the world) will tell you there is no "most accurate" translation; all translations are an interpretation.
Most Greek Orthodox priests (in the states) cannot even "think" in koine Greek...they can read it, and study it, chant in it (I can chant in it) but they cannot think in koine Greek because they're learning from the outside in. I'm sure it is the same way with any language. Look how Catholic scholars try and use Matthew 16:18 to "prove" papal supremacy, by using the argument "well Jesus would have spoke in Aramaic and in Aramaic it means what we mean"...yet why is it that people who actually SPEAK Aramaic, and can think in Aramaic (as opposed to just studying it, no matter how fluent they are in the scholastic sense) make no such claims for their Church? (the Syriac Church)
1000 years from now, if English is a dead language and people are studying something I wrote or said, it might mean something VERY different than I intended for those who simply study the grammatical rules of English. In the EO Church, we have the Akathist Hymn, and there is a refrain "Xaire Nymphi Animfefte" Rejoice o Bride unwedded. Now I've been told and read "Xaire" means "hail" in all the grammatical rules of Greek, (it's the same word used when the Roman soldiers mock Jesus and say "hail king of the jews"......yet for the Akathist all Greek Orthodox priests who know say the "best" translation is "Rejoice O bride" and not "Hail".....that's the difference between studying a language and be able to "think" in a language. So scholars can argue over these rules, but until they can sight translate the New Testament as they chant it, I've got my doubts in their ability to grasp the nuances of a language that you simply cannot learn from a book or grammatical rules. I'm sure Coptic is exactly the same way.
Now for the Original poster, It's also important to keep in mind the Gospels are of Jewish origin, and some of this only makes sense if one understands Second Temple Judaism. Scholarship in Second Temple Judaism has come a LONG way in 60 years, and remember, the Gospels are of Jewish origin...contextually, I find it absurd that a Jew would have intended the first sentence in John to imply the existence of a god other than YHWH. (I realize this is not the Jehova's witness interpretation either, but that just goes to show, it's all in how one interprates, not grammatical rules)
With that said, I respect jehova's witnesses and have no beef with them individually. At least to me, they embody the Christian life far better than many in my own Church do, but I still do not believe JW theology to be accurate, nor do I believe it to what the earliest Christians believed.
For a sound read on the latest scholarship in Second temple Judaism and earliest Christianity, I suggest "In the Shadow of the Temple" by oskar skarsuane, it's relevant to this topic, and shows just how "Orthodox" the early Church actually was. (the author I believe is Jewish so he's not trying to "prove" anything for Christianity....it's just sound history.
I am presently reading a very enjoyable scholarly work called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham, Professor of NT Studies at the University of St Andrews. It places the Gospels in context as eye witness statements and is a very interesting antidote to the discredited idea that the Gospels were very late and had no connection with the Apostles.
Father Peter
Thanks for the post and the book reference. I'll try and get hold of it.
I am presently reading a very enjoyable scholarly work called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham, Professor of NT Studies at the University of St Andrews. It places the Gospels in context as eye witness statements and is a very interesting antidote to the discredited idea that the Gospels were very late and had no connection with the Apostles.
Father Peter,
Thanks for the book reference, I'm writing it down and will check out my local library as soon as I'm finished with another book I just started (not related to any of this)...:)
Skarsuane's book, while not specifically written for the same reasons as the book you're reading, very much draws similar conclusions. Not specifically about the Gospels, but Christian theology, in general and just how early Christian theology actually was. (all pre-70AD) The full title of the book is:
In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity, by Oskar Skarsuane
Thanks again for your suggestion as well.
Father Peter
Dear Northstar, I see the book you mentioned is on Google Books so I am reading some of the early chapters there before getting the book. I think it is really important that books like this are available which put our Christian faith into a Jewish context, and I am sure that there is much to learn from understanding that context better. Not least in a reading of the Gospels themselves.
Father Peter, I think you're right. Since finishing 'In the Shadow of the Temple' I've been seeing the Gospels, as well as the book of Acts in a new light, and it's helped me understand things a little differently, which has helped my faith in general. I'm glad you were able to find it on Google Books (I didn't realize it was there)...luckily my library had a copy so I read it that way.