1 ϩΝ ΤЄϩΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ. ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϩΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ. 2 ΠΑΙ ϩΝ ΤЄϩΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ϩΑΤΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. 3 ΝΚΑ ΝΙΜ ΑΥϢШΠЄ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΟΟΤϤ. ΑΥШ ΑϪΝΤϤ ΜΠЄ λΑΑΥ ϢШΠЄ. ΠЄΝΤΑϤϢШΠЄ 4 ϩΡΑΙ ΝϩΗΤϤ ΠЄ ΠШΝϩ. ΑΥШ ΠШΝϩ ΠЄ ΠΟΥΟЄΙΝ ΝΝΡШΜЄ. 5 ΑΥШ ΠΟΥΟЄΙΝ ЄϤΡΟΥΟЄΙΝ ϩΜ ΠΚΑΚЄ. ΑΥШ ΜΠЄ ΠΚΑΚЄ ΤΑϩΟϤ.
6 ΑϤϢШΠЄ ΝϬΙΟΥΡШΜЄ ЄΑΥΤΝΝΟΥΥϤ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ЄΠЄϤΡΑΝ ΠЄ ΙШϩΑΝΝΗС. 7 ΠΑΙ ΑϤЄΙ ЄΥΜΝΤΜΝΤΡЄ. ϪЄΚΑС ЄϤЄΡΜΝΤΡЄ ЄΤβЄ ΠΟΥΟЄΙΝ. ϪЄΚΑС ЄΡЄ ΟΥΟΝ ΝΙΜ ΠΙСΤЄΥЄ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΟΟΤϤ. 8 ΝЄ ΠЄΤΜΜΑΥ ΑΝ ΠΟΥΟЄΙΝ. ΑλλΑ ϪЄΚΑС ΝΤΟϤ ЄϤЄΡΜΝΤΡЄ ЄΤβЄ ΠΟΥΟЄΙΝ. 9 ΠΟΥΟЄΙΝ ΜΜЄ ЄΤΡΟΥΟЄΙΝ ЄΡШΜЄ ΝΙΜ ΠЄ ЄϤΝΗΥ ЄΠΚΟСΜΟС. 10 ΝЄϤϩΜ ΠΚΟСΜΟС ΠЄ. ΑΥШ ΝΤΑ ΠΚΟСΜΟС ϢШΠЄ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΟΟΤϤ. ΑΥШ ΜΠЄ ΠΚΟСΜΟС СΟΥШΝϤ. 11 ΑϤЄΙ ϢΑ ΝЄΤЄΝΟΥϤ ΝЄ. ΑΥШ ΜΠЄ ΝЄΤЄΝΟΥϤ ΝЄ ϪΙΤϤ. 12 ΝЄΝΤΑΥϪΙΤϤ ΔЄ ΑϤϮ ΝΑΥ ΝΤЄξΟΥСΙΑ ЄΤΡЄΥϢШΠЄ ΝϢΗΡЄ ΝΤЄ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΝЄΤΠΙСΤЄΥЄ ЄΠЄϤΡΑΝ. 13 ΝΑΙ ΝϩЄΝЄβΟλ ΑΝ ΝЄ ϩΝ ΟΥШϢ ΝСΝΟϤ ϩΙ СΑΡξ. ΟΥΔЄ ЄβΟλ ΑΝ ϩΜ ΠΟΥШϢ ΝΡШΜЄ. ΑλλΑ ΝΤΑΥϪΠΟΟΥ ЄβΟλ ϩΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ.
14 ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΑϤΡСΑΡξ. ΑϤΟΥШϩ ΝΜΜΑΝ. ΑΥШ ΑΝΝΑΥ ЄΠЄϤЄΟΟΥ. ΝΘЄ ΜΠЄΟΟΥ ΝΟΥϢΗΡЄ ΝΟΥШΤ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΜ ΠЄϤЄΙШΤ. ЄϤϪΗΚ ЄβΟλ ΝΧΑΡΙС ϩΙ ΜЄ. 15 ΙШϩΑΝΝΗС ЄΡΜΝΤΡЄ ЄΤβΗΗΤϤ. ΑΥШ ϤΑϢΚΑΚ ЄβΟλ ЄϤϪШ ΜΜΟС. ϪЄ ΠΑΙ ΠЄΝΤΑΙϪΟΟС ЄΤβΗΗΤϤ. ϪЄ ΠЄΤΝΗΥ ΜΝΝϹШΙ ΑϤϢШΠЄ ϩΑΤΑϩΗ. ϪЄ ΝЄϤΟ ΝϢΟΡΠ ЄΡΟΙ ΠЄ. 16 ϪЄ ЄβΟλ ϩΜ ΠЄϤϪШΚ ΑΝΟΝ ΤΗΡΝ ΝΤΑΝϪΙ ΟΥШΝϩ ΑΥШ ΟΥΧΑΡΙС ЄΠΜΑ ΝΟΥΧΑΡΙС. 17 ϪЄ ΠΝΟΜΟС ΝΤΑΥΤΑΑϤ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΜ ΜШΥСΗС. ΤЄΧΑΡΙС ϩШШС ΑΥШ ΤΜЄ ΝΤΑСϢШΠЄ ЄβΟλ ϩΙΤΜ ΙΗСΟΥС ΠЄΧΡΙСΤΟС. 18 ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΜΠЄ λΑΑΥ ΝΑΥ ЄΡΟϤ ЄΝЄϩ. ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΠϢΗΡЄ ΝΟΥШΤ ΠЄΤϢΟΟΠ ϩΝ ΚΟΥΝϤ ΜΠЄϤЄΙШΤ ΠЄΤΜΜΑΥ ΠЄΝΤΑϤϢΑϪЄ ЄΡΟϤ.
Contemporary English translation (2006)
1. In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being. 2. This one existed in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him; without him nothing that exists came to be. What came to be 4. through him is life, the life that is the light of mankind. 5. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overtake it.
6. There came a man who was sent by God, his name is John. 7. This one came to bear witness, to bear witness about the light, so that everyone may actively believe through him. 8. He was not the light, but his purpose was to bear witness about the light.
9. The real light which gives light to everyone was about to come into the world. 10. He was in the world, the world which came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.
10. He came to those who were his own, yet those who were his own did not receive him. 12. But he gave authority to become children of God to those who did receive him, to those actively believing in his name. 13. The origin of these was not flesh and blood, nor human will; they were begotten from God.
14. The Word became flesh and lived among us. We saw his dignity, the dignity possessed by a Father’s only Son; he was filled with divine loving-kindness and truth. 15. John bore witness about him, calling out and declaring, “This was the one concerning whom I said, ‘He who comes behind me has come to be ahead of me, because he existed prior to me.’” 16. From his fullness we all received life, and divine loving-kindness upon divine loving-kindness. 17. The Law was given through Moses, but the divine loving kindness and the truth came to be though Jesus, the Christ. 18. No one has ever seen God at any time. The divine being, the only Son, who is in the bosom of his Father, is the one who has revealed him.
Notes:
1. The Word was a divine being. Or, "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine."
14. Dignity. Or, "glory."
16. Divine loving-kindness. Or, "unmerited favor."
18. The only Son. Or, "the unique Son."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your “contemporary English” rendering builds its case by flattening how Sahidic equatives and divine titles actually work, and by softening places where the Coptic text pointedly ascribes full deity to the Son. In John 1:1 the clause ⲛⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ places an indefinite predicate before a definite subject, the normal Sahidic way to characterize a subject’s nature without identifying him with a previously named person. Coptic idiom does not require that ⲟⲩ– in that slot be read as a countable extra deity; in predicate position it frequently functions qualitatively. The translator has just written that the Logos was “with the God” (ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) in 1:1b; repeating the definite article in 1:1c would suggest personal identity with the Father, which John avoids. Using an indefinite predicate in this equative frame instead says what the Word is by essence. Rendering that into modern English as “the Word was God” understood qualitatively, or as “the Word was divine” in the strongest sense, conveys the Coptic construction; “a divine being” is, at best, an equivocation that leaves the door open to a lesser, creaturely status the context excludes. John immediately grounds the Logos’ identity in the Creator’s work: “all things came into existence through him, and without him nothing came to be.” A first-century Jewish monotheist does not reserve creation ex nihilo for any “divine being” other than God. To place the Word on the Creator side of the Creator–creature divide and then demote him to something short of true deity is a contradiction, not an exegesis.
Your handling of 1:18 is even more telling. The Sahidic you cite reads, without embarrassment, ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲧⲉ, literally “God, the only Son,” who is in the bosom of the Father. In Christian Sahidic, absolute ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ is the standard way to say “God.” Recasting it as “the divine being, the only Son” is not fidelity to Coptic; it is a theological paraphrase designed to mute the force of the text. John 1:18, in this very version, confesses the Son as ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ and simultaneously distinguishes him from the Father—the same twofold move already present in 1:1b–c. Nor does the possessive grammar of 20:28 neutralize Thomas’s confession. Coptic, like Greek, marks possession with definiteness, but the narrative frame leaves no room for a mere interjection: Thomas “answered and said to him, ‘my Lord and my God,’” and Jesus seals that confession with a blessing rather than a correction. The claim that article rules make this theologically indeterminate misreads how discourse, not just morphology, carries meaning.
Other translation choices in your version further tilt the field. “Dignity” for ⲇόξα and “divine loving-kindness” for ⲭάρις are not wrong per se, but they continually downgrade richly theistic terms that in this context are meant to evoke God’s own glory and covenant grace now seen in the Son. “Was about to come into the world” in 1:9 is a tendentious way to render the present participle; the Prologue’s point is not a tentative imminence but the Light’s active advent and presence. Most importantly, your own text undercuts your thesis. If the Sahidic translators supposedly guarded against calling Jesus “God,” why do they write “God, the only Son” in 1:18 and preserve Thomas’s “my God” in 20:28 with the expected definite possessive? The answer is that they were not trying to keep the Son below full deity. They were rendering John’s Greek distinction of persons and unity of essence with the tools of their language: an indefinite predicate before a definite subject to say what the Word is by nature, and definite forms in address and apposition when the discourse singles him out as God.
The upshot is simple. The Sahidic Prologue does not invite readers to add “a god” alongside the one God. It says that the Word eternally was with the Father and is everything God is; through him all things came to be; he became flesh and revealed the unseen God; he is confessed as “my God.” Your translation strategy only reaches its conclusion by damping down the places where the Coptic itself is most explicit and by treating a well-known qualitative predicate as if it must be numerically indefinite. Read as Coptic, in its Johannine context, the passage speaks with a Trinitarian cadence: personal distinction without division, full deity without confusion—“the Word was God,” and “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known.”
Post a Comment