Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [GTh] Are the Coptic & Greek witnesses to GTh "substantially similar?"

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... I won t quibble with that statement, as long as no one understands it to mean that the later one (the Coptic) was a faithful copy of the earlier one. In
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 14 10:55 PM
      [Randy Helzerman]:
      > The differences between [the NIV and the KJV] are no more
      > than what you'd expect of two translations produced centuries
      > apart from two different originals.
      >
      > Same for the Poxy. and the N.H. witnesses. They were produced
      > centuries apart, in two different languages, so we'd naturally
      > expect significant differences. But I think it would be fair to say they
      > are substantially similar in both content and order, don't you?

      I won't quibble with that statement, as long as no one understands it to
      mean that the later one (the Coptic) was a "faithful copy" of the earlier
      one. In fact, I suspect (mainly because the form of the name 'Didymus Judas
      Thomas' is more typical of Syriac than Greek) that the Coptic version wasn't
      produced from a Greek source at all, but from a Syriac one.

      I would, however, quibble with the statement that the POxy and NH versions
      were "produced centuries apart", simply because that statement may be
      misunderstood to refer to the date of authorship. What you mean, of course,
      is that the extant exemplars were produced (or "printed") about 150 years
      apart. While it's true that Codex II was probably produced mid-4th century,
      that doesn't tell us when the Coptic version was first written. For all we
      know, it _may_ have been written around the same time as the Greek.

      Regards,
      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.