› ›

Psalms 39:19

joegjoeg
edited December 1969 in Non-Orthodox Inquiries
Ok, in Coptic its:

[coptic]Auberbwrt `ebol anok pimenrit `m`vry] `nourefmwout ef`oreb@ ouoh au]fit `etacarx@ `mper,at `ncwk `P=o=c panou]@ [/coptic]

They rejected me, I am the beloved, a forsaken dead and they have driven nails into my body. Do not forsake me, O Lord; O my God

رفضونى أنا الحبيب مثل ميت مرذول. وجعلوا مساميراً فى جسدى. فلا تهملنى يا ربى والهى

Now I looked up NKJV: "But my enemies are vigorous, and they are strong; And those who hate me wrongfully have multiplied."

They are both distinctly different... hence where do we get the Coptic translation of the Psalms (and perhaps the whole OT) from... It cannot be the Septuagint, because here:http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/p19psalms/p19c38.pdf is the so-called "Apostles Bible", which is supposed to be from the Septuagint, and the verse in question is: "But my enemies live, and are mightier than I; and they that hate me unjustly are multiplied"...
Where then is the Coptic version of the Psalms/whole OT from..

Thanks
pray for me

joe

Comments

  • jydeaconjydeacon
    I looked these verses up in the Orthodox Study Bible and in psalms 39 or 40(depending on the numbering you use) neither have this verse. Are you sure that this is Psalm 39?
  • joegjoeg
    Thats what it says in this Arabic/Coptic Pascha book. Although in the hymn lyrics library, it is recorded as being Psalm 22:16, which is still different from the NKJV text. Even the Septuagint is: "For many dogs have compassed Me; the assembly of the evildoers has enclosed Me; they pierced My hands and My feet." So the Coptic neither follows the Septuagint, nor the NKJV... where does it come from then?

    pray for me

    joe
  • jydeaconjydeacon
    I think its most likely that this is an old translation possibly from the Hebrew OT(although the NKJV uses it i believe for some of the OT but not all) Maybe minagir can enlighten us as he is the one who took care of the text library or possibly someone with knowledge of translations of the NKJV
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    What I understood is that the verse could not be found in the original texts or in the modern Septuagint. The reason am saying modern is because we know the story of the Septuagint being done in Egypt. From that, the Coptic was translated and another “edited” version of the Septuagint was produced. So it is found in the Coptic that was done from the original Septuagint. So, it’s not in any of the modern bible, including the Arabic ones except the Arabic katameroses in churches, which was done from the Coptic. Now other than the fact that it is in the Coptic, and obviously in our Pascha books, these two verses are included in one of the writings of the fathers of the church. Maybe it is St. Jerome, but am not sure about that. So it is fully valid. That’s why on the hymn library, and the Pascha Book of St. Mark’s church JC book, it would say “*This first psalm is taken from a Coptic translation.”

    A side note: a study has shown that the whole bible, including the second canonical books, can be found into the church fathers’ writing, except for about 40 verses. (H.E.M. Bishoy in book about “Da Vinci Code”)
  • coptic pharoahcoptic pharoah
    Check psalm 38 and 40... it will be in one of those.....        Psalm 7 is the reason for all of this.... sometimes they write it in one, so the psalms are one less...  (23 will be 22, 22 will be 21 etc...) if it is writen in 2 parts, that means that the psalms will be 21 will be 21 , 22 will be 22....      u get my point?????  that is what i have been told... please correct me if i am wrong
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=6655.msg88906#msg88906 date=1212094258]
    Check psalm 38 and 40... it will be in one of those.....        Psalm 7 is the reason for all of this.... sometimes they write it in one, so the psalms are one less...   (23 will be 22, 22 will be 21 etc...) if it is writen in 2 parts, that means that the psalms will be 21 will be 21 , 22 will be 22....      u get my point?????  that is what i have been told... please correct me if i am wrong


    well i tihnk you are right....in general, but this time you wont find this becasue this is a special verse, read by previous post.
  • coptic pharoahcoptic pharoah
    ok....  why can't we (Coptic Church) make our own Bible, like the protestant have tons of diferent translation like NIV,KJV,NKJV, among many many  many others...

    and if all of the books are in the Katameros than why don't they just take the Katemeros and make it into a Bible?????
  • jydeaconjydeacon
    because the katemorous doesn't have the ENTIRE Bible used.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=6655.msg88924#msg88924 date=1212098617]
    ok....  why can't we (Coptic Church) make our own Bible, like the protestant have tons of diferent translation like NIV,KJV,NKJV, among many many  many others...

    and if all of the books are in the Katameros than why don't they just take the Katemeros and make it into a Bible?????


    huge responsibilty....not enought money, resarch and why make it worst and create ANOTHER translation that would confuse ppl. we have what we need to go to heaven.
  • coptic pharoahcoptic pharoah
    well, 1 more transelation for theCoptic people wouldn't annoy anybody, would it?????  and wht does the AKtemeros missing?????  and if we can't make our own Bible, is it prefered that we use an orthodox Bible and/or a Catholic Bible...  because they have the 7 books that the protestant took out...
  • jydeaconjydeacon
    Obviously its preferred to have an orthodox bible and not a catholic one
  • joegjoeg
    Ok thanks guys for your help  :)
Sign In or Register to comment.