Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.7K
- General Category 10.8K
- 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 367
- Technical Topics 367
Greek Text.
hey everyone, i was listening to Father Anthony Messeh sermons and he said something about a website that you cant type in the word in english from the bible and it will give you what the greek word is and an explanation of the actual greek word used in the original text. Does anyone know where i can get this website? I looked everywhere.
God Bless
God Bless
Comments
I think it's this one. I'm not sure how accurate the definitions are though.
"καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ."
is Luke 1:28, how would you translate it in your own words from greek. i know the translation can be found in the site, but i'd like to get it from a normal greek reader. also is this the source of NKJV or there is another manuscript??
Orthodox11, this sentence:
"καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ."
is Luke 1:28, how would you translate it in your own words from greek. i know the translation can be found in the site, but i'd like to get it from a normal greek reader. also is this the source of NKJV or there is another manuscript??
A literal translation would be "And having approached towards her, he said, Rejoice, you who have been shown grace, the Lord is with you."
The text is the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. I don't know if that's the basis for the NKJV though.
The Greek text published by Apostoliki Diakonia (the official publisher of the Orthodox Church of Greece) is slightly different. It says:
[coptic]kai eicel;wn o aggeloc proc autyn eipe ,aire ke,aritwmeny. o Kurioc meta cou.[/coptic]
Lit. "And having approached the angel towards her, he said, Rejoice.....etc."
You can get the whole Bible in Greek, as published by Apostoliki Diakonia, here.
in our coptic church we say, "Rejoice O full of grace, the Lord is with you.", based on the coptic translation, "[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot[/coptic]"
basing it back to the greek of the new testement. in NKJ, it doesn't say that. it says, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you."
so i really want to fins the source of "Rejoice O full of grace".
Mina, whats the Coptic bible translation based off? Isn't it the Septugaint?
ther is no "Septugaint" for the new testement. that is only for the old testement taht was translated by the 70 elders.
Sorry, so what is the best translation of the NT. Is it the NKJV? What is the Coptic NT based on?
that's what am tring to find out. but i thought we go straight to the greek.
New Testament was written in Greek and translated into Coptic. Old Testament was written in Hebrew, then translated into Greek (as someone already has mentioned) which is commonly known as the Septuagint. Most, perhaps all of the Coptic Old Testament was translated from Greek, sometime around A.D. 250, well after the closing of the Old Testament canon.
Everything was written by hand up to about A.D.1519 when the printing press was invented. Some Coptic Bibles continued to be produced by hand until the 1700's! All the hand copying resulted in copying errors and differences. If you had your handwritten copy of the Bible in A.D. 700, you would notice there were differences between your copy and your friend's copy. You would compare the two Bibles and make corrections the best you could.
I don't want to exaggerate things. In the big picture, there aren't very many differences. But if you figure that there were 5700 Greek manuscripts, 15,000 Latin manuscripts, and maybe about 3000 Syriac manuscripts, and 1500 Coptic manuscripts, all written by hand, then surely you can understand that they don't all look exactly alike. Fortunately, a careful examination of all the data at hand resolves about 98% of the problems.
Oops, gotta go. I'll post further later.
but the idea is that ALL of our coptic sources, hand written or latter then printed from that, they provide, "Full of grace" now i just want to find the main greek manuscripts that would have these MAJOR differences. am sure there are some more differnces here and there, and that's why i think there are more then one version.
But the differences in the manuscripts can now be classified by text types or families. Some manuscripts look more like one group, while other manuscripts look like a different group.
There are three such groups, traditionally called Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western. It's more complicated than that, but that's good for now. By far, most (nearly all) text scientist think that the Alexandrian text type is the text type which looks most like the originals (which we no longer have). The Alexandrian text type isn't perfect, but it is the best.
When the Greek New Testament first went to the printing press, it was based on just five or six manuscripts, without much thorough examination. These manuscripts were very late and represented what is called the Byzantine text type.
The King James Version was based on this type of text.
In the late 1800s, text scholars began to realise that the Alexandrian text type was superior to the Byzantine text type. By the mid 1900s, all the new translations turned away from the Byzantine text type, and became based on a Greek text which looks most like the Byzantine text type. The New King James Version was an exception. It kept the same text pretty much as it was printed in the 1500s.
If you want to follow the Greek text which is accepted by most scholars, you will want to read the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum (27th edition) or the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament (they both have the same Greek text, although the details in the notes are different).
If you would prefer to read the Greek text based upon the Byzantine text type, you will want to read the edition by Maurice Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek. Most scholars would dismiss this edition as not being so close to the original.
But the Greek text accounts for only one of the two types of differences in our New Testament. While some differences arise as a result of differences in the Greek text, other differences arise out of our translations.
For example, the Coptic word BWLK can mean either sad or angry. If you don't know Coptic yourself, you must depend upon someone else's judgment for a translation.
Fortunately, English has some extremely good translations: NIV, NRSV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NAB, REB. For better or worse, any one of these translations is far better than any Chinese or Indian version.
ESV (English Standard Version) and NASB (New American Standard Bible) are both excellent for doing exacting, word for word analysis.
NLT (New Living Translation) is excellent for fast reading or for someone who has not studied the Bible very much.
NIV (New International Version) and NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is excellent for general reading, public reading, and memorisation.
Like I said, the standard modern English translations all are based on something like the Alexandrian text type.
But the Greek text accounts for only one of the two types of differences in our New Testament. While some differences arise as a result of differences in the Greek text, other differences arise out of our translations.
For example, the Coptic word BWLK can mean either sad or angry. If you don't know Coptic yourself, you must depend upon someone else's judgment for a translation.
Fortunately, English has some extremely good translations: NIV, NRSV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NAB, REB. For better or worse, any one of these translations is far better than any Chinese or Indian version.
ESV (English Standard Version) and NASB (New American Standard Bible) are both excellent for doing exacting, word for word analysis.
NLT (New Living Translation) is excellent for fast reading or for someone who has not studied the Bible very much.
NIV (New International Version) and NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is excellent for general reading, public reading, and memorisation.
New King James Version...... is that one good and acurate???
It's much better than the KJV, just because it has modern punctuation!
But it is based on the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament in the early 1500s and so, only had 5 manuscripts out of our present day 5700 Greek manuscripts to choose from. And the five he chose were of substandard quality.
In the grand scheme of things, it's not bad. But its like watching television in black and white with an aerial antenna, when you could use a translation which will give you a high definition picture (ESV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, etc.). It's probably still better than any Chinese or Indian translation. But in English, we have an embarrassingly rich collection of translations from which to choose.
In terms of the Greek text in Luke 1:28, I think the only difference is whether or not Luke included "the angel." KJV and NKJV are based on manuscripts which include "the angel," but the modern translations are based on manuscripts which omit it. My money is on the "shorter" reading; Luke didn't write "the angel" in v. 28.
Both Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions omits "the angel".
Horner's literal translation of Bohairic reads, "And having gone in unto her, he said to her: 'Hail, thou (lit. she) who art full of grace, the Lord (is) with thee.'"
Horner's literal translation of Sahidic reads, "And when he had gone to her within, said he to her, "Hail (to) her who found grace: the Lord (is) with thee."
well.....my problem is the "you who have been shown grace""
in our coptic church we say, "Rejoice O full of grace, the Lord is with you.", based on the coptic translation, "[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot[/coptic]"
basing it back to the greek of the new testement. in NKJ, it doesn't say that. it says, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you."
so i really want to fins the source of "Rejoice O full of grace".
I see two differences.
The first difference is that the phrase known in Coptic liturgy begins with an imperative: "Rejoice!" That is to say, the angel tells Mary to rejoice. In contrast, most English translations take the word as a greeting, "Hail!" Both are correct, sort of. The Greek word is an imperative, but they used the imperative as a greeting. For example, in English, if you run into someone on the street, you say, "Good day!" as if you are giving them an imperative, when in reality, we use the phrase as a colloquial greeting.
Interestingly, the Greek word is incorporated into the Coptic text, and not actually translated.
The second difference is reflected in the Coptic liturgy, "O full of grace," spoken in the vocative to Mary by the angel. I'm not sure where the phrase in the liturgy came from. Literally, the Coptic text (Bohairic) reads, "she who has found grace." I don't see the "full of" anywhere. It must have been a development in the liturgy that is not explicitly found in the New Testament. I think it is also in the Roman liturgy (Maria is said to be gratia plena "full of grace"). I might be wrong, so someone may want to help me out.
We Protestants are scared to look hard at these verses. :D
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5982.msg86941#msg86941 date=1210203933]
well.....my problem is the "you who have been shown grace""
in our coptic church we say, "Rejoice O full of grace, the Lord is with you.", based on the coptic translation, "[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot[/coptic]"
basing it back to the greek of the new testement. in NKJ, it doesn't say that. it says, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you."
so i really want to fins the source of "Rejoice O full of grace".
I see two differences.
The first difference is that the phrase known in Coptic liturgy begins with an imperative: "Rejoice!" That is to say, the angel tells Mary to rejoice. In contrast, most English translations take the word as a greeting, "Hail!" Both are correct, sort of. The Greek word is an imperative, but they used the imperative as a greeting. For example, in English, if you run into someone on the street, you say, "Good day!" as if you are giving them an imperative, when in reality, we use the phrase as a colloquial greeting.
Interestingly, the Greek word is incorporated into the Coptic text, and not actually translated.
The second difference is reflected in the Coptic liturgy, "O full of grace," spoken in the vocative to Mary by the angel. I'm not sure where the phrase in the liturgy came from. Literally, the Coptic text (Bohairic) reads, "she who has found grace." I don't see the "full of" anywhere. It must have been a development in the liturgy that is not explicitly found in the New Testament. I think it is also in the Roman liturgy (Maria is said to be gratia plena "full of grace"). I might be wrong, so someone may want to help me out.
We Protestants are scared to look hard at these verses. :D
ur a Protestant?! if so, great to have you.....so we ca always argue :D.
about the "she who has found grace." part, that is another part. that is the refrain in the Saturday Theotokeia:]
[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot@ ,ere ;y`etacjem `hmot@ ,ere ;y`etacmec P=,=c@ ouoh `P=o=c sop neme.[/coptic]
Hail to you O full of grace, hail to you who has found grace, hail to you who has given birth to Christ, the Lord is with you.
the "Hail to you O full of grace" part s straight from the gospel, the rest is developed.
Coptic Luke 1:28:
[coptic]Ouoh `etafse naf `eqoun saroc pejaf ac je ,ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot `P=o=c neme.[/coptic]
I'm guessing that later Orthodox translators have simply chosen to retain the common wording of the prayer, instead of opting for a more literal translation. We see this also in the Lord's Prayer for example. The Greek text says "Who art in the heavens" (plural), but even most Orthodox translations of the prayer in English will have "Who art in heaven," not because it's correct, but because it's the form most familiar to English speakers.
[quote author=Schoyen link=topic=5982.msg88913#msg88913 date=1212095839]
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5982.msg86941#msg86941 date=1210203933]
well.....my problem is the "you who have been shown grace""
in our coptic church we say, "Rejoice O full of grace, the Lord is with you.", based on the coptic translation, "[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot[/coptic]"
basing it back to the greek of the new testement. in NKJ, it doesn't say that. it says, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you."
so i really want to fins the source of "Rejoice O full of grace".
I see two differences.
The first difference is that the phrase known in Coptic liturgy begins with an imperative: "Rejoice!" That is to say, the angel tells Mary to rejoice. In contrast, most English translations take the word as a greeting, "Hail!" Both are correct, sort of. The Greek word is an imperative, but they used the imperative as a greeting. For example, in English, if you run into someone on the street, you say, "Good day!" as if you are giving them an imperative, when in reality, we use the phrase as a colloquial greeting.
Interestingly, the Greek word is incorporated into the Coptic text, and not actually translated.
The second difference is reflected in the Coptic liturgy, "O full of grace," spoken in the vocative to Mary by the angel. I'm not sure where the phrase in the liturgy came from. Literally, the Coptic text (Bohairic) reads, "she who has found grace." I don't see the "full of" anywhere. It must have been a development in the liturgy that is not explicitly found in the New Testament. I think it is also in the Roman liturgy (Maria is said to be gratia plena "full of grace"). I might be wrong, so someone may want to help me out.
We Protestants are scared to look hard at these verses. :D
ur a Protestant?! if so, great to have you.....so we ca always argue :D.
about the "she who has found grace." part, that is another part. that is the refrain in the Saturday Theotokeia:]
[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot@ ,ere ;y`etacjem `hmot@ ,ere ;y`etacmec P=,=c@ ouoh `P=o=c sop neme.[/coptic]
Hail to you O full of grace, hail to you who has found grace, hail to you who has given birth to Christ, the Lord is with you.
the "Hail to you O full of grace" part s straight from the gospel, the rest is developed.
Coptic Luke 1:28:
[coptic]Ouoh `etafse naf `eqoun saroc pejaf ac je ,ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot `P=o=c neme.[/coptic]
Thanks, minagir, for correcting me. Double checking the data, I see that the Bohairic Coptic does indeed say "full of grace" (ⲉⲑⲙⲉϩ), as you have clarified. ⲓ̅In contrast, the Sahidic Coptic reads ⲧⲉⲛⲧⲁⲥϭⲛ︦ⲛ, which translates as "she who found grace." There seems to be no Bohairic manuscript which reads differently than "full of grace." Likewise, no Sahidic manuscript reads differently than "she who found grace."
There is some consensus, although not without debate, that Sahidic Coptic is earlier than Bohairic. Bohairic became dominant in the Coptic church in the late Middle Ages, and is now the basis for Coptic liturgy, although I think most scholars would argue that Sahidic is the purer form of the New Testament. Both translations are pretty good. Bohairic is probably a more refined translation, although I think Sahidic reflects the purer form of the New Testament Greek text.
But seeing that Bohairic reads, "full of grace," I still don't see any Greek support for the reading.
Again, let me know if I'm missing something.
I see that you are commenting on the English translation, and you rightly point out that translators avoided some stuff so that it becomes more familiar to the English ear! And yes, you can't comment on the Coptic translation, but now do you say that Coptic might have borrowed the expression from Latin? My understanding is that Latin is a derivative (recent enough) of olden Greek, and correct me if I am wrong; I am used to thinking that it came into being from the tenth century onwards - if that is so, I think the Coptic Bible, and Greek manuscripts would have been spread out throughout Egypt, and they will not need to revise it against Latin; however, I may be mistaken. My second assumption will be if Latin came into being earlier (with you correcting me on that), maybe then the Copts would have had some kind of translation of the Lating books. Bottomline question is: why would the Copts base their translation (in Coptic) on Latin, and ignore the original Greek? Would it be a mere Bohairic vs Sahidic discrepancy?
God bless you all and pray for us a lot
Dear Orthodox11,
I see that you are commenting on the English translation, and you rightly point out that translators avoided some stuff so that it becomes more familiar to the English ear! And yes, you can't comment on the Coptic translation, but now do you say that Coptic might have borrowed the expression from Latin?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I said the English translations - even those English translations made and used by Copts - possibly derived this expression from the Latin, on which existing common English versions were based.
Like I said, I was commenting on the English, not the Coptic, since I have no knowledge of that language.
My understanding is that Latin is a derivative (recent enough) of olden Greek
Latin and Greek are two totally different languages.
I am used to thinking that it came into being from the tenth century onwards
10th Century B.C. perhaps. I'm not exactly sure of the dates.
Why would the Copts base their translation (in Coptic) on Latin, and ignore the original Greek?
I didn't suggest they did. As you say, the original Coptic text is translated from the Greek.
Would it be a mere Bohairic vs Sahidic discrepancy?
If what Schoyen says is correct, that Boharic didn't really become dominant until the Middle Ages, then I suppose it's possible that other influences - perhaps even Latin - could have determined the Boharic reading of the text. It seems plausible since the Boharic "full of grace" reading doesn't agree with the Greek, which corresponds instead to the Shahidic.
But, since I'm pretty much clueless, I won't get into this any further. I'll leave it to you Coptic scholars.
God bless
If what Schoyen says is correct, that Boharic didn't really become dominant until the Middle Ages, then I suppose it's possible that other influences - perhaps even Latin - could have determined the Boharic reading of the text. It seems plausible since the Boharic "full of grace" reading doesn't agree with the Greek, which corresponds instead to the Shahidic.
But, since I'm pretty much clueless, I won't get into this any further. I'll leave it to you Coptic scholars.
God bless
it can't be a "Bohairic vs Sahidic discrepancy". why? let me explain, i'll use the paragraph before:
[coptic]<ere ;ye;meh `n`hmot@ ,ere ;y`etacjem `hmot@ ,ere ;y`etacmec P=,=c@ ouoh `P=o=c sop neme.[/coptic]Hail to you O full of grace, hail to you who has found grace, hail to you who has given birth to Christ, the Lord is with you.
this is refrain of the Saturday Theotokeia. ALL the Theotokeias were put together by Pope Kerrelos the 1st, piller of faith, and a monk named, "El-fakhory", who was in either in St. Anthony's or St. Paul's monastery aroud the Red Sea in Egypt. This was around the 3rd century, before Bohairic was most dominate, according to you.
do you see what am getting to.....
Yes, your replies are very helpful. In fact it is confusing trying to dig deep into how Coptic language evolved, when now we only have traces of information that not every body believes in, especially that it seems that our church is holding steadfastly to something disproved by many scholars in and out of Egypt, namely Greco-Bohairic rules.
Anyway, that is a side issue: does anyone know of a website with downloadable Greek Bible, rather than one you can read online?
God bless you all and pray for us a lot