... the more they remain insane."

Those of you in the group for a while know I have been out of work
since March.

I work in applied linguistics, specifically the application of
pattern recognition and intrinsic probability to computer security.
In my last two jobs, my title has been "chief scientist."

While unemployed, I have had more time to read and post in the group.
Of course it hasn't been all fun and games. I also came up with
several new software patents; one of which is now officially patent
pending.

However, I have now accepted an offer to become CTO at a Swedish
security software company. So, over the next 6 months I will be
hopping between Las Vegas and Sweden quite a lot.

Hopefully things will stabilize at the end of the 6 months, when I
will be moving to Sweden. In the mean time I will likely be much less
active hereabouts. Though, hopefully, I can still add my two chalchoi
now and again.

Best Regards,
Joseph

Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton has a new book, _Coptic in 20
Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic With Exercises &
Vocabularies_ (Peeters Leuven, 2007)

In this book on page 7, Layton diagrams Coptic John 1:1c literally as:

auw ne.                u.noute pe p.Saje
And past tense marker- a-god   is the-Word

He also provides the traditional English definite rendering "And the
Word was God." But the traditional English rendering is at variance
with the literal Coptic indefinite translation, which is clearly "And
the Word was a god." (Or, "the Word was divine/godlike" etc.)

On page 34 of his grammar, Layton observes that Coptic *ou.noute pe*
could signal adjectively "he is divine." But when referring to
entities, Layton writes, the translation would be "he is a god."

Layton has been called "the man" of Coptic studies. I purchased his
new book 2 weeks ago, and have a review of it at Amazon.com

Solomon

I have been out of work for over three months now. I have spent most of
the time puting some new patents together. One is now
officially "patent pending" and I own all rights to it. More are in the
works. I currently have two job leads that are showing interest.
However, one is based in Moscow, the other is based in Melbourne. Once
things settle back into a routine I hope to get back to my work related
to this group. But I can't say for sure what timezone I'll be in.

Joseph

Joseph,

I have ordered your Sahidic Coptic New Testament from Lulu
publications, and hope to make it a companion in my studies.

The font of this edition takes a bit of getting used to, since it
differs somewhat from both what is found at the Sahidica site and the
Coptic Church CS fonts, which are easy on my eyes.

But I am sure the volume will be quite valuable. Coptic studies are
the neglected "stepchild" in theology, with Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
taking the spotlight.

But Alexandria, Egypt of the first 3 centuries contributed much to
Christianity, and the Sahidic Coptic New Testament appears to share
in that accomplishment.

I have detected echoes of both Origen (in the Gospel of John) and
Irenaeus (in 2nd Corinthians) in the *possible* theology of the
Sahidic Coptic translators, locating that theology squarely in the
pre-Nicene 2nd or 3rd century.

Regards,

Solomon

Joseph,

I have ordered your Sahidic Coptic New Testament from Lulu
publications, and hope to make it a companion in my studies.

The font of this edition takes a bit of getting used to, since it
differs somewhat from both what is found at the Sahidica site and the
Coptic Church CS fonts, which are easy on my eyes.

But I am sure the volume will be quite valuable.  Coptic studies are
the neglected "stepchild" in theology, with Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
taking the spotlight.

But Alexandria, Egypt of the first 3 centuries contributed much to
Christianity, and the Sahidic Coptic New Testament appears to share
in that accomplishment.

I have detected echoes of both Origen (in the Gospel of John) and
Irenaeus (in 2nd Corinthians) in the *possible* theology of the
Sahidic Coptic translators, locating that theology squarely in the
pre-Nicene 2nd or 3rd century.

Regards,

Solomon

Hi,
I have some comments on the Bohairic version
I have sent it to you (Joseph) before I join this group
But now since I am member of this group, I would like to publish my
comment here
-----------------
Thank you for providing us with this helpful resources (Coptic
Bohairic and Sahidic bibles)
I read a lot in the Bohairic version and I find many mistakes
most of them (if not all) are simply mis-placed spaces
Here is a few examples from the Gospel of john

18-1  nai etaFJotou nJeihsous  should be nai etaFJotou nJe ihsous
18-1 mpimounswrem nteniSensiFi   should be mpimounswrem nte niSensiFi
(we usually put nte as a separated word unlike n,m)
18-2 oumh Snsop aFqwouT should be oumhS nsop aFqwouT (this is a real
error)
18-3 HanHupereths ebol Qenniarciereus should be HanHupereths ebol Qen
niarciereus
18-4 eFswoun nHwb niben eqnh ou should be eFswoun nHwb niben eqnhou
(this is also a real error)

The very old manuscripts used to not put spaces between words
so not putting a space where you should put one may not be a big problem
but putting a space where you should NOT put it is a real mistake

Thanks, Joseph.

http://www.ctmatrix.org/SahidicaIntro.htm

Solomon

It has been down since last Friday. My ISP is now in the process of
fixing matters (or so I'm told).

Joseph

--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Solomon" <bar_enosh@...> wrote:
>
> Joseph,
>
> It appears that the Sahidica.org link was not working yesterday, or
> today thus far.  Perhaps it is down for maintenance?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Solomon
>

Joseph,

It appears that the Sahidica.org link was not working yesterday, or
today thus far.  Perhaps it is down for maintenance?

Kind regards,

Solomon

Logos software should be releasing the Sahidica dvd's oretty soon. They
may also be publishing Bohairica as well.

http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2934

Joseph

"p.Sws n.n.esoou" is literally the.shepherd of.the.sheep

I have long been aware of this alternate reading, and almost put it
into my Greek text as bracketed, since the Sahidic and ME Fayyumic
both have it (I read somewhere that Akhmimic has it as well, but I
don't have that text).

BTW the Fayyumic [P.Mich.3521] has it spelled "p.swS n.n."[missing]
which does support the word "shepherd".

The reason I didn't bracket it in the Greek was because my first pass
criteria on altering the Greek to match the Sahidic was to cite only
those variants mentioned in the UBS text; in which this alternate
Greek reading is not documented at all. Since I was trying hard to
stick to my own rules in the modification of the Greek, I let the
standard Greek stand.

The plan for my next pass at showing where the Greek underlying the
Sahidic differs from the standard text, will include variants
mentioned in the earlier UBS, the UBS Commentary, and the most recent
NA text (of which I currently use the 2006 revision).

Regards,
Joseph



--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Solomon" <bar_enosh@...> wrote:
>
> Most, but not all, English versions of John 10:7 have Jesus
> saying, "I am the door [Greek: hH QURA] of the sheep."  However,
the
> version by James Moffatt (1954 edition) reads, "I am the shepherd
> [Greek, hO POIMHN] of the sheep."
>
> Moffatt notes: "'I am the shepherd of the sheep.' hO POIMHN [the
> shepherd] must be read here instead of hH QURA [the door/gate], for
> the sake of the sense, although it seems to have been preserved by
> the Sahidic version alone." Moffatt wrote before the 2nd or 3rd
> century Greek ms. p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV) was discovered, and he
> notes that the Coptic Sahidic version of John 10:7 also
> has "shepherd" [Sahidic Coptic: *p.Sws*] rather than door [Sahidic
> Coptic: *p.ro*], as in vs. 9.
>
> Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown, in his _The Gospel of John_
> (Anchor Bible, volume 29) wrote: "The sheepgate. The Sahidic version
> reads 'the shepherd,' a reading that now receives its first Greek
> support from p75. [Matthew] Black...follows Torrey in believing that
> the original 'shepherd' became 'gate' through a mistake in copying
> the underlying Aramaic." (p. 386)
>
> The above-mentioned Matthew Black, in his _An Aramaic Approach to
the
> Gospels and Acts_, does indeed think that John was an Aramaic
Gospel
> originally, Aramaic being likely the native language of Jesus and
his
> disciples, and that the transformation from the original "shepherd"
> reading came about quite simply.
>
> In Aramaic, "I am the shepherd of the sheep" is *ana 'iti ra'yah di-
> 'ana*. And "I am the door of the sheep" differs by only one letter:
> *ani 'iti t'ra'yah di-'ana* Black has suggested that a scribe may
have
> copied the letter "t" twice, adding a "t" to the beginning of the
> Aramaic word for "shepherd," changing it into "door." (Black, page
> 259)
>
> I have found several other differences between the Sahidic Coptic
> Gospel of John and the Greek critical texts.  But in each instance
so
> far, the Coptic text has a witness in one or more of the ancient
> Greek manuscripts of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries.
>
> Solomon
>

Most, but not all, English versions of John 10:7 have Jesus
saying, "I am the door [Greek: hH QURA] of the sheep."  However, the
version by James Moffatt (1954 edition) reads, "I am the shepherd
[Greek, hO POIMHN] of the sheep."

Moffatt notes: "'I am the shepherd of the sheep.' hO POIMHN [the
shepherd] must be read here instead of hH QURA [the door/gate], for
the sake of the sense, although it seems to have been preserved by
the Sahidic version alone." Moffatt wrote before the 2nd or 3rd
century Greek ms. p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV) was discovered, and he
notes that the Coptic Sahidic version of John 10:7 also
has "shepherd" [Sahidic Coptic: *p.Sws*] rather than door [Sahidic
Coptic: *p.ro*], as in vs. 9.

Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown, in his _The Gospel of John_
(Anchor Bible, volume 29) wrote: "The sheepgate. The Sahidic version
reads 'the shepherd,' a reading that now receives its first Greek
support from p75. [Matthew] Black...follows Torrey in believing that
the original 'shepherd' became 'gate' through a mistake in copying
the underlying Aramaic." (p. 386)

The above-mentioned Matthew Black, in his _An Aramaic Approach to the
Gospels and Acts_, does indeed think that John was an Aramaic Gospel
originally, Aramaic being likely the native language of Jesus and his
disciples, and that the transformation from the original "shepherd"
reading came about quite simply.

In Aramaic, "I am the shepherd of the sheep" is *ana 'iti ra'yah di-
'ana*. And "I am the door of the sheep" differs by only one letter:
*ani 'iti t'ra'yah di-'ana* Black has suggested that a scribe may have
copied the letter "t" twice, adding a "t" to the beginning of the
Aramaic word for "shepherd," changing it into "door." (Black, page
259)

I have found several other differences between the Sahidic Coptic
Gospel of John and the Greek critical texts.  But in each instance so
far, the Coptic text has a witness in one or more of the ancient
Greek manuscripts of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries.

Solomon

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for your comments, they are very helpful, especially the
additional references in Crum.  As has been established elsewhere, it
seems clear that MONOGENHS has both literal and allegorical
applications, since the LXX has King David referring to his dear life
(or soul) as MONOGENHS also.

I agree wholeheartedly that linguistic and historical context play a
key part in any interpretation.  I also feel that correct
interpretation rests, to some degree, on correct translation.

The execellent foundation you are laying by determining and
documenting what the Coptic texts actually say, is of great value to
both translators and to exegetes.

Solomon


--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph" <j_w_wells_writer@...>
wrote:
>
> It's a sad fact of life that a lot of people out there tend to
> confuse translation and interpretation; simple grammar vs doctrine.
>
> And another sad fact is that this practice all too often involves,
> not exegesis, but eisegisis!
>
> Honestly I can't tell you why some scribes used the Greek and
others
> translated the word; the best I can do is simply point out the fact
> that they just did; and try to put that simple fact into a
linguistic
> perspective.
>
> So keep a few things in mind.
>
> First, it is generally accepted that John's works were the last
ones
> written. Therefore, the original Christian readers had a near-
> complete scriptural context to understand him.
>
> Second, monogenhs is used a few times in the Septuagint (the number
> depends on your edition), 3 times in Luke, and once in Hebrews. [Lk
> 7.12; 8.42; 9.38. He 11.17]. In these previous cases, the general
> meaning seems to be simply "only child."
>
> Third, look at Crum again. In the Greek index monogenhs is
referenced
> to four different Coptic entries (which, by the way, I didn't look
> up).
>
> Fourth, keep in mind the time frames in the evolution of the Greek
> text [e. g. cf. the different readings for J.1:18 in the critical
> apparatus of USB and NA] and map these to the time frame of the
> Coptic texts translated from this evolving Greek text.
>
> On a personal perspective note, I have no problem at all pointing
out
> where any given word or passage CAN grammatically be translated
more
> than one way. However, I do not see it as my job to determine what
> the Coptic versions "mean" doctrinally. That is like the building
of
> a house, where my job right now simply involves laying a
foundation;
> namely, determining and documenting what the Coptic texts actually
> say.
>
> Then, if I do my job right, other people can safely build upon
solid
> stone; rather than sand.
>
> Regards,
> Joseph
>
>

It's a sad fact of life that a lot of people out there tend to
confuse translation and interpretation; simple grammar vs doctrine.

And another sad fact is that this practice all too often involves,
not exegesis, but eisegisis!

Honestly I can't tell you why some scribes used the Greek and others
translated the word; the best I can do is simply point out the fact
that they just did; and try to put that simple fact into a linguistic
perspective.

So keep a few things in mind.

First, it is generally accepted that John's works were the last ones
written. Therefore, the original Christian readers had a near-
complete scriptural context to understand him.

Second, monogenhs is used a few times in the Septuagint (the number
depends on your edition), 3 times in Luke, and once in Hebrews. [Lk
7.12; 8.42; 9.38. He 11.17]. In these previous cases, the general
meaning seems to be simply "only child."

Third, look at Crum again. In the Greek index monogenhs is referenced
to four different Coptic entries (which, by the way, I didn't look
up).

Fourth, keep in mind the time frames in the evolution of the Greek
text [e. g. cf. the different readings for J.1:18 in the critical
apparatus of USB and NA] and map these to the time frame of the
Coptic texts translated from this evolving Greek text.

On a personal perspective note, I have no problem at all pointing out
where any given word or passage CAN grammatically be translated more
than one way. However, I do not see it as my job to determine what
the Coptic versions "mean" doctrinally. That is like the building of
a house, where my job right now simply involves laying a foundation;
namely, determining and documenting what the Coptic texts actually
say.

Then, if I do my job right, other people can safely build upon solid
stone; rather than sand.

Regards,
Joseph

--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Solomon" <bar_enosh@...> wrote:
>
> I am not sure this is the proper place for exegetical or
> hermeneutical aspects of the Coptic text, but it is an interesting
> observation.
>
> While reading the Sahidic Gospel of John, I note that the Greek
word
> MONOGENHS -- translated as "only-begotten" in older versions, but
> often as simply "only" or "unique" in more modern ones -- is
> consistently rendered in Sahidic by *n.ouwt* i.e., "only,"  (as in
> *p.Shre n.ouwt* at John 1:18, where some ancient Greek mss read
> MONOGENHS hUIOS).
>
> Walter Crum's dictionary also gives "single" and "alone" as
> definitions of *ouwt*. (page 494)
>
> What I have wondered is whether Sahidic uses "only" for "only-
> begotten" because they knew the Greek word to mean that
specifically,
> or simply because the "-begotten" part was understood naturally?
In
> other words, as applied to children, would "begotten" be redundant,
> since children are, by definition, begotten?
>
> In other words, when the Sahidic version of John 1:18 says "only
Son"
> rather than "only-begotten Son," is it because they saw MONOGENHS
as
> meaning lexically "only," or because "only BEGOTTEN" was understood
> naturally, and not in need of expression as such?
>
> Also, Greek uses another word regularly for "only," i.e., MONOS
> (Coptic *monados*).
>
> I don't have definite answers, except to posit that perhaps the
> Egyptian view of things may have been more concrete and practical,
> while the Greek, more philosophical and expressive.  After all, why
> use two words when one would suffice?
>
> Solomon
>

Somewhere around here I have an English-Greek transliteration map for
manuscript presentation. When I find and update it I'll post it here.

Regards,
Joseph

I am not sure this is the proper place for exegetical or
hermeneutical aspects of the Coptic text, but it is an interesting
observation.

While reading the Sahidic Gospel of John, I note that the Greek word
MONOGENHS -- translated as "only-begotten" in older versions, but
often as simply "only" or "unique" in more modern ones -- is
consistently rendered in Sahidic by *n.ouwt* i.e., "only,"  (as in
*p.Shre n.ouwt* at John 1:18, where some ancient Greek mss read
MONOGENHS hUIOS).

Walter Crum's dictionary also gives "single" and "alone" as
definitions of *ouwt*. (page 494)

What I have wondered is whether Sahidic uses "only" for "only-
begotten" because they knew the Greek word to mean that specifically,
or simply because the "-begotten" part was understood naturally?  In
other words, as applied to children, would "begotten" be redundant,
since children are, by definition, begotten?

In other words, when the Sahidic version of John 1:18 says "only Son"
rather than "only-begotten Son," is it because they saw MONOGENHS as
meaning lexically "only," or because "only BEGOTTEN" was understood
naturally, and not in need of expression as such?

Also, Greek uses another word regularly for "only," i.e., MONOS
(Coptic *monados*).

I don't have definite answers, except to posit that perhaps the
Egyptian view of things may have been more concrete and practical,
while the Greek, more philosophical and expressive.  After all, why
use two words when one would suffice?

Solomon

I am sure that many students of New Testament languages and ancient
versions have appreciated, as I certainly have, the fine resources of
Sahidica.org.

It seems that Coptic versions have long been the "forgotten stepchild"
of NT hermeneutics and textual criticism.  Everybody knows about the
value of the Latin and Syriac versions; few have much knowledge about
the contributions of the Coptic, especially the Sahidic version.

All that has changed recently, judged by the information now available
on the Internet.  When I began to research Coptic versions online, more
than a year ago, resources were sparse.  Being introduced to Sahidica
was, for me, like a man lost in the desert who suddenly comes upon a
bubbling brook.  Truly fantastic.

So please accept my personal thanks and gratitude.  Besides the
Egyptian of King Tut, I have previously studied and learned Hebrew,
Aramaic, Koine Greek, and a little Syriac (as biblically-relevant
languages), and now a knowledge of Sahidic is an excellent contribution
to my studies and research.

I hope that the sales of Sahidica.org products is going well, and will
continue to enlighten many.

Solomon


-- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph" <j_w_wells_writer@...> wrote:
>
> More of my language projects downloads.
>
> http://www.sahidica.org/
>
> I hope to get my "Concise Sahidic Lexicon" and my short Greek Lexicon
> on the site, and in a simpler form, sometime soon.
>
> Joseph
>

More of my language projects downloads.

http://www.sahidica.org/

I hope to get my "Concise Sahidic Lexicon" and my short Greek Lexicon
on the site, and in a simpler form, sometime soon.

Joseph

Nofri.

That's the modern Coptic word for "hello," even though in Sahidic it
means "good, profit, advantage." (Crum, p. 239)  I suppose that's close
enough.  I'm sure it must be connected to the old Egyptian *nefer* (as
in Nefertiti), meaning "to be good, happy, beautiful."

My first Coptic grammar was written in Arabic (a language I know also),
by Professor Doctor Shakir Basilios, sent to me from the local Egyptian
embassy years ago when I began to study hieroglyphs.  I was really
interested, at the time, in the correspondence between old Egyptain
hieroglyphs and Coptic.

It was not until years later that I had access to Coptic grammars in
English, when my interest turned to the Coptic New Testament.

Needless to say, your Nova Sahidica site was a big help.

Solomon

I've updated the information on my website about part of my Coptic
(late Egyptian) and Greek recreation and translation work.

http://www.sahidica.org

Regards,
Joseph

http://www.ctmatrix.org/Glint20.zip

Greek Lexemic Interlinear New Testament
Produced and Edited by J. Wells
Ascii Analysis Edition. Version 2.0
Copyright (c) 2002-2007 by J Warren Wells. All rights reserved.

Glint has the complete NT in Greek (NA/UBS) with the root form of each
word right below the text; sort of a realtime vocabulary, to make it
easier for students to identify forms and look them up.

Joseph

I posted the text form of my new Bohairica on the Sahidica site.

Joseph

Andrew,

This is an answer to your question via personal email.

For grammars, I originally worked through Walters (3/28/86) then
Plumley (4/5/86) and then Lanbdin (4/20/87) where the dates are when I
acquired each one according to my records.

I'd recommend Lambdin, which contains and extensive lexicon of its
own. It is also the one I still use the most.

I also have Lexicons purchased later, which I recommend: Richard
Smith's "A Concise Coptic-English Lexicon" and Crums mega-edition.

Regards,
Joseph

Andrew,

This is an answer to your question via personal email.

For grammars, I originally worked through Walters (3/28/86) then
Plumley (4/5/86) and then Lanbdin (4/20/87) where the dates are when I
acquired each one according to my records.

I'd recommend Lambdin, which contains and extensive lexicon of its
own. It is also the one I still use the most.

I also have Lexicons purchased later, which I recommend: Richard
Smith's "A Concise Coptic-English Lexicon" and Crums mega-edition.

Regards,
Joseph

Hello Joseph

Thank you for the warm welcome to the group and thank you for making me
a member.

I would like to say hello to everybody and I hope to make some
contributions to the group by posting.

Once again thank you for approving my membership to the group.


From Andrew--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph" <oxyrhino@...>
wrote:
>
> You are officially member two. Uh. Unless you count me. Then you're
> third.
>
> :)
>
> Joseph
>

You are officially member two. Uh. Unless you count me. Then you're
third.

:)

Joseph

--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Ambrose Boles" <ambroseboles@...>
wrote:
>
> You may be interested to find List of Words
> Occuring (sic) Frequently
> in the Coptic New Testament (Sahidic Dialect)
> by Bruce M. Metzger on my
> site:
> http://www.geocities.com/ambroseboles/coptic_language/
> coptic_language.htm

I have a copy of the Metzger edition, and I recently scanned it. The
problem is that it has some mistakes in it, which I corrected when
doing my own lexicon.

Joseph

Thanks for the welcome Joseph.

Although I am aquainted only with the Bohairic dialect at present, I
hope to learn more of Sahidic and help where I can with the Sahidica
project.

Ambrose
Manchester, UK

You may be interested to find List of Words Occuring (sic) Frequently
in the Coptic New Testament (Sahidic Dialect) by Bruce M. Metzger on my
site:
http://www.geocities.com/ambroseboles/coptic_language/coptic_language.ht
m


--- In Sahidica@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph" <oxyrhino@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ambrose.
>
> You are officially the first member. I should probably give you an
> electric  toaster of something.
>
> I haven't advertised the existance of this group yet and the intro et
> al are in flux.
>
> The group will ultimatly be a meeting place for those interested in
my
> ongoing Sahidica project.
>
> Welcome again,
> Joseph (a.k.a. J. Warren Wells)
>

Hi Ambrose.

You are officially the first member. I should probably give you an
electric  toaster of something.

I haven't advertised the existance of this group yet and the intro et
al are in flux.

The group will ultimatly be a meeting place for those interested in my
ongoing Sahidica project.

Welcome again,
Joseph (a.k.a. J. Warren Wells)