Talk:Bible translations into Coptic

Christianity: Oriental O. High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as High-importance).

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sahidic Coptic - John 1:1

Under Sahidic peculiarities, I had read that George W. Horner and later Lance Jenott translated the peculiarity as "the Word was a God". The words before this "the Word was with God" is not a peculiarity, being the same as the canonical Greek.Barney Hill (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek text has λογος ην προς τον θεον it means "the Word was toward God". Old-Latin versions and Vulgate has "Verbum erat apud Deum" (the Word was at God). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know about the George W. Horner or Lance Jenott translations of the Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 which are "the Word was a God"?Barney Hill (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The same story you can find in John 1:18 and in several other places of the Gospel of John. See Papyrus Bodmer III. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the allusion to John 1:1 as peculiar should be deleted. This is Jehovah's witness nonsense. The use of the indefinite for adjectival copulative sentences is nothing unusual. Horner's translation is not helpful here. Cf. Lambdin's grammar, p. 203, section 257 (e.g. ⲙⲉ, ⲟⲉⲓⲕ, ϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ, ⲃⲟⲧⲉ). Christian Askeland (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern printed versions from Egypt?

Are there any modern edition for church use in Egypt? Surely it hasn't been printed only in the West? Or do they use Arabic bibles nowadays?-- 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.147.30 (talk)

Gospel of Mark in the Bohairic translation

In this section, at the beginning of the list of selected manuscripts is the sentence, "All have the last twelve verses of Mark." If you consult Gospel of Mark#The ending of the gospel of Mark, you will find a discussion of the well-known fact that this work is missing its original ending. If the Bohairic translation managed to preserve it, then it is an fact worth more attention! If, as I suspect is more likely, it preserves one of the endings created to replace the original ending. If I had to guess, the longer ending. Someone who is familiar with the Coptic version of the Bible should be able to resolve this puzzle. -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]