Herein I simply compare the English translations of two popular editions of the Nag Hammadi codices. The first example comes from the page you were just at, and concerns the top of the image which shows the ending of the Apocryphon of John [and the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas]. This would be Nag Hammadi codex II, leaf 32. The top portion appears as such: [which is the ending of the Apocryphon of John]

First we shall observe the English translation of Frederik Wisse as seen in: The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 1988, E.J. Brill. Page 123;

"And these things were presented to him in a mystery..."

Now observe the same Coptic text as translated by Bentley Layton [The Gnostic Scriptures, 1987, Doubleday & Company. Page 51];

"And these things were transmitted to him mystically..."

Both Layton and Wisse translate the Coptic as underlined in the above image, with the addition of the preceding "and" auo, and the following HN OumusthriOn. I just randomly picked this text, and it is agreed that both translations are very similar, yet the differences are informative.

We students who rely upon English translations of such materials are basically at the mercy of the translator: we trust we are reading a true translation, or at least a literal representation of such. The Nag Hammadi codices contain a very small portion of Egyptian based -- Gnostic/magic/esoteric/pagan -- materials (with other matter). Such materials excite the minds of the pagan, as well as add to the literary corpus of materials from Egypt in the early Christian centuries. They have a historical, linguistic and idolatrous value. Because of such value, they should be translated clearly and accurately.

Though similar, let us examine the above two translations:

Layton ------ "transmitted"

Wisse -------- "presented"

both are of the verb autaau, which is broken down as: au = the perfect tense, plural third person - "they were______", were they "transmitted" or "presented"?

Off we go first to Crum's dictionary (page 441f), and autaau is translated typically as:

(they were) SENT

(they were) PUT FORTH

(they) PRODUCED

(they did) UTTER or PROCLAIM

Now it just so happens that this exact form of the verb is only used here in the Apocryphon of John (II), so it is the context which should assist. In fact in several lines prior in the Coptic text we see a form of our verb again, Layton again translates it as "transmitted" and Wisse again as "presented". At least herein, both are consistent!

The context declares that the information was spoken to John:

For my part I have told you (sing) all things, so that you might write them down and give them secretly to those who are like you in spirit. [note: "like you in spirit" is per Layton, Wisse reads: "...secretly to your fellow spirits."]

Now a "mystical" transmission may be a fanciful concept as concerns Gnostic imaginations, but it is not literal translation. In each case Wisse produces a faithful translation with "presented". The connotation of "mystical" may lurk in the imagination of the reader, but it is not in the text! Layton added a notion foreign to the text.

Worse yet, is Layton's translation of:

HN OumusthriOn

Layton renders this preposition and noun as "mystically". Actually, it is "in a mystery". The "savior" spoke the words to John, and John wrote them down. What is a mystery is the full meaning of the entire message, to the non-initiated it seems to be a big mystery. One wonders if John even understood the message. However, Layton's "mystically" completely disrupts the semantics here. Again Wisse is correct with his literal "presented to him IN A MYSTERY".

Just based upon this example, one would declare that Wisse produced a fine literal translation, without injecting unwarranted connotations into the text. However the reader who does not translate from the Coptic, would not know of Layton's subtle distortions.

Let us observe another observation.

The above is from the Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2: The Gospel of the Egyptians, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975. Page 110.

The literal translation, is again seen in Wisse (and Labib) as:

Then everything shook...

"Everything shook" is underlined in the Coptic text above. Layton translates the same passage as:

Next the fullness began to move...

How can such a simple text be so violated? Layton injects an inceptive notion here with "began". The trembling which follows, is concurrent with the time of "shook". There is no reason to inject an inceptive notion here. Now I am no expert with Coptic grammar, Layton is. In his grammar, he does not even speak about concepts related to "inceptive" as concerns non-durative tenses. So why did he inject it here?

Layton is well aware of his method here, as he elsewhere comments upon the value of certain types of translation methods. For example, in his work titled: The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi [Scholars Press, 1979] in his preface he discloses that he considers his paraphrase to be MORE ACCURATE than his literal rendition (he translates both in a paraphrase and in a literal fashion [the literal translation is added at the bottom of the page]). It is clear that he does not really perceive the essential value of a genuine literal translation. So, in this 1971 dissertation of Layton, we learn of his proclivities, and are thus warned as concerns any of his translation endeavors!

Earlier in the text of the Gospel of the Egyptians, Layton did encounter the word for "fullness". In 63,24 (seen in IV,2) Layton renders "piplhroma (a transliterated Greek word for "fullness" or "complete"), as "completion" (s.v. page 111 of Layton's work). Herein he is accurate, but in our sample above, "fullness" is NOT accurate!

"Everything" is the common Coptic word Nkanim (or, Nka-nim). In Layton's translation in The Gospel of Philip, 73,20, he renders the same word, not as "fullness" but correctly as "everything". Thus we see an inconsistency, and the context does not seem to be an issue.

Again we meet with poor translation. Dr. Bentley Layton is, perhaps, a great grammarian*, but a poor translator as far as being literal (even with diatribes!) He seems quite capable at paraphrasing. Consequently, I recommend the popular work edited by Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, published in 1988, by E. J. Brill, and it is quite affordable. But be aware that several texts within it are translated by Dr. Layton (The Hypostasis of the Archons, and, On the Origin of the World).

In closing, students are encouraged to make further tests to satisfy their inquiring minds, and you too may agree with my few samples shown above! As with understanding the New Testament, all are encouraged to learn Greek, and then to translate literally and accurately: keep the connotations in the notes, NOT in the text.

_______________________________

* his outstanding grammar of the Sahidic; A Coptic Grammar, has one major flaw. We all know that Coptic is the final stage of a long language epoch, Coptic is simply the ancient Egyptian in modern dress. In the final stages of Coptic (Egyptian) we see the last vestiges of ancient Egyptian morphology, of ancient Egyptian syntax. Observing this diachronic aspect helps students grapple with the Coptic language, and it explains many of the unusual morphological ramifications seen in Coptic. Layton completely ignores the diachronic aspects, instead his grammar is concerned with the last stage of the language. It is overtly synchronic, which is in style today.

click to return to images of Coptic MSS

click to return to the main Sahidic Bohairic page

click to return to the main index, homepage of the site www.Biblical-data.org