It is clear that Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 says that "the Word was a god." But it has been remarked that Coptic John 1:18 contradicts this, because this verse uses the Coptic definite article before the common noun, noute: p.noute, with reference to the Son.
But is this reference definitizing, equating the Son with God, or is it merely anaphoric, referencing "the" god of John 1:1c?
First, an important difference between John 1:1 and John 1:18 (in Coptic and in Greek) must be noted. John 1:1 reads the same in all extant ancient Greek and Coptic textual witnesses. But John 1:18 does not. John 1:18 does not possess the textual clarity of John 1:1c. John 1:18 is a text that has three significant variants in the Greek: monogenhs theos ("an only-[begotten] god"); ho monogenhs theos ("the only-[begotten] god"); and ho monogenhs huios ("the only-[begotten] son").
As a basically Alexandrian text, "the only-[begotten] god" would be expected in the Coptic version. That is, in fact, the reading of the Coptic Bohairic version: pimonogenes nnouti, which Horner renders as "the only-begotten God" in the main text and as "the divine only-begotten" in his footnotes. However, there was obviously some support among the Sahidic Coptic translators for the "only-[begotten] son" reading also, because they combined, or conflated, the two variant readings in the Sahidic Coptic version, giving us pnoute pShre nouwt , literally, "the god, the only son." (According to Jesus as Theos: A Textual Examination, by Brian James Wright, a similarly conflated Greek variant of John 1:18, ho monogenhs huios theos, was known to Ambrose, Irenaeus, and Origen.)
By putting the definite article here, the Sahidic Coptic translators mirror the Greek's ho monogenhs theos. But does this say the Word is God? No, for the Greek here can be translated simply, "the only-begotten god."
George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic Coptic renders pnoute pShre nouwt as "God, the only Son." But this is not what the Coptic says, this is merely Reverend Horner's English version of the Coptic, perhaps revealing his own theological presuppositions. The Coptic of this verse, John 1:18, can also be translated as "the god, the only son." The use of the Coptic definite article here does not demand the translation, "God." Particularly not when such a reading fails to correspond with the context and with what has already been stated at Coptic John 1:1 in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic versions: "the Word was a god."
Horner himself shows that not every instance of p.noute means "God," but may also mean "god," in context.
For example, at Acts 7:43, the Sahidic Coptic text has the definite article bound to the word for god, p.noute. Does Horner arbitrarily translate it as "God"? Not at all. He renders p.noute at Acts 7:43 as "the god," giving us "And ye took the tabernacle of Molokh and the star of the god [Coptic, p.noute] Rephan, the forms which ye made to worship them."
Likewise, at Coptic John 1:18 we have "the god, the only son," i.e., the god previously mentioned at John 1:1c, who is the Son of God.
This is so because both John 1:1 and John 1:18 describe a contrast between God and his Son. In John 1:1, the Son or Word is "with" or "in the presence" of God. At John 1:18, God is the One Whom no one has ever seen, whereas the Son is the one who represented or revealed Him on earth. Identity of the Son with God is not the theme of either John 1:1 or John 1:18, whereas contrast is emphasized.
Sahidic Coptic John 1:18, therefore, cannot be used to contradict John 1:1, because the translation, "God the only Son" is not the only possible or contextually accurate translation of this Coptic verse in English. John 1:18 is not identifying the divine Son as being the same as God Almighty, but is actually highlighting the distinction between them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Very interesting blog!
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the language.
Agape-
Maribel
Your comments are deeply appreciated. Studying Coptic is a joyful experience, and I am more than happy to share with others what I am learning.
Besides, the truth is too vital to be hidden away.
Hello, thank you for your comment on my blog! Praise Jah!!!!
Agape-
Maribel
Also of interest concerning the Coptic of John 1:18 is this:
"In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out."
Source:
http://sahidica.warpco.com/SahidicaIntro.htm#Head02b
Hey,has anyone looked at the avenue of Koine Greek having about 6 diff. Genetive cases... Ie. where it says monogeneis theos (John1:18b)it in actual fact can be translated:"only-begotten of God"same as later in the Chapter:Andreas adelfos Simonas,ie brother of Simon...this will get rid of the eternal conflict between the renderings of the textus Receptus based versions opposed to the Byzantine line(onlybegotten Son), please give a clue to the unacquainted, Agape'
Thank you for that explanation! It clearly makes sence as to the context of each of those sentences.
I just wanted to make note that after my last post, I looked up John 1:18 because I wanted to know the sentence. I don't have a Coptic biblre yet, but I looked it up in my 1611 KJV, and in my old Catholic Douay Rhimes bible and this verse is wriiten by identifying Jesus, not as God, but only as the Son of God. KJV writes it as: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. The Douay Rhimes bble writes it as: No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. So I don't know when the rendering of vs 18 was turned into identifying Jesus as God, because it never used to be that way. Also, John concludes his Gospel as identifying Jesus as the Son of God, just as a writer would begin his topic of his paper with the same point he ends with. This to me proves even more that John began his writing out as identifying Jesus as a god, and concluded his writing with that he is the Son of God, not God Thanks again for offering this topic. The truth will set us free. :)
There are three different versions of John 1:18 in the Greek. The KJV and other older translations used the simplest "only begotten Son", whilst Wstcott and Hort and other more modern scholars think that the version "only begotten God" is the more original. And a rule in Bible scholarship states that the most difficult reading usually is the original.
The claim that Coptic John 1:18 contradicts Coptic John 1:1 by definitively identifying the Son as “the God” (pnoute) rather than as “a god” (ounoute) is based on a misreading of the linguistic and theological context of the Sahidic Coptic translation. This argument fails on several grounds, both grammatically and theologically.
The assertion that Coptic John 1:1 says “the Word was a god” and that John 1:18 instead identifies the Son as “the God” relies on a misunderstanding of Coptic syntax. Coptic employs both definite and indefinite articles, which are not always used in the same way as their English equivalents. The use of the indefinite article ⲟⲩ- (ou-) in John 1:1c does not automatically imply that the Logos is a separate or lesser deity. Rather, it can be used in a qualitative sense, meaning that the Word possesses the nature of God rather than being one among multiple gods.
Moreover, Coptic frequently uses definite articles where English would not. For example, the Nicene Creed in Coptic contains the phrase ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ, meaning “true God from true God.” The repetition of “ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ” does not mean two separate gods, but rather affirms the divine nature of the Son as fully God. Similarly, in John 1:1, the use of “ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ” in a predicate nominative structure aligns with the qualitative interpretation—emphasizing what the Word is by nature rather than identifying Him as a lesser deity.
The attempt to contrast Coptic John 1:18 with John 1:1c misunderstands the Christological context of both verses. John 1:18 states that no one has ever seen God, but the only Son (or, in some Greek manuscripts, the only-begotten God) has made Him known. The use of pnoute (the God) in John 1:18 does not mean the Son is being identified as an entirely separate God. Rather, it is likely an anaphoric reference—pointing back to the divine being already mentioned earlier in the prologue.
Furthermore, the textual variant in John 1:18—where some manuscripts say monogenēs theos (only-begotten God) while others say monogenēs huios (only-begotten Son)—suggests that early Christians understood that the Son uniquely reveals the Father, rather than being a separate deity. Coptic translators, reflecting this theological tradition, combined the readings by stating pnoute pShre nouwt (“the God, the only Son”), reinforcing that Jesus is the unique divine Son of the Father, not a separate god.
Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Arian interpreters attempt to use the Coptic translation to justify their rendering of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.” However, this interpretation is inconsistent with how Coptic Christianity has always understood John 1:1 and 1:18. If the Sahidic Coptic translation truly suggested a subordinate deity, one would expect to see evidence of this view in early Coptic Christian writings. Yet, the Coptic Church has always maintained Trinitarian orthodoxy and never interpreted John 1:1 as supporting Arian theology.
Prominent Coptic scholars, such as Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, have noted that the indefinite article in Sahidic Coptic often functions qualitatively, meaning that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ (ounoute) does not mean “a god” in the sense of a lesser deity but can mean “divine” or “having the nature of God.” This is consistent with the qualitative use of theos in Greek John 1:1c. Layton himself states that the Coptic indefinite article is not equivalent to the English indefinite article and that the phrase could just as easily be translated as “the Word was divine.” Thus, the argument that Coptic John 1:1 supports the Watchtower’s translation is flawed. The Sahidic Coptic translation affirms the Logos’ full divinity, just as the Nicene Creed does.
Given that the same Coptic translation that renders John 1:1 as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was God” also refers to the Son as “the God” in John 1:18, this actually refutes the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation rather than supporting it. If Coptic Christians had truly believed the Word was merely “a god,” they would not have referred to Him as pnoute (the God) later in the same passage.
The claim that pnoute pShre nouwt in John 1:18 must refer to a separate, lesser deity is untenable because it ignores the consistent usage of pnoute in Coptic as a reference to the one true God. Coptic Christians never interpreted John 1:18 as teaching that Jesus was a distinct, lesser deity. Rather, the verse emphasizes the unique relationship between the Son and the Father and the Son’s role in revealing the Father to humanity.
In conclusion, the attempt to use Coptic John 1:18 as a contradiction to John 1:1 is based on a misunderstanding of Coptic grammar, theological bias, and a selective reading of historical Christian beliefs. The Coptic indefinite article does not function like the English indefinite article, and its use in John 1:1 does not imply that the Word was a separate, lesser god. Instead, the qualitative reading is the most appropriate interpretation, affirming the divine nature of the Logos without confusion.
Moreover, Coptic Christianity has always been Trinitarian, and the Coptic Church never interpreted John 1:1 as supporting a subordinationist Christology. The fact that pnoute (the God) is used for the Son in John 1:18 actually supports the Trinitarian interpretation rather than contradicting it.
In sum, Coptic John 1:18 does not contradict John 1:1—it reinforces it. The Word is fully divine, the only-begotten Son of the Father, and not a lesser god.
Post a Comment