Relative to Coptic John 1:1c, what conclusions can be drawn from a multi-year study of the Sahidic Coptic language, including a detailed study of the entire Sahidic Coptic New Testament?
1- That the translation of Coptic neunoute pe pSaje into standard English as "the Word was a god" is literal, accurate, and unassailable. It is simple, but not simplistic. It is what the Coptic text actually says and literally conveys. Any other translation of it amounts to interpretation or paraphrase.
2- That rendering a Sahidic Coptic common ("count") noun, like noute, god, when bound to the Coptic indefinite article, ou, into English as "a" + noun is so prevalent, as for example in Coptic scholar George Horner's 1911 English translation of the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, that this is beyond dispute.
As just the nearest example of this, after John 1:1c itself, is John 1:6. Here we have the Coptic indefinite article, ou, bound to the Coptic common noun rwme, man: aFSwpe nCi ourwme eautnnoouF ebol Hitm pnoute . In Horner's English translation we read: "There was a man having been sent from God." That is the simple, literal, and accurate translation. Likewise, "a god" is the simple, literal, and accurate translation of ou.noute at John 1:1c, the same Coptic indefinite article + common noun construction as found in John 1:6 and elsewhere. Only with respect to Coptic "mass" or abstract nouns is there no need to translate the indefinite article into English, but this is not the situation at Coptic John 1:1c, because noute, god, is a Coptic common or "count" noun.
3 - That, whereas some Coptic grammarians hold that ou.noute may also be translated into English adjectivally as "divine," they give no examples favoring this usage in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament itself. Coptic ou.noute is not used adjectivally or "qualitatively" in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament. The published works of these scholars have been heavily invested in the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Coptic "gospels" like Thomas, Philip, and Judas. Perhaps translating ou.noute as "divine" fits the esoteric or philosophical context of the Gnostic "gospels." But there are no examples in the canonical Coptic New Testament that justify an adjectival translation of ou.noute as "divine," whereas a literal translation of ou.noute as "a god" works just fine. Although "divine" is not altogether objectionable, since a god is divine by definition, a paraphrase is unnecessary when an adequate, understandable literal translation is available.
4- That all the primarily Trinitarian-based objections to translating ou.noute as "a god" at Coptic John 1:1c amount to little more than presupposition or special pleading. Though such faulty, superficial objections have been cut and pasted frequently on the Internet, they are poorly researched and often misleading.
In one such apologetic, promising full disclosure of what some Coptic scholars "really said," the conclusion about ou.noute at John 1:1 remains the same, i.e., "it might mean was a god, was divine, was an instance of 'god', was one god (not two, three, etc.)"; "In Coptic, "ounoute" can mean "a god" or "one with divine nature"; "So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. ... A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."
Not ONE of the scholars appealed to by Trinitarian apologists said that Coptic John 1:1 should be translated to say "The Word was God." Not one. Not one said that "a god" was incorrect. In fact, the interlinear reading for Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c in scholar Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons specifically reads "a-god is the-Word."
The Coptic text of John 1:1c was made prior to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Egyptian and other churches, and it is poor scholarship to attempt to "read back" a translation such as "the Word was God" into any exegesis of the Coptic text. Such a rendering is foreign to Coptic John 1:1c, which clearly and literally says, "the Word was a god."
5- That, stated succinctly, translating Sahidic Coptic's neunoute pe pSaje literally into standard English as "the Word was a god" stands on solid grammatical and contextual ground.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
This is not a surprise because the "a god" rendering is implicitly shown in early church fathers as Origen and Justin contemporariers to the Coptic Bible. For instance, Origen said about the Greek of John 1:1c :
"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named QEOS.....all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article)."
On the other hand, Justin said:
"there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God"
word was "a god" is how the jehovah's witnesses translate it and it contributes to a lot of confusing theologies.
i'm surrent;y trying to make sense of the debate between monophysitism and the coptic point of view.
No, there is no confusing theology here. Actually, in the context of Biblical Monotheism, there is no confusion or conflict in the rendering "a god" at John 1:1c. And it should not be forgotten that Jesus and his apostles were Hebrews whose heritage was Biblical Monotheism.
At least as far back as the year 1864, there were English versions of the Bible that had "a god" in this verse (The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson). Several other translations, in English and other languages, render the anarthrous "theos" (god) here as "a god" or "divine," showing that they understand this usage to be either indefinite or qualitative.
In other words, John 1:1c is not identifying Jesus as God, but describing Jesus as being "like God." Or, as Greek grammarian Philip Harner put it, "The Word had the same nature as God." (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92,1974)
In addition, it must be noted that the 2nd century Coptic translators were not translating in favor of any of today's religions.
The Coptic translators were giving us their own understanding or interpretation of the Greek text(s) they were using 1,700 years ago.
When the Coptic translators encountered the Greek anarthrous construction at John 1:1c, they translated it by using their Coptic indefinite construction, giving us neunoute pe pSaje, i.e., "the Word was a god."
The use of the Coptic indefinite article with a Coptic common or count noun is customarily translate into English as "a ____". And that is precisely the usage found in Coptic at John 1:1c.
Regardless of later Coptic church theology, the translators of the Sahidic Coptic version understood John 1:1c to read differently from many modern English versions: "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," NOT "the Word was God."
>word was "a god" is how the >jehovah's witnesses translate it >and it contributes to a lot of >confusing theologies.
FYI - "the jehovah's witnesses" as you write, didn't write, nor translate the Sahidic Coptic manuscripts. We simply agree with it's rendering, fully confident that Jesus Christ is:
the only begotten Son of God (Heb. 1:5),
who is ruling at God's right hand (Colassians 3:1),
by God's authority, (John 5:27)
and by God's appointment (Acts 2:36),
as a reward for his obedience. (Heb. 5:8, 9)
Trinity is THE very definition of confusing. The belief that Jesus is God, and with God, and has a God, and at God's right hand, and lesser than the Father, who is also God, and the three are separate persons yet all equally God - well I'd say trinitarians win the confusion gold medal.
http://magnifyjehovah.com/index.php/2009/05/14/jesus-christ-god/
The Greek word Logos (lo,goj) is traditionally translated as “Word.” French translations sometimes
use “Verb” which has a dynamic quality. The English “Message” or “Expression of the Mind” may
also be appropriate attempts to convey the nuance of the Greek concept. The Jewish-Alexandrian
theologian and philosopher Philo wrote extensively about the Logos in ways that are reminiscent of
NT theology. For instance, his teaching that “For the Logos of the living God being the bond of every
thing, as has been said before, holds all things together, and binds all the parts, and prevents them
from being loosened or separated” echoes Colossians 1:17. VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj( kai. o` lo,goj h=n pro.j to.n qeo,n( kai. qeo.j h=n o` lo,gojÅ This second theos could
also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not
God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father
(God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of
the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse
is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light
from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.”
Thanks for your comments.
However, neither Philo nor Athanasius is conclusive in understanding what the apostle John wrote at John 1:1. Both follow the lines of Greek philosophy rather than the dictates of inspired Scripture.
There is nothing in John 1:1 that posits an eternal existence of the Logos. As applied to Jesus Christ, the Scriptures show that while pre-existent, he was also "the beginning of the creation of God" and the "firstborn of all creation." (Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:15)
sdhshh's comment was deleted because it contained a link that was merely the same outdated and convoluted special pleading for Trinitarian doctrine that can be found anywhere.
Anonymous, trash comments will not be allowed on this blog.
sdhshh's comment was deleted again because (1) it was a link that did not work; (2) the link was to a site that contains outdated, incorrect information about Coptic John 1 that is purely apologetic in nature, ignoring Coptic grammar and syntax in favor of Trinitarian dogmatism.
In short, the link has nothing of a scholarly nature to add to the discussion.
Thank you and how about that Greek guy who posted- no Greek Bibles ever translate this john 1:1 as God. It is a comment on the book Truth in Translation. So how many Greek Bibles are there?- and is this correct? Does anyone know the standards of Greek Bibles?? Hope they are better then our English Revised ones:). . This Greek man said none of the Greek Bibles understand John 1:1 to say God. Let me cut and add his post. for expedience, It was quite refreshing. . . Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament
158 of 171 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars It says the truth about Bible translations, January 1, 2005
By
Basileios Tsialas (Athens, Greece) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (Paperback)
I am Greek, I have been raised in Greece, I have studied Classical Greek for two years in high school (Classical Greek is much more complicated than koine, or Common Greek) and I have been studding the original Greek text of the Bible for about 10 years. Having this background, I responsibly say that this book presents quite right, well documented and reliable linguistic information. Yes, its writer must be considered adequate as regards his knowledge of the Biblical Greek. So, this book sheds plenty of light about subjects of whitch the common English reader has no idea. For example: English readers often claim that NW is false in Jonh 1:1. Trinitarians in Greece have never used this specific verse to claim that the New World Translation (NW) is wrong, since all the Orthodox versions read actually the same with the greek version of the NW. And this happens because the wording of this verse is very clear for the Greek reader, and there is no place for debate. I am sorry to say this, but for a Greek it is rediculus to debate on John 1:1.
Of course, many will be disappointed by BeDunh because he proves that many of the famous Bible versions are inaccurate and mislead their readers. But face the facts! What matters is not what translators say but what Bible says!
Know I Love this Guy!!
Thank you again Memra, for this great succinctly put information!
Trish,
Your comments are noted and appreciated.
I think what the Greek writer meant was than a native Greek person who reads John 1:1, in the Greek, would see immediately that two different entities are being described, not one.
In other words, the Word is not the same as the God Whom the Word is with, but the Word would have divine qualities, like God.
Thx. for this blog.
Thank you, Janos, and thanks to others who made thoughtful comments.
Welcome brother. You have good resources. Thx. again. How do you find it?
Hello Memra. I found your blog while performing a search for coptic greek. I had at one time bookmarked http://jehovah.to/ which had similar info but the site has since closed. My blog, bartreflect.blogspot.com, has more general interest subjects regarding scripture from the JW point of view. I'd like to join your blog but I don't see a link to do so. I can be emailed at bible_tutor@yahoo.com
In John 3:13, the words "who is in heaven" is likely original. It is the more difficult reading, appears in the majority of all manuscripts, and appears early on in all text types.
Chances are that John 3:13 onward was not spoken by Jesus but was a parenthetical remark by the evangelist.
". . . If I told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how shall ye believe if I tell you about heavenly things?" [Jesus stops speaking here]
(And no one has ascended into heaven except for the one who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven . . ."
Scribes were confused by the words "who is in heaven" because they thought that Jesus was still speaking, so they either removed the phrase altogether or changed it to "who WAS in heaven"
The apostle John was intending to refute the idea that the souls of dead saints have ascended into heaven.
Obviously Jesus is not the speaker in verse 13 onward because the speaker describes Jesus' ascension as a past event.
Sadly, the blog author Memra passed away on April 13, 2013.
And Jesus is false god!
http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com
ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ [auō neounoute pe pšaʤe]
The Sahidic Coptic translation, which dates back to the 3rd century, is particularly interesting because it includes both definite and indefinite articles. In John 1:1, the Sahidic Coptic text uses the term "ⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (noute, "god"), which indeed contains an indefinite article. Meanwhile, in John 1:18, it uses the definite article for the Son, "ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (pnoute, "the God").
Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to this translation, which they claim renders the text as "and the Word was a god." The Sahidic Coptic translation, having both definite and indefinite articles, is in this respect closer to modern languages (such as English) than to Greek. The Watchtower Society asserts that the Sahidic Coptic translation supports their interpretation. Firstly, even if this were true, the Coptic translation is obviously interpretative at this point because "divine" in Greek would not be "theos ēn" but "theios ēn". Furthermore, the theological background of this translation is unclear, considering that Coptic Christians were never Arians, unlike, for example, the Visigoths or the Vandals.
Coptic translators regularly used the definite article when referring to the biblical "God," but also applied the indefinite article when the context required it. Based on the analysis of tenses and sentence structures, the Coptic text seems to use the word "god" in a qualitative sense, meaning "divine" or "having a divine nature." Thus, the use of indefinite articles in Coptic translations was complex and often determined by the context.
Coptic language experts like Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy point out that the Coptic indefinite article is not identical to the English indefinite article. According to Layton, the Coptic structure can also be translated in a qualitative sense, such as "the Word was divine" or "of divine nature." Shisha-Halevy holds a similar view, noting that in the Coptic language, such structures tend to refer to the nature of the subject rather than to an indefinite entity. Wallace suggests that in Sahidic Coptic, the indefinite article can be used to denote class membership or properties, similar to what is called "qualitative usage" in Greek grammar.
In Sahidic Coptic, the indefinite article is often used with abstract nouns and material nouns, which is not common in modern languages. Analyses show that Sahidic Coptic translators often used articles in places where the Greek text did not have them. This indicates that the Sahidic Coptic translation simply followed its grammatical rules and does not necessarily reflect the exact meaning of the Greek text. Examples of qualitative usage in Coptic:
John 1:33: "This is the one who will baptize with [a] Holy Spirit and [a] fire" (Horner's translation).
John 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is [a] spirit."
In John 1:18b, the Greek "theos" without an article is translated into Coptic with a definite article: "God, the only Son" (Horner's translation). This consistency suggests that the Coptic translator likely attributed divine qualities to the Word in John 1:1, rather than treating it as an indefinite noun ("a god"). Therefore, the translator emphasized the divine quality here, not a separate (lesser) god. This contradicts the idea that John 1:1 should be translated as "a god."
In the October 2011 issue of the Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti concluded that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation of John 1:1 has a qualitative meaning. They identified many such occurrences in the Coptic New Testament for qualitative nouns, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8. Additionally, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Numbers 4:31 and Malachi 2:10.
This article establishes that Sahidic Coptic translators did not always consistently translate the Greek "theos" without an article. While they mostly used the definite article, in some cases, "theos" appears with an indefinite article, such as in John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. The authors apply their findings to John 1:1c, concluding that in the translation "and the Word was God," the "theos" has a qualitative interpretation. According to this approach, the Word possesses the same attributes as the biblical God. With this approach, the authors argue that the Sahidic Coptic translators did not intend to present a pagan or usurping god, but to emphasize the divine attributes of the Word. In summary, the study suggests that in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, the use of the indefinite article in translating the Greek "theos" without an article primarily served a qualitative, descriptive distinction aimed at highlighting the divine attributes of the Word in John 1:1c.
Moreover, scholars like Jason BeDuhn and J. Warren Wells also agree that the Sahidic Coptic translation does not unequivocally support the "a god" interpretation. Even BeDuhn, who often defends the New World Translation, pointed out that it can be interpreted qualitatively, meaning that the Word was of divine nature, not a separate, lesser god, as the Watchtower Society's theology claims about the Son.
In conclusion, the solution of the Sahidic Coptic translation does not support either the New World Translation's rendering or the Watchtower Society's Christology.
The claim that the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c ("ⲞⲨⲛⲞⲨϮ" – ou.noute) supports the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rendering “the Word was a god” in the New World Translation is based on a misinterpretation of Coptic grammar and historical context. While the Sahidic Coptic translation does use an indefinite article, this does not necessarily indicate that Jesus is being presented as a secondary or lesser god. Rather, it reflects a qualitative meaning that emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, aligning with traditional Trinitarian theology.
The primary issue with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument is that it treats the Coptic indefinite article as functionally equivalent to the English indefinite article, ignoring how Coptic expresses qualitative and categorical attributes. Coptic grammarians such as Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy emphasize that the indefinite article in Coptic can indicate either an entity (a god) or a quality (divine). Layton explicitly states that in such constructions, "the reader must decide which reading to give it," acknowledging the possibility of a qualitative nuance rather than an indefinite one. The indefinite article is frequently used in Coptic not to denote an indefinite entity but to indicate the nature or essence of the subject. This aligns with how Greek functions in John 1:1c, where theos without the article is best understood as qualitative—describing what the Word was, rather than identifying the Word as a separate deity.
Additionally, the argument that early Coptic-speaking Christians interpreted John 1:1c in a way that supports Arianism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Christology is historically flawed. Coptic Christianity was never Arian. The early Egyptian Church was staunchly Nicene, and there is no evidence that the Coptic translators intended to portray the Word as a subordinate deity. If they had, we would expect to see Arianism flourishing among Coptic Christians, yet historical records show that Egyptian Christianity consistently upheld Christ’s full divinity. Furthermore, the Coptic Nicene Creed, still recited in the Coptic Orthodox Church today, repeatedly uses "ⲞⲨⲛⲞⲨϮ" (ou.noute) in reference to the one true God, demonstrating that this construction does not necessarily imply a lesser deity.
Another important point is that in John 1:18, the Sahidic Coptic text explicitly refers to the Son as "ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (pnoute), meaning "the God." This suggests that the same translators who used "ⲞⲨⲛⲞⲨϮ" in 1:1c also affirmed the Son’s full divinity in 1:18. It would be inconsistent to claim that they considered the Word to be "a god" in John 1:1c while calling Him "the God" just a few verses later.
Moreover, other uses of the indefinite article in Sahidic Coptic support the qualitative understanding rather than an indefinite one. For example, in John 4:24, where the Greek says "God is spirit" (pneuma ho theos), the Sahidic Coptic translation renders it with an indefinite article: "ⲞⲨⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (ou pneuma pnoute), which literally translates to "God is a spirit." No one argues that this means God is one among many spirits; rather, it describes God's nature. The same applies to John 1:1c—"ⲞⲨⲛⲞⲨϮ" (ou.noute) does not mean the Word was a separate god, but that the Word was divine.
Even Coptic scholars who recognize the literal presence of the indefinite article in John 1:1c do not necessarily interpret it in a way that aligns with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology. Jason BeDuhn, who is often cited by Jehovah’s Witnesses, acknowledges that while a literal translation could be “a god,” the qualitative interpretation (“divine”) is also valid. Layton and Shisha-Halevy similarly affirm that the construction in John 1:1c does not support the idea of a separate deity but rather describes the nature of the Word.
Finally, the claim that the Sahidic Coptic translation represents an “ancient” interpretation that predates later Trinitarian doctrine is misleading. While the translation dates back to the 3rd century, its theological context must be considered. The translators were working within the Alexandrian tradition, which later became a key defender of Nicene orthodoxy. There is no indication that early Coptic Christians viewed Christ as a lesser god, nor is there any historical evidence of a theological movement within Coptic Christianity that aligns with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation.
In conclusion, the Sahidic Coptic translation does not support the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rendering of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.” The use of the indefinite article in Coptic does not necessarily indicate an indefinite noun but often serves a qualitative function. The broader context of the Coptic translation, including John 1:18, supports the traditional Christian understanding that the Word is fully divine. Historical evidence further undermines the claim that Coptic Christianity had an Arian or semi-Arian Christology. The argument that the Coptic translation aligns with Jehovah’s Witness theology is based on a misunderstanding of both Coptic grammar and early Christian history.
https://justpaste.it/bnpvy
Read this: https://justpaste.it/gme4b
The central weakness in this argument is not its recognition that ⲟⲩ- is an indefinite article, nor even its admission that “a god” is a grammatically possible construal of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Both points should be conceded. The problem is the repeated conversion of those propositions into a much stronger claim: that “the Word was a god” is the uniquely literal, accurate, and “unassailable” English translation, whereas “the Word was God” or a descriptive rendering such as “the Word was divine” must be secondary interpretation or paraphrase. That inference does not follow from Sahidic grammar. It collapses four different operations—morphological glossing, syntactic analysis, semantic interpretation, and idiomatic translation—into one. A morpheme-by-morpheme gloss may quite properly represent ⲟⲩ- by “a/one”; it does not follow that an English indefinite article must survive in the final translation of a predicate.
Bentley Layton furnishes a particularly damaging counterexample to that claim because the evidence comes from the very grammarian invoked in support of the “a god” argument. In *Coptic in 20 Lessons*, Layton gives the morphology of John 1:1c interlinearly as “a-god,” but his sentence-level English translation is “And the Word was God.” Thus the categorical assertion that “not ONE” of the scholars in question translated the clause “the Word was God” is factually false. More importantly, Layton’s practice shows precisely why an interlinear gloss cannot be equated with an idiomatic translation. George Horner’s convention makes essentially the same methodological point from another direction. His rendering “… and [a] God was the Word” places *a* in square brackets, and his stated convention is that such brackets represent material expressed by the Coptic but not required by English. Horner was therefore registering the presence of Coptic indefinite morphology while explicitly declining to assert that English *a* was obligatorily required.
The appeal to John 1:6 does not repair the argument. It is true that ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ in John 1:6 is naturally translated “a man.” But the inference from “the same indefinite article plus a count noun” to “therefore the same English article must occur in John 1:1c” ignores syntactic function. In John 1:6, ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ occurs as an entity-denoting nominal in a clause introducing a participant: a man came to be / there was a man sent from God. John 1:1c, by contrast, is a predicate-first nominal sentence in which ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ is predicated of the already definite subject ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ, “the Word.” The mere recurrence of the same indefinite article does not make the semantic function of the two noun phrases identical. Articles do not determine their English realization independently of syntactic position and discourse function.
The accompanying claim that only Coptic mass nouns or abstract nouns can lose the English indefinite article is directly contradicted by standard Sahidic grammar. Layton’s analysis is not confined to substances or abstractions. He explicitly treats gendered common nouns as capable of both denotative and descriptive function, and in §292 he uses the exact noun at issue: ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ may mean either “he is a god” or “he is divine.” The point could scarcely be more directly relevant. Layton also gives ordinary common-noun parallels such as ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ construed either as “a person” or descriptively as “human,” and comparable nominal predicates that can be rendered adjectivally. Thus count-noun status does not force English *a/an* when the noun is functioning predicatively.
This is why the claim that “Coptic ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ is not used adjectivally or qualitatively in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament” is methodologically circular when John 1:1c itself is the disputed token. One cannot establish that John 1:1c is non-descriptive by first defining every New Testament occurrence of the form as non-descriptive and then citing the resulting classification as proof. Even if there were no second uncontested New Testament occurrence of the exact lexeme ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ with descriptive force, that would not overturn a grammatical analysis that explicitly licenses descriptive predication with that very noun. A sparse lexical corpus cannot turn a grammatically licensed reading into an impossibility.
There are, moreover, intra-Johannine controls showing why the broader predicative mechanism cannot be reduced to English class-membership. John 4:24 has the Sahidic predicate-first structure ⲟⲩⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, morphologically something like “a spirit is the God.” Yet the point of the clause is characterizing what God is, conventionally “God is spirit” or “God is a spirit,” not assigning the biblical God an inferior rank within a hierarchy of spirits. J. Warren Wells specifically drew attention to this comparison and described both John 4:24 and John 1:1 in terms of what the subject is rather than personal identification. The nouns are not lexically identical, so John 4:24 does not by itself determine John 1:1c; it does, however, refute the claim that overt Sahidic indefinite morphology in a nominal predicate necessarily corresponds to English class-member *a + noun*.
The attempt to discredit the descriptive analysis by observing that some Coptic scholars worked extensively on Nag Hammadi literature is not a linguistic argument. It is a genetic objection to scholarship rather than an analysis of the grammar. Layton’s *A Coptic Grammar* is a general reference grammar of Sahidic, not a grammar of “Gnostic theology,” and *Coptic in 20 Lessons* is explicitly designed as a teaching grammar of Sahidic with New Testament vocabulary and New Testament reading material. Ariel Shisha-Halevy’s major syntactic work, moreover, is centered on Shenoutean Sahidic, i.e. native Coptic rather than a corpus of translated Gnostic gospels. The question is whether the grammatical analysis is correct, not what theological texts a scholar has also edited.
Nor does the publicly reproduced correspondence support the claim that the “a god” rendering is uniquely compelled. Layton is reported as saying that the relevant Coptic pattern can predicate either a quality, “is divine,” or an entity, “is a god,” with the reader deciding which interpretation fits the context. In another communication he explicitly lists “was a god,” “was divine,” “was an instance of ‘god’,” and “one god” among possible construals and warns that the semantic range of the Coptic indefinite article does not map neatly onto English or Greek. Ariel Shisha-Halevy goes further at the token level: he states that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ may mean either “a god” or “one with divine nature” and, for John 1:1c, says that he would prefer the latter, qualifying the Word as “divine” or “godly.” He also distinguishes this judgment about the Coptic from his analysis of the Greek, an important methodological qualification rather than a reason to suppress his Coptic judgment.
The evidence from Malcolm Choat is equally ill suited to a triumphalist “a god is unassailable” conclusion. Choat was skeptical of both an uncomplicated “a god” translation and an uncomplicated “the Word was divine” rendering, calling both potentially special pleading relative to his understanding of the Greek. Yet in the same comment he observed that Coptic grammatically requires an article in a construction of this sort. P. J. Williams similarly drew attention to Coptic’s avoidance of bare nouns in such predication. Their judgments do not prove that John 1:1c must be qualitative, but they do undermine the counterfactual argument that a Coptic translator intending descriptive predication could simply have omitted the article.
The claim that the Coptic translators simply encountered Greek anarthrous θεός and reproduced it with the Coptic indefinite article is also empirically untenable as a general account of Sahidic translation technique. Wright and Ricchuiti examined twenty-five passages in which Greek anarthrous nominative singular θεός was judged to stand behind the Sahidic. Twenty-one were rendered with the Coptic definite article and only four with the indefinite. Whatever one thinks of their final interpretation of John 1:1c, that distribution decisively excludes a mechanical rule “Greek anarthrous θεός → Coptic ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.” The indefinite choice at John 1:1c may therefore be interpretively significant, but its significance has to be determined from Coptic predicate semantics; it cannot simply be decoded as English “a god.”
The repeated contrast between “literal” *a god* and “interpretive” *divine* or *God* is consequently misleading. Every translation beyond a gloss involves semantic interpretation. “A god” is not a theologically neutral photograph of the Coptic while “divine” is an interpretive intervention. “A god” chooses the denotative/classificatory construal of a morphologically ambiguous predicate; “divine” chooses the descriptive construal. Layton’s grammar explicitly permits both. The linguistic question is therefore not which rendering is “literal” and which is “interpretive,” but which semantic function the predicate has in this discourse.
The assertion that no scholar appealed to by Trinitarians ever said that John 1:1 should be translated “the Word was God” is, as already noted, refuted by Layton’s own printed teaching grammar. His interlinear gives the morphological “a-god,” but his sentence translation says “And the Word was God.” The significance of that fact should not be exaggerated into “Layton thereby proves Nicene theology”; nevertheless, it completely disposes of the categorical historical claim that no such scholar used that translation.
Likewise, the fact that none of these specialists needs to declare “a god” grammatically impossible is irrelevant. The strongest scholarly rebuttal has never required that claim. “A god” is a real possible denotative rendering. What fails is the stronger proposition that it is the only grammatically legitimate translation or that it automatically conveys the Watchtower ontology of a created and ontologically inferior divine being. The ordinary D reading and the specifically Watchtower D_JW reading must not be conflated. Coptic indefiniteness does not lexically encode createdness, inferiority, non-almightiness, or membership in a class of secondary gods.
The dating argument fares no better. Even if the earliest Sahidic translation of John were demonstrably pre-Nicene, that would not make a full-deity reading an anachronistic “reading back” of fourth-century dogma. A translation can express a semantic value later incorporated into Nicene theology without containing fourth-century technical terminology. More fundamentally, the claim that “the 2nd century Coptic translators” produced this text is stated with far greater confidence than current scholarship permits. The date and process of the earliest Sahidic New Testament translations remain debated, and the date of an extant manuscript cannot simply be identified with the date of the underlying translation. A serious versional argument therefore should not assign Sahidic John to a precise second-century setting as though that were established fact. There is also an elementary chronological inconsistency between calling the translators “2nd century” and describing them as working “1,700 years ago”; those are not the same dating claim.
More importantly, translating an ancient predicate as “the Word was God” does not by itself import Nicene *homoousios* into the Coptic. English predicative *God* is not identical to the definite referring expression *the God*. John 1:1b distinguishes the Logos relationally from the divine referent with whom he is; John 1:1c then predicates ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ of the Logos. A descriptive English rendering can preserve precisely that combination of personal distinction and deity predication without claiming that the Coptic article itself means “consubstantial.” To label such a translation “foreign to Coptic” simply assumes the point disputed by Layton’s predicate grammar.
The invocation of “Biblical Monotheism” also does not make “a god” semantically unproblematic. Monotheism is not a grammatical rule that converts every indefinite divine predicate into an ontologically coherent secondary deity. If anything, the monotheistic discourse makes the semantic choice more, not less, context-sensitive. In standard contemporary English, “the Word was a god” strongly suggests membership in a plurality of gods. Coptic ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, however, does not by itself encode the metaphysical content of such a polytheistic class ontology. The surrounding Johannine discourse must therefore determine how the predicate is to be understood.
The existence of nineteenth- or twentieth-century translations that read “a god” is historically interesting but proves nothing about what Sahidic grammar requires. Benjamin Wilson’s *Emphatic Diaglott* is not evidence about the semantic constraints of Coptic; it is evidence that one modern translator selected an indefinite English rendering of the Greek. The fact that other translators have chosen “a god,” “divine,” or related renderings shows precisely that the source-language predication has generated competing construals. It does not convert one of them into an “unassailable” grammatical necessity.
The appeal to Philip Harner is especially revealing because Harner’s argument does not support the move from qualitative predication to a lesser god. His article, incidentally, appeared in 1973, not 1974. Harner’s proposed paraphrase that the Word had the same nature as God was intended to express the qualitative force of θεός. “The same nature as God” is not semantically equivalent to “a god” understood as one lesser member of a divine class, nor is it equivalent to a weakened “like God” in the sense of merely resembling God. Harner’s formulation points toward what the predicate says the Word is by nature, not toward ontological diminution. Using Harner to support the sentence “John 1:1c is not identifying Jesus as God but merely describing Jesus as like God” therefore changes the force of Harner’s proposal.
The distinction between “divine” and “godlike” is crucial here. In descriptive nominal predication, attributing the property associated with a noun is not the same thing as saying that the subject merely resembles members of the class. “Human” does not mean “human-like but not human.” That is precisely why Layton’s descriptive rendering “he is divine” cannot simply be diluted into “he is somewhat like God.” Coptic grammar does not settle the later metaphysics of deity, but neither does it supply the diminutive semantics required by that paraphrase. We have to separate these levels: Q is descriptive/property-oriented; “godlike” is a weaker pragmatic paraphrase and is not automatically equivalent to Q.
It is therefore reasonable to say that the Sahidic translators give evidence of an ancient interpretation of the Greek. What is not reasonable is to assume that the mere presence of ⲟⲩ- tells us, without further semantic analysis, that their interpretation was “the Word was a god.” The same translators were operating in a language whose indefinite article could support more than one predicate function, and the Sahidic version elsewhere demonstrates that Greek anarthrousness did not mechanically control Coptic determination. An ancient version is evidence for reception only after the target language has been analyzed according to its own grammar.
The defensible conclusion is accordingly more precise than either polemical extreme. Sahidic John 1:1c is morphologically indefinite. A denotative rendering “the Word was a god” is grammatically possible. It is not, however, the uniquely literal or “unassailable” English translation. Standard Sahidic grammar explicitly permits the exact predicate ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ to function descriptively as “he is divine”; Layton himself renders John 1:1 at sentence level “And the Word was God”; Horner’s brackets distinguish the overt Coptic article from what English idiom requires; Shisha-Halevy preferred the divine-nature reading for the disputed Coptic token; and the wider Sahidic evidence rules out any mechanical equivalence between Greek anarthrousness, Coptic indefiniteness, English *a*, and the ontology of a created lesser deity. The actual question is therefore not whether ⲟⲩ- is indefinite—it is—but what semantic function that indefinite predicate performs in John 1:1c. On that question, the apologist’s claim of grammatical inevitability substantially exceeds what the evidence can bear.
Post a Comment