John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions

Corroborating Early Christian Christology

2009-07-30T08:10:00.000-07:00

The Sahidic Coptic version corroborates early Christian Christology in many of its readings. This is especially true regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, since the most that can be read from Coptic John 1:1c is that "the Word was divine," not "the Word was God." Literally, what the Coptic version says is "the Word was a god."

This is consistent with what historians know about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. As one edition of the New Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament....The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." (Micropedia, Volume X, p. 126) It was not until the 4th Christian century that the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly established in the churches.

Likewise, the book Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett Ferguson, says, "Primitive Christianity, like Judaism, was distinguished from paganism by its unqualified monotheism." (page 912) This "unqualified monotheism" also distinguished the Christology of primitive Christianity from later Trinitarianism.

Since the Sahidic Coptic version pre-dates the 4th century, being dated in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, it is not surprising that it does not labor under the doctrine of the Trinity. Not only does the Coptic version refrain from identifying Jesus as God Almighty at John 1:1c. It also does not contain the Trinitarian addition at 1 John 5:7 ("these three are one"), nor speak of 'the church of God which he purchased with his own blood,' (Acts 20:28) nor does it say that 'God was manifested in the flesh.' (1 Timothy 3:16) Rather, it speaks of the "church of the Lord" and says merely "this one who" was manifested in the flesh at 1 Timothy 3:16, not "God." Nor does it contain the added words at John 3:13, "[the Son of man] who is in heaven," which incorrectly indicates that Jesus could be God in heaven and Man on earth at the same time. Instead, like the earliest extant Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John, the p66 [Papyrus Bodmer II], the Sahidic Coptic text omits that unauthorized addition.

Other renderings of the Sahidic Coptic version also corroborate the fact that early Christian Christology, while an exalted Christology, was 'unqualifiedly monotheistic,' not Trinitarian. The Coptic readings are theologically neutral and frequently very literal readings of the New Testament Greek text.

Coptic John 1:1c: What Conclusions Can Be Drawn?

2009-01-28T06:14:00.000-08:00

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.

Does Coptic John 1:18 contradict Coptic John 1:1?

2008-12-02T19:21:00.000-08:00

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.

Translating "the Word was a god," 1700 Years Ago

2008-09-04T11:55:00.000-07:00

As the early Christians continued to carry out Jesus’ command to preach to all nations, the good news or gospel had to be translated into many languages. (Matthew 28:19, 20) “At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt.” – Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 1153 * Similarly, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “All these data point to the 3rd century as the latest terminus a quo [point of origin] for the earliest Coptic translation.” **

This earliest Coptic (from an Arabic/Greek word for “Egyptian”) translation was in the Sahidic dialect, approximately 1,700 years ago. The scribes who were translating the Gospel of John from Koine Greek into their own Egyptian language encountered an issue that still faces translators today. It is the question of correctly translating John 1:1.

The Sahidic Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way:

1. a. ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪЄ
1. b. ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ
1. c. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ -- Sahidic Coptic text

(Transliterated):

1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1

Literally, the Sahidic Coptic says:

1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the word

We can see at the outset that the Sahidic Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” (nnahrm): p.noute, “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just “u” following the vowel “e”): ne.u.noute, “was a god.”

Many ancient Sahidic Coptic manuscripts were collated and translated into English by Coptic scholar George W. Horner. In 1911, Horner published an English translation of John’s gospel. He rendered John 1:1c as: “In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and [a] God was the word.” 2 He encloses the indefinite article “a” within brackets, which might indicate that he considered that here its translation is not required in English. However, in his own translation of the same Coptic sentence structure in other verses in John, Horner himself does render the indefinite article in English as “a”, without any brackets, which is entirely proper at John 1:1c also.

Some examples of the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article with the noun structure that Horner translates into English with an unbracketed “a” in the Gospel of John follow below. They are also verses in which most English versions of John translate the Greek pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns with an “a. ” :

John 4:19: “a prophet" (NRSV; Horner)
John 6:70: "a devil" (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:44: "a murderer" (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:44: "a liar " (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:48: "a Samaritan" (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:17: "a prophet" (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:24: "a sinner" (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:25: " a sinner" (NRSV; Horner)
John 10:1: " a thief" (NRSV; Horner
John 10:13: "a hired hand " (NRSV; Horner)
John 12:6: " a thief" (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:35: "a Jew" (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:37a: "a king” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:37b: "a king." (NRSV; Horner) 3

Literally, Sahidic Coptic *ou.noute* means “a god." 4 When a Coptic noun is a common noun and refers to an entity (“man,” “god”) the Coptic indefinite article is customarily translated by the English indefinite article “a”. The Coptic indefinite article ou marks the noun as a non-specific individual or a specimen of a class. 5 When the noun refers to an abstract idea (“truth,” “happiness”) or an unspecified quantity of a substance (“water,” “some water”; “gold,” “some gold”), or is used adjectively (“wise,” “divine”), the Coptic indefinite article need not be translated by the English indefinite article “a.” 6

Thus, while it can be said that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly in usage to the English indefinite article, it does correspond closely to it. 7 Because at John 1:1c, the Coptic indefinite article is bound to a common noun and refers to an entity, the Word, the translation “a god” is proper.

How competent were the ancient Coptic Egyptian translators to convey the sense of the Greek text of John? Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek had been a legacy of Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work, and it was still a living language. According to Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton, the Sahidic Coptic translation is “a very early indirect attestation of the Greek text and a direct indication of an Egyptian (perhaps Alexandrian) understanding of what it meant.” 8 Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early exegetes interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition.

Although the third century may be the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation, can a date for its beginning be more clearly ascertained? Christianity may have come early to Egypt. The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers. (Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt. (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13) Coptic translator George Horner notes: “Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.” Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version 9

The value of the Sahidic Coptic text lies not only in its indication of how early scribes understood the Greek of John 1:1, but also in its value for determining the correct text of that gospel. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger wrote: “[The] Alexandrian text [is] the best text and most faithful in preserving the original….The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.” 10 Additionally, one can note readings in the Coptic text that are found in the earliest existing manuscripts of John, the p66 (Papyrus Bodmer II, middle second century CE) and p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV, late second century CE). 11

There is also the matter of precision in rendering John 1:1c. The Koine Greek language has only the definite article, with indefiniteness being indicated by the lack of the article (called the “anarthrous” construction). Of the other early translations from the Greek, Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, and Syriac has only the definite determinator in its grammatical structure. The Sahidic Coptic language, however – like English – has both the definite article and the indefinite article as part of its syntactical system.

This means that when the Sahidic Coptic translators wrote ou noute, “a god,” at John 1:1c, referring to the entity that is the Word, they were being specific, not ambiguous. They could have used the definite article and written p.noute at this verse if they had meant “God,” just as they did at John 1:1b: auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute, “and the Word was with [literally, “in the presence of] God.”

Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c: “the Word was a god.”

Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is possible within the parameters of the Coptic indefinite article? It should be stressed that this is the literal translation. However, this semantic domain may allow, in context, English translations such as “the Word was divine” or a divine being, or “the Word was godlike.” But a translation such as the traditional “the Word was God” would require the Coptic definite article, thus falling outside of the non-specific semantic domain signaled by the Coptic indefinite article. 12

It is sometimes charged, incorrectly, that the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” is an incorrect, sectarian translation found primarily in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, in rendering John 1:1c from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding of that Greek text some 1,700 years ago.

Translating John 1:1c literally to say “the Word was a god” is, therefore, not any innovation. Rather, it appears to be an ancient way of understanding the meaning of this text, before the ascension and formal installation of philosophical Trinitarianism.

FOOTNOTES

*Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
** Volume 6, page 790

1. Wells, p. 111
2. Horner. Photocopy on Internet at http://sahidiccoptic.bravehost.com/pages/sahidic/joh_1_1.jpg
3. See also the New World Translation Reference Bible (1984) Appendix 6A, for Greek examples. Page 1579
4. Layton, pp. 7, 34; Lambdin, p. 18; Crum, p. 230
5. Shisha-Halevy, pp. 263, 268
6. Lambdin, p. 5; Layton, pp. 15, 16, 34
7. Lambdin, p. 5; Layton, p. 16
8. Layton, p. 1
9. Horner, Volume 2, pp. 398-9
10. Metzger, p. 5
11. This is the writer’s personal observation in researching the Coptic text.
12. Layton, p. 34; Shisha-Halevy, p. 268

REFERENCES

1. Crum, Walter. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1939.
2. Horner, George W. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect. Vol. 3. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1911.
3. Lambdin, Thomas. Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1983.
4. Layton, Bentley. Coptic in Twenty Lessons. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
5. Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
6. Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy. Leuven: Peeters, 1988.
7. “Versions.” Insight on the Scriptures. Vol. 2. New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988
8. “Versions, Ancient.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. New York: Doubleday, 1992
9. Wells, J. Warren. Sahidic Coptic New Testament. London: Bibles.org.uk, 2006

Insight on Coptic John 1:1 from Acts 28:6

2008-06-28T14:52:00.000-07:00

Coptic Acts 28:6 (last part of verse): ou.noute:

auktoou peJau Je ounoute pe

Greek text:

metabalomenoi elegon auton einai theon

In the Greek text we have an anarthrous theos (“god”) in the accusative, and in some Greek texts it is also pre-verbal: theon auton einai instead of auton einai theon.

I have no problem with the premise than an anarthrous theos may express quality or character rather than identity when it comes to rendering it in English qualitatively as “divine” or even “deity” rather than “a god.” But I consider this, grammatically speaking, to be a distinction without a significant difference.

Similarly, Coptic grammarians indicate that ou.noute may be used adjectivally (“divine”) or with reference to an entity (“a god”). However, I have yet to be given any examples of ou.noute actually being used adjectivally in Coptic literature. And I have yet to find any examples of such usage in the Coptic New Testament itself, where ou.noute can certainly be straightforwardly rendered into English as “a god.”

In addition, it is noteworthy that many English versions of the latter part of Acts 28:6 all say “a god” rather than “divine.”

KJV: “They changed their minds, and said that he was a god.”
NIV: “They changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.”
REB: “They changed their minds and said, ‘He is a god.’”
NRSV: “They changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.”
NASB: “They changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.”
ESV: “They changed their minds and said that he was a god.”
NAB: They changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.”
ALT: “Changing their minds, began saying he is a god.”

The Coptic of this part of Acts 28:6 says literally, “they turned themselves around, they said , ‘(He) is a god.’” The Coptic translates the Greek literally here, where metabalomenoi means they “changed sides” or “turned about” in the sense of changing their opinions or minds.

Thus, I would translate the Coptic freely to say also, “ they changed their minds and said, ‘He is a god [ou.noute pe].”

Acts 28:6 is missing in Coptic scholar George Horner's Sahidic Coptic text and English translation, but it is found in J. Warren Wells' Sahidica text. It is also found in Horner's Bohairic Coptic text, where Horner translates the comparative Bohairic ou.nouti pe into English as "he was a god."

It is telling that none of the above translators saw fit to render the anarthrous theos of the Greek text of this verse qualitatively rather than as an indefinite noun.

Coptic John 1:1 -- Ambiguous?

2008-04-22T10:52:00.000-07:00

According to Dr. Jason D. BeDuhn, the Greek text of John 1:1 is, grammatically, not a difficult verse to translate. "It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression." (Truth in Translation, 2003, p. 132) Dr. BeDuhn would render the Greek of John 1:1c literally as "and the Word was a god," or in "a slightly polished" variant carrying the same meaning, "and the Word was divine." According to BeDuhn, the traditional, Latin Vulgate-inspired reading formalized by the King James Version, "and the Word was God," is the least accurate rendering of the Greek text, a reading that violates the grammar and syntax.

The same conclusion can be readily drawn about the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c. This is a fairly literal translation of the Greek, made in the 2nd or 3rd century of our Common Era, at a time and place where the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language and widely understood in Egypt.

In regular Coptic syntax, auw neunoute pe pSaje means, straightforwardly, "and the Word was a god." And just as the Greek sentence at John 1:1c may express a qualitative force, the Coptic syntactical unit which corresponds to that Greek sentence may express an adjectival force. In other words, both may also be rendered as "and the Word was divine." (Cf. Bentley Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 2006/7, pp. 7, 34) But is this ambiguity? No, for as Dr. BeDuhn states, both translations carry "the same basic meaning."

Still, some scholars are not satisfied with even their preferred "qualitative" meaning for John 1:1c, unless they can define "qualitative" as synonymous with "definite." For example, Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996, p. 269) prefers a qualitative rendering for John 1:1c, but then goes on to say that "and the Word was God" is the simplest, most straightforward translation. That is a non sequitur.

John 1:1c is not carrying on a Greek philosophical dissertation about "persons" or "essences." But it is making an important distinction between "God" (Greek, ho theos; Coptic, p.noute) and another entity whom John describes simply with the Greek word theos (Coptic, ou.noute). The noun theos in the Greek of John 1:1c is pre-verbal and anarthrous. The noun noute in the Coptic of John 1:1c is in a regular indefinite syntactical unit. The force in both cases is the same: the Word is being distinguished from God, not identified as being God.

Further, John 1:1b emphasizes that this Word is "with" (Greek) or "in the presence of" (Coptic) God.

If, as some Trinitarian scholars assert, the idea of a qualitative rendering highlights the "nature" or "characteristics" of the Word rather than his identity, but this Word shared all the attributes and qualities that God (= the Father) has, then logically, the Word would be the Father. Yet, mainstream Trinitarians deride that idea as Sabellianism or modalism, "heresies" condemned by the church.

Is Coptic John 1:1 ambiguous? Not at all. But to be sure, it is the Trinitarian scholars who are forcing John 1:1 to be "ambiguous," not the Greek nor the Coptic text. The Greek text is not definite ("the Word was God") and neither is the Coptic text. Both the Greek and the Coptic texts agree that "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," which mean essentially the same thing.

ΝΟΥΤЄ (Noute), Π.ΝΟΥΤЄ (p.noute), ΟΥ.ΝΟΥΤЄ (ou.noute)

2008-01-15T07:20:00.000-08:00

The one verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, illustrates the three uses of the Sahidic Coptic articles: the Coptic zero article, the Coptic definite article, and the Coptic indefinite article.

This verse also illustrates the correct translation of Coptic John
1:1c.

In the Greek text of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 we have a)theos in the
accusative case; b) theos in the genitive, with the Greek definite article;
and c) anarthrous theos in the nominative.

Correspondingly, in the Sahidic Coptic text we have a) zero-articled
noute, where the Coptic zero-article indicates a general meaning or
characteristic: i.e., "god"; b) definite-articled p.noute, "the god" or "God"; and c) indefinite-articled ou.noute, "a god."

Transliterated, the Sahidic Coptic text reads:

pantikeimenos etjice mmof ejn ouon nim etoumoute eroou je noute houop hwste nfbwk ehoun eprpe mpnoute nfhmoos efouwnh mmof ebol je ounoute pe. (As found in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament by J. Warren Wells, 2006. Occurrences of noute, "god," emphasized by this writer)

Translated into English, the Coptic text of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says:

"The one who is opposing and raising himself above everyone who is called 'god' or regarded with reverence, so that he goes into the temple of the god and sits down, declaring publicly that he is a god."

Being a careful translation of the Greek text, the Coptic version, properly translated into English, carries the same significance at 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as does the New World Translation and some other careful English versions. Whereas many English versions merely translate "God" wherever theos is found in the Greek text here, these careful versions bring out the grammatical differences:

"He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called 'god' or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god." -- New World Translation

"Who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god." -- New American Bible

"He who is in opposition to every so-called god or object of worship, so that he seats himself in God's temple, declaring himself to be a god." -- The Bible in Living English

"He rises in his pride against every god, so called, every object of men's worship, and even takes his seat in the temple of God claiming to be a god himself." -- The New English Bible

What I see here is that careful translators of the Greek text understood the Greek grammar in the same way, and translated 2 Thessalonians 2:4 into their own languages accordingly, from the 2nd century to the present day.

Therefore, in this one verse we see clearly the force of the Coptic zero, definite, and indefinite articles when used with the Coptic noun noute, "god":

ΝΟΥΤЄ (noute) = god
Π.ΝΟΥΤЄ (p.noute) = the god, God
ΟΥ.ΝΟΥΤЄ (ou.noute) = a god

And it is ΟΥ.ΝΟΥΤЄ (ou.noute), "a god" that is found in the Sahidic Coptic version of John 1:1c, in contrast with Π.ΝΟΥΤЄ (p.noute), "God," at John 1:1b.

What's Athanasius Got to Do With It?

2007-11-21T11:43:00.000-08:00

Another of the basically irrelevant Trinitarian objections against translating the Sahidic Coptic of John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god" -- which is clearly what it literally says -- is that the Coptic translators could not possibly have "meant" to say that.

The reason given is that the dynamic 4th century Coptic scholar, theologian, bishop and "saint" Athanasius was the staunch adherent of Trinitarianism. And the Coptic Church itself is Trinitarian.

That argument may be of some value in refuting the inaccurate charge that everything Coptic must, by definition, also be Gnostic.

But it has no bearing on positively identifying the theology of the 2nd or 3rd century Sahidic Coptic translators, and no bearing on identifying their possible theological presuppositions while translating John 1:1.

Coptic scholar and translator George W. Horner, in his classic Coptic New Testament English translation, postulates a 2nd century date for the Coptic New Testament. Other scholars, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary give a 3rd century date.

Coptic Church tradition also dates the Coptic New Testament to the 2nd century, "under the supervision of St. Pantaenus [late second century] and St. Clement [160-215]." Therefore, it is quite possible that the Sahidic Coptic translation of the Gospel of John predated Athanasius [300-373] by a couple of generations.

So, what's Athanasius got to do with it?

And as for the Coptic Church, it has not always been a Trinitarian church. Its tradition ascribes its founding the the Gospel writer "Saint" Mark, and there is nothing Trinitarian in Mark's Gospel.

Besides, there was another famous (or infamous, according to one's view) presbyter and theologian in 4th century Alexandria, Egypt. His name was Arius, the noted opponent of Trinitarianism, whose doctrine "was once at least as popular as the doctine that Jesus is God." (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, p. 7). Before Nicea (325 CE) many Coptic and other bishops considered Arius' theology to be "orthodox."

So, IF a case could be made for Athanasian Trinitarian influence upon the Sahidic Coptic translators, a similar case could be made for Arian, non-Trinitarian influence.

In point of fact, however, the Sahidic Coptic translators are anonymous. We don't know who they were. Therefore, it is impossible to state dogmatically what their theological presuppositions were, or even if their theological presuppositions influenced their translation of John 1:1.

It is just as likely that they simply made a fair, honest, and accurate translation of John's Greek as they understood it: ne.u.noute pe p.shaje, "And the Word was a god."

Attempts to link Athanasian Trinitarianism to the Sahidic Coptic translators is shown to be just another smokescreen put up by apologists for whom Coptic John 1:1 is extremely unsettling and inconvenient.

"Tertium non video"

2007-10-19T06:32:00.000-07:00

A little over a year ago a noted Coptic scholar commented to me about the different ways in which Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c could be rendered appropriately in English. He said that the Coptic supports an indefinite English translation -- "the Word was a god" -- and less literally, an adjectival or "qualitative" one -- "the Word was godly/divine." What about the popular, traditional definite rendering, "the Word was God." Did the Coptic text support that?

"Tertium non video," this respected Coptic scholar replied in Latin. That is, "I do not see a third (possibility)."

Though Bentley Layton includes the traditional "the Word was God" in his latest grammar book, it is obvious that this is not equivalent to what the Coptic text says. Correctly, Dr. Layton renders Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c to read, "and past tense marker-a-god is the Word," or more smoothly, "and a god was the Word." This means the same as "and the Word was a god," as it would normally be expressed in standard English.

But if the indefinite phrase "and the Word was a god" is equivalent to the definite phrase "and the Word was God," then why have Christendom's apologists been accusing the New World Translation of bias all these many years???

Obviously, the Coptic's "and the Word was a god" is not equivalent to "and the Word was God."

The ancient Coptic version's indefinite grammatical syntax at John 1:1c does not support any definite translation like "the Word was God." That is not what those ancient translators saw and understood in their Greek texts.

Indeed, Tertium Non Video.

An Interesting Coptic Resource

2007-07-23T16:00:00.000-07:00

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 rendering "And the Word was God." But the traditional English rendering is at variance with the literal Coptic translation, which is clearly "And the Word was a god."

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

Therefore, Coptic John 1:1c, auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje can be rendered authoritatively as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was divine," "the Word was a divine being," or similar, since the Coptic construction here is indefinite.

For the same reason, the Coptic version does not support a definite rendering like "the Word was God," despite this being traditional.

Trinitarian Apologists Still Muddying the Waters

2007-03-15T07:41:00.000-07:00

Trinitarian apologists still try to duck and weave and obfuscate in their attempts to deny the clear evidence of the Sahidic (and Bohairic) Coptic translations of John 1:1c. Not being proficient in Coptic themselves, they have appealed to certain experts, but have resorted to a "pick and choose" tactic in presenting the conclusions of those experts.

When it is agreed that the Coptic of John 1:1c may be rendered in more than one way, the Trinitarian apologists try to ignore the obvious: the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c is "and the Word was a god" (or, "the Word was a divine being.")

But they then drag their theological suppositions and 'may be's into the equation to plead for a "qualitative" reading, since they can by no means get a definite meaning out of Coptic John 1:1c. They cannot make it say "and the Word was God."

For example, one such apologist quotes Coptic scholar Dr. Choat in this manner:

"For my part, I think both 'a god' and the 'qualitative' idea are special pleading; yes, there is an indefinite article there; but Greek doesn't have an indefinite article, and Coptic grammatically requires one for a construction like this; but to translate 'a god' or 'the word was divine' seems out of kilter with what the Greek looks to me to be saying."

We have three things mixed up here: Greek grammar, Coptic grammar, and what "seems" to be or "looks" correct according to Dr. Choat's presuppositions. And if he is not satisfied with either an indefinite or a qualitative reading, that leaves the definite reading, which is clearly ruled out by both the Coptic verse and a careful examination of the Greek verse at John 1:1c.

But what truly matters here is the Coptic grammar. It cannot be overlooked that in fulfilling what "the Coptic grammatically requires" at John 1:1c, the Coptic translators actually used the indefinite article, not the definite article. And, of course a Coptic indefinite meaning would naturally employ the Coptic indefinite article!

In English translation, that indefinite construction is customarily translated by an "a". There are numerous examples of this fact in the English translation of the Coptic New Testament by Dr. George Horner, as well as modern English translations of other Sahidic Coptic literature. It hardly matters here that Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article; Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic do have the indefinite article, and it is used to form an indefinite construction, not a definite construction, at Coptic John 1:1c.

This apologist apparently wants us to overlook Dr. Choat's statement that the Trinitarian qualitative argument is also "special pleading" from Choat's standpoint. And he omitted the significant first part of Dr. Choat's response, which said:

"Well, this is a really old hoary chestnut of a question; but many of the answers given over the years (or centuries?) seem more theologically driven than actual argument over the grammar. There are *many* posts on the B-Greek discussion list (archived and easily findable in Google) which deal with the issue, which you may be interested in perusing."

To those 'theologically driven answers' can be added the attempts of Trinitarian apologists to muddy the waters by trying to explain away what Coptic John 1:1 actually says. Choat refers to the grammar as the proper consideration in understanding John 1:1c. What does the grammar tell us?

The Coptic grammar is quite clear and, in fact, ordinary. It is no different from the grammar of other verses in the Gospel of John where scholars have no problem at all in rendering it as an indefinite construction, with the use of the English "a"! (See previous posts in this Blog)

Apparently, it is only at Coptic John 1:1c that the meaning of a Coptic indefinite construction is contested by Trinitarian apologists, not at any of the other verses of similar Coptic construction. Why? Because it is inconvenient for Trinitarian dogma to "hear" the verse for what it actually says, ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "and a god [or, a divine being] was the Word."

This obfuscation and muddying of the hermeneutical waters is precisely what these apologists have done with the Greek of John 1:1c as well, as can be seen in some of the B-Greek posts that Dr. Choat mentions. So it is really no surprise that they attempt it with the Coptic. The Coptic version of John 1:1c does not support their theology, so they must bend and twist it until it comes at least close to what they want it to say.

A table of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nouns in the Greek Gospel of John that are rendered by the indefinite construction in Coptic, and translated customarily as indefinite in many English versions also:

John 4:19: "Sir, I see that you are a prophet" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 6:70: "one of you is a devil" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:44: "He was a murderer from the beginning" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:44: "for he is a liar and the father of lies" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:48: "you are a Samaritan" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 9:17: "He is a prophet" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 9:24: "this man is a sinner" (NRSV); Coptic [Horner])
John 9:25: "he is a sinner" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 10:1: "anyone who. climbs in by another way is a thief" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 10:13: "a hired hand does not care for the sheep" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 12:6: "he was a thief" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:35: "I am not a Jew, am I?" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:37a: "So are you a king? (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:37b: "You say that I am a king." (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])

All of these verses have anarthrous nouns in the Greek text, that occur before the verb. George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic Coptic version employs the English indefinite artice "a" in these instances, and he does not enclose the "a" in brackets, as he does at John 1:1c, which should likewise be rendered: "and a god [or, a divine being] was the Word." English translations directly from the Greek also customarily employ the indefinite article "a" in the verses in the table above, and correctly so.

It is quite clear that there is no grammatical impetus to rendering Coptic John 1:1c as anything other than indefinite. This Coptic sentence is not syntactically "qualitative," nor is it definite in construction. Those who argue otherwise have the burden of proof to show where this "qualitative" or definite significance occurs elsewhere with the indefinite construction of count nouns like Coptic noute ("god") in the Coptic New Testament.

In the verbosity of some Trinitarian apologists, some important matters are glossed over. For example:

1- Not one of the scholars cited by them denies that "a god" is an accurate translation of Coptic ou noute, as at Coptic John 1:1c.

2- Not one of the scholars cited by them demonstrates by the example of New Testament verses that "a god" is an incorrect translation of Coptic John 1:1c.

3- Not one of the scholars cited by them demonstrates by the example of New Testament verses that Coptic ou noute is qualitative rather than indefinite.

Some Trinitarian apologists also resort to general statements about certain aspects of Coptic grammar that, while true in those instances, do not even apply to John 1:1c. For example, the assertion that the Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly with the English indefinite article. But this is irrelevant with count nouns like Coptic noute, (god) which is the specific word used at John 1:1c. Such nouns, when in indefinite construction are, indeed, customarily rendered with the indefinite article (a) in English.

The bare assertions of Trinitarian apologists cannot be accepted. If they are going to make weighty pronouncements, they should back them up with clear examples from the Coptic New Testament, not merely by what "seems" to them to be the case, "maybe."

Trinitarian Modalist Translations

2006-11-16T08:36:00.000-08:00

Another attempt to explain away the clear evidence that is presented by Coptic John 1:1, "the Word was a god," goes like this:

"Here's a word-by-word translation...'In the-beginning [past] the-word is, and the-word it-was-dwelling in-the-presence-of the-god, and [past] a-god is the-word.'" (My emphasis)

Very good! Excellent translation! So, what's the problem? This writer even goes on to say "when 'god' refers to the One God, it always has the definite article." (My emphasis)

Very good again! And since "god" at John 1:1c does not have the definite article, it does not refer to the One God. So again, what's the problem?

Obviously, the "problem" is not in the grammar of John 1:1c, since it is universally recognized that Coptic John 1:1c literally says, "the Word was a god."

But... and for some people, there is always the "but"... this honest and accurate reading does not fit in with certain theological presuppositions. So, the writer continues: "The Coptic use of the indefinite article...also [refers to] 'a state of.' In this latter sense, it is found with abstract nouns: 'in a-peace' (= in a state of peace), 'in a-poverty' (= in a state of poverty)." (My emphasis)

Excellent, again. But totally irrelevant for John 1:1c, since the noun here, noute, is not an abstract noun.

Nevertheless, trying to make a case for this, the writer continues: "So I would explain 'a god' in this context as meaning 'a state of being god.' So a proper English translation of John 1:1 should be something like: 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was dwelling with God, and the Word was God.'"

Huh? After acknowledging that the Coptic translation is indefinite, how does the standard Trinitarian modalist translation fit in here? It doesn't, and this is a clear case of more 'taking definiteness out by the front door, while sneaking it in again through the back door.'

Of course, the writer says this improper translation of the Coptic of John 1:1c is his "explanation." But it is an explanation at variance with the Coptic text. In fact, it is an "explanation" which totally ignores, twists, and flatly contradicts what the Coptic text actually says, and what the writer himself earlier admitted to by saying: "Here's a word-by-word translation...'and [past] a-god is the-word.'"

Even allowing for the so-called 'state of being god' explanation, it has to actually mean 'state of being god,' not 'state of being God,' due to the lack of the Coptic definite article in this verse. The writer has already admitted that "God," with the capital "G" requires the Coptic definite article, which is not used at John 1:1c.

However, 'state of being god' actually gives us no more than "was a god." Which is exactly what this writer confessed at the beginning.

So, why all this jumping through mental and grammatical and theological hoops to make the Coptic text say something it does not say at all? As Coptic grammarain Ariel Shisha-Halevy has said, the Coptic text of John 1:1c admits to only two categories of English translation: "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," or similar. Under no circumstances does the Coptic text say "the Word was God," and there is no justification for translating it that way in English. Such an "explanation" or interpretation or translation simply is not found in the Coptic text, and should not be interpolated there.

Translating The Indefinite Article at Coptic John 1:1c

2006-11-09T15:18:00.001-08:00

Some Trinitarian apologists are trying hard to make the Coptic text of John 1:1c support a qualitative meaning rather than an indefinite one. They have to acknowledge the witness of Coptic grammarians who have said that "the Word was a god" is a perfectly legitimate translation there, because the Coptic indefinite article is clearly present.

But just like they look at YHWH in the Hebrew text of the Bible and yet come away denying that God has a unique Name, or insist that His name is Lord, they try to deny what is plainly in front of their face: Coptic has the indefinite article; the indefinite article is used at John 1:1c; and the regular translation of the Coptic indefinite article into English is "a."

'It's all so difficult to understand,' they opine. 'It will take years and years of Coptic study to fathom the "mystery" of the Coptic indefinite article'! For example, one such apologist writes:

"The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was 'a god,' 'a God,' or 'had the quality of God' in the minds of the Coptic translators. Indeed, a thorough study of the Sahidic Translation, based on the published MSS, is needed to even begin such a task."

I agree that there should be a thorough study of the Sahidic translation, but not because this is needed to understand how the Coptic translators used the indefinite article. Just about any currently-present Coptic grammar book explains that quite well. Also, there is Coptic scholar Reverend George W. Horner's 1911 English translation of the Coptic text, still available, though hard to find.

In just the book of John, how does Horner's English translation render Coptic sentence constructions that are just like John 1:1c? Well, let's look at a few. The Coptic construction found at John 1:1c is the neu...pe, construction: neunoute pe pSaje, with noute being the Coptic word for "god," and pSaje meaning "the word."

Look at some other neu....pe constructions, translated into English by Horner:

John 8:44 neureFHetb rwme pe = “was a murderer”
John 12:6 neureFjioue pe = “was a thief”
John 18:40 neusoone pe = “was a robber.”

So why should John 1:1c, neunoute pe be rendered as anything in English other than “was a god”????

In each of the other instances of the indefinite article before the noun in the Gospel of John, Horner accurately translates the indefinite article into English as “a” and does not put any brackets around the “a, ” as he does, without any grammatical cause, at John 1:1c.

After years of insisting that the anarthrous QEOS of John 1:1c is definite, the new theory of Trinitarian apologists is that it is "qualitative." But then they try to define "qualitativeness" to mean definiteness anyway! This is a disingenuous attempt to put definiteness out by the front door, while slipping it back in through the back door, and it doesn't work.

An indefinite construction can be "qualitative" in meaning when translated into English, and to say "the Word was divine" does not actually differ from saying "the Word was a god." But it does distinctly differ from saying "the Word was God."

Therefore, whereas the Coptic sentence at John 1:1c literally reads, "the Word was a god," it would not be incorrect to convey that into English also as "the Word was divine." But this is not to be overlooked or glossed over: The Coptic of John 1:1c definitely and specifically does not say "the Word was God." Indeed, that is ruled out by the Coptic indefinite article in that verse.

And you don't need to examine any further than the rest of the Coptic Gospel of John to affirm that point. Though, of course, it is quite beneficial to 'make a thorough study of the Sahidic translation' for other insights, or for the sheer joy of doing so.

Coptic John 1:1c and Trinitarian Apologists

2006-10-13T13:01:00.000-07:00

Recently, certain Trinitarian apologists have quoted Yale University's Dr. Bentley Layton in an attempt to deny that a correct translation of Coptic John 1:1c is "the Word was a god."

But they show that they are not really listening to what he said. They use words from Dr. Layton in conjunction with his Coptic grammar book, ie., "The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: "is divine") or an entity ("is a god"); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd."

The strange thing here is that Dr. Layton is actually agreeing with what other similarly-respected Coptic grammarians have also written, and his words actually support the "Word was a god" translation. First, the Coptic noun noute, "god," is not a quality. It represents an entity, thus, as Layton says, the indefinite article before the entity, noute can be translated as "a god." (Dr. Layton confirmed the same to me by e-mail dated October 9, 2006)

Second, Dr. Layton says that "God is always without exception supplied with the definite article." But at John 1:1c, "God" does not have the definite article. Therefore, John 1:1c does not say "the Word was God." Trinitarian apologists who quote Dr. Layton should note that his words here do not support the popular translation, "the Word was God." Although Dr. Layton says "The reader decides which reading to give it," this should be on the basis of the type of Coptic noun the indefinite article qualifies.

Certain types of Coptic indefinite nouns do not need to have the indefinite article translated by "a," but the Coptic noun noute, "god" is not one of those nouns. With noute and nouns of its class, the "a" is translated, as shown by Coptic grammarian Thomas O. Lambdin's example in his grammar book, where he translates ntof ounoute pe as "he is a god." -- Thomas O. Lambdin's Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 18.

Some Trinitarian apologists also quote George Horner's translation "[a] God was the Word," wherein Horner puts brackets around the "a" as if the "a" is not really needed. But Horner was very inconsistent in translating the Coptic "a" into English. He put brackets around it at John 1:1c, but there are numerous examples in his translation where the exact same Coptic construction exists and he does not put the "a" in brackets. Perhaps theology, not grammar, lies behind Reverend Horner's use of brackets at John 1:1c in his English translation. The "a" belongs there, and without brackets, and Horner himself routinely uses the "a" in the indefinite construction!

Coptic researcher J. Warren Wells of the excellent, well-documented Sahidica Project is sometimes mentioned by the Trinitarian apologists as a knowledgeable person who is not sure if John 1:1c should be translated as "the Word was a god." So I asked Wells personally. Mr. Wells has 30 years in Greek studies and 20 years of Coptic study, and Wells has confirmed positively that the Coptic version of John 1:1c literally does say, "a god was the Word."

Trinitarian apologists will continue to chafe at the inconvenience for their theory that the Coptic translation provides. Here is an ancient Bible translation (2nd-3rd centuries) that confirms the very reading of the New World Translation, which the Trinitarian apologists have attacked for over 50 years. But they can't accuse the Coptic version of being translated by "Freddy Franz" or by scholars with no knowledge of Greek. Greek was a part of Coptic civilization for 500 years. So, they try to find "experts" who will blunt the impact of the Coptic reading.

But the evidence for "the Word was a god" or similar -- "the Word was a divine being," "the Word was like God," etc. -- in the Coptic version is solid.

2006-10-10T03:36:00.000-07:00

Coptic John 1:1c, Whose Theology?

When I asked Dr. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, renowned Coptic scholar at Hebrew University in Israel, what a literal, non-theological rendering of Coptic John 1:1c would be, the candid reply was that theolological issues in this verse could not be avoided. "The Word was a god" was confirmed as the literal Coptic reading, with the other possibility being "The Word was godly/divine," according to Shisha-Halevy.

Since theological issues weigh heavily upon John 1:1 – perhaps in any language – an important question is whose theology does the verse represent? Is it the theology of Jesus himself and his disciples, including the apostle John? Or is it the theology which was developed in concert with the philosophy of later fathers and councils of the church?

What light does the entire Gospel of John throw on his thinking at John 1:1? In what manner does John call the Word, incarnate in the Lord Jesus Christ, QEOS (Greek) or noute (Coptic)? Does John speak as a Christian of Hebrew heritage, or as a Greek philosopher, or a thoroughly Hellenized Jew? What does the holy Spirit say through John’s words?

In the Gospel of John, the Savior is shown to be the Son of God who came to reveal God and do His will on earth. Repeatedly, Jesus declares that he came to do the work of the One who sent him, the One who was both his Father and his God. More than any other Gospel, John reveals the heartfelt prayers of Jesus to the One he himself called "the only true God."

Coptic John reports Jesus as saying, Mmngom anok mmoi er laay nhwb haroi mmayaat, "I can do nothing of myself." He repeatedly declared and affirmed that his goal was to honor his Father, not himself, and that the Father was the source of his own life and mission. Throughout the Gospel of John, the representation of Jesus Christ is that of an obedient, loyal, self-sacrificing Son to his Father. And at the end, after making the supreme offering of love for the salvation of humanity, Jesus declared that he must ascend to his God and ours.

The theology of John himself informs the meaning of his describing the Word at John 1:1, and makes all more certain the distinction between hO QEOS and QEOS, between pnoute and ounoute in that verse.

At Coptic John 20:31, the apostle himself sums up the rationale behind his writing: NtauseH nai de Jekaas etetnepisteue Je ihsous pecristos pShre mpnoute pe auw Jekaas eatetnpisteue etetneJi nouwnH Sa eneH Hm peFran, "These things were written so that you may actively believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that having actively believed, you may receive life forever in his name."

2006-10-08T06:09:00.000-07:00

Coptic John 1:1c: Indefinite or Qualitative?

Certain Trinitarian apologists attempt to argue for a qualitative meaning for Coptic John 1:1c, as they do for the Greek text.

Whereas the Greek text of John 1:1c is anarthrous, creating some ambiguity, the Coptic text is different. It is unambiguous: it is indefinite. But Trinitarian apologists keep trying to find a way to make it qualitative, even to the extent of confusing it with other classes of Coptic nouns.

According to Helmut Satzinger, the Coptic articles are used in this way: Definite ("the"), indefinite ("a", "some"), and zero (generic, abstract, quality). -- "On Definiteness of the Coptic Noun," Actes du IVe congres copte, Louvain-la-Neuve, 5-10 September 1988.

But the Coptic translators wrote neunoute pe psaje (ne ounouti pe pcaji, Bohairic), using the indefinite construction.

The Coptic evidence is clear and unequivocal. Their translation was a matter of choice, and the choice they made was to render it in a way that translates into English literally as "the Word was a god." Only if they were using the word ounoute, "a god," as a derived adjective would the meaning be "one possessing the quality of god."

That could be translated to say "the Word was divine" or "the Word was like God." As professor Jason BeDuhn has pointed out, with reference to the underlying Greek text that the Coptic translates, "If the meaning of "the Word was a god" or, "the Word was a divine being" is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings, then we could translate the phrase as "the Word was divine." The meaning is the same in either case, and is summed up well by [Philip] Harner as 'ho logos...had the nature of theos.'" -- Truth in Translation (University Press of America, 2003), p. 124, emphasis added

Understanding John 1:1c as "qualitative" in this generally-recognized sense is not objectionable, as detailed in 1984 in the New World Translation Reference Bible's Appendix 6A. What is objectionable is the attempt to philosophize or theologize "qualitative" to mean that Jesus is "fully God" or "God Himself," as some translators have done. The Coptic text does not support such a rendering.

According to Coptic grammarian Dr. Bentley Layton, the Coptic definite article represents "the most typical or essential instance of a class.... 'God' always takes p- [the definite article] when referring to the God of the Bible." -- A Coptic Grammar, with Chrestomathy and Glossary (Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000), p. 38. However, the Coptic definite article is conspicuous by its absence at John 1:1c.

George Horner’s use of brackets around the "a" in his translation of John 1:1c is contradictory to his use of the "a" in the similar Coptic construction elsewhere in his translation. Horner even translates the "a" without brackets in places where it truly is not needed in English translation. So doing that at John 1:1c in his translation is not a matter of grammar at all, but lies somewhere else.

Concerning John 1:18, certain Trinitarian apologists state that the use of the definite article there can be translated only as "God," as George Horner does in his version. If true, then why do most versions translate that definite construction differently at Acts 7:43, where they read "god"? Although God in the Coptic Bible always has the definite article, Acts 7:43 demonstrates that not every instance of the definite article before noute refers to God.The reference to "god" at John 1:18 is anaphoric and demonstrative, referring to the same person mentioned previously at John 1:1c. And John 1:1c is indefinite in the Coptic version.

To turn the backward reasoning of the apologists around so that it makes sense, it does not follow that the Coptic translators would understand noute, god, to be indefinite at John 1:1c, which they in fact do, and then translate it with definite meaning at John 1:18.

Therefore, it merits stating again that there are solid grammatical reasons for translating Coptic John 1:1c as "the Word was a god" or "the Word was a divine being." Or less literally, but having the same meaning, "The Word was divine." That is so clear from the Coptic text that the disputing must be driven, obviously, not by grammar, but by theology of a particular stripe.

John 1:1c: The Word was "a god"?

2006-09-22T09:51:00.000-07:00

It is becoming well-known that the primary Coptic translations of John 1:1c – the Sahidic, the proto-Bohairic, and the Bohairic – do not render it "the Word was God," as is common in many English versions, but "the Word was a god," a rendition also found notably in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

The significance of this is remarkable. First, the Coptic versions precede the New World Translation by some 1,700 years, and are part of the corpus of ancient textual witnesses to the Gospel of John. Second, the Coptic versions were produced at a time when the Koine Greek of the Christian Greek Scriptures was still a living language whose finer nuances could be understood by the Coptic translators. Third, the Coptic versions do not show the influence of later interpretations of Christology fostered by the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries CE.

The Greek text of John 1:1c says, KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS, an anarthrous pre-verbal construction that can be literally rendered as, "and a god was the Word."

Likewise, the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1c reads, auw neunoute pe psaje ,
an indefinite construction that literally says "and a god was the Word."

Coptic grammarians agree that this is what the Coptic says literally. But the theological presuppositions of certain grammarians do not allow them to be satisfied with that reading. Just as they attempt to do with the Greek text of John 1:1c, certain scholars seek to modify the clear impact of "a god was the Word."

But whereas the Greek text allows for some ambiguity in an anarthrous construction, the Coptic text does not allow for the same ambiguity in an indefinite construction. Unlike Koine Greek, Coptic has not only the definite article, but the indefinite article also. Or, a Coptic noun may stand without any article, in the "zero article" construction. Thus, in Coptic we may find : pnoute , "the god," ounoute, "a god," or noute, "god."

The Sahidic Coptic indefinite article is used to mark "a non-specific individual or specimen of a class: a morpheme marking an element as a non-specific or individual or specimen of a class ("a man," "other gods," etc.)." – Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 1988), Dr. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, p. 268

Given these clear choices, it cannot but be highly relevant to their understanding of the meaning of John 1:1c that the Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it.

Were the Coptic translators looking at John 1:1c qualitatively, as has been suggested by some scholars in their analysis of the Greek text? That is not the literal reading, a qualitative rendering would be a paraphrase. Only in the sense that a god is also "divine" can an English translation on the order of "the Word was divine" be glossed from the Coptic text.

The Coptic evidence is significant given the fact that Bible scholars have roundly chastised the New World Translation for its supposedly "innovative" rendering, "the Word was a god" at John 1:1c. But this very way of understanding the Greek text of John 1:1c now proves to be, not new, but ancient, the same translation of it as given at a time when people still spoke the Greek that John used in composing his Gospel.

But what about John 1:18, where the Coptic text has the definite article before noute with reference to the only[-begotten] Son: pnoute pSyre nouwt? Certain scholars have asked, ‘Is it reasonable that the Coptic translators understood the Word to be "a god" at John 1:1 and then refer to him as "the god," or "God," at John 1:18?’

That is a logical question, but the logic is backwards. Since John 1:1 is the introduction of the Gospel, the more logical question is ‘Is it reasonable that the Coptic translators understood the Word to be God at John 1:18 after referring to him as "a god" at John 1:1c?’

No. Although the Coptic translators use the definite article at John 1:18 in identifying the Word, this use is demonstrative and anaphoric, referring back to the individual , "the one who" is previously identified as "a god" in the introduction. Thus, John 1:18 identifies the Word specifically not as"God," but as "the god" previously mentioned who was "with" ("in the presence of," Coptic: nnaHrm) God. This god, who has an intimate association with his Father, is contrasted with his Father, the God no one has ever seen.

A literal translation of the Coptic of John 1:18 is "No one has ever seen God at all. The god [who is] the only Son in the bosom of his Father is the one who has explained him."

Being closer in time to the original writings of the apostle John, and crafted at a time when Koine Greek was still spoken, the Coptic evidence weighs heavily in the direction of those who see in the Gospels a Jesus who is not God, but the Son of God, a divine being who is "the image of the invisible God," but not that Invisible God himself. This one is the Representative of his Father, who declared the Good News of salvation to mankind, and sanctified his Father’s Name.