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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
There is not a single Father of the Church before Athanasius (perhaps except Gregory the Thaumaturgus) that could be called an "orthodox trinitarian". Beyond an inclination to triadology (which was a Platonizing heritage of the Alexandrian Philo to the Christian philosophers), the mainstream Christianity of the 2nd and 3rd century considered Jesus as inferior to his Father and not identical to God Almighty. Those who claimed that Jesus is God himself were considered as heretics, as was the case of the disciples of Sabellius and Noetus. In the 3rd century, the most prominent Christian theologian and scholar, who was the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, Origen, was one of the most famous subordationists. Origen was a great influence to the Alexandrian Arius. But the difference between Origen and Arius was that Origen considered, with philosophical, Platonizing arguments about the immutability of God, the creation of the Son as non-temporal, something that means that practically Jesus was a creature co-existent with the Creator. Arius did now accept that and he was preaching that there was a time the Father was alone.
Thanks for your comments. They are very interesting, and quite informative.
In case you need bibliographical documentation for my comment, do not hesitate to mail me in tsialas78@gmail.com
p.s.: At the last sentence of my previous post, "now" was meant to be "not".
It is very interesting to study the comments of the Alexandrian Origen (early 3rd century) on John 1:1 (available in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.ii.ii.html):
"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 God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so “the Logos” is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God [without article] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father."
Even though this translation is made by a Trinitarian who avoided using the indefinite article to the anarthrous "god", which is refering to Jesus or to the angels, the meaning of Origen's sayings is quite clear: The Only True God, the One that is God by himself (autotheos), is the Father, and this is the reason John uses the article before the word "God". On the other hand, Logos is called God without the article because he is inferior to his Father and because his owns his divinity to his Father.
Many thanks for the excellent information and for the web link.
Yes, even though the early Church Fathers are sometimes inconsistent in explaining the relationship between the Father and the Son, there is nothing in their writings that supports the orthodox Trinitarianism of later centuries.
Of course, some of the inconsistencies of their writings may, in fact, be due to translators who retrojected into the writings of the Fathers, the doctrines of later times.
Either way, what Origen says is clear, and refutes the idea that contemporaneous Coptic translators were influenced by Gnosticism or even Arianism.
Instead, the work of the Coptic translators most likely reflected a Biblical Christianity and good translation efforts.
Great work on your part!
Hey thanks for your blog!Your reasoning and information is much appreciated and valuable.
Hi Memra.
Just a little side point.
"...before Athanasius (perhaps except Gregory the Thaumaturgus)..."
Just like to point out that several scholars think Gregory's so-called "TRI{3}nitarian" creed is quite likely to have been tampered with.
So his credibility as a "genuine" witness to the TRi{3}ad doctrine is in serious question.
Just another example of the shoody foundation of Christendoms doctrine.
* Predicative θεός in John 1:1c
https://www.academia.edu/176663425
* ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ in Sahidic John 1:1c
https://www.academia.edu/176411873
Your argument correctly begins with an important grammatical observation: the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c contains the singular indefinite article ⲟⲩ- before ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, “god.” You are also correct that “a god” is a grammatically possible English rendering of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ and that several other indefinite nominal predicates in the Sahidic Gospel of John are naturally translated with the English indefinite article. These observations provide a legitimate starting point for linguistic analysis. The difficulty arises when you infer from them that the Coptic construction must be understood as a classificatory statement about one god among others, that a qualitative interpretation is an artificial Trinitarian invention, and that the conventional rendering “the Word was God” is positively excluded by Coptic grammar. Those conclusions go considerably further than your grammatical evidence allows, and, more importantly, they conflict with distinctions explicitly recognized by the Coptic grammarians whom you cite.
The central problem is your treatment of morphological indefiniteness, semantic indefiniteness, qualitative predication, and English translation as though they were interchangeable categories. They are not. The presence of a Coptic indefinite article establishes the morphological determination of a noun phrase. It does not automatically determine the semantic function of that phrase when it serves as a predicate, nor does it establish which English construction will most accurately communicate that function. In particular, an indefinitely determined nominal predicate can describe its subject by attributing the property associated with the noun rather than primarily identifying the subject as one individual member of a numerically distinct class. This is a recognized feature of Sahidic grammar, and it is especially important because Bentley Layton explicitly illustrates the distinction using the precise noun at issue in John 1:1c.
In ‘A Coptic Grammar: With Chrestomathy and Glossary, Sahidic Dialect,’ second edition (2004), Layton distinguishes between denotative and descriptive functions of nominal expressions. In §50, his discussion of the indefinite article includes both an individual belonging to a lexical class and an individual characterized by the quality associated with that class. In §93, he explains that gendered common nouns can function either denotatively or descriptively, with interpretation depending on sentence pattern, article selection, lexical meaning, the broader argument, and context. Most decisively, in §292, he gives the expression ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ and explicitly recognizes both “he is a god” and “he is divine” as possible interpretations. His elementary textbook, ‘Coptic in 20 Lessons’ (2007), p. 34, presents the same distinction.
This evidence answers your objection concerning count nouns directly. You insist that the normal treatment of indefinite count nouns makes qualitative interpretation inapplicable to ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Yet Layton's example concerns ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ itself. The disputed word remains a common noun in both interpretations. Its descriptive use does not require transforming it into an adjective, treating it as an abstract noun, or removing its indefinite article. Consequently, the observation that ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ can designate a countable entity is already accounted for in the grammatical evidence establishing its possible descriptive function. The two interpretations differ in what they foreground: “he is a god” presents classification, whereas “he is divine” predicates the characteristic associated with deity. The difference is semantic, not a difference between two competing morphological forms.
Your repeated assertion that the Coptic construction is indefinite rather than qualitative therefore presents a false opposition. An indefinitely determined predicate can be qualitative. The morphological description and semantic interpretation answer different questions. Calling ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ a qualitative predicate does not deny the presence of the indefinite article; it explains what the indefinitely determined noun may be doing in its particular syntactic and discursive environment. Nor does such an analysis introduce an otherwise unattested third category of Coptic article. The article remains indefinite. It is the predicate's function that may be descriptive.
You also place considerable emphasis on the ordinary correspondence between the Coptic indefinite article and English “a.” That correspondence is real, but your argument overlooks explicit qualifications in Thomas O. Lambdin's Introduction to Sahidic Coptic (1983). Lambdin observes, on p. 5, that Coptic and English article usage correspond closely. Yet he immediately identifies exceptions to that correspondence, including the use of Coptic indefinite expressions with certain substance nouns and abstract nouns for which ordinary English uses no article. His introductory generalization is therefore a useful pedagogical approximation, not an invariant translation rule.
An even more pertinent passage appears in Lambdin's Lesson 15, §15.2. There he explains that adjectives functioning as predicates follow the pattern of nominal predicates and take the indefinite article in the construction under discussion. Among his examples are ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ, “He is good”; ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ, “The man is good”; and ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲓⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ, “This city is large.” Each construction contains overt indefinite determination, although its idiomatic English translation expresses a quality without an indefinite article. These examples directly refute the premise that a Coptic ⲟⲩ- must invariably be reproduced as English “a.”
Admittedly, these particular examples involve adjectives or adjectival predicates rather than the common noun ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. That distinction is important. Lambdin establishes the broader grammatical compatibility of indefinite morphology with property predication; Layton independently establishes that the same descriptive possibility applies to ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ itself. Together they provide precisely the sort of grammatical foundation you demand. You cannot dismiss the evidence from adjectives as irrelevant to count nouns while simultaneously overlooking Layton's directly applicable treatment of the count noun “god.”
Your appeal to Lambdin's Lesson 6 likewise establishes less than you suppose. There he illustrates the construction ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ with the English translation “He is a god.” This demonstrates that the classificatory rendering is grammatically legitimate. It does not establish that every occurrence of the divine noun in the same morphological form must be classificatory. Lambdin is presenting an elementary grammatical construction, not an exhaustive semantic analysis of the theological vocabulary of John's Gospel. Layton's more detailed reference grammar explicitly identifies the ambiguity that a classroom translation need not resolve.
The same distinction is illustrated by J. Martin Plumley's ‘An Introductory Coptic Grammar (Sahidic Dialect)’ (1948). In his treatment of predicate-first nominal sentences, particularly §§306–307, Plumley gives ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲡⲉ with the natural translation “He is great.” The expression contains the indefinite article, yet its meaning is transparently descriptive. Other grammatical treatments independently recognize qualifying or descriptive nominal predication. Johanna Brankaer, in ‘Coptic: A Learning Grammar (Sahidic)’ (2010), §192, notes that indefinitely determined nominal predicates frequently express qualities. Uwe-Karsten Plisch's ‘Einführung in die koptische Sprache’ (1999), pp. 15–16, even discusses the divine predicate ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ in qualifying terms. Thus the descriptive analysis arises from ordinary Coptic grammar, including examples involving the exact disputed noun. It is not an apologetic expedient devised to avoid an inconvenient article.
This also exposes the problem with your claim that “the Word was divine” does not actually differ from “the Word was a god.” The expressions can overlap in certain contexts, but they are not semantically interchangeable. “A god” ordinarily presents an individual as belonging to a class of beings designated gods. “Divine,” when used descriptively, attributes a property, nature, or character to its subject. The English adjective itself can have stronger or weaker meanings, ranging from the possession of deity to mere resemblance to something divine. Consequently, the selection of “divine” does not automatically establish either full deity or diminished godlikeness. Its semantic strength must be evaluated from context.
Layton's descriptive interpretation does not inherently mean “godlike but not truly God.” Consider the difference between saying that someone is human and saying that someone merely resembles a human being. A descriptive predicate can attribute the relevant nature or characteristic without introducing a qualification of inferiority. In the same way, the possibility of rendering ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ descriptively does not turn deity into a reduced or metaphorical property. Your conclusion that “divine” must be equivalent to an inferior “a god” requires an additional argument about the meaning of deity in this particular context. The indefinite article supplies no such argument.
You correctly observe that the immediate grammatical construction in John 1:1c is comparable to constructions found elsewhere in the Gospel. The clause can be segmented as ⲁⲩⲱ | ⲛⲉ- | ⲟⲩ-ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ | ⲡⲉ | ⲡ-ϣⲁϫⲉ. The ⲛⲉ- element functions as a past or preterite converter; ⲟⲩ- determines the predicate as indefinite; ⲡⲉ belongs to the nominal-sentence structure; and ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ identifies the explicit subject, “the Word.” Layton classifies the expanded construction under his nominal-sentence patterns, particularly §275. The syntax establishes that the divine noun is predicated of the Word. It does not independently establish whether this predication classifies the Word as one deity among others or describes him as possessing deity.
Your examples from John 8:44, 12:6, and 18:40 are useful illustrations of genuinely classificatory predicates. A murderer, a thief, and a robber are recognizable roles or categories of persons. In those passages, the discourse itself identifies the relevant class and supplies the circumstances under which the classification applies. Thus “he was a thief” is a perfectly natural English realization of the Coptic predicate at John 12:6. But the fact that one syntactic construction permits ordinary classification does not mean that every lexical item appearing in it must perform that function. English itself uses comparable nominal predication both to classify individuals and to characterize them, with contextual and lexical factors determining the interpretation. Coptic grammar expressly recognizes the same kind of distinction.
Your comparison becomes especially problematic when it treats the noun “god” as though it necessarily behaves like the occupational or behavioral nouns “thief,” “robber,” and “murderer.” These are different lexical categories operating in different discursive environments. Calling someone a thief normally identifies a person who steals. Predicating deity of the Logos in the opening sentence of a monotheistic Gospel raises a different lexical and contextual question. What is being predicated is the divine noun already introduced in the immediately preceding clause, where the Word is said to be with God. The issue is the function of that divine predicate within the Evangelist's argument, rather than whether a nominal construction can elsewhere designate a criminal.
The larger table of Johannine examples does not change that conclusion. “A prophet,” “a Samaritan,” “a sinner,” “a hired hand,” “a Jew,” and “a king” are natural classificatory expressions because their subjects are being assigned particular religious, ethnic, moral, occupational, or political identities. Several of the passages involve different syntactic configurations and discourse functions, even though they share anarthrous predicates in Greek or indefinite determination in Coptic. Their relevance consists in establishing that classificatory interpretation is available. None establishes a universal rule governing the semantic interpretation of every anarthrous Greek or indefinitely determined Coptic predicate.
Indeed, the very fact that Layton explicitly permits “he is divine” as a descriptive interpretation of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ disproves your proposed universal rule. Your comparative argument could establish that the classificatory reading is common or even statistically predominant among certain types of nouns. It cannot establish that the descriptive reading of this specific noun is grammatically excluded. To move from frequency or ordinary usage to categorical impossibility, you would need to demonstrate that the relevant grammatical system disallows descriptive predication with ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. The reference grammars show the opposite.
Your treatment of George Horner's translation raises a related problem. You observe correctly that Horner renders other indefinitely determined Coptic predicates with English “a” without brackets, while at John 1:1c he writes “[a] God.” But you infer theological inconsistency without accounting for Horner's stated editorial convention. In his edition of the Sahidic New Testament, Horner explains that square brackets mark elements represented in Coptic that are not required by ordinary English expression. His use of “[a]” accordingly records the indefinite article present in the Coptic while distinguishing its morphological presence from the requirements of idiomatic English translation.
This convention is particularly significant because Horner's bracketed article is not confined to John 1:1c. At John 3:6, he similarly represents indefinite determination in expressions translated as “[a] flesh” and “[a] spirit.” These examples concern a different grammatical and lexical environment, but they demonstrate that his brackets serve a recognizable translational purpose rather than constituting an unexplained intervention invented for John 1:1. They also reinforce the general principle that the presence of an article in Coptic does not always require its mechanical reproduction in English.
His Bohairic edition offers another instructive control. At John 1:1, Horner renders the predicate as “God (indef. art.),” explicitly acknowledging its indefinite morphology while using the English noun without “a.” The significance is straightforward: Horner recognized the distinction between the source language's grammatical determination and the form selected for an English sentence. You are entitled to disagree with his semantic judgment, but the fact that he marked the indefinite article rather than silently suppressing it indicates that he was conscious of precisely the problem you accuse him of ignoring.
You similarly misinterpret the significance of Bentley Layton's interlinear treatment of John 1:1. On p. 7 of ‘Coptic in 20 Lessons,’ Layton supplies a morpheme-by-morpheme analysis in which ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ is glossed as “a-god.” On the same page he gives the sentence-level translation “And the Word was God.” You argue that these two representations contradict one another. They do not. They perform different linguistic functions. An interlinear gloss exhibits the grammatical contribution of individual morphemes. An idiomatic translation communicates the meaning of the complete clause in the target language. A competent translation may therefore depart from the most mechanically transparent arrangement of the morpheme gloss without contradicting the source language.
Layton's handling of the verse is particularly damaging to your argument because he deliberately places the two renderings together. He was fully aware of the indefinite article and chose to represent it in his grammatical analysis. Yet he did not regard its presence as excluding the traditional sentence-level translation. Moreover, his explicit recognition of the descriptive interpretation on p. 34 explains why there is no necessary inconsistency. Your interpretation effectively treats one layer of Layton's presentation as authoritative while rejecting another layer produced by the same grammarian. The proper interpretation recognizes the different purposes of morphological glossing and semantic translation.
The distinction also resolves your argument concerning definiteness. You repeatedly assume that “the Word was God” must represent a definite nominal predicate equivalent to “the Word was the God.” That assumption is incorrect. English “God” can function as a theological predicate without becoming a second definite referring expression identical in function to “the God.” In John 1:1, “the Word was with God” introduces a distinction between the Word and the divine referent with whom he exists. “The Word was God” then predicates deity of the Word. The traditional translation therefore need not identify the Word personally with the Father. It can attribute what God is to the Word while preserving the relational distinction already established.
This is also why the qualitative interpretation cannot accurately be described as an attempt to smuggle definiteness back into the text. A qualitative predicate of deity and a definite identifying expression are different semantic operations. To say that the Word possesses the divine nature is not the same proposition as saying that the Word is numerically identical to the person of the Father. Trinitarian theology itself distinguishes personal identity from the possession of the divine essence. In this context, the descriptive reading is valuable precisely because it accounts for the simultaneous distinction and attribution found in John's first verse.
You are right that the Coptic translator used ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ rather than the definite ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. That is a genuine formal contrast, and a careful interpretation must respect it. The unique biblical God is ordinarily designated referentially by the definite expression ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. But referential designation and predicative characterization are not equivalent functions. In John 1:1b, the divine noun identifies the referent with whom the Word exists. In John 1:1c, the noun is predicated of the Word. The contrast between the two grammatical environments provides a straightforward reason for differing determination without requiring that the second expression designate an inferior deity.
Nor can you strengthen your argument by appealing to the existence of other Coptic strategies for expressing qualities. The availability of an adjective, an abstract noun, or a zero-determined expression does not make descriptive meaning impossible in an attested indefinitely determined nominal predicate. Coptic grammatical determination is construction-sensitive. Layton recognizes certain zero-article environments, including class-name predication in §290, while also documenting nominal-sentence patterns where overt determination is expected or strongly favored. The appropriate question is which structures are available for the particular predicate construction under discussion. Since Layton expressly recognizes descriptive ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ, the alleged requirement that the translator should instead have omitted the article or selected another lexical category has no grammatical foundation.
Your appeal to Malcolm Choat's comments likewise does not establish your conclusion. The passage you quote includes his recognition that Coptic requires an article in a construction of this kind, while expressing reservations about both “a god” and the English paraphrase “the Word was divine” as translations of the Greek. You correctly observe that his comments should not be selectively quoted. But the complete passage is not an endorsement of your interpretation either. His dissatisfaction with both English alternatives does not logically leave a third category of definite Coptic morphology as the only possibility. It concerns the relationship between Coptic grammatical requirements, English translations, and the Greek source. Those are precisely the distinctions your argument repeatedly conflates.
Furthermore, if the relevant Coptic nominal construction requires an overt determiner, that requirement does not render the selected determiner meaningless. It means that an articleless alternative may be unavailable or restricted within that particular structure. The distinction between definite and indefinite determination remains real. But it does not follow that the indefinite choice encodes membership in a class of subordinate gods. A restriction on article omission and the semantic interpretation of an indefinitely determined predicate are separate questions. Choat's observation about grammatical requirements cannot establish the exclusive classificatory meaning you assign to ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.
Your insistence that no New Testament example demonstrates the qualitative meaning of this particular expression also sets an inappropriate evidential standard. A grammatical construction is not restricted to semantic uses exemplified by repeated occurrences of the same noun in the New Testament. The New Testament is a limited translated corpus, not an exhaustive inventory of Sahidic grammatical possibilities. A Coptic reference grammar legitimately draws upon biblical and nonbiblical texts, as well as broader evidence for nominal predication. Most importantly, Layton and Plisch explicitly discuss the relevant divine noun. Their evidence already establishes the semantic possibility at issue.
Nevertheless, the comparative New Testament evidence is more informative than your argument suggests. Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti examined the Sahidic treatment of Greek anarthrous nominative singular θεός in their article “From ‘God’ (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God’ (ΝΟΥΤΕ): A New Discussion and Proposal Regarding John 1:1C and the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Testament,” The Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011): 494–512. Their reconstructed twenty-five-passage dataset yielded twenty-one cases with definite Coptic determination and four with indefinite determination. This distribution is important because it disproves a mechanical rule under which Greek anarthrous θεός would automatically become Coptic ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.
The limited size and specific selection criteria of their corpus must be respected. It is a comparison of selected occurrences of the divine noun, not a frequency law for every Sahidic nominal predicate. Nevertheless, their analysis demonstrates that the Coptic translators did not simply reproduce Greek articlelessness through the use of an indefinite article whenever θεός lacked the Greek article. The target-language determiner was selected within a distinct grammatical system. Wright and Ricchuiti consequently consider grammatical, stylistic, and interpretive explanations and favor a descriptive or qualitative understanding of the exceptional Johannine predicate. Their proposal is consistent with the independent grammatical possibilities established by Layton.
The other relevant New Testament occurrences of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ further show why the article cannot itself signify a lower divine rank. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6, Sahidic employs indefinite divine morphology in numerical expressions affirming one God, the Father. These passages involve overt numerical language and are therefore not direct syntactic or semantic equivalents of John 1:1c. Their significance is nonetheless decisive against any claim that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ inherently denotes a lesser or false god. The same morphological form can occur in explicit affirmations concerning the one biblical God.
Acts 28:6 supplies the opposite sort of example. There, the inhabitants of Malta conclude that Paul is “a god,” and a straightforward classificatory interpretation is entirely appropriate. The pagan setting and the reported speech explain why this reading is natural. In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the discussion of someone exalting himself over what is called divine introduces yet another semantic environment, involving contested claims to divinity. The fact that comparable divine vocabulary occurs in these different contexts confirms the importance of lexical modification, speaker perspective, and discourse setting. The morphology does not independently determine whether the referent is the biblical God, an alleged god, or someone falsely regarded as divine.
The contrast becomes particularly important when you return to John 1:1c. Here the divine predicate occurs within a prologue concerning the preexistent Word and his relation to God and creation. The Logos is already presented as existing in the beginning, and the immediately following verse reaffirms his relationship with God. John 1:3 then attributes the coming into existence of all things to the Word: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, followed by the negative formulation that without him nothing came into being. The Sahidic translation preserves the same comprehensive contrast. The Logos is presented as the agent through whom the totality of what came into being came into existence.
This context is highly relevant to your proposed translation. If “a god” is understood simply as a morphological gloss, it adds no information about whether the Word was created. If, however, it is understood in the Watchtower sense of an ontologically inferior and created divine being, that additional interpretation encounters the comprehensive creation language of John 1:3. Placing the Logos among the things that came into being requires a restriction of the stated totality or an exception that the passage does not explicitly supply. The indefinite article in 1:1c provides no basis for that restriction.
The same Gospel supplies another important contextual control at John 20:28, where Thomas addresses the risen Jesus as “my Lord and my God.” In Sahidic, the divine designation is represented by the possessively determined ⲡⲁⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, “my God.” This is a different grammatical construction from the indefinite predicate in John 1:1c, but it establishes that the Sahidic Johannine tradition directly applies the divine noun to Jesus. The interpretation of 1:1c must therefore be integrated into a Gospel that begins by predicating deity of the Logos and culminates in an explicit confession addressed to Jesus as God.
John 1:18 also belongs to that Christological context, although its textual history requires greater care because Greek manuscripts and Coptic witnesses differ in their representation of the relevant Christological expression. The textual complexity prevents treating every form of the verse as an unquestioned parallel. Nevertheless, the direct address in John 20:28 and the creation language in John 1:3 provide sufficiently clear internal controls. Your insistence that the question can be settled from the rest of the Sahidic Gospel of John is therefore reasonable as a methodological proposal, but the full Johannine evidence does not establish the exclusive classificatory interpretation you claim.
Your Greek argument suffers from the same confusion between constructional possibility and the meaning of a particular occurrence. In John 1:1c, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, the noun θεός lacks the definite article and stands before the verb, while ὁ λόγος is the articular subject. That structure can accommodate an indefinite predicate in suitable circumstances. But Greek grammar does not establish that every pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun is indefinite, any more than it establishes that every such noun is definite. The relevant categories are distinguishable, and their application depends on lexical and contextual evidence.
This is precisely why Colwell's 1933 study must be handled carefully. Ernest Cadman Colwell investigated article distribution among predicate nouns judged definite; his findings do not prove that every anarthrous pre-verbal predicate is definite. Yet the failure of such a sweeping inference does not establish the opposite rule. Philip B. Harner's “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 75–87, brought particular attention to the qualitative force of predicates in this position. Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), pp. 256–269, likewise distinguishes definite, indefinite, and qualitative interpretations while recognizing overlap between semantic functions. The qualitative analysis is therefore neither a recent invention nor a disguised application of Colwell's rule.
The Greek wording also helps explain why a straightforward identification of the Word as the same person as the Father would be an inadequate interpretation. John distinguishes the Word from the one with whom he exists, then predicates θεός of the Word. The absence of the article in the predicate is compatible with an interpretation that emphasizes the nature or character of the subject rather than a second definite designation of the Father. Harner's qualitative analysis addresses precisely this distinction. The traditional translation “the Word was God” can express the same strong predication in idiomatic theological English, whereas “the Word was the God” would introduce a different and potentially misleading identifying construction.
Your Greek parallels involving prophets, Samaritans, kings, thieves, and sinners demonstrate that Greek can use anarthrous predicate nouns indefinitely. They do not establish that the predicate θεός in John 1:1c belongs to the same semantic subtype. The noun θεός has a wider lexical range, including references to pagan deities, representative figures, and the supreme God. The existence of secondary applications is undisputed. What must be established is which sense the Evangelist activates in the immediate context. To select the sense “an inferior divine being,” you must provide a contextual basis for the inferiority, not simply demonstrate that the Greek noun can elsewhere refer to beings other than the supreme God.
This distinction also answers your suggestion that qualitative predication and definite identification are being illegitimately combined. A qualitative reading can predicate the nature associated with θεός without asserting identity of person. Conversely, a classificatory reading can designate someone as a god without automatically specifying whether that designation is literal, representative, metaphorical, or ontologically subordinate. Neither the Greek absence of an article nor the Coptic presence of an indefinite article contains an inherent scale of deity. The conclusion that the Logos is a created, inferior god requires semantic and theological premises additional to the morphology of either language.
Your invocation of an unnamed scholar's tertium non video does not establish a grammatical exclusion. The expression means that the scholar sees no third possibility. Yet the relevant alternatives are being incorrectly formulated if you treat “the Word was God” as necessarily a third, morphologically definite construction standing beside “a god” and “divine.” An idiomatic English rendering can express a qualitative predicate through the conventional theological use of “God.” Layton himself does precisely that on p. 7 of 'Coptic in 20 Lessons.' The issue is not the invention of a third Coptic determination category; it is the appropriate English realization of a semantically interpretable Coptic predicate.
The unnamed scholar's judgment may represent a legitimate personal translation preference. It does not override a published grammatical analysis explicitly permitting descriptive ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Nor can an isolated Latin remark carry greater evidential weight than the distinction between gloss and translation demonstrated in the grammars themselves. If the claim is that “the Word was God” would be incorrect because the Coptic noun lacks a definite article, it must first establish that the English predicate “God” can only translate a morphologically definite Coptic expression. Layton's practice, Horner's editorial conventions, and the wider syntax of nominal predication contradict that proposed restriction.
You also ask why, if “the Word was a god” and “the Word was God” can both be considered linguistically defensible in some sense, the New World Translation has attracted criticism. The answer lies in the difference between grammatical possibility and contextually appropriate translation. The fact that one phrase is possible as a morphological gloss or as a particular semantic interpretation does not establish that it best represents the meaning of a specific occurrence. The New World Translation's “a god” is ordinarily read, and explicitly explained in Watchtower theology, as distinguishing the Word from the one Almighty God by assigning him a lower divine status. The objection concerns the justification for that particular semantic and theological interpretation, not the mere existence of an indefinite article in a Coptic manuscript.
The same observation explains why “a divine being” is not necessarily a neutral alternative. In ordinary English it presents an individuated being possessing some kind of divine character. It can therefore suggest a category whose members are distinct divine beings. “Divine,” by contrast, can characterize the subject without making membership in such a category the principal point of the assertion. The phrases may overlap, but the semantic distinction matters in a monotheistic prologue. You cannot eliminate that distinction simply by describing all three renderings as different ways of translating an indefinite construction.
Turning to your historical argument, you are correct to distinguish the date of the Sahidic translation from the dates of its surviving manuscripts, and you are also correct that later Coptic ecclesiastical orthodoxy cannot automatically determine the private beliefs of the earliest translators. The translators' identities are unknown, and the chronology of the earliest Sahidic New Testament translations remains a matter of scholarly investigation. A second- or third-century origin has been proposed in older scholarship, but an early proposed date does not identify the original translators, establish their doctrinal commitments, or determine the meaning of a particular predicate.
The modern critical edition by Hans Förster, Kerstin Sänger-Böhm, and Matthias H. O. Schulz, ‘Kritische Edition der sahidischen Version des Johannesevangeliums: Text und Dokumentation’ (De Gruyter, 2021), rests on 172 preserved Sahidic Johannine manuscript witnesses, many of them fragmentary. Its apparatus at John 1:1c supports the textual stability of the indefinite divine predicate, including orthographic variation between contracted and uncontracted forms. This is valuable textual evidence. Yet manuscript stability establishes what the Sahidic tradition reads, whereas grammar, translation technique, and context establish what that reading can mean. The age of the translation does not alter the semantic range of its indefinite article.
Your comparison between Athanasius and Arius also requires chronological precision. The possible existence of a Sahidic translation before the fourth century provides no basis for attributing its original wording to either man's personal influence. A fourth-century theological controversy cannot simply be projected backward into the motives of an anonymous earlier translator. But this cuts against the attempt to use the translation as evidence for an originally Arian or Watchtower-like understanding just as much as it cuts against attributing it to Athanasius. A pre-Nicene date establishes the antiquity of the versional evidence; it does not establish that its divine predicate expressed a lesser, created deity.
The observation that Arius attracted substantial ecclesiastical support in the fourth century likewise fails to determine the meaning of a Coptic translation potentially originating earlier. The historical popularity of a theological position is a separate question from the lexical semantics of ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Even if some later Egyptian Christians favored Arian or other subordinationist interpretations, that fact would not prove that the indefinite article had an intrinsically subordinationist meaning. The converse is equally important: later Nicene interpretation cannot establish that the article itself expresses consubstantiality. The linguistic evidence must be assessed on its own terms.
Indeed, later Coptic Christian usage provides a useful check against your proposed connection between indefinite divine morphology and inferior deity. The received Bohairic form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed describes the Son as ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ, “true God,” in the confession “true God from true God,” and subsequently affirms that he is begotten, not created, and consubstantial with the Father. This is later confessional language, not evidence of the earliest translator's private intentions. Nevertheless, it demonstrates within Coptic Christian usage that an indefinitely determined divine expression can occur in an explicit affirmation of full, uncreated deity. The morphology itself therefore cannot be assigned the meaning “inferior,” “created,” or “non-consubstantial.”
Your claim that the Gospel of Mark contains nothing Trinitarian also requires a distinction between a later technical doctrinal formula and the scriptural foundations from which that formula developed. Mark does not present the fourth-century Nicene Creed. But his opening applies the scriptural language of preparing the Lord's way to the ministry associated with Jesus (Mark 1:2–3); his account of Jesus forgiving sins raises an explicit question about divine prerogative (2:5–12); and his account of Jesus before the high priest brings together Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 in the Son of Man's exaltation (14:61–64). These passages do not themselves constitute a systematic exposition of the Trinity. They do, however, provide biblical material relevant to the later Christian understanding of Jesus' divine status and relationship to God. The absence of fourth-century terminology is therefore an inadequate basis for declaring the earlier text incompatible with Trinitarian interpretation.
Your broader assertion that nothing in the early Fathers supports later orthodox Trinitarianism is historically untenable. Ignatius of Antioch, writing long before Nicaea, explicitly refers to Jesus Christ as “our God” in Ephesians 18.2. This establishes an early, direct attribution of divine status to Jesus, distinct from the technical formulation of the fourth-century Creed. Even more pertinent is Tertullian's Against Praxeas, written in the early third century. In chapter 2 he explicitly distinguishes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while describing their unity of substance; in chapter 3 he defends that unity against the charge of introducing multiple gods. His vocabulary, conceptual distinctions, and polemical context belong to an earlier phase of doctrinal development, but his discussion plainly contains recognizable foundations of classical Trinitarian theology. It is therefore impossible to maintain that the relevant ideas first appeared without precedent in the fourth century.
Your reference to Origen deserves especially careful treatment because his discussion is genuinely relevant and much more complex than either a simple Nicene or Watchtower classification would suggest. In Commentary on John II.2, Origen explicitly discusses the distinction between θεός with and without the Greek definite article. He distinguishes the Father as αὐτόθεος, God in himself, and develops a hierarchical account of the Logos's divinity, emphasizing the Son's relationship to the Father and the Father's position as the ultimate source of deity. These are real features of Origen's thought. They illustrate the diversity of pre-Nicene theological explanation and the fact that later Nicene terminology cannot simply be assumed to govern every earlier writer.
But Origen does not establish your grammatical conclusion. His interpretation is an elaborate theological account involving the Logos, participation, divine causality, and the relationship between the Father and the Son. He does not demonstrate a general Greek rule that anarthrous θεός means “a lesser god.” Moreover, Origen distinguishes the Logos from those who receive derivative divine designations through participation, presenting the Logos as the archetypal image and as eternally related to the Father. His theological hierarchy cannot simply be equated with the modern Watchtower doctrine of the Son as the first created being. His commentary establishes that an early Christian theologian could interpret the article contrast through a particular theological framework. It does not establish that the article itself encodes that framework.
Origen is also particularly relevant to your suggestion that the early translators were simply expressing an uncontroversial form of primitive Christianity. The very existence of sophisticated pre-Nicene disputes about the relationship between Father and Son shows that the early Christian theological environment was neither uniform nor adequately described by a simple opposition between later Trinitarianism and a supposedly original doctrine of a lesser created god. Origen's exegesis directly engages the difficult relationship between the Word's distinction from God and the attribution of deity to the Word. That is the same conceptual problem addressed by the qualitative interpretation of John 1:1c. His distinctive theological conclusions must be assessed historically rather than converted into a universal law of Greek or Coptic grammar.
Your suggestion that patristic translators may have retrojected later doctrines into earlier texts is a legitimate possibility to investigate when supported by textual evidence. Yet a possible mechanism of textual alteration cannot serve as an explanation without identifying a particular textual variant, translation decision, or demonstrable change in transmission. In the cases just discussed, the relevant early writings and their established textual traditions supply identifiable evidence for pre-Nicene Christological ideas. A general suspicion of retrospective doctrinal influence does not eliminate that evidence or establish an alternative historical reading.
Finally, your description of the Sahidic translators as anonymous and potentially interested in producing a faithful translation is entirely reasonable. The difficulty lies in your further assertion that they therefore most likely understood John 1:1c to mean “the Word was a god” in your preferred sense. Their anonymity does not establish that interpretation. Nor does the indefinite article disclose their theology. The historical evidence permits us to identify an ancient Coptic rendering whose divine predicate is morphologically indefinite. The grammatical evidence establishes that such predicates may be classificatory or descriptive. The context then supplies the grounds for evaluating which interpretation is more appropriate. Your argument repeatedly proceeds directly from the first observation to the final theological conclusion while bypassing the necessary semantic and contextual analysis.
The resulting distinction is decisive. You have established that the Sahidic translators wrote ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, not the morphologically definite ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. You have established that “a god” is an available grammatical rendering, and that several comparable predicates elsewhere in John are naturally classificatory. But you have not established that this particular divine predicate must be classificatory, that qualitative predication is excluded, that the English rendering “the Word was God” necessarily represents a definite identifying Coptic construction, or that the indefinite article assigns the Logos an inferior and created divine nature. Layton's explicit treatment of the very expression ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ is sufficient to overturn the proposed grammatical exclusion.
A Trinitarian interpretation, properly formulated, maintains that the Logos is personally distinct from the Father while possessing the divine nature. John 1:1 expresses precisely the kind of relational distinction and predication of deity to which that interpretation responds. The Sahidic version preserves the distinction by referring to God in the preceding clause and then predicating the divine noun of the Word. Its use of an indefinite article is entirely compatible with the descriptive function recognized in Coptic nominal grammar. The immediate Johannine context, particularly the comprehensive creation language of 1:3 and Thomas's confession in 20:28, supplies positive reasons to understand that predication as genuine deity rather than a diminished form of godlikeness.
Accordingly, the strongest conclusion supported by the linguistic evidence is more substantial than the mere possibility of a Trinitarian reading. The descriptive interpretation is independently licensed for the precise noun by standard Coptic grammar, fits the structural contrast between the two clauses of John 1:1, and coheres with the Gospel's account of the Word's relationship to creation and his later identification as God. Your proposed reading as a created, inferior divine being requires additional semantic restrictions that neither the Greek predicate nor the Coptic article supplies.
You rightly insist that the Coptic text should be read as it stands. That principle requires recognizing every part of its grammatical evidence, including the indefinite article, the predicate construction, the distinction between reference and description, and the contextual function of the divine noun. Once those distinctions are observed, the categorical assertion that the Sahidic text rules out “the Word was God” cannot be maintained. The Coptic rendering permits the Word to be described as possessing deity without identifying him as the same person as the Father. That is fully consistent with the traditional translation and with Trinitarian Christology.
The decisive question, therefore, is not whether the Sahidic text contains an indefinite article. It unquestionably does. It is whether that article obliges us to interpret the Word as one inferior god among others. The grammar does not impose that interpretation, and the Johannine context provides substantial reasons to reject it. Your argument demonstrates the morphological indefiniteness of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; it does not establish the theological indefiniteness, ontological subordination, or created status that you attempt to derive from it. The distinction between those propositions is precisely what a faithful reading of the Coptic text demands.
Post a Comment