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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Thanks again for the benefits of your research into the Coptic translations.
I always find it interesting.
Your comments are deeply appreciated.
I find the Bible to be its own best interpreter, and for that reason I value those translations -- ancient and modern -- that faithfully render the original texts.
I just checked back in to my blog and noticed that you posted a comment about my post on the John 1:1 verse mistranslation and Dr. Mantey's refuting of the Jehovah's Witnesses referring to his work as something supporting their claims. The whole point of that post is to show that he does not agree at all with their claims, I am not necessarily arguing greek becasue I've only taken 1 semester of it and couldn't argue it if I wanted to. Having said that I would certainly say that the Jehovahs Witnesses claims to Jesus not being God in the flesh and in their view actually being Micheal the Arch Angel I would say that they are completely misguided and confused. I will make a note of your page and share it with my Greek professors and get their opinions on it.
Thank you for your comments. However, Mantey is on shaky ground when he "refutes" the NWT, yet says that the Greek of John 1:1 points to a quality rather than an identity.
You might also update Mantey with the same conclusions reached by Philip B. Harner and Daniel Wallace.
Of course Trinitarians do not like the NWT translation of John 1:1, because it does not support the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity.
But the only relevant question is, Does the NWT faithfully translate the Koine Greek of John 1:1?
You might note, however, that Greek professors are not necessarily competent in Coptic. They are two separate languages.
Lots of good information here involving translation issues on Jn. 1:1 and the ancient Coptic N.T.
Thanks for all the work Memra.
I was surprised though at your mention in this blog article that the grammar of Acts 28:6 has a pre-verbal syntax reading like Jn. 1:1c in some Greek texts.
This is the first I've heard of this.
Could you please expand on that a bit. As to what specific texts or manuscripts have this variant reading?
Your comments are appreciated. The pre-verbal anarthrous variant QEON AUTON EINAI rather than AUTON ENAI QEON is noted in "The Complete Biblical Library: Acts" (Springfield Missouri, USA, 1986, 1989), page 662.
This reference work cites the 4th century majiscule (large Greek letters) manuscript 01Aleph, majiscule manuscript 0201, the printed edition of Tischendorf, and texts in the Byzantine text family.
Since this is a variant, it is not the main point under discussion, just an interesting note. The main point is that in other instances of Coptic *ou.noute* in the New Testament, it is customary to render this in English as "a god," whether the Greek QEOS is pre-verbal or not.
Thanks for this. I have used Acts 28:6 before in the ministry, as a verse that is constructed in exact parallel to the wording found at John 1:1c. Of course, no one said about Paul that he was God.
But I haven't used that verse lately because I want to be sure I am portraying its grammatical construction accurately. Am I?
Yours is a real specialty - blogging on the Coptic. A much appreciated resource.
Thanks for your kind words. Anything closer to the time of the original writings is likely to reflect their meaning. The Coptic does this many times.
As for Acts 28:6 in the Greek texts, it corresponds to John 1:1c in that it is anarthrous, and many translations render it as "a god."
However, Acts 28:6 is a text that has variant readings. Some of the variants put "theos" before the verb "enai" (to be), making it exactly parallel to John 1:1c, where "theos" is also pre-verbal. Other variants put "theos" after the verb.
Either way the meaning is the same, but it is the variant readings that put "theos" before the verb that correspond exactly, in Greek, to the construction found at John 1:1c.
I have also bookmarked your blog. Very interesting reading.
Note that Bentley Layton, on page 34 of "Coptic in 20 Lessons," mentions the exact syntax of Acts 28:6 -
ou-noute pe
He says there are two possible meanings:
He is a god
He is divine
However, neither translation would have us believe that the natives thought that Paul was God Himself. If the natives thought that Paul was "divine" in this verse, they were thinking more along the lines of Paul being "a god-like one," one having the qualities of a god.
In no way could we derive from the text that Paul shared the same nature, essence, or substance of the true God. He was just a god, a god-like one, divine.
Those reading the Trinity into the Sahidic of John 1:1 are reading their theology into the text, because the Sahidic is only saying that the Word is a god, a god-like one, divine.
Abernathy,
Excellent points. Thanks.
Some Trinitarian apologists were just too quick to write defensively about the Coptic version without actually having learned Coptic, and therefore published obvious errors.
I wasn't even thinking it when I wrote that post, but the footnote on John 1:1 in the NWT says just that:
"the Word was a god/god-like/divine."
Yes, translating the Greek of John 1:1 into another language honestly is a tradition that goes back 1,700 years. The NWT follows the faithful example of the Coptic translators.
As Jason BeDuhn wrote, the Greek grammar of John 1:1 is easy to understand and translate if not influenced by biased traditions.
The argument presented attempts to use Coptic grammar, particularly the phrase ou.noute in Acts 28:6, to suggest that the Coptic translation of John 1:1c should be read as "a god" rather than "divine" or "God." However, this argument is fundamentally flawed for several reasons, both linguistic and theological.
First, the claim that ou.noute in Coptic necessarily means "a god" in an indefinite sense is based on a misunderstanding of how Coptic articles function. Coptic, unlike Greek, has both a definite and an indefinite article, but their usage does not map neatly onto English. Bentley Layton, one of the leading Coptic grammarians, explains that ou.noute can denote either an entity (e.g., "a god") or a quality (e.g., "divine"). This is a crucial distinction. The indefinite article ou- in Coptic is often used to describe the nature or essence of something rather than merely identifying it as a member of a category. Thus, ou.noute in John 1:1c does not necessarily imply an indefinite god among many but can just as readily mean "the Word was divine."
This is further supported by the way Coptic Christian theology has historically understood John 1:1. Coptic Christians have never embraced an Arian or semi-Arian Christology that would render the Logos as a lesser deity. If the Coptic translation indeed conveyed the meaning "a god" in the sense of a subordinate divine being, we would expect to find evidence of this interpretation influencing early Coptic theological disputes, particularly in the 4th century Arian controversy. However, no such evidence exists. On the contrary, the Coptic Church has consistently affirmed Nicene Christology, which holds that the Logos is fully and truly God.
Furthermore, if we examine how Coptic translators rendered other Christologically significant passages, we see that they used ou.noute even in places where the original Greek clearly refers to the one true God. For instance, in John 1:18, the Sahidic Coptic translation renders monogenēs theos as pnoute pShre nouwt, meaning "the God, the only Son." This demonstrates that the Coptic translators understood the divine nature of Christ in a fully Trinitarian sense. If they had intended to introduce a distinction between the Logos as a lesser deity and the Father as the true God, they would have made this distinction explicit, yet they did not.
The appeal to Acts 28:6 as a parallel case is also misguided. In this passage, the term ou.noute is used to describe how the people of Malta mistakenly believed Paul to be a god. However, the context makes it clear that this is a mistaken, pagan attribution, not a theological assertion. The same applies to Greek parallels, such as in Acts 14:11, where Paul and Barnabas are called "gods" by the people of Lystra. The presence of ou.noute in this case does not establish a rule that it must always mean "a god" rather than conveying qualitative divinity.
Additionally, the argument fails to address the theological inconsistency that arises from asserting that John 1:1c should be translated as "a god" while still maintaining monotheism. The claim that ancient Jews and Christians accepted "other divine beings alongside God" while rejecting polytheism is misleading. While the Hebrew Bible sometimes uses elohim to refer to angels or exalted beings, these are never worshiped, nor are they considered theos in the sense that John 1:1c demands. The Gospel of John makes an explicit distinction between false gods and the one true God, reinforcing the prologue's emphasis that the Logos is not merely divine in some lesser sense but fully shares in God's very nature.
Finally, Coptic Christian liturgy and creeds confirm that ou.noute in John 1:1c was not understood to mean "a god" in a polytheistic or subordinationist sense. The Nicene Creed in Coptic uses ou.noute in reference to Christ, affirming that He is "true God of true God" (ounoute ntafmei ebol khen ounoute). If ou.noute always implied an indefinite meaning ("a god"), this phrase would make no sense within Nicene theology. Instead, it reflects a qualitative usage, affirming the divine nature of Christ.
In conclusion, the claim that ou.noute in John 1:1c supports the Jehovah’s Witness translation "the Word was a god" is based on a misrepresentation of Coptic grammar and theology. Coptic grammar allows for a qualitative reading, meaning "the Word was divine," which aligns with traditional Christian interpretation. Moreover, historical and theological evidence overwhelmingly supports the understanding that the Coptic translators did not intend to suggest a lesser, secondary deity but rather affirmed the full divinity of Christ. Thus, attempts to use the Sahidic Coptic translation to justify an Arian or semi-Arian reading of John 1:1c are not only linguistically flawed but also theologically inconsistent with the beliefs of early Coptic Christians.
Your comparison between Acts 28:6 and John 1:1 raises a legitimate question about the semantic range of Greek θεός and its Sahidic Coptic equivalent ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. You correctly observe that the Coptic expression ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ can receive the English rendering “he is a god,” and that this is a natural translation in Acts 28:6. You also correctly acknowledge that Greek anarthrous predicates and Coptic indefinitely determined predicates can express a quality or characteristic rather than simply identifying an individual. The decisive question, however, is whether the classificatory meaning appropriate to Acts 28:6 must also govern John 1:1c. Your argument assumes that a shared grammatical form entails a shared semantic interpretation, even though the distinction you acknowledge between classificatory and qualitative predication depends precisely on the lexical meaning of the predicate and the context in which it occurs.
Consider first what Acts 28:6 actually describes. Luke recounts how the inhabitants of Malta initially interpreted Paul's encounter with a venomous snake as evidence that divine justice was pursuing him. In Acts 28:4, they concluded that Paul was a murderer who, although he had escaped the sea, could not escape Justice. When Paul suffered no harm, they reversed their judgment and declared him a god. Their reasoning belongs to a religious environment in which extraordinary events could be explained by attributing divine status to an apparently extraordinary human being. Thus, when Luke writes that they said Paul was θεόν, the indefinite, classificatory sense “a god” arises naturally from the circumstances and the worldview of the speakers.
This context is decisive. The inhabitants were making an inference about Paul's identity or status on the basis of an extraordinary event. They were not making a theological statement about the eternal nature of the biblical God, nor were they formulating a proposition about the relationship between two divine persons. The English indefinite article appropriately expresses their identification of Paul as an individual belonging to a category of divine beings. Consequently, the translations you quote from the KJV, NIV, REB, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NAB, and ALT are entirely understandable. Their agreement establishes that “a god” is the natural contextual translation of Acts 28:6. It establishes no grammatical rule requiring that translation wherever anarthrous θεός or Coptic ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ appears.
Indeed, the narrative itself demonstrates the importance of contextual interpretation. In Acts 28:4, the inhabitants say, πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος, “Certainly this man is a murderer.” Here you have a genuinely anarthrous, preverbal predicate nominative, φονεύς, followed by the finite copula ἐστιν and an articular subject, ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος. This is structurally closer to John 1:1c than the accusative-and-infinitive construction in Acts 28:6. Yet nobody would infer from the common word order that φονεύς and θεός must have identical semantic functions. In Acts 28:4, the noun classifies Paul as a murderer because its lexical meaning and the narrative context make that interpretation appropriate. In John 1:1c, the interpretation of θεός must likewise be established from the noun's semantic function within its own discourse. The presence or absence of an article and the position of a predicate do not override those considerations.
Your discussion of the Greek textual variants in Acts 28:6 does not change this conclusion. The familiar critical text reads ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν, whereas the Byzantine tradition preserves the alternative ordering ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι. You correctly note that the second reading places θεόν before εἶναι. But you go too far when you describe the construction as “exactly parallel” to John 1:1c. Both Acts variants employ an accusative-and-infinitive construction within reported speech: αὐτόν is the accusative subject of εἶναι, and θεόν is its accusative predicate. John 1:1c, by contrast, is an independent finite clause containing the nominative predicate θεός, the imperfect indicative ἦν, and the articular nominative subject ὁ λόγος: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The constructions share an anarthrous divine noun and, in one variant of Acts, the relative precedence of predicate over verb. They differ in case, clause structure, verbal form, and discourse function.
Your reference to Codex Sinaiticus, manuscript 0201, Tischendorf, and the Byzantine textual tradition is relevant to the textual history of Acts 28:6. It does not establish a semantic correspondence beyond what the Greek constructions and their contexts support. In fact, your own observation that both word orders in Acts 28:6 convey the same meaning reinforces the importance of context. The Maltese speakers are classifying Paul as a god regardless of whether θεόν precedes or follows the infinitive. You therefore cannot make preverbal position decisive when comparing Acts with John while simultaneously acknowledging that the change of position does not alter the meaning in Acts.
The Coptic evidence requires the same distinction. The Sahidic wording of Acts 28:6 includes ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ, introducing the inhabitants' declaration that Paul was a god. The corresponding construction in John 1:1c is ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ, conventionally segmented as ⲁⲩⲱ | ⲛⲉ- | ⲟⲩ-ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ | ⲡⲉ | ⲡ-ϣⲁϫⲉ. The latter is a past-converted nominal sentence with an explicit definite lexical subject, “the Word.” In both passages, ⲟⲩ- is an indefinite article. Yet morphological indefiniteness and semantic classification are distinct grammatical matters. The presence of the indefinite article establishes how the noun phrase is formally determined; it does not establish that every such predicate must denote an individual member of a numerically plural class.
This distinction is explicitly recognized in Bentley Layton's ‘A Coptic Grammar,’ particularly §§50, 93, and 292. In §50, Layton's treatment of the indefinite article accommodates both an instance of a lexical class and an instance characterized by the quality associated with that class. Section 93 explains that common nouns can function denotatively or descriptively and that the interpretation depends on sentence structure, determination, lexical semantics, and the wider context. Most significantly, §292 illustrates the distinction with the very expression under discussion: ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ can mean either “he is a god” or “he is divine.” His ‘Coptic in 20 Lessons,’ page 34, repeats the same distinction.
You acknowledge Layton's two interpretations but regard their difference as semantically insignificant. Yet the distinction is precisely what allows the same nominal form to communicate different kinds of information. A denotative predicate identifies an individual as belonging to the class denoted by a noun. A descriptive predicate attributes to its subject the property associated with that noun. The two functions can overlap, but they need not have the same discourse implications. “He is a god” in a pagan narrative naturally classifies a person within the speakers' religious ontology. “He is divine” in a discourse about the preexistent Logos can predicate deity as a characteristic of the Logos. Neither the English words nor the Coptic construction entitles you to substitute one context's classificatory interpretation for another context's descriptive interpretation.
This becomes especially important when you argue that the distinction is insignificant because calling Paul “divine” would still have meant that the inhabitants considered him merely godlike. That conclusion confuses the semantic function of an expression with the theological beliefs of the people employing it. The inhabitants of Malta could attribute what they understood to be divine status or divine qualities to Paul without thereby referring to the nature of the one God of Israel. Their concept of deity was supplied by their own religious framework. John, however, is speaking of the Logos in relation to the God already identified in the immediately preceding clause. The content of the divine predicate must be interpreted within that relationship and the surrounding account of creation. You cannot establish the content of John's predicate by importing the Maltese inhabitants' understanding of divinity.
An analogy makes the distinction clear. If a pagan speaker and a Christian speaker both employ a word meaning “god,” their common vocabulary does not guarantee that they are referring to beings with the same nature, status, or attributes. The lexical item can have different referential applications while preserving an intelligible semantic relationship between those applications. Accordingly, the fact that the Maltese inhabitants did not believe Paul possessed the eternal, uncreated nature of the biblical God tells you about their beliefs concerning Paul. It tells you nothing decisive about the nature John attributes to the Logos. The grammatical category of qualitative predication cannot be collapsed into a universal category of diminished or merely analogous divinity.
Your claim that Coptic grammarians permit ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ to function descriptively but that you have not encountered a clear example in Coptic literature deserves a closer examination. First, the grammatical legitimacy of a descriptive predicate is established by the language's grammar, including Layton's explicit treatment of this very noun. A proposed interpretation must then be assessed in the individual passage. A collection of unquestioned classificatory examples cannot establish that the descriptive function is unavailable. It simply documents cases in which classification is contextually appropriate.
Moreover, Coptic literature supplies a particularly revealing Christological example. Alexey A. Morozov's critical edition of the Coptic translation of the conclusion of Epiphanius of Salamis' Epistula ad Arabos documents a later Sahidic manuscript in which Christ is described through the explicit nominal construction ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲟ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ, followed by the corresponding statement that he is a man while being God. The Paris manuscript thus preserves the very ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ predicative frame applied to Christ. Yet the surrounding confession explicitly rejects Arianism and affirms the Trinity, one divine essence, and Christ's complete divinity and humanity. You can examine the text and its manuscript history in Morozov, “Coptic Translation of the Conclusion of Epiphanius of Salamis' Epistula ad Arabos,” Bible and Christian Antiquity, Supplement 4 (2024), 75–101, especially pages 80 and 93–94.
This example is significant for a precise reason. The Paris reading represents a later manuscript reformulation, and its indefinite divine predicate can be discussed in terms of denotative as well as descriptive predication. Nevertheless, it directly refutes the assertion that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ intrinsically signifies an inferior or created deity. The same construction appears in a confession expressly committed to the full deity of Christ and the unity of divine essence. Even if you choose the denotative analysis of that particular predicate, you cannot infer the Watchtower's theology of a subordinate, created god from the grammatical form. Such an interpretation requires theological premises beyond the Coptic indefinite article.
The received Bohairic form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed provides a related illustration. Its confession of the Son as “true God from true God” employs the indefinitely determined expression ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ in a context that explicitly affirms that the Son is begotten rather than created and is consubstantial with the Father. You are therefore confronted with Coptic Christian usage in which indefinite divine morphology coexists with a direct affirmation of undiminished deity. This later liturgical usage does not determine the original translator's intention in John 1:1c, but it decisively undermines the proposed equation between Coptic grammatical indefiniteness and ontological inferiority.
There is also a more general grammatical problem with your expectation that an indefinite predicate should normally retain the English article “a.” Thomas O. Lambdin's ‘Introduction to Sahidic Coptic’ explicitly documents constructions where Coptic indefinite morphology corresponds to an English adjectival predicate. In §15.2, Lambdin explains that adjectives functioning as predicates follow the pattern of nominal predicates and require the indefinite article in the relevant construction. He gives examples such as ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ, “He is good,” and ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲓⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ, “This city is large.” J. Martin Plumley likewise gives ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲡⲉ with the idiomatic translation “He is great” (An Introductory Coptic Grammar, §§306–307).
These constructions show why Coptic indefinite determination cannot be mapped mechanically onto English “a/an.” The grammatical point is particularly relevant because the Watchtower has appealed to Lambdin's general observation that Coptic article usage closely resembles English article usage. Lambdin himself qualifies that correspondence and documents exceptions. The adjectival examples establish that indefinite morphology is compatible with property predication, while Layton's specific discussion of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ establishes that the divine common noun itself can serve a descriptive function. The combined evidence is considerably stronger than a generalized claim that the Coptic article must always produce an indefinite English noun.
Your appeal to other occurrences of ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ in the Coptic New Testament also requires attention to the actual distribution. Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti examined these occurrences in their study, “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 discussion identifies four cases involving Greek anarthrous nominative singular θεός in their selected corpus, together with Acts 28:6, where the Greek noun is accusative.
The examples do not establish the semantic uniformity you propose. Acts 28:6 naturally yields the classificatory interpretation “a god” because of its pagan narrative context. However, the same Coptic indefinite divine noun occurs in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 in formulations concerning the one God, the Father. The numerical constructions explain the indefinite determination in those passages, but the referent is unquestionably the unique biblical God. The morphology therefore cannot function as an intrinsic marker of a lesser or false deity. Second Thessalonians 2:4 supplies a different context involving a claim to divine status, and its precise interpretation is correspondingly more complex. Wright and Ricchuiti themselves acknowledge the difficulty of determining the intended divine referent in that passage. You gain nothing by treating all these occurrences as interchangeable examples of the same ontological category.
Wright and Ricchuiti also report that, within their reconstructed set of twenty-five Greek anarthrous nominative singular θεός cases, twenty-one are rendered with the Coptic definite article and four with the indefinite article. This finding matters because it demonstrates that the absence of the Greek article did not automatically cause Sahidic translators to employ ⲟⲩ-. The translators' determination choices must be examined as features of Coptic grammar and translation technique. Wright and Ricchuiti ultimately propose a descriptive or qualitative interpretation of the indefinite divine predicate in John 1:1c. Their argument therefore directly challenges your attempt to make Acts 28:6 govern the meaning of the Johannine passage.
Your reference to George Horner and J. Warren Wells is equally compatible with this distinction. Horner's Sahidic edition does not furnish the relevant continuous passage of Acts 28:6, while the passage appears in the Sahidic text presented by Wells. The Sahidic reading is also accessible through the Coptic SCRIPTORIUM New Testament corpus, which identifies its Acts material as deriving from Wells's Sahidica. Horner's Bohairic rendering “he was a god” is appropriate to the reported judgment of the Maltese inhabitants. It demonstrates that Horner recognized the indefinite, classificatory sense in that passage.
But Horner's treatment of John 1:1 is instructively different. In his Sahidic edition he rendered the clause with “[a] God,” placing the article in square brackets. His editorial explanation specifies that such brackets indicate words represented by the Coptic but unnecessary in idiomatic English. In his Bohairic edition, his rendering of John 1:1 uses “God (indef. art.)” rather than the unqualified “a god.” Horner thus distinguished the formal presence of the Coptic indefinite article from the requirements of the English translation. His rendering of Acts 28:6 cannot legitimately be used to erase that distinction.
Layton provides an even clearer illustration in ‘Coptic in 20 Lessons.’ On page 7, his interlinear analysis of John 1:1c represents the Coptic morphology with “a-god,” but his sentence-level English translation reads “And the Word was God.” This is a fundamental distinction between morphological glossing and idiomatic semantic translation. An interlinear gloss is designed to show the individual grammatical components of the source language; a sentence translation is designed to communicate their combined meaning. You cannot treat the former as though it automatically dictated the latter.
You also argue that the absence of a clear adjectival rendering of Acts 28:6 among the English versions you list supports the NWT's interpretation of John 1:1. Yet the relevant English translators were translating Acts 28:6, not formulating a universal semantic rule for θεός. Their agreement concerns a particular occurrence whose context strongly favors classification. The same translators frequently render the Johannine predicate differently because they are responding to a different semantic context. That difference is evidence of context-sensitive translation, not inconsistency. Indeed, the consistency you are asking for would be artificial: translating two occurrences identically merely because they share an anarthrous divine noun would substitute a mechanical word-matching procedure for linguistic interpretation.
Your treatment of Julius R. Mantey is similarly problematic. You suggest that he undermines his own criticism of the NWT by admitting that John 1:1 expresses a quality rather than an identity. Yet Mantey's objection is precisely that the NWT's “a god” does not adequately express the quality predicated by John. In his published response, “A Grossly Misleading Translation (The New World Translation),” Mantey explicitly endorsed “the Word was deity” as the rendering associated with the ‘Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament’ by H. E. Dana and himself. He explained that the anarthrous θεός emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word and that the Word and the Father are personally distinct while possessing the same divine nature. His rejection of the NWT therefore follows directly from his qualitative analysis.
The conceptual distinction is straightforward. To deny that the Word is personally identical with the Father is entirely consistent with affirming that the Word possesses the same divine nature as the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity distinguishes personal identity from unity of essence. John 1:1b establishes the relational distinction by stating that the Word was with God; John 1:1c predicates θεός of the Word. Mantey's interpretation allows both statements to retain their force. Your argument treats the absence of personal identity as though it implied a difference in divine nature. That inference does not follow.
Your invitation to consider Philip B. Harner's findings is particularly welcome, because his article supports the qualitative interpretation in a sense substantially different from the one you suggest. In “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 75–87, Harner carefully distinguishes several possible Greek formulations. He observes that an explicitly articular predicate would tend toward identification of the Logos with the divine person already mentioned, while alternative anarthrous formulations could more readily suggest an individual divine being belonging to a class. The actual formulation, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, places the anarthrous predicate before the verb and gives it a prominent qualitative significance.
Harner's conclusion is that the Word possessed the same nature as God, with the predicate θεός emphasizing what the Logos was. He expressly distinguishes this from a weaker formulation that could convey merely unspecified divinity or membership in a class of divine beings. You therefore cannot cite his recognition of qualitative meaning as support for reducing the Word to a godlike creature. His interpretation gives qualitative predication its full force: the Logos possesses the divine nature denoted by θεός, while remaining personally distinguishable from the referent of ὁ θεός in the preceding clause.
Daniel B. Wallace develops the same distinction in ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’ (1996), pages 266–269. Wallace treats indefinite, definite, and qualitative interpretations as distinguishable possibilities for anarthrous predicate nominatives and concludes that the qualitative interpretation is the strongest explanation of John 1:1c. He regards the indefinite interpretation as grammatically and contextually improbable. His analysis emphasizes that John's formulation predicates deity of the Word while distinguishing him from the Father.
Wallace has also clarified his intended meaning directly. In a response published on his own website in March 2016, he explained that “divine,” as applied to John 1:1c, refers to true deity rather than the status of angels or other created spiritual beings. He further explained that the construction distinguishes the Father and Son personally while affirming their common essence. Thus, when you invoke Wallace's recognition that θεός is qualitative, you are invoking an analysis whose conclusion directly contradicts the reduced sense of “godlike” that you attach to the NWT rendering.
Your interpretation also confuses the English adjective “divine” with the weaker adjective “godlike.” These expressions can overlap in ordinary speech, but they are not automatically equivalent in theological or lexical analysis. A qualitative predicate expresses the property associated with its noun. When the noun denotes the unique God within a monotheistic discourse, the qualitative interpretation can convey the possession of genuine divine nature. When the same noun is used by polytheistic observers, the intended property is understood within their different religious framework. The meaning of qualitative predication is therefore controlled by the relevant lexical and discourse context, rather than by the weakest possible meaning of an English paraphrase.
Your appeal to Jason BeDuhn deserves the same methodological precision. In ‘Truth in Translation’ (2003), chapter 11, BeDuhn argues for the legitimacy of the indefinite rendering and criticizes traditional translations for allowing theological expectations to influence their treatment of John 1:1. His work raises serious questions about how anarthrous Greek nouns are represented in English, particularly when a language requires choices of determination or capitalization that are not formally identical to those in Greek.
Nevertheless, BeDuhn's defense of an indefinite English noun depends on more than the absence of a Greek article. Greek anarthrous nouns can function in several semantic ways, and the selection of an English indefinite article is a translation decision that must be justified by the particular construction and its context. Furthermore, English “God” and “a god” differ not simply in the presence of a, but in their conventional lexical and referential implications. The latter ordinarily suggests an individuated divine being belonging to a class containing other members. For that reading to be preferable in John 1:1c, you must establish that John is classifying the Logos among such beings. The ordinary count-noun behavior of θεός elsewhere, including Acts 28:6, establishes the availability of that sense, but not its contextual selection in John's prologue.
This point also explains why an appeal to supposedly unbiased translation cannot settle the matter. A translator must decide whether a noun functions primarily as a referring expression, a classifying predicate, or a descriptive predicate. The absence of a Greek indefinite article does not eliminate those distinctions, and the existence of English “a/an” does not determine which of them the Greek text expresses. The correct procedure is to analyze the Greek construction, its lexical content, the author's usage, and the surrounding discourse before selecting the most suitable English realization.
John's immediate context supplies positive reasons to prefer the qualitative interpretation in its full sense. The Logos already exists “in the beginning”; John employs ἦν, “was,” in describing that existence. The Logos is personally distinguished from God in the following clause, yet θεός is predicated of him without an accompanying indication of diminished divinity, representative appointment, or inferior status. John then declares in 1:3 that everything that came into being came into being through the Logos, adding the emphatic statement that apart from him not one thing that came into being came into being. The distinction between the Logos and the totality of things that came into existence is fundamental to the passage.
If you understand “a god” in the specifically Watchtower sense of a created divine being, John 1:3 presents an additional difficulty. You would have to place the Logos among the things that came into existence while simultaneously interpreting him as the agent through whom the entire category of things that came into existence was brought into being. The text supplies no explicit exception for the Logos. This contextual evidence strongly favors an understanding of the Logos as belonging on the divine side of the Creator–creation distinction. It also explains why the qualitative predication in 1:1c naturally concerns genuine deity rather than a derivative, created imitation of deity.
The wider Johannine context is consistent with this reading. In John 20:28, Thomas directly addresses the risen Jesus as ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, “my Lord and my God.” The Sahidic tradition likewise applies the divine designation to Jesus in that confession. The definite expression in John 20:28 and the indefinitely determined predicate in John 1:1c belong to different grammatical constructions, but they illuminate the same Gospel's use of divine language for Christ. The fact that John can employ both constructions is another reason to distinguish grammatical determination from theological rank.
You say that the Bible should interpret itself. I agree with that principle when it means allowing the language, literary context, and conceptual structure of each passage to inform the interpretation. Applied consistently, it requires Acts 28:6 to be read as an account of the Maltese inhabitants' mistaken evaluation of Paul and John 1:1c to be read as part of the Evangelist's account of the preexistent Logos and creation. It also requires John 1:1c to be interpreted in relation to John 1:3 and 20:28 rather than subordinated to a statement attributed to pagan observers in another biblical book.
Your claim that the Coptic translation represents an ancient tradition of rendering John 1:1 as “a god” likewise requires a distinction between the antiquity of a grammatical form and the antiquity of a specific theological interpretation. The Sahidic tradition genuinely preserves an indefinitely determined predicate in John 1:1c. Modern textual work, particularly the 2021 critical edition by Hans Förster, Kerstin Sänger-Böhm, and Matthias H. O. Schulz, confirms the stability of that determination in the recoverable Sahidic textual tradition. Yet ⲟⲩ- is a grammatical marker, not a declaration that the Logos is created, ontologically inferior, or excluded from the full divine nature. The age of the translation cannot add those theological propositions to the meaning of the article.
The historical evidence therefore gives you an ancient Coptic witness to a morphologically indefinite divine predicate, not an ancient endorsement of the New World Translation's entire interpretation. Layton's grammar shows that the same predicate can function descriptively. Lambdin and Plumley document the broader compatibility between indefinite morphology and qualitative predication. Wright and Ricchuiti demonstrate that Sahidic translators did not mechanically reproduce Greek anarthrousness with the Coptic indefinite article. Later Coptic Christian usage further establishes that indefinitely determined divine expressions could be employed within explicit confessions of Christ's full, uncreated deity. These findings cannot be reduced to the assertion that the Coptic translators understood the Word as one subordinate god among others.
Finally, your characterization of some Trinitarian apologists as insufficiently acquainted with Coptic contributes little to the grammatical issue. Any mistaken Coptic analysis should be corrected by reference to the language's actual syntax and usage. The relevant published grammars and textual studies allow precisely that kind of examination. Their findings establish both the grammatical legitimacy of the indefinite form and the availability of descriptive predication, including with the noun ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ itself. The stronger evidence comes from those demonstrable linguistic distinctions, not from assumptions about the theological commitments or linguistic competence of particular disputants.
Your fundamental argument rests on moving from a true premise to an unwarranted conclusion. You correctly establish that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ can mean “he is a god,” that Acts 28:6 naturally expresses that meaning, and that the Greek noun θεός can be used indefinitely. But those observations establish grammatical and lexical possibility, not the semantic interpretation of John 1:1c. In Acts 28:6, the context supplies an ordinary classificatory interpretation within a pagan religious framework. In John 1:1c, the context supplies a preexistent Logos, personally related to God, described by the divine predicate and subsequently identified as the agent through whom all created things came into existence. The two passages therefore have materially different interpretive settings.
The trinitarian reading preserves the full force of both clauses of John 1:1. The Word is with God, establishing personal distinction; the Word is θεός, establishing genuine deity. The absence of the article before θεός serves a predicative construction in which the divine nature is attributed to the Logos without making him personally identical with the Father. That interpretation is supported by the qualitative analysis of Harner, Wallace, and Mantey, by the descriptive possibilities explicitly documented in Sahidic Coptic grammar, and by the surrounding Johannine discourse.
The decisive question is therefore whether you can demonstrate that the Greek θεός or the Coptic ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ in John 1:1c actually conveys the restricted sense “a created, ontologically inferior god.” Acts 28:6 demonstrates the possibility of a classificatory reading in a different context. It supplies no evidence that the same classification, much less the additional idea of created and subordinate deity, is intended in John 1:1c. The linguistic and contextual evidence instead favors the traditional understanding: the Word possesses the divine nature, while remaining personally distinct from the Father. That is why “the Word was God” remains the preferable English translation of John's statement.
* Predicative θεός in John 1:1c
https://www.academia.edu/176663425
* ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ in Sahidic John 1:1c
https://www.academia.edu/176411873
Post a Comment