The one verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, illustrates the three uses of the Sahidic Coptic articles: the Coptic zero article, the Coptic definite article, and the Coptic indefinite article.
This verse also illustrates the correct translation of Coptic John
1:1c.
In the Greek text of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 we have a)theos in the
accusative case; b) theos in the genitive, with the Greek definite article;
and c) anarthrous theos in the nominative.
Correspondingly, in the Sahidic Coptic text we have a) zero-articled
noute, where the Coptic zero-article indicates a general meaning or
characteristic: i.e., "god"; b) definite-articled p.noute, "the god" or "God"; and c) indefinite-articled ou.noute, "a god."
Transliterated, the Sahidic Coptic text reads:
pantikeimenos etjice mmof ejn ouon nim etoumoute eroou je noute houop hwste nfbwk ehoun eprpe mpnoute nfhmoos efouwnh mmof ebol je ounoute pe. (As found in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament by J. Warren Wells, 2006. Occurrences of noute, "god," emphasized by this writer)
Translated into English, the Coptic text of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says:
"The one who is opposing and raising himself above everyone who is called 'god' or regarded with reverence, so that he goes into the temple of the god and sits down, declaring publicly that he is a god."
Being a careful translation of the Greek text, the Coptic version, properly translated into English, carries the same significance at 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as does the New World Translation and some other careful English versions. Whereas many English versions merely translate "God" wherever theos is found in the Greek text here, these careful versions bring out the grammatical differences:
"He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called 'god' or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god." -- New World Translation
"Who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god." -- New American Bible
"He who is in opposition to every so-called god or object of worship, so that he seats himself in God's temple, declaring himself to be a god." -- The Bible in Living English
"He rises in his pride against every god, so called, every object of men's worship, and even takes his seat in the temple of God claiming to be a god himself." -- The New English Bible
What I see here is that careful translators of the Greek text understood the Greek grammar in the same way, and translated 2 Thessalonians 2:4 into their own languages accordingly, from the 2nd century to the present day.
Therefore, in this one verse we see clearly the force of the Coptic zero, definite, and indefinite articles when used with the Coptic noun noute, "god":
ΝΟΥΤЄ (noute) = god
Π.ΝΟΥΤЄ (p.noute) = the god, God
ΟΥ.ΝΟΥΤЄ (ou.noute) = a god
And it is ΟΥ.ΝΟΥΤЄ (ou.noute), "a god" that is found in the Sahidic Coptic version of John 1:1c, in contrast with Π.ΝΟΥΤЄ (p.noute), "God," at John 1:1b.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
What's Athanasius Got to Do With It?
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.
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.
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Tertium non video"
A little over a year ago a noted Coptic scholar commented to me about the different ways in which Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c could be rendered appropriately in English. He said that the Coptic supports an indefinite English translation -- "the Word was a god" -- and less literally, an adjectival or "qualitative" one -- "the Word was godly/divine." What about the popular, traditional definite rendering, "the Word was God." Did the Coptic text support that?
"Tertium non video," this respected Coptic scholar replied in Latin. That is, "I do not see a third (possibility)."
Though Bentley Layton includes the traditional "the Word was God" in his latest grammar book, it is obvious that this is not equivalent to what the Coptic text says. Correctly, Dr. Layton renders Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c to read, "and past tense marker-a-god is the Word," or more smoothly, "and a god was the Word." This means the same as "and the Word was a god," as it would normally be expressed in standard English.
But if the indefinite phrase "and the Word was a god" is equivalent to the definite phrase "and the Word was God," then why have Christendom's apologists been accusing the New World Translation of bias all these many years???
Obviously, the Coptic's "and the Word was a god" is not equivalent to "and the Word was God."
The ancient Coptic version's indefinite grammatical syntax at John 1:1c does not support any definite translation like "the Word was God." That is not what those ancient translators saw and understood in their Greek texts.
Indeed, Tertium Non Video.
"Tertium non video," this respected Coptic scholar replied in Latin. That is, "I do not see a third (possibility)."
Though Bentley Layton includes the traditional "the Word was God" in his latest grammar book, it is obvious that this is not equivalent to what the Coptic text says. Correctly, Dr. Layton renders Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c to read, "and past tense marker-a-god is the Word," or more smoothly, "and a god was the Word." This means the same as "and the Word was a god," as it would normally be expressed in standard English.
But if the indefinite phrase "and the Word was a god" is equivalent to the definite phrase "and the Word was God," then why have Christendom's apologists been accusing the New World Translation of bias all these many years???
Obviously, the Coptic's "and the Word was a god" is not equivalent to "and the Word was God."
The ancient Coptic version's indefinite grammatical syntax at John 1:1c does not support any definite translation like "the Word was God." That is not what those ancient translators saw and understood in their Greek texts.
Indeed, Tertium Non Video.
Monday, July 23, 2007
An Interesting Coptic Resource
Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton has a new book, Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic With Exercises & Vocabularies (Peeters Leuven, 2007)
In this book on page 7, Layton diagrams Coptic John 1:1c literally as:
auw ne. u.noute pe p.Saje
And past tense marker- a-god is the-Word
He also provides the traditional English rendering "And the Word was God." But the traditional English rendering is at variance with the literal Coptic translation, which is clearly "And the Word was a god."
On page 34 of his grammar, Layton observes that Coptic ou.noute pe could signal adjectively "he is divine." But when referring to entities, the translation would be "he is a god."
Therefore, Coptic John 1:1c, auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje can be rendered authoritatively as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was divine," "the Word was a divine being," or similar, since the Coptic construction here is indefinite.
For the same reason, the Coptic version does not support a definite rendering like "the Word was God," despite this being traditional.
In this book on page 7, Layton diagrams Coptic John 1:1c literally as:
auw ne. u.noute pe p.Saje
And past tense marker- a-god is the-Word
He also provides the traditional English rendering "And the Word was God." But the traditional English rendering is at variance with the literal Coptic translation, which is clearly "And the Word was a god."
On page 34 of his grammar, Layton observes that Coptic ou.noute pe could signal adjectively "he is divine." But when referring to entities, the translation would be "he is a god."
Therefore, Coptic John 1:1c, auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje can be rendered authoritatively as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was divine," "the Word was a divine being," or similar, since the Coptic construction here is indefinite.
For the same reason, the Coptic version does not support a definite rendering like "the Word was God," despite this being traditional.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Trinitarian Apologists Still Muddying the Waters
Trinitarian apologists still try to duck and weave and obfuscate in their attempts to deny the clear evidence of the Sahidic (and Bohairic) Coptic translations of John 1:1c. Not being proficient in Coptic themselves, they have appealed to certain experts, but have resorted to a "pick and choose" tactic in presenting the conclusions of those experts.
When it is agreed that the Coptic of John 1:1c may be rendered in more than one way, the Trinitarian apologists try to ignore the obvious: the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c is "and the Word was a god" (or, "the Word was a divine being.")
But they then drag their theological suppositions and 'may be's into the equation to plead for a "qualitative" reading, since they can by no means get a definite meaning out of Coptic John 1:1c. They cannot make it say "and the Word was God."
For example, one such apologist quotes Coptic scholar Dr. Choat in this manner:
"For my part, I think both 'a god' and the 'qualitative' idea are special pleading; yes, there is an indefinite article there; but Greek doesn't have an indefinite article, and Coptic grammatically requires one for a construction like this; but to translate 'a god' or 'the word was divine' seems out of kilter with what the Greek looks to me to be saying."
We have three things mixed up here: Greek grammar, Coptic grammar, and what "seems" to be or "looks" correct according to Dr. Choat's presuppositions. And if he is not satisfied with either an indefinite or a qualitative reading, that leaves the definite reading, which is clearly ruled out by both the Coptic verse and a careful examination of the Greek verse at John 1:1c.
But what truly matters here is the Coptic grammar. It cannot be overlooked that in fulfilling what "the Coptic grammatically requires" at John 1:1c, the Coptic translators actually used the indefinite article, not the definite article. And, of course a Coptic indefinite meaning would naturally employ the Coptic indefinite article!
In English translation, that indefinite construction is customarily translated by an "a". There are numerous examples of this fact in the English translation of the Coptic New Testament by Dr. George Horner, as well as modern English translations of other Sahidic Coptic literature. It hardly matters here that Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article; Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic do have the indefinite article, and it is used to form an indefinite construction, not a definite construction, at Coptic John 1:1c.
This apologist apparently wants us to overlook Dr. Choat's statement that the Trinitarian qualitative argument is also "special pleading" from Choat's standpoint. And he omitted the significant first part of Dr. Choat's response, which said:
"Well, this is a really old hoary chestnut of a question; but many of the answers given over the years (or centuries?) seem more theologically driven than actual argument over the grammar. There are *many* posts on the B-Greek discussion list (archived and easily findable in Google) which deal with the issue, which you may be interested in perusing."
To those 'theologically driven answers' can be added the attempts of Trinitarian apologists to muddy the waters by trying to explain away what Coptic John 1:1 actually says. Choat refers to the grammar as the proper consideration in understanding John 1:1c. What does the grammar tell us?
The Coptic grammar is quite clear and, in fact, ordinary. It is no different from the grammar of other verses in the Gospel of John where scholars have no problem at all in rendering it as an indefinite construction, with the use of the English "a"! (See previous posts in this Blog)
Apparently, it is only at Coptic John 1:1c that the meaning of a Coptic indefinite construction is contested by Trinitarian apologists, not at any of the other verses of similar Coptic construction. Why? Because it is inconvenient for Trinitarian dogma to "hear" the verse for what it actually says, ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "and a god [or, a divine being] was the Word."
This obfuscation and muddying of the hermeneutical waters is precisely what these apologists have done with the Greek of John 1:1c as well, as can be seen in some of the B-Greek posts that Dr. Choat mentions. So it is really no surprise that they attempt it with the Coptic. The Coptic version of John 1:1c does not support their theology, so they must bend and twist it until it comes at least close to what they want it to say.
A table of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nouns in the Greek Gospel of John that are rendered by the indefinite construction in Coptic, and translated customarily as indefinite in many English versions also:
John 4:19: "Sir, I see that you are a prophet" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 6:70: "one of you is a devil" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:44: "He was a murderer from the beginning" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:44: "for he is a liar and the father of lies" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:48: "you are a Samaritan" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 9:17: "He is a prophet" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 9:24: "this man is a sinner" (NRSV); Coptic [Horner])
John 9:25: "he is a sinner" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 10:1: "anyone who. climbs in by another way is a thief" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 10:13: "a hired hand does not care for the sheep" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 12:6: "he was a thief" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:35: "I am not a Jew, am I?" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:37a: "So are you a king? (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:37b: "You say that I am a king." (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
All of these verses have anarthrous nouns in the Greek text, that occur before the verb. George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic Coptic version employs the English indefinite artice "a" in these instances, and he does not enclose the "a" in brackets, as he does at John 1:1c, which should likewise be rendered: "and a god [or, a divine being] was the Word." English translations directly from the Greek also customarily employ the indefinite article "a" in the verses in the table above, and correctly so.
It is quite clear that there is no grammatical impetus to rendering Coptic John 1:1c as anything other than indefinite. This Coptic sentence is not syntactically "qualitative," nor is it definite in construction. Those who argue otherwise have the burden of proof to show where this "qualitative" or definite significance occurs elsewhere with the indefinite construction of count nouns like Coptic noute ("god") in the Coptic New Testament.
In the verbosity of some Trinitarian apologists, some important matters are glossed over. For example:
1- Not one of the scholars cited by them denies that "a god" is an accurate translation of Coptic ou noute, as at Coptic John 1:1c.
2- Not one of the scholars cited by them demonstrates by the example of New Testament verses that "a god" is an incorrect translation of Coptic John 1:1c.
3- Not one of the scholars cited by them demonstrates by the example of New Testament verses that Coptic ou noute is qualitative rather than indefinite.
Some Trinitarian apologists also resort to general statements about certain aspects of Coptic grammar that, while true in those instances, do not even apply to John 1:1c. For example, the assertion that the Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly with the English indefinite article. But this is irrelevant with count nouns like Coptic noute, (god) which is the specific word used at John 1:1c. Such nouns, when in indefinite construction are, indeed, customarily rendered with the indefinite article (a) in English.
The bare assertions of Trinitarian apologists cannot be accepted. If they are going to make weighty pronouncements, they should back them up with clear examples from the Coptic New Testament, not merely by what "seems" to them to be the case, "maybe."
When it is agreed that the Coptic of John 1:1c may be rendered in more than one way, the Trinitarian apologists try to ignore the obvious: the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c is "and the Word was a god" (or, "the Word was a divine being.")
But they then drag their theological suppositions and 'may be's into the equation to plead for a "qualitative" reading, since they can by no means get a definite meaning out of Coptic John 1:1c. They cannot make it say "and the Word was God."
For example, one such apologist quotes Coptic scholar Dr. Choat in this manner:
"For my part, I think both 'a god' and the 'qualitative' idea are special pleading; yes, there is an indefinite article there; but Greek doesn't have an indefinite article, and Coptic grammatically requires one for a construction like this; but to translate 'a god' or 'the word was divine' seems out of kilter with what the Greek looks to me to be saying."
We have three things mixed up here: Greek grammar, Coptic grammar, and what "seems" to be or "looks" correct according to Dr. Choat's presuppositions. And if he is not satisfied with either an indefinite or a qualitative reading, that leaves the definite reading, which is clearly ruled out by both the Coptic verse and a careful examination of the Greek verse at John 1:1c.
But what truly matters here is the Coptic grammar. It cannot be overlooked that in fulfilling what "the Coptic grammatically requires" at John 1:1c, the Coptic translators actually used the indefinite article, not the definite article. And, of course a Coptic indefinite meaning would naturally employ the Coptic indefinite article!
In English translation, that indefinite construction is customarily translated by an "a". There are numerous examples of this fact in the English translation of the Coptic New Testament by Dr. George Horner, as well as modern English translations of other Sahidic Coptic literature. It hardly matters here that Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article; Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic do have the indefinite article, and it is used to form an indefinite construction, not a definite construction, at Coptic John 1:1c.
This apologist apparently wants us to overlook Dr. Choat's statement that the Trinitarian qualitative argument is also "special pleading" from Choat's standpoint. And he omitted the significant first part of Dr. Choat's response, which said:
"Well, this is a really old hoary chestnut of a question; but many of the answers given over the years (or centuries?) seem more theologically driven than actual argument over the grammar. There are *many* posts on the B-Greek discussion list (archived and easily findable in Google) which deal with the issue, which you may be interested in perusing."
To those 'theologically driven answers' can be added the attempts of Trinitarian apologists to muddy the waters by trying to explain away what Coptic John 1:1 actually says. Choat refers to the grammar as the proper consideration in understanding John 1:1c. What does the grammar tell us?
The Coptic grammar is quite clear and, in fact, ordinary. It is no different from the grammar of other verses in the Gospel of John where scholars have no problem at all in rendering it as an indefinite construction, with the use of the English "a"! (See previous posts in this Blog)
Apparently, it is only at Coptic John 1:1c that the meaning of a Coptic indefinite construction is contested by Trinitarian apologists, not at any of the other verses of similar Coptic construction. Why? Because it is inconvenient for Trinitarian dogma to "hear" the verse for what it actually says, ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "and a god [or, a divine being] was the Word."
This obfuscation and muddying of the hermeneutical waters is precisely what these apologists have done with the Greek of John 1:1c as well, as can be seen in some of the B-Greek posts that Dr. Choat mentions. So it is really no surprise that they attempt it with the Coptic. The Coptic version of John 1:1c does not support their theology, so they must bend and twist it until it comes at least close to what they want it to say.
A table of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nouns in the Greek Gospel of John that are rendered by the indefinite construction in Coptic, and translated customarily as indefinite in many English versions also:
John 4:19: "Sir, I see that you are a prophet" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 6:70: "one of you is a devil" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:44: "He was a murderer from the beginning" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:44: "for he is a liar and the father of lies" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 8:48: "you are a Samaritan" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 9:17: "He is a prophet" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 9:24: "this man is a sinner" (NRSV); Coptic [Horner])
John 9:25: "he is a sinner" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 10:1: "anyone who. climbs in by another way is a thief" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 10:13: "a hired hand does not care for the sheep" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 12:6: "he was a thief" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:35: "I am not a Jew, am I?" (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:37a: "So are you a king? (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
John 18:37b: "You say that I am a king." (NRSV; Coptic [Horner])
All of these verses have anarthrous nouns in the Greek text, that occur before the verb. George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic Coptic version employs the English indefinite artice "a" in these instances, and he does not enclose the "a" in brackets, as he does at John 1:1c, which should likewise be rendered: "and a god [or, a divine being] was the Word." English translations directly from the Greek also customarily employ the indefinite article "a" in the verses in the table above, and correctly so.
It is quite clear that there is no grammatical impetus to rendering Coptic John 1:1c as anything other than indefinite. This Coptic sentence is not syntactically "qualitative," nor is it definite in construction. Those who argue otherwise have the burden of proof to show where this "qualitative" or definite significance occurs elsewhere with the indefinite construction of count nouns like Coptic noute ("god") in the Coptic New Testament.
In the verbosity of some Trinitarian apologists, some important matters are glossed over. For example:
1- Not one of the scholars cited by them denies that "a god" is an accurate translation of Coptic ou noute, as at Coptic John 1:1c.
2- Not one of the scholars cited by them demonstrates by the example of New Testament verses that "a god" is an incorrect translation of Coptic John 1:1c.
3- Not one of the scholars cited by them demonstrates by the example of New Testament verses that Coptic ou noute is qualitative rather than indefinite.
Some Trinitarian apologists also resort to general statements about certain aspects of Coptic grammar that, while true in those instances, do not even apply to John 1:1c. For example, the assertion that the Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly with the English indefinite article. But this is irrelevant with count nouns like Coptic noute, (god) which is the specific word used at John 1:1c. Such nouns, when in indefinite construction are, indeed, customarily rendered with the indefinite article (a) in English.
The bare assertions of Trinitarian apologists cannot be accepted. If they are going to make weighty pronouncements, they should back them up with clear examples from the Coptic New Testament, not merely by what "seems" to them to be the case, "maybe."
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Trinitarian Modalist Translations
Another attempt to explain away the clear evidence that is presented by Coptic John 1:1, "the Word was a god," goes like this:
"Here's a word-by-word translation...'In the-beginning [past] the-word is, and the-word it-was-dwelling in-the-presence-of the-god, and [past] a-god is the-word.'" (My emphasis)
Very good! Excellent translation! So, what's the problem? This writer even goes on to say "when 'god' refers to the One God, it always has the definite article." (My emphasis)
Very good again! And since "god" at John 1:1c does not have the definite article, it does not refer to the One God. So again, what's the problem?
Obviously, the "problem" is not in the grammar of John 1:1c, since it is universally recognized that Coptic John 1:1c literally says, "the Word was a god."
But... and for some people, there is always the "but"... this honest and accurate reading does not fit in with certain theological presuppositions. So, the writer continues: "The Coptic use of the indefinite article...also [refers to] 'a state of.' In this latter sense, it is found with abstract nouns: 'in a-peace' (= in a state of peace), 'in a-poverty' (= in a state of poverty)." (My emphasis)
Excellent, again. But totally irrelevant for John 1:1c, since the noun here, noute, is not an abstract noun.
Nevertheless, trying to make a case for this, the writer continues: "So I would explain 'a god' in this context as meaning 'a state of being god.' So a proper English translation of John 1:1 should be something like: 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was dwelling with God, and the Word was God.'"
Huh? After acknowledging that the Coptic translation is indefinite, how does the standard Trinitarian modalist translation fit in here? It doesn't, and this is a clear case of more 'taking definiteness out by the front door, while sneaking it in again through the back door.'
Of course, the writer says this improper translation of the Coptic of John 1:1c is his "explanation." But it is an explanation at variance with the Coptic text. In fact, it is an "explanation" which totally ignores, twists, and flatly contradicts what the Coptic text actually says, and what the writer himself earlier admitted to by saying: "Here's a word-by-word translation...'and [past] a-god is the-word.'"
Even allowing for the so-called 'state of being god' explanation, it has to actually mean 'state of being god,' not 'state of being God,' due to the lack of the Coptic definite article in this verse. The writer has already admitted that "God," with the capital "G" requires the Coptic definite article, which is not used at John 1:1c.
However, 'state of being god' actually gives us no more than "was a god." Which is exactly what this writer confessed at the beginning.
So, why all this jumping through mental and grammatical and theological hoops to make the Coptic text say something it does not say at all? As Coptic grammarain Ariel Shisha-Halevy has said, the Coptic text of John 1:1c admits to only two categories of English translation: "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," or similar. Under no circumstances does the Coptic text say "the Word was God," and there is no justification for translating it that way in English. Such an "explanation" or interpretation or translation simply is not found in the Coptic text, and should not be interpolated there.
"Here's a word-by-word translation...'In the-beginning [past] the-word is, and the-word it-was-dwelling in-the-presence-of the-god, and [past] a-god is the-word.'" (My emphasis)
Very good! Excellent translation! So, what's the problem? This writer even goes on to say "when 'god' refers to the One God, it always has the definite article." (My emphasis)
Very good again! And since "god" at John 1:1c does not have the definite article, it does not refer to the One God. So again, what's the problem?
Obviously, the "problem" is not in the grammar of John 1:1c, since it is universally recognized that Coptic John 1:1c literally says, "the Word was a god."
But... and for some people, there is always the "but"... this honest and accurate reading does not fit in with certain theological presuppositions. So, the writer continues: "The Coptic use of the indefinite article...also [refers to] 'a state of.' In this latter sense, it is found with abstract nouns: 'in a-peace' (= in a state of peace), 'in a-poverty' (= in a state of poverty)." (My emphasis)
Excellent, again. But totally irrelevant for John 1:1c, since the noun here, noute, is not an abstract noun.
Nevertheless, trying to make a case for this, the writer continues: "So I would explain 'a god' in this context as meaning 'a state of being god.' So a proper English translation of John 1:1 should be something like: 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was dwelling with God, and the Word was God.'"
Huh? After acknowledging that the Coptic translation is indefinite, how does the standard Trinitarian modalist translation fit in here? It doesn't, and this is a clear case of more 'taking definiteness out by the front door, while sneaking it in again through the back door.'
Of course, the writer says this improper translation of the Coptic of John 1:1c is his "explanation." But it is an explanation at variance with the Coptic text. In fact, it is an "explanation" which totally ignores, twists, and flatly contradicts what the Coptic text actually says, and what the writer himself earlier admitted to by saying: "Here's a word-by-word translation...'and [past] a-god is the-word.'"
Even allowing for the so-called 'state of being god' explanation, it has to actually mean 'state of being god,' not 'state of being God,' due to the lack of the Coptic definite article in this verse. The writer has already admitted that "God," with the capital "G" requires the Coptic definite article, which is not used at John 1:1c.
However, 'state of being god' actually gives us no more than "was a god." Which is exactly what this writer confessed at the beginning.
So, why all this jumping through mental and grammatical and theological hoops to make the Coptic text say something it does not say at all? As Coptic grammarain Ariel Shisha-Halevy has said, the Coptic text of John 1:1c admits to only two categories of English translation: "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," or similar. Under no circumstances does the Coptic text say "the Word was God," and there is no justification for translating it that way in English. Such an "explanation" or interpretation or translation simply is not found in the Coptic text, and should not be interpolated there.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Translating The Indefinite Article at Coptic John 1:1c
Some Trinitarian apologists are trying hard to make the Coptic text of John 1:1c support a qualitative meaning rather than an indefinite one. They have to acknowledge the witness of Coptic grammarians who have said that "the Word was a god" is a perfectly legitimate translation there, because the Coptic indefinite article is clearly present.
But just like they look at YHWH in the Hebrew text of the Bible and yet come away denying that God has a unique Name, or insist that His name is Lord, they try to deny what is plainly in front of their face: Coptic has the indefinite article; the indefinite article is used at John 1:1c; and the regular translation of the Coptic indefinite article into English is "a."
'It's all so difficult to understand,' they opine. 'It will take years and years of Coptic study to fathom the "mystery" of the Coptic indefinite article'! For example, one such apologist writes:
"The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was 'a god,' 'a God,' or 'had the quality of God' in the minds of the Coptic translators. Indeed, a thorough study of the Sahidic Translation, based on the published MSS, is needed to even begin such a task."
I agree that there should be a thorough study of the Sahidic translation, but not because this is needed to understand how the Coptic translators used the indefinite article. Just about any currently-present Coptic grammar book explains that quite well. Also, there is Coptic scholar Reverend George W. Horner's 1911 English translation of the Coptic text, still available, though hard to find.
In just the book of John, how does Horner's English translation render Coptic sentence constructions that are just like John 1:1c? Well, let's look at a few. The Coptic construction found at John 1:1c is the neu...pe, construction: neunoute pe pSaje, with noute being the Coptic word for "god," and pSaje meaning "the word."
Look at some other neu....pe constructions, translated into English by Horner:
John 8:44 neureFHetb rwme pe = “was a murderer”
John 12:6 neureFjioue pe = “was a thief”
John 18:40 neusoone pe = “was a robber.”
So why should John 1:1c, neunoute pe be rendered as anything in English other than “was a god”????
In each of the other instances of the indefinite article before the noun in the Gospel of John, Horner accurately translates the indefinite article into English as “a” and does not put any brackets around the “a, ” as he does, without any grammatical cause, at John 1:1c.
After years of insisting that the anarthrous QEOS of John 1:1c is definite, the new theory of Trinitarian apologists is that it is "qualitative." But then they try to define "qualitativeness" to mean definiteness anyway! This is a disingenuous attempt to put definiteness out by the front door, while slipping it back in through the back door, and it doesn't work.
An indefinite construction can be "qualitative" in meaning when translated into English, and to say "the Word was divine" does not actually differ from saying "the Word was a god." But it does distinctly differ from saying "the Word was God."
Therefore, whereas the Coptic sentence at John 1:1c literally reads, "the Word was a god," it would not be incorrect to convey that into English also as "the Word was divine." But this is not to be overlooked or glossed over: The Coptic of John 1:1c definitely and specifically does not say "the Word was God." Indeed, that is ruled out by the Coptic indefinite article in that verse.
And you don't need to examine any further than the rest of the Coptic Gospel of John to affirm that point. Though, of course, it is quite beneficial to 'make a thorough study of the Sahidic translation' for other insights, or for the sheer joy of doing so.
But just like they look at YHWH in the Hebrew text of the Bible and yet come away denying that God has a unique Name, or insist that His name is Lord, they try to deny what is plainly in front of their face: Coptic has the indefinite article; the indefinite article is used at John 1:1c; and the regular translation of the Coptic indefinite article into English is "a."
'It's all so difficult to understand,' they opine. 'It will take years and years of Coptic study to fathom the "mystery" of the Coptic indefinite article'! For example, one such apologist writes:
"The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was 'a god,' 'a God,' or 'had the quality of God' in the minds of the Coptic translators. Indeed, a thorough study of the Sahidic Translation, based on the published MSS, is needed to even begin such a task."
I agree that there should be a thorough study of the Sahidic translation, but not because this is needed to understand how the Coptic translators used the indefinite article. Just about any currently-present Coptic grammar book explains that quite well. Also, there is Coptic scholar Reverend George W. Horner's 1911 English translation of the Coptic text, still available, though hard to find.
In just the book of John, how does Horner's English translation render Coptic sentence constructions that are just like John 1:1c? Well, let's look at a few. The Coptic construction found at John 1:1c is the neu...pe, construction: neunoute pe pSaje, with noute being the Coptic word for "god," and pSaje meaning "the word."
Look at some other neu....pe constructions, translated into English by Horner:
John 8:44 neureFHetb rwme pe = “was a murderer”
John 12:6 neureFjioue pe = “was a thief”
John 18:40 neusoone pe = “was a robber.”
So why should John 1:1c, neunoute pe be rendered as anything in English other than “was a god”????
In each of the other instances of the indefinite article before the noun in the Gospel of John, Horner accurately translates the indefinite article into English as “a” and does not put any brackets around the “a, ” as he does, without any grammatical cause, at John 1:1c.
After years of insisting that the anarthrous QEOS of John 1:1c is definite, the new theory of Trinitarian apologists is that it is "qualitative." But then they try to define "qualitativeness" to mean definiteness anyway! This is a disingenuous attempt to put definiteness out by the front door, while slipping it back in through the back door, and it doesn't work.
An indefinite construction can be "qualitative" in meaning when translated into English, and to say "the Word was divine" does not actually differ from saying "the Word was a god." But it does distinctly differ from saying "the Word was God."
Therefore, whereas the Coptic sentence at John 1:1c literally reads, "the Word was a god," it would not be incorrect to convey that into English also as "the Word was divine." But this is not to be overlooked or glossed over: The Coptic of John 1:1c definitely and specifically does not say "the Word was God." Indeed, that is ruled out by the Coptic indefinite article in that verse.
And you don't need to examine any further than the rest of the Coptic Gospel of John to affirm that point. Though, of course, it is quite beneficial to 'make a thorough study of the Sahidic translation' for other insights, or for the sheer joy of doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
