A recent article in The Journal of Theological Studies (volume 62, October 2011), continues the trend of some New Testament scholars to view John 1:1c in the Greek text as qualitative. This particular article gives attention to the Coptic version of John 1:1c also, proposing that "the best way to take the indefinite articles in John 1:1c [Coptic]" is also "qualitatively," meaning that the Word "possesses the same qualities as the 'God of the Bible.'"
Viewing the Greek of John 1:1c as qualitative has gained currency since Philip B. Harner's 1973 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature. To be sure, it is an improvement on trying to view the verse as definite, i.e., "the Word was God."
However, the JTS article, in focusing on what it imagines to be a qualitative construction in the Coptic, does not go far enough in exploring the much more obvious indefinite uses of the Coptic indefinite article at John 1:1c. A more careful and objective research of the use of the Coptic common noun NOYTE ("god") with the Coptic indefinite article in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament would show that there is no grammatical reason to prefer a qualitative reading over an indefinite one in the vast number of its Coptic NT occurrences, including John 1:1c. The only reasons that are presented in the paper for Coptic John 1:1c as being "qualitative" are essentially theological ones, not grammatical ones.
And the weakness of many such dissertations is the attempt to tweak qualitativeness back to a definite reading for this verse.
As Thomas O. Lambdin notes in his Coptic grammar book, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, “the use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English, only exceptions to this general correspondence will be noted.” (page 5) Throughout the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, even as reflected in Horner’s English translation, the default and normal rendering of the Coptic indefinite article plus common noun (e.g., NOYTE, “god,” as at Coptic John 1:1c) is “a” something, and only in special circumstances (i.e., other classes of nouns such as abstract nouns or substances like water) would this not be the case.
Whereas a Coptic noun in the predicate can also have descriptive (adjectival) significance, the essential meaning of Coptic John 1:1c would not change. Descriptively, Sahidic Coptic ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ can be translated as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a divine one.” Denotatively, Sahidic Coptic ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ can be translated as “the Word was a god,” and this is the general sense of Coptic indefinite predicate common nouns.
There are no compelling grammatical reasons to view Coptic John 1:1c as qualitative rather than indefinite.
Whether descriptive or denotative, the Sahidic Coptic common noun with the indefinite article can be rendered into standard English with the English indefinite article: “a divine one; a god.” — Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, 2nd Edition (Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004), page 227.
The authors of the JTS article, from Dallas Theological Seminary, present their conclusions as proposals, not as the end of the matter. Still, in wanting to see the verse as "qualitative," they have ignored a great corpus of verses in the Coptic New Testament, including John 1:1c, that are clearly indefinite in significance.
Certain theologies attempt to blur the Biblical distinction between God Almighty and His Son, upon whom He has conferred dignity and lordship. But that distinction is unalterable in the Scriptures and efforts to manipulate the grammar of either Greek or Copic do not succeed in nullifying that distinction.
See also in the Links at right
"Scholarly Misunderstanding of Sahidic John 1:1"
Are they correct when they claim that "there are other passages in the Coptic text which
ReplyDeleteexplicitly call Jesus QEOS, with the definite article, even in the same chapter and book (e.g. John 1:18; 20:28; cf. Titus 2:13;
1 John 5:20)" (pages 509-10).
Is the Coptic clear in referring Titus 2:13 and 1 John 5:20 as further references to Jesus QEOS/NYOUTE? More so than the Greek? What about Romans 9:5, 2 Peter 1:1, etc.?
No, they are incorrect in saying that these verses refer to Jesus as God. John 1:18 has the definite article, reflecting some Greek texts which also have the definite article here. But this use of the definite article is anaphoric, referring back to the entity described in John 1:1 without the definite article and can be translated simply and adequately as "the god" previously referred to.
ReplyDeleteAs for John 20:28, this also reflects the Greek usage, where the definite article is part of the possessive context: "My God" equals "the god of me." Grammar calls for the use of the definite article here, and whether "My Lord and my God" in this verse is a statement of Jesus' godship or just an interjection, is a matter of theological interpretation and debate.
Titus 2:13, in Coptic, is not speaking about Jesus. The Coptic text here, unlike the Greek, expressly adds the Coptic word "and" [MN], which makes this a reference to two entities, not one: "The manifestation of the glory of the Great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ."
Contextually, 1 John 5:20 refers to God (the Father), mentioned in verse 19, and not to Jesus. Thus, "the true God" of 1 John 5:20 is the God who begets Christians to sonship, the Father. (1 John 5:18, 19)
Whereas NOYTE has the Coptic definite article at Romans 9:5 and 2 Peter 1:1, the Coptic text indicates that this refers to the Father, not to Christ. For example, at Romans 9:5 the Coptic text has a period after the word for "flesh," making "God who is over all be blessed forever" a separate statement.
And the Sahidic Coptic text of 2 Peter 1:1 does not have NOYTE ("god") at all, but follows a variant Greek text, reading "Lord": "The righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior."
In short, the only times the Coptic text has the definite article before NOYTE in reference to Jesus are when the Greek text does so for grammatical reasons (anaphoric or possessive article). These usages do not signal that Jesus is God.
In the other occurrences, the Greek text is ambiguous and the Coptic text more readily makes the reference apply to God, the Father, rather than to Jesus. And the Sahidic Coptic text of 2 Peter 1:1 says "Lord" rather than "God."
See also:
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/12/does-coptic-john-118-contradict-coptic.html
http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/2009/05/re-inventing-verses-vs-coptic.html
are you still alive?
ReplyDeleteThe claim that Coptic John 1:1c primarily supports an indefinite reading rather than a qualitative one is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Coptic grammar and theology. While the Sahidic Coptic version of John 1:1c does use an indefinite article, its usage must be understood within the linguistic framework of the Coptic language, which is distinct from English and Greek. The assertion that the Coptic indefinite article must always be translated as “a” in English is incorrect, as demonstrated by numerous examples in the Coptic New Testament where indefinite articles convey qualitative rather than strictly indefinite meanings.
ReplyDeleteCoptic grammar experts such as Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy have pointed out that the Coptic indefinite article does not function in the same rigid manner as the English indefinite article. Rather, in many cases, it serves a qualitative function, emphasizing the nature of a subject rather than its numerical distinction. This is evident in several instances in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, including John 1:33 (“He who baptizes with [a] Holy Spirit and [a] fire”) and John 3:6 (“What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is [a] spirit”). In these examples, the indefinite article does not imply numerical distinction, but rather denotes the nature or essence of what is being described.
Furthermore, the argument that Coptic John 1:1c should be read as "the Word was a god" contradicts the broader theological context of early Christianity. Coptic Christianity, which produced the Sahidic translation, was never Arian in its Christology. If the indefinite article in John 1:1c were meant to indicate that the Word was a lesser deity, it would be expected that this Christological interpretation would have been a major feature of Coptic theology, but this is not the case. The Sahidic Coptic Church, from its earliest history, upheld the Nicene Creed and explicitly affirmed the full divinity of Christ.
Moreover, the Nicene Creed in Coptic provides further clarification on how the term “ounoute” (ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ) is to be understood. In the Coptic Nicene Creed, the phrase "True God from True God" (Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ) demonstrates that the use of the indefinite article in Coptic does not imply a lesser god. Instead, it serves to affirm the divine essence of Christ. If the Coptic indefinite article inherently implied numerical distinction, then this phrase in the Nicene Creed would translate as “a true god from a true god,” which would contradict the monotheistic beliefs of the Church. Instead, the use of "ounoute" in this context confirms that the phrase in John 1:1c is best understood qualitatively, emphasizing the divine nature of the Logos.
Additionally, the claim that the JTS article is primarily motivated by theological bias rather than grammatical evidence ignores the scholarly consensus on this issue. The study conducted by Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti in the Journal of Theological Studies (2011) examined numerous instances of the indefinite article in Sahidic Coptic and concluded that the most accurate way to understand John 1:1c in Coptic is qualitatively. Their research demonstrated that the indefinite article in Coptic frequently functions to denote qualities rather than numerical distinction, aligning with the traditional understanding that John 1:1c affirms the full divinity of the Word.
The attempt to impose an indefinite reading onto John 1:1c also ignores the broader context of the Gospel of John. Throughout the prologue, John emphasizes the unique relationship between the Logos and the Father. John 1:18, for instance, describes Jesus as "the only-begotten God" in some of the oldest manuscripts, affirming His divine nature. The description of the Word as the agent of creation in John 1:3 also contradicts any interpretation that would place the Word in the category of a lesser deity, as the Old Testament consistently attributes creation solely to God.
DeleteThe Sahidic Coptic New Testament does contain instances where "ounoute" (ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ) is used with an indefinite article to refer to entities other than God, such as in Acts 28:6 ("a god") and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 ("a god"). However, these instances occur in contexts that clearly differentiate these beings from the one true God. This is not the case in John 1:1c, where the Word is uniquely identified with God and is the agent of all creation.
The claim that the qualitative interpretation of John 1:1c is an attempt to blur the distinction between God Almighty and His Son is also unfounded. Trinitarian theology, which has been the historic understanding of the Christian Church since the earliest centuries, does not conflate the persons of the Trinity but affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence while remaining distinct persons. The qualitative reading of John 1:1c is consistent with this understanding, as it affirms the full divinity of the Word without equating Him with the Father.
In conclusion, the assertion that Coptic John 1:1c must be read as "the Word was a god" rather than "the Word was divine" or "the Word was God" is linguistically and theologically flawed. The Coptic indefinite article does not function identically to the English indefinite article and is often used qualitatively rather than numerically. The theological context of early Coptic Christianity, including the Nicene Creed, affirms the full divinity of Christ, contradicting the idea that the Sahidic Coptic translation supports an Arian or subordinationist Christology. Scholarly research, including studies published in The Journal of Theological Studies, further confirms that the qualitative interpretation is the most accurate representation of the meaning of John 1:1c. Therefore, the attempt to use the Sahidic Coptic version to support the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation of John 1:1c as "a god" is not supported by linguistic, historical, or theological evidence.