Of course, Trinitarian apologists do not like the obvious implications of the Sahidic rendering, and try to explain it away. Since they assume that the Sahidic translators must have been Trinitarian, and since most Trinitarians do not know Sahidic - they make obvious blunders when trying to show that when the Sahidic said "the Word was a god," it really meant "the Word was God."
Coptic scholar George Horner produced a translation of the Sahidic NT in the early 20th century. His rendering of John 1:1c is "and [a] God was the Word." Many Trinitarian apologists have jumped on the fact that Horner chose to put the word "a" in brackets. They say this means the "a" in Sahidic John 1:1 is not a necessary translation in English. I have run across this argument several times, which has prompted me to write this post.
As a premier example of this argument, note this excerpt from the article "Jesus as Θεός: A Textual Examination," by Brian James Wright:
Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.”49 The apparatus, however, states, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”50 Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with abstract nouns (e.g., truth, love, hate) and nouns of substance (e.g., water, bread, meat).51 An example of this can be seen in Horner’s translation of John 19.34b (where there are no Greek articles, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ): “. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.”52 None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner due the presence of the indefinite article in the Coptic MSS.
-----
Footnotes:
49 Ibid. [George W. Horner ed., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, with Critical Apparatus, Literal English Translation, Register of Fragments and Estimate of the Version, 7 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911-1924), 3.2.], Sahidic, 3.3.
50 Ibid., 3.376 (italics mine).
51 Thomas Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1983), 5. Cf. also Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar: Sahidic Dialect (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000).
52 Horner, Sahidic, 3.307. A few other examples from the Gospel of John include: 1.16, 26, 33; 3.5, 6; 5.39; 6.10; 16.33.
There are two problems with the argument in this quotation:
1) Horner is saying that the word "a" in brackets is not needed in the English translation of the Sahidic John 1:1, which would effectively make his translation mean "and God was the Word" in proper English.
2) The author compares the count noun "God" with abstract nouns (such as truth, love, hate) and nouns of substance (such as water, bread, meat).We will deal with issue #2 first.
Comparing Sahidic Count Nouns with Nouns of Substance
Mr. Wright says that the "a" in brackets in Horner's translation of John 1:1 is not necessary in English. He shows an example - John 19:34b - where the "a's" in brackets obviously are not needed in English. However, the author's argument is irrelevant. "God" is not an abstract noun or a noun of substance, it is a count noun. How Sahidic uses the articles with abstract nouns or nouns of substance do not have a bearing on the count noun "god."
Though the author's argument is flawed, the biblical example he provides as a comparison is fundamentally flawed in another way - it actually disproves his point. The Greek of John 19:34b is καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ. The English translation of the Greek would be ". . . and immediately blood and water came out." In Greek, the nouns blood and water lack the Greek article. The Sahidic translation of this verse is:
"ΑΥѠ ΝΤΕΥΝΟΥ ΑϤΕΙ ΕΒΟΛ ΝϬΙ ΟΥСΝΟϤ ΜΝ ΟΥΜΟΟΥ"A literal interlinear translation into English is:
"and immediately came out namely a blood and a water."In Sahidic, the indefinite article is used to show that some water and blood - not all water and blood - came out. In English, it is not required for us to state the indefiniteness in a sentence such as this - it is implicitly understood. However, we can state such indefiniteness in an English translation of the Sahidic of John 19:34b. We could translate the Sahidic into proper English as:
"and immediately some blood and some water came out."Here we translated the Sahidic indefinite article with the English word "some." In English, "some" is not used as an indefinite article, but it can be used to show the indefiniteness of a substance, as our English translation shows. We can therefore accurately render into English the indefinite articles of Sahidic John 19:34b, with no need to drop out bracketed words.
In fact Bentley Layton's "Coptic in 20 Lessons," on page 15, gives an example of a Coptic noun of substance with the indefinite article. Interestingly, he uses the English word "some" as a translation for the Sahidic indefinite article. He even uses one of the words found in John 19:34b. He says:
"ΟΥ-ΜΟΟΥ = some water"If we apply this to Horner's translation of John 1:1c, we get:
". . . and [some] God was the word."Obviously this doesn't work because "god" is a count noun, not a noun of substance. Therefore, how the Sahidic uses the indefinite articles in John 19:34b and how this relates to English translation has absolutely no bearing on the use of the indefinite article in John 1:1c and its English translation. Sahidic treats count nouns, abstract nouns, and nouns of substance differently in terms of article usage. Like I said before, the comparison is irrelevant.
The argument actually disproves the author's point, because "blood" and "water" have the indefinite article in the Sahidic, and a good English translation implicitly retains the indefiniteness - we understand that "blood and water came out" means that some blood and water came out. We can't count them because they are nouns of substance, but we get the sense that an indefinite amount of those substances came out.
Now we will deal with the first problem of the quote.
Dropping Horner's Bracketed Words
The first problem contained in Mr. Wright's quote above is that Horner says the "a" in brackets of his translation of John 1:1c is not needed in English. It is easy to prove that Horner, although a Coptic scholar, is in fact wrong about this when dealing with John 1:1c.
If Horner is right about John 1:1c, and if "a" is not needed in English, then his translation rendered properly into English would be:
"and God was the word."We discarded the [a] because, according to Horner, it is not needed in English. Horner's full translation of John 1:1 would be:
"In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and God was the word."Now we will show how this works using the two verses used in Mr. Wright's quotation.
1) John 1:1c as it stands -
". . . and [a] God was the word."2) John 1:1c dropping the bracketed indefinite article -
". . . and God was the word."3) John 19:34b as it stands
". . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water."4) John 19:34b dropping the bracketed indefinite articles -
". . . and immediately came out blood and water."Note that whereas in translation #4, blood and water remain implicitly indefinite in English, translation #2 becomes implicitly definite in English. Comparing these two verses is not a fair comparison at all.
As my post about the English word "God" showed, "God" with a capital G is inherently definite in meaning in English. With the implied definiteness in blue, and dropping the "a" in brackets, we have:
"and (the) God was the word."Horner's complete translation of John 1:1 with the brackets removed, and with the implied definiteness would therefore be:
"In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with (the) God, and (the) God was the word."Here is a clear case of a controvertible proposition, with both "Gods" in John 1:1 being one and the same. That is, "God was the Word" = "The Word was God," and the Word who is God in John 1:1c is the same God as the God the Word was with in John 1:1b. This is what Horner's English translation is saying if the bracketed "a" is truly not needed in English.
Also consider that most biblical Greek scholars believe that the "god" of John 1:1c is possibly definite in meaning, though most now consider this unlikely (See Daniel Wallace, GGBB, pgs. 259-269). They say it is more probable that "god" is qualitative in meaning, but the Greek does have some ambiguity. However, it is impossible for the Sahidic "god" of John 1:1c to be definite in meaning. Yet that is basically what Horner is saying. For if we drop the "a" in brackets, we are left with a capitalized "God," which is definite in English and not distinguishable from the God the Word was with.
With the above facts available to us, it is clear that Horner was not making an unbiased scholarly translation of John 1:1c, but was in error.
Other Coptic scholars do not believe that the "a" of Sahidic John 1:1c should be left untranslated. One example is the translation by Coptic scholar Lance Jenott. Basing his translation on Horner's text, he renders John 1:1 as:
ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
(From: http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml)
In conclusion, it must be pointed out that Sahidic John 1:1c can most certainly be translated as ". . . and the Word was a god." There is absolutely nothing wrong with this translation from the standpoint of translating the Sahidic text. An alternate valid translation would be ". . . and the Word was divine." This would be taking "god" in the verse as an adjectival predicate. On page 34 of Bentley Layton's "Coptic in 20 Lessons," he has:
ΟΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄThis matches part of the syntax of Sahidic John 1:1c. He says there are two possible meanings:
He is a god
He is divine
One who is "divine" could be thought of being "a god-like one," one having the qualities of a god. In no way could it be said that the Word shared the same nature, essence, or substance of the God mentioned earlier. Such cannot be drawn from the Sahidic text. We are not dealing with a Greek anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative. This is Sahidic, and it tells us that the Word was just a god, a god-like one, divine. He is either a god or adjectivally divine. Those who say that the Word was more than simply "a god" or "divine" in Sahidic John 1:1c are working with a Trinitarian understanding of the Greek John 1:1c, and not with the Sahidic text itself. 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.
What you wrote is accurate, to the point, and consistent with authentic Coptic scholarship.
ReplyDeleteIn trying to press their case, Trinitarian apologists have unfortunately confused the issue, because the Sahidic Coptic version does not fit their theology.
However, the Sahidic Coptic version does fit well with the rest of the Scriptures.
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, theological bias sometimes makes inroads into exegesis. Sahidic John 1:1 just can't be made to fit with modern Trinitarian theology.
Frankly, I'm surprised they even try.
It is so interesting how polarized the academic and layman worlds are with John 1:1, and ONLY John 1:1.
ReplyDeleteIf the scholarly world declares that the Sahidic version of John 1:1 is to be accurately translated as "...and [a] God was the word" then so be it.
Many non-Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian groups are quick to champion the Sahidic version of John 1:1. However, John 1:1, if translated as "...and the Word was God," is just one of MANY verses that substantiate the Deity of Jesus. It is a misconception to think that the entire Trinitarian doctrine, or doctrine of Jesus' Divinity, hinges on that singular verse.
If those who champion the Sahidic translation as true and accurate, then they must champion the entire Sahidic translation and support the verses bellow; otherwise they would be inconsistent and be charged with "picking-and-choosing" what they wish to believe.
From "The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, Volume III" by Oxford (MCMXI)
John 1:18
"God did not any see ever; God, the only Son, he who is being in the bosom of his Father, that (one) is he who spake of him."
NOTE: God is called "the only Son."
John 5:18
"Because of this therefore more were seeking for him the Jews to put him to death; because not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he was saying also, My Father is God, equalizing himself with God."
NOTE: As in the Greek versions, Jesus is equal with God (the Father).
John 8:57-58
"[57] Said they therefore to him the Jews, Thou art not yet fifty years (old), and Abraham saw thee. [58] Said Jesus to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham became, I, I am being."
NOTE: Here is the account of Jesus using the Divine Name (Exodus 3:14), as in the Greek versions. It is also interesting to note that it says Abraham saw Jesus. The Greek versions have the Jews saying it was Jesus who saw Abraham. Nonetheless, the spirit of the text is preserved as it is in the Greek, Jesus invoking the Divine Name to himself.
John 20:28
"Answered Thomas, said he to him, My Lord and my God."
NOTE: Just as in the Greek versions, it is inescapable what the Apostle John recorded what the Apostle Thomas said: that Jesus is Lord and God.
In the light of these texts, we must somehow reconcile the MEANING of John 1:1 with them. Ok, the Sahidic version of John 1:1 translates into "...and [a] God was the word." We got it. So what does that mean in panoply of Scripture? The above texts are not pro-Trinitarian eisegesis, but are exactly as they are rendered in the translation. Putting aside all biases (anti-, non-, and pro-Trinitarian views), how do we explain these verses and reconcile them together? Read them for yourselves, and pray to God about what it is he is trying to tell us.
More verses from the Sahidic that demonstrate the Deity of Jesus:
Hebrews 1:8
"...but to the Son, Thy throne, God, is being unto age of the age;..."
NOTE: As in the Greek versions, God (the Father) calls the Son (Jesus) God.
Titus 2:13
"...expecting the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God and our savior the Christ Jesus;..."
NOTE: As in the Greek, Jesus is labeled as God. And, just as in the Greek, the definite article ("the") is used before the word for "God" in both.
Philippians 2:5-6
"[5] This think in yourselves, (namely), that (thought) which (is) also in the Christ Jesus: [6] this (one), being in form of God, reckoned it not for a robbing to make himself equal with God,..."
NOTE: The power of this verse is preserved as it is in the Greek versions: Jesus has the form of God, and since he has that nature he is already equal with God; and therefore, he is not trying to "rob" God (the Father) because he already possesses the equality and nature of God (or Deity).
I was happy to see this "admission against interest" by "Unknown," when he said: "If the scholarly world declares that the Sahidic version of John 1:1 is to be accurately translated as '...and [a] God was the word," then so be it." However, his claim that "if translated as '...and the Word was God,' is just one of MANY verses that substantiate the Deity of Jesus," is totally in error and his examples of such are insufficient to justify his claim. For example, he quotes John 5:18, where Christ's Jewish antagonists accused him of "making himself equal with God," and mistakenly comes to the conclusion that this proves Jesus is "God." John 5:18 translated in the Greek mind would naturally come to that mistaken conclusion. As the Pagan Greeks use of the word "equal" in this case would simply mean that Christ "is" God, just as their Egyptian brothers considered Osiris as having the same identity with his son, Horus. In the Book of the Dead we read, "Osiris, ...when you were in the form of your own son, Horus." However, the Jews operated with the "eastern mind," and their understanding of being "equal" to God would have been that Jesus was the "agent" of God according to the Jewish Law of Agency, where to be "sent" as an apostle ("One sent on a mission," Heb. 3:1) meant that he was there to act on behalf and as the presence of the one who sent him, not that he literally was the one who sent him. The Law of Agency "is a legal principle that states that an agent is considered to be the same as the person they represent. This principle applies to all legal actions. The agent is considered to be the same as the person they represent." Jesus spends the rest of the chapter (29 verses) explaining this Law of Agency to the Jews, not denying his "equality" with God, but defining it: "The son can do nothing of himself That all men should honor the son even as they honor the Father." The rest of the supposed proofs of the "deity" of Christ offered by "Unknown" can be just as easily discredited.
DeleteCarl,
ReplyDeleteThis blog post did not claim that Trinitarian doctrine rises or falls with John 1:1 only. Nor is it claimed that the Sahidic is "true and accurate," so that any and all Sahidic renderings must be accepted as true by the author. Rather, as it was pointed out in the introduction, the Sahidic provides a revealing glimpse at an early Christian (pre-Nicean) understanding of the NT. No more, no less.
As for the verses you cite from the Sahidic, it appears to be from Horner's early 20th century translation, which is notoriously out of date. It uses an inferior Sahidic text base, and the translation is woodenly literal to an extreme, while making use of outdated language.
This is not the place to go over each verse. But I will mention that the Sahidic John 8:58 was probably not viewed as a claim to deity by the Sahidic translators. Two lines of evidence point to this. First, the Sahidic of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 do not match. In other words, Sahidic John 8:58 is not a quotation of Sahidic Exodus 3:14.
Second, whereas many point to the various "I am" statements in the gospel of John, culminating in John 8:58, the Sahidic does not equate the "I am" of John 8:58 with the other "I am" statements in John. Sahidic John 8:58 says anok TSoop - "I am existing." The other "I am" statements in John say anok pe - "I he." Sahidic John 8:58 deals with existence, not identity.
"Rather, as it was pointed out in the introduction, the Sahidic provides a revealing glimpse at an early Christian (pre-Nicean) understanding of the NT. No more, no less."
ReplyDeleteThere are earlier manuscripts that transmit a different reading, and so the likelihood of the Sahidic ancestor manuscript having erred is higher (generally-speaking) than that only one later variant tradition gets things right on John 1:1. The same argument is legitimately made today against the Jehovah's Witness scriptures.
Even so, antiquity doesn't indicate orthodoxy. The apostles were fighting heresy in their time; they were fighting not just wrong understanding of the OT, but also of their own scriptures (2 Peter 3).
"... Horner's early 20th century translation, which is notoriously out of date. It uses an inferior Sahidic text base, and the translation is woodenly literal to an extreme, while making use of outdated language."
If you can legitimately level this charge about this translation, why couldn't it be leveled against the Sahidic source itself, especially in the places where it is unlikely to be faithful? And given the paucity of manuscripts, how can we have a trustworthy "tradition" to speak of, when even the writings of the gnostics are more-attested? (Or should we just all turn gnostic? Hah.)
"First, the Sahidic of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 do not match. In other words, Sahidic John 8:58 is not a quotation of Sahidic Exodus 3:14."
Jesus never used it as a quote, either. It would not even have been remarkable if there had been no reference to Abraham. It is not a quote; it is a reference to Divine (pre-)existence given the reference to Abraham's existence. At any rate, there follows an attempt to execute Jesus for blasphemy, even in the Sahidic.
"Sahidic John 8:58 deals with existence, not identity."
Yes; Divine existence, to be precise.
Jesus does not refer to Ex. 3:14 in John 8:58. First of all, God says, "I will be with you," not "I Am," in Ex. 3:14 (see Ex. 3:12). God tells us his name "YHWH" in verse 15 to answer Moses' question. Next, the Greek in John 8:58, as a dynamic equivalent, should be translated something like, "I was in existence before Abraham was even born." See Moffat, Goodspeed, & Schonfield
DeleteY como explicamos 1Corintios 8:6 u·noute
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent study and great evidence for the "Arian" view, which predates the Trinitarian apostasy. John 17:3
ReplyDeleteFirst, while it is true that the Sahidic Coptic text includes the indefinite article in John 1:1c, this does not automatically necessitate an indefinite reading in English, nor does it imply that the Word was a separate and lesser deity. The indefinite article in Coptic functions differently from its English counterpart. As Bentley Layton and other Coptic linguists have pointed out, the indefinite article in Sahidic can serve a qualitative or categorical purpose rather than strictly indicating an indefinite noun. This is why the same structure can be used in a qualitative sense, meaning that the Word was "divine" rather than "a god" in a separate and polytheistic sense.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the attempt to compare John 1:1c with John 19:34b (regarding "blood" and "water") is flawed because it conflates count nouns with mass nouns. "Blood" and "water" are substances that require contextual clarification when using articles in Coptic, but "God" (ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) is a count noun that carries a theological and philosophical weight that cannot simply be equated with abstract or material nouns. The argument fails because it assumes that the presence of the indefinite article in Sahidic automatically creates the same grammatical function across different types of nouns. This is demonstrably incorrect.
Additionally, the argument presumes that early Coptic Christians had a theological perspective aligned with Arianism, which is historically inaccurate. The Sahidic Coptic-speaking Christians were never part of the Arian movement, nor did they argue for a Christology that placed the Word as a lesser divine being. If the Sahidic text were truly a foundational support for the Watchtower's interpretation, we would expect to see evidence of early Coptic Christianity embracing an explicitly subordinationist Christology—yet such evidence is entirely absent.
Moreover, the Sahidic Coptic Nicene Creed explicitly affirms Christ as "True God from True God" (Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ), which directly contradicts the Watchtower Society’s interpretation of John 1:1c. If the Sahidic translators had truly intended to depict the Word as a lesser god, it is inexplicable why their creedal statements, which define their official theology, would affirm Christ’s full and equal divinity. The Nicene formulation shows that the term "ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (noute) was used in a way that upheld Trinitarian theology, not a doctrine of a lesser, separate deity.
Coptic scholars such as Ariel Shisha-Halevy and Bentley Layton have highlighted that Coptic syntax often employs the indefinite article in ways that are not strictly equivalent to English. The indefinite article can indicate class membership or qualitative attributes, much like the Greek anarthrous predicate nominative. Thus, when the Sahidic Coptic translation states "ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨϮ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ" ("ounoute pe pšaʤe"), it does not necessarily mean "the Word was a god" in a numerical or subordinate sense but can instead mean "the Word was divine" or "the Word was truly of God’s nature."
Furthermore, the argument that dropping the brackets in Horner’s translation results in "and God was the Word" is a red herring. Horner’s use of brackets is not to indicate optional words but to demonstrate how the Sahidic text uses articles differently from English. Simply removing the brackets does not change the fact that Horner’s translation acknowledges the ambiguity of Coptic article usage. Other Coptic scholars, such as Lance Jenott, translate John 1:1c in ways that align with the traditional understanding of Christ’s divinity rather than a subordinationist reading.
Your argument begins with a point that should be conceded and then immediately goes beyond what that point establishes. The Sahidic predicate in John 1:1c is morphologically indefinite: ⲟⲩ- is present before ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Consequently, an interlinear gloss such as “a-god” is perfectly legitimate, and “the Word was a god” is a grammatically possible denotative interpretation. What does not follow is that this is the uniquely correct semantic or idiomatic English translation, still less that the Coptic construction itself says that the Logos is a secondary, inferior, or merely godlike being. The basic error running through your argument is the repeated collapse of three distinct levels: the morphological contribution of ⲟⲩ-, the semantic function of an indefinite nominal predicate, and the form chosen by an English translator.
ReplyDeleteThis distinction is not a Trinitarian device invented to evade the article. It is stated in the Coptic grammars themselves. Bentley Layton’s elementary grammar actually prints the opening of John with an interlinear analysis containing “a-god,” and then immediately gives the sentence-level translation, “And the Word was God.” Whatever theological judgment you make about John 1:1, that juxtaposition proves a narrow but decisive linguistic point: Layton did not understand the morpheme-by-morpheme gloss “a-god” to entail that idiomatic English must contain the sequence “a god.” Your claim that an English translation without “a” must therefore be suppressing the Sahidic morphology is contradicted by the very grammar you later cite.
The same point becomes much stronger in Layton’s reference grammar. His definition of the Coptic indefinite article does not give it a single English semantic equivalent. He explicitly allows both “one specimen of the lexical class of” and “one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of.” That distinction is crucial. The first is straightforward class-denotation; the second is descriptive or property-oriented. Thus the Coptic article remains morphologically indefinite in both uses, while the semantic function of the whole noun phrase differs. You repeatedly reason as though ⲟⲩ- first means English “a,” and only then, under exceptional circumstances, translators decide to omit it. Layton’s analysis is different: the article participates in constructions that can be either denotative or descriptive, and English surface syntax need not reproduce the Coptic determiner one-for-one.
This is why your criticism of Wright’s appeal to blood and water in John 19:34 does not refute the argument you think it refutes. You are correct that “blood” and “water” are substance nouns whereas ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ is a countable gendered common noun. If someone tried to prove that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ must be qualitative simply because ⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ can be translated without “a,” that would indeed be an inadequate comparison. But that is not the only, or even the strongest, force of the example. The John 19:34 example establishes the much narrower proposition that the overt Sahidic indefinite article does not always require an overt English “a/an.” Your suggested translation “some blood and some water” actually concedes that very point. You have changed the English realization of the Coptic article from “a” to “some” because English lexical and countability conventions differ from Coptic ones. Once you grant that, the principle “Coptic ⲟⲩ- must surface as English a” has already disappeared.
Nor does Layton’s ⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ = some water help your case in the way you suggest. Layton gives ⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ as “some water” because “water” belongs to the relevant lexical class in that context. On the same page he illustrates other realizations of the same indefinite morphology with “a man,” “some men,” “glory,” “some gold,” “a golden coin,” “a loaf of bread,” and “some bread.” The obvious lesson is not that ⲟⲩ- has a hidden lexical meaning “some”; it is that its English realization varies with lexical semantics and construction. Your reductio, “therefore John 1:1 would become ‘some God,’” is consequently invalid. You have taken the English realization appropriate to a mass noun and mechanically substituted it before a different noun. That is precisely the kind of word-for-word transfer that Coptic grammar does not authorize.
DeleteMore importantly, the count-noun objection is directly answered by evidence involving the exact noun under dispute. You argue that examples with abstract nouns and substances are irrelevant because “god” is a count noun. Layton’s reference grammar explicitly classifies gendered common nouns as capable of both denotation and description and gives ordinary count-noun examples such as “a person” versus “human,” “a lamp” versus “luminous,” and “a king” versus “royal.” So the descriptive use is not restricted to truth, water, gold, love, or other mass/abstract nouns. Your countability distinction is real, but it does not carry the conclusion you assign to it.
Layton then eliminates the issue entirely by using ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ itself. In his discussion of nominal-sentence predicates, he states that a gendered common-noun predicate is ambiguous between denotation and description and gives precisely the form at issue, ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ, with both “He is a god” and “He is divine.” He repeats the same point a few lines later while defining descriptive predication. His pedagogical grammar is equally explicit: predicates with ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ can mean “I am divine,” “he is divine,” and so forth, but “such predicates are ambiguous” because they may instead refer to entities, yielding “I am a god,” “he is a god,” and the like. Once that evidence is admitted, your entire count-noun objection to qualitative predication collapses. This is not an analogy from “water.” It is the exact noun ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.
Your argument against Horner’s brackets rests on another conflation. Horner tells you what his brackets mean: they register material represented in the Coptic that English does not require. You respond that if “[a]” is omitted, the result is “God was the Word,” and then you declare that capitalized God is inherently definite, effectively yielding “the God was the Word.” But this simply assumes the semantic conclusion you are supposed to prove. Capitalization is an orthographic convention; it is not an English definite article. More fundamentally, a noun in predicate function does not thereby become a definite referring expression merely because English happens to write it with a capital letter. “X is God” need not have the same semantic structure as “X is the God.” The former can predicate deity; the latter overtly contains a definite nominal expression.
Your treatment of “God was the Word” also ignores the Coptic syntax from which Horner was translating. The construction is predicate-first. Layton’s Pattern 6 has the structure Predicate + ⲡⲉ/ⲧⲉ/ⲛⲉ + Explicit Subject, and his paradigm is ⲟⲩⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, idiomatically “God is true,” literally something like “true is he, God.” Plumley independently describes the same order and gives ⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲡⲉ, literally “a great one, he is,” as idiomatic English “He is great.” Thus when Horner reproduces the source order as “and [a] God was the Word,” you cannot simply read that literal English string as though its first English noun phrase were an ordinary referential subject and then deduce identity between “God” and “the Word.” In the Coptic construction, the divine noun is the predicate and ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ, “the Word,” is the lexically explicit subject.
That point is decisive against your proposed “controvertible proposition.” You argue that deleting Horner’s brackets produces “God was the Word,” that “God” secretly means “the God,” and that this makes the God of 1:1c identical as a referring expression with the God of 1:1b. But the second step is precisely what the Coptic syntax does not justify. John 1:1b contains the definite referential expression ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 1:1c contains an indefinite predicate ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Translating the latter idiomatically as predicative “God” does not transform its Coptic morphology into the definite expression of 1:1b. You are treating an English predicate as if it were a translated definite noun phrase merely because the spelling is capitalized. That is a category error.
DeleteThe allegation that Horner was therefore “wrong” or was not producing an “unbiased scholarly translation” is consequently unsupported. To establish that conclusion, you would first have to prove that the Coptic predicate ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ cannot receive a descriptive interpretation whose normal English expression lacks the indefinite article. Layton explicitly says that it can. The same Layton who gives “a-god” at the interlinear level gives “And the Word was God” at the sentence level. Horner is therefore not exhibiting some uniquely inexplicable Trinitarian suppression of Coptic morphology; his distinction between morphological representation and idiomatic English has a direct parallel in a modern standard Coptic grammar.
Your appeal to Lance Jenott does not alter this. Even taking the quoted rendering “the Word was a God” exactly as you present it, it proves that a denotative English rendering is possible. No one needs to deny that. Layton himself explicitly licenses “he is a god.” What you would need in order to establish your argument is evidence that the denotative reading is obligatory or contextually exclusive. The existence of one translation selecting D does not supply that evidence when the reference grammar expressly says that the same predicate form admits D and Q.
Your final paragraph actually concedes most of the grammatical point before reintroducing the theological conclusion through paraphrase. You acknowledge that ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ can mean both “He is a god” and “He is divine.” That is correct. You then redefine “divine” as “a god-like one, one having the qualities of a god,” and from there conclude that the Sahidic says the Logos was “just a god, a god-like one.” That final movement is not supplied by the grammar.
Layton’s technical category “description” does not mean weakened resemblance. He defines descriptive predication as speaking of an entity by its quality rather than naming it as an instance of a class. His examples are instructive: ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ can describe something as “human,” ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ as “luminous,” and ⲟⲩⲣⲣⲟ as “royal.” “Human” in this grammatical opposition does not mean “human-like but not genuinely human,” and “luminous” does not mean “merely resembling light while lacking luminosity.” Likewise, when Layton renders ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ as “He is divine,” the grammatical category itself does not encode “partly divine,” “approximately divine,” “godlike but ontologically inferior,” or “a lesser divine being.” Those are additional theological specifications that you have supplied.
Indeed, Layton’s general account of the indefinite article itself makes that clear. One of its recognized semantic values is a specimen “having the quality of the lexical class.” That is stronger and more precise than your loose paraphrase “god-like one.” The grammar predicates the relevant lexical quality; it does not specify diminished degree. Whether a theological interpreter then identifies that quality with full deity, secondary deity, resemblance, participation, or some other metaphysical account requires further contextual and theological argument. The article does not decide that question for you.
DeleteHere there is also an important point of partial agreement that your conclusion obscures. You are correct that the Sahidic indefinite article by itself does not lexicalize the later Nicene term homoousios, and one should not pretend that ⲟⲩ- means “of the same substance.” But the exact same methodological restraint applies in the other direction. ⲟⲩ- does not mean “created,” “inferior,” “non-Almighty,” “secondary deity,” or “godlike but not truly divine.” If you criticize a Trinitarian for reading homoousios directly out of the indefinite article, you cannot then read Watchtower ontology directly into that same article.
This is also why your statement that “in no way could it be said that the Word shared the same nature, essence, or substance of the God mentioned earlier” is too strong. If you mean that those later metaphysical formulas are not morphologically encoded in the Coptic article, that is correct. If you mean that the Coptic descriptive reading positively excludes full possession of the quality predicated, Layton’s grammar gives you no such conclusion. It licenses a descriptive deity predicate and leaves the strength and theological integration of that predication to lexical and contextual interpretation.
Nor can you avoid context by saying, “This is Sahidic, not a Greek anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative.” It is entirely proper to insist that Coptic must first be interpreted as Coptic. But once you do so, the result is not your “just a god” reading. Layton states that gendered common nouns are formally ambiguous between denotation and description and that the reader resolves the ambiguity from the larger textual argument, sentence pattern, article selection, lexical character of the noun, and other contextual factors. That is the opposite of your final claim that Sahidic itself has already settled the matter by saying “a god, a god-like one, divine.” Sahidic grammar tells you that the form must be interpreted in discourse; it does not give you a theological lexicon in which indefinite ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ automatically means a lesser god.
DeleteThe age of the translation does not change any of this. Even if you assign the Sahidic version to a period before Nicaea, chronology does not turn a grammatical indefinite article into an anti-Nicene doctrinal confession. A translator could use a target-language construction because that construction was the natural Coptic way of rendering the source predicate. The theological significance has to be argued from what the Coptic construction can actually mean, not from the fact that the translation predates a later council.
The defensible conclusion is therefore considerably narrower than yours. “The Word was a god” is a grammatically possible denotative construal of the Sahidic. “The Word was divine” is an equally grammatical descriptive construal of the same indefinite predicate. The count-noun status of ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ does not eliminate Q, because Layton uses that exact gendered common noun to illustrate Q. Horner’s brackets do not prove that the Coptic article was imaginary; they distinguish Coptic morphology from what idiomatic English requires. Removing the English “a” does not turn the Coptic predicate into the definite referential ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, because predicate function and definite reference are not the same thing. And “divine” does not, by Coptic grammar, mean “merely godlike” or “a lesser god.” Your final “just a god” conclusion therefore does not emerge from the Sahidic text. It is a theological interpretation imposed upon one of two grammatically licensed readings while the other is first acknowledged and then semantically weakened.