Interpretation of the
Sahidic Coptic Translation
ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ [auō neounoute pe pšaʤe]
The Sahidic Coptic
translation, which dates back to the 3rd century, is particularly interesting
because it includes both definite and indefinite articles. In John 1:1, the
Sahidic Coptic text uses the term "ⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (noute, "god"),
which indeed contains an indefinite article. Meanwhile, in John 1:18, it uses
the definite article for the Son, "ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (pnoute, "the
God").
Jehovah's Witnesses
often refer to this translation, which they claim renders the text as "and
the Word was a god." The Sahidic Coptic translation, having both definite
and indefinite articles, is in this respect closer to modern languages (such as
English) than to Greek. The Watchtower Society asserts that the
Sahidic Coptic translation supports their interpretation. Firstly, even if this
were true, the Coptic translation is obviously interpretative at this point
because "divine" or "godlike" in Greek would not be "theos ēn" but
"theios ēn".
Furthermore, the theological background of this
translation is unclear, considering that Coptic Christians were never Arians,
unlike, for example, the Visigoths or the Vandals. If the JWs were right, then the Coptic Christians should have been the base of the Arian movement, but there is no indication in the 4th century Arian debates that anyone, including the Alexandrians, referred to this translation. The Arians of the 4th century interpreted it as such, putting a full stop after «God was».
Coptic translators
regularly used the definite article when referring to the biblical
"God," but also applied the indefinite article when the context
required it. Based on the analysis of tenses and sentence structures, the
Coptic text seems to use the word "god" in a qualitative sense,
meaning "divine" or "having a divine nature." Thus, the use
of indefinite articles in Coptic translations was complex and often determined
by the context.
Coptic language
experts like Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy point out that the Coptic
indefinite article is not identical to the English indefinite
article. According to Layton, the Coptic structure can also be translated in a
qualitative sense, such as "the Word was divine" or "of divine
nature." Shisha-Halevy holds a similar view, noting that in the Coptic
language, such structures tend to refer to the nature of the subject rather
than to an indefinite entity. Wallace suggests that in Sahidic Coptic, the
indefinite article can be used to denote class membership or properties,
similar to what is called "qualitative usage" in Greek grammar.
In Sahidic Coptic, the
indefinite article is often used with abstract nouns and material nouns, which
is not common in modern languages. Analyses show that Sahidic Coptic
translators often used articles in places where the Greek text did not have
them. This indicates that the Sahidic Coptic translation simply followed its
grammatical rules and does not necessarily reflect the exact meaning of the
Greek text. Examples of qualitative usage in Coptic:
John 1:33: "This
is the one who will baptize with [a] Holy Spirit and [a] fire" (Horner's
translation).
John 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the Spirit is [a] spirit."
In John 1:18b, the Greek
"theos" without an article is translated into Coptic with a definite
article: "the God, the only Son" (Horner's translation).
This consistency
suggests that the Coptic translator likely attributed divine qualities to the
Word in John 1:1, rather than treating it as an indefinite noun ("a
god"). Therefore, the translator emphasized the divine quality here, not a
separate (lesser) god. This contradicts the idea that John 1:1 should be
translated as "a god."
In the October 2011
issue of the Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti
concluded that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation of John 1:1 has
a qualitative meaning. They identified many such occurrences in the Coptic New
Testament for qualitative nouns, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8.
Additionally, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Numbers 4:31
and Malachi 2:10.
This article
establishes that Sahidic Coptic translators did not always consistently
translate the Greek "theos" without an article. While they mostly
used the definite article, in some cases, "theos" appears with an
indefinite article, such as in John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, and
2 Thessalonians 2:4. The authors apply their findings to John 1:1c, concluding
that in the translation "and the Word was God," the "theos"
has a qualitative interpretation. According to this approach, the Word
possesses the same attributes as the biblical God. With this approach, the
authors argue that the Sahidic Coptic translators did not intend to present a
pagan or usurping god, but to emphasize the divine attributes of the Word. In
summary, the study suggests that in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, the use
of the indefinite article in translating the Greek "theos" without an
article primarily served a qualitative, descriptive distinction aimed at
highlighting the divine attributes of the Word in John 1:1c.
Moreover, scholars
like Jason BeDuhn and J. Warren Wells also agree that the Sahidic Coptic
translation does not unequivocally support the "a god"
interpretation. Even BeDuhn, who often defends the New World Translation,
pointed out that it can be interpreted qualitatively, meaning that the Word was
of divine nature, not a separate, lesser god, as the Watchtower Society's
theology claims about the Son.
In conclusion, the solution of the Sahidic Coptic translation does not
support either the New World Translation's rendering or the Watchtower
Society's Christology.
