Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  The Coptic Orthodox Church has a slightly different take on Jesus than the Greek Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox and the RCC. It would be of value to find what the earliest Egyptian and African Christians believed.

  The Coptic church split from Rome over the so-called monophysite heresy in the fifth century long after the New Testament was translated into Coptic. I don't think it has a direct bearing on the translation of John 1:1. The subordinationism of the early church fathers from Alexandria is probably more relevant since that was the period during which the Sahidic Coptic version is believed to have been translated.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
• 

  rmnnoute

  Correct, I would think that Origen might be a good starting point in understanding the prevalent theology of Egyptian Christianity at the time the Sahidic Coptic version was produced. At one point, Origen was the head of the religious seminary at Alexandria, Egypt, and a contemporary of the Coptic translators. See especially Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, as found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 9.

  "We next notice John's use of the [Greek] article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue...The true God, then, is 'The God,' and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as if it were, of the prototype. But the archetypical image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." -- ANF, volume 9, page 323

  Subordinationist, yes.
• 

  thetrueone

  There is some interesting information about this subject on this web site http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/

  I thought it might be some value to understand what this debate is all about
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  rmnnoute wrote "it may be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with seeing John 1:1c as ‘qualitative,' so long as the normal, regular, dictionary definition of that term is adhered to."

  Humm, well let's see. According to Miriam-Webster's Online, ‘qualitative' means "of, relating to, or involving quality or kind" (s.v. qualitative). Thus, the term itself actually revolves around the meaning ‘quality.' What, then, is the meaning of ‘quality'? Among the first definitions Miriam-Webster's Online give are "peculiar and essential character: nature" (s.v. quality 1.a.), "an inherent feature: property" (s.v. quality 1.b.). It is, in fact, through this primary definition of ‘quality' that the term ‘qualitative' is being used by the above article to describe the use of the indefinite article with NOYTE as well as the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun θεος in John 1:1c to indicate that the Word is endowed with the essential nature and properties which singularly belong to God. Thus unlike your characterization, this article as well as others are not "twist[ing] their ‘qualitative' reading into a definite one," but rather assess the meaning of John 1:1c according to the primary meaning of the words ‘quality' and ‘qualitative.' The fact that such a description of the grammar of John 1:1c in Greek and Coptic ultimately proves to be highly congruent with the later statement of the Nicene Creed that Jesus is "of one essence (homoousia) with the Father" and thus the Trinitarian view of the relationship between the Father and Son is actually secondary.

  The problem for the debate, and thus the reason these articles lend themselves to misrepresentation by Jehovah's Witnesses, is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not think of the terms ‘quality' and ‘qualitative' according to these primary definitions, but rather according to secondary possible meanings. Thus returning to Miriam-Webster's Online, this dictionary also gives the definitions "degree of excellence: grade" (s.v. quality 2.a.), "social status: rank" (s.v. quality 3.a.), and "a distinguishing attribute: characteristic" (s.v. quality 4.a.). While each of these secondary definitions can be included within the primary definitions given above so that the Son's endowment with the essential nature of God also gives him the characteristics and rank of God, it is these secondary definitions which are taken as primary to Jehovah's Witnesses so that they interpret articles which ascribe a ‘qualitative' meaning to John 1:1c as denoting that the Word simply has the characteristics and rank of ‘a god' but does not share the nature of ‘the God' (ο θεος). That is to say, whereas the writers of these articles understand ‘qualitative' as relating the Word to the singular reality of God at an ontological level, Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret their intended meaning of ‘qualitative' through the lens of their own representational Christology so that John 1:1c is understood to mean that the Word is ontologically distinct from God and simply "reflects" the characteristics of God.

  At the very least then, Jehovah's Witnesses should honestly call attention to their distinctive use of this terminology while articles such as this should clarify their own meaning so that they do not run the risk of misrepresentation. This is just one of many areas of this debate where each side needs to fully clarify their position for the sake of the discussion.

  Mebaqqer
• 

  slimboyfat

  The NT itself is replete with "representational Christology" so if JWs are guilty of viewing John 1:1 through that lens then they are in good company.

  On reflection I find the article frankly ridiculous, arguing that "a god" is actually "God" in a manner akin to arguing black is white.They might be better off saying that the Coptic of John 1:1 does say "a god" but that it is simply mistaken or heretical. I am a bit suprised a respectable academic journal printed this article because it is not clear that the authors have expertise in the language they are discussing and some of the language appears outright polemical rather than academic in tone.

  I believe you may be correct that the Watchtower has manipulated the Harner article. But at the same time I think there are clearly elements of Harner's argument that are amenable to being used against itself.

  They conclude in this article on the Coptic of John 1:1 by saying that those who view the verse as saying "a god" must explain why the Sahidic Coptic would have contradicted the orthodox understanding of the verse. The understanding of the verse in early Christianity is the very thing that is called into question! And with good reason too, when you have Origen writing subordinationist interpretations of John 1:1 in the same time and place that the Sahidic Coptic itself was translated.
• 

  rmnnoute

  I am not sure that it is helpful (or legitimate) to retroject Trinitarian philosophical terms back into John's original theology or into the Sahidic Coptic version. The New Testament itself does not describe the relationship between Father and Son as one of exact equality or identical quality. Even so, John does not indicate that the Logos is defined in terms of ? θε?ς , but simply in terms of θε?ς . To share divine nature does not make the Logos God any more than it makes Christians who partake of the divine nature, God. -- 2 Peter 1:4

  Ontological identity of the Logos with God would mean that Jesus is also the Father, which Trinitarianism claims to reject. But in fact, if the Logos is the same in every way with the Being described as God in the Bible, then "the Word is God" can only mean that the Word is the Father.

  "For to us [Christians] there is one God, the Father." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6

  Jesus himself never acknowledged anyone else as God but the Father.

  Trinitarians like to play word games whereas Biblical teaching is simple: the Father is God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Father is the Head of Christ, and Christ is subordinate to God. Every power, position and authority that Christ possesses was given to him by God, and even in heaven Christ is subject to the Father, his God.

  But I shall not engage in a debate about Trinitarianism. That debate has gone on for 1600 years, with no resolution. Even despite declarations of heresy by those calling themselves Orthodox, even despite bans and burnings, exile and martyrdom, there have always been Christians who refused to accept the church's Trinitarian tradition over simple Bible truth.

  The bottom line is that those who want to believe in the Trinity will do so, and those who find no adequate reason to believe in the Trinity will not do so.
• 

  Achille

  Article in Italian by prof . Andrea Nicolotti :

  http://www.infotdgeova.it/bibbia/copto.php

  Translation of Google:

  http://translate.google.it/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infotdgeova.it%2Fbibbia%2Fcopto.php&sl=it&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
• 

  slimboyfat

  I found this pro-JW youtube video about the Coptic of John 1:1

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhgyx7hoPMY
• 

  jonathan dough

  they conclude in this article on the Coptic of John 1:1 by saying that those who view the verse as saying "a god" must explain why the Sahidic Coptic would have contradicted the orthodox understanding of the verse. The understanding of the verse in early Christianity is the very thing that is called into question! And with good reason too, when you have Origen writing subordinationist interpretations of John 1:1 in the same time and place that the Sahidic Coptic itself was translated.

  The fact that Origen might have written subordinationist interpretations of John 1:1 in the same time and place is immaterial because much of what the early thinkers thought and wrote was not accepted or ratified by the church, and consequently, those views carry little weight in rejecting the Trinity. They are useful, however, in terms of historical reflection and academic observation of evolving thought processes:

  As elemental Trinitarianism of the NT period has to be distinguished carefully from the gradually emerging Trinitarian dogma, so must Trinitarian dogma (doctrine in the strictest sense) be distinguished carefully from Trinitarian theology. The dogma in its preparatory stages had been merely theology: efforts on the part of individuals and schools to interpret and understand revealed mystery. Then, as certain of these efforts became assimilated through authoritative decision into the teaching of the Church, some of what had heretofore been theology was from now on also dogma of faith. But note some; for much else - in Tertullian and Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocians, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas - would never receive such ratification, never attain such clear-cut status as Christian doctrine. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 302)

  Therefore, even if Justin Martyr said the prehuman Jesus was inferior to God, a created angel and is other than God (Should You Believe, Chapter 4), or Irenaeus believed the prehuman Jesus was inferior to and had an existence separate from God who was not his equal, or Clement of Alexandria called Jesus a creature not equal to God, or Tertullian taught that the Father is greater than the son (ibid.), or Hippolytus said that God had nothing of equal age with him - even if those ancients believed all of this, those opinions do not constitute the Trinity doctrine but only deep musings of early theologians. Accordingly, their relevance lies more with showing what the official doctrine does not stand for, not what the Trinity doctrine teaches.

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-3.html
• 

  jonathan dough

  rmnnoute: The New Testament itself does not describe the relationship between Father and Son as one of exact equality or identical quality.
  
  Simply not true. Your statements reflect a severe misunderstanding of the trinity doctrine. The NT is replete with examples of exact equality and identical quality between God the Son and God the Father. You must ask: Equal in what sense?

  Here is just one example of many. Others can be found at http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#29

  The fullness of the Godhead dwells inseparably in Jesus - (Colossians 2:9); He is the very imprint of God’s being - (Hebrews 1:3)[Top]

  Colossians 2:9 is convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ. It states of Christ that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Green’s Literal Translation). The Greek word for “Godhead” is theotes and means divinity. It “stresses deity, the state of being God (Strong and Vine’s, 115). It is to be distinguished from theiotes which refers to the attributes of God, his divine nature and properties and it is this definition which the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly attach to Col 2:9 when they claim that the Godhead there merely refers to His “divine qualities” (Reasoning, 420). This is manifestly incorrect according to Strong and Vine’s, and what the Jehovah's Witnesses are actually doing is swapping theiotes for theotes. Regarding the Godhead (theotes) at Colossians 2:9:

  In Col 2:9, Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son. Theotes indicates the divine essence of Godhood, the personality of God; (Strong and Vines, 114). [Theotes] stresses deity, the state of being God. (ibid, 115).

  (Theiotes, on the other hand), … refers to the attributes of God, His divine nature and properties. (Strong and Vine’s, 114)

  The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that “[b]eing truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than humans are coequal or all the same age just because they share humanity or human nature” (Reasoning, 421). But that is not necessarily true. If all persons share humanity it does make them all human, and they are all equally “human.” One person is not more or less human than another. So, if the inevitability of death is one aspect of humanity, then all humans die, all are mortal; they are equal in that regard. Similarly, if divinity inherently includes an eternal nature, and Jesus and God are divine, of the same essence (consubstantial), then both are eternal.

  Actually, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ comparison of Jesus with all humans who share humanity is another flawed analogy because Jesus doesn’t share God at all like humans have a share in humanity. Jesus is fully God, and not somehow made God by virtue of the hypostatic union.

  At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is charaktar and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.

  (2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the express image of His substance.” The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His character), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. (Strong and Vine’s, 269)

  Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.