[B-Greek] Sahidic Coptic Version (was "Another example of a qualitative Q...

Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com
Tue Jul 11 06:49:59 EDT 2006


 
First, we have to note what Dr. Layton (and others) say about the use of  the 
Coptic indefinite article and separate it from inferences drawn from  it.
 
1- IF used qualitatively, with John 1:1c as an example, we would have "the  
Word was divine."
 
2- IF used regularly, in the indefinite sense, we would have "the Word was  a 
god/a God."
 
3- In neither sense does the Coptic use of the indefinite article  'predicate 
equivalence with the proper name God, which is always without  exception 
supplied with the definite article.'
 
4- Thus, "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a god" are grammatically  
acceptable, whereas "the Word was God" is not, according to the Coptic  
construction found at John 1:1c.
 
However, it is not established by this that the Coptic expression  ne.u.noute 
at John 1:1c is qualitative, or that any use of noute in the Coptic  text of 
the NT is qualitative.  Dr. Layton gives no examples of a  qualitative use of 
noute in the Coptic NT..  A qualitative rendering is  only offered by Dr. 
Layton as a possibility.
 
According to another Coptic garmmarian, the Sahidic Coptic indefinite  
article is used to mark “a non-specific individual or specimen of a class: a  
morpheme marking an element as a non-specific or individual or specimen of a  class (
“a man,” “other gods,” etc.) -- Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy  
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 1988), Edited by A. Shisha-
Halevy, Peter  Leuven, page 268.
 
This would also favor the translation "the Word was a god/a God," while not  
entirely ruling out the translation "was divine," as referring to 'a  
non-specific or individual specimen of a class.'
 
That the Word is in the divine category is as true if  the wording is "a god" 
or "divine."  The point is simply that "a god/a God"  is the literal 
translation of what the Coptic text says.
 
As to whether John 1:18 offers insight on John 1:1c, that is a matter of  
exegesis/interpretation, not of grammar.  Suffice it to say that it would  be 
more logical to interpret John 1:18 in light of the introductory verses and  John 
1:1 instead of the other way around.  There are text-critical reasons  why 
the article is used at John 1:18 that do not exist for John 1:1c, not the  least 
of which is that the Coptic translators were likely using a Greek text  that 
read hO MONOGENHS QEOS  hO WN... (like the text p75), and translated  
accordingly.
 
Furthermore, not every use of the definite article before the Coptic word  
for God refers to GOD; the grammatical rule is simply that if it does refer to  
GOD, it must have the definite article.  For example,  at Acts 7:43 in the 
Coptic NT we have the definite article before the  Coptic word for God, but it 
does not refer to GOD.
 
In sum, without making this unduly a theological discussion, but  a 
grammatical one, the Coptic indefinite article, like the English one, usually  means 
simply "a."  A "qualitative" use cannot be ruled out entirely,  but it has to be 
justified grammatically.  And the divinity of the Word is  highlighted in 
either translation, whether the indefinite one or the  "qualitative" one.
 
Solomon Landers
 
In a message dated 07/10/2006 6:56:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
hholmyard at ont.com writes:

Dr. Layton explains  further: 

The indef. article is part of the  Coptic syntactic  pattern. This 
pattern predicates either a quality  (we'd omit the  English article in 
English: "is divine") or  an entity ("is a god");  the reader decides 
which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT  predicate 
equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is always  
without  exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an  
anarthrous  noun in this pattern would be odd.3

So, the use of  the indefinite article in  the Sahidic does not 
necessarily mean that  the Coptic translator  understood John to have 
written "a god."   He was not  equating the Word with the proper name 
God, but he could  have understood  John to be using theos in a 
qualitative sense, as  many Greek  scholars have argued.  Dr. Layton says 
it is up to  the reader to  decide, but is there any indication in the 
immediate  context to help us?

I believe there is significant evidence  in  favor of a qualitative 
reading.  In the Sahidic version of John   1:18b, the anarthrous theos in 
the Greek is translated with the  definite  article.  Horner's 
translation reads as follows:  ..........................................








More information about the B-Greek mailing list