[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