Coptic John 1:1 (Part 2)

Top Seven Reasons why the Coptic of John 1:1c should be translated 'a god' - Solomon Landers (2007)

I. Grammatical: Coptic John 1:1c, ne.u.noute pe p.Saje is literally,
ne = indicates past tense of what follows;
(o)u = a (indefinite article);
noute = god;
pe = "was" when following ne;
p = the (masculine singular definite article);
Saje = Word,
giving us interlinearly, "a god was the Word."

2. Grammatical and syntactical: The Coptic word noute, "god," is not an abstract noun or noun indicating unspecified quantities of a substance, in which case the indefinite article could go without translation in English. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun, signifying here an entity, in which case the English indefinite article "a" is customarily utilized in translation, as in the English translation of the Coptic New Testament by George Horner, and in numerous English translations of other Coptic works, such as the Gnostic gospels of Thomas, Philip, and Judas.
Contrary to what some Trinitarian apologists imply, there is nothing incomprehensible or mysterious about the Coptic indefinite article. "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English." --Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5.

3. Faithful to the underlying Greek text: Greek anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nouns are often translated as indefinite in English, utilizing the English indefinite article "a."

4. Understanding grounded on the underlying Greek text: Apart from theology, and on the basis of grammar alone, the ancient Coptic translators of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE obviously understood the Greek construction of John 1:1c to be indefinite, and translated accordingly in the Coptic. If they had understood it to be definite ("the Word was God"), they had no indication of such a meaning in the Greek text, which does not have the Greek definite article here. If they understood it to be "qualitative," ("the Word was deity or divine") they could have translated it by means of Coptic adjectival prefixes. They did not, but utilized the Coptic indefinite article instead: ou noute: "a god."

5. Theology I: While we cannot know with specificity the theological presuppositions of the Coptic translators, or even if those presuppositions guided their translation of John 1:1c, it should be noted that their translation was most likely made before Trinitarianism became the established church dogma. The translators would have had no need to translate John 1:1c according to any Trinitarian formula that equated the Lord Jesus Christ with God Almighty.

6. Theology II: Several early Church fathers contemporaneous with the Coptic translators, like Origen, distinguished between God and His Son, and were subordinationist in outlook. They saw the Son as subordinate to the Father, and not equal in either eternity or in ontology with the Father. To understand John 1:1c as saying "the Word was a god [or, a divine being]" would not have been out of harmony with the hermeneutics of the time that the Sahidic Coptic translation was made.

7. New Testament Harmony: Like any other accurate translation of the New Testament, the ancient Sahidic Coptic New Testament preserves all the verses which show that Jesus Christ is a god, a divine being, the divine Son of God, the Image of God, God's firstborn, but not God Himself. The Coptic text does not support Modalism or Sabellianism. -
http://commentary.copticjohn.com/

Edited 2 times by tigger 2 Oct 8 11 9:06 PM.