I found this to be a most interesting and informative article. However, I have reservations that it will in any way affect the way Jehovah's Witnesses cite Coptic translations in support of their translation ‘a god' for the anarthorous θε?ς in John 1:1c and may in fact be co-opted to serve their argument. My reason for this is based on the article's extensive use of the words ‘quality' and ‘qualitative' throughout. Note how the article concludes:
"We propose that the best way to take the indefinite article in John 1:1c is as an attempt by the Copts to interpret the anarthrous θε?ς descriptively/qualitatively. As a result, they interpreted and translated John 1.1c to mean that ‘the Word' possesses the same qualities as ‘the God of the Bible'."
-Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti, "From ‘God' (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God' (ΝΟΥΤ?): A New Discussion and Proposal Regarding John 1:1c and the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Testament," The Journal of Theological Studies 62/2 (2011): 511
Compare this against what Jehovah's Witnesses state in their publications:
"[Colossians 2:9] show[s] that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily."
-"Questions from the Readers," The Watchtower (August 1, 1962): 480.
"Jesus as ‘a god' merely reflects his Father's divine qualities"
-Reasoning From the Scriptures, rev. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1989): 416.
"What qualities would you respect the most in a leader? Courage? Wisdom? Compassion? What about perseverance in the face of hardship? As you study the record of Jesus' life course on earth, you will find that he possessed those qualities-and more. The perfect reflection of his heavenly Father, Jesus possessed every divine quality in full measure. He was all that a perfect human could be."
-Come Be My Follower (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 2007), 9.
While the article no doubt intends to argue through its use of the word ‘qualitative' as a grammatical term that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation of John 1:1c serves to indicate that the Copts' interpreted this verse to mean that the Word was endowed with those ‘qualities' that are inherent to the very nature of God, one can well imagine that the Watchtower Society will care little about what Wright and Ricchuiti actually intended by their use of this word and imbue it with their own meaning so as to give the impression that this article fully agrees with the representational Christology of Jehovah's Witnesses. One should remember that this is exactly what happened to the article Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1 by Philip B. Harner which, although explicitly arguing against an indefinite translation of ‘a god' in John 1:1c, was co-opted due to Harner's use of the term ‘qualitative' by the Watchtower Society to update their justification for the translation ‘a god' for the 1984 revision of the New World Translation. Because the present article specifically states that "Our purpose . . . is to apply the results of our Coptic study to this debate [of the meaning of John 1:1c] to see how this early version sheds light on the history of interpretation and potentially helps one translate and interpret these verses" ("From ‘God' (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God' (ΝΟΥΤ?)": 508) and connects this with the translation ‘a god' of the New World Translation, one would have hoped that the authors would have been more cautious and better defined what they meant by ‘qualitative' so that others could cite that definition once this article is co-opted in order to demonstrate the misuse of this article. As it stands, the Watchtower will publish something like this, which will then be cut and pasted without any further thought all over the internet:
In defense of the unscriptural teaching of the Trinity, some have sought to assail the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Is there any validity to the claims of those making such assaults? In discussing the criticisms of Bruce Metzger to the rendering ‘a god' in John 1:1, one recent article noted that "His primary argument in both noted publications congregated around Greek grammar (i.e. Colwell's Rule); it remains a popular argument today. But scholars have shown the need for clarification, adequately demonstrating why that argument leaves much to be desired". This same article goes on to note that early Coptic translations of John 1:1 contain an indefinite article for the word God here in the same manner as the New World Translation and concludes by stating that "the best way to take the indefinite article in John 1:1c is as an attempt by the Copts to interpret the anarthrous θε?ς descriptively/qualitatively. As a result, they interpreted and translated John 1.1c to mean that ‘the Word' possesses the same qualities as ‘the God of the Bible'"". These ancient translators thus evidently saw the truth of what John intended here and thus agree with the appendix of the New World Translation which states "John's statement that the Word or Logos was ‘a god' or ‘divine' or ‘godlike' does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself". One can thus clearly see how the attacks of Christendom fall flat before Scriptural truths. (Apologies for not better imitating their material, but you get the drift)
At any rate, thanks for informing me, and everyone else, about this article. One thing is certain, it is definitely more fuel for the fire.
????
Mebaqqer
