Posts by Kas

30

Coptic John 1:1, Revisited

by rmnnoute in

1:1 ?

in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.

Ok, it looks like I don't need the point to be clarified after all. ShadesofGrey posted a link at the end of a thread in which I pressented the above data, and the link took me to page two of this thread rather than page one. I didn't notice that there were two pages, and after reading the posts on this page I wasn't sure what exactly ShadesofGray was trying to say that pertained to the previous thread. After re-reading it appears that the only point was to link two related topics for ease of reference, which I appreciate. In any case, it's easy enough to figure out what's going on with this thread when one starts reading from the first page!

~Kaz

30

Coptic John 1:1, Revisited

by rmnnoute in

1:1 ?

in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.

Kas

I second the motion that the point be clarified. The post I submitted sometime after the original thread ended, in part, called into question the validity of Harner's study, not because he lacked credentials (though it seems clear that he was not a linguist), but because his study clearly seems to be somewhat of a logical mess. More importantly, I pointed out that the manner in which scholars handle translating Greek constructions that correspond to John 1:1c into English favors an indefinite rendering.

To restate the point, if we exclude nouns that are not like QEOS from consideration (i.e. non-count/mass nouns like "love" and "flesh"), and focus solely on nouns that are truly similar, i.e. that are (i) pre-verbal, (ii) predicate nominatives, (iii) not qualified (i.e. by a qualifying phrase of any kind, such as "of Israel", "of the Jews", "of the Sabbath", etc.), (iv) are bounded (=count), (v) do not name qualities, and (vi) are not definite (this is an assumption, because QEOS at 1:1c certainly could be definite), then one finds a clear pattern as to how translators handle such nouns. Here are all of the examples in John's Gospel that I found that fit the stated criteria:

John 4:19: PROFHTHS EI SU
("a prophet" NRSV)

John 6:70: DIABOLOS ESTIN
("a devil" NRSV)

John 8:34: DOULOS ESTIN
("a slave" NRSV)

John 8:44: ANQRWPOKTONOS HN
("a murderer" NRSV)

John 8:44: YEUSTHS ESTIN
("a liar" NRSV)

John 8:48: SAMARITHS EI
("a Samaritan" NRSV)

John 9:17: PROFHTHS ESTIN
("a prophet" NRSV)

John 9:24: hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
("a sinner" NRSV)

John 9:25: hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
("a sinner" NRSV)

John 10:1: KLEPTHS ESTIN
("a thief" NRSV)

Note: At John 10:1, notice that there's no difference between how KLEPTHS (=thief) is handled, which occurs before the verb, and LhiSTHS (=robber) is handled, which occurs after the verb.

John 10:13: MISQWTOS ESTIN
("a hired hand" NRSV)

John 12:6: KLEPTHS HN
("a thief" NRSV)

John 18:35: IOUDAIOS EIMI
("a Jew" NRSV)

John 18:37a: BASILEUS EI
("a king" NRSV)

John 18:37b: BASILEUS EIMI
("a king" NRSV)

Some have said that these verses include the indefinite article to conform to English idiom, which is true, of course. The crucial question is whether the English renderings of these verses accurately capture the sense of the underlying Greek, and I doubt that thoughtful consideration can yield anything but an affirmative answer.

~Kaz

75

Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.

by slimboyfat in

wt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".

online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.

in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.

Kas

Hello PSacramento,

You said:

"Kaz, while I appreciate that this thread is dealing with the coptic view of John 1:1, I just wanted to point out that ONE view of something isn't always the way to go and that there are other views one must take into accoutn before we decide which one is the "correct" one for US."

I agree with the first part, i.e. that a preferred view isn't necessarily the way to go, but I disagree with the second part of your point. It's true that there can be more than one legitimate way to understand a text of Scripture, in light of our limited understanding. That's why I feel that valid grammatical alternatives should be given serious consideration and they should typically be footnoted. Sadly, it seems that few are willing to do this. However, and here is where we disagree, I wouldn't qualify an understanding as "'correct'...for US". I don't think that we should assume that a view is "correct" simply because it fits comfortably within our own set of theological presuppositions. IMO, there is no "'correct'...for US"; there is only correct and incorrect, at least when it comes to the original author's intent.

You continued:

"The early church fathers got their view FIRST hand from the direct apostles of Jesus, like John, and not once was Jesus mentioned or viewed as 'a god'."

I don't think that the evidence supports such a blanket assertion. For example, Justin Martyr had these interesting words to say:

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will." (Dialogue with Trypho, 56)

For years I have contemplated the possibility that Justin's reference to the LOGOS as "another god" emerged from his reflection on John 1:1c, where the Son is referred to as both LOGOS and as QEOS (= "a god", in context). I have since found that I am not alone in holding this view, as Adela Yarbro Collins has offered the same understanding:

"...the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either 'the word was God' or 'the word was a god.' Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way." (See "King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature", by John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins), pp. 175 & 176

You concluded:

"In my humble view, John 1:1 does NOT state that Jesus is God ( the Father) NOT doe sit state that jesus is "simply" "a god" ( implying one of many), it does state the perfect union of Jesus and God, echoed in Colossians for example...Perhaps better translated as "All the God was, the Word was"."

Well, I would say that if "the Word was God" is the correct translation then John 1:1 could very naturally be saying that the LOGOS is the Father, or, more specifically, the "one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:6). This wouldn't necessarily result in modalism, as many mistakenly assume. It would result in a paradox, to be sure, but there are ways to resolve the paradox without resorting to modalism. Further, I question your use of the phrase "simply...a god". Calling the Son "a god" in relation to the Almighty God of the universe really doesn't strike me as something that can legitimately be referred to as "simply", at least not in the context of John 1, where this second god is instrumental in the creation of the entire universe, and is the only Son whose existence is defined by his priviledged position at the bosom of the Father.

As for the revised translation you've offered, "All the God was, the Word was", I would like to point out three things:

(i) This doesn't appear to be a valid translation of the Greek, but seems more like theological commentary, albeit ultra-concise commentary. Can you imagine how Trinitarians would excoriate the WTS if they dared to offer such a theologically loaded, unnatural rendering of a very strait-forward Greek clause?

(ii) The rendering is actually quite ambiguous. You don't realize this because, as a Trinitarian, you automatically fill in the gap with ideas that emerge from the presupposition of Trinitarianism. In saying this I don't mean to criticize you, for we all bring our presuppositions to the text, and I'm no exception. However, note that the "God" of clause B is the Father, yet Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is "All" that God the Father is. You don't believe that the Son is God the Father, first person of the Trinity, which he would have to be if he were really "All" that God the Father is to a Trinitarian. You don't believe that the Son is the begetter of the Son, which he would have to be if he were truly "All" that God the Father is to a Trinitarian. You don't believe that the Son is the one who has functional authority over the Son within the Trinitarian Godhead, which he would have to have if he were truly "All" that God the Father is to a Trinitarian. No, in the end you will allow the Son to instantiate only those attributes/characteristics that he can have as "God the Son, second person of the Trinity", nothing more, and nothing less. Its seems to me that one simply does not get that from John. It's brought to the text, not inferred from the text.

(iii) While the revised rendering you've offered does answer one of my questions, it doesn't answer the more important one: What kind of noun do you understand "QEOS" (=God) to be at John 1:1c? Is it a proper name, a proper noun, a proper noun functioning as the semantic equivalent of a proper name, a title, a definite noun, an indefinite noun, a mass noun, a count noun, an abstract noun, or something else? It is crucial that you identify what kind of noun it is, because this will help us determine whether what is argued by orthodox expositors is truly plausible, grammatically.

~Kaz

75

Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.

by slimboyfat in

wt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".

online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.

in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.

Kas

Hello rmnnoute,

I agree with you, of course, that "the Word was a god" harmonizes well with the Bible as a whole. Since Trinitarianism seems to be inherently circular anyway, requiring it's proponents to employ equivocation and embrace the impossible (e.g. that Jesus can know all things yet not know all things at the same time), I propose that they should just render the Greek in a strait-forward, natural way (i.e. "a god") and work out the problems theologically, just as they do now. I'm sure that they could rise to the occasion if they put their minds to it.

One of the things that caught my attention in relation to this thread is the criticism that was offered against the WTS because they didn't discuss the "qualitative" alternative that the Coptic may allow. This may be a legitimate criticism, yet, if so, then the same criticism should be offered in relation to the myriad theologians, commentators, scholars, etc, who have discussed John 1:1 yet failed to mention that "a god" is a valid grammatical alternative rendering of the Greek of 1:1c. I suspect that most who would criticize the WTS's omission would be quite forgiving of the corresponding omission by those with whom they happen to agree.

~Kaz

75

Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.

by slimboyfat in

wt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".

online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.

in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.

Kas

Hello PSacramento,

Thank you for sharing your faith-based conviction that John 1:1c should be rendered, "the Word was God". It would seem that the Greek allows for that rendering, and so I would accept it as a potentially valid alternative translation. Further, I think that it can be shown that this rendering harmonizes well with Witness theology. In fact, if anyone were to solicit my advice vis a vis John 1:1 in a new translation of the Bible, I would suggest that "the Logos was a god" should be in the main body of the text of John and that "the Logos was God" should be placed in a footnote as an alternative rendering. I would use "Logos" instead of "Word" to stimulate inquiry, and I'd include an article about the Wisdom, Memra, and Logos traditions of the biblical period in the appendix, along with a list of other discussions of these concepts as suggested reading.

Bear in mind, though, that the primary focus of this thread deals with the Coptic, and based on what I've read and on correspondence I've had with a Coptic scholar, "the Word was God" would not be a good translation based on the Coptic.

Now, please note that my post was very specific as to its objective, and so to redirect matters I'd like to ask you a few questions:

(i) Since you feel that "the Word was God" is the right translation of John 1:1c, can I assume that you disagree with P. B. Harner in relation to what he offered in his 1973 JBL article? I've listed the title of the article below my signature for your reference. I ask because it was the favorable comments about Harner's article that prompted me to submit my first post here, and Harner considered your preferred translation to be problematic.

(ii) Can you clarify what the translation "the Word was God" means in your view? Do you take "QEOS" (="God") at John 1:1c to be definite, indefinite, qualitative, or a combination of these? Do you understand "God" to be a proper name, a proper noun, a title, a singular count noun, a mass noun, an abstract noun, or something else?

~Kaz

P.B. Harner's JBL article is entitled, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" (Journal of Biblical Literature, volume 92, No. 1, March 1973), pp. 75-87

75

Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.

by slimboyfat in

wt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".

online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.

in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.

Kas

Hello again,

I had said (with the point of focus in this post underlined):

"Not only was Harner wrong to assume that the English indefinite isn't a valid tool to use when a noun's qualitative force is "more important" than whether a noun is definite or indefinite, but, surprisingly, he never demonstrates the validity of the assumption vis a vis word order."

I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that Harner didn't attempt to demonstrate his proposed assumption, for he does make an effort. He simply doesn't succeed, and he employed circular argumentation vis a vis at least one of the cited examples he addresses. Also, surprisingly, he and his proponents seem to have missed one of the elephants in the room: The "evidence" that he offers to support a qualitative sense for the various nouns involved an analysis of the context, i.e. what the speaker was trying to convey as implied by the context, in Harner's view. Do you see the problem? One could argue that whatever "qualitativeness" Harner felt he discerned didn't emerge from fronting but from the very context he offers to support the sense he felt was present.

~Kaz

75

Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.

by slimboyfat in

wt november 1st has a two page article on how the early sahidic coptic version of the new testament translated god with an indefinite article in john 1:1 and argues this supports the new world translation's rendering "and the word was a god".

online witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the nwt for a few years now.

in particular solomon landers promoted the coptic version of john 1:1 in discussions with evangelicals and other who oppose witness theology.

Kas

Hello,

It looks like I found this thread 6 months to a year late. I decided to offer comment because I noticed that the article by P.B. Harner has been referred to a number of times in a favorable manner, and I wondered if anyone here noted one of the flaws in Harner's argument. Namely, he argued that the noun QEOS would more likely be indefinite if it occurred after the verb, and that it's occurrence before the verb makes it "qualitative", apparently in a way that can't, in his opinion, be captured by employing the indefinite article (= "a god"). Not only was Harner wrong to assume that the English indefinite isn't a valid tool to use when a noun's qualitative force is "more important" than whether a noun is definite or indefinite, but, surprisingly, he never demonstrates the validity of the assumption vis a vis word order. If one were to set aside the Johannine sacred cow and focus on other verses in John's Gospel that are like John 1:1c, one finds ample evidence that undermines his theory.

If we exclude nouns that are not like QEOS (i.e. non-count/mass nouns like "love" and "flesh"), and focus solely on nouns that are truly similar, i.e. that are (i) pre-verbal, (ii) predicate nominatives, (iii) not qualified (i.e. by a qualifying phrase of any kind, such as "of Israel", "of the Jews", "of the Sabbath", etc.), (iv) are bounded (=count), (v) do not name a qualities, and (vi) are not definite (this is an assumption, because QEOS at 1:1c certainly could be definite), then one finds a clear pattern as to how translators handle such nouns. Here are all of the examples in John's Gospel that I found that fit the stated criteria:

John 4:19: PROFHTHS EI SU
("a prophet" NRSV)

John 6:70: DIABOLOS ESTIN
("a devil" NRSV)

John 8:34: DOULOS ESTIN
("a slave" NRSV)

John 8:44: ANQRWPOKTONOS HN
("a murderer" NRSV)

John 8:44: YEUSTHS ESTIN
("a liar" NRSV)

John 8:48: SAMARITHS EI
("a Samaritan" NRSV)

John 9:17: PROFHTHS ESTIN
("a prophet" NRSV)

John 9:24: hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
("a sinner" NRSV)

John 9:25: hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
("a sinner" NRSV)

John 10:1: KLEPTHS ESTIN
("a thief" NRSV)

Note: At John 10:1, notice that there's no difference between how KLEPTHS (=thief) is handled, which occurs before the verb, and LhiSTHS (=robber) is handled, which occurs after the verb.

John 10:13: MISQWTOS ESTIN
("a hired hand" NRSV)

John 12:6: KLEPTHS HN
("a thief" NRSV)

John 18:35: IOUDAIOS EIMI
("a Jew" NRSV)

John 18:37a: BASILEUS EI
("a king" NRSV)

John 18:37b: BASILEUS EIMI
("a king" NRSV)

Some have said that these verses include the indefinite article to conform to English idiom, which is true, of course. The crucial question is whether the English renderings of these verses accurately capture the sense of the underlying Greek, and I doubt that thoughtful consideration can yield anything but an affirmative answer. This negates Harner's assertion about word order, which, again, he never even attempts to justify using any scientifically testable linguistic methodology or paradigm.

In light of this, I think that the Coptic probably does support the NWT's rendering, for the Greek almost certainly does, and the Coptic translator(s) was/were attempting to convey the sense of the underlying Greek. If John wanted to say that the Logos was "divine" he probably would have used theios; if he wanted to say that the Logos was "deity" he probably would have used theotes; if he wanted to say that the LOGOS was "a god", perhaps with a hint of emphasis, then I would argue that he would have said exactly what he did.

~Kaz