Jesus in Coptic John 1:1 and 18

Hold your cursor over any Coptic or Greek words appearing on this page for definitions and possibly parsing information.¹

Much debate has swirled recently over the Coptic version of John 1:1 and also verse 18. Was the Word God or a god? In John 1:1c the Coptic text uses an indefinite article with ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, whereas in John 1:18b it uses the definite article with ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. Why does this matter?

The Sahidic dialect of the Coptic (Egyptian) language was spoken in Upper (Southern) Egypt at the time the New Testament scriptures were penned in the first century. While Christianity's origins in Egypt is still shrouded in mystery, it is evident that it quickly spread down the Nile River. Griggs notes that "the papyrological evidence shows that the Gospel of John was known in Egypt by the end of the first century."²

Although many of the inhabitants in Hellenized Egypt spoke Greek, it soon became necessary to translate the scriptures into the local dialect. The translations into Coptic were quite literal, even retaining many Greek words that would have been familiar to Coptic readers. And while as with any translation some nuances are lost from the Greek text to its Coptic rendering, there are also some areas in which the Coptic language has greater capabilities of expression than the Greek. One such instance is that in addition to the definite article, the Coptic commonly used an indefinite article, which was not available in the Greek language.³

When the apostle John wrote the beginning of his Gospel, he included the Greek definite article before the first occurrence of θεος in John 1:1, but not the second. Many recognize this as an important distinction. For example, one grammatical commentary states, "In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant."⁴ The Coptic translators recognized this "significant" omission by employing the indefinite article in the Coptic translation.

So the Coptic version of John 1:1 literally states, "...and the word was with the god, and the word was a god." This is important because, as Plumley notes, "in certain passages [the Coptic version] preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation."⁵ This interpretation of the Greek text predates the infamous Nicene Council of 324 C.E., and so it represents a very early understanding of John 1:1 free from these later ecclesiastical decrees. The Coptic text identifies Jesus as being with a specific person, "the god" or "God," while being himself "a god." Isn't this polytheism? Not necessarily, as biblical monotheism allows for those to whom divine authority and power has been delegated to be called "gods" in a relative sense.⁶ Still, some argue that the indefinite article in John 1:1 should not be carried over from Coptic to English on the basis that the Coptic indefinite article isn't employed exactly in the same way as the English indefinite article. We'll examine this claim more closely.

Koine Greek, Sahidic Coptic and modern English are all capable of expressing indefiniteness, i.e. making a noun non-specific. Coptic and English can make this explicit by using indefinite articles. They can also accomplish this implicitly by leaving a noun without any article, using a context that shows the noun is non-specific (Koine Greek can only express indefiniteness in such an implicit manner). Yet even though Coptic and English both have the indefinite article, there are still idiomatic differences in how they use the article. Where one language may use the indefinite article to express indefiniteness, it may 'sound' awkward to use it in the same situation in the other language.

For example, in the Coptic text it would not be unusual to come across "a water" (ⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ, as in Matthew 3:11). Yet in English, a singular indefinite article usually would not be used with the term "water" because water is a substance that is not usually counted. So it seems strange to English speakers to randomly single out "a water." Still, even though we don't usually employ the indefinite article in such a circumstance, that doesn't mean we can't use such nouns in an indefinite sense. We do so by not using the definite article and also by allowing the context to convey to others that we are not speaking of any specific water. We could also add the word "some" to make the indefiniteness more explicit, as in "some water." There are a few other situations where a literal translation of a Coptic indefinite article and noun doesn't 'sound' right in English. Yet this does not make the noun any less indefinite and non-specific.

When it comes to ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, this is all a moot point, as "a god" is perfectly acceptable in English grammar. The ancient Coptic translators recognized "god" as an implicitly indefinite noun in the Greek text of John 1:1c. They were able to mark this explicitly in their translation with an indefinite article. So when translating the Coptic text into English, it only makes sense to carry over that explicit indefiniteness in a literal translation. But could it instead be rendered into English with a qualitative noun? Yes.

Some who are uncomfortable with the indefinite article appearing in John 1:1c have tried to argue that when the Coptic translators used the indefinite article, what they meant was that the noun ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ is really qualitative. A qualitative noun emphasizes qualities, so a qualitative rendering of ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ would be something like "divine" or "godly." Still, this qualitative translation in no way cancels out the alternative indefinite rendering, "a god." Layton explains, "a gendered common noun predicate is ambiguous, being susceptible of two interpretations: both denotation and description (ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ 'He is divine' and 'He is a god')."⁷

These two "interpretations" are really complimentary, as there is very little difference in meaning between an indefinite and a qualitative noun. In fact, they are often used interchangeably. After all, isn't "a god" one that is "divine"? And isn't one who is "divine" also "a god"? Even if one of the terms is used in a figurative sense, the other can be used in the same way (though there is evidently no such hyperbole in John 1:1). Matching the Coptic indefinite article with an English indefinite article is simply more literal, though substituting in a qualitative noun still retains the same meaning.

So while the Coptic indefinite noun in John 1:1c can be properly rendered into English by "divine," "godly," or more literally as "a god," what is certain is that it cannot be rendered as "the god" or as the personal name "God." This would make the noun specific, which the Coptic text explicitly made non-specific. But isn't Jesus called "God" in verse 18 in the Coptic version? Before answering that we'll take a look at a slight idiomatic difference between how Coptic and English view the term "God".

"Coptic does not admit of the definite article before a personal name. On the other hand, the Coptic definite article is always used before Χριστός and κύριος since these are regarded as titles."⁸ This is very similar to how English handles names and titles. We don't use "the" in front of names, but we do in front of titles.⁹ There are exceptions to this general rule however.

The term "God" has gained the status of a personal name in modern English usage, referring to a very specific person. Thus, it is usually spoken or written without the definite article. But in Coptic, it was still viewed as a title, and as such it usually appeared along with an article. So when translating ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ into English, we would usually drop the definite article and capitalize it,¹⁰ making it just like any other name. But one should recognize that ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ does not always refer to the same person.

Acts 7:43 in the Coptic version speaks of ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲣⲁⲓⲫⲁⲛ, referring to a false pagan god. Surely the context rules out this instance of ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ from being translated into English as "God." So ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ does not automatically equal "God," it is context that guides the reader on when to understand ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ as the one we commonly identify as "God" in scripture and when to understand it as specifying someone else as merely holding the same title, "the god." So is ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ best understood as "God" or "the god" when it's used of Jesus in John 1:18?

The first factor to consider is the immediate context. In the opening verse of John chapter one, as we considered above, "the word" is said to be with a specific person, "the god" or "God." The verse continues by saying that "the word" is himself "a god" or "divine." There is a clear distinguishment here between the two, one is a specific god, the other is a non-specific god in his presence. And in verse 18, two gods are again mentioned, ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ that no one has seen and ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ that has spoken of and revealed him. These must be two separate gods for that statement to be true. The second god is further described as "the only son, the one who is in the bosom position of his father." So because of these clear distinctions, it seems best to reference Jesus merely as "the god," allowing the text itself to define which god he is for the reader.

Next, in considering the wider biblical context, it should be important to recognize what is not said with regard to Jesus. The phrase ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲱⲧ is an apparent combination of two variant readings from Greek manuscripts. Greek texts use either μονογενὴς υἱός or μονογενὴς θεός, but not both. So when the Coptic translators used both terms in their translation of John 1:18, we'd expect that they'd modify both nouns, "god" and "son," with the corresponding adjective "only-begotten," but they don't. They only modify the noun "son." Why?

Evidently the Greek adjective μονογενὴς was not in common use among Coptic speakers at the time, so the translators used the Coptic word ⲟⲩⲱⲧ to translate it, though its range of meaning is slightly different. It is likely because of this slight difference in definitions between μονογενὴς and ⲟⲩⲱⲧ that the Coptic translators chose to use ⲟⲩⲱⲧ to modify "son," but not "god." Why? The term ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲱⲧ appears three times in the Coptic version of the New Testament, at Ephesians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 12:6. The first two instances explicitly identify the "only god" as the Father, and in the last instance the Father is most likely the implied reference.

Thus the aversion to calling Jesus ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲱⲧ, a term we'd expect given the Greek originals but is evidently reserved for the Father alone, again stands against the claim that ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ should be understood as the personal name "God" when used of the Son. By the time the translation was made into the Bohairic dialect of Coptic, the Greek word μονογενὴς must have gained adequite recognition among Coptic speakers, as that version retains that Greek word instead of using ⲟⲩⲱⲧ, literally reading "the only-begotten god."

The Coptic version explicitly refers to Jesus as a god in the indefinite sense, while at the same time saying he was with God. This goes against some of the later ecclesiastical decrees in the centuries following the production of the Sahidic Coptic translation and so it reveals how some very ancient Greek-speaking Christians interpreted the Scriptures in this passage. And although Jesus is called "the god" several verses later, contrary to expectations, this does not include the Coptic word for "only" as a modifier, likely because the translators didn't see Jesus as "God" in the fullest sense of the term. They understood the Father to be "God," the "only god." Jesus was evidently viewed as "a god" in a limited sense, just as others are identified as "gods" in a limited sense elsewhere in the Bible.⁶

Footnotes

1. ↑ Your browser must be javascript-enabled for this feature to work. If you cannot see the Coptic text, please download and install a font that supports the Coptic Unicode characters (see the Coptic Unicode Fonts page).
2. ↑ C. Wilfred Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity (Brill, 2000), 27.
3. ↑ Neither the Latin or Syriac translations, which are the other early translations of the New Testament while Koine Greek was still a living language, used the indefinite article. Coptic was unique in this regard.
4. ↑ The Translator's New Testament (The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973), 451.
5. ↑ J. Martin Plumley, "Limitations of Coptic (Sahidic) in Representing Greek," The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 142.
6. ↑ e.g. Exodus 4:16; 7:1; Psalm 82:6. One book that explains this less-rigid view of monotheism in ancient understanding is The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, by James F. McGrath (University of Illinois Press, 2009). An online blog entry that Dr. McGrath has recommended which expresses similar views can be read here».
7. ↑ Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, 2nd Edition (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004), 227. Emphasis his.
8. ↑ J. Martin Plumley, "Limitations of Coptic (Sahidic) in Representing Greek," The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 148.
9. ↑ Koine Greek, on the other hand, uses the definite article with both names and titles.
10. ↑ It should be noted that neither Koine Greek nor Sahidic Coptic had a respective upper and lower case. Thus, no words were capitalized in the way modern English capitalizes certain words, so the English translator must use discernment in deciding when to capitalize words.

Related Resources

• Biblia Coptica Discussion Forum
• Sahidic Coptic Interactive Parser—John 1:1-18
• The Coptic Alphabet
• Coptic Unicode Fonts
• Biblia Coptica Bookstore