The Trinity and the Coptic Gospel of John 1:1c.

Didicated to those who love the truth!

Early Coptic translation of John 1:1c

Jesus said in his famous command,

“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Math 28:19, 20.” NWT

So, all who would be Jesus genuine disciples would have to heed his command and go and “make” disciples and teach them to observe all the things he commanded them!

It would seem that the early Christians preached far and wide. With the spread of Christianity it would be necessary in time to translate the gospel into the Mother tongue of the peoples they preached to. One such, were the Coptic native people of Egypt.

Coptic Christians in Egypt spoke a variety of dialects. The most important dialects were The Thebaic dialect and the Sahidic dialects, used in the South of Upper Egypt, and there was the Bohairic dialect spoken in the North of Lower Egypt. It would seem that at least by the late second century CE translations of both the Hebrew and Christian Greek (O/T & N/T) had been translated into the Coptic dialects.

Eventually, the Sahidic spoken dialect was replaced by the Bohairic and Fayyumic dialects. This change took place around the eleventh century CE onwards by these other dialects in the Coptic Church’s Liturgy. Coptic was really the last phase of the Egyptian tongue used since the time of the Pharaohs. Since the conquests of Alexander the Great and the influence of the Greek language and culture, the Coptic language eventually came to be written with Greek letters, with additional seven supplemental letters drawn from Hieroglys.

In 1945 CE, the now famous Gnostic “Gospel of Thomas” was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt, an apocryphal work reputed to be dated to 140 CE - 170 CE. Scholars were excited by this find and the above “gospel” is relatively easy to find translated into English. I went onto Google and was able to download an English translation in minutes.

But there was a more important discovery, that of a Sahidic (Coptic) Gospel of John. This important document is possibly dated to the end of the second century CE.*

Many scholars initially took a great interest in this Sahidic (Coptic) gospel of John and no sooner had they taken a great interest in it, that they suddenly dropped it and went silent about it. Something they discovered didn’t agree with their Trinitarian theology.

Try and obtain a copy, you’ll be hard pressed to find one.
On the other hand the Coptic (Sahidic) gospel of Thomas translated into English is, as I said before, very easy to obtain!

At this point, it is interesting to note what Kurt and Barbara Aland (The text of the New Testament), both critics of N/T manuscripts have to say:

“The Coptic N/T is among the primary resources for the history of the N/T text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt.” (Page 200).

The Sahidic gospel is in the Alexandrian text tradition, and is in the same category as the Codex Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) which is one of the best N/T documents.

It is to be noted that the Sahidic version of John shows a resemblance to Bodmer XIV (a Greek Papyrus) dated second/third century CE. And it is considered by some to be one of the best manuscripts in faithfully preserving the original. (See Google under Bodmer XIV).

I now ask the all important question! Why is it that, this not too far off translation from the originals (80-100years), this Coptic (Sahidic) translation is completely ignored by accepted translators, especially Trinitarian translators?

Is it possible that the reason translators back off from it; is that this Coptic gospel of John 1:1c is rendered very differently from the traditionally accepted rendering such as “…the Word was God…”?

This Coptic (Sahidic) gospel was written long before the outburst of the Trinitarian conflicts of fourth century CE, so the Coptic translators would have no reason to change the sense of John 1:1c for doctrinal reasons, as mentioned before, there was no Trinitarian conflict at that early date!

Again, you will not have to be a scholar or a linguist to understand what is going on!

Above is a sample of a few lines of the Coptic (Sahidic) gospel of John chapter 1 and includes the much debated John 1:1c. (See below).

The Picture (above) shows the first few verses from John's Gospel in the Horner version. This page is taken from a New Testament first published in 1911 CE by Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The New Testament was first published in 1924 CE. The complete Bible has not been published.

So, again, why have (Trinitarian) translators dropped it?


The thirteenth word of verse 1 (word just before verse 2) we have the Coptic indefinite article “ou” (contracted to “u” (used here) following the verbal “ne”)) and with the indefinite article it “literally” reads “a god”.

In addition, we have to remember that Latin has no “definite or indefinite” articles, Greek has only the “definite” article, whereas (Sahidic and Bohairic) Coptic employs the indefinite article “a” “u”or “an” and the definite article “the” “p” as in English.

Therefore, Coptic has more in common with English than it does with Latin or Koine Greek in that it employs both articles. So, a possible reason for translators allowing the Coptic John to be out of sight is that Coptic dialects have not only the definite article “the” “p” , but also the indefinite article “a” or “an”. Moreover, remember, that Coptic is written with Koine Greek letters (and supplemented…).

Coptic Alphabet

Origin:

The Coptic alphabet is variant of the Greek alphabet containing a number of extra letters for sounds not found in Greek. The extra letters come from the Demotic/Hieroglyphs form of the Egyptian script. The Coptic alphabet came into being during the 3rd century BC after the Greek conquest of Egypt and the subsequent spread of Christianity.

The name 'Coptic' derives from the Greek word for Egyptian: Aigyptioi which became Qibt in Arabic and then was Latinised to become Copt used to write Coptic, a member of the Egyptian branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family and a descendant of the Ancient Egyptian language.

Coptic was an official language in Egypt until around the 13th Century AD, when it was replaced by Arabic. Nowadays Coptic Christians all speak Arabic as their every day language, but use Coptic in their religious ceremonies.
See: http://www.copticchurch.net/coptic_fonts/alphabet.html for more details.


Now, let us take a closer look at the Coptic John gospel.

The Sahidic translates John 1:1c this way:

auw neunoute pe pshaje

And remember, unlike Koine Greek, which only has the definite article “the”, the Coptic (Sahidic) has both the definite “the” and the indefinite “a” or “an”, and what are they?

auw (and) ne (was) u (a) noute (god) pe (is) p (the) shaje (word)

and was (being) a god is (or this one is) the word

It literally says: and_was_being_a_god_is_the_Word.

Put in the proper English sense it reads:
…and the Word was a god…”

The Coptic Bohairic dialect is the same as the Coptic Sahidic
“a god”. And don’t forget, it was this way for hundreds of years!

Sahidic dialect: neunoute.
Bohairic dialect: ne ounout

If the Apostle John were to re-write his gospel, but this time he writes it in the Sahidic Coptic dialect, for the Coptic people, would he have included in John 1:1c the indefinite article “a”?

Definitely yes!

If he did not, the Coptic speaker (say, just like an English speaker) would quickly sense that something was missing, the clause would be incomplete! He would notice that the indefinite article “a” was missing and would naturally be mentally forced to insert it in his mind!

In John 1:1c in koine Greek “theos” points towards “indefiniteness” by omitting the definite article “the”, this is because Greek does not employ the indefinite article “a”, but Coptic does employ the indefinite article “a” and the Coptic scripture makes use of it in John 1:1c. “a god”.

This shows without a shadow of a doubt that the Coptic translators, when they read the gospel of John 1:1c had an accurate understanding of the Greek involved and that John 1:1c should be explicitly translated not as “god”, but “a god”.

The Coptic Christian translators had an excellent understanding of Koine Greek as well as their own Coptic language dialect “Sahidic”, and there rendering of John 1:1c as “a god” is exact and accurate!

In addition, it must be pointed out that, because Coptic uses the indefinite article, it is more precise than the Latin Vulgate, which does not employ the indefinite article (as well as the definite article).

Even when the Coptic Bohairic (dialect) was used in translating John 1:1c it still employed the indefinite article “a” prefixing “god”.

In Coptic the word “neunoute” ne_u_noute is made up of three components:

ne is a (verbal) prefix, which signifies an imperfect or past tense i.e., “was (being)”, “u” is the Sahidic indefinite article ”a”, “noute” means “god”.

When referring to The One God, The Almighty God, Jehovah “noute” always has the definite article “the” prefixed to it. Whereas when “noute” has no definite article prefixed to it, it always refers to “other gods”.

Unlike Koine Greek, John 1:1c in Sahidic (Coptic) “noute”, it is not just a simple matter that “noute” is without the indefinite article (anarthrous), having no article at all. The Coptic translators expressly employed the indefinite article “a”.

Whereas scholars, when it comes to John 1:1c in Greek, attribute uncertainty about John 1:1c, but not so the Coptic translation of John1:1c, it is exact, accurate and precise, and is translated, “the Word was a god”. Having a very good understanding of Koine Greek, the Coptic translators of the second century onwards accurately understood John 1:1c to mean “the Word was a god”.

The Sahidic for “was a god” is ne_u_noute_pe this particular construction (Coptic) is also found throughout the N/T.

As an example, take the case of Barabbas in John 18:40, it says regarding Barabbas, that he ne_u_soon_pe, “was a robber” expressing the Greek, en_de_ho_barabbas_lestes, “was a robber”. It will be noted that robber “lestes”, is without the indefinite article (anarthrous).

If we were to translate “Barabbas was robber”, it would make the English incomplete and therefore the English speaker would sense something was missing immediately and would mentally correct this omission of the indefinite article “a”.

(My thanks to my friends for the example in John 18:40).

It should be realised now, that we cannot just translate John 1:1c as, “the Word was God”, but it should properly be translated, “the Word was a god”.

If Horner’s English translation of John (John 1:1c) was freely available to day, it would read, “the Word was a god”, not “the Word was God” as is rendered in most modern translations today.

As said earlier on, the Coptic (Sahidic) translation of the gospel of John (John 1:1c) was made before Trinitarianism secured an iron like grip within the Churches of the fourth century CE.

The Coptic translators saw no need to alter the sense of John 1:1c and therefore accurately translated John 1:1c as, “the Word was a god”. So, other translations including the NWT are correct in rendering John1:1c as “a god”.

Why is it we cannot obtain an English translation of the Coptic Sahidic gospel of John?

The simple TRUTH is, is that it destroys the Trinity Doctrine and re-enforces what scholars and historians have said over many years, the Trinity is not of the Bible, but of Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophical origin. The Coptic Gospel of John proves it: “a god” not "god”!

(My thanks to my friends for contributing their time and help!)


* The Rev. George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the N/T in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaitic, 1911, pp. 398, 399.

letusreason

Truth in Translation

Reply:

Unfortunately, some only quote pertinent parts of the book to their own trinitarian advantage and not other important parts such as what Prof. BeDuhn himself says. As BeDuhn criticises other translations, he will also obviously criticises the NWT.

So, what conclusion does Prof. BeDuhn come to on say John 1:1c? I have also enclosed a reply from a Baptist who read the book and replied to the part dealing with Chapter 11 regarding John 1:1

Regarding Chapter 11

John 1:1

As it might be thought that what Dr BeDuhn has written regarding how best to render QEOS EN HO LOGOS as "the Word was divine" and this somehow undermines the rendering of "the Word was a god" and even obviates the Witnesses 'use' of Dr BeDuhn regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the following may prove helpful to explain a little more this scholars reasons for his preference in both translation _and_ understanding.

These are Prof. BeDuhn’s own words, not mine, not twisted, not taken out of context, not mis-quoted and so on, but his own words!

Dr BeDuhn himself has written:

"It is true that the most formal, literal translation of the words in John 1:1c would be "and the Word was a god." The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more commonly seen, traditional translation, "and the Word was God." However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of a passage as a whole.

"The grammatical construction used here can be called the qualitative or categorical use of the indefinite. Basically, that means x belongs to the category y, or "x is a y." The examples I used in a letter now widely circulated are "Snoopy is a dog"; "The car is a Volkswagen"; and "John is a smart person." The common translation "The Word was God" is as erroneous for this construction as it would be to say in English "Snoopy is dog"; "The car is Volkswagen"; or "John is smart person." The indefinite article is mandatory because we are talking about a member of a class or category.

"Sometimes in English we can accomplish the same syntactical function by using a predicate adjective in place of the indefinite noun phrase. In the examples I gave above, this only works with "John is a smart person," which means the same thing as "John is smart." What Harner calls the qualitative sense is the same as what I call the categorical sense. In the many examples throughout the New Testament of the same grammatical construct as found in John 1:1c, the indefinite noun used is always a class or category to which the subject is said to belong. But in several of these examples, the category is used to suggest the quality the subject has, as in the many "a son of x" expressions found in the New Testament.

"Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for John quality was the centre of focus rather than category"" Being honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER "And the Word was a god" OR "And the Word was divine." I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything about that. If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I would be committing the same offense as those who have said that "And the Word was God" is the only possible translation. The whole point of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.

"What I can say is that "And the Word was God" is extremely difficult to justify, because it goes against the plain grammar of the passage. Either of the other two translations are acceptable, because the Greek allows them, while it does not obviously allow the traditional translation. What your correspondent needs to understand, in dealing with others on this question, is that the wording "The Word was divine" agrees 100% in meaning with "The Word was a god" and only 50% with "And the Word was God." What must be given up from the latter wording is the absolute identity between Word and God that the traditional translation tried to impose. John clearly did not intend to make such an absolute identification, and that is precisely why he very carefully manipulates his word in the passage to rule it out. But, yes, John is putting the Word into the "god" or "divine" category, and that is as true if the wording is "a god" or "divine."

"Remember, the Word is not a human person, and John does not use "god" for the Word to say he is talking about a prophet or a leader or an important person. The Word is a superhuman (hence "divine") essence or being, very intimately connected to The God. How intimately? In what way connected? In what precise relationship? The answers to those questions are much more involved, and must be based on a reading of the Gospel of John as a whole, where John works very hard to make it all clear. And yes, there will be disagreements about how to understand this larger picture John is trying to convey.

"Of course, if your correspondent is using what I have written in arguments with people who favor the traditional translation, they are likely to seize upon my acceptance of "The Word was divine" as somehow a defense of their view. That is also something that cannot be helped. The idea of a Trinity developed over the centuries after the Gospel of John was written precisely as one solution to the questions raised by John's wording. The JWs have a different solution to those same questions. I am not in a position to arbitrate such historical interpretations of the text. I think John went as far as he felt inspired to go in his understanding of things, and I do not fault him for not going further and for not answering all of the additional questions people have been able to raise since his time.

"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."

Jason BeDuhnAssociate Professor of Religious Studies, and ChairDepartment of Humanities, Arts, and ReligionNorthern Arizona University.10/2/2001

And, just to repeat what Prof. BeDuhn said (his exact own words):

"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.”The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."


Prof. BeDuhn's own words prove that individuals like Larry who try to use Prof. BeDuhn's remarks about the NWT, trying to justify their Trinitarian stance, do not merit any attention and do not duly disturb any seekers of the truth.

Baptist post:

The following was posted onto the "Bible Translation mailing list" Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:35:42

"I have been reading 'Truth in Translation' by Jason David BeDuhn (ISBN: 0761825568). The subtitle is: 'Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.'"His premise is that we should derive our theology from the Bible, and not determine our translation by our theology. He then sets about examining a number of texts and showing where he thinks bias has crept in. His arguments are robust and certainly not far-fetched. The trouble is I am left feeling very uneasy."He ends up arguing for the superior accuracy and neutrality of the NWT, and all the texts he examines are notorious for being points of difference between JWs and trinitarian Christians. Chapter 11 is devoted to John 1:1. We all know the line of thinking: although, technically, the end of the verse could be translated 'and the Word was a god', trinitarian Christians go with 'the Word was God' because we assume that John, here and elsewhere in his Gospel, has a firm (if proto-) trinitarian understanding. The usual defence is that QEOS is anarthrous (article dropped) because it is a predicate and preceeds the verb eimi (to be). (Colwell's rule)."But BeDuhn seems to demolish this by citing other instances where the definite article is kept with a predicated nominative, including John 1:4: 'the light was the light of men' (also 6:51, 15:1, 20:15)."BeDuhn supports the view of one Harner who suggests that predicate nouns without the article and placed before the verb describe or define the character of the sentence's subject i.e. that is has a qualitative reference. BeDuhn would translate 'the Word was divine'."I am stumped as to find an adequate rebuttal to BeDuhn - or maybe there isn't one. Anyone who has read his book will be in the best position to answer, though I hope others will have a contribution to."In raising all this, I do not want to get into a theological debate, nor an anti/pro-JW stance (I'm a Baptist); I simply want to open up the translation issues." By David Dewey

Prof. BeDuhn is not a J/W, and is not connected with us in any way.

I will be bringing out an additional reply, supplimenting what Prof. BeDuhn says regarding John 1:1c using the (Sahidic) Coptic Gospel of John, which shows that the NWT and other translations are correct in rendering John 1:1c as, "a god" and not "god"...

Best wishes,

letusreason

John 1:1 and the ordinary man. How does he understand it-The Trinty.

Does John 1:1 Indicate that God and
Christ (the Logos) are One-And-The-Same?

How would an ordinary man who is not schooled in any language other than knowing his own, say English understand John 1:1? Also, bear in mind that he has no bible knowledge.

"Contributed".

“…Thus, one need NOT be a scholar, a linguist, a Greek grammarian, etc., to follow along. It is absolutely unreasonable to think that God would impose such requirements on anyone who is seeking to get to the truth of the matter under consideration here. (Matthew 18:1-6)”


Satisfactorily resolving this question requires that one have a clear understanding of THREE basic, simple, yet rarely-understood, concepts relating to the exercise of language translation in general; and Greek-to-English translation in specific. These are:

Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English.

Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without compromising accuracy.

Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and how this must be handled in translation from Greek to English.

These three concepts and how they relate to one another (and to a proper understanding of John 1:1) will be explained fully in this narrative.

To this end, and...
to keep issues clear and manageable for the reader...
this narrative is presented in 5 progressively-developed segments below, with each segment providing a clear and solid foundation for its successor segment - with the end result being a coherent and easily-understood presentation of the question at hand.

Although the language translation concepts presented here are applicable in many language translation contexts, they are discussed here specifically in the context of translation from Greek to English.

There will be short illustrative passages of Greek presented here. However, this need NOT cause any concern, because these passages are fully translated and clarified such that, even those who know no Greek will have no problems following the concepts presented...

Thus, one need NOT be a scholar, a linguist, a Greek grammarian, etc., to follow along. It is absolutely unreasonable to think that God would impose such requirements on anyone who is seeking to get to the truth of the matter under consideration here. (Matthew 18:1-6) Furthermore, inasmuch as God undertook very personal and painful measures to open the way to accurate knowledge concerning himself and his son Jesus Christ, (John 17:3) one may safely presume that such knowledge is fully intended to be attainable and clearly understandable.

The 5 progressively developed segments comprising this commentary are summarized as follows:

Segment 1:
A clarification of the question introducing this commentary, and WHY the question is even asked:
Does John 1:1 indicate that God and Christ (the Logos) are one-and-the-same?

Segment 2:
A discussion of Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English.

Segment 3:
A discussion of Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without compromising accuracy.

Segment 4:
A discussion of Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and how this must be handled in translation from Greek to English.

Segment 5:
Review and obvious conclusion

SEGMENT 1:

A clarification of the question introducing this commentary, and WHY the question is even asked:

Does John 1:1 indicate that God and Christ (the Logos) are one-and-the-same?


John 1:1 in the original Greek follows:
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

An acceptable variation of the most common English translation of this verse is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

An acceptable variation of the opposing English translation of this verse is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

The not-so-subtle difference between the above opposing translations is:

- The former suggests that Christ (the Logos) is God himself.
- The latter suggests that Christ (the Logos) is a god (i.e., NOT God himself, but one like God)

Obviously(!) the implications raised by these opposing translations of John 1:1 are enormous. One is, therefore, absolutely justified in asking: "Which one is correct?"

And, in actuality, the REAL point of contention here is the little red "a" in the latter translation...DOES IT BELONG THERE? - OR NOT?

The issue raised, of course, has to do with getting to know the very nature of God and his son Jesus Christ. (They are either one-and-the-same...or they are not!) The warning raised by the apostle Paul at 2nd Thessalonians 1:6-8 attaches a mortal tempo to this issue.

The remaining 4 segments of this narrative deal with the little red "a" and the propriety or impropriety of its presence in the English translation of John 1:1. (Once this minor logistics problem is solved, everything else falls into place.)


SEGMENT 2:

A discussion of Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English.

[The little red "a" mentioned in the previous segment is known grammatically as an "article." More specifically, it is an "indefinite article." Because the controversy being discussed here cannot be apprehended intelligently without having a clear understanding of articles and their role in English and Greek expression, the following is provided...]

Webster's dictionary defines an "article" as "...the words "the" and "a," (or "an") in English, that are linked to nouns and that typically function in identifying nouns as nouns and in indicating definiteness or indefiniteness of reference."

As mentioned here, English has two articles: The DEFINITE article "the," and the INDEFINITE article "a." (or "an") These articles are invariable in form, i.e., they always occur as "the," and "a." (or "an") They do not change.

Greek, on the other hand, has only ONE article, the DEFINITE article. This article is quite variable in form, i.e., it changes (or morphs itself) regularly into as many as 30 different variations of itself. REGARDLESS, it is STILL Greek's single DEFINITE article, and in all of its forms, it is translated simply as "the."

Thus, in both English and Greek, the article, as Webster's definition above suggests, simply assigns the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

In the material immediately following, we will examine the difference between HOW English and Greek use their respective articles to assign the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

English first...

Notice the subtle shades of meaning generated by use of these articles in the sentences below as they express grammatical "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" with regard to the man and the woman being discussed...

AND, to provide a beneficially meaningful dimension to these sentences, imagine that you are in a park in an unfamiliar locale, and you encounter two tourists whom you do not know. One of the tourists is telling the other about an event he witnessed at a picturesque gazebo in the park. With this in mind, imagine that the tourist who witnessed this event tells 4 different one-sentence versions of what he saw...as follows:


"A man married a woman."
Notice what is implied by the indefinite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.


"The man married a woman."
Now notice what is implied by the definite article preceding man and the indefinite article preceding woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.


"A man married the woman."
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


"The man married the woman."
And finally, notice what is implied by the definite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


Regarding the 4 examples above, there is absolutely nothing foreign or mystical about their meaning. They simply illustrate HOW the English language uses its definite and indefinite articles to express notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness."


Now, Greek...

In the Greek language, however, there is a different variation on this theme: As stated above, Greek has only the definite article. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE! Therefore, although Greek can use the same grammatical mechanism as English to express definiteness, it MUST obviously (!) use a DIFFERENT grammatical mechanism to express indefiniteness.

This will be clearly illustrated in the following examples. These examples will take advantage of the park wedding scenario given above. However, we will experience it from the Greek perspective, via the accompanying word-for-word LITERAL English translations. Note that, because we are thinking in Greek, ALL of the articles here are DEFINITE articles - and they will be high-lighted in green so that their comparative use may be immediately evident.

AGAIN, remember that, because Greek DOES NOT HAVE AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE, its grammatical mechanism for expressing the notion of "indefiniteness" will be seen here to be DIFFERENT from English.

ALSO, BEAR IN MIND THAT THE GREEK SENTENCES WHICH FOLLOW ARE PROPER GREEK. DO NOT be put off by their seeming "incompleteness." If you are not used to thinking in Greek, then that is the way they will sound...incomplete! This is perfectly normal. Simply keep in mind that you are experiencing proper Greek thought via word-for-word literal English translation.


WITH THIS IN MIND... We will repeat the park wedding scenario above - thinking in Greek this time! It will be seen that we come to exactly the same conclusions about the man and the woman as we did in the previous English scenario. The conceptual pattern is the same - only the grammatical mechanism is different. It is Greek.


anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
Notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the LACK OF Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.


o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
Now, notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the Greek definite article preceding anqrwpoV and the LACK OF the Greek definite article preceding gunaika: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.


anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
And finally, notice what is implied by the Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


At this point the reader should see clearly that, inasmuch as Greek does NOT have an INDEFINITE article, it nevertheless perfectly expresses the notion of "indefiniteness" by simply NOT using its DEFINITE article! This mechanism is very typical of Greek in its elegant efficiency of expression.

However, as seen in our examples above, this peculiarity of Greek, if conveyed literally in English translation, presents aesthetic problems to English speakers. This is simply because English utilizes a different grammatical mechanism for expressing "indefiniteness," and the failure to employ that mechanism in translation to English (i.e., by NOT using the English indefinite article where necessary) is quickly "sensed" by the English speaker, such that he feels something is "incomplete." There is an aesthetic glitch which must necessarily be fixed by the translator before his job is done.

This necessary fix is discussed in the next segment, SEGMENT 3.


SEGMENT 3:

A discussion of Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without compromising accuracy.


Given the park wedding scenario illustrated in the previous segment, we saw that, as it pertains to "indefinite" expressions, conveying LITERAL Greek thought in English leaves a bit to be desired.

With this in mind, it is important to understand that, in general, NO word-for-word literal translation of thought from one language to another will do aesthetic justice to the source language (e.g., Greek) when conveyed thus in the target language. (e.g., English) Therefore, the concept of "literalness" with regard to language translation must be understood as a relative concept.

In view of this, it should be clear that, even the best "literal" English translation of the Bible is only relatively literal. If it were word-for-word literal, then its English would sound strange and "incomplete" to the English reader, as was the case in our Greek park wedding scenario above.

To avoid this, translators must ROUTINELY exercise their considerable expertise to balance literalness with aesthetics by the application of a connective linguistic "glue"...

This linguistic "glue" is quite simply the addition of "connective" language to (or the omission of "disconnective" language from) a base literal translation such that, the result is a relatively literal translation which conveys full aesthetic soundness to the target language speaker, WITHOUT compromising accuracy.

This application of linguistic "glue" is a very serious matter in the realm of language translation. And it occurs in many varied and complex circumstances. In this commentary, however, we are discussing ONLY its application to the problem of transferring correct notions of definiteness and indefiniteness from Greek thought to English thought - via the proper use of articles.

To see examples of this, we will recall the park wedding scenario above with its Greek expressions and their literal English translations. All articles, as previously, will still be high-lighted in green . In addition, however, we will now include a 2nd English translation for each Greek expression. This 2nd translation will illustrate the use of the linguistic "glue" necessary to make the 1st translation (the word-for-word literal translation) sound correct to the English speaker. You will notice that the "glue" in this case is simply the application of the indefinite article (the little red " a ") where appropriate...

anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
a man married a woman


o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
the man married a woman


anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
a man married the woman


o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
the man married the woman (no change necessary)


Notice that in the 2nd translation for each Greek expression above, (except the last) English indefinite articles (i.e., little red "a"s) were added to provide the linguistic "glue" which gives proper sound and feeling to the English translation. NOTE that these English indefinite articles were added by the translator, EVEN THOUGH NO SUCH ARTICLES EXIST IN THE GREEK EQUIVALENT. Remember! Greek has no such (indefinite) articles.

This translational practice is perfectly acceptable, ROUTINE, and indeed necessary, if the translation is to convey correct thought in correct English.

As a matter of fact, bearing the above concept in mind, it should be clear to the reader that EVERY TIME HE SEES THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, he is seeing an application of the above-mentioned linguistic "glue!" (i.e., the little red " a ") added by the translator!

Now, as a formative conceptual exercise, please open your English Bible and browse randomly through the New Testament and contemplate the number of times you encounter the indefinite article. (i.e., the little red " a ") And REMEMBER! That little "a " has NO literal equivalent in the Greek language! It is necessary linguistic "glue" added by the translator to help convey Greek thought in palatable English without compromising translational accuracy. Thus, the little red "a" has an honored, necessary, and abundant place in the process.


HOWEVER!
The translator's job is still not complete! We must now consider a sterling rule of conduct in language translation which has critical applicability to our discussion:


This sterling rule of conduct states, in essence, that aesthetics MUST take a back seat to accuracy of meaning IF accuracy of meaning is critical...ESPECIALLY if it affects doctrinal understanding!

With this rule of conduct in mind, and applying what we have learned thus far, we will again recall JOHN 1:1 in Greek and this time provide the word-for-word literal translation in English.


We will also apply the colour scheme introduced earlier to modify our optic of the language of JOHN 1:1. (At the moment, we will be looking at this verse from the Greek perspective. So REMEMBER: Greek has only the DEFINITE article! There is no indefinite article. Therefore, our color scheme (as above) will high-light the definite article in green .)


John 1:1 in the original Greek:
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

John 1:1 literally translated from the above:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

Note that, because we are dealing with actual Greek along with a word-for-word literal English translation to express the equivalent Greek thought, the only articles we see high-lighted are DEFINITE articles.

AND, we notice immediately that, because we are experiencing literal Greek thought here, we see (from an English perspective) at least two aesthetic irregularities which will require fixing with our linguistic "glue:"

The 1st irregularity:
"in beginning" sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The 2nd irregularity:
"with the god" also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The translator must, therefore, apply his linguistic "glue" to these two irregularities such that they may sound aesthetically proper to the English speaker. AND he must bear in mind his sterling rule of conduct as well: Accuracy of critical meaning must NOT be compromised...

So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")

He was thinking in Greek, therefore he was thinking of an indefinite "beginning" because he did NOT use the Greek definite article here. Based on what we learned earlier, the translator must, therefore, put the little red "a" before "beginning." to convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek!) meant, e.g., "in a beginning."

But that STILL sounds strange to an English speaker! However, if the translator puts the DEFINITE article "the" before "beginning," then it sounds correct. (e.g., "in the beginning")

But this is NOT what John said or meant!

So... If the translator leaves the "the" there for aesthetic purposes, will it compromise critical meaning?

Surprisingly enough, NOT REALLY! This is because the difference in meaning can be shifted semantically in English to mean what John said anyway.

Thus, even though a very subtle difference in meaning is conveyed now to an English speaker, (a meaning which John did not really intend) it is, nevertheless, aesthetically sound, AND the difference in meaning is not really critical - it can be compensated for semantically. Therefore, the translator may apply his "glue" here (depicted in red) and we end up with a satisfactory phrase in English: "in the beginning."


NOW, what about the 2nd irregularity?:
"with the god" which also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

What did John (thinking in Greek) mean by "with the god?" He used the Greek Definite article. Therefore, he meant his God, the one and only God Almighty. (In the NEW TESTAMENT, this Greek construction ("god" preceded by the Greek definite article) ALWAYS means the one and only God Almighty.) However, it sounds strange to the English speaker! English speakers with a Christian background ROUTINELY refer to the one and only God almighty as simply "God!" There is no need for the definite article here to convey to the English speaker what John (thinking in Greek) meant...

Therefore, the translator may again apply his "glue:" "with * god." (The red asterisk here simply reminds us, for the sake of this discussion, that "glue" was applied, by virtue of the omission of a definite article.)


At this point, we have satisfactorily dealt with the two irregularities mentioned above, and the resulting English translation, with linguistic glue in place, now appears as follows:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god and god was the word


However, having thus dealt with these two irregularities, we have touched upon yet a 3rd irregularity, far more subtle, which is the subject of our next SEGMENT...


SEGMENT 4:

A discussion of Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and how this must be handled in language translation from Greek to English.


It was demonstrated in the previous SEGMENT that English speakers ROUTINELY refer to God Almighty as simply "God" (without a definite article) and, in so doing, leave no ambiguity as to WHO is meant.

This peculiar mode of address in English is at the crux of the controversy swirling around John 1:1. (And English is certainly not the only language which evokes this controversy!) To appreciate the subtle translational disaster which this causes with regard to understanding John 1:1 properly, we must carefully contrast the way that English treats the following three forms of nouns when assigning notions of "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to them via articles...(or the LACK of articles):

These three forms of nouns are:

1. TITLES,

2. COMMON NOUNS, and

3. PROPER NAMES


Let's be clear on what these are:

TITLES are special nouns which convey a categorical or functional notion to the subjects which they "tag." For example, the following are TITLES. Notice how these titles clearly convey category or function to those who might be "tagged" by them...e.g., Mayor Smith. (Mr. Smith is "tagged" with the title of mayor. (We know his category (of office) or function by virtue of his TITLE. The same applies to the other TITLES in this list.)

mayor
policeman
father
mother
teacher
professor
god
etc.
etc.


COMMON NOUNS are nouns which are slightly more generic than TITLES. We need only understand here that there is considerable conceptual overlap between these two types of nouns, (e.g., all of the above are common nouns as well as titles...) Some examples of other common nouns are:

dog
cat
boy
ball
cab
etc.
etc.


PROPER NAMES are nouns which uniquely "tag" their subjects as identifiable in a crowd of like nouns of the same category or function. For example,


Tom
Canada
Paris
Mary
Texas
etc.
etc.


Now notice carefully in the following sentences how differently English treats some of the nouns taken from the above lists - particularly, with regard to assigning notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" to them via articles...(or the LACK of articles)

The dog bit mayor.
The dog bit policeman.
The dog bit cat.

The dog bit mother.
The dog bit father.
The dog bit TOM.
The dog bit God.

Notice that, in English, the 1st three victims of the dog require either an indefinite or a definite article before them in order to meet English aesthetic standards, e.g.,

The dog bit (a/the) mayor.
The dog bit (a/the) policeman.
The dog bit (a/the) cat.

Contrastingly, however, the last four victims of the dog require no such "articular" intervention to meet English aesthetic standards! (Note particularly, that one of these victims is God.) WHY do these nouns not need an article?!

Theories and variations of theories abound on matters such as this. The bottom line, however, is that such nouns or titles DON'T NEED ARTICLES IN ENGLISH - or in many other languages. This undoubtedly has to do with the implied intimate linguistic contexts in which such titles have been developed over thousands of years of language evolution...such that, they have acquired the near status of PROPER NAMES, (WHICH ALSO DON'T NEED ARTICLES IN ENGLISH) e.g., TOM, MARY, PARIS. For the sake of discussion, we may simply refer to such titles as titles of intimacy.

Now note another subtle peculiarity regarding such titles of intimacy:
As stated, they DON'T need articles to be aesthetically correct in the contexts which we have discussed above. HOWEVER, THEY MAY FREELY TAKE ON ARTICLES AT ANY TIME AND NOT SUFFER ANY LOSS OF AESTHETIC CORRECTNESS IN SUCH CONTEXTS! In so doing, however, they lose a degree of intimacy. AND, their MEANING in context is definitely altered. For example...

The dog bit Mother.
(The speaker's mother is implied here: quite intimate! Notice that no article is used.)

The dog bit a mother.
(...as opposed to a policeman. (How rude and unfeeling!) The speaker's mother is NOT implied here: less intimate. Notice that an indefinite article ("a") is used.)

The dog bit the mother.
(...as opposed to her child. The speaker's mother is NOT implied here either, however, there is slightly more specificity of meaning. This example too, is less intimate than the 1st example. Notice that a definite article ("the") is used.)

The sole purpose of this little exercise is to show the special status which such titles of intimacy enjoy in the English language context. AND that, with regard to the use of articles and concomitant meaning, they are quite flexible. Therefore, in translation from Greek to English, they must be treated very carefully if correct meaning concerning them is to be conveyed across these languages...

To illustrate this clearly using the pattern of examples immediately preceding, and applying it to the title of intimacy "god," in JOHN 1:1, notice what happens:

[Following are Greek variations on the JOHN 1:1 theme, with literal translations into English:
(Note that the 1st of the following examples is the actual ending of John 1:1 in Greek, which incorporates the title of intimacy, "god" (qeoV). The other three examples are clones of the 1st example. These clones use nouns which are NOT titles of intimacy.)]

kai qeoV hn o logoV
and god was the logos

kai telwnhV hn o logoV
and tax collector was the logos

kai maqhthV hn o logoV
and disciple was the logos

kai paiV hn o logoV
and child was the logos


Regarding the preceding examples, as well as those which follow, continue to bear in mind TWO things:

1. Based upon our discussion in Segment 2 above, the literal English translations given here represent PROPER Greek thought, strange as it may sound.

2. Based upon our discussion in Segment 3 above, because the Greek definite article was NOT used with the 1st noun in each of the preceding phrases, (i.e., qeoV, telwnhV, maqhthV, paiV (god, tax collector, disciple, child; respectively)) we understand that the Greek thought assigned to these nouns is therefore indefinite. Thus, the translator MUST convey this indefiniteness correctly in translation to English by applying his linguistic "glue," i.e., the little red "a." This must ESPECIALLY be done in the 1st example using qeoV even though it does not appear necessary. e.g.,

kai qeoV hn o logoV
and god was the logos
and a god was the logos

kai telwnhV hn o logoV
and tax collector was the logos
and a tax collector was the logos

kai maqhthV hn o logoV
and disciple was the logos
and a disciple was the logos

kai paiV hn o logoV
and child was the logos
and a child was the logos



DO WE APPRECIATE THE FULL IMPACT OF WHAT HAS JUST BEEN DEMONSTRATED HERE?...particularly with regard to the 1st example using "god" (i.e., a title of intimacy) as the noun in question?

As observed earlier regarding such titles and the effect of applied "articular" intervention on them, the title "god" has now lost a degree of intimacy - AND its meaning has very definitely been altered(!) in a fashion which is not at all amenable to commonly accepted Christian theology: Our complete corrected translation of John 1:1, with linguistic glue in place, now stands as follows:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god and a god was the word

This brings us to our final segment in this commentary...


SEGMENT 5:

Review and obvious conclusion.

Distilling the essence of the previous 4 segments, we recall the following:


SEGMENT 1:
The original Greek of John 1:1 has commonly been translated to suggest that God and Jesus Christ (the Word) are one-and-the-same, e.g.,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Contrastingly, this verse has far less commonly been translated to suggest that God and Jesus Christ (the Word) are distinct and separate beings - that the Word is "a god," or a god-like (or divine) one, e.g.,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

The very valid question is then posed: Which of these translations is correct?

Or, more succinctly: Does the little red "a" belong there or not?


SEGMENT 2:
Because the critter in question (the little red "a") is an indefinite article, a discussion of the concept of the comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in Greek and English was presented.

We learned that, although English has BOTH a definite and an indefinite article, Greek has ONLY a definite article. Therefore, the mechanisms which both languages use to convey the notion of indefiniteness MUST, of necessity, be functionally different. This difference was clearly demonstrated via the use of literal Greek to English phrase translations in which it was illustrated that when Greek omits its single definite article with respect to a related noun, it (Greek) is indicating that noun's INDEFINITENESS.


SEGMENT 3:
We learned that these nouns in literal translation necessarily cause aesthetic irregularities which must be fixed by the translator via the judicious and honest application of "linguistic glue" in English...AND that this must be done WITHOUT compromising meaning.


SEGMENT 4:
And finally, we learned that this is true particularly with regard to titles of intimacy (such as god) which, if NOT tagged properly with the English INDEFINITE article, can freely bounce back and forth between Greek and English, switching their noun status from indefinite to definite, WITHOUT even being noticed, while at the same time significantly altering intended meaning.


However, if the translator does his duty and "catches" this quick "in-transit costume-change" by applying the little red "a" like he's supposed to, then the apostle John's intended meaning at John 1:1 is accurately conveyed to the English reader, i.e., THAT JESUS CHRIST IS A GOD-LIKE ENTITY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM GOD HIMSELF: HE IS A GOD. As such, his role as God's son takes on a completely different and far more sensible meaning than that commonly presented in "acceptable" Christian theology: He becomes, quite simply, God's son, WITHOUT all the usual mystic doctrinal accoutrements...


ADDENDUM
Some applicable material which applies to the arguments presented in this commentary:

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text
1808, LONDON
Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists
1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)
Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott
1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)
Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation
1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)
Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)
Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)
"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)
"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)
"...und ein Gott war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The preceding list is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to indicate clearly that debate concerning the matter is alive and well.




The following incident recorded in the Book of Acts, Chapter 28, lends interesting insight into the fact that translators are CLEARLY aware of the issues discussed in this commentary, but in the case of John 1:1, most choose to ignore them:

VSS 1-6 of Acts 28 relate the apostle Paul's encounter with a venomous snake on the island of Malta. He is bitten by the snake, and the Maltese residents present at the time expect that Paul will surely die. When he does not die, then according to most translations, the residents "began saying that he was a god."

The original Greek for this phrase follows:
elegon auton einai qeon

Notice that there is no definite article before qeon. ("god") Therefore, the Greek writer (as in John 1:1) intended indefiniteness, which indefiniteness MUST be conveyed in English via an indefinite article. (the little red "a") Translators have ROUTINELY demonstrated that they CLEARLY understand this by correctly translating this phrase as follows:

they were saying he was a god

Yet, if they applied the same faulty mentality to this verse as they ROUTINELY do to John 1:1, then they would INCORRECTLY translate this verse (as they have at John 1:1) as follows:

they were saying he was god

Remember! Because the word "god" has special status as a title of intimacy, the translator could easily get away with this and nobody would notice...It sounds and looks natural, despite the obvious alteration in meaning! (Ironically, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference here because we're talking about Paul and NOT Jesus Christ. (i.e., If the Maltese islanders want to think that Paul is "God;" or if they want to think that he's "a god," it's not a doctrinal issue of the immense proportions of John 1:1.) )


letusreason