The Question of John 1 vs 1 in Sahidic Coptic

Resolved Question
Show me another

Is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 the last nail in the coffin of the Trinity . . .?
. . . Or is it the first nail in the coffin, considering its early date? The Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine. The Sahidic Coptic calls the Word in John 1:1 "a god," not "god" or "the god." First or last nail?

4 years ago Report Abuse

Additional Details
Doulos Iesou Christou: The word is referred to as "the god" in second century manuscripts? I don't think so. Definitely not in Coptic, since the Sahidic Coptic was the earliest translation into Coptic. Certainly not in the Greek, or we'd see the variants in Nestle-Aland. 4 years ago I've read what Wallace has said on John 1:1. Yes, he is well respected amongst the Trinitarians. From a nontrinitarian perspective, he doesn't really make a strong case. And some of things he says, especially involving the New World Translation, is quite simply inaccurate. Remember, Athanasius was from Alexandria also, not just Arius. In the fourth century, the church was split about 50/50 concerning the trinity/non-trinity. But remember, the Sahidic Coptic translation was made the century before the so-called Arian controversy. 4 years ago Doulos Iesou Christou: Replying to your private email - sorry, but I don't have Wallace's material handy. I remember one point, though. Going by memory (it's been a few years) he said that the NWT's John 1:1c was only an indefinite reading. Then he goes on to state, as Bar Enosh points out below, that the correct meaning is qualitative in meaning. Well, the NWT's rendering can be considered qualitative in nature.

If you have the NWT w/ References edition, you will find that the NWT translators offer, not just one, but three renderings for John 1:1c. All of which can be qualitative. 1. And the Word was a god. 2. And the Word was god-like. 3. And the Word was divine. All three are qualitative in meaning. The Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT also says that John 1:1c is qualitative. Another point: In English, "and the Word was a god" can be considered qualitative. It can also be indefinite. But the phrase "and the Word was God" is not qualitative. It is only definite. 4 years ago Many Greek scholars admit that John 1:1c is qualitative in the Greek, yet insist on a strictly definite English translation. The NWT is more honest by offering three renderings, all of which are qualitative. 4 years ago