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 (noute, "god"), 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

The definite and indefinite articles (in blue) in John 1:1 (in green), from a 6th-century Sahidic Coptic manuscript.

When the apostle John wrote the beginning of his Gospel, he included the Greek definite article before the first occurrence of θεος (theos, "god") 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 both the definite article and 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 325 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? No, as biblical monotheism allows for others, such as Moses, with delegated authority and power to be called "gods" in a relative sense, not in opposition to the only true God.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 the definite article and 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 uses the indefinite article in a perfectly usual manner, in the other language it may 'sound' awkward to use it in the same situation.

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, this is usually rendered simply as "water" because water is a substance that is not usually counted. Thus, because we usually don't count water, it seems strange 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 simply leaving off the definite article and allowing the context to convey to others that we are not speaking of any specific water. Or we could add the word "some," which is also indefinite and unspecific, to make the indefiniteness more explicit, as in "some water."

Another instance where Coptic uses the indefinite article where English typically doesn't is with abstract nouns like "a grace" (ⲟⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ, as in John 1:16). Again, the use of the indefinite article in these cases just makes explicit what can be conveyed implicitly in English. Grace is being referenced in an indefinite sense, i.e. no specific instance of grace is being referenced, but rather grace in general. Again this could be made explicit in English, while not sounding awkward, by saying "some grace."

Of course, the word ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ("god") doesn't fall into one of these categories, so the literal, straightforward approach is to render it in English with the indefinite article where it appears with the indefinite article in Coptic. The ancient Coptic translators recognized in the Greek text of John 1:1c the absence of the definite article, along with the context, as making "god" an indefinite noun. 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 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 ("god") is really qualitative. A qualitative noun emphasizes qualities, so a qualitative rendering of ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ would be something like "divine" or "godly." Still, this other possibility in no way cancels out the indefinite rendering, "a god," as 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 (emphasis his).

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 make use of the definite article.

"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 [Christos, "Christ"] and κύριος [kyrios, "lord"] 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 virtually 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 ancient Coptic, it was still viewed strictly as a title, and as such it usually appeared along with a definite article. So when translating ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ (pnoute, "the god") 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 (pnoute raiphan, "the god Raiphan"), 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 him 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 (pnoute pshare enwot, literally, "the god, the only son") is an apparent combination of two variant readings from Greek manuscripts. Greek texts use either μονογενὴς υἱός (monogenes huios, "only-begotten son") or μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes theos, "only-begotten god"), 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 didn't. They only modified the noun "son." Why?

Evidently the Greek adjective μονογενὴς (monogenes, "only-begotton" or "unique") was not in common use among Coptic speakers at the time, so the translators used the Coptic word ⲟⲩⲱⲧ (wot, "only" or "one") 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." The term ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲱⲧ (noute enwot, "only god" or "one god") 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, the Coptic phrase we'd expect but was apparently viewed as term reserved for the Father exclusively, stands as a significant bulwark 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, and so that version uses that word instead of 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 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.⁶

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 (New Athena Unicode is recommended).
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, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004), 227.
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.