(The Greek script in the article doesn't show up here. Follow the link to see it if you want).

Translating John 1:1: The Coptic Evidence
(Solomon Landers, September 2006)

The Coptic translation of John 1:1
1a. Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?}Â?Â?
1b. }Â?Â?Â?Â?}Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?}Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?
1c. }Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?}Â?Â?

It is becoming well-known that the primary Coptic translations of John 1:1c â?? the
Sahidic, the proto-Bohairic, and the Bohairic â?? do not render it â??the Word was
God,â?? as is common in many English versions, but â??the Word was a god,â?? found
notably in the New World Translation.

The significance of this is remarkable. First, the Coptic versions precede the New
World Translation by some 1,700 years, and are part of the corpus of ancient textual
witnesses to the Gospel of John. Second, the Coptic versions were produced at a
time when the Koine Greek of the Christian Greek Scriptures was still a living
language whose finer nuances could be understood by the Coptic translators, so
much so that many Greek words are left untranslated in the Coptic texts. Third,
the Coptic versions do not show the influence of later interpretations of Christology
fostered by the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries CE.

The Greek text of John 1:1c says, E<D K@I7 CH I FIBI7 an anarthrous preverbal
construction that can be literally rendered as, â??and a god was the Word.â??
Likewise, the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1c reads,}Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?
Â?Â?}Â?Â?, an indefinite construction that literally says â??and a god was the Word.â??
Coptic grammarians agree that this is what the Coptic says literally. But the
theological presuppositions of certain grammarians do not allow them to be
satisfied with that reading. Just as they attempt to do with the Greek text of John
1:1c, certain Evangelical scholars seek to modify the clear impact of â??a god was the
Word.â??

But whereas the Greek text allows for some ambiguity in an anarthrous
construction, the Coptic text does not allow for the same ambiguity in an indefinite
construction. Unlike Koine Greek, Coptic has not only the definite article, but the
indefinite article also. Or, a Coptic noun may stand without the article, in the â??zero
articleâ?? construction. Thus, in Coptic we may find : Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â? , â??the god,â??
Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?, â??a god,â?? or Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?, â??god.â??

The Sahidic Coptic indefinite article is used to mark â??a non-specific individual or
specimen of a class: a morpheme marking an element as a non-specific or individual
or specimen of a class (â??a man,â?? â??other gods,â?? etc.).â?? â?? Coptic Grammatical
Chrestomathy (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 1988), A. Shisha-Halevy, p. 268
Given these clear choices, it cannot but be highly relevant to their understanding of
the meaning of John 1:1c that the Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to
employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it.

Were the Coptic translators looking at John 1:1c qualitatively, as has been
suggested by some scholars in their analysis of the Greek text? That is not likely,
since the Coptic text does not use the abstract prefixes before the count noun for
god, Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?. They were specifically calling the Word â??a god,â?? and only in the
sense that a god is also â??divineâ?? can a translation in the order of â??the Word was
divineâ?? be glossed from the Coptic text. Whereas â??the Word was divineâ?? can be a
legitimate English paraphrase of the Coptic text, it is not the literal reading.
The Coptic evidence is significant given the fact that Bible scholars have roundly
chastised the New World Translation for its supposedly â??innovativeâ?? rendering, â??the
Word was a godâ?? at John 1:1c. But this very way of understanding the Greek text
of John 1:1c now proves to be, not new, but ancient, the same translation of it as
given at a time when people still spoke the Greek that John used in composing his
Gospel.

But what about John 1:18, where the Coptic text has the definite article before
Â?Â?Â?Â?Â? with reference to the only[-begotten] Son: Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?yÂ?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â?Â??

Certain Evangelical scholars have asked, â??Is it reasonable that the Coptic
translators understood the Word to be â??a godâ?? at John 1:1 and then refer to him as
â??the god,â?? or â??God,â?? at John 1:18?â??

That is a logical question, but the logic is backwards. Since John 1:1 is the
introduction of the Gospel, the more logical question is â??Is it reasonable that the
Coptic translators understood the Word to be God at John 1:18 after referring to
him as â??a godâ?? at John 1:1c?â??

No. Although the Coptic translators use the definite article at John 1:18 in
identifying the Word, this use is demonstrative and anaphoric, referring back to the
individual , â??the one whoâ?? is previously identified as â??a godâ?? in the introduction.
Thus, John 1:18 identifies the Word specifically not asâ??God,â?? but as â??the godâ??
previously mentioned who was â??withâ?? (â??in the presence of,â??Coptic: Â?Â?}Â?Â?)
God. This god, who has an intimate association with his Father, is contrasted with
his Father, the God no one has ever seen.

A modern translation of the Coptic of John 1:18 is â??No one has ever seen God at all.
The god who is the only Son in the bosom of his Father is the one who has explained
him,´as found at
http://copticjohn.com

Being closer in time to the original writings of the apostle John, and crafted at a
time when Koine Greek was still spoken and well-understood, the Coptic evidence
weighs heavily in the direction of those who see in the Gospels a Jesus who is not
God, but the Son of God, a divine being who is â??the image of the invisible God,â?? but
not that Invisible God himself. This one is the Representative of his Father, who
declared the Good News of salvation to mankind, and sanctified his Fatherâ??s Name.

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf