What light does the Coptic version of John 1:1 throw on its correct translation?

Question

According to Coptic grammarian Bently Layton, the literal Coptic translation is "and the Word was a god." (page 7, "Coptic in 20 Lessons," 2007) "And the Word was divine " is also possible. (page 34)

The 2nd/ 3rd century Coptic does not support the traditional reading, "the Word was God." Nor does the reading of several other English versions, which have "Divine" or stress the quality of the Logos here (godly, godlike) rather than his identity.

The Coptic version is not a Gnostic work. It is an ancient translation of the canonical New Testament into Coptic (Egyptian) by orthodox Egyptian Christians, on a par with the Latin Vulgate and Syriac versions.

If you really don't know, it is better to say nothing. Ignorance is not appealing.

The Coptic translators had a history of 500 years with Greek in Egypt. They did their work while Koine Greek was still a living language. It is ridiculous to say that they did not know Greek.

John 1:6 and 1:12 do not have the same grammatical construction in Greek as John 1:1. At John 1:6 "god" is the object of a preposition. At John 1:12 "god" is a genitive construction. However, at John 1:1 "god" is an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate noun. In other words, you are comparing apples with oranges.

Serious replies only, please.

Answer 1

"The word was divine" certainly seems more correct, because to say "a god" goes entirely against the other doctrines of scripture.
I can see where the JWs draw their idea of this from.
Here, the trouble would seem to be in the translating into the different languages. Some things are lost, or cannot be properly caught. I think, anyway.

Answer 2

What light does the Coptic version of John 1:1 throw on its correct translation?

It shows that the Coptics didn't understand Greek and were not very good grammarians.

The word "a" is not found in the sentence. It is added because the translator read into the passage and determined that there needed to be a linking word between "was" and "God". If that same rule is applied consistently in just the first chapter of John then you would have to translate these verses as indicated.

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from (a) god, whose name was John.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of (a) god,

Answer 3

The Coptic version of John still got off the starting line a bit late to have been written by anyone who ever walked beside Jesus telling his grandkids and the grandkids finding someone to write it down when they got really old.

John also has the problem of geography of origin.

Answer 4

Why not just learn it in Greek. Jews bother to learn Hebrew, Muslims bother to learn Arabic.

Answer 5

Good thing that the deity of Christ is not just based on one verse but on numerous ones.

Answer 6

If that is how you translate it, then join the Jehovah's Witnesses. That is how they mistranslate it.

Answer 7

I don't get your point email me your point, please.