Coptic John 1:1 c: "Tertium non video"

A noted Coptic scholar, Dr. Ariel Shisha HaLevy, commented thusly on

the different ways in which Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c could be rendered
appropriately in English. He said that the possibilities are essentially
two: “the Word was a god” or “the Word was godly/divine."

What about the popular, traditional rendering, "the Word was God."
Did the Coptic text support that?

"Tertium non video," this respected Coptic scholar replied in Latin.

That is, "I do not see a third (possibility)."

Similarly, renowned Coptic scholar Dr. Bentley Layton writes in his

book A Coptic Grammar, Second Edition (Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004),
that “article phrases of the gendered common noun, ou.noute,” as found
at Coptic John 1:1c, admit of “two interpretations” – not three --, which
are “a god,” or “divine,” i.e., an indefinite reading or an adjectival
reading. – page 227

So, there is no place in the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c for
the definite reading, “the Word was God,” which would grammatically
require the use of the Sahidic Coptic definite article.

The Sahidic Coptic definite article is used at Coptic John 1:1b, when
speaking of the Entity whom the Word is with: p.SaJe neFSoop nnaHrm
p.noute, “The Word existed in the presence of The God.”

But at John 1:1c, the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article is used: ne.u.noute
pe p.SaJe. As both Dr. Shisha HaLevy and Dr. Layton indicate, this can
best be translated into English as either “the Word was a god” or as
“the Word was divine.”

The Coptic translation of John 1:1c cannot be correctly translated to

say “the Word was God.”

The ancient Coptic version's indefinite grammatical syntax at John 1:1c

does not support any grammatically definite translation like "the Word
was God." That is not what those ancient translators saw and
understood from their Greek texts.
Truly, “tertium non video.” In the Coptic, there is no “third” way to
translate John 1:1c.