- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Once again David, we go round in circles. As I said before, I don't see the point because you have made up your mind and we all know that there are none so blind as them that will not see. If you don't have answers to my questions because your belief doesn't have answers, just say so. I understand. In fact, I'm not sure you can even “see” my questions.
Quote (david @ May 01 2007,20:45) Quote Once again David, we go round in circles. As I said before, I don't see the point because you have made up your mind and we all know that there are none so blind as them that will not see. If you don't have answers to my questions because your belief doesn't have answers, just say so. I understand. In fact, I'm not sure you can even “see” my questions.
David, we have done all this before. I have answered your questions in the past and you have tried to answer mine and it made no difference to either of us. I don't see the point in going there again.I found this extremely interesting.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….1.1.htm
D.Wallace in his “Grammar Beyond The Basics” wrote in regards the rendering QEOS EN HO LOGOS(lit., “god was the word”) as “the Word was a god”:
“a. Is theos in John 1:1c Indefinite?
“If theos were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.
The grammatical argument that the P[redicate] N[ominative] here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out: In the New Testament there are 282 occurances of the anarthrous theos. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time. . . .
The first section of John 1:1-18 furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Theos occurs eight times – verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18 – and has the article only twice – verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.” 28 – (R. H. Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures 1982 p. 54-55)
If we expand the discussion to the other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders theos as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that arche should be “a beginning” (1:1,2), zoe should be “a life” (1:4), para theos should be “from a god” (1:6), Joannes should be “a John” (1:6), Theon should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.” (p. 267, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)On page 245 of his book he writes:
“Though by definition an articular noun is definite, an anarthrous noun may also be definite under certain conditions. As was mentioned earlier, there are at least ten constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrous. The following is a brief look at these constructions.
1) Proper names
“. . . If we read Paulos we do not think of of translating it “a Paul.” . . .”2) Object of a Preposition
“There is no need for the article to be used to make the object of a preposition definite. . . ” (3) With Ordinal Numbers.
4) Predicate Nominative
“If the predicate nominative preeceds the copula, it may be definite though anarthrous. . . .”5) Complement in Object-Complement Construction
6) Monadic Nouns
7) Abstract Nouns
8) A genitive Construction
9) With a Pronominal Adjective
10) Generic Nouns “
An interested person who had read Wallace's remarks and 'use' of Countess to criticise the New World Translation at John 1:1 in his “Grammar Beyond the Basics” was prompted to write upon this to Professor Dan Wallace himself. This letter we reproduce below, with permission, which clearly shows that Wallace was unsound and mistaken in his use of this particular anti-Witness polemic and his criticism. Please note that this Grammar itself is _not_ being criticised, which otherwise is an excellent and very useful aid to those whose wish is to understand NT Greek. It is just that this reader, aswell as many others it must be said, including those behind this NWT Defense site, are disconcerted to see such a competent professor of Greek employ an arguement by another that is wholly erroneous and not even supported, even undermined, elsewhere in his Grammar. Here is that said letter:
[/I]Daniel B. Wallace
Ph.D.,
Dallas Theological Seminary.Dear Mr. Wallace,
I have just recently bought your book; “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.” It is a wonderful book, and will undoubtedly help me understand the Greek language better. I can imagine you are a very busy person, so I hope you at least get to read this. First, I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I do agree with their theology. I do not wish to debate John 1:1 with you in this letter. If it is your belief that Jesus is God and that you want to express this in your book at places, this is perfectly fine with me. But there was a section in your book that was very displeasing to me. Not that you, as a well known Bible scholar disagreed with the Witnesses, but that you as a Bible scholar with a great knowledge of the Greek language would let someone who is either purposely a deceiver or lacks knowledge of the Greek language speak for you in your book. I am referring to your quote of R. H. Countess on page 267.
It is hard to imagine you would support such an argument as this. The argument revolves around the idea that the NWT basis their rendering of “a god” in John 1:1 on the “simplistic grounds that it lacks the definite article.” then it goes on to give examples of why the NWT does not translate the other anarthrous versus in John 1:1-18 as “a beginning”, “a life” and “a John”, not to mention the other occurrences of God as anarthrous. You present this argument as the lack of the definite article should be the basis of all the anarthrous constructions in the NWT Greek Scriptures since it is their argument for John 1:1. However Mr. Wallace, are you being completely honest here? Are you saying that the NWT translators were utterly unaware of the other ways to deal with anarthrous constructions that you clearly pointed out just a few pages earlier? From pages 243 to 254 (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – by Dan Wallance) you demonstrate very nicely how an anarthrous noun can be translated as definite if it fits under any of your 10 categories. So obviously the NWT translators used these categories in translating the other anarthrous constructions of John 1:1-18 and elsewhere in the NT just as all the other Bible translators. But again, obviously the rendering in John 1:1 does not fall under any of the 10 categories you listed. That is precisely why the NWT translators argument is based only on the anarthrous contsruction and context (in this one instance) not all anarthrous constructions as you seem to say in your book. I admit I am only learning Greek, that is why I bought your book. But I know enough to know if John 1:1 fitS under any of the 10 reasons to translate an anarthrous as definite it surely would be plastered all over the literature of Witness' critics, but it is not. I really like your book, I just wish it did not contain misinformation like this. For a man who knows the Greek well enough to write a 800 page grammar, to me seems he also knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote this section of the book.
Just a note on your use of “polytheism.” Again, I'm sure you understand the background of the word God, theos, or Elohim. Do you disagree that these words refer to titles many times. [/U] In fact, it is only the English word that has the more restricted sense of the Supreme Being. The Greek and Hebrew words don't seem to be as restricted as the English does.I won't speak for the Witnesses here, but my idea is the word God is used very much like the word King. Yes, God is King and so are many others called king in their own rights. So does this also imply polytheism? No, We know that God is the Supreme King of all things. Another is only king in certain respects. The same way, God (Jehovah) is the God and ruler of all things, but others can be gods in certain respects. Moses, Judges, Angels, S
atan and Jesus. When the Bible calls Satan ho theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4 is belief in the existence of Satan polytheism?Thanks for your time, I did not mean to offend anyone with this letter, I just wanted to give my point of view. We all have the right to disagree with each other. That you do not agree with me does not bother me. It only bothers me that you ignored important facts in expressing my side of the issue. But I will continue to enjoy reading your book and learning Greek.
Sincerely,
Howard Mazzaferro
All very well for you David, but there's no way I am going to get caught up in JW teachings. It's a web of deception and I will not embark on that trail.
Taken from
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html
What Greek Scholars Think of the New World Translation
This collection of quotes, found on many Christian Bulletin Boards, primarily addresses the Jehovah Witnesses mistranslation of John 1:1
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'”
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:“The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):“The translation…'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention.”
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '…the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…'a god' would be totally indefensible.” [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' – John 20:28”
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is places at the beginning for emphasis.”
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
CB, see:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=280
“…the Word was a god,' a translation which is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE…”
“totally indefensible.”….YOu also quote dr. William barcley, who at times has also said that “and the Word was a god,” is “grammatically impossible.” (Yet in his book Jesus as They Saw Him(SCM Paperback, 1962, p.21)he inferred that the AV's (Authorised Version/King James Version) translation of “…was God” is “too much.” That is, the Greek does not say this for the Word at this place.)
Anyway, go here:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm
for on wether the NWT is biased.Back to whether it's “gramatically impossible.”
Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College, Ca, USA wrote us:
“As to the translation of John 1:1,”and the Word was a god” is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured.”
D.Moody Smith Jnr, George Washington Ivey Professor of N.T. wrote us:
“As to John 1:1 the translation “a god” is possible, but in the context* clearly not what is intended. “Divine” is better, but John clearly wants to say Jesus was theos°…”
Notice that these two scholars are honest enough to say that the rendering of John 1:1c as found in the NWT is grammatically possible! Of course, they both reject such a translation but on grounds other than grammar. So a question does come to one's mind here. Who exactly is being “intellectually dishonest?” Has it been the NWT Translation Committee or the above late scholar?
Stan Bruce lecturer in New Testament Greek at All Nations Christian College, Hertfordshire, UK, for over 30 years has written:
“Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God.”-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, “Lesson 3,” p.23.
Once again, another scholar is stating that on grounds of grammar John 1:1 could be translated the way the NWT renders it.
Murray J. Harris:
“According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered “the Word was a god.”-Jesus As God, 1992, pp.60. (Again, Harris rejects this translation on grounds other than grammar.)
C.H.Dodd has also written:
“If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language,[theos en ho logos]might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense[“signifying one of a class of beings regarded as divine”-Dodd, ibed)…..The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.
James Parkinson has written: “
“It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1. If Colwell's rule is correct (that the definite predicate nominative does not take the article) then “the Word was God” would be allowable. This translation is rejected on two sides. Because the indefinite predicate nominative would also not take the definite article, “the Word was a god” should be no less allowable.Still others think the Greek theos here implies a quality and translate it as “the Word was divine.” Rejecting all three, the New English Bible says, “What God was the Word was.” The ancient reading of John 1:18 mentioned above will impact the translation of verse 1. C. H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges of the Word was a god–“As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” He rejects it, saying, “The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johanine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole” (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!) Paralleling with John 4:24 (“God is [a] spirit”), Dodd rejects also the AV rendering of John 1:1 in favor of that of the NEB. As for the original text of John 1:18, he dismisses it as “grammatically exceptional, if not eccentric.(Actually the Greek from here is not identical to that of John 4:24, but to that of I Timothy 6:10).”
So, why the “a”?
“The New World Bible Translation Commitee chose to insert the indefinite article “a” there. This helps to distinguish “the Word,” Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was “with, “Jehovah, the Almighty….Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs[Jn.4:19; 6:70; 8:34, 44; 10:1, 13; 18:26, 37.],and in many more: “The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement….We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for.” Of course, neither Colwell(as noted above)nor Marshall felt that an “a” before “god” at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar” It was “individual judgement” which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgement in this place by the translation “a god.”…The translation “a god” at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar. Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called “my God” and to whom Jesus himself is subject- John 20:17; Rev.3:2, 12; 1 Cor.11:3; 15:28.”The Watchtower, 1975, p.702.Summing up a lot of what CB has quoted:
Dr Jason BeDuhn shows the ignorance of the above by saying:
“In fact the KIT[Appendix 2A, p.1139]explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject. He[one particular critic who said the same as above]goes on to insist that the NWT is inconsistent because other uses of THEOS without the article in John 1 are not translated the same way (a charge repeated by Countess, as mentioned in the Stafford book, from the same ignorance.) He fails to note that not only that the constructs are different, but that these other uses are not nominative (THEOS) but genitive (THEOU); the latter form is governed by totally different rules. The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple.”
The above clearly shows that this “ignorance” is consistently repeated.
Notice the following example where the writer gives Countess as his source. We may have here a case of the blind leading the blind!:
“The word “God” appears 282 times in the Greek without the article (anarthrous) in the New Testament. In order to be consistent with their “a god” translation, the New World Translation (NWT) should translate all anarthrous verses “a god.” But this is not what we find. Instead, the NWT translates it “God” a whopping 266 times and god, a god, gods, and godly only 16 times! (The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, Robert H. Countess, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982, pp. 54-55). This proves the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to fit their theology. The verse is correctly translated, “The Word was God.”
“The New World Translation overlooks Colwell's rule in Greek which says, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” Simply stated, the word “God” doesn't need an article in John 1:1 because in Gree
k it precedes the verb.“In The New World Translation “God” is capitalized in John 1:6, 12, 13, and verse 18 (twice), yet all are without the articles! This proves once again, the committee that translated the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to “a god.”
End of quote
We have looked elsewhere whether the New World Translation “overlooks” Colwell's rule. The 2nd point made above shows an ignorance of basic Greek! However:
Those who have looked into the construction we find in John 1:1c: “theos [the predicate]was[the verb]the logos[articular subject]say:
“At a number of points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind. As Colwell called attention to the possibility that such nouns may be definite, the present sudy has focused on their qualitative force. In Mark 15:39 I would regard the qualitative emphasis as primary, although there may also be some connotation of definiteness. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” -P.Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92.1, 1973, pp.85, 87.(About Harner and the NWT editors quotation of him here, see below.)
This scotch's the arguement that the definite article was not needed but would be understood, because of the word order of the phrase, so that the phrase should read,”and the Word was God.” In the translation of John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,” the reader would not be aware that in the Greek text the first occurrence of “God,” has the article, and the second has not. Yet, if the omission in the second case is “significant,” then this should be brought out in translation.
So, what is the correct way, even the 'best' way, to translate; “kai theos en ho logos?”
First of all, whenever we come across the indefinite “a” or “an” in an English translation these words are an insertion by the translator to bring out the correct thought inherent in the Greek. When the article is used it identifies a particular noun, so that when we say,”the man,” we have a particular man in mind. When we use the indefinite article “a man,” we are describing one of a group/class, so that “a man,” means “one of mankind.” Or, it could be describing the characteristics or qualities of that noun, so that “a man” means “man-like,” “is manly.” So, in Greek a noun can be definite, indefinite or qualitative, or a combination of them. We have just seen that the predicate noun “theos,” in “theos en ho logos,” cannot be considered definite. So that must mean it is either indefinite or qualitative or a combination of both indefinite/qualitative.
How have translator's translated singular anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb as we find in John 1:1c? Often they have used the English indefinite article. The New World Translation, Reference Edition(1984) has an appendix that lists of 11 instances of this syntax in Mark and John showing how they have been translated in 6 different Bible translations- 5 of whom come from the group above that translate the singular anarthrous predicate “theos” in John 1:1c as definite. In all instances they have, of course, translated them using the English indefinite article. The appendix says, in part:
“In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous [theos] in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read ” a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.”-Appendix 6A, p.1579.
Does this mean that the NWT Translation Committee regarded the anarthrous predicate “theos” in John 1:1c as purely “indefinite”? The 1950 1st edtion of the NWT contained an appendix that discussed John 1:1. Therein we read after citing both Goodspeeds' and Moffatts' translation: “and the Word was divine”:
“Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos “was divine” is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God…..Careful translators recognise that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality,whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone”.
This is exactly what one scholar wrote:
An Exegetical Grammer Of The Greek New Testament, William D Chamberlain
page 57:
“d. A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: en tois propsetais (Heb. 1:1), 'in the prophets,' calls attention to a particular group, while en uio (Heb. 1:2), 'in son,' calls attention to the rank of the Son as a 'spokesman' for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, 'in his Son,' italicizing 'his.'
The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: theos en ho logos(Jn. 1:1), the Word was God; kai ho logos sarz egento (Jn. 1:14), 'And the Word became flesh'; esontai oi eschatoi protoi (Mt. 20 :16), 'the last shall be first.' The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., ho theos en ho logos would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in ho theos agape estin (1 Jn. 4 :8), 'God is love.' As the sentence now stands 'love' describes a primary quality of God; the article he with agape would make God and love equivalents, e. g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love.” -end of quote.
So, one could summarize by saying:
“The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned.
“Theos en ho logos” is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God.”
(William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger.)
So we can see that the NWT Translation Committee recognized that the noun “theos” was primarily qualitative as well as being indefinite. It was considered primarily qualitative because of the Greek word order. If the verb, a form of 'I am', comes before the anarthrous predicate nominative then, as a rule, it would be considered primarily indefinite. If after, primarily qualitative. But the noun would not be wholly qualitative, the noun would not lose its indefinitness or definitiveness. What would this mean to our understanding of John 1:1c? Well, the meaning of “and the Word was a god,” would then be that the Word was “godlike”-divine, holy, powerful and not just “a god,” in the sense he was just one of many “gods,” in the class of “gods.” (Yet John 1:18 shows that the Word was in a 'god class' of it's own for the Word was the “only begotten” theos). The Word was a “divine one.” Or, as one German translator puts it: “and godlike sort was the Logos.”-Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, by Johannes Schneider.
However, the NWT Translation Committee chose to use the indefinite article
“a” to so render as it did and not like Moffatt and Goodspeed, because of two factors. One, it's avowed principle of being as “literal as possible” and second, the context*, as the Greek shows a contrast between two that are “theos” but only one is “ho theos,” “the God.” As the Word was with “the God,” the Word could not be that “God,” and, yet the Word was “theos”(°-cp. Moody-Smith's comment above,)so the Word must be distinguished from “God” by literally translating “theos.” One way to do that is saying that the Word was “a god.” A higher case 'G' is rightly used for the One said to be “THE” theos, and hence a lower case used for the Word said to be with this “God,” “ho theos,” the Almighty God. Can the use of the indefinite article bring out the qualitativeness of a noun though?(* re context-cp. D.Moody Smith's comment quoted above.)In the book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, An Answer to Scholars and Critics, the author, Greg Stafford, a Jehovah's Witness himself, cites and discusses three examples where he believes that “a qualitative/indefinite aspect is evident.” One of these is Acts 28:4 where it is said of Paul, “the man is a murderer,” from the Greek “phoneus estin ho anthropos.” We can do no better here than quote Stafford:
“In translations of this verse the qualitative/indefinite aspect of the noun is usually brought out by means of the indefinite article. The indefinite aspect seems clear enough, and the qualitative nuance naturally follows from the noun used to describe Paul. How can he be a murderer without owning the qualities of a murderer? This text provides an exact parallel to John 1:1c, where we have an anarthrous preverbal nominative followed by an articulated subject.”
Agreeing with the above are the comments, on this and Stafford's position here, is Dr Jason BeDuhn who has written:
“The Jehovah's Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense- that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: “And the Word was divine.”
For the reason why this preference of translation of John 1:1c by Dr. Beduhn does not undermine this site's 'use' of him re the New World Translation click here.
“…..I have already told you that “the Word was divine” is a very simple and accurate way to convey the qualitative sense of this construct, and I am pleased to see that Stafford comes to the same conclusion. Towards the end of the chapter, Stafford cites Acts 28:4, which is a perfect choice, and shows how this qualitative sense for the anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb works.”
Another “exact parallel” is 1 Kings 18:27LXX. It has the same sentence structure as John 1:1. It says: “Call at the top of your voice, for he is a god”; “a god” is the natural translation of the Greek “theos estin”, or “god he is.” Stafford gives two other examples of qualitative/indefinite nouns; John 14:19 and from The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 12:1.
There is no doubt then that the use of the English indefinite article can be used to bring out both the qualitative aspect of a Greek noun and the indefiniteness derived from it's context.
How might this discussion be ended. Surely, anyone should be able to agree that the New World Translation rendering here is justifable at least. It breaks no 'rule' of grammar. It properly distinguishes between the one who is “Ho theos,” and the Word as “theos.” It fits in with the context better than the popular rendition.The context shows two individuals, two beings(not just two 'persons'), one who is said to be “with” the other and so therefore they cannot be identical. True, “ho theos,” is the Father, but John is not only distinguishing between the Father and the Word, but between two beings, one described as the theos and one who is an anarthrous theos. A translation should do so aswell. Such translations such as “and the Word was God,” certainly do not. Jehovah's Witnesses will say that the NWT's rendering of “a god,” agrees with the rest of scriptures that portray Jesus not as “God,” “the God,” “God Almighty,” whose name is, in English, Jehovah, but as his Son, who was sent to do his Father's will and remained subordinate to Him even after his resurrection, and who he called his God(Rev.3:12), the One he too worships and directs all worshippers to(Luke 4:8).(see “Jesus as Theos.”)
So what is the real issue involved here in the severe criticism that such a rendering,”and the Word was a god,” has been met with. In short it's all to do with theology. Jehovah's Witness deny the trinity and indeed speak out 'against' it. We recommend the Awake 1972, May 22nd, pp.27-28 on this: Is it Grammar or Interpretation?
Lastly, it might be pointed out. Such scholars as Bruce Metzger and the late William Barclay's strong condemnation of the New World Translation here was based on Colwell's rule. At least their condemnation was, back then, in the 1960's, The NWT Translation Committee rejected such a 'rule' here, back then, and still do. They have been joined by others. Who has been proven right? These 'reputable' scholars or the anonymous persons, who were and are still, much maligned and their scholarship brought into question from all quarters? Do we need to tell you?
*Harner- Although he understands that 'theos' in John 1:1c is not definite that does not mean that he believes that “and the Word was a god” is correct. He had written, “Perhaps the clause[John 1:1c]could be translated “the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”
So BeDuhn is right about Harners “religous commitments.” The NWT might agree that “theos” here is qualitative but would then disagree with Harner in believing that the Word was equal to the one called “God” here. The NWT editors cite Harner simply because he says that the anarthrous theos is not definite. Scholars, such as Metzger, had argued strongly in the past against such a translation as “…a god,” from the belief that theos here WAS definite. As Stafford points out,”..to use Harners article in support of this view[that the anarthrous theos is not definite but qualitative]is certainly appropriate, since that is one of the primary purposes of his article!” It is quite clear that the belief that Jesus is part of a tri-une God-head has 'influenced' Harner's view of what the qualitative force of theos here indicates about the Word. It is the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses that to do this is erroneous, not least because the Trinity is, in it's full conception, a 4th century doctrine and should have no place in deciding what John was saying at the end of the 1st.
In defending John 1:1c as proof of Jesus' deity in the sense he was “God,” we have read: “The WT is ignoring the distinction between “Person” and “essence.” The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father, but it does not then follow He is not of the same ESSENCE as Him.” Here we have a prime example of importing a term,”essence,” used by later 'theologians' from after the 1st century into John's Gospel. The Bible does not contain that word or the idea that Trinitarians mean by it. It is wholly erroneous to import such a 3rd/4th century word and idea into a discussion of John 1:1. Also, John is not distinguishing the two beings here in terms of person but as two which are “theos.” So, what John 1:1 is saying, rather than just “The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father,” it is saying that the “Word” is not the same “theos”(“god”) as the one with whom he was with. Translations such as “and the Word was God” make out he was the “God” he was “with”! Even Trinita
rians disagree with that, for that would mean that the Word was the Father! So we have translations that apparently recognise the confusion inherent in the “Word was God” translations and paraphrase the sentence to read “and he was the same as God.”-Today's English Version(1976) Notice the 'addition' of the words “same as.” It could be interpreted as saying he, the Word, although “with and the same as” “God” makes him other than “God.” We see nothing wrong with this translation despite what the translator's think it is intended to mean. One man can be with another man, a particular “man”(“the man”)and be the same as them, being “man”, that is 'of Mankind,' “a man.” But if that was said to anyone would they think the first “Man” was the “man” he was with? No, they would rightly conclude that was the second “man” mentioned was like him is that they were both men but not actually him. Nor, then, was the Word “God”(ho theos)in John 1:1 when John wrote that the Word was with this one and was “theos.”Taken from:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1.1c.htmQuote but others can be gods in certain respects. Moses, Judges, Angels, Satan and Jesus Which of these so called gods is exalted as before all things, over all things, the first and the last, the one through whom all things were created, the one through whom all things are, the one who made the heavens, the one who does everything the Father does, Saviour, and Lord? Where does it say Jesus is God in a certain respect?
Tim
“Colwell's Rule” is what this discussion is really all about. And how the Greek scholars look at this rule.
So many scholars have based their thinking on this rule, it deserves a look at.Following is the beginning of a rather lengthy discussion between Jason Debuhn and Robert Hommel. (Debuhn is called “professor” in this dialogue and Hommel “Robert.”)
Robert argues agaist NWT and it's translation of John 1:1 and is quite vocal on this. Yet, pay particular attention to what he must acknowledge:
“PROFESSOR: Certainly Metzger is a giant in my field, and he has made very important contributions that are unimpeachable. I can hope to accomplish only a fraction of what he has accomplished in his eighty years, and I am still relatively early in my career. The fact remains that in his published remarks on John 1:1c, Metzger argues primarily on the basis of theology, rather than language. His only linguistic argument is “Colwell's Rule,” which he misunderstands, just as you recognize. So on this particular topic, Metzger fares rather poorly, despite his expertise and accomplishments in other areas.
ROBERT: I agree that he misunderstood the application of Colwell's rule (as did Colwell himself, and scads of other scholars). However, I'm not sure that I agree that his other reasons were on “the basis of theology.” At least not entirely. If I recall correctly, he bases at least a portion of his conclusion on his understanding of John's theology. While Metzger's theology may color his understanding of John's to some degree, I think it's painting with too broad a brush to suggest that Metzger bases his conclusion (apart from Colwell) entirely on his own theological preferences. Metzger, I'm sure, has drawn conclusions about John's christology based on the rest of John's Gospel and John's other works, and these conclusions certainly play a legitimate part in his displeasure with the NWT rendering.
I believe you concur with this methodology, for you say: “What John's language does provide is a reference to logos, which has philosophical and theological meaning in the time of John that we can draw on to better understand what he is conveying, and a careful presentation throughout the gospel that fills in some of the things we need to understand about the Word-become-flesh/Christ. That is what the reader should attend to.” Since you are not engaging in theology when you attend to these matters in John's Gospel, I don't think its quite fair to accuse Metzger of doing so.
PROFESSOR: Colwell is another person who contributed tremendous advances to our field, and is rightly honored for them. Yet, even though his “rule” cannot, as formulated, settle the translation of John 1:1c, it is in fact a completely imaginary rule of Greek grammar, without any valid foundation. Here again, a mistake has been made by an otherwise great scholar. And it is quite common to find that such mistakes occur where theological interest has temporarily interfered with scholarly objectivity.
ROBERT: I agree that Colwell's Rule is of no value in determining the proper translation of John 1:1c, and that Colwell himself was mistaken when he used it to do so. However, I think you're overstating the case that his Rule “as formulated” is “a completely imaginary rule of Greek Grammar.” His rule reads:
“Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article” (Colwell, p. 20).
This rule, as stated, is, I believe, fairly well substantiated. That is, if one begins with nouns in the semantic category “definite” and examines their occurance in pre- and post-copulative constructions, it is not hard to demonstrate that “usually” definite nouns in pre-copulative constructions are anarthrous. Colwell himself provides the foundation by the statistics he published in his article. McGaughy verified Colwell's statistics – and, indeed, noted that some exceptions Colwell excluded were not exceptions at all, thus strengthening Colwell's argument (McGaughy, Lane C. 1972. Toward a Descriptive Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek. SBL Dissertation Series 6. Society of Biblical Literature, pp. 70ff). Wallace affirms it (Wallace, Daniel. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 260, n 18). Hartley's statistical study also validates Colwell's Rule, as originally stated (Hartley, Don. 1998. “Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns,” http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm, notes 9 and 41). I'm unaware of any study that disputes Colwell's Rule “as formulated.”The problem arises when Colwell himself – and many who followed him – affirmed the consequent of his Rule – that is, “Anarthrous pre-copulative PNs are usually definite.” His perfectly valid descriptive Rule was inverted to become a logically invalid and inductively falsifiable prescription for translation. Colwell did not define the converse of his Rule in his article, but he begins to assume it, and finally overtly applies it to John 1:1c.
When most scholars refer to Colwell's rule, they rightly quote the Rule as stated – and it is a valid rule (and useful in the field of textual criticism). However, when they commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, and then apply the result to John 1:1, they are, indeed, creating an “imaginary rule.” It's too bad that Colwell himself committed this fallacy and so many conservative scholars eagerly followed him in it; but I am encouraged that it has been conservative evangelical scholars who have exposed the error for what it is.
PROFESSOR: So it is not the person, but the evidence and argument in particular instances that must be judged. Metzger and Colwell, as good as they are, are wrong about John 1:1c, and so citing them on one side of the debate offers no valid support.
ROBERT: Agreed. While others may have done so, I don't believe I ever have.
PROFESSOR: You are quite correct that the best judgment of my position will occur when it is assessed by my academic peers. But I trust you have seen enough of my position to know that I argue on the basis of language and literary context, not theology.
ROBERT: It seems to me that everyone has certain presuppositions which govern their beliefs and conclusions. For example, while you may not consider yourself a theologian, I suspect you have a worldview of some sort. You have a set of beliefs – about whether God exists; about whether the Bible is God's Word or man's word; about whether the Bible's is inerrant; about whether we need to harmonize our translation of John 1:1c with Paul's christology or the hyper-monotheism of the author of Deuteronomy and Isaiah (or Deutero-Isaiah, if you prefer). One's beliefs in these areas will certainly affect how one interprets John 1:1, don't you agree? Or am I missing something fundamental, here?
The question is not who has theological presuppositions and who has secular presuppositions – the real question, it seems to me, has already been well articulated – by you! It is who can marshall the most reasonable and best supported argument. Whether such will shake the other person's presuppositions remains to be seen.
PROFESSOR: Even at this point of assessment, one can ask: am I citing the rules and properties of Greek grammar accurately? Ask other experts and see for yourself that I am. Once that is established, then we can move on to questions of how best to render the indefinite theos into English. “
(originally on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board during Jan/Feb, 2002 and continuing later elsewhere.)
You may find the whole discussion here:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….l.1.htmAlso, here:
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htmI was somewhat suprised when looking at the above site to read the following:
“Jason BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. He received a PhD from the University of Indiana in Comparative Religious Studies. He believes the NWT and KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation] to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University.”He uses our Interlinear translation to teach Greek.
The most literal translation of John 1:1 would be “and the Word was a god.”
The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more traditional translation.
Jason DeBuhn states:
” However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of a passage as a whole.“The grammatical construction used here can be called the qualitative or categorical use of the indefinite. Basically, that means x belongs to the category y, or “x is a y.” The examples I used in a letter now widely circulated are “Snoopy is a dog”; “The car is a Volkswagen”; and “John is a smart person.” The common translation “The Word was God” is as erroneous for this construction as it would be to say in English “Snoopy is dog”; “The car is Volkswagen”; or “John is smart person.” The indefinite article is mandatory because we are talking about a member of a class or category.
“Sometimes in English we can accomplish the same syntactical function by using a predicate adjective in place of the indefinite noun phrase. In the examples I gave above, this only works with “John is a smart person,” which means the same thing as “John is smart.” What Harner calls the qualitative sense is the same as what I call the categorical sense. In the many examples throughout the New Testament of the same grammatical construct as found in John 1:1c, the indefinite noun used is always a class or category to which the subject is said to belong. But in several of these examples, the category is used to suggest the quality the subject has, as in the many “a son of x” expressions found in the New Testament.”
I think the following is quite an interesting statement by Debuhn:
“Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for John quality was the center of focus rather than category”” Being honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER “And the Word was a god” OR “And the Word was divine.” I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything about that. If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I would be committing the same offense as those who have said that “And the Word was God” is the only possible translation. The whole point of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.
In conclusion:
““The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses,“Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University.I'd also like to state something that someone named David Dewey wrote with reference to this in the “Bible translation mailing list”:
“The usual defence is that QEOS is anarthrous (article dropped) because it is a predicate and preceeds the verb eimi (to be). (Colwell's rule).
“But BeDuhn seems to demolish this by citing other instances where the definite article is kept with a predicated nominative, including John 1:4: 'the light was the light of men' (also 6:51, 15:1, 20:15).”
C. H. Dodd
C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project) rejects the NWT translation of John 1:1 because of his own opinion of what HE THOUGHT WAS JOHN'S 'THEOLOGY', and “Christian thought as a whole.” For these reasons he rejects the NWT's rendering. Yet, note what he says:
“If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted,
“The reason why it is inacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”
—Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Volume 28, January 1977.THIS IS THE REASON MANY 'SCHOLARS' reject the NWT's John 1:1.
It ain't grammer. I mean it “isn't” grammer. Grammatically, it's perfectly fine.
Theologically, or more precise, their theology or how THEY interpret John's theology is the determining factor for them claiming the NWT's John 1:1 rendering is “monstrous” “impossible” etc.Ok.. so in conclusion we can only say that the Bible is completely unreliable and therefore should be thrown away.
Based on what exactly? Your dislike for the truth? Or is it your general feeling of uneasiness when anyone dares question the heresy of trinity doctrine that you so love?
Actually, Oxy, if you go up two posts, you'll find that actual conclusion:
In conclusion:
“”The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses,”Quote (david @ May 04 2007,19:57) Based on what exactly? Your dislike for the truth? Or is it your general feeling of uneasiness when anyone dares question the heresy of trinity doctrine that you so love? Actually, Oxy, if you go up two posts, you'll find that actual conclusion:
In conclusion:
“”The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses,”
So how many gods are there in your doctrine David?Ok, you want to discuss the NWT in the “God (Elohim)” thread, and I point you to this thread about the NWT and here, you want to discuss the topic of “God (Elohim.)
Quote So how many gods are there in your doctrine David?
Ask me this question in the other thread where I think I've probably already answered it and I'll address it again.“It Is The Best Interlinear New Testament Available”
This is what Jason Debuhn said of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures as translated by JW's.
Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear Translation in teaching his college courses?
He answers:
“Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done it's job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.”
See:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/kitbest.htmDavid, before I was born again I was ignorant of God and of Scripture. When I asked the Lord to forgive me and chose to live with Jesus as Lord of my life my eyes were opened. I was born of the spirit and shortly after, baptised in water and then baptised in the Holy Spirit. My life has been for the last 28 years an experiential walk with God, led by the Holy Spirit.
My prayer for you and everyone else who does not have this personal relationship with God is that you will put aside your doctrine and seek God. Let Him show you which way is true, after all, Jesus IS the Way, the Truth and the Life.
I found this intersting, especially the last sentence which I underlined:
“Dr. Jason Debuhn, a NT scholar, recently wrote a book in which he contended that the NWT NT is translated more correctly than the other Bible versions. He agrees with the NWT rendition of John 1:1. He is not a Jehovah's Witness.(See his book Truth In Translation).
Patrick Navas, in his book, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, also discusses the NWT renditon of John 1:1 and argues it is correct, and points out the other Bible versions prior to the NWT had similar renderings.
I can think for myself. There are Witnesses who were former clergymen of other religious groups, some with divinity degrees, and even professors of NT Greek, and OT Hebrew, that agree that the NWT is correclty translated. I myself have read over 15 different NT versions, and I have come the to conclusion, after comparing all those versions, that the NWT is correctly translated. The fact is that many translations of the NT agree with the NWT's controversial renderings in either their main text or in the footnotes provided.
You should also do your own investigation insteading relying on those How to Witness to JW book series, which really don't teach how to witness at all.“
http://www.topix.net/who….-rights
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
