What does the Watchtower Society actually teach about John 1:1?
We all know that the New World Translation reads this way: "and the Word was a god."
After each quote below, I will post my comments:
"Reasoning From the Scriptures," Pages 416-417:
"In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." He suggests: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’" (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)"
My Comments:
What does it mean for the Logos to have the nature of God? What would it mean for the Logos to have the same nature as God? How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain that? What is the "nature of God"?
"The Watchtower" issue of June 1st, 1988, Page 17 says this about John 1:1:
"the second the·os´ is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and without the definite article ho in Greek. In this verse, such a sentence construction points to a characteristic or quality of the subject. It highlights the nature of the Word [...]"
My Comments:
A lot of Christian scholars and Trinitarians would probably agree with that statement.
"Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 2, Page 54, says the following about John 1:1:
"Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article "the," preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that "the logos has the nature of theos." He further stated: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: "the Word was divine."—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579."
My Comments:
What does it mean, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, for the Logos to exist with the same divine nature that God the Father, the Almighty, has?
"The Watchtower" issue of August 15th, 1984, Page 30 says this about John 1:1:
"So professor B. F. Westcott hastens to state that the phrase rendered "the Word was God" describes "the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." Well and good. But this true meaning of the original Greekis certainly not the thought conveyed by most Bibles. Still, some scholars, less supportive of Trinitarian ideas, have translated it "the Word was a divine being" or "the Word was divine." In the Journal of Biblical Literature (Volume 92, 1973), Philip P. Harner writes: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’" "
My Comments:
So, according to the Watchtower Society, "the true meaning" of John 1:1 is that it is referring to the nature of the Logos, and that it should be translated: "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word had the same nature as God."
Isn't that quite a bit different in meaning from the way that John 1:1 is rendered in the New World Translation? When you read "The Word was a god" in the NWT, do you think that it means The Word shares the same exact Nature that God Almighty has? Or, rather, do you think of the Word as a separate, lesser, inferior created god?
Why would the New World Translation translate it as "a god" when their very own publications teach that it should actually be translated a different way? Why would the New World Translation choose to render John 1:1 in a way that actually promotes polytheism, the worship of more than one divine God?
"The Watchtower" issue of November 15th, 1975, Page 703 says this about John 1:1:
"Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance. Thatis, they may describe the nature or status of the subject. Thus some translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt); "the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God and shared his nature," (The Translator’s New Testament)."
My Comments:
Here is a very serious question for Jehovah's Witnesses:
What does it mean for the Logos ("Word") to share the same exact Nature that God Almighty has? God, in His Nature, is Eternal, Immortal, and Almighty. How can He share in that same Nature and still not be Almighty, Eternal, or Immortal?
More of My Comments:
How exactly was the Logos divine in His nature? Why did the Apostle Paul say that "all of the fullness of the Divine Nature [Deity] dwells in [Christ]," and that we must not worship angels? (Colossians 2:9; 2:18)
God is Almighty, Eternal, and Immortal because of His Nature, because of Who and What He is, His Essence. Therefore, if the Logos shares in all of the fullness of that same Essence, how can the Logos not share in God's Almightiness, Eternity, and Immortality? How could a finite creature ever share in an infinite, eternal nature, anyway?
Saying that the Logos is God in His Nature, or that He fully shares God's Nature, is most certainly different from saying that the Logos is only "a god," or "godlike," or that He "reflects God's qualities." So, which is it? Can any Jehovah's Witness answer that question?
Do any Greek scholars support the rendering "The Word was a god."
"Should You Believe in the Trinity?" Brochure, Page 28:
Thus, not Colwell’s questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article “a” at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God’s Word.
So, the Watchtower Society teaches that God's Word disagrees with Colwell's "questionable" and "artificial" rule of grammar! I'm not an expert of Colwell's Rule, but I find those statements highly interesting.
When translating, should you go with the immediate context, or the context of the entire Bible? Should not each writer's book be translated based on its own context -- otherwise, how do we really know what each one was saying? If you go with the context of the entire Bible, where do you begin? How do you know what the "entire Bible" teaches before you translate each book of the Bible according to its own context? Shouldn't each book of the Bible be translated, and then you determine what the "entire Bible" teaches?