BeDuhn lauds the KIT for its accuracy as an interlinear translation and its
utility in academic settings. He emphasizes its "slavish word-for-word
correspondence," which exposes linguistic nuances and forces readers to
grapple with the text's original meaning. While the KIT may be a helpful
academic tool, its underlying Greek text (Westcott & Hort) is itself
subject to scholarly debate, and it represents only one textual tradition.
Moreover, the interlinear's literalism can sometimes obscure meaning in cases
where context and idiom demand a more dynamic translation.
BeDuhn defends the NWT as generally accurate and “hyper-literal,”
emphasizing that it avoids interpretive glosses often found in mainstream
translations. Hyper-literal translations, while exposing readers to the text's
structure, can lead to awkward or misleading renderings. For instance, the
NWT’s approach in passages like John 1:1 (“a god”) or Colossians 1:15
(adding “other”) reflects interpretive choices influenced by JW doctrine.
While these may not be "grammatically impossible," they can still
introduce theological bias under the guise of literalism.
BeDuhn argues that all translations reflect some level of bias, stemming
from the theological or doctrinal assumptions of their translators. While bias
is indeed present in all translations, not all biases are equal. The NWT has
been criticized for systematic doctrinal bias that aligns closely with JW
doctrines, particularly regarding the deity of Christ and the use of
“Jehovah” in the NT. By contrast, many mainstream translations aim for a
broader ecumenical consensus.
The Watchtower's history of taking scholars’ statements out of context
warrants scrutiny. By omitting BeDuhn’s criticisms of the NWT and KIT, the
organization risks misleading its readers, particularly given the deference
many JWs afford to such endorsements.
The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 instances in the NT, despite the
absence of the Tetragrammaton in all known Greek manuscripts. BeDuhn’s critique
in his later writings acknowledges this as a conjectural emendation unsupported
by manuscript evidence. This practice reflects theological bias, as it aligns
with JW emphasis on the divine name, even at the expense of textual fidelity.
It also obscures the NT authors' apparent identification of Jesus with OT
references to Yahweh (e.g., Philippians 2:10–11, quoting Isaiah 45:23). BeDuhn criticizes the NWT’s
substitution of "Jehovah" for Kyrios (Lord) in the NT,
noting that this choice is not supported by manuscript evidence. While he
acknowledges that the Watchtower’s theory about the removal of the divine name
from early Christian texts might be plausible, he rightly concludes that the
current state of evidence does not support this claim. The insertion of
“Jehovah” into the NT by the NWT is one of its most controversial features.
This choice introduces theological bias, as it aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’
distinctive focus on the divine name. While some OT quotations in the NT might
justify restoring the Tetragrammaton, the wholesale replacement of Kyrios
with “Jehovah” is not only conjectural but also inconsistent with the textual
evidence.
BeDuhn defends the grammatical possibility of “a god” as a rendering,
though he concedes that “divine” might better reflect the qualitative nuance of
theos in this context. BeDuhn’s argument in favor of the NWT centers on its adherence to Greek
grammar, particularly in controversial passages like John 1:1. His assertion
that the NWT's rendering of the third clause as "a god" or
"divine" is grammatically valid aligns with the understanding of theos without the definite article in Greek. While this
argument has linguistic merit, it overlooks the theological implications of
rendering theos as "a god." Critics
argue that this rendering introduces theological bias by diminishing the
traditional understanding of Christ’s deity, a point that BeDuhn downplays as
an interpretive choice rather than a distortion. The NWT’s
rendering of “a god” introduces theological implications that are inconsistent
with Johannine monotheism. The broader context of John’s Gospel, including
verses like John 1:3 and John 20:28, supports an understanding of the Logos as
fully divine rather than a subordinate deity.
BeDuhn
draws an interesting parallel between Mark 12:26–27 and John 1:1, noting that
the absence of the article in theos in Mark 12:27 allows
for a categorical or indefinite sense. While this observation is linguistically
valid, the context of John 1:1 differs significantly. The Prologue of John is a
theological statement about the Logos's identity, emphasizing the Word’s
intrinsic divinity rather than placing it in a generic “god” category. John 1:1's prologue is widely understood as affirming the Word’s deity,
paralleling the "Logos" with the monotheistic God of Jewish
tradition. Translating theos as "a god" risks conflicting with
the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, potentially introducing a
theological bias of Arianism. BeDuhn critiques the application of Colwell’s
Rule by arguing it presupposes definiteness rather than proving it. While his
criticism has validity, Colwell’s Rule remains a significant framework in Greek
syntax, particularly when analyzing predicate nominatives like theos in
John 1:1. Many scholars argue that the absence of the article does not
automatically make theos indefinite but emphasizes its qualitative
aspect, supporting the translation "the Word was God" as a
categorical affirmation of the Logos’ divine nature. BeDuhn
views John 1:1 as an initial step in the development of Christological thought,
which later led to doctrines like the Trinity. While this perspective aligns
with historical-critical approaches, it risks downplaying the high Christology
evident throughout John’s Gospel.
BeDuhn highlights the inconsistency in various translations’ handling of theos,
noting that all translations exhibit some bias. However, he overlooks the
inconsistency within the NWT itself, particularly its selective use of
"Jehovah" in the NT. As BeDuhn acknowledges in his appendix critique,
the insertion of "Jehovah" lacks textual support in the Greek manuscripts
and is based on conjectural emendation. This practice undermines the NWT’s
claim to objectivity and introduces a significant theological bias aligning
with JW doctrine. BeDuhn’s dismissal of prominent scholars’ critiques of the
NWT as "biased" or "theological rather than linguistic" can
itself be seen as overly dismissive. While bias exists in translation, his
blanket critique of traditional interpretations risks downplaying legitimate scholarly
concerns about the NWT’s theological motivations. For instance, his dismissal
of Metzger’s and Westcott’s criticisms as “theological” overlooks the fact that
theological coherence and linguistic fidelity are often intertwined in biblical
exegesis.
While
BeDuhn defends the NWT's rendering as "grammatically possible", most scholars argue
it fails to reflect the qualitative nuance of theos
in the text, which suggests divine nature rather than indefiniteness. The qualitative sense of theos
in John 1:1 is supported by the immediate context (e.g., John 1:3, 1:18) and
the larger narrative of John’s Gospel, which culminates in Thomas’s confession
of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Rendering theos as “a
god” not only creates theological ambiguity but also introduces an
interpretation that aligns more closely with Jehovah’s Witness theology than
with the text’s intent.
BeDuhn’s treatment of John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God!”) as an
interpretive issue rather than a clear affirmation of Christ’s deity is also
problematic. While he correctly notes that the context of John’s Gospel must
inform the interpretation, his reluctance to acknowledge this verse as a
culmination of the Logos theology presented in John 1:1 appears to reflect his
own theological hesitancy rather than an unbiased analysis.
BeDuhn suggests that "divine" might be a preferable translation
to "a god" in John 1:1c, as it captures the qualitative nature
of the term. This suggestion underscores a valid point that a qualitative
understanding of theos aligns with John’s theology. However, the NWT’s
choice of "a god" implies henotheism to many English readers,
creating a disconnect with both the text's Jewish monotheistic roots and its
intended meaning.
Examples like Colossians 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation” with “other”),
Philippians 2:6 (“gave no consideration to a seizure”), and Titus 2:13
(rendering that separates “God” and “Savior”) highlight interpretive choices
that align with JW doctrine. These choices go beyond grammatical fidelity,
often reshaping the text to fit a pre-existing theological framework. Such
renderings are at odds with mainstream scholarship and the broader consensus of
early Christian interpretation.
BeDuhn points out that mainstream biblical scholars rarely review the NWT,
not because of unanimous condemnation but due to its peripheral status in
academic circles. While the lack of scholarly reviews may limit informed
critique, the absence of positive scholarly consensus is also telling. The
NWT’s idiosyncrasies and theological biases have prevented its acceptance as a
reliable translation outside JW circles.
BeDuhn’s concern that his praise for the KIT might be misused by the
Watchtower to bolster its religious claims is valid. The organization’s history
of presenting scholars’ comments out of context, as seen in other cases,
underscores the need for caution. While his defense of the NWT against blanket
condemnation is fair, his critiques often fail to fully address the theological
and doctrinal motivations behind the NWT’s most controversial renderings. The
NWT’s systematic alignment with JW theology in key texts—especially concerning
the deity of Christ and the insertion of “Jehovah” in the NT—raises
legitimate concerns about its reliability as an unbiased translation. BeDuhn’s
observations remind us of the importance of critical engagement with all
translations, recognizing both their strengths and their limitations. However,
the broader scholarly and theological critiques of the NWT remain valid and
should not be dismissed as merely biased reactions.
