by chappy 20 Replies latest jw friends
Hi Folks, been quite a while since I've posted on the board but visit regularly. I need a reference/link on John 1:1. I've been told that the addition of "a" (word was "a" god) is incorrect in it's context from a Greek lanquage point of view. I need some kind of reference(s) explaining how this is a gramatical error.
later,
chappy
| STATEMENT DJ520 |
| john 1:1 and the new world translation: what do the greek scholars really say? |
| A. T. Robertson : "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279. E. M. Sidebottom : "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461. E. C. Colwell : "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20. C. K. Barrett : "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76. C. H. Dodd : "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104. Randolph O. Yeager : "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4. James Moffatt : "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61. Philip B. Harner : "Perhaps the clause 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." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87. Henry Alford : "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681. Donald Guthrie : "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327. Bruce Metzger : "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75. Julius R. Mantey : "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources. B. F. Westcott : "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3. Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have quoted in their publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God. |
Cassi, I respectfully disagree with "the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God." To quote from Dana and Mantey (pp. 139-140):
The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of theos is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one that without the article theos signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view....Surely when Robertson says that theos, as to the article, "is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it" (R. 761), he does not mean to intimate that the presence or the absence of the article with theos has no special significance. We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article with theos, so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of theos in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. Pros ton theon points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; theos hen ho logos emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former applies to personality, while the latter applies to character.
No translation of this verse, without an extensive footnote, could make clear to the reader the subtleties that are involved here. But one thing is sure; no Trinitarian has ever suggested that this verse means that the Logos was personally identical with the Father-God; in that case, there would be no Trinity.
Neither "God" nor "a god" adequately carry over the meaning of this verse, even though both are, in the strictest grammatical terms, equally valid.
Craig
oh goodness, im so confused.
nowisee, you think that's bad? You should see how long it takes me to explain to Katie what I'd like for dinner LOL
Perhaps putting it another way: John was not saying that the Word was God (that is, identical with God as a person). He was saying that the Word possessed "God-quality." The quotes Cassi listed almost all refer to this subtle distinction.
Now, if John had closed off with "and the Word was the God," then he would be saying that the Word and God were the same person (just with a different name, like Abraham was Abram).
Obviously, to have God-quality means that the Word and the Father are in the same "class," like men and women having human qualities means we are all human, even though we're individually distinct from each other (not a precise analogy, but hopefully it makes some sense).
Percentage-wise, I'd suspect that just about as many Christians that say they believe the Trinity actually understand what the Trinity means, as do JWs that say they don't believe the Trinity amd actually understand why they don't.
Are we having fun yet?
Craig
"A Grossly Misleading Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god ~~Mantey
Hey Craig!!
So good to see you!! I have missed your sense of humor and your informative posts! How I wish I could speak with absolute authority when it comes to the above scripture. (doesn’t anyone when it comes to the bible then we may have the answers to life without the constant confusion?) The portion you quoted were not my words but came from the website listed below them, if I had written what is quoted above and spoken with such authority on a subject which has been the topic for scholarly debate so long, please feel free to write me anytime for the meaning of life.
I have found with the little research (very little) and my grasp on the “ton theos” "(divine/a god) vs. “ho theos” (The Divine/The God) and “The Logos”. That I can only come to the conclusion is that the translation shows a “duality” at best and not a trinity when referencing John 1:1 only. How Christians can claim that an amalgamation of the Holy Ghost with “a God” and "the Word” creates a trinity and not see only a duality is baffling at most, IMO. If one reads this scripture and accepts how it is written relying only on “mans” interpretation and faith only, then I see one being commanded to believe in a "Duality", not a "Trinity." However Greek scholars are in agreement that the wording "The Word was God" or "the Word was divine" is the correct way to understand the last passage of John 1:1.
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine" The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments ~~ Dr. James Moffatt
My understanding that the exclusion of the article with "Theos" does not mean “the word” is "a god." If one examines the scriptures where the article is not used with "Theos".The translation of "a god" doesn’t logically jive, IMO in other scriptures and should be translated in the same manner each time during rendition. (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Matthew 5:9, 6:24;1 Co 1:30; 15:10, I know there are more)
The "a god" arrangement of John 1:1 translation should have the entire Bible translated in every instance where the article is absent as "a god”. The translation of the NWT shows how the JWs are inconsistent in their biblical translations, IMO as shown by the scriptures above they have added “a” and subtracted words in other scriptures to assure their “hermeneutics” are to be “the Logos” the only “Logos” not to be confused with any other “Logos”.
Hugs
Cassi
Great to see ya posting again, Cassie!
Cheers, Ozzie
(((((((Ozzie)))))))
How are you and your lovely better half? Thanks for the welcome back!!
Love,
Cassi
cassi,
i, too, am glad that your back and feeling well enough to post.
i am truly appreciative of your above contributions, and will continue to think about them.
craig,
i have loved your recent posts, your epiphany, etc. i am developing quite a fondness for you.
very best wishes, nowisee
John 20:28 in the NWT shows that the NWT in john 1:1 is wrong.
