How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  aqwsed12345

  A prime example is the rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT as "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God." This translation violates standard Greek grammar and has been rejected by mainstream biblical scholars across various denominations. The translation reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses' denial of Christ's deity rather than a "fresh" or "innocent" reading of the text. Similar issues arise with their translation of Colossians 1:16-17, where the word "other" is inserted to suggest that Christ is a created/made being (while according to the NT the Son is born/begotten), despite the absence of the term in the Greek text.

  ---

  Utter nonsense! The NWT's rendering of John1:1 does not violate any rules of Greek grammar.A careful study of any published greek grammars right up to the present would confirm that the rendering 'a god' or 'divine' is accurate and theologically acceptable. there have many articles published in academic journals on this subject and again there is no real problem with this particular rendering in this instance of theos.

  I studied NT Greek under the tutelage of Dr. John A Lee at the University of Sydney for the sole purpose of understanding this subject and was letter from Dr. Lee was given to the class which contained his opinion of the translation of this verse which stated that grammar alone cannot settle this issue but comes down to interpretation.

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Slim, it was precisely that expression lifted from context, which I sought to clarify for you.

  I really don't think we wish to get into a debate about Philo's word choice and what he meant by them so as to debate how similar John's use of the philosophy was; however, the point is Philo is resolute that in reality there is One. The Logos, the Son of God, is a manifestation of the divine that otherwise is undefinable and inscrutable. It stands as a 'second god' in that it stands in for God yet does not result in two Gods. Logos is all that we as humans think of as God because The God is beyond our comprehension and description.

  https://antiquitasviva.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/65.1-2.05.-todorovska-m.-the-concepts-of-the-logos-in-philo-of-alexandria.pdf
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  Your assertion that the NWT rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" is grammatically correct is not supported by most reputable Greek scholars. The NWT interpretation is based on a selective application of Greek grammar, particularly regarding the use of the article. The key problem is that John 1:1 does not use "theos" (God) in an indefinite sense that would imply Jesus is "a god" among others, but rather in a qualitative sense, which affirms that the Word shares in the full divine nature of God.

  The insertion of "a god" in the NWT introduces a theological bias rather than reflecting a neutral translation. It suggests polytheism and undermines Christ's full divinity, which mainstream Christianity has upheld through centuries of linguistic, theological, and doctrinal study. Scholars who argue for a qualitative understanding of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasize that John was identifying the Logos as fully divine, not as one among many lesser gods.

  Regarding Colossians 1:16-17, the NWT similarly distorts the meaning by inserting the word "other" where it is absent in the Greek. This changes the intended meaning of the passage, which affirms Christ as the uncreated creator of all things. The insertion of "other" implies that Christ himself is a created being, which is inconsistent with the broader context of the New Testament and orthodox Christian teaching, according to which the Son is begotten/born of the Father, not created/made by Him.

  While your studies under Dr. John A Lee may have emphasized that grammar alone cannot settle the issue, the overwhelming scholarly consensus rejects the NWT's interpretation as being faithful to either the Greek text or to the theological message of the New Testament.

  A puzzle question: would you also translate the expression "kai theos en ho pater" as "the Father was a god"?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Your assertion that the NWT rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" is grammatically correct is not supported by most reputable Greek scholars.

  Yes the rendering “a god” is supported by some of the most reputable scholars such as Adela Yarbro Collins, one of the most respected biblical scholars around. Even Trinitarian scholars who do not support the translation have admitted it is grammatically correct but do not support it on theological grounds.

  Scholars who argue for a qualitative understanding of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasize that John was identifying the Logos as fully divine, not as one among many lesser gods.

  Jesus himself indicated that he is a lesser God than his Father because he stated that his Father is the only true God in John 17.3, and in John chapter 10 he justified his own limited divinity by pointing out that creatures are called gods in Psalm 82. That’s an odd argument to make unless Jesus was clearly indicating that his divinity is on a level with other creatures and less than God almighty.

  You argue with Robert Kraft that nomina sacra, “originated among Jews and was taken over and elaborated by Christians”. You also argue with Larry Hurtado that nomina sacra, “likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus and then expanded to include other key titles, such as ‘Lord’ and ‘God.’” You do realise that those propositions contradict each other? Because, obviously, if Jews originated the practice of nomina sacra they would not have started with the name ‘Jesus’, and conversely, if the first nomina sacra was ‘ Jesus’, then obviously the practice originated with Christians, not Jews. So which are you actually arguing for?
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  First of all, check this:

  The New World Translation: What the Scholars Really Said

  Adela Yarbro Collins is not at all one of "the most reputable scholars", but simply a liberal theologian, such people embrace any crazy view, it is not new, some even write that Jesus was gay, etc. I don't consider such people to be scholars, but quacks, and you still haven't addressed why you aren't willing to read the early Christian text corpus on its own, and why you come with what one of your favorite quack authors think that particular church father thought, not even leaving him himself get a word in?
  

  I think the greatest theologian of the 20th century is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, I think you haven't even heard of him because you're only looking for Dan Brown-style authors.

  While some may acknowledge that the Greek could, in theory, be translated in an indefinite sense, the overwhelming consensus of reputable scholars, both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian, emphasizes the qualitative nature of the term theos in John 1:1c. The phrase is not merely saying that the Word was “a god” among others, but rather that the Word possessed the very nature of God. This qualitative understanding is widely accepted among Greek linguists and theologians, as it best reflects the overall context of the Gospel of John and the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ’s divine nature.

  To say that Jesus is simply "a god" introduces theological problems that undermine the monotheistic foundation of both Jewish and Christian belief. It opens the door to polytheism, which is inconsistent with the broader biblical narrative. John 1:1 is making a profound theological claim about the nature of the Word—namely, that the Word is fully divine and shares in the very essence of God.

  Moreover, your appeal to John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God," does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it reflects the relational distinction within the Godhead. The Father, as the source of the Godhead, is indeed the "only true God," but this does not exclude the Son or the Holy Spirit from being fully divine. Jesus is emphasizing the Father's unique role without denying His own divinity. This relational distinction within the Trinity has been understood for centuries by Christian theologians without negating the full divinity of the Son.

  Your interpretation of John 10 and Psalm 82 misunderstands the point Jesus is making. When Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, where certain human judges are called "gods," He is not equating Himself with these creatures in terms of His divinity. Instead, Jesus is pointing out the inconsistency of His accusers. If the Scriptures could apply the term "gods" in a loose and metaphorical sense to mere humans, how much more does the title apply to Him, the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world? The passage is not an admission of "limited divinity" but a defense of His unique divine identity as the Son of God.

  Additionally, when Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God" in John 17:3, He is affirming the monotheistic belief that God is one, but this does not imply that Jesus is somehow a "lesser god." Within Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share one divine essence. The term "only true God" does not exclude the Son or the Spirit from being divine; it highlights the Father’s role within the Godhead.

  In fact, the theological framework of the NT does not recognize this "lesser god" category, which the Arian Watchtower theology wants to stuff the Son into, and Psalm 82 and its evocation in John 10:34-35 does not establish it. Some resources:

  • https://justpaste.it/fe6vi
    
  • "I Said Ye Are Gods:" Psalm 82:6 and John 10 Jerome Neyrey
  • An Apologetic Study of John 10:34-36 W. Gary Phillips
  • John 10:34-39
    

  You suggest that my references to Robert Kraft and Larry Hurtado present a contradiction regarding the origin of nomina sacra. However, there is no inherent contradiction between the two propositions. While it is true that certain scribal practices, such as the reverence for the divine name (Tetragrammaton), originated in Jewish tradition, it is equally true that early Christians adapted and developed their own unique scribal conventions. Hurtado’s argument is that the nomina sacra as a specifically Christian practice likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus, reflecting the centrality of Christ in Christian worship. Kraft, on the other hand, notes that some elements of this practice, such as the treatment of sacred names, may have been inherited from Jewish scribal traditions.

  Larry Hurtado’s thesis, which suggests that nomina sacra originated with the abbreviation of "Jesus" and expanded to include other sacred terms such as "Lord" and "God," does not conflict with the idea that Jewish scribal traditions influenced this Christian practice. Hurtado's argument suggests that the early Christians borrowed the concept of showing reverence for sacred names through abbreviation, a practice possibly inspired by Jewish treatment of the divine name, and then applied it to Christian worship, beginning with Jesus.

  Robert Kraft’s view that nomina sacra might have originated among Jews and been adopted by Christians is not necessarily contradictory. It is possible that early Jewish-Christian communities (including those familiar with Jewish traditions) initiated this practice. However, it was among Christians that the practice expanded and took on its distinctively Christocentric form, with the abbreviation of "Jesus" being prominent.

  The key point here is that early Christians were not simply copying Jewish practices; they were innovating in ways that reflected their unique theological convictions, particularly regarding the divinity of Christ. The nomina sacra were a deliberate Christian innovation that emphasized the sacredness of Jesus’ name and His divine status, something distinct from the Jewish reverence for the divine name.

  The use of nomina sacra reflects more than a mere scribal practice; it conveys theological meaning. Early Christians used nomina sacra to demonstrate their reverence for key figures, particularly Jesus, who was central to their faith. The fact that both God the Father and Jesus Christ are designated with sacred abbreviations indicates that early Christians regarded both as divine, though distinct persons within the framework of Trinitarian theology.

  This practice aligns with the broader New Testament teachings, where Jesus is consistently given titles, honors, and prerogatives associated with God (e.g., worship, the power to forgive sins, and dominion over creation). The early Christian use of nomina sacra for Jesus would be unthinkable unless they believed in his divine status, even if they maintained a distinction between Jesus and God the Father.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think the greatest theologian of the 20th century is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, I think you haven't even heard of him because you're only looking for Dan Brown-style authors.

  I met a Catholic in a large secondhand bookshop in England a few months ago who asked me if I knew where to find a book by Garrigou-Lagrange. He was in his 20s and had a girlfriend waiting around for him. He reminded me a bit of Jacob Rees-Mogg. I was able to find a book by this author in English but he said he preferred one in Latin. Was that you? Why was anyone writing in Latin in the 20th century anyway? I asked the young man that question but didn’t really get a response. He also made a derogatory comment about Han Küng as a heretic too. I didn’t pursue further conversation.

  In an earlier post you agreed that EP Sanders was a respected scholar but that you disagree with his view. Now you're calling scholars you don’t agree with quacks. This is a deterioration.

  The page you posted of scholars on the NWT is a tremendous resource and I think quite useful. If you read the entries carefully, among the Trinitarian scholars who disagree with the NWT, there is also a significant amount of respect and support for the NWT - more than one would be led to expect by theological opponents of JWs in any case.
• 

  slimboyfat

  On Robert Kraft and Larry Hurtado you are trying to make a round peg fit in a square hole. You were correct the first time when you wrote that Kraft argued that Jews were perhaps the first to use nomina sacra (he was open about the possibility and awaited further MS evidence) and Hurtado argued that ‘Jesus’ was the first nomen sacrum. Those two propositions cannot be reconciled. You are trying to blur the issue by saying that ‘Jewish Christians’ might have originated the practice. Another word for Jewish Christians in this period is simply ‘Christians’, and that’s not what Robert Kraft had in mind. He meant Jews, not Christians, or even ‘Jewish Christians’. If Hurtado is correct that ‘Jesus’ was the first nomen sacrum (based on numerology from Genesis and a comment in Barnabas which Colin Roberts had already identified) then the practice originated with Christians, not Jews. The fact that Jewish scribal practice around the divine name in some way influenced nomina sacra notation is recognised by everyone and is beside the point.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  You mentioned encountering a Catholic searching for a Garrigou-Lagrange book in Latin and expressed confusion as to why someone would still write in Latin in the 20th century. This is a significant misunderstanding of the role Latin has played—and continues to play—in Catholic theology and broader scholarship. Latin was (and still is) the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. Many significant theological works, especially in scholastic philosophy and theology, were composed in Latin because it was a precise and universal language among scholars. This allowed for clearer communication of complex theological concepts across linguistic barriers. In fact, most of his works are available in English:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9ginald_Garrigou-Lagrange#Works

  As for Hans Küng, it's well-documented that the Catholic Church declared some of his teachings heretical, and his theological views diverge significantly from Catholic orthodoxy. His disagreements with central doctrines, such as papal infallibility, led to his removal from teaching as a Catholic theologian in 1979. So, it's not "derogatory" to refer to him as a heretic within Catholic circles; it's simply stating a historical fact based on official Church positions. Disagreements over theological positions don't automatically constitute an ad hominem attack—they are part of legitimate scholarly discourse.

  Regarding Adela Yarbro Collins, I understand your frustration with dismissing such scholars, and perhaps I could have used less charged language. In fact, this is my opinion of liberal theologians for a good reason, most of them simply aim to spit on mainstream Christianity with some sensational "expose". “Jesus didn't even exist, and he was even gay!” “God was invented by the priests to take money from the poor people, as Dr. PhD X also stated.” Wow, what a discovery! Applause! Just to clarify, I don't consider all researchers with whom I disagree to be quacks, but I do consider such liberal theologians who present bold claims in a sensationalist style.

  It’s important to engage critically with scholarship rather than simply accepting every theory on equal footing. Scholarship in theology isn’t just about proposing novel ideas; it's also about remaining faithful to the core tenets of the faith, which have been handed down through centuries of tradition. Read what Karl Bart said about the biblicists, for example.

  I’m glad you found the page on scholars commenting on the NWT useful. However, I think it’s crucial to note that while some scholars may find certain elements of the NWT commendable in terms of linguistic accuracy, this doesn't imply wholesale endorsement of its theological interpretations. Most respected scholars within traditional Christian circles, especially Trinitarian theologians, recognize significant doctrinal departures in the NWT, particularly in its rendering of verses like John 1:1. Just because there’s some academic respect for the translation’s Greek handling in certain places doesn’t mean it’s accepted within the mainstream Christian understanding of theology.

  Ultimately, I think it's important to remain consistent in how we engage with different scholars. It's not a deterioration to challenge the views of theologians who depart from historic Christianity; it's part of the intellectual process of evaluating ideas in light of scripture and tradition. The goal is to uphold the truth as best we understand it while critically engaging with contrary views.

  You correctly note that Kraft was open to the possibility that the practice of nomina sacra may have originated among Jews, particularly in reference to their treatment of the divine name (the Tetragrammaton). His suggestion was that Jewish scribal practices, especially surrounding the reverence for God's name, could have predated Christian usage of such abbreviations. Kraft proposed that Jewish scribes might have developed some form of sacred abbreviation, or nomina sacra, and awaited further manuscript evidence to substantiate this claim.

  Hurtado’s argument, on the other hand, asserts that the first known Christian nomina sacra originated with the abbreviation of "Jesus" and "Christ." This practice likely emerged within the Christian community as an expression of reverence for the person of Jesus, influenced by early Christian theology that identified Jesus as divine. Hurtado's position is based on textual and numerological evidence from early Christian writings, particularly in the use of the name "Jesus" as a sacred term.

  It is important to recognize that Kraft and Hurtado are addressing two different aspects of the development of the nomina sacra practice. Kraft’s suggestion that Jewish scribal tradition around the divine name might have influenced the Christian practice does not contradict Hurtado’s argument that Christians were the first to apply the nomina sacra specifically to Jesus and other sacred Christian titles.

  Kraft’s position could still hold in the sense that Jewish scribal reverence for the divine name (by either using special marks, abbreviations, or simply avoiding its pronunciation) influenced how early Christians approached sacred names. This influence could have laid the groundwork for the Christian development of nomina sacra. Hurtado's view that Christians were the first to use nomina sacra for Jesus does not negate Kraft’s hypothesis. Instead, it suggests that early Christians adapted Jewish practices into a distinctively Christian context, expanding the use of sacred abbreviations to include not only "Yahweh" or the Tetragrammaton but also "Jesus," "Christ," and other titles central to Christian theology.

  These positions complement each other: Jewish scribal traditions might have influenced the Christian practice, but it was within the Christian community that the practice of abbreviating sacred names like "Jesus" was fully developed and expanded.

  Your statement that "Jewish Christians" are simply "Christians" in this period overlooks an important transitional phase in early Christianity. Jewish Christians were not simply "Christians" in the general sense—they were the first Christians, and their Jewish background deeply influenced how they practiced and expressed their new faith. These early Jewish Christians likely retained aspects of their Jewish religious heritage, including reverence for the divine name, while also integrating new Christian theological concepts, such as the divinity of Jesus.

  It is plausible that Jewish Christians, who were steeped in both Jewish and Christian thought, played a pivotal role in the early development of nomina sacra. They could have been influenced by Jewish traditions surrounding the Tetragrammaton while innovating the abbreviation of Jesus' name as a form of sacred reverence.

  Lastly, acknowledging that Jewish scribal practices may have influenced Christian nomina sacra is not the same as saying that Jews themselves originated the practice as it was known in Christian manuscripts. Influence and direct origination are distinct concepts. The Jewish practice of avoiding the divine name could have provided a model that Christians adapted for their own purposes, creating something new in the process. Hurtado's claim that the first Christian nomina sacra was "Jesus" does not conflict with the idea that Jewish scribal practices influenced early Christian scribes.

  The positions of Kraft and Hurtado do not need to be seen as mutually exclusive. Jewish scribal reverence for the divine name could have influenced early Christian scribes, particularly Jewish Christians, in developing the practice of nomina sacra. At the same time, the distinctively Christian use of nomina sacra—especially for names like "Jesus"—marks a Christian innovation rooted in their unique theological context.

  Thus, Kraft’s and Hurtado’s arguments can be understood as focusing on different parts of the same historical and theological process: Jewish traditions influencing early Christian practices, while Christian innovation shaped how those practices were applied in a distinctly Christian context.
• 

  slimboyfat

  You didn’t say if that was you in the bookshop. How many people are there wandering around looking for Garrigou-Lagrange in Latin?
• 

  aqwsed12345

  You didn’t say if that was you in the bookshop.

  Nope...

  How many people are there wandering around looking for Garrigou-Lagrange in Latin?

  Some of them are, but as I mentioned, most of his writings are also available in English.