Personally, dshields,
I find “one of the most damning statements made in the Kingdom Interlinear” to be found also on Page 5 of the 1969 edition:
“Sincere searchers for eternal, life-giving truth desire an accurate understanding of the faith-inspiring Greek Scriptures, an understanding that will not be confused by sectarian,
denominational religious teaching but that is fortified by the knowledge of what the original language says and means. To aid such seekers of truth and life is the purpose behind the publishing of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
Its literal interlinear English translation is specially designed to open up to the student of the Sacred Scriptures what the original koine Greek basically or literally says, without any sectarian religious coloration.” (emphasis mine).
We all know how THAT actually worked. I described my distress with the “sectarian religious coloration” of the verses XJWBill mentions concerning the Greek which is translated “this means my body/cup of my blood” at Matthew 16:26-28, Mark 12:22-24
and Luke 22:19-20 in the NWT but which actually SAYS “this is my body” in a letter to the Society a few years back.
The reply was less than satisfactory. Although I had NEVER questioned what Jesus MEANT when Jesus said this in my letter -- having been raised with the Protestant view, unchanged as a JW, that it was all symbolic -- the Society focused on that.
MY focus was on their obvious deceit. How when a dispute came up over this in field service, I had defended the NWT and then searched out the Kingdom Interlinear. I was later, of course, forced to admit to my study that our translation was indeed colored by the translators point of view. (Silly me, to have honestly believed my brothers’ words!)
In regard to John 8:58, I agree with JanH that the NWT has it right given the context. My take on why the Jews may have taken “up stones to throw at him” for blasphemy was because in verse 56 Jesus had said that Abraham had rejoiced to see his day, saw it, and
was glad. They mistakenly thought that Jesus was equating his ministry with Jehovah’s Day of Wrath, thus making himself [perhaps] God. When asked if he had seen Abraham, Jesus tried to clarify his previous statement by testifying to his previous existence, knowing as he did that Abraham had been given a glimpse of how God intended to ransom mankind when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac -- thus had “seen Jesus’ day” and rejoiced. (Not to mention the fact that he may have been alive in heaven at that very moment observing the outworking of God's Plan.)
If it is dishonest in your opinion to translate ego eimi with anything other than “I am” it is equally dishonest IMO for translators to make the leap into capitalizing the “Am” so that
the words become a title or name rather than a subject and predicate. Today’s English Version even puts “I Am” in quotes. Does the sentence then, make better sense? “Before Abraham was born, ‘I Am.’” “Before Abraham was born, YHWH.” “Before Abraham was born, Jesus.” “Before Abraham was born, Almighty.” I am with AlanF in thinking that “I am” can be and has been translated “I was” and “I have been” in other places.
(Out of curiosity, Doug -- How do you explain the difference in the Greek Septuagint ho ohn’ translated ‘The I Am’ at Exodus 3:24 and the Greek ego eimi at John 8:58? I am not being a smart aleck. I would really like to know.)
On the question of Hebrews 1:8, it is not just the WT who has a problem with the grammar there and how to turn the phrase.
“But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.’” -- NWT
“About the Son, however, God said: ‘Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever! You rule over your people with justice.” -- Today’s English Version
Of this, Bart Ehrman’s book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Page 265, has this to say: (Please note that the italicized “Greek” is my poor attempt at translating the actual
Greek used in his text into English letters as I have no Greek font.)
“The need to differentiate Christ from God [in the Anti-Patripassianist school] is also evident in the interesting variant at Hebrews 1:8, one of the few New Testament passages that appears to designate Christ as “God.” The author quotes Psalm 44:7 as a declaration of God to [pros] Christ: “Your throne O God is forever and ever; and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.” Interpretive problems abound in the passage, in
part because the nominative ho theos, normally construed as a vocative (“O God”), could also be taken as a predicate. In that case, the introductory clause would be rendered, “Your throne is God forever and ever, . . .” Understood this way, the text no longer calls Christ “God.”For a variety of contextual reasons, however, the majority of scholars prefer to understand the nominative as a vocative.17 Recognizing the exegetical issue, however, makes the textual problem at the end of the verse all the more interesting. For the second personal pronoun son (‘your” kingdom) has been changed to the third person anton in some of the best Alexandrian witnesses from the third-century on. With this reading, the kingdom is
said not to be Christ’s but God’s. The change affects the interpretation of the first element of the dystich, as well; now it must be God’s throne that is “forever and ever.” In other words, the textual change at the end of the verse naturally leads one to understand the earlier nominative ho theos as a predicate rather than a vocative, so that now the verse reads “God is your throne forever and ever; the righteous scepter is the scepter of his
kingdom.”
Most scholars reject the Alexandrian reading because it does not fit as well into the context.18 Why, though, was the change made in the first place? It dates to the period of our concern and appears to resolve a problematic feature of the verse. Christ is no longer
identified as the one God (ho theos) himself, but is in some sense (in the economy!) made subordinate to him: “God [himself] is your throne.”19
Footnotes:
17. See most recently Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 58-59, and the literature he cites there.
18. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 662-63 for the issues involved. Cf. also Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 58-59.
19. Of course, the orthodox could use the verse even as it stands against the Patripassianists, by noting that in the text God the Father addresses God the Son, and presumably was not simply talking to himself. See, for example, Tertullian, Adv. Prax.,
who refers explicitly, however, to the text of the Psalm rather than to its quotation in the book of Hebrews. Nonetheless, the point is that at least one scribe evidences a similar concern but took a different route to implement it, by requiring the modification of the
address of Christ as “the [one and only] God.”
Of course, note the continuation of the quoted Psalm in verse 9 of Hebrews 1. It reads:“You love what is right and hate what is wrong. That is why God, your God, has chosen you and has given you the joy of an honor far greater than he gave to your companions.”
-- TEV
The Psalm itself reads” “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever. You rule over your people with justice; you love what is right and hate what is evil. That is why God, your God, has chosen you and has poured out more happiness on you than on
any other king.” -- Psalm 45:6,7 [i]TEV[i]
And finally, why does “calling God his own Father” make Jesus equal to God. Are you equal to your father? Or are you two different beings? I never understood how that verse (John 5:18) was a proof text for Jesus = God. Especially when Jesus corrects them in
verse 19 by saying that “the Son can do nothing by himself, he can do only what he sees the Father doing” and in verse 23 explains that he is the representative of “the Father who sent him.”
outnfree
