Some days ago I asked you if someone wrote to Prof J. BuDuhn who is quoted in the Watchtower 1 February 1998, p. 32. Here's what I received from him. His second letter is more interesting. (will add it latter)
Dear Mr. xxxxx,
Thank you for your message. It is always a good idea to check out your
sources and confirm their accuracy. In this case, I was quoted accurately by
the Watchtower. I stated in my letter the virtues of the KIT, and the
combination of factors that makes it such a useful volume. Since that quote
appeared, I have received many messages such as your own, which cite
authorities against the NWT and point to specific passages where it is felt
that the NWT has not translated accurately. I always check every such
reference, because it is certainly possible that I might have overlooked
something. I have recently completed a book prompted by all of this
correspondence, called "Bible Wars: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations
of the New Testament," which I hope will be published later this year.
Through all of this work, I have found that the NWT is one of the most
accurate translations currently available. Of course, it has its weaknesses,
as every translation does. But on comparison, it does quite well.
I have read Dr. Countess' book. While I found a few good points in it, its
argument is mostly tendentious and disputable.
You call attention to "lack of consistency and dishonesty" in the NWT handling
of the word THEOS. Of course, lack of consistency does not necessarily entail
dishonesty. I have found that all Bible translations are inconsistent in
their handling of terms, particularly when those terms are theologically
significant. Yet I do not think that all of these translators were
necessarily dishonest -- that is, consciously distorting the meaning. I think
most of these cases can be explained by bias, an unconscious expectation that
a passage should read a certain way that conforms to the translator's beliefs.
Unfortunately, you have been given bad information, since every single one of
your examples for comparison are not relevant for John 1:1. All of the
passages you cite for comparison have THEOS with the definite article HO,
therefore it is perfectly correct to translate "God" in these verses. But in
the third clause of John 1:1, THEOS appears without the definite article, and
therefore the most likely translation is indefinite "a god," or in an
adjectival function "divine."
You ask if I disagree with a long list of my predecessors and colleagues in
biblical studies. Of course, it is nothing unusual that people in this field
disagree. But specifically . . .
Barclay: This statement is false, the NWT translation of John 1:1 is not
"grammatically impossible," and someone who says that it is either is ignorant
of Greek grammar or themselves "intellectually dishonest."
Boyer: This is a specious argument without substance.
Bruce: This statement is in error. Omission of the article in predicative
constructions with the nominative noun almost always have the indefinite, or
at least categorical sense. Dr. Bruce's lnaguage reveals the theological,
rather than linguistic, context of his remarks.
Colwell (and appeals to Colwell's Rule by Feinberg): This "rule" is not a
valid rule of Greek grammar. And even if it were valid, it would not
establish the definiteness of THEOS in John 1:1. Colwell's rule presupposes
definiteness, and seeks to account for the lack of an definite article, rather
than itself proving definiteness. The same grammatical data used by Colwell
has been explained much better by Harner.
Colwell & Harrison (on John 20:28): Appeal to John 20:28 in discussion of John
1:1 involves an interpretation of John's overall thesis that is open to
dispute. There is no denying what is said in John 20:28; the question is
rather what is meant by it. A great deal is said between John 1:1 and John
20:28 that explains how and in what way it can be that when one looks upon
Jesus one can say "my God." To simply juxtapose John 1:1 and 20:28 without
taking the intervening material into account is to dramatically oversimplify
the way John presents Jesus to his readers.
Custer: This statement shows a complete misunderstanding of Greek vocabulary
and grammar, or else a deceptive manner of argument. The Greek word for "god"
is THEOS, not THEIOS. Anyone who reads ancient Greek literature would know
that. No one has ever said that John called the Word a "semi-divine being."
Dunham: I have given time to such study of Greek, and I don not agree with Dr.
Dunham. The NWT translation of John 1:1 does accord with Greek grammar.
Griesbach: This is a theological, not a linguistic argument.
Harrison: While "a Greek word does not necessarily require the article to be
definite," a word in its nominative form generally does. When such a
nominative word lacks the definite article, it is most likely to be
indefinite.
Hoekema: There is nothing substantial in this statement. I have read the rest
of Hoekema's discussion of the NWT and it has little value.
Johnson: It is true that Acts 28:6 is not a valid parallel to John 1:1,
because in the former verse the noun is accusative (THEON), not nominative
(THEOS). However, there is plenty of justification for the NWT translation of
John 1:1 in the dozens of passages in John alone that have the same
gramamtical construction and in which the noun is clearly indefinite or
categorical rather than definite.
Kaufman: This statement is in error.
Koch: This statement is circular. How does he know that "theos is not to be
translated 'a god'"?
Mantey: This statement is specious and without substance.
Martin: Similar to many other statements already mentioned with fall into the
logical fallacy of "no one I know translates it that way, so it cannot be
translated that way." Even non-Christian scholars are influenced by literary
tradition.
Metzger & Mikolaski: "Pernicious," "frightful," and "monstrous" are not
objective, scholarly assessments.
Nida: This statement follows Nida's approach of first knowing what a passage
says, and then translating it to match what you know it says. Such an
approach begs the question: how do you know what a passage says before you
translate it?
Rowley: This statement has nothing substantial in it.
Sturz: This statement is in error. A literal translation would, by definition
read as the NWT has it, because those are the words on the page. There is
still room for argument whether this is the best translation.
Westcott: The language used in this statement shows that theological, rather
than linguistic, argument dominates here. Westcott's reference to John 4:24
is relevant, since the clause is a good parallel to John 1:1, but Westcott's
claim that it proves the definite sense of John 1:1 is an error. It rather
proves the opposite. The correct translation of John 4:24 is "God is a
spirit," where "spirit" is indefinite or categorical, just as "god" is in John
1:1.
I hope you can see that I do not "ignore" these predecessors and colleagues,
but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly
fallacious claims. I wish we could all approach this most important of issues
with greater objectivity and desire for accuracy and truth, wherever it may
lead us, rather than prejudging the outcome in advance of any attention and
thought to the matter.
I wish you all the best in your continuing researches.
Sincerely,
Jason BeDuhn
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University