Your rejoinder
rests on two pillars: first, that Jason BeDuhn’s Truth in Translation
vindicates the NWT as the most even-handed rendering of Christologically
charged texts, and secondly that the passages most frequently adduced for
Christ’s deity are text-critical minefields whereas Arian proof-texts stand on
unassailable ground. Neither contention survives careful examination of the
linguistic evidence, the history of scholarship, or the inner consistency of
the biblical canon.
Your
response seeks to defend Jason BeDuhn’s study of Christologically significant
texts and the NWT by arguing that it provides the "fairest treatment"
of passages such as John 1:1, John 8:58, Philippians 2:5-11, and Colossians
1:15-18, while contrasting this with alleged textual and translation issues in
Trinitarian proof texts like Acts 20:28. You further assert that JW Christology
rests on unambiguous texts such as John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy
2:5, and Revelation 3:12, claiming these are free of textual or translational
controversy and consistently rendered across Bible versions. This defense,
however, does not withstand rigorous scholarly scrutiny, as it relies on
oversimplifications, selective evidence, and a misrepresentation of both
BeDuhn’s methodology and the broader biblical data.
So the
appeal to BeDuhn’s authority is misplaced. Independent reviewers have shown
that his formal training is in comparative religions, not in Greek or
translation studies; he has never served on a recognised Bible-translation
project, and his CV contains no peer-reviewed contributions to Greek
linguistics or textual criticism. Indeed, his own alma mater has distanced
itself from Truth in Translation, a monograph that has drawn notice
almost exclusively within Watchtower circles while receiving negligible
attention in mainstream scholarship When one turns from credentials to
execution the problems multiply. BeDuhn repeatedly misstates elementary points
of Koine grammar, e.g. asserting that Greek “grammatical rules are male-based”
and that neuter nouns “are only used for impersonal things.” The New Testament
itself refutes him: teknon (child), paidion (infant), korasion
(girl) and several other neuter nouns refer to persons more than 160 times.
Such errors undermine his broader linguistic claims—precisely the claims on
which his defence of NWT renderings depends.
BeDuhn, in Truth
in Translation, posits that the NWT offers a “superior” (?) handling of
theologically charged texts, largely because it avoids what he perceives as
Trinitarian bias in mainstream translations. However, this claim is deeply
flawed, both linguistically and methodologically, as evidenced by critiques
from scholars like N.E. Barry Hofstetter. BeDuhn’s analysis of John 1:1, for
instance, hinges on his assertion that the anarthrous theos in kai
theos ēn ho logos should be rendered "a god," arguing that the
absence of the definite article indicates indefiniteness. This oversimplifies
Koine Greek syntax, ignoring the well-documented qualitative use of anarthrous
predicate nominatives, as established by Philip Harner (Journal of Biblical
Literature, 1973) and Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).
Harner’s study, which BeDuhn selectively cites, demonstrates that theos
in John 1:1c conveys a qualitative sense—namely, that the Word shares the
divine nature—rather than an indefinite "a god." BeDuhn’s failure to
engage with this scholarship, or with the broader Johannine context where the
Logos is the agent of creation (John 1:3) and thus preexistent and divine,
undermines his claim of impartiality. Hofstetter, in his review, notes BeDuhn’s
"extremely simplistic approach" to Greek grammar, pointing out that
he applies "very simple rules" prescriptively rather than
descriptively, neglecting discourse and literary analysis critical to exegesis.
This critique is borne out in BeDuhn’s treatment of John 1:1, where his
rendering aligns with JW theology but strains against the grammatical and
theological coherence of the text.
His
handling of predicate anarthrous nouns is equally tendentious. Citing John
6:60, he calls “hard” a “predicate noun”, mistakes an adjective for a noun, and
declares the clause “exactly like John 1:1c”, even though both the word order
and the semantic field differ The same confusion surfaces when he attacks
Sharp’s Rule in Titus 2:13, mis-quoting Smyth’s grammar and overlooking the
decisive point that when a single article governs two singular substantives
joined by kai, the second usually identifies the first; no scholar of
repute thinks the rule “disproved” by Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 In fact
BDAG—hardly a Trinitarian apologetic work—admits that Christ is called theos
in both passages
A glance at
Hebrews 1:8–9 shows how BeDuhn’s linguistic lapses produce theological
distortion. He denies that ho theos in Hebrews 1:8 can be vocative (“O
God”), yet the vocative force of ho theos is common in the LXX Psalms
and recurs in Hebrews 10:7, which even the NWT renders “O God”
Consistency would require the Watchtower either to translate both occurrences
identically or to explain why the writer applies an identical Greek
construction differently in verses separated by a single paragraph—a task their
literature does not attempt.
Nor does
the oft-invoked “qualitative” reading of John 1:1 rescue the NWT. Scholars who
stress quality in the anarthrous theos do not conclude “the Word was a
god”; rather, they take John to predicate the very nature of deity to
the Logos without confounding him with the Father—the same point classical
Trinitarianism makes. Robert Bowman’s survey of BDAG and other lexicographical
sources shows that the anarthrous noun is best taken as qualitative-definite,
not indefinite Green’s Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament,
quoted selectively in the NWT appendix, explicitly warns that an articular theos
(“the God”) would have implied that all of God is exhausted in the Logos; the
absence of the article therefore guards Trinitarian distinction, not
sub-divinity.
The claim
that Trinitarian proof-texts are text-critical “problem passages” fares no
better. Acts 20:28 (variant tou theou) is attested by the earliest
Alexandrian witnesses; Romans 9:5 is uniformly articular in P46, 𝔓, ℵ, A, B, C, Dp^p; and the reading monogenēs
theos in John 1:18 enjoys the support of the same Alexandrian line plus
early patristic citation. By contrast, the “clear” proof-texts marshalled for
subordinationist Christology (John 14:28; 1 Cor 11:3; Rev 3:12) address the
incarnate Son’s mediatorial economy, not his eternal ontology—a distinction
long recognised in patristic exegesis. The Father’s greater majesty is
relational, not essential; it co-exists with explicit confessions that the Son
shares divine titles and prerogatives (John 5:23; 20:28; Heb 1:6).
Most
telling is the pattern the NWT follows whenever grammatical or text-critical
ambiguity intersects with Watchtower dogma. Where Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, 2
Peter 1:1, John 1:1, John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-20 or Philippians 2:6-11
threaten the society’s low Christology, the translation retreats to the least
christologically weighty option; where no doctrinal stake is involved, it
willingly adopts constructions—the vocative ho theos in Hebrews 10:7,
for example—that it elsewhere denies. Independent reviewers have documented
this one-way traffic in considerable detail.
Turning to
John 8:58, BeDuhn defends the NWT’s "I have been" for egō eimi,
claiming it reflects a present tense with past implications (a so-called
"present of past action"). This argument, however, misrepresents the
syntactic and contextual evidence. The phrase prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi
("before Abraham was, I am") employs a stark present tense that
contrasts sharply with the aorist infinitive genesthai ("was
born/came to be"), signaling not a durative past action but an assertion
of timeless existence. The attached exchange between BeDuhn and Hofstetter highlights
BeDuhn’s insistence on a “PPA” (present of past action) reading, which
Hofstetter counters by noting its non-idiomatic nature in this discursive
context—historical presents are typically narrative, not declarative, as here.
Moreover, the allusion to Exodus 3:14 (egō eimi ho ōn, "I am the
one who is") reinforces the divine identity claim, a point BeDuhn
dismisses without engaging the intertextual evidence. Many critics observed
BeDuhn’s lack of exegetical depth, noting his failure to consider John’s
broader purpose, where egō eimi statements (e.g., John 8:24, 13:19)
consistently assert Jesus’ divine status. The NWT’s rendering thus appears as a
theologically motivated choice to obscure this implication, not a
"fair" reflection of the Greek.
For
Philippians 2:5-11, BeDuhn’s approval of the NWT’s insertion of
"other" in verse 9 ("God made him ‘Lord’ over all others")
is equally problematic. The Greek text (huperupsōsen auton kai echarisato
autō to onoma to huper pan onoma) contains no warrant for "other,"
as the phrase "above every name" lacks any such qualifier.
Hofstetter labels this an "addition" that "subtly diminishes the
exalted status of Christ," aligning with JW doctrine that Jesus is a
created being rather than fully divine. BeDuhn’s silence on this insertion,
despite his purported focus on linguistic accuracy, betrays a bias toward the
NWT’s theological agenda, contradicting his claim of fairness. Similarly, in
Colossians 1:15-18, the NWT inserts "other" four times (e.g., "by
means of him all other things were created"), despite its
absence in the Greek (panta di’ autou ektisthē). This is a conjectural
emendation driven by bias, not manuscript evidence, noting that it distorts the
text’s assertion of Christ’s role as the uncreated agent of all creation.
BeDuhn’s endorsement of these alterations, without critique, further erodes his
credibility as a neutral scholar, as documented in critiques that highlight his
limited engagement with mainstream NT scholarship (e.g., Murray J. Harris’s Jesus
as God, which BeDuhn admits ignorance of in correspondence.
Your
assertion that Trinitarian proof texts like Acts 20:28 are "dogged by
textual and translation issues" overstates the case. While Acts 20:28 has
variant readings (tou theou vs. tou kuriou), the majority textual
tradition supports "the church of God, which he obtained with his own
blood," a reading attested in early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus. The variant "Lord" does not negate the theological implication,
as the context—Christ’s redemptive death—points to Jesus regardless. Robert
Hommel notes that even with the variant, "the broader New Testament
witness consistently portrays Jesus’ death as an act of divine
redemption," citing Colossians 1:19-20 and Revelation 5:9. The NWT’s
rendering ("the blood of his own [Son]") introduces a
bracketed gloss absent from the Greek, a move BeDuhn does not critique, further
illustrating his selective leniency toward NWT deviations. In contrast, texts
like Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and Hebrews 1:8—where Christ is explicitly called theos—are
textually stable and grammatically unambiguous, as per the Granville Sharp
construction in Titus 2:13 (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou
Christou), yet the NWT systematically obscures these by breaking the
syntactic unity (e.g., "of the great God and of our Savior Jesus
Christ"). BeDuhn’s defense of such renderings relies on rare exceptions to
established rules, ignoring the contextual and canonical weight that favors the
traditional reading, as Hofstetter and Allin both argue.
Now,
consider your cited texts—John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, and
Revelation 3:12—which you claim are textually clear and uniformly translated,
supporting JW Christology over Trinitarianism. This argument falters on several
fronts. First, textual clarity does not equate to theological unambiguity. John
14:28 ("the Father is greater than I") reflects Jesus’ incarnate
state, not an ontological inferiority, as John elsewhere affirms equality (John
5:18, "making himself equal with God"; John 10:30, "I
and the Father are one"). BeDuhn’s failure to address this broader
Johannine framework reveals a selective exegesis that prioritizes
subordinationist/Arian readings. In 1 Corinthians 11:3 ("the head of
Christ is God"), the term kephalē denotes relational authority,
not essence, a distinction paralleled by "the head of the woman is
man," which does not imply ontological inequality (cf. Galatians
3:28). Trinitarian theology accommodates functional subordination within the
economy of salvation without compromising coequality, a nuance the NWT flattens
by implication, though the text itself is not altered here.
In 1
Timothy 2:5 ("one God and one mediator … the man Christ Jesus"),
the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity as mediator does not preclude his deity,
affirmed elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (Titus 2:13, "our great God
and Savior Jesus Christ"). BeDuhn’s linguistic focus, as critiqued by
Hofstetter, misses the canonical interplay that informs such passages.
Revelation 3:12 ("the temple of my God") similarly reflects
Christ’s incarnate role and submission in redemption, not a denial of deity, as
Revelation elsewhere identifies him as "Alpha and Omega"
(22:13), a title exclusive to God (1:8). The NWT’s consistent translation here
aligns with its theology but does not negate the Trinitarian reading, which
sees these as expressions of the Son’s economic role, not his essence. Your
claim that "Trinitarians just deny they mean what they say"
mischaracterizes the issue: Trinitarian exegesis interprets these texts within
a holistic canonical context, not as isolated prooftexts, a method BeDuhn and
the NWT conspicuously avoid.
BeDuhn’s
commendation of the NWT’s footnotes, which you highlight, is a red herring.
While the 1950 NWT acknowledges alternatives (e.g., "me" in
Zechariah 12:10 in early editions), its main text invariably opts for
renderings that align with JW doctrine, as seen in John 1:1, Colossians 1:16,
and elsewhere. This is a "fig leaf" for scholarly fairness, noting
that footnotes serve as a pretense while the main text remains ideologically
driven. Hofstetter similarly observes that BeDuhn’s praise overlooks the NWT’s
systematic bias, a point reinforced by its handling of Acts 20:28 and Titus
2:13, where glosses and syntactic breaks distort the Greek without manuscript
support. BeDuhn’s linguistic arguments, such as his misunderstanding of article
usage (e.g., claiming neuter nouns are never personal, despite teknon
and paidion as counterexamples), further expose his limited grasp of
Greek beyond an intermediate level, as critiqued in the attached reviews.
Your
broader point—that JW Christology rests on "many texts" free of
issues—ignores the counterevidence. Texts like Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus
2:13, and Hebrews 1:8 are not "uncertain" in the scholarly consensus;
their textual stability and grammatical clarity affirm Christ’s deity, yet the
NWT consistently adjusts them to fit an Arian framework. The pattern is
unmistakable: where the Greek supports divine identity, the NWT opts for the
least mainstream rendering, often without textual basis, as in Colossians 1:16
or Philippians 2:9. BeDuhn’s defense, far from proving fairness, reveals a
scholar out of his depth, as numerous critics note his lack of expertise in
biblical languages and failure to engage the academic consensus, a view echoed
by Northern Arizona University’s own distancing from his
"controversial" work.
Finally,
the appeal to BeDuhn as evidence of “balance” overlooks his selectivity. While
he praises the NWT for noting “alternative” readings, he omits the far more
extensive critical apparatus of mainstream translations and never tells the
reader that the NWT conceals its own doctrinally driven alterations to the
Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10, where the Masoretic first-person object, the
lectio difficilior, remains the best-attested reading. The Dead Sea Scroll
fragment 4QXIIe is too lacunose to dislodge the MT, and the earliest Greek
traditions that replace “me” with “him” betray exactly the sort of
theologically motivated smoothing we observe in the Watchtower’s version.
Classical text-critical principles therefore favour the reading that most
embarrasses unitarianism and coheres with John 19:37’s citation of the same
clause.
In
conclusion, your reliance on BeDuhn and the NWT’s supposed fairness collapses
under scrutiny. The NWT’s treatment of Christologically significant texts is
not a neutral or superior rendering but a systematic effort to align Scripture
with JW theology, as evidenced by its insertions, glosses, and avoidance of
divine implications. BeDuhn’s study, marred by linguistic oversights and
theological bias, fails to substantiate your claims, while your cited texts,
when read canonically, cohere with Trinitarian doctrine rather than contradict
it. The real issue is not textual uncertainty in Trinitarian proof texts, but
the NWT’s dogmatic necessity to sanitize them—a necessity absent from
mainstream translations, Catholic or otherwise, which grapple with the text’s
complexity without such ideological constraints. Hofstetter’s review, alongside
Hommel’s analysis confirm this critique, exposing BeDuhn’s and the NWT’s
shortcomings in a way your defense cannot credibly rebut.
A single
non-specialist’s monograph—fraught with demonstrable linguistic missteps—cannot
overturn the cumulative verdict of grammarians, lexicographers and the broad
sweep of patristic and modern commentary. The textual foundation for Christ’s
deity is neither fragile nor peripheral: it permeates the syntax of John’s
prologue, the christological hymns of Paul, the Psalter’s royal-divine oracles
as read by Hebrews, and the doxologies of the Apocalypse. The NWT’s systematic
softening of that witness exposes, rather than dispels, its confessional bias.
