NCC-1701

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 84 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by NCC-1701

• 
  10

  Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

  by NCC-1701 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

  i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

  a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  Hey again Hortensia.

  Thanks for the note.
• 
  10

  Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

  by NCC-1701 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

  i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

  a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  Hey Hortensia

  It was orginally written for a friend who thought that since he couldn't find any critical reviews of "T in T", BeDuhn's translation of certain key texts must be solid. I wanted him to look a little more closely at what was written.

  I just posted it for anyone who may be interested translation issues.
• 
  10

  Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

  by NCC-1701 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

  i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

  a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  Hi all. If this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.

  Just wanted to share what I wrote about Jason BeDuhn's handling of Phillip Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1973) in the book, "Truth in Translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.

  It's a bit lenghthy, but I wanted to record as much of Harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position. I hope it is helpful to someone.

  A friend recently offered his copy of Jason David BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation" for me to read.

  What follows is my observations of a portion of BeDuhn's treatment of Phillip Harner's artictle, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" which appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1973.

  On page 123 of "T in T", BeDuhn records, "Harner points out that if John had wanted to say 'The Word was God,' he could have written ho logos en ho theos. But he didn't. If he wanted to say 'The Word was a god,' he could have written ho logos en theos. But he didn't. Instead John took the anarthrous predicate noun and placed it before the verb, which to Harner suggests that John was not interested in definiteness or indefiniteness, but in character and quality."

  On the next page, BeDuhn quotes Harner as writing, "There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite," and "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." (Harner 1973, pages 85 and 87).

  Let's see how Phillip Harner uses these thoughts and statements in his JBL article.

  On page 84, Harner lists five ways that John could have written the final clause of John 1:1. He writes, "In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following (transliterated):

  A ho logos en ho theos

  B theos en ho logos

  C ho logos theos en

  D ho logos en theos

  E ho logos en theios

  On page 85 of JBL, Harner gives his explanation as to why John did not write, ho logos en ho theos. He writes, "Clause A, with an anarthrous predicate , would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that ho logos en pros ton theon. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of 'personal' differentiation, between the two."

  Next, he explains why he believes why John did not write, ho logos en theos. He says, "Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean the the logos was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos."

  Harner then continues to explain why John did not write Clauses D and E by saying, "Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was 'divine,' without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos."

  Immediately after this, he says, "John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." Then he writes the first sentence that BeDuhn quoted above, "There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." Harner concludes that thought by next saying, "This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1."

  "As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean the the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the same nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis."

  Turning back to BeDuhnn's book, on page 124 of "T in T", he writes, "Harner rejects outright the renderings 'the Word was God' (KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV) and 'he was the same as God' (TEV) as inaccurate translations of John 1:1c (Harner, page 87)"

  Harner has the following to say about the above renderings.

  On page 87 of JBL, he writes, "These examples illustrate the difficulty of translating the clause accurately into English. The RSV and The Jerusalem Bible translate, 'the Word was God.' The New English Bible has, 'what God, was the Word was.' Good News for Modern Man has, 'he was the same as God.' The problem with all these translations is that they could represent clause A, in our analysis above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as definite because it precedes the verb. But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'"

  It doesn't appear as though Harner "rejects outright" the renderings, "the Word was God." And, "he was the same God" as BeDuhn believes he does.

  Further down page 124, BeDuhn then writes, "So if the meaning of 'the Word was a god,' or 'the Word was a divine being' is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings, then we could translate the phrase as 'the Word was divine.' The meaning is the same in either case, and is summed up well by Harner as 'ho logos...had the nature of theos' (Harner, page 87)."

  It is informative to see the entire sentence from which BeDuhn quotes above. It comes immediately after Harner had written, "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' He then says, "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."

  By quoting only part of the sentence, BeDuhn seems to misrepresent what Harner was actually saying about the nature of the logos.

  Also on page 124 of "T in T", BeDuhn says, "He (Harner) gives qualified approval to the translation 'the Word was divine,' at the same time offering other suggestions."

  The other suggestions that Harner gives are recorded above from page 87 of the JBL article. The qualification that Harner gives begins on page 85 where he quotes Bruce Vawter from his book, "The gospel according to John" (JBC;Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1968) pg 422.

  He writes, "Bruce Vawter explains the meaning of the clause succinctly and lucidly: 'The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine Person.' But in terms of our analysis it is important that we understand the phrase 'the Word was divine' as an attempt to represent the meaning of clause B rather than D or E. Undoubtedly Vawter means that the Word is 'divine' in the same sense that ho theos is divine. But the English language is not as versatile at this point as Greek, and we can avoid misunderstanding the English phrase only if we are aware of the particular force of the Greek expression that it represents."

  Harner also writes in footnote #24 on page 84 in reference to clause E (ho logos en theios) that "The word theios appears only a few times in the NT: Acts 17:27 (v. 1.), 29; Tit 1:9 (v. 1.); 2 Pet 1:3, 4. It is not used in the Fourth Gospel. But presumably John could have used it, or some other word meaning 'divine,' if he had wished to do so."

  The last statement of BeDuhn's that I wish to address is also from page 124 of "T in T". He writes, "What Harner calls the 'qualitative' function of Greek predicate nouns , and what I call the Greek 'expression of class' amounts basically to the same thing."

  On page 87 of JBL, Harner does say, "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." But he immediately adds, "In interpreting clauses of this type it is important to recall that Greek writers also had other types of word-order available. If a writer simply wished to represent the subject as one of a class, he could use an anarthrous predicate noun after the verb. If he wished to emphasize that the predicate noun was definite, he could supply the article. The availability of these other types of word-order strengthens the view that in many instances we may look primarily for a qualitative emphasis in anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb."

  It would seem that Harner does not regard the final clause of John 1:1, theos en ho logos, a clause that uses an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb interpreted as being qualitative and distinguished from being either definite or indefinite, as representing the subject as being "one of a class" as does BeDuhn.
• 
  17

  Vancouver, BC. Canada (bound volumes from 1940-2000) approximately - to Give Away!!

  by RAYZORBLADE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i am acting as an in-between for a good friend who is not part of this site.

  his family were a century involved in the wtbts in the lower bc mainland; not to mention nw washington state.. he is no longer a member of the jw's.

  we're great friends; i knew him 25 years ago, long before i discovered this site (love it simon: yes, still all those years later).. anyways, he wants to get rid of bound volumes from approximately from the years: 1940 - until - 2000.. he asked me to intervene.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  Follow up. I'll try to keep it brief

  I arrived at the location where the volumes were kept. I was met at the door by a real nice guy and he had the books in boxes stacked just inside the door. There was a stack of 4 boxes, which I thought was a little low for the amount of volumes that I thought were availabe. But, they were giving them away for free, so I didn't worry too much about it. I loaded them in the car and drove home.

  I began to unload the 4 boxes. I opened up the last box and couldn't believe what I was seeing, In there were 6 bound volumes of Watchtowers from 1879 - 1919 with a 5 year gap between 1900 and 1905 I think.

  I noticed that I had a phone message. It was from the person who Rayzorblade was in contact with. He apologized that I wasn't given all the volumes and offered to deliver them to me. I called him back and mentioned that there was a box of really old volumes included. He said that they were handed to me by mistake as he had wanted to keep them. I returned them and picked up the rest of the other volumes.

  I actually had the original Watchtowers in my hand, in my house but had to return them. It was a bitter-sweet day.

  But, I received all the bound Watchtowers and Awakes from 1954 - 1999 which is an incredible resource. Plus, they came with a number of indexes.

  So, a big thank you to Rayzorblade and his friend.

  NCC-1701
• 
  17

  Vancouver, BC. Canada (bound volumes from 1940-2000) approximately - to Give Away!!

  by RAYZORBLADE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i am acting as an in-between for a good friend who is not part of this site.

  his family were a century involved in the wtbts in the lower bc mainland; not to mention nw washington state.. he is no longer a member of the jw's.

  we're great friends; i knew him 25 years ago, long before i discovered this site (love it simon: yes, still all those years later).. anyways, he wants to get rid of bound volumes from approximately from the years: 1940 - until - 2000.. he asked me to intervene.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  Thanks Rayzorblade.

  Another PM sent your way.

  NCC-1701
• 
  17

  Vancouver, BC. Canada (bound volumes from 1940-2000) approximately - to Give Away!!

  by RAYZORBLADE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i am acting as an in-between for a good friend who is not part of this site.

  his family were a century involved in the wtbts in the lower bc mainland; not to mention nw washington state.. he is no longer a member of the jw's.

  we're great friends; i knew him 25 years ago, long before i discovered this site (love it simon: yes, still all those years later).. anyways, he wants to get rid of bound volumes from approximately from the years: 1940 - until - 2000.. he asked me to intervene.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  Razorblade - I have sent you a PM

  Thanks.
• 
  127

  Introducing Mrs Cedars...

  by cedars in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just thought you should know that mrs cedars has finally taken the plunge and joined the forum.

  she was able to log on for the first time yesterday.. though we both "awakened" at different stages, mrs cedars was very supportive and non-judgmental when i first began exploring my beliefs from a critical standpoint.

  she is currently in the process of reading crisis of conscience and aquainting herself with some of the facts of witness history that were hitherto unknown.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  I think Mrs "Cedars" will be very "Poplar" on this forum.
• 
  9

  Bible Edition/Version = question/help please

  by mind blown in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  from reading many posts i feel confident in asking this question, as i feel many of you are very well read regarding certain topics.

  i would like to get a decent version of the bible, however, i don't know which one to get.

  it's obsious the wts version is out of the question for me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  I like the English Standard Version.

  If you purchase the Study Edition, they give you free access to the online edition which has all the text, notes, articles and search capabilities.
• 
  31

  The Governing Body was at the meeting tonight

  by wannabefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i gave in and went to the meeting tonight.

  first thursday meeting in a couple of months ...

  the whole congregation bible/book study was praise and worship of the governing body!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  I went to my first service meeting this week on the invitation of a Witness friend. (I have never been a Witness, myself)

  I agree that the "Governing Body" received a lot of mention in those few paragraphs in discussion of Acts 15. The thing that struck me most was the discussion of Cornelius in Acts 10. He was held up as a righteous person. Imagine, a centurion from an occupying army being considered a devout man. There's no mention of Peter telling him that he really should give up the army life in order to be acceptable to God. Cornelius may well have, scripture doesn't say. I wondered if that fact may have been collectively and conveniently by-passed.

  Forgive me if I am going off topic but I've often wondered about Christ's words in John 18:36

  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. • But my kingdom is not from the world.”

  I've seen this as a prohibition from Jesus about using force to fight for the advancement or preservation of the kingdom of God. But can this be used as an all out prohibition against fighting for any other "kingdom"? Jesus seems to say that his servants would fight under certain circumstances. He didn't say his servants would never fight. Fighting can take many forms, you can fight on a battlefield, you can fight within a legislature for laws or someone's rights. Is there a Witness prohibition against being a Police Officer? I believe they have to "fight" every now and then.

  It was an interesting experience. I'm glad I got the opportunity to go.
• 
  134

  Christians Please Explain

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since leaving all organized religion, all superstition, all acceptance of deity, i have a terrible time truly understanding 'religious' thought.. i really do.. how is it possible for thinking people to just accept, without proof, all they accept?

  this morning i overheard a conversation between two christians in a coffee shop.

  they say to me 'dad, what's wrong with just being a nice, good person?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NCC-1701

  At the risk of sounding like an a**hole or extreme.

  I am a Christian who believes that Hell exists. However, believing in Hell and desiring that "some" people should go there are not the same.

  I personally do not hold to a Universalist postion with regards to the afterlife. I am a believer in missions and I believe Jesus was and is also. I find it difficult to see the necessity of missions to step out into the unkown to share a message deemed so vital, at the risk of much personal harm, if everyone in the world will enjoy the same heavenly destination because it doesn't matter how someone lived this life. I personally don't know any missionaries who hold to a universalist belief.

  I also see in scripture some descriptions of hell that sound horrendous. And many of these descriptions come from Jesus. In my experience, the validity of the message has a lot do with the validity of the messenger.

  I wish there were no Hell. But I don't have the "big picture" that God has. I'm not above correction on these matters, I just hope if needed I'll be willing.