|
In John 1:1, the
New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses inserts the
word "a" in an attempt to deny Christ’s deity: "In (the) beginning the
Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (New
World Translation [NWT])
The same verse
in the New American Standard Version reads this way: "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The
transliterated Greek of this verse looks like this:
En arche en ho logos kai ho logos
In beginning was the Word and the word
en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos
was toward the God and God was the Word
In essence, the
Watchtower Society claims it can translate theos as "a god" because
there is no definite article before this usage of theos (God) in
the last clause of John 1:1. Note that the first use of the term God (pros
ton theon) has the article (ton—the). The second use
simply states kai theos ("and God," not "and the God"). Because it
does not say "and the God" Jehovah’s Witnesses argue they are free
to interpret this second usage of God as figuratively meaning a lesser
deity, "a god"—signifying Christ’s exalted status, even though he is still
only a creature. Their main concern here is to escape the clear meaning of
this passage. Christ is here called theos, God.
The difficulty
is that, had the apostle John used the article, he would have declared
that "the God was the Word." Had he done so, he would have confused
the persons of the Trinity and supported modalism (in the early church
known as the heresy of Sabellianism1).
In other words, to declare that "the God was the word [Jesus]"
would have stated that all of God—i.e., the whole trinity—was Jesus. This
would have supported modalistic belief that there is only one Person in
the Godhead (i.e., Jesus) and that the terms Father, Son and Spirit in
Scripture only refer to modes or offices of the one God who exists as one
person.
The apostle John
had to make a finer distinction and, on the one hand, clearly declare that
the person of Jesus was deity, but, on the other, not make it seem as if
all three persons in the Godhead were to be considered the same as the
person of Jesus. To make this fine distinction he had to use the exact
wording he used.
We should also
note that the Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear (p.
1158-1159) utilizes both Julius Mantey’s Manual Grammer and A. T.
Robertson’s Grammar in defense of their John 1:1 translation.
However, Mantey observes:
Since my name is used and our
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744
to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement… of all
the scholars in the world, as far as we know none have translated this
verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done. If the Greek article occurred
with both Word and God in John 1:1, the implication would be that they
are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed
that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each
noun), and in so writing, he indicated his belief that they are distinct
and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God,
i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or,
in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the
highest in existence, namely divine…. The apostle John, in the context
of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops out of
language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality
with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He
was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence
through him and that not even one thing exists that was not created by
Christ. What else could be said that John did not say?2
As for Dr.
Robertson, they misstate his own position by selectively quoting him. As
they observe, Robertson does say that, "the absence of the article here is
on purpose." But Jehovah’s Witnesses do not explain why he says
this. He does so to indicate that to include the article "would
have been Sabellianism."3 In his Word Pictures,
Robertson provides a succinct analysis:
By exact and careful language
John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos enho logos (The
God was the Word). That would mean that all of God was expressed in
ho logos (the Word) and the terms would be interchangeable, each
having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho
logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John
4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit
is God." So in I John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean
"God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist
would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson,
Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto,
"the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word."4
The Watchtower
Society appendix defending the "a god" rendering (Kingdom Interlinear,
p. 1158-1160) again appears scholarly, but is not. For example, they
misquote Dana and Mantey’s Grammar.5 In a letter to the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society dated July 11, 1974, Mantey even
demanded a public apology for these repeated misquotings—as well as
requested their discontinuance of the use of his grammar: After citing
numerous examples of mistranslations, Mantey writes:
In view of the preceding
facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I
herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that
you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and
immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words
had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in
John 1:1…. On the page before the Preface in the grammar are
these words: "All rights reserved—no part of this book may be reproduced
in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you
have such permission, please send me a photocopy of it. If you do not
heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Regretfully
yours,
Julius R. Mantey6
Michael Van
Buskirk has also documented Watchtower deception in detail in his
Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower noting they also misquote A.
T. Robertson’s Grammar and other sources as well. They further
claim, "At Acts 28:6 we have a case paralleling that of John 1:1 with
exactly the same predicate construction, namely, with an anarthrous [i.e.,
no definite article] OEOS [theos]" (The Kingdom Interlinear,
p. 1160). This at first seems to be true for there is no definite article
in Acts 28:6. What the Witnesses fail to mention is that in John 1:1 the
predicate nominative (theos) precedes the verb; here in Acts
it follows the verb and thus is not applicable. Colwell’s Rule
(which is at issue here) states that a definite predicate nominative has
the article when it follows the verb and lacks the article when it
precedes it:
It must be stated quite
frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation
seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which
is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even
more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into
which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact,
however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks
entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the
rendering, "…and the Word was God." Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman
Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek
definite article that, "A definite predicate nominative has the article
when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes
the verb." …In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’
translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1,
there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate
noun has the definite article in Greek. These are intended to prove that
the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that OEOS [theos]
must be translated "a god." None of the thirty-five instances is
parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the
verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So
far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of
John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of
the rule of the Greek definite article. Furthermore, the additional
references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the
Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, in order to give further
support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are
exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and therefore are added proof
of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix
are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue.
(Particularly inappropriate is the reference to Acts 28:6, for no one
has ever maintained that the pagan natives of Malta regarded Paul as
anything other than "a god.")7
Van Buskirk
points out that the Witnesses have attempted to deny Colwell’s Rule by
quoting Phillip B. Harner’s article in Journal of Biblical Literature,
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" (Vol.
92, 1973, p. 87). However, a full year earlier Dr. Mantey’s own
letter to the Watchtower Society demanding they stop misquoting him
pointed out that not only had they misquoted Colwell’s Rule but that it is
impossible to quote Harner in denial of Colwell since Harner himself
supports the rule and denies the possibility of an "a god" translation.
Van Buskirk observes:
One’s mind staggers at the
depths to which someone will sink to prove his point. In the
Watchtower’s case both Colwell and Harner show that in John 1:1 "a god"
is not a permissible translation. Yet without blinking an eye they will
quote, out of context, the man who refutes them. Harner’s article in no
way concludes what the Watchtower makes it conclude in their letter.8
Van Buskirk goes
on to discuss exactly what Harner concluded and how his research is
complementary to Colwell’s; it simply brings out new information.
Nevertheless,
even if we were to assume the truth of what the Watchtower Society claims
in their appendix, they have violated their own "rule" in John 1:1 94% of
the time. Robert H. Countess, writing in The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New
Testament, documents this in detail.9 In John 1 alone they
violate their principle at least five times. Checking their interlinear
(pp. 417-419) we see the following:
• John 1:6
para theou—no definite article
• John 1:12
tekna theou—no definite article
• John 1:13
ek theou—no definite article
• John 1:18
Theon—no definite article
• John 1:23
odon Kuriou—no definite article
If the absence
of the article demands the "a god" rendering, why is it not so rendered
here? In fact, where is it in 94% of the instances of such construction in
the NWT? Clearly translating John 1:1 "a god" is not only a
violation of Greek grammar, it is unjustified even in light of the vast
majority of their own translation. Obviously then, in John 1:1 (NWT), the
translation should be "God," not "a god."
(As an aside,
the NWT at John 1:23 translates the Greek kurios (Lord) as
"Jehovah," since it is a clear reference to Jehovah God from Isaiah. Yet,
according to their John 1:1 rendering, with no definite article it should
be "a Jehovah." If "a god" must be different from God, "a Jehovah" must
then be different from Jehovah. At this point we would have three
Gods: "Jehovah," "a god" and "a Jehovah.")
Notes
1 Sabellianism: "A version of
Monarchianism holding that the Godhead was differentiated only into a
succession of modes or operations…" The American Heritage Dictionary.
2 Julius Mantey, Depth
Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage Press, 1980), pp.
138-39.
3 A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press,
1934), pp. 767-68.
4 A. T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5 (Nashville, TN: Broadman,
1930), pp. 4-5.
5 Dana and Mantey, A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada:
MacMillian, 1957).
6 Quoted in our The Facts
On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 48.
7 Bruce Metzger, "The
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ," rpt. of April 1953, Theology
Today (Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency, 1953), pp. 75-76.
8 Michael Van Buskirk, The
Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower (Santa Ana, CA: Christian
Apologetics and Research Information Service, 1976), p. 16.
9 Robert Countess, The
Jehovah’s Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1983), Chapter 4, pp. 54-55; Appendix Table 5.
|
