|
This response will consist of our second reply to Dr. John Ankerberg.
Our initial response to him was designed to address a misunderstanding
presented on the meaning and use of the words I am he. That
article was delivered to his ministry to which no response has been
offered. This article will address his ministry’s criticism of the
translation provided for John 1:1c in The New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures.
A
second response to Dr. Ankerberg’s ministry has proven to be necessary
for two reasons. First, the translation of John 1:1c as presented by
The New World Translation is the translation that we would also put
forth as proper. As this is the case, it is necessary that we defend
the translation and the arguments used in support of the translation
when they are attacked. Second, Dr. Ankerberg’s ministry is far
reaching, making use of television, radio, the Internet and print. With
such false information reaching so many, a response is practically
demanded. This response will address an article featured on Dr.
Ankerberg’s website entitled Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1,
written by both Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon.
All indented portions
of this response will consist of our author's comments and their
references.
After a brief introduction where the New World Translation’s
rendering of John 1:1c as “a god” and the New American Standard’s
rendering of it as “God” are referenced, the article relates the
following:
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.
As
we will come to see through reviewing this article, Dr. Ankerberg and
Dr. Weldon do not have a proper understanding of the argument that has
been presented for the indefinite translation of John 1:1c. They
properly note that the reason for an indefinite translation is based
upon the lack of a “definite article before this usage of theos
(God) in the last clause of John 1:1,” but they err in concluding that
John 1:1c’s lack of the definite article is parallel to any other text
where the definite article is absent. John 1:1c is constructed in a
specific way, and it is in that specific way that the lack of the
definite article is significant.
To
better understand why the text is translated indefinitely, consider this
summary:
John 1:1c contains a
pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative. In this construction the
predicate noun is in the nominative case and it precedes the verb.
Additionally, this noun lacks a definite article. In John 1:1c this
noun cannot be definite for to say that it is results in Sabellianism.
This position is refuted by the B portion of the verse. If it cannot be
definite, the alternative rendering for theos as a coun noun is
one that is indefinite. John introduces no thought of a polypersonal
God, but he speaks of one that is along side of the God. As
such, the literal reading of the text defines the Word as “a god,”
meaning that he is a mighty, powerful being.
Even with a brief summary of the position it is clear that the argument
is far more complex than the article gives it credit for. Complexity
certainly does not make an argument accurate, but what is seen is that
our authors have misrepresented the full scope of the argument.
Their main concern here is to escape the clear meaning of
this passage. Christ is here called theos, God.
The reasoning behind this statement is rather difficult to grasp. The
only way to deny that Christ is “called theos” is to deny that he
is the Word. Neither the Watchtower nor the editors of this website
would do as much. Rather, we embrace the fact that he is theos.
Therefore the question is not whether or not Christ is “called theos,”
but it is the sense of theos when applied to Christ.
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.
It
is correct for them to say that if John had used the article before
theos in John 1:1c the result would have been Sabellianism.
However, it is also true that if we understand theos as definite,
even without the article, that the result is the same. This point is
explained by Dr. Daniel Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
“Further, calling
qoe/j
in 1:1c definite is the
same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the
article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with
lo/goj
(i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem
of this argument is that the
qeo/j
in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the
qeo/j
in 1:1c is the
same person is to say that ‘the Word was the Father.’”
Had John intended to put forth the Trinitarian position he could have
done so. He could have explained the difference between a person of God
(the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and God as the Triune being. He could
have laid out the Trinitarian doctrine to the point of there being no
ambiguity. He did not do this, and neither did any other New Testament
author.
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.
John does properly affirm the deity of Jesus Christ, but he does not
affirm that there are “three persons in the Godhead.” In fact, John
makes no mention of Christ being deity in the same way that the Father
is. John makes no mention of a Triune Godhead of which these two are
persons. He makes no mention of the Holy Spirit at all! Dr. Ankerberg
and Dr. Weldon prove to be guilty of eisegesis.
We
have established that John could not have been advancing a definite
sense for theos. Such, as noted by Dr. Wallace, would have
resulted in Sabellianism. If John did not want the text to be
understood indefinitely he could have simply used an adjective such as
theios.
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?
That Mantey was not aware of any scholars who translated John 1:1 in a
way similar to The New World Translation is of interest.
Being unaware of such references does not make them non-existent. In
fact there are a number of scholars who have rendered John 1:1c in ways
both the same and similar to The New World Translations. As one
example, consider the work of Robert Young in his Concise Commentary
on the Holy Bible. Commenting on John 1:1c, he states: “AND THE
WORD WAS GOD: more lit[erally] ‘and a God {i.e. a Divine Being) was the
Word,’ that is, he was existing and recognized as such.”
This scholar, from the 19th century, put forth an indefinite
translation as that which provides what the text “more literally” says.
It
should be noted that Dr. Mantey displays an inconsistency in his grammar
on this subject that is repeated here in his comments. On page 148 of
his grammar he notes a “parallel case to what we have in John 1:1.”
What is this “parallel case”? It is a quote from Xenophon’s Anabasis.
This text provides a grammatical parallel to John 1:1c, where the
predicate nominative construction mentioned earlier is used. As such,
Dr. Mantey’s grammar translates it, “The place was a market.” Notice
that it was “a market.” Now, as a “parallel” to John 1:1c, the natural
rendering would be “a god,” would it not? Yet Dr. Mantey and his
co-author H.E. Dana display inconsistency for they clearly read into the
text the preconceived theology that Dr. Mantey defined above. Yet even
in this inconsistency they do not provide the translation advanced by our
authors, rendering it instead as “the word was deity.”
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."
A
careful reading of the Watchtower’s presentation on the matter reveals
that they accurately quoted Robertson and that they did not misstate his
position. The absence of the article is on purpose, and so Robertson is
correct in his observation and they are correct in quoting him as
observing such. It is not necessary that Robertson agree with the result
of that missing article, but only that the article is missing and
intentionally missing at that.
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.
Mantey
A
review of the complete version of the letter provided by Dr. Mantey
demonstrates that his claims are unsubstantiated. Not only did Mantey
misunderstand how they had applied the quotes borrowed from his grammar,
but he also was unaware of the data available in support of the
translations that our authors term “mistranslations.”
A copy of this
letter accompanied with a point-by-point response is available here.
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:
Van Buskirk is correct in noting that there are differences between Acts
28:6 and John 1:1 with respects word order. However, this does not
change the fact that this text demonstrates that an anarthrous theos
can be translated as “a god,” which is the purpose of the reference.
Where he errs is in viewing Colwell’s rule to be something “at issue.”
It simply is not. The rule establishes that definite predicate
nominatives lack the article, not that John 1:1c is definite. The
simple reality is that Colwell’s rule tells us nothing of how John 1:1c
should be translated.
The following reference is quoted by our authors from Dr. Bruce Meztger.
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.
Far from a polytheistic position, what is acknowledged is that the word
theos has more than one meaning. Just as the term Lord is
applied to God, Jesus and many others, the term theos can be
applied to various individuals without violating Biblical monotheism.
Examples of others to whom it is applied include angels (Psa. 8:5;
136:2) and humans (Psa. 82:6; Joh. 10:33-34).
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."
We
earlier saw from Dr. Wallace that if John 1:1c is definite the text
equates Jesus with the Father, which is Sabellianism. Yet what of
Colwell’s rule? Metzger quotes it, but he does not demonstrate any
application. As we have already observed, the rule speaks of “definite
predicate nominatives.” The very question at hand is whether or not
John 1:1c is a definite predicate nominative. Wallace explains: “In
sum, Colwell’s rule proves nothing about definiteness.”
Why then do Metzger and Van Buskirk appeal to it? Wallace explains:
“Colwell’s rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholars.”
Is Metzger one that has “misunderstood and abused” the rule? Indeed he
is, for not only have we seen as much here, but also Wallace references
Metzger directly as one scholar who has done so.
Certainly Metzger can be faulted for his abuse of Colwell’s rule, but
how much more so should our authors be. Modern scholarship has
demonstrated clearly that Colwell’s rule tells us nothing of how John
1:1c should be translated. Our authors have either chosen to ignore
this scholarship or they have advanced a false teaching due to a failure
to do proper research.
…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.
It
is apparent that Metzger was sloppy in his reading of the appendix that
he gives reference to. The purpose of the list was never intended to
show that theos must “must be translated ‘a god’.” The purpose
was clearly defined in the appendix: “All this shows that the omitting
of the definite article in the predicate may be, not according to any
general rule, but for a specific purpose outside of that rule.”
In other words, the argument presented for which these texts were
referenced was designed to show that the article can be lacking
so that the predicate nominative is not definite. It was not claimed
that in every case where the article is missing the noun is indefinite.
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.")
It
is amazing that Dr. Metzger ignores the key portion of the second
footnote wherein the Septuagint references are included. The very point
of these references was to display a contrast between definite and
indefinite texts. Within the very footnote that Dr. Metzger is
referencing the appendix listed several texts from the book of John that
are translated indefinitely and parallel the grammar of John 1:1. These
were mentioned directly alongside of the Septuagint references. Rather
than acknowledging these, Dr. Metzger apparently ignored them due to how
critically they damage any case that he might hope to sustain
grammatically against an indefinite rendering. These texts, constructed
in the same way as John 1:1, are each translated indefinitely by nearly
every translation available. If these can be rendered indefinitely, so
can John 1:1. Below are a few examples of this construction.
-
John 4:19 –
prophetes ei su - You are a prophet
-
John 6:70 –
diabolos estin – a devil
-
John 8:44 –
ekeinos anthropoktonos en - that one was a murderer
-
Acts 28:4 –
phoneus estin ho anthropos – the man is a murderer
There are many other examples that could be cited in support of the
indefinite translation of John 1:1c. Far from necessary, these select
few sufficiently demonstrate that the construction used at John 1:1c can
be translated indefinitely. Dr. Metzger applies Colwell’s rule to John
1:1c, but he never shows that it should apply. The rule applies to
definite predicate nominatives. If this is a definite predicate
nominative, even without the article, the result is Sabellianism. Thus,
John 1:1c is not a definite predicate nominative.
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
It is a mistake to say
that Colwell’s rule is denied. It is not. What is affirmed is that the
rule only applies to the very thing stated in the rule: “definite
predicate nominatives.” If a predicate nominative is not definite the
rule does not apply. Harner argued that John 1:1c was not definite, but
qualitative, and so he did not deny Colwell’s rule but he did
demonstrate that it does not apply to John 1:1c. In fact, that John
1:1c is not definite is further confirmed by the second century Sahidic
Coptic translation of John’s gospel. Coptic, unlike Greek, possesses an
indefinite article. In translating John 1:1c, these early Christian
translators made careful use of the indefinite article, applying it
appropriately to John 1:1c.
It is true that Harner
did not advocate an “a god” rendering for John 1:1c, but it has not been
claimed that he did. Rather, he has shown that John 1:1c is not
definite, meaning that Colwell’s rule does not apply and that the
traditional rendering that our authors are suggesting is inaccurate.
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
Dr. Countess
demonstrates a lack of sound scholarship. Certainly Dr. Countess was
aware that these texts have nothing to do with the translation of John
1:1c. Our text is translated from a predicate nominative, while the
texts cited are in the genitive and accusative cases. The difference is
found in that the sentences are constructed differently and so the words
have different functions. For Dr. Countess’ argument to have merit he
would have needed to provide examples of the same construction that is
found in John 1:1c. We earlier provided a few such examples and found
that an indefinite rendering was appropriate for them. If they can be
translated indefinitely, it is grammatically allowable for John 1:1c to
be.
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."
Not only have we
demonstrated that rendering John 1:1c as “a god” is not a violation of
grammar per the four pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives we
cited, we have demonstrated that The New World Translation is not
inconsistent in this area at all. If John 1:1c is definite, per the
claims of Metzger and thus Dr. Ankerberg, we have noted by Wallace that
the result is Sabellianism.
(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.")
This absurd conclusion
demonstrates how Dr. Ankerberg and his co-author Dr. Weldon really do
not understand the issues. They have cited numerous references that
contain poor scholarship. Instead of attempting to research and come to
understand the issues themselves, they have relied upon third parties,
resulting in the proliferation of technical errors. If they merely
differed on interpretation that would be one thing, but the article to
which we are replying and the references cited therein have simply
propagated information that is factually untrue, regardless of how one
chooses to view the text theologically.
It is important that
we strive for truth. Certainly we recognize that Drs. Ankerberg and
Weldon are not perfect, and we do not expect perfection from them. We
could only do that if we were perfect. The point is that all should
make a reasonable attempt to be accurate, especially when the audience
being reached is as larger as that which is targeted by their article.
|
