Defending the New American Bible Against Catholics

Gratia Plena, Luke 1:28, the Spirit and Genesis 1:2 and the New American Bible

I came across a video on youtube that helped me appreciate that, while Protestants have a King James Only movement, it appears that Catholics have something similar in regards to the Douay-Rheims Bible. These are Traditional Catholics (TradCath's) that, from what I gather from reading the comments section and occasionally listening to Ann Barnhardt, reject much of Catholicism since the Vatican II Council in the 1960's. This appears to include the New American Bible. Little mention is made of the Jerusalem Bibles, but I suspect that those Bibles are use mostly outside the USA.

The primary complaint was that the New American Bible did not have "Hail, full of grace" at Luke 1:28 as it reads in the Douay Rheims Bible (see also Knox and the Confraternity Bible).

The Douay-Rheims Bible uses the Latin Vulgate which has Gratia Plena here, of which "full of grace" is a proper translation. But the NAB Bible text of Luke, like most modern Bibles, are made from the Greek, and the Greek word here is KECARITWMENH which most Bibles translate as "favored." The Douay Bible does though often translate Gratia(m) as "favor" (see Acts 2:47, 7:10, 25:3 and numerous times in the Old Testament).

The NAB does however have "full of grace" at Acts 6:8, but, this reading is different in the Greek than it is at Luke 1:28. Acts 6:8 has PLHRHS CARITOS* while Luke 1:28 has KECARITWMENH. From even a cursory examination PLHRHS CARITOS lends itself better as a translation of "full of grace" which leads one to wonder why those two words were not used at Luke 1:28 if the text was really meant to say "full of grace" in regards to Mary.

Additionally, the closing words at Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women" (Douay, KJV) appear to be a later interpolation. To go even further, many do not even consider the first 2 chapters of Luke authentic at all:

"The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. They first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125, and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic." History of the Christian Religion By Charles Burlingame Waite 1881

Perhaps it is best not to hang too much weight or doctrine on such a flimsy foundation.

The next criticism in the video is how the NAB translates Genesis 1:2, "the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters" as opposed to the text in the Douay Bible: "And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters." The video complained that there was "no insinuation of the Trinity here."

Well, there is actually no "insinuation of the Trinity here" no matter which translation you use. A Trinity requires THREE (Father, Son and Holy Ghost, see Matt. 28:19 Douay) to make a Trinity. Did you notice that the word "spirit" here in the Douay-Rheims Bible is not capitalized. Why is this? Becomes something other than the Holy Ghost is referred to here.

John L. McKenzie S.J., who was once regarded as "the best Catholic theologian...in the United States" wrote of the Spirit:

"In summary, the spirit in the OT [Old Testament], originally the wind and the breath, is conceived as a divine dynamic entity by which Yahweh accomplishes his ends, it saves, it is a creative, charismatic power, and as an agent of His anger it is a demonic power. It remains impersonal. Like the wind, neither its origin nor its course can be discovered..." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie S.J. (1965) It has the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat

If this is too close to Vatican II for you, then let's go back in time to William Francis Barry.

In the book, The Tradition of Scripture: its origin, authority and interpretation by William Francis Barry, which was published in 1908 (which also has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat) he writes:

"Human language, therefore, according to St. Thomas, who follows Dionysius Areopagita in his deep exposition, represents the Divine Simplicity by throwing it into facets, and names these from their finite results or manifestations. To bring out the influence which is here in question, as it affects its human subjects, Holy Scripture reveals to us that the 'Spirit of God' moves, overshadows, guides, and controls them for the office which they fulfil. The word 'Spirit' is plainly metaphorical; but in this higher sense it has been adopted by races and literatures which did not borrow it from Israel.
We must assume all this and confine ourselves to the Bible. In Genesis i. 2. we read, 'Darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God {ruach Elohim) moved (or was brooding) upon the face of the waters'. But in LXX. this Hebrew word (ruach) is translated in sixteen different ways; some equivalent to the physical meaning, breath or wind; others denoting intelligence; more again laying stress on the agitation which often accompanies the divine contact. Literally, we may render inspiration as the 'breath of God in Man'. It has a superhuman origin; it is known by human actions, the scope of which goes beyond what they could in themselves accomplish."

William Francis Barry, in a footnote here added: "Spiritus spirat ubi vult" represents in Vg. John iii. 8, which A.V. [King James Bible] translates "The wind bloweth where it listeth," while Douay has "The Spirit breatheth where he will". A.V. agrees with context.

This is why Monsignor Ronald A. Knox, who translated from the Latin Vulgate renders Genesis 1:2 as "Earth was still an empty waste, and darkness hung over the deep; but already, over its waters, stirred the breath of God."

All of this demonstrates the superiority of the New American Bible. The NAB seemingly translated texts that went contrary to their own theology but retained a fidelity to the best Greek Testaments at hand.
.................

*Many Greek mss have PISTEWS here instead of CARITOS, but the NAB remained true to better Greek texts.

Clement of Rome and the Trinity Doctrine, by Alvan Lamson 1865

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

 

Clement of Rome and the Trinity Doctrine, by Alvan Lamson 1865

In treating of the lives and opinions of some of the Fathers of the Church, down to the time of the Council of Nice, the question may possibly occur, Why begin with Justin Martyr? Were there none before him? The reply is, most of those who went before are to us little else than shadows seen through the dim mist of antiquity, — their outlines too imperfectly defined to admit of accurate description or analysis. They are bloodless phantoms, well-nigh formless and void. The record of their lives has perished, or is so blended with fable, that it is impossible to separate fact from fiction. If we inquire for their writings, we encounter darkness and uncertainty at every step. Some curiosity, however, may be felt to know which, if any, of the writings ascribed to those fathers are entitled to respect as probably, or possibly, genuine; and what, genuine or forged, they teach on topics particularly discussed in the present, volume. Our purpose in this preliminary chapter is to say something on these subjects. The writings to which we refer are those generally which pass under the name of the Apostolic Fathers, so called from having been, as tradition says, hearers, or, at least, contemporaries of the Apostles. We begin with Clement Of Rome.

Clement presided over the Church of Rome at an early period, and is called its bishop. Whether he was the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians (iv. 3) as his fellow-laborer, is uncertain. The genuineness, in the main, of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, attributed to him, — written in the name of the church at Rome, — though not established beyond dispute, has no slight external evidence in its favor. It may be accepted as, for the most part, genuine, though it has come down to us only in a single manuscript, and, as Mr. Norton observes, "this copy is considerably mutilated; in some passages the text is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected of being interpolations." [Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxli., 2d edit.] This opinion Mr. Norton shares with many learned and judicious critics, who have been unwilling to acknowledge the whole piece to have been a pure fabrication. Neander asserts that it is "not exempt from important interpolations," and that we find in it a "possible contradiction," showing that if genuine in part, it is not wholly so. [Hist. of the Christian Religion and Church, i. 658, Torrey's translation.]

The Epistle, which was written in Greek, was, according to the testimony of Eusebius, publicly read in many churches before his time, and in his own day. In some places it continued to be read in public, it would seem, down to the time of Jerome, who lived in the latter part of the fourth and early in the fifth century. Neither of these writers expresses any doubt of its genuineness.

But whether genuine or not, it is undoubtedly an early document, supposed to have been written near the end of the first century. If that be the date of the composition, it was in existence from a third to half a century before Justin Martyr— in whose works, still extant, no mention of it occurs — wrote his first Apology. Independently of the position of its reputed author, its antiquity, if nothing else, entitles it to notice in the inquiry in which we are now engaged. What traces, then, does it contain of the modern doctrine of the Trinity? It contains not the faintest trace of the supreme divinity of the Son or of the Spirit.

The contents of the Epistle are almost entirely practical, and it has very little to do with speculative theology of any sort, quotations from the Old Testament constituting a large portion of it. Speaking of the Christology of Clement, Bunsen, as above referred to, says, "It is preposterous to ask him after the three Persons of the Pseudo-Athanasian creed." Nor, we add, does Justin's doctrine of the Logos, as a great preexistent power, a hypostatized attribute, by whom, as his instrument or minister, God performed the act of creation, appear in the Epistle. God made all things by a direct exertion of his power. "By his almighty power he established the heavens, and by his incomprehensible wisdom he adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water, .... and the living creatures that are upon it he called into being by his command With his holy and pure hands he also formed man, the most excellent of all, and in intellect the most exalted, the impress of his own image." f "Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness," etc., is quoted, but no intimation is given that the author supposed it addressed to the Son. God is sole, infinite, and supreme Creator of the material universe, using no instrument or artificer (rational power or Logos) to execute his commands. The doctrine of Philo and the Alexandrians is not found in the Epistle. Its language is far more simple than that of Philo and the Platonizing fathers.

If we turn to the new moral or spiritual creation, we shall find, that, whenever God and Christ are spoken of in connection with it, the author makes a broad distinction between the supreme, infinite One, the fountain of all peace and love, and Jesus Christ, through whom the benefits of his mercy were conveyed to the world. Of this we have an example at the very commencement of the Epistle. Thus, "by the will of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord"; and again, "Grace and peace from Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, be multiplied unto you." And this distinction is observed throughout the Epistle. Prayer is mentioned as addressed to God and not to Christ. God "sends"; Jesus is "sent." "The Apostles preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent from God, the Apostles from Christ; both being fitly done according to the will of God." Jesus Christ is "the high priest of our offerings....Through him we look up to the heights of heaven.... Through him the eyes of our hearts were opened....Through him would the Sovereign Ruler (hO DESPOTHS) have us to taste the knowledge of immortality." So all is of God. Referring to the resurrection the author says, God has "made our Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits, raising him from the dead." He is mentioned as the "chosen" of the Father, but nothing is said of his nature, nor is his preexistence distinctly asserted in any part of the Epistle, though some have professed to find an intimation of it in certain expressions employed by the writer, which, however, prove nothing to the point. He is called "the sceptre of the majesty of God," language which implies instrumentality, not identity or equality of person. The term God is not once applied to him. But he is clearly distinguished from the one only God in the following passages, in addition to those already given. "Have we not one God, and one Christ, and one spirit of grace (or love) poured out upon us?" Again, the writer speaks of "the true and only God"; the "great artificer and Sovereign Ruler of all"; "the all-seeing God and Ruler of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose our Lord Jesus Christ." In what different language the Son is spoken of has been already seen.

We have quoted, we believe, the highest expressions applied to Christ in the Epistle. Certainly his supreme divinity is nowhere taught in this relic of Christian antiquity. That he is a distinct being from the Father, and altogether subordinate, is the prevailing idea of the whole composition. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, complains that the writer of the Epistle, though "he calls our Lord Jesus Christ our high priest and leader, yet does not ascribe to him the divine and higher qualities." [Biblioth., cod. 126; tom. i. p. 95, ed. Bekker.] That is, says Lardner, "in modern language, it is a Socinian Epistle." Certainly the language of Photius is very significant, coming from such a source.

[An argument for the deity of Christ, founded on the misconception of a passage in Clement's Epistle, is thus disposed of by a writer in the Christian Examiner for May, 1860: — "Nor does Clement anywhere use the expression 'the passion of God,' or anything like it. The passage referred to is cap. 2 of his genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, where we have the expression PAQHMATA AUTOU— TOU QEOU indeed being the nearest antecedent. If we insist that he wrote with strict grammatical accuracy, and reject the conjectural emendation of Junius (Young), a Trinitarian, of MAQHMATA for PAQHMATA, (the Epistle being extant in but a single manuscript,) we simply make Clement a Patripassian; for the term QEOS in every other passage of the Epistle unquestionably denotes the Father. But even Dorner, in his great work (Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 189), says that he 'does not venture to use this passage as a proof that Clement calls Christ God.' He adopts the easy supposition of a negligent use of the pronoun AUTOS, referring to Christ in the mind of the writer, though not named in the immediately preceding context. The same view of the passage is taken by Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, i. 46, note, 2d ed.; by Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 24, note; and by Reuss, Theologie Chretienne, ii. 326. Of this use of AUTOS we have another remarkable example in Clement, c. 86, and it is not uncommon in the New Testament, especially in the writings of John; see Winer, Gram. § 22. 3. 4, 6th ed., and Robinson's N.T. Lex., article AUTOS, 2.b. ad fin. This passage is the sole straw to which those can cling who maintain that Clement of Rome believed in the deity of Christ; a notion in direct contradiction to the whole tenor of his language in every other part of bis Epistle." — pp. 466,467.]

The ascription of "glory," or "glory, dominion," etc., occurs six times in the Epistle. In four of these cases God is expressly, clearly, and unequivocally the object. Thus, "the omnipotent God, .... to whom be glory forever and ever." [Cap. 32.] Again, "the Most High,.... to whom be glory forever and ever." [Cap. 45.] Again, "God who chose our Lord Jesus Christ,...through whom be glory and majesty, power, honor unto Him both now, and forever and ever." [Cap. 58] Once more, in the ascription at the close of the Epistle, we have, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all that are anywhere called by God through him; through whom be unto him (God) glory, honor, might, and majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting." In these passages the "glory, dominion," etc., are expressly ascribed to God, either absolutely and without reference to Christ, as in the first and second instances, or through Jesus Christ, as in the last two. In one of the remaining instances we have simply, " Chosen by God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory forever and ever"; [Cap. 50.] and in the other a similar construction. [Cap. 20.] If the ascription here is to be referred to the nearer, and not, as is possible, to the remoter antecedent, by a negligence of syntax of which there are known examples in the New Testament and in the writings of Christian antiquity, there is no difficulty in reconciling it with the supremacy of the Father, so strongly asserted, or necessarily implied, in the current language of the Epistle. The Scriptures ascribe glory and dominion to Christ, but a derived glory and dominion, God having "made him both Lord and Christ," and "given him a name above every name." [See Acts, ii. 33, 36; Philippians, ii. 9; Ephesians, i. 20-22; 1 Peter, i. 21.] With this the language of the Epistle is throughout consistent.

We repeat, in conclusion, one searches in vain, in the Epistle ascribed to this Apostolic Father, for those views of the Logos, as a personified attribute of the Father, which are so prominent in the writings of the philosophical converts to Christianity. The language employed is more scriptural, the thoughts less subtle and metaphysical, the author being content to represent God as the fountain of all power and blessing, and Jesus Christ as his Son, sent by him to be the Saviour of men. The Father is above all; his glory and majesty are underived; the Son derives from him his power and dignity, his offices and dominion. Such are the teachings of this old relic of the primitive ages. The personality of the Spirit is not one of its doctrines.

What is called Clement's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, or the fragment of it which is preserved, has no title, as the best critics agree, to be received as genuine. Eusebius says that it was quoted by no ancient writer. There are other compositions which have been ascribed to Clement, but they are all by competent critics now rejected as spurious.

For a list of all of my disks, ebooks and downloads, with links click here  '

Visit my Amazon Author page here

Is Jesus called GOD at 1 John 5:20, By George Vance Smith 1892

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Is Jesus called GOD at 1 John 5:20, By George Vance Smith 1892

1 John v. 20.—Here we read:—"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." It would here certainly appear as if Jesus Christ were termed the true God. But, on the other hand, it seems plain that the writer is referring to two objects. One is, "him that is true;" there can be no question that by this phrase God is meant. The second object is in the words "in his Son;" that is, we are in (1) God through and in (2) Jesus Christ. But then come the words, "This is the true God," as if the writer meant to reduce the two objects spoken of to one. But such a meaning would be self-contradictory, and cannot be what is intended. Dr. Liddon, however, has no hesitation about it. The Apostle, he tells us, "leads us up to the culminating statement that Jesus himself is the true God and eternal life" (p. 239). He adds in a note, "After having distinguished the ALHQINOS [true] from his hUIOS [Son], St. John, by a characteristic turn, simply identifies the Son with the ALHQINOS QEOS." With all due deference to Dr. Liddon, it is not to be thought that the Apostle wrote such nonsense as this. The whole difficulty is at once removed by referring the word "this," not to Jesus Christ, but to the previous object denoted by the words, "him that is true." This yields an easy and self-consistent sense. By being in Jesus Christ, we are in Him that is true; this is the true God and eternal life.

There is another instance in the Epistles attributed to John in which "this" is similarly used—referred, that is, not to the nearer, but to a more remote, antecedent. In 2 John 7 (R. V.) we read: "Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh: this is the deceiver and the antichrist." Here, in strictness, "this" refers to Jesus Christ. But this cannot be the meaning. It is clear that the author of these Epistles writes with a certain carelessness or inaccuracy; but it does not follow that he writes nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable, then, in the former of the two expressions, to conclude that the word "this" must be referred to the more distant antecedent. If, in short, the writer does not intend to say, in the one case, that Jesus Christ is a deceiver, neither can he intend us to understand, in the other, that he terms him "the true God."

.................................

Also:

The NIV Study Bible (also NASB Study Bible/Zondervan) says in a footnote,

"Him who is true. God the Father. He is the true God. Could refer to either God the Father or God the Son."

What do others say?

"it should be noted that precisely in St. John's First Epistle [O QEOS] ho theos, "the true God" so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle, unless we are to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in the subject referred to by O QEOS." Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner,
Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137. Compare John 17:3

"houtos: as a climax to vv.18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, opp[osite of] paganism(v.21.)"- "A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament,
Zerwick/Grosvenor, Rome Biblical Institue, 1981.

"[1 John 5:]20f. Christ has revealed the one true God, the source of eternal life (cf. 5:12; Jn 17:3, 20:31). 'This is the true God' does not refer to Jesus as Stauffer thinks(Theology of the
NT.(English translation 1955), 114)." G. Johnston, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Thomas Nelson and Sons, reprint of 1964.

"Conclusion: Although it is certainly possible that houtos ["this one"] refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence points to "the true one," God the Father, as the
probable antecedent. This position, houtos = God, is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter."-M. Harris, "Jesus as God, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus," Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p.253.

Visit my Amazon Author Page

Using Acts 28:4 to Understand How to Translate John 1:1 in the Greek

Using Acts 28:4 to Understand How to Translate John 1:1 in the Greek

The construction of Acts 28:4, being a pre-verbal Predicate Nominative (PN) is a great way to demonstrate how to translate John 1:1c. Here the subject is "the man" which has the article "the" and in John 1:1 the subject is "the Word" which also has the article "the." Also at Acts 28:4 there is an anarthrous (no article) predicate noun "murderer" before the verb "is" while in John 1:1 we have the anarthrous predicate noun "god" before the verb "was." These two passages are perfect parallels.

Almost all Bible Versions that I perused translated PANTWS FONEUS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS with the indefinite article "a."

No doubt this man is a murderer. Revised Version Improved and Corrected 
No doubt this man is a murderer. Revised English Version
This man must be a murderer! Moffatt Bible
This man is certainly a murderer. Anderson NT
This man is undoubtedly a murderer. Goodspeed NT
No doubt this man is a murderer. Montgomery NT.
No doubt this man is a murderer. Noyes NT.
Certainly this man is a murderer. Riverside NT.
Evidently this man is a murderer. Twentieth Century New Testament. 
This man must be a murderer. Wilbur Pickering NT.
Beyond doubt this man is a murderer. Weymouth.
This man must certainly be a murderer. New American Bible
No doubt this man is a murderer. Revised Version
Surely this man is a murderer. NWT, Kleist & Lilly NT
Unquestionably this man is a murderer. Modern Language Bible

However, very few Bibles will translated John 1:1c correctly, as it is theologically critical to Christian translators who need this passage to say that the Word/Jesus is God. If you try to translate this verse correctly you will be universally condemned as a heretic and an amateur. The above demonstrates that (a) you no longer need to take those accusations seriously, and (b) that you really cannot trust most mainstream Bible versions when it comes to translating passages that appear to touch on the deity of Christ. Other passages within the same Gospel of John could be included as a parallel as well, such as John 8:48 "thou art a Samaritan" and John 4:19 "I perceive thou art a prophet" etc.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Word was with God and Polytheism, by Edmund Law, Bishop of Carlisle 1808

From Reflections on the life and character of Christ. By Edmund Law, Bishop of Carlisle

John i, 1. “In the beginning was the word.” The apostle here writes, not of the beginning of the world, but of the gospel, agreeably to the sense of the term in other parts of his writings, ch. xv, 27, xvi, 4; 1 John i, 1, ii, 7,; 2 John 5, 6; also Luke i, 2. This will not apply with respect to the “superior Lord,” the eternal Jehovah. There would be no propriety in saying that HE was in the beginning who was before any thing began; who is himself without beginning of days or end of years. “The word was with God.” So was Moses in the mount, and for a similar purpose: to receive instructions and supernatural communications, to be furnished for the discharge of the high office to which he was called. “And the word was a God.” So was Moses made unto Pharoah in the power given him to perform miracles; and this inferior sense of the term is authorized not only by various passages of scripture, but by our Lord himself in his debate with the Jews. To contend for the construction usually adopted, that the word was possessed of strict and proper deity, is to make the apostle a polytheist; for, having the moment before said he was with God, it was impossible he could, if really divine, be otherwise than another God. Any writer would be treated with just contempt who should talk of a man being with himself; and can we suppose that the pen of an inspired evangelist would express what from any other would be absolute nonsense? With respect to the word being the creator of all things, we are referred, in the title of the hymn, to Eph. iii, 9, 10, and Col. i., 16. But the former of these passages will not support our author’s position, that all things were made by Christ's own power; for it is there said, that “God created all things by Jesus Christ.” The words “by Jesus Christ” are, however, wanting in the most authentic manuscripts, and are decidedly rejected by Griesbach, in his Greek Testament, as an interpolation. In the latter of these texts, the all things said to be created by Christ, were not the heavens and the earth themselves, but things in them; such as thrones, dominions, &c. “And he is before all these things, and by him they subsist.” Why? Because “it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell” so that here likewise the idea of original power in Christ fails. As little can it be doubted, that the all things made (or more properly, according to the sense of the original word, done) by Christ, were such only as related to the establishment of his religion in the world. As to the divine adoration of the word, nothing is said of it here, nor indeed in any other part of the New Testament.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

George Vance Smith on Sharp's Rule (Titus 2:13) 1892

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

George Vance Smith on Sharp's Rule, from The Bible and Its Theology as Popularly Taught: A Review, Comparison, and Re-Statement by G. Vance Smith, B.A. Philos. & Theol. Doct. 1892

In the Epistles there are two passages which have been considered of great importance, as direct testimonies for the deity of Christ. They have not been noticed in the body of this work, chiefly from the desire not to burden the text with too many of such details; but a few brief remarks may be introduced here. The passages referred to are Titus ii. 13 and 1 John v. 20, to which may be added 2 Pet. i. 1 (R. V.)

Titus ii. 13.—In the Authorized Version this runs as follows: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Dean Alford (N. T. revised) varies thus: ". . .. hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Thus, many others, as Winer, Bunsen and De Wette, distinguishing between "the great God" and Jesus Christ.

Dr. Liddon, however, as might be expected, renders thus: "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," exactly following the translation of Bishop Ellicott (Past. Ep. p. 259). R.V. also reads, "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."

The R.V. rendering of 2 Pet. i. 1 is similar: "the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In both these cases the margin fairly gives notice that the old translation may be correct; and in both eases the American Revision Committee recommend that the new text and its margin should change places. Thus it is clear that the old translation carries as much authority as the new one; and the question may be asked, Why then did the English revisers alter it—and that too in opposition to their own good rule, to make as few alterations as possible? The following statement applies to both these texts.

It is acknowledged by the highest authorities that there is nothing in the grammatical form of either passage to determine its translation the one way or the other. It may be correctly represented by both renderings. In the presence of this doubt, the ordinary reader may be well satisfied to follow the guidance of such scholars as Meyer and Winer, who (in Titus ii. 13) are agreed in telling us that two subjects of thought are here designated, and that Jesus Christ accordingly is not described as "the great God." The judgment of these scholars is the more valuable because their conclusion has been dictated, they tell us, simply by a due regard to the usual tenor of St. Paul's language, in reference to God and to Christ. Winer enforces his view of Tit. ii. 13, by the following note: "In the above remarks I had no intention to deny that, in point of grammar, SWTHROS HMWN [Saviour of us, i.e. our Saviour] may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article TOU; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings, that this Apostle cannot have called Christ the great God, induced me to shew that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause KAI SWT....CRISTOU by itself, as referring to a second subject." To this note the English translator of Winer appends these words:—"This passage is very carefully examined by Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford in loc; and though these writers come to different conclusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the former rendering the words, 'of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ'), they are entirely agreed as to the admissibility of both renderings in point of grammar." (Winer, Gram. N. T., ed. by Moulton, p. 162.)

Probably nothing more is needed to enable the English reader to see that the rendering of the Authorized is amply justified and could only have been changed under some unavowed dogmatic influence. The point in question may be easily illustrated. Thus: the words hO FILIPPOS KAI ALEXANDOS do not convey or imply that Philip and Alexander are one and the same person, because they were known to have been two; so neither does hO QEOS HMWN KAI KURIOS necessarily imply that God and Christ are one and the same, inasmuch as they also were equally known to be two, and are everywhere recognized and spoken of as two.

To the correctness of the resulting position there is a remarkable testimony under the hand and seal of the revisers themselves! In 2 Thess. i. 12, we have exactly the same form of expression as in 2 Pet. i. 1. The words and their order are all the same, except only that KURIOS, Lord, takes the place of SWTHR, Saviour. Thus:—(a) 2 Pet. i. 1: literally, "the God of us and Saviour Jesus Christ;" (b) 2 Thess. i. 12: literally, "the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ." In (a) the R.V. rendering is "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;" in (b) it is "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." To which of these inconsistent translations of the same form of words will the revisers adhere as correct?

Bishop Ellicott has the following remark—quite in harmony with the above interpretation: "It must be candidly avowed that it is very doubtful whether on the grammatical principle last alluded to [the union of two substantives under the vinculum of a common article] the interpretation of this passage can be fully settled." The Bishop goes on to give in detail the reasons which have determined him to render as he has done, and concludes his comment in these words: "It ought not to be suppressed that some of the best versions, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian (not, however, Ethiopic), and some Fathers of unquestioned orthodoxy, adopted the other interpretation the true rendering of the clause really turns more upon exegesis than upon grammar, and this the student should not fail clearly to bear in mind. (Pastoral Epistles, p. 201.) This last remark is one to which every fair-minded reader will assent; but he will remember that exegesis, here as elsewhere, ought to be illustrated and confirmed by the usual strain of the N.T. writings, and should not be in opposition to it.

The same excellent authority, although on exegetical grounds defending the new rendering, has yet expressly guarded himself against too servile a deference to the rule of the article above referred to. His words are clear and to the point:—"Lastly, several examples of what is called Granville Sharp's rule, or the inference from the presence of the article before only the first of two substantives connected by KAI, that they both refer to the same person or class, must be deemed very doubtful. The rule is sound in principle, but in the case of proper names or quasi-proper names, cannot safely be pressed."—Aids to Faith (4th ed.), p. 462

[Comp. the well known words of Bishop Pearson: "We must not think to decide this controversy by the articles, of which the sacred penmen were not curious, and the transcribers have been very careless." —On the Creed (ed. 1842), p. 229, note.]

Visit my Amazon Author page here

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Romans 8:1 and the Case of the Missing "Now" in the New World Translation

The website http://www.jwinfoline.com/Documents/New_World_Translation/Is_the_nwt_reliable.htm has:

"In Romans 8:1 where the original says "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus..." the Society has deleted the word "now". This omission is necessary to support the belief that there is no assurance of salvation right now for any Jehovah's Witness."

One author, Robert Bowman, has:

"The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them in the text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," which omits the word "now." This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation now."
[The New World Translation On Trial Part Two in a Four-part Series on JWs and the Bible from the Christian Research Journal, Fall, 1989, page 28. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.]

Reply: Does the original though, according to the first accusation, really say, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus..."?
In Brown & Comfort's Interlinear, once you remove the words added in the brackets for clarification, reads, when utilizing their numbering system, as follows:
"NOW THEN NO CONDEMNATION TO THE ONES IN CHRIST JESUS." [UBS4 Greek Text]
The accompanying translation (NRSV) reads,
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
The accuser above has confused a newer english translation, the New Revised Standard Version 1989 for the original Greek.
When it comes to translating the Greek word in question, NUN, the NWT is actually closer to the Greek. The NWT uses just ONE word to translate NUN, while the NRSV needs FOUR english words to translate this one Greek word, and yet, only the NWT is singled out as tampering with the text.
The NWT has not DELETED the word "now," it was simply translated as "therefore."

Another way to translate NUN would be to render it as "So" or "Thus."
Consider:

(God's Word Bible) So those who are believers in Christ Jesus can no longer be condemned. (New Jerusalem Bible) Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus,
(New Living Translation) So now there is no condemnation for those
who belong to Christ Jesus.
(Bible in Basic English) For this cause those who are in Christ Jesus will not be judged as sinners.
(Jerusalem Bible) "The reason, therefore, why those who are in Christ Jesus are not condemned."
(C.B. Williams) So then there is no condemnation at all for those who are in union with Christ Jesus.
(Heinz Cassirer's New Covenant) Well then, no sentence of condemnation stands against those who are in union with Christ Jesus."
(Faithful NT) [There is] therefore no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.
(New English Bible) The conclusion of the matter is this: there is no condemnation for those who are united with Christ."
(21st Century NT) So then there can be no condemnation of those who are united with Christ Jesus.
(Murdoch) There is therefore no condemnation, to them who, in Jesus Messiah, walk not after the flesh.
(Goodspeed) So there is no condemnation any more for those who are in union with Christ Jesus.
(Jewish NT) Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua.
(Unvarnished NT) Now then, no condemnation awaits those in union Christ Jesus.
(C.K. Williams) There is now, therefore, no sentence of 'Guilty' for those that are in Christ Jesus.
(J.W.C. Wand) For those who are in Christ there is no condemnation.
(Lattimore) Thus there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
According to the BAGD, NUN, can act to describe something, "as far as the present situation is compared" or as "for now I tell you this."
We see this elsewhere, as at Acts 4:29; 20:32; 27:22.
The BAG 1957 edition, translates the occurence of NUN at Romans 8:1 as "'so' or 'thus now'"
Consider also the different words that Abbott-Smith's Lexicon allows for NUN: "Now, presently...presently, forthwith, ...now, therefore, now, however, as it is..."

Can we now rightly accuse the above translators of being motivated by the fact that they also do not believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation now? Or is that the above accusers simply are ignorant of the issues involved?

Other examples are as follows:
"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do." John 8:40 NASB, NJB, NIV ("in fact" Weymouth)
"As it is, My kingdom does not have its origin here." John 18:36 HCSB, NWT, NASB, NJB, NRSV ("as a matter of fact" Weymouth)
"Therefore remain in him now, children, so that when he appears we may be fearless, and not shrink from him in shame at his coming." 1 John 2:28 New Jerusalem Bible
"And so I ask you, dear Lady: let us all love one another. This is no new command I am writing you; it is the command which we have had from the beginning." 2 John 5 TEV
"Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." 1 Cor. 7:14 NRSV, RSV, ESV, TEV, NIV "in fact" NJB; "in reality" Weymouth.
"But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose." 1 Cor. 12:18 NRSV, RSV, ESV, TEV, NJB, ("in fact" NIV; "as a matter of fact" Weymouth)
"As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them." Hebrews 2:8 NRSV, HCSB, RSV

Should a translation read exactly as an interlinear?

"All too often translators turn to an interlinear edition as the final word. They consider it the last appeal because the Greek or Hebrew words are right there on the page before them. They do not realize that such a volume provides answers which are too simple for some very complex problems. In interlinear versions textual problems disappear and problems of interpretation are literally "glossed over". In addition, they provide absolutely no real help in the important area of meaningful translation. An interlinear version is a tool. Like any tool, it can be misused. It can even be a dangerous instrument if the user does not know how to use it. It is a tool of limited value, and it is only as good as the materials that went into its making."
The Use and Limitations of Interlinear Editions by Dr. John Ellington, Bible Translator, April 1980