Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents
The Pathway has an article entitled "Four examples of where the New World Translation gets it wrong."
They start off like most such articles attacking the NWT rendering of John 1:1c as "the Word was a god." The only argument they put forward to "debunk" this rendering is a quote by Charles L. Feinberg, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
That's strange because when it comes to similar constructions (pre-verbal Predicate Nominative (PN), Greek scholars do indeed add the indefinite article.
For example:
John 4:19 has PROFHTHS EI SU which translates to: "you are a prophet."
John 6:70 has DIABOLOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slanderer."
John 8:34 has DOULOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slave."
John 8:44 has ANQRWPOKTONOS HN which translates to "a murderer."
John 8:44 has EUSTHS ESTIN which translates to "he is a liar."
John 8:48 has SAMARITHS EI SU which translates to "you are a Samaritan."
John 9:8 has PROSAITHS HN which translates to "as a beggar."
John 9:17 has PROFTHS ESTIN which translates to "He is a prophet."
John 9:24 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "is a sinner."
John 9:25 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "he is a sinner."
John 10:1 has KLEPTHS ESTIN which translates to "is a thief"
John 10:13 has MISQWTOS ESTIN which translates to "a hired hand."
John 12:6 has KLEPTHS HN which translates to "he was a thief."
John 18:35 has MHTI EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI which translates to "I am not a Jew, am I?"
John 18:37 has BASILEUS EI SU which translates to "So you are a king?"
John 18:37 also has BASILEUS EIMI EGW which translates to "I am a king."
Notice the indefinite article "a" is inserted here in most Bibles, in all of these examples, even though the Greek does not have an indefinite article.
It had to be added because the English, and common sense (just as at John 1:1) demands it.
J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed theos estin ho logos, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.'”
Exactly...and that is the only reason Charles L. Feinberg insists on the lamestream rendering of John 1:1c. Feinberg went to the Dallas Theological Seminary whose Doctrinal Statement is:
"While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:
1. the Trinity
2. the full deity and humanity of Christ the spiritual lostness of the human race the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ salvation by faith alone in Christ alone the physical return of Christ the authority and inerrancy of Scripture."
So, Feinberg is not allowed to think outside the trinitarian box, and any scholar that renders John 1:1c differently from the trinitarian way is not a "reputable" scholar in his limited opinion.
The website next attacks how the NWT Bible translates John 8:58, "Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'" They write, "Here, Jesus harks back to Exodus 3 where God reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush as I AM, or YHWH, a unique name Jesus applies to Himself..."
There is a big problem here, as Exodus 3 says much more than just I AM. In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek has "I am The Being." The "I am' is simply used to identify THE BEING. The silliness of focusing on the "I am" is akin to me saying "here is the President" and then having everyone settling their attention on the words "here is."
Things get worse for their argument when you turn to the Hebrew. The same Hebrew word (1961) is used 2 scriptures apart (right beside the 12 and the 14), but it is translated differently in v.14, in order to prop Jesus' claim to Jehovahhood.
I have a blog-page that just looks at the many occurrences of the Hebrew word in question here.
The Pathway then quotes John 8:58 from the NASB (New American Standard Bible. They obviously didn't know that the 1960, 1973 NASB also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the margin for John 8:58.
The Pathway website next moves on to Acts 20:28 where the New World Translations reads, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son."
The Pathway doesn't like that the NWT has added the word "Son" at the end of the Scripture, and translating thusly is done so to deny the deity of Christ. However, the Bible I used here is actually the Revised Standard Version (RSV), not the NWT. I am not aware of too many Arians on the RSV translation committee. The RSV is not alone in translating Acts 20:28 in this way. See also the New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, Contemporary English Version etc.
Zondervan's NIV Study Bible has "Lit. 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one.' referring to his own Son)." See also Zondervan's KJV, and NASB Study Bible.
The Greek word IDIOS, especially when it is articular (see below), demands that a noun follows, whether stated, or implied. If not stated in the Greek, it is required in the English translation to fill the meaning.
In my list below I ask the reader to take note that IDIOS precedes the noun, whether in Greek, or in the translation English.
The word "own" here creates an expectation of a contrast, as in "his own language" (THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi, Acts 1:19, 2:6, 2:8) which is contrasted to someone else's language, or as in THi IDIAi EXOUSIAi, Acts 1:7, or IDIAi DUNAMEI, Acts 3:12, or IDIAi GENEAi, Acts 13:36, or PERI THS IDIAIS DEISIDAIMONIAS, Acts 25:19. If such a contrast is present, the normal, expected order is for IDIOS to precede its noun. This is what my list of comparable Scriptures using IDIOS will show:
Matthew 9:1 his own city.
Matthew 22:5 his own farm
Matthew 25:14 his own servants
Luke 2:3 his own city (Textus Receptus)
Luke 6:41 thine own eye
Luke 6:44 his own fruit
Luke 10:34 his own beast
John 1:11 unto his own [CEV adds the word "world"; TEV adds the word "country"; God's Word and NJB adds the word "people"; RSV adds the word "home"; NLT adds the word "land"]
John 1:41 his own brother [Textus Receptus]
John 4:44 his own country
John 5:18 his own Father
John 5:43 his own name
John 7:18 his own glory
John 8:44 he speaketh of his own [NRSV, RSV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NJB adds the word "nature"; EMTV, NKJV adds the word "resources"; ESV, NLT adds the word "character" NIV adds "native language"; Weymouth adds the word "store."]
John 10:3 his own sheep
John 10:4 all his own [KJV, CEV, Diaglott, EMTV, God's Word, LITV, MKJV, NET, NKJV, WEB and Weymouth adds the word "sheep"]
John 10:12 own the sheep
John 13:1 having loved his own [CEV adds the word "followers"; NLT adds the word "disciples"]
John 15:19 the world would love its own [Weymouth adds the word "property"; God's Word writes "one of its own"]
John 16:32 each one to his own [CEV, HCSB, ESV, TEV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV, RSV, Weymouth, Beck, C.B. Williams adds the word "home"; LITV, MKJV adds the word "things"; NJB, NLT adds the word "way"]
John 19:27 took her unto his own [KJV, CEV, HCSB, Darby, ESV, TEV, God's Word, LITV, MKJV, NET, NJB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV, NRSV, WEB, Weymouth, Williams, Beck adds the word "home"]
Acts 1:7 his own power
Acts 1:25 his own place
Acts 2:6 his own language
Acts 2:8 his own language
Acts 3:12 our own power
Acts 4:23 went to their own [KJV, Darby, MKJV, WEB adds the word "company"; HCSB adds thw word "fellowship"; ESV and Diaglott adds the word "friends"; NASB adds the word "companions" etc]
Acts 4:32 which he possessed was his own [Message has "claim ownership of their own possessions" NRSV has "claimed private ownership of any possessions"] ANARTHROUS
Acts 13:36 his own generation
Acts 25:19 their own religion
Acts 28:30 in his own hired apartment
Romans 8:32 his own Son [Textus Receptus]
Romans 10:3 to establish their own [Nestle] [Textus Receptus, HCSB, Darby, NET, Weymouth adds the word "righteousness"; NLT adds "way of getting right with God"; Good News Bible adds the word "way"]
Romans 11:24 their own olive tree
Romans 14:4 his own lord
Romans 14:5 his own mind
1 Corinthians 3:8 his own reward
1 Corinthians 3:8 his own labor
1 Corinthians 4:12 our own hands
1 Corinthians 6:18 his own body
1 Corinthians 7:2 her own husband
1 Corinthians 7:4 her own body
1 Corinthians 7:4 his own body
1 Corinthians 7:7 his own gift
1 Corinthians 7:37 his own will
1 Corinthians 9:7 at his own wages
1 Corinthians 11:21 his own supper
1 Corinthians 14:35 their own husbands
1 Corinthians 15:23 his own order
1 Corinthians 15:38 his own body
Galatians 6:5 his own burden
Ephesians 5:22 to their own husbands
Ephesians 5:24 their own husbands
Colossians 3:18 their own husbands [Textus Receptus]
1 Thessalonians 2:14 your own countrymen
1 Thessalonians 2:15 their own prophets [Textus Receptus]
1 Thessalonians 4:11 your own business
1 Timothy 3:4 his own household
1 Timothy 3:5 his own household
1 Timothy 3:12 their own households
1 Timothy 4:2 their own conscience
1 Timothy 5:4 their own household
1 Timothy 5:8 his own people
1 Timothy 6:1 their own masters
2 Timothy 1:9 his own purpose
2 Timothy 4:3 their own lusts
Titus 2:5 their own husbands
Titus 2:9 their own masters (ANARTHROUS)
Hebrews 4:10 his own the God did [Lattimore, Simple English Bible, NET, CEV, New Life NT, NiRV, International English Bible adds the word "works"; The Power NT adds the word "labors."]
Hebrews 7:27 his own sins
Hebrews 9:12 his own blood
Hebrews 13:12 his own blood
James 1:14 his own lusts
1 Peter 3:1 your own husbands
1 Peter 3:5 their own husbands
2 Peter 2:16 his own transgression
2 Peter 2:22 his own vomit
2 Peter 3:3 their own lusts
2 Peter 3:16 their own destruction
2 Peter 3:17 your own stedfastness
Jude 6 their own habitation
"This absolute use of hO IDIOS is found in the Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that 'his Own' (hO IDIOS) was a title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to 'the Beloved' (hO AGAPHTOS); compare Ro 8:32, where Paul refers to God 'who did not spare TOU IDIOU hUIOU' in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22:16, where the Septuagint has TOU AGAPHTOU hUIOU." A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament p. 426. This same page refers to Hort, who believed that "hUIOU [Son] may have dropped out after TOU IDIOU. Also, "On the supposition that the text is incorrupt, such a force would be given by the sense 'through the blood that was His own', i.e. as being His Son's. This conception of the death of Christ as a price paid by the Father is in strict accordance with St Paul's own language elsewhere (Ro v 8; viii 32)." [The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised by B.F. Westcott (Notes on Select Readings)]
What does this mean for Acts 20:28? Following the practice in the Greek and the English translations that endeavor to bring out the full meaning from the Greek, the best rendering of Acts 20:28 from the "church of God" critical text tradition is as follows:
"Be shepherds of the church of God, which he acquired by means of his own Son's death." Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Vol. 1, p. 565
When considering the above, you will realize why many Bible versions have translated similarly to the NWT.
Next, the Pathway complains of how the NWT renders Colossians 1:16, “Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist.” The objection lies in the addition of the word OTHER.
The Revised Standard Version inserts the word "other" 100 times, the King James Version, 67 times, and the New Revised Standard Version New Testament 31 times. Here are some examples:
Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)
Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".
Let's take a look at the book of Sirach. Sirach 49:16 says that "Adam was above every living thing in the creation." However, Adam is also a living thing, hence, other Bibles have added the word OTHER here, such as the NRSV and the Good News Bible. Sirach 1:4 states that "Wisdom was created before all things." Here Wisdom is presented as "created" and yet distinct from other created things. That is why many Bibles, again, add the word OTHER here, such as the NRSV and the New Catholic Bible. Some Bibles add the word ELSE: "Wisdom was created before everything else." (Common English Bible)
Let us take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:18: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." ASV.
The RSV, NIV, NJB, Smith & Goodspeed have "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
So, as we see, OTHER is a legitimate addition to the word ALL (PAS/PANTA) in the Greek Bible.
Why don't critics of the New World Translation speak the same way about the NIV, NKJV, NET Bible, etc. regarding the insertion of the word "over" in Col. 1:15?. "The firstborn 'over' all creation". Is the word "over" in the Greek text here? None of my Interlinear Bibles say "over" at this text. Doesn't that totally change the meaning of the text? Is anyone complaining about this? No!
No comments:
Post a Comment