Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1
Carl
shown on numerous occasions to be a poor translation with intentional
mistranslations therein to promote the false doctrines of the WTBTS. One of
the most aggregious is their mistranslation of John 1:1 and the patently
dishonest attempt to justify it by misquoting several recognized Greek
language scholars. In the following article Doctors Ankerberg and Weldon
explain why it is an erroneous translation and how the Watchtower attempted
to deceive its members in the process.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1
by Dr. John Ankerberg & Dr. John Weldon
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.