Is the NWT translation of John 1:1 correct?

[Justin108]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]


The NWT is correct because it respects the rules of Greek grammar as well as the context. Basically translators must add indefinite articles with nominative Greek count nouns (which have no added prepositional modifiers) when rendering them into English. I (and other Jehovah's Witnesses) have already this in detail (see links).

WORD STUDIES: The singular anarthrous (without the article) Greek nominative count noun (tigger)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 338#824338
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 563#821563
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 568#823568


FURTHER DETAILS

Many people object to the NWT rendering of John chapter 1 verse 1 claiming that is should read "and the word was God" however, since the verse itself says that the word was "with" God then, that same "Word" could not at the same time be "God".

Further the Greek word for "God" is certainly different from the greek word "god" θεός . Many translators use such words as “a god,� “divine� or “godlike� because the Greek word θεός (the‧os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the‧os′.

God
In John 1: 1 the first mention of "God" was originally is designated here by the Greek expression � θεός, that is, the‧os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the‧os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality.

The Word

In the second part of John 1: 1 (speaking about The Word) we have a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, this points to a quality about someone. John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god� or “divine� or “godlike� does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

Philip B. Harner did an extensive study of anarthrous predicate nouns which was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature (March 1973)."In all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." - Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" (Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1973), 92:75-87.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a� before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a� is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.�

CONCLUSION: This scripture is NOT saying that Jesus [The Word] is Almighty God but only that he is godlike in nature. "Origen, [arguably] the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". -"Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.






LINKS - Previous discussions on this website on this subject

Colwell's Rule
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 859#824859]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 209#823209
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 923#822923

VARIOUS SCHOLARS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 274#823274

"and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
"and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
"and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
"and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
"and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
"and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

Origen (184-254 A.D.)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 254#824254

Further reading
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htm

[JehovahsWitness]

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation?

QUESTION: Are there other translators and bible scholars agree with the NWT rendition?

Further References

A GOD

** Paul Wernle,(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"

** Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

** Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

** Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

** Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

** John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

* Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

** Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

** Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

** Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god�

** Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

** J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, and was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981

** Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

** Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

** Andrews Norton, D.D. [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

** Paul Wernle,(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"

** 21st Century Literal "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god."

** George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, and (a) God was the word"

** Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

** James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

** John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god"

** Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

** Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

GOD LIKE / GODLY

** Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos"

** Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

** Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

** Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

** Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

** Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

** Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

A DIVINE KIND

** Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

** Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "and the Word was of divine nature"

** Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

** Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

** Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "and the Word was of divine nature"

DIVINE BEING / PERSON

** Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

** J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

** Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

** La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being

** Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

** Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,"and was himself a divine person"

** Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London " Divine Person."

DIVINE

** International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

** Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was"

** William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

** Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

** Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine"

** Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

[marco]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

Settling for God or god is not the biggest difficulty. How is human understanding to make sense of the "WORD" being in the beginning? What is meant by beginning? What is meant by "logos" being "with" God?

It would seem that the balance of the sentence, with God and was God, requires both to be capitalised. If questions of grammar arise it would be a brave person who based a theology on a grammatical nicety. I recall that we would spend an entire lecture debating why Virgil used an indicative rather than a subjunctive when describing an oak tree. But were the outcome to determine Christ's deity, I think we would want more evidence than grammatical.

[2timothy316]

The simple way to look it is this way.

Ton/Ho Theon = The Almighty God.
Theos = a god

We know that theos can be translated either as God or a god. http://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm

Now that we have established that which one is it? So lets put it another way.

Example: In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with [Almighty God] and the Word was [Almighty God].

First the above makes no sense.

Interestingly the definite article [or the/τὸν] precedes God when referring to the first God in the sentence but the next definite article precedes the word Word but not the second use of the word god. Thus the second god is not the God but a god. Yet the second god [or mighty one] is The Word. It just so simple I don't know why people get so bent out of shape.

In Philippians 3:19 says that there are those that make their belly their God. If we are to use the same crazy translation most use for god in John 1:1 does that make a person's stomach, Jesus?

[bjs]

[Replying to Justin108]

Virtually every scholar of Koine Greek who is not a Jehovah’s Witness says that it should be translated “the Word was God� and not “the Word was a god.�

William Mounce, Dan Wallace, A. T. Robertson, Robert Funk, Stanley Porter, and Rodney Decker are among the many notable experts in the field who insist that this is the correction translation.

The lack of the definitive article before God (theon) in Greek opens the door for us to use the indefinite article in English, but the overall grammar and context make this a forced eisegesis.

[JehovahsWitness]

Virtually every scholar of Koine Greek who is not a Jehovah’s Witness says that it should be translated “the Word was God� and not “the Word was a god.�

That is simply not true. See above.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#867695

William Mounce, Dan Wallace, A. T. Robertson, Robert Funk, Stanley Porter, and Rodney Decker are among the many notable experts in the field who insist that this is the correction translation.

.... and C.H. Dodd, W.E. Vine, Murray J. Harris, William Barclay, Robert Young and James Moffatt are notable scholars that beg to differ.


JW

[onewithhim]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

Settling for God or god is not the biggest difficulty. How is human understanding to make sense of the "WORD" being in the beginning? What is meant by beginning? What is meant by "logos" being "with" God?

It would seem that the balance of the sentence, with God and was God, requires both to be capitalised. If questions of grammar arise it would be a brave person who based a theology on a grammatical nicety. I recall that we would spend an entire lecture debating why Virgil used an indicative rather than a subjunctive when describing an oak tree. But were the outcome to determine Christ's deity, I think we would want more evidence than grammatical.

I believe that words are highly important. We have two completely different views of Snoopy, for example, when comparing the following wordings:

Snoopy is THE dog.
Snoopy is A dog.

It is vital to understand the rules of grammar so that we can understand if Snoopy is the ONLY dog, or if he is just one of many.

I don't know why you insist that both "gods" in John 1:1 should be capitalized. In Greek there are no capitalizations or punctuation, and that is exactly why the rules for definite and indefinite articles prevails.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Justin108]

Virtually every scholar of Koine Greek who is not a Jehovah’s Witness says that it should be translated “the Word was God� and not “the Word was a god.�

William Mounce, Dan Wallace, A. T. Robertson, Robert Funk, Stanley Porter, and Rodney Decker are among the many notable experts in the field who insist that this is the correction translation.

The lack of the definitive article before God (theon) in Greek opens the door for us to use the indefinite article in English, but the overall grammar and context make this a forced eisegesis.

I disagree. Please read JW's clear, concise, excellent posts #2 & #3. It's all in there.


.

[marco]

The simple way to look it is this way.

Constructing deep theology from a grammatical consideration is unwise. The point being made is about grammatical usage, but there are exceptions to every rule. When we translate from an ancient language we always encounter singularities, and this place in the text, where the "WORD" is being generated from first principles is a good place for an exception in the use of a word!