From: Roland Milanese (Romilan@intacc.web.net)
Date: Mon Aug 14 1995 - 13:13:34 EDT
I would like to offer a few thoughts concerning the recent contribution by John
Albu, apparently a statement from the NWT translators defending their
translation of John 1:1c as "the Word was a god." How should we translate
John 1:1c? A consideration of some of the major English translations indicates
a preference which apparently discounts the arguments offered by the NWT
committee:
KJV, NASV, NIV, JB: The Word was God
NEB: what God was, the Word was
John Albu has taken the time and trouble to e-mail us this lengthy text, and
the discussion offered in defence of the NWT does merit a response. I have
taken the bulk of this text and interspersed it with my objections,
concessions, and suggestions for clarification:
<Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points
to a quality about someone.>
objection: A singular anarthrous predicate noun, when referring to a person, does not always point to a QUALITY about that person. According to Colwell, definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually
lack the article, and proper names regularly lack the article in the
predicate. See, for example, Jn19:21 "don't write HO BASILEUS of the Jews, but
that he said "BASILEUS EIMI of the Jews." The second occurrence of BASILEUS
must be regarded as being just as definite as the first occurrence.
<Therefore, 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.>
objection: The translation "a god" is a contradiction of the monotheistic
teaching of scripture.
objection: "godlike" is an insufficient translation because it is not
distinctive enough; specifically, it can be descriptive of various faithful
human beings, whereas the context of Jn 1:1-18 has the uniqueness of the Word
in view - the MONOGENHS Son of God.
concession: HO LOGOS is not HO QEOS of 1:1b
clarification: The logical argument for distinguishing the Word from HO QEOS
mentioned in 1:1b is from the use of PROS in 1:1b, which there indicates the
Word was separate from HO QEOS; furthermore, HO QEOS in 1:1b is to be
understood as God the Father.
<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.>
clarification: It does not identify the Word as one and the same person as God
the Father.
<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 the.os' in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it
read "a god.">
objection: There is not logically equal justification unless every case of a
singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb is translated with the
indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun: "many cases" does not equal
every case.
objection: The grammar of NT Greek is not fixed so rigidly, nor is its lexicon
so similar to English, as to be able to impose a single rule for the
interpretation and translation of every occurrence of a singular anarthrous
predicate noun.
objection: Even if no external evidence of grammatical ambiguity existed,
contextual considerations are the basis for the interpretion of any text; and
by the way, it is this basis which also allows for many of the creative and
innovative uses of language.
<The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.>
objection: No scriptural evidence is offered to support this claim. In fact,
the evidence is to the contrary: To say that the Word was "a god" violates the
immediate context, which presents the Word as the creator of all things. Nor
does it do justice to the gospel as a whole, which claims the same honor for
the Son as is given to the Father (5:23; 20:28). Nor does it honor the context
of scripture which teaches that there is one true god and that all other
so-called "gods" are idols (Is 43:10,11; 1Cor 8:4-6; 1Jn 5:20,21).
<In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John
1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia,
1973, p. 85, Philip B.Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1,
"with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in
meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no
basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article,
Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the
predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.">
comment: As far as translators are concerned, this should immediately raise
the question of how to best encode the quality of being QEOS into English.
Should we use a noun? If do, which noun? Moreover, qualities are described in
different ways in English. Consider, for example,the nouns honesty, virtue,
truth, kindness. If we wish to describe the qualities that a person has, we
could say "He is caracterized by honesty, virtue, truth, and kindness." But
more commonly we would use the adjective forms and say "He is honest,
virtuous, true, and kind."If we choose to use a noun to translate QEOS we must
choose one that is qualitative; otherwise we should probably choose an
adjective. One qualitative noun that we have in English is the word "deity,"
which, although it can can be a definite, concrete noun, properly corresponds
to the form of the abstract noun "humanity." The adjective "divine" is a
second possible translation choice. We might thus translate Jn 1:1c as "the
Word was deity" or "the Word was divine."
<Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where
various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns
occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the
indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:>
objection: The list is not representative of the full story for at least two reasons.
First, the list overlooks instances where the indefinite article "a" is not
used in translation.
Second, the list simply reflects a generalization commonly made in Greek
grammars, in which different semantic constructs represented by singular
anarthrous predicate nouns tend not to be distinguished. For example, Zerwick
says, with reference to predicate nouns, that
<<the predicate commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or the quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo
1,1 ... which attributes to the Word the divine NATURE.>>
This general comment does not clearly distinguish between the ideas of class and quality. Membership in a class does not strictly denote a quality. Some anarthrous predicate
examples denote "one representative of a class/group of like things; one of
many who are together called Xs." In Jn 10:33, when we read SU ANQRWPWN WN
translated "you, who are a man," we understand "you who are one of many called
men." There is not a great difference between this and "you who are human." In
this case, to be a member of a class is to share the attributes that make the
class a class. However, when we read Ac 28:4 FONEUS ESTIN HO ANQRWPOS we
cannot translate "the man is murderous." The Barbarians suspect that Paul is
being punished because he is a murderer, one of many who are called murderers
because of their actions. So then, membership in a class does not strictly
denote a quality. And when we come to Jn 1:1c, shall we say that the Word is
one member of a class of beings who are called "gods?"
I don't think so, and neither did those translators who translated those
versions referred to above. Nevertheless, people interested in distributing
the Bible and other Christian literature could perhaps take a lesson from the
Watchtower Society, which makes available its literature at such low cost.
#-intacc.web.net--------------------------------------------*
|This message was sent from MATRIX ARTS NETWORK |
|tel:(416)-364-1421 |
|The views expressed in this posting are those of the |
|individual author only. |
#-----------------------------------------------------------*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT