The identity of the Word according to John [revised 2007].pdf

1 Peter 3:15

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense

to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you,

yet with gentleness and reverence.(NASB)

1 Peter 3:15

THE IDENTITY OF THE WORD

A AA ACCORDING TO JOHN

¨ 1977, revised 2007

Kenneth R. Guindon

'En a)rxh=| h}n o( Lo&goj, kai\ o( Lo&goj h}n pro\j to_n Qeo&n, kai\ Qeo_j

h]n o( Lo&goj. Ou[toj h]n e)n a)rxh~| pro_j to\n Qeo&n. pa&nta di' au)tou=

e0ge/neto, kai\ xwri\j au)tou= e0ge&neto ou0de\ e4n o4 ge/gonen.

PROS APOLOGIAN © - 1 Peter 3:15

PROS APOLOGIAN

CORDING TO JOHN

The Identity of the Word

The Identity of the Word According to John

(ÐDoes the rendering of John 1:1 in The New World Translation violate

rules of Greek grammar or conflict with worship of only one God?Ñ

See The Watchtower of November 15, 1975, pp. 702-704)

When Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt was discoursing on the subject

of the Trinity, his presbyter, Arius, answered him, saying that if the Father

begat the Son, then the latter must have had a beginning and therefore his

substance was made from nothing. Over one hundred years ago, Isaac Boyle

wrote the following about the Arian debate:

These novel and hitherto unheard of opinions excited many persons to enter into the

controversy. By a little spark a great fire was thus kindled. 1

Reporting on AriusÓ arguments during the Nicean Council, Dr. Boyle tells us,

Ðthe bishops, È stopped their ears on hearing such language, and rejected this

doctrine as remote and alien from that of the Church.Ñ 2

Clearly, Arianism was not the historical opinion of the Church; it was

novel, heretical and blasphemous to the ears of the bishops, many of whom

had endured severe persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. But, the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society contends that the bishops were wrong,

apostates, and only Arius and his supporters were the defenders of the true

biblical faith! Is it possible that JehovahÓs Witnesses are right?

According to the Watchtower Society the answer is yes! Like Arius, the

JehovahÓs Witnesses teach that the Logos is a god, another god along side the

Father. 3 The WatchtowerÓs views belittle the Almighty who could not keep

His promise that the Church would not be conquered by SatanÓs powers (Matt.

16:18; 28:20). The WitnessesÓ teachings elevate SatanÓs power and disparage

the faith of the Christian martyrs. Hopefully, ÐThe Identity of the Word

According to JohnÑ will furnish an adequate response to the Watchtower

Society concerning the correct translation of John 1:1. We have in mind

primarily: the 62 page booklet The Word-Who Is He? According to John

Isaac Boyle, A Historical View of the Council of Nice (Nicea), reprinted in Bakers Twin

Brooks Series volume of EusebiusÓ Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

1955), page 7. See also, Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, pp. 618-621.

Ibid., pp. 13-14.

An explanation and a brief history of Arianism will be found in Appendix C.

The Identity of the Word

(1962) and The Watchtower of November 15, 1975 (ÐQuestions from

Readers,Ñ pp. 702-704) as well as more recent publications such as, Should

You Believe in A Trinity? (1989), and articles found in New World Translation

of the Holy Scriptures (with References, 1984), page 1579, and, Insight on the

Scriptures, (1988, Vol. 2), pages 52-72 (52-56 in particular). Since this article

was written some twenty years ago, the Watchtower SocietyÓs writers have

been busy responding to questions on this topic; still, nothing has changed.

Error will always be error while truth never changes.

Our topic is necessary because, although wounded by deacon Athanasius

at Nicea, the old Serpent and Dragon has reared up its ugly head, this time

disguised as Witnesses for Jehovah! Arianism is alive and well today, at least

among the members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 4 The identity

of the Word according to John is critical to our eternal destiny. The reason is:

eternal life is intrinsically linked to the Son of God who is Life eternal, the

Saviour of the world (John 17:3; 1 John 1:2; 5:12, 20).

A review of early Christian writers will demonstrate that the Church

always believed that the Word was of the same nature as God, in spite of the

fact that a few early writers were tainted by subordinationism. 5 Only one brief

patristic quotation is given here because we prefer to argue our thesis from the

Scriptures and from the grammatical principles involved in the translation of

John 1:1. Testimony from several early Christian writers to the Deity of the

Logos will be found in appendix B.

Clement of Alexandria writes in The Instructor of Children (ante AD 202).

[1, 8, 62, 3] Nothing exists except that which God causes to be. There is nothing,

therefore, which is hated by God; [4] nor is there anything hated by the Word. Both are

one, both are God; for he says: ÐIn the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was

God.Ñ 6

4 J. D. Douglas (ed.), The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 67-68. ÐThe most noteworthy Arian-like Christology in modern

times is the teaching of the JehovahÓs Witnesses, who deny the eternality of the Son of God,

the doctrine of the Trinity, and who, like Arius, posit the Logos as an intermediate being

between the Creator and creation.Ñ (S. J. Mikolaski in the article, Arianism).

5 Subordinationists believed that the Son and the Spirit were somehow inferior to the Father.

(William A. Jurgens, in Volume 1, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: The

Liturgical Press, 1970), page 179.

The Identity of the Word

AND THE WORD WASÈ?

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

(John 1:1 according to The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

So proclaims the Bible produced by JehovahÓs Witnesses. Seventy million

copies have flowed from the WatchtowerÓs printing plants around the world.

Everyone is free to express his opinion in a democratic society, but we are not

quibbling here over a trivial matter where opinion doesnÓt count. We must

know the truth about Jesus Christ. 7 A number of scholars have objected to the

WitnessesÓ translation of John 1:1, so we are not remiss when we ask: What

did John mean when he wrote theos en ho logos ( qeo\j h}n o( lo/goj )?

A review of various scholarsÓ criticisms will provide some background to

the issues surrounding the translation of John 1:1. Soon after the release of

The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (their edition of

the New Testament), Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton Theological

Seminary explained:

As regards Jn. 1:1, ColwellÓs research casts the most serious doubts on the

correctness of such translations as Òand the Logos was divineÓ (Moffatt, Strachan), Òand

the Word was divineÓ (Goodspeed), and (worst of all) Òand the Word was a godÓ (so the

recently published JehovahÓs WitnessesÓ New World Translation of the Christian Greek

Scriptures [1950] ). 8

Why would the JehovahÓs Witnesses introduce such a novel translation

knowing they would certainly receive such criticism? Obviously, because they

think they are GodÓs people and have the truth. They consider themselves to

be in the best position to translate the Scriptures because they believe God

directs their organization.

There can be no doubt that their translation Ðthe Word was a godÑ is

designed to bolster their contention that the Word was GodÓs first creation. Dr.

Robert H. Countess, in a rather lengthy article on the NWT, wrote:

But the really trenchant significance of this rendering Ða godÑ is that Jesus Christ is

not Ðvery God of very GodÑ and the second person of the Trinity. He is merely Ða godÑ in

a pantheon of lesser divinities. The Witnesses would tell us that Jesus in his pre-human

state was an angel, identifiable in the Old Testament with Michael and as such, GodÓs

Isaiah 9:6; Heb 2:10; 5:9.

Bruce M. Metzger, The Expository Times, 63, Jan. 1952, pp. 125-126.

The Identity of the Word

Chief Executive Officer. Yet Jesus is to be regarded as unique and worthy of obeisance,

but not worship. 9

Countess makes a good point when he says:

The effect of designating Christ Ða godÑ is at the very least startling to the Christian

reading or hearing this translation. Certainly there must be ponderous evidence for such a

departure from the almost universal manner in which this verse has been rendered in the

past-Ðand the Word was God.Ñ 10

Is there then overwhelming evidence for the NWTÓs rendering of John

1:1? And, is their translation in harmony with the Scriptures and the ChurchÓs

historic teaching? Is Jesus a secondary god? Is he by nature inferior to his

Father? What did John want to convey when he wrote GOD WAS THE

WORD (the word order in Greek)? The Witnesses have apparently used

MoffattÓs and GoodspeedÓs translations to justify their own, which is really

something quite different. Discussing the appendix in the NWT, Mr. Countess

comments: ÐThe appendix is not slow to give reasons. Referring to The

Complete Bible and to Moffatt,Ñ the NWT appendix argues:

The reason for their rendering the Greek word Ðdivine,Ñ and not ÐGod,Ñ is that it is the

Greek noun theos without the definite article, hence an anarthrous theos. The God with

whom the Word or Logos was originally is designated here by the Greek expression o(

Qeo/j , theos preceded by the definite article ho, hence an articular theos. Careful

translators recognize that the articular construction points to an identity, a personality,

whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone. 11

Based upon this statement in the NWT appendix, Dr. Countess identifies

the principles followed by the Watchtower Bible translators:

Thus NWT derives a translation principle which may be stated as follows: anarthrous

Qeo/j equals Ða godÑ; arthrous Qeo/j equals ÐGod.Ñ The anarthrous is qualitative; the

arthrous is quantitative. An incidental criticism at this point is necessary. NWT has Ða

god,Ñ clearly a quantitative rendering! The translators, to be consistent with their

principle, should have followed Moffatt and The Complete Bible, both reading Ðdivine.Ñ 12

Next, Dr. Countess shows how the translation committee for the NWT loosely

handled the Greek text. (NWT, 1950, revised edition, 1951).

Èof 282 occurrences of the anarthrous Qeo/j NWT sixteen times has either Ða god,

god, gods, or godly.Ñ The translators were, therefore only 6% faithful to their canons

9 Robert H. Countess, Ph.D., ÐThe Translation of QEOS in the New World Translation,Ñ

Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 10, 1967, p. 155.

10 Countess, p. 154.

Ibid.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: