- The Watchtower, May 15, 1977, p. 320

"The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.'  But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. 23).

Barclay also makes his position clear in a response to the Watchtower's citation:

"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say.  What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.  If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.  A photocopy of this letter can be found in Watters, Thus saith ... the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 74).

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w.
>ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA
>TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients..."

- from a Jehovah's Witness posting on an online discussion board.

One should not rest theological conclusions on tersely written
lexicon entries, especially when those terse comments are
problematic. Also, contrary to your assertion, BDAG often fails to
reflect "the latest Greek scholarship." Case in point: your quotation of BDAG. 

As to the substance of what the article says, I will offer some
brief comments:

"2. Some writings in our lit. use the word q. w. ref. to Christ
(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore
in harmony w. the Shema of Israel Dt 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a
below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate."

The above comment is confusing. It assumes without argument or
explanation that equating Christ with the Father would be out of
harmony with the Shema. It depends on what "equating" means. Does the author mean *identifying* Christ *as* the Father _per se_? Doing so would not compromise any form of monotheism because it would be modalistic. Does the author mean treating Christ as a second God equal in status to the Father? That would be out of harmony with the Shema. If that is what he meant, I would agree with his statement but would point out that it doesn't challenge the orthodox position. We don't think Christ is a second, separate God. Unfortunately, it appears that the author(s) of this entry have the first meaning in mind (see below), which shows they are simply confused.

"In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of q. to pers. who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates)."

It is suspicious when an author tells us that a particular view is
fundamental in "Mosaic...traditions" but then fails to quote Moses
or anyone clearly in his tradition in support of the assertion.

"In Ro 9:5 the interpr. is complicated by demand of punctuation
marks in printed texts. If a period is placed before o` w'n ktl.,
the doxology refers to God as defined in Israel (so EAbbot, JBL 1,
1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RLipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theol.(2 ) II 1911, 99f; EGünther, StKr 73, 1900, 636-44; FBurkitt, JTS 5, 1904, 451-55; Jülicher; PFeine, Theol. d. NTs(6 )'34, 176 et al.; RSV text; NRSV mg.). A special consideration in favor of this
interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor 15:25-28
and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the
injunction in Dt 5:7.—If a comma is used in the same place, the
reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBröse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57 et al.; NRSV text; RSV mg. S. also eivmi, 1.—Undecided: THaering.—The transposition by the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] w-n o`=`to whom belongs' was revived by JWeiss, D. Urchristentum 1917, 363; WWrede, Pls 1905, 82; CStrömman, ZNW 8, 1907, 319f)."

It appears from this part of the entry that the author(s) assume
that designating Christ as "QEOS over all" would violate the First
Commandment (Deut. 5:7). This is a bizarre claim in a work
supposedly produced to service the Christian community. It proves
theological bias has influenced the reference work here (as it does
elsewhere). Again, as I explain above, describing Christ as God in
the highest sense would not violate the Shema or the First
Commandment UNLESS one understands this description to mean that he is a second, separate God. Likewise, the claim that designating Christ as QEOS in Romans 9:5 would contradict 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 is unsupported by any argument and theologically prejudicial.

It is also evident that this entry does NOT represent "the latest
Greek scholarship." The secondary sources all date from the
nineteenth and early twentieth century, except for inserted
references to the RSV and NRSV.

"In 2 Pt 1:1; 1J 5:20 the interpretation is open to question (but
cp. ISmyrna McCabe .0010, 100 o` qeo.j kai. swth.r VAnti,ocoj)."

Again, no recent Greek scholarship reflected here.

"In any event, q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests
primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w.
o` qeo,j 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of
Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J
10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6]; on qeo,j w. and without the article,
acc. to whether it means God or the Logos, s. Philo, Somn. 1, 229f; JGriffiths, ET 62, '50/51, 314-16; BMetzger, ET 63, '51/52, 125f), 18b."

The scholarship is somewhat more recent here, extending up to the early 1950s (a half century after the latest edition!). That's still
far too behind the times to support your characterization.

I have commented at length elsewhere on the tendentious and
misleading nature of these comments. To run to Exodus 7:1 to explain John 1:1 is simply indefensible. The LOGOS is called QEOS in a context where there do not yet exist any physical beings to which he might have appeared as representing God (the usual spin based on Exodus 7:1). That is, the LOGOS was QEOS in the beginning, before all things were created (vv. 1-3). Indeed, the LOGOS is called QEOS in the context of the original creation, as the one in whom we are to find our life and light (vv. 3-5).

I have also treated elsewhere the citation of Psalm 82:6 (81:6 LXX)
in John 10:34-36. Again, to run to another passage because it seems more conducive to one's theological assumptions instead of
addressing the text at hand in its own context is hermeneutically
flawed.

Much more could be said on this subject, but the key points here are that the entry's comments on John 1:1 are selective, biased, and not reflective of recent scholarship.

"o` ku,rio,j mou kai. o` qeo,j mou my Lord and my God! (nom. w.
art.=voc.; s. beg. of this entry.—On a resurrection as proof of
divinity cp. Diog. L. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras
returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers
[eivse,rcesqai eivj th.n evkklhsi,an], and they consider him qei/o,n
tina) J 20:28 (on the combination of ku,rioj and qeo,j s. 3c below)."

Although I disagree with BDAG in its attempt to explain away (that's what it is) the language of John 20:28 using the account about Pythagoras (!), since John's milieu is Jewish and his religious canon is the Old Testament, I note that BDAG acknowledges that in John 20:28 QEOS "certainly refers to Christ." Do you agree?

"Tit 2:13 $me,gaj q.%. Hb 1:8, 9 (in a quot. fr. Ps 44:7, 8). S.
TGlasson, NTS 12, '66, 270-72. Jd 5 P(72)."

Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8-9. Do you agree?

"But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeo,j in many pass.: qeo.j
VIhsou/j Cristo,j ITr 7:1; Cristo.j qeo,j ISm 10:1. o` qeo.j h`mw/n
IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to. pa,qoj
tou/ qeou/ mou IRo 6:3. evn ai [mati qeou/ IEph 1:1. evn sarki.
geno,menoj qeo,j 7:2. qeo.j avnqrwpi,nwj fanerou,menoj 19:3. qeo.j
o` ou[twj u`ma/j sofi,saj ISm 1:1.—Hdb. exc. 193f; MRackl, Die
Christologie d. hl. Ign. v. Ant. 1914. o` qeo,j mou Criste. VIhsou/
AcPl Ha 3, 10; Cristo.j VIhsou/j o` qÎeo,jÐ 6, 24; cp. ln. 34 (also
cp. Just., A I, 63, 15, D. 63, 5 al.; Tat. 13, 3; Ath. 24, 1; Mel.,
P. 4, 28 al.).—SLösch, Deitas Jesu u. antike Apotheose '33. Cp.
AWlosk, Römischer Kaiserkult '78."

BDAG agrees that Ignatius frequently called Christ QEOS. Odd, isn't it, that once the field of texts goes outside the Bible the author (s) feel no need to offer an explanation for the designation of
Christ as QEOS?

All in all, the BDAG entry here is seriously deficient, both in its
argumentation and in its scholarship. Still, I think you will have
to disagree with it on at least a couple of texts.

(from a post on Rob Bowman's Jehovah's Witness discussion board, December 17, 2005).

"a god was the Logos

"Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Jürgen Becker"

- New World Translation, 1984, Appendix 6A.

After discussing the words of creation spoken in Genesis 1:1, Becker says:

Joh 1,1 states at the very point of the Originating Expression this fact:  That the Logos was in the Beginning; that is, at the creation of the world, he already was...V 1 does not speculate about pre-existent things, but declares: The world which we know (V 3) came about by the creative mediation of the Logos, who was with God already before the universe came to be" (Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, p. 72).

Becker does see a hyper-subordination of the Logos to ho theos in John's Gospel, and says the Father and the Son are not of the same rank (German: Stufe).  Becker bases this view, apparently, on Philo's distinction between ho theos and theos, as do other German scholars of his generation (e.g., Haenchen). Few modern Biblical scholars would agree with Becker on this point.

But Becker goes on to say that the Logos deserves to be called "God" due to his divine nature (Gottlicher Art).  He is a divine Person who is, "at the same time the only Mediator of the one God."  And, if one considers his comments in context, Becker does not mean "divine" to mean anything less than eternal and coeval with God: 

Through this Mediator all things came to be.  In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos.  This corresponds with the Wisdom literature...There is no past creation of the Logos.  The totality of Creation is his work" (Ibid).

Thus, Becker does not understand his translation to imply that the Logos was a created being.  When Becker says that the Logos has a "divine Nature" and is a "divine Person," he means the Son has the same eternal nature as God.  His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism.

- from a prominent Jehovah's Witness website

BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School.  This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek.  BeDuhn's PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages.  He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.  

This is not to say that BeDuhn is to be dismissed lightly.  He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts.  He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint.  However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis.  Further, Dr. BeDuhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr. BeDuhn's statement that he is unaware of who Murray J. Harris is, below).

BeDuhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely "unlikely" from a grammatical standpoint.  To my knowledge, however, Dr. DeBuhn has not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic (a summary of which you may find here) which his views contradict.  This includes his recent book, Truth in Translation..  Further, his statement that the traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God.  Trinitarians could even accept Dr. BeDuhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. 298, n93).

BeDuhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco.  You'll find their discussion of John 1:1 here.  You will notice that a necessary presupposition of BeDuhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy.  John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, BeDuhn suggests.  He tells us that Paul does not "control" what John meant and vice versa.  However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah's Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition.  Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree.

Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine."  Dr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering "leaves open" a Trinitarian solution (BeDuhn to Steven S. 12/26/2001).  In this same email, he states that he does not know who Murray J. Harris is.  It would seem that any cogent defense of Dr. BeDuhn's views would require interaction with Harris' thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris' comments regarding "the Word was divine," p. 63ff).

BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels.  We may ask, however, if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?

You may find a lengthy dialog between Dr. BeDuhn and me here.

STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The Bible in Living English"). 

"If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," November 1, 1950 page 1296).

- from a prominent Jehovah's Witness website

When read in context, Mr. Byington's comments are rather less than enthusiastic about the merits of the NWT:

"The book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."

Read Mr. Byington's full review of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures and his interaction with the Watchtower here.

- from a Jehovah's Witness posting on an online discussion board.

Mr. Capel has not provided his readers with his qualifications as a translator.  Indeed, I have been able to learn very little about him, other than the fact that he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he produced his translation over a period of four years.  His being a Witness, of course, does not preclude him from being a legitimate scholar, but the fact that his translation has not been recognized as authoritative and that he apparently lacks an advanced degree in Greek studies would seem to indicate that he is not.

It remains for Witnesses who cite his translation in support of the NWT to prove that he is a scholar worth considering, and not a member of a particular religious sect who has produced a Bible that happens to line up perfectly with his beliefs.

- from Greg Stafford's second reply to me on the Julius Mantey letter to the WTB&TS.  I had asked Mr. Stafford for a list of scholars who unequivocally support the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

Carpenter is not regarded as authoritative by modern Biblical scholars.  They do not cite the work quoted by Mr. Stafford, nor any other work by Carpenter.

d. A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: en tois propsetais (Heb. 1:1), 'in the prophets,' calls attention to a particular group, while en uio (Heb. 1:2), 'in son,' calls attention to the rank of the Son as a 'spokesman' for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, 'in his Son,' italicizing 'his.'

The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: theos en ho logos (Jn. 1:1), the Word was God; kai ho logos sarx egento (Jn. 1:14), 'And the Word became flesh'; esontai oi eschatoi protoi (Mt. 20 :16), 'the last shall be first.' The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., ho theos en ho logos would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in ho theos agape estin (1 Jn. 4 :8), 'God is love.' As the sentence now stands 'love' describes a primary quality of God; the article he with agape would make God and love equivalents, e. g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love.

"Summary

The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned.  "Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God"

William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary.  It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger.

- from a Jehovah's Witness website.

"Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God"

This sentence does not appear in the Chamberlain's Grammar.  This addition may be the inadvertent inclusion of the apologist's own remarks - although the placement of the final quotation mark, followed by the biographical information suggests something more intentional.

The anonymous author correctly notes that Bruce Metzger expresses high regard for Chamberlain's Grammar, as do several other Evangelical scholars.

The following endorsements appear on the dust jacket of Chamberlain's Grammar:

BRUCE M. METZGER "as a comprehensive and helpful grammar written to enable the average minister to feel at home in the Greek New Testament."

NED B. STONEHOUSE "a convenient handbook for the student who is seeking to apply his knowledge of the fundamentals of Greek grammar in the exegetical study of the New Testament."

WILLIAM F. ARNDT  "To all pastors and theological students who would like to review the chief grammatical facts pertaining to the Greek of the New Testament and who are looking for a somewhat new approach, we cordially recommend this book."

It would seem odd that a professor at a Presbyterian Seminary would understand John 1:1 in the same manner as the Watchtower, let alone have such a view endorsed by the likes of Metzger, Stonehouse, and Arndt.

In point of fact, Chamberlain is strictly orthodox in his theology, and so is his grammar. The quoted section of Chamberlain's Grammar discusses the absence of the article in copulative phrases to signify the non-convertibility of the subject and predicate nominative. This is precisely the same point made by Julius Mantey - that is, had John used the article with theos, he would have been asserting a form of modalism - that there was nothing of God apart from the Word.

Chamberlain's orthodox views are implicit in the quoted passage (if we remove the additional sentence), and are explicit in Chamberlain's other works dating from the same time period (2).

Witnesses, then, may use Chamberlain's words to support their view, if they choose to pour their own meanings into them, or worse add their own words to Chamberlain's.  However, Chamberlain's Grammar,  as he intended it to be read, does not support the NWT, but rather upholds the traditional understanding of John 1:1.

"It appears that what your letter inquires about is a book written by Professor Ernest Cadman Colwell, entitled "What Is the Best New Testament?" This book is published by the Chicago University Press and was first printed in 1952. In 1947 Professor Colwell made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. The book contains what Professor Colwell considers the correct rendering of each of those sixty-four citations. The New World Translation was not released until 1950, hence Professor Colwell could not include this translation in his list of tested ones.
However, if any reader will look up what Professor Colwell has to say about these sixty-four citations and will compare these with the New World Translation he will see that the New World Translation merits a score of sixty-four along with Dr. Goodspeed's translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which the book gives a perfect score of sixty-four. Colwell's book being first published in 1952, it was not available until two years after the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which occurred in 1950 at Yankee Stadium. Consequently the New World Bible Translation Committee did not have Colwell' s book for reference when work on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was being done."

- Question From Readers, The Watchtower Jan 1, 1963, p.95

But reading Colwell's chapter, "How Accurate is your New Testament?," it is clear that he means "accurate" in a different sense:

If you care about your New Testament," you will want to know what 'make' it is, who translated it, and, above all, how accurate it is.  The translator may diminish, but he cannot materially increase, the accuracy of the particular Greek New Testament from which he makes his translation.  In the matter of accuracy, therefore, the primary question is: "How accurate a New Testament was it translated from? (Colwell, What is the Best New Testament, p. 85).

Thus, Colwell's primary concern in ranking New Testament translations was not how accurately the English reflected the underlying Greek, but from which edition of the Greek New Testament the translation was made.  Colwell believed the Textus Receptus, the Greek New Testament from which the KJV was translated, was the "worst or most corrupt text" (p. 86), while the Westcott Hort was the "best or more accurate text" (ibid.).

Colwell defined his methodology as follows:

The ranking of these translations was based originally on the translator's own statements as to their source; but this has been checked and corrected by a test as to the relationship of each on of these translations to two forms of the Greek New Testatment - The Westcott Hort text and the Textus Recptus or Received Test.  I carried out this test for the entire Gospel of John.  In this gospel the two Greek texts were compared verse by verse; and from the large list of differences noted, sixty-four passages were selected in which even the freest English translation must show which to the two Greek texts it supports (ibid.).

Here, again, one can see that the underlying text was Colwell's criteria for "accuracy."  The more closely a translation matched Westcott Hort (WH), the higher the score.  The more closely a translation matched Textus Receptus (TR), the lower the score.  That Colwell was not concerned with an accurate translation into English is apparent when he says, "even the freest English translation must show which of the two Greek texts it supports."  Thus, for example, for John 1:18, Colwell is not comparing how the entire verse is rendered, but which variant is being translated:

TR:  only-begotten Son

WH: only-begotten God (Ibid., p. 100)

The allowance for a "free" translation is most apparent in the Goodspeed translation, which Colwell ranks at the top of his list with a score of 64.  John 1:18 in Goodspeed's translation reads, "it is the divine Only Son."

It has been suggested by some JW apologists that Colwell is concerned not only with GNT on which the translation was based, but also on how well the translation rendered the Greek.  This is simply not true, as the evidence above demonstrates.  Colwell's final ranking appears in Table 1 on page 87, and it demonstrates the scores were based solely on whether the basis of the text was WH or TR (or could not be determined):

Translation                    WH               TR          Other

Goodspeed         64          0

Twentieth Century 59          4        1

Westminster       58          6

American Revised  58          6

English Revised   57          7

Revised Standard  56          8

Moffatt           56          7        1

Riverside         55          9

Weymouth          53          11

Spencer           51          13

Basic English     51          12       1

Ferrar Edition    50          14       1

Centenary         47          16       1

Confraternity     35          27       2

Knox              33          29       2

Challoner         25          37       2

King James         0          64

Thus, the WT's use of Colwell to substantiate the accuracy of the NWT's English translation cannot be justified.  It is true that because the NWT is based on the WH text, the NWT would score 64 on Colwell's scale.  But the WT is not citing Colwell to demonstrate which GNT underlies its translation, but to endorse its accurate rendering of the text.  This is at best a gross misunderstanding of Colwell, and at worst, blatant deception.

- from a Jehovah's Witness website.

Dr. Danker is certainly a recognized scholar and he has been quoted accurately.  It will be noted that his lukewarm comments about the NWT are with regard to the Old Testament.  Few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures.  Indeed, since the OT contains far fewer explicit Scriptures teaching the orthodox doctrines that the Watchtower denies - Christ's deity; the existence of the soul; and hellfire - it is not surprising that the NWT Hebrew Scriptures are relatively bias-free.

Dr. Danker, of course, says nothing of the relative merits of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures - he simply notes that the NT appeared prior to the Hebrew Scriptures.

Dr. Danker's estimation that the NWT Old Testament should not be "snubbed" is not shared by other scholars.  H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures:

"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader - if such it finds - and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God" (Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956).

See also the comments of Dr. Goodspeed as well.

Regarding Dr. Danker's contribution to BDAG on theos in John 1:1, see here.

- from a Jehovah's Witness posting on an online discussion board.

"If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole" (The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977).

Dodd doesn't say "a god" is an "acceptable" translation. He says it can't be faulted as a "literal" translation, but there's a big difference. Notice how Dodd qualifies the quote I provided: "If translation..." His point is that translation is not merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word. If it were, "a god" could not be "faulted." However, "only grammatical considerations" do not a proper translation make!

Dodd cites several examples where theos has the meaning of the "essence" of God (p. 104). He then concludes that the NEB translation "What God was the Word also was" is "an attempt" to get at the idea that John was expressing - namely, that in every sense that the Father is God, the Logos is also God (p. 104).

In this view, Dodd is in agreement with the overwhelming number of commentators and grammarians who've written on this subject. 

If the WT and Witness apologists use Dodd to defend the NWT translation in the face of accusations that it is ungrammatical, I cannot find fault with such a citation. However, that's not what this Jehovah's Witness was saying. He was advocating the NWT as a translation supported by scholars like Dodd. His selective quotation gives the impression that Dodd believes such a translation might be proper or acceptable, when this is not the case at all.

- Awake! (March 22, 1987)

"In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation Of The New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament translation is now far advanced. The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed -a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek and that made the Westcott and Hort Greek text basic to their translation. It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot or pseudo-historical fraud" ("The Use and Abuse of the Book of Revelation," Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966).

Aside from the negative portrayal of "doctrinal considerations," Mr. Gilmour made several factual errors in his comments about the NWT, indicating that he may not have been particularly familiar with the work he was reviewing (for more information, see Ian Croft's "The New World Translation and its Critics").

- Awake! (March 22, 1987).  This is reported to be a quote from a personal letter from Goodspeed to the WTB&TS

"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64).

Dr. Goodspeed was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures.  However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter.  The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original).  Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982.  Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts.  Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958.  Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.

- New World Translation, 1971, p. 1362 (appendix on John 1:1, quoting Green's Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 178).

The question, then, is what did John mean by the anarthrous theos?  The overwhelming majority of scholars who've addressed the subject understand John to be emphasizing the qualities or character of the Logos, particularly given that the noun is not only anarthrous, but preverbal as well.  The Watchtower, too, recognizes the qualitative aspects of theos in John 1:1c, though it differs from what most scholars mean by the term.

A larger issue, however, is the accusation that Green's analysis is "an unintended admission that 'the Word' is not the same god as the God."  Such a statement indicates that the Watchtower really doesn't understand Green's comments at all.  Green is demonstrating a rather elementary point of Greek grammar - that when two nouns are joined by a form of the verb 'to be,' if they both have the article, the clause may be termed a "convertible proposition."  In a convertible proposition, the two nouns are equivalent.  For example, "Jesus is the Son of God" is convertible - Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of God is Jesus.  The two terms are exactly equivalent.

Green's point is that John 1:1c is not convertible - if it were (that is, if theos were articular), John would have been asserting an exact equivalence between the God and the Word.  As Green puts it would mean that "the Word was the entire Godhead."  All of God would have been the Word, and the Word would have been the totality of God (to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit).  To argue that this statement is a tacit admission that the Word is "not the same god as the God" is both a strawman (because it fails to address the Trinitarian view of the Word's relationship to the Godhead) and a circular argument.  For only by assuming that the "Godhead" is one Person can one conclude that the Word cannot be the God He is with.

The Watchtower's confusion about what constitutes a convertible proposition may be seen in this same appendix, where we find on the one hand, "We agree with Dr. A. T. Robertson when he says: 'God and love are not convertible terms any more than God and Logos" (NWT, 1971, p. 1362); and on the other, "The proposition 'And the Word was a god' is a convertible one" (IBID, p. 1363).  Theos ên ho logos either is or is not a convertible proposition; it cannot be both.

- Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, "Jesus Christ"

If one reads his Commentary in its entirety, one discovers that Haenchen, like many German scholars of his generation (e.g., Becker), believes that John subordinates the Son of God to the Father.  However, in the very same paragraph quoted by the Watchtower, we see that Haenchen's view of subordination is not one of class of being, but of rank and order:

But there was no rivalry between the Logos as theos and as ho theos (in English the distinction is expressed by "divine" and "God"); the new (Christian) Faith does not conflict with the old monotheistic faith. That becomes clearer in verse 1c: "and divine in essence [German: Gott von Art]  was the Logos" In this instance, the verb "was" (en) simply expresses predication...

Funk's translation of "Gott von Art" as "divine (of the category divine)" is highly misleading.  For a discussion on the proper translation of this term, see the entry for Siegfried Schultz.

Earlier, Haenchen says that the Logos "existed before the creation and was not therefore created; it shared the highest of all distinctions with 'God, the Father' himself: the 'Logos' is eternal" (p. 108).

The Watchtower seems unaware (or uncaring) about the subtleties of Haenchen's Commentary.  The distinction he draws between the theos and ho theos is intended to prevent a modalistic equating of the two - a distinction upheld by Trinitarians.  The Watchtower is, apparently, content to use the words of scholars when they seem to support its theology, even when the meaning of those words does not.

- from an email dialog with the webmaster of the now-defunct Trinity Exposed Website.

- from Greg Stafford's second reply to me on the Julius Mantey letter to the WTB&TS.  I had asked Mr. Stafford for a list of scholars who unequivocally support the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

Regardless of Heinfetter's view of John 1:1c, he did not have the benefit of Colwell or Harner's studies, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the proper translation of John 1:1c.  His opinion is interesting from an historical perspective, but is of little value in determining the proper translation of John 1:1c, beyond perhaps demonstrating that "a god" is not impossible grammatically.

Here is what one expert has to say on the matter:

"The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated "the word was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order" (J. Warren Wells, "IMPORTANCE OF THE SAHIDIC LANGUAGE: IN RESEARCH AND TRANSLATION."

- from an online debate with one of Jehovah's Witnesses

If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to have written "and the Word was a god," this would appear to be evidence in favor of the NWT's rendering.  But, as we shall see, appearances can be deceiving.

The full citation of Horner's Coptic New Testament is as follows:

The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 4 Volumes (Oxford, 1911).

Horner's English translation of John 1:1c is as follows:

"...and [a] God was the Word."

Horner's critical apparatus defines the use of square brackets as follows:  "Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English" (p. 376).

How can Horner say that the indefinite article, while present in the Sahidic original, is not required in English?  

The answer lies in the usage of the Sahidic indefinite article itself.  We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect, p. 12).  An example of this usage may be found in John 1:16, which Horner translates:

Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in place of [a] grace.

More importantly, the indefinite article does not always denote class membership.  It can also used to attribute qualities or characteristics (what in Greek grammars is called a "qualitative usage" [e.g., Wallace, p. 244]):

Indefinite Article

one specimen of the lexical class of ... ;

one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of ... (Layton, Bentley, A Coptic Grammar With Chrestomathy and Glossary - Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edition, p. 43, "..." in original).

Dr. Layton explains further:  

The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: "is divine") or an entity ("is a god"); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.³

Examples of qualitative usage may be found in John 1:33 (which Horner renders "this is he who will baptize in [a] holy spirit and a flame") and John 3:6:

That which was begotten out of the flesh is [a] flesh, and that which was begotten out of the spirit is [a] spirit (Horner's translation).

So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have written "a god."  He was not equating the Word with the proper name God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued.  Dr. Layton says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the immediate context to help us?

I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative reading.  In the Sahidic version of John 1:18b, the anarthrous theos in the Greek is translated with the definite article.  Horner's translation reads as follows:

"God, the only Son."⁴

It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would understand John to have designated the Word "a god" in John 1:1 and "the God" in John 1:18.  Instead, his use of the definite article in verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing the qualities of Deity to the Word in John 1:1.

Click here to see an image with the first few verses of John's Gospel in Horner's Sahidic edition.  I have blogged on this topic further here.

See also Brian Wright, "Jesus as Theos: Scriptural Fact of Scribal Fantasy," note 34.  I did not have the benefit of Mr. Wright's article when I wrote my comments about Horner, and he has indicated in private email that he was unaware of my website.  Thus, we have each independently arrived at a similar conclusion, for much the same reasons.

 - from a prominent Jehovah's Witness Website

"The translator must know the subject. As we have seen in the past, people expressed distrust of translations by those belonging to another denomination or religious community, fearing that theological points of view would affect the translation. When translations are assessed in a professional manner it must be concluded that only in exceptional circumstances can one point to passages in which the doctrinal  (or political and social) point of view of the translators can be traced. Even the New World translation of the Jehovah Witnesses can withstand criticism on this point" ("De Kritiek op de Groot Nieuws Bijbel," Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 38, 1984, pp. 279-280). 

Click here for a somewhat longer excerpt from Houtman's article in Dutch, followed by a rather literal English translation.

Houtman says that the NWT may withstand criticism on the point that "only in exceptional circumstances" can one identify bias.  He does not claim the NWT is bias-free, as the JW website implies.

Further, while the article quoted only mentions the NWT tangentially, Professor Houtman has written two articles that specifically evaluate the NWT - and in his own words, those articles are "very critical."  Houtman assesses the NWT as follows: 

In my view, the New World Translation is an inadequate translation.  The Watchtower Society misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their context.⁵

Thus, it is certainly incorrect to claim that Professor Houtman endorses the NWT.

"The same thing occurred in the "New Testament," or Christian Greek Scriptures. Professor George Howard goes on to say: 'When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. ... Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars.'"

- "God's Name and the 'New Testament'", The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 2001)

George Howard's theory has been rejected by most - if not all - modern Biblical and Textual scholars.  In any case, his theory is that the New Testament authors retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted verses from the Old Testament that contained it. His theory thus has no relevance to most of the 237 instances where the NWT translators inserted "Jehovah" into their "Christian Greek Scriptures."

Professor Howard wrote two letters that have been made public which clarify his position:

June 5, 1989

Bob Hathaway
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624

Dear Mr. Hathaway:

My conclusions regarding the Tatragrammaton and the New Testament are:

1) the N.T. writers might have used the Tetragrammaton in their Old Testament quotations, and 2) it is possible (though less likely) that the Tetragrammaton was used in a few stereotype phrases such as "the angel of the Lord." Otherwise it probably was not used at all. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness translation that uses Jehovah many times. This goes beyond the evidence. I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. If the Jehovah Witnesses teach this (I’m not aware of most of their theology) they are off the mark.

Sincerely,

George Howard
Professor

Steven Butt
P.O. _____
Portland, ME 04104

Dear Mr. Butt:

Thank you for your letter of 3 January 1990. I have been distressed for sometime about the use the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making of my publications. My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW  theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.

Sincerely,

George Howard

For a detailed evaluation of Howard's study with reference to Watchtower claims, click here.

- from Greg Stafford's second reply to me on the Julius Mantey letter to the WTB&TS.  I had asked Mr. Stafford for a list of scholars who unequivocally support the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

Click here for the text of a letter to me on the subject of Jannaris and John 1:1 from Dr. Robert Keay of St. Andrews University, Scotland.

 - from a prominent Jehovah's Witness Website

In origin was the Word,
and the Word was toward [the] God,*
and god/deity/God* was the Word.

In a recently added note, Dr. Just explains what he was attempting in both versions of his translation:

So what did the Evangelist mean in John 1:1c? He certainly did not consider Jesus to be just one "divine being" or "deity" among many others. If he meant "divine" in this broader sense, he easily could have used the related Greek adjective, "ThEIOS," rather than the noun "ThEOS." (See, for example, the adjective "ThEIOS" used twice in 2 Peter 1:3-4, referring to "divine power" and "divine nature"). Other texts in John clearly show that the Fourth Evangelist sees Jesus in a unique relationship with God, calling him "the only-begotten son" (TON hUION TON MONOGENH; 3:16), challenging us to believe "in the name of the only-begotten son of God" (EIS TO ONOMA TOU MONOGENOUS hIOU TOU ThEOU; 3:18), referring to his glory "as of a father's only son" (hWS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS; 1:14), and even calling him "the only-begotten God" (MONOGENHS ThEOS; 1:18 - another difficult phrase, with several ancient textual variations).

To summarize: The Fourth Evangelist may not yet have thought of Jesus as the "second person of the Trinity" (theological language that took several centuries to develop in early Christianity - itself strongly influence by this Johannine passage); yet John certainly thought of Jesus as "divine" or "deity" or "god" in a unique sense, not merely "a god," or one deity among many. Exactly what he meant in John 1:1c may not be easy to understand, and it is even harder to translate into English because of the difficulties mentioned above. So rather than fixate on any particular English translation, even the best of which might confuse us or lead us astray, we should try to continue deepening our understanding of what John's entire Gospel says about the uniquely close relationship of Jesus and the Father.

You can read Dr. Just's translation and note here.

"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

- The Watchtower, 3/1/1991, p. 30

Benjamin Kedar received his PhD from Yale in 1969, but not in Hebrew.  He is professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  No doubt, Professor Kedar is knowledgeable about Hebrew, but he is not a recognized scholar in Biblical Languages.

In a form letter written to those asking for clarification of his apparent endorsement of the NWT, Professor Kedar writes:

"A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias."

It will be noted that Professor Kedar limits his comments to the Hebrew Bible.  Few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures.  Indeed, since the OT contains far fewer explicit Scriptures teaching the orthodox doctrines that the Watchtower denies - Christ's deity; the existence of the soul; and hellfire - it is not surprising that the NWT Hebrew Scriptures are relatively bias-free.

Professor Kedar, of course, says nothing of the relative merits of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures.

Professor Kedar's preference for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is not shared by other scholars.  H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures:

"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader - if such it finds - and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God" (Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956).

See also the comments of Dr. Goodspeed as well.

- from Greg Stafford's second reply to me on the Julius Mantey letter to the WTB&TS.  I had asked Mr. Stafford for a list of scholars who unequivocally support the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

Dear Robert

Thank you for your email. I am enclosing in this email the wording of my book which shows what I  was saying in its context and makes it clear that I would not consider 'the Word was a god' as an appropriate translation.  Context must determine meaning not just choices among possible grammatical alternatives.

Cheers,

Bill Loader

Dr. Loader is quite liberal in his approach to John's Gospel.  He ultimately defines the relationship of Father and Son as "not in substantial but in functional terms" (Loader, p. 202).  However, he clearly does not support "a god" as an appropriate translation of John 1:1c.

- from a prominent Jehovah's Witness Website

"As regards the expression 'divine being': one should perhaps not too quickly come to the conclusion that it necessarily means a 'secondary', 'lower', entity than God.  As you are aware, the mystery of the Trinity is just this, that the 'persons' can be both one Being and separate Beings at the same time.

"Thus Christ can say both, 'I and the Father are One', and 'the Father is greater than I'; further: 'I in the Father, and the Father in me.'

"To the everyday human mind, these seem incompatible statements.  How very appropriate, therefore, that we also hear the Comforter (coming from the Father and in the name of Christ) will 'teach us everything'.

"In other words, a new kind of thinking is needed which will not only help us 'understand' this mystery but will 'bring to mind all that Christ said and did', so forming the basis for the Christian life." (Jon Madsen to Robert Hommel, email dated 1/27/2006).

Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone.  That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140, paragraph vii.  Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence:

"The article sometimes