Truth in Translation

Reply:

Unfortunately, some only quote pertinent parts of the book to their own trinitarian advantage and not other important parts such as what Prof. BeDuhn himself says. As BeDuhn criticises other translations, he will also obviously criticises the NWT.

So, what conclusion does Prof. BeDuhn come to on say John 1:1c? I have also enclosed a reply from a Baptist who read the book and replied to the part dealing with Chapter 11 regarding John 1:1

Regarding Chapter 11

John 1:1

As it might be thought that what Dr BeDuhn has written regarding how best to render QEOS EN HO LOGOS as "the Word was divine" and this somehow undermines the rendering of "the Word was a god" and even obviates the Witnesses 'use' of Dr BeDuhn regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the following may prove helpful to explain a little more this scholars reasons for his preference in both translation _and_ understanding.

These are Prof. BeDuhn’s own words, not mine, not twisted, not taken out of context, not mis-quoted and so on, but his own words!

Dr BeDuhn himself has written:

"It is true that the most formal, literal translation of the words in John 1:1c would be "and the Word was a god." The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more commonly seen, traditional translation, "and the Word was God." However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of a passage as a whole.

"The grammatical construction used here can be called the qualitative or categorical use of the indefinite. Basically, that means x belongs to the category y, or "x is a y." The examples I used in a letter now widely circulated are "Snoopy is a dog"; "The car is a Volkswagen"; and "John is a smart person." The common translation "The Word was God" is as erroneous for this construction as it would be to say in English "Snoopy is dog"; "The car is Volkswagen"; or "John is smart person." The indefinite article is mandatory because we are talking about a member of a class or category.

"Sometimes in English we can accomplish the same syntactical function by using a predicate adjective in place of the indefinite noun phrase. In the examples I gave above, this only works with "John is a smart person," which means the same thing as "John is smart." What Harner calls the qualitative sense is the same as what I call the categorical sense. In the many examples throughout the New Testament of the same grammatical construct as found in John 1:1c, the indefinite noun used is always a class or category to which the subject is said to belong. But in several of these examples, the category is used to suggest the quality the subject has, as in the many "a son of x" expressions found in the New Testament.

"Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for John quality was the centre of focus rather than category"" Being honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER "And the Word was a god" OR "And the Word was divine." I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything about that. If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I would be committing the same offense as those who have said that "And the Word was God" is the only possible translation. The whole point of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.

"What I can say is that "And the Word was God" is extremely difficult to justify, because it goes against the plain grammar of the passage. Either of the other two translations are acceptable, because the Greek allows them, while it does not obviously allow the traditional translation. What your correspondent needs to understand, in dealing with others on this question, is that the wording "The Word was divine" agrees 100% in meaning with "The Word was a god" and only 50% with "And the Word was God." What must be given up from the latter wording is the absolute identity between Word and God that the traditional translation tried to impose. John clearly did not intend to make such an absolute identification, and that is precisely why he very carefully manipulates his word in the passage to rule it out. But, yes, John is putting the Word into the "god" or "divine" category, and that is as true if the wording is "a god" or "divine."

"Remember, the Word is not a human person, and John does not use "god" for the Word to say he is talking about a prophet or a leader or an important person. The Word is a superhuman (hence "divine") essence or being, very intimately connected to The God. How intimately? In what way connected? In what precise relationship? The answers to those questions are much more involved, and must be based on a reading of the Gospel of John as a whole, where John works very hard to make it all clear. And yes, there will be disagreements about how to understand this larger picture John is trying to convey.

"Of course, if your correspondent is using what I have written in arguments with people who favor the traditional translation, they are likely to seize upon my acceptance of "The Word was divine" as somehow a defense of their view. That is also something that cannot be helped. The idea of a Trinity developed over the centuries after the Gospel of John was written precisely as one solution to the questions raised by John's wording. The JWs have a different solution to those same questions. I am not in a position to arbitrate such historical interpretations of the text. I think John went as far as he felt inspired to go in his understanding of things, and I do not fault him for not going further and for not answering all of the additional questions people have been able to raise since his time.

"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."

Jason BeDuhnAssociate Professor of Religious Studies, and ChairDepartment of Humanities, Arts, and ReligionNorthern Arizona University.10/2/2001

And, just to repeat what Prof. BeDuhn said (his exact own words):

"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.”The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."


Prof. BeDuhn's own words prove that individuals like Larry who try to use Prof. BeDuhn's remarks about the NWT, trying to justify their Trinitarian stance, do not merit any attention and do not duly disturb any seekers of the truth.

Baptist post:

The following was posted onto the "Bible Translation mailing list" Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:35:42

"I have been reading 'Truth in Translation' by Jason David BeDuhn (ISBN: 0761825568). The subtitle is: 'Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.'"His premise is that we should derive our theology from the Bible, and not determine our translation by our theology. He then sets about examining a number of texts and showing where he thinks bias has crept in. His arguments are robust and certainly not far-fetched. The trouble is I am left feeling very uneasy."He ends up arguing for the superior accuracy and neutrality of the NWT, and all the texts he examines are notorious for being points of difference between JWs and trinitarian Christians. Chapter 11 is devoted to John 1:1. We all know the line of thinking: although, technically, the end of the verse could be translated 'and the Word was a god', trinitarian Christians go with 'the Word was God' because we assume that John, here and elsewhere in his Gospel, has a firm (if proto-) trinitarian understanding. The usual defence is that QEOS is anarthrous (article dropped) because it is a predicate and preceeds the verb eimi (to be). (Colwell's rule)."But BeDuhn seems to demolish this by citing other instances where the definite article is kept with a predicated nominative, including John 1:4: 'the light was the light of men' (also 6:51, 15:1, 20:15)."BeDuhn supports the view of one Harner who suggests that predicate nouns without the article and placed before the verb describe or define the character of the sentence's subject i.e. that is has a qualitative reference. BeDuhn would translate 'the Word was divine'."I am stumped as to find an adequate rebuttal to BeDuhn - or maybe there isn't one. Anyone who has read his book will be in the best position to answer, though I hope others will have a contribution to."In raising all this, I do not want to get into a theological debate, nor an anti/pro-JW stance (I'm a Baptist); I simply want to open up the translation issues." By David Dewey

Prof. BeDuhn is not a J/W, and is not connected with us in any way.

I will be bringing out an additional reply, supplimenting what Prof. BeDuhn says regarding John 1:1c using the (Sahidic) Coptic Gospel of John, which shows that the NWT and other translations are correct in rendering John 1:1c as, "a god" and not "god"...

Best wishes,

letusreason