One of John's early ventures into Apologetics was dialoguing with Prof. Jason Beduhn over the accuracy of the New World Translation of the bible, the translation produced and distributed by the Watchtower Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses. John was a maverick at the time (and still is...even if a little older). Prof. Beduhn's comments are in red. Pacheco's comments are in blue. The challenges taken from a now unavailable website are in greeen.
Opening Remarks
Dear Professor:
I have been in a dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness. He quoted you as saying that the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) is "the best interlinear New Testament available" (The Watchtower, Feb. '98). I would be very interested in your comments since this translation is rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars, who have an opposite opinion to your own. It seems to me from comparing a number of passages with a number of Protestant and Catholic bibles, the KIT and associated New World Translation (NWT) are very poor and flawed. Would you care to comment?
Dear Mr. Pacheco:
Thank you for your inquiry. My reason for favouring the KIT are quoted accurately in the Watchtower article. The book is handy for classroom use and provides a fresh, literal translation that avoids traditional readings, which in my opinion, fall short of conveying the meaning of the original Greek text.
You say that, 'from all scholarly accounts' the JW translations are 'very poor and flawed'. And you refer to 'the vast majority of scholars having an opinion opposite to my own'. I would be very interested to know what 'scholarly accounts' you mean.
Since the appearance of the watchtower article, I have been flooded with phone calls, letters, and E-mails from people who have the same understanding as yourself, and provide me with names and quotes of those who have criticized the JW's bible translation. I have studied and checked these references carefully. I have to say that most of the 'scholars' quoted are not 'scholars' at all, but highly biased and ill-informed critics of the JWs as a 'cult', whose sole purpose is to attack the JWs, warn people to stay away from them, and try to win JWs from their community. I have no interest at all in modern denominational conflicts in Christianity. I am a historian and a linguist whose only interest in this matter is to see the New Testament translated in a way that accurately reflects the thinking and culture of its ancient authors.
Only a couple reputable scholars have ventured to give any opinion at all on the JW's translation. The 'vast majority of scholars' have no opinion on it, since they have never read it, and any way are not involved in modern bible wars, nor care to be. People like Metzger and Mantey, who generally are thought well of in biblical studies, have spoken out against the translation. But in my opinion, they have mixed theological argument with linguistic argument in their criticism, and this is not legitimate. I would be willing to argue against these gentlemen on the issue of the accuracy of the translation. Sure, it has some weaknesses and faults, as any translation does, and I would like to see it improved. But overall, it is fairly accurate and reliable. The only basis on which it is legitimate to judge a New Testament translation is to compare it to the Greek original, and see how closely it follows the Greek text. The KIT bible, of course, includes a very accurate and consistent interlinear, but even the NWT printed in the right hand margin should be given high marks by this standard.
Intermediate remarks
I want to thank you for your last E-mail regarding your preference for the KIT. I recognize that you are a busy person, so I will make this as short as possible.
The reason I ventured to query you is because the New World Translation (NWT) differs substantially from all of the other bible translations that I have read (7 or 8) - either Protestant or Catholic. This is especially true in its translation of passages dealing with the traditional doctrines of Christianity such as the divinity of Christ. One thing is therefore certain: the NWT and these other translations cannot be BOTH correct. So when I said that the 'vast majority of biblical scholars' would reject the NWT, I was making the assumption that they considered the existing 'traditional' translations valid. If they didn't, there would be, I would think, many more translations which differed from the 'traditional' ones. Since there are not many of these 'alternative' translations (at least to my knowledge), then it only follows that most biblical scholars agree with these translations. That means, of course, that the NWT is way off.
All of these other translations, whose biblical scholars (Protestant and Catholic) have worked INDEPEDENTLY and OVER DIFFERENT DECADES AND CENTURIES, are remarkably consistent in their treatment of the central Christian doctrines, with little variance. This is not so with the NWT as you are probably aware. Now, am I to believe that all of these scholars including St. Jerome, who was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, making him a much better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures, are wrong and the translators of the NWT, who remain ANONYMOUS, are correct?
I presume you are speaking primarily of English translations when you compare "all of these other translations" to the NWT. I think you are oversimplifying when you stack all of the other translations together against the NWT. There is a significant amount of variance among English translations, and even when it comes to some of the most controversial NWT translations, usually some other English bible can be found that agrees. But it is true that many English bibles sound alike, and somewhat different from the NWT. The principal reason for this is that the English bible is dominated by the Standard Bible tradition, that is, the long shadow of the King James Version which is very hard to break with. You are actually playing the role of the perfect example why it is so hard to depart from the Standard tradition -- people object and fear that something is being "changed" or "distorted." Bible translators frequently struggle against the perception that the old way of translating is the correct way and that any change is heresy. In fact we are learning to read New Testament Greek better all of the time, as we get our hands on more and more comparable literature from the ancient world. So revision of English translations is essential if we biblical scholars are to share with the larger public closer access to the original meaning of the biblical text.
So, in short, you have to take account of the influence of the older translations, and the reluctance to depart radically from it, even when a new understanding of the Greek urges you to translate differently. The NWT sounds so different PRIMARILY because it didn't lean on the Standard tradition at all, and only SECONDARILY because of attention to doctrinal issues. As for Jerome, he was an educated man and, you are right, closer to the time of the NT, but like anyone he made mistakes and as a hermit had access to much fewer resources and reference material to help him.
Very well then, professor, perhaps we should look at some passages to see if we can come to some kind of understanding or consensus on this matter.
Session 1
A)
In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek. Especially compare the Greek word "proskuneo" used with reference to God in Rev. 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?
You are correct that the NWT is inconsistent in how it translates forms of 'proskuneo'. This word literally means to prostrate oneself, to bow down or to kiss the ground before someone. So, for example, when one of the gospels says that the disciples "worshipped" Jesus, it means that they knelt or bowed down around him, as an act of deference and reverence. The old English word "obeisance" means the same thing, and in the time of the King James version "worship" also meant that. King James' own subjects might be expected to "worship" him, by bowing down before him. But in modern English, we have forgotten this meaning of "worship" and take the word to refer to an act of prayer or veneration to God. The NWT tries to preserve the range of meaning of the Greek by using obeisance when dealing with a physical act in the presence of Jesus, and using worship when it refers to an abstract concept of reverence to God who is not physically present to the worshipper. I think the NWT would do better if it picked one word that carries the full range of meaning and used it consistently. Obviously what they have done raises questions about the motivation for the choice.
I find your response quite remarkable. You admit an inconsistency in the translation, but you defend the NWT, claiming that it 'preserves the range of meaning of the Greek.' First of all, you admit the translation is NOT consistent in its translation of the word 'proskuneo'. This is simply because the JWs do not want to admit that Jesus is God so they have changed the word in English. You are not the only one which questions their motivation in doing so - all other Christians do as well. Secondly, the word 'proskuneo' is used in reference to God AND to Jesus. You claim that the word can be used for 'reverence' instead of the traditional rendering of 'worship'. If that is the case, then why would the New Testament writers use that exact word when describing what we should do to GOD (Cf. Rev. 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, Jn 4:20)? Are you saying that the NT writers meant that we should pay only 'reverence' to God and not 'worship'? And if that were the case, then the NWT must use 'obeisance' in both places to be consistent, which it does not. Conversely, IF the NT writers wanted to convey that we should 'worship' Jesus, then what word would they use? It is clear that the intent of the translators of the NWT is to separate the idea of Christ as God, and that is the reason for their DECEPTIVE translation. The JWs begin with presupposition that Jesus MUST not be God, therefore He must not be worshipped - hence the 'inconsistency'.
I agreed with you that the NWT should try to be more consistent in translating the word. I also said that the English word "worship" is misleading (can we say 'deceptive'?) in that, to a modern audience, it implies a meaning exclusively reserved for action towards a god. The Greek 'proskuneo' does not have that restricted sense, and one can prostrate before any number of superior people and beings. Now I for one cannot come up with a single English word that conveys that range of meaning, so I am not going to give the JWs too much grief for not being better than I am when it comes to making perfect translations. The authors of the New Testament used a common word for showing reverence to a superior. It has a broad sense, not a restrictive one. English readers have a right to know what the Greek means, don't they? The JW solution is not the best one, but nor is it proper to continue to mislead people into thinking that anytime a writer uses 'proskuneo' he means an action restricted to a divine being.
The problem with taking such a strident attitude in this conversation is that, as intelligent and educated as you are, you are working in this particular subject with a lack of basic information about the origins of the New Testament, and the linguistic and cultural background that allows us to understand its meaning. Yes, you are perfectly able to reason from the facts to a sound conclusion -- the trouble is, where are the facts? I have tried to provide some of these, and will provide what more I can now. I do not have any illusion that you will radically change your opinion. All that I hope is that you will see that from a historical and linguistic standpoint, the Bible is not always as simple and clear as we would like to think.
You claim that 'proskuneo' CAN be used for reverence. So what!!! Just because 'proskuneo' CAN mean 'reverence', does that mean that it DOES, in fact, mean 'reverence'? The question becomes how do we OBJECTIVELY tell what the sacred writers MEANT when they wrote this word? Regardless of the possible meaning of the word, therefore, what must be determined is which interpretation (and therefore translation) is the correct one. You assert that "English readers have a right to know what the Greek MEANS, don't they?" Yes, they most certainly do. In order for readers to know what the Greek 'means' , they need someone to INTERPRET the Scriptures for them and (through its logical extension) translate it in appropriate language. In order to interpret the Scriptures, they must convey the 'authentic and true meaning' of what those Scriptures are trying to say. In your opening remarks, you noted that I have a 'lack of basic information about the origins of the New Testament, and the linguistic and cultural background that allows us to understand its meaning'. In your first E-mail, you stated that your "only interest in this matter is to see the New Testament translated in a way that accurately reflects the thinking and culture of its ancient authors."
Let us therefore turn our attention to your objective of addressing the underlying question in this case: what did the sacred writers mean by writing 'proskuneo'. Now, you are quite correct that translators should not translate in a vacuum but consider the cultural and historic background. Let us take as our premise, therefore, the following rule proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas: the nearer a thing is to a subject, the more likely it is to be correct. Hence, by that maxim, the earliest Christians would be in a better position to understand the correct interpretation of the Gospel writers than anyone today since, by definition, the early Christians were closer to the Gospel writers. Here are some of their beliefs:
The Didache (60-70 A.D.)
The Didache is a short but important early Christian work, presenting a summary of Christian moral and theological belief. Modern acquaintance with the complete text dates from 1873 when a manuscript (from 1056) was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople.
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
The Didache also acknowledges Christ to be Lord and the God of David (10, 6)
Clement of Rome (96 A.D)
"The Scepter of majesty of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, did not appear in pomp and state, although He might have, but in humility." (16,2)
Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.)
"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).
He also clearly teaches about Jesus Christ's Godhead and Sonship of God. He frequently calls Christ, 'God'. He taught that Jesus "spoke and it is become" (Eph. 15,1,), and that "the Physician is one, in flesh and spirit, generated and ungenerated, God appearing in flesh, true life in flesh, from Mary as well as from God, first capable of suffering and then incapable of suffer, Jesus Christ our Lord."
Aristides of Athens (140 A.D.)
"The Christians derive their origin from Jesus Christ. The latter is called the son of the Supreme God, and it is said of him that he as God descended from heaven and took flesh of a Hebrew virgin, and adopted it to himself and so the Son of God took up dwelling in a daughter of men."
Letter to Diognetus (150 A.D.)
"Their tradition is not an earthly invention, nor is it a mortal thought which they so carefully guard, nor a dispensation of human mysteries which is committed to their charge; but God Himself, the omnipotent and invisible Creator, has from heaven established among men His Truth and His Word, and has deeply fixed the same in their hearts; not, as might be expected, sending an angel or a subordinate messenger to teach them, but the very Maker of the Universe Himself..."
Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.)
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 151]).
In his dialogue with the Jew Tryphon (c.48-108) supplies a detailed proof of the Godhead and Sonship of God of Jesus Christ from the writings of the Old Testament. He says of Christ, that He, the Son of the Creator of the World, pre-existed as God and that He was born as a man of the maiden (Dial.48.) (Cf. Apol 1, 63).
"...nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (First Apology of Justin, Ch LXIII).
"...by now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called by God and the Lord of hosts..." (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XXXVI).
"...Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. (Ibid. Ch. LXIII).
Clement of Alexandria (153-217 A.D.)
"...For 'before the morning star was;' and 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and "This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well being, this very Word ha now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man..." and "The Word", who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends." (Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch. 1)
Athenagoras (177 A.D.)
"The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by `the Son,' I will tell you briefly: He is the first- begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things" (Plea for the Christians 10:2-4 [A.D. 177]).
Theophilus of Antioch (181 A.D.)
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus of Lyons (120-202 A.D.)
"...and raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King..." (Against Heresies, Bk 1, Ch. 10)
"...But that He is in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets and apostles, and by the Holy Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth." (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Ch. 19)
St. Irenaeus provided one of the most exact definitions of the Trinity in his masterpiece, "Against the Heresies" (Adv. Haer. I 10, I; IV, 20, I. Epideixis 6 et seq.; 47)
[St. Polycarp, the aged bishop of Smyrna, had for THIRTY years been a disciple and companion of the Apostle St. John. St. Irenaeus, who was a pupil of Polycarp, gives a graphic account of their familiar intercourse. He writes: " I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent occurrence. The lessons of childhood grow with the growth of the soul, and become one with it. And so I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he made to the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate all in keeping with the Scriptures..."]
Tertullian (145-220 A.D.)
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, 'oikonomia', there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . .this rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).
"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one Being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).
"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).
Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.)
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).
"For he speaks to this effect: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' and 'Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Ch. 14).
"For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings" (The Refutation of All Heresies).
Origen (184-254 A.D.)
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a Being outside himself, so that there were a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (Origen De Principiis 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).
"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words `when' and `never' are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" (ibid.)
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.)
"For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal" (ibid. 4:1.32)
Novatian (235 A.D.)
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).
Pope Dionysius (262 A.D.)
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).
"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1-2)
Pope Dionysius (265 A.D.)
"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the Universe. `For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and `I am in the Father, and the Father in me'" (ibid., 3).
Gregory the Wonderworker (265 A.D)
"There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D.265]).
Therefore, Professor, based on the very logical rule established above, we see that, at the very least, the early Christian leaders (most of whom were Bishops) did believe in the Divinity of Christ, as Tradition has long understood it in the Trinitarian formula. So I come back to you, and say: In light of their understanding of Jesus as God, how can 'proskuneo' NOT mean worship? I mean who better to say what the word means then the people closest to the people who wrote the Gospels themselves?
The creeds are a couple hundred years later than the Gospel of John. By that time, several attempts had been made to determine exactly what status Jesus held for Christians. As Christianity spread among former pagans, it was quite easy for them to accept the idea that God was a god, and Jesus was a god too. But this was a crisis for the older Jewish-Christians, who were prepared to consider Jesus as Messiah, and as son of God in an adoptionist sense, and even as God's creative word, but not as the same and one and only God. Christians had a lot of work ahead of them resolving these tensions, and it took several hundred years before a consensus took hold.
You object that Christianity did not have the 'consensus' until several hundred years. You assert that "the creeds are a couple hundred years later than the Gospel of John. By that time, several attempts had been made to determine exactly what status Jesus held for Christians. As Christianity spread among former pagans, it was quite easy for them to accept the idea that God was a god...Christians had a lot of work ahead of them resolving these tensions, and it took several hundred years before a consensus took hold." While it is true that Christ's divinity was denied throughout its history, most notably by Cerithus, the Ebionites, the dynamic or Adoptian Monarchists, the Arians and in modern times by the rationalism of the Enlightenment and modern liberal theology, your claim that there 'were several attempts to determine exactly what status Jesus held for Christians' is false. Christian Tradition has always believed in the Divinity of Christ, and the Creeds were merely formal definitions against the attacks of heretics who sought to dilute and distort EXISTING CHRISTIAN doctrine as St. Peter had so rightly warned (Cf. 2 Peter 2:1, 3:16). The Nicean Creed which formally condemned Arianism was not until 325 A.D. The above references are well before this time. Incidentally, you are quite mistaken to link the definition of a creed with the beginning of 'consensus'. Christian doctrine is not a matter of 'consensus' although much of Protestant Christianity seems to think it is. It is a matter of passing down the ORAL and written traditions of the Apostles. The inevitable question which this leads to is quite interesting. Ultimately, we must ask: Who speaks for Christianity in deciding what Christianity believes since the bible apparently cannot be a decisive instrument in doing so? This will lead to the question of Authority and the concept of a revealed Truth which I will explore briefly later on.
It is sufficient for our purposes here, however, to recognize that the original Apostles appointed certain men in their places (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) to carry out the authority given to them by Christ to teach. (This fact cannot be contested, at least from a historical point of view.) Hence, these men passed down what they had learned to the next generation and so on. These bishops have always believed that Jesus was God, and their testimony and decrees prove it. Hence, those bishops in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries are better judges of what the original Apostles meant when the sacred writers wrote 'proskuneo' than you or I or the JWs are who come 15 to 19 CENTURIES AFTER THE FACT, don't you think Professor? And if the early Christians believed Jesus was God and would agree that 'proskuneo' should be translated 'worship', then why do you believe that it is possible to do otherwise? Surely, you will recognize the indispensable CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS, AND HISTORIC context that is required in order to give an authentic interpretation of any literary piece, don't you?
The Professor's response to my rebuttal on this section is incorporated in Session 2.
[End of Discussion on this passage]
B)
The NWT translates the Greek word 'kyrios' ( Gr - lord) as 'Jehovah' more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word 'Jehovah' translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating 'kyrios' (kurion) as 'Jehovah' in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21?
Actually, the NWT does not translate 'kyrios' as 'Jehovah,' it actually replaces it by inserting the name of God into the text. The JWs spend a lot of time explaining why they feel justified in doing this (for example, in the appendix of the KIT). They rightly point out that in many cases the New Testament is quoting an Old Testament passage where the Hebrew does have God's name, not the word 'Lord'. Still, as a biblical scholar I object to intruding the name Jehovah into the New Testament text. Although some the NT writers show that they know this name of God, none of them makes a point of introducing it, and not a single Greek manuscript supports putting the name in. So this is a criticism I have of the NWT. Ironically, the RSV and other Bibles in the Standard Version tradition commit the opposite offense in the OT, they replace Yahweh/Jehovah with 'Lord', which is not in the Hebrew manuscripts on which the Bible is based.
The second question is the more important one: "Why is the NWT not consistent in translating 'kyrios' (kurion) as 'Jehovah' in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21". Again, Professor this is another 'inconsistency'. It is strange that all of the 'inconsistencies' of the NWT favour the JW view of Jesus not being equal to God, don't you think? I mean, if they were truly 'inconsistencies', as you claim , then you would certainly think that, based on probabilities, they should err on the other side as well. They do not, however, allow the law of probabilities to influence them to this side do they? Strange, don't you think?
Perhaps my previous answer was not clear, because you persist in saying that 'Jehovah' is intended as a translation of the Greek 'kyrios', and so you talk of inconsistency in translation. The Greek word 'kyrios' means 'Lord'. It was used in the time of the NT for gods, kings, governors, masters, etc. It was also used by the Jews as a euphemism for God's name, which Jewish tradition forbids to be spoken aloud. That is why, in most English translations of the Old Testament, the name of God YHWH is replaced (not translated) with the word 'Lord'. In the New Testament, the title 'Lord' is used of both God and of Jesus. The exact referent depends on context and sometimes, frankly, we're not sure which is meant. Jesus is the personal lord of Christians in the NT, God the Father is the ultimate lord. The JWs have sought to restore the name of God, particularly in those passages of the New Testament where an Old Testament passage is quoted in which the Hebrew has YHWH. In those passages where this is not the case, and where they feel that the reference is to Jesus, not God the Father, they have translated kyrios as 'Lord'. Because I am an historian, I believe that the translation of the NT should follow the manuscripts, not add elements based on modern wishes. Therefore I think that 'kyrios' should always be retained, and translated, not replaced with the name of God, regardless of what the Old Testament does. But the JWs are not being deceptive, they are perfectly open about their commitment to the name of God and their motivations for inserting it into the NT text. I simply do not share their sentiment in this matter.
So, in other words, the JWs should have used 'Lord' to refer to both Jesus and God, and therefore, their translation is a faulty one. What you are saying is that, in effect, IF you begin with the PRESUPPOSITION that Jesus was not God, THEN (and only then) is it legitimate to translate 'kyrios' as 'Lord' for Jesus and 'Jehovah' for God. This is a classical CIRCULAR argument:
i) Jesus was not God. ii) The NWT is translated with this theological presupposition - hence the different translations of 'kyrios' - where 'kyrios' speaks about Jesus, it is translated 'Lord'; where 'kyrios' speaks about God, it is translated 'Jehovah'. iii) Why do Witnesses believe that Jesus was not God? Because the NWT suggests that he wasn't!!!
Secondly, in the Old Testament, you commented that the Standard Version tradition 'replaces Yahweh/Jehovah with 'Lord', which is not in the Hebrew manuscripts on which the bible is based.' So what?!? The Hebrew canon might not use 'Lord' but the Alexandrian canon does so over 6000 times, and the writers of the Greek Septuagint seem to equate 'Lord' with God so why don't you? Are you going to tell them that that was not legitimate??? The Catholic Bible is based on the Greek Septuagint which the Christian Church accepted for the first fifteen centuries, but this is another issue...
Secondly, how can Jesus NOT be equal to God, the Father, (and therefore 'kyrios' refers to God) when these verses are considered:
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD a thing to be grasped..." (Philippians 2:6)
This is a notoriously difficult passage. The Greek means that Jesus did not snatch at equality with God, and the reference seems to be to a contrast with Adam, who did snatch at it. Jesus as the second or New Adam seems to be the image at work in this passage. Notice how the rest of the passage goes on to say, after all of Jesus' efforts and self-sacrifice, "THEREFORE, God has highly exalted him..." -- in other words, as a reward or consequence of what he has done. The same idea is found at the beginning of Romans and throughout Hebrews. Jesus exaltation to the right hand of God is a post-resurrection event. John disagrees.
It COULD be a contrast with Adam, but the passage does not suggest that this is St. Paul's intent at all. The next verse talks of Jesus 'emptying Himself' and 'becoming a servant'. In other words, although He was God, he did not let this stop Him from assuming human form, and becoming something that is below his EQUALITY with God. Furthermore, you have made the observation that John 'disagrees' with Paul because you recognize a 'tension' between John's understanding of Jesus' resurrection and Paul's understanding of it. This is a considerable difficulty for someone who thinks the bible is inerrant or infallible - after all, the Apostle's have to agree with one another on who Jesus is, don't they? All of this private interpretation of scripture is meaningless, however. Once you start saying 'the Greek means', then you are effectively interpreting the text. It seem to me, therefore, that translation cannot be separated from interpretation.
Remembering there are no gods with God (Cf. Deuteronomy 32:39), "For in Him all the fullness of DEITY dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over ALL RULE AND AUTHORITY." (Colosians 2:9-10)
Yes, the full set of divine qualities. This is a point of agreement with John: Jesus shows to us what God is like, he manifests the divine character, and in that sense is one with God, because his thought and behavior is perfectly conformed to God's will.
Is that what the passages says - 'the full set of divine qualities'? Doesn't it say 'the fullness of deity'? Which view is closer to this passage - the Trinitarian view or the subordinationist one? For instance, would an Arian say that Jesus possessed the 'fullness of deity'?
"...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, and we exist through Him." (1 Corinthians 8:6).
Paul in Colossians and Hebrews seems to agree that Jesus is the agent of creation, that he actually is the creator, following the will of God (or as the actual will of God itself -- so John)
But remember professor, Genesis 1:1 says, "God created heaven and earth" not "God created heaven and earth by His agent, who was a creature."
[End of discussion on these passages.]
C)
C)
The NWT translates the Greek words 'ego eimi' as 'I am' every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as 'I have been'. What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If 'ego eimi' was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?
John 8:58 is best translated 'I am before Abraham'. The awkwardness of the passage is due to the fact that Jesus uses an idiomatic way of speaking that doesn't translate easily into English. He refers to Abraham in the past tense, and himself in the present, literally 'I am before Abraham was'. Now your and my elementary English teacher would mark that wrong on something we wrote; it is not proper to mix tenses in English. The NWT tries to solve this by constructing a close tense agreement. But I have to say it really doesn't work very well.
The significance of Jesus saying 'I am' is certainly not lost on the JWs. They know that 'I am' is what God calls Himself (Cf. Exodus 3:14). So in order to break this connection, they replace 'I am' with 'I have been'. Not only is 'I am' what God calls Himself, it also indicates HOW He exists i.e. past, present, future. To replace this phrase with 'I have been' completely changes the significance of Jesus' words as the JWs know. This is nothing less than CLEAR and OUTRIGHT distortion and deception, don't you think?
This is another example of the common English translation being misleading. It is merely a fluke of the King James version that the subject and verb of this sentence are displaced to the end of the sentence. It is a Shakespearean, poetic kind of flourish which sounds really good. But it has absolutely no religious significance. In this verse, as in over half-a-dozen others in John, Jesus says 'I am x', 'I am y'. It is an ordinary be-verb sentence with an object. It is misleading to isolate the 'I am' as if it stands alone. Jesus does not say 'I am I AM', he says 'I am (a being who has been in existence since) before Abraham was.' The JWs try to solve this, but because they were trying to stick so literally to the Greek, their hands were tied and they ended up producing an awkward sounding sentence that only draws undue attention to itself.
Firstly, am I to believe there is no Greek rendering 'I have been'? If there is such a rendering, then why was it not used here? 'I have been' denotes the past tense, 'I am' is a very strange way of speaking indeed which calls our attention to who Jesus is. For you to say that 'I AM' 'has absolutely no religious significance' is a personal judgement outside the bounds of your expertise, don't you think Professor? I mean, after all, it is YOU who say that it has 'no religious significance'. Most biblical scholars and billions of Christians would beg to differ with you on this point. Secondly, it is really beside the point whether 'I AM' is placed at the end of the sentence or before. The key is that 'I am' appears as the Greek renders it. Once you start taking such liberty with Holy Writ, then you create a meaning which may restrict a reader's interpretation of a passage as this one clearly does. At least, 'I am before Abraham was' allows for both the traditional and JW interpretation. The same cannot be said for the JW translation, 'I have been before Abraham was.' Indeed, the religious significance of 'I AM' is lost in this translation, your dismissal of its 'religious insignificance' notwithstanding.
Sorry that I wasn't clearer about what I meant by 'no religious significance.' I meant that even the JW translation conveys the pre-existence of Jesus, that is that he is basically immortal. You don't lose anything that the passage truly conveys with the JW translation. What you do lose is the false impression that the 'I AM' is to be isolated as a divine title or name. It is not so intended in the Gospel of John, not based on my own religious interpretation, but on how 'ego eimi' functions in this clause and in other clauses in John. It is simply the first person pronoun with the present tense be-verb, and here and elsewhere it actually has an object (the dependent clause 'before Abraham came to be'), and is not to be isolated. The fact that the Greek can mix tenses is something we must accept, and cannot insist that the Greek obey English rules. What looks startling in English is not startling in Greek. I hardly think that 'most Biblical scholars' would disagree with me about this and, by the way, there are only 1 billion Christians, most of whom, of course, have never even thought about these issues, so the hyperbole really doesn't help your case. What you are doing is introducing a particular significance (Jesus' 'I am' = God's OT declaration 'I am') that the Greek of the Gospel of John does not carry. I could go back to Abraham's often repeated declaration 'Here I am!' and argue that Abraham is God if I were to follow your example.
You have put your finger on this whole question in general and the passage in particular: "It is not so intended in the Gospel of John, not based on MY OWN RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION..." Exactly, professor. This is a significant difficulty for me. Based on your interpretation of the passage, you restrict the meaning of the passage, excluding an interpretation which you do not agree with. Yet, your first statement on this passage was that it is "best translated 'I am before Abraham'". In my opinion, you should have considered this when assessing the NWT, which has a second rate translation for this passage.
[End of discussion on this passage.]
D)
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as '... and the Word was WITH God as the Word was a god'. How can the Word (Jesus) be 'a god' if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me...."?
I don't know, you would have to ask John. He no doubt faced similar objections from Jews and Jewish-Christians in his own time when he made the bold step of declaring even that "The word was divine" (which is how I would translate John 1:1). The NWT translation is an improvement over the traditional one, but it only raises more problems than it solves for a modern audience. In any case, for John to say "the word was with God and the word was God" would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st Century audience. First of all, it's a non sequiter. Second, the Greek construct he uses would mean that only exceptionally. John is putting the Word into the divine class of things (as opposed to the human, or animal, or vegetable, or what have you). That's a bold enough step beyond what the other gospels do, and I don't think we should ask more of John 1:1 than the Greek allows.
You state "for John to say 'the word was with God and the word was God' would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st Century audience." Oh really? Why is that? We KNOW that the early Christians worshipped Jesus as God as evidenced by their creeds so why would this be a 'real stretch in comprehension.' Later you state "it's a non sequiter". It is no such thing. It would be a non sequiter if you start with the PRESUPPOSTION that Jesus was NOT God. Actually Professor, your claim of a 'non sequiter' is actually a circular argument. You are beginning with the premise that Jesus was not God in order to prove that the phrase 'the Word was with God and the Word was God' is a non sequiter. In fact, the phrase actually points to the Trinity, does it not? Jesus, the Son, was God and He was 'WITH' God, the Father.
Apparently you mistook my remark about a non sequiter. It is a non sequiter simply because John has just said the Word was with God (using the correct form so that we know that he was with THE GOD). Something is not "with" itself. So its a lapse in linguistic sense to say x with y, x=y. Instead, John says the Word was with the God, and so (because the Word was alone in the divine realm with God) was itself divine, or belonged to the divine class of things. Both mainstream Christianity and the JWs can derive their different Christologies from this statement. It allows both interpretations. If you don't like that, you can't blame the JWs or me, you have to blame John (or God himself if you believe in word-for-word divine inspiration of scriptures)
Let's back up a bit professor. You claim that I 'misunderstood your remark about the non sequitur'. I must disagree. A non sequitur, by definition, is an argument that tries to support a proposition on the basis of irrelevant premises. In order for you to prove it is a non-sequitur, you must first show that the doctrine of the Trinity is an impossibility. If the Trinity is possible, then St. John's statement makes perfect sense. So for you to claim it is a non sequitur is really a circular argument. It can only be a non sequitur if the Trinity is rejected as a possibility in the first place. This is really beside the issue I wish to pursue in this passage, however.
I meant a linguistic non sequiter, not a philosophical one. In this case, the careful distinction John makes by dropping the article avoids the non sequiter, which is introduced only in the English translation.
Your original point was that the passage was a 'non sequitur'. There is no such thing as a 'non sequitur' in language, but only in philosophy since the term is used to describe a fallacious conclusion drawn on irrelevant premises. You conveniently try to side step the issue by insisting that John's comment is a 'linguistic non sequiter', thereby allowing yourself to deny one of the foundations of the Trinity. You beg the question.
Earlier, I suggested using the historical context of the early Christians as one instrument in translating from one language to another. In fact, I think it's quite an objective and legitimate way of determining which translation is the best one. I also happen to believe that other biblical passages can certainly suggest if not decide the true meaning of other passages.
Again, it is our basic difference in premises that makes it impossible for us to see eye to eye on these issues. I agree that historical evidence is important for establishing the correct interpretation of biblical passages, but you have to take account of the interests of the other sources, as well as of the full range of sources, and not a selection of only those that agree with the interpretation you favor. As far as using other biblical passages as a source of interpretation -- again, I understand your commitments that make that a viable method. But what we have in the bible is a diversity of voices, and John does not control what Paul meant, nor does Paul control what Matthew meant, and so forth. God could have dictated the whole thing to one person if he thought that was important, couldn't he?
It seems to me, professor, that the question that you must address is: who speaks for Christianity?
By the way, in your previous response, you did not answer the original question regarding Deuteronomy 32:39. If there are no other gods WITH God, how can Jesus be 'a god' as the NWT translates it. This is a direct contradiction. Compare:
"...there are NO gods together WITH me...." with "the Word was a god."
It seems to me that the only way one can maintain that there are no contradictions in the bible and still make sense out of John 1:1 is to understand this passage in the traditional Trinitarian formula, no?
More to the point, Mr. Pacheco, how can John have the audacity to say "WITH God" in the face of Deuteronomy. 32:39? The answer is that John's thought world is not the world of Deuteronomy. The kind of radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy was not the primary concern of John. The traditional Trinitarian formula is not the only solution of the tensions in the Bible. Obviously the Arians and other Christians worked out alternative solutions to those tensions.
Exactly, professor, St. John could not have said WITH God unless Jesus WAS God. Again, while the Arians and other 'Christians' have 'worked out' certain 'tensions', our concern should be to find out WHO speaks for Christianity because, after all, we want the truth not people who can 'work out tensions'.
In Genesis, God says, "Let US make men according to our image" (Genesis 1:26; See 'US' in Genesis 3:22; 11:7). Why would God allude to Himself in the plural sense?
Well, the Jewish tradition says that he is talking to the angels. Another explanation would be that the plural reflects the original sense of 'Elohim', always translated as singular "God," but in fact a plural form ("the gods").
As far as I know, the angels neither helped God make man, nor were they made, strictly speaking, in the 'image of God'.
Then there is the prophesy from Isaiah: "The government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, GOD THE MIGHTY, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). If Jesus is referred to as 'Mighty God' in this passage and 'Jehovah' is referred to 'Mighty God' in Isaiah 10:20-21, how does this square with the JW translation of John 1:1?
The term 'god' is used of several different beings in the OT; Moses for example.
Professor, you have missed my point. Jesus is the undisputed reference in Isaiah 9:6 and the Father is referred to in Isaiah 10:20-21. They are both described as 'Mighty God', not 'god'. So my question still stands...
What about "GOD HIMSELF will come and will save you" (Isaiah 35:4)? How else could this be interpreted other than through the Trinitarian view?
Well, for one, look at the end of the Book of Revelation, where God himself comes down to earth and lives in the New Jerusalem, along with his Lamb. I think it is also interesting that you keep bringing up the Trinity when the poor spirit is nowhere in evidence in any of this. Maybe we should be talking of a Duity.
First, are you so sure that God is coming down to an earthly Jerusalem? Secondly, the passage I cited says that God will come and save us - a direct allusion to the redemption of Christ on the Cross. The passage you have cited does not bear directly on the question of Christ's atonement on the cross, but rather deals with the Apocalypse.
In John 1:3, St. John writes that Jesus created 'all things', but in Isaiah 44:24, God says that he made 'all things' and that there is 'none with' Him. How can this be if Jesus was created by God?
In Proverbs, God creates by means of his Wisdom. In Genesis God creates by his spoken word. John is precisely appealing to these traditions to explain that Jesus occupies the place second only to God, that he is God's word and wisdom, and that the world is therefore his. Doesn't Paul say that in the end Jesus will hand all things over to God? Doesn't Jesus say that what he does he does for God's glory? Doesn't Jesus constantly distinguish between himself and God the Father? God knows things Jesus does not. Jesus acknowledges that events will unfold according to God's will, not his own. etc. etc.
Where, in the passages that I cite, can the idea of 'Jesus occupying a second place only to God' be inferred? And the answer to your next three question is yes, but how does that detract from the Trinitarian formula? Where do you get the idea that God knows things Jesus does not, especially in light of John 14:7: "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
What about these doozies?
"God...hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his SUBSTANCE, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:1-3). The 'figure of the substance of God' indicates the similitude of essence of Christ with God.
"I and the Father are One" (John 10:30). ?????
Speaking to St. John, Jesus says, "Fear not. I am the First and the Last" in Revelation 1:17-18. But God also refers to Himself as the 'First and the Last' in Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12. How is this possible?
In Colosians 1:16, St. Paul teaches that all things were created for Jesus. How is that possible if God declares that "everyone that call upon my name, I have created him for my glory..." (Isaiah 43:7).
In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy." I believe this translates as "the Lord of me and the GOD of me." If Jesus was not God, then why does he affirm Thomas' comment in the very next verse, or not correct him if Thomas was wrong?
These Old and New Testament verses are only a sample of the overwhelming biblical support for the traditional view of Christ's 'con-substantiality' with the Father. The passages hold together remarkably well, do they not? And if they do, then John 1:1 translated in the Traditional sense is anything but a non sequitur!!!
So, you see that I am not trying to de-legitimize your right to interpret all this according to an explanation that you have accepted and committed to. I am not trying to tell you are wrong. I am saying that all these verses display certain tensions and problems and can be resolved according to several different systems of belief. You can cite your favorite passages, someone else can cite theirs and come to vastly different conclusions. So let's not forget where our whole conversation started. I am not saying the JWs are right and you are wrong. I am not taking any theological stand. I am only saying let's have a well-translated Bible, close to the original, that is not unfairly biased towards one theological position. And I do not mean let's create a Bible that is carefully neutral, or politically correct. I mean let's be honest. Some views cannot be supported by the New Testament, after all. You are perfectly capable of combining your chosen verses into a set that speaks to your beliefs. You do this by using a Bible that does not itself put these verses together in your way, but is amenable to your interpretation. You are perfectly capable of doing this interpretive work without asking for special assistance and privileges. I am saying, extend the same right to your brothers and sisters. You wouldn't want to win your argument by cheating or dishonesty, would you? That is what you accuse the JWs themselves of doing. I am telling you as an expert that they are not guilty. The biases of their NWT are not greater than the biases of your Bible. Instead we have an ambiguous original text, translated in both cases more or less within the range of possible meaning, but with some choices among those possible meanings made on the basis of theological commitments. Let them stand together, side by side, and let us compare them and move, if possible, towards an ever more accurate translation.
I can only say again that the 'con-substantiality' of Christ with God the Father is a later Church doctrine, which 90% of Christian biblical scholars would concede is not in the NT. I would add again, though here many Christian biblical scholars would disagree with me, that "The Word was God" is the least likely translation of John 1:1.
What about John 20:28 and Revelation 1:17-18?
[End of discussion on these passages.]
E)
The NWT translates the Greek word 'esti' ( estin) as 'is' in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as 'means' in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word 'esti'? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word 'esti' as 'is' in these verses, what would these verses say?
Obviously, the NWT is trying to answer the problem everyone must answer when reading these passages. In what sense does Jesus mean that the bread 'is' his body. Christian denominations vary widely in their opinion on this question, and many of them, perhaps even your own denomination, say that the connection is symbolic, not literal. Obviously, Jesus was sitting right there, so in what sense was the bread his body? Most people who heard such a thing would presume that Jesus (or anyone else saying such a thing) was speaking metaphorically or symbolically. So the NWT takes that approach.
Jesus did say, 'This is my body' and that is what the bread became. There are many BIBLICAL arguments to support this. This is beside the point, however, since, if Jesus wanted to say 'means' or 'represents', He would have had 15 other words to choose from, but He did not. But then again, it is becoming very apparent that the NWT takes its liberty with Holy Writ. 'Esti' should be translated as 'is' NOT 'means' as the word is translated elsewhere in the NT. This is INDISPUTABLE. Furthermore, while Catholics and Orthodox believe that Jesus was speaking literally, Protestants generally do not. IF Jesus meant His words to be taken literally, how could the JW who is reading the NWT come to this conclusion? The answer is that he could not since that avenue of interpretation has been effectively cut off with the replacement of 'is' with 'means'. Why not just let the 'chips fall where they may' as other Protestant translations do, and argue the INTERPRETATION of Jesus' words INSTEAD of DECEIVING readers by forcing their interpretation on the passage by changing the words?
We agree that the principle a translation should follow is to make available to English readers what is available to Greek readers as much as possible, let the chips fall where they may. Most of the time, the NWT does this very well, sometimes it falls short. The other translations commonly used today also have strong and weak moments, but no one ever bothers to cry foul and talk about DECEPTION. What is deceptive about the NWT translation of this verse? What do the translators achieve in fooling their audience about this verse? It is this attitude that they must be devious perverts that really gets to me. You have no idea how many highly interpretative translations you are reading every day in the KJ or RSV or NRSV or NIV or what have you. You go on blissfully unaware of them. What if it is in precisely these verses, the ones you see the JWs 'twisting' because they impact on the central dogmas of the Christians faith, that the theological biases of the major Christian denominations have been at work? Making Jesus THE GOD in defiance of the Greek of John 1:1, making him the I AM rather than allowing the Greek to have its normal function in John 8:58. And here, where Jesus says the bread 'is' his body, we have the typical way of expressing metaphor in Greek, or communicating a connection, a participation, a link of meaning. Now, do we tell our English readers that, maybe even in a footnote? Do we try to find an English translation that gives the full range of meaning? Or do we continue to let them think that Jesus meant the bread was made of human cells and that if we take his words symbolically we are making some major interpretative leap?
You ask 'what is deceptive about the NWT translation of this verse?' Perhaps in this case, my choice of words is not entirely appropriate, but I will not withdraw my original point. You may not acknowledge that Jesus was speaking LITERALLY, but that is irrelevant to the question at hand. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do believe this. By translating the verse in question, 'This means my body', the JW translators have effectively translated out the literal interpretation as a possibility. There is therefore no way of a JW coming to the literal conclusion. The translators, therefore, achieve, consciously or not, the exclusion of this interpretation of the passage. That is not their job, is it? Is that an example of 'letting the chips fall where they may?' Not for me it isn't.
I may be hasty in my assessment, but based on your response, you don't think this is a 'big deal' since you have effectively shut out a even a possible literal interpretation of the passage. Now you can choose to prefer the symbolic interpretation of the passage. That's your business. But keeping the possibility open and seeing that others 'play by the rules' is my business. Your position is neither the predominant one today (at least statistically speaking), and certainly not the historical one AT ALL for the first 1500 years.
Pre-Nicene Fathers
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (107 A.D.) - St. Ignatius, refuting the teachings of the Docetists who denied the humanity of Christ and ascribed to Him a phantom body, wrote "They [the Docetists] keep away from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sin, and whom the Father in His goodness raised from the dead." (Smyrn. 7,1) and "Be ye resolved, to celebrate one Eucharist only; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and only one chalice for unification with His blood." (Philad. 4) - [FCD p.376]. He also called the Eucharist 'the bread of angels, bread from heaven, and medicine of immortality' (Ad. Eph. 20, 2:SCh 10, 76).
St. Justin, Apologist (165 A.D.) "We receive this not as ordinary bread and ordinary drink; but as our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, was incarnated by the Word of God, and assumed flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so, as we have been taught, the food over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the Word which came from Him (by which (food) our blood and flesh are nourished by transmutation) is both flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus." (First Apologia 65-67).
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (202 A.D.) attests that "the bread over which thanksgiving is pronounced is the body of the Lord and the chalice of His blood." (Adv. Haer. IV 18:4) and "How can they [the Gnostics] feel assured that bread over which thanksgiving has been made is the body of their Lord, and the chalice of His blood, if they do not declare Him the Son of the world's Creator?" (Adv. Haer. IV 18:5)
Tertullian, Apologist (220 A.D.) expresses his faith in the real presence in these realistic words: "The flesh is refreshed with the body and blood of Christ so that the soul also may be nourished by God. (De carnis resurr. 8). Of those Christians who make idols, he says: "The Jews laid hands on Christ once only, these violate His body daily. Such hands should be cut off." (De idololatria, 7) The parallelism with the crime of the crucifixion demands that the body of Christ, against whom such Christians sin in the reception of the Eucharist, be conceived as the real presence.
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (258 A.D.) comments on those who receive communion sacrilegiously, teaching, "they do violence to His Blood and body and they sin more now with hand and mouth against the Lord than they did when they denied Him." (De lapsis, 16)
Post Nicene Fathers & Luther
Among the post-Nicene Fathers, the outstanding witnesses for the Church belief in the Real Presence are St. Cyril of Jerusalem (362 A.D.) (4th and 5th mystag. Cat.), St. John Chrysostom (386 A.D.), St. Cyril of Alexandria (431 A.D.) and St. John of Damascus (726 A.D.) (De fide orth. IV 13). Among the Latin Fathers, St. Hilary of Poitiers (355 A.D.) (De Trin. VIII 14) and St. Ambrose (374 A.D.) (De sacr. IV 4-7; De Myst. 8 et seq.), and St. Augustine (370 A.D.) (Sermo 227, Enarr. In Ps. 33 Sermo 1:10). - [FCD p.377]
St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem - "As a life-giving sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be bread is not bread, but Christ's body; what seems to be wine is not wine, but Christ's Blood."
St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist: "This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the High Priest who, in the form of a slave, went so far as to offer Himself for us in His Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head... Such is the sacrifice of Christians: 'we who are many are one Body in Christ.' The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered." (St. Augustine, De civ. Dei, 10, 6: PL 41, 283; Cf. Romans 12:5)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (1261 A.D.), whilst examining the questions of the Blessed Sacrament in his Summa Theologica, was far from suggesting a blind belief when he proposes and solves over 280 possible difficulties which might occur to the human mind on the Real Presence.
Information about the early Eucharistic beliefs of the early church can also be found in secular sources. In his Annals, the first century Roman Historian Tacitus (50 A.D.) makes mention of the Christian faith. He states that the death of Christ at the hands of Pontius Pilate 'checked the abominable superstition for a while', noting that belief in Christ broke out in Rome itself, 'the great reservoir and collecting ground of every kind of filth and depravity.' As historian Donald Dudley notes, 'the depravity and filth specifically associated with early Christianity were charges of cannibalism, infanticide, and incest brought against it by a misunderstanding of the nature of Eucharist.' Both the apologist Tertullian and Minuncius Felix corroborate Dudley's assertion, since both give considerable attention in their second century writings to the charge of cannibalism being leveled against the Church.
Even Martin Luther held that on the altar are real bread and real wine...and that in them are the "real flesh and real blood of Christ". Although he rejected 'transubstantiation', the act in which the bread and wine are completely turned into the flesh and blood of Christ, He did believe in the real presence.
I have taken the liberty to produce a little biblical defense of the 'real presence of Jesus' in the bread just so you can consider the other side.
ARGUMENT: Referring to John 6:54 - "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...", the opponent of the 'real presence' contends that "the figurative interpretation is reasonable...The disciples were accustomed to the Lord using figurative language in His teaching' (Cf. John 6:48, 8:12, 10:9, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1) [p.136]
RESPONSE: The words themselves do not point to a figurative interpretation. Indeed, bread and wine are neither of their nature, nor by universal speech usage, symbols of body and blood, whereas the literal interpretation involves no intrinsic opposition to the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, while the 'body' may be taken symbolically,'flesh' and 'blood' cannot be. This is especially true of the words 'eat' and 'drink', which are used numerous times by Jesus in the Eucharistic discourse. In the language of the bible, to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody fashion and destroy him. (Cf. Psalms. 26:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26; Micah 3:3; Zechariah 11:9; Jeremiah 46:10). This presupposition does not apply in the case of John 6 since it is clear that Our Lord did not intend to say 'He that reviles Me has eternal life.' (Cf. John 6:54) Thus, this symbolic and consequently destructive interpretation does not communicate Our Lord's meaning in this passage. Moreover, it is hard to symbolize the very physical and graphic words of Christ when He says, "the one who FEEDS on me will have life because of me." (John 6:57) Moreover, in the original Greek in which St. John wrote his gospel, the Greek word which in verse 55 which is translated as 'eat' is really closer, in its original meaning, to the English words 'crunch' or 'munch', which further dilutes the symbolic interpretation.
The metaphorical or symbolic interpretation attributed to the passage is not consistent with the other passages in Scripture where the verb 'is' has the meaning of 'designates' or 'symbolizes'. In these other passages, the figurative sense is quite apparent at once from the nature of the matter discussed (Cf. Matthew 13:37-39; Matthew 16:6-12; John 2:19-21; John 10:7; John 15:1; 1 Corinthians 10:4) - it is unmistakable that the speaker is using allegory or speaking in a parable. For instance, Jesus said "I am the door" (John 10:9), which is clearly a metaphorical expression since Christ is like a door, and one goes to Heaven through Him. Likewise, Christ is like a vine (Cf. John 15:1) because all the sap of one's spiritual life comes through Him. But the bread is in no way like his body or His flesh, so if it is not like His Body or His flesh, it must BE His Body and His flesh.
At the very least, the literal interpretation is a possibility. If this possibility is admitted, then those who hold to the symbolic interpretation must ask the critical question: IF Our Lord meant the Eucharistic discourse literally, then what OTHER words could He have used to convince us of a literal interpretation, other than the ones He did? Christ taught the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament as clearly as it possibly could have been stated. For instance, the double expletive "Amen, Amen" in John 6:53 indicates the great and unique importance Our Lord is placing on this teaching. It would be tantamount to Christ saying 'Pay attention to what I am about to say to you'. Jesus tells His disciples numerous times that He is the "Bread come down from Heaven' (John 6:41), and in four consecutive sentences Jesus uses the phrase 'to eat my flesh and drink my blood' in order to drive home His point and to avoid misunderstanding. This is quite revealing because rarely does Our Lord repeat Himself in a specific teaching. Indeed, the fact that He does so here, only shows His thorough and complete knowledge of our pride and stubbornness to accept His very literal words, which many could still not do (Cf. John 6:66). Nor did He correct their literal interpretation.
With all due respect to you, Professor, for a biblical scholar, I find your attitude and approach to this question of the Eucharist much too cavalier.
Agreed, it is possible to argue different understandings of Jesus' statement, let me just make a few counterpoints: You certainly do not mean to deny Jesus the right to coin a new metaphor, do you? Secondly, I do not see how there is any presumption in the divinity of Christ in the Eucharistic statement. The primary image would seem to be the sacrificial lamb. Also, I would suggest that you compare the different versions of this scene, including Paul's and the Didache. There was definitely a strand of Christian thought which saw this as a memorial meal. However, there is no qualitative difference between Jesus saying he is a door or a vine, and his saying that he is bread. You say that Jesus is 'like' a door and a vine because of certain things he does. Well, he is certainly like the bread in that his flesh is 'broken' in his passion, just as the bread is broken to be eaten; likewise wine and blood have an obvious visual connection that was a very common metaphor in the ancient world. My opinion is that it is exactly as a prefiguration of what is about to happen to him that Jesus says these things at the last supper.
Yes, I agree that the literal interpretation is possible. There were such mystic beliefs of 'participation' between beings and substances, especially food, in the ancient world. So Jesus could have successfully conveyed this idea to his audience.
So, in other words, the NWT falls again...
G)
In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek. What is the reason for inserting this word?
It is a simple mistake. The editors of the NWT have misunderstood the meaning of the passage. [Other] should not be printed there.
C'mon Professor, a simple mistake or GROSS MISREPRESENTATION? You are very lenient indeed in your assessment of the NWT.
You see, it is this tone of judgement I find particularly troublesome and naive. You have been handed a creed, a set of beliefs, interpretative codes for the Bible, which you accept whole cloth in an attitude of perfect trust, and then you turn all of this suspicion and paranoia loose on a small sect which poses no threat to you, who for all their faults, are trying to live a life fully dedicated to what they believe, whatever we may think of these beliefs. And it never occurs to you that you are participating in a huge effort to enforce conformity. They have produced a bible that, without an inordinate number of mistakes or questionable decisions, is consistent with their faith. Whatever Bible you hold in your hands, you have exactly the same thing, perhaps with more mistakes and bad translation decisions. You just don't know it because no one is going at you and your bible the way you and your associates are at the JWs. And the reason for this difference is that you are with the majority. It's that simple. As for this particular passage, I think they were influenced by the next one you mention and a few others into making the same sort of distinction, but they have done it here only because they did not understand that the name Jesus has which is above all names is God's name: Jesus = Yah-shu "Yahweh saves." Certainly, if they understood the passage correctly, they would absolutely love it as a reference to God's name, and would drop the[other] in an instant.
Professor, you should never presume that you are speaking to someone has been 'handed a creed, a set of beliefs, interpretative codes for the Bible, which [I] accept whole cloth in an attitude of perfect trust'. I do not accept being handed ANYTHING without first checking it against SCRIPTURE, HISTORY, NATURAL LAW, AND REASON, which to me is a pretty well-rounded check, don't you think? You are not speaking to a naïve 'bible thumper' who turns his 'paranoia loose on a small sect'. Do my responses to you suggest that I am paranoid? Aren't you being a little harsh in your pre-conceived judgement of my reasons for questioning the NWT (and the JWs) without knowing any of the circumstances surrounding my queries?
Based on your comments above and earlier observations on the JWs, you have portrayed them as being unfairly attacked. Professor, you may or may not know this, but the JWs are one of the most ferocious critics of much of the rest of Christianity. Through their publications and various representations, they make false historical claims, present forgeries as fact, aggressively push their doctrines through their 'trick-or-treating' on, to use your words, the 'naïve' and ignorant, and have the most extensive 'dirt library' on other religions (especially the Catholic Church) that you can possibly imagine. I know this first hand since I have been in an E-Mail debate with a JW for several months now, and I am certainly in a position to make an informed judgement on this matter. So before you go around thinking they have been unfairly attacked, I suggest that you do a little research into their methods of proselytization before criticizing those who have every right to defend themselves and their faiths from the spurious claims that Witnesses make. You make it sound like these guys are easy-going, tolerant, and harmless. My experience has been somewhat different. As for your comment that "it never occurs to you that you are participating in a huge effort to enforce conformity," it all depends on how you look at my efforts. I do not enforce conformity. I seek unity in Christianity by dialoguing with people of good will, and explaining to them what I believe to be the truth. If they should propose something to be contrary to my beliefs, I investigate it for myself and determine its validity. And should I find inconsistencies in the other person's beliefs, I will certainly not let that fact go unmentioned or unargued. If you think this means 'enforcing conformity', then so be it.
Most Christian denominations have a pretty poor history when it comes to dealing with their fellow Christians. I acknowledge that the JWs are no exception. As far as having a "dirt library" on other denominations, it is not a particularly novel or difficult thing to do. There is plenty of dirt to go around. Every Christian group which has got its hands on power has used that power to coerce others into conformity. I apologize if I offended you. My only point was that there is this silent, tacit agreement in America today that a certain body of belief represents 'true' Christianity, and that certain groups are outside the limits of acceptability AND TOLERANCE. Of course people are entitled to think that others are wrong, but when they try to silence those others, when they work to label those others as a 'cult' and propose that those people are not entitled to the acceptance that the rest enjoy, I have to raise a protest. After all, Christianity was itself originally such a "cult'," unacceptable to those around it, with beliefs at odds with the majority. We mourn the tragedies of its persecution and suffering. Let's bear that in mind when we are going after our opponents. Let us retain a civil, open and honest level of discussion. I think based upon what you have said about your own investigations that you would agree with me.
[End of discussion on this passage]
G)
In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word 'other' 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek. Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word 'other' had not been inserted?
The NWT adds 'other' to Col 1:15-17 to draw attention to the view made quite clear in Col 1:15: Jesus is the firstborn of creation. This phrase makes Jesus a part of creation -- the first, top, best part, but still a part. So when the passage goes on to talk of his mediating role in making the rest of creation, 'other' is implied. It is because so many readers miss the meaning of 'firstborn of creation' that the editors of the NWT felt it worthwhile to emphasize this point by adding 'other'.
Wait, wait, wait... First of all, translation is a matter of translating words in their contextually meaning. It is not concerned with ADDING words which can completely change the meaning of a passage. You justify their addition of the word 'other' by first assuming that Jesus was created from your reading of Colosians 1:15. What if your understanding of Colosians 1:15 were incorrect; that is, what if the verse did not mean that Jesus was created, could you THEN defend the NWT adding the word 'other'? The answer is obviously NO.
In fact, the phrase 'first-born of all creation' does NOT mean that Jesus was created. It refers to the fact that Jesus is the first one risen from the dead as verse 18 clearly indicates. Jesus was the first to be risen from the dead and to experience the Resurrection. Jesus' physical body was created, but that does not mean His Spirit was as well. The phrase 'first-born of all creation' cannot be taken out of its context in the passage, and if the word 'other' had not been so imaginatively introduced, this view would be the inescapable one ESPECIALLY in light of other Scripture which points to His divine nature.
Secondly, you further justify their addition because "so many readers miss the meaning of 'firstborn of creation' that the editors of the NWT felt it worthwhile to emphasize this point by adding [other]." Surely, you must be kidding. Isn't it enough to simply translate what the Greek says instead of 'emphasizing' (read 'adding words') JW doctrines that would be impossible to prove otherwise?
This is not the central point in this question, however. Professor, you are justifying adding a word based on your interpretation of a preceding verse. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY JUSTIFY THIS? EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT IN THAT INTERPRETATION (WHICH YOU ARE NOT), WHAT GIVES THE NWT TRANSLATORS THE RIGHT TO ADD A WORD WHICH IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND COMPLETELY CHANGES THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE? IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK IS 'THE BEST INTERLINEAR GREEK TRANSLATION'?
If you want more or less one English word for one Greek word, look over at the interlinear, that's its function. Even there you will find many cases where more than one English word is required. A running translation, of course, has to convey meaning in a way that works in English, and so more often than not adds words to make the meaning clear. Really, any given page of an English bible 'adds' literally dozens of words. You don't seem to know or understand that. Try reading the English under the Greek in the interlinear and see what sense you make that way...
Traditionally, normally, the phrase 'firstborn of all creation' is taken to refer to Jesus at the dawn of time, and the clause in v.18 is taken to refer to the resurrection. In other words, as Jesus was first before, so he is first now. Now that's universally embraced by your mainstream Christian churches. Here's your choice: accept that interpretation, or go with your own, in which case Paul has absolutely no pre-existent Christ. This is the only verse in Paul that can possibly refer to Jesus as existing at the beginning of creation. Everywhere else, Paul has an adoptionist Christology: he started as man and became son of God through the resurrection. If you want to go that route, that's fine with me. IN EITHER CASE, Jesus is part of creation, as even the English says perfectly clearly: FIRST OF CREATION. By the way, be careful with that human body, divine spirit understanding of Jesus. That was declared heretical about 1500 years ago. Jesus is not split this way, according to the creeds.
... adding words happens all the time in translation. It is impossible to create a readable translation without adding words. The simple fact is: Greek is not English. Its grammar and syntax do not match. You cannot even translate French into English without adding words. The problem is you are unaware of the fact that all English bibles have thousands of added words and, get this, THEY don't mark the addition with brackets so that you can catch it the way the JWs do (old King James can be given credit for at least identifying these with italics).
Really, Professor. I think I deserve a little more credit than you give me. While I am not bilingual, I am reasonably familiar with two other languages (French and Portuguese), having been educated in French from primary school to the University level. I am well aware that translation is not a 'word for word' game. (My former high school teacher certainly hammered that into our heads quite satisfactorily!!!) If you had read my original objection, it was not with merely adding words, but adding or changing words that effectively cut off a possible interpretation or completely change the meaning of a passage. That's my beef.
[By the way, when you said "be careful with that human body, divine spirit understanding of Jesus. That was declared heretical about 1500 years ago. Jesus is not split this way, according to the creeds," what exactly do you mean? What I said was, 'Jesus' physical body was created, but that does not mean His Spirit was as well'. The orthodox position is that Jesus became man at the Incarnation so His physical body was created - it did not pre-exist with Him in heaven. The Scriptures corroborate that Christ became man in that Christ was 'made'; that is, was conceived and born out of the human race (Cf. Romans 1:3). At the Incarnation, Christ's human nature was added to his pre-existing divine nature, whose union is called the 'Hypostatic Union' in theology. THIS IS THE ORTHODOX POSITION. When you say to 'be careful with that human body, divine spirit understanding of Jesus', you seem to be suggesting that Christ's human soul (and/or body?) pre-existed, and already before the Incarnation was united with the Divine Logos. If this is what you are suggesting, this is actually the HERETICAL 'Origenistic' doctrine.]
In two previous instances, I have proven that it is very dangerous indeed to change a word's meaning (i.e. 'This means my body' vs. 'This is my body' and 'I have been before Abraham was' vs. I am before Abraham was') precisely because a possible interpretation has been TRANSLATED OUT. Apart from your rather bizarre claim that "Paul has an adoptionist Christology: he started as man and became son of God through the resurrection" (where do you get this doctrine from?), the same basic flaw to your approach to translation still exists. You begin with the assumption that 'first born of creation' must mean, to the exclusion of any other interpretation, that Jesus was created. Having cut off any other interpretation that might exists, and which may not have occurred to you, you then proceed to justify why the word 'other' can be inserted. If another interpretation of 'first born of creation' is possible, THEN YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING THE INSERTION OF THE WORD 'OTHER' COMPLETELY FALLS. The question comes down essentially to this: should the translator add the word 'other' throughout the passage because he thinks Jesus was created, or should he be faithful to the Greek, avoid adding 'other', and understand first-born of creation the only way possible. And what way is that - the way the other passages in Scripture and the early Church had understood it: Jesus' human nature was created but not His divine nature.
Now if this is a possible interpretation, and this turns out in the end to be the correct interpretation, what have you just done professor? You have hidden the truth by allowing YOUR own subjective interpretation (however strong you might think it is) to excessively influence you into massaging the translation to suit your own flawed interpretation.
[End of discussion on this passage.]
Closing Remarks
It seems to me that you have admitted my original point: there are 'mistakes' and 'inconsistencies' in the NWT translation. I am not, however, as forgiving as you seem to be since I believe that they are calculated distortions. It is abundantly clear from the above (and many other passages which I would be happy to provide to you) that the NWT translators not only DISTORT the original Greek and add words (and commas!), but they do so in order to support their doctrines. Surely, this cannot escape your notice, Professor. Whatever the motives of the NWT translators is besides the point, however. I am more interested in why you still think the NWT is still "the best interlinear Greek translation". I freely admit that I am no Greek Scholar, but I can hold my own in philosophy and logic, and to me, you have fallen well short in justifying your assertion on the 'quality' of the NWT.
"Philosophy and logic are of little worth if you don't have the facts. But these abilities should allow you to see that you have approached this whole conversation from a remarkably biased standpoint, unprepared to accept any new information that impacts on your preconception that the JWs are some sort of boogey man out to fool the world. When it comes to the Greek New Testament, you simply have never read or heard about how it came to be and what the process is of making it into an English bible. Ancient Greek had NO commas, nor punctuation of any kind. It did not even use a space between words: THEMANUSCRIPTSFROMWHICHWEGETTHENEWTESTAMENTREADLIKETHIS. So there are probably a dozen steps of interpretation involved in making an English bible. These steps are required for your own personal favourite bible just as much as they are for the JW's bible. Whenever you look at an English bible, you are looking at words, punctuation, structuring added to help make it readable to someone who does not read Greek. Take an interlinear and compare it to any English translation, and you will see exactly what you see in the JW's bible. That is the reality of the Bible. Unless you read ancient Greek, you are at the mercy of translators. Do you know who these people are, what their personal beliefs and commitments are, what their own agenda is, what they do when they are at home? I would think for a suspicious person like you, that's going to be a big problem.
Exactly, Professor. You have made an excellent point about the biases and prejudices of the translators of various bible translations. I do agree that I have my bias as you do yours and as the JWs, Mormons, Fundamentalists, Seventh Day Adventists and remaining 30,000+ other Christian denominations. (At least, I am honest about it. So for you to claim that I have a 'remarkably biased standpoint' is rather tendacious in itself.) I am not closed to learning new things - in fact, I welcome them, but I am hardly going to abandon my position for what I think are poor and, yes, deceptive translations based on pre-existing, closed theological presuppositions that you have posited. In fact, in your first E-mail you stated that those biblical scholars who have spoken out against the NWT "mix theological argument with linguistic argument in their criticism, and this is not legitimate." I think this approach is not only legitimate, inevitable, and inescapable, but you, yourself, have managed to do it very nicely indeed, albeit subtlety.
At the end of your response, you have provided an excellent question: "Do you know who these people are, what their personal beliefs and commitments are, what their own agenda is, what they do when they are at home? I would think for a suspicious person like you, that's going to be a big problem." In fact, Professor that's not the problem for me - IT'S THE SOLUTION TO THIS RIDICULOUS DILEMNA TO THE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONAL ANARCHY WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS. As I have said and which you have admitted, it's not so much 'what the Greek says' but 'what the Greek means'. It's really the interpretation that is the primary problem, while translation is only the secondary one. First, you derive the MEANING of the Greek or Hebrew, THEN you translate it. So, we arrive at the inevitable conclusion, as you have rightly pointed out, 'that we are at the MERCY of the translators.'
For Christians, the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God so it would be rather a contradiction for God to allow all translations to be his Word. So the question boils down to not 'which translations' but 'which translators' should we believe? And if you really think about it, it REALLY boils down to the 'Church' which you believe to give the infallible word of God, since there exists many differences in the INTERPRETATION of the SAME bible. So if we find the 'true' church with a teaching body which would have to exist (unless God does not want us to know the Truth), we will know which interpretation to give the Greek, AND THEREFORE, WE WILL KNOW WHICH TRANSLATION IS CORRECT AND WHICH TRANSLATION IS NOT!!! So the key is to find the 'true teachers' who have the 'true interpretation' to make the 'true translation'. After all, what good is an 'infallible bible' with fallible teachers? Wouldn't you agree???
Session 2
You and I start from different premises, and come therefore to different conclusions. I don't think we can expect to get past this impasse. But I don't want to appear dismissive of your research and opinions. Obviously, you take 'the facts' just as seriously from your side as I do from mine. So let me make just a few remarks in response to the points you raise in order not to persuade you, but to make clear how different our approach to the Bible is.
Your main point, as I understand it, is that we need an interpreter to tell us what the Bible means. Now who will this be? From my point of view, your position is an endless circularity. Let us say that you regard the Bible as the ultimate authority for Christian truth. But in order to correctly understand it, you say we need an interpreter. So now that interpreter becomes a more ultimate authority than the Bible itself. How then do we judge the interpreter to be reliable? By the Bible? Or is there some other yet more ultimate authority that we turn to? So then, the question is: By what criteria or standards do we decide what the New Testament says? For many people, the answer to that question is a sectarian one; that is, what MY denomination says is the correct interpretation (which of course puts the human authority of the denomination above the Bible itself). For others, including historians and linguists, but also people of faith who give highest authority to the Bible, it means taking the Greek in its own terms. Whether you are a secular historian interested in Paul's exact views, or someone who believes in the divine inspiration of scripture and who must know what God communicated there, you don't want to make the mistake of ignoring the linguistic evidence, in a sense, telling God what he can or cannot mean by the Greek he dictated to his scribes.
The Bible is being translated and re-translated all the time. God has not seen fit to control that process by direct inspiration. He has left it up to our wits. Part of those wits is the recognition that the NT was written in Greek language, which obeys Greek rules of grammar and syntax, communicating to an audience with Greek mental categories and a Greek world view. So when I say that such a person, reading the books of the NT when they were first written, would hear in the word 'proskuneo' a reference to an act of reverent respect, not restricted to a religious act of worship, that goes to the heart of what the NT means and can be dismissed by a 'So what!!!' only if we take the attitude that we are going to tell the Bible what it can and cannot say, and only if we assume that the Bible was not to be understood by those who wrote it and those for whom it was originally written.
Now I understand that your response to this point is to call upon those closer in date to the original writing, those who spoke Greek and lived in that culture, to see how they understood the passages in question. Your instincts are good. That move makes sense. But please bear in mind that your witnesses represent only a part of early Christianity, who directly disagreed with other parts who interpreted the passages differently, and who were already separated from the authors of the NT by major theological developments, and who themselves were interested in imposing their interpretation upon the NT. These factors must be considered.
I don't see the relevance of all of the passages you cite. Clearly they are collected with the intention of proving that Jesus is considered to be God and part of a Trinity. Obviously, the type of Christianity that came to dominate holds such a belief, and many of these authors you cite are part of that tradition. But this belief about Jesus is a development of thinking in early Christianity, a deeper and fuller understanding, if that is your view, of how exactly Jesus relates to God the Father. It is legitimate to say that the seeds of this idea, the material on which it was developed, can be found in the NT. But the NT itself has no Trinity concept in the sense of a three-part Godhead. Furthermore, with the exception of the Gospel of John, no book in the NT is willing to use the word 'god' to refer to Jesus. John's usage is novel, and pushes the envelope beyond where his co-authors were willing to go. In this way, John points towards the future of Christian thinking about Jesus. But you cannot then go back and introduce the more fully developed theological and christological concepts into the text of the NT, either into the Greek text (which some tried to do), nor at the stage of translation (which many translation do).
You seem to recognize that there were 'other' kinds of Christians from the beginning, yet you persist in speaking of THE Christian tradition as if there was only one true one. I understand that the kind of commitment you hold really dictates that there be one true tradition stretching from Jesus to the present, and all others be dismissed as false. Yet several of the sources you quote do not in fact hold the orthodox view of the Trinity, but a subordinationist one similar to Arianism. I think it is ironic that you quote them in your argument, then, since they espouse a position closer to that of the JWs than to your own. These ancient authors need to be read in their own cultural context just as much as the NT must be, and by pulling out these isolated quotes and capitalizing God an inevitable distortion occurs in the overall world view expressed by these writers. I must also disagree with you about the Nicene Creed being a kind of final formalization of a view long established. The Nicene creed was a big problem when it was made, because many Christians strongly objected to its language (for example the introduction of the term homoousios, which had never been used before to describe the relationship of God and Jesus), and many other bishops frankly admitted that they did not understand it. Shortly after Nicaea, the official church rejected the creed and went over to Arianism, only returning to the Nicene statement under Theodosius at the end of the 4th century. Even then, the church was unable to enforce universal agreement, and Arianism persisted in many areas for more than 100 years. So these were live debates, not foregone conclusions, as much as four to five hundred years after Jesus.
I understand that you take the Catholic line that tradition supplements and interprets scripture, and that the apostles selected successor bishops to transmit this tradition from one generation to the next. As a historian, I agree that the NT does not contain the full picture of early Christianity, and that tradition is an important source of information about what Christians thought and did. The idea of Episcopal succession, however, is historically indefensible, and no serious historian can embrace it in the terms you have given it. There were no bishops at all in the first generations of Christians. The office begins basically as a club presidency, with prominent local church members being more or less elected to it. In fact, bishops were elected by church membership throughout the ancient period. Some of them were not even Christians before being elected bishop (e.g., Ambrose, Sinesius), and their training in the Church varied tremendously. In the earliest period there was a wide diversity of leadership, not only rival Episcopal lines, but also alternative forms of leadership such as prophets, teachers, etc. (look again at the Didache, and at Hippolytus), and it was these prophets and teachers who actually were the most well-versed in the religion --unfortunately, the bishops used their political power to crush these alternative leadership traditions.
So our views of history are quite different, and so the conclusions we draw are equally at odds.
Thank you for your last response. Perhaps it is worthwhile for our discussion to change our direction somewhat in order to arrive at a solution, which I believe is still possible. You have taken the time from your busy schedule to express your opinions on the bible and you have been honest to admit some of the limitation of the NWT. I really appreciate your time and candour in this endeavour. While I cannot agree with you on some of the reasons you give in defense of the NWT (especially Revelation 1:17-18 and John 20:28), I will concede to you that some of the interpretations you have posed are POSSIBILITIES. But in the quest for an absolute, transcendent Truth (with a capital 'T'), I believe you will agree with me that we should not be concerned with possibilities but certainties. In our discussions about the divinity of Christ, Jesus is either God or He is not; He cannot be both, nor can God want people to accept either and be totally content with such a situation. This would betray the whole notion of what the Truth is, namely, 'what is' not 'what can be'.
Your position really boils down to this: since neither my position nor the JWs are definitively wrong and that both 'systems of belief' 'solve' certain 'tensions' in the NT, that's okay as long as 'the range of possibilities' is maintained. In my opinion, however, this is NOT an acceptable 'solution' at all since to hold to it, you necessarily concede that the idea of Truth as an exclusive and absolute idea does not exist, or more to the point, that God does not want us to know that Truth and really couldn't care less what we believe about His Son. We can believe that He was 'a god' or 'God'. This 'solution' is nothing of the kind. It is nonsense to say that Jesus 'can be' God, or that we can believe in error as long as it fits a 'system of belief'. What good is that? It is as useful as saying, 'I might be the President of the United States', and trying to convince your fellow citizens that it doesn't matter whether you are or not as long as my 'system of belief' says that I could be!
Sola Scriptura - A Contradiction
Your whole theological position begins with the first of Reformation principles known as 'sola scriptura', the bible alone: "Let us say that you regard the bible as the ultimate authority for Christian truth." Oh really? Why should I do that, professor? What is your basis for restricting Christian truth and divine revelation to God's written word alone or regarding it as the ultimate authority? Let me tell you why I do not do so.
Before the NT Scriptures
Christ died in 33 A.D. The New Testament Scriptures were written over the next 50-60 years, with the first of the NT books being written in 45 A.D. So what did the early Christians rely on for an 'ultimate authority' on what Christ taught during this time? The answer to that, of course, is the Apostles, who, not only wrote, but also spoke (Cf. 1 John 3:2), and their oral word was just as binding as their written word (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Individual churches in Corinth, Ephesus, or Rome might have the letters addressed to them by St. Paul, for instance, but they would hardly have all of the New Testament Scriptures. Now, why would I make the unjustified PRESUMPTION that ALL of the Apostle's teachings were committed to writing?
Which brings me to the next point: after the Scriptures were completed, there was no definite agreement on what constituted an authentic Apostolic letter because there were many spurious fabrications claiming to be Apostolic (i.e. the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla and 50 other 'Acts' as well as a small number of Epistles and Apocalypses.) There were also the Apocrypha or contested books which were considered by many to be inspired and apostolic as much as the current canon. These included the 'Shepherd' of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, and the Epistle of St. Clement. AND NOT ONLY THAT!!! There were a number of books which were not originally widely received as 'authentic' until the Church finally decided the question , including the Epistle of St. James, Epistle of St. Jude, 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd and 3rd of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation. (Source: Graham's "Where We Got the Bible"}
The Canon: By whose authority?
So what about these 'apocrypha' books and originally contested books? Who is going to decide what is 'apocrypha' and what is 'canonical'? I then discover that the NT canon , which excluded these 'apocrypha' books, was not even determined until the end of the fourth century at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397A.D.). So I ask myself: on what authority did the early Christians rely to communicate the Gospel message (or for that matter, to determine what was canonical in the first place) AFTER the original Apostles had died? And, not only that, if the successors of the Apostles, the bishops, did not have the authority to decide the question of canonicity, then why was their decision accepted i.e. to exclude the apocrypha books and accept the more controversial ones? And if they were not the ones to have the authority to make this decision, then WHO was? And if there was another group, how come there is no historical evidence of them? And why, may I ask, do Protestants consider the NT canon 'infallible' when an allegedly 'fallible' body of bishops determined its collection? So, you can clearly see, professor, the idea of the 'bible' as the sole rule of faith or sole source of truth is not only rather absurd as a doctrine, it was an IMPOSSIBILITY before the fifth century.
Practical impossibilities
Then I examine the intervening so-called 'dark ages' before the invention of the printing press and proliferation of literacy. 'Sola scriptura' as a SOLE guide to the truth assumes three things: that everyone has a bible, everyone can afford one, and everyone can read - none of which was the case in this period. So I ask: 'Why would God wait for the printing press and the literacy of the masses before He would communicate His guide as the 'ultimate truth' FIFTEEN CENTURIES after the fact? Not only would that belief be unhistorical, it is ridiculous.
I then study the last five unhappy centuries that Christianity has suffered as a result of the so-called 'Reformation' and the fruits of that schism - 30,000 denominations with an average of 5 new ones being created every week, and most of them relying solely on the bible for their 'ultimate' authority. Never mind that this is a practical impossibility even within Protestantism itself, since, as we all know, if you don't follow a particular INTERPRETATION of scripture given by the particular denomination, you would be morally bound to leave it - unless of course you belong to one of those leftist sects which let you believe in ANYTHING you want. Never mind that none of them will use the word 'infallible' per se, but most will claim to have the truth because all teach according to the bible - no one else, especially our friends at the Watchtower. And if we take this proliferation of division in Protestantism to its logical and inevitable conclusion, we reach the zenith of human pride and folly - each individual decides what the bible means, and never you mind if they all disagree with one another as long as their 'belief systems' massage Scripture enough to be 'true' for themselves. Incidentally, professor, even the JWs won't accept your idea of a 'range of possible beliefs', but rather insist that Jesus was NOT God. They are not, I would suggest, 'tolerant' of other viewpoints. So much for an objective, transcendent Truth which demonstrates the qualities inherent to it - universality, immutability, infinity, and unity. So much for Christ's prayer that 'all may be one' (Cf. John 17:22-23).
The Purpose of the New Testament
As I stated earlier, you are coming from a theological stance which demands that only the bible provides the source of divine revelation. As I have shown, not only is this unhistorical, impractical, and impossible for all Christians throughout the ages, but it is also UNBIBLICAL. First, no where in the bible does it say that the Scriptures themselves were the sole rule of faith or truth. Jesus and the Apo