From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: JWs and the _Free Inquiry_ article (Spring 1992)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.071034.11608@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com
(Mark Sornson) writes:
>         In case anyone is unaware of the fundamental matter of translation
>     at hand, the Greek of John 1:1 reads:
> 
>         	 En arche     en  ho logos, kai ho logos
>     		<In beginning was the word, and the word>
> 
>         	en   pros   ton theon, kai theos en  ho  logos
>     		<was toward the god,   and god   was the word>
> 
>         I've taken the liberty of supplying my own transliteration of the
>     Greek [which I believe is fair enough for this posting], and have
>     copied the literal interlinear translation as is given by the WBTS's
>     _Kingdom Interlinear_, with the exception that I've taken the
>     additional liberty of removing the capital letters that are normally
>     supplied [except for the one at the start of the sentence] by
>     translators -- since how to capitalize which English words used in the
>     translation is a combination of convention, style, and interpretation,
>     and is part of the controversy which surrounds this verse.

  Okay, this stuff is 3rd hand, but I think I can locate the originals if you
want.

>         As most people know, the REALLY controversial part of this verse is
>     the last clause of verse one, _kai theos en ho logos_;  which many 
>     'orthodox' translations render as "and the Word was God."  The NWT
>     renders it as "and the Word was a god."  Why it renders it this way was
>     explained in the appendix of the _Kingdom Interlinear_ which is found
>     on pages 1158-1160 (of the 1969 edition).
> 
>         To make a long story short [and to summarize the Witness position
>     as a whole, and not just to summarize only what this particular
>     appendix said], the translators of the NWT feel that the _theos_ in the
>     phrase _kai theos en ho logos_ possesses an idiomatic sense which, due
>     to its position in the clause (being in the predicate) and the absence
>     of the Greek definite article (_ho_), tells us something about the
>     "word" as a QUALITY that he possesses, which is part of his nature (he
>     is "a god"), rather than something about his IDENTITY (he IS "God").
>     The NWT translators say he is "a god" rather than only "god" [without a
>     capital G] because it's a well known fact that Greek doesn't have an
>     equivalent to the indefinite article "a" of English, and thus when a
>     translator comes across a noun without a DEFINITE article (_ho_) that
>     he considers to be indefinite and qualitative, he *may* have to insert
>     the article "a" to make the translation read correctly in idiomatic
>     English, and thus convey the right sense.

  True, but the verb "was" is an intransitive verb, and can therefore never take
an object.  A definate predicate nominative never takes an article when it
precedes the verb.  (I am going to check my references at home, but the texts
here say the word logos precedes the verb.)  Greek gramatical construction from
this period is well known from many sources other than the Bible.

>         A good many orthodox (i.e., trinitarian) scholars also agree that
>     the word _theos_ in this clause is qualitative, and doesn't really
>     convey the sense in Greek which one gets from the English translation,

  Ithink this has more to do with the Greek meaning of logos, which is much more
than just word.  It can also mean cause, and a number of other things, the sense
of which doesn't translate well.

[deletions]
>         If the point of controversy isn't clear from the above, one other
>     important consideration -- which the KI appendix also dealt with, and
>     which is the portion which employed the quote by Robertson which has
>     been challenged -- is this: that the Greek word _theos_ not only pulls
>     'double duty' (like many other words) in that it may be used to either
>     describe quality ['a god'; _theos_, always without the definite article
>     in front]

  But not with intransitive verbs, which is the whole point.

> or identity as a title ['God'; _ho theos_, THE God -- i.e.,
>     one 'god' in particular that people are very familiar with], but when
>     it's used to describe identity, as the title of one specific god, it
>     may or may not be preceded by the Greek definite article [i.e., "the
>     God" may be refered to as _ho theos_ or merely as _theos_ -- which
>     means that the writer simply expects the reader to understand by
>     context that he is refering to some particular God (say, "the absolute
>     God") and not just some lesser god or godlike being [i.e., a heavenly
>     being, and not a mere mortal human].

  But that meaning must be conveyed with a direct object, not a predicate
nominative.

[more deletions]
>         The KI appendix explained why it rejected the idea that the
>     anarthrous _theos_ of the clause was *required* to be understood as
>     definite due to the aforementioned 'rule' of grammar [as though "the
>     Word WAS God" was the ONLY allowable translation due to supposition
>     that 1st century Greek readers would have been obliged to apply this
>     latter-day 'rule'], and then said the following (NOTE, by comments are
>     inserted in []'s):

  The comment "latter-day rule" is misleading.  The rule is well established in
the greek language from many texts other than the Bible.  Furthermore, it is not
a rule that one "would have been obliged to apply" any more than the rule of
putting the word "the" before a definate article would be today.  To not do it
was bad grammar.  I suppose you could argue that the authors were terrible with
greek, but then you could prove just about anything.

>         	"The above [appendix paragraph with other quotes,
>     		that I haven't reproduced, but which are from other
>     		Greek grammarians, who also happen to be trinitarians] 
>     		disposes of the trinitarian argument that the 
>     		[Greek definite] article was omitted before _theos_
>     		in the predicate of John 1:1 according to the 
>     		[alleged] general rule that it was not needed, but
>     		would be understood.

  i'd like to see those references, as this goes directly against my
understanding from textbooks, even those not written by Christians (trinitarian
or otherwise).

>  On page 761 Robertson's
>     		_Grammar_ says: "Among the ancient writers _ho theos_
>     		was used of the god of absolute religion in
>     		distinction from the mythological gods."  So too,
>     		John 1:1,2 uses _ho theos_ to distinguish Jehovah	
>     		God from the Word (Logos) as a god, "the only-
>     		begotten god" as John 1:18 calls him."  (p. 1159)

  This does not seem to follow.  The argument seems to be that they couldn't
have said A if they meant B, so if they didn't say A they must have meant B.

>     As I see it, the appendix quoted Robertson to establish a point of
>     literary and historical fact, that, "Among the ancient writers _ho
>     theos_ was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the
>     mythological gods."  This particular statement is NOT merely an opinion
>     of either Robertson or the WBTS; but is presented as a fact, and as a
>     fact, it is true regardless of any theological interpretation.

  But the quote doesn't establish anything.  Unless Robetson says that not using
it referrs to a property there is no support for the claim in the quote.

[deletions]
[all the way, as the rest is references]

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************