From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Subject: Re: JWs and the _Free Inquiry_ article (Spring 1992)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 26 JUL 92 03:15:43 EST


    Advance warning:  this is a long posting.  It prints out to 7 pages.

    This is a continuation of a previous reply of mine which was a response
    to article <SJE.92Jul16121205@xylos.ma30.bull.com> by Steven J.
    Edwards.  Mr. Edwards' posting pertained to the following article:

>"The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society"
>by Dr. Hector Avalos (UNC at Chapel Hill)
>in _Free Inquiry_ Spring 1992 Vol. 12, No. 2 (pages 28-31)

    Mr. Edwards wrote:

>I would type in the entire article for the news readers except that I
>noticed a copyright symbol buried in the fine print.
> 
>There are several cases of gross dishonesty on the part of the WTBTS
>with respect to misleading quotation in current publications.  Here's
>two of them:

    and then he cited two specific instances of alleged "gross dishonesty"
    which were covered in the article.

>1) In the book _Life--How did it get here?_ (WTBTS 1985, page 143)
>Zoologist Richard Lewontin was quoted as saying the exact opposite of
>what he really stated in his _Scientific American_ article
>("Adaptation", page 213, September 1978).  Lewontin has vigorously
>spoken against such misattribution in the past and his comments can be
>found in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (New York: W. W. Norton &
>Co., 1983).

    I obtained the September 1978 issue of _Scientific American_, read the
    source for myself, and posted my findings in a previous article.

        This posting concerns the next claim:

>2) In the WTBTS _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
>Scriptures_ (1969), A. T. Robinson is referenced on page 1159 calling
>for support of the JW translation of John 1:1, 2.  The complete text
>of the reference (page 761 in _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in
>the Light of Historical Resarch_, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) is
>printed in the _Free Inquiry_ article.  When compared with the
>selective quotation provided by the WTBTS, it's again obvious that
>only conscious, intentional deception on the part of the "researcher"
>could produce an interpretation necessary for the non-trinitarian JW
>doctrine.

    A friend of mine has sent me copies of pages 758-761 of Robertson's
    Grammar, which I have used as the basis for my reply.  [I also own a
    copy of the 1969 edition of the _Kingdom Interlinear_.]

        As a side note, Charlie Channel, another Witness, already publicly
    posted his own analysis of the material; but I believe that he made a
    mistake in something he said -- and after conversing with him via
    e-mail, he agreed that I had caught an error.  Rather than rehash what
    the mistake was, I'm simply going to let the remainder of this posting
    represent my full opinion of the matter.

        --*--

        Just so there's no doubt as to the focus of this posting, my reply
    is meant to address this remark by SJE:

>                                        When compared with the
>selective quotation provided by the WTBTS, it's again obvious that
>only conscious, intentional deception on the part of the "researcher"
>could produce an interpretation necessary for the non-trinitarian JW
>doctrine.

        To begin with, I read the entire page of Robertson's work that's in
    question (page 761), and *I* see no "obvious" distortion of what
    Robertson was saying.  As I said before, I haven't read Dr.  Avalos'
    article myself, but I wonder whether HE didn't misinterpret what
    Robertson was saying, or misinterpret what the WBTS was saying, or
    misinterpret BOTH in his zeal to find fault.  Since Mr. Edwards didn't
    say what Dr. Avalos' actual point was [i.e., how Dr. Avalos proved that
    there WAS a distortion of what Robertson said], I can really only guess
    at what Mr. Edwards thinks the problem really is ... and guessing
    probably won't do me much good.


        -*-

        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.

        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.

        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,
    "the Word WAS God" -- because this translation conveys the idea that
    John is telling us WHO the Word is (i.e., he is God) -- whereas the
    truth is that John is telling us something ABOUT him (i.e., he
    possesses the attribute of _theos_ as a quality, not the title of
    _theos_ [or _ho theos_] as a person; which is why some translators
    render this clause as "the Word was divine," and others, "what God was
    the Word was" -- to indicate that the Word possessed the same quality
    of divinity that God himself possesses).

        However, I digress, since I DON'T *really* want to get into a full
    blown debate about John 1:1.  I'm simply trying to summarize some
    necessary background material.

        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] 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].

        This latter matter [if you all out there in reader-land are still
    following me :-)] is what the appendix was sorting out when it quoted
    Robertson.  Why this is important is that it's more than just a good
    idea NOT to confuse occurances of _theos_ [without the definite
    article, which is technically called the "anarthrous" form of a noun]
    which are genuinely QUALITATIVE with occurances of anarthrous _theos_
    which are QUANTITATIVE, which signify specific identity.  What this
    boils down to [in this case] is whether one properly discerns whether
    John was writing about the Word as "a god" [or one with divine, godlike
    attributes] or as "the God."

        One MORE thing to keep in mind is that some scholars assert that
    the anarthrous _theos_ of John 1:1 IS definite because of some
    latter-day rule that some trinitarian Greek grammarians have
    postulated, as though 1st century Greek speakers would have themselves
    understood this 'rule' and have applied it automatically when they read
    John 1:1.  The KI appendix also made an effort to deal with this
    matter.  (It's often called Colwell's (sp?) rule, after the man who
    published an article in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_ sometime
    in the first half of this century, which asserted this 'rule' [as his
    own conclusion] -- but the KI appendix doesn't actually identify it
    using Colwell's name.)

    	Now, on to the actual citations in question.

        -*-

        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 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.  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)

    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.

        What the appendix writer does next is declare his OWN opinion in
    juxtaposition with this fact; namely that John himself was making a
    distinction in his own writing that his readers would understand due to
    their [presumed] familiarity with "ancient writers," and by extension,
    ancient linguistic tradition -- and that distinction was that THE God
    (_ho theos_) to whom the Word was 'toward' (_pros_) was DISTINCT in
    identity from the Word who was himself 'a god' (_theos_; though in this
    case, not a mythological god, for his existence was known to have been
    a fact by the writer, due to his own first-hand, personal experience
    with "the Word").

        The question to ask now is whether the fact that the appendix
    writer only selected one sentence out of page 761 of Robertson in any
    way conveys some false impression of what Robertson himself was saying.
    In fact, a related question is whether Robertson himself was really
    saying *anything at all* about how John 1:1 -- and the anarthrous
    _theos_ in the closing clause -- should be interpretted and/or
    translated.  To me this seems important, because unless Robertson is
    really saying something about John 1:1 that is opposite of what someone
    might *think* he's saying (if they had only read the Society's quote),
    I personally don't see how the WBTS could be guilty of distorting
    Robertson in any way, or in *any other way* guilty of a "conscious, 
    intentional deception" [which is the accusation SJE makes].

        After all, just because the writer didn't quote EVERYTHING ON THE
    PAGE and talk about EVERY OTHER POINT OF GRAMMAR that Robertson was
    dealing with, that doesn't make the writer guilty of "conscious,
    intentional deception" any more than *I* am guilty of intentional
    deception if I quote some fact out of an encyclopedia without quoting
    the whole page [or agreeing with a mere OPINION of the writer which
    might be based upon some fact which happened to be revealed in the
    quote I chose].

        The quote in question in Robertson's own work falls under [and 4
    pages after the beginning of] the heading:

        		V. Varied Usages of the Article.

    which begins on page 758.  It falls within the first subheading:

        		(a) With Substantives [i.e., nouns]

    which also begins on page 758; and it also falls under the further-
    nested subheading:

        		3. With Proper Names.

    which begins on page 759.

        The reason I quote all the page numbers is that under heading
    V.a.3, there is no mention of John 1:1 until the last 1/3 (or so) of
    page 761. Robertson DOES alude to John 1:1 in section V.a.1 (Context)
    -- but he doesn't actually quote it; he just says "Cf. also John 1:1". 
    [I'll get back to this, just to 'cover the bases'.]

        Now, in the context of talking about how the article us used with
    nouns which are proper names, Robertson gives some examples of how
    Gospel writers and classical writers use or omit the article with
    proper names, and then says:

        	"But, as a matter of fact, no satisfactory principle
    		can be laid down for the use or non-use of the 
    		article with proper names. ... Moulton ... admits
    		the inability of scholars to solve "completely the
    		problem of the article with proper names."  Abbott
    		... notes that John generally introduces a proper
    		name without the article and then uses it.  The
    		papyri also follow this classical idiom of using
    		the article with proper names when mentioned a second
    		time.  So when a man's father or mother is given in
    		the genitive, we usually have the article. ... The
    		papyri throw no great light on the subject.  
    		Radermacher ... claims that the papyri confirm the
    		N.T. usage.  In the papyri slaves regularly have the
    		article, even when the master does not. ... In Luke's
    		list (Lu. 3:23-38) _Ioseph_ has no article, while 
    		all the long line of genitives have _tou_, including
    		_tou theou_.  Among the ancient writers _ho theos_
    		was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction
    		from the mythological gods. ... In the N.T., however,
    		while we have _pros ton theon_ (Jo. 1,2); it is far
    		more common to find simply _theos_, especially in
    		the Epistles.  But the word is treated like a proper
    		name and may have it (Ro. 3:5) or not have it (8:9).
    		The same thing holds true about _pneuma_ and _pneuma
    		hagion_, _kyrios_, and _Christos_.  These words
    		will come up for further discussion later." [end of
    		paragraph, end of page; last page I have a copy of.]

    To keep the quote readable, I've omitted actual reference citations and
    a few additional references to other authorities, which Robertson also
    quotes examples from; but I've done my best to preserve the overall
    context of Robertson's remarks, both before and after the sentence
    quoted by the WBTS.

        As you can see, Robertson is discussing the general problem, or
    overall fact, that the Greek definite article isn't used with proper 
    names in a fashion that is universally consistent in Greek writing,
    whether in the Bible or in non-Biblical Greek writings.  Sometimes it's
    there, and sometimes it isn't -- and when it isn't there, that's tough.
    Presumably whoever is reading can figure out that a proper name is
    meant.  [What this means to us, i.e., English readers, is that Greek
    names often appear as _the <person's name>_; in some usage, I would be
    "the Mark"; Steven J. Edwards would be "the Steven," and etc.  Other
    times we would just be "Mark" and "Steven".]

        Now, it just so happens that Robertson includes a brief
    consideration of how _theos_ is used as a proper name (like we today
    might use the word "president," if we were speaking of George Bush, but
    calling him "The President"; or as we use the word "God" when we speak
    about Jehovah [or Yahweh]).  He points out, as a matter of fact, that
    _ho theos_ had a meaning to "ancient [pre-NT] writers" that was quite
    distinctive -- but notes how _theos_, when used in the NT as the proper
    name for the God of the Bible, isn't used *everywhere* in the NT as _ho
    theos_ in every occurance.  In other words, no one could say that NT 
    writers maintained that distinction with any rigorous degree of effort,
    so that their God would NEVER be referred to as anyone other than _ho
    theos_.

        Robertson notes that we find _ton theon_ (which is the
    appropriately declined form of _ho theos_) in John 1:1 -- WHICH, take
    note, IS NOT THE SAME as the clause with the anarthrous _theos_; but he
    also notes that the article is often NOT present with _theos_ (when
    used as a proper name) in the Epistles and elsewhere.  He also says the
    "same thing holds true" for the words spirit, holy spirit, lord, and
    Christ.

        What this says, in summary, is that the article is present when it
    is, and it isn't when it ain't; and people who want absolute
    consistency simply won't get it.  

        What Robertson DOESN'T say is what he thinks about John's use of
    BOTH _ho theos_ and the anarthrous _theos_ in John 1:1.  [Or at least
    he doesn't do it here, which is too bad, since I don't have any of his
    works to figure out what he DOES think about it.]  Therefore, the WBTS
    hasn't distorted Robertson's views on the meaning of the anarthrous
    _theos_ of John 1:1 as they appear on page 761 [the page cited by SJE]
    because Robertson didn't even EXPRESS his views about it in the first
    place.

        Is Dr. Avolos' argument/claim that the WBTS is claiming that
    Robertson *himself* actually feels that John was making the distinction
    between _ho theos_ and _theos_ in John 1:1 the same way the "ancient
    writers" DID?  If so, then he's wrong, for the WBTS attributed NO such
    conclusion to Robertson.  That's their OWN conclusion, which they've
    drawn based on the [historical] truth of Robertson's remark, and they
    *in no way* attributed that conclusion to Robertson [that I can see].
    There's nothing in their words which bears witness to the contrary.

        It's true that their CONCLUSION [about all of John 1:1] can't be
    found in this passage by Robertson, but they never claimed that it was,
    and their conclusion certainly doesn't conflict with anything Robertson
    said.  Just because _theos_ may mean _ho theos_ -- but only appear as
    _theos_ -- in various places which Robertson made reference to doesn't
    mean that Robertson is saying that _kai theos en ho logos_ of John 1:1
    REALLY MEANS _kai HO theos en ho logos_, either.  [In fact, I've read
    that some scholars, and trinitarian scholars at that, admit that it
    COULDN'T mean _kai HO theos en ho logos_, because that's a
    contradiction of the earlier clauses of the verse, and was also a
    notion that even trinitarians labelled as heretical.]

        The bottom line is that I personally can see nothing in either work
    which bears witness to ANY proof that the WBTS is guilty of a
    "conscious, intentional deception" -- though I have to admit, again,
    that since SJE didn't actually SAY what the alleged deception really
    was, I may simply have missed whatever his unsaid point was altogether. 
    But the truth is that I HAVE actually sought to find the fault that was
    alleged to be there, and alledged to be "obviously" there, and I
    haven't found it.

        Now, going back to the one other reference to John 1:1 (on page
    758) that might even be remotely connected to what Robertson was saying
    about it on page 761, here's what Robertson said under the heading
    V.a.1 (Context):

        	"Whether the substantive [noun] is pointed out
    		as an individual, class or quality, the context
    		makes clear.  The English may or may not have need
    		of the article in translation.  But that point
    		cuts no figure in the Greek Idiom.  Thus in Ac.27:23,
    		_tou theou ou eimi_, the article points out the 
    		special God whose Paul is [sic? -- my copy is
    		slightly cut off at the left edge; and I can't tell
    		if the word "is" is what was meant] and is to be
    		preserved in English.  In the very next verse,
    		_ho theos_, we in English do not need the article, 
    		even if, as is unlikely, the angel as the notion of 
    		"the special God."  Cf. also John 1:1."

    As I read this, I really find NO connection between the point about
    John 1:1 here and the point on page 761.  Robertson seems to be saying
    that we should take a look at John 1:1 and note how the Greek happens
    to literally SAY _ho theos_ ('the word was toward the god'), but the
    article gets dropped before "God" in English ("the Word was God").
    In the RSV, Acts 27:23 says:

        	"For this very night there stood by me an
    		angel of THE God to whom I belong ..."

    but a few verses later, Paul refers to his God again, in Greek, as _ho
    theos_, but the article is DROPPED for idiomatic reasons from the
    English translation:

        	"and he said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul, you
    		must stand before Caesar; and lo, God has
    		granted you all those who said with you.'"
    		(v.24)

        That's about it.

        							-mark.