Jehovah Witnesses say John 1:1 was changed & their NWT Bible re-established the original wording! Sources?

Question

I posted a question the other day for Jehovah Witnesses, asking why they were certain Jesus was not God. One of the JWs explained:

"The Sahidic Coptic New Testament, which existed 1,700 years prior to their Bible, shows --for instance-- that John 1:1 was first written exactly the way their New World Translation Bible now renders it, & therefore proves that it was later changed ..."

At the same time, I've heard from others that Jehovah Witnesses were responsible for changing the original wording of this scripture. So I'm trying to determine which is accurate information.

Can someone explain the validity of The Sahidic Coptic New Testament? How reliable is it? What is it? And where can I find other "neutral" sources concerning the original translation of John 1:1 which reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The NWT reads "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Thanks

Basically I want to know if the original biblical writing of John 1:1 was the same as that written in Sahidic Coptic New Testament? If it was not, I'm not sure how the Sahidic Coptic New Testament can be used as a solid reason for changing the scripture. Now if the original writings stated the same, that's different.

Answer 1

It is true, Witnesses, "incorrectly" believe, they have restored the correct wording and/or interpretation of John 1:1 in their Bible Publication entitled: The New World Translation.
_______________

John 1:1 (King James Version): In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (New World Translation): In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
_________________

A translation, should never change, twist, or redefine the meaning of a scripture. Its only responsibility is to convey in another language, what was originally inspired by God.

Note: The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament(which includes the Book of John and Hebrews) was originally written in Greek.

There are two important points to understand....

(1). The original Greek Scriptures...utilizes the word Theos, when referring to "GOD" in this scripture. Theos signifies the Deity of God...not a son, not a prophet, not an angel.

Hebrews 1:6-8 states:

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let ALL the angels of God(Theos) worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. BUT unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O GOD(Theos), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

In the above scripture, Hebrews 1:6-8, God clearly refers to Jesus in the flesh as God, while making a clear distinction between Jesus and ALL Angels(that would include Michael)!

(2). The original Greek scriptures...utilizes the word Logos, when referring to the "Word" in this scripture. Logos signifies the thoughts and expressions of God...it is not something repeated by another, or conveyed to others via an object.

Thus, based on scripture, those who believe the interpretation of John 1:1 in the New World Translation, have been misled. It is clear, that Jesus in the flesh...was the Word...was God!

Blessings, Miji

Answer 2

There is proof out there that the world is flat. It is also easily refuted and hardly anyone believes that the earth is flat any more.

There may be external proof that they cite, but there are a few facts to consider
1) the JW's have proven that they can't quote people straight and honestly. Them saying that this is so does not necessarily make it that way.
2) consider the source. Johannes Grieber was a Watchtower authority quoted often until they found what else he taught.
I have never heard of this new testament manuscript and what is says is a marginalized minority reading.
What it says in Greek is "EN ARCHE THEOS EN HO LOGOS" What it says word for word is "In the beginning, God was the Word" What we see is a literary device in Greek to emphasize that Jesus is God and the JW's miss that. If you want to see more about this topic, have a look at Dana and Mantey's Critical Greek Apparatus of the New Testament. Julius Mantey was one of the best NT scholars around and one that the Watchtower quoted incorrectly. They had him supporting the NWT translation when he was in fact ROUNDLY DENOUNCING THEIR RENDERING!!!!!

Answer 3

Using Coptic Text to state the Bible has been changed is usually not a good idea. They changed many things. The original Gospels and teachings of the apostles were well circulated and they used the word "logos" in this verse.

The information I found in the lexicon for logos is:

1. A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.

2. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea

Answer 4

How ironic, I heard the other day that Jehovah Witnesses were embarrassed a while back to admit that the men that translated their "bible" didn't even know Greek. So how good a translation could they have?

If you are truly interested, by a book called "Reasoning from The Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ron Rhodes.

Answer 5

The Sahidic Coptic translation is very important to our confirming the text of the NT. It is a primary witness to the text, and in part reflects the proto Alexandrian text type, the text type of excellence also preserved in the Greek Uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Is it Gnostic? It is true many Gnostics works came from Egypt and were written in Coptic, that does not mean everything written in Coptic must be influenced by Gnosticism. In fact the early church was well established in Alexandria Egypt, and was home to influential writers such as Clement and Origen. They were not Gnostic. The writings of many church fathers are preserved in Coptic; some of these were Trinitarians who firmly opposed Gnosticism in their writings. So just because something is written in Coptic does not mean it is Gnostic, many Egyptians were opposed to Gnosticism and promoted Holy Trinity dogma. Interestingly quotes of the NT by Clement and Origen also reflect the Proto Alexandrian text.

Would it surprise the questioner to learn that most of the early Papyrus witnesses of the authentic NT text were found in Egypt? That whilst many were in Greek others were in Coptic? That these Coptic witnesses are very old, for example the oldest extant manuscript of 1 Peter is a Coptic one not a Greek one? That some of the most prized Greek papyrus manuscripts were written with two columns, one Greek the other Coptic?

All this serves to illustrate the importance of the Coptic version. With respect to the issue at hand, an outstanding point should be stressed: The translator's of the Coptic version, worked when Koine Greek was still a living language, in fact it was the international language. They knew Koine Greek intimately. No modern scholars can claim to have such intimacy, they refer to it as a "dead language" and differ among themselves with respect to some details of how to understand it.

The grammar Coptic John 1:1 is discussed on my blog. (http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/ ) It does indeed read rather like the NWT.

With respect to Greek grammar, Jehovah's Witnesses were by no means the first to observe the contrast between articular QEOS and the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative QEOS. They were by no means the first to conclude that something different is meant by each use of QEOS. They were not the first to judge the noun to be indefinite and to consequently have a somewhat qualitative force so that the idea is: "the Word was a divine being".

When one has been familiar with the translation "the Word was God" that has been around for centuries it may appear that versions that read differently (of which there are many) have changed the Bible.

Really though the NWT makes a sound translation decision. It is at very least a legitimate choice, and I personally have been persuaded by the grammatical arguments that it is the preferable choice.

As for neural sources on the translation of John 1:1. I think it is hard to find any writer on this topic without a theological stance. Professor Jason BeDuhn's book 'Truth In Translation' comes to mind as a somewhat neutral evaluation of several vesions including the NWT. One hopes that writers can be as objective as possible; still readers need to exercise their little grey cells to fully comprehend the issues here and recognise the truth of the matter. If one is forming an Christological position it is essential that such is based on a study of the entire Bible, not just one controversial verse.

Warm Regards
Ousboui

Answer 6

Jehovah's Witnesses did not change the wording of John 1:1 in Greek. The question is, How should it be translated into English? The Greek literally says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word." The original Greek has no capitalization, but the definite article "the" (hO in Greek) serves much the same duty as capital letters in English. Thus we would have, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and god was the Word." The second "god" is a pre-verbal predicate noun that does not have the Greek definite article, and therein lies the translation problem. Should it be "God" or "god" or "a god" or "divine" or something else? There has been much debate on this over many centuries, and many, many books have been written about it. But this is not because Jehovah's Witnesses changed anything.

The first known written, extant commentary on John 1:1 was by Origen in the 3rd century, and he tried to grasp the meaning of the second occurrence of "god" in this verse. It can be noted that he did not understand it to mean "the Word was God" as we might understand that sentence today. Origen distinguished between the Father, whom he called Autotheos ("God of Himself") and the Son, who was divine by his association with God, but not God as the Father is.

As for the 2nd/3rd century Sahidic Coptic version of John 1:1, it is NOT a Gnostic work. Rather, it is the earliest known translation of this verse of the Canonical Gospel of St. John in a language that has both an indefinite article ("a") and a definite article ("the"). Coptic John 1:1c says *auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje*. This translates literally as "and a god was the Word." Some people would argue for other meanings, but "and a god was the Word" is what the Coptic says literally.

This would indicate that the ancient Coptic translators, who had behind them a 500-year-old history of Greek in Egypt, and who did their work when the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language, did not understand John 1:1c to say "the Word was God," but something else. Possibly, "the Word was like God," or "the Word was a divine being," or "the Word was divine."

The Sahidic Coptic New Testament is recognized by textual scholars as a valuable witness to the original text of the New Testament, Greek scholars such as Dr. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland, in the same category as the ancient Latin and Syriac versions.

Being a translation of the original Greek text -- which no longer exists -- does not make the Coptic text less valuable. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was "just" a translation of the Hebrew Bible, but the Septuagint was the Bible used by the early Church, and New Testament writers like St. Paul the apostle.

Since we do not any longer have the "original" Greek text of the New Testament, versions like the Coptic, Latin, and Syriac show us how the text was understood by the early Christians.

I have been a student of ancient Egyptian (the parent of Coptic) for several years, and a student of Coptic itself for 2 years. I can see for myself that the literal Coptic text does say "and a god was the Word."

Answer 7

I just emailed (to you) links to some of the informative sites regarding the Sahidic Coptic Scriptures, etc. which I am aware of.

It is my understanding that these copies are The oldest & most reliable known to be in existance. They have very painstakingly been compiled, & have not been available for very long. One of the sites --which is currently under construction-- will supposedly have on-line:

The Sahidic Coptic New Testament with Parallel Greek,
&, Sahidica - The Egyptian New Testament

"The Sahidic is probably the earliest of the translations, and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a manuscript from about the end of that century. Unlike the Bohairic version, there is little evidence of progressive revision."
(Versions of the New Testament > Sahidic Coptic > skypoint.com)

"At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt. Various Coptic dialects were used in Egypt, and in time various Coptic versions were produced. The most important are the Thebaic, or Sahidic, Version of Upper Egypt (in the S) and the Bohairic Version of Lower Egypt (in the N)." (Insight bk > Versions)

Arm yourself:

Should You Believe Everything You Hear?
http://watchtower.org/e/20000622/article_01.htm

Propaganda Critic: Introduction
- The Institute for Propaganda Analysis
www.propagandacritic.com

ADDITIONAL:

"The Sahidic Coptic text of the Gospel of John has been found to be in the Alexandrian text tradition of the well-regarded Codex Vaticanus (B) (Vatican 1209), one of the best of the early extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Coptic John also shows affinities to the Greek Papyrus Bodmer XIV (p75) of the late 2nd/3rd century. Concerning the Alexandrian text tradition, Dr. Bruce Metzger states that it 'is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original.'"

This is a quote from:
Bruce M. Metzger,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
2nd edition, United Bible Societies, 1994, page 5

Answer 8

The JW New World Translation Bible has changed John 1:1 to say: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was "a" god."

This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature.

The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.

The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.

The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.

Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."
Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name."

We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.

Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god?

But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God."

"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16).
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).

Why was Moses going to "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).

John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).

John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

"In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
"and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.

Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.

In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).

References

1. Chapman, B. (1994). Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.). Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing. Also, Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.

Answer 9

If you do a search on the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, you will find, the Sahidic is probably the earliest of the translations, and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a manuscript from about the end of that century. There is little evidence of progressive revision which makes it a very reliable reference.

Answer 10

I'm a JW but I'm not familiar with that Sahidic Coptic NT. Anyway here are other Bible versions and see how they translated John 1:1. Notice though that Jehovah is called "God of gods" so these gods must exist, just like saying Lord of lords , other lords exist as well. It also doesn't mean that the Jehovah is "God of FALSE gods" otherwise you are making Jehovah like Satan which is not true.

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.