Are these leading Greek scholars wrong in their estimation of the New World Translation of the Bible?

Question

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."

"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)

Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT

"a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)

the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

Michelle Change: the watchtower.org site is from the translators of the New World Testament. I wouldn't expect that site to speak to these accusations.

this is a really great, scholarly discussion of Julius Mantey's letter of disapproval to the Watchtower Society in their use of his work to legitimize their translation:

http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/GS-RH.Mantey.Hommel.1.htm

to the answerer with the greek nickname: thank you for your learned commentary on what you've read in these answers.

this is not ridicule. I'm asking if anyone feels these scholars are wrong. If you check their credentials, they're not just some guy off the street, with a high school education in foreign language.

Bruce M Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, 10:67, April 1963 cited in Apostles p. 193

Bruce M Metzger, "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, (April 1953 p. 74); see also Metzger, "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," The Bible Translator (July 1964)

Jim, the above was for you. Make up your own mind in conference with Dr. Metzger. I'm interested in your thoughts, if and when you ever care to share.

Answer 1

No these statements are not wrong. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger was one of the finest Greek scholars in the world.

John 1:1 in the NWT is one of the most glaring examples of either, 1) complete ineptitude or 2) purposeful deception.

In either case, I would not trust my eternal soul to such linguistic butchery.


Trust me the Greek in the first chapter of John is not difficult nor is it debatable what θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means.

There is simply no way possible way to mess up the translation of the article "ὁ" means the. In fact it is even stronger. In this context it means the one and only.

edit-- The hubris seen here is amazing. There is not one credible Greek scholar in the world that would argue with Dr. Metzger on this matter. He was simply without peer.

edit-- Michelle Chang you clearly know nothing of translation or Greek, this much is obvious. Learning the meaning of the article (as I have mentioned above) is something done just after the alphabet is learned. Now I have only had one year of graduate level Greek and I know that much.

To question one of the Translators of the RSV and the Chairman of the NRSV translation committee (Metzger) is simply amazing.

edit-- Here is another source W. Hall Harris III , Th.M., Ph.D.:
QeoV" h oJ lovgo" See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, for the significance of anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominatives and a discussion of Colwell’s Rule. From a technical standpoint, I think it is probably preferable to see something of a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov". NEB has a helpful translation: “What God was, the Word was,” meaning the Word was fully deity in essence. In modern English “the Word was divine” does not quite catch the meaning; “the Word was fully God” would be more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader. (1)

Answer 2

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures and the New World Translation are two different books. If you will take the time to use The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures and compare it with the New World Translation, you will find a vast amount of differences. Although Jehovah's Witnesses feel confident that the Society has restored God's true name "Jehovah" through the New Testament, they should feel more confidence in the fact that no one is precisely clear as to the correct way to pronounce "YHWH". We are certainly not here to prove how the way "YHWH" should be pronounced or that Jehovah's Witnesses pronunciation is incorrect. What does need to be addressed is how they use this term and their erroneous insertions of it throughout the New Testament . Although the term "YHWH" appears in the Old Testament, it is the Society's devious motive behind their insertions of the name Jehovah within the New Testament that need to be examined. Their own publication (Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures), proves the word "Jehovah" does not appear within the original Greek text. The Watchtower Society has intentionally inserted the name Jehovah were Lord appears within the New Testament to support their polytheist beliefs that Jesus is not Jehovah, therefore rejecting the deity of Christ. Perhaps inadvertently, they admitted to the fact that no Greek manuscripts contain God's name: There are so many differences and distortions within both books that I do not have enogh room here to list all the differences. I will note that where ever the bible is different to thier doctrine they made the changes. Thier doctrine was set before their NWT was written and low and behold it matches to the tee. Wow what a piece of work, right!

Answer 3

The question is not about the NWTTC skill sets:

Samuel Haas said of the New World Translation, "this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship." (Journal of Biblical Literature, December 1955, p. 283).

Bruce Metzger: "On the whole one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators”(The Bible Translator, Vol.15, 1964, pp. 151-2).

But the rendering of John 1:1 is:

In "Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns" "sub-heading "Illegitimate Usage of Colwell" (Sept.,1998) D. E. Hartley of Dallas Theological:

"Thereafter Colwell’s conclusions were accepted nearly unanimously in the scholarly world. Many evangelicals, because of the implications to John 1:1, unwittingly assumed, as Metzger did, the converse of Colwell’s rule which led to its abuse.

His actual rule states, “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” This statement, however, was taken to imply that anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.

This type of abuse bled into the commentaries on John as well. Later research seriously questioned this consensus of opinion by attempting to demonstrate that pre-copulative anarthrous PNs were predominately qualitative in nature, a fact not considered seriously enough within the semantic range of some, including Colwell."

Metzger said the NWT rendering is "Erroneous". Which is incorrect. John 1:1 can have nouns be indefinite if definite articles are not present. Which is the case with John 1:1.

English has BOTH a definite and an indefinite article, Greek has ONLY a definite article.

Therefore, the mechanisms which both languages use to convey the notion of indefiniteness must, of necessity, be functionally different.

The noted Bible translator William Barclay writes: Except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them . . . When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description rather than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun.

Answer 4

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. Is the word “god” here wrongly translated? Notice this example.

In the pre-Christian times was the human judge, and the human judge was [walking] with [the] God, and the human judge was [God or god]? How would you translate this? Human judges in Bible times are called “gods”.

Non-JWs are having problems with the translation as “god” in John 1:1 because they do not believe in the existence of these “gods”. But does the Bible teach that?

Why is Jehovah called “God of gods” acc to Deut 10:17? If the “gods” are all false gods, then are you saying that Jehovah is the God of “false” gods? Someone cannot be called God of “gods” if these other “gods” do not exist same as saying King of kings if other kings do not exist.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
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.

Answer 5

"Are these leading Greek scholars wrong in their estimation of the New World Translation of the Bible?"
Considering the way you (correctly) worded the question, I have to state "they could be". Let me explain.

First, the quotes you offer are unsourced.
Second, it *is* their estimation. As is the case with science (with which I have a passing familiarity), much that has to do with translation is uncertain - particularly when the translation of ancient languages is involved. In other words, these are (presumably) the opinions (not factual assertions) of scholars. Which leads to my 3rd concern...
Third, there is no specific instance of mistranslation provided. The opinions of even these scholars, assuming that they are accurately quoted, have marginal merit if there is not a single instance offered by them backing their claims. In this case, there is not.

The link provided by Abdijah is worthwhile. It's important to look at both sides of the argument.

The dominant *specific* concern of your question is the translation of John 1:1 - using "a god" instead of "(the) God." This is the point on which I will center my response. Is this translation of this verse erroneous?

I (not a scholar of ancient Greek) always supposed that, because of the lack of a definite article, it was entirely reasonable to translate this without that article! However, after reading all the answers here *and* referring to the sites above, it is clear that this translation *is unlikely* (because of the word order), but *not* unreasonable. In other words, a scholar of ancient Greek with integrity cannot easily point to this particular verse in the New World Translation (NWT) and claim with certainty that this is a mistranslation. Such a scholar could claim that it is an *unlikley* translation, but not a *verifiably inaccurate* translation. Indeed, it appears (after reading the contents of the link you provided) that the most literal translation is along the lines "the Word was deity" (small "d") or, "the Word was Divine" or, "the Word was Godly". I quote from that web page, "while the qualitative theos in John 1:1c points to the essential nature of the Word".

Does this re-evaluation lower my regard for the NWT? Certainly, it makes me question it more strongly. I will have to reconsider my review of the 1984 edition "With References" (http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles ). However, after reviewing the information here, I must stand by my mostly positive evaluation until given a *specific* and *incontrovertible* instance of mistranslation - something with which *no one* has yet provided me. I realize that this would take a real scholar of ancient Greek, and he would have to provide specific reasons which I would be required to research, but I am willing to devote the time if such a clear description of a verifiable mistranslation is provided.

I must say, I find your quote (unreferenced!) by Dr. Metzger most troubling, as I have great respect for his accomplishments with the Oxford Annotated bible, my 2nd favorite version / edition (after the New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition). I would appreciate the source of this quote in particular.

Jim, not a Jehovah's Witness, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 6

In answer to your question; of course these scholars are not wrong, the NWT is a travesty and clearly designed by Satan to mislead people about the true gospel of Christ. In answer to some of the JW's who answered, I HAVE read, and studied the NWT, I have also read others such as the KJV and NIV, and, whilst I would agree that none are perfect, the only one that is clearly trying to mislead is the NWT. The omission of the tetragrammaton that represents Gods name is missing from most Bibles with the exception of a verse in Genesis 6 and Psalms, but most modern publications make it quite clear that this has been replaced by LORD in the preface, so they can hardly be accused of dishonesty. The NWT, on the other hand, makes no such admissions when it changed grammer to completely change the understanding of scripture; the one I dislike the most is the use of added words in parenthisis to 'aid understanding', sadly this 'aiding' is nothing of the sort but rather distorting the language to imply another meaning. An example of this is Colossians 1:16, which, in the KJV and the NIV and the states, 'For by him were ALL things created'; in the 1984 revision of the NWT is says 'because by him were all (other) things created'. What is alarming about this is that in later versions the parenthisis have been removed, implying that this is a correct translation, and not an attempt to 'aid' understanding, for me it smacks of complete dishonesty.

Abdijah: You will have to come up with something better than a site written by a JW.

Answer 7

Here's one for you; Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the JW's claimed he based his doctrine on the "original Greek". The reason that the claimed this is because it would be obvious to any logical person that the English Bible doesn't teach his doctrine. The problem is, neither does the Greek! Charles Taze Russell was taken to court in Ontario, Canada and was proven on the witness stand to be a perjurer concerning his knowledge of the Greek language. When he was asked on the witness stand on March 17,1913, if he was knowledgeable in the Greek language he replied that he was. Then he was asked to quote the Greek alphabet, and he could not get past the third letter of the Greek alphabet. This is the one who claims to be an expert and have knowledge of the Greek language. None of the people who translated this butchered version of the the bible were Greek scholars and it shows. I wonder how many JW's are aware of this or even care.

Answer 8

It could be the ones making this statements are wrong to. They are humans and imperfect also. When it comes to God Almighty you don't have to be the "smartest man on the block". YHVH God enlightens the Holy Spirit on who He wants to and who He chooses to. That is the person with the correct heart that is yearning for the righteousness of the Divine God. Remember, only YHVH God and Christ Jesus that can read one's heart. God works in mysterious ways and uses people all the time that the rest of the world would not have even think of choosing. Think about it.

Answer 9

Of course not. Why would the jeopardize their credentials by endorsing the nwt as a legitimate translation?

Edge made a good point. It won't be long before the come out with a new nwt with more altered verses. Unfortunately for them the Bible is littered all over with verses that states Christ's deity...They won't change all versus they don't read the Bible all they way through...they just read the versus that only apply to them.

Answer 10

I trust the Greeks in their translation concerns. They are very specific about the wording of "the word of God" since the ancient times because in many cases meanings have been changed and there has become too many loose ends and openings for the evil one to take people off-track. This is how we get into heresy, errors and corruption. Many are being mis-led as we speak! We need one bible with wording and translation dating back to the closest possible times when Jesus walked the earth and the apostles started their ministry. These words and lessons were left for us to get us through all times, not for the times to change the words to get us through "whatever" - blah blah.....