Subject: Ree: John 14:14

From: Rolf Furuli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:49:19 +0000

Dear Ron (Jim and Allan),

Ron Minton wrote:

<It may be that Jim West was correct and the NWT does not 
<follow W-H as claimed.  If that is the case, what I said 
<doesn't mean much because all I did was show one place 
<where they did not use W-H.  I would like to know if any 
<study has been done to validate or invalidate their 
<statement.

I have been gathering material for a book on the role played 
by theology and bias in Bible translation, among other 
things comparing the NWT with the TEV. Having read the NWT 
text verse by verse against the Hebrew and at present  
reading the NT against the Greek, I would like to give som 
comments.

In the OT the NWT translators have been extremely faithful 
both towards the Masoretic text and their own translation 
principles. Several times, after first reading the Hebrew 
text and then the English, I asked myself: `Was this nuance 
really in the Hebrew?` And certainly it was! Only minor 
ionconsistencies have I recognized in the OT. Similarly It 
is my impression that the WH text has been closely followed 
in the NT. I look forward to see Jim`s examples to the 
contrary.

<The fact that they rejected the Greek "me" in 14:14 says 
<the text was theologically chosen at least in this case 
<(unless we can demonstrate which of their claimed sources 
<do not have that word, and I do not have all of them).  All 
<I wanted to demonstrate here was the fact that "me" 
<was common in the immediate context, and it is; cf.  
<believe me, ask me, love me.

<You noted John 1:18 and 10:33.  I did not consider 1:18 
<because of the variant, but you are right; it should be 
<counted.  I did not consider 10:33-4 as applicable, but if 
<10:33 is considered, then the NWT translates the anarthrous 
<theos in John's works as "God" 24 times and as "a god" 3 
<times (the only three that Jesus is in view).  I think that 
<it is conclusive: the NWT is theologically slanted in the 
<extreme.

The statement that NWT is `theologically slanted to the 
extreme` may imply that other translations do not fit this 
description. As a matter of fact, theology plays a major 
role in ALL translations. In my study I therefore ask about 
the `legitimate` role of theology in translation, and my 
criterion for legitimacy of `theological renderings` is that 
they must not violate the rules of grammar and syntax and 
that the readers must be informed when there are different 
possibilities, in order to be able to make their own 
judgements. Using this on NWT it scores very high compared 
with TEV.

The word ME in John 14:14 occurs in WH in brackets, 
indicating some doubt about it, although it is viewed as a 
primary reading. The 1950 edition of the NWT New Testament 
may be criticized because it has no footnote referring to 
the WH text and to its use of ME. However, in the the 
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 
(1969) by the same translators the WH text is printed, and 
ME is found without brackets. (This edition is an excellent 
tool to ascertain whether the translators used WH or an 
eclectic text). In the NWT with references (1984) a footnote 
shows in which manuscripts  ME is found and in which it is 
lacking.

According to R.H. Countess The Jehovah`s Witness` New 
Testament (1982:109) the anarthrous QEWS occurs 20 times in 
John:  It is translated by `God` in 1:6,12,13,18; 3:2,21; 
6:45: 8:54; 9:16,33;13:3;16:30,19:7 and 20:17 (two), and is 
translated by `a god` in 1:1 and 10:33, by `the ..god` in 
1:18 and by `gods` in 10:34,35. There can be no question 
that these translations are theologically based, but so are 
the renderings of TEV and most other translations, using the 
word `God` in all cases (except 10:34,35). Most evangelical 
Christians believe in the old christological creeds, but 
from a scientific point of view these creeds are strange, 
using words contrary to what is normal and thoughts that are 
contrary to reason. It can hardly be a criterion on which to 
decide which renderings are slanted.

Linguistically speaking, the rendering `a god` in John 1:1 
is perfectly legitimate, and there are good contextual 
argumeents in favour of it; namely that the Word was PROS 
God, indicating a numeric and personal difference, and v 18 
where the Word is portrayed as `g/God with qualification` - 
a/the onlybegotten/unique g/God. True `a god` is an unhappy 
rendering in 1:1, because it may iimply there is more than 
one God. However, ANY rendering of this clause will give 
unhappy connotations.

Regarding the 15 examples of anarthrous QEWS rendered as 
`God`, all agree that they refer to the Father. In the five 
examples, however, the references are different, so there is 
no inconsistency on the part of the translators when they 
decide the difiniteness of the nouns on the basis on the 
context. This is the normal procedure of all translators.

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
University of Oslo