What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
.....
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."
.....
For the saake of balance,
Thomas
Yes, 'for the sake of keeping balance,' although I am of the opinion that each of the above evaluations of the
New World Translation could be effectively addressed, I would like to touch upon just one of the scholars you listed, Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar. With respect to the redendering of John 1:1c within Jehovah's Witnesses'
New World Translation as, "and the Word was a god," you had quoted him as saying, "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
A bit more of the quote in context might be of interest to some here:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect [Jehovah’s Witnesses] is seen in their New Testament translation. J[oh]n i1 is translated: 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible….It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." - "The Expository Times." (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, v. 1-, Oct. 1889-), vol. 65, October, 1953. BS410 .E8 / 54-43327 r82.
And yet, although within the above he states quite emphatically, "'and the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible," it is important to note that, some years later, in a letter written to a Mr. David Burnett, Australia, dated May 20, 1974, Barclay had apparently changed his mind on this, that is, by stating:
"You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: 'the Word was a God.'" - Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), Lecturer in the University of Glasgow.
Ever Yours; A Selection From the Letters of William Barclay. Rawlins, Clive L. (b.1940-d.?), Editor. (Dunbar, England: Labarum Publications, 1985).
ISBN: 0948095040.
In explaining this a bit further, Barclay had offered this example in another of his works:
"An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, 'The preacher is the man,' I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, 'The preacher is man,' I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being." - Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), Lecturer in the University of Glasgow.
Jesus as They Knew Him. (New York, New York: Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 21, 22.
And yet, if we were to just put in place of "preacher" and "man" the words "Word/Jesus" and "god," along with a few other adjustments, consider how this very point might have otherwise read:
"An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, 'The Word/Jesus is the god,' I use the definite article before both Word/Jesus and god, and I thereby identify the word/Jesus with some quite definite individual god whom I have in mind [in this case, Almighty God]. But, if I say, 'The Word/Jesus is god,' I have omitted the definite article before god, and what I mean is that the word/Jesus must be classified as a god, he is in the sphere of godhood, he is a godlike being."
Perhaps this is in some part the reason why it is little known that Barclay had also later admitted this view:
"It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God….Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God." -
William Barclay - A Spiritual Autobiography. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 49, 50. BS2351 .B28 A37 1975 / 73-76528.
Interestingly, with respect to the Greek of John 1:1c, a number of other Biblical scholars have admitted the same as Barclay:
"…, from the point of view of grammar alone, κα θες ν λγος [from John 1:1c] could be rendered ‘the Word was a god’…” – Harris, Murray J. (b.?-d.?). "Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus." (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 60. BT216 .H37 1992 / 92-30780.
“[John 1:1c] could also be translated: ‘the Word was a god’ or ‘the Word was divine.’ Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations [including the common, “and the Word was God”] can be defended on grammatical grounds.” – Loader, William R. G. (b.1944-d.?).
The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues. vol. xxiii [23] of:
Beiträge zur Biblischen Exegese und Theologie. (Frankfurt am Main; New York; Paris: Verlag P. Lang, c1989), p. 156. BT198 .L57 1989 / 89-12453. 2nd Revised Edition (Frankfurt am Main, Germany; New York, New York: P. Lang, c1992), p. 155. BT198 .L57 1992 / 92-19502.
"Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse [John 1:1c] should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god.’" – "The Catholic Biblical Quarterly." (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, vol. 1-, Jan. 1939-), vol. XIII [13], no. 4, October 1951. BS410 .C3 / a40-000163.
So again, instead of being "grammatically impossible," Christendom's Trinitarian scholars give evidence of an important agreement, that it is, indeed, quite possible to render John 1:1c as, "and the Word was a god"; and thus, this rendering is not "intellectually dishonest."
Agape, Alan.
[1 Tim. 2:5]
