Posted on 12/11/2013 8:35:11 AM PST by GonzoII
|
An ex-Jehovah’s Witness, now Catholic, who we at Catholic Answers helped to come to Christ in his Church, gave me some wonderful gifts by way of old books, many of them first edition, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the publishing arm of the Jehovah’s Witnesses run by the leaders of their sect. Of note among these great gifts is a first edition copy of The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the official Jehovah’s Witness translation of the New Testament, first published by the Watchtower in 1950. It is not the translation so much that makes it so valuable, though the translation is certainly important. The New World Translation is, at times, not so much a translation as it is an attempt to force Jehovah’s Witness theology into biblical texts that actually oppose it. But you can get newer editions of the translation that aren’t that much different than the old. The footnotes explicating the texts are where the real value lies in this 1950 edition. In future blog posts, I will comment on some other examples of these footnotes, but in this post I want to focus on the footnote to John 8:58, one of many New Testament texts that contribute significantly to our understanding of the revelation of Jesus Christ as fully God (of course, Christ is also fully man). And keep in mind, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Christ’s divinity. The Text at Hand Let us first lay out a proper rendering of John 8:58 from the RSVCE, including verses 57 and 59 for a bit of context: [57] The Jews then said to [Jesus], “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” [58] Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [59] So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. When Jesus responded to “the Jews” saying, “Before Abraham was, I am,” St. John was, no doubt, hearkening back to God’s revelation of the divine name as “I AM WHO AM,” and the shorter “I AM” in Exodus 3:13-15. [13] Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the sons of Israel and say to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you,” and they ask me, “What is his name?” what shall I say to them? [14] God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” [15] God also said to Moses, “Say this to the sons of Israel, ‘[YAHWEH], the God of… Abraham… Isaac… and… Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” In Hebrew, when God first answers Moses’s question as to what his name is, in verse 14, he says, ehyeh asher ehyeh is his name, which translates as “I am that I am.” God then tells Moses, in that same verse, to tell “the sons of Israel I AM has sent me to you.” There, God says his name is more simply ehyeh, or “I AM.” Then, in verse fifteen, he tells them that his name forever will be YHWH, commonly read and spoken as Yahweh, which translates as “I AM THAT I AM,” or “I AM WHO AM,” as St. Jerome translated it. Yahweh, it would seem, would be God’s formal name while the essence of his name is revealed simply as I AM. Metaphysically, this name reveals God to simply be. He has no beginning, no end, no lack of being; He is all perfection. He is existence itself. It is difficult for us in the 21st century to fathom how utterly blasphemous it would have sounded for Jesus of Nazareth to dare utter the words we cited above from John 8: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” It is no wonder that in verse 59 the Jews picked up stones to kill him. He is essentially claiming the divine name for himself plainly revealing that he was and is God. The JW Problem Obviously, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot leave this text as is and maintain their denial of Christ’s divinity. So what do they do? Let me now cite the New World Translation’s rendering of verse 58: Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” In the footnote below, the translators claim because “I am” (Greek, ego eimi) comes after an aorist infinitive clause, it is “properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.” Moreover, it declares, “It is not the same as [ho ohn] (ho ohn, meaning “The Being” or “The I Am”) at Exodus 3:14, LXX.” We should note here that in the Septuagint (LXX, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament translated ca. 250-100 BC), the name God first reveals to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is “ego eimi ho ohn,” which translates as “I am the being.” With this in mind, this latter point in the NWT footnote is truly stunning. A first or second year Greek student knows that ho ohn does not mean “The I AM.” Ho ohn means “the being.” Ego eimi means “I am.” Thus, again, ego eimi ho ohn, translates literally as “I am the being.” Most likely, because the second time God tells Moses to repeat his name to the people of God, the Septuagint has God saying to Moses, “Say this to the sons of Israel, the being (Gr.—ho ohn) has sent you,” instead of what we find in the Hebrew text—I AM—in verse 14, the translator wrongly thought ho ohn could be translated as “the I am.” In fact, the translators of the Septuagint were either using bad manuscripts or just got it wrong here for whatever reason. The Hebrew text reads, “… I AM sent me to you” as we said above. But again, to think ho ohn could be translated as “the I am” reveals a truly remarkable lack of knowledge of Greek by the “translators” of the New World Translation. Strike Two The second error in the footnote is a bit more complicated. In short, there is no “perfect indefinite tense” in Greek. So it is odd to claim “I have been” is an example of the “perfect indefinite tense.” Apologists among Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim it is being “rendered” into English in the perfect indefinite tense, which is odd, but it could be legitimate using rules of grammar in a strict sense. We don’t use a perfect indefinite tense in modern English, but one can find older English grammars that will include it. In days past, English speakers would say things like, “I am come to the farm…” which uses “I am come” in the present tense, while carrying a perfect sense of “I have come…” I would add here that Herbert W. Smyth says, in his classic Greek Grammar, published by Harvard University Press, there are certain Greek verbs that express “an enduring result, and may be translated by the perfect.” Heiko (I have arrived) is a good example as we find it in I John 5:20, “And we know the Son of God has come…” Has come (Gr.—heikei) is in the present tense, but denotes a perfect sense. In John 14:9, we find Jesus responding to Philip’s insistence that he “show us the Father,” by saying, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me?” St. John used eimi for “I” here. The literal translation would be “Am I with you so long…” This is a case of the verb to be in the present tense, but used in a perfect sense. So, even though we would argue that at best the translators should have known that there is no “perfect indefinite tense in Greek” and that, at best, they could argue for a present for perfect usage here, do the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a point here? Could John 8:58 be another case of a present for perfect? Should we translate it as “before Abraham came into existence, I have been?” The answer is no. What the Watchtower does not take into account is the particular category of usage into which John 8:58 falls as a result of the context in which it is found. As D.A. Carson points out in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, context and usage are much more important than technical, grammatical rules. He calls these kinds of fallacies “grammatical fallacies.” While there are many possibilities when it comes to the use of words that would fall within the parameters of Greek grammar, the proper understanding of terms comes most often through discovering its actual usage in the sacred text. Bruce Vauter, C.M., points out in the Jerome Biblical Commentary, “The ‘I am’ formula without the predicate,” as he calls it, or the “I am” without anything following it (Gr.—ego eimi) , is used frequently in John’s Gospel and elsewhere in the New Testament, with crucial antecedents in the Old Testament as well. In Mt. 14:27; Mk. 13:6; 14:62; John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 18:6 and, of course, John 8:58, as we’ve seen, we find this formula used, but each time it is in the context of either some sort of miraculous intervention where Christ is revealing his divine authority, or in the context of an overt statement declaring his divinity in no uncertain terms as we saw in John 8:58. This does not mean this “formula” cannot have other meanings, but it does establish a context in which we find it often relating to Christ’s identity as more than just a man in the New Testament. If we couple these examples with the fact that God uses this same “I am” formula in the Old Testament in texts like Exodus 3:14; Dt. 32:39; Is. 43:10; 46:4; 51:12 and more, revealing himself to be the infinite God—the I AM—without beginning and end, all perfection, being itself, etc., Jesus’ usage becomes all the more profound. Again, he is declaring himself to be God. It is only with this understanding that so many of these above-cited New Testament texts make sense. Jesus uses the divine name just before he miraculously calms a storm, revealing his divinity in Matt. 14:27. He responds to the High Priest using the divine name resulting in the High Priest declaring him to have committed blasphemy in Mark 14:62. We saw the reaction of the Jews wanting to stone him in John 8:58. It was not punishable by death to believe wrongly that human beings could have had a pre-human existence, which is all the “I have been” translation would indicate. In fact, the pre-existence of the human soul was believed by many Jews in the first century. It would make no sense for the Jews to “[take] up stones” if this was all Jesus was saying. Strike Three The multiple “I am” passages–Mt. 14:27; Mk. 13:6; 14:62; John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 18:6–of the New Testament are used to reveal Christ’s divinity just as their antecedent “I am” passages in the Old Testament reveal something of God’s essence as absolute being. The texts themselves, their context, and the reaction of the Jews hearing our Lord’s words make it undeniable that Jesus was here revealing that he was not only true man, but true God as well. |
The JW believe that Jesus was really the archangel Michael incarnated and was therefore the ‘first born’ Son of God.................
Interesting thanks for posting.
From the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness (Compared to the New International Version ):
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (John 1:1 NWT)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NIV )
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (John 8:58, NWT)
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58, NIV)
In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28, NWT)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28, NIV)
And when they went into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and falling down, they did obeisance to him (Matthew 2:11, NWT)
On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him (Matthew 2:11, NIV)
Then those in the boat did obeisance* to him, saying: “You really are God’s Son.” (Matthew 14:33, NWT)
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33, NIV)
And look! Jesus met them and said: “Good day!” They approached and took hold of his feet and did obeisance* to him. (Matthew 28:9, NWT)
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. (Matthew 28:9, NIV)
while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13, NWT)
while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ ((Titus 2:13, NIV)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The NWT keeps using the word OBEISANCE instead of the word — WORSHIP when referring to what the Wise men or His disciples rendered to Jesus.
MEANING OF THE WORD obeisance: deferential respect.
“they paid obeisance to the prince”
a gesture expressing deferential respect, such as a bow or curtsy.
The only problem with that is the Greek word used here ( the original text): prosekýnsan, must be correctly translated as WORSHIP.
The Greek word for Obeisance is : ypakoí( It isn’t in the Greek text ).
Also, the NWT mistranslates the first sentence of John 1 by adding an indefinite article to “The Word Was God” making it “The Word was a god”.
Perhaps because there are no indefinite articles in Greek, it could be”translated” either way. However, in Context, It should read “The Word Was God”, because the other Phrases in the sentence support the eternal existence of the Word.
Charles Taze Russell was not a recognized Greek Scholar anyway, so the NWT is essentially a paraphrase of the Old American Standard version (which mistakenly used the name “Jehovah” to replace the Tetragrammaton).
bfl
Good points. Anyone doing a careful read of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews can tell the first item on Paul’s agenda was demonstrating the divinity of Jesus from Scripture. The “Witnesses” have gone off the rails with Russle.
Here is one of the most definitive proofs that the Jehovah Witness denial of Christ’s deity is wrong:
John 12:37-41
But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.” These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.
The New World translation does not deny that this last sentence refers to Isaiah seeing Christ in glory. The question is “when did Isaiah see Christ in glory?”
The two passages quoted by John here come from Isaiah 53:1, where Isaiah foretold of Christ’s death, and Isaiah 6:10, where Isaiah saw the Lord in His glory:
Isaiah 6:1-3
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”
Isaiah saw Jehovah in His glory. John says Isaiah was writing these words about Christ when he saw Him in His glory. Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 6.
No man can see the Father and live. No man can see the Spirit (directly) because He is Spirit. But God has revealed Himself visibly through Jesus Christ the Lord. All of the Old Testament appearances of God to man were the pre-incarnate Christ.
No problem.
If the author had a direct experience he would not feel the need to argue about words. Isn’t that the whole point to the answer to the question, “Who are you?” But academics and sophists will spend their lives proving their concepts, and in the process cutting each other to pieces. Do they not recognize the Living Word? No. So they argue dead letters.
For example, does he even know what he means by the word “divinity”? Can any man know what “divinity” is? Of course not. But he will argue about it and condemn other people for what he perceives to be their definition of it. How ridiculous . It’s just a platform by which he tries to elevate himself over other men, which is the opposite of what he claims to be about.
The NWT certainly has long precedent in translating Ex.3:14 as other than “I AM” as the Miles Coverdale Bible of 1535 shows in it’s wording,
“God saide vnto Moses: I wyl be what I wyll be. And he sayde: Thus shalt thou saye vnto ye children of Israel: I wyl he hath sent me vnto you”
Will you offer the same criticism for this translation and its translators?
Or the word “deity” - take your pick. (see above)
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that deity / divinity are vague descriptions? Are you saying God is too big to comprehend fully?
Regardless, the crux of the issue here is whether Jesus is rightly entitled to our worship. To worship anyone or anything other than God is idolatry. Idolatry is a very basic concept which the Bible forbids.
It is clear that Jesus accepted worship that is reserved for God alone. He described Himself in the terms of deity. For anyone to do this other than God would be blasphemy.
I did read somewhere that there is an Aramaic translation and it actually states instead of just I AM, it was translated into’ I Am the living God’. That certainly would have caused the priests to rip their clothes and call for His death...
The New World Translation is, at times, not so much a translation as it is an attempt to force Jehovah’s Witness theology into biblical texts that actually oppose it.
That is the exact thrust I used when I put together a single 8.5" x 11" sheet, printed both sides, one fold making 4 pages to denounce the NWT to inquiring JWs knocking on my door. Here's a portiom taken from it:
=======
Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for his work on "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament," which he co-authored with Dr. H.E. Dana. Here is a statement from a discussion between Dr. Walter Martin, Christian Research Institute founder, and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation":
DR. MARTIN: I don't know whether you're aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn't tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology - except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there.
---------
What Mantey has said about the New World Translation:
1. "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" )
2. 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'."
3. "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)
4. "The translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
=========
I believe I got most of this from the Christian Research Institute site, under their JW heading:
http://www.equip.org/category/jehovahs-witnesses/
The JWs don't seem to be coming to me, anymore. I wonder why? /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.