Advantages of the New World Translation:
Is it Grammar or Interpretation?
When translating the New Testament from its original Greek into any modern
tongue there are terms that can be rendered in more than one way. How shall the
right translation be determined? In such cases obviously something other than
Greek grammar determines what wording the modern scholar will use in translating
the original.
For instance, considerable controversy has centered around John 1:1. It reads,
according to the Authorized Version of 1611: "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ However, the New World Translation
(1971) says in the latter part of this verse "the Word was a god." This
rendering is strongly criticized by some, since it appears to make the Word
(Jesus in his prehuman existence) a lesser god and not God Almighty himself
These critics appeal to Greek grammar to try to dislodge this latter rendering.
Thus one theologian says regarding the New World Translation handling of this
verse: "It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which
necessitates the rendering,’. . . and the Word was God."’ Another comments that
the translation "a god" is "erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek
scholarship.., rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language." And
yet another notes that it shows ‘‘ignorance of Greek grammar.’’
To back up such strong language, reference is sometimes made to a rule of Greek
grammar formulated by E. C. Colwell. Does his rule really prove their point?
Consider what Colwell himself has actually said.
In 1933 he published an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature entitled:
"A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Toward
the close of his article he discusses John 1:1. The latter part of this verse
reads literally in the Greek: "AND GOD WAS THE WORD." Notice that a definite
article "THE" appears before "WORD," while no "THE" appears before "GOD."
Colwell’s rule regarding translation of the Greek says: "A definite predicate
nominative [for example, "GOD" at John 1:1] has the article ["THE"] when it
follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." In
other words, if always true, the rule says that at John 1:1 a "THE" before "GOD"
is implied in the original language and should therefore appear in modem
translations.
His rule appears to be true in some places in the Greek Bible. However, Colwell
himself admitted that there are exceptions to the rule, that it is not absolute.
(See, for instance, an interlinear rendering of Luke 20:33; 1 Corinthians 9:1,
2.) In fact, there appear to be so many exceptions that thirty years after his
rule was formed, one Greek grammar book says that the rule may only reflect a
"general tendency." Well, then, what about John 1:1? Would the rule apply there?
Colwell himself answers: "The predicate ["GOD"] .. . is indefinite in this
position only when the context demands it." Notice, not any inviolable "rule,"
but context is the crucial factor. So in spite of the strong, assertive language
on the part of some, Colwell’s "rule" of itself does not necessitate’ one
rendering over another at John 1:1. Rather, how the translator interprets the
surrounding verses and, indeed, the rest of the Bible-this is what would
determine how he translates John 1:1.
That is why those above-quoted writers are so dogmatic in their statements. To
them Jesus is God himself One of them refers to "Jesus Christ, who is truly God
and truly man." Another observes that "Christ claimed equality with Jehovah.
"Obviously, given a choice, would they not want John 1:1 translated to give
apparent support to their own views?
On the other hand, a person who accepts Jesus’ plain statement that "the Father
is greater than I am" will realize that Jesus is not equal to the Almighty
Jehovah. (John 14:28) Yet this does not mean that Jesus cannot be referred to as
"god" in some sense of the word. Recall Exodus 4:16; does not Jehovah there say
to Moses, "And thou shalt be to [Aaron] instead of God"? (AV) But this did not
make Moses God Almighty, did it? The term "god" is applied even to the Devil,
since he is a mighty creature controlling the existing system of things. (2 Cor.
4:4) Certainly, then, Jesus, who has been exalted over all other creation and
granted the exercise of great power in heaven and earth by his Father, can be
referred to as "a god." Such a rendering conveys the dignity and respect Jesus
is due while at the same time it avoids giving any reader the impression that
Jesus is God Almighty himself.
The assumed grammatical "rule" in connection with John 1:1 is only one of many
that is appealed to for apparent support of certain religious ideas. But it
serves to illustrate the point: the real issue involves more than grammar.
Grammatical rules are necessary to understand a language. But they have
limitations. As the Encyclopedia Americana states: "Everywhere we find grammar
working upon a language already made. The office of grammar has been, not to fix
what a language should be, or must be, but to explain what an already existing
language is. Grammar is explanatory and not creative."
Accordingly, even with regard to living languages it should be remembered that,
in the last analysis, their ‘grammar’ does not come from ‘grammar books.’ As a
professor of English at the University of Chicago notes: "In the usage of native
speakers, whatever is, is right." Those who speak a language, especially the
‘better educated’ people-not arbitrary rule makers-ultimately determine what is
‘correct’ or ‘incorrect.’
This same principle holds true with regard to the grammar of Biblical Greek. Its
purpose is to explain how things are said and not to try to impose on the
original language what the modem grammarian thinks should be said. Such
‘grammar’ must be drawn from what the Biblical Greek text itself actually says.
Even other writings in the Greek language, but of a different age or from
another part of the world, are of only limited value in arriving at an
understanding of the Scriptures.
As prominent Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson Once put it: "What we wish to know
is not what was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was good
Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century A.D." Yes, the Bible’s text
itself in particular must reveal what is acceptable in the matter of its
grammar.
Thus the person unschooled in the original Bible languages need not be overawed
by those who cite grammatical rules. No rule of grammar will contradict the
overall message of the Bible. Similarly, the honest Biblical teacher knows that
it is the text of the Bible that is inspired. Grammatical rule books are not,
though they are helpful.
Why do some Bible versions render Titus 2:13 as if it were referring only to one
person, Jesus, calling him God and Savior?
In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: "While we wait for the happy hope
and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ
Jesus."
However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if
it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says:
..... the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus." Such
translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a "rule" of
Greek grammar. Yet the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a
translation.
A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, "glory of the great God and
Saviour of us Christ Jesus." (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by
Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two
nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction "and." Over a century
ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a "rule" applying in such
constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before
the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject.
This would mean that "great God" and "Savior" would both be descriptive of
Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’
Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression
that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so.
In fact, the validity of the "rule" being applied in Titus has been much debated
by scholars.
For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: "No one
disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it" as meaning, but
he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that
cannot be settled by grammatical rules.
A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13:
"The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the
items be considered separately." What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel
Turner admits: "Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that
such a rule is really decisive." (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament,
1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points
out: "It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane
literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have
no exception,... "—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. In The Expositor’s
Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: "The grammatical argument.. . is
too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not
only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it
before" ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other
passages where Paul uses expressions like "God our Savior" he definitely does
not mean Jesus, for "the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from
one another." (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the
Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1
Cor. 11:3.
Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the
rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text
or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, "the
great God" who is Jehovah, and his Son, "our Savior, Christ Jesus," both of whom
have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic
New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B.
Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.
When Paul wrote to the Christian congregation at Colossae, he spoke of the need
to have "accurate knowledge" and the ‘riches of the full assurance of our
understanding.’ (Col. 2:2) The New World Translation has undertaken to draw its
readers as closely as possible to the original divinely inspired writings. It
merits serious study. Jehovah’s Witnesses are grateful to have this translation
for use at their meetings, in their public preaching activity and for vital
personal research. Yes, it really does matter which Bible translation you use.
[Next Article]