• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Serious Problems With New World Translation

lockyfan

Active Member
Whats funny is that they dont. You read a kjv and nwt they are pretty much the same, just said differently to mean the same thing with the exception of the trinity, and a couple of other things
 

katiemygirl

CHRISTIAN
"Skwim, post: 4182329, member: 23688"]Are you actually suggesting that a personal translation would be more accurate than what scholars and those with better access to sources have come up with?
Any translation, such as the NWT, that adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 287 times, and adds other words not found in any extant Greek manuscript is a farce and should be avoided at all costs. We have been given the command to STUDY, and that requires looking at the original languages. I hope you're not suggesting that the NWT translators were reknowed, credible scholars.
...but lacking any evidence one way or the other I choose the most popular.
I hope you apply this same thinking to the NWT because nearly ALL English translations of the Bible say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Gid, and the word was God." John 1:1. They don't translate "a god" making Jesus into some sort of lesser god.
 

katiemygirl

CHRISTIAN
Whats funny is that they dont. You read a kjv and nwt they are pretty much the same, just said differently to mean the same thing with the exception of the trinity, and a couple of other things
There is a HUGE difference. The name Jehovah has been added to the NT 287 times, not to mention other words which have been added, changed or removed. The OP shows evidence of such tampering with the Scriptures.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, you are all arguing over something useless and of no profit.... Your idol vs their idol. Your religion vs their religion. Your vain imaginations vs their vain imaginations. Your created world and empire within vs their created world and empire within. Your self created God vs their self created God. Not many are even reading or hearing another's response. They react without response and make it about themselves. Much study is a work of the flesh and a waste of time. . And how deceptive and tragic would it be to know that all of your own "head knowledge" and wasted hours and days of life being obsessive with something not alive or that gives any life...has been in vain?
 

katiemygirl

CHRISTIAN
read any of the writings of the prophets of the hebrew scriptures and they clearly state the name of the one who inspired them to write.....Jehovah.
ie Eze 24:20 I replied to them: “The word of Jehovah has come to me, saying, 21 ‘Tell the house of Israel: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says, ‘I am about to profane my sanctuary

Jeremiah 1:13 The word of Jehovah came to me a second time

And Jesus himself was also speaking by the spirit of Jehovah his God for he said:
John 6:
16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me

According to the scriptures, the one who inspired all the prophets is Jehovah. Therefore, by inserting the name Jehovah at Rev 22:6, it clearly identifies who that Lord is. True, Jesus is Lord...but he is not the Father Jehovah....and he himself was sent by the Father Jehovah. We must recognise that and ensure that the scriptures reflect that.

NWT Rev 22:6
6 He said to me: “These words are faithful* and true;+ yes, Jehovah,* the God who inspired the prophets,+ has sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.

American Standard Version (ASV)
6 And he said unto me, These words are faithful and true: and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angels to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass.

King James Version (KJV)
6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Modern English Version (MEV)
The Coming of Christ
6 The angel said to me, “These words are faithful and true. The Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show to His servants the things which must soon take place.”

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
6 And he said to me, `These words [are] stedfast and true, and the Lord God of the holy prophets did send His messenger to shew to His servants the things that it behoveth to come quickly:

Good News Translation (GNT)
The Coming of Jesus
6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are true and can be trusted. And the Lord God, who gives his Spirit to the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen very soon.”

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
6 And he said unto me, These words are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy Prophets sent his Angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be fulfilled.

J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
The angel endorses the revelation
6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are true and to be trusted, for the Lord God, who inspired the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must shortly happen.”


All the above say the same thing.... the angel was sent by the one who inspired the prophets. If we are honest, we have to agree that the God of the prophets is Jehovah. So there is nothing inaccurate about inserting the name Jehovah into the text...it actually helps us have a correct understanding which none of the other translators do because they all view Jesus as being the God who inspired the prophets which is unscritpural.
You've just given more evidence of our triune God. Other verses say the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. Thank you very much ! :) I hadn't thought about this evidence until you pointed out the verses from Ezekiel and Jeremiah.

For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21


Jesus made it crystal clear in Revelation.

18. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Did you catch that? Jesus says ANYTHING!
That means "Don't mess with my word, not even one of them!" Hey, if you want to risk your eternal future, then you are free to do just that. Don't say you weren't warned. Jesus made it very clear.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The NWT is not trustworthy!
No translation is (or rather, they are all inaccurate). Learn Greek & Hebrew, and then you won't have a problem here.
Perhaps a bit of an overstatement?

I am reminded of a observation by Nahum Sarna who cautions that the the most repeated comment in the NJPS is [I'm paraphrasing here] "Heb. meaning uncertain," while Plaut notes that 'Yisrael' might actually be a misrendeing of 'Yesharel.' And then there are the persistent debates about the meaning of terms such as 'elep and 'elohim.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
You've just given more evidence of our triune God. Other verses say the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. Thank you very much ! :) I hadn't thought about this evidence until you pointed out the verses from Ezekiel and Jeremiah.

Did you never notice how the prophets called Jehovah 'One'? They never said he was three.

ie,
Isaiah 1:4 Woe to the sinful nation,+ the people heavy with error, an evildoing seed,+ ruinous sons!+ They have left Jehovah,+ they have treated the Holy One of Israel with disrespect,+ they have turned backwards.

“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 6:4

Zechariah 14:9 And Jehovah will be King over all the earth.+ In that day Jehovah will be one,+ and his name one.

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah* our God is one Jehovah,*

Mark 12:32 The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you spoke well, in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other besides him’;+


Its no longer me you are arguing with....it is Gods Word.


Did you catch that? Jesus says ANYTHING!
That means "Don't mess with my word, not even one of them!" Hey, if you want to risk your eternal future, then you are free to do just that. Don't say you weren't warned. Jesus made it very clear.

Thats ok. Our eternal future depends on knowing the true identity of the Father and of his Christ.
I would much rather read a bible which clearly identifies both by its translation.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
What interests me is how emotionally charged people come across in accusations, but not so much in the defense.

@katiemygirl , why don't you have the same zeal for cleaning up the spurious parts of your favorite Bible translation, the NKJV? Over our debates a number of these have come to your attention surely?

Such as the obvious insertion of "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last: and," at Re 1:11.
Or “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. And there are three witness bearers on earth” found at 1 John 5:7,8.

These things do not belong, and are much more serious than using the divine name in Christian Greek Scriptures where ancient translators to Hebrew have done the same prior to the NWT.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
You raise an important point. There are some languages I am familiar with such that given a reference grammar and lexicon I can work my way through a text written in that language (Portuguese, for example, or Ugaritic). I am not reading these texts, I am producing a translation that is bound to be inferior to any produced by one who knows the language enough to read it without depending upon such tools.
So, what is the purpose in knowingly producing an inferior work?

If one can read the language, one is not only free of the bounds to pick a single way to render a given line, but free of picking any particular rendering at all. In short, one isn't translating but reading.
Yet you say you're "producing a translation."

A decent student of the Biblical languages can, the standard two semester introductory courses and two semester intermediary courses, take a text written in one such language and (with some help from tools such students use) better understand the original text than if the same student relied on translations.
In other words your translation is, in fact, better in that it provides a clearer---read "more accurate"---presentation of the intent of the original authors. The aim of any translator who comes down the road.

No, simply an understanding of how translating works (and the fact that there is no one way in which it works, as different theories exist as to what makes a better translation, but everybody agrees that translations are inevitably inaccurate).
Have to disagree. To take it upon oneself to better divine the intended meaning of a verse is a matter of ego: "I can do what no one before me has done: translate X better." And if this isn't one's goal then why bother?

By "versions", do you mean translations?
Yes

And if so, there aren't always any such powers, and most of the time the "power" that "commissioned" the translation is either identical to the group of translators or the latter are members of the former (e.g., the "scholar's version" (SV) was a product of the Jesus seminar, whose members translated the NT into the SV).
Whatever the case, I believe there's always a bias or dictate that steers the translator through the choice of options. "While 'evil,' 'calamity,' and 'bad times' are legitimate translations of the Hebrew רַע (ra`), in Isaiah 45:7 we're going to go with 'disaster' because . . . . . . . . . ."
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So, what is the purpose in knowingly producing an inferior work?
Because most people aren't interested in learning dead languages and are content to deal with the inaccuracies inherent in translations.

Yet you say you're "producing a translation."

There are some languages I am familiar with such that given a reference grammar and lexicon I can work my way through a text written in that language (Portuguese, for example, or Ugaritic). I am not reading these texts, I am producing a translation that is bound to be inferior to any produced by one who knows the language enough to read it without depending upon such tools.

I distinguished between two cases. For languages I barely know, I'm essentially translating and I'd be better of reading someone else's translation. For languages I can read, the opposite is true.

In other words your translation is
Again, I specifically stated that when I am "producing a translation", it is "bound to be inferior" to any translation produced by someone who can read the language. This is the case when I can't read the language. If I can read it, I'm not translating.


"I can do what no one before me has done: translate X better."
1) I'm not claiming that
2) I'm am claiming everybody who studies languages or translates or is in some other way knowledgeable here knows: translations are always imperfect and will always present an additional barrier between reader and text
3) Again, reading isn't translating.


And if this isn't one's goal then why bother?

Why bother to do what? Learn the languages? Because every translator knows that her or his translation is imperfect, and knows that someone who can read the original would be better off. The reason for translations is because nobody can learn all languages and most people know only 2 or 3. I don't like reading things in translation, which is the reason must of the languages I know are dead and the few that aren't are of little use to me because most native speakers also speak English and at this point I'm so out of practice all I can do is read the language (and perhaps write).


Whatever the case, I believe there's always a bias or dictate that steers the translator through the choice of options.
Of course. But the most fundamental or important ones aren't a matter of doctrine (at least not religious doctrine). Many people enjoy Young's literal translation, thinking that it somehow gets them closer as it is (misleadingly) called a "literal" translation. I read many such translations when I was first learning Greek, because until one is sufficiently used to flexible word order and other grammatical complications, it can be hard to understand a line because e.g., the main verb may be omitted or be in the infinitive form because of indirect discourse. Literal translations help beginning students match words up with the text so that they can figure out how the grammar works. Then they stop being helpful. For those who only have the translations, they are not helpful but misleading. Translators try to be faithful to the text, but also to render the source language into idiomatic English (or whatever the target language). Some find being faithful more important and some find being as readable as possible (idiomatic) more important.

Then there are linguistic concerns. You can't just look up words and get some idea as to what a line means, because words are not the basic units of language. Constructions are. And even for those who do not adopt one or other construction grammar, they still have to translate numerous idioms, phrases that are meaningless if translated literally, collocations, prefabs, and finally the words as they are found in context. If one looks at the entries in the BDAG (the Greek lexicon for the NT and early Christian authors), one will find entries for words that can go on for a page or so, with meanings so diverse one can hardly imagine the same word can construe such different meanings.



"While 'evil,' 'calamity,' and 'bad times' are legitimate translations of the Hebrew
Legitimate translations can only be determined by context. The word also means injury, disagreeable, sad, etc.
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
According to the NWT, Jesus is the one who sent the angel to John in Revelation 1:1.

I agree this is what the verse says.

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John,"
(NWT)


According to the NWT, Revelation 22:16, it is Jesus who sent his angel.

I agree that this is what this verse says.

"I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star."
(NWT)


According to NWT, Revelation 22:6, it is Jehovah who sent the angel.

This is a contradiction. I disagree, not only because the name Jehovah is not found in any extant Greek manuscript, but it is a direct contradiction of Rev. 1:1 and Rev. 22:16.

Compare Revelation 22:6 in the NWT to the NASB rendering.


Revelation 22:6

And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.

It is Jesus who is the Lord (kyrios), the God (ho Theos) of the spirits of the prophets according to the apostle John.

The NWT is not trustworthy!


You are missing truth here-- a revelation given to Jesus by God--making it 100% for sure they are separate, not 3 in one. That is why Jesus and all his real teachers--teach--Jesus has a God, his Father= 100% truth--but 2 billion refuse to believe Jesus and them over the lies of the trinity falsities--John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- 2Cor 1:3, 1VCor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28,Eph 1:13,17, 2Cor 11:31. Coll 1:3---1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6---how many times does it have to be told to you by Jesus and his real teachers that Jesus has a God???? its the #1 teaching in the whole NT---its a guarantee today his real teachers teach the same truth. 0 doubt. You are standing in opposition to Jesus' real teachers. They corrected the bad translating done centuries ago to fit Catholicism council teachings.
Undeniable fact of Israelite history--4000 years of it--- From Moses on up to today--they all serve YHWH(Jehovah) a single being mono God--this is the God Jesus was taught his first 30 years attending the synagogues--he never refuted it--trinity translators screwed it all up to mislead--they are a disunified mass of confusion--Mark 3:24-26--a house divided will NOT stand.
 
Last edited:
You are missing truth here-- a revelation given to Jesus by God--making it 100% for sure they are separate, not 3 in one. That is why Jesus and all his real teachers--teach--Jesus has a God, his Father= 100% truth--but 2 billion refuse to believe Jesus and them over the lies of the trinity falsities--John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- 2Cor 1:3, 1VCor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28,Eph 1:13,17, 2Cor 11:31. Coll 1:3---1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6---how many times does it have to be told to you by Jesus and his real teachers that Jesus has a God???? its the #1 teaching in the whole NT---its a guarantee today his real teachers teach the same truth. 0 doubt. You are standing in opposition to Jesus' real teachers. They corrected the bad translating done centuries ago to fit Catholicism council teachings.
Undeniable fact of Israelite history--4000 years of it--- From Moses on up to today--they all serve YHWH(Jehovah) a single being mono God--this is the God Jesus was taught his first 30 years attending the synagogues--he never refuted it--trinity translators screwed it all up to mislead--they are a disunified mass of confusion--Mark 3:24-26--a house divided will NOT stand.

Well said!:thumbsup:
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Any translation, such as the NWT, that adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 287 times, and adds other words not found in any extant Greek manuscript is a farce and should be avoided at all costs. We have been given the command to STUDY, and that requires looking at the original languages. I hope you're not suggesting that the NWT translators were reknowed, credible scholars.
I'm not familiar with the NWT, so just where is "Jehovah" added to the text? A few example will suffice.

I hope you apply this same thinking to the NWT because nearly ALL English translations of the Bible say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Gid, and the word was God." John 1:1. They don't translate "a god" making Jesus into some sort of lesser god.
Not understanding what you're getting at. John 1:1- 3 in the NWT reads:

"1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+ 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
I'm not familiar with the NWT, so just where is "Jehovah" added to the text? A few example will suffice.

Not understanding what you're getting at. John 1:1- 3 in the NWT reads:

"1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+ 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Her issue with John 1:1 is that it reads "the Word was a god" instead of "the Word was God." We've gone over and over about how the NWT is not alone in this difference and that there are grammatical reasons for the variation - grammatical reasons that the KJV acknowledges in other passages that cannot be twisted to make Jesus equal to God Almighty.

It is actually 237 times that the NWT uses the name Jehovah in the books from Matthew to Revelation. In all but one of these, (as of 1984), each of these has a precedent found when these books were translated over the centuries into Hebrew.

Here is one example:

He said to him: "'You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.'" - Mt 22:37. (The KJV says "the Lord thy God")

Even without the precedent, this is valid as it is a quote of a passage that had the divine name included anyway, namely De 6:5.

Another example, one that is not a direct quote, is Re 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Ome'ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (the KJV says "saith the Lord")

Again this was not just a random or biased choice to add Jehovah to this verse. The precedent was set by early translations into Hebrew.

The one exception to the rule, of using the precedent, is 1 Cor 7:17

"Nevertheless, just as Jehovah has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as God has called him. And so I give this directive in all the congregations."

I can not remember clearly if this verse was commented on verbally when the 2013 Revision was released. But it was acknowledged in the 1984 Reference Edition to be the exception to the rule used for limiting the free use of "Jehovah" in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Her issue with John 1:1 is it says "the Word was a god" instead of "the Word was God." We've gone over and over about how the NWT is not alone in this difference and that there are grammatical reasons for the variation - grammatical reasons that the KJV acknowledges in other passages that cannot be twisted to make Jesus equal to God Almighty.
I just noticed the asterisk following "and the Word was a god.*+ " Clicking on it brings up a footnote that says "Or “was divine.” In other words the verse could just as well read; " . . . the Word was divine."
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
I just noticed the asterisk following "and the Word was a god.*+ " Clicking on it brings up a footnote that says "Or “was divine.” In other words the verse could just as well read; " . . . the Word was divine."

I really appreciate both the alternate renderings in the footnotes and the Glossary of this Revision. A lot of effort has been put forth to broaden our comprehension of what is being said in the original languages.

You can get a free copy of this Bible along with the KJV, ASV, and Byington for most smart phones and tablets via the app stores. The app is called JW Library.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
grammatical reasons
Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not.

In conversation with @LegionOnomaMoi, we've found that it is not Colwell's rule after all but a variant that deals with qualative anarthrous predicate nouns that is used. I found @LegionOnomaMoi's ability to have these research papers at his fingertips and his grasp of the subject of Greek grammar to far outweigh my own current, and likely immediate, exposure. What I have walked away with is a greater appreciation for how carefully English translations have to be worded to bring the flavor of the subtle nuances found in the Greek to life. Koine Greek to English really requires the skills of a linguist to do a proper job of it.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I dropped by the forum for a second and noticed this thread. I just had a couple of quick comments.

LegionOnomaMoi said in post #37 : "Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not."


LegionOnomaMoi : regarding your comment on Colwell’s rule on anarthrous nouns.

Colwells rule does NOT “make it far more likely to be definite than not.”. Colwell's rule is contextual. Only the original writers context actually makes the word “God” definite or indefinite in this sentence. Colwell’s rule simply explains why certain definite nouns can be anarthrous. In this case Colwell’s rule can just as likely be used to SUPPORT the case that John meant “a God” rather than “the God” and this was the reason he wrote the sentence as it stands (i.e. without the article.)

For example : John 1:1 reads, in it’s separate phrases :

Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, that is, "The logos was in the beginning..." (logos has the article and is definite)
και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, "...and The logos was with The God..." (here both Logos AND God have the article and thus John is referring to “THE” God and not “A” God). This differentiation of these two is implied by articular distinction. Thus John is speaking of specific and definite entities.

However despite giving θεος an article in the second phrase, he removes the article from θεοσ in the third phrase.

και θεος ην ο λογος. "....
and The logos was a God."

Was this accidental or did John realize the difference in what he wrote? I don't think John thought he had already introduced an articulated "θεος" in the two prior words and an article was not needed since he does not habitually write this way in other verses.

For example : In John 6, vs 17, the disciples enter "a" boat ( "...εμβαντεσ εισ πλοιον..." - without the article) and later in vs 21 it is "the boat" ("...το πλοιον"... - with an article). John and his readers know that the boat in vs 21 is the same boat as introduced in vs 17. Still, John correctly uses the article in the later verse in this example. Yet John, in 1:1, inside of a single sentence, removes the article in the second introduction of the word θεοσ. Clearly, John realizes the implication of using the greek article in one phrase and of leaving it out of the very next phrase, yet he does it.

The point is, Colwell's rule doesn't help us in determining context and that the rule supports the rendering of Johns use of "a God" as much or more in this context. The rendering of this verse as "a God" by the NWT is grammatically, correct.

At any rate, I do not see how this specific issue can be solved by an appeal to greek meaning or greek grammar, but rather it is more likely to be and better solved by historical context. For example, one could look at the earliest Christian writings of the period closest to John’s writing such as diaries, commentaries, mishnas, fiction, sacred and profane descriptions of Christian doctrines, etc to determine how the earliest Judeo-Christians interpreted the biblical texts and what they believed concerning this specific doctrinal point.


LegionOnomaMou , I also very much agree with you (against the criticism leveled at you by non-translators), that it is not an inflated ego that causes one to engage in personal “correction" or "re-translating" of texts, but merely ones personal observation that there are inaccuracies in the text that one sees once one can read the early language in these texts for themselves. For example, it is only someone who understands Hebrew who knows why if Jesus, spoke Hebrew, he could not have said “this is my Body”, but then they also understand why the translator rendered it that way in English bibles. I also assume that, as you have learned to read greek and hebrew, you have come to realize that the "experts" who translated and created bibles, were often, not particularly "expert" at translating.


In any case, I wish you good luck and a wonderful journey in this life. I very much honor your commitment to ancient languages and hope to learn some things from you as soon as I have time to return to the forums.


Clear
τζνεφιω
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I dropped by the forum for a second and noticed this thread. I just had a couple of quick comments.

LegionOnomaMoi said in post #37 : "Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not."


LegionOnomaMoi : regarding your comment on Colwell’s rule on anarthrous nouns.

Colwells rule does NOT “make it far more likely to be definite than not.”.

First, Colwell:
(1) Definite predicate nouns here regularly take the article. (2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change in word order: (a) Definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order) usually take the article; (b) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article; (c) Proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate; (d) Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article...a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a "qualitative" noun solely because of the absence of an article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the article. In the case of a predicate noun which follows the verb the reverse is true: the absence of the article in this position is a much more reliable indication that the noun is indefinite. Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article. The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule."
Colwell, E. C. (1933). A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament. Journal of Biblical Literature, 12-21.




Colwell's rule is contextual. Only the original writers context actually makes the word “God” definite or indefinite in this sentence.

Were this true, it wouldn't be a rule.

Colwell’s rule simply explains why certain definite nouns can be anarthrous.
Not only did Colwell do no such thing, but he could not have. Those who studied languages were not in a place to be able to even understand notions like definiteness at that time (though linguistics, philologists, classicists, biblical scholars, etc., did not know this). Colwell looked for patterns in order to identify how certain distributions of word order could make a PN definite despite the lack of an article (among other things). And as shown above, he applied this rule to John 1:1.

However, what I was really addressing was a misconception of a misconception in one of the most popular "advanced" reference grammars for NT Greek: Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (presumably, it is more popular because the only other real contender in English is the BDF, and it is far less readable if one isn't used to those types of reference grammars; i.e., Smyth-Messing, Schwyzer, Kühner, etc.). In his second chapter on the article, Wallace states "Almost immediately scholars (especially of the more conservative stripe) misunderstood Colwell's rule. They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1. But what they thought Colwell was articulating was actually the converse of the rule, not the rule itself. That is, they thought the rule was: An anarthrous predicate nominative that precedes the verb is usually definite. That is not the rule, nor can it be implied from the rule."

Now, Wallace can be forgiven here, as we can't expect NT scholars to be well-versed in probability theory and statistical inference. It is true that the converse of a conditional if A then B does not entail if not A then not B. However, as any Bayesian would be glad to explain to you for hours upon end, it does make it more likely.

In this case Colwell’s rule can just as likely be used to SUPPORT the case that John meant “a God” rather than “the God” and this was the reason he wrote the sentence as it stands (i.e. without the article.)
Odd that Colwell failed to notice this.
 
Top