Antedating comments htm
Jn 1:1 is translated : Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god, a translation which is grammatically impossible. Becker bases this view, apparently, on Philo's distinction between ho theos and theos, as do other German scholars of his generation (e.g., Haenchen).
[Col 2:1-17 is translated : He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all other things were created... VIhsou/ Ac Pl Ha 3, 10; Cristo.j VIhsou/j o` qeo,j 6, 24; cp. Few modern Biblical scholars would agree with Becker on this point.
It was, after all, a brief article written just 3 years after the release of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures. If a period is placed before o` w'n ktl., the doxology refers to God as defined in Israel (so EAbbot, JBL 1, 1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RLipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor -28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7. Urchristentum 1917, 363; WWrede, Pls 1905, 82; CStrmman, ZNW 8, 1907, 319f)." It appears from this part of the entry that the author(s) assume that designating Christ as "QEOS over all" would violate the First Commandment (Deut. This is a bizarre claim in a work supposedly produced to service the Christian community. 1, 229f; JGriffiths, ET 62, '50/51, 314-16; BMetzger, ET 63, '51/52, 125f), 18b." The scholarship is somewhat more recent here, extending up to the early 1950s (a half century after the latest edition! That's still far too behind the times to support your characterization. He tells us that Paul does not "control" what John meant and vice versa.
At the time, he may well have been convinced by the so-called Colwell's Rule (see here for more details) and thought it was grammatically impossible, but over the intervening years, revised his opinion."The upgraded 3rd Edition of the Baur, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon (BDAG) supports our view of Jesus as 'a god' 100%. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. Mk and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. It assumes without argument or explanation that equating Christ with the Father would be out of harmony with the Shema. Does the author mean *identifying* Christ *as* the Father _per se_? Theol.(2 ) II 1911, 99f; EGnther, St Kr 73, 1900, 636-44; FBurkitt, JTS 5, 1904, 451-55; Jlicher; PFeine, Theol. If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBrse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57 et al.; NRSV text; RSV mg. It proves theological bias has influenced the reference work here (as it does elsewhere). I have commented at length elsewhere on the tendentious and misleading nature of these comments. However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah's Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition.
No Greek grammar or lexicon states it is permissible to translate a dative noun as an adverb. Be Duhn's statement that he is unaware of who Murray J. Be Duhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely "unlikely" from a grammatical standpoint. De Buhn has not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic (a summary of which you may find here) which his views contradict.
Also, the traditional rendering follows the Greek precisely. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers [eivse,rcesqai eivj th.n evkklhsi,an], and they consider him qei/o,n tina) J (on the combination of ku,rioj and qeo,j s. This includes his recent book, Truth in Translation..
This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Jd 5 P(72)." Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus and Hebrews 1:8-9. "But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeo,j in many pass.: qeo.j VIhsou/j Cristo,j ITr 7:1; Cristo.j qeo,j ISm 10:1. He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint.
Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.
When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father. All in all, the BDAG entry here is seriously deficient, both in its argumentation and in its scholarship.
That Barclay sees an ontological unity between ho theos and ho logos is apparent in the following passage omitted from the Watchtower article:"The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.' But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. Still, I think you will have to disagree with it on at least a couple of texts.
If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N. B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Joh 1,1 states at the very point of the Originating Expression this fact: That the Logos was in the Beginning; that is, at the creation of the world, he already was...
Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.)The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. V 1 does not speculate about pre-existent things, but declares: The world which we know (V 3) came about by the creative mediation of the Logos, who was with God already before the universe came to be" (Becker, Becker does see a hyper-subordination of the Logos to ho theos in John's Gospel, and says the Father and the Son are not of the same rank (German: Stufe).
I am quite sure myself that the following is the correct translation. Be Duhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School.