[B-Greek] NWT: Is it an accurate translation of the Greek?

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Feb 24 09:15:50 EST 2006


On Feb 23, 2006, at 7:42 PM, RRedden604 at aol.com wrote:

> Why is this being rehashed?  Is there really anything new in this   
> recent
> discussion?
>
> Dr. Conrad pointed out a huge section in the archives where this  
> was hashed
> out long a go.
>
> Why isn't this enough?   The critical commentaries are also a  good  
> source of
> information if one wants to spend more time on Jn. 1:1.

I hesitate, at this point, to add another more-or-less personal note  
on the current discussion. But I'd like to voice my judgment on the  
questions under discussion anyhow.

I do not think that the current discussion has added anything really  
new to the expansive threads on John 1:1c in the BG Archives. I am  
certainly gratified to note that the discussion has been (so far, at  
least), as I had hoped, "civil and free from sectarian wrangling."

Perhaps list-members (including myself, of course) have become a bit  
more sophisticated in recognizing the pitfalls and potholes lurking  
for those who endeavor to drive very slowly over this little stretch  
of Greek textual ground. Could the following be claimed as general  
insights? Or am I speaking only for myself (perhaps a wiser thing to  
do!):

The question whether "and the Word was a god" is an "accurate  
translation" of John 1:1c is itself perspicuous (which my dictionary  
defines as "clearly expressed and easily understood") has been  
addressed. Translation philosophy has been called into discussion  
(albeit rather briefly), and the question has been raised whether the  
original intent of the author of the Greek text has been communicated  
accurately to today's English-speaking readers -- the question  
raised, but not quite adequately answered. As Iver has well noted,  
whether a reader examines either  "... and the Word was a god" or  
"... and the Word was God", he/she is invited/warned to question what  
"a god" or "God" really means to the English-speaker/hearer and  
whether either means quite what QEOS as a predicate word in the Greek  
text of John 1:1c was intended to communicate to the ancient Greek- 
speaker/hearer. Certainly there's a broad range of semantic  
possibilities between what various polytheists and theists may have  
understood the term QEOS to imply.

I would hope that the matter of word-order in Coptic or Latin or any  
other language conveying the Greek text ... KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS has  
been clarified and dispensed with. I would hope that one matter upon  
which all interpreters would agree is that the subject of the clause  
is hO LOGOS and that QEOS is a predicate word. The point in dispute  
is exactly what QEOS as a predicate word linked by the copula HN to  
the subject hO LOGOS means in this context. I think the focus then  
falls upon how the context, immediate or extended, is to be  
understood. And here is where different assumptions underlying  
interpretation have led to conclusions that are very much at odds. I  
would hope that an insight of the discussion might have been that  
different conclusions regarding the interpretation are not surprising  
when different assumptions are at play in the process of interpreting  
the text.

The question is raised and will, I am reasonably sure, be raised  
again -- and again --, on this list, (a) what "... QEOS HN hO LOGOS"  
really means; and (b) whether it can with any legitimacy be taken to  
mean " ... and the Word was a god." If and when it does, I would hope  
that those who pose and those who respond to the questions will have  
been conscious of the assumptions they bring to bear on the question.

For my part, I hope to put the question(s) aside (again, ... for a  
while).

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list