An Open Letter to James White Regarding his

"Germans, JWs, and John 1:1"

To James White.
On one of your web-pages, you try to discredit anyone who would translate John 1:1c as "a god." You narrow in on a few examples, but it appears to me that you use the same tactics that the King James Only people use, to buttress your point. Let us continue:

You: "So what does all of this mean? It seems to be important that we cannot find any scholar who actually believes that the Bible is the Word of God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself that renders John 1.1 as "a god." We have found spirit mediums that do so, and Unitarians who have to use someone else's translation as a basis upon which they make "corrections"."

Reply: The problem with this statement is that it is not true. You have simply checked only a handful of German translators, and stopped at that. If you were really interested in finding more, you could have.

You also wrote though: "None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology. Dr. Schneider was a Baptist." Does this mean, according to you, that  Baptists do not believe the "Bible is the Word of God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself "?
[The others he is referring too are considered "Liberal."]
Are you saying that only those with the highest regard for scripture would translate John 1:1c as you would like?
Consider Dr. Bratcher, the main translator behind the Good News Bible/Today's English Version (which now does translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God") in Faith for the Family reported that at the Southern Baptist Life Commission seminar, Dallas, Texas, 1981, Bratcher made this statement:

"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible ... To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false god." (Faith for the Family, Greenville: Bob Jones University, Sept. 1981)

Further quotes from Bratcher's speech were printed in the Baptist Press report written by Dan Martin, news editor, and printed in the Baptist Courier:

"Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously claims all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. ...
"The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life ... Quoting what the Bible says in the context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful--and may be a hindrance in trying to meet and solve the problems we face. ..
"We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.
"As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; as ... Christians we listen with alarm to the simpleminded diagnoses and the simplistic panaceas proposed with smug selfassurance by Moral Majority people intent on curing the evils of this age." (The Baptist Courier, Apr. 2, 1981; the Courier is the South Carolina SBC state paper.)

In conclusion he said;

"We are given authority by the Lord the Spirit to speak and to act, but we can never know in advance that we are doing the will of God. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to say, `I know this is God's will, and I am doing it.' No greater responsibility; no higher privilege is given to us than to hear and obey."

These statements caused quite a stir among conservative Christians, so much so that the American Bible Society began losing financial support.

Then there is the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version (again, reading "the Word was God), both of which come under considerable influence from Bruce Metzger.
The same Bruce Metzger that cut out 40% of inspired scripture to give us the Readers Digest Condensed Bible.
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus' ministry given by the other evangelists."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord's brother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of the Old Testament:

"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became 'the people of the Book' was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic 'school' the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."

There is much more that could be added on Metzger, but this should suffice, except for the fact that you, James White, had also used his research for your book, The King James Only Controversy, while obviously differing on some views.
The RSV is considered by many to be a "Liberal" version, which is why they had public burnings of it in the early 50's (see In Discordance of Scripture).
Martin Luther was an evil person, ( http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html) but no one is complaining about his rendering of John 1:1!
The American Standard Version is hailed as probably one of the most accurate versions of the Bible, yet there were Unitarians involved in its translation (Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot). Should we discard it?
Even the King James Version comes under attack, as some believe the translators were influenced by the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8)
J.B. Phillips (whose version certainlly does not shy away from the deity of Christ), as I am told by KJV advocates, has an autobiography detailing his necromancy and communication with the dead.
Did you see that I make mention of the KJVO people. You have written a good book on the King James Only debate, yet you employ their tactics to make your point.
I am now going to take some of your words, and use them properly. Most of the time a translation that differs from the NWT

"is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter a supposed "change" in the Bible's text take the time to look carefully at the available information. You will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to theories of conspiracies or evil intentions..." The King James Only Controversy, James White, p. 146

There is much available information out there, and the conclusion is that the NWT rendering has much going for it. Consider:

Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"
Becker, 1979, [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
Stage, 1907, [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
Bohmer, 1910, [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god"
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God"

Couple this with others who have chosen an alternative rendering focusing on the quality of the Logos, and we have a very strong case:

Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
International English Bible, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek
word]
Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity.”
Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it
was what God was
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, [the Word was of divine kind]
Haenchen, 1980, [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, [He was with God and in all like God]
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University,
1943, "And the Word was Divine"

For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 see hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm
Do I agree with the 100 % world-views of all the above translators? No! Just like I do not agree completely with the world-view of the translators of the other Bibles the WTS prints and distributes, like the ASV, KJV, Byington, NEB, JB, NAB, TEV or others like the RSV or Phillips...but I could never in good conscience tell people to stop using them.

White: We've also found German scholars who try to differentiate between the Father and the Son by coming up with unusual translations of John 1.1, though none of these would identify Jesus as some kind of created being like Michael the Archangel -

Reply: That is because John 1:1 was not written to support such a view. But let us take a look at what some have written:
Methodist Adam Clarke: And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.
But regarding the occurrence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, he remarks:

"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).

John Wesley in his version also translates, "the Word was God," but notice what he says:
Chapter XII

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes
of the earth desert or oppose it.

The Geneva Bible also follows the traditional rendering of John 1:1, but note what it says at Da 12:1

 "And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel."

You: Hopefully you will be able to  share  these  life-changing truths with the next follower of the Watchtower Society  who knocks at your door.

Reply: And therein lies the rub. You have to wait for me to knock on YOUR door because your lazy and re-active theology bars you from knocking on mine. Can you imagine if Jesus only sat and waited for someone to call on him!
"Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:5 NASB

If I may, I am going to employ your words in closing, but suit them to fit the NWT, rather than the KJV:

*The anti-NWT movement is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered.*

I like you, also "fully believe the Word of God is inerrant," but arguing against the NWT contradicts your claim. Like Professor Duthie says, "It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation." [p. 103, Bible Translations And How To Choose Between Them, The Paternoster Press]
Until you realize this Mr. White, then you are only providing fodder for atheists who also argue for the corruption of the Bible.

---

Go to John 1:1 Page
Go to Johannes Greber Page
Back to Main Page
yhwhbible@yahoo.com