THE
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS NEW TESTAMENT
An ex-Jehovah’s
Witness, now Catholic, who we at Catholic Answers helped to come to Christ in
his Church, gave me some valuable gifts for apologetics by way of old
books, many of them first edition, published by the Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, the publishing arm of the Jehovah’s Witnesses run
by the leaders of their sect. Of note among these is a first edition copy
of The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the
official Jehovah’s Witness translation of the New Testament, first published by
the Watchtower in 1950.
It is not the
translation itself that makes it of particular interest, though
it certainly is important. The New World Translation is,
at times, not so much a translation as it is an attempt to force Jehovah’s
Witness theology into biblical texts that actually oppose it. But you can get
newer editions of the translation that aren’t that much different than the old.
So again, the translation is not what is most important. The footnotes explicating
the texts are where the real value lies.
In future blog posts,
I will comment on some other examples of these footnotes, but in this post I
want to focus on the footnote to John 8:58, one of many New Testament texts
that contribute significantly to our understanding of the revelation of Jesus
Christ as fully God (of course, Christ is also fully man, we should note). And
keep in mind, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Christ’s divinity.
So first, let me cite
a more accurate translation of the text from the RSVCE, including verses
57 and 59 for a bit of context:
[57] The Jews then
said to [Jesus], “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
[58] Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” [59] So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and
went out of the temple.
When Jesus responded
to “the Jews” saying, “Before Abraham was, I am,” our Lord, most of
those present to hear his words, and St. John himself years later as he penned
his Gospel, would have most likely had in mind God's revelation to Moses
revealing the divine name as "I AM WHO AM,” and the shorter “I AM” in
Exodus 3:13-15.
[13] Then Moses said
to God, “If I come to the sons of Israel and say to them, “The God of your
fathers has sent me to you,” and they ask me, “What is his name?” what shall I
say to them? [14] God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to
the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” [15] God also said to Moses,
“Say this to the sons of Israel, ‘[YAHWEH], the God of… Abraham… Isaac… and…
Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be
remembered throughout all generations.”
In the Hebrew text of
this passage, when God first answers Moses’s question as to what his name is,
in verse 14, he says, ehyeh asher ehyeh is his name, which
translates as “I am that I am.” But notice God then tells Moses, in that same
verse, to tell “the sons of Israel I AMhas sent me to you.” There,
God says his name is more simply ehyeh, or “I AM.” Then, in verse
fifteen, he declares to all that his name forever will be YHWH,
commonly read and spoken as Yahweh, which translates basically the
same as ehyeh asher ehyeh—“I AM THAT I AM,” or “I AM WHO AM,” as
St. Jerome translated it. Yahweh, it would seem, was revealed as
God's formal name while the essence of his name, or the shorter version,
if you will, is revealed simply as I AM. Metaphysically, this name
reveals God to simply be. He has no beginning, no end, no lack
of being; He is all perfection. He is existence itself. And this is his name.
It is difficult for us
in the 21st century to fathom how utterly blasphemous it would
have sounded for Jesus of Nazareth to dare utter the words we cited above from
John 8: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He is essentially claiming the
divine name for himself and revealing that he is the great I AM who
spoke to Moses a millennium-and-a-half earlier. It is no wonder that in verse
59 the Jews picked up stones to kill him. It was certainly not every day that a
local Jewish guy would claim to be God!
WHAT SAY YOU, MR.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS?
Obviously, Jehovah’s
Witnesses could not leave this as is and maintain their denial of Christ’s
divinity. So what do they do with this text, you might ask? Let me now cite the
New World Translation’s rendering of verse 58:
Jesus said to them:
“Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
Notice the
change? There is an enormous difference between Christ using the
divine name, I AM, and him saying "Before Abraham came
into existence I have been." The former claims
divinity; the latter claims a pre-human existence, but
not necessarily divinity.
In the footnote below
where the translators give their justification for this departure from 2,000
years of Christian understanding, they claim because “I am” (Greek, ego
eimi) comes after an aorist infinitive clause, it is “properly rendered in
the perfect indefinite tense.” Moreover, they declare, “It is not the same
as [ho ohn] (ho ohn, meaning “The Being” or “The I Am”) at Exodus 3:14, LXX.”
We should note here
that the LXX, to which the note refers, is the
Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament translated ca.
250-100 BC. In this translation, the name God first reveals to Moses in Exodus
3:14, ehyeh asher ehyeh—"I am that I am"—is translated
into Greek as “ego eimi ho ohn,” which translates as “I am the
being.” With this in mind, this latter point in the NWT footnote is absolutely
incoherent. A first or second year Greek student knows that ho ohn does not mean
“The I AM” as the Jehovah's Witness translators claim. Ho ohn means
“the being.” Ego eimi means “I am.” Thus, again, ego
eimi ho ohn, translates literally as “I am the being.”
Most likely, this
error is rooted in a poor rendering of the shorter version of God's name
we mentioned above in the LXX. When God tells Moses to tell the "sons
of Israel, the I AM sent me to you," the Septuagint has God
saying to Moses, “Say this to the sons of Israel, the being (Gr.—ho ohn)
has sent me to you.” From there, it appears the translators thought ho
ohn could be translated as “the I am," when in fact, the
translators of the Septuagint were either using bad manuscripts or just got it
wrong here for whatever reason. The Hebrew text reads, “… I AM sent me to you”
as we said above. But most importantly again, to think ho ohn could
be translated as “the I am” reveals a truly remarkable lack of knowledge of
Greek by the “translators” of the New World Translation.
The second error in
the footnote is a bit more complicated. In short, there is no “perfect
indefinite tense” in Greek. So it is odd to claim “I have been” is a rendering
of the “perfect indefinite tense.” Apologists among
Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim it is being “rendered” or
translated into English using the English perfect indefinite
tense, and that the translators were not claiming there is an actual
"perfect indefinite tense" in Greek. This is odd to say the least.
But we can give them the benefit of the doubt here.
We don’t use a perfect
indefinite tense in modern English, but one can find older English grammars
that will include it. In days past, English speakers would say things like, “I
am come to the farm…” which uses “I am come” in the present tense, while
carrying a perfect sense of “I have come…”
I would add in
defense of the JW translators, Herbert W. Smyth, in his classic Greek
Grammar, published by Harvard University Press, explains that there are
certain Greek verbs that express “an enduring result, and may be translated by
the perfect.” Heiko (I have arrived) is a good example as we
find it in I John 5:20, “And we know the Son of God has come…” Has come (Gr.—heikei)
is in the present tense, but employs a perfect sense.
So, even though we
would argue that, at best, the JW translators could argue for a
present for perfect usage here, do the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a point? Could
John 8:58 be another case of a present for perfect? Should we translate it as
“before Abraham came into existence, I have been?” The answer is
no.
Using rules of
grammar, the JW's might have an argument, but what the Watchtower does not take
into account is the actual usage of ego eimi in John 8:58 in
its proper context. As D.A. Carson points out in his book, Exegetical
Fallacies, context and usage are more important than technical,
grammatical rules. There are often multiple different ways a text can be
translated that would fall within the parameters of Greek grammar. The
proper understanding of terms comes most often through discovering its actual
usage in the sacred text.
As a simple example, I
like to use an example I borrowed from my colleague Jimmy Akin. No number of
grammatical or lexical rules and definitions will determine what "put the
kitty on the table" means. The context of either a pet store or a poker
game is the determinative factor.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT,
CONTEXT
Bruce Vauter, C.M.,
helps us to establish a context for the usage of Ego eimi ("I
am") in John 8:58 in the Jerome Biblical Commentary. He
points out that "the ‘I am’ formula without the predicate,” as he calls
it, is used frequently in St. John’s Gospel and elsewhere in the New
Testament, with crucial antecedents in the Old Testament as well. In Mt. 14:27;
Mk. 13:6; 14:62; John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 18:6 and, of course, John 8:58,
as we’ve seen, we find this formula used, but each time it is in the context of
either some sort of miraculous intervention where Christ is revealing his
divine authority, or in the context of an overt statement declaring his
divinity in no uncertain terms as we saw in John 8:58.
If we couple these
examples with the fact that God uses a similar “I am” formula in the Old
Testament in texts like Exodus 3:14; Dt. 32:39; Is. 43:10; 46:4; 51:12 and
more, revealing himself to be the infinite God—the I AM—without
beginning and end, all perfection, being itself, etc., Jesus’ usage becomes all
the more profound. Again, he is declaring himself to be God.
If we examine just
three of these examples we cited above, we can see a pattern of
usage. Notice, Jesus uses the divine name just before he miraculous calms
the storm in Matt. 14:27, revealing an authority over nature that only God
possesses. He responds to the High Priest using the divine name just
before the High Priest declares him to have committed blasphemy in Mark 14:62.
And we've already seen the reaction the Jews had to his use of ego
eimi in John 8:58; They wanted to kill him!
Historically,
it was not punishable by death to believe wrongly that human beings could
have had a pre-human existence, which is all the “I have been” translation
would indicate. In fact, the pre-existence of the human soul was believed by many Jews in the
first century. Claiming to be God was considered blasphemy.
Thus, it is the context as much as the words themselves that reveal Jesus's
claim to be God in John 8:58.
No comments:
Post a Comment