John L. McKenzie, S.J. and John 1:1

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonCameron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DonCameron

Guest
Although John L. McKenzie, S.J. believes believes that Jesus is God, in his “Dictionary of the Bible” (1965) he says…

“John 1:1 should rigorously be translated, ‘The Word was
a divine being.’”

That looks awfully close to the Watchtower’s rendering of “the Word was a god.”

This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to debate with Jehovah’s Witnesses about the Bible’s teachings. They can often find respected Bible scholars who agree with their New World Translation.

Those who would like to help Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to feel that if they can be shown that what they believe about Jesus (or hell, etc.) isn’t true, then they will realize that what they believe about the Watchtower Society (that it is God’s organization) isn’t true.

But it usually has to work the other way around. That is, they need to at least begin to have doubts about the Watchtower Society before they can allow themselves to begin to consider that what they believe about Jesus (for example) may not be true.

The people who are in the best position to help Witnesses discover the truth about the Watchtower Society are those former Witnesses who have “been there.”

Don at www.CaptivesOfaConcept.com
 
I’ve spent a lot of time studying that passage and the only way a person could translate it that way is if they had a prior bias to say that they would like to do so.
 
Hi Lazerlike42,

You said…

The only way a person could translate (the Word was a divine being) is if they had a prior bias to say that they would like to do so.

But John L. McKenzie is a well respected Catholic Jesuit Bible scholar. His “Dictionary of the Bible” is published with nihil obstgat and imprimatur. (New York, 1965), p. 317

It would seem that if there was any prior bias, in this case it was McKenzie’s belief that Jesus is God. And yet he still feels that in this particular instance, the Greek should best be translated, “The Word was a divine being.”

Don
 
40.png
DonCameron:
Hi Lazerlike42,

You said…

The only way a person could translate (the Word was a divine being) is if they had a prior bias to say that they would like to do so.

But John L. McKenzie is a well respected Catholic Jesuit Bible scholar. His “Dictionary of the Bible” is published with nihil obstgat and imprimatur. (New York, 1965), p. 317

It would seem that if there was any prior bias, in this case it was McKenzie’s belief that Jesus is God. And yet he still feels that in this particular instance, the Greek should best be translated, “The Word was a divine being.”

Don
Click to expand...
This may be true but the most respected men can still believe or teach fallacy. There have been thousands of other language scholars who have come to other conclusions about the phrase. The biggest problem is the insertion of the word “a,” for which the text provides not even the most minute support.
 
You said…

The biggest problem is the insertion of the word “a,” for which the text provides not even the most minute support.

One of the problems (as you know) is that the Greek language does not have the indefinite article “a.” And yet that article is inserted by Bible translators ‘all over the place’ throuhout English translations of the New Testament.

McKenzie knows that the Greek rendering of John 1:1 shows a difference between what God was and what the Word was…

The Word was with THE GOD (ho theos) and the Word was GOD (theos).

McKenzie explains that ho theos is the term that normally applies to God the Father. And of course, we know that Jesus is not God the Father.

Apparenly he feels that the English rendering of John 1:1 should not suggest that Jesus was ho theos.

Don
 
Don - I have a tendancy to agree with you, if what is being talked about is the “best way” to begin talking to a JW. Since the WT has provided references to translations that have alternative readings of John 1:1, along the line of what you sited above, in the appendix of the NWT, all that a JW has to do is turn to that and his beliefs are “confirmed.”

At any rate, the translations that render John 1:1 something like “and the word was divine” are *still *supporting the Trinity, as I understand it, because the Trinity doctrine addresses the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit (and the Father).

But there is a difference between “divine”, and “a god”; if John 1:1 is seen as describing the pre-incarnate nature of Christ ( cf. Phillipians 2:6 “…was existing in the form of God”) , it does not follow that it justifies “a god”.
 
With all due respect to the faithful and loyal Jesuits – living in a Jesuit town – where a local “theologian” who is a priest doesn’t even wear a collar in his photo for the local diocesan news paper – many Jesuits are heterodoxes teaching less than legitimate Catholicism.

I pray to St. Francis Xavier, et al to return the Jesuit community to the fullness of the faith and loyalty to the Holy Father.
 
Hi At His Feet,

In referenced to John 1:1 you said…

There is a difference between “divine”, and “a god.”

But for me there doesn’t seem to be a heck of a lot of difference between McKenzie’s “a divine being” and the Watchtower’s “a god.”

It seems natural for me to think of “a divine being” as “a god.”

Don
 
So then one must ask, what is a divine being? How many “gods” are there.
 
Hi Yersalim,

You asked…

What is “a divine being’” ?

That would be a good question to ask McKenzie since he’s the one who used that expression in John 1:1.

You also asked…

How many “gods” are there?

That would be a good quesiton to ask the apostle Paul since he’s the one who said “there are many gods” in 1 Corinthians 8:5

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top