A shocking mistranslation

A shocking mistranslation

“The following article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style.”

The debate over the translation of John 1:1 and its profound implications for the doctrine of Christ’s deity remains a central dividing line between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian theology today. Although virtually all major Bible translations render καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as “and the Word was God,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation stands apart by using “and the Word was a god,” a choice that reflects and reinforces their belief in Christ as a created, lesser divine being rather than the eternal God. The 1969 Kingdom Interlinear appendix’s reliance on Dana and Mantey’s grammar to justify this indefinite rendering, despite widespread criticism that it distorts the authors’ actual emphasis on the whole divine essence, remains relevant because it exemplifies how selective use of scholarly sources can shape modern translations and sustain doctrinal differences.

Examining this historical episode, including insights from Colwell and Harner on Greek syntax and Julius Mantey’s vigorous public denunciation of the Watchtower’s misrepresentation, is still vital today: it underscores the ongoing need for intellectual honesty and contextual accuracy in biblical scholarship, reminds contemporary translators and apologists to handle grammatical authorities responsibly, and equips believers on both sides of the debate to evaluate claims about Scripture with greater discernment in an era where theological resources are widely accessible online.

The Misquotation of Dana and Mantey’s “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” by Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Translation of John 1:1: A Theological and Grammatical Analysis

Introduction

In the realm of New Testament exegesis, few passages have engendered as much controversy as John 1:1, particularly regarding the Christological implications of its translation. The verse, in the original Koine Greek, reads: En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos. Traditional orthodox renderings, such as those found in the King James Version, translate the final clause as “and the Word was God,” affirming the full deity of the Logos, identified with Jesus Christ. However, the New World Translation (NWT), produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses (formally the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), renders it as “and the Word was a god,” introducing an indefinite article that posits Christ as a lesser divine being, distinct from the Almighty God (Jehovah). This translation aligns with Arian-like theology, denying the co-equality and co-eternality of the Son with the Father.

The justification for this rendering is elaborated in the appendix of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” (1969 edition, pp. 1158–1159), where the organization cites grammatical authorities to support the indefinite interpretation. Specifically, the appendix cites page 140 of Herbert J. Dana and Julius R. Mantey’s “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” (1927), discussing the use of the article in copulative sentences. The Watchtower quotes Dana and Mantey as follows: “The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence… In Xenophon’s Anabasis, 1:4:6, empurion de ouk en (but there was no market), the subject is empurion, to be distinguished from the predicate, ouk en; in other words, ‘market-place’ is the subject, not ‘was.’ In the New Testament examples such as Mt. 13:39; Jn. 4:24; Heb. 9:12; Jn. 1:1, the article points out the subject in these examples.” The appendix infers from this that the anarthrous (article-less) predicate nominative theos in John 1:1 should be translated indefinitely as ‘a god,’ emphasizing a qualitative but subordinate divinity for the Word.

This citation, however, constitutes a significant misquotation and contextual distortion of Dana and Mantey’s intent. On pages 139–140 of their grammar, the authors explicitly state: “Without the article, theos signifies divine essence… Theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature.” Far from endorsing an indefinite rendering, Dana and Mantey underscore the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous predicate nominative when it precedes the verb (as in John 1:1), indicating that the Word shares fully in the divine essence without conflating personal identity with ton theon (the articulated “God” referring to the Father). This aligns with Colwell’s Rule (see index two) articulated by Ernest Cadman Colwell in 1933, which posits that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb tend to lack the article, yet remain definite in meaning. Subsequent scholarship, including Philip B. Harner’s 1973 article in the “Journal of Biblical Literature”, further refines this: anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives primarily express quality or nature, not indefiniteness. Harner examined 53 such instances in John’s Gospel, concluding that theos in John 1:1 denotes the divine character of the Logos, rendering translations like “the Word was divine” (as in Moffatt’s version) or “what God was, the Word was” (New English Bible) more appropriate than “a god.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ selective quotation from page 148 (misreferenced as page 140 in some accounts) omits this crucial context, inverting the grammar’s theological import. By isolating the discussion on the subject-predicate distinction, the appendix implies a permissive rule for indefiniteness that Dana and Mantey never intended. Indeed, the grammar’s examples (e.g., John 4:24: “God is spirit”; 1 John 4:16: “God is love”) illustrate qualitative predication, not polytheistic subordination. This misappropriation not only misrepresents the authors’ Trinitarian presuppositions but also contravenes standard Greek syntax, as evidenced by the consensus among grammarians that John 1:1 affirms the deity of Christ without modalism or Sabellianism.

Julius R. Mantey, co-author of the grammar, actively sought to rectify this distortion by directly corresponding with the Watchtower Society. In a letter dated July 11, 1974, addressed to the organization’s leadership, Mantey expressed profound disagreement with their use of his work: “There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that ‘a god’ was a permissible translation in John 1:1… You quoted me out of context.” He demanded that the Society cease quoting the grammar in support of their translation, publicly apologize in “The Watchtower magazine”, and retract the misrepresentation. Mantey further characterized the NWT as “a shocking mistranslation,” “obsolete and incorrect,” and accused the translators of deliberate deception in other passages (e.g., John 8:58; Hebrews 9:27). He invoked copyright protections, threatening legal consequences if his requests were ignored.

The Watchtower’s response was dismissive; in subsequent communications, they maintained their position, stating that Mantey could retain his opinion while they preserved theirs. This refusal persisted despite Mantey’s repeated public statements, including interviews where he labeled the NWT translators as “diabolical deceivers” and the interlinear as a “distortion” rather than a faithful translation. Notably, in later editions and online resources from Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g., jw.org explanations of John 1:1), references to Dana and Mantey have been omitted, replaced by citations from other scholars, such as Jason David BeDuhn, who argue for a qualitative-indefinite rendering based on the absence of an article. BeDuhn posits that the distinction between ton theon (definite “God”) and theos (anarthrous) warrants “a god” or “divine,” though even he acknowledges the verse’s emphasis on the Word’s godlike nature rather than identity with the Father.

Theologically, this episode underscores the interplay between grammar and doctrine in biblical translation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach exemplifies how predetermined biases can lead to eisegetical renderings, prioritizing anti-Trinitarian commitments over syntactic evidence. Mantey’s corrective efforts highlight the ethical imperative for scholarly integrity in citing authorities, reminding exegetes that grammatical rules must be applied holistically, not selectively. Ultimately, the consensus of Greek scholarship affirms John 1:1 as a profound declaration of Christ’s ontological unity with God, integral to the Johannine prologue’s portrayal of the incarnate Logos as both distinct from and consubstantial with the Father.

In summary

The dispute between Julius Mantey and the Watchtower Society centers on the latter’s selective and misleading quotation of his Greek grammar to support the New World Translation’s rendering of John 1:1 as “the Word was a god,” despite the authors’ clear intent to affirm the whole divine essence of the Logos. Mantey’s 1974 letter and subsequent public statements vehemently denounced this as a distortion and out-of-context misuse, demanding retraction and even threatening legal action, while labeling the translation a “shocking mistranslation.” In the end, the Watchtower’s refusal to apologize or correct the record, coupled with their later removal of the reference, exemplifies how theological commitments can override scholarly integrity, reinforcing the mainstream grammatical consensus that John 1:1 proclaims the deity of Christ.

An Appendix One

An initial response to the horrific mistranslation of the Scriptures by the following group of Greek scholars:

According to Professor Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema:

“Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself.”

Anthony A. Hoekema (1913–1988) was a Dutch-American Calvinist theologian and professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158–159) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own Kingdom Interlinear Translation:

“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’”

“But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”

“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation.”

“The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.’”

Julius Robert Mantey (1894–1981) was an influential American New Testament Greek scholar and co-author of the widely used textbook A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):

“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”

Bruce Manning Metzger (1914–2007) was a prominent American biblical scholar, textual critic, and Princeton Theological Seminary professor renowned for his work on New Testament manuscripts and Bible translations.

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:

“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article ‘a’ means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’”

Samuel J. Mikolaski (1923–?) was a Serbian-Canadian evangelical theologian, patristics scholar, and professor known for his work in systematic theology.

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman was a biblical scholar from Portland, Oregon, recognized in apologetics circles for his critiques of Greek translations in religious texts.

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:

“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”

Charles Lee Feinberg (1909–1995) was an American biblical scholar, Old Testament professor, and longtime dean of Talbot Theological Seminary with expertise in Jewish history and prophecy.

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:

“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”

James L. Boyer (1911–?) was an American New Testament Greek scholar and professor at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana, for over 30 years.

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

William Barclay (1907–1978) was a Scottish Church of Scotland minister, theologian, and University of Glasgow professor famous for his accessible New Testament commentaries.

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:

“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.”

Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910–1990) was a renowned Scottish evangelical biblical scholar and Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester.

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:

“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel, which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. ‘My Lord and my God.’ – John 20:28”

Ernest Cadman Colwell (1901–1974) was an American New Testament textual critic, paleographer, and former president of the University of Chicago.

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:

“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate would probably mean that the LOGOS was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is placed at the beginning for emphasis.”

Philip B. Harner (1932–2022) was an American biblical scholar, ordained United Church of Christ minister, and longtime religion professor at Heidelberg University.

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:

“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct…. I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”

Dr. J. Johnson was a non-Trinitarian Greek language scholar affiliated with California State University, Long Beach, known for commentary on New Gospels.

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of the Translations Department, American Bible Society:

“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.”

Eugene Albert Nida (1914–2011) was an American linguist and Bible translation pioneer who developed the dynamic equivalence theory while serving with the American Bible Society.

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):

“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) was an English Anglican bishop of Durham, biblical scholar, and co-editor of a critical Greek New Testament text.

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):

“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exceptions, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) was a German biblical textual critic and New Testament professor at the University of Jena who advanced critical editions of the Greek Gospels.

Sources Quotes

These quotations seem to come from a widely circulated list created by critics of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT)”, especially its rendering of John 1:1 as “the Word was a god.” This list has been shared on numerous anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses websites, books, and forums since at least the 1970s or 1980s (for example, on sites like Blue Letter Bible, CARM.org, and various apologetics resources).

Primary Source

The main list appears to originate from Walter Martin’s book “The Kingdom of the Cults” (or related materials) and similar works by critics like Robert M. Bowman or Julius Mantey. Exact primary sources (such as published books or letters) for many quotes are often not included in the circulating versions; instead, they are presented as direct statements from the scholars, sometimes attributed to private correspondence, interviews, or unpublished remarks collected by critics.

Verified Quotes

• Dr. Julius R. Mantey: Multiple quotes (e.g., “A shocking mistranslation”, “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god,’” and stronger ones like “diabolical deceivers”) are verifiable from a 1974 letter Mantey wrote to the Watchtower Society protesting their use of his grammar book, as well as interviews and his book “Depth Exploration in the New Testament”. Mantey was outspoken against the NWT.

• Dr. Bruce M. Metzger: The quotes (e.g., “A frightful mistranslation,” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists”) come from his published reviews of the NWT in the 1950s–1960s, including articles where he critiqued its handling of John 1:1.

• Dr. William Barclay: The quote about “grammatically impossible” and “intellectually dishonest” is from his writings or statements criticizing the NWT’s rendering.

• Dr. F. F. Bruce: A similar (but not identical) quote exists in his commentary, rejecting “a god’ as indefensible due to Greek predicative constructions.

Other Quotes

Quotes from scholars such as Hoekema (from his book ‘The Four Major Cults” or similar), Feinberg, Boyer, Mikolaski, Kaufman, Colwell, Harner (whose article is often cited but interpreted differently), Nida, Westcott, and Griesbach appear in the same compiled lists. They are generally accurate paraphrases or directly from their published works on Greek grammar or theology, although some may originate from private letters or solicited opinions.

Appendix Two

Cowell’s Rule

Colwell’s Rule is a principle in ancient Greek grammar discovered by scholar Ernest Cadman Colwell in 1933. It states that when a predicate nominative (a noun describing the subject, connected by a verb like “was’) is definite and comes before the verb, it usually lacks the definite article (“the”). For example, in constructions like “the Word was God,” the absence of “the” before “God” is normal if ‘God” is considered definite and placed emphatically before the verb.

Granville Sharp’s Rule

Granville Sharp’s Rule is a principle in Koine Greek grammar, first identified in 1798 by the English scholar and abolitionist Granville Sharp and later refined by modern grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace. It states that when two singular, personal nouns (referring to people, not objects or proper names) are connected by “and” (καί) and share a single definite article, they usually refer to the same person. This pattern is often seen in New Testament verses such as Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”) and 2 Peter 1:1 (our God and Savior Jesus Christ”), strongly indicating that Jesus is identified as both God and Savior, one person rather than two. While the rule is widely accepted among New Testament scholars when its strict conditions are met (with no undisputed exceptions in the Bible), some critics see it as a common tendency rather than an absolute rule, emphasizing that context remains crucial for proper interpretation. It remains a key tool in discussions about Christ’s deity.

The above article was generated by Grok 4 in response to a series of prompts; I have edited it lightly for style using Grammarly AI. Using AI for the glory of God.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)