CONCERNING DR. WILLIAM BARCLAY, A LEADING GREEK SCHOLAR.
December 17, 2016 by, Andrew Graham.
A
Retraction By dr. William Barclay on The Grammatical Construction of John 1:1c
CONCERNING DR. WILLIAM BARCLAY, A LEADING GREEK SCHOLAR.
With respect to the rendering of John 1:1c, that is, within Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (Christian Greek Scriptures), “and the Word was a god,” a world renown and highly respected Bible scholar, William Barclay, is often quoted by our opposers as having said the following:
The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect [Jehovah’s Witnesses] is seen in their New Testament translation. J[oh]n i1 is translated: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,”1 a translation which is grammatically impossible….It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.
Quoted from: The Expository Times. (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, vol. 1-, October 1889-), “An Ancient Heresy in Modern Dress,” vol. LXV, No. 1, October 1953, p. 32. BS410 .E8 / 54-43327 r82.
Even so, it is important to note that, some 20+ years later, in a letter written to a Mr. David Burnett (Australia), Barclay had apparently changed his mind, that is, on the question of whether such a rendering is actually “grammatically impossible”; whereby, he clearly reversed his position by stating:
You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: “the Word was a God.”
Quoted from: Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), D.D., Lecturer in the University of Glasgow. Ever Yours; A Selection From the Letters of William Barclay. Rawlins, Clive L. (b.1940-d.?), Compiler & Editor. (Dunbar, England: Labarum Publications, 1985). OCLC: 12763593. ISBN: 0948095040 & 9780948095047.
Perhaps, as we examine this a bit further, we can gain an even better understanding, and we can do this as we consider what Barclay had offered as a clearer explanation. We read this from yet another of his own, later works:
An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.
Quoted from: Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), Lecturer in the University of Glasgow. Jesus as They Knew Him. (New York, New York: Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 21, 22.
And yet, if we were to simply substitute the words “preacher” and “man,” with the words “Word” and “god,” consider how this very significant point could have otherwise been made:
'An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.'
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures; Rendered from the Original Language by the New World Bible Translation Committee. (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; International Bible Students Association, 1950). BS2095 .N44 / 50-014033.
As can be seen by way of Barclay’s quote, the wording of that earlier edition of the NWT read somewhat differently than what we now see within the current, Revised 2013 Edition, which now has:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god*.” –New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: Rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Translation Committee. (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., ©2013), p. 1425. OCLC: 865018194. *In this edition, the footnote for “god” reads, “Or, ‘was divine.’”
For your examination, see presentation of this very letter at the end of our document, that is, as it appeared within the book: Ever Yours; A Selection From the Letters of William Barclay(1985), dated May 20, 1974.
‘An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, “The Word is the god,” I use the definite article before both Word and god, and I thereby identify the Word with some quite definite individual god whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The Word is god,” I have omitted the definite article before god, and what I mean is that the Word must be classified as a god, he is in the sphere of godhood, he is a god [or, godlike] being.’
This may, in part, explain the reason why Barclay had also eventually presented the following:
It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God….Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God…Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus as God. Jesus did not say, “He who has seen me has seen God.” He said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God’s omniscience in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know. I do not see God’s omnipotence in Jesus for there are things which Jesus could not do.
Quoted from: William Barclay -A Spiritual Autobiography. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 49, 50, 56. BS2351 .B28 A37 1975 / 73-76528. OCLC: 1102870.
With respect to the grammar of the Greek of John 1:1c, interestingly we can now find a number of other Biblical scholars who have likewise acknowledged the same as Barclay had later done:
…, from the point of view of grammar alone, κα θες ν λγος [the Greek for John 1:1c] could be rendered “the Word was a god”…
Quoted from: Harris, Murray J. (b.1939-d.?). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 60. BT216 .H37 1992 / 92-30780.
[John 1:1c] could also be translated: “the Word was a god” or “the Word was divine.” Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations [including the common, “and the Word was God”] can be defended on grammatical grounds.
Quoted from: Loader, William R. G. (b.1944-d.?). The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues.3 Appearing within vol. xxiii [23] of:Beiträge zur Biblischen Exegese und Theologie. (FrankfurtamMain;NewYork;Paris:VerlagP.Lang,c1989),p.156. BT198 .L571989 /89-12453.
Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse [John 1:1c] should be translated, whether “God” or “a god.”
Quoted from: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, vol. 1-, Jan. 1939-), Vol. XIII, No. 4, October 1951. BS410 .C3 / a40-000163.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore, rather than being “grammatically impossible” (as Barclay had at first so emphatically expressed), the truth of the matter is that – along with the agreed testimony of a number of other scholars – Barclay had eventually given clear evidence of an important acknowledgment: It is indeed grammatically possible to render John 1:1c as, “and the Word was a god.” Quite powerfully, the collective voice of Barclay and these other scholars add yet even more to the overwhelming evidence that this rendering is quite certainly, not in the least – as Barclay had initially so confidently declared – “intellectually dishonest.”
3 Within the 2nd Revised Edition of the same work: (Frankfurt am Main, Germany; New York, New York: P. Lang, c1992), quote appears on page 155. BT198 .L57 1992 / 92-19502.
