希臘文學者怎樣評論《新世界》約翰福音1﹕1
What Greek Scholars Think of the New World Translation
轉自﹕http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html
This collection of quotes, found on many Christian Bulletin Boards, primarily addresses the Jehovah Witnesses mistranslation of John 1:1下面的語錄，主要是論及約翰福音1﹕1
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the 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.'"駭人聽聞、過時、不正確。
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."可怕的誤譯、不正確、有毒……耶和華見證人相信多神。
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.'"他們的「the Word was a god」是怪異畸形。
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."對希臘文語法極其無知。
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."沒有任何有聲譽的希臘文學者會支持。
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."沒有希臘學者會同意。
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):
"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."不正確，沒有希臘文學者會支持。
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."蓄意歪曲。
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." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]這「a god」是站不住腳的。
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"
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 places at the beginning for emphasis."
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."不能為之辯解。
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of 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." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]新世界的翻譯者對希臘句法不謹慎。
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."
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 exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
==========================================================
請繼續參考有關貼﹕
「《新世界》和它的批評者（非基督徒網站）」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310439087 ）
「耶和華見證人誤引希臘文學者」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310439232 ）
「守望台歪曲學者們對《新世界》的評論」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310438133 ）
「《新世界》和它的批評者（非基督徒網站）」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310438342 ）
「有名望的希臘文學者怎樣說及《新世界》」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/252219855 ）
「希臘文學者怎樣評論《新世界》約翰福音1﹕1」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310438502）
「幾位主要希臘文學者怎樣評論《新世界》」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310438661 ）
「希臘文學者Bruce M. Metzger怎麼講《新世界》」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310438814 ）
「一大堆希臘文學者評論《新世界》」（http://blog.xuite.net/nojw007/nojw007/310438960 ）
