The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god"). Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority." Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt. Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("..."). Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.

When Jehovah's Witnesses produce scholars that support the NWT, we must first establish that the scholar is, indeed, a recognized expert in the field of Biblical Languages, and that he or she has been quoted accurately. When given careful consideration, many of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses do not actually constitute a sound argument from authority. I'm not suggesting that no scholars may be found in support of the NWT or its translation of John 1:1, but these are in the minority and often are not as qualified in their field as the scores of scholars who advocate the traditional translation.

In the chart, below, we will examine how some scholars have been used in defense of the NWT and whether they actually support the Watchtower translation as claimed. It is not my intent to be exhaustive; however I've tried to cover the scholars most often cited; I think you'll find that any omissions will be obscure scholars that are not generally recognized as authoritative in the scholarly community. If you know of a prominent scholar that I've missed, please let me know so that I may include him/her in a future revision of this article.

Scholar	Quotation Used in Support of NWT	What the Scholar Really Said
WilliamBarclay	"theos [in John 1:1c] becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun...[John] does not say that Jesus was God" (Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord, p. 23 - 24). - The Watchtower, May 15, 1977, p. 320	When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father. That Barclay sees an ontological unity between ho theos and ho logos is apparent in the following passage omitted from the Watchtower article: "The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.' But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. 23). Barclay also makes his position clear in a response to the Watchtower's citation: "The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.) ADDITIONAL NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that William Barclay "lied" when stating the following about Jn 1:1: The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. Jn 1:1 is translated : ‘Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. [Col 2:1-17 is translated : ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all other things were created... All other things have been created through him and for him. Also he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.’ Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. Ph 2:6 becomes ‘Christ Jesus, who, although be was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.’] It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest (The Expositor, Oct 1953, Vol 65, bold and brackets added; brackets indicate ellipsis on all pro-NWT websites that I'm aware of using Google 8/14/12). Barclay's admission of his "lie" supposedly came 21 years later in a letter to Mr. David Burnett dated May 2, 1974: Dear Mr. Burnett, Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. You have four questions and they must be answered, I am afraid, briefly in order to get on to one airmail and because I have a heavy correspondence. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God"; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. I am quite sure myself that the following is the correct translation. Even if the claim is true, and Barclay knowingly lied, it is logically fallacious to claim this fact exonerates the WT from twisting its quote from him. It is an obvious example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. But it is not clear that Barclay lied in the first place. Notice his "grammatically impossible" comment does not refer to Jn 1:1c, but the entire verse. This verse starts with the phrase "Originally the Word was" (reflecting the wording of the 1950 Edition, later revised to the more familiar "In the beginning"). This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Notice that the original NWT translates the Greek as an adverb, not a noun. No Greek grammar or lexicon states it is permissible to translate a dative noun as an adverb. Also, the traditional rendering follows the Greek precisely. So, Barclay may have possibly been referring to the verse in its entirety, not merely the "a god" rendering. Also, as you can see by the inclusion of Barclay's original comments (replaced with "..." on all JW websites I could find, which suggests a common source), the phrase "It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest" actually referred to more than just Jn 1:1. Or, more likely, he did not remember what he had said about the NWT some 20-odd years before. It was, after all, a brief article written just 3 years after the release of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures. At the time, he may well have been convinced by the so-called Colwell's Rule (see here for more details) and thought it wasgrammatically impossible, but over the intervening years, revised his opinion. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the WT is guilty of "judiciously cutting" Barclay's remarks so as confuse its readers, if not openly deceive them.
BDAG	"The upgraded 3rd Edition of the Baur, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon (BDAG) supports our view of Jesus as 'a god' 100%. This authority represents the best in modern scholarship, and if you wish to differ with it, you bear the burden of proof. BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. >ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients..." - from a Jehovah's Witness posting on an online discussion board.	Christian writer Robert Bowman responds: One should not rest theological conclusions on tersely written lexicon entries, especially when those terse comments are problematic. Also, contrary to your assertion, BDAG often fails to reflect "the latest Greek scholarship." Case in point: your quotation of BDAG. As to the substance of what the article says, I will offer some brief comments: "2. Some writings in our lit. use the word q. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. the Shema of Israel Dt 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate." The above comment is confusing. It assumes without argument or explanation that equating Christ with the Father would be out of harmony with the Shema. It depends on what "equating" means. Does the author mean *identifying* Christ *as* the Father _per se_? Doing so would not compromise any form of monotheism because it would be modalistic. Does the author mean treating Christ as a second God equal in status to the Father? That would be out of harmony with the Shema. If that is what he meant, I would agree with his statement but would point out that it doesn't challenge the orthodox position. We don't think Christ is a second, separate God. Unfortunately, it appears that the author(s) of this entry have the first meaning in mind (see below), which shows they are simply confused. "In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of q. to pers. who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates)." It is suspicious when an author tells us that a particular view is fundamental in "Mosaic...traditions" but then fails to quote Moses or anyone clearly in his tradition in support of the assertion. "In Ro 9:5 the interpr. is complicated by demand of punctuation marks in printed texts. If a period is placed before o` w'n ktl., the doxology refers to God as defined in Israel (so EAbbot, JBL 1, 1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RLipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theol.(2 ) II 1911, 99f; EGünther, StKr 73, 1900, 636-44; FBurkitt, JTS 5, 1904, 451-55; Jülicher; PFeine, Theol. d. NTs(6 )'34, 176 et al.; RSV text; NRSV mg.). A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor 15:25-28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7.—If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBröse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57 et al.; NRSV text; RSV mg. S. also eivmi, 1.—Undecided: THaering.—The transposition by the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] w-n o`=`to whom belongs' was revived by JWeiss, D. Urchristentum 1917, 363; WWrede, Pls 1905, 82; CStrömman, ZNW 8, 1907, 319f)." It appears from this part of the entry that the author(s) assume that designating Christ as "QEOS over all" would violate the First Commandment (Deut. 5:7). This is a bizarre claim in a work supposedly produced to service the Christian community. It proves theological bias has influenced the reference work here (as it does elsewhere). Again, as I explain above, describing Christ as God in the highest sense would not violate the Shema or the First Commandment UNLESS one understands this description to mean that he is a second, separate God. Likewise, the claim that designating Christ as QEOS in Romans 9:5 would contradict 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 is unsupported by any argument and theologically prejudicial. It is also evident that this entry does NOT represent "the latest Greek scholarship." The secondary sources all date from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, except for inserted references to the RSV and NRSV. "In 2 Pt 1:1; 1J 5:20 the interpretation is open to question (but cp. ISmyrna McCabe .0010, 100 o` qeo.j kai. swth.r VAnti,ocoj)." Again, no recent Greek scholarship reflected here. "In any event, q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. o` qeo,j 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6]; on qeo,j w. and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos, s. Philo, Somn. 1, 229f; JGriffiths, ET 62, '50/51, 314-16; BMetzger, ET 63, '51/52, 125f), 18b." The scholarship is somewhat more recent here, extending up to the early 1950s (a half century after the latest edition!). That's still far too behind the times to support your characterization. I have commented at length elsewhere on the tendentious and misleading nature of these comments. To run to Exodus 7:1 to explain John 1:1 is simply indefensible. The LOGOS is called QEOS in a context where there do not yet exist any physical beings to which he might have appeared as representing God (the usual spin based on Exodus 7:1). That is, the LOGOS was QEOS in the beginning, before all things were created (vv. 1-3). Indeed, the LOGOS is called QEOS in the context of the original creation, as the one in whom we are to find our life and light (vv. 3-5). I have also treated elsewhere the citation of Psalm 82:6 (81:6 LXX) in John 10:34-36. Again, to run to another passage because it seems more conducive to one's theological assumptions instead of addressing the text at hand in its own context is hermeneutically flawed. Much more could be said on this subject, but the key points here are that the entry's comments on John 1:1 are selective, biased, and not reflective of recent scholarship. "o` ku,rio,j mou kai. o` qeo,j mou my Lord and my God! (nom. w. art.=voc.; s. beg. of this entry.—On a resurrection as proof of divinity cp. Diog. L. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers [eivse,rcesqai eivj th.n evkklhsi,an], and they consider him qei/o,n tina) J 20:28 (on the combination of ku,rioj and qeo,j s. 3c below)." Although I disagree with BDAG in its attempt to explain away (that's what it is) the language of John 20:28 using the account about Pythagoras (!), since John's milieu is Jewish and his religious canon is the Old Testament, I note that BDAG acknowledges that in John 20:28 QEOS "certainly refers to Christ." Do you agree? "Tit 2:13 $me,gaj q.%. Hb 1:8, 9 (in a quot. fr. Ps 44:7, 8). S. TGlasson, NTS 12, '66, 270-72. Jd 5 P(72)." Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8-9. Do you agree? "But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeo,j in many pass.: qeo.j VIhsou/j Cristo,j ITr 7:1; Cristo.j qeo,j ISm 10:1. o` qeo.j h`mw/n IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to. pa,qoj tou/ qeou/ mou IRo 6:3. evn ai [mati qeou/ IEph 1:1. evn sarki. geno,menoj qeo,j 7:2. qeo.j avnqrwpi,nwj fanerou,menoj 19:3. qeo.j o` ou[twj u`ma/j sofi,saj ISm 1:1.—Hdb. exc. 193f; MRackl, Die Christologie d. hl. Ign. v. Ant. 1914. o` qeo,j mou Criste. VIhsou/ AcPl Ha 3, 10; Cristo.j VIhsou/j o` qÎeo,jÐ 6, 24; cp. ln. 34 (also cp. Just., A I, 63, 15, D. 63, 5 al.; Tat. 13, 3; Ath. 24, 1; Mel., P. 4, 28 al.).—SLösch, Deitas Jesu u. antike Apotheose '33. Cp. AWlosk, Römischer Kaiserkult '78." BDAG agrees that Ignatius frequently called Christ QEOS. Odd, isn't it, that once the field of texts goes outside the Bible the author (s) feel no need to offer an explanation for the designation of Christ as QEOS? All in all, the BDAG entry here is seriously deficient, both in its argumentation and in its scholarship. Still, I think you will have to disagree with it on at least a couple of texts. (from a post on Rob Bowman's Jehovah's Witness discussion board, December 17, 2005).
Hans-Jürgen Becker	"ein Gott war der Logos "a god was the Logos "Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Jürgen Becker" - New World Translation, 1984, Appendix 6A.	It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does. After discussing the words of creation spoken in Genesis 1:1, Becker says: Joh 1,1 states at the very point of the Originating Expression this fact: That the Logos was in the Beginning; that is, at the creation of the world, he already was...V 1 does not speculate about pre-existent things, but declares: The world which we know (V 3) came about by the creative mediation of the Logos, who was with God already before the universe came to be" (Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, p. 72). Becker does see a hyper-subordination of the Logos to ho theos in John's Gospel, and says the Father and the Son are not of the same rank (German: Stufe). Becker bases this view, apparently, on Philo's distinction between ho theos and theos, as do other German scholars of his generation (e.g., Haenchen). Few modern Biblical scholars would agree with Becker on this point. But Becker goes on to say that the Logos deserves to be called "God" due to his divine nature (Gottlicher Art). He is a divine Person who is, "at the same time the only Mediator of the one God." And, if one considers his comments in context, Becker does not mean "divine" to mean anything less than eternal and coeval with God: Through this Mediator all things came to be. In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos. This corresponds with the Wisdom literature...There is no past creation of the Logos. The totality of Creation is his work" (Ibid). Thus, Becker does not understand his translation to imply that the Logos was a created being. When Becker says that the Logos has a "divine Nature" and is a "divine Person," he means the Son has the same eternal nature as God. His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism.
Jason BeDuhn	"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)." - from a prominent Jehovah's Witness website	Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses, DeBuhn has not been quoted out of context. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University. BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek. BeDuhn's PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek. This is not to say that BeDuhn is to be dismissed lightly. He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts. He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint. However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. Further, Dr. BeDuhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr. BeDuhn's statement that he is unaware of who Murray J. Harris is, below). BeDuhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely "unlikely" from a grammatical standpoint. To my knowledge, however, Dr. DeBuhn has not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic (a summary of which you may find here) which his views contradict. This includes his recent book, Truth in Translation.. Further, his statement that the traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God. Trinitarians could even accept Dr. BeDuhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. 298, n93). BeDuhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco. You'll find their discussion of John 1:1 here. You will notice that a necessary presupposition of BeDuhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy. John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, BeDuhn suggests. He tells us that Paul does not "control" what John meant and vice versa. However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah's Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition. Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree. Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." Dr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering "leaves open" a Trinitarian solution (BeDuhn to Steven S. 12/26/2001). In this same email, he states that he does not know who Murray J. Harris is. It would seem that any cogent defense of Dr. BeDuhn's views would require interaction with Harris' thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris' comments regarding "the Word was divine," p. 63ff). BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms? You may find a lengthy dialog between Dr. BeDuhn and me here.
Steven T. Byington	STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," November 1, 1950 page 1296). - from a prominent Jehovah's Witness website	When read in context, Mr. Byington's comments are rather less than enthusiastic about the merits of the NWT: "The book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines." Read Mr. Byington's full review of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures and his interaction with the Watchtower here.
Vivian Capel	Capel, V.21st Century New Testament. The Literal/Free Dual translation: "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order." - from a Jehovah's Witness posting on an online discussion board.	Mr. Capel's idiosyncratic translation is not regarded as authoritative by Biblical scholars. His translation of John 1:1 is unique, so far as I'm aware, in rendering Logosas "Marshal," which he bases not on any known Greek lexicon, but on his theological conclusions about the Son's rank as supreme created angel. Mr. Capel has not provided his readers with his qualifications as a translator. Indeed, I have been able to learn very little about him, other than the fact that he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he produced his translation over a period of four years. His being a Witness, of course, does not preclude him from being a legitimate scholar, but the fact that his translation has not been recognized as authoritative and that he apparently lacks an advanced degree in Greek studies would seem to indicate that he is not. It remains for Witnesses who cite his translation in support of the NWT to prove that he is a scholar worth considering, and not a member of a particular religious sect who has produced a Bible that happens to line up perfectly with his beliefs.
Lant Carpenter	“a God” - Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). - from Greg Stafford's second reply to me on the Julius Mantey letter to the WTB&TS. I had asked Mr. Stafford for a list of scholars who unequivocally support the NWT rendering of John 1:1.	The views of a 19th Century Unitarian are interesting from an historical perspective, but not convincing in demonstrating the proper translation of John 1:1c. Carpenter did not have the benefit of the advances in the understanding of Koine Greek that emerged over the past 100 years; he did not have Colwell or Harner's studies available to him, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the subject. Carpenter is not regarded as authoritative by modern Biblical scholars. They do not cite the work quoted by Mr. Stafford, nor any other work by Carpenter.
William D. Chamberlain	"An Exegetical Grammar Of The Greek New Testament, William D Chamberlain, page 57: d. A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: en tois propsetais (Heb. 1:1), 'in the prophets,' calls attention to a particular group, while en uio (Heb. 1:2), 'in son,' calls attention to the rank of the Son as a 'spokesman' for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, 'in hisSon,' italicizing 'his.' The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: theos en ho logos (Jn. 1:1), the Word was God; kai ho logos sarx egento (Jn. 1:14), 'And the Word became flesh'; esontai oi eschatoi protoi (Mt. 20 :16), 'the last shall be first.' The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., ho theos en ho logos would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in ho theos agape estin (1 Jn. 4 :8), 'God is love.' As the sentence now stands 'love' describes a primary quality of God; the article hewith agape would make God and love equivalents, e. g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love. "Summary The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned. "Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God" William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger. - from a Jehovah's Witness website.	The passage, as quoted by the Jehovah's Witness website, concludes with the following sentence:"Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God" This sentence does not appear in the Chamberlain's Grammar. This addition may be the inadvertent inclusion of the apologist's own remarks - although the placement of the final quotation mark, followed by the biographical information suggests something more intentional. The anonymous author correctly notes that Bruce Metzger expresses high regard for Chamberlain's Grammar, as do several other Evangelical scholars. The following endorsements appear on the dust jacket of Chamberlain's Grammar: BRUCE M. METZGER "as a comprehensive and helpful grammar written to enable the average minister to feel at home in the Greek New Testament." NED B. STONEHOUSE "a convenient handbook for the student who is seeking to apply his knowledge of the fundamentals of Greek grammar in the exegetical study of the New Testament." WILLIAM F. ARNDT "To all pastors and theological students who would like to review the chief grammatical facts pertaining to the Greek of the New Testament and who are looking for a somewhat new approach, we cordially recommend this book." It would seem odd that a professor at a Presbyterian Seminary would understand John 1:1 in the same manner as the Watchtower, let alone have such a view endorsed by the likes of Metzger, Stonehouse, and Arndt. In point of fact, Chamberlain is strictly orthodox in his theology, and so is his grammar. The quoted section of Chamberlain's Grammar discusses the absence of the article in copulative phrases to signify the non-convertibility of the subject and predicate nominative. This is precisely the same point made by Julius Mantey - that is, had John used the article with theos, he would have been asserting a form of modalism - that there was nothing of God apart from the Word. Chamberlain's orthodox views are implicit in the quoted passage (if we remove the additional sentence), and are explicit in Chamberlain's other works dating from the same time period (2). Witnesses, then, may use Chamberlain's words to support their view, if they choose to pour their own meanings into them, or worse add their own words to Chamberlain's. However, Chamberlain's Grammar, as he intended it to be read, does not support the NWT, but rather upholds the traditional understanding of John 1:1.
E.C. Colwell	"I understand that a group of Bible scholars made comparison of various Bible translations. Was the New World Translation included in this study?"It appears that what your letter inquires about is a book written by Professor Ernest Cadman Colwell, entitled "What Is the Best New Testament?" This book is published by the Chicago University Press and was first printed in 1952. In 1947 Professor Colwell made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. The book contains what Professor Colwell considers the correct rendering of each of those sixty-four citations. The New World Translation was not released until 1950, hence Professor Colwell could not include this translation in his list of tested ones.  However, if any reader will look up what Professor Colwell has to say about these sixty-four citations and will compare these with the New World Translation he will see that the New World Translation merits a score of sixty-four along with Dr. Goodspeed's translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which the book gives a perfect score of sixty-four. Colwell's book being first published in 1952, it was not available until two years after the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which occurred in 1950 at Yankee Stadium. Consequently the New World Bible Translation Committee did not have Colwell' s book for reference when work on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was being done." - Question From Readers, The Watchtower Jan 1, 1963, p.95	The Watchtower's claim is that in Colwell's book, the 64 citations represent what Colwell "considers the correct rendering of each." The word "rendering" implies that Colwell was using the term "accurate" in the sense of an accurate English translation of the Greek. Accuracy in translation is clearly intended by the reader asking the question, and there is nothing in the Watchtower's response to indicate otherwise.But reading Colwell's chapter, "How Accurate is your New Testament?," it is clear that he means "accurate" in a different sense: If you care about your New Testament," you will want to know what 'make' it is, who translated it, and, above all, how accurate it is. The translator may diminish, but he cannot materially increase, the accuracy of the particular Greek New Testament from which he makes his translation. In the matter of accuracy, therefore, the primary question is: "How accurate a New Testament was it translated from? (Colwell, What is the Best New Testament, p. 85). Thus, Colwell's primary concern in ranking New Testament translations was not how accurately the English reflected the underlying Greek, but from which edition of the Greek New Testament the translation was made. Colwell believed the Textus Receptus, the Greek New Testament from which the KJV was translated, was the "worst or most corrupt text" (p. 86), while the Westcott Hort was the "best or more accurate text" (ibid.). Colwell defined his methodology as follows: The ranking of these translations was based originally on the translator's own statements as to their source; but this has been checked and corrected by a test as to the relationship of each on of these translations to two forms of the Greek New Testatment - The Westcott Hort text and the Textus Recptus or Received Test. I carried out this test for the entire Gospel of John. In this gospel the two Greek texts were compared verse by verse; and from the large list of differences noted, sixty-four passages were selected in which even the freest English translation must show which to the two Greek texts it supports (ibid.). Here, again, one can see that the underlying text was Colwell's criteria for "accuracy." The more closely a translation matched Westcott Hort (WH), the higher the score. The more closely a translation matched Textus Receptus (TR), the lower the score. That Colwell was not concerned with an accurate translation into English is apparent when he says, "even the freest English translation must show which of the two Greek texts it supports." Thus, for example, for John 1:18, Colwell is not comparing how the entire verse is rendered, but which variant is being translated: TR: only-begotten Son WH: only-begotten God (Ibid., p. 100) The allowance for a "free" translation is most apparent in the Goodspeed translation, which Colwell ranks at the top of his list with a score of 64. John 1:18 in Goodspeed's translation reads, "it is the divine Only Son." It has been suggested by some JW apologists that Colwell is concerned not only with GNT on which the translation was based, but also on how well the translation rendered the Greek. This is simply not true, as the evidence above demonstrates. Colwell's final ranking appears in Table 1 on page 87, and it demonstrates the scores were based solely on whether the basis of the text was WH or TR (or could not be determined): Translation WH TR Other Goodspeed 64 0 Twentieth Century 59 4 1 Westminster 58 6 American Revised 58 6 English Revised 57 7 Revised Standard 56 8 Moffatt 56 7 1 Riverside 55 9 Weymouth 53 11 Spencer 51 13 Basic English 51 12 1 Ferrar Edition 50 14 1 Centenary 47 16 1 Confraternity 35 27 2 Knox 33 29 2 Challoner 25 37 2 King James 0 64 Thus, the WT's use of Colwell to substantiate the accuracy of the NWT's English translation cannot be justified. It is true that because the NWT is based on the WH text, the NWT would score 64 on Colwell's scale. But the WT is not citing Colwell to demonstrate which GNT underlies its translation, but to endorse its accurate rendering of the text. This is at best a gross misunderstanding of Colwell, and at worst, blatant deception.
Frederick Danker	Frederick Danker (of BDAG fame): "Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee(Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tact Society of New York, Inc. 1950 - 1963). The translation of the New Testament appeared first (1950) and was then combined in 1963 with the various volumes of the Old Testament (1953, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1960). The "orthodox" do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to "test the spirits" (Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, p. 194). - from a Jehovah's Witness website.	Dr. Danker is certainly a recognized scholar and he has been quoted accurately. It will be noted that his lukewarm comments about the NWT are with regard to the Old Testament. Few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, since the OT contains far fewer explicit Scriptures teaching the orthodox doctrines that the Watchtower denies - Christ's deity; the existence of the soul; and hellfire - it is not surprising that the NWT Hebrew Scriptures are relatively bias-free. Dr. Danker, of course, says nothing of the relative merits of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures - he simply notes that the NT appeared prior to the Hebrew Scriptures. Dr. Danker's estimation that the NWT Old Testament should not be "snubbed" is not shared by other scholars. H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures: "The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader - if such it finds - and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God" (Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956). See also the comments of Dr. Goodspeed as well. Regarding Dr. Danker's contribution to BDAG on theos in John 1:1, see here.
C. H. Dodd	Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, comments on this approach: "A possible translation. . . would be, ‘The Word was a god’. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." However, The New English Bible does not render the verse that way. Rather, John 1:1 in that version reads: "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was." Why did the translation committee not choose the simpler rendering? Professor Dodd answers: "The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."— Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Volume 28, January 1977. - from a Jehovah's Witness posting on an online discussion board.	Here are Dodd's comments in full:"If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole" (The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977). Dodd doesn't say "a god" is an "acceptable" translation. He says it can't be faulted as a "literal" translation, but there's a big difference. Notice how Dodd qualifies the quote I provided: "If translation..." His point is that translation is not merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word. If it were, "a god" could not be "faulted." However, "only grammatical considerations" do not a proper translation make! Dodd cites several examples where theos has the meaning of the "essence" of God (p. 104). He then concludes that the NEB translation "What God was the Word also was" is "an attempt" to get at the idea that John was expressing - namely, that in every sense that the Father is God, the Logos is also God (p. 104). In this view, Dodd is in agreement with the overwhelming number of commentators and grammarians who've written on this subject. If the WT and Witness apologists use Dodd to defend the NWT translation in the face of accusations that it is ungrammatical, I cannot find fault with such a citation. However, that's not what this Jehovah's Witness was saying. He was advocating the NWT as a translation supported by scholars like Dodd. His selective quotation gives the impression that Dodd believes such a translation might be proper or acceptable, when this is not the case at all.
MacLean Gilmour	"The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed - a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek" ("The Use and Abuse of the Book of Revelation,"Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966). - Awake! (March 22, 1987)	Here are Gilmour's comments in full:"In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation Of The New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament translation is now far advanced. The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed -a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek and that made the Westcott and Hort Greek text basic to their translation. It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot or pseudo-historical fraud" ("The Use and Abuse of the Book of Revelation," Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966). Aside from the negative portrayal of "doctrinal considerations," Mr. Gilmour made several factual errors in his comments about the NWT, indicating that he may not have been particularly familiar with the work he was reviewing (for more information, see Ian Croft's "The New World Translation and its Critics").
Edgar J. Goodspeed	"I am interested in the mission work of your people, and in its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." - Awake! (March 22, 1987). This is reported to be a quote from a personal letter from Goodspeed to the WTB&TS	Bill Cetnar, who worked at Watchtower Headquarters in New York during the period when the New World Translation was being prepared, was sent to interview Dr. Goodspeed in March, 1954 to seek his comments on the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. Cetnar writes:"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64). Dr. Goodspeed was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures. However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.
Johannes Greber	"and the Word was a god." - Johannes Greber, The NewTestament - a NewTranslation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts	During the 1960s and 1970s, the Watchtower Society occasionally used the translation of the New Testament by Johannes Greber to support their similar renderings of John 1:1 and Matthew 27:52-53. In 1983 they officially stopped using his translation because of its "close rapport with spiritism." The information that Geber was a spiritist was readily available to the Society's writers. In 1955 and 1956 the Society's writers themselves wrote of Greber's spiritism. Their use of Greber's translation to support their New World Translation and their explanations for it is evidence of shallow scholarship. For more information, see here.
S. G. Green	"Then this Handbook adds some sentences to illustrate this general rule regarding an anarthrous predicate, such as, "thy word is truth," "the Word was God," "God is love": and next the Handbook says: "Had the article been employed with the predicate in the above case, the sentences would have read thus:..Thy Word is the Truth, and nothing else can be so described; the Word was the entire Godhead, and God and Love are identical, so that in fact Love is God." Such an explanation is, in itself, an unintended admission that "the Word" of John 1:1 is not the same god as the God with whom the Word is said to be. Hence, the omitting of the article in the predicate of the simple sentence is shown to be only a general rule, and not one that holds in every case. One such case where that general rule does not hold true is John 1:1. The definite article "the" was there omitted, but not according to that general rule; it was not omitted with the idea that it should be understood by the reader." - New World Translation, 1971, p. 1362 (appendix on John 1:1, quoting Green's Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 178).	It is true that in all likelihood, John did not omit the article solely or even primarily to indicate that theos in John 1:1c was the predicate nominative, as opposed to the subject (so Harris, p. 61). Few scholars have ever argued that such was the case (click here for a grammatical analysis and summary of scholarship on John 1:1c).The question, then, is what did John mean by the anarthrous theos? The overwhelming majority of scholars who've addressed the subject understand John to be emphasizing the qualities or character of the Logos, particularly given that the noun is not only anarthrous, but preverbal as well. The Watchtower, too, recognizes the qualitative aspects of theos in John 1:1c, though it differs from what most scholars mean by the term. A larger issue, however, is the accusation that Green's analysis is "an unintended admission that 'the Word' is not the same god as the God." Such a statement indicates that the Watchtower really doesn't understand Green's comments at all. Green is demonstrating a rather elementary point of Greek grammar - that when two nouns are joined by a form of the verb 'to be,' if they both have the article, the clause may be termed a "convertible proposition." In a convertible proposition, the two nouns are equivalent. For example, "Jesus is the Son of God" is convertible - Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of God is Jesus. The two terms are exactly equivalent. Green's point is that John 1:1c is not convertible - if it were (that is, if theos were articular), John would have been asserting an exact equivalence between the God and the Word. As Green puts it would mean that "the Word was the entire Godhead." All of God would have been the Word, and the Word would have been the totality of God (to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit). To argue that this statement is a tacit admission that the Word is "not the same god as the God" is both a strawman (because it fails to address the Trinitarian view of the Word's relationship to the Godhead) and a circular argument. For only by assuming that the "Godhead" is one Person can one conclude that the Word cannot be the God He is with. The Watchtower's confusion about what constitutes a convertible proposition may be seen in this same appendix, where we find on the one hand, "We agree with Dr. A. T. Robertson when he says: 'God and love are not convertible terms any more than God and Logos" (NWT, 1971, p. 1362); and on the other, "The proposition 'And the Word was a god' is a convertible one" (IBID, p. 1363). Theos ên ho logos either is or is not a convertible proposition; it cannot be both.
Ernst Haenchen	"After giving as a translation of John 1:1c "and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word," Haenchen goes on to state: "In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os´] is not the same thing as [ho the·os´] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’)." (pp. 110, 111)" -Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, "Jesus Christ"	The full citation of this quotation is: Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, translated by Robert W. Funk.If one reads his Commentary in its entirety, one discovers that Haenchen, like many German scholars of his generation (e.g., Becker), believes that John subordinates the Son of God to the Father. However, in the very same paragraph quoted by the Watchtower, we see that Haenchen's view of subordination is not one of class of being, but of rank and order: But there was no rivalry between the Logos as theos and as ho theos (in English the distinction is expressed by "divine" and "God"); the new (Christian) Faith does not conflict with the old monotheistic faith. That becomes clearer in verse 1c: "and divine in essence [German: Gott von Art] was the Logos" In this instance, the verb "was" (en) simply expresses predication... Funk's translation of "Gott von Art" as "divine (of the category divine)" is highly misleading. For a discussion on the proper translation of this term, see the entry for Siegfried Schultz. Earlier, Haenchen says that the Logos "existed before the creation and was not therefore created; it shared the highest of all distinctions with 'God, the Father' himself: the 'Logos' is eternal" (p. 108). The Watchtower seems unaware (or uncaring) about the subtleties of Haenchen's Commentary. The distinction he draws between the theos and ho theos is intended to prevent a modalistic equating of the two - a distinction upheld by Trinitarians. The Watchtower is, apparently, content to use the words of scholars when they seem to support its theology, even when the meaning of those words does not.
Phillip B. Harner	In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. - Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1985, p. 1140 (appendix on John 1:1, quoting Harner's JBL article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", p. 85).	When reading Harner's article, it becomes abundantly clear that he in no way supports the Watchtower translation. Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous, syntax as well as what he actually wrote. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities: A. hO LOGOS ÊN hO THEOS B. THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS C. hO LOGOS THEOS ÊN D. hO LOGOS ÊN THEOS E. hO LOGOS ÊN THEIOS Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be n