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 ("...").
Notice his "grammatically impossible" comment does not refer to Jn 1:1c, but the entire verse. This is not to say that Be Duhn is to be dismissed lightly.
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"). He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts.
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. 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).
[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... VIhsou/ Ac Pl Ha 3, 10; Cristo.j VIhsou/j o` qeo,j 6, 24; cp. Few modern Biblical scholars would agree with Becker on this point.
I am quite sure myself that the following is the correct translation. Be Duhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School.
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. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek.This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Jd 5 P(72)." Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus and Hebrews 1:8-9. "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. 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.Notice that the original NWT translates the Greek as an adverb, not a noun. o` qeo.j h`mw/n IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to. 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. Be Duhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr.All other things have been created through him and for him. But Becker goes on to say that the Logos deserves to be called "God" due to his divine nature (Gottlicher Art). Thus, Becker does not understand his translation to imply that the Logos was a created being.Also he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist. 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. 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.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").