"NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared..." ???

by whereami 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  Narkissos,

  However there is more to overtranslation than explicitation. Overtranslation is a frequent amateur's mistake, reading more into words than their actual meaning. Often it involves the confusion of (correct or mistaken) etymology with semantics. To take one example which is not specific to the NWT (it is actually Trinitarian in origin), translating monogenès by "only-begotten" when the etymology is actually "one of its/his/her kind" and "only" sufficiently renders the meaning.

  I agree with the general point, but I think this is a poor example to use because, from what I gather, there is scholarly debate about whether the word here retains the core idea of "generation" or simply means "only" or "one of a kind" without any connotation of being brought into existence. Have you read Furuli's discussion of this verse, or Stafford?

  Slim
• 

  LittleToe

  Slim:That reminds me, have you still got my copy of Stafford?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Damn, so I do.

  Slim
• 

  slimboyfat

  Hey, haven't you got a book of mine too?

  Sorry about that. Stafford is bringing out a new edition soon anyway. I'll send you yours and I can always get another copy when the new edition comes out.

  Slim
• 

  LittleToe

  S'ok, we can exchange over a beer sometime. Maybe on my return from Texas in May

  You'll have to remind me what you sent me because I think it was about four years or so ago, wasn't it? The memory isn't what it used to be
• 

  Narkissos

  slim

  but I think this is a poor example to use because, from what I gather, there is scholarly debate about whether the word here retains the core idea of "generation" or simply means "only" or "one of a kind" without any connotation of being brought into existence.

  I don't think there is currently any serious attempt to connect monogenes to gennaô, "to beget," whence my remark on etymology (as also seems to be implied by your verb "retains"). Even the WT admits to that, in the Insight book ad "Son(s) of God":

  Some commentators object to the translation of the Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ by the English "only-begotten." They point out that the latter portion of the word (ge·nes´) does not come from gen·na´o (beget) but from ge´nos (kind), hence the term refers to ‘the only one of a class or kind.’ Thus many translations speak of Jesus as the "only Son" (RS;AT;JB) rather than the "only-begotten son" of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) However, while the individual components do not include the verbal sense of being born, the usage of the term definitely does embrace the idea of descent or birth, for the Greek word ge´nos means "family stock; kinsfolk; offspring; race."

  Whether "only-begotten" is semantically correct (in spite of etymology) is a much more complex issue which must be discussed on a contextual basis. It depends on how early the contamination from gennaô which is explicit in later Trinitarian discussions, and in Jerome's unigenitus, can be traced back. Imo the LXX usage does not favour this idea (Psalm 22/21:21; 25/24:16; 35/34:17; Wisdom 7:22), nor do the non-theological Lukan occurrences (7:12 -- btw, doesn't the NWT "the only-begotten son of his mother" sound strange to English ears? -- 8:42; 9:38).

  In Johannine literature, otoh, a deliberate connection with gennaô ktl. can certainly be argued for, through either pun or popular etymology (John 1:13-14,18; 3:3ff,16,18; 1 John 4:7,9; 5:1,18), although it is never fully explicit. But then it departs from the exclusive interpretation which both later Trinitarians and Unitarians ascribe to monogenès -- making the "only-begotten Son" something like the "principle" or "seed" of "begetting" within all (God-, Spirit-, Above-)"begotten". From this perspective (and limited to the Johannine context), indeed, the translation "only-begotten" may be interesting after all. But this depends on contextual exegesis and not the "core meaning" of the Greek word.

  Have you read Furuli's discussion of this verse, or Stafford?

  No.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Narkissos,

  You are right about the etymology. It's interesting how the Witnesses in this instance are against considering the etymology as significant, when in other arguments (such as over the cross) they rely heavily on etymology. From what I have read by James Barr and others, arguments from etymlogy have been seriously undermined and the approach is very outdated, as is the other Watchtower favourite comparative philology. So in terms of argumentation, I think you will at least agree that the semantical approach the Watchtower author adopts in this instance is a more scholarly one.

  However the main flaw in the current of thought that insists the morpheme genes here in John 1:18 simply means "unique" or "one of a kind" is that it clearly reduces the term monogenes to tautology. If genes merely implies uniqueness, then monogenes theos would mean "only unique god". That's nonsense obviously, and should alert us that something more is being conveyed here. I think you are right that the use of the term in John's gospel differs from that in Luke and elsewhere. 1 John 5:18 is also obviously significant. One might also argue that the notion of the Son being derived from the Father is a running theme in John's gospel. (see John 6:57)

  Stafford also points out on the basis of Job and elsewhere that God has other sons, and therefore Jesus simply is not an "only Son", but is the "only begotten son". But that is a theological rather than a contextual interjection.

  The main secondary source Stafford cites by the way is John V. Dahms, "The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered," New Testament Studies 29 (1983), pp. 222-232.

  Furuli cites Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which is interesting, but I don't have a copy on hand to verify how he is using that source.

  Slim
• 

  slimboyfat

  I forgot to add the NASB is obviously a major proponent of the "only-begotten" translation, though obviously with a Trinitarian slant.

  I found this page interesting:

  http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html

  Slim
• 

  Narkissos

  Slim,

  Good points.

  It's interesting how the Witnesses in this instance are against considering the etymology as significant, when in other arguments (such as over the cross) they rely heavily on etymology. From what I have read by James Barr and others, arguments from etymlogy have been seriously undermined and the approach is very outdated, as is the other Watchtower favourite comparative philology. So in terms of argumentation, I think you will at least agree that the semantical approach the Watchtower author adopts in this instance is a more scholarly one.

  Yes, I only wonder whether that applies to the initial choice of "only-begotten" in the NWT or it's a rationalisation after the fact, in view of later scholarship.

  However the main flaw in the current of thought that insists the morpheme genes here in John 1:18 simply means "unique" or "one of a kind" is that it clearly reduces the term monogenes to tautology. If genes merely implies uniqueness, then monogenes theos would be mean "only unique god". That's nonsense obviously, and should alert us that something more is being conveyed here.

  In that view -genès is "of a kind," monogenès is "one of a kind" -- so I don't see any tautology here (cf. eugenes, diogenes etc.: mono- as "unique" is one qualification of -genès among others). Otoh reading "generation" into the LXX contexts I listed above (or in Parmenides' mounogenes) seems very artificial.

  After reviewing the Johannine texts (thanks to your call on my hasty initial post) I do agree that "only-begotten" may be a good translation for them, but in view of the WT christology and the extension of this translation to Luke in the NWT, I can't help thinking that this is some sort of "accident"...
• 

  slimboyfat

  Ooops, my mistake on the tautology thing. I don't know what I was thinking there: maybe I mixed two or more JW apologetic points into one.

  Sure Witnesses retrospectively contrive arguments as you point out here concerning John 1:18, and so do Trins of course. They used to justify "and the Word was God" on Colwell's "rule", then they took on Harner's explanation when it made their point better. Whatever the different sums involved, they make sure the answer is always the same. (The old three in one)

  A better example of overtranslation in the NWT in my opinion is Rom 13:1 "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God". What is the semantical basis for the qualification that the authorities stand in their "relative" positions? I don't know any other translation that uses such an adjective here, and I have not seen any Watchtower explanation either; but it sure fits in neatly with their "relative subjection" doctrine.

  Incidentally the NWT in this verse betrays internal Watchtower politics somewhat. In 1950 when the NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures was released the Witnesses still officially held to Rutherford's belief that the superior authorities were Jesus and Jehovah. However Fred Franz had never agreed with that explanation as Ray Franz explains:

  I recall my uncle telling me one day in his office of an occasion when Rutherford presented a certain issue, a new viewpoint, to the Bethel family for discussion. [The footnote suggests this was either on Rom 13:1 or the elder arrangement, I here assume it was in fact about Rom 13:1] My uncle related that in the discussion he expressed himself negatively about the new view being advanced, doing so on the basis of scripture. Afterward, he said, President Rutherford personally assigned him to prepare material in support of this new view, although he, Fred Franz, had made clear that he did not consider it scriptural. (CofC 2002. pp. 65-66.)

  So when Fred Franz prepared the NWT he overloaded this particular verse with his own (undoubtedly correct) view that the superior authorities are governments by adding the word "relative". It was still another 12 years until Franz finally got Knorr to change the doctrine officially in the Watchtower in 1962. So Franz got his way in the end, though he had to wait a long time after Rutherford was gone. I think it also illustrates the power handed over to Franz in the NWT project when he was able to amend doctrines he had disagreed with. You get the impression of Knorr as being somewhat oblivious to the power this handed Franz, and unaware that this meant changes until it was too late.

  I think if BeDuhn had understood Watchtower internal politics better, and had focussed on verses relevant to that, he may have gained a different impression of the NWT's overall integrity.

  Slim