Gangas & NWT

by voltaire 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  voltaire

  I heard an interesting program the other night that reminded me of the debates/questions that arise about the tanslation of the NWT. It has been asserted that since George Gangas was a speaker of modern Greek he was not qualified to translate Biblical Greek. The progam I heard is hosted by Milt Rosenberg on WGN 720 and the guests were two linguists from Illinois universities ( I can't recall their names). The show was about languages in general with guests calling in and speaking their language in attempt to stump the linguists. Milt would often ask his guests how well a modern speaker of a given language would be able to read older works in his/her language without some specialized studies. Interestly, Mordern speakers of Icelandic can read the old Norse Sagas with little help ( a few footnotes). Of course, English speakers can't get through Shakespeare without considerable explanation.

  The part that reminded me of Gangas was when Milt asked about whether or not a Greek could get much out of Homer. The linguist most familiar with Greek said that he probably wouldn't understand a great deal, but that it would be nearly impossible to test the proposition since the Greeks are very proud of their literary heritage. Anyone who went to school in Geece had many years of classical Greek training. Furthermore, Biblical Greek is still the liturgical language of the Greek Orthodox Church. Greeks grow up hearing it spoken in church, much as French and Italians would have heard Latin all through their youths several generations ago. So, unless he was homeschooled, Gangas very likely was better trained in ancient and Biblical Greek than Fred Franz.

  At any rate, when pointing out the qualifications ( or lack of same) of the translators of the NWT, you might remember that there were (most likely) two members who had some familiarity with Biblical Greek.
• 

  Narkissos

  It would be interesting to know more about Gangas' curriculum -- whether he had classical studies, how much he was in touch with the Greek Orthodox community etc.

  Anyway, with dozens of available English versions, concordances and dictionaries, it takes a minimal knowledge of the original languages to come up with a "new translation" -- what it is worth is another matter.
• 

  DaCheech

  Were all qualified in our own minds
• 

  greendawn

  Biblical Greek has nothing to do with Homeric Greek. It was Hellenistic Greek that was used to write the New Testament and that is much closer to Modern Greek. But even though Greek is a conservative language that didn't change greatly in the last 2000 years a modern Greek still needs to spend time to study Hellenistic Greek to be able to fully understand it.
• 

  sixsixsixtynine

  Of all the so-called "urban" or "gangsta" translations, I have

  always found the NWT to be the most accurate.

  Unlike Franz, Dr. Dre actually was a Greek scholar when

  he did this translation.
• 

  voltaire

  Greendawn,

  I wouldn't say that 'Biblical Greek has nothing to do with classical Greek', One scholar calls Hellenistic Greek 'the later vernacular Attic' and points out that foreign influences were 'not enough to change the essential Attic character' (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research). I presume that Hellenitic Greek is far closer to Attic (Koinh) than to modern Greek. At any rate, Gangas would probably have studied classical Greek (early Hellenistic Greek if you will) and would have heard Hellenistic Greek from his youth on. He may well have studied Hellenistic Greek as well, perhaps Greek from all of the major periods.

  Until I heard the radio program, I had no idea that Greeks so routinely studied their ancient literary works. It was, therefore, a safe assumption to make that Gangas was no more qualified than you or I to translate Hellenistic Greek. I now assume otherwise unless someone has reason to believe that his schoolboy training was radically different than that of a normal Greek's.

  Of course, that doesn't mean that he was as qualified as someone trained at university/seminary, nor that he wasn't biased by his affiliation with the Watchtower Society. Also, the other members, besides Franz, were apparently untrained in Biblical languages. An added point would be that Gangas probably was entirely unacquainted with Hebrew or Aramaic. I'm not contentending that the committee as a whole was qualified, I'm just surprised that an additional member of the committee probably was at least somewhat familiar with Hellenistic (koinh) Greek, contrary to many what commentators have expressed or implied. I suppose it's good to be accurate, and honest, if we're ever in a debate.

  Consider the above a friendly 'heads up'.
• 

  TD

  
  

  Being a native Greek speaker is certainly does not qualify one to translate the NT, but a Greek speaker is nevertheless still miles and miles ahead when it comes to any of the ancient dialects (Attic, Koine, Ionic, etc.) than someone who doesn't understand a word of Greek.

  To illustrate, here's a verse of an English Christimas carol from the late 16th century::

  A crowne of thorns set on His head,
  
  And He was done on the Rood,
  
  And beaten till His body was bloody-red;
  
  Thus they beat Jesu, our debt to pay.

  Here's a piece from the King Arthur story from the late 14th century

  Now grete glorious God through grace of Himselven
  
  And the precious prayer of his pris Moder
  
  Sheld us fro shamesdeede and sinful workes
  
  And give us grace to guie and govern us here

  These may not be perfectly intelligible to modern English speakers, but modern English speakers are still miles ahead of someone who doesn't understand a word of English.

  Greek is far older than English, but the situation is similar. For example, here's 1 John 1:4 in Koine and Modern Greek

  Koine: kai tauta graphomen hemeis hina he xara hemon he peplerwmene

  Modern: kai tauta graphomen pros esas dia na henai pleres he xara sas

  Some things have changed; you don't see the reduplication of the stem in the perfect tense; the word order is slightly different; the personal pronouns and a few of the other words are different.

  But a modern Greek speaker can still muddle their way through Koine with no training at all, which is far more than we can say for someone who doesn't even know the alphabet.

  [Edited because Windows Greek language support does not work with the forum software]
• 

  voltaire

  Thanks TD. Nice illustrations of the point I was making. And imagine if a Greek grew up hearing Koine spoken at church or had studied it for several years in school (although I don't know if children in Greece study Koine or Classical Greek, or both in school). I don't suppose anyone on this forum grew up in Greece?
• 

  Leolaia

  It is well known among linguists that Modern Greek is much more conservative compared to ancient Greek dialects than Romance languages are to ancient Latin. Note, for instance, how MG preserves case distinctions lost in French or Italian. Of course, speaking a modern variety of Greek is a poor substitute for ancient koine Greek because it can easily mislead the translator in representing the nuances of the words and idioms....
• 

  MsMcDucket

  I have to admit what you all are talking about is "Greek" to me.