by IW 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
I thought these comments on Channel C were fair views of Fred Franz' translation, not to mention a little surprising.
A breath of fresh air.
http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=no&board=Main&mode=Current&message=21782
http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=no&board=Main&mode=Current&message=21785
Oh quite true IW. Quite true! I also thought his 1975 ideas were the bomb.
IW,
I won't rebut RudPerson's post, however I challenge the validity of the following argument on the merits of the argument itself as usable to establish the point he's trying to make:
Lest someone should think that BeDuhn was somehow connected with the WTS it should be mentioned that he took the NWT Committee to task for introducing "Jehovah" into the NT text, doing so in a lenghty appendix.
How would criticism (stuffed into an appendix) regarding one GLARING and often repeated error in NWT translation constitute evidence that BeDuhn was not somehow connected to the WTS? His parents could have been JWs, or his grandparents, or favorite aunt and uncle. This makes no sense whatsoever as a point of argument to establish that he has no connection to the WTS. It can be rejected as an argument on its face, because it does not support the conclusion to which the writer leads the reader.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I have a copy of Franz's University transcript on my computer I lifted off some website.
Franz's formal training was mainly in classical Latin and Greek. He only coompleted one half of a course in Biblical Greek which ran a year long durning his last semester there. Since Koine is pretty close to Attic Greek, save the Aramisms, It doesn't mean he was incompetent at all, though it is generally accepted that one should have an advanced degree to go into that work, which Franz didn't.
My problem is the same one which the first link had with Franz's work. In 1950, the Watchtower said the follwing with respect to the NWT:
*** w50 9/15 p. 315 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures ***
9 We acknowledge our debt to all the Bible versions which we have used in attaining to what truth of God’s Word we enjoy today. We do not discourage the use of any of these Bible versions, but shall ourselves go on making suitable use of them. However, during all our years of using these versions down to the latest of them, we have found them defective. In one or another vital respect they are inconsistent or unsatisfactory, infected with religious traditions or worldly philosophy and hence not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God has restored to his devoted people who call upon his name and seek to serve him with one accord. Especially has this been true in the case of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which throw light and place proper interpretation upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. More and more the need has been felt for a translation in modern speech, in harmony with revealed truth,...
(Bold lettering by Forscher)
Knowing that, from Genesis to Revelation, the stated overiding principle of translation for the NWT was to produce a translation in harmony with Watchtower theology makes the NWT a translation one cannot trust, even if Franz had held a Ph.D. in biblical languages. Maybe if he had he'd done a smoother job with some of the more problematic renderings in the NT, but that doesn't mean that one would want to trust it, no matter how good parts of it might be.
Forscher
Hold yer horses here. Does anyone have more than an educated guess that FF even worked on the NWT? For all we know it could have been Larry, Moe, & Curly.
Ray franz confirmed what most folks had guessed about his uncle being the chief translator of the NWT in his book, Crisis Of Conscience. He also listed the other members of the "New World Translation Committee" and what they did. Here is a link to a page for further information:
http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php
Forscher
I agree he was a strange duck ...... What's so different about what the WTBTS did vrs. King James anyway ? It seems everybody wants the bible to read a certain way to fit their own liking .The main claim the WTBTS makes is the restoration of the JEHOVAH where as other versions have slipped in "The LORd" . It doesn't look correct and is obvious somebody changed it in some parts . I've had a good look at many translations myself . Another claim the WTBTS makes is to have identified further tampering to make it look as if there is a trinity where as the word trinity is not used in the bible . For every scripture a trinitarian can say supports trinity there are several that show there is no trinity . I lost respect for the WTBTS because they exagerate their scholarship in ancient languages .
I think it's good to look at things from both sides or if possible all sides. The NWT is biased but it is not a rag. The truth of things is rarely black and white. I was happy to read a fair assessment of Fred Franz' abilities to translate the Bible but of course that in itself does not make the NWT a good translation it does show, though, that Persson and Penton are being fair and truthful. Not a bad thing, imo.
IW
As much as I have grown to dislike the JWs and Watchtower, I still know and use their Bible. I have other Bibles, but because of growing up with their's, other translations I find harder to read and quote from.
It is fairly obvious that some of the NWT translators could read Hebrew and Greek correctly -- and this certainly must have included F.W. Franz. The painful, overtechnical style of the NWT mostly results from an overscrupulous imitation of the formal features of both Biblical Hebrew and Greek (especially verb tenses) and this implies dealing with the details of the original texts, even though in a more schoolish than scholarly way.
As far as the OT is concerned, Bible translation works in a close cognitive circle, inasmuch as the Hebrew Bible constitutes almost all the available corpus of classical Hebrew. Iow, Hebrew grammars and lexica are dependent on the history of Bible exegesis and translation. Comparative linguistics (including later Hebrew or other Semitic languages) have only brought limited input into Bible scholarship, especially with the 20th-century archaeological findings (a few ancient inscriptions, the Ras Shamra and the Qumran libraries for instance). As a result, no modern Bible translation can claim to be a completely fresh work -- it always relies on earlier translations, which it follows or reacts to. All translations involve picking and choosing from extant translations in modern languages, either directly (by comparing translations) or indirectly (through lexica and grammars which had built upon traditional translations).
