I don't know whether anyone here has encountered a program called e-Sword (with the hyphen in it like that). It is Bible study software that lets you install literally dozens of different translations of the Bible to compare, plus dictionaries, maps, and commentaries (including historic commentaries like the ones Ray Franz describes in CoC). You can install both modern and historic translations, plus versions of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint translations. I recently installed it and was checking out favorite verses in different translations.
One of the translations you can get for e-Sword is NWT, which I have mostly because it's the Bible version that I'm most familiar with. When looking at the NWT text of Ecclesiastes 1:2, I was struck by two things: one, that the text wasn't even close to what I was used to the NWT saying, and, two, that it was a very, very good translation of the original Hebrew (I was raised Jewish and can read Hebrew). This really startled me and made me wonder if the NWT had been revised. No luck; a little Googling revealed to me that what I was actually looking at was a copy of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) translation rather than the NWT.
A little hunting around and I found a real copy of the NWT for e-Sword. What I had previously installed had been mislabelled. So, if you've got a copy of e-Sword, double check and make sure that your NWT really is the NWT. The real one is 6.87 Mb whereas the mislabelled HCSB is 12.2 Mb.
But this all raises some interesting (to me, anyway) questions about the NWT, as well as a few things that have been bugging me since back when I was an active Witness. The first chapter of Ecclesiastes is one of the first things that I look at in Bible translations that I haven't encountered before, as I can immediately tell whether the translators are working from the original manuscripts or are simply paraphrasing older translations.
If the NWT is based on the original manuscripts, why does Ecclesiastes 1:2 use the word "vanity" to mean "useless" or "meaningless"? The only way that such a rendering would make sense is if one were trying to imitate the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate text, a medieval translation of scripture that the KJV is based on. If you've got a Bible where the first chapter of Ecclesiastes uses the word "vanity", it is not working from the original manuscripts--it is either translating the Vulgate or attempting to revise the KJV. The word "vanity" does not mean "useless" in modern English, but it is similar to the Latin word used in the Vulgate ("Vanitas vanitatum dixit Ecclesiastes, vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas").
Bibles that translate the original Hebrew word "hebel" correctly, as "useless", "meaningless", or something similar, include the TEV, NJB, NIV, CEV, and HCSB, as noted. Bibles that use the word "vanity" (apparently in an effort to imitate the Vulgate but at the expense of English meaning) include the KJV, ASV, RSV, and NWT, only the last of which claims to be based on the oldest available manuscripts (the others either being the KJV or revisions of it).
Why would the Society translate the word this way, obviously in imitation of the Vulgate (which they condemn), when copies of the original Hebrew text are readily available at any Christian or Jewish book store (and almost certainly in the Bethel libraries)? My guess is that they just based their "translation" on a translation that relied on the Vulgate without realizing that doing so caused them to show their hand. The problem is that they were obviously just comparing and revising earlier English translations rather than making a new translation based on the oldest manuscripts available, while claiming to be producing something totally new and based only on the oldest manuscripts.
This has been bothering me for a LONG time.
If my incredibly dry and boring rambling about Biblical semantics hasn't put you to sleep (or at least caused you to leave the page) yet, this gives me an opportunity to bring up a few other questions about the NWT that have been bouncing around in my head. In putting together a new translation of the scriptures, and claiming to be guided by Jehovah God in doing so, isn't it remarkable that the Society arrived at the exact same 66 books as being "inspired" that Babylon the Great did centuries ago? Not even one of the New Testament apocryphal books was actually inspired? Not even one of the books that Babylon the Great deemed worthy of inclusion in the canon was not actually so?
Babylon the Great was exactly right in their blind guesses regarding the authorship of each and every one of the books of the Bible? Not even one of those books was actually written by someone else? (I could write essays on why Solomon almost certainly wasn't the author of Ecclesiastes, nor were any of the Gospels likely written by their namesakes.)
Not even one of the Old Testament apocryphal books was actually inspired and worthy of inclusion? Martin Luther wasn't wrong about even one of them? Luther's removal of the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible would have presented an excellent opportunity for the Society to argue that things were being removed and "covered up" by Christendom, but instead they determined that Luther's actions were 100% correct.
How strange that these humans working without divine assistance in compiling the canon centuries ago managed to still get every one of their guesses right. That is what the composition of the NWT would have us believe, anyhow.
I'll try to wrap things up with the one that has been bugging me the most. The more that I think about it, the more that it becomes obvious to me that the use of the word "Jehovah" as a translation of the Tetragrammaton (I'm not even going to start on its use in the New Testament) is no more appropriate than the use of the word "LORD" in its place. Even the Society admits that "Jehovah" is not a particularly accurate rendering of the Tetragrammaton. (There is no letter J in Hebrew, Greek, or even Latin; the word is a corruption based on mideval misunderstandings of Hebrew.) Whether you use the word "LORD" in place of the Tetragrammaton or the word "Jehovah" in place of it, you are hiding and covering up the original word, the actual name of God, "YHWH", or possibly "Yahweh".
If it is so vitally important to use the Divine Name, if one cannot possibly know God without knowing the Divine Name or expect answer to prayer without including it, wouldn't "YHWH" or "Yahweh" be what you would HAVE to use? Doesn't using the word "Jehovah" cover it up and remove the actual divine name just as much as "LORD" or "father" or any other name or title would?
Just some things that have been bugging me. Thanks for letting me get it out, and thanks so much for reading such a long and rambling post.
Peace,
Heather.
Some observations and questions about the NWT
by witnessgirl 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
witnessgirl
-
RisingEagle
Why would the Society translate the word this way, obviously in imitation of the Vulgate (which they condemn), when copies of the original Hebrew text are readily available at any Christian or Jewish book store (and almost certainly in the Bethel libraries)? My guess is that they just based their "translation" on a translation that relied on the Vulgate without realizing that doing so caused them to show their hand. The problem is that they were obviously just comparing and revising earlier English translations rather than making a new translation based on the oldest manuscripts available, while claiming to be producing something totally new and based only on the oldest manuscripts.
Excellent summation, hence the reasoning behind the, 'not going beyond the things taught' warning.
(I could write essays on why Solomon almost certainly wasn't the author of Ecclesiastes, nor were any of the Gospels likely written by their namesakes.)
I'd read them.
RE
-
james_woods
If I recall this all correctly, they have written articles that hint around about Yahweh being a little more correct than Jehovah.
However, they usually make the rationalization that nobody really knows how the word was pronounced in Hebrew anyway, so Jehovah is just as good.
They also have the circular and ridiculous argument that "Jehovah" was the way that people have usually referred to this in English (including the few remaining references in english language translations), and thus it is more familiar to people who might want to listen to the bible message. Circular because "it is right because it has been thought to be right for the last 200 years that way".
Ridiculous because they made this mis-application of the name the cornerstone and name-mark of their religion, and don't even bother to try their best to get it right.
This was actually my first point of contention with the JW doctrine (specifically the New Testament nonsense), and I actually tried to get a straight answer from none other than Albert Schroeder on the subject when I was at servant school in the early 70s. I was essentiallly told not to worry about things that were beyond my understanding, and go preach the good news.
-
OnTheWayOut
The problem is that they were obviously just comparing and revising earlier English translations rather than making a new translation based on the oldest manuscripts available, while claiming to be producing something totally new and based only on the oldest manuscripts.
This has been bothering me for a LONG time.I have tackled my personal objections to the NWT with the biggies:
"Jehovah", "presence" for parasia, [other] in boxes, stuff like this.
Instead of delving into comparing their Bible to others beyond the things
that really affected me, I went into researching the Bible, itself. Not
any particular version or translation- the original books and the copies
that survived and were passed on down to us.I almost feel that you are more of a Bible scholar than the NWT committee members.
If this bothers you, just chalk it up to another reason not to trust them.isn't it remarkable that the Society arrived at the exact same 66 books as being "inspired" that Babylon the Great did centuries ago? Not even one of the New Testament apocryphal books was actually inspired? Not even one of the books that Babylon the Great deemed worthy of inclusion in the canon was not actually so?
You make an excellent point. WTS leans on the Protestant Bible in choosing their
little books. This bothered me when I started learning more about the Bible. The
book of Enoch and the books included at Nag Hamadi and Qumran are of facsination
to me. It seems that the very core of Christian beliefs about the Flood and the struggle
between good and evil come from the books that were excluded. It seems that there
was some very different ideas about the messiah.If it is so vitally important to use the Divine Name,
Why didn't God protect it for His New Testament? If a great apostasy took over, then
the Word was not protected. It could all be corrupted. If He protected His Word, then
"Jehovah" wasn't in the New Testament. We cannot have it both ways. -
snowbird
You've made astute observations and raised valid questions about the NWT, which isn't really a translation at all.
You said:
Bibles that translate the original Hebrew word "hebel" correctly, as "useless", "meaningless", or something similar, include the TEV, NJB, NIV, CEV, and HCSB, as noted
This is an aside, but isn't that the same Hebrew word used for Abel, the second son of Adam and Eve?
I find it intriguing that Eve would use that term for her son. Had it finally dawned on her that life outside Eden was useless or meaningless? What a tragic outcome for one act of disobedience!
Sylvia
-
Narkissos
If the NWT is based on the original manuscripts, why does Ecclesiastes 1:2 use the word "vanity" to mean "useless" or "meaningless"? The only way that such a rendering would make sense is if one were trying to imitate the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate text, a medieval translation of scripture that the KJV is based on. If you've got a Bible where the first chapter of Ecclesiastes uses the word "vanity", it is not working from the original manuscripts--it is either translating the Vulgate or attempting to revise the KJV. The word "vanity" does not mean "useless" in modern English, but it is similar to the Latin word used in the Vulgate ("Vanitas vanitatum dixit Ecclesiastes, vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas").
The real problem, imo, is the evolution of modern languages (in that case, English): vanity probably was a correct translation two centuries ago, as the usage of the word was closer to the Latin vanitas -- "emptiness," whence "uselessnes," "meaninglessness" or "futility," bordering on the more recent use of "absurd" and "nonsense". Unfortunately there is a certain inertia in the world of Bible translation (also due to the reaction of the conservative public which easily complains when translators or revisers "change" THE Bible, i.e. the version they have known from childhood), and it takes too much time before translations take changes of usage into account.
In putting together a new translation of the scriptures, and claiming to be guided by Jehovah God in doing so, isn't it remarkable that the Society arrived at the exact same 66 books as being "inspired" that Babylon the Great did centuries ago? Not even one of the New Testament apocryphal books was actually inspired? Not even one of the books that Babylon the Great deemed worthy of inclusion in the canon was not actually so?
Although they are reluctant to admit it, historically JWs are but another Protestant sect, and their acceptance of the Protestant canon is only one of the many elements of this inheritance. Criticism and differentiation from mainstream Christianity must rest on some common ground -- the Protestant Bible is simply left unquestioned. On this issue (as well as traditional authorship and dating of the books, and the systematic rejection of pseudepigraphy) the WT hasn't even tried to be original. It is content to parrot the apologetic arguments of "orthodox" or "fundamentalistic" Protestantism against "higher criticism"...
-
witnessgirl
snowbird:
This is an aside, but isn't that the same Hebrew word used for Abel, the second son of Adam and Eve?
I find it intriguing that Eve would use that term for her son. Had it finally dawned on her that life outside Eden was useless or meaningless? What a tragic outcome for one act of disobedience!That is a really interesting observation! Only the vowels are different, and the vowels were inserted many centuries after the original texts were written. Without them, as it was written in ancient manuscripts, the word is the same both places--"הבל". Compare "hebel" meaning "useless" at Ecc 1:2 here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3101.htm
With the name of the second son of Adam and Eve at Gen 4:2 here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0104.htm
The vowels are written like accent marks under the letters. Only the consonants appear in ancient manuscripts; the vowels were added much more recently to assist reading and pronunciation.
Narkissos:The real problem, imo, is the evolution of modern languages (in that case, English): vanity probably was a correct translation two centuries ago, as the usage of the word was closer to the Latin vanitas -- "emptiness," whence "uselessnes," "meaninglessness" or "futility," bordering on the more recent use of "absurd" and "nonsense". Unfortunately there is a certain inertia in the world of Bible translation (also due to the reaction of the conservative public which easily complains when translators or revisers "change" THE Bible, i.e. the version they have known from childhood), and it takes too much time before translations take changes of usage into account.
Naturally, a huge problem with the NWT here is that it is claimed to be a modern language translation; in fact, this is often presented as the main "sell point" for it over other translations (a red herring, BTW). That aside, though, you've made an outstanding point here, and I've also observed the same thing. I have seen people from the King James Only camp attacking other translations of the Bible simply because they do not say what the KJV says at certain verses, with no consideration whatsoever given to what the original Hebrew or Greek might say--in fact, I've seen these arguments presented as though there were no manuscripts of the Scriptures that predate the KJV!
A good example would be a (non-JW) site that I recently saw linked on here somewhere. The webmaster (who claims to hold a number of theology degrees, although I really have to question this claim) was arguing that the NIV was Satanic because it did not use the word "Lucifer" in a verse where the KJV did, using the word "morning star" instead. The argument is presented here:
http://www.nivexposed.faithweb.com/about.html
Nowhere does he even consider what the original Hebrew might say. He certainly does not grasp that either would be an acceptable rendering (KJV transliterates where NIV translates). You can see the original Hebrew text of the verse in question (Isaiah 14:12) alongside a Jewish translation that greatly predates the NIV here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1014.htm
If you've got a Hebrew lexicon, it will take you less than five minutes to discover that the word used here, "Lu-Shfr", means "light-bringer, or morning star". Nothing about the usage suggests that it must be a proper name. Yet the webmaster here is utterly convinced that the NIV must be Satanic because it does not preserve the KJV's rendering of the word by transliteration rather than translation, nor is the fact that there even is an original Hebrew version ever addressed. Wouldn't that be the first place to go in comparing two translations? Apparently not to this guy.
Thanks again for reading my very long post! -
insearchoftruth
Witnessgirl, all I can say is wow, I learned so very much by reading your post and am not only impressed by your knowledge of Biblical manuscripts and language, but your ability to put your thoughts to paper.
Appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts on this, am looking for any direction to get my wife thinking about the problems in the organization and this may be another direction I can think about taking.
-
StAnn
ISOT~I still say that Don Cameron's book, Captives of a Concept, is most beneficial in getting a JW to see the light. Attacking their bible is only going to make them defensive.
WitnessGirl~your avatar is freaking me out. Brings back bad, bad memories. Just how married to it are you? LOL!
Personally, I was very surprised when I discovered the deuterocanonical texts. I've always wondered why the WTS chose to copy the "incomplete" Protestant Bible rather than the whole thing.
Maybe it was less work.
StAnn
-
insearchoftruth
Thanks St. Ann, and I have a copy of Captives of a Concept at work, will need to break it out and re read it again.....it really is good and it does a wonderful job of pointing things out very logically without seeming like it is an attack...thanks for the reminder.