[PDF] The New Testament in the Original Greek (1882), by Westcott and Hort

by possible-san 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  possible-san

  [PDF] The New Testament in the Original Greek (1882), by Westcott and Hort

  PDF, 51MB
  http://www.archive.org/details/newtestamentino00west

  This is fundamentally the same as the text in the "KIT" (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures).
  But, regrettable, in some places, the text reproduced by the "KIT" is different from the "original (WH)".
  For instance, the "brackets." (Examples, John 14:14; Revelation 20:6)

  In John 14:14, the Greek word "me" is enclosed in the "bracket" in fact.
  http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentino00west#page/448/mode/2up

  This is because that word (Greek: "me") is omitted in some MSS (E.g., "Alexandrinus").
  http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?book04+422440+transcript.anv#422813

  Well, people who do not know that the "KIT" is different from "original (WH)" explain as follows, for instance.

  John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads, "If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has "me" after "ask."It therefore should be translated, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by the JWs in producing the NWT) include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note.
  
  (the Christian Research Journal, Fall, 1989, page 28.)
  http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/publications/the-new-world-translation-on-trial.html

  But, the explanation that "in John 14:14, the original (WH) had a bracket" is missing there.

  possible
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Thank you, possible-san!
• 

  brotherdan

  Actually the WT has removed ALL BRACKETS from their newest Bible prints. Any Bible printed past 2006 no longer contains any brackets around the words that THEY THEMSELVE INSERTED!!! Look, for example, at Col 1:16. Most of us know that they add the word "other" in multiple places. They correctly put brackets around the word to show that it was not in the original text. However, now that they've removed the brackets, they are lying implying that the word "other" WAS found in the ancient text.
• 

  jberrios

  Hi Actor Man! I hope your day’s going better than expected!
  
  I want you to know that I am on your side! I am not a “Trinitarian“ and I’m in agreement with you on what our Lord Jesus said that he depended on his Father.
  
  If one is to read and believe the Bible, it should be read in its most basic form i.e., the copies of the original manuscripts. Why? Because one will then have, first hand, what can be read in its most “virgin state“ possible, without man‘s (religion) influential thoughts & beliefs. Love!
  
  Actor Man, I wish to reiterate & ask you what you think of the passage in the New World Translation (NWT) Colossians 2;9"because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” Love!
  
  Here it is in the Greek Bible. Colossians 2:9 "?τι ?ν α?τ? κατοικε? π?ν τ? πλ?ρωμα τ?ς θε?τητος σωματικ?ς,".
  The above verse is taken from "Greek Wescott-Hort NT UTF8" This is the Greek New Testament from Wescott-Hort.
  
  The scholars of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization used this Greek Bible "Wescott-Hort NT", (among others) to translate and make the NWT Bible. Love!
  
  θε?τητος
  Case G
  Number S
  Gender F
  
  The base form of the word θε?τητος is θε?τ. "θε?τ translates to deity, which differs from θει?τ, which translates to divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute;...". Taken from "Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament" By Joseph H Thayer.
  
  The Jehovah's Witnesses have been, for many years, using this Lexicon from Thayer in their studies! Love!
  
  What Mr. Thayer wrote is that the word here should be "deity" and not "divine quality" as is used in the NWT.
  
  This passage should therefore (by definition of θε?τητος) read …the fullness of the Deity bodily. Love! Here, “...θε?τητος σωματικ?ς” translates to …Deity bodily.
  
  Actor Man, Christianity is a life not a Bible! Let us ponder on that & the Lord God Jehovah give us understanding.
  
  For it’s the Spirit that gives Life, not the Bible. The Bible talks about what Jehovah did & is doing through Jesus Christ our Lord.
  
  The Spirit of Life does today what the Bible says it will do today. The Spirit can influence us to live the Bible without reading it! And once we’re living by the Spirit, we can find what we’re living is found in the Bible.
  
  Please let me know what you think.
  Grace & Peace to you.
  John

  1:26 AM

  “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5 (my emphasis)
  
  What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *me*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)
  
  These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”.
  
  Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*
  
  Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *ne* is elided with the "o" in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)
  
  Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.
  
  True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt.
  
  The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.
  
  Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.
  
  It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.
  
  On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.
  
  In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.
  
  Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any.

  posted by Memra at 9:02 AM on May 10, 2007

  You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

  This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

  Google Account

  Username
  Password
  No Google Account? Sign here. You can also use your Blogger account.

  Publish Your Comment Preview </form>
• 

  PSacramento

  Actually the WT has removed ALL BRACKETS from their newest Bible prints. Any Bible printed past 2006 no longer contains any brackets around the words that THEY THEMSELVE INSERTED!!! Look, for example, at Col 1:16. Most of us know that they add the word "other" in multiple places. They correctly put brackets around the word to show that it was not in the original text. However, now that they've removed the brackets, they are lying implying that the word "other" WAS found in the ancient text.

  Wow, That truly blow me away, I didn't realise they removed the brackets of all the times THEY inserted a word in the NT.

  I guess that they must assume/think that NO ONE has an interlinear or an older copy, LOL !
• 

  brotherdan

  The funny thing is that I just checked the 2009 WT library and the brackets ARE still there... So I don't know if they just missed updating the cd or what...?
• 

  possible-san

  Mad Sweeney.
  brotherdan.
  jberrios.
  PSacramento.

  Thank you for your comments.

  jberrios.
  Thank you for your first post.
  But, possibly, those sentences are not the things written by you.
  That is, it is Mr. John Berrios's comment.
  I think that you should show the address if you do "copy & paste."
  http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sahidic-coptic-indefinite-article-at.html

  brotherdan.
  In this forum, although I read about that subject repeatedly, I have not seen that scanned picture once.
  I am grateful if you or other person would show it to me.

  Well, with regard to John 14:14, it is disadvantageous for the WTS to have omitted that "bracket."
  Probably, that omission is not advantageous to the WTS (JW).
  
  Therefore, their omission reason is probably their "negligence", IMO.
  And, that "negligence" of theirs brought them disadvantage.

  possible
• 

  Doug Mason

  While I am not defending the practice, the idea of amending the text of Scripture and even inserting comments directly into the text has been going on ever since the words were first written.

  Hence, for example, the term "Septuagint" (LXX) refers to a group of texts, with each carrying differences.

  Not only does the expression "Masoretic Text" (MT) also refer to a group of Hebrew texts, but the LXX is based on a Hebrew version that is different to that which underlies the MT. Just compare, for examples, the LXX and MT of Jeremiah and of Daniel 9.

  The early Christian Church preferred the Theodotion version over the LXX, which was likely based on a pre-Christian Greek version known as ur-Theodotionic. The Church then created its own versions, such as the Vulgate.

  Even today, the Scriptures accepted by the major elements of the Christian Church (such as the Roman and Orthodox) have versions quite different to those accepted by most Protestant persuasions. Then there are arguments whether the Protestants should accept the "Textus Receptus" or the Westcott and Hort or whether a translation should pick and choose among the various sources, as they commonly do, employing disciplines such as Textual (Lower) Criticism.

  So, while it is correct to point fingers at the NWT translators for the blatantly biased manipulation of the Jews' written records, take a step back and see this as a common practice.

  Doug
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Could someone explain this?

  Regarding kit appendix 2a explaining john 1:1, how accurate is it?
• 

  Bangalore

  Thanks.

  Bangalore