Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Wonderment

  Pistoff:"You are welcome to that translation; to me it is lifeless, technical and soulless."

  Actually, it is quite dynamic. By using extra words to convey the "originals," the NWT makes some stories more meaningful, emotional, and accurate. The story of Joseph is more vivid in the NWT than in the average version because of its application of the Hebrew verb forms. Some scriptures transmit more power and feeling. Consider two:

  John 11:35, New American Standard Bible: "Jesus wept."

  NWT: "Jesus gave way to tears." (reflecting the Greek ingressive aorist tense)

  Which agrees better with the context? In the NASB, Jesus is being described as having just "wept," as if it was a past or done action. In the NWT, Jesus is being portrayed as responding in a deeply emotional way, as not being able to contain himself from the pain he felt when he saw Mary and the Jews coming to him "weeping." Yes, Jesus burst into tears!

  John 2:16, King James Version: "make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

  NWT: "Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!"

  Which agrees with the context? Were those men warned ‘not to make Jesus' Father's house an house of merchandise,’ implying perhaps that the action had not begun?

  Or, were they not rather doing business already, and Jesus commanded them in righteous zeal to stop making the house of his Father a house of merchandise?

  Which translation reflects the Greek prohibition in the present tense and the context better?
• 

  Pistoff

  I am not versed in Greek, biblical or otherwise.

  My complaint about the NWT is exactly what you are saying; it is TECHNICAL.

  To me "Jesus wept" is more powerful. I get the mental image. I don't speak Greek, or Aramaic, or any other Bible language. I speak American English.

  In this case, Jesus wept in comparison to Jesus gave way to tears is much more powerful, and so more effective. It may be less technically correct, by your statement, but the mental image is not as vivid as the word wept.

  By the context of the scripture about the sellers, the reader already knows that they have made the temple into a house of merchandise, they don't need the words of Jesus to get the picture of what is going on.

  That is exactly my complaint about the translators of the NWT; they have produced a translation that may be technically more accurate to their perceived meanings of the original words, except for the distortions to fit their theology, but it lacks life.

  A more literal reading from another language doesn't make for a better translation; expressions are not common to all languages.

  That decision, of when to translate words so that the reader gets the impact without changing the meaning, is made by translators and scholars with deep backgrounds in language.
• 

  designs

  Fred was a big warm huggy kind of guy and it showed in his Translation, no wait I'm thinking of someone else
• 

  james_woods

  And really, how many of Frederick Franz's critics get to get a mention of honor in the The New York Times (such as Fred did on December 24, 1992) when the paper described Frederick Franz as "a religious Leader....[of] a Christian denomination" and "a biblical scholar...versed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."

  So even if we don't agree with the figure of Fred Franz, recognition of his abilities in the midst of denial and criticism is welcomed in the name of fairness.

  There is no evidence that he was "versed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek". There is no evidence that he was a Rhodes Scholar. There is not even (to my knowledge) any evidence that he finished basic college.

  There is abundent evidence that he was absolutely bat-shit crazy and made several notorious false prophecies which the JWs are still trying to live down.
• 

  palmtree67

  Wonderment:

  Fred Franz stated in Australia after the 1975 fiasco: "I made an ass of myself."

  Hmmmm....when Moses made an ass of himself, he was denied entry into the Promised Land.......
• 

  Wonderment

  The WT definitely has handled the 1975 embarrasment in an un-Christian way. I don't support their behavior there.
• 

  OUTLAW

  And really, how many of Frederick Franz's critics get to get a mention of honor in the The New York Times

  (such as Fred did on December 24, 1992) when the paper described Frederick Franz as "a religious Leader....

  [of] a Christian denomination" and "a biblical scholar...versed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."....Wonderment

  An informed person would never write that crap..Who ever wrote that didn`t do their homework..

  Being invited to write a Rhodes entrance exam,does not make you a Rhodes Scholar..

  Franz never attended Rhodes..

  He couldn`t be bothered to get a proper education in Koine greek either..

  He relied on other peoples work..

  To slap together a bible that would support WBT$ Doctrines..

  Fred (The Fraud) Franz..

  Re-Wrote the Bible for the convenience of the WBT$..

  Here`s a picture of the WBT$ Governing Body..

  Autographing WBT$ Bibles for Cuban Public Officials..

  Notice Jehovah is not in the Picture..Jehovah is back at Bethel doing WBT$ GB Laundry..

  

  ....................... OUTLAW
• 

  Wonderment

  Outlaw said after the reading the following statement: And really, how many of Frederick Franz's critics get to get a mention of honor in the The New York Times (such as Fred did on December 24, 1992) when the paper described Frederick Franz as "a religious Leader....[of] a Christian denomination" and "a biblical scholar...versed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."

  "An informed person would never write that crap..Who ever wrote that didn`t do their homework."

  Outlaw: The New York Times journalist is not likely to make such statement without seeing some evidence of it. Established names in the publishing industry are generally careful before they make material available to the public such as this. Besides the ridicule of being exposed as "gullible" and "misinformed," and have their reputation tarnished, the paper also knows that if they make a public statement without any substance, they will likely face thousands of complaints, many from academia demanding verifiable substance behind it. Just look at how many enemies the WTS have, and even in this forum, many posters can't hold back from demonizing Fred Franz's character. This would be one heck of an opportunity to tarnish The New York Times. The competition would have loved that, if they could.

  The WT have had some insiders to privy information that only a few are priviledged to. One such insider was A. H. Macmillan. A. H. MacMillan, a former leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was one insider who had access to WT records, and was able to publish a history of the religious movement, said of Fred Franz, "Besides Spanish, Franz has a fluent knowledge of Portuguese and German and is conversant with French. He is also a scholar of Hebrew and Greek as well as of Syriac and Latin, all of which contribute to making him a thoroughly reliable mainstay on [WT President] Knorr's editorial staff." (Faith On The March, 1957, p. 182, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.)

  It is likely that The New York Times interviewed one such insider who provided some proof of his language capabilities.
• 

  munchausen

  I cannot resist adding my two cents worth. While I am not an expert in any Biblical language, I have studied Greek enough to be read the alphabet and to intelligently use a greek concordance and lexicon. My feelings about the NW is that the OT is very literal, slavishly so. The NT is more creatively manipulated to support JW doctine. In these respects it is similar to the Green or the Youngs translation, which were intended to be literal. The major failure of the NW, though, is that it fails to do the one thing a translation should do. That is to communicate to the reader what the author was thinking. The best evidence of this the book of Job, which is in many translations a gloriously poetic expression. But in the NW it is virtually unreadable. It makes no sense, because the translators were so crazy about following the literal rendition that they lost sense of trying to get it to make sense. It is no wonder that the typical JW has no appreciation of the Bible as literature... only as a source of proof texts to 'prove' some point. The NW is a ridiculous failure, not that it is biased (virtually all translations are biased in some way, some worse than the NW... see the Amplified or the Living Bible or the CEV), but that it has alienated so many from appreciation of the Bible.

  In agreement with some of the other posters, I believe Franz had studied on his own sufficient to be equal to other translators who had credentials. However, Franz was in a cult, as I think everyone here knows. He produced a translation that supported his cult beliefs.
• 

  r51785

  That Fred Franz is regarded by JW's as a great scholar proves the old saying, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."