Another NWT Mistranslation?

by Sargon 40 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Earnest:
    Just to put you at your ease, I'm not into fights, either.
    I, too, enjoy comparing the LXX but am wary of using it as a definitive reference, as some of the translation work is a little ropey.

    My difficulty with the NWT Translation Committee, in general, is that it hasn't stuck true to it's mandate.

    My only difficulty with the text in question is that it assumes a meaning that we cannot be certain of.
    It's one thing to change an interpretation in commentary, quite another to do so within a bible translation.
    I'll reiterate that I do concur with that interpretation, just not the translation.

    On a lighter note, please feel free to email me, if you wish. It's always nice to contact a fellow Brit.

    LT

  • sadiejive
    sadiejive

    Siegswife...if you don't mind me asking...where'd you get that info?

    Nemesis...Thanks for posting that url.

    I've been looking for an online hebrew interlinear in a format such as the way http://www.greekbible.com is set up.

    Anyone know of a good one?

    Sadie

  • accuracy
    accuracy

    The examples cited are not mistranslations by the NWT, since they deal with logical possibilities within the meaning of the Hebrew words cited. And any translation, whether literal or not, should take context into consideration. Further, a literal translation from one language to a completely different language family -- for example from the Semitic branch of languages (Hebrew) to the Germanic/Indo-European branch (English) -- will have to merge its literalness with explanatory terms to bridge the differences. Otherwise, you do not have a translation, but an interlinear.

    Jewish commentators, who certainly understood the Hebrew language, have long explained Genesis 10:9 to mean that Nimrod was a "mighty hunter before [literally, "in the face of"] YHWH" in the sense of a rebel against God. According to the classical Jewish commentator Rashi, "lifnei YHWH, it was his intention to provoke Him to His face. He captured the minds of people with his words and misled them into rebelling against the Omnipresent."

    "In opposition to" is a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew preposition[lifnei, since the grammars demonstrate plainly that it can have a hostile sense (Exodus 20:3; 1 Chronicles 14:8; 2 Chronicles 14:9, etc.), implying defiance and opposition. (Brown, Driver, Briggs; Koehler & Baumgartner, etc.)

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    LittleToe:

    I think we have much in common. I agree with you that we cannot be certain of the meaning in Genesis 10:9. To translate it "in opposition to" is a legitimate translation, and I believe it is the correct one, but it is not the only one. In fact, Brown, Driver, Briggs suggest the meaning here is "in the sight of" i.e. in the estimation of and include Genesis 10:9 with :
    Genesis 7:1 - "...'you (Noah) are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation.'"
    Deuteronomy 24:4 - "...that is something detestable before Jehovah."
    Nehemiah 2:5,6 - "After that I said to the king:'...if your servant seems good before you...'. So it seemed good before the king..."
    Esther 5:14 - "...So the thing seemed good before Haman..."
    Proverbs 14:12 - "There exists a way that is upright before a man..."

    This is true with many passages in scripture or any translation from one language to another. The translators have the task of selecting the most accurate word or expression to convey the intention of the original writer and not all will agree just what that is.

    But while I do not fault the NW Translation Committee on this verse I do agree it did not stick to its mandate of a literal translation when replacing 'Lord' with 'Jehovah' in the NT. No extant copies of the NT contain God's name and so this goes beyond the remit of a literal translation in my opinion.

    Earnest

    Pax tecum et cum spiritu tuo

  • PopeOfEruke
    PopeOfEruke

    This is a very interesting discussion...thanks for everyones effort.

    How does one refute the official WT explanation as listed below??

    The Pope

    *** it-2 9-10 Jehovah ***
    Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
    The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky'ri·os or The·os' for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
    It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”
    As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., ], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho'ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read  [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.
    The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    "Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”"

    This is a direct quote from "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" which is printed by the Watchtower.

    "Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”

    Worded slightly different, this is also from the above book.

    Origen was not a casual observer was in and excellent place to report on purported changes in the use of the Tetragrammaton in the first two Centuries. His writings have been studied quite extensively and he does not argue any such happening of the change to Kyrios, either for or against. He worked with both languages and from the examination of J.P. Migne's Origenis Opera Omnia [The Coplete Works of Origen] he used Kyrios when working in Greek.

    I have 13, 8.5 x 11 single spaced pages of a discussion about Origen's Hexapla complete with pictures of the scrolls studied. One might want to have a look.

    There are many "J" footnotes to show references for where a certain translation comes from. If you notice most J references cite NO hebrew scripture. eg. J20 no Hebrew for 2Peter, any of John's Epistles, Jude, or the book of Rev.

    NWT says that they have "always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background.....Thus out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance [1 cor 7:17] where we have no agreement from the Hebrew versions.
    Yet using the footnote reference catalogue where earliest actual manuscript/translations exist 191 instances are taken from a LATER version instead of the earliest. Footnote reference sources are very important. Knowing the difference between the J's & the P's and what the numbers mean after these letters. the lower the number, the older the manuscript. Note the double digits by most NWT footnotes and then find out where/when/who supplied the references.

    There is a 219 pg book available on the internet discussing this apostasy that has crept into the Holy Bible.

    If anyone wants it I'll find the link.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    The WTS is without any doubt correct in claiming that early copies of the Septuagint contained God's name in Hebrew characters and/or the Greek equivalent of that name. And so it is a reasonable conclusion that when the early Christians read the scriptures, the Old Testament, they would have read God's name either in the Hebrew or in Greek. But it is a leap of faith from there to insist they must have used the name when quoting those scriptures in the NT. I believe there is strong reason to suppose that would be the case in the gospel of Matthew which was written for a Jewish audience and was probably first written in a dialect of Hebrew. But the argument is less strong when it comes to Paul's letters to a gentile audience. But strong or weak the fact is that it remains an assumption because no manucript of the NT has been found containing God's name in Hebrew or in Greek. My opinion is that it would have been more sensible to translate it as 'Lord' and have a footnote indicating the alternative reading of 'Jehovah' and the reasons for it.

    Earnest

    "Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandernatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

  • PopeOfEruke
    PopeOfEruke

    Will

    I would really appreciate that link, if its not too much trouble for you to find it.

    Great information here!!!

    The Pope

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    Wow, I've never talked to the pope before....

    Here's the link, it's from the freeminds site. If this link doesn't work, cause I do not know how to do anything fancy on this thing, Randy's site has a tetragrammaton link in the long list and it is the 360 pg one. I haven't checked the others but I found this one to be VERY thorough.

    http://home.europa.com/~lynnlund/itm00007.htm

  • Pork Chop
    Pork Chop

    Earnest I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Good stuff.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit