New World Translation

by MsD 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  The KJV was based on the received text ( Textus receptus) and that was based on the Majorial texts at the time and it was argued already that older manuscripts were available and not used.

  The oldest texts we have today that can give us as complete a bibel as we can are the Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of which were found AFTER the KJV.

  Modern translations have taken these and many other manuscripts into account and made "changes" accordingly.

  As for the WBTS not stating who writes their articles or any of their publications:

  While humility is a beautiful thing, there is a fine line between being humble ( or the pretense there of) and unqualified.
• 

  Wonderment

  P. Sacramento:

  "The NWT is a re-work of the ASV that the JW's used to use before they came out with the NWT, it is basically the ASV with additions and re-translations to be more in-line with JW doctrine."

  I can see influences of the ASV, Rotherham, Concordant, Goodspeed and Moffatt versions in the translation work of the NWT. However, the NWT is distinct to all of them. It is a fresh translation, not a re-work of ASV or other. The translation process was obviously different than that of the KJV line of versions.
• 

  Wonderment

  sir 82: "Wasn't Gangas Greek? Of course, Biblical Greek is different than modern Greek, but he may have been able to contribute something. But just by reading the tortured and overly literal language in some parts of the NWT, you can tell that Fred Franz was the principal author."

  I agree with you fully.
• 

  jgnat

  Anonymity does not add credibility to the translation. Anonymity closes itself off from criticism.

  From wikipedia:

  The master text used for translating the Old Testament into English was Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Hebrew text, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), was used for updating the footnotes in the 1984 version of the New World Translation. Other works consulted in preparing the translation include Aramaic Targums, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Torah, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Masoretic Text, the Cairo Codex, the Codex Petropolitanus [disambiguation needed] , the Aleppo Codex, Christian David Ginsburg's Hebrew Text, and the Leningrad Codex. [ 30 ]

  The Greek master text by the Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1881) was used as the basis for translating the New Testament into English. The committee also referred to the Novum Testamentum Graece (18th edition, 1948) and to works by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies' text (1975) and the Nestle-Aland text (1979) were used to update the footnotes in the 1984 version. Additional works consulted in preparing the New World Translation include the Armenian Version, Coptic Versions, the Latin Vulgate, Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts, Textus Receptus, the Johann Jakob Griesbach's Greek text, the Emphatic Diaglott, and various papyri. [ 30 ]
• 

  PSacramento

  I can see influences of the ASV, Rotherham, Concordant, Goodspeed and Moffatt versions in the translation work of the NWT. However, the NWT is distinct to all of them. It is a fresh translation, not a re-work of ASV or other. The translation process was obviously different than that of the KJV line of versions.

  Yes, the process was based on taking established and credible translations and editing them to conform to JW doctrine.

  Nothing wrong in of itself mind you.

  It's the inconsistencies and the incoherant parts due to trying to twist scripture to doctrine that make it a mess at times.

  Sure you can look at it as a "fresh" translation, but thatis giving it far more credit than it deserves.

  It is stale, boring and passionless.

  The portuguese and spanish translations are far better than the english.
• 

  PSacramento

  Anonymity does not add credibility to the translation. Anonymity closes itself off from criticism.

  From wikipedia:

  The master text used for translating the Old Testament into English was Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Hebrew text, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), was used for updating the footnotes in the 1984 version of the New World Translation. Other works consulted in preparing the translation include Aramaic Targums, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Torah, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Masoretic Text, the Cairo Codex, the Codex Petropolitanus [disambiguation needed] , the Aleppo Codex, Christian David Ginsburg's Hebrew Text, and the Leningrad Codex. [30]

  The Greek master text by the Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1881) was used as the basis for translating the New Testament into English. The committee also referred to the Novum Testamentum Graece (18th edition, 1948) and to works by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies' text (1975) and the Nestle-Aland text (1979) were used to update the footnotes in the 1984 version. Additional works consulted in preparing the New World Translation include the Armenian Version, Coptic Versions, the Latin Vulgate, Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts, Textus Receptus, the Johann Jakob Griesbach's Greek text, the Emphatic Diaglott, and various papyri. [30]

  It should be noted that with that information, almost anyone with the time and desire and basic understanding of the bible, could "create" a "new and fresh" translation of the bible.
• 

  Wonderment

  jgnat: "Anonymity does not add credibility to the translation. Anonymity closes itself off from criticism."

  I too have a preference for having the author's names of works I read. However, it is not a requirement to know the author's name to make a sound judgment of a book, or to benefit from it.

  Professor Duthie: "If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it helps us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? Not directly. There is no substitute for examining the characteristics of each translation itself." (Bold and italics his.)
• 

  jgnat

  Speaking of new and fresh, how about the Good News Translation (1966) and the Reader's Digest Bible (1982) (which reduced the OT by 55% and the NT by 25%)?
• 

  Wonderment

  PSacramento: "Sure you can look at it as a ‘fresh’ translation, but that is giving it far more credit than it deserves. It is stale, boring and passionless. The portuguese and spanish translations are far better than the english.

  By using the term "fresh" translation, I did not mean to say "superior" language results. To a certain degree it is "stale, boring and passionless." Smooth English was obviously not the goal of the translators. The NWT strengths are elsewhere.

  I meant "fresh" in the sense that the translator(s) had to make hundreds, yes, thousands of decisions in the translation process throughout, that were made requiring sufficient knowledge of biblical languages and grammar, to stamp the work as unique in its field. It was not made by someone with little biblical knowledge.

  I agree that the Portuguese and the Spanish translations of the NWT are better than the English version, because they were able to smooth out the clumsy literalness of the English version which slavishly followed the Hebrew and the Greek sources.
• 

  PSacramento

  I meant "fresh" in the sense that the translator(s) had to make hundreds, yes, thousands of decisions in the translation process throughout, that were made requiring sufficient knowledge of biblical languages and grammar, to stamp the work as unique in its field. It was not made by someone with little biblical knowledge.

  I used to think that, untill it was shown to me how easy it is to take a "difficult" passage ( Difficult in regards to conforming to a preconceived doctrine) and with a little "interpretative work", change the meaning of even just one word to make it "fit in".

  EX: changing proskueno from worship to "obsience" ( or whatever they call it) to circumvent that difficulty that Jesus was worshipped by His apostles and 1st generation converts.