Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Nowhere

  One intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the NWT is based on the greek text of Westcott & Hort. That is a good text, and was the text for about two generations. But today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text. All major bible translations (I think) made after world war 2 are instead based on the greek text by Nestle-Aland or the text provided by UBS.

  So the question is: How come that JW's claim to have the best tranlation available today, and it isn't even based on the greek text that is recognised as the best and most accurate greek text today? And more, is there anything in those newer texts that the watchtower doesn't want to admit?

  (KJV is based on another text, the oldest one, the textus receptus, which some scholars still holds for as the best text available, but when comparing the text critical versions; W&H with Nestle-Aland or UBS greek text, the W&H greek text is outdated today. Period.)
• 

  metatron

  That's easy

  Fred Franz is dead, period. What meager scholarship they had is gone. Why else do you think that the

  publications are so bland and vacuous? Ask yourself why guys like Greg Stafford have to fill the gap

  of intellectual defense of Watchtower doctrines?- because this organization has a 'brain drain' that's

  getting worse.

  metatron
• 

  gumby

  because this organization has a 'brain drain' that's getting worse.

  Metatron , how true. Freddie took the lead in all scholarly ventures, and was the leadman and principal author of what now is the NWT.

  For them to put into print another translation based on more widely accepted text, would put them in quite the bind without their spiritual guru and Oracle. Who has the brains and dreams he had?
• 

  Buster

  I put a lot of stock in what Ray Franz had to say about his uncle. I think the most relevant here is the he was a great 'rationalizer.' I remember a story from CofC where Fred was explaining a way of rationalizing the expression 'door to door.' In that story, other writers were pressing their views that the original text more likely implied a visiting believers, or interested people rather than the JW mode of 'door to door.' Finally, and serious as a heart attack, Fred says that he can justify the term because they could enter a house of a believer 'thru one door, and exit thru another door' (paraphrased from memory) - and that would justify the term.

  Also, I have a booklet, "The Divine Name in the NWT" that goes into intense detail as to the introduction of 'Jehovah' in hundreds of places in the Greek scriptures. The reader is lead thru numerous especially bothersome such introductions, as well as the JW rationalization for them. Some will jump out at a former JW. The NWT scriptures read Jehovah, when, if the translation had been based on the earliest extant versions, it would seem more likely to refer to Jesus.

  The two above points are the long way of saying that it seems entirely unlikley that the organization could stand upheaval of readdressing all the issues that Fred Franz had rationalized away sooo long ago. The new translation committee would need to start with the basic assumption that recent versions - of the 16th to 18th centuries - are more accurate than second century versions that have been available all along.

  I doubt the society would have the confidence that a new committee would be nearly as adept at translating a New NWT to fit JW theology without the great rationalizer, Fred Franz. Besides, the closest these guys get to classical Greek is by having Feta cheese on a salad, or maybe ...

  Edited by - buster on 25 October 2002 17:26:51
• 

  Kenneson

  I have in my possession an interesting book on the topic entitled "A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament" by Robert H. Countess. Chapter 3 covers "The Divine Name" and Chapter 5 "Excision of the Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit Through Translation."

  This is Countess' assessment: "In the opinion of this investigator the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly. And interwoven throughout its fabric is inconsistent application of its own principles enunciated in the Foreword and Appendix. The present writer strongly recommends that no confrontation between a Jehovah's Witness and a Christian be based solely upon NWT; such a confrontation would be grounded upon a biased and manipulated foundation.

  "From a purely literary standpoint NWT suffers from a woodenness of style that makes sustained reading of it a chore. This liability alone outweighs the sum of NWT's modest assets."
• 

  Pork Chop

  Countess is just another Trinitarian and pretty thoroughly debunked by Stafford.
• 

  OHappyDay

  No man is indispensable, not even Franz. There are enough people available who are skilled in koine Greek -- the New Testament was not written in classical Greek -- and Hebrew to put out a new translation or update of the NWT if it was felt to be needed.

  The Westcott and Hort Greek text was not the only one considered in the 1984 Reference Bible (see page 6). At any rate, there are no doctrinal considerations in the differences between WH and newer Greek texts like Nestle-Aland. The NWT used what many considered to be the best at the time. If it were to be translated today, no doubt it would use a different text, utilizing any later textual criticism.
• 

  Farkel

  : How come that JW's claim to have the best tranlation available today, and it isn't even based on the greek text that is recognised as the best and most accurate greek text today?

  I think that the comments made on this thread so far have hit the nail on the head.

  They have NO one on the Bethel staff even competent enough to form a rudimentary Bible exegesis, let alone translate ancient texts into a modern language.

  Their decades of demanding that dubs "dumb down" and don't get educated have backfired on them. A number of the GB never even graduated from High School and all of them worked their way up by sweeping floors and cleaning toilets at Bethel. None of the existing GB are even competent enough writers to handle a grade-school newspaper.

  They asked for it, and they got their wish. Per your prayerful wishes GB, Jehovah "spirit-directed" you into the idiocy that you now epitomize and lead.

  Farkel
• 

  Buster

  OHap, let me clarify. It seems to me that there are two issues here: whehter they have people that could round up people that could do a new translation AND what that process would do to the Society.

  I can't back it up, but I doubt they do have people that could do the work credibly - although Farkel says it funnier, if not all that delicately. Where would the WTBTS get members for such an undertaking? I don't remember any exception to the 'no educaation' urging for Greek scholars, classical or whatever we need to refer to the written Greek of the first and second centuries. Of course I knew a Dave Gainopolous dub, he may be pretty old by now - maybe not ancient.

  But seriously though, I don't think they could tolerate a re-translation any more than they could take a fresh look at 1914. The rationalizations, some subtle, some not, and the 'shoehorned translations' would all need to be revisited, this time by a team. I am not saying that they couldn't do a job, if you could assemble a qualified team. I'm saying that they would need to start at the first question that Freddie did - "Are we going to rely on the Hebrew translations of the Greek Scriptures completed in the 16th to 19th centuries?" To do so is unsupportable. But to NOT use those translations, is to end up without hundreds of 'Jehovah's in the text AND you have a new emphasis - one away from God and toward Jesus. Very different result - huge upheaval - and I think, an unsurvivably huge upheaval.

  - Buster
• 

  Earnest

  You are quite right that the basic Greek text used for both the kingdom interlinear and the NWT is Westcott & Hort, which was originally published in 1881. However, other Greek texts were also consulted. The book All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial (1963, p.317) explains:

  [Westcott and Hort's Greek text] is the master text that underlies the 1950 and 1961 editions of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...This text is also the foundation for the following translations into English: Rotherham (1897), the American Standard (1901), Goodspeed (1923 and 1948) and the Revised Standard Version (1946). This last translation also used Nestle's text.

  Nestle's Greek text [18th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece by D. Eberhard Nestle, elaborated by D. Erwin Nestle, published in 1948] was also used by the New World Bible Translation Committee for the purpose of comparison. The Committee also referred to those by Catholic Jesuit scholars Joseph M. Bover [Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina, dated 1943 and published at Barcelona, Spain] and Augustinus Merk [1948 printing of the 6th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, and printed at Rome, Italy].

  The foreword to the 1950 edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, p.8, adds:

  Besides using the 1948 Macmillan Company edition of [Westcott & Hort] text, we have availed ourselves of the two exhaustive volumes prepared under the supervision of S.C.E. Legg, A.M., and published by the Oxford Clarendon Press, on Matthew and Mark, Novum Testamentum Graece Secundum Textum Westcotto-Hortianum - Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum (1940) and Evangelium Secundum Marcum (1935).

  There is little doubt that the Greek text of Westcott and Hort was an immense improvement on the Textus Receptus which was first published 350 years before. And that many of the principles they used are still relevant to textual criticism. Bruce Metzger comments in his book The Text of the New Testament (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1964, p.137):

  Though the discovery of additional manuscripts has required the realignment of certain groups of witnesses, the general validity of their critical principles and procedures is widely acknowledged by textual scholars today.

  In addition to this, the foreword of the 1985 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, confirms that "the UBS text of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the critical apparatus of this edition" (page 9). This is borne out by the footnotes which cite the Chester Beatty and Bodmer papyri when they have alternative readings to Westcott & Hort.

  It must be borne in mind that although many papyri have been found in the last 120 years and the theory of textual criticism has been refined, the great bulk of the NT has not altered. So it is quite accurate to use Westcott & Hort as a base and make revisions to those verses that require it in the light of ongoing textual study.

  I should also add that I do not believe there is any credibility in the suggestion that the WTS does not want to admit recent textual evidence.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 25 October 2002 22:45:19