Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Earnest

  Hi Buster,

  Head a bit clearer now and I can confirm that the source of your dates is somewhat dubious. It is a group called the Christian Separatist Church Society and distinguishes itself by its antisemitism (e.g. see their journal Nationalist Free Press at http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/nfp.htm). The CSCS proposes that because the OT in most English bibles is based on the Masoretic Text, originally written by Jews, it is designed to hide rather than reveal the truth. Instead they only recognize their own Anointed Standard Translation (AST), derived from the Greek Septuagint, which they argue is the earliest translation of the Bible from Greek to English. This was translated by V.S.Herrell and published by Herrell Brothers Publishing House in 1995. It is particularly noteworthy for its translation of the sixth commandment as 'You will not mongrelize' (http://members.tripod.com/ApocryphalText/The6thCommandment.htm).

  Pastor Herrell has also written such gems as:

  • Jesus was White (http://www.geocities.com/empireministries/jcww.html)
  • The White Holocaust (http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0204/whhol.htm)
  • Have the Jews Started WWIII? (http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/Jews_WIII.htm)
  • Was Adolf Hitler a Bible Christian?

  So I have to say I remain unconvinced we have any extant copies of the NT written prior to the substitution of God's name in the LXX.

  But what of your 'court stenographer' scenario where the reader did not say the divine name although it was in the text, and so the stenographer(s) did not write it. That may have happened as there is some evidence that scribes of the LXX were confused whether to write the tetragammaton or kyrios. And I do think this became more likely as the church expanded beyond its Jewish origins. And yet, despite a reluctance to speak God's name, we do still find it written in the scrolls kept by the Dead Sea community.

  You suggest that the name was dropped as a 'Christ-initiated, conscious decision that was reflected in the first Christian writings and was eventually echoed in later LXXs'. Wow! I had never thought of it being that way round...and the more I think of it the more likely it seems. But I do not think it probable when the gospels and letters were first written. Later when the church was more organised and less Jewish (probably after the destruction of Jerusalem) it may well have happened that way.

  Best wishes,

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 1 November 2002 22:59:57
• 

  Farkel

  Earnest,

  : 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.

  All of your lengthy comments conveniently avoid a simple and important issue:

  If God took the time to get his own Book written for the benefit and Salvation of all of mankind, why didn't he take the time to keep humans from screwing it up?

  He didn't take that time and humans scramble around digging up new stuff and arguing about stuff. This has been going on for millenia.

  Even a mediocre God who caused his own book to be written would at least have had it copyrighted and vigorously pursued in the courts those who corrupted it. Or he could have just killed them before they could do any damage.

  God did neither of those things. So he's not even a mediocre God if one is to believe He is the author of the Bible and can't even protect his own gory Book.

  It can be no other way.

  Farkel
• 

  Earnest

  Farkel,

  You confuse science and faith.

  The discussion on this thread has been on the manuscripts used for translating the NWT, and what was originally written, and has nothing to do with faith. The same science (textual criticism) can be applied to all ancient literature, sacred or secular.

  What you believe about what was written is a matter of faith. And faith is not always reasonable as you note.

  Eanest
• 

  Nowhere

  Earnest wrote:

  "other Greek texts were also consulted"

  Yes, that is my point. Why just 'consult' other texts, why not use them?, and not base thier translation on an outdated greek text? Beside, I don't really believe that other texts really was consulted, maybe they checked some words to see which greek text that bests supports thier own interpretaion and use that word from a different text, a little cut'n paste job.

  I've ordered some greek texts and I will compare them, If I find anything peculiar or different in the kingdom interlinear, I will post it here.

  "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."

  I would like to see that with my own eyes first... then I will believe it.

  And one more very interesting thing you can explain to me earnest: Why doesn't the NWT translation use "Gods proper name" in Philippians 2:11? The NWT use the word Lord here for the greek kyrios, while according to their own kingdom interlinear translation, the correct translation should be Jehovah, not Lord.

  See for yourself, KIT page 11-12: "How may modern tranlators determine when to render the Greek words Kyrios and Theos as the divine name? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then they must refer back to the Hebrew text to locate whether the divine name appears there."

  So then, lets take a look at Philippians 2:9-11:

  "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

  and compare it with the qouted text from the Hebrew (Isaiah 45:22-23):

  "22 "Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. 23 By my own self I have swornout of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not returnthat to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,"

  Now we know that the correct translation would be :

  "and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah to the glory of God the Father"

  You might also wonder why Jesus would be given the name that is "above every name", isn't that Jehovah? Why has the NWT inserted the word 'other' here? it's not in the originals, that's a fact.
• 

  Earnest

  Nowhere:

  You comment on my statement "other Greek texts were also consulted" :

  Yes, that is my point. Why just 'consult' other texts, why not use them?

  and then add

  Beside, I don't really believe that other texts really was consulted...

  Believe what you wish but the critical apparatus and footnotes in the NWT makes it abundantly evident that a large number of texts including UBS and Nestle-Aland were consulted and used. Bruce Metzger observes in an article in The Bible Translator of July 1964:

  "On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged). They refer not only to modern translations, including various English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese translations, but to ancient versions as well, including the Old Latin, Old Syriac, Vulgate, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent..."

  You then ask me to explain:

  Why doesn't the NWT translation use "God's proper name" in Philippians 2:11?

  You suggest the reason they should have done so is because Paul is quoting from Isaiah 45:22-23. Interestingly, Paul does quote these verses ("it is written") at Romans 14:11 and there the NWT uses "God's proper name" as you suggest it should. But while Phillipians uses similar language it is not a quotation and there is no reason to treat it as such. In addition, a principle common to all translators is that the immediate context is the final criterion for what words should be used.

  You also say:

  I've ordered some greek texts and I will compare them, If I find anything peculiar or different in the kingdom interlinear, I will post it here.

  Please also post if you find the KIT to be an accurate reflection of recent textual criticism.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 3 November 2002 23:19:36
• 

  Nowhere

  Earnest wrote:

  Believe what you wish but the critical apparatus and footnotes in the NWT makes it abundantly evident that a large number of texts including UBS and Nestle-Aland were consulted and used. Bruce Metzger observes in an article in The Bible Translator of July 1964:

  "On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged). They refer not only to modern translations, including various English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese translations, but to ancient versions as well, including the Old Latin, Old Syriac, Vulgate, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent..."

  Bruce Metzger? I think you forgot to quote these quotes, also made by Bruce Metzger when he talks about the NWT translation:

  "A frightful mistranslation."

  "Erroneous"

  "pernicious"

  "reprehensible"

  Any idiot with knowledge enough to copy different texts from different tranlations and with a little knowledge on how to use a greek dictionary can come up with a new 'tranlation' of the bible. This is exactly what the WTBTS has done. And when they can't find other translations that supports thier own ideas, they invent words to put in the greek text. You cannot say that you have consulted other texts, when you only use them as you see fits. They have instead manipulated the meaning of those other texts that were 'consulted'. They have not used other translations and texts, thay have misused them. And I will prove it to you.

  Earnest wrote:

  "while Phillipians uses similar language it is not a quotation and there is no reason to treat it as such"

  No reason? Can you show me the quotation and the reason to use 'Gods proper name' in this verse for example?:

  Mathew 4:10 - "Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is written, It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'"

  I say there is reason. Do you think Paul was unaware of what was written in Isaiah?

  "to me every knee will bend " and "every tongue will swear",

  when he implied it on Jesus in Phillipians,

  "in the name of Jesus every knee should bend " and "every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord/Jehovah "
• 

  Earnest

  Nowhere:

  You suggest that I forgot to

  quote these quotes, also made by Bruce Metzger when he talks about the NWT translation: "A frightful mistranslation.", "Erroneous", "pernicious", "reprehensible".

  On the contrary, I am familiar with Bruce Metzger's views on the translation itself but that was not the subject of your thread. Your thread was about the text behind the translation which you (incorrectly) suggested was limited to Westcott & Hort. Bruce Metzger is particularly renowned for his work on textual criticism and so the fact that he speaks well of their scholarship in this respect, although he is a critic of their translation, should carry some weight.

  You then return to the use of God's proper name in the NT. You ask:

  Can you show me the quotation and the reason to use 'Gods proper name' in this verse for example?:

  Mathew 4:10 - "Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is written, It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'"

  Quite clearly, it is a quotation because Jesus says "It is written...", just as Paul does at Romans 14:11. It looks like a variation of Deuteronomy 6:13 (LXX) and so 'God's proper name' is correctly included in this verse. It is also worth bearing in mind that the expression "the Lord your God" never occurs in the OT...it is always written as "Jehovah your God"...and so one might expect NT writers to do so too.

  You then insist that Paul was quoting Isaiah at Phillipians 2:11. At Romans 14:11 Paul explicitly quotes from Isaiah and says "it is written...". He does not say that at Phillipians. He is using similar language, he may even be alluding to Isaiah, but he is not quoting him and however much you want him to do so does not change that fact.

  I should add that I am not personally convinced the Translation Committee were justified in every instance that they use God's name in the NT. I have also said in various posts that I think it would have been better practice to have put God's name as a footnote to those verses where there is reason to think it was originally written. But they justifiably explore an avenue of textual criticism, based on the earliest extant Greek manuscripts of the bible, which few scholars have touched.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 5 November 2002 17:22:7
• 

  Nowhere

  Earnest wrote:

  "Your thread was about the text behind the translation which you (incorrectly) suggested was limited to Westcott & Hort."

  No. The thread was about why the bible is based on W&H, I never said it was limited to W&H, but based on W&H, which is an outdated text. I don't believe WTBTS is educated enough to by them self use the W&H text, and then by them self 'update' it with other newer texts. My question is, why not start from the beginning with a text that is recognized today as the best?

  Earnest wrote:

  "Quite clearly, it is a quotation because Jesus says "It is written..."

  Ok, but where is it written then? Not in the Bible I can tell you. You mentioned Deuteronomy 6:13 as the source, but is it really written there?

  "Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear." (NWT)

  " kυριον <2962>τον<3588>θεον<2316>σου<4771>φοβηθηση<5399>και<2532>αυτω<846>λατρευσεις<3000>

  και <2532>προς<4314>αυτον<846>κολληθηση<2853>και<2532>τω<3588>ονοματι<3686>αυτου<846>ομη

  "

  (LXX, you maybe need greek font installed to view this, but strong's numbers are included)

  As you see, it is not a direct quotation.

  Earnest wrote:

  "I should add that I am not personally convinced the Translation Committee were justified in every instance that they use God's name in the NT."

  Do you also believe that God's name is omitted where it indeed could be inserted (the watchtower way)?

  Edited by - Nowhere on 5 November 2002 17:52:30
• 

  Earnest

  Nowhere:

  My apologies that I misunderstood the thread of your post.

  You say the thread is that the NWT is based on the Westcott & Hort text but is not limited to it. Is that a criticism? It is also true of the Revised Standard Version, printed after world war 2 (1946), and some earlier 20th century translations. The fact is that the Westcott & Hort edition was "the oldest and purest text that could be attained with the means of information available in their day. 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." (The Text of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger, 1964, p.137)

  What you need to appreciate when referring to "the best and most accurate Greek text" is that the only way to detemine that is to apply the principles of textual criticism to the mass of manuscripts available to us. Many of the principles derived by Westcott & Hort are equally valid today. Kurt Aland said that W&H developed "such a penetrating analysis of the material that it is easy to understand...the continuing influence of its theories even today, especially in the English-speaking world." (The Text of the New Testament, Kurt & Barbara Aland, 1987, p.18) The fact that UBS and Nestle-Aland are also consulted is, of course, necessary to maintain the standard that Westcott and Hort set.

  To really appreciate the high standard of the Greek text underlying the NWT I would recommend you get a copy of the book A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger, which is a companion volume to the UBS Greek NT. It is an invaluable book and shows the reasons that led the UBS NT Committee to adopt certain variant readings for inclusion in the text and to relegate certain other readings to the apparatus. Their choice of readings is almost always anticipated by those chosen for the NWT!

  I don't really know what more you want me to say of Jesus' quotation at Matthew 4:10. Jesus clearly believed that he was quoting what was written. A comparison of the Greek text you provide for Deuteronomy with that in Matthew only differs in one word as you can see:

  Deuteronomy 6:13 (LXX) kurion ton theon sou phobethese kai auto latreuseis...

  Matthew 4:10 kurion ton theon sou proskuneseis kai auto mono latreuseis...

  Possibly the version of the LXX they were using did have "proskuneseis" in Deuteronomy. Or maybe Jesus combined it with another verse with that thought. I don't know for sure. But Matthew apparently knew what Jesus was refering to and he was closer to the event than we are.

  Earnest
• 

  Nowhere

  "It is also true of the Revised Standard Version, printed after world war 2 (1946)"

  Have you ever heard of the New Reviesd Standard Version? There is a reason for making that update. Why doesn't WTBTS print a New NWT, based on the newer texts available? Thats my point.

  Earnest wrote:

  "Many of the principles derived by Westcott & Hort are equally valid today."

  Yes, but as you probably know, the principles are more complex today, than in the time of W&H.

  Earnest wrote:

  "I don't really know what more you want me to say of Jesus' quotation at Matthew 4:10. Jesus clearly believed that he was quoting what was written. A comparison of the Greek text you provide for Deuteronomy with that in Matthew only differs in one word "

  Now you are getting somewhere! As you said, it only differs in one word (which of course is wrong, you only quoted half the sentence). Exactly as Paulus did when he quoted Isaiah, even if it wasn't a word for word quotation, he certainly knew what he quoted and then applied to Jesus. I think you are getting it now. As you said "it only differs in one word".