I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide scans of the forward of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically, the sections marked "method" and "waw consecutive."
Thank you in advance.
Mebaqqer
NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures
by mebaqqer 3 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
Do you mean foreword? This is from the Appendix:
3C
HebrewVerbsIndicatingContinuousorProgressiveActionThe Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect state and the imperfect state. The perfect state indicates completed action. The imperfect state indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. In Ge 1:1 "created" in Hebrew is a verb in the perfect state, showing that the action of creating the heavens and the earth was completed. In Ge 2:2 "proceeded to rest" in Hebrew is a verb in the imperfect state, indicating an incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. (Compare Heb 4:4-7.) Therefore, in Hebrew, action that took place in the past could be indicated by verbs in the imperfect state if that action is viewed as incomplete, while action taking place in the future could be indicated by verbs in the perfect state if that action is viewed as complete. The imperfect state of the Hebrew verb could be rendered in English by using auxiliary words such as "proceeded," "went on," "continued," etc.
Concerning the fundamental characteristic of the imperfect state in Hebrew, James Washington Watts wrote in his work ADistinctiveTranslationofGenesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pp. 129, 130: "The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is incompleteness. . . . The incompleteness of these imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood, appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both cases.
"If the context indicates a single act or state, the force is progressive. The action is pictured in the process of development. In such case the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full force. When a narrative is unfolding rapidly and the sequence of events is more important than the vivid portrayal of progress in some particular event, the translator may depend solely upon conjunctive adverbs like ‘afterward’ to indicate both sequence and progress. Progress in this case is not brought out fully. There is merely movement from one action or state to another without definite portrayal of progress within the second. The use of this limited translation means that the translator sees no special reason for bringing out the idea of progress more fully at that point. The account in English would become tedious if he did. On the other hand, if the translator sees that the account is enriched by bringing out the full force of the verb, he is at liberty to do so.
"If the context indicates more than one occurrence of the act or state, the force is frequentative. Again the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey the full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘continued’ or an adverb like ‘frequently’ is needed to reveal the full meaning of repetition or customary occurrence."
Throughout the centuries scholars have been amazed at the capability of the Hebrew language to express past events by using verbs in the imperfect state, and to express future events by using verbs in the perfect state. In an attempt to explain this peculiarity, they developed the theory of Waw Consecutive. Concerning this theory, O. L. Barnes, in his work ANewApproachtotheProblemoftheHebrewTensesandItsSolutionWithoutRecoursetoWaw-Consecutive, Oxford (1965), pp. 4, 5, wrote: "The matter has been needlessly complicated by the introduction and slavish adherence to the doctrine of Waw Consecutive, or its more ancient forebear Waw Conversive (the latest name proposed for it is Waw Conservative). Very briefly, though there have been a variety of modifications of the theme, this states that the ‘and – Waw ?’ appearing before the first of a series of consecutive Hebrew Verbs in the Imperfect Tense, if preceded by a Hebrew Verb in the Perfect Tense, indicates that all of them should be read or taken as Perfects (instead of whattheyreallyare: Imperfects) and vice versa, provided of course certain vowels associated with the Waw ? in the Imperfect are present."
Regarding the validity of this theory, O. L. Barnes wrote on p. 1 of his work: "We may rightly ask why the ‘and – Waw ?’ has this strange converting power. Some recent grammars, in an attempt to by-pass the absurdity, state that it is not really the ‘and – Waw ?’ that has this converting power, but it is the key or guide we must look for to indicate the conversion; in end-result, therefore, it amounts to precisely the same thing. I trust it will be evident from what is stated here that in fact the ‘and – Waw ?’ neither has this power, nor is its assumption necessary to explain the rapid, sometimes abrupt, change in sequence of the Hebrew Tenses. In other words, we may dispense completely with the mythical Waw-Consecutive theory invented by grammarians."
About one hundred years ago, Benjamin Wills Newton, in his work TheAlteredTranslationofGenesisii.5, London, 1888, pp. 49-51, took a firm stand against the theory of Waw Consecutive. After giving a sample translation of Ge 1:3-8, Newton concluded on pp. 50, 51: "Throughout the chapter the future is used to denote progression. In our translation we rightly enough use the past, for we are unable by our future tense similarly to mark progression. There is an expansiveness in the Hebrew use of the future which our future has not; and, consequently, greater accuracy of statement. I may add that there certainly is no room for the theory of Vavconversive in this chapter, and no ground for saying (because our future cannot adapt itself to the elasticity of the Hebrew future) that therefore the Hebrew future is to be shorn of its prerogatives and commuted into a past. It is marvellous that any one should have ventured to propose anything so preposterous."
Following, we give Ge 1:3-8 from three different versions: Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation, NewWorldTranslation and James Washington Watts’ translation.
Benjamin
WillsNewton’stranslation (1888) (bracketshis)And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].
New
WorldTranslation (1953)3 And God proceeded to say: "Let light come to be." Then there came to be light.
James
WashingtonWatts’translation (1963) (bracketshis)3 Afterward God proceeded to say, "Let there be light"; and gradually light came into existence.
Benjamin
WillsNewton’stranslation (1888) (bracketshis)And God proceeded to view [future] the Light, that it [was] good; and God proceeded to divide [future] between the Light and the darkness;
New
WorldTranslation (1953)4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness.
James
WashingtonWatts’translation (1963) (bracketshis)4 Also God proceeded to observe the light, [seeing] that it was good; so he proceeded to divide the light and the darkness.
Benjamin
WillsNewton’stranslation (1888) (bracketshis)and God proceeded to call [future] the light Day, and the darkness He called [not "proceeded to call"; the past tense is used] Night; and evening proceeded to be [future], and morning proceeded to be [future] Day one.
New
WorldTranslation (1953)5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.
James
WashingtonWatts’translation (1963) (bracketshis)5 Then God began to call the light Day, and thedarkness he called Night. Thus there came to be an evening and a morning, even one day.
Benjamin
WillsNewton’stranslation (1888) (bracketshis)And God proceeded to say [future] Let there become a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it become divisive between waters and waters.
New
WorldTranslation (1953)6 And God went on to say: "Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters."
James
WashingtonWatts’translation (1963) (bracketshis)6 Then God continued, saying, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, also let there be a separation between the waters."
Benjamin
WillsNewton’stranslation (1888) (bracketshis)And God proceeded to make [future] the firmament, and proceeded to divide [future] between the waters which [are] below in relation to the firmament and the waters which [are] above in relation to the firmament;
New
WorldTranslation (1953)7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so.
James
WashingtonWatts’translation (1963) (bracketshis)7 Accordingly, God proceeded to divide the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and gradually it came to be so.
Benjamin
WillsNewton’stranslation (1888) (bracketshis)and God proceeded to call [future] the firmament Heavens; and evening proceeded to become [future] and morning proceeded to become [future] Day second.
New
WorldTranslation (1953)8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.
James
WashingtonWatts’translation (1963) (bracketshis)8 Thereafter God began to call the expanse Heavens. Thus there came to be an evening and a morning, a second day.
The NewWorldTranslation has not followed the unfounded theory of Waw Consecutive when translating Hebrew verbs. This age-old theory does not convey the power and forcefulness of the Hebrew verbs in their original states. Therefore, the NewWorldTranslation presents the Hebrew verbs with accurate meaning and dynamism by maintaining a distinction between the perfect and the imperfect states of the Hebrew verbs.
-
mebaqqer
Actually, I meant the forward to the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures originally published in separate volumes. The forward gives a little more detail about the translation principles used as well as support. I found a long quote from it on the internet, but I wanted the scans to check accuracy, to get the page numbers, and to get the examples used to explain points that they made. (The quote I found did not include any of these.) Here is the quote as I found it for the parts I need...
Mebaqqer
METHOD: It has been our endeavor to make this translation as literal as possible to the point of understandableness. The aim is to convey the flavor of the ancient Hebrew realm, its way of thinking, reasoning, talking, social dealings, etc. This has restricted our indulgence in paraphrase, our saying a thing as we think the original speaker or writer should have said it; and we have been careful not to modernize the rendering to such an extent as to alter the ancient background beyond recognizing it. So the reader will find quite a bit of idiomatic Hebrew. In cases the footnotes show the full literalism of certain expressions.
The Hebrew original is terse. The frame of its structure allows for this briefness of expression. However, in rendering the sense and feel of the Hebrew verbs of action and state into English it has not always been possible to render these with the same brevity, because of the lack of color of English verb forms. Hence auxiliary words that lengthen the expression are at times required to bring out the vividness, picturesqueness and dramatic action of the verb, and the point of view and the idea of time of the Bible writer. By such lengthening of expression we convey more fully the beauty and accuracy of the Hebrew text, even though at the expense of some brevity.
In our endeavor to preserve as much as possible the structure of the Hebrew original so as to express its peculiar charm, simplicity, manner of expression and forcefulness, we have preserved to a considerable extent certain verb forms, for example, rendering participles as participles with their thought of showing an action or state as already begun or continuing and under way. a In our regard for verb infinitives we have tried to express the Hebrew infinitive absolute with its impersonalness and indefiniteness as to time and with its accent mainly on the action or state described by the verb.b
The Hebrew verb is very important but differs from our English verb. In English the verb has quite a number of tenses, the present, past, future, perfect, past perfect and future perfect, besides different modal forms, indicative mood, subjunctive mood and optative mood. The Hebrew verb has several conjugations, but only two “states” or “themes”. These are the imperfect and the perfect states, rather than, as some say, the “present” and the “perfect” tenses or the “future” and the “perfect” tenses.
The imperfect state is often rendered with “should” or “ought to”, in order to express a gentle command or obligation. A positive command has its own special verb form, but to express a negative command the imperfect verb is used with a negative particle. In most cases we render such negative command with “must not”,c although “should not” would grammatically be just as correct.d Whereas the imperfect verb is kept imperfect in sense by the use in many cases of “should”, “ought to,” “let,” “may,” “might,” etc.,e the perfect verb often shows the necessity of certainty of the action or state and is many times rendered with “must”, as calling for something definitive and to be expected.f
The future time of an action or state can be expressed in Hebrew by the perfect verb as well as by the imperfect. The context of the verb helps to determine whether it points to the future or not. In expressing pure future time we have stuck to the rule of always using “shall” with the pronouns “I” and “we”, and using “will” with the the pronouns “you”, “he,” “she,” “it,” and “they”.g To express determination regarding the future we have kept the rule of always using “will” with “I” and “we”, and using “shall” with “you”, “he,” “she,” “it,” and “they”. h In Hebrew the perfect verb i used to speak of a future action or state as if it had already occurred and were past, this to show its future certainty or the obligation of it to occur. To express this in the case of the Hebrew perfect verb, we have not used the auxiliary verb “have” with the perfect participle of the verb, e.g., “I have done,” which might confuse the reader. We have either used “must” with the infinitive of the verb as applying to future time 10a or used the future auxiliary word “shall” with the first person pronouns and “will” with second and third person pronouns, reinforced by such strong words as “certainly”, “indeed,” “fairly,” “simply,” “just,” “actually,” or other forceful adverbial expression, e.g., “I shall certainly do.”10b However, to express determination we use “will” with the first person pronouns and “shall” with the second and third person pronouns;10c and as these forms of expression already express determination for the future, they do not need any reinforcing words to accompany them.
In these ways we bring out the force of the Hebrew perfect, which would not be generally appreciated today. The ordinary customs today is to use “shall” and “will” interchangeably for all persons, with no other idea than the future in mind, some individuals, however, using “shall” in all persons with an emphasis of the voice to express determination or obligation. When we show the emphasis of the perfect verb in the present time, we prefix “do” or “does” to the English verb, as, “I do say,” “I do make,” “he does do.” 10d
The Hebrew states, imperfect and perfect, of the verb should always have their proper and distinctive force. In that way we get better at the truth and facts, and we avoid molding the thought of the Hebrew text to our ideas or doctrinal bias. With this in mind we turn the reader to our handling of an important verbal form today called “waw consecutive”.
WAW CONSECUTIVE: For centuries this has been called “waw (or, vav) conversive”. The misunderstanding of this has had a powerful and important effect upon translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for centuries. Waw (å) is the Hebrew conjunction that basically means “and”, and it never stands alone but is always combined with some other word. Very frequently this conjunction is joined with the Hebrew verb in the imperfect and perfect states to form one word with it. In this relationship waw has long been held to exercise a peculiar effect upon the verb with which it is combined and this effect has been described by the term “waw conversive”, meaning the waw has the power here to convert the time of the verb from the one that its form indicates to the other time, from its imperfect force to perfect or from its perfect force to imperfect.
To quote Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch (1949) reprinting of the 2d edition), pages 132, 133: “One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus is 2 Kings 20:1, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death [perfect form of verb], and Isaiah . . . came [imperfect form of verb] to him, and said [imperfect] to him, &c. On the other hand, Isaiah 7:17, the Lord shall bring [imperfect form of verb] upon thee . . . days &c., 7:18, and it shall come to pass [perfect äéäå ] in that day . . . ”
This has not only been taught for centuries in theological circles, but today it is being taught in the public schools in the instruction in Hebrew. To quote the Modern Hebrew Reader and Grammar (Part Two), by Wallenrod-Aaroni, of 1945, pages 190, 191: “In Biblical Hebrew, tenses were not strictly delineated. A flexible construction to aid in the indication of tenses is the Waw Consecutive, referred to in Hebrew, Cetä”ä— å, Waw Conversive. In describing a series of events in a continuous narration, this style uses the tenses of the verb in the following manner: When past events are described, only the first verb is in the past; all the others are in the future tense prefixed by the Waw. . . . Conversely, when future events are described, the verb in the first part of the sentence is in the future tense: all the others are in the past, prefixed by the Waw.” Among examples that the above book quotes are Psalm 30:2: “I cried [perfect form of verb] unto thee, and thou didst heal [imperfect] me.” Joshua 1:8 “This book of the law shall not depart [imperfect] out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate [perfect] therein day and night.”
The endeavor on the part of students and translators to follow this idea has led to difficulties and caused confusion and doubtless led to mistranslation of the Hebrew text, and it has not always been possible for devotees of this rule to follow it.
It was Dr. Robert Young, the compiler of the widely used Analytical Concordance to the Bible (1879), who challenged this rule of “waw conversive”. In his Bible translation (Sept. 10, 1862), entitled “The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenants translated according to the Letter and Idioms of the Original Languages”, he discusses it at length in the preliminary pages before giving us his complete Bible translation, which does not recognize or apply the “waw conversive” rule. He pointedly shows the unsuitableness of the rule, that it is actually nonexistent in Hebrew, is unnecessary, exceptional, unexampled, unparalleled in any other languages, even languages closely related to Hebrew; that it is arbitrary and not workable with uniformity and so has been violated in hundreds of cases by the champions of it. He shows that it does not solve the apparent difficulty of the Hebrew sentence structure which makes the verb form correspond with the viewpoint of the Bible writer or narrator, the time position that he has taken in his mind. (See the introductory material following the preface of his translation, under such headings as “ ‘Waw Conversive’ a Fiction --- Not a Fact”.) Dr. Young regards all Hebrew verbs as past or present in tense and rigidly renders them so, without any future tense. For example, Dr. Young renders Genesis 2:5, 6 as follows: “And no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground, and a mist goeth up from the earth, and hath watered the whole face of the ground.” Genesis 17:3-5: “And Abram falleth upon his face, and God speaketh with him, saying, ‘I -- lo, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt become father of a multitude of nations; and thy name is no more called Abram, but thy name hath been Abraham, for father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.’ ”
More recently another Hebrew scholar has taken a position similar to that of Dr. Young against waw conversive. In a work entitled “A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament”, of 1951, the author offers his strong reasons for objecting to the old theories regarding this use of the Hebrew conjunction waw: that the normal and correct developments in all other languages incline toward a usage that does not allow for substituting one verb for another; that in Hebrew no special form of waw appears with the perfect tense as it does with the imperfect; that champions of the theory themselves confess that there are Hebrew constructions with waw for which their theory affords no explanation; that such theory defines no clear way for making out what the force of the verb combined with waw is: that the logic of the theory is baffling and leads to confusion of mind and thus is proved unsound; and that the uncertainty that the theory’s chief advocates betray about it evidences that they rest their conclusions on weak foundations.--- Pages 84-100.
The above author argues that waw combined with the perfect form of the verb should be viewed as a waw conjunctive, which has, not a conversive force, but a correlating or co-ordinating force; that waw with the imperfect form of the verb should be viewed as a waw consecutive to show a sequence in time or a logical result, or a logical cause, or a logical contrast of this verb as regards the preceding verb. In all cases the perfect form of the verb should be rendered so as to set forth a single, finished or certain act or state. Likewise, in all cases the imperfect form of the verb should be rendered so as to set forth the action or state as partial, as yet incomplete or progressive or incipient. Even Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Kautzsch, English translation, 1949 edition), in footnote 2 of page 330, makes this admission: “The imperfect consecutive represents an action which is only beginning, becoming or still continuing, and hence in any case incomplete.” Also the participle of the verb should be rendered to show a continuous state.
As illustrations the above author would render 1 Kings 8:12, 13 in the following way:
“At that time Solomon said [perfect]: ‘JHWH said [perfect] that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have surely built [perfect] for you a house of habitation, a place for you to dwell forever.’ ” And 1 Kings 8: 22, 23: “Then Solomon proceeded to stand [imperfect] before the altar of JHWH in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and to spread out [imperfect] his hands toward heaven, and to say [imperfect]: ‘O JHWH, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in the heavens above or in the earth beneath, one keeping [participle] the covenant and the lovingkindness for your servants, the one walking [participle] before you with all their heart.’”
For our part we do not recognize the Hebrew waw as having any convesive power over the verb with which it is combined, even when causing that verb to have a certain mark (da·gesh´ for´te) or to change its tone or to shorten its form. In all cases we recognize and try to bring out the inherent meaning of the verb form, perfect or imperfect, even with waw conjunctive or waw consecutive. Thus, without following any arbitrary or artificial “waw conversive” theory, we can translate an imperfect verb into the past, present or future time according to the context and at the same time show its action or state as imperfect or uncompleted. Likewise we can translate a perfect verb into past, present or future time and yet show its emphatic nature and its being completed or its being a dead certainty, as if it were already accomplished when foretold or promised. We have strictly followed this principle, well knowing that it would lead to a result in our translation different from that of others who, to their own confusion, have followed the “waw conversive” theory of tenth-century Hebrew grammarians. We have found this course practical, making us more confident of ourselves as thus able to ascertain the right viewpoint of the Bible writer and a clearer insight into his thought. Naturally, too, it has led to consistency in the translation and hence greater accuracy of rendering. This serves to benefit the mere reader of the Bible, the student of it, and the preacher and expounder of it.
The frequent use of waw consecutive with the imperfect verb goes well in the Hebrew with great fluency, smoothness and simplicity, but to render it always in a like way in English would lead to some monotony for the ordinary reader. To avoid such monotony we have resorted to various English conjunctions to show the transition of the thought and to indicate whether the verb shows an action or state that is beginning, becoming or still keeping on and hence not yet come to completion. so in many cases at or toward the beginning of the sentence or clause we have used the following conjunctions or phrases, (a) to indicate temporal sequence: after a while, after that, after which, afterward, at length, at once, eventually, finally, further, furthermore, gradually, immediately, in time, in turn, later, later on, meantime, meanwhile, moreover, next, now, once, promptly, subsequently, then, when; (b) to indicate logical result: accordingly, and so, at that, at this, at which, consequently, hence, so, thus, to this, to which, upon that, well, with that; (c) to indicate cause: because, for, since; and (d) to indicate logical contrast: but, however, nevertheless, still.
Thus, although waw (“and”) is very repetitious in Hebrew, we do not ignore it and leave it untranslated as if unnecessary or cumbersome or old-fashioned in style, but we express it by using transitional words or phrases with the sense that the Hebrew leads us to feel. We bring out the force of the waw in its relationship to the verb with which it is combined. So this simple word waw in the Hebrew is used to convey many a shade of meaning besides its mere basic meaning “and.” This way of rendering waw, however, does not run contrary to our effort to distinguish different Hebrew words from one another by using different English words, while at the same time we try to keep down the various renderings of any one Hebrew word or expression into English to the least possible number. It must be admitted that it is not possible to hold to the same English rendering of a Hebrew word in all cases. but we keep in mind the value of comparing one Scripture text with another where the same original Hebrew word occurs, and so we try to keep changes of rendering a Hebrew word down to a minimum. -
Narkissos
OK, then I can't help. I vaguely remember a partial adaptation of this material when the first complete French NWT was published (1974), and I don't even have this paper. Good luck.