kifoy....Narkissos has detailed information that shows that the French NWT is a partial exception:
The (missing) brackets in the NWT
by kifoy 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kifoy
Thank you, Leolaia. That was interesting.
Just wanted to quote the_classicist:I would suspect, though, and you would know more about this than me, that in other countries where there are less JWs, the NWT is translated directly from English. Y'know this proves two things: 1) JWs aren't as concerned about true biblical scholarship as they seem, and 2) The WT is an Anglophone and American religion.
-
kifoy
OTWO:
Someone just goofed up on the brackets. That wouldn't happen if their works were "inspired." God would make sure the brackets highlighted the added words.Good point. God would have made sure of a lot of things... He is after all the "Preserver of his Word" (Insight p. 313)...
-
AlmostAtheist
It's part of the Watchtower style-guide that when quoting from the NWT, they don't include the brackets. So the NWT might say, Dave 1:1 "Give me [another] beer", but when quoting Dave 1:1 in the Watchtower they would say, "Give me another beer."
Maybe they excuse it on that basis?
Dave
-
Leolaia
Well, here is another interesting thing:
The officers replied: “Never has [another] man spoken like this.”
What exactly does the "another" add? Doesn't it mean almost the same thing? Never has a man spoken like this -- of course any other man would be "another man" from Jesus. The difference is one of emphasis that seems to, at least, rule out one implication about Jesus himself: If no man has ever spoken like this, maybe Jesus isn't a man. Not that this is necessarily an implication in the Greek text itself (I'm not sure if it is, and I personally doubt it), but it could read that way in English. So adding "another" doesn't change anything referentially, but it might preclude a reading that could be suggestive of Christ's deity.
-
Narkissos
So adding "another" doesn't change anything referentially, but it might preclude a reading that could be suggestive of Christ's deity.
On top of that the addition of bracketed "[(an)other]"s where the idea is implied(hence where other Bibles may use it without brackets/italics) serves as a justification for its addition in more controversial places, e.g. Colossians 1:15ff.
Never forget that the NWT is not primarily meant to be "simply read" as any other Bible but to serve as a material store for self-referential argument. From this perspective it makes a lot of sense.
Of course this use of brackets is bound to be inconsistent. If everyEnglish/Norwegian word that has no formal equivalent in either Hebrew or Greek had to be marked out this way, several brackets would be needed in every sentence.
However it's quite interesting to see that such markers have indeed been lost in the process of translation from English to other languages...
-
kifoy
What exactly does the "another" add? Doesn't it mean almost the same thing? Never has a man spoken like this -- of course any other man would be "another man" from Jesus. The difference is one of emphasis that seems to, at least, rule out one implication about Jesus himself: If no man has ever spoken like this, maybe Jesus isn't a man. Not that this is necessarily an implication in the Greek text itself (I'm not sure if it is), but it could read that way in English. So adding "another" doesn't change anything referentially, but it might preclude a reading that could be suggestive of Christ's deity.
Yes, the Norwegian text with and without the word "annet" (another), brings up exactly the same issue. The Norwegian text without the word "annet", does not have to mean that Jesus was not a man, but it can be understood that way. So in order to keep the "complete sense" of the original texts, they put in [another], so it will not be misunderstood...
So the witnesses have got a pre-interpreted Bible, if it is possible to say it that way.
Well, I guess they're used to it. -
kifoy
Narkissos:
On top of that the addition of bracketed "[(an)other]"s where the idea is implied(hence where other Bibles may use it without brackets/italics) serves as a justification for its addition in more controversial places, e.g. Colossians 1:15ff.Never forget that the NWT is not primarily meant to be "simply read" as any other Bible but to serve as a material store for self-referential argument. From this perspective it makes a lot of sense.
Yes, in the Colossians the same has happened to the brackets in the Norwegian translation. I have got the Kingdom Interlinear here, and it is really easy to see that the word "another" gives a different meaning to this verses.
Of course this use of brackets is bound to be inconsistent. If everyEnglish/Norwegian word that has no formal equivalent in either Hebrew or Greek had to be marked out this way, several brackets would be needed in every sentence.
However it's quite interesting to see that such markers have indeed been lost in the process of translation from English to other languages...
Yes, of course. That's translation and languages in a nutshell. But a conscientious translator would not use words that changed the meaning of the text, would he?
And that's also why it is even more difficult to understand how they could see it as a smart move to use English as the "basic" language for other translations, and "unctitically" also translate the bracketed words (I don't even know if they checked other manuscript in the process...) -
lost-in-time
But back "on topic":
Can anyone tell if the brackets were lost also in other translations of the NWT?Well, I have Italian edition (1986), have brackets just like English edition. But new Croatian edition (2006) have no brackets at all, but have many references with explanations about meanings of the words and other possible translations. For example, Mathew 23:5:
5 All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; for they broaden the [scripture-containing] cases that they wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes [of their garments]
Croatian:
5 Sva djela svoja cine zato da ih vide ljudi. Povecavaju filakterije svoje i produljuju rese na haljinama svojim.
with explanation what "filakterija" (Phylactery) is, but no brackets or comment about [na haljinama svojim].
-
Narkissos
So the witnesses have got a pre-interpreted Bible
Yes that sums it up nicely.
Of course in a sense every Bible translation is, but there is a quantitative difference (how much, how far?).
Honesty normally counter-balances tha natural interpretative will of the translator and constrains him/her to respect the obscurity, ambiguity, and even inconsistency of the texts...
Lost-in-time,
Your Croatian example is quite interesting inasmuch as filakterija actually transliterates the Greek phulaktèria instead of following the painful English "scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards" which (as often in the NWT) is more of a definition than a translation.
I haven't my old (1974) French NWT at hand but I wonder if it did not do the same thing in that particular passage (in which case it might have influenced the Croatian translator). The current (1995, I think) French revision has " les boîtes [renfermant des passages de l’Écriture et] qu’ils portent comme des moyens de protection" which slavishly follows the English. If somebody could check in a pre-1995 French NWT it would be quite interesting.