by Mebaqqer2 14 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hello all,
I just wanted to relate to those who care that I recently obtain a copy of the work cited as J 11 by the New World Translation. If anyone is curious about how a certian passage reads, want a scan, etc. please let me know how I can help you.
-Mebaqqer
(My new blog-> http://mebaqqer.wordpress.com/ )
I thought this J11 might be a special direct phone line to Jehovah....like 911.
Very nice blog. I especially like your post about Genesis 2:19. And you make some good points about how textual variation can impact interpretation and criticism. It just shows the importance of nuance and checking the relevant facts in constructing arguments.
J24 is available as a scan at google books and J25 is available as a scan at the archive.org just search for heinfetter at google or w.g.rutherford at the archive. For google books you need to be in the US or use a US based proxy server if you do not no how and still want it, pm me.
These are both English translations that use Jehovah in the main text.
If anyone needs the original Hebrew titles for the J versions they can be found in the German study bible.
I have a version of j18 but have not checked if that is corresponding at al places.
I also noticed that the Hebrew Old Testament by N.H.Snaith is mentioned as Sn but it is not in any of the foreign language translations of the study bible that I have and I could not find a reference in the footnotes or in the appendix. Maybe I overlooked it but the cdrom did not give back any other reference to it than the one under Textual symbols.
bereanbiblestudent,
Do you happen to have a scan of the page from the German edition of the New World Translation with references for the list of J-sources? I believe that I have got most of their names, but some have been elusive.
I found J24 and J25 some time ago and have included their readings into what I have been working on.
I do have access to an edition of J18 as an electronic edition which is part of Bibleworks. However, this edition represents a later reworking of the text and thus does not reflect the original work of Salkinson-Ginsburg. The changes for the most part represent a reworking of the text to make it conform with the Textus Receptus. If any are interested, I can produce a list of several of these readings.
Mebaqqer
Anybody ever see a J-version in their kh library?...i did not think so....WT ever print them?...i think not...
These early J versions are so obscure, and nearly every jw i have asked about them had never even heard of them. i mentioned these versions in my letter to WTBS as to why in the world they would use these versions for support of WT adding the name Jehovah 237 times, when these versions lied/cheated and added the name first. It is kinda like..."well we were not the first to lie and make a fraudulant translation....the J-versions did it first!"....so we can too...
I have found some evidence that the only reason these JEWISH J-translations were made....and remember....all they are are translations from old christian GREEK manuscripts into Jewish HEBREW....and the chrisian groups that did this had their own agenda for ADDING the name Jehovah...what better way to convert Jews to christianity that to put thier sacred god right there in the christian part of the bible???(nice marketing).... JW's had their reason too....mainly cause they love the name so much and wanted to add it to disprove the trinity doctrine.
Both of their reasons are unacceptable!!!!..........oompa
Anybody ever see a J-version in their kh library?
Yes we have a couple in ours.
all they are are translations from old christian GREEK manuscripts into Jewish HEBREW
A couple of them, it is claimed, are descended from an original Hebrew version of Matthew.
A couple of them, it is claimed, are descended from an original Hebrew version of Matthew.
I suppose this might be claimed about the Hebrew version of Matthew in the Shem Tov ms (I'm not aware of any other, but I don't have the "J-references" list in mind or at hand); but what did the Society actually claim about it (if anything)? That it was a Jewish Hebrew translation from the Greek, or a reflection of the alleged "Hebrew original" of Matthew? The latter would beg for the question, why does the NWT follow the critical Greek edition of Matthew in everything except the divine name?
Trying to find the answer to my own question, I notice there has been some flip-flopping around the issue:
In the 1988 Insight book (entry "Jehovah") it was a translation:
But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ´E´ven bo´chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence.
In the 8/15 1996 Watchtower it was not:
Bear in mind that modern Hebrew versions are translations that may not present exactly what Matthew penned in Hebrew. The fact is that Jesus could well have used a word other than boh´, one that fitted the sense of pa·rou·si´a. We see this from the 1995 book Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, by Professor George Howard. The book focused on a 14th-century polemic against Christianity by the Jewish physician Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. That document set out a Hebrew text of Matthew’s Gospel. There is evidence that rather than being translated from Latin or Greek in Shem-Tob’s time, this text of Matthew was very old and was originally composed in Hebrew. It thus may bring us closer to what was said on the Mount of Olives.
In the 8/15 1997 QFR:
Is the Tetragrammaton (the four Hebrew letters of God’s name) found in the Hebrew text of Matthew copied by the 14th-century Jewish physician Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut?
No, it is not. However, this text of Matthew does use hash·Shem’ (written out or abbreviated) 19 times, as pointed out on page 13 of TheWatchtower of August 15, 1996.
The Hebrew hash·Shem’ means "the Name," which certainly refers to the divine name. For example, in Shem-Tob’s text, an abbreviated form of hash·Shem’ appears at Matthew 3:3, a passage in which Matthew quoted Isaiah 40:3. It is reasonable to conclude that when Matthew quoted a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found, he incorporated the divine name in his Gospel. So while the Hebrew text that Shem-Tob presented does not use the Tetragrammaton, its use of "the Name," as at Matthew 3:3, supports the use of "Jehovah" in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Shem-Tob copied the Hebrew text of Matthew in his polemical work ´E´venbo´chan. What, though, was the source of that Hebrew text? Professor George Howard, who has researched this matter extensively, suggests that "Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew dates somewhere within the first four centuries of the Christian era." Others may disagree with him on this.
Howard notes: "The Hebrew Matthew incorporated in this text is characterized especially by its many differences from the canonical Greek Matthew." For example, according to Shem-Tob’s text, Jesus said about John: "Truly, I say to you, among all those born of women none has risen greater than John the Baptizer." It omits Jesus’ next words: "But a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is." (Matthew 11:11) In a rather similar way, there are many differences between the extant Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures and the wording in the corresponding text of the Greek Septuagint version. While we acknowledge their differences, such ancient texts have some place in comparative study.
As mentioned, Shem-Tob’s text of Matthew includes "the Name" where there is good reason to believe that Matthew actually used the Tetragrammaton. Thus, since 1950, Shem-Tob’s text has been used as a support for employing the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and it still is cited in The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures — With References.
So the Watchtower now suggests that the Shem Tov text might be a direct descendent of the so-called "original Hebrew," acknowledges its huge textual differences from the Greek text and uses them when they see fit, but avoids the crucial question which follows from this stance: why should Matthew be translated from the Greek at all?
(Edit: sorry for the formatting)
Just some additional information:
The Watchtower of November 15, 1946 has an article discussing the use of the divine name in the Christian New Testament. I believe that this article was written during the time that the translation work for the New World Translation was underway. Notice:
Furthermore, among the languages into which the Greek Scriptures have been translated is the classical ancient Hebrew itself. In the year 1877 the "Hebrew New Testament"’ was published as translated by Franz Delitzsch, who was of Hebrew descent, and it had a wide circulation in Galatia and Russia. In this Delitzsch translation the name Jehovah actually occurs in its original Hebrew form 17 times in Matthew, 10 thnes in Mark, 37 times in Luke, 4 times in John, and 36 times in Acts, and 76 times from Romans to Revelation, or 180 times in all, not counting in the four occurrences of the exclamation "Hallelujah!" In the year 1891 the third edition of Salkinson-Ginsburg’s "Hebrew New Testament" was published, and it corresponds with Delitzsch’s translation in literally using the name Jehovah in original Hebrew form from Matthew to Revelation. -p. 378
Why do I believe that this article was written during the time the translation was underway? For one, it fits with the timeline for the translation as given by the Society. Secondly, it is hard to imagine someone taking the time to find the occurences in Delitzsch (= J17) of the Tetragrammation for no reason, but when we realize that this must have been done for the translation, then it would make sense. Finally, it is interesting to note that the paragraph mentions Salkinson-Ginsburg's third edition (= J18). Why not his first or second which also contained the Tetragrammaton? When we turn to the Forward of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures we notice that there too the third edition is mentioned as the oldest they had utilized. Finally, the whole article seems to be the nucleus for the argument found in the Forward to NWTCGS. If you find none of this pursuasive, just write it up to a hunch on my part...
Anyways, that is not what I was going to discuss, I was going to show Narkissos what the WTBTS has said about Shem-Tov's Matthew, but after I posted I saw he already found the information.
-Mebaqqer
