Here is an article that a christian apologist sent to me. Thought that it was great, and many of you would enjoy... http://www.satsonline.org/satsonline/userfiles/BaumgartenSmith_NWTConsistency.pdf
An Examination of the Consistency of the New World Translation
by My Struggle 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Melody Blankenship
Can't get this to open.....
-
Chalam
Hi,
Thanks for posting (opens OK here on the Mac).
Looks good, will have a proper read soon!
All the best,
Stephen
-
Leolaia
I skimmed it and it is pretty decent but not completely convincing, if "inconsistency" is to be taken as a form of bias. The majority of the passages examined are genuinely ambiguous and/or textually insecure, and thus pose crux interpreta for any translator considering the different options. It is quite possible, as the authors state, that the NWT prefers readings that are less well supported as options, I have suspected this as well, but it is another matter to prove that this is the case since the evaluation of the evidence is subjective and different scholars take different positions on each matter. So personally, I do not think this approach establishes bias as clearly as the authors may suppose.
I have long felt that a much better way to demonstrate bias is to examine how these passages were handled in Watchtower publications prior to the production of the NWT. I have noticed a number of times in old Watchtowers that theologically problematic passages would be modified or cited from uncommon translations that take the same translational approach as the readings that later end up in the NWT. In other words, the NWT renderings often have a "prehistory" in the older literature of the WTB&TS. From this perspective, the NWT follows established conventions within the publications of the Society on how these passages ought to be understood. When the NWT translation committee set afresh to translate the NT, they often took up the readings that were already in place. I think it would make an interesting study to systematically go through the old literature and show the extent to which the NWT follows the preferred renderings in pre-1950 publications.
-
TheOldHippie
Another approach, parallell to the one you suggest, would also be to have a look at how verses are used or commented on in the "foreign" world, in languages other than English. Before NWT was available in other languages, they used the transalations most commonly used in that country, and had them as the basis for their comments. For problematic verses, they then used either other translations in that language (older or more uncommon ones), or NWT or other English translation or translations in other languages. So they used a rather large range of translations when it came to non-English publications. How these translations then were reflected in that language's NWT would also be interesting.
-
Leolaia
I think Narkissos might be able to give some insight on that, at least as it pertains to the French version.
-
Narkissos
I think there is a strong case against the NWT for verbal equivalence inconsistency (not as a flaw in itself, but as inconsistent with a proclaimed rule of verbal equivalence consistency!) but I wouldn't have chosen those examples to make it. I'm thinking rather of well-known cases such as the unique (?) "active force" translation for ruach in Genesis 1:2, the shift from "spirit" to "inspired expression" for pneuma in 1 John, the variations from "undeserved kindness" to "favor" for kharis, from "paying obeisance" to "worship" in proskuneô, and so on.
On the influence of non-English translations on the (especially English) NWT I have no special insights but I think it must have been very limited. Two things I remember from the translator of the original French NWT (1974) are: (1) he was particularly admirative of the Catholic translation by Canon Emile Osty which offered a unusually high level of verbal equivalence consistency (it was also a one-man's work); (2) he often complained about being "hand-fettered" in his work, having to conform with the English NWT options. However he did depart formally from it on a number of issues (the best known case being John 1:1, "la Parole était dieu," lower case but no indefinite article), but then he had to argue the formal difference on linguistical grounds (especially compared stylistics; in the above case, his argument was that French normally doesn't use the ind. art. with a predicate, e.g. "je suis médecin" = "I am a doctor"). In that case and several others such difference was accepted as he had gained "Brooklyn"'s trust over the years. But practically all such formal differences were suppressed in the 1995 (?) revision (the current French NWT reads "la Parole était un dieu" in John 1:1).
In other WT literature translation the use of other Bible versions was very pragmatic. When the English lit. used another version than the NWT we simply had to review the available French versions to find one with a similar nuance. When we couldn't find it (which happened rarely) we simply made an ad hoc translation of the English one. This of course could introduce some difference in the French literature. [Ironically, I found some time ago that the revision of a French Protestant Bible I have worked on after I left the WT found its way into French WT literature in the 2,000's... ;-)]
The only way it could influence English literature was when the material was initially produced by the French writing dept., and then the English revisors couldn't find an equivalent, or maintained the French translations as an additional "proof" (so you may have quotations from La Bible du centenaire or Grosjean & Léturmy in English arguments in favor of the NWT of John 1:1 for instance).
-
TheOldHippie
je suis médecin
I think you have that expression in quite a few languages in Europe, you wouldn't have to use the "a" neither in German nor in Nordic languages; leaving it out simply tells what kind of person you are, it describes you; if you use "a", it is more of a demonstrative nature, as if when someone is hurt and they call out to find if there are any doctors there - and you reply that "I am a doctor". The accent in the sentence would be on "I" whereas in the first case it would be more on "doctor".
-
Narkissos
TOH,
Quite right. In French the use of the ind. art. would also imply special emphasis; for instance in an argument one could highlight the difference of perspective of the speakers by saying, Vous, vous êtes un philosophe; moi, je suis un médecin. (The duplication of the subject pronoun, "vous, vous", "moi, je" being approximately equivalent to the phonetic / typographical emphasis on You and I in English.)
Fwiw, here's my old thread on the French NWT: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/private/86744/1/The-French-NWT