Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel 123 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Curtains

  thanks for replying Juan. It was this comment of yours that I interpreted to mean that modern scholars were praising the NABRE highly. my mistake - sorry

  Those who are religious generally see such biblical scholarship as Spirit-directed, evidence of God at work. An atheist friend of mine who recently retired from teaching theology on the university level (sounds funny, I know, but there some out there) is among those who, while admitting no belief in a god or the religious teachings found within, find such a dramatic change in modern Bible translation as encouraging and "the only type of scholarship worthy enough to transmit such ancient thought for the audience of today."

  As Romans 10:13 came up in Sundays discussion of the Watchtower I wanted to check how this is rendered in NABRE's NT . In contrast the NWT translation is:

  for everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved. The cross reference in the NWT takes us to Joel 2:32: And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe"

  The context of Romans 10 is clear that kyrios out to be translated LORD (as in the NABRE) meaning Christ and not Jehovah. But NWT translaters have to falsify this verse to make the NWT consistent with their own theology - that the name Jehovah will provide safety now and during armageddon. Whereas if Paul was quoting from Joel 2:32 then he was making a direct connection between the God of the old testament and Jesus and moreover to the extent of seeming to indicate that they were one and the same person. Even if he was not suggesting that they were one and the same, he was at least suggesting that the name to be called upon today is Chirst not Jehovah. (I spent a lot of time researching this before the meeting yesterday and is why I mention it here). I don't however wish to turn this thread into a trinity v unitarian debate.

  Okay here is another thought I found interesting and that I did not know previously - that much of the order of catholic church service is based on 1st century Jewish synagogue service. Seen in that light it does make sense not to use the divine name in church service.

  Jehovah's Witnesses tend to forget (or conveniently fail to mention) that Catholics (and by association the Orthodox) are spiritual descendants of the original Christians who called themselves Jews before they were expelled from the Jewish congregation. As such they have left much of their liturgy (worship proceedures) unchanged since the days of the synagogue, including the basic order of the Mass or Divine Liturgy (which is almost exactly like a Temple worship service, minus the Liturgy of the Eucharist/Holy Communion). As such certain practices, like leaving the Divine Name to be uttered only by the High Priest, have never been altered.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  St. George, the NWT you have in England uses American spellings like "color" instead of "colour," is that what you're talking about? Or is it even worse than that sort of thing? I always assumed the UK had their own version of NWT.
• 

  JuanMiguel

  I see how that could have been interpreted that way, Curtains.

  What I did fail to include there was that prior to the industrial age, Catholics weren't regular Bible readers due to the fact that Church officials cautioned against doing so. This had less to do with actually reading the text or hearing the Bible read aloud as it had to do with the fact that there was little attempt to provide religious education to the layperson to help them understand the Scriptures in the light of Catholic teaching. Instead of translating 2000 years of valuable information from Latin into the vernacular, the clergy had the attitude of "just listen to what we tell you," fearful that more might make the type of "mistakes" Luther and other Reformers had in the past.

  A Comment on Procedure, Not the Result

  Whatever else can be said about Pope Pius XII and what he did or failed to do during the Holocaust, he wasn't a Pope given to the previous beliefs that less education made faithful laypersons. While some Catholics who long for the previous days still dislike it, his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu outlined a more rational approach to Biblical education and translation. The critical disciplines were to be included as part of the process of making the Holy Scriptures accessible to people, as well the use of the best manuscripts available instead of relying on the official Latin text. (Today there is still an official Latin text, but it itself is a revised rendition, no longer Jerome's Vulgate or the Clementine; it is known as the Nova Vulgata or the Neo-Vulgate. It has been suggested by some that the latest scholarship which helped to shape the NABRE will mean a future revision to the official Latin as it took 50 years before enough information could be gathered from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries to make any advances to the text.)

  Because the NABRE is actually the result of this call to the best available scholarship principles, my theologian friend made such comments about this. Of course he has not read the entire NABRE (although he has seen bits and pieces of the work that went into the new version of Tobit with the Hebrew sources), and so his comments are meant to reflect the approach taken and not as a review of the work. He is not a theist, and this also needs to be considered when understanding any of his comments as well.

  Romans 10:13

  Taking into consideration the approach Catholics take to the divine name, it should be no surprise to find that their rendition of Romans 10:13 does not contain the Divine Name. But, because the oldest textual witnesses as well as the writings of the Church Fathers show that KYRIOS has also been the reading in this place, the translators would be violating the principles of translation by placing the Name there since the testimony of the Church from the beginning is that it never was there in the first place. While it is understood to be a quote from Joel, it is a quote from the Alexandrian LXX version which by the time Paul used it did not incorporate the Divine Name in Hebrew characters.

  The writings of the Church Fathers are often consulted by Catholic scholars to see if earlier but currently lost manuscripts had varient readings, something the NWT apparently never does and obviously cares little about. This is one reason why the latest Protestant versions also have Catholic scholars on their translationboards since many of these texts take a Latin speaker to read them let alone someone who has access to and knows their way around the Vatican library--which by means of the Internet many laypersons also do now, but you still need to be able to read ecclestical Latin. Very few people outside the Roman Catholic Church speak it, and I doubt the Watchtower is going to run out and get a faithful Catholic to help them make a revision to their NWT.

  Therefore it should not surprise anyone to find the way the NABRE reads at Romans 10:13:

  For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
• 

  Pahpa

  The wide use of the tetragrammaton in the Old Testment would seem to

  argue against the disuse of it in modern translations. If the motive was

  done because of Jewish reluctance to have the pronunciation of the

  name commonly known, then the translators are following a custom

  created by Jewish superstition....not by Biblical use. Every translation

  reflects the personal beliefs of the translator. Where there is choice,

  the translator uaually favors his own religious conviction.
• 

  TD

  I love how religious reverence in Judaism becomes superstition in a Christian context
• 

  JuanMiguel

  Great comment, TD.

  And Pahpa,

  I understand that some share your view, but that would not be the case if you're a Jew.

  Holiness to the Jews is different from holiness from the perspective of a Jehovah's Witness. In the Jewish approach, one views themselves as unworthy to receive that which is holy, not significant enough to handle it, not great or even clean enough to be in the presence of that which is holy. To them such a view is not out of superstition, as if they are trusting in magic or have a misunderstanding of God, his name, or of holiness itself (which is what a superstition is).

  If you recall the Scriptures describe Moses at the burning bush as covering his face, because he was afraid to look upon God. There is the constant covering of the Ark of the Covenant and its glory from the people deep within the Tabernacle. There is even the covering of Moses face from the people because it glowed from being exposed to God. Even in approaching Christ, whether or not they thought he was God, some people felt unworthy to come to him. The woman with the flow of blood felt it was just enough to touch the hem of his garment, and another felt unworthy to have Christ under his own roof.

  These weren't faked attitudes, but genuine standards of the practice of these people towards that which is supposed to be holy. That which is holy is not of the mundane for these people. It isn't like anything that is commonly seen or heard. It is rare, treated as such, and loved in the same way.

  The Biblical understanding regarding names is that one gains control over another when they learn a person's name. That is why some angels would not give their names in certain circumstances, like the struggle with Jacob, because it would have meant control over God and one's own destiny. (Genesis 32:27-31; note the "man" gets Jacob's name but Jacob doesn't get the "man's" name.) Even God's revelation of his name to Moses at the burning bush is ineffible, a circular definition that leads back to itself: "I AM WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE" or "I AM WHAT I AM." In American English it was common to refer to knowing someone well by saying one had a "handle" on a person. This came from this Jewish understanding that knowing a name implied some control in the other's life. When CB radios were in use during the 1970s people referred to themselves with madeup names known as "handles."

  The name YHWH is a way of God giving his name and yet withholding it at the same time. One cannot get a "handle" on God.

  This use of names and this understanding is very, very complex and far reaching. I only recently learned it myself. Funny that the JWs don't know something you can find in religious books about the Name of God and how this applies. But then when you use God's name as commonly as one would use for another human being's, you miss the point of treating God's name as far more special than any other's.

  And when one thinks they have such a "handle" on God, no wonder there are people who don't believe in the concept of God. Who could really have such a handle if God really existed?

  So yes, I agree, that the religious conviction of the translators has a lot to do with the way they handle the use of God's name. One way shows they understand what it means and how to sanctify it, the other way shows a lot of disrespect by making it as common as a name for person, a place, or even a pet.

  It is due to fear of God punishing them for not using the name that the Witnesses feel the need to constantly utter it and even put it in more places in the Bible than where it occurs in the original manuscripts itself. They believe that by overuse of the name they are covered, but the mere utterance of letters and word is the work of the superstitious who believe that chants and names can save them. "In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them."--Matthew 6:7-8, NABRE, compare with the footnote.

  God is not a name. God is greater than anything you or I can utter. If God isn't that, then why believe in God?
• 

  palmtree67

  Very enjoyable topic.

  Thank-you!

  Palm
• 

  Pahpa

  The fact that the Old Testament was written by Israelites/Jews clearly

  shows that the orginal writers had no compunction about using God's

  name throughout their writings. One has to question why the Jews

  of later times eliminated it. One respects their reverence of the name.

  But is it the same case as other matters in the Law where Jews

  added and embellished the requirements into Talmudic law? It

  doesn't seem that the alteration of the original writings is a way

  of exalting God's name.
• 

  JuanMiguel

  Regardless of whether they pronounce the name of not, they have never altered the original writings. It still occurs in the Hebrew text for people to see, to learn about, to know. No one has removed it, they just don't pronounce it.

  Besides, the Hebrew Testament was written by those who worshipped YHWH. It is a product of their religion. The Scriptures didn't come first and then the Jews decided to follow what was written in it. They had a religious system, the Mosaic Law, and an oral history of dealings with God, along with a complex worship system around a Temple that they claim was inspired of the same God. This religion existed before the Hebrew Scriptures, and these Scriptures are based on the Jewish religion. They are not what the Jewish faith is based on.

  If they want to pronounce certain things in it or not, that is their right. It's their religious text. We have to accept it on the basis of the faith community that wrote it and preserved it. If we don't like that they don't pronounce God's name, then we should take it up with them.

  And just because they wrote it down is not evidence that they pronounced it. They still leave it in place in Hebrew each time they make a copy of the text. Just because this entails they write it down some 6,000 times is not proof that they pronounce it. In fact we know they don't.

  We have every right to our opinions, however. But we should believe the Jews when they tell us why they do or don't do something with their own holy writings. After all, they wrote them. They should know.
• 

  Juan Viejo2

  I have mentioned this before in other contexts, but I'll bring this up again. The New World Translation may have never been what it was claimed to be.

  Around 1962-63, there was a young brother that showed up at our Kingdom Hall. He'd recently left Bethel and had served in both the British and Brooklyn Bethel homes in various capacities. He was well spoken and clearly well-educated in the British style. He didn't like to talk too much about himself or his background, or why he suddenly appeared at our Kingdom Hall in Southern California. A few of the gossips in the Hall thought he might be "homosexual" (this was before the word "gay" was is wide use) because he was clearly not athletic, he dressed too well, had nicely groomed hair, and, of course, spoke with a British accent. Pretty much sealed the deal for most of the sisters when he refused to be the subject of their match-making efforts.

  He and I carpooled to our jobs about 25 miles away. He sensed that I was beginning to slide out of the Witness work because I was avoiding field service and often missed meetings. So I think, because of my age and my lack of enthusiasm for being a JW, he felt he could share some of his personal thoughts with me.

  One day, on the way to work, we got in a discussion of Bible translations. He told me that he personally preferred to read the recently released Revised Standard Version, a modern take on the King James, but with modern English. He said that it was joy to read because it retained the poetic characteristics of the original King James Version. I asked him what he thought of the NWT; the Greek Scriptures had been out about 10 years and the Hebrew Scriptures had finally all been released by the time of this conversation. I had just received my special order version of the complete NWT in maroon leather and was very happy with it.

  He told me that when he was in Brooklyn Bethel, one of his jobs was to act as an expert on the differences betwen British and American English. He had lived long enough in both countries that he could "interpret" British English for the writing committee and for other purposes.

  "You know that the New World Translation is all a sham, don't you?" he asked as we drove along. I was dumbfounded by his question and replied that I had never heard such a thing. I asked how he came to that conclusion.

  "Basically what the translation committee did, none of whom could speak, write or read Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, was to gather together all of the Bible translations already available in modern English. They also used the Emphatic Diaglott (a Greek/English version) favored by Russell and Rutherford, and then started rewriting it themselves. They didn't use any old transcripts. They basically rewrote the whole thing by committee, each one taking a book of the Bible and rewriting it in modern North American English. That's all they ever did."

  This was the first time I'd heard such a thing (but not the last). I asked him how come the translation seemed so consistent in its language.

  "After a book was drafted in the new English, they would all sit down and listen as it was read outloud. Then they would make suggestions on adjustments or the use of different words. They would then vote on acceptance or for more editing. If a verse didn't quite fit Watchtower teachings, they'd look for someway to change it without being too obvious. If they couldn't do it without being obvious, then they came up with some excuse that the brothers would accept without argument. Then the chapter would go to Fred Franz for final review and editing. His final version was pretty much accepted "as is" without argument. That's how it was done."

  I asked how he came to know all of this. He explained that some of the translations were produced by British scholars or Bible publishers - and they typically were the best. "But they used some terms that the writing committee wasn't completely comfortable with, so they would call me and a couple of other British brothers to clarify if we could."

  He told me that the translation committee was a joke in Bethel - and everyone knew it was Fred Franz's baby. That was one reason that they wanted to keep the committee anonymous - because if the word got out that none of the translators were educated in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew - especially the ancient versions - their poor excuse for a new English language translation would be laughed at and exposed publicly for what it was - a complete and total fraud.

  "But that means that the Bethel brothers lied to us about the translators and everything," I said.

  "They lie to us all the time. Someday you'll figure it all out for yourself and hopefully the facts will come out. What I'm telling you is the truth. All I ask is that you keep it to yourself - at least for now."

  He left our Kingdom Hall a few months later and I completely lost track of him. But I've never forgotten that conversation. Based on what I've heard from other sources and transcripts from a court case that involved Fred Franz, I believe my carpool buddy was telling the truth.

  JV