No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

Wonderment

dgp:
I don't understand why you are disputing something I never said. I never said that translators who worked doing NWT English to foreign languages work was done from the original languages. That was not my intention. I agree with you. The NWT versions into other languages was done mainly from the English version as a base. That is a fact. And that is what you are showing with the Spanish front page of the NWT . However, having done some translation work myself between Hebrew, Greek and Spanish and a few other languages using the NWT, I have also realized it was not a sloppy translation team work. Through the years I have found numerous cases where those teams had a choice of using the equivalent of the original word from the NWT base, and they cleverly chose to use another rendering, just as faithful to the NWT base, but adapted to the target language.
For example, the NWT in English says at John 8:58, "I have been." (rather than "I am"). Well, the NWT in French in some editions read, "I was." When this in turn was done by the Modern Greek edition, they did not use the modern Greek equivalent for "I have been," nor "I was," but rather, "I exist." So, the translations teams are quite flexible, and shows that someone within their translation teams knows what they are doing. This is a doctrinal issue for many, but there are many cases when there was not theology involved and they chose a rendering quite different from the original equivalent in the NWT, but true to the original. Why would they do so, if no one at the WT knows what they are doing, as is often claimed.
I stated: "in some cases," not always. Also, I did not mean to imply that Spanish is so close to Hebrew and Greek and English is not. What I meant, was that English really is more distant to Hebrew and Greek than Spanish is. Spanish is closer to Latin than English. Can we agree with that? And Latin is closer to Greek than English is. Take the definite article. In English is just plain "the." In Greek and Spanish the definite article varies in form depending whether its plural, gender and so forth. Nouns and adjectives are correspondingly inflected as well. Hebrew as well shows more affinity to Spanish than English, such as pronunciation being less variable. Many a times I am amazed how some Spanish versions approximate the Hebrew and Greek better than their English counterparts. This is due in some ways to these languages similarities. There is no denying though, that our Western languages are still remote from those bible languages.
I believe in fairness, and objectivity. The NWT is biased in many places, since it was prepared for JW's, not for mainstream groups. But those other bibles have their biases as well, if not more. None are perfect. However, the common and popular perception that the NWT was done by folks that could not read the originals is plain false.
Larsinger58

Bible translation is a complex issue. I trust most gets translated okay, but whether that is understood in the context of the original language is another thing.
For instance, the passage that speaks of "straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel" is thought to be a reference to a literal camel, rather than the camelfly, which is a huge fly we call the "horsefly." But they called it a "camel." So it helps you understand the comparison between that huge horsefly/camelfly and a gnat getting in your glass, and of course, you can actually gulp down one of those big flies, though you might choke on it. The 4-legged camel with a hump, however, is not likely to find itself in someone's glass of wine on any regular basis.
TThis is the fun with idioms! Another reference to the "camel" has the context of sewing, that is, it is more difficult for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Here "camel" is a reference to a hump in the thread. Likely because if the thread balls up behind a needle behind a few threads, and you cut it off, it looks like a camel. That is a long skiny part followed by a large hump. So it is talking about the difficulty of a hump in the thread or some threads bunched up behind the eye of a needle never getting through, not a literal 4-legged camel, which I don't think would find itself in a sewing circle, unless its there to eat some sweets or something, right?
So TRANSLATION is one thing; interpretation and understanding might be something else.
Finally, on occasion, local custom and some subtle idiomatic syntax styles are not understood even by the best translators. Case in point is "but morrow" (de epaurion) which is always translated as "the next day" but in Classical Greek literature it is actually a reference to the final quarter of the day just before the next day. Thus among Greeks it is a reference to the time from midnight to sunrise. "de/but" in front of the absolute time of day thus indicates "just before" or "almost" that time. In Jewish culture, this was adapted to refer to the afternoon period since their "next day" officially began at nightfall. Thus when we see "de epaurion" in scripture, it is actually a reference to just before the next day or the "afternoon."
This can be critical for texts such as John 19:14 where "de/but" appears before the absolute time of the day of "preparation." When "but" is not understood to be a reference to "just before" and it is translated as the same day, then it seems as though the gospels contradict themselves. That is, in this case, where John 19:14 says Jesus' trial was on the day of "preparation" it contradicts the facts, because there is no way the trial at noon can be on the same day Jesus dies since at noon, 3 hours before his death, it becomes dark. The "sixth hour" of darkness though follows the "third hour impalement", whereas the the sixth hour of the trial, precedes the impalement. So between the "sixth hour" of trial and the "sxith hour" of darkness, there is a "third hour" impalement. The WTS makes a statement in the Insight volume that they don't know why there is an apparent discrepancy here. A rare occasion when they actually admit they don't know something. Here's the quote:
Under "Hour" it states:
A Seeming Discrepancy. Some have pointed to what appears to be a discrepancy between the statement at Mark 15:25, which says Jesus was impaled at “the third hour,” and that at John 19:14, which indicates that by “about the sixth hour” Jesus’ final trial before Pilate was just ending. John had access to Mark’s account, and he certainly could have repeated the time stated by Mark. Therefore John must have had a reason for stating the hour differently from Mark.

Why the seeming discrepancy? A variety of suggestions have been offered. None of these satisfy all objections. We simply do not have enough information to explain with any certainty the reason for this difference between the accounts. Perhaps Mark’s or John’s reference to the hour was parenthetical, not in chronological order. Whatever the case, one thing is certain: Both writers were inspired by holy spirit.

The synoptic Gospels clearly indicate that by the sixth hour, or 12 noon, Jesus had already been hanging on the stake long enough for the soldiers to cast lots over his garments and for the chief priests, the scribes, the soldiers, and other passersby to speak abusively of him. They also indicate that about 3:00 p.m. Jesus expired. (Mt 27:38-45; Mr 15:24-33; Lu 23:32-44) The truly important thing to remember is that Jesus died for our sins on Nisan 14, 33 C.E.—Mt 27:46-50; Mr 15:34-37; Lu 23:44-46.
Of course, this doesn't work because of the translation of "but preparation" (de paraskeue) which should be "near preparation" instead of preparation. For all other times when Jesus is being placed into the tomb and preparation is in reference, of course, the "but" is left off. Thus when understood accurately, the gospels have no discrepancy regarding the time of Jesus' final trial and the time of his death; the trial is the day before the day of his death. Thus John 19:14 should be translated "It was just before preparation..."
For the most part, I use the NWT as my primary Bible; I like the modern language. Or maybe I'm just used to it. But they are correct that you don't hve to know Greek or Hebrew to translate a certain passage, even though a formal training in Greek can sometimes be a disadvantage when the academic leans away from local idioms or colloquialisms.
Another euphemism not readily understood is at 1 Thess 4:3-8 where learning how to properly "hold one's vessel" is actually a reference and recommendation for masturbation as a means of avoiding fornication. So masturbation, contrary to what the WTS and other fundamentalists puritanical religions claim, is actually recommended in the Bible to help control sex urges. Oh well.
LS
dgp

Wonderment said that

I never said that translators who worked doing NWT English to foreign languages work was done from the original languages.

To this, I need only respond with his own words:

and I have seen many cases where the translators didn't just translate from the English carelessly, but went right into the Hebrew and Greek for the translation.

Wonderment also said:

I agree with you. The NWT versions into other languages was done mainly from the English version as a base.

There is no way you can "agree" with me, Wonderment, because I never said that New World Translations in languages other than English were made "from the English version as a base". What I said was, according to the Watchtower itself, they were made only from English. And, whatever their deceitful claims in the front page of their New World Translation Bible in languages other than English, no "consulting" of Hebrew and Greek originals is made. Again,they only used the English version. That is what the Manual shows. Let me repeat the statement in the document again:

It is not necessary for Bible translators to know Hebrew and Greek.

They don't translate from Hebrew or Greek because the Watchtower is a highly hierarchical organization that needs everyone to simply parrot what was said from "above". They just want the versions in other languages to say exactly what they said in English. Their concern is not to be true to the Bible, but to be true to the Watchtower. And this we know for sure because, according to the document,

[Bible translators]

do not necessarily have to be the translators with the most experience, but they should
be good translators who are both faithful and willing to follow directions very closely.

and

If the translation of a passage presents a problem with regard to doctrine or policy, the Branch Committee should be consulted.

They also said that

If the translation is not made directly from English, it would be well for someone who
knows English to check the translation against the English for accuracy.

Their standard is the English version, even in those cases when the translation is not "made directly from English". This last quote is particularly revealing. They consider that their English translation, a translation after all, cannot contain any mistakes, intentional or not, mistakes that the translator into a different language will correctly notice. What's more, there can indeed be a mistake (or a lie) in the English New World Translation, but the translator needs to follow that.

I wonder if you read this clear statement that I made in bold:

By the way, that means that the sentence is the middle of the scan above is a blatant lie.

"The sentence in the middle of the scan" is

"Una traducción revisada basada en la versión de 1984 en inglés, pero consultando fielmente los antiguos textos hebreo y griego", which means "A revised translation based on the 1984 English version, but faithfully consulting the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts".

I believe that the reason for concern does not stop here. One can but wonder whether they considered it necessary for the authors of the English New World Translation to know Hebrew and Greek. To me, the answer is obvious, and is a resounding no. They don't do it now, with other languages; why should we suppose they did before, with English? Because they say so?

I didn't add the quote about the new Catholic translation of the Bible into Spanish just for the sake of adding something. I did it to show that the so-called Harlot is careful with translations, or at least it is way more careful than the Watchtower. It even invites its critics - the members of "other Christian persuasions"- to collaborate, so that it will enjoy acceptance and is considered reliable. This is not new practice. Since you, Wonderment, clai´m to speak Spanish, would you please translate this sentence into English?

"Edición interconfesional de referencia" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biblia-Dios-Habla-Hoy-VP-Interconfesional/dp/1576970787)

I will say what it is. It is a bible in Spanish, published by the American Bible Society, made for the benefit of all Christian persuasions. It was done in 2002.

You claim to have been involved in much translation work regarding the New World Translation, not only into English, but also into other languages. This is what I understand from, for example,

done some translation work myself between Hebrew, Greek and Spanish and a few other languages using the NWT, I have also realized it was not a sloppy translation team work. Through the years I have found numerous cases where those teams had a choice of using the equivalent of the original word from the NWT base, and they cleverly chose to use another rendering, just as faithful to the NWT base, but adapted to the target language.

I have checked the NWT in various languages, and I have seen many cases where the translators didn't just translate from the English carelessly, but went right into the Hebrew and Greek for the translation. They did not use a straight translation from the English. Their translation teams are quite impressive. I know so. Spanish in some cases is closer to Hebrew and Greek and when that is the case, the translation teams cleverly went with the original language instead of the English base.This may sound strange, but I think the WT is more careful with bible translation than with other publications.
So maybe it's fair to ask you a question: Since you have inside information, why is is that the Watchtower has never submitted itself to such scrutiny as the Catholic Church is submitting itself now, with this new translation (I mean the one I referred to in my previos post)?

Before you answer, please bear in mind that, according to the Branch Manual,

50. CONFIDENTIALITY: It is important that transla-
tors keep their work confidential. Apart from the re-
sponsible brothers and those involved in the project, oth-
ers (including marriage mates and other Bethelites) do
not need to know (a) what is being translated and (b)
who is translating a particular item. No publication should
ever be associated with a particular person. This is es-
pecially so in the case of Bible translators. This confiden-
tiality protects both the organization and the translators.

Even worse,

24. If, for any reason, something must be taken out of
an article, the Branch Committee decides what should
be deleted. Harm is not likely to be done when some-
thing is left unsaid, but great harm can be done by
someone’s putting in his own ideas or compromising the
organization over some sensitive issue. All adjustments
made by the Branch Committee should be approved by
the Writing Committee before printing.

The paragraph above seems to apply to articles in the magazines. However, it is very revealing of WHY it is important that brothers (and sisters)

do not necessarily have to be the translators with the most experience, but they should
be good translators who are both faithful and willing to follow directions very closely.

Will you tell us what it is they want to protect themselves from?

According to you, Wonderment, Ray Franz

personally was confident that Fred was knowledgeable enough to produce a "creditable" translation.

Lest we forget, the "Fred" in question was "Freddie", Fred Franz.

On page 495 of In Search of Christian Freedom ("A people for his name") Ray Franz wrote the following:

"...in the vast majority of translations of the New Testament the name "Jehovah" does not appear outside of its abbreviated appearance in the book of Revelation. By contrast, if we turn to the Watch Tower's Society New World Translation we will find the name "Jehovah" (and "Jehovah's") 237 times from Matthew to Revelation. The fact is, however, that when the New World Translation places the name "Jehovah" in any part of the Christian Scriptures it does so without any support from a single one of the ancient manuscripts of those Christian Scriptures. In 227 of the places where "Jehovah" appears in the Watch Tower's translation, the Greek text on which the translation states it is based reads "the Lord" (Kyrios), and in the remaining 10 cases that Greek contains the word "God" (theos). Any reader may see this by simply taking the Watchtower's "Kingdom Interlinear Translation and comparing the translation (in the outside columns of the pages) with the word-for-word interlinear reading. On what basis, then, does the New World Translation insert the name?"

And then, on page 504,

Even supposing that one felt inclined to accept the argument of the Watch Tower Society in justifying its insertion of the name "Jehovah" in the Christian Scriptures or New Testament - even if only in those cases where the quotations are made from Hebrew Scriptures- one would still be faced with some serious questions. Primary among these would be the fact that, even in the Watch Tower's own translation, with its distinctive insertions, there are entire letters written by apostles in which the name "Jehovah" is completely absent, namely Philippians, First Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the three letters of John. Any of Jehovah's Witnesses must honestly acknowledge that it would be completely unthinkable for any prominent individual in the Witness organization to write on a spiritual matter without employing the name "Jehovah" with frequency. To write letters of the length and content of Paul's letter to the Philippians, or his first pastoral letter to Timothy and that to Titus, or to write three separate letters of admonition and exhortation on crucial issues like those dealt with by the apostle John -to write these and not make repeated use of the name "Jehovah" would lay one open to suspicion of apostasy among Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet in their own New World Translation the name does not appear in any of these seven apostolic letters and their discussion of vital spiritual issues. Even from the standpoint of the New World Translation, one must say that in writing these letters the apostles Paul and John clearly did not conform to the norm predominating within the Watch Tower organization. Or, more correctly put, the norm predominating within the Watch Tower organization does not conform to the first century apostolic viewpoint.

The complete absence of "Jehovah" in the New World Translation of these seven apostolic letters gives yet more evidence that the insertion of that name inthe other Christian Scriptures is purely arbitrary, not something called for by the evidence."

I doubt that someone who put to print such a cricitism of the New World Translation, saying that it contains something the original does not contain -and this something being no less than the word "Jehovah"- would also say that Fred Franz produced a "creditable" translation. On this basis, I think you're lying.

By the way, was it Fred Franz who prepared the New World Translation, or was it an anonymous committee?

I notice that you insist in saying that Spanish is closer to Hebrew and Greek than English is. Spanish does contain many words whose etimology is Greek, indeed. Many of those were borrowed by the Romans, because Latin lacked concepts the Greeks were familiar with. Many other terms are more modern and relate to the sciences or politics, such as, for example, "democracy" (democracia) or cibernética (cybernetics). But English took similar words from the Greek. By the way, the word "cibernética" is actually something we borrowed from English. Norbert Wiener coined the term, deriving it from "kubernetes", the same word English and Spanish (and French, and Portuguese, and Italian) used as a basis for "government". If you don't believe this, check "Cybernetics and Society" (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Use-Beings-Cybernetics-Society/dp/0380012731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309103551&sr=8-1).
The point I want to make here is, English is as likely to have words derived from Greek as Spanish is. I don't have any reference books to quote, but I do have my personal experience with both languages. Whenever you use a Greek term in one of the two languages, the changes in the other are very small and you can easily recognize the meaning.

As to Hebrew, Spanish does contain many words derived from Hebrew. For example, words found in the Bible, such as Betel (Bethel), Galaad (Gilead), Jericó (Jericho), Jerusalén (Jerusalem), David, Saul, Efraín (Ephraim), and so on. I am under the impression, however, that all those words exist in English as well. Is that the case?

I don't see the point in insisting that "Spanish is closer to Hebrew and Greek than English". Not just for the reasons above, but because that is completely immaterial to the real point of this thread: The Watchtower doesn't consider it necessary for a translator to be able to read the source documents. All it needs is for them to speak English. I am happy to see that Larsinger points out that there are some nuances in meaning that challenge even the most experienced translators. That is the reason why translators need to know the source language. There should be no need to emphasize this, the subject matter being the Bible, the Word of God. You'd think that an organization that claims everything it does is "Bible based" would be extremely careful in translating God's word perfectly well. Instead, it uses a "go-between".

Wonderment, you said

Some in the NWT Committee had more than a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.

Would ALL OF THEM had deep knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. I am sure Jehovah, who always provides, would have provided its (self-appointed) mouthpiece on Earth with much, much better than this.

Wonderment, you also said

So please, let us not be parroting questionable "evangelical" perceptions here for the sake of WT organizational failures.

In my humble opinion, this is a red herring. I would like to state very clearly that the criticism of the Watchtower made here has nothing at all to do with evangelicals. I am not an evangelical myself, and never was; and the document I've been quoting was prepared by the Watchtower itself. That is the point. The criticism here has nothing to do with external sources. It comes from an inside document, one of restricted circulation even among Jehovah's witnesses.

Larsinger says, and Wonderment agrees, that "there is no need for Bible translators to know Hebrew and Greek". To this, I can reply in the form of a question: Are Jehovah's witnesses encouraged to learn Hebrew and Greek on their own, to read the source documents themselves, and then make comments about what they read? If we look at the scans of the letter above, Catalonian brothers and sisters are actively discouraged to translate, not the Bible, but the Watchtower and Awake!, which are not the words of Jehovah. Or are they?

I need to mention that the first time I read about William Tyndale I was in my grandfather's grocery store, reading one Watchtower or Awake! (I don't remember which magazine it was). Anyone remembers why Tyndale got killed? Because he translated the Bible into the vernacular, and the religious authorities of that time didn't want the common people -those who were fortunate to be literate, that is- to know what the Bible actually contained. Illiteracy was a hurdle big enough, but, for those who possessed "the Truth", once that was cleared, others had to be put in the way to prevent people from informing themselves. If Tyndale were a Catalonian and were alive today, he would not be allowed to translate into Catalonian, by none other than the Watchtower itself.

One would expect people who love the Bible to actually want to read the original and catch all the nuances and the richness of expression. No, that is not the case here. You'd be "running ahead of the organization".

If the purpose is to state only what the organization wants you to say, then you don't need to go to the source documents and you don't need to know Hebrew or Greek. It is very sad, very sad indeed, that the Watchtower does have controls in place to control the quality of translations. But those controls serve only the purpose of correctly relaying WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW OR THINK, which does not necessarily need to be the truth. Remember,

24. If, for any reason, something must be taken out of
an article, the Branch Committee decides what should
be deleted. Harm is not likely to be done when some-
thing is left unsaid, but great harm can be done by
someone’s putting in his own ideas or compromising the
organization over some sensitive issue. All adjustments
made by the Branch Committee should be approved by
the Writing Committee before printing.

Larsinger and Wonderment agree that you don't need to know Hebrew or Greek to translate the Bible. If I wanted to read, say, the Iliad, could I do it without knowing Greek? The obvious answer is no. If I didn't learn the language, I would need to have a translation. This is what Larsinger and Wonderment consider "no need to know Hebrew or Greek". They want Bible translators to receive information through a filter approved by the Watchtower.
Wonderment

dgp:
I must have touched a raw nerve. You even accuse me of "lying". Why does it bother you so much that some in this forum actually enjoy using the NWT among the many versions available?
Somehow, you are twisting my statements, or taking them out of context. Yes, it is clear to both of us, I think, that other editions of the NWT into other languages were done from the English one. Notice, though, the WTS never said that the other NWT editions were done from the original languages, only the original English version. I never claimed either that they were. Ever! What they say is that the other multi-language editions were done from the English translation, but consulting the Hebrew and the Greek originals. To what extent they consulted the originals in those other versions, we will probably never know.
That said, my experience as a NWT user, shows that what the WTS have claimed is what I found to be true. Mind you, I don't want to sound like I am a WT supporter. I am not. I have been victimized enough to know the pain and foolishness of following men who claim to have a special divine knowledge. The WTS claims that the NWT English version was done directly from the originals. My experience with the English NWT supports that claim. The WTS also claims that the other multi-language editions of the NWT were based on the NWT English base, but faithfully consulting the original languages. Again, my experience with these other verisons supports that claim.
I repeat what I stated for the benefit of others following this thread: I said that "in many cases,"in some cases," "when that is the case" the translation team chose to follow the Hebrew or Greek original instead of the English base. I have no doubt about that.
I mentioned John 8:58, where the French (add the Italian version) teams in some editions did not translate "I have been" literally, but went with their own rendering, "I was." I also mentioned that the modern Greek team chose to render that same expression as "I exist." That team did not go with "I have been," "I was," or, even with the modern Greek equivalent "I am" (Modern Greek: ego' eimai). By the way, modern Greek have equivalents for those renderings. But these teams surely knew the equivalents of the original English edition, but they chose other. Why? Would you look into this? And in Genesis 31:38, the modern Greek translation team translated the words of Jacob to Laban saying: "These twenty years of mine I was with you." The LXX here has: ego' eimi (I am). And the Hebrew here reads: "I with you" ('anokhi 'immak). And the English NWT? "I have been." Other versions do the same. Now, why are NWT teams showing this flexibility if they don't know what they are doing? Or, if they could not read the originals? Somehow, the translation teams have some individuals who know what they are doing, and apparently there is a team of translators who bridge differences between the English, the originals, and the target languages.
Take the Spanish edition, itself a translation from the English version. That team had knowledge of language peculiarities. Whenever singular anarthrous (without the article, the) predicate nominatives precede the verb, the English NWT usually uses the indefinite article (a) to complete the thought. For instance, at John 4:19 the Samaritan woman says to Jesus according to the English NWT: "I perceive you are a prophet." The Spanish version reads literally: "I perceive you are prophet," with no indefinite article. [...percibo que eres profeta]. The same is done at John 6:70 and 10:1, where they show "calumniador" and "ladrón y saqueador" with no indefinite article. Of course, Spanish has the indefinite article just as English does. Why, then, did the NWT teams chose to render many of these anarthrous nouns with no indefinite article when the English NWT does? Simply because Spanish does not require it to sound natural, as English does. And that is sometimes true of French and Italian languages as well.
At John 10:36, the NWT cleverly chose to render the literal Greek expression, "Son of the God I am" as "I am God's Son." This rendering shows sensitivity to the original, since in English is not so easy to transmit the Greek sense correctly. Now, observe how the NWT Spanish edition renders it: "...Soy Hijo de Dios? [Lit. ...I am Son of God?]." A careful look at this Greek expression shows it is easier to transmit the correct thought in Spanish than it is in English. Many English versions render this incorrectly: "I am the Son of God." However, a few, such as NIV render it correctly. There is no Greek article (the) before "Son" in the original.
Thus, at least to me, it is obvious that the NWT English edition was carefully done by competent translators. Other NWT versions of recipient languages also had some within their translation teams who knew what they were doing, contrary to the belief that some hold here, that they had zero knowledge. The Branch Organizational directive is clear they want to have uniformity across their many multi-language editions, thus, the statement about foreign translators not required to know the original languages. But it does not mean there is no competent communication between those teams and the WT writing staff and translation directors.
dgp

Wonderment, just one question: How can we believe an individual consulted Greek and Hebrew originals, if he speaks neither?
Wonderment

dgp:
Excuse me, but I don't understand your question. Is the "individual consulting G & H originals" a reference to the NWT Committee?
dgp

Wonderment, you know several tricks, don't you? You know very well what I mean. I mean, "anyone who doesn't speak Greek or Hebrew but is involved in translating the ENGLISH New World Translation into another language".
I have the feeling that you wanted to find a way to say "Well, Freddie and the other members of the Gang DID speak Hebrew and Greek, and they were oh so lovely fluent, so the answer to your question is they can". But, if they had been that wonderfully capable of translating, they would have stood up to public scrutiny. Which they didn't.
Will you answer, not just my previous question, but the other ones as well?
Wonderment

Fact: Most bible translators don't "speak" either Hebrew or Greek . Exceptions: George Gangas. George Gangas spoke modern Greek and gave speeches in Greece. He also spoke Spanish, which he learned on his own. Scholar Spiros Zodhiates is of Greek heritage. Zodhiates, however, did not work as a bible translator. He did produce some valuable bible reference works.
George Gangas translated mainly from Greek to English, but what few know outside of Bethel, is that he also translated between Greek, English and Spanish when needed.
Fred Franz' knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was superior to Gangas' knowledge of bible languages. Those who teach bible languages do not generally "speak" either Hebrew and Greek. And it is not expected of bible translators to "speak" the language. They are expected to "read" the Hebrew and Greek text , and with the aid of linguistic aids commit to translation. No bible translator works so casually as to do translation work without linguistic helps. Interestingly, those going around criticizing the NWT, as does "cult experts" Walter Martin, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes, who did obtain some credentials, do not "speak" a ny Greek. Even most "experts" with Ph.D's we usually quote, don't "speak" Greek either. But I believe most of these individuals are able to get a good grasp of the Greek by applying themselves to it.
The WT started the practice of anonimity many years before the 1st portion of the NWT was published in 1950. But since 1942, it has been the general rule of not using names of their writers in their WT publications. If Ray Franz is correct about the translators, none of them had a Ph. D, or even a Master´s degree under their belt. Yes, it would be embarrasing before the world to publish a translation without the "necessary" credentials. Notwithstanding, lacking credentials does not necessarily equate with zero knowledge.
Ray Franz was no close buddy of Fred, his uncle. Some say, there was a marked rift between them. Even so, Ray admitted to me and to countless others over the years of his uncle's linguistic capabilities. I myself heard Fred speak in three languages fluently. Ray spent nearly 20 years in the Caribbean, and came to dominate the Spanish language. Ray said that Fred learned Spanish on his own, and not once, he said, did he commit one single errror in all those years he heard Fred speaking Spanish, either in private conversations or public appearances. He did the same with Portuguese, which he spoke fluently.
Now, if he was able to dominate those languages the way he did, why would someone here in this website doubt that he was not able to dominate the bible languages? Remember, there are a number of scholars who admit that the NWT translation committee was up to the task.
I am aware that the number of scholars who praise the NWT are small compared to the number criticizing it. That is to be expected, though, for the simple reason, that the NWT does not support mainstream religion. The theology of the majority will win in such comparisons. Always!
MochaLatte
MochaLatte

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

Share this