For many years that has been speculation on the net that the NWT is actually a modified version of another English translation, the name of which evades me right now. In other words, it might not have been a direct translation from the original languages. It is a version of another version(s), with added modifications/additions/deletions to support JW doctrine. They went Cliff's Notes with it.
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
-
-
Mad Sweeney
I didn't mean to imply that the NWT Committee used ONLY an Interlinear and nothing else, just that it was probably the only Greek and Hebrew source they had in the room. I am sure they had dictionaries, commentaries, and numerous other English Bibles, as well. And when I asserted that I could do the same, I meant with those very same tools.
Here, I just did the book of 3 John. It took less than an hour and I had an interlinear and two different English translations. It isn't rocket science. To remain consistent throughout an entire compilation of books, obviously would require much reviewing and editing, but it wouldn't be impossible or even particularly difficult, merely tedious.
Here's 3John - Mad Sweeney version (btw, note it is a "version" not a "translation"):
From the older man to the beloved Gaius whom I love in the truth.
Dear one, I pray that you are doing well and are in good health as well as being healthy in soul.
I was so happy to hear from the brothers as they told me of how you are walking in the truth.
Nothing makes me more thankful than hearing that my children continue walking in the truth.
Dear one, you are acting faithfully toward the brothers, although strangers to you, who spoke of your love before the church. It is well for you to send them along worthily of God.
They went out for the name and received nothing from people of the nations.
Therefore we ought to receive such ones so that we may become fellow workers in the truth.
I wrote to the church before but Diotrephes, who takes it upon himself to be number one, would not receive us.
Because of this, if I ever come there I will remember the things he is doing, chattering wicked words about us and not satisfied with just words, he neither receives the brothers nor allows others to receive them, expelling those who would do so from the church.
Dear one, do not be imitating the bad thing but rather the good. The one doing good is from God; the one doing bad has not seen God.
All speak well of Demetrius and witness is given by the truth, as well. We say as much also, and you know that we speak truth.
There are many things I wished to write to you but I do not wish to write with pen and ink but rather I hope to see you soon and speak with you face to face. Peace to you. The friends here send greetings. Greet the friends there by name.
-
Alfred
I think this "Branch Organization Manual” took a page from Finished Mystery (1917)… page 55 to be exact. Here’s what this book states regarding Charles Taze Russell's opinion about Bible translation:
As to his education we quote his own words: “As respects my education in Greek and Hebrew: Not only do I not claim very special knowledge of either language, but I claim that not one minister in a thousand is either a Hebrew or a Greek scholar. To be able to spell out a few Greek words is of no earthly value. Nor is it necessary longer to study these languages in order to have knowledge of the Bible. Our Presbyterian friends have gotten out at great cost Young’s Analytical Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon Concordance, which any one may procure. And our Methodist friends have issued similar work –Strong’s Analytical Concordance and Lexicon. And there is a still older one entitled Englishman’s Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon and Concordance. Additionally, Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon is a standard authority. The prices of these are not beyond the reach of an average man. By these works scholarly information respecting the original text of the Bible is obtainable.
-
Wonderment
Some of Ray's Franz' friends who alledgedly served as translators (Sanchez?) for the Spanish version of NWT claimed
no consistent consulting with the original languages was done. If that is the case, plus what Paulapollos is claiming and
the Branch Organizational directive indicates, all would indicate that other NWT versions other than English were not done
consulting Hebrew and Greek. If that's the case, I stand corrected.
However, when one sincerely picks up one of these recipient versions, such as Spanish, or other, and compares them with the NWT
in English, and the Hebrew and Greek text, one has to acknowledge that whatever methodology was used in the process, the end
result is impressive. Bible translation work is not easy by any means, and many decisions have to be made, and my working experience
with the NWT in various languages compared with the language "originals" bear the fact that sound decisions were made time and again.
Somehow, the WT process, criticized by some here, has resulted, to use Ray's Franz' wording, in a "creditable" translation.
By the way, I have seen some posters here claiming that the NWT process of translating the English version into other languages is flawed,
suggesting that other versions don't have that problem. Let me tell you, The Jerusalem Bible, Today's English Version, and the NIV versions
to foreign languages, to name a few, were not done totally from the originals. A careful look at these will show that they borrowed heavily from
the English version. One could say, they were translations from the English to other target languages consulting the Hebrew and Greek text.
In fact, these translators say so in so many words. I don't think most corporations working with these translations will have a translation team
equately prepared with the same Hebrew and Greek expertise as the original team. They all adapt to the process. If you translate the NIV
to French, one can be almost certain that the French translation team will not have 100 scholars to work with, and they will not repeat the heavy
work done by the original team. That makes sense to me.
I will give you an example where mistakes can be made by even professionals with credentials. At Genesis 45:14, the NIV in English renders
the state of the Hebrew verbs (for wept, weeping) backwards, while the same edition of the Spanish NIV (NVI) deals with it correctly. Why?
It seems that some here have this belief where the NWT is all bad for you, and the rest of bible versions done by professionals are true light.
It is not that simple. All these bible versions have their virtues and their faults. All it takes is to "get some grease in your hands" and go deep
into the guts of these bible versions and you will find lots of errors or discrepancies.
I will personally use any bible translation that can add to the richness of bible words. Whether its NIV, NWT, or Jerusalem Bible, I will use
them for what they are worth.
-
TD
MS,
I know you're just having fun and this reply is in the same vein. To be fair, you stated right up front that your example is a "version" not a "translation."
But that's the million dollar question, isn't it? Is the NWT a literal W&H based translation or is it entirely an English creation?
Here's two things in your example that would distinguish a version from a translation. Both involve the preposition, "From."
From the older man..
Ancient Greek did not have a lot of prepositions because many prepositional functions were subsumed into the noun case system.
Ο πρεσβυτερος - Nominative (Designation) case: Subject of the sentence -The elder
Γαιω τω αγαπητω - Dative (Reception) case: The English preposition "To" is subsumed in this case. -[to] Gaius the beloved
The elder to Gaius the beloved...
So there is not really a textual basis for inserting the word, "From" and when you do, the line between a literal translation and a free or paraphrased translation (e.g. Contemporary English Version, New Century Version, God's Word, Living New Testament, Today's English Version, The Messege etc.) starts to blur. The only Bible I'm aware of that inserts the word, "From" at the beginning of epistles and still claims to be a literal translation is The Jerusalem Bible.
There's a similar problem in verse 3:
to hear from the brothers..
What the text says is this:
..ερχομενων αδελφων και μαρτυρουντων...
..the brothers came and testified of...
--Nothing about hearing anything from anyone. We could assume that the reason John rejoiced is because he "heard" this testimony "from the brothers" but to actually put those words in the text requires inserting a new verb and prepositional phrase that's just not there to begin with.
-
dgp
Botchtower, no discussion as to Arabic.
According to this blog in Spanish (http://blog.lengua-e.com/2008/palabras-de-origen-arabe/), Arabic contributed with more Spanish words than any other language except Latin. Words that you can find in English, too, such as alcohol, Aldebaran, arsenal, adobe, algebra, algorithm, Gibraltar, zenith (cenit in Spanish), nadir, azimuth, alkali, sugar (azúcar), tariff (tarifa) and, guess what? "atalaya", the word for watchtower.
According to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/es/wiki/Léxico_del_español#Pr.C3.A9stamos_de_otras_lenguas
El léxico del español está constituido por alrededor de un 70% de palabras derivadas del latín, un 12% derivadas del griego, un 8% del árabe y un 10% de palabras derivadas de distintas lenguas, como el extinto germánico, las lenguas celtas, el extinto íbero, el vasco, el catalán, el gallego, el caló, las lenguas amerindias; como el maya, el náhuatl, quechua, el aymara, el guaraní y el tupí, las lenguas caribes; como el caribe y el taíno, y palabras de lenguas austronesias, como del filipino y del tagalo. Así como palabras de lenguas como el inglés, el francés, el italiano, el portugués, el alemán, el japonés, el chino, el ruso, el bereber etc.
My translation:Approximately 70% of Spanish words come from Latin, 12% from Greek, 8% of Arabic and 10% of different other languages, such as the now extinct Germanic, the Celtic languages, the extinct Iberian, Basque, Catalonian, Galician, Romany, Amerindian languages such as Mayan, Nahuatl, Quechua, Aymara, Guarani and Tupi, the languages of the Caribbean, such as Caribbean and Taino, and words from Austronesian languagues, such as Filipino and Tagalog. Also, words from languages such as English, French, Italian, Portuguese, German, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Berber, et cetera.
Now, the origin of English words, according to the Wikipedia, is as follows:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/English_lexicon#Word_origins
Numerous sets of statistics have been proposed to demonstrate the proportionate origins of English vocabulary. None, as of yet, is considered definitive by most linguists.
A computerised survey of about 80,000 words in the old Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed.) was published in Ordered Profusion by Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff (1973)[91] that estimated the origin of English words as follows:
Influences in English vocabulary
Langue d'oïl, including French and Old Norman: 28.3%
Latin, including modern scientific and technical Latin: 28.24%
Germanic languages (including words directly inherited from Old English; does not include Germanic words coming from the Germanic element in French, Latin or other Romance languages): 25%
Greek: 5.32%
No etymology given: 4.03%
Derived from proper names: 3.28%
All other languages: less than 1%
A survey by Joseph M. Williams in Origins of the English Language of 10,000 words taken from several thousand business letters gave this set of statistics:[92]
French (langue d'oïl): 41%
"Native" English: 33%
Latin: 15%
Old Norse: 2%
Dutch: 1%
Other: 10%
I will start from here.
There is a difference in the percentage of Spanish words that each source gives as originating from Greek and Arabic, but the difference is not that great. In any case, you'd say that 20% of all Spanish words originates in either Arabic or Greek. According to the Wikipedia, Greek contributes with 5.32% of English words, and "less than 1%" of the other words come from "all other languages", among which one would include Arabic. Spanish, 20% of Greek and Arabic, English, say, 6% (and we're being generous here).Let's start with Arabic.
The assumption is that, Arabic and Hebrew being Semitic languages, they are close. Since Arabic did heavily influence Spanish, then there has to be some similarity between Hebrew and Spanish.
I don't know how close Arabic and Hebrew really are, but, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2011 (DVD), in its article about the Hebrew language:
Modern Hebrew, based on the biblical language, contains many innovations designed to meet modern needs; it is the only colloquial speech based on a written language. The pronunciation is a modification of that used by the Sephardic (Hispano-Portuguese) Jews rather than that of the Ashkenazic (East European) Jews.
The Wikipedia, in turn, contains this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/es/wiki/Idioma_hebreo
Comparación con el español
Las coincidencias entre el español y el hebreo antiguo son escasas, mientras que las existentes entre el español y el hebreo moderno son más numerosas. La razón de esto es que la lengua antigua tenía una exigua influencia de la lenguas origen del español, el latín y el griego, mientras que el hebreo moderno ha adoptado numerosos préstamos de ambos idiomas. Además, la adopción por el Estado de Israel de la norma de pronunciación sefardí (frente a la ashkenazí) supuso que la pronunciación moderna del hebreo sea casi igual a la de los judíos expulsados de España en 1492, y naturalmente próxima a la del español. Un ejemplo de ambas similitudes serían los nombres hebreos de numerosas ciencias: ???????? (biologuia), ???????? (gueografia), ???????? (historia) etc.
The "??????" above are the spaces occupied by Hebrew characters in the original.
My translation:
Comparison with Spanish
The similarities between Spanish and Ancient Hebrew are few, while similarities between Spanish and Modern Hebrew are more numerous. The reason for this is that [Ancient Hebrew] had little influence from the languages that gave origin to Spanish, [namely] Latin and Greek, while Modern Hebrew has borrowed numerous terms from both languages. Also, the adoption by the State of Israel of the Sephardic pronunciation standard (as opposed to the Ashkenazi standard) resulted in the fact that modern pronunciation of Hebrew is almost the same as that of the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, and, naturally, close to that of Spanish. An example of the many similarities would be the name of numerous sciences: Biology, Geography, History, et cetera.
So I rest my case regarding Hebrew. Spanish has little resemblance to Ancient Hebrew, which is the language of the Bible. On the other hand, Modern Hebrew adopted a pronunciation standard that is largely based on that of the Sephardic Jews, to whom I alluded in one of my previous posts. Sephardic Jews speak Spanish, people, even if their language is an old form of the language. Those of you who speak Spanish, check the link I gave above, and read; you will have no problem doing that if you really master the Spanish language. The assumption that Hebrew is similar to Spanish because Hebrew is similar to Arabic is doubtful from the very beginning, but has been disproved. Ancient Hebrew (the language of the Bible) does not have much in common with Spanish. Ancient Hebrew existed in written form and had a literature centuries before Spanish even existed, and here I mean Spanish in its ancient form, which is not easily readable to most of us. Those familiar with Spanish will not let me lie. How many people can read the Poema del Cid in the original words? It's pretty much like The Canterbury Tales for speakers of English.
And what about Greek?The argument here is as follows: Greek contributed with more words to Spanish than to English. Therefore, Spanish is much more like Greek than English is.
According to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/es/wiki/Helenismo
En español, los helenismos suelen ser términos científicos o técnicos: átomo, hemorragia, hematología... Algunos helenismos fueron traducidos por los romanos a su lengua, el latín, y de esa manera transvasados a ella y por tanto al castellano, de forma que poseemos dos palabras para designar una misma realidad. Por ejemplo, el griego metamorfosis, compuesto por el prefijo meta-, la raíz morfo y el sufijo -sis, se tradujo en latín por transformatio, compuesto de la traducción del prefijo griego meta- por su correspondiente latino, trans-, del lexema latino forma, equivalente al griego morfo, y del sufijo latino -tío, que posee idénticas funciones que el griego -osis, lo que redunda en el doblete castellano metamorfosis/transformación.
In Spanish, most words of Greek origin are scientific or technical terms: atom, haemorrhage, haematology... Some words of Greek origin were translated by the Romans into their own tongue, Latin, were thus transferred into [Latin] and later to Castilian, in such a way that we have two words to designate the same reality. For example, the Greek word metamorphosis, formed by the translation of the Greek prefix meta- by its Latin equivalent, trans- and the Latin lexeme - forma, equivalent to the Greek word morpho, and the Latin suffix -tio, whose functions are identical to those of the Greek -osis; all this ended in the Castilian duo metamorphosis/transformation.
Can we say that most words of Koiné Greek -that of the Bible- are scientific and technical terms?
For one minute, let's say that Greek is actually closer to Spanish than to English. Let's say I was wrong. In that case,
Why should speakers of Spanish read a Bible translated from English? Why should "discrepancies" be checked using the English version, not the Greek?
The same source I use above regarding the origin of English words is useful to note that there is a wide divide between English and Spanish. This isn't something that the posters on this forum know only too well, so I won't dwell on it anymore. So, with different words, I repeat my question. Why should a Spanish bible be translated into English first, and then into Spanish? Or Portuguese, or French, or Italian, or Catalonian?
Would translators of the Bible into Spanish do well to learn Greek and Hebrew?
Let us turn the same argument from Watchtower apologists upside down. If Spanish is (according to them) closer to Greek and Hebrew, would translators of the Bible into English do well to learn Greek and Hebrew? What about translators into Quechua? Malayalam? Rarotongan? Cambodian? Korean? Japanese?
All this is just for the sake of argumentation. It should stand to reason that a translation straight from the source is better than a translation through a go-between.
The Roman Catholic Church (good ol' Harlot) demands that priests learn Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Priesthood_(Catholic_Church)#Education
Education
The Canon law of the Catholic Church holds that the priesthood is a sacred and perpetual vocational state, not just a profession, and regulates the formation and studies of clerics. In the Latin rite, this legislation is found in canons 232–264. As a general rule, education is extensive and lasts at least five or six years, depending on the national Programme of Priestly Formation.[19]
In the United States, priests must have a four-year university degree plus an additional four to five years of graduate-level seminary formation in theology with a focus on Biblical research. A Master of Divinity is the most common degree.
In Scotland, there is a mandatory year of preparation before entering seminary for a year dedicated to spiritual formation, followed by several years of study.
In Europe, Australasia and North America, seminarians usually graduate with a Master of Divinity or a Master of Theology degree, which is a four-year professional degree (as opposed to a Master of Arts which is an academic degree). At least four years are to be in theological studies at the major seminary.[20]
In Africa, Asia and South America, programmes are more flexible, being developed according to the age and academic abilities of those preparing for ordination.
Regardless of where a person prepares for ordination, it includes not only academics but also human, social, spiritual and pastoral formation. The purpose of seminary education is ultimately to prepare men to be pastors of souls.[21] In the end, however, each individual bishop is responsible for the official call to priesthood, and only they may ordain. Any ordinations done before the normally scheduled time (before study completion) must have the explicit approval of the bishop; any such ordinations done more than a year in advance must have the approval of the Holy See.
From "Master of Divinity" you can jump to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Master_of_Divinity
Christian MDiv programs generally include studies in Christian ministry and theology. Coursework usually includes studies in New Testament Greek, theology, philosophy, church history, pastoral theology, Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and New Testament studies. Many programs also contain courses in church growth, ecclesiology, evangelism, systematic theology, Christian education, liturgical studies, Latin, Hebrew, canon law, and patristics. The degree may or may not include a thesis.Then, Master of Theology:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Master_of_Theology
In North America, the Master of Theology (Th.M. or M.Th.) is considered by the Association of Theological Schools to be the minimum educational credential for teaching theological subjects in accredited schools. The degree is usually earned after the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) or an equivalent of three years of graduate studies in theology. This degree can range from a one or two years of specialized advanced studies in theological research. It may or may not require comprehensive subject exams and a research thesis. The Th.M. is usually designed as an advanced academic degree with an emphasis on academic research. [citation needed]
And these are not necessarily the guys who will undertake Bible translation. Why can't the Watchtower do something like this with its translators?
Why is is that, regarding Bible translation, the Harlot puts a lot more effort than Jehovah's (self-appointed) organization?
-
Wonderment
dgp: Thanks for sharing the interesting data about languages. I learned a few things.
You wrote: "Why can't the Watchtower do something like this with its translators? Why is is that, regarding Bible translation, the Harlot puts a lot more effort than Jehovah's (self-appointed) organization?"
My take: Obviously, the WT wants its followers to stay away from academia by setting that example. As to ‘the Harlot putting a lot more effort than JWs organization’ I have to say that is true, but only from the perspective of academic credentials. Putting that aside (i.e. no effort in customary credentials), I cannot say the WT was careless in their translation efforts, or that they didn't spend the energy necessary to do translation work.
The evidence is that originally they spent nearly 14 years in the translation process, that is just for the English edition. After that, they spent a considerable amount of money and energy to further translate the English version into other languages, no easy task itself. The total man-hours spent on the project is mind-boggling. Not to mention the financial amount needed to do so. Yes, they did it for less money, but it is still expensive to produce a bible translation in many languages. Just look around and see how many corporations have been able to pull it off. Add to that the many man-hours to update those versions. The 1984 revision obviously took a lot of effort.
Furthermore, the WT also produced ‘the best Greek-English interlinear on the market.’ No easy task. Some bible translations have offered more than 10 thousand, even 20k footnotes plus some other informative material (after spending thousands of $, if not millions, in some cases), but as good as they are, and I enjoy the notes tremendously, many of those notes are of theological nature. On the other hand, the NWT Reference Bible produced more of a critical apparatus in their footnotes, than a theological kind. To some here for sure, may not be a big thing, but there are many of us who appreciate that kind of critical apparatus the NWT provided. By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia written by scholars of academic credentials described such notes as "an impressive critical apparatus." So, not only JW's appreciate it, but even some outsiders do. It takes considerable knowledge and good judgment to produce a critical apparatus such as that one produced in the NWT Reference Bible of 1984.
You mentioned that dominating a language (not biblical) is no evidence of competence, or the gist of it in reference to Fred Franz. That is basically true, nevertheless, in the case of Fred Franz, is indicative of his intelligence. Remember, he did study some Greek, and passed with good grades (grades of which have been made public), though he dropped the course before he obtained a degree. He continued his language studies in private.
Like I said before, his nephew Ray Franz (though a victim himself of WT shunning) have mentioned to others of Fred's linguistic abilities, and of his "unusually mentally disciplined" nature at it. I have reason to believe Fred Franz was the principal translator of the NWT. Reports from WT insiders also revealed he held correspondence with various Jewish and Greek scholars during translation. Some here have speculated that Fred was careless in his translation effort, and that he based his work on one or other translation. That tells me these individuals have not checked it against the Hebrew and Greek text. A WT insider told me Fred had a special room loaded with bible reference works right up to the ceiling. No, Fred was not a copycat. From my personal studies, I can tell some translators and scholars may have influenced his decision making at the time of translating. It appears he made good use of the Rotherham and Young's Bibles, as well as American Standard Version, Moffat's and Goodspeed's, Concordant Version, Diaglott translations among others, and Soncino's Books. It is evident he made use of German works as well, since he read German. In all, it seems that Fred was on top of it.
On the bad side, Fred was responsible for many of the wacky theological theories he expounded in WT publications. The chronological emphasis was likely his as well, and we know he made many "victims" of us. And he likely was behind the disfellowshipping of his nephew Ray Franz. (at the least, he did not helped him) And likely responsible for disfellowshipping Ed Dunlap (the author of the book of James) after decades of WT service.
But without Fred and Ray, the WT articles have been dumbed down further, to the point that the WT of today with is mindless repetition of faithful and discreet slave (worship) is an embarrasment to the whole religious community. I don't think Jesus deserves such treatment. As a matter of fact, the Father Jehovah may not be happy with this outcome either.
-
average joe
Does anyone have a copy of this manual in digital form perferably pdf they can share with me so i can look at this manual???? Please :)
-
average joe
I found it thanks