Wonderment: I have never stated that Jehovah in the NT is permissible. I do not support introducing the divine name in the main text. I do support footnote or marginal material indicating when the divine name appears in quoted Scriptures where the name is present in the OT. That the NWT translators manifested bias in the NT by insisting on the name, yes, I agree with you. But I am of the opinion that removing it from the OT is just as bad. Sadly, people do not seem to care for the intended replacements of the name in the OT.
My point is that it is the product of a profound bias and not merely some sort of mistake or error in judgment. And it is a bias that goes directly to the central question of the entire Christian claim: who do you say I am? Thus, the NWT should be a translation that is clearly the most deliberately biased of all. Further, its removal from the OT can hardly be considerd to be "just as bad," since it was the Jews themselves who went and removed it (from the LXX). If it had been a problem for the early Christians, well, I suppose they could have made a point to use YHWH in their letters and Gospels. That they did not should be instructive (and normative).The New World Translation Quote from an Elder
by howdidtihappen 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Wonderment
Sulla: "If it had been a problem for the early Christians, well, I suppose they could have made a point to use YHWH in their letters and Gospels. That they did not should be instructive (and normative)."
I agree!
Sulla: "Further, its removal from the OT can hardly be considerd to be "just as bad," since it was the Jews themselves who went and removed it (from the LXX)."
I see your point! However, although the main existing LXX Text lacks the Name throughout, the Hebrew Text as we have it today does contains the Name thousands of times. Removing the Tetragramatton from our English bibles in the OT is just as bad as introducing it in the NT. Should we follow the tradition of those Jews who removed it from LXX copies, or should we not rather stick to the Hebrew Text that does contain the Name thousands of times?
Most people in mainstream churches seem to have an aversion to God's name, (because of their dislike for JWs, perhaps?), while a minority sticks to the Hebrew Text and reproduce it in English, using Jehovah, or Yahweh.
I side with bible translator, Steven T. Byington who wrote: "There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like ‘Lord,’ or much worse, by a substantivized adjective." (Translator's Preface, The Bible in Living English)
-
Sulla
I see your point! However, although the main existing LXX Text lacks the Name throughout, the Hebrew Text as we have it today does contains the Name thousands of times. Removing the Tetragramatton from our English bibles in the OT is just as bad as introducing it in the NT. Should we follow the tradition of those Jews who removed it from LXX copies, or should we not rather stick to the Hebrew Text that does contain the Name thousands of times?
I'm going to push on this idea that it's "just as bad" because you seem to take it seriously. The Jewish scholars had decided, after centuries of reflection, that the Name ought not be uttered. We may ultimately accept or reject their reasons (but owe it to ourselves to investigate those reasons prior to forming an opinion), and we note that several translations use the Name everywhere in the OT (the New Jerusalem Bible, for example). The NJB includes various features of the LXX throughout, also, like the numbering in the Psalms and various passages in the Prophets. It's tough to say what ought or ought not be included and, ultimately, we find ourselves in an argument about the formation of the canon.
However, the decision to follow the Jewish theologians or not is hardly similar to the JW's decision to follow no manuscripts at all and invent scripture for nakedly doctrinal motives. There simply is no possible justification for that practice in the NWT. It stands entirely alone in its badness and dishonesty. -
TD
The proof that the NWT is a real literal translation and not simply a version or rendering is there for anyone with a working knowledge of ancient Greek. There are hundreds of subtle pitfalls that someone with zero knowledge of Greek would fall into if they tried to create a translation simply by consulting an interlinear, dictionaries, commentaries, and aping other English Bibles.
If this is what happened, the evidence would scream at us on every page. This question has come up before and Mad Sweeney, who is one helluva smart person took a crack at it. But his prepositional usage was not what you would find in a literal translation.
Don't misunderstand. If translations were comparable to cars, the NWT certainly wouldn't be a Rolls Royce. All you have to do is compare it with an English masterpiece like the AV to see how the ugly Manhattan English utterly destroys the literary beauty that is there:
"Thou anointest my head with oil;..."
vs.
"With oil you have greased my head;.."
Or compare how over emphasis on the present tense completely changes the meaning of verse like John 17:3
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
vs.
"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."
JW's should also be deeply ashamed over the translation process itself. Reputable translations are not done behind closed doors. The translation is done in the open and scholars of all theological stripes are invited to participate. That's why the Catholic faith made a point of having Protestant and Jewish scholars work on revised NAB. It's the best way not only to minimize theological bias, but to prevent the question from ever coming up at all.
-
Wonderment
TD: I enjoyed your comment. For the most part I agree with your statements. I would just like to add some material to it for anyone wanting to go further.
I myself would have wished the NWT translators revealed the names of their Committee. I don't think they care much about what most "worldly" people outside the WT feel about it. It should be mentioned though, that the WTS started way before 1950 with the practice of not using the names of authors in their publications. By 1942, according to their history book (JWs-Proclaimers...p. 146), it was applied throughout. It says:
"Since 1942 it has been the general rule that literature published by the Watch Tower Society does not draw attention to any individual as the writer."
On John 17:3, see here for another opinion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus
On Psalms 23:5, I find the NWT rendering very odd. It is one of those things, as some here have pointed out, the Committee gave preference to Hebrew technicalities instead of going with standard English. I will provide some info so readers here can arrive at their own conclusions. "With oil you have greased my head;..." (NWT)
"Thou anointest my head with oil;..." (KJV)Literal translation: "You have made fat with the oil my head"
Heb: dishshanta vashshemen ro'shiελιπανας εν ελαιω την κεφαλην μου (LXX)
inpinguasti oleo caput meum calix meus inebrians (Latin Vulgate)
(inpinguasti = from pingue, pinguis = fat, grease. J.C. Traupman)
(pingue, pinguis = grasa, manteca, sebo, Vox Latino-Español)"You generously anoint my head" (Anchor Bible Commentaries)
"Thou hast richly bathed my head with oil" (NEB)
"With oil you have greased my head" (NWT)
"thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil" (Brenton, LXX)
"thou madest fat mine head with oil" (Julia Smith Translation)
"You have sleeked my head with oil" (Concordant Literal Version)
"You have lavished oil on my head" (The Bible in Living English)
"you anoint my head with ointment" (exeGeses Companion Bible)"perfumas con ungüento mi cabeza" (Biblia de América)
(you perfume my head with ointment)"Bañaste de óleo o perfumaste mi cabeza" (Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo
(You bathed me with oil or perfumated my head) [Católico)Strong's Hebrew Lexicon:
she'men, sheh'men; from shaman; grease, especially liquid (as from the olive, often perfumed); fig. richness
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew:
1. fat, oil
a. fat, fatness
b. oil, olive oil
1. as staple, medicament or unguent
2. for anointing
c. fat (of fruitful land, valleys) (metaph)The Complete Word Study Old Testament:
Shemen; ‘this masc. noun originates from shamen. It refers to grease, liquid, (olive) oil (Gen. 28;18; 1 Kgs. 6:23; Neh. 8:15) which was sometimes perfumed (Song 1:3); fat, fatness (Is. 10:27; 25:6).'
Barne's Notes on the Bible: "hou anointest my head with oil - Margin, as in Hebrew, "makest fat." That is, thou dost pour oil on my head so abundantly that it seems to be made fat with it. The expression indicates abundance. The allusion is to the custom of anointing the head on festival occasions, as an indication of prosperity and rejoicing (see Matthew 6:17, note; Luke 7:46, note), and the whole is indicative of the divine favor, of prosperity, and of joy."
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible: "Thou anointest my head with oil - Perfumed oil was poured on the heads of distinguished guests, when at the feasts of great personages. The woman in the Gospel, who poured the box of ointment of spikenard on the head of our Lord (see Matthew 26:7, Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:8; Luke 7:46), only acted according to the custom of her own country, which the host, who invited our Lord, had shamefully neglected." -
TD
Wonderment,
On John 17:3, see here for another opinion:
I followed the link you provided and wanted to comment because I think this is a good example of how JW's get a bad name.
First of all, this individual does not accurately state the objections to the NWT rendering. In the NWT, the verb, γινωσκωσιν (They might know) is changed to the noun, "Knowledge." Since there's no verb in the sentence now, a new verb must be inserted. The NWT inserts the verb "Taking" for grammatical functionality despite the fact that this verb appears nowhere in the Greek text. In so doing, the conditionality expressed by the subjunctive is lost.
"...that they might know thee..." is explicitly conditional
"...their taking in knowledge..." is not
We could argue (As the author of the article appears to) that the subjunctive is implicit in the durative process of "taking in knowledge" (i.e. That the process may be interrupted or stopped.) but that is farfetched. No one except a believing JW with a JW's a priori assumptions would even think along those lines.
Does the author of this article accurately state these legitimate grammatical objections upfront or does he prefer to start with a theological strawman?
"Why the objection to this reading of "their taking in knowledge of you"? Because this rendering is interpreted by some as 'obscuring the need for a personal relationship with both the Father and His Son Jesus Christ,' by some purported "implication" that intellectual knowledge alone leads to eternal life."
...which is utter hogwash. The objection is to the manipulation of the Greek text in what is alleged to be a literal translation.
The only thing resembling a linquistic defense this individual offers for the NWT rendering is the exact same 'sin' that the NWT translators themselves are accused of, which is translating with a dictionary rather than a real working knowledge of Greek. You don't translate by plugging in the dictionary definition that most suits your theology; to do so is to ignore grammar and usage.
In this instance the problem is even worse because the author does not even use the lexical works that specifically deal with John 17:3 honestly. (Most of his citations have nothing to do with this verse.) For example, he quotes W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words in support of the rendering in the NWT. While it is true that when γινωσκω is used in conjunction with reading, studying and observation, it can mean the durative process of 'taking in knowledge." Examples include Mark 13:29, John 13:12 and 21:17.
But W. E. Vine did not believe that John 17:3 was an example of this usage, for he goes on to say:
"In the N.T. ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known; in this respect, what is known is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship."
"...The same idea of appreciation as well as knowledge underlies several statements concerning the knowledge of God and His truth on the part of the believers, e.g. John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3..."
Vine explicitly denies the idea that the "knowing" was an intellectual process rather then personal interaction:
"..such knowledge is obtained, no by mere intellectual acivity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ."
Vine's view is clearly along traditional evangelical lines and it is therefore dishonest to quote him. He clearly would not have agreed with the rendering in the NWT if he had lived to see it.
This lack of forthrightness is manifest in other ways as well:
"When a translator attempts to render the Greek of John 17:3 into English, he or she must decide whether to stress the stative meaning, that is, "to know," which would indicate a knowledge acquired once and for all, or, to stress the active meaning, "to learn ascertain, find out" (a taking in of knowledge), a knowledge that becomes fuller and fuller because the active process is continuing..."
First of all, this is a false dilemma, because knowing a sentient being is not a "once and for all" affair. Generally you get to know someone better and better over time as any married person can attest to. More importantly though, there's not a shred of evidence presented in support of this claim. Other than the NWT, is there a single translation anywhere where the translator favors the act of taking in knowledge over the state of knowing? Then how do we know that this is a deliberative matter for translators at all? The implication is that either view is equally valid, but where is the proof? When we're talking about "knowing" a sentient being, we're not simply talking about factual knowledge about them unless the context demands it.
-
Wonderment
Here is the link to John 17:3 previously posted about "taking in knowledge of God and Christ," and an excerpt to show how it was used in context. TD has a problem agreeing with the author of this article. He thinks the author is quoting out of context. See for yourself, if this is the case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus
To determine more accurately what ‘knowing' God and Christ entails we should consider another clue. The word "know" at John 17:3 (KJV) in the Greek is a form of ginosko, in the present subjunctive active mood. Verbs in this mood usually state a potential condition, a purpose, a wish, or a doubt. It is used to express a possibility, an uncertainty or indefinite statement. The subjunctive mood is generally indicated by words such as "may," "might," "ever," and "should." It will normally follow words such as: hína (in order that) and eán (if). An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament wrote: "In the subjunctive [...] the present tense is timeless and durative." (by W. D. Chamberlain, p. 87) New Testament Greek states: "The present tense [subjunctive] views activity as durative, ongoing, or repetitive in nature." (by James Allen Hewett, Revised edition, p. 205)
You can see this subjunctive in action by reading the part of John 17:3
which says: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God..." Take note that the KJV uses the stative form "know" instead of the progressive form (participle) "their knowing you" found in the NWT footnote. Most translations follow the KJV here. However, the Greek basically says: "in order that they may be knowing you..." The Concordant Greek Text likewise reads: ‘that they may be knowing you.' The New Testament in Modern Speech, by R.F. Weymouth) explains in a footnote: "Knowing] Or, as the tense implies, ‘an ever-enlarging knowledge of.'"
Other scholars recognize the durative, progressive factor of the present subjunctive, deriving from the verb ginósko:A. T. Robertson: "Should know (ginoskosin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject clause), ‘should keep on knowing'." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 275)
W. E. Vine: "GINOSKO (γιν?σκω) signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
J. H. Bernard: "...the present tense (ginóskosin) marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life." (The International Critical Commentary, St John, vol II, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1928, p.561)
G. Abbott-Smith says under ginósko: "to be taking in knowledge, come to know, recognize, perceive, understand. [...] freq. of the knowledge of divine things, of God and Christ...Jo 17:3." (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT, 92)
J. H. Moulton: "The present simplex, γιν?σκειν, is durative, ‘to be taking in knowledge.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena, p. 113)
(Note: γιν?σκειν [ginóskein] is the present infinitive form of ginósko, i.e. "to know"...durative: "knowing," "to be taking in knowledge.")Max Zerwick writes: "ginóskosin sub[junctive mood of ] ginósko, pre[sent tense] implying a continuous process." (An Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 336)
Marvin R. Vincent: "Might know (ginóskosi). Might recognize or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know. Compare ver. 23; x. 38; 1 John v. 20; iv. 7, 8." (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 263. Cursive letters his.)
I checked these references myself, and I want to point out as an observation that when A.T. Robertson, Max Zerwick and Marvin Vincent said the above, they said so under the section of John 17:3 being considered.
I don't see how the quote above of Abbot-Smith is out of context either. The others are not against the context either.
When it comes to Vine, he gives the basic definition of Ginosko as: "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely," e.g., Mk 13:28,29; Jn 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor 8:9; Heb 10:34; 1 Jn 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice), 7, 13; 5:2, 20" Vine does not mention 17:3 here as he does further as indicated by TD. But does this mean his basic definition above changes meaning from this basic meaning of the word to the other reference of John 17:3? I tend to see it more as an added nuance and relationship to the basic meaning, more than assuming Vine totally changes the meaning. This is akin to admitting that stauros does mean basically, "stake" and then saying that stauros must mean (a two piece) cross and only cross in this other scripture. Even if we accept cross as a meaning of stauros, it still does not change the basic meaning of stauros as stake. Does it?
Vine does say: "In the N.T. ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known; in this respect, what is known is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship."
"...The same idea of appreciation as well as knowledge underlies several statements concerning the knowledge of God and His truth on the part of the believers, e.g. John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3..." And: "..such knowledge is obtained, no by mere intellectual acivity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ."
Vine adds: "Nor is such ‘knowledge’ marked by finality; se e.g., 2 Pet 3:18 [...but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"]." And: "Ginosko as a verb, means ‘to know by observation and experience’ is translated to know (to learn -Mk 15:45; Jn 12:9)"
This brings up a couple of questions for those who hold that ginosko rules out the rendering "their taking in knowledge."
Is it really possible "to know" God without involving "intellectual activity" which Vine apparently does not rule out? ...Without true knowledge?
Is Vincent Marvin wrong when he says: "This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know."? Similarly, the The Bible in Basic English tells us: "And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ."
See also Moulton's Prolegomena comments on hina and what it conveys next at John 17:3. (Page 206)
The author of the link did write: "...the Bible context associates an objective revelation of God (factual side) with a personal relation. What is wrong though, is the conclusion that a personal relationship with God (of faith, trust, love, and obedience) can be obtained without true knowledge. Also, it is wrong for anyone to imply that "taking in knowledge" is accomplished by a systematic course of learning the publications of a religious organization."
The author of the link obviously was aware of JWs contention that "taking in knowledge" requires studying the Bible a la WT. He turns that down, but seems to go further than Evangelicals in insinuating that "knowing" God goes beyond a person just claiming he/she has a personal relation with God and Christ without the pursuit of true knowledge. 2 Pet 3:18 indicates that orientation.