What are the "Hebrew versions" of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to in Appendix 1 of the New World Translation?

by yadda yadda 2 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sir82

  What I didn't like is that the J references were cited in the 1984 NWT alongside P 46, etc. ABDVg, etc. in the footnotes as if they were textual witnesses.

  That's not an oversight.

  I believe they purposely listed them that way, so that the typical JW who fancies himself a "scholar" (because he actually reads the apendices of the NWT) will be convinced and not investigate the issue further.

  As I mentioned, at the recent elder school in the US, they were all over those "J" references in one of the talks, spending more than an hour on them.

  They even "updated" the NWT appendix list: Apparently one of the 237 "Jehovah" insertions did not have any "J" support for it until some time in the past few years, then someone discovered an older manuscript, or a variation of it, or something, so that now all 237 are "supported".

  Those in attendance were all ooh-ing and aah-ing....meanwhile, of course, no one seemed to notice that, again as noted above, none of those "J" references were written until well after 1000 years had passed since the original writings of the NT.
• 

  euripides

  Leolaia is right (hi again Leolaia, it's been years, remember me?), using a Hebrew version (i.e. translation) of the New Testament to justify insertion of the Tetragrammaton instead of any textual witness, is completely disingenuous, and not only unscholarly, its the kind of thing that would lose all credibility in any other context. But WT is accustomed to using other people's (sometimes questionable) editorial translation decisions, or relying on Hort-Westcott as a principal textual witness in the first place. Anyone remember Benjamin Wilson's emphatic diaglott? But I'm sure that topic has been covered elsewhere. Like anything, the problem with the WT interlinear is its utter lack of apparatus, and no explanation as to the decisions it makes, and principally that it gives the deceptive appearance of homogeneity of the text, something no real scholar could possibly believe. But a Witness "scholar" (now who's kidding who) thinking they are practicing some useful form of exegesis by referring to the interlinear and then backing it up with Insight on the Scriptures will see just enough to bring on that self-satisfied smugness that allows them to engage in doubletalk at the door or on the platform--something always useful in continuous self-delusion.

  Euripides