Hey outlaw, Attack of the Killer ToMo now that would make a really lame video game.
Did Jehovah's Witnesses dishonestly insert the word "Apostate" in their custom version of the Bible
by Watchtower-Free 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
EdenOne
Fascinating. Marked -
EdenOne
To my knowledge, there are only two occurrences of the greek term ἀποστασία ('apostasies') or in the NT:
Acts 21:21 - Paul was falsely accused of teaching the Jews apostasy from Moses;
2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3 - A great apostasy foretold by Jesus, which would precede the "day of the Lord".
So, in true accuracy, only in these two stances the modern term "apostate" or "apostasy" should be used. Although the idea of falling away, or withdrawal or abandonment from faith or God o Jesus is abundant in the NT, other terms are used in the original Greek to convey that idea.
A related word 'apostasion' is used in the NT to denote a divorce or a repudiation. (Matthew 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4)
Eden
-
CalebInFloroda
It's what scholars call a "political" rendition.
To be all honest, all Scripture translations into any language are a political act. While most modern translations no longer differ in substance by comparison, the fact that a religion might sponsor and conduct a translation, especially with a closed committee (i.e., one made up of translators from one religion only) shows that a political aim is definitely a driving force behind the rendition. In this case the political aim is to promote their ideology.
While the word from which the English term "apostasy" is derived occurs in the Greek in the two places already pointed out, the word isn't actually "apostasy" as we understand the term (those of us familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses' definition that is). Considered the scholarly standard for English in academia, the NRSV renders the Greek word as "forsake" in Acts 21.21 and "rebellion" at 2 Thessalonians 2.3. The reason behind this is that the word was understood in its most ancient and basic terms in the first century, as the word "martyr" or "saint" had different meanings then too when compared to how the words are used today.
As they have been done before, the Witnesses get away on a technicality because the concept of "apostasy" is found throughout Scripture. Therefore even when the fundamental terms employed in the original text are not even connected to the Greek terms found in Acts and 2 Thessalonians, technically the NWT and any translator can use the term if his target audience is familiar for what it stands for, namely rebellion against or the act of forsaking religion.
However this would be considered a dynamic rendition or closer to paraphrase in most instances as it would be an anachronism to introduce the word "apostate" into Old Testament vocabulary, a Hellenistic term into a Semitic writing that did not have such a single and all encompassing term.
The word "apostasy" and "apostate" are modern, like introducing "homosexual" into Romans or the other epistles where same-sex relations are mentioned. As the latter word is possible in a paraphrase, the concept of different sexual orientations is a modern one, unknown to the ancients who wrote the Scriptures, so one cannot use the term accurately in a translation. The same goes for "apostate" and similar terms. The current expression got its meaning from the Early Church Fathers who gave the Greek word its current blanket meaning.
In its current use in American and Anglicized English, the term "apostasy" refers to turning away from the Christian faith as taught in the great creeds, a Christian term according to etymology. By this definition religious movements like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints are apostates, but members of these religions can't be, even if they leave or teach something contrary to Watchtower or Mormon beliefs. Since they aren't rebelling against or forsaking the basic tenets of Christian faith like the Trinity, the Apostle's Creed, or Liturgical worship, elements these religious movements do not possess, those who rebel against or forsake these religions are not "apostates," if they wish to play by technical rules.
Equally Jews cannot become or produce apostates nor Muslims or Buddhists, and to some degree atheists or agnostics aren't actually "apostates." Because "apostasy" generally involves promoting a heresy, such as that Jesus is Christ and the Son of God, but not part of the Trinity, they aren't exactly apostates lest they begin to proselytize.
Only recently have sociologists began applying the term to include the renunciation of one's former religious tenants, regardless of what these might be or where they come from. If the Witnesses agree that they are employing and introducing a secular term by this type of rendition, so be it, but that would be admitting that they are still inserting a modern term that doesn't quite offer a better solution such as found in the NRSV.
-
CalebInFloroda
After being asked about this privately, I thought I should clarify that the first century use of the term "apostasy" refers to abandoning or rejecting practices, customs, and religious convictions. All these are referred to in Acts 21.21 where Paul is accused of promoting apostasy from Torah observance, the practice of circumcision (which is not technically from the Mosaic Law), and Jewish custom. Only the first, Torah observance, is connected with religion, whereas the others are cultural earmarks.
Today the word "apostasy" is limited to religion. No one is referred to as an "apostate" who abandons their custom or teaches others to abandon their cultural practices these days.
-
fiddler
Reading those bible verses sounds very much like listening to the words and reasoning of Daesh (ISIS).
But of course, they are both MIddle Eastern, tribal, patriarchal barbarians.
-
Vidiot
Watchtower-Free - "Did Jehovah's Witnesses dishonestly insert the word 'Apostate' in their custom version of the Bible?"
I think a better question might be, "What took 'em so long?"