Grace vs. Undeserved Kindness

by bats in the belfry 3 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bats in the belfry

  Just doing some research on the WT Lib CD - - wow, the balls these people have is just unbearable.

  ? Is not the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures verbose, for instance, in using “catches sight of” for “sees” at 1 John 5:16 and “undeserved kindness” for “grace”?—J. S., United States.

  You do not state whether you have studied the koiné Greek of the Bible or not, but, if not, then, because of your unfamiliarity therewith, the way the New World Translation Committee renders some Greek verbs and terms and expressions in English may seem strained to you or verbose. But not so according to one acquainted with the Greek. The Greek verb rendered “catches sight of” in the New World Translation is in a peculiar tense of the Greek language, the aorist, and refers not to a repetition of acts or to a continuing action but to just one instance of the act. The use of the present tense of the verb “see,” namely, “sees,” as in the King James Version, does not bring out accurately the singular meaning of the verb here in the aorist tense, the catching of a person, as you say, red-handed, in the act.

  Likewise with the expression “undeserved kindness.” It is simply because people do not understand the meaning of this Scriptural Greek word in its several uses that the New World Translation Committee made the meaning unmistakable by the use of the above expression. In English the word “grace” has fourteen or more different meanings. Which one does it mean, as at John 1:14 (AV), “full of grace and truth”? Does it mean there “gracefulness”? Or “favor”? Or “the grant of temporary immunity”? Or what? The New World Translation leaves no doubt as to the meaning but renders it “undeserved kindness,” in keeping with the context, as, for instance, the succeeding verse 17.

  So we appreciate the New World Translation for its attention to detail and its sincere effort to bring out the exact shade of meaning of the original koiné Greek rather than bring out a slipshod translation with an equivocal meaning.

  w56 7/1 p. 415
• 

  moggy lover

  It is hard to assess the correctness of the NW"T" here in the two cases you cited. Verbosity was a characteristic of Frederick Franz, the chief architect of this [per]version of Scripture. It has in fact been estimated that the Watchtower Bible is almost one third larger than other English language translations. [Compare Ro 13:1 where the NW"T" uses 30 words to say the same thing that NSAB does in 25]

  In 1 Jo 5:16, the word "horaw" is used in the aorist tense, and in the subjunctive mood. The main thrust of the subjunctive is to indicate that the action of the verb is possible, depending on contextual nuances, [hence our English "might" "should" "could" etc], but in main clauses or in purpose clauses, then the action does take on a more definite nuance. Thus in the aor subj, the emphasis should be on the mood of the verb, rather than the punctiliar or single action usage.

  The same construction as used at 1 Jo 15:16 occurs 4 other times, and in NONE of these has the NW"T" used the expression "catch sight of".

  At Lu 2:26, the aor subj is "translated" as a perfect - "had seen"

  At Lu 19:4 - it is made into an infinitive in the English "to see"

  At Jo 8:56 it is made into a participle, "seeing" and

  At 1 Cor 8:10 is is "translated" as it should, that is, a subjunctive - "Should see"

  Compare the KIT translations at each of these verses.

  I think the point that John is making at 1 Jon 5:16 is that a possibility may occur, when a disciple could, or might see his brother sinning, in which case he need do something...

  As far as ""undeserved kindness" is concerned, it is not necessarily wrong, but may not capture the entire range of meaning inherent in the word. It does not necessarily point to God's "kindness" or even that it is "undeserved". It is a word of blessing based on the immutable characteristic of God's love. Hence it is better translated as "favour", and God's favour is not undeserved so much as it is unmerited, or unearned. We cannot earn the favour or blessing of God, it is a free gift. Hence if one feels the need to unpack the term "Grace" which is perfectly adequate to express the Greek, then "unmerited favour" is probably better.

  I rather suspect, however, that Franz's need to use "undeserved kindness" was not so much to pay attention to "accuracy" as it was a result of his own personal prejudice. It is a word much favoured by Evangelicals, whom Franz despised, hence his "purer" alternative.
• 

  BroMac

  In 1 Jo 5:16, the word "horaw" is used in the aorist tense, and in the subjunctive mood. The main thrust of the subjunctive is to indicate that the action of the verb is possible, depending on contextual nuances, [hence our English "might" "should" "could" etc], but in main clauses or in purpose clauses, then the action does take on a more definite nuance. Thus in the aor subj, the emphasis should be on the mood of the verb, rather than the punctiliar or single action usage.

  It's all Greek to me! I dont understand a word of it....

  As far as ""undeserved kindness" is concerned, it is not necessarily wrong, but may not capture the entire range of meaning inherent in the word. It does not necessarily point to God's "kindness" or even that it is "undeserved". It is a word of blessing based on the immutable characteristic of God's love. Hence it is better translated as "favour", and God's favour is not undeserved so much as it is unmerited, or unearned. We cannot earn the favour or blessing of God, it is a free gift. Hence if one feels the need to unpack the term "Grace" which is perfectly adequate to express the Greek, then "unmerited favour" is probably better.

  Thats better..nicely explained. thankyou its a concept i'm not familiar with.
• 

  Wonderment

  moggy lover:

  The aorist and the subjunctive are dealt variably in translation according to the context. There is quite a bit of leeway in translation. In certain contexts, the aorist is best rendered in a punctiliar sense, in others, with a past tense, and so on. The subjunctive does not always require to use "should," "may," etc. in translation.

  This tense and mood have brought many a headache to translators. For instance, at John 17:3, some translators render the Greek, "that they may be knowing you" as an infinitive "to know you." It is possible to do so.

  At 1 John 5:16, one could say it is not modern English to render it literally: "If ever anyone should see the brother of him sinning..." The expression "If anyone catches sight of his brother sinning" brings out the aorist subjunctive well, in my opinion. Moffat expresses this way: "If anyone notices his brother committing a sin..." Other translators read: "If anyone sees his brother sinning..." All of these readings view the condition as a possibility, without having to use "should," etc. It is virtually impossible to translate aorist subjunctives exactly the same way in a modern translation.