by Sauerkraut 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
From what I heard, on this year's District Conventions JWs were discouraged from learning and looking into the original Greek of the Scriptures. I wasn't there (fortunately!) so I can't say how exactly it was phrased and explained, but it's no wonder they don't want people analyzing the original Greek.
@Weana: feel free to ask him. I certainly don't know what he says about that.
That is not really a fair comment Sulla. The divine name has an undeniable right to be in the OT and BeDuhn commends the NWT for restoring it, whereas nearly all other popular Bibles are guilty of removing it from the OT and replacing it with a surrogate when they had no right to. The NIV, for example, does not even bother to put Lord in upper case (as in LORD) in those instances where it replaces YHWH. Why?
Most Bibles are just as guilty of following agendas and human traditions in using the Lord in place of the the divine name in the 6,800 or so places it occurs in OT, but do they get scathed for it? Instead, the Watchtower gets scathed for inserting 'Jehovah' as a surrogate for God in the NT 237 times when most of those times the identity is unquestionably God, the Father, not Jesus. How is that any more absurd than what most other Bibles do?
I have to say that I was pretty disappointed with the book. I found it rather subjective the way he compared the NWT vis-a-vis other translations. The determination of bias was dependent on his opinion of how certain texts, particularly very controversial ones, ought to be understood. He has an informed opinion, but there are other informed opinions on these texts, and I found the discussion often somewhat superficial. There is room for disagreement across scholarship wrt many of these controversial passages, and I just don't think any one scholar's exegetical opinion is the most reliable standard for assessing bias. Arguing whether a rendering is defensible is not necessarily the same thing as showing the extent to which it reflects a theological bias.
I think a much better, more objective, approach is to examine how the NWT's translation choices can be traced to preferred readings already adopted by the Society and attested in the literature for some time prior to the translation work. What I have noticed time and time again is that in places where the NWT takes a controversial or uncommon rendering in a given passage, if you look at the pre-NWT literature of the Watchtower Society (such as in publications of the Rutherford era), you will often find that the Society has already used a rendering or an interpretive tradition that anticipates what is later found in the NWT. That means that the NWT translators did not approach their project without already established interpretive traditions towards various passages in the Bible. The translation choices made in the NWT thus reflect particular beliefs and interpretations already adopted by the Watchtower Society; they represent a theological Tendenz peculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses. This would be akin to examining how the LXX adopts translation choices that reflect Hellenistic thought.
I personally believe that this type of analysis would elucidate the very purpose of the translation. Prior to 1950, Jehovah's Witnesses used a very eclectic range of translations to support the Watchtower Society's interpretation of the Bible. The field ministry however required (in terms of practicality) the use of just one main translation, the ASV, and it disagreed with JW doctrine on many points. So it was advantageous to develop a translation that agreed fully with JW doctrine as it existed in 1950. It was a translation that consolidated the favorite readings of controversial passages into a single text. My approach thus would have another implication: Since JW doctrine has changed since 1950 (or since 1961 when the NWT was complete), the original edition of the NWT would have a poorer fit with present-day JW doctrine than it had with the intellectual climate at the time it was produced. Indeed the NWT has been revised a number of times since the fifties, and I think the changes reflect not better knowledge of the text through manuscript discoveries (the NWT has not been revised according to a more current critical text than the outdated W&H) but occasionally doctrinal changes that occurred in the organization since 1950. So I think a good case for bias can potentially be made from both ends, from looking at literature prior to the 1950s and also by looking at the literature published after that time.
Good work, Sauerkraut. This complements that article on xjw.com that is a synopsis of the booklet "Where Is The Great Crowd Serving God" by the late Jon Mitchell (former secretary to the GB--rip) in collusion with his close friend, the late Ray Franz. In the booklet and article, it is revealed that Frederick Franz lied in one WT article about interpretation of naos (the temple's inner sanctuary, Holy of Holies). The following is quoted from that article:
===============================
Reports of "apostate" teachings reached the ears of the Governing Body in 1980 and Bethel workers were cautioned not to give ear to these. Nevertheless, the leadership realized they faced a dilemma and they sought to smooth things over by promising that answers would be forthcoming in the Society's literature and in special, televised comments presented by members of the writing staff and others at the morning breakfast table. The August 15, 1980 issue of The Watchtower addressed the questions concerning the Society's two-class interpretation of Scripture in an article entitled "The 'Great Crowd' Renders Sacred Service Where?" The author was presumed to be Frederick Franz. The article attempted to make a case that the word naos was sometimes used in the Bible to mean the entire temple complex, not just the inner sanctuary. (This is a crucial point since the inner sanctuary pictures heaven.) The following chart appeared on page 15 claiming scriptural examples of naos referring to the "entire temple," including the Court of the Gentiles.
The Greek word na·os' refers often to the inner sanctuary representing heaven itself
• BUT it was the entire temple (na·os') that had been 46 years in the building
• It was the entire temple (na·os') that was destroyed as a judgment from God
• It was from the courts of the outer temple (na·os') that Jesus drove the money changers
• It was in the outer temple (na·os') that Judas threw back the 30 pieces of silver
• HENCE it is consistent that the "great crowd" serve God in the earthly court of the spiritual temple
---The Watchtower - August 15, 1980, page 15Normally, Jehovah's Witnesses are content to accept information presented in The Watchtower without question. But, in this case, some highly respected and admired members of the Watchtower headquarters staff had been disfellowshiped on charges of "apostasy." This prompted other members to verify the points made, and what they discovered was shocking. The Watchtower article had refrained from citing the scripture references for the above statements. However, contrary to the clear implications of the summary chart, a search of the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures revealed that the word naos did not even appear in two of the Biblical accounts to which the statements alluded. Specifically, it is hieron, not naos, which appears in all of the verses which describe the following events:
It was from the court of the outer temple (hieron--not naos) that Jesus drove the money changers. (See Matt. 21:12, Mark 11:15,
Luke 19:45 and John 2:14,15 in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation.)It was the entire temple (hieron--not naos) that was destroyed as a judgment from God. (See Matt. 24:1,2, Mark 13:1-3 and
Luke 21:5,6 in the Kingdom Interlinear.)Additionally, research showed that the other two Biblical accounts referred to (Matt. 27:5 and John 2:19,20) were by no means indisputable examples of texts in which the term naos is used to describe the whole temple area.
This blatant misrepresentation of scripture (and now evident mistreatment of sincere Christians, in the spirit of Matt.24:48,49 and 3John 9,10) in an effort to uphold the Society's doctrine greatly troubled those who were seeking to validate the information presented in the Watchtower article.
=============================
Btw Hi, Sauerkraut . . .
~Binadub (aka Ros)
Leolaia said: "That means that the NWT translators did not approach their project without already established interpretive traditions towards various passages in the Bible."
Leo, I agree! ... but how is this any different from the practice of most translators?
The English Standard Version says in its Introduction: "The doctrinal perspective of the ESV Sudy Bible is that of classic evangelical orthodoxy, in the historic stream of the Reformation. [...] The ESV Bible tranlstion work involved more than 100 Bible scholars and advisors....all of whom are committed to historic Christian orthodoxy. [...] And so to our triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) ... Soli Deo Gloria!--To God alone be the glory!]"
Now, if you look into their translation, you will see evidence throughout that they kept their intention. Seems to me the ESVBible ‘approached their project with already established interpretive traditions towards various passages in the Bible.’ The same could be said of the NIV project, or any other.
Oh I don't disagree with you; bias is inevitable in translation. And I do agree with BeDuhn's main point about the relationship between literalness and bias; certainly bias piles on more and more when you move more into the direction of a paraphrase. My point is that assessing the nature of the bias gets to be subjective when you are comparing it against your own interpretation of what the text means. (And in a number of cases, I felt that the discussion wasn't really sufficient.) Also I feel bias is more about partiality than it is about accuracy. The former can be established much more objectively than the latter.
bump
