My interest in this revised NWT

by Doug Mason 37 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    The biases of the earlier iteration of the NWT have been known and discussed from the appearance of the first appearance in 1950, and I assume the revised edition will be affected by the same prejudicial biases. One can cynically subscribe to the view that this is a financial bonanza and possibly a distraction from the imminent centenary of that distant significant date.

    My interest will be to see how the impact of this revision evolves, particularly in the area of the WTS's support material and on the impact its release will have on Witnesses. Some preliminary thoughts are:

    1. Does the NT still accept the 27 NT books provided to it by the 4th century Trinitarian Church, including Athanasius and the Roman Emperors?

    2. Does the OT retain an allegiance to the Hebrew text or to the Septuagint (for example with Jeremiah, especially in regards to the "70 years")?

    3. Will it say the changes are due to a better understanding, to Lower Criticism, additional information since the last release of the NWT, to recognition that the MSS evidence shows that the text is unreliable and has to be reconstructed by Lower Critics?

    4. Which text(s) does the revised NWT rely on (eg., Westcott-Hort; Textus Receptus; MT; variety of LXX), or had it constructed its own source from a selection from many sources (eclectic)?

    5. How will the WTS manage the transition from the previous version to this one?

    6. Will any JW prefer to refer to the earlier version? If so, what will the WTS's attitude be to those who do not change over?

    7. Will the over familiarity with the earlier text unnerve any? (Over time, they managed to wean a previous generation on to their translation).

    Mostly, I guess I am interested in the last question; so I would like to hear any anecdotal evidence (not assumptions or hearsay).

    Can anyone tell me how I may obtain a soft copy of the revised NWT as well as any supporting material produced by the WTS?

    Doug

  • Julia Orwell
    Julia Orwell

    Apparently you can get it from jw.org from Monday.

    I have a jw friend who is furious about the changes, especially the omissions from John n mark.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Julia,

    Thank you.

    Doug

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    You are way overthinking some of this, Doug.

    There is no way they will accept different books, fewer or greater, than before.

    This will be just a dumbed-down version of the original NWT. The appropriate abbreviation could be NNWT.

    Your question 3 is quite the interesting one, though.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    OTWO,

    Apologies for the way my mind works. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with it.

    You made me smile, anyway.

    Doug

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Julia,

    If your JW friend is upset about changes, maybe he might find these Studies of mine of use:

    http://www.jwstudies.com/How_do_we_know_that_our_copies_of_the_Scriptures_are_authentic.pdf

    http://www.jwstudies.com/We_can_be_sure.pdf

    Doug

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    I await more thoughts from you Doug, when you get hold of a copy.

    I will take a stab at your 4th point/question. before doing so, I will take an educated (58 years of experience within the WT) guess that this is not really much of a "revised" version, just a few, mainly unimportant tweaks with the English language, which they never seemed to have agood grasp of, let alone the original languages.

    I remember the early 1950's version said "and the Nile fairly stank" ???????

    As to your 4th point, I think they will still use an eclectic list of manuscripts, blithely ignoring the best manuscript evidence quite often, and I think they will take scant notice of the modern scholarship that brings us some very good translations/renderings from honest, learned men and women who are attempting to bring us, as much as is possible, the thoughts of the original writers.

    The WT, in the NWT in its earlier incarnations ignored any scholarship that showed the error or weakness of their own doctrines. I am sure they will continue to do so.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    It's mostly a matter of changing the language to be more streamlined. The only references I've seen to manuscript evidence are the removal of the sections in John and Mark and this change in Matthew 7:13:

    1984: Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction...

    2013: ...because broad is the gate and spacious is the road...

    They explain in the appendix that "further study" (by who?) "of the manuscript evidence led to the conclusion that 'is the gate' was in the original text." They say that there are a number of similar adjustments, but these are not listed. I suppose we'll find out as soon as Monday when someone does a text comparison.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Even their wording justifying their changes shows a neat bit of mind control for the ordinary ignorant JW to suck up.

    There are no "original manuscripts", nobody can know for sure what was written, Lower Criticism makes an educated guess.

    But all we have, for the N.T, is a few fragments of script prior to the third century A.D. The 3rd century and later M.S that we have are of course copies of copies of copies, known to contain errors and deliberate redaction etc

    The average JW knows nothing of this.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    To be fair, for the addition of "is the gate", they didn't say they knew for sure what was in the original manuscripts, just that they came to the "conclusion" that it was in the original text, which is acknowledging that they don't have the original text itself.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit