Well they call themselves a new "translation committee", that would imply, well, translation.
So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?
by sir82 79 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Apognophos
Either that, or it "implies" that they're hiding in the shadow of the original committee so we can't tell who did what
-
wasblind
Just to be clear, I don't really believe that the the original committee was qualified enough to do thier own translation ( and in any case they used pre-existing scholarly work as a guide)."______Apognosphos
Point taken , I agree
SBF spoke of Fred franz on the " use of scholarly langauge , as if to convey that he understood the scholarly liturature and knew what he was talking about on linguistic matters."
In my neck of the woods, we call that puttin' up a front
.
-
Wonderment
Apognophos said: "Just to be clear, I don't really believe that the original Committee was qualified enough to do their own translation (and in any case they used pre-existing scholarly works as a guide)."
How can you be so sure? The only people who seem so sure of what you said are anti-JWs, mainly dubious Evangelicals, per Ray Franz. Even the info Ray Franz provided was not complete, and virtually admitted that Fred was self-taught. He later told many others that his footnote was blown out of proportion, and that he felt that Fred had enough knowledge to make a creditable translation. It is not clear who else worked with Fred. It is a kept secret, just as the practice of what many Corporations are working on next it is not made publicly known.
Contrary to common belief that the NWT Committee had cero knowledge of the original languages, the translation itself testifies that someone did. There are far too many language particulars and difficulties to deal with, and some hard decisions to be made. The NWT made decisions which show someone had sufficient knowledge in those languages. Some scholars have admitted to that. Why not take their word for once instead of just taking specific statements made by ultra-zealous religious opponents only?
Take Judges 14:3, where alledgedly Goodspeed found the NWT grammar "regrettable." The problem was that the NWT Committee was too concerned back then in the 1950's to follow the Hebrew word for word, and aimed to provide the reader with Hebrew flavor. The text will show what Samson said to his father (Samson was interested in a Philistine woman in this case).
1953: NWT Edition: “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.”
1984 Edition: "Get just her for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes."
2013 Edition: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”
Which one better reflects the Hebrew better? I would say the 1953 & 1984 Editions provided finer Hebrew details left out in the Revision. However, most people would rather read the Revised reading because it is simply more readable. But to provide the earlier reading, some Hebrew knowledge is required to get the pulse of the original statement with its Hebrew idiom and particular emphasis in a couple of places. The Committee obviously tried to convey the Hebrew closely.
If Goodspeed criticized the translation there, it was the English choice for the Hebrew. He was not attacking the lack of Hebrew knowledge of the translators. Actually, Goodspeed praised the NWT Committee for its depth of knowledge. However, as we all know, the original NWT was very un-English...almost like reading Hebrew with English words. The 2013 Edition smoothed out the Hebrew readings quite a bit, a daunting task which does require some knowledge of the originals as well, unless they are willing to make an ass of themselves, which I doubt is the case here.
I
-
5go
From what little I read of the thing it looks like someone put it through a standard grammar check program and replaced older and inconveint words with new ones.
-
Wonderment
5go: "From what little I read of the thing it looks like someone put it through a standard grammar check program and replaced older and inconveint words with new ones."
It is not as simple as that. As the NWT expressed it: "There is no benefit in self-deception."
-
jemba
My first question is why on earth did they need to change the bible? Has God gone and stuffed up again?
-
smiddy
The GB are neither hebrew nor greek scholars, and none of the other anointed can provide food at the proper time since that is restricted to the 8 man FDS.
And they as sure as hell havent got anything right either.
smiddy
-
Jeffro
It's a revision. It's not a re-translation.
-
Wonderment
Jemba:
For the same reason that most Bibles are updated... Language changes, new discoveries, new scholarly works available (like more recent Hebrew-Greek Texts), plus the fact, that humans involved in the translation process learn new things as time goes by, and feel the need to share those with others. Who stays still? If we stay still, we die.
Besides, who wants to keep using the Vulgate, Tyndale's, the King James' Version, Moffatts translation or some other every day, when there are dozens of new versions which are more up to date than those for instance? Not to mention, that everyone working with theirown versions are convinced of the rightness of their biblical interpretation, even if they are "wrong" to others.