Undeclared changes to the 2013 NWT

by Doug Mason 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  Bobcat:
  

  "Another interesting change in the 2013 NWT:

  (1 Corinthians 16:2 Old NWT) . . .Every first day of the week let each of YOU at his own house set something aside in store as he may be prospering, so that when I arrive collections will not take place then.

  (1 Corinthians 16:2 rNWT) . . .On the first day of every week, each of you should set something aside according to his own means, so that collections will not take place when I arrive. . .

  The bolded, underlined part in the old was removed in the new."

  Apparently, the NW translator responsible for this verse attempted to clarify the Greek expression "each one of you beside himself let him be putting treasuring up... "
  

  Interestingly, the Pulpit Commentary made this comment: "The Greek phrase implies that the laying up was done at home, but when the money was accumulated, it was doubtless brought to the assembly and handed over to the presbyters."

  And A. T. Robertson wrote: "By himself, in his home." (Word Pictures in the New Testament)

  Translator J. N. Darby reflected this same understanding by translating the verse thus: "On [the] first of [the] week let each of you put by at home, laying up [in] whatever [degree] he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come." (Underline added. Brackets his.)

  It is amazing how Bible translators by personal whim choose to clarify certain portions of Scripture, but leave other obscure expressions untouched. Hard choices to be made, for sure. In this case, the Greek text does not explicitly say "at his own house," but it is implied, as indicated. Is this over-translation?

  At any rate, the 2013 NWT edition did away with a lot of extra wording in some texts.
  
• 

  careful

  Wonderment, thank you for your work!
  
  Of course, the NWT translators have made a point that in this revision the older versions of the NWT have become more readable, often in spite of the difficulty of the Hebrew (see, for example, Gen. 48:22; Ex. 1:21; Job 12:5-6). So why did they only partially do so here? They are willing to change "Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed" to "Honor the son, or God will become indignant," but not provide a meaningful translation for "perish in the way." Doesn't that seem odd? In hundreds of other passages they opted for the renderings in translations like the NIV, NEB, and so on, so why not here? Taking refuge in the difficult Hebrew while having the courage to work with that same handicap elsewhere seems inconsistent, eh?
  
  For instance, consider these intelligible translations:
  "and you are struck down in mid course," NEB.
  "and your way come to nothing," NJB.
  "and your way be doomed," NJPS/Tanakh.
  "and your ways will be destroyed," NIV.
  
  Wouldn't one of these renderings have been suitable here, rather than leave the reader wondering what the phrase means while the org. claims to make the Scriptures understandable?

  
  
• 

  Wonderment

  Other rendering of Psalm 2.12: "Obey the Son completely, or he will be angry. Your way of life will lead to your death." (NIrV) By the way, others make the reference of "he" in the subtext to God, rather than the Son, like the NIrv and ISV do here.

  careful: They [the NWT tranlators] are willing to change "Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed" to "Honor the son, or God will become indignant," but not provide a meaningful translation for "perish in the way." Doesn't that seem odd? In hundreds of other passages they opted for the renderings in translations like the NIV, NEB, and so on, so why not here?

  You have made a valid observation. There is always a risk of making the translation verbose, as did the original NWT. Obviously, the translators made an effort to simplify the text, and to keep paraphrasings to a minimum in the new edition. Psalm 2.12 is an example of this. We the readers cannot always agree with the translator's choices as to what they decide to clarify or not. Frequently, it is a personal matter for a given clarification. That's why there are so many versions.