Earnest
I believe that we should be cautious and/or discreet in how we refer to the work of any religious group. Yes, we should be careful about how we word our negative comments as well. With that in mind, I humbly submit the following about the Emphatic Diaglott.
I have two editions of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott both dated 1942 and both published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. One of them reads differently in the footnote for 1John 5:7 from the other. One states that "This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century." The other states "fifth" century. A book the WTB&TS published titled, "Let God Be True" presented the footnote the way it was in the revised edition of the Diaglott (15th century). The 1st edition of the Diaglott, which I have in my collection, states at 1 John 5:7 footnote "fifth century." So, I wrote the WT Society on July 26, 1971 about this contradiction in dates.
In their reply, dated August 17, 1971, the WT Society stated: "The 'Let God Be True' quoted the Emphatic Diaglott and did so for the sake of furnishing authoritative support to the argument in the text of the book. Since Wilson and the Emphatic Diaglott misquoted the original source of information, using 'fifth' instead of 'fifteenth,' then it was perfectly proper for the 'Let God Be True' book to present the correct quotation, instead of Wilson's incorrect quotation... Wilson did not mean for incorrect information to be contained in his footnote and we do not know whether he was incorrect in his original printing of this footnote... So the 'Let God Be True' book presented the footnote the way it has been corrected in the revised edition of the Diaglott and which conforms to the original source of the footnote (Newcome's translation of 1808), which footnote Wilson intended to be correct, and which may have been correct in its first printing."
The first edition read "fifth century" and was an incorrect quotation, not from Newcome's translation of 1808 for I have a copy of it also, but from Belsham's revision of Newcome's translation which was published in 1809, which I also have in my collection.
The problem is this: the WT Society changed Wilson's text and did not state so in their copy of his work. Neither 1942 edition states "Revised" anywhere on the title page or anywhere else in the Diaglott. They were using Wilson as a authoritative support when he did not say 15th century and not telling anyone that was the case.
It makes no difference whether Wilson made an error in his quote from Belsham's translation of the N.T. or not. Maybe he meant to change it to what he had in his Diaglott. Maybe he did not agree with Belsham. Who is the WT Soc. to say that he made a mistake and so change HIS work and then pass it off as HIS words to support their agreement.
Sure, if I was in the position of the WT Society, I would have corrected the quotation and would have made a note that I corrected it on the title page. You just don't pass off something you did and lead the readers to believe that it was the original work of whoever. (To me that is lying to your readers.)
Now, it appears that the Gideons are doing the same thing. They are making changes to the text and not saying so and where the charges are located and passing them off as the original text of the NIV or whichever translation or version they changed. It does not matter whether they had approval from the copyright holders or not. The right thing to do is to place a statement on the title page: "Revised Edition by the Gideons"
rev. typos
Edited by - bchamber on 27 August 2002 18:38:44
