New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort

by Dogpatch 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Dogpatch

  The Watchtower?s New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort

  The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Revised Edition claims to be ?a modern-language translation of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, first published by them in the year 1881 C.E.? according to the title page of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969 edition.

  History of The New World Translation

  The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was first issued to the general public in 1950 and revised in 1951. For purposes of the present discussion, these editions may be considered identical and will be referenced as NWT *.

  In 1961, the NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures was combined with the five volumes of the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures in a ?compact version? which eliminated the front matter of the two prior editions. Further revisions of the compact version were made in 1970, 1981 and 1984. Do not try to find the quotations about Westcott and Hort in these ?compact? editions.

  In 1963, the NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures was combined with NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures in an edition that did include the front matter, but with different pagination. This (original) ?large print edition? will be reference as NWT 63.

  In 1969, the NWT was combined with ?a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in ?The New Testament in the Original Greek ? the Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D.? (1948 Reprint)? under the title: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures [hereinafter referenced as KIT 69]. The point should be emphasized that the ?word-for-word translation? is the work of Fred Franz, Vice President of the Watchtower Society at the time. Only the Greek text is said to be ?Westcott and Hort? and that claim is open to question.

  In 1985, a revised KIT was issued which will be referenced as KIT 85. A few words vary from KIT 69 and the page numbering is different. In most respects KIT 85 and KIT 69 are identical.

  Other versions of NWT exist. To avoid confusing the reader (you) most of the references presented will refer to KIT 69 (700,000 in print) or the current KIT 85 (only 100,000 in print). One or the other should be available from any Kingdom Hall.

  Westcott and Hort

  The Westcott and Hort Greek text [hereinafter referenced as W&H ] was prepared in 1881 by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The title is The New Testament in the Original Greek. Although it has gone through many printings, W&H is unchanged for more than a century. Macmillan is still the publisher. W&H did not make an English translation ? just a Greek text of the most likely ?Original? text.

  Two Questions from Readers

  First: Does the Watchtower Society claim that NWT is a translation of W&H ? According to KIT 69, page 9, and NWT *, page 8:

  The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) ? Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.

  Yes, the Watchtower Society does claim that NWT is a translation of W&H ( KIT 85, pages 8-9).

  Moreover, the Watchtower Society promises in NWT * (page 8) and KIT 69 (page 9): Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.

  Second: Is NWT a translation of W&H , as the Watchtower Society claims? Examining a few specific texts and their footnotes will answer this question. Are you prepared to face the truth?

  W&H WORDS LEFT OUT

  Luke 10:1 ? The Seventy-?Two?

  NWT says: ?After these things the Lord designated seventy others . . .? but in KIT 69 and KIT 85 the left-hand column clearly says, ?seventy-two.?

  If NWT is a translation of W&H then NWT must say ?seventy-two? as W&H clearly does. If this is one of the places NWT has ?varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text? then a footnote should ?show the basis for [the] preferred reading.? And yet, no footnote accompanies the text.

  If NWT is correct and Luke did originally say seventy rather than seventy-two, these facts remain: 1) The Watchtower Society said they were translating W&H , but they did not, and 2) The Watchtower Society promised to give reasons in a footnote if they varied from W&H , but they did not. There is a word for a person who says one thing and does another. Jesus sometimes used it to describe those who opposed him.

  Romans 8:1 ? Now No Condemnation

  ?Therefore those in Christ Jesus now have no condemnation.? ?No condemnation? is not something that happens in the future; it belongs right now to all who are in Christ Jesus. ?Really, there is now nothing to condemn those in Christ Jesus.? Paul said ?now? because he meant ?now? ? he wanted to emphasize ?no condemnation now? ... should we weaken his words? KIT 69 (page 712) and KIT 85 (page 696) both clearly contain the Greek word nun (now); so does W&H , but it is not in NWT .

  If NWT is a translation of W&H then NWT must say ?now? as W&H clearly does. If this is one of the places NWT has ?varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text? then a footnote should ?show the basis for [the] preferred reading.? And yet, no footnote accompanies the text.

  If NWT is correct and Paul did not originally say ?now? there is no evidence of it, and these facts remain: 1) The Watchtower Society said they were translating W&H , but they did not, and 2) The Watchtower Society promised to give reasons in a footnote if they varied from W&H , but they did not.

  John 14:14 ? Jesus Teaches His Disciples to Pray to Him

  According to KIT , ?if ever anything YOU should ask me in the name of me this I shall do.? If NWT is a translation of W&H then it should say, ?If you ask me anything in my name I will do it.? Here Jesus is teaching his disciples to pray to him and to expect answers from him. (True, in other places he teaches them to pray to his Father and to expect answers from his Father, but here he teaches them to pray to himself and to expect answers from himself.) Obviously they followed this teaching and became known as those ?who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2).? Was the translator careless, or was he trying to hide something?

  If NWT is correct and John did not originally record the word ?me? found in W&H , these facts remain: 1) The Watchtower Society said they were translating W&H , but they did not, and 2) The Watchtower Society promised to give reasons in a footnote if they varied from W&H , but they did not. There is a word for a person who says one thing and does another. Jesus sometimes used it to describe those who opposed him. Does it apply to the Watchtower Society? Would הוהי refer to the Society as ?hypocrite?? Would you?

  WORDS ADDED INTO W&H

  2 Corinthians 5:5 ? The Token of ? insert any six words you want here ? the Spirit

  According to KIT 85, page 798 [ KIT 69, page 814], God has given us ?the token of the spirit? but NWT says, ?the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit.? Does this mean that the Watchtower Society knows better than Paul what he should have said? Inserting one word can change a sentence. Inserting six words in a row anytime one feels like it can make the Bible say anything! The translator could as easily have said, God has given us ?the token of demonism, that is, the spirit,? and English readers would never know the difference unless they checked KIT . Even checking KIT is not always enough as will be seen in the next section. Meanwhile, if NWT is correct and Paul did originally forget to record the words in question, these facts remain: 1) The Watchtower Society said they were translating W&H , but they did not, and 2) The Watchtower Society promised to give reasons in a footnote if they varied from W&H , but they did not.

  Matthew 12:47 [Omitted by W&H]

  The real W&H texts published by Macmillan and other publishers do not contain Matthew 12:47; however, NWT and KIT do contain the verse. Why? According to KIT 85, page 6: ?OMITTED VERSES: Verses found in the King James Version of 1611 but not found in the Westcott and Hort Greek text are omitted and are indicated by the verse number followed by a long dash.? [ KIT 69 adds a few words to this sentence.] This practice is followed at places like John 5:4, but is not at Matthew 12:47. Why? Moreover, if NWT is correct and Matthew did originally record the words in question, these facts remain: 1) The Watchtower Society said they were translating W&H , but they did not, and 2) The Watchtower Society promised to give reasons in a footnote if they varied from W&H , but they did not. Isn?t that ?hypocritical?? Is it honest translation?

  Two Questions from Readers ? Can You Answer Them?

  First: Does the WTB&TS claim that NWT is a translation of W&H ? Yes □ No □

  Second: Is NWT a translation of W&H , as the Watchtower Society claims? Yes □ No □

  Please mark your honest answers so we will know where to begin discussion next time.

  More Info? Contact: [email protected] -- 602-438-9202

  posted by Randy Watters

  http://www.randytv.com
• 

  Room 215

  Nice work, Randy; another graphic example of intellectual dishonesty to add to the pile.
• 

  Earnest

  Randy,

  This article is misleading to the extent of being dishonest. It says :

  First: Does the Watchtower Society claim that NWT is a translation of W&H ? According to KIT 69, page 9, and NWT *, page 8:
  

  The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) ? Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.

  Yes, the Watchtower Society does claim that NWT is a translation of W&H ( KIT 85, pages 8-9).

  Moreover, the Watchtower Society promises in NWT * (page 8) and KIT 69 (page 9): Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.

  KIT 69, page 9 says :

  The Greek text that we have used as the basis for the New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its acknowledged excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including those prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle, the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover, and another Jesuit scholar, A. Merk. The UBS text of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the critical apparatus of this edition.

  NWT *, page 8 says:

  The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk. Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.

  It is quite clear that although the Greek text is that of Westcott & Hort, the translation also takes into consideration a number of other Greek texts. Note also that the text highlighted about showing the basis for the preferred reading is only in the foreword of NWT * and so it is there we should look for the footnotes.

  The article then says :

  Second: Is NWT a translation of W&H , as the Watchtower Society claims? Examining a few specific texts and their footnotes will answer this question. Are you prepared to face the truth?

  A cursory reading of the foreword shows that the NWT takes other Greek texts into consideration and so is not solely a translation of W&H. So the insistence that the W&H text be followed despite subsequent textual criticism has no substance at all. Nevertheless, let's consider the examples provided :

  Luke 10:1 ? The Seventy-?Two?

  NWT says: ?After these things the Lord designated seventy others . . .? but in KIT 69 and KIT 85 the left-hand column clearly says, ?seventy-two.?

  If NWT is a translation of W&H then NWT must say ?seventy-two? as W&H clearly does. If this is one of the places NWT has ?varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text? then a footnote should ?show the basis for [the] preferred reading.? And yet, no footnote accompanies the text.

  The footnote to Luke 10:1 in NWT * says :

  Seventy, [Sinaitic MS, Syriac Peshitta]; seventy-two, [Vatican MS No. 1209, Codex Bezae, Latin Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, Syriac Sinaitic codex]

  Just out of interest there is also a QFR on the subject ( w76 10/1 607-8) :

  Some modern Bibles at Luke 10:1 say that Jesus sent out seventy-two disciples, but my Bible says seventy. Why is there a difference?

  The difference results from the fact that ancient manuscript evidence is divided as to the number of disciples Jesus sent out.

  Some ancient Greek manuscripts and versions in other languages read "seventy-two" at Luke 10:1, 17, which mentions the sending out and returning of disciples. This evidence includes the codex Vaticanus (1209) of the fourth century, the codex Bezae (Cantabrigensis) of the fifth or the sixth century, the Latin

  Vulgate and some Syriac versions. On this basis certain translators have departed from the reading "seventy" and used instead "seventy-two." The New English Bible and the Jerusalem Bible are two recent examples. Even scholars Westcott and Hort chose to use this number in the Greek text that they prepared.

  However, there is an abundance of weighty manuscript support for the reading "seventy." That is the reading found in the fourth-century codex Sinaiticus, which is customarily accorded "primacy of position in the list of New Testament manuscripts." "Seventy" is the reading also of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Ephraemi and the Syriac Peshitta, all of the fifth century. Also, Jesus sent out "seventy" disciples according to a third-century papyrus (Chester Beatty 1).?

  The Text of the New Testament (1968).

  Accordingly, many reputable Bible versions retain the well-supported and familiar reading "seventy." The

  New World Translation reads: "After these things the Lord designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come."?Luke 10:1; compare Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version and the translations by R. Weymouth, R. Rieu, K. Wuest, W. Barclay.

  The next example in your article is :

  Romans 8:1 ? Now No Condemnation

  ?Therefore those in Christ Jesus now have no condemnation.? ?No condemnation? is not something that happens in the future; it belongs right now to all who are in Christ Jesus. ?Really, there is now nothing to condemn those in Christ Jesus.? Paul said ?now? because he meant ?now? ? he wanted to emphasize ?no condemnation now? ... should we weaken his words? KIT 69 (page 712) and KIT 85 (page 696) both clearly contain the Greek word nun (now); so does W&H , but it is not in NWT .

  I am a bit unclear what the criticism is. W&H contains the Greek word nun and it is also in KIT with the English equivalent below the Greek. The fact that the English translation does not convey the meaning of nun in the sense your article requires is a matter of translation.

  The New English Bible reads : "The conclusion of the matter is this: there is no condemnation for those who are united in Christ Jesus".

  The New World Translation reads : "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation."

  Both translations convey nun in the sense that as a conclusion of what was previously discussed (in chapter 7) this (8:1) is now the result.

  Next example :

  John 14:14 ? Jesus Teaches His Disciples to Pray to Him

  According to KIT , ?if ever anything YOU should ask me in the name of me this I shall do.? If NWT is a translation of W&H then it should say, ?If you ask me anything in my name I will do it.? Here Jesus is teaching his disciples to pray to him and to expect answers from him. (True, in other places he teaches them to pray to his Father and to expect answers from his Father, but here he teaches them to pray to himself and to expect answers from himself.) Obviously they followed this teaching and became known as those ?who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2).? Was the translator careless, or was he trying to hide something?

  I wondered about this myself and wrote to the Watchtower Society last year. They replied as follows :

  We thank you for your letter in which you draw to our attention the translation of John 14:14 according to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. You wonder why the word "me" of the literal word-for-word translation is omitted in the regular rendering of the New World Translation.

  The reason for the difference relates to the different Greek versions. Although the Westcott and Hort text, used as the basis for the Kingdom Interlinear, includes the word "me," there are other Greek versions which omit the word. Among these is the Greek text used as the basis of The Emphatic Diaglott, which reads: "If anything you may ask in the name of me, I will do." The Rotherham translation reads: "If anything you shall ask [me] in my name the same I will do." By enclosing the "me" in brackets, Rotherham explains that the word is supplied, suggesting that there is some disagreement as to whether or not it should actually appear in the Greek text. Our prayers, of course, ascend to Jehovah through Jesus Christ. He had already told his disciples in the preceding verse that "whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." Since the ascension of Jesus to heaven and the outpouring of the holy spirit at Pentecost 33 C.E., holy spirit has been given to individuals on earth through Jesus Christ and, in turn, our prayers ascend to the Father through Jesus Christ. So, while our petitions are just to the Father, we are, in effect, asking Jesus Christ to help us with our spiritual and material needs. So whether a translator wishes to put in the extra "me" or not, the meaning is the same. - Please see also John 15:16; 16:23.
  

  A similar view is taken by many other translators. For example, the footnote, noting the authorities that read "me," is added to the New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, Today's English Version, the Revised Authorised and Weymouth. But they still leave it out of the main text as does the New World Translation. Others that leave "me" out without any explanation include Young's, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Fenton, Darby, Schonfield, The Jerusalem Bible, Barclay and the careful translation by C. B. Williams. Interestingly, although Alford included it in the textual apparatus of his Greek Testament, and showed that the authorities rejecting it were 'relatively late,' yet in the New Testament translation published in 1869, he did not consider it necessary to amend the Authorised Version rendering. So the vital question of context must be considered in addition to all other factors and in this case a large number of translations have taken that as decisive. In Moffatt's translation, which includes "me," this explanation is offered in the Moffatt New Testament Commentary on John, by G. H. C. MacGregor, page 308: "It seems redundant with 'in my name,' and moreover, the only prayer of which this gospel speaks is prayer to the Father in the name and spirit of Christ not prayer to Christ direct."
  

  We trust the above information proves helpful to you and explains why the New World Translation is justified in rendering John 14:14 as it does. We take this opportunity to send you our warm Christian love etc.

  So the evidence thus far is that not only have the writer(s) of this article misrepresented the Foreword of the NWT, but in each instance considered there have been good, textual reasons for the translations. I will consider the remaining objections tomorrow (d.v.).

  Earnest
• 

  Leolaia

  2 Corinthians 5:5 ? The Token of ? insert any six words you want here ? the Spirit
  

  According to KIT 85, page 798 [ KIT 69, page 814], God has given us ?the token of the spirit? but NWT says, ?the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit.? Does this mean that the Watchtower Society knows better than Paul what he should have said? Inserting one word can change a sentence. Inserting six words in a row anytime one feels like it can make the Bible say anything! The translator could as easily have said, God has given us ?the token of demonism, that is, the spirit,? and English readers would never know the difference unless they checked KIT .

  If the NWT failed to give a footnote, then they should be called on it. But this doesn't appear to be a case of willy-nilly adding whatever word they want, as it is portrayed here, since many other translations render the verse similarly:
  

  "Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." (NIV)

  " Now he who has made us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a witness of what is to come." (BBE)

  "The Spirit of God whets our appetite by giving us a taste of what's ahead." (Message Bible)

  "God has made us for that very purpose. He has given us the Holy Spirit as a down payment. The Spirit makes us sure of what is still to come." (NIRV)

  Unless they are all copying each other, there must be some sort of versional support for this rendering but I haven't yet found any evidence of this (apparently not the Textus Receptus, considering the KJV rendering). As for the insertion of the word "namely", this seems to taking too literally the test for the genitive of apposition which states that the ability to insert an expression like "namely" or "consisting of" in the translation without changing the sense (cf. Brooks & Winbery, Syntax of NT Greek, pp. 15-16). Here is the test stated again in The Basics of NT Syntax by Daniel Wallace (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000): "Every genitive of apposition, like most genitive uses, can be translated with of + the genitive noun. To test whether the genitive in question is a genitive of apposition, replace the word of with the paraphrase 'which is' or 'that is', 'namely,' or, if a personal noun, 'who is'. If it does not make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is unlikely; if it does make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is likely" (p. 52). John 2:21 is given as an example: "He was speaking concerning the temple of his body (= "the temple, which is his body"). The NWT apparently has translated genitives of apposition in such manner as a general rule (and quite unnecessarily). So it is not hard to see where the "that is" comes from, even if it should not be rendered as such.
• 

  Earnest

  This is just to consider the remaining examples provided in the article.

  2 Corinthians 5:5 ? The Token of ? insert any six words you want here ? the Spirit
  

  According to KIT 85, page 798 [ KIT 69, page 814], God has given us ?the token of the spirit? but NWT says, ?the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit.? Does this mean that the Watchtower Society knows better than Paul what he should have said? Inserting one word can change a sentence. Inserting six words in a row anytime one feels like it can make the Bible say anything! The translator could as easily have said, God has given us ?the token of demonism, that is, the spirit,? and English readers would never know the difference unless they checked KIT .

  There are a few thoughts I would add to Leolaia's excellent comments. First, that NWT * does have a footnote on the expression "token of what is to come" in this verse :

  Or, "gave us the earnest money or down payment."

  In fact, some translations (KJV, RV) have "God gave unto us the earnest of the spirit". What does that mean ? "earnest money" is a deposit to purchase real estate that shows you are serious. Nothing to do with me, I'm sorry to say. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by Moulton & Milligan, says of arrabon (p.79):

  The meaning of "earnest-money" (Scottice "arles") is well illustrated by...the Oxyrhynchus Papyri II. 299 (late i/A.D.) "regarding Lampon the mouse-catcher I paid him for you as earnest money [arabona] 8 drachmae in order that he may catch the mice while they are with young". Additional examples are...the engagement of certain dancing girls for a village festival where provision is made that they are to receive so many drachmas "by way of earnest-money [arabonos] to be reckoned in the price." The above vernacular usage amply confirms the NT sense of an "earnest," or part given in advance of what will be bestowed fully afterwards, in 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, Eph 1:14.

  It may be added that in MGr arraboni(a)smene = "the betrothed bride," an interesting reminiscence of the ancient custom of purchasing a wife. In the same way arrabona is used for the engagement-ring.

  So the word does not only mean "token", but means "token of what is to come" and is a legal concept used in the ancient world. Leolaia cited several other translations that render it this way.

  The last example was one which was omitted in W&H but included in the NWT.

  Matthew 12:47 [Omitted by W&H]
  

  The real W&H texts published by Macmillan and other publishers do not contain Matthew 12:47; however, NWT and KIT do contain the verse.

  First of all, it must be said that W&H do have this verse as a marginal note. The NWT * does have a footnote after verse 47 :

  [Sinaitic MS, Vatican MS No.1209, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac] omit verse 47

  Why is it included ? Bruce Metzger says in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p.32 :

  The sentence [verse 47], which seems to be necessary for the sense of the following verses, apparently was accidentally omitted [in some manuscripts] because of homoeoteleuton (["to speak" (at the end of verse 46)]...["to speak" (at the end of verse 47)]). In view, however, of the age and weight of the diverse text-types that omit the words, the Committee [have] a certain amount of doubt concerning their right to stand in the text.

  Verse 47 was included by the first corrector of the Sinaitic MS, it is in the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (fifth century), Codex Bezae (fifth century), Codex Freerianus (fifth century), Codex Dublinensis (sixth century), the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta and Harkleian version. So, again, additional Greek texts were considered to be of greater weight than W&H in this case.

  Randy, you have a lot of good stuff on your website. This is not one of them.

  Earnest
• 

  [email protected]

  Hi Randy,

  I read this piece with interest when you posted it on JWD (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/73252/1.ashx) and wrote a couple of responses which considered each example in turn. It really does seem to me that there is very little merit in the article and it seems to rely on the fact that few people still have the 1950/1 edition of the NWT NT (and those who do would probably not bother reading the article).

  In light of my response I was surprised to receive this link (http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/NWTgreektext.htm) from a friend who knows of my interest in the minutiae of translation. If you do think it merits inclusion on your site perhaps you would care to respond to the points I raised.

  Please do not consider this a criticism of yourself. I'm aware you have a lot on the go and cannot always verify the contents of info passed on to you. I am simply surprised as most of the stuff I have read on your site has stood up well to any verification I've done.

  Regards,

  Earnest

  Hi Earnest,

  Thanks so much for cc: your letter to Randy to me also. I was unaware of JWD and what seems to go on here. Perhaps a little background may help.

  A week ago or so someone asked for a copy of a paper I had written about 20 years ago. Just before that I had come into contact with Randy and thought he might be interested in a copy so I just cc: one to him too. He wrote back and asked if he could post it on his website. I said, ?Sure.? Then, just now, I got your letter and learned of this group ? Randy did not say he was going to post it here, but that?s OK. In fact, I figured few would find it on his website and fewer still would write replies. I?m very glad he posted it here and wish I had known of this bunch before. He probably assumed I already did. But, the credit goes to you, Earnest. Thank you!

  You say you are interested in ?in the minutiae of translation.? Great! Me, too. I hope we can share lottsa good stuff and maybe become friends. I first read the NWT in the individual volumes in 1960. From cover to cover to cover to cover to ?

  Since then I have been making notes and asking JWs about discoveries I made. Frequently, they told me to write to Brooklyn, which I did. I once got one letter in response to one question. Otherwise they just ignored my letters. I even wrote out my questions and gave them to JWs whom I came across from time to time. Every one (of dozens and dozens) promised to do research and get back to me. Only one did get back to me. We started meeting at his office Thursday?s after lunch. Mostly he had no answers. However, he was a leader in one of the circuits here, so he could write to Brooklyn and expect an answer. He avoided writing them, trying to discover answers on his own (I feel this was to his credit). However, he did write with questions that troubled him and he could not begin to answer. The answers that came back ?danced around? the main point of his letters ? my questions. (That?s how he put it ? ?danced around? ? in private conversation with me.) He even had the guts (twice) to write back to Brooklyn, returning the original letter and highlighting the main point telling them they missed it and to please speak to that point. They told him to stop writing because they had nothing more to say on the point. He was to content himself with no answer until it was addressed in the official publications. And, do not write again! [Sorry to drag this story out so long.]

  About 20 years ago I was discussing the Bible with a JW who pulled out her brand new KIT 85. She explained to me (as many Witnesses have) that her interlinear was the work of Westcott and Hort ? Famous Bible scholars at the end of the 19 th century. I explained to her that it was not. Only the Greek came from Westcott and Hort. The stuff between the lines of Greek was the work of Fred Franz (et al.?). ?In fact,? I said to her, ?even the Greek text is not 100% Westcott and Hort ? it has been tampered with. In addition, what is translated in the NWT is not always from W&H and sometimes there is no way to tell without consulting W&H . Would you like some examples?? So, I wrote up that paper and gave it to her. She promised to be back in a week with answers. I told her many people had said that to me before and only one ever got back to me. A month later I tried to call her on the phone. She said she would get back to me. The End.

  So, I was genuinely glad to here from you. Maybe you can provide some answers that others could not. I hope the above helps explain how the article originated (as a personal letter to a Witness), why it ended the way it did, and where it?s been so long.

  Thanks for sending me the copy of the letter to Randy. I?m not sure if I should reply to some of the points you raise, because they were not actually directed to me but to him.

  For the sake of clarity, I think I should answer your points one by one in individual postings. Also, doing it that way may curb my propensity to loquacity. Sesquipedalianism may be another problem of mine. Please pray for me as I attempt to eschew obfuscation. And, I will do the same for you. J

  [The end of the last paragraph is an attempt at humor. The suggestions for prayer are sincere. As I reread it, I can see it is possible to take it other than it was intended ? one of the bad things about writing is that you can?t see the big fat grin on my face.]

  Yours in sifting through

  ?the minutiae of translation,?

  [email protected]
• 

  [email protected]

  Earnest Wrote:

  Hi Randy,

  I read this piece with interest when you posted it on JWD (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/73252/1.ashx) and wrote a couple of responses which considered each example in turn. It really does seem to me that there is very little merit in the article and
• 

  [email protected]

  Something seems to have dropped out of my last posting. Please be patient with me while I learn a new system. Although I have used similar BBS, this one is a little different. Here goes:

  =================================

  Earnest Wrote:

  Hi Randy,

  I read this piece with interest when you posted it on JWD (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/73252/1.ashx) and wrote a couple of responses which considered each example in turn. It really does seem to me that there is very little merit in the article and

  it seems to rely on the fact that few people still have the 1950/1 edition of the NWT NT (and those who do would probably not bother reading the article).

  [email protected] response: The ?official? Foreword was printed in the 1950 Edition that ran nearly half a million copies. The 1951 Edition contained the same Foreword ? word for word, letter for letter. I think somewhere between three and five million of these were printed. The 1963 (big, fat) reference edition also contained the Foreword. So, millions more were printed and current throughout not only the 1950s but the 1960s as well. The 1969 KIT Edition contains the same Foreword ? word for word, letter for letter. Nearly a million copies of it were printed and every JW who wanted to impress others had a KIT 69 throughout the 1970s and 1980s ? right up to the release of the 1984 Reference edition ? and beyond. The KIT 69 was so popular among JWs that, when the revised KIT 85 came out, it was only printed in a run of 100,000 (small by Watchtower standards). Many JWs were content to keep their purple-backed book. I have heard (but cannot document) that some Kingdom Halls had new KIT 69 available into the early 1990s. So, for more than 40 years ? an entire generation ? this Foreword was available to everyone and circulated by the multi-millions. It ain?t that hard to find today. And, finally, to help out those who can?t locate it. I will post the entire original Foreword on a website for you. I?ll get back to you when it?s ready.

  Anyone wanting notification let me know. I will attempt to have it ready by the end of the month. Fair enough?

  Yours in sifting through

  ?the minutiae of translation,?

  [email protected]
• 

  Undaunted Danny

  UH OH! naughty naughty:
  Revelation 22
  18 I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book;
• 

  Earnest

  I'm glad that you took the opportunity to respond on JWD. You will find a very mixed and welcoming bunch here including several who have a good knowledge of translation and the NWT in particular. The background to your article is helpful and the fact that it wasn't originally intended for public consumption allows for some leeway in accuracy...but now that it is in the public domain I hope that anything less than accurate will be corrected.

  Thanks for sending me the copy of the letter to Randy. I?m not sure if I should reply to some of the points you raise, because they were not actually directed to me but to him.

  What would be most helpful to me and, I think, to the other members of this forum (including Randy) is if you were to respond to the observations made in this thread on the accuracy of your article. You clearly have many questions/observations regarding the NWT but I would suggest that in this thread you simply limit it to the points you raised in your article.

  Earnest : [The article] seems to rely on the fact that few people still have the 1950/1 edition of the NWT NT (and those who do would probably not bother reading the article).

  [email protected] : The ?official? Foreword was printed in the 1950 Edition that ran nearly half a million copies. The 1951 Edition contained the same Foreword ? word for word, letter for letter. I think somewhere between three and five million of these were printed. The 1963 (big, fat) reference edition also contained the Foreword...The 1969 KIT Edition contains the same Foreword ? word for word, letter for letter...So, for more than 40 years ? an entire generation ? this Foreword was available to everyone and circulated by the multi-millions. It ain?t that hard to find today. And, finally, to help out those who can?t locate it. I will post the entire original Foreword on a website for you.

  I'm sorry I wasn't more specific, but you have missed the point of my comment. Throughout your article you made much of the fact that "the Watchtower Society promises...: Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading". Five times you said, "The Watchtower Society promised to give reasons in a footnote if they varied from W&H , but they did not". In every instance that you cited where the reading varied from W&H, except John 14:14, the 1950 edition of the NWT NT does have footnotes showing the textual support (or lack thereof) for the preferred reading. The 1984 reference edition of the NWT includes footnotes on John 14:14 as well. However, the 1969 KIT Edition does not have these footnotes. So my point was that you made these statements regarding footnotes in the 1950 edition of the NWT which you must have known were false unless you didn't bother to check, and apparently relied on the fact that few would have the edition available.

  I do look forward to your further comments. My own experience has been that although there is a certain amount of bias in the NWT, I have found it a most helpful translation for research and find the footnotes a compelling reason to recommend it.

  Regards,

  Earnest