Earnest wrote:
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.[email protected] responded: In front of me I have three KIT 69 (one for each eye!). Not one of them says what you quoted above. Send me your address and I will box ?em up and ship them to you to examine. Not one of themsays, ?The UBS text of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the critical apparatus of this edition,? in the place you indicated. Instead, each of them says: ?Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.? Exactly as quoted in the first quotation above. I could call your ?quotation? misleading to the extent of being dishonest, but it would be more charitable to suggest alternative explanations. For example, my KIT 85 does say exactly what you quoted (at the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9). Perhaps you just got confused between the two of them and made an honest mistake. I?ve done that and I suspect you have too. More evidence that this is a likely scenario is the fact that your KIT 69 claims the ?committee? consulted the 1975 UBS (completed six years after KIT 69) and the 1979 NA (completed ten years after KIT 69). How did they do that? Spirit medium? On the other hand, maybe your KIT69 really does have the line about 1976 and 1979. We all know the WT frequently releases a publications and then makes ? let?s call them ?adjustments? ? to subsequent printings without ever acknowledging anything was ?revised,? ?updated,? or ?corrected.? One example of this is the 1-Jan-1989 Watchtower (page 12) which says: ? The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century," (emphasis added). This clearly pointed to the end of Christian missionary work by the end of the 20 th century and, by implication, the beginning of the millennium. Subsequently, the Watchtower Society altered the article in the bound volume version of the publication removing the time limitation. The bound volume of the same article states: ?The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our day.? Notice that unlike ?in our 20th Century,? the phrase ?in our day? is sufficiently vague as to avoid being tested for false prophecy according to Deuteronomy 18: 20-28. Also, notice that the unbound version is the one studied by the Jehovah?s Witnesses in their weekly meetings and distributed door-to-door among the public. The bound volumes see little use except to be archived in libraries and become the permanent record of ?official? WT pronouncements. These are likely not the only two alternatives as to why your KIT 69 and mine disagree. But now, I?ve digressed way too far. Let?s address the following ? one more time. Earnest wrote: Note also that the text highlighted about showing the basis for the preferred reading is only in the foreword of NWT * [email protected] replied: False! Not only does it appear in NWT *, but it also appears in the 1963 Reference Edition and the 1969 KIT . You seem to be trying to imply that the original Foreword is obscure and only circulated in the 1950s. The fact is that it is not obscure and it circulated not only in the 1950s, but in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s as well. For more than a generation ? forty years ? this document circulated widely among Jehovah?s Witnesses and among the public. Isn?t that true, Earnest? Earnest said: 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. [email protected] replied: Have I said otherwise? I?ve been pointing out that they did exactly this ? while, at the same time, promising that when they did ?take into consideration a number of other texts,? they would alert the reader with a footnote that spelled out that they were doing so and explaining why they did not follow Westcott & Hort. Sometimes they even did as they promised ? but not always. Warmest regards, [email protected]