[email protected]
wrote:
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).
Earnest replied:
The ellipsis obscures the rest of the sentence, namely, ?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?. I thought it was misleading because your entire article stresses that ?The Watchtower Society said they were translating
W&H
, but they did not? (5 times) but you don?t include the statement in the foreword that other texts were also taken into consideration.
[email protected]
replied:
First, I?m glad you understood the point. Sometimes repeating a point five times is not enough for the other person to hear it. Second, I think the final sentence implies that W&H is not the only text without spelling out the alternatives. So, it neither obscures nor is misleading. It was simply done to move the flow along more rapidly. However, the fact that you grasp at this straw leads me to think I should restore what is missing and perhaps highlight what I quoted. I have read enough WT material to be aware that when they ellipsis anything they are trying to hide something. So, I don?t blame you for being suspicious. Remember the old, old trinity tract where the quote Hislop and do not even use ellipsis ? they just quote him as if he said what they twisted his words to say. What a hoot! But that is a digression.
Earnest wrote:
The answer is clearly explained in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (both 1969 and 1985 editions), p. 5
...the translation under each Greek word sets out what the Greek word itself says according to its root meanings...and according to its grammatical form. So in many cases the reading in the English word-for-word interlinear translation is not the same as that found in the right-hand column. This aids us in determining what the Greek text actually, basically says.
That is the nature of translation. There is not always a word-for-word equivalence as contextual consistency should always have priority over verbal consistency. So there are many cases where the English translation does not reflect a word-for-word repetition of the Greek but that does not indicate a variation from the W&H text. Of the examples you cited, this is true of Romans 8:1, John 14:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:5.
[email protected]
replied:
Technically, you quoted
KIT
69.
KIT
85 has some slightly different wording. Also two sentences were added to
KIT
85 where you stopped quoting. They may be designed to mitigate criticisms such as mine. Moreover,
KIT
69 spells out: ?We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, ? That way we can best meet the desire of those who are scrupulous for getting, as nearly as possible, word for word, the exact statement of the original? (page 10).
Were the examples I mentioned (Romans 8:1, John 14:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:5) ?as literal as possible? and ?word for word the exact statement of the original? ? evidently NOT! A ?scrupulous? translator could have translated them more literally ? more word for word. Scrupulous translators have done so!
Earnest wrote:
You clearly only copy and pasted part of what you had said. Check your article on this thread and you will see you posted :
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.
It is clear as day that you said no footnote accompanies this text without qualification,
[email protected]
replied:
Look again, Earnest. You are the one who copied and pasted ?part? of what I said. By cutting away the topical sentence of the paragraph, you made it appear to be ?without qualification.? Yet, the sentences just above what you quoted did offer qualification. Here?s the fuller quotation:
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.
Evidently, I needed to repeat at the end what I said at the beginning so you could keep the subject straight: ?And yet, no footnote accompanies the text ?
in
KIT
69 and
KIT
85.?
Earnest wrote:
Romans 8:1: You are expecting a word-for-word equivalent of the word nun?
[email protected]
replied:
How foolish of me! When I read page 10 of
KIT
69 ? ?We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, ? That way we can best meet the desire of those who are scrupulous for getting, as nearly as possible, word for word, the exact statement of the original? ? I was expecting a word-for-word equivalent ? as literal as possible. How foolish of me! Expecting the Watchtower to do what they promised! Dumb, huh?
Two beside the points: (1) Nowhere in the Greek does the word ?have? occur, but ?now? does ? why ?translate? what is not present and fail to translate what is present? (2) I?m not positive, but I?m pretty sure, that despite your claim, ?
NEB translation ? is based on the W&H Greek text of this verse,? the NEB is not based on W&H, but on a Greek text (much like W&H) developed by them and available in book format. Look for: Tasker, R.V.G. (editor) The Greek New Testament Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible 1961. Oxford University Press, 1964 Hard Cover.
