New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort

by Dogpatch 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Earnest

  I will just add this as you continue to pretend the NWT* is no part of your discussion. When you laid out the grounds for your argument you said :

  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.

  You may note that the two editions you refer to which speak of a footnote showing the basis for the preferred reading are NWT* and KIT69. And when you come to discuss your examples you quote the words from these two editions (highlighted in red).

  Earnest
• 

  [email protected]

  Earnest summarized:

  The remaining scripture is Matthew 12:47 to which there is a footnote in NWT* as mentioned in my previous post.

  [email protected] pointed out (again):

  As you mentioned, (1) the footnote does not occur in KIT69.

  (2) In those editions where it does occur, it does not, "show the basis for our preferred reading," as promised. It lists four manuscripts which "omit verse 47," and none that include it. The only support listed is support for exclusion of the verse and yet NWT includes it anyway.

  (3) Any normal person reading this footnote would be likely to be misled to conclude that because it was part of the NWT and in the KIT maintext that it was in the W&H maintext. It was not in the maintext of the W&H. They removed it. Franz put it back without any explanation why.

  (4) No reader of any edition of the NWT would have a clue that this verse did NOT appear in the maintext of W&H.

  (5) Any reader of the NWT who believed the foreword would believe (incorrectly) that this verse was one stamped by W&H as "Original," when in fact they rejected it. Readers of KIT would think the same thing. There it is in the maintext of the Greek, just like every other verse.

  (6) We both agree this does not appear in the W&H maintext. We both agree that is does occur in the KIT maintext. So, we must agree the KIT maintext IS NOT the W&H maintext.

  (7) The footnote that does appear (a) does not list W&H as omitting the verse -- leaving the impression that they accept it -- and (b) the footnote that does appear does NOT "show the basis for the preferred reading" -- just the case against it ... nothing FOR it. [Yes, I admit they could have presented an argument. You must admit they did not.]

  So, to summarize, the footnote that appears in some editions of NWT does not "show the basis of our preferred reading" as promised! Nor does it point out any disagreement W&H nor any change from W&H. The best that can be said for it is that it is misleading.

  [email protected]
• 

  [email protected]

  Earnest summarized:

  You accept that Romans 8:1, John 14:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 are all translations of the W&H Greek text and so no footnote would be expected regarding textual support.

  [email protected] pointed out (again):

  Why did you forget the word NOT? An oversight, no doubt.

  You, yourself, admit being puzzled about John 14:14 ("Ask ME anything") and having to write to god (WTS) and ask him about it. Evidently, just reading the NWT and the KIT did not give you satisfaction. With your own eyes you could see that ME was in KIT and W&H and not in NWT. And you could find no footnote at the time. So, to summarize you do not "accept" that John 14:14 is a translaiton of W&H any more than I do.

  [email protected]
• 

  [email protected]

  Earnest summarized:

  You accept that Romans 8:1, John 14:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 are all translations of the W&H Greek text and so no footnote would be expected regarding textual support.

  [email protected] pointed out (again):

  Why did you forget the word NOT? An oversight, no doubt.

  You, yourself, argued (Romans 8:1) that the Greek adverb NUN ("Now") was translated in the NWT by the verb "have." In a translation that claims to be, "word for word, the exact statment of the original," how can "have" translate "now"? On page 10 the same forward claims: "To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted." Reading this, one would think that "now" = now and "have" = have. One word one meaning! But you are claiming that in Romans 8:1 "now" = "have" -- I'm beginning to wonder if you are serious. Are you just pulling my leg? What, in the context of Romans 8:1 demands that the adverb "now" be translated by the verb "have"?. So, to summarize you do not "accept" that Romans 8:1 is "literal" "word for word, the exact statement of the original" W&H any more than I do.

  [email protected]
• 

  [email protected]

  Earnest summarized:

  You accept that Romans 8:1, John 14:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 are all translations of the W&H Greek text and so no footnote would be expected regarding textual support.

  [email protected] pointed out (again):

  Why did you forget the word NOT? An oversight, no doubt.

  You, yourself, realize that in a translation that claims to be, "word for word, the exact statment of the original," the insertion of six words in a row is hardly "as literal a translation as possible." What, in the context of 2 Corinthians 5:5 demands the insertion of these six words? Young's Literal Translation reads "earnest of the Spirit" at this location. So do dozens of other literal translations. Unfortunately, the NWT translator(s) must not have been competent enough to be as succinct as other literal translators!

  Whatever t(he)y w(as)ere "translating" it was not something found in W&H! You know this; and, I know this. So, to summarize you do not "accept" that 2 Corinthians 5:5 is "literal" "word for word, the exact statement of the original" W&H any more than I do.

  [email protected]
• 

  [email protected]

  Earnest summarized:

  You accept that there is a footnote to Luke 10:1 showing the textual support for both "seventy" and "seventy-two" in NWT*. This footnote is not in KIT69.

  [email protected] pointed out (again):

  As you said, this footnote is NOT in KIT. Furthermore, in those editions where it does occur (edition without the Greek text present), how is one to know the W&H is NOT being followed? Nothing says that. Nothing hints that. Everything would lead an average reader to think W&H must say "seventy", when in fact, W&H say "seventy-two." This footnote does not -- just as the others do not -- fulfil the promise made in the FOREWORD. A footnote that does not present the information promised is about the same as no footnote at all. A footnote that misleads (as this one does) is even worse than no footnote at all. I'm sure you agree.

  So, to summarize you do not "accept" that Luke 10:1 is "literal" "word for word, the exact statement of the original" W&H any more than I do.

  [email protected]
• 

  Narkissos

  Sorry to interfere, but... what's the big deal?

  A general policy is set out in the foreword of a book and the book doesn't exactly abide by it in some details? I guess most Bibles are guilty of this kind of "inconsistency".

  To put things into perspective: W & H is a major milestone in the ongoing story of NT textual criticism. No less no more. It is certainly not "the original NT".

  It is, admittedly, the product of an early, "optimistic" stage of textual criticism which believed to get closer and closer to "the original" by comparing anf finally blending readings of every kind. The only assured result of this method being a text which doesn't correspond to any ancient witness.

  Since W & H, textual criticism has become increasingly aware that the "original" is an impossible quest and that it does a far better job revealing and restoring the diversity of textual traditions which exists from the very "beginning" (cf. the UBS Editio Critica Maior), instead of using them as bricks for building up the "original Bible tower".

  Few Bible readers realize that when they are reading a "modern" Bible which claims to "follow the original" two opposite approaches have been used to obtain "the original": in the OT "following the BHS" is following ONE manuscript (textual criticism only gets in when the translator admits to depart from "the text"); in the NT following "the text" is following an artificial patchwork (the translator begins to refer to specific witnesses as he departs from it).

  Just a side note to your discussion admittedly, in order to prevent any W & H (or N & A, for that matter) fetichism and clarify what is really at stake.
• 

  Earnest

  Narkissos,

  Of course you are quite right that the Greek text of Westcott & Hort cannot be assumed to be identical to the original text, although it certainly was nearer to the original than the 'Received Text' that had been prepared by Erasmus 300 years before, and which had been used in translating the KJV of 1611. Several ancient manuscripts dating back to the fourth century had been discovered since the time of Erasmus, and the principles of textual criticism had been further developed. For example, W&H accepted the following principles in determining the preferred readings (references in parentheses are to sections of Hort's Introduction) :

  1. Older readings, MSS, or groups are to be preferred. ("The shorter the interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in question, the stronger the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text.") (2.59; cf. 2.5-6, 31)
  2. Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses. ("No available presumptions whatever as to text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent.") (2.44)
  3. A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two readings comprising the conflation, and MSS rarely or never supporting conflate reading are text antecedent to mixture and are of special value. (2.49-50).
  4. The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context. (2.20)
  5. The reading is to be preferred that best conforms to the usual style of the author and to that author's material in other passages. (2.20)
  6. The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others. (2.22-23)
  7. The reading is less likely to be original that combines the appearance of an improvement in the sense with the absence of its reality; the scribal alteration will have an apparent excellence, while the original will have the highest real excellence. (2.27, 29)
  8. The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties (another way of stating that the harder reading is preferable). (2.28)
  9. Readings are to be preferred that are found in a MS that habitually contains superior readings as determined by intrinsic and transcriptional probability. Certainty is increased if such a better MS is found also to be an older MS (2.32-33) and if such a MS habitually contains reading that prove themselves antecedent to mixture and independent of external contamination by other, inferior texts (2.150-51). The same principles apply to groups of MSS (2.260-61).

  In a similar way many papyri have been discovered since the time of W&H, which are even older than the manuscripts on which they based their text, and the theory of textual criticism has developed further, as one would expect after a period of more than 120 years. However, there must be very few readings which are completely new to the textual tradition...it is just that a greater weight is now given to readings which W&H may have considered as alternative to the main text. And there are many of these, which they indicate when it was impossible for them to decide which reading was certainly right. And they explain that "no alternative reading is given which does not appear to have a reasonable probability of being the true reading."

  This is relevant to this thread because there is no case in the examples given where the NWT does not base the translation on either the main or alternative readings of the W&H Greek text, as I shall demonstrate in the following posts.

  Earnest
• 

  Earnest
• 

  Earnest

  NWT,

  My attempt to sum up the situation in my post of 25-Jun-04 02:26 GMT was completely genuine and I clearly misunderstood you. I understood your statement that "a ?scrupulous? translator could have translated [Romans 8:1, John 14:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:5] more literally [than the NWT]" to imply that your contention with these verses was translation rather than deviation from the actual Greek text.

  Let me try again. Your article set out two questions for consideration : (1) whether the Watchtower Society claimed that the NWT of the New Testament is a translation of the Westcott & Hort Greek text; and (2) whether an examination of a few specific texts and their footnotes would show if that claim was true. The texts you provided for consideration were Luke 10:1; Romans 8:1; John 14:14; 2 Corinthians 5:5 and Matthew 12:47. It occurs to me that the vast majority of the members of this forum (and other readers of your article) will not have the Greek text of W&H available to them, so I have scanned the relevant pages and will post them here for consideration.

  As a scanned image seems to take up an entire post I will explain here what to look out for in the scanned images to follow. I am dividing your five scriptures into two classes. The first includes Matthew 12:47 and Luke 10:1. In these two verses the NWT is different from the primary reading of W&H, and the difference cannot be explained as translation. I will also include John 14:14 in this class although I think that the difference can be allowed in translation. The other class of scripture includes Romans 8:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 where the translation is based on the primary reading of the W&H Greek text.

  You made a very interesting distinction regarding Matthew 12:47 in your post of 27-Jun-04 07:09 GMT. In the discussion of this scripture in your article you said : " The real W&H texts published by Macmillan and other publishers do not contain Matthew 12:47 ". However, in this more recent post you continually made the distinction that the maintext of W&H does not contain this verse. Why ? Because I had pointed out to you that the W&H text does contain this verse as a marginal reading. And you made the point :

  (5) Any reader of the NWT who believed the foreword would believe (incorrectly) that this verse was one stamped by W&H as "Original," when in fact they rejected it. Readers of KIT would think the same thing. There it is in the maintext of the Greek, just like every other verse. - [email protected], 27-Jun-04 07:09 GMT

  However, your distinction between the main text and the marginal reading is unwarranted. As Hort explains in the scanned explanation of alternative readings :

  Wherever it has been found impossible to decide that one of two or more variant readings is certainly right, alternative readings are given; and no alternative reading is given which does not appear to have a reasonable probability of being the true reading.

  What this means is that a translator of the W&H Greek text must decide which of the alternative readings ais more probably the true reading, as W&H consider both as having "a reasonable probability of being true". In the scanned image that follows there are two documents. The one on the right is the W&H Greek text showing Matthew 12:47 as an alternative reading at the foot of the page. On the left is the same verse (in square brackets to indicate it is an alternative reading) in the W&H text published by S.C.E.Legg with a critical apparatus showing the textual support for the various readings (which was also considered by the NWT Translation Committee).

  Following this there will be a post with a scanned image of Luke 10:1. This is the verse where the main text of W&H reads seventy-two but the NWT reads seventy. Although NWT* has a footnote showing the textual support for both readings (as mentioned in a previous post on this thread), you consider them misleading and worse than no footnote at all. The scanned image of the W&H Greek text shows (by having the duo [two] in square brackets) that an alternative reading, which has a reasonable probability of being true, has 'seventy' instead of 'seventy-two'. Once again a translator, using the W&H text, must decide which of the alternative readings has the greater probability of being true.

  You complain that "everything would lead an average reader to think W&H must say 'seventy', when in fact, W&H say 'seventy-two.' " As you can see, W&H include both "seventy" and "seventy-two" and leave it to the translator to decide which is more probable. With the footnote the NWT takes that a step further and provides the reader with the critical information to judge that for themselves.

  Further scans and discussion on the remaining scriptures will follow tomorrow.

  Earnest