New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort
by Dogpatch 61 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
Earnest
I said that I would also discuss John 14:14.
I will also include John 14:14 in this class [of verses where the NWT is different from the primary reading of W&H] although I think that the difference can be allowed in translation.
In the letter that I received from the WTS (which I quoted in full in my earlier post [11-Jun-04 04:16 GMT]) they said :
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.
I mentioned previously that there is not always a word-for-word equivalence in translation as contextual consistency should always have priority over verbal consistency. Clearly the translations above, especially the New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, Today's English Version, the Revised Authorised and Weymouth, considered that the sense of the Greek was better conveyed by "anything you ask in my name", as does the NWT. So even if the W&H Greek text did not omit the me in "If anything you shall ask [me] in my name the same I will do", the translation would remain true to the sense of the text.
I say "even if the W&H Greek text did not omit me" because this is another instance where W&H indicate that there are alternative readings of this verse, both having "a reasonable probability of being true". This is also conveyed in the Rotherham translation, which the WTS referred to in their letter, saying :
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.
In the post that follows you will note that in the W&H Greek text me is in square brackets which indicates that alternative readings of this verse omit me and so translators must decide which of the alternative readings is more probably the true reading.
Following this there is a post containing the W&H Greek text of Romans 8:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:5. Your argument on these two verses is purely one of translation (which I will subsequently discuss), but I provide the text anyway so that those who wish to compare it to the KIT can do so.
Earnest
-
-
-
Earnest
So it is clear that in all the examples provided where you told the readers of your article that the WTS were not translating the Westcott & Hort Greek text, you were mistaken. Romans 8:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 followed the main text of W&H and your argument was limited to translation, which I will discuss below. The remaining examples were all included in alternative readings which W&H considered to have "a reasonable probability of being true" and found it "impossible to decide" which of the two variant readings is certainly right. As the KIT only shows the main text of W&H it is an understandable mistake for someone to think that the translation was not following the Greek text, especially in those editions which did not show footnotes, if they did not have a copy of W&H available to consult. Which is why I have provided these scanned pages to the forum. However, you were able to consult W&H and chose to ignore the alternative readings in order to provide a strawman which you then proceeded to demolish. As you say in your article, there is a word for a person who says one thing and does another.
The remaining two scriptures (Romans 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:5) are a matter of translation.
In your example of 2 Corinthians 5:5 you say "The Token of ? insert any six words you want here ? the Spirit", and suggest that the Greek word arrabona should be translated as "earnest", instead of "the token of what is to come". It's true that "earnest" (as a noun) does convey the sense of arrabona, and the footnote in NWT* says "Or, 'gave us the earnest money or down payment.' ". But it is quite likely that many readers of the Bible would be unfamiliar with this English term, possibly confusing it with the adjective, and so it is good translation to use language which readers will understand. As the foreword of the NWT says : "The translation...should be rendered in the [style of language we employ in speaking to each other], in the speech forms current among the people". In my previous post (13-Jun-04 03:43 GMT) I showed that Moulton & Milligan say of arrabon that it has the "sense of an 'earnest,' or part given in advance of what will be bestowed fully afterwards". Your suggestion that the NWT is adding words to this verse of the Bible is mistaken.
Romans 8:1 says Ouden ara nun katakrima tois en Christo Iesou, and you provide this as an example of the NWT omitting words as :
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 [which reads : "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation"].
In your most recent post you say :
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.
This is so misleading I trust the board will indulge me in reviewing the discussion of this verse in the thread. My initial comment on this verse was (11-Jun-04 04:16 GMT) :
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.
You replied that (16-Jun-04 05:36 GMT):
You seem to think I?m arguing how these verses ought to be translated. I?m not. Some other time we can do that, if you want. Right now we are discussing whether the NWT kept a promise to translate a certain text or provide footnotes explaining why not.
I then suggested we were dealing with translation in this example and made the folllowing point about the nature of translation (17-Jun-04 02:38 GMT) :
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.
And added (in the same post) :
Like it or not, the NWT is following the W&H Greek text in this verse and you are arguing about translation. You are expecting a word-for-word equivalent of the word nun but in this example the translators have decided the sense of the original is best retained by having the sense of 'now' in the present tense "have no condemnation".
You then commented on my statement "You are expecting a word-for-word equivalent of the word nun?" (24-Jun-04 09:41 GMT) :
How foolish of me! When I read page 10 of KIT69 - "We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavour 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.[...]
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.
There are several observations I would like to make. First, I note in the quote above another misleading use of the ellipsis. What it actually says is :
We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavour all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern English idiom allows for it or where the thought content is not hidden due to any awkwardness in the literal rendition. That way ...
Secondly, I have repeated several times that the Greek is often not best conveyed in a word-for-word equivalent but you completely misrepresent me as saying that nun is translated by "have":
[Earnest] argued (Romans 8:1) that the Greek adverb NUN ("Now") was translated in the NWT by the verb "have." [...] 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"?
Having got that off my chest let's turn once more to the meaning of this verse. I have already pointed out that the New English Bible translates this verse as :
The conclusion of the matter is this: there is no condemnation for those who are united in Christ Jesus.
Contrast that with the NWT :
Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation.
Most commentators agree that the use of nun in this verse is in an eschatological sense. Not, as you suggest, that "Paul said 'now' because he meant 'now' ? he wanted to emphasize 'no condemnation now' ", but rather that he was saying we are now in a time-period (aeon) in which we are no longer under the written Law (of sin and of death) which he had been speaking of in chapter 7.
In his Commentary on Romans, Ernst Kasemann translates this verse as :
There is thus no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
and comments further on the verse :
Like 7:25b, 8:1 is a dogmatic sentence, which is certainly not a question but according to the ara nun that follows, which is parallel to the ara oun [Really therefore] in 7:25b, is to be understood as a foundation.
Volume 38 (Romans 1-8) of The Word Biblical Commentary, (James Dunn, Word Books, 1988) elaborates on this :
The normal ara phrase used by Paul is ara oun (5:18; 7:3,25; 8:12; 9:16,18; 14:12,19). The two particles together strengthen each other and indicate a conclusion or corollary drawn with immediate force from what has just been said.
The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary - Romans 1-8, (Douglas Moo, Moody Press, Chicago, 1991), says (p.503):
The combination ara oun ("therefore now") is an emphatic one, marking what follows as a significant summing up...The "now" alludes to the new era of salvation history inaugurated by Christ's death and resurrection.
The main point, and as far as this thread is concerned - the only point, is that this is a translation of the W&H Greek text and the suggestion that words have been omitted simply shows an ignorance of the nature of translation.
In conclusion, these somewhat extended series of scans and posts have shown that the suggestion the NWT has added to or taken from the Greek text of W&H to be devoid of substance and based on ignorance or dishonesty.
Earnest
-
[email protected]
Dear Earnest,
This sounds like we have come to agreement on the first three examples of NWT departure from W&H. Honestly, I had begun to thin you would never get the point.
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.
Thanks for helping me refine what I wrote. I have a revised version ready to post but need a couple of other folks to proofread it for me.
-
[email protected]
Dear Earnest,
Apparently I missed this information in WT publications:
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).
Please advise me where the claim is made that the original NWT considered Legg. If it is in NWT, I missed it. I suppose it could be in another publication. Show me!
Thanks for your help, [email protected]
-
[email protected]
Earnest wrote in regard to Luke 10:1 --
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.
[email protected] replied:
(1) We both know that the majority ("vast majority"--?) of NWT do not have "the footnote" so how are readers of the majority of NWT copies going to "judge for themselves" as you put it?
(2) W&H text has "seventy-[two]" in the main text indicating a small doubt about the "two" in the text. They were convinced it should be present. With a higher degree of doubt they would have used "seventy-[[two]]" in double prackets. With still higher doubt -- to the point of uncertainty -- they would have moved "two" to the bottom of the page (like a few NWT copies do). And if they were confident it did not belong, they would have moved it into the back under "rejected readings."
(3) So, as you say, they did not follow the main text of W&H; they did not supply a footnote in most copies of NWT; and they took matters into their own hands by going "a step further" by removing the information from the main text to a footnote and then (4) dropping the footnotte. Pretty slick deception, huh?
--
-
[email protected]
Earnest wrote:
I say "even if the W&H Greek text did not omit me" because this is another instance where W&H indicate that there are alternative readings of this verse, both having "a reasonable probability of being true".
[email protected] replied:
Dear Earnest,
As I have already explained, W&H used five markers for degree of certainty. They did not assign percentages! For this time only, and only to make a point, I will. Don't put great stock the percentage number -- make up your own, if you want. I'm trying to refute your both having "a reasonable probability of being true" statement.
In the main text without any marks = 90%-99% sure.
In main text with [single brackets] = 75%-89% sure.
In main text with [[dbl brackets]] = 60%-74% sure
In a footnote only --------------- = 40%-60% sure
In appendix under "rejected" = ??%-39% sure
The UBS Greek text goes one better with five ratings for the main text: None, A, B, C, & D. These are roughly: None = 90%-99%, A=80-89, B=70-79, C=60-69, D=40%-60% and less is rejected.
In Westcott and Hort the reading "ask [me]" is less than certain, but much more than equal to dropping the "me" (according to them). They could have used [[double brackets]] with any real reservations. IF both ha[d] "a reasonable probability of being true", THEN one reading would be in the main text and the other in a footnote. Right or wrong (and, I think they are wrong sometimes), W&H had little doubt that "ME" belonged in the main text. They put it in the main text [to be translated] and NWT ignored them.
Of course, NWT has the right to ignore them ... unless NWT promised to follow them or give a footnote explaining why. Oh, that is exactly what NWT did, wasn't it? Then, I guess they deserve that word, what was it?
The UBS Greek text gives it a "B" rating which is right in line with W&H -- somthing like 75% chance of being correct -- but, as you will no doubt point out, not certain.