It has already been mentioned, and BeDuhn himself states, that a different group of sample texts would generate different results. He claims to have chosen Trinitarian verses because these are often most hotly contested. The NWT does not do very well in the area of gender according to BeDuhn's analysis, and, as mentioned, he devotes an entire appendix to denouncing the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT. Other individual verses in the NWT are also negatively criticized. At times it is the case that the theological biases of the NWT translators happen to have been more similar to the beliefs of the folks who produced the texts in the NT than those of other Christian sects. The NWT does not try to impose the Trinity on the text of the NT, and it's a historical fact that the Trinity per se was not articulated until after the NT documents were composed. However, most early Christians were far more devoted to Jesus than are most Witnesses. Jesus was worshipped, prayed to, etc. I think that if BeDuhn were more sensitive to the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses he would be more able to see where bias comes into the translation.
veradico
JoinedPosts by veradico
-
51
"NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared..." ???
by whereami inthis is for all you scholars out there.
is this acurate?
please show examples were the nwt is clearly wrong.. .
-
-
-
36
Rolf Furuli
by Alleymom inthe following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.
.
-
-
veradico
For those interested, I copied and pasted below the rest of Furuli's summaries of his most recent books:
Its aim is to find quality rather than quantity, and this means that the focus is on finding the semantic
meaning (uncancellable meaning) of the different parts of the Hebrew verbal system, in contrast with
conversational pragmatic implicature. Different characteristics of verbal clauses, such as temporal
reference, modality, iterativity, and completedness are caused by the interplay of different factors.
Modern textbooks and monographs focus on the uses and functions of the conjugations and stems, and
by this show the results of this interplay. But this basically represents the conversational pragmatic
implicature of verb phrases and not the semantic meaning of each part of the verbal system.
Chapter 1 is a review of the basic viewpoints regarding the classical Hebrew conjugations for
the past one thousand years; the setting being the number and nature of the conjugations as seen by
each scholar.
Chapter 2 discusses the principles behind the distinction between semantic meaning and
conversational pragmatic implicature. A set of new parameters for the discussion of aspect is
presented, and the differences between English and Hebrew aspects are discussed.
Chapter 3 has a diachronic setting and asks whether the semantic meaning of the verbs are
different in the younger parts of the Tanakh compared with the older ones. The verbal systems of
Akkadian, the Amarna letters. Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Aramaic are compared with the Hebrew verbal
system, and the impact of the Masoretic pointing on the understanding of the verbal system is
discussed.
Chapter 4 deals with the meaning of the infinite forms: the participle represents the root idea
of the lexeme, and the infinitive the verbal idea of the root. The function of these forms is described in
order to illuminate the use of the wayyiqtol form..
Chapter 5 deals with the yiqtol form, and its use is compared with the use of the wayyiqtol. It
is shown that 1,027 yiqtols have past reference; and 270 clauses with wayyiqtols are compared with 289
clauses with yiqtols with past reference. The conclusion is that in most cases the reason for the choice
of a yiqtol rather than a wayyiqtol is that the author wanted another word element to precede the verb;
896 of the 1,027 yiqtols with past reference are preceded by such a word element. If the word order
were changed, the yiqtol would probably be changed into a wayyiqtol.
The conclusions of chapters 3, 4, and 5 lead up to chapter 6 where the wayyiqtol is discussed.
Much evidence is given that the way(y)- prefix is the conjunction w (pronounced waw). Examples of
wayyiqtols with the same subject and of yiqtols followed by wayyiqtols in non-past and past contexts
are given. The pleonastic use of waw is discussed, and examples of wayyiqtols with present, present
completed, and future reference are listed. All these examples suggest that the wayyiqtol is a yiqtol
with prefixed waw. There are four situations where the imperfective nature of a verb can be shown:
conative, ingressive, and resultative events, and events where one action intersects a state that holds or
an action that continues and that is expressed by a wayyiqtol. Examples of such situations are given,
and they suggest that wayyiqtol is imperfective.
Chapter 7 deals with the qatal and weqatal. Several scholars believe that qatal has some kind
of static property. A comparison between the 2,505 qatals and 2,461 yiqtols with present reference
suggests that there is no static-fientive opposition between the two. Those who see the conjugations as
aspects almost universally view qatal as signaling complete or completed situations. When seemingly
imcomplete events are described (present or future), the action is viewed as complete in the mind of the
author. 203 examples of qatals with present reference, and 97 with future reference are discussed, in
order to show that qatal can signal both incomplete (unbounded) and complete(d) (bounded) situations.
The conclusion is that the qatal form represents the perfective aspect, though with a meaning different
from the English perfective aspect.
The penultimate stress of first-person singular and second-person singular masculine of the
weqatal is discussed, and it is shown that 1,232 forms have ultimate and 422 have penultimate stress.
There is a clear pattern, but not full consistency.
The conclusion of the previous chapters is that classical Hebrew has only two conjugations:
yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol representing the imperfective aspect, and qatal and weqatal representing
the perfective one. If this is true, how can we account for the use of verbs in the corpus? This is
discussed in chapter 8. On the one hand we have the situation that any finite or infinite form can be
used to signal the same meaning. On the other hand we find clear patterns where particular verbs are
used for particular purposes. The following factors contribute to the seemingly chaotic use: (1) The
aspects are not mutually exclusive, but there are both similarities and differences. (2) When the
requirement for precision in communication is low, any form can be used; when it is high, particular
forms must be used. (3) Linguistic conventions create particular patterns in the choice of forms. Five
different groups of passages are discussed, where different verb forms are used to signal the same
meaning. Then four different groups are discussed, where the imperfective rather than the perfective
aspect ought to be used. The last part of the chapter discusses the interplay of different discourse
factors.
Chapter 9 gives a summary of the conclusions. It shows that the present model can account
for all uses of verb forms in classical Hebrew without exceptions, and discusses whether this suggests
that the definitions are too vague. The practical consequence of the conclusions for Bible translation is
discussed, and the possible application of the verbal model presented here to the verbal systems of the
cognate languages.
Paperback, 516 pages. Publication date: June 2006. Price: 300 NOK (Appox: € 39, US $ 46) plus
postage.
[Note the following part of his conclusion: "On the one hand we have the situation that any finite or infinite form can be used to signal the same meaning." If waw+perfect = perfect (the claim of Furuli and the NWT translators) and waw+perfect = imperfect (based on the evidence for waw consecutive) than perfect = imperfect. However, Furuli does agree that "when the requirement for precision in communication...is high, particular forms must be used." Only in these situations will he allow for a distinction between aspects (albeit a distinction delineated by his new definition of aspect), but, even when he deems the requirement for precision to be high, he does not think it appropriate to distinguish between, for example, perfect and waw+perfect.]
Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology compared with the chronology of the
Bible Volume I Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews
Volume II Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology
Rolf J. Furuli
The two volumes represent a new approach to chronological studies. The conclusion of Parker
and Dubberstein and the traditional chronological model is not used as a point of departure. But
hundreds of pictures, copies and transcriptions of cuneiform tablets have been studied, and important
tablets have been collated. This has led to new chronological schemes for the four empires.
In Volune I it is argued that a great part of the intercalary months reported by Parker and
Dubberstein for the Persian Empire are questionable. It is further argued that a strong case can be made
in favor of a reign of Bardiya between Cambyses and Darius I of eighteen instead of seven months, and
this will make confusion in the king list of Claudius Ptolemy. The cuneiform tables also suggest:
• A co-regency of Darius I and Xerxes of eleven years.
• The reign of Artaxerxes I should be pushed back ten years,
and he reigned 51 and not 41 years.
• There is one extra year between Artaxerxes I and Darius II.
The conclusion drawn in volume II is that the New Babylonian Empire should be expanded by twenty
years. This means that Nebuchadnezzar II started to reign in 624 and not in 604 B.C.E., as is almost
universally believed. The New Assyrian and the Egyptian empires are pushed back twenty years as
well. As a basis for the aforementioned conclusions the following subjects are discussed:
• Cuneiform tablets used as evidence for the traditional chronology are analyzed.
• Contracts and royal inscriptions that suggest an expansion of the
New Babylonian Empire are analyzed
• More than 60 pages are used for an analysis of VAT 4956. The
conclusion is that the lunar data on the tablet better fit 588 than
568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
• The few other astronomical tablets relevant to the New Babylonian
chronology are discussed.
• The many tablets from the last twenty years of the New Assyrian
Empire that contradict each other are discussed.
• The values of the New Assyrian astronomical reports are assessed.
• Problems with the Assyrian Epynom lists are pointed out.
• The reigns of the Assyrian kings and their chronology are compared
with the chronology of the kings of Judah.
Vol I: 251 p. paperback. Publication date: June 2006. Price: NOK 250 (Appox: € 30, US $ 40) plus
postage; volume II: ca. 350 p. paperback. Publication date: December 2006. Price NOK 280 (Appox:
€ 34, US $ 45) plus postage. -
36
Rolf Furuli
by Alleymom inthe following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.
.
-
-
veradico
Ah! I see. The denial of aspect is simply a rhetorical attention getter for the intro. If you look at the outline to his book (thanks, Alleymom), he still wants redefine aspect in Hebrew. And his intro is honest. His new definition does involve a rejection of the "traditional" definition of aspect. I must say, now that I've seen this outline, that I'm really looking forward to reading his book. His dissertation looks like it will address those questions that I was concerned that he entirely ignored in his shorter article. Presumably, he will address the views of other modern grammarians in his history of the subject over the past 1,000 years (chapter 1). Chapter 3 claims to present a diachronic analysis throughout the OT, a comparison with a number of other Semitic languages, and a discussion of the influence of the Masoretic pointing. If I remember correctly, he only discussed the identity of wayyiqtol and yiqtol verbs in his article. It's been so long since I read the article, I'm glad I have his outline to remind me of what was in it. The categories into which he divides the verbs are the tenses (showing that there is no distinction between yiqtol and wayyiqtol in this category is obviously not very meaningful since almost everyone agrees that Hebrew verbs do not encode tense) and such functions as conative, ingressive, continuative, resultative, stative, fientive, and situations in which one type of action "intersects" with another. The subjective nature of this type of enterprise can be compared, I think, to the criticisms of the NWT's "continuative" translation of John 17:3. As Byington said in his review of the NWT NT:
“The main fault is overtranslation. I mean that, where a Greek word may he found to carry an implication in addition to its rough meaning, this implication is made explicit, frequently by an added word. This fault is common to various translators, who usually claim it as a merit, but the New World Translation goes rather far. The tenses of verbs are rendered not only by such forms as "would say" or "was saying" but also by inserting "begin to" or "continue to" where the tense is deemed to be inceptive or continuative.”
As anyone who has ever had a Latin class in which one debates about which kind of ablative or subjunctive is being used in a given passage knows, a lot of this kind of thing depends on the biases (theological and otherwise) of the interpreter.
I also notice that he has finished (or is close to finishing) his second volume defending the Society's chronology. I look forward to reading the response of Jonsson and others. He sure has balls. -
36
Rolf Furuli
by Alleymom inthe following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.
.
-
-
veradico
Sorry, Narkissos, I just saw your post. I'm afraid one can't easily summarize Furuli's ideas about aspect. He has his own language (nucleus, coda, etc.). If I had a scanner, I'd post his article. Although I wonder if that would violate copyright law. Instead of saying that perfective and imperfective verbal aspects refer to complete and incomplete action, he thinks of aspect as a verbal way of "focusing" in on a part or the whole of an action from various angles--which he's kind enough to give us degree measurements for in his charts :-) I'm sure you can get the book from a library. Or perhaps someone here has a copy? It's full of fascinating apologetical articles about the NWT.
-
36
Rolf Furuli
by Alleymom inthe following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.
.
-
-
veradico
Leolaia, If I remember correctly (and I'm rather sure that I do), Furuli's examples come from many books outside the Pentateuch as well. But even the Pentateuch represents a number of different stages of the Hebrew language. In order to perform a really sound synchronic analysis, Furuli, in my opinion, would have to accept all sorts of “higher criticism” that his religion condemns. He would have to isolate the strata of the OT that represent the different stages of linguistic development and systematically perform his analysis on each stage. I don’t think he did this. The fact that he talks about using all the discernable verbs in the DSS, Ben Sira, and the inscriptions (as well as the OT) leads me to conclude that he has no such thoughts in mind. It's all one to him. Also, my argument is not entirely diachronic. I agree that one could ignore the evidence from other Semitic languages per se. But such things as translations, commentaries, and paraphrases of the OT made by native speakers of Classical Hebrew are a lesser form of synchronic evidence, at least for the later Hebrew works. I want to emphasize that I agree with you about the legitimacy of isolating synchronic material and deducing grammatical patterns from it. I think the Hebrew corpus is large enough to make this feasible for a number of significant stages of Hebrew grammar. I also agree with your last points. Still, Furuli’s analysis does not seem very compelling to me. I think he did the following (but I’ll have to wait to read his dissertation to be sure). He read the OT, the DSS, Ben Sira, and the inscriptions, placing each verb into one of his categories. Then he discussed those examples that best fit his conclusions. Thus, he can claim to have not done “sampling” (after all, he read everything and put every verb into a category), while, in fact, his sampling can be quite narrow, subjective, and biased (if his categories themselves are not, and I worry that they may be). In matters such as these, I think it is best to first turn to the ancient evidence. Testimony, both explicit and implicit, can be found in numerous ancient works attesting to the waw consecutive. Instead, I think Furuli’s evidence is all in his head. If he can convince one to accept his new vocabulary and theoretical framework, I think he’s already almost won his case. He wants to redefine the whole system of aspect—not only which verbs are in which aspect, but also what aspect itself means. In order to prove this, he wants to put verbs into whole new categories that the speakers of Hebrew did not choose to explicitly represent in their language by any means, morphological or otherwise. Certainly, no language bothers to distinguish explicitly between all of its semantic subtleties, and I’m not denying the theoretical existence of the different senses that Furuli mentions. But I do think that major semantic divisions in a language are eventually represented by means of vocabulary and morphology. If Furuli wants to claim that the differences between WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL are pragmatic but not semantic, I hope he bothers to provide some explanation as to why these pragmatic differences exist and why these “pragmatic” differences were felt to be semantic differences by later speakers of Hebrew (not to mention speakers of other, related tongues). He may have done all of this. The only way we’re going to find out is to buy his book from him.
-
36
Rolf Furuli
by Alleymom inthe following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.
.
-
-
veradico
I appreciate your argument in his behalf, Leolaia. You're charitable. I would agree with it, if, for example, Furuli were to try to argue explicitly from a synchronic perspective that the waw consecutive is an element of Classical Hebrew that later interpreters and translators (but, then, all translators are interpreters) wrongly read into the texts of the OT under foreign linguistic influences. Still, I think treating the whole OT, DSS, and inscription corpus synchronically might be methodologically unsound, just as it's silly for Witnesses to leap from one Bible book to another as if they are all the same work. There is grammatical development even within the OT corpus. Therefore, Furuli should also demonstrate that his new verbal theory is applicable to all of the OT texts (and the DSS and the inscriptions). Furthermore, to my knowledge, he has not demonstrated enough historical awareness even to dismiss these questions with an airy gesture. This leads me to worry that he has not even considered such objections or that he did consider them and found them too uncomfortable to address in print. He's quite creative, however, and worth reading, even if just for entertainment.
-
36
Rolf Furuli
by Alleymom inthe following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.
.
-
-
veradico
I've read Furuli's essay in the _Your Word Is Truth_ book. He does not address the fact that ancient translations, paraphrases, and commentaries made by native speakers of Hebrew manifestly demonstrate that these people felt the force of the Waw Conversive/Consecutive/Conservative. Nor does he address the evidence from other Semitic languages which suggests that the Waw Conservative is utilizing and preserving certain features of ancient Semitic language (particularly in narrative contexts)—cf. J. Weingreen, _A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew_, Oxford University Press, 1959, pp. 90-91, 252-3 [the latter passage is by G. R. Driver]. Instead, he seems to have divided the verbs of the OT, the DSS, and the inscriptions into his own categories of semantic force. He then shows that the perfective verbs with and without waw prefixed fall into certain categories while imperfective verbs with and without waw fall into other categories; thus, he concludes that there is no semantic difference, merely a difference in appearance/sound. My primary objection is that his division of the verbs into his categories is rather subjective, whereas the morphological differences are visibly/audibly objective. I assume he interacts more fully with the observations and conclusions of such modern grammarians as Waltke and O’Connor in his doctoral thesis. The question of how to handle the Waw Consecutive is fascinating. Certainly, Furuli and the Witnesses are not alone in rejecting it. Other grammarians and translators have done so as well. But I’ve yet to see any make a thorough and convincing argument against the existence of this grammatical rule. The NWT translators certainly did not try. All of their arguments (in the Reference edition of 1984 and in the discussion found in the original green volumes) are arguments from authority. I look forward to reading what Furuli has to say to see whether he has anything more substantial to contribute.
-
-
-
veradico
I'm with Oroborus21 (Edwardo), although I don't know that I'd go so far as to say I KNOW the real Jesus will come back as judge someday and determine who is really Christian. To say something like that, I'd have to be rather sure about what Jesus really taught. I think that almost everything you find in the Jehovah's Witness religion is within the diverse range of what, over the past couple thousand years, people who have called themselves Christian have believed. If we're talking about this from a historical perspective, I think they get to be Christian. If we're using the word "Christian" in some more subjective sense as a synonym for "good" or "truly Christian," I think most modern "Christian" religions are also far from what Jesus intended. I would argue that such doctrines as the high Christology, salvation through faith in Jesus' sacrifice, no longer following the Jewish law, and others are contrary to what the historical Jesus, insofar as we can glimpse him in the gospels, taught. In many ways, I think Orthodox Christianity is an improvement of what Jesus taught. It's more concerned with actually improving this world, less obsessed with the apocalypse, and has a rich, two-thousand year old tradition to draw on.
-
29
Whats the strangest thing you've seen someone get in trouble for?
by LaniB ini remember one windy summer day, after a meeting on sunday morning, i walked out of the hall behind a sister who was part of the church congregation with her two teenage children.
her husband did not attend.
the wind caught her dress unexpectedly and blew it up a'la marilyn monroe and revealed that she was wearing (shock, horror) french knickers...... there were a few murmers behind me which i at the time put down to things like "oh poor girl, so embarrassing".
-
-
veradico
I was spoken to for mentioning Star Wars in one of those little talks we give. Apparently, Star Wars promotes the occult (the Force and whatnot).
-
52
Why are angels always white?
by slimboyfat inin pictures of conventions or the new system they tend to show a mixture of races, but the angels always seem to be white.
.
slim.
-
-
veradico
I think the Western obsession with white and light is unbalanced. I'd prefer, for example, the 28th chapter of The Tao Te Ching any day. The angels are old white men because old white men have most of the power. Again, this is unbalanced and arbitrary, but so is much that we find in religion.