caspian:
You entitled your thread "A classic case of WT dishonesty" and conclude the piece by asking the question "How do you feel about such misleading quotations?"
To decide whether a quotation is misleading or not it is necessary to consider the original and the purpose of the quotation. The preface that you refer to can be found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsvpreface.html and reads as follows:
"Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word 'Lord' (or in certain cases 'God') is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton" (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or "Elohim" meaning "God"). Ancient Greek translators employed the word "Kyrios" ("Lord") for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word "Dominus" ("Lord"). The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."
The subject of your post is the Awake! of March 8, 1999 where it observes that "many scholars in Christendom 'follow the spirit of Jewish tradition' when translating the Bible:
The New Oxford Annotated Bible comments in its preface: 'The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.' "
If the quotation had been to show the reasons the Committees represent God's name with the word 'Lord' then I would agree that the quotation would be misleading. But you tell us that the article was quoting from the NRSV preface to show that "many scholars in Christendom 'follow the spirit of Jewish tradition' when translating the Bible". The 'spirit of Jewish tradition' is specifically referred to only in the second reason that the Committee gives and so I do not see that there is any dishonesty in quoting that only.
Your reference to Bruce Metzger is quite immaterial. Yes, he was one of the two editors (along with Roland Murphy of Duke University Divinity School) and he did represent the committee of about thirty members. And he is an outstanding scholar. But so what. That doesnt alter what he wrote or that the Committee followed the spirit of Jewish tradition in rendering Gods name as 'lord' when translating the Bible.
I think that Yadirf makes a strong point in saying that " 'LORD' does not accurately represent any form of the name ever used in Hebrew". Every translator of the Hebrew bible knows that "lord" is not a translation of God's name in any sense, it is a substitution. That is what Jews do when they read God's name in the Bible...they substitute, and they know they are doing it. At least, in the Hebrew bible the name is still printed. If one believes that they are translating the word of God it really is quite blasphemous to remove his name in thousands of places. If the Committee believes that "the word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew" and that it is "almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced 'Yahweh' ", then they should use 'Yahweh', as the Jerusalem Bible does.
The argument that the NWT substitutes 'Lord' with 'Jehovah' in the NT is irrelevant. Firstly, because two wrongs do not make a right. If they are wrong in doing so that does not make the substitution of 'Jehovah' with 'Lord' right. Secondly, their reasons for doing so are that they have reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that God's name was written by the original writers and subsequently substituted. The translators of the NRSV do not believe that the passages where they render God's name as 'Lord' originally contained 'Lord'. They do not question that the original writers used God's name. So the arguments for substitution are completely different and cannot be compared.
Is it true that "the word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew"? It may be. There is good reason to believe the first vowel was an 'a' but it is possible the name was pronounced as three syllables rather than the two in 'Yahweh'. As we don't know how the Jews pronounced it, it seems quite dogmatic for the NRSV Committee to say that 'Jehovah' doesn't represent ANY form of the name EVER used in Hebrew. But the reason that God's name is translated as 'Jehovah' is that is the name the first English translators (Tyndale, Coverdale) used. If they had used 'Yahweh' or 'Henry' then it is unlikely 'Jehovah' would ever have been used. But that is how they translated his name and, as a result, that is his name in English. Farkel's questions about the pronunciation of the name and whether it matters to God are thought-provoking but have nothing to do with translation. Even if God doesn't exist a name should still be translated as a name.
I do think there is a possibility that the name is excluded from the NRSV because of its association with JWs. I know that in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church removed 'Jehovah' from their hymnals and various monuments after an Awake! was published (in Afrikaans) publicising the many places the name was used. Likewise, the antipathy on this thread towards using 'Jehovah' is more to do with its use by JWs than with Bible translation. Rutherford's reasons for changing the name in 1931 were many and varied and by and large it accomplished his purpose. He cut association with the old Bible Students Association and he convinced those who wanted to believe it that they were simply a continuation of the biblical Jehovah's witnesses. That has nothing to do with whether the name should be in the Bible and I believe it is blurring the picture for many.
Earnest
Edited to note that contrary to what I said above, Coverdale did not use the name. However, most of the English Protestant versions followed Tyndale and did use the name, especially at Exodus 6:3.
Edited by - Earnest on 16 August 2002 6:1:36
