THE book to read and study is: "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period", Richard Longenecker, Eerdmans.
You will be fascinated.
Doug
Doug Mason
JoinedPosts by Doug Mason
-
29
The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?
by FireNBandits inthe nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.
a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.
when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.
-
-
Doug Mason
-
56
The Trinity ( arguement to end all arguments I hope )
by 5go ini pretty much don't think much of christendom.
but why do christians insist on holding such an unholdable position with the trinity.. the bible i agree holds proof for both trinity and nontrinity positions.. i still don't get why that christians other than catholics would hold such an untenable position as god came down to earth but didn't, and he prayed ( talked ) to himself a lot.. .
i remember a comedy sketch were some kids were stumping a nun in catholic school with question on the trinity and the eurachrist..
-
-
Doug Mason
Perhaps two reasons the GB/WTS argues so much about this might include:
* Having an impersonal holy spirit allows the GB/WTS control of it. Although all of its followers have holy spirit, by limiting it to an energy, this limits the followers direct access to God that might be beyond the organization's control.
* Lowering Jesus to the level of a "brother" of the 144,000, elevates the GB to a position of immense power. (I had an idea that CTR believed the elect would rise to a level of deity, but I could be very mistaken about that.)
How can finite Man fully comprehend the infinite? Whatever Man's descriptions, these are attempts to confine the indefinable. So do not decide whether one formula is correct or not based upon your capacity to see God.
Whether one is a Trinitarian or not (and the WTS is semi-Arian, at best), each of us holds some errors. Fortunately, salvation is a gift bestowed upon the believer regardless of errors in doctrine or mistakes in their understanding of him.
I stand in awe at the grace of God.
Doug -
1
Byington's 1955 article
by Doug Mason insome people are not aware that byington wrote a brief review in 1955 in the christian century following the release of volume ii of the nwt ot.
i do not have a scan of the original article:.
new world old testament.
-
-
Doug Mason
Some people are not aware that Byington wrote a brief review in 1955 in The Christian Century following the release of Volume II of the NWT OT. I do not have a scan of the original article:
New World Old Testament
New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. II, AD. 1955. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, $1.50.
By the present plan this volume is the second of four; the third is to end with the Song of Solomon, the fourth with Malachi. The New World Bible Translation Committee, set in its ways, goes on as it began, so that my review of Vol. I, in The Christian Century for Oct. 7, 1953, will serve for Vol. II - including the note that an ordinary bookstore may need to charge you a few cents more than you would pay on a direct mail order or by getting the book from a Jehovah's Witness canvasser.
Yet continued experience has brought some changes. The translators have begun putting brackets around those words (not numerous) which they acknowledge not to be Hebrew but to be added for the sake of clearness. They have grown more careful to distinguish sentences where in Hebrew the subject comes before the verb from those where the Hebrew verb precedes the subject; they judge that putting the subject first means greater emphasis on the subject, and they undertake to express this emphasis in English in different ways, often by adding "himself" after the subject, which is likely to strike a reader as one of the mannerisms of the translation. This increases what was already one of the translation's greatest faults, its prolixity. Nevertheless, though the committee has bound itself to dance in fetters, practice has taught it to dance more freely therein, and this second volume is more readable and vivid than the first.
So reread the aforesaid review of Vol. I, and take here a sample of the New World Translation in its present stage of development:
As Obadiah continued on his way, why, there was Elijah to meet him. At once he recognized him and fell upon his face and said: "Is this you, my lord Elijah?" At this he said to him, "It is I. Go, say to your lord, 'Here is Elijah.’” But he said: "What sin have I committed that you should be putting your servant into the hand of Ahab to put me to death? As Jehovah your God is living, there is not a nation or kingdom where my lord has not sent to look for you. After they had said, 'He is not [here],' he made the kingdom and the nation swear that they could not find you. And now you are saying, 'Go, say to your lord, "Here is Elijah,”’ And it is bound to occur that, when I myself go from you, then the spirit of Jehovah itself will carry you away to where I shall not know, and I shall have to come to tell Ahab and he will not find you, and he will be bound to kill me, as your servant himself has feared Jehovah from his youth."
STEVEN T. BYINGTON
The Christian Century, October 5, 1955 p. 1146 -
91
The Watchtower and Creation
by AlanF init struck me this past year, with respect to jw teachings about the timing of genesis 1, that even in things that really have no impact on what most jws think of as "core doctrine" the watchtower society sticks to its traditions over what the bible says.
this was again brought home in the september, 2006 awake!
17 between me and the sons of israel it is a sign to time indefinite, because in six days jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and proceeded to refresh himself.
-
-
Doug Mason
It seems to me that the first creation account was written to counter "unacceptable" religious practices. The rocks, the sun, and whatever these others worshiped, were created by the one true God.
I think the people understood the message being given, and that the creation story was a vehicle for carrying that message. "In the beginning God" was there and it was he who brought into being the things worshiped by animists, etc.
The Creation story would be better understood by looking at it in the religio/political context of the 7th century BCE, maybe even down to the 3rd Century BCE.
Did they think this account or the second creation story were literal descriptions? Or did they see these as a means for illustrating a point?
And I don't think the "point" had anything to do with the length of a day. Scientifically, the interdependence of creatures and reliance on the sun could not wait for millions of years for a "day" to pass.
Doug
-
9
"Jehovah" in the NWT OT
by Doug Mason inonce more i look to the jwd brains trust for assistance and information.. over the years, much has been discussed and written on the wtss use of the jehovah in its nwt translation of the christian greek scriptures (new testament, or nt).
[page 343] the divine name jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the tetragrammaton and in some one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation.
what do these tell us about the translator of the nwt ot?.
-
-
Doug Mason
Once more I look to the “JWD brains trust” for assistance and information.
Over the years, much has been discussed and written on the WTS’s use of the “Jehovah” in its NWT translation of the “Christian Greek Scriptures” (New Testament, or NT). However, I have not seen a similarly exhaustive treatment of the WTS’s use of “Jehovah” in its NWT translation of the “Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures” (Old Testament, OT).
I am interested in locating an analysis of the procedures and reasons used by the translator at the key instances where the NWT OT has “Jehovah”.
On the surface, it would appear to be a straightforward task for the translator to write “Jehovah” in place of YHWH from the Masoretic Text (MT) and for Adonai from the Septuagint (LXX).
The following excerpt indicates the nature of the information I seek. It is from a 1956 article by Walter E. Stuermann (A Journal of Bible and Theology, The Bible and Modern Religions, III. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Vol 10, 1956, pages 323 to 346).
At that time of the article, the NWT had released Volumes I (Genesis- Ruth) and II (I Samuel – Esther).
Stuermann wrote that he “tried to be sympathetic and understanding” and that he tried to avoid assuming an attitude of “depreciation toward them” (page 324). Writing of the publication of the NWT, Stuermann said “The New World Society deserves commendation for its efforts”. (page 339)
Following the passage from Stuermann, I list some of my questions:
---------------------------------
[page 343] The divine name Jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton and in some one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation. …
The main Hebrew text employed in making the version was the Masoretic text found in the seventh edition of Rudolph Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. Auxiliary texts such as that of C. D. Ginsburg were employed. The Leningrad manuscript of the Hebrew Bible and the Cairo manu-script of the Prophets apparently have been consulted. Reference is made to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, the Targums, the Syriac Peshitta, the Vulgate, and the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. As an indication of the extent of their use of textual evidence, the frequencies of the citations of LXX, Vg., Syr., Sam., Pent., Targums, and O. L. in the Book of Genesis are, respectively, III, 86, 43, 15, 5, and I. No description is given of the principles observed in weighing the manuscript evidence, either here or in the case of the New Testament volume. …
[page 344] The shift in divine names (Elohim to Yahweh) in the middle of Genesis 2:4 is not for them a clue to a change in documentary sources. The whole verse is taken as a conclusion to the account of the creative process in Genesis 1:1-2:3. By this device as well as others, they intend to maintain the essential continuity of the two accounts of the creation. How they cope with the problem created by the two accounts of the creation of man (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:7) and other dual accounts is obscure. The plural form, Elohim, they explain, is a plural of excellence or majesty and does not signify a plurality in nature or personality. This comment is very interesting. First, it is one of the forms of the fallacy of figure of speech—arguing from a linguistic form to the nature of things. Second, if it is motivated by the thought that the theologians of the tradition would found the doctrine of the trinity on this plural form (Watchtower, September 1, 1953, p. 536), it is a case of the fallacy of arguing from a hypothesis contrary to fact. The translators would have served their own cause better had they carefully restricted the notes to purely textual matters. In Genesis 18:3 is found the first of the one hundred and thirty-four cases where the translators restore the tetragrammaton in place of what they consider to be a scribal emendation of Adonai. In Exodus 3:14, responding to Moses' request for the divine name, God designates him-self as "I shall prove to be" (RSV: "I am."). At Exodus 6:3 their text reads: "And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them." Their note on this passage says that the last clause can be construed as a question, "also as respects my name Jehovah did I not make myself known to them?" No justification is given for this and it appears to be an attempt to revise the passage to fit their belief that God was known by the elect under his name Jehovah from the earliest times. Throughout the Octateuch care is taken to make note of all the uses of the various forms of the divine names, Yahweh, Adonai, El, Elohim. The readings of the Septuagint and Vulgate are cited at these points.
-------------
1. Are OT translations normally based on the MT or on the LXX?
2. Stuermann writes: “The divine name Jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton.” Is he speaking of just the 2 Volumes that had been released at the time he wrote his article?
3. He also writes of “one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation”. Pardon my ignorance, but what is an “emendation”? Secondly, is there a list of these “emendations”? What do these tell us about the translator of the NWT OT?
4. Stuermann writes: “In Genesis 18:3 is found the first of the one hundred and thirty-four cases where the translators restore the tetragrammaton in place of what they consider to be a scribal emendation of Adonai.” Was the NWT OT translator justified at this instance? (I thought Adonai would come from the LXX. I am perplexed.)
5. Does the MT at Exodus 3:14 contain YHWH? Is the translator justified in having “Jehovah” at this verse?
6. Is it possible to determine whether the NWT OT translator has been consistently correct with every use of “Jehovah”?
7. Conversely, is it possible to show that the translator has allowed theological prejudice influence appearances of “Jehovah”?
Finally, I would note that I have a copy of the article in JBL 24/1905 “The Divine Name in Exodus iii.14”, pages 107—165 by William Arnold, but I find it difficult to read Hebrew. Maybe someone could comment on Arnold’s article for me and tell me if it is relevant to the NWT OT.
Doug
-
26
"The Bible in Living English"-1972-Byington/Watchtower--PDF!
by Atlantis in(download while you can).
steven t. byingtonfrom wikipedia, the free encyclopediasteven tracy byington (birthname "stephen") (december 10, 1869 - october 12, 1957) was a noted intellectual, translator, and american individualist anarchist.
he was born in westford, vermont, and later moved to ballardvale, massachusetts.
-
-
Doug Mason
I know that in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter (but maybe it's my keen interest in family genealogy coming to the fore) but I think Wikipedia might be incorrect when it says Byington was born in 1869. If Wikipedia bothers to write a date, it might as well be correct.
In a pamphlet held at The Andover Historical Society, Byington wrote that he was born in 1868.
Also, he died at the age of 88.
Some might not know that Byington commented on the NWT OT in the October 5, 1955 issue of The Christian Century, page 1146.
A tribute to Byington appeared in the January 15, 1958 issue of The Christian Century, page 81.
I have not checked, but I read that there are a few pre-1972 references to Byington on the WT CDROM.
Doug
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
Doug Mason
FireNBandits,
Thank you for noting my "low-level" comment in among that heady stuff. I believe that showing a JW how the WTS misquotes and misrepresents authoritative statements should carry some weight.
You will find a copy of Julius Mantey's letter of complaint in Michael van Buskirk's "The Scholastic Dishonesty of The WATCHTOWER" (CARIS) along with other supporting material from Mantey (pages 11 to 14). Buskirk says the booklet is a Chapter taken from his book "The Sandcastle of Jehovah's WItnesses (1975); I have not seen that book.
In my searching I came across a page that is relevant: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/bible-for-dummies/BD0805W3.htm
Many years ago (probably about 30 years or so), I was given the following page, but I have not been able to find it on the www.
Doug
------------------------------
ADULTERATING THE BIBLE
Julius Robert ManteyJohn 1:1, which reads , “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” is shockingly mistranslated: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in the "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," published under the auspices of Jehovah’ s Witnesses. Since my name is used and our "Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement.
The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, “the Word was deity." Moffatt’s rendering is "the Word was divine." Williams’ translation is, "the Word was God himself." Each translation reflects the-dominant idea in the Greek For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence, or quality of a person or thing 2 as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But or all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, not one has translated this verse as have Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, that is, of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence; namely, divine.
Examples where the noun in the-predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit” (not a spirit); 1 John 4:16, "God is love" (not a love); and Matthew 13:39, the reapers are angels," that is, they are the type of beings known as angels". In each instance, the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristic of the subject, whether as to nature or type.
The Apostle John, in the context of the introduction to his gospel, is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that he was with God, that he was God, that all creation came into existence through him, and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be-said that John did not say? In John 1:18, he explained that Christ had been so intimate with the Father that he was in his bosom and that he came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father,” that would be enough to satisfy the seeking; soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.
(The Watchman-Examiner, November 20, 1952. Reprinted in The Ministry, May 1953, pages 41-42)
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
Doug Mason
There is a side-issue here.
Julius Mantey complained in writing to the WTS that they had misused his "Grammar" and he asked them to apologize.
So it is not only a question of "grammar" or "theology" but also of dishonesty.
The WTS ignored him, knowing that he was already an old man.
I also have a personal letter from William Barclay, telling me the Jehovah's Witnesses had misrepresented what he had written (but he did not want to get involved in any discussion with them).
Doug
-
28
Is. 2:2 My analysis..what's yours?
by NewTruth inso, here's the scripture:.
2:2 in the last days, the mountain of the lord's temple will be established as chief among the hills, and all nations will stream to it.
many peoples will come and say, "come, let us go up to the mountain of the lord, to the house of the god of jacob.
-
-
Doug Mason
NewTruth,
I commented that your explanation of Isa 2:2 were “wild guesses”. If you feel offended at my comment, please accept my apologies, for that was not my intention.
I can only comment on what I can see in your Post, and I believe that I see leaps in reasoning, without a sequenced explanation. I am not aware of your hermeneutic principles, I could only see the jumps in reasoning. Have you seen my picture on page 2 of my note “knight-jump hermeneutics”? It’s at http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Knight_jump_hermeneutic.pdf
Your experience with this verse is 28 years longer than my experience with it, so I need to be taken through the steps, rationally.
I am concerned that you seem to be using the OT to interpret the NT, which I believe is the wrong way around. The words of the NT must be used to explain the OT. Are there any NT passages that are direct quotations of Isa 2:2?
You acknowledge the analysis provided by Leolaia. I would therefore like to see how the structure given to the first two chapters of Isaiah provides a model for a secondary or even ternary fulfillment (some call this apotelesmatic – repeated and greater – fulfillments”).
Whom or what does “Jerusalem” symbolize across both chapters? We expect to see consistency of application across the two chapters, since they are closely bound, doctrinally and historically.
Where do you fit the “Great Trouble”? We know that at Matthew 24:21, this “Trouble” preceded and was associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Or do you have a secondary/ternary fulfillment from Isaiah 2 folding into Matthew 24, and then you consider that the fulfillment in Matthew 24 itself was to have a secondary/ternary fulfillment?
The 144,000 do not relate to the “Great Trouble”, since the Revelator says the ultimate winds of strife are “held back” to enable the 144,000 virgin Jewish men to be sealed – or is some part of that phrase literal while another part is symbolic, to fit one’s desired outcome?
Doug
-
24
Engardio's Article about Jw's in USA Today....
by AK - Jeff inhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-05-06-opledereligion_n.htm?csp=34.
i agree with most of the 'benefits' he describes from the religion - particularly the civil liberties they have gained in the us.
story is one-sided, but ok.. by joel p. engardioplease excuse me if i ever disrupted your laundry, yard work or nap by knocking on your door.
-
-
Doug Mason
So, will the WTS/GB give its own members the same liberties it fights in court for?
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to express personal views. Freedom to follow personal convictions, such as with the medical use of blood. Freedom to speak openly to DF'd loved ones.
I would like to see that.
Doug