This is a rather interesting question that has come up. Opposers of the Witnesses CANNOT concede that the NWT is a quality translation, even if their lives depend on it. But this has left them with quite the dilemma.
- They claim that the translators of the NWT had no skills or ability in translation whatsoever.
- They disagree with only a handful of verses scattered across the NWT.
- The other 99% of the translation they do not voice any complaints over.
So the question becomes: if the opposers do not have any problems with over 99% of the translation, then how can they possibly claim that the translators were incompetent? At the very most, couldn’t opposers only claim that the NWT translators did an excellent job, except for a few isolated and controversial passages which hold strong theological implications in the opposers minds? Ah! But in the spirit of the quotation under the title of this blog, they have come up with a clever solution!
“The NWT must be a copy of some other version of the Bible, most likely the King James Version.”
Even though it is not my burden of proof at all (the burden of proof falls on those who make the claims, which in this case is the opposer) I will briefly examine this absurd and desperate accusation below.
From a manuscript point of view, the Witnesses give the main source paths for the NWT on pages 308 and 309 of the book, “All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial.”
Sources for the Text of the New World Translation: Hebrew Scriptures
Original Hebrew Writings and Early copies è Hebrew Consonantal Text => Masoretic Text è Codex Leningrad B 19A => Biblia Hebraica (BHK), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) => New World Translation
Sources for the Text of the New World Translation: Christian Greek Scriptures
Original Greek Writings and Early Copies => Early Greek Uncial MSS. (Vatican 1209 B, Sinaitic, Alexandrine A, Ephraemi Syri rescriptus C, Bezae D) => Westcott and Hort Greek Text => New World Translation.
In Summary: The main manuscript authority for the Christian Greek Scriptures of the NWT (and essentially ALL modern Bible’s) is the Westcott and Hort Greek text. The main manuscript authority for the Hebrew Scriptures of the NWT are the BHK and BHS Hebrew texts.
In contrast, the major manuscript authority for the Christian Greek Scriptures of the King James Version is the (now outdated and essentially useless) Textus Receptus. The Hebrew manuscript authority for the KJV I am not sure about. Additionally, being a “version,” the KJV is not so much a “translation” from the original languages like the NWT, as it is a revision of earlier Bibles, such as Tyndale’s or Wycliffe’s.
From a translation and creation point of view, the 1954 court testimony of Fred Franz, the then vice-president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, would seem to be the most logical and authoritative source I could give. (forgive the interpolations—the documents are old and some places are difficult to read)
Franz Cross Examination p. 88-89:
Q. Is it the view of your theocratic organization that the qualifications of the translators and interpreters of the Scriptures should be kept secret?
A. That is the business of the translation committee. They can make a donation on their own terms and we can accept it. The Society can accept it on their own terms.
Q. You are now speaking of donations?
A. Yes. The translation was donated to the Society on the understanding that it would be published.
Q. But surely by arrangement with the Editorial Committee. People don’t come forward and say “I wish to donate you a new translation, for example, the book of Daniel”, do they?
A. A committee can do that.
Q. A committee must arrange with somebody, mustn’t they, to come forward with a translation, if the Committee decides that the translation is desirable?
A. Well, it was the president of the Society who presented this translation to us, the Board of Directors, and he had it examined there, and then the Board of Directors [were] the [ones] that voted to accept the translation.
Franz Cross Examination p. 93:
Q. Would you look at No. 42 of [proccas?]. That is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, is it not?
A. That is right.
Q. I see that it is rendered from the original languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee? A. Yes.
The above is the vice president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (and alleged member of the translation committee) Fredrick Franz testifying under oath that the translation was rendered from the “original languages,” e.g. Greek and Hebrew, and was not just a rehashing of the KJV or some other translation.
For a visual of the large amount of differences between the KJV, NWT, and various other translations, please see article number 149 of the “Full Library” PDF below:
For an unbiased view of the NWT and other major English translations of the Bible (by I believe a secular scholar, but don’t quote me on that), then please see Dr. Jason Beduhn’s book, “Truth in Translation.”
But as has already been mentioned, none of the above post was really necessary at all—it was just a few extra nails in the coffin. One cannot just make an absurd claim like “the NWT was a copy of another translation” and expect it to become true and factual. Those who make claims have to PROVE THEM! And to date, I have yet to see anyone offer any shred of evidence showing the NWT to be anything but an original and unique translation. So to any NWT opposers out there, this message if for you:
I am personally challenging you to find this elusive evidence. If you cannot, then you must by means of logic and reason admit that:
1. 99% of the NWT is a quality translation, therefore making the translators at least 99% competent.
2. Your objections to the NWT are not on general translation related grounds, but are rather primarily on theological grounds, i.e., focused on those verses which would threaten your own preconceived theological biases if rendered differently than the norm.
I think your criteria for "quality" is lacking something. If a translation is theologically biased, does it matter if it's only 1% biased? Would you drink 99% water and 1% cyanide?! Of course not!
ReplyDeleteIn response to my oxymoronic friend above:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to miss the point. This post IS NOT a discussion of these sparse, theologically controversial verses--it is about the overall ability and competence of the NWT translators.
If I were to take, say, the Fundamentals of Engineering examination and score a 99%, could you seriously call me incompetent and lacking in skill? And yet by never finding or raising any faults outside these handful of controversial verses, opposers essentially admit that the NWT translators did a great job on 99% of the translation; but they still find the nerve to call the translators incompetent! Their position is biased, inconsistent and hypocritical.
I also never said that those handful of controversial verses WERE cyanide--the opposers are the only ones that say that. While the NWT is not a perfect translation (such a thing is irrational to expect), it is still far superiors to most other translations. The NWT is also quite correct on its positions regarding the majority of the controversial verses.
The real situation would be more like:
Tears serves his customers relatively clean glasses of water.
Gay Christian only has dirty, slime filled glasses of 'water' to serve his customers, and also holds a deep grudge against Tears.
Gay Christian proceeds to stand outside Tear's restaurant and shout at everyone that comes by: "Don't drink his water! He is lacing it with cyanide! He is lying to you! Come drink my water instead."
Inevitably, numerous customers are scared into avoiding Tears' good quality water and accepting Gay Christian's slime water.
I'm not sure I follow... if 99% of the translation is non-controversial, then it is the 1% that matters. Especially if it seriously departs from mainstream Christian and secular scholarship.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the post was not to discuss the one percent--it was to discuss the non-controversial 99% and the competency of the translators. If I score a 99% on my thermodynamics final, then I am generally considered competent on the subject. If the translators do 99% of the translation well in the minds of opposers, then those opposers have no right to call the translators incompetent or unqualified as they so often do. Their only qualms lie in a handful of vague, theologically charged passages. It is really a debate about theology and religion, and NOT pure translation--that is the point of my article.
ReplyDeleteAs for being "mainstream" or not, I do not adhere to the philosophy that just because an idea is popular or accepted by the many, it must carry more weight than the ideas of the few. The accuracy of any particular translated verse is completely independent of how many scholars simply "accept" it as correct.
“Many great things indeed have been achieved by those who chose not to leap into the mainstream” -Joan Mondale
Hi again!
ReplyDeleteI think you make some interesting points. You are right about sometimes going against the mainstream - Jesus is a great example of this!
I think (for me at least) the issue is both theology and translation, because it's not a few vague passages. The NWT consistently distorts what the Bible claims about Jesus.
I used to work with an atheist, who also had a theology degree. To her, it made no difference whather Jehovah's Witnesses or Chrisrians were right, we are equally deluded! Religion was quaint, that's all. I once asked her about John 1:1 and she came in the next day with her Greek New Testament. She agreed with the WT that a word should be added, but not that it is "a". She said it should be "definately". The "Word was definately God". The reason, according to her, is that the Greek is so clear that the statement is emphatic. The stress is on Jesus being God.
So, if the NWT translators can't get that right, surely we are forced to call into question their competency - or at least their honesty in translation? So the 1% does make a huge difference. Do you see where I'm coming from?
You say that it is not just a few vague passages, but you don't actually ever back that up. That is the point of the post--opposers rail against the NWT for being a terrible translation, when the only faults they EVER present for discussion are controversial, theologically charged passages that can be debated in the dust. Those are not translation issues, those are theological issues that the opposers have. The translation as a whole is fine, it is just that it gets away from the mainstream presupposition of "Jesus is God part of a Trinity" and actually thinks for itself, thus getting the people still in the mainstream mad at it (much like the mainstream hated Jesus!).
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual specific point of John 1:1c, I must say (respectfully) that your friend betrays her ignorance of the subject, or just her ignorance of the opposing view point for want of actually finding the opposing viewpoint.
On this blog however, the opposing view point is not so difficult to find. It is so extensively covered that I haven't even bothered to write about it myself. Just check the (I believe) September 2009 post called "Websites for Jehovah's Witnesses," and scroll through some of the sites (especially the coptic section!). The following link also has quite a bit of good stuff.
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/john1files.htm