[B-Greek] Question on NWT's footnote to Rev. 16:13
tsialas78 at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 3 10:51:34 EDT 2008
Dear Anthony Becker,Of course, only the translators themselves can fully explain why they chose to put the footnote
in the first edition and to omit it in the last one; but I believe, as I already stated,
that their omiting in the last edition has to do with the fact that their decision didn't really need extra support.
As regards the MSS Nos. 169, 189, 216, if these are Greek texts, then we have the case of some copyists who
tried to make the implicit explicit. As you may know, later copyists of the Greek New Testament have made
some efforts to improve the language of the text accondring to their standards. So, such efforts give an extra
witness of their understanding of the text. Similarly, ancient Biblical tranlsations also reveal the way some
prominent early Christians understood the biblical text, and it is in a way an extra witness too.
I wish there is someone in the forum that knows which exactly are these texts mentioned in the footnote,
so that your question may be fully satisfied.
> From: ABecker at nerdshack.com> To: tsialas78 at hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [B-Greek] Question on NWT's footnote to Rev. 16:13> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 07:22:00 -0700> > Vasileios,> > Thank you for responding. Just a few points:> > You said:> "The verb "come", though not being in the text, is implied by the preposition εκ (out of). Thus the Greek text gives enough evidence for this rendering."> > I agree and thus I wrote that "supplying a verb here is not remarkable (see “issuing” (RSV), “they came out” (NIV), etc.)"> > You said:> "It seems that at the first edition of the NWT the translators deemed it good to add the testimony of other, ancinet translations, as the Sahidic and the Ethiopic."> > It is because I agree that the text as it stands (WH, NA27) implies the verb that I find the need to add a footnote of witnesses in support of "come". Let us look at the footnote again:> > "Come," MSS. Nos. 169, 189, 216, Arm 1, 2, Sahidic and Ethiopic; but omitted by א A Vg Sy(h)> > Since the footnote says specifically that א A omit, yet both have the preposition ἐκ, this shows 1) that the original translation does not seem to find the preposition sufficient in implying the sense of "coming out," and thus the need to find support that explicitly supplies a verb here and 2) that the proposed base Greek text for the New World Translation (as they are presenting in their footnote) would contain this verb on the basis of "MSS. Nos. 169, 189, 216" and is supported by some versions (vg syr(h) arm 1 2 cop(sa) eth). Again, since they say that "come" is "omitted by א A" which contain ἐκ, this shows that they have something other than ἐκ in mind.> > Anthony Becker> >
Κατεβάστε 30 ΔΩΡΕΑΝ Emoticons για τον Windows Live Messenger σας!
More information about the B-Greek