[b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
furuli at online.no
Fri Nov 18 07:21:30 EST 2005
Please leave your theology for yourself, because the issue is one of
translation principles and true and false utterances, not one of theology.
You claimed that the NWT translators did not follow their own methodology,
and that claim I said is false! I think it is obvious for the list-members
that when *the context*, i.e., how the translators understand the setting in
which words and clauses occur, is used as a translation principle, it is no
violation of this principle if the translators use "Jehovah" where they
believe the context suggests that God is referred to. When they state that
they use the context, we must accept that as a statement of principle, even
though we may disagree regarding how the context is used.
Whether "Jehovah" should be used in the New Testament at all is a
philological question which has nothing to do with the claim that the
translators have violated their own methodology.
The discussion about the NWT has centered around literal translation, and
the use of "the context" does not speak against literal renderings. But the
principle shows that literal translation is no mechanical process, and that
even though the word is believed to be the fundamental translation unit, the
text is approached from different levels.
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Schmuel" <schmuel at nyc.rr.com>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
> Hi b-hebrew,
> Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>The two posts of Schmuel regarding the NWT and the New Testament are
>>the scope of this list.
> That is for the list moderator to determine. We are talking about using a
> Biblical Hebrew pronunciation in the New Testament.
> Also a claim was made about the NWT or the NIV being consistent in
> My comments have shown that the whole concept was incorrect vis a vis the
> If my comments are off-topic, then the claim of NWT consistency should be
>>... when a claim that is outright false is made, it is the duty of one
>>having a knowledge to speak up.
> True, but my claim was clearly true.
>>...three factors ... 1) quotes from the OT, 2) New Testaments in Hebrew
>>using Jehovah, and 3) the context. In *all* cases where Jehovah is found
>>in the NWT New Testament one or more of these factors are behind the
>>choice. Theology *must* be an important factor in Bible translation.
> Essentially you are conceding my point.
> First, let's be clear,
> (1) is understood, but not relevant to the great majority of verses,
> (2) is essentially irrelevant, as what difference does a c1500-1800 Greek
> to Hebrew
> translator's decision have to do about the essentially impossible JW
> about the original written-in-Greek autographs .. no significance there at
> Even if these late Greek to Hebrew translations support the selectivity of
> the NWT
> (doubtful) it simply has no relevance, as it is apples and oranges.
> Then we go to the critical one (3).
> "Context" in Jehovah Witness theology means that the idea that Jehovah
> as the Lord Jesus Christ is not acceptable. Therefore that is the
> determining factor
> in not putting Jehovah into those types of verses that I indicated, while
> Jehovah into those verses that are helpful for the distinction.
> Grammatically and linguistically there is simply no way to consider the
> omissions as guided by anything other than Jehovah Witness doctrine,
> as "context".
> In terms of the Greek language text the Jehovah translation decisions are
> In terms of matching the Jehovah Witness doctrine, you could say they are
> in that they are a deliberate translation tampering.
> Steven Avery
> Queens, NY
More information about the b-hebrew