Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Wes,

Following is my chapter in the book "Bible Translation in Context". Could
you make some comments on it in a couple of days? My deadline for sending
the chapter to the University of Maryland is April 10th.

Your brother
Rolf


BIBLE TRANSLATION IN CONTEXT

A legitimate and illegitimate use of theology in modern Bibele
Translations. A look at  the NWT and the NIV.



When we open a Bible translation which we view as sectarian, such as the
NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses, we expect to find numbers of biased renderings
which are influenced by the theology of the translators. We do not expect
to find the same situation when we open a popular, interdenominational
version such as the NIV. But such an expectation, is it not in itself an
expression of bias? Why should a theology which is orthodox or which are
accepted by many people be the criterion for which renderings that are
biased and which are not? As a matter of fact, it is extremely difficult,
if not impossible to define bias by the help of theology, so I  propose the
following definition based on linguistic criteria:

«Bias in bible translation is characterized by renderings that either 1)
contradict lexicon, grammar or syntax, or 2) definitely weaken or distort
the meaning by  addition or substraction of unwarranted semantic elements
in order to promote the translator's own theology.»
With this definition the cases which actually can be viewed as biased are
greatly reduced compared with those found if orthodox theology was the
criterion; but we need to have a sound definition, rather than one that
produces many examples.

In any Bible translation, the theology of the translators must play an
important role We cannot translate something that we do not understand.
This is not the same as to say that translators are freely allowed to read
their theology into the translation, because there must be particular
restraints. The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on such
restraints, on what is a legitimate and an illegitimate use of theology in
Bible translation, and at the same time see how this affect the readers.

We can illustrate the case by using an ananalogy from medicine. Some
decades ago the physician or the surgeon had the final word as to
treatment, and it was expected that the patient would accept anyt treatment
they decided. Today we have the principle of «informed consent.» It implies
that the doctors use their specialized medical knowledge to explain the
situation, and based on this information the patient chooses the kind of
treatment he or she wants. What about the Bible readers? Do modern
translations give them the opportunity  to make «informed choices» as to
the understanding of the Bible text? Or are they completely in the hands of
the translators? Are force transferred from the translators to the readers
or do we find the opposite situation of what we see in medicine, that all
the force rests with the translators?

To answer these questions I will first discuss how translation theory  has
changed during the last hundred years, and how the two presently held
models affect the readers. then I will take some examples from the NWT and
the NIV, two translations which are typical examples of each of the two
models.

«THE ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY»

Martin Luther did a pioneer work with his Bible translation, to the point
where he even helped shape the German language. His translation method was
idiomatic, and after him there have been several idiomatic translations,
including «The Emphasized Bible» (1902) by J.B Rotherham  and «A New
Translation of the Bible, (1926) by J. Moffat. Each of these versions has
several valuable traits. However, many translations made in the last part
of the 19th and first part of the 20th century were literal translations,
including «Young's Literal Translation of the Bible» (1898) by R. Young and
«American Standard Version» (1901) by a committee of translators.

There were no scientific translation models when these translations were
made, but the literal translations used the word  as the basic translation
unit. The idea of using one English word for the same Greek and Hebrew word
as far as possible, was based on the view that each word had an
etymological meaning which somhow was present in all the different uses of
that word. By using concordant renderings of words, some of this
etymological meaning was thought to be conveyed to the readers (1) .
There can be no doubt that etymology is tricky business. It is very
difficult to follow a word backwards through time and ascertain how the use
of it has changed. At which point in history can we for example pause and
be sure that we have found the fundamental meaning of the word? And when
this «fundamental meaning» is so difficult to find, how can anybody be sure
that there is some mystic unity in all uses of a word based on this
meaning? In 1961, James Barr clearly delineated the problem by publishing
his important book: «The Semantics of Biblical Language». Two important
points were stressed by Barr: 1) What counts in word studies is the
synchronic meaning of a word, i.e. its meaning at the time when the
document where it occurs was written, and not a supposed etymological
meaning. 2) Word studies should be strictly based upon linguistic evidence
and should not be colored by theology, as was the case with Kittel's
Theological Dictionary (TWNT) which even did not differentiate between
Begriff and Wort . Barr's view is toady accepted by most scholars, and the
basic principle behind the old literal translations is today rightly called
«the etymological fallacy».

NIDA'S «FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE»

Which translation method would now take the place of the old one? No person
has exerted a stronger influence upon modern Bible translation theory than
Eugene A. Nida. He is a brilliant theorist and a very fine teacher, and
through his lead Bible translation has become a modern scientific
discipline. Two fundamental ideas of Nida have greatly influenced modern
translation theory: 1) There is only one legitimate target group, namely,
the genereal readers (2) , and  2) The fundamental translation unit is the
kernel and not the word (3).

Nida has particularly worked to educate missionary translators, and his
insistence that the text should be processed so thoroughly that anyone in
the target group, even those with little formal education, could understand
it, is logical when the target group has no previous understanding of the
Bible. However good the motives are, this procedure takes a great amount of
power away from the readers and gives it to the translators. And exactly
the same is true with the use of the kernel rather than word as the basic
translation unit.

Nida was influenced by the generative grammar of Noam Chomsky. The socalled
«deep-structures» do not play any direct role in the thoretical framework
of Nida, but the «kernels» are thought to exist above the «deep structures»
and below the surface structures. To find the «kernels» one has to make a
semantic analysis of each sentence and isolate the four following
categories which are thought to be common to all languages (4): Object,
often nouns; Event (actions, processes, and happenings), often verbs;
Abstract (qualities, quantities, and degrees), often adjectives and
adverbs; and Relations, often prepositions and conjunctions. The
restructured units are now translated and the individual words of the
original just play a secondary role.

Much insight can be gained by doing both a syntactic and a semantic
analysis of each sentence, but the use of kernels as translation units
includes an extra step of exegesis which again means a greater coloring of
the translation by the translators. So informed choices by the readers are
very far away when this method is used.

«THE CONTEXTUAL FALLACY»

Nida's theoretical model for Bible translation has also influenced lexical
semantics, with the result that the word  not only has lost its importance
as the fundamental translation unit but also no longer is viewed as an
independent unit signalling meaning. One of Nida's co-workers, J. P. Louw,
wrote: «a words does not have a meaning without a context, it only has
possibilities of meaning.» It is true that when someone is choosing between
English glosses believed to be equivalent to a Hebrew word, it seems that
words do not have a meaning without a context. But this is a situation of
translation where we , by help of lexica and other means try to transfer
meaning from one language to another. However, to account for meaning we
must deal with two different presupposition pools (5) and two different
situations of communication at the same time.

A group of Jews living at the same time and in the same area had the same
presupposition pool (6) When an author wrote something to such a group, the
common language and the common presupposition pool were the foundation of
the situation of communication between the author and the group. The
discipline of psykholinguistics has illuminated what meaning is, connected
with in such a situation. To be able to use a word we need to know three
things: the sense it signals, its role in the sentence, and what it sounds
like. There is absolutely no reason to believe that information covering
these areas is stored in the brain as sentences or words in context. But as
one psykholinguist said: «The large number of words known by humans, and
the speed by which they can be located, point to the existence of a highly
organized mental lexicon.» (7)

This means that a word, written or uttered, in itself is just a semantic
signal which is void of meaning. However, this semantic signal has on the
one hand a referent, the thing in the world that it denotes, and on the
other hand it signals a concept in the minds of people speaking the same
language and having the same presupposition pool. The concepts in the mind
evidently consist of a core meaning which is quite clear but they become
more and moore fuzzy as the edges are approached. The advantage of this, is
that the same concept (signalled by a word) can be used in various senses,
even in new contexts where we have never seen it before. The context does
not generate new meaning, but the combination of words helps make visible
the particular part of the concept that the author wants to
illuminate.Thus, meaning is not connected with words written in a book and
their contexts but rather with the minds of living people! We can
illustrate this the word nepesh which represent one concept in Hebrew. When
this word was heard or read by a native speaker, he or she would instantly
know which side of the concept was being stressed, from a body which had
ceased to be a soul on the one hand to the right to exist as a soul on the
other.

People speaking English and living in the same area have the same
presupposition pool. The question for the translator is how to convey the
meaning of a particular Hebrew word used in a certain context and inside
the Hebrew presupposition pool by using English words signalling particular
concepts inside the English presupposition pool. Regarding nephesh the
literal NWT solves the problem by using the one word «soul» while NIV uses
more than 30 different words. Each solution is evidently the best one for
the particular target group. But the view on which NIV builds, that words
do not have meaning without a context, and its application to the two
different situations of communication and to two different presupposition
pools as if they were one, deserves the designation  «the contextual
fallacy». It is just as fallacious as the etymological view that Barr
abolished. Barr criticised that theology influenced word studies, this new
viewpoint denies that each word signals one concept, and introduces
theology  after word studies by dimishing the importance of words by
appealing to the context. (8)   And it definitely works against giving the
readers an opportunity of informed choices . For, if only the context gives
meaning, who are those who can find this meaning? Of course the
translators! And this gives them even more power.

LITERAL TRANSLATION BASED ON COMMUNICATION AND NOT ON THEOLOGY.

The achievements of psykholinguistics also opens the way for a model of
literal translation based on modern linguistic principles, for literal
tranlation is by no means dead even outside Bible translation. Peter
Newmark, a translator with a lifelong experience, does not accept that the
word should be discarded as the fundamental translation unit. He wrote:
«Many translators say you should never translate words, you translate
sentences or ideas or messages. I think they are fooling themselves. The SL
/source language/ texts consist of words, that is all that is there, on the
page.» (9)   As far as Bible translation is concerned, a model for a
literal translation but can be based on the principle that for a particular
target group, to use one English word for each Hebrew word, is the best way
to communicate the original message.

Let us again return to nephesh. As shown, this word signalled a particular
concept for the Jews of old, and its sense would instantly be ascertained.
The philosophy behind the use of the one English  word «soul» in
translation need not be any etymological view, but simply that this word
can serve as a semantic signal for a concept for the English mind just as
nephesh did for the Hebrew mind. The disadvantage of using one English word
for each Hebrew word, is that the concept signalled by one English gloss
almost never has exactly the same semantic range as one particular Hebrew
word (10) , and in addition there are different theological viewpoints
regarding the word «soul». This shows that for the general reader, a
strictly literal translation will not do, but for those who want to work
with the text on their own, such a translation serves their need because
they can find every place where a particular word is used, thus being
helped to readjust their view of «soul» in the light of the Hebrew
presupposition pool. For this group, therefore,  a literal translation is
the best way to communicate meaning.

Regarding the balance of power between the translators and the readers,
there is agreat difference between the two translation types. The literal
translation  is in a way a semi-finished product, where the translators
have done most of the work, but where the readers may also do their part.
Such a translation, therefore, takes power from the translators and puts it
in the hands of the readers, and the consequence of this is that  such
atranslation may better help the readers make informed choices.

EXAMPLES FROM NWT AND NIV REGARDING DEATH AND AFTERLIFE

The very fundament of the NIV and the NWT are completely different.
Therefore, it is not fair to compare the quality of the two translations
because they follow completely different translation principles and have
two different target groups. The NIV is a typical example of a translation
built on functional equivalence. Its target group is the general reader,
and the goal is to give the modern reader the same understanding of the
text as the original reader got. To achieve this, good idiomatic English is
used, and both the original language and the original presupposition pool
are translated as it were. The NWT is a strictly literal translation,
though with some idiomatic elements. Its target group is the reader who, by
help of his or her mother tongue wants to come as close as possible to the
original languages. To achieve this, the sentence structure of the original
languages is used, and to a great extent is one English word used for each
Hebrew and Greek word.  This means that the original languages are
translated but not the original presupposition pool. Each translation
should be evalued in its own right, and a judgement should be based on
whether it has followed its own translation principles and has achieved its
own goals. In addition we can look for bias and whether theology is used in
a legitimate or illegitimate way.

When we look at the way the translators render passages related to death
and afterlife, we should keep in mind that the translators of NIV believe
in life after death while the translators of NWT believe that nothing
survives the death of the body (11) . The NIV will get most of the
criticism in what follows, so to get some balance, let us start by showing
that the literal translation method of the NWT may also in some cases
prevent the readers from making informed choices. Look at the following
three examples. The text of NWT in Chronicles is unintelligible, in
Jeremiah it is ungrammatical because we cannot use perfect with the
adverbial «from now on», and in Numbers it is wooden and difficult to
understand. The text of the NIV is clear in all three instances.
2 Chronicles 3:4
NWT: «And the porch that was in the front of the length was twenty cubits
in front of the width of the house, and its height was a hundred and fifty.»
NIV: «The portico at the front of the temple was twenty cubits long across
the width of the building and twenty cubits high.»
Jeremiah 3:4
NWT: «Have you from now on called out to me?»
NIV: «Have you not just called to me?»

Numbers 16:29-30
NWT: «if it is according to the death of all mankind that these people will
die and with the punishment of all mankind that punishment will be brought
upon them, then it is not Jehovah that has sent me. But if it is something
created that Jehovah will create and the ground has to open its mouth and
swallow up them and everything that belongs to them and they have to go
down alive into She'ol, you will then know for certain that these men have
treated Jehovah disrespectfully.»
NIV: «If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually
happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD brings about
something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them,
with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the
grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with
contempt." (12)

Starting our investigation of death and afterlife with nephesh, we find
that  all the 754 examples are rendered by «soul» in NWT  while NIV renders
the word by more that 30 different English expressions. This accords with
the principles of the versions. However, the NIV introduces unnecessary
confusion by translating nepesh with «heart» (Genesis 34:3), «mind»
(Deuteronomy 11:18), «throat» (Jeremiah 4:10), «neck» (Psalm 69:1), and
«spirit» (1 Samuel 18:1). There are other Hebrew words which normally are
rendered with these glosses; so to use the same words also for nephesh
removes the readers very far from the original text.

However, the use of these words, illustrates a negative tendency in the
semantic domain model of lexical semantics, namely that different words are
conflated and the nuances are blotted out.
The first use of nephesh  where it denotes man, is in Genesis 2:7:

NIV:  «the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.»
NWT: «And Jehovah God proceeded to form man out of dust from the ground and
to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a
living soul.»

Both renderings accord with the principles of the versions, and neither of
them should be criticised, but here we meet for the first time the tendency
of NIV to tone down the view of the Jews that both men and animals are
souls (13) . There are scores of examples in the Hebrew text telling that
souls die, but the only two examples I was able to find in the NIV are
Ezekiel 18:4,20 (14)

A word related to nephesh is sheol. Psalm 16:10 shows that nephesh comes to
sheol and is not abandoned there. NWT transcribes Sheol in this place and
in all other instances, and NIV uses the grave in most instances. but also
Destruction (Job 26:6; Prov 15:11; 27:20), the depths (Psalm 139:8) and
realm of death (Deuteronomy 32:22). R.L.Harris, one of the NIV translators
wrote: «That the Hebrews believed in some underworld like that of the
ancient Near East cannot be gotten from the Bible. Soul sleep also is to be
rejected.» (15)  The expression realm of death in Deuteronomy  32:22, may,
however give the reader an impression of life and existence because that is
what we combine with something which is a «realm».
So far we have dealt with tendencies where the text is influenced by
theology, though in a legitimate way, but let us look at some examples with
an illegitimate use. Regarding the use of Sheol, Harris wrote: «There are a
number of passages in Isaiah using sheol that are thought by some to refer
to more than the grave....From the context either 'the grave' or 'hell' or
'the underworld' would fit.» (16) The NIV uses 'the grave' in these
instances.» However, very surprisingly, NIV renders Isaiah 14:9 this way:
«The grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the
spirits of the departed to greet you - all those who were leaders in the
world; it makes them rise from their thrones - all those who were kings
over the nations.»

Harris commented: «The word translated «spirits» is repha'im, which in a
number of other places merely means «dead ones.» (17)  On p 63 he even says
that repha'im is «never used to mean more than «dead ones».» A lexicon made
by Harris and two other NIV translators concludes that even in Ugaritic is
it not proven that the word means «the shades» or «the spirits of the dead»
but can simply refer to the dead. The introduction here and in Prov 2:18 of
«the spirits of the dead» and in Is 26:14 of «departed spirits»  cannot be
viewed as bias (given the linguistic definition of the word) because we
find this meaning in different lexica, and several scholars has argued for
this meaning in Ugaritic. But it definitely is an illegitimate use of one's
theology where a particular viewpoint is forced upon the readers. This is
enhanced by the fact that NIV has hundreds of very informative footnotes,
but in none of the passages with «the spirits of the dead» is there a
footnote with an explanation or an alternative!

The NWT renders repha'im  in Isaiah 14:9 and elswhere where the word refers
to death as «those impotent in death» (when it refers to living persons, it
is transcribed as Rapha'im). NWT takes rapa «to sink» as the root meaning
(18) . In the passages in NWT where we find «those impotent in death»,
there are several footnotes referring to the versions, but to give the
readers the opportunity to make informed choices, the alternative rendering
«the shades» or «the spirits of the dead», should have been mentioned in
the footnotes, particularly in Isaiah 14, a chapter which can be
interpreted as indicating life after death.

The NIV shows that different translators worked on diffferent books, and
the impression on gets from reading the version, is that some translators
whose view are that even the OT teaches an afterlife, has put their stamp
on particular passages even though the majority of the comittee have not
shared this belief, as Harris suggested. Thus we also find «the spirits of
the dead» as a translation of  ittim in Isaiah 19:3. It is true that the
Accadian word etemmu  had the meaning «ghost», «spirit of a dead person»,
but it could also mean «enchanter» (19)   There is no evidence that the
Hebrew word denoted «spirits of the dead», as the formentioned lexicon by
the three NIV translators also indicate. So this is again an illegitimate
use of theology.

We also find a suggestion of an afterlife in Psalm 146:4.
NIV: «When their spirit departs, they return to the ground».
NWT: His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground.»

This rendition represents a legitimate use of theology because it is
ambiguous, but still it betrays the tendency to read an afterlife into the
OT text. The same tendency is seen in the translation of ruah. This word is
in NIV rendered as «spirit» in 69% of its occurrences, but in connection
with animals, it is rendered as «breath» (20) . The word which in Genesis
2:7 is translated «breath of life» is neshama. The footnote of NIV says:
«breath of life. Humans and animals alike have the breath of life in them
(see 1:30; Job 33:4).» (21)   This is of course true, and at first glance
there does not seem to be much semantic difference between «spirit» and
«breath». However, that this is a part of an agenda is seen in Ecclesiastes
3:19, which are rendered as follows in the two translations:

NIV: «Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them
both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath, man has no
advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.»
NWT: «For there is one eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an
eventuality as respects the beast. As the one dies, so the other dies; and
they have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the
beast, for everything is vanity.»

The words «the same breath»/ «but one spirit» are translated from ruah
ehad. If ruach is translated by «spirit», that would suggest that the
author did not believe that man had a personal spirit that departs at
death, because the animals have the very same spirit. By the use of
«breath» in NIV, this problem is avoided. Because «breath» is a possible
rendering of ruah , this choice represents a legitimate use of theology,
but still it betrays a particular tendency.

So far we have discussed tendencies in the translation choices, and some
illegitimate uses of theology, but what about bias?  Because only examples
that definitely do not handle lexical information correctly or break
grammatical rules for the sake of theology are counted, we do not expect to
find many such examples in the OT where theology plays a minor role
compared with the NT. But I would like to show how the lines of
illegitimate use of theology in connection with life after death leads to
some fullblown biased renderings in the NT.

Proper names are as a rule not translated. The names may be different in
different languages due to a difference in the stock of phonemes, but still
the names can be recognized as denoting the same persons or places. This
principle is recognized by the NIV translators, as is shown by the
discussion of the use of «Valley of Ben Hinnom» in 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6
and Jeremiah 7:31; 19:2,  «Hinnom Valley»» in Joshua 18:6 and «Valley of
Hinnom» in Nehemiah 11:30 (22)

The Greek equivalent to «Valley of Hinnom» is «geenna» which occur 12 times
in the NT. In those cases where there are accompanying identifying
elements, «geenna is shown to be a physical/geographical place. Thus,
Matthew 5:30 shows that the body can be thrown into geenna, and Luke 12:5
suggests that the body, after being killed could be thrown into geenna, the
valley outside the walls of Jerusalem.
The bias of the NIV is seen in its translation of all 12 occurrences of
geenna as «hell». This is contrary to the rules of translating proper
names, and the motives are of course theological (23). The importance for
the Jew of old of both being put in a grave and the right kind of grave, is
time and again stressed throughout the OT, and there can be little doubt
that Jesus used gei hinnom/geenna as a symbol of something. But first to
decide what the meaning of the symbol is, and then use a word with one of
the biggest loads of extra-biblical connotations in our whole vocabulary
instead of the proper name, is a blatant violation of of the rules
regarding the translation of proper names and a typical example of «the
contextual fallacy».

It can be argued that «hell» has a long tradition as a gloss for geenna,
that geenna is found in the Pseuepigraphic literature (some of which is
pre-Christian) as a place where vicked people are punished, and that
orthodox theology teaches that sinners will be tormented after death. But
such arguments are strictly theological, and they may be reserved to a
footnote. But to make decisions on the part of the readers without their
being informed in this important matter by using «hell» in the main text is
to use the great power of the translators against the interest´s of the
readers. It is exactly the opposite of helping them to make informed
choices. To make the confusion worse, even an instance where hades  is
found, is translated by «hell», namely Luke 16:23 (24)

CONCLUSION

We have taken a quick look at modern Bible translation theory. Because most
modern translations are based on functional equivalence, where the
individual word neither is viewed as having an independent meaning nor
being the fundamental unit of translation, there are no signs that the
readers ever will be able to make informed choices as is the case in
medicine. All power is in the hands of the translators. However, it seems
that most Bible readers want it this way because they are not interested in
making choices themselves, but appreciate that they get an exegeted Bible
text. The few existing literal translations serve the need of those who
want to work with the text of their own. They have gone in the opposite
direction of the idiomatic ones, by recognizing the word as both having
individual meaning and as being the fundamental translation unit. By this,
power is transferred to the readers, helping them to decide for themselves.

We have taken a look at the NIV and the NWT regarding death and afterlife.
Both are very fine translations, given their different translation
principles and target groups. Both translations are to a great extent
influenced by the theology of the translators, but if we change the basis
for the definition of bias from theology to language, I will draw the
opposite conclusions from what most people expect from a sectarian and an
interdenominational version. I have not found a single example of bias in
the linguistic sense in the NWT but several examples in the NIV. Even the
examples of an illegetimate use of theology is substantially fewer in the
NWT than in the NIV, but a legitimate use of theology is abounding in both.
The conclusion, therefore, if we go back to the introduction and take the
theme into account, is that not only translation but also bias should be
seen in context.


NOTES

  (1) «Young's  Literal Translation of the Bible» also stresses that the
belief in verbal inspiration requires a strictly literal translation. See
«Preface to the Revised Edition».
 (2)   E.A. Nida & C.R. Taber, 1974, The Theory and Practicce of
Translation, Leiden: E.J. Brill, p 14.
 (3)  ibid. pp 39-55.
 (4) ibid. p 37.
  (5) The word «presupposition pool» can be defined as «The common
knowledge and understanding of the world which a particular group has built
on its language, its culture, its religion and its everyday life.
 (6) There would of course be differences in viewpoints in such a group,
but as far as language is concerned, they had a quite similar understanding.
  (7) J. Aitchison, 1993, «Words in the Mind»,Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
p 9.
  (8) An unfortunate side effect of the view that «words do not have a
maening without a context» is the tendency to conflate the meaning of
words. We will see examples of that later.
 (9)  P. Newmak, 1988, A Textbook of Translation, p 36. Newmark´s book was
awarded the British Association of Applied Linguistics' prize in 1988.
 (10)  See R.W.F. Wootton, ««spirit» and «soul» in the New Testament,» "The
Bible Translator",1975, pp 239-244.
  (11) See «New world Translation of the Holy Scriptures With References»,
Revised 1984, p 1573, and «The NIV Study Bible», 1985, p 1572 (note to Luke
16:23). This note is quoted in note 20
  (12) I would like to say that the examples above are exceptions. I have
compared every single verse of the NWT with the Hebrew text, and I found
that the translators have been extremely faithful toward the original text
and toward their own translation principles. Because they follow the
structure of the Hebrew sentences the text is sometimes quite wooden, but
fully intelligible.
  (13) The footnote equate «living being» with «living creatures» which
also is applied to animals, but there is no comment connecting «living
being» with the word «soul» which NIV uses as a rendition of nephesh other
places.
 (14)  Let me however commend the translators of their rendition of 1 Kings
17:21 «Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to
the LORD,  "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!» NWT's
literal translation of this passage should also be commended: «And he
proceeded to stretch himself upon the child three times and call to Jehova
and said: 'O Jehovah, my God cause the sould of this child to come back
within him.»
 (15)  R.L. Harris, «Why she'ol was translated 'grave'» in K. L. Barker,
ed, 1986, «The NIV the Making if a contemporary Translation», Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, pp 70.71.
 (16)  ibid. p. 66.
(17)   ibid. p 66.
  (18) See «Insight On the Scriptures», 1988, Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, p 778.
  (19) See W. von Soden, 1965, «Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Wiesbade,: Otto
Harrassowitz, p 263.
  (20)The rendition «breath» is only used in 8% of the occurrences of ruah,
the rendition «wind» is used in 20%, and other renditions in 3% of the
occurrences.
  (21) The reference to Genesis 1:30 is quite confusing because «breath of
life» in this verse is translated from nepesh. NWT has soul.
 (22)  L.L. Walker, «How the NIV Made Use of New Light on the Hebrew Text»,
in K.L. Barker, ed,  1986, «The NIV The Making of a contemporary
Translation», p 100.
 (23) The footnote to Matthew 5:22 says: «hell. The Greek word ge(h)enna,
which derives its name from a deep ravine south of Jerusalem , the «Valley
of (the sons) of Hinnom» Hebrew (ge hinnom). During the reigns of the
wicked Ahaz and Manasseh, human sacrifice to the god Molech were offered
there. Josiah desecrated the valley because of the pagan worship there
(2Ki23:10; see Jer 7:31-32; 19:6. It became a sort of perpetually burning
city dump and later a figure for the place of final punishment.» While the
historical facts in the note are true, the words «derives» and «a figure
for the place of final punishment» show that the translators felt free to
set aside the rules for rendition of proper names because of their
theological judgement.
  (24) Of the nine other examples of hades, five are transcribed as Hades,
two are translated as «depths» and two as «the grave». The footnote to Luke
16:23 shows the religious viewpoints of the translators: «hell. See NIV
text note. Hades is the place to which the wicked dead go to await the
final judgement. That tormet begins in Hades is evident from the plight of
the rich man. The location of Abraham's side is not specified, but it is
separated from Hades by an impassible chas. Hades includes the torment that
characterizes hell (fire, Rev 20:10; agony, Rev 14:11; separation, Matt
8:12). Some understand Jesus' description of Abraham's side and Hades in a
less literal way.»