Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:21:30 -0000

Dear Schmuel,

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.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
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 outside
the scope of this list.

That is for the list moderator to determine. We are talking about using a possible
Biblical Hebrew pronunciation in the New Testament.

Also a claim was made about the NWT or the NIV being consistent in translation.
My comments have shown that the whole concept was incorrect vis a vis the NWT.

If my comments are off-topic, then the claim of NWT consistency should be off-topic.

Rolf
... when a claim that is outright false is made, it is the duty of one having a knowledge to speak up.

Schmuel
True, but my claim was clearly true.

Rolf
...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.

Schmuel
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 conjectures
about the original written-in-Greek autographs .. no significance there at all.
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 manifest
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 putting
Jehovah into those verses that are helpful for the distinction.

Grammatically and linguistically there is simply no way to consider the selection
omissions as guided by anything other than Jehovah Witness doctrine, masked
as "context".

In terms of the Greek language text the Jehovah translation decisions are inconsistent.

In terms of matching the Jehovah Witness doctrine, you could say they are consistent,
in that they are a deliberate translation tampering.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page