Who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible and by what process was it created?

[Clear]

I was in a conversation with the Jehovahs Witness, Pegg. I think that Pegg offered us an incredibly important historical principle when she suggested the following : People really need to understand what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us. “ Pegg # 25 (different thread)


I thought Peggs suggestion was very wise in terms of an approach to meaning of both words and concepts when we are trying to discuss what original and authentic Christians meant when they said and wrote their witnesses for their theology. I am saying this in the context of my recent experience with the Jehovahs Witness’ translation of the Bible. I noticed that the Jehovah’s Witness Bible quotes were so very different than most bibles I’ve read and so I bought one from a used book store and compare only a very few verses, some that were used in critical texts. I was very impressed that the text excluded some known errors such as the Johannine Comma and that it placed the woman caught in adultery on a separate level of textual credibility (since it is also know to be an unoriginal text in critical texts).

This pleasant surprise was replaced by huge disappointment with the many, many, many, incorrect translation of and rendering of the Koine greek. There were very many, very bizarre renderings that were not explainable by any textual variations that I've ever seen (I read critical texts almost exclusively). Also, the multiple quotes from the Jehovahs Witness Bible in conversations I’ve seen on the forum also were quite disorienting and did not reflect either masoretic or Septuagint of Old Testament, nor any known critical text in the New Testament.

This background information is what led me to wonder WHO created the Jehovahs Witness Bible and HOW was this Bible created for the consumption of readers. Thus, in the thread labeled : “John 1:18 the only begotten God" I started looking into this question.


1) Clear asked in post # 74 was : Another second question I now have is : “ Who is the individual (or individuals who created) the New World Translation? Your quotes from it contain so many small contextual and translational errors that I am interested in who it was that created it this text.

I think there is a reason that non-JW scholars are, in the main, unable or unwilling to use the NW Translation for historical discussions. There are too many translational mistakes that seem (to me) to be the result of forcing one’s theology into a text where the theology never existed. This disobedience to your own rule of understanding “what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us” creates a historical literary “dissonance” an obvious and forced disharmony of historical rules of speech and of historical religious principles that is doesn’t flow smoothly since it cannot smooth these “bumps” and inconsistencies in historical language or historical religious principles.

The translators are speaking from the context of Jehovahs Witness theology and not thinking about what the early Christians believed.


2) Clear re-asked in post # 78 : “I also asked WHO created the New World Translation of the bible (or what group of individuals created the text). What are their names and who are they? For example, anyone may look up Doug Moos’ group and see the names of the individuals who worked on the NIV. WHO created the New World Translation? “


3) Pegg answered in post # 79 : “it really doesnt matter who was involved in the translation of it... no one takes the credit for what rightfully belongs to God, do they? “


4) Clear responded in post # 82 : This is a strange and incorrect conclusion. It DOES matter who creates a bible and the processes by which translation is done and the accuracy of the final product. If you were a translator any ancient language, you would understand.

The ability to actually translate accurately from a dead language, accounting for historical nuances and subtle nuanced contexts, cannot BE done by uneducated individuals who have inadequate knowledge of language and historical usage of language and cultural nuances affecting the language anciently.

If the New World Bible was created by a few uneducated bible students with a koine dictionary over a coffee table, this process is very different to that of a scholarly group of historians and linguists that create a bible. There must be some reason that would explain the multitude of errors and inconsistencies and strange renderings that we see in the New World Translation.

Pegg, WHO created the New World Translation of the bible? If it was a group of individuals, give me names of these individuals so as to allow me to do even the most basic analysis of the type of translators and their qualifications and their historical background that went into the creation of this Bible. "






When I asked these Questions, I did not know who created this bible. I have since, looked up this information I asked for and was deeply bothered but ambivalent about this process. It both completely astonished me with disappointment regarding qualifications and process as well as answered my questions as to why the text was so strangely translated.

My initial information did come from non-Jehovahs Witness sites and two Jehovah Witness textual references. One one deeply confirming source was a prior board member of the Jehovahs Witness General Board who left the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Is there any Jehovahs Witness that has any justification for the source and manner of the creation of the jehovahs witness bible? I do not feel it is correct to dishonor anyones beliefs, but it does bother me to have a poster claim it is so very important to "use the bible" as a source and confirmation for theology, yet use this sort text to justify themselves as using a "bible".

If the question itself is bothersome and ANYONE feels that it should be placed into a different directory (debate, etc), then I am perfectly fine with that. I had just thought that discussing this question inside the Jehovahs Witness DIR would prevent completely dishonorable posts and allow the Jehovahs Witnesses to control the comments to some extent.

Thanks in advance for any information on this point.
Clear

 

[Pegg]

Clear would you be able to provide a list of the so-called translation errors you believe you've found. Maybe we can discuss those individually to see if what you are claiming is correct.


And as to the question of what process was the NWT created and by whom, the watchtower has published this information:

On what is the “New World Translation” based?

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s BibliaHebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New WorldTranslation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

Who were the translators?

When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World BibleTranslation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.

Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”

Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.​

 

[Pegg]

I would also like to post some comments made by other bible scholars who have examined the New World Translation as mentioned on our website:


Positive comments about the New World Translation from non-Witness scholars

• In a letter dated December 8, 1950, noted Bible translator and scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote regarding the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”
  
  
• Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited theNew World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.”—The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.
  
  
• Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.
  
  
• Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: “The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.”—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.
  
  
• Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.
  
  
• Professor S. MacLean Gilmour, while not agreeing with some renderings in the New World Translation, still acknowledged that its translators “possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, page 26.
  
  
• In his review of the New World Translation that forms part of theKingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Associate Professor Thomas N. Winter wrote: “The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, page 376.
  
  
• Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”
  
  
• Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translationare the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation,pages 163, 165.
  

 

[JayJayDee]

Also from the 2013 Revised Edition, you might like to consider this.....

Principles of Bible Translation

The Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Today it is available in whole or in part in about 2,600 languages. The vast majority of people who read the Bible do not understand the original languages and therefore must rely on a translation. What principles should guide how the Bible is translated, and how did these govern the rendering of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?

• No two languages are exactly alike in grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. A professor of Hebrew, S. R. Driver, wrote that languages “differ not only in grammar and roots, but also . . . in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence.” Different languages require quite different thought patterns. “Consequently,” continues Professor Driver, “the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same.”
  
  
• No modern language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so a word-for-word translation of the Bible could be unclear or at times could even convey the wrong meaning.
  
  
• The meaning of a word or an expression may vary depending on the context in which it is used.
  

A translator may be able to mirror the literal rendering of the original language in some passages, but this must be done very carefully.


Read more......

Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek | NWT

 

[Clear]

Clear said : “ Hi Pegg : Please remember that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible did not graduate college, nor was language his major, and that he had only a single introductory course in "biblical greek" (koine) and his other 4 semesters in lower level Greek coursework were in "Classical Greek" (i.e. homeric type greek) which is not biblical greek. Please consider that any rules of language and meaning he might have suggested that the Jehovahs Witnesses adopt and use will not have the same credibility and depth of applicability as the suggestions coming from individuals who are authentic, educated, linguists, historians and individuals who actually have greater knowledge and understanding of "biblical greek" (koine). “ post 87

Pegg replied : “ Well i have to say that this is not quite the way our NWT bible was produced. There was not just one person involved...it was a group known as the 'writing committee' who are responsible for production of the NWT."



Pegg, when the "New World Bible Translation Committee" was formed, historically, it was composed of five Jehovah's Witnesses who claimed to be anointed to this task : the comittee included Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. Frederick Franz was, according to historical sources, the only one with sufficient knowledge of biblical language, who felt qualified to create this translation. If the others did not contribute translational skills, then the task of translation fell to Fredrick Franz. It was this historical point that I was referring to when referring to a single person who created a bible for the Jehovahs Witnesses. If the others had significant translational skills, perhaps you could correct this point?

However, Franz only had a 3 credit hour introductory course in biblical Greek (Koine) to call upon. His other four semesters of greek were in lower level coursework Classical (Homeric) Greek and not biblical greek. He had no college education in Hebrew at all. I think the fact that he was learning Hebrew by himself in some of his spare time is quite admirable and it gives him a right to venture an opinion, but it is insufficient to create a biblical translator. Pegg, I think your point is correct that " People really need to understand what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us. “ Pegg # 25 (different thread) but am unconvinced that a 3 semester hour introductory course in biblical Greek is sufficient to give Franz sufficient Linguistic and historical and contextual skills to prepare Franz to create a New Bible. Many translators such as the Nestle-Aland team have worked for many, many years and struggled with difficult translational issues. Many of these are world class level linguists and historians. What places Franz on their level? I say this, knowing that Franz must have had some fairly sophisticated thoughts to be able to exclude the Johannine comma (that took guts, but it was the correct thing to do...).

Clear

 

[Pegg]

“ Pegg # 25 (different thread) but am unconvinced that a 3 semester hour introductory course in biblical Greek is sufficient to give Franz sufficient Linguistic and historical and contextual skills to prepare Franz to create a New Bible. Many translators such as the Nestle-Aland team have worked for many, many years and struggled with difficult translational issues. Many of these are world class level linguists and historians. What places Franz on their level? I say this, knowing that Franz must have had some fairly sophisticated thoughts to be able to exclude the Johannine comma (that took guts, but it was the correct thing to do...).

Clear

What forms the basis of the NWT is the master texts produced by the above mentioned scholars and others.

Our writing committee didnt start from scratch... they used master texts as the basis for their translation.

 

[Clear]

Hi Pegg :

I believe that you are correct, Franz would not and could not have produced an entire bible from the original languages, but must have used an existing english translation (e.g. Hort) as a basis. It was never assumed that he would or could have used a non-english source exclusively. The use of another english as a base for the New World Translation is, I think, the only explanation for the mixture of smoothly flowing text interrupted by moment of strange, almost dictionary-like, "cut and paste" renderings as a mixture.

Pegg, you asked me : " Clear would you be able to provide a list of the so-called translation errors you believe you've found. Maybe we can discuss those individually to see if what you are claiming is correct. "

Yes, I think this is good. meanwhile, can anyone explain my original question as to the historical process of the creation of this bible. Just as with the question of "WHO" created this bible is simply a matter of looking a bit for historical data, I'm guessing the data as to the process exists in a historical search. Still, I'd rather hear about the process from a Jehovahs' Witness "friendly" source rather than sift through the bias of others describing this process from any other bias.

Thank you for your information Pegg. I am working and will get back to you on examples based on our discussions, since you are likely to be most familiar with those texts you've already used, and frankly, your texts were the original exposure that made me wonder what bible you were getting your quotes from in the beginning.

Clear

 

[Pegg]

Yes, I think this is good. meanwhile, can anyone explain my original question as to the historical process of the creation of this bible. Just as with the question of "WHO" created this bible is simply a matter of looking a bit for historical data, I'm guessing the data as to the process exists in a historical search. Still, I'd rather hear about the process from a Jehovahs' Witness "friendly" source rather than sift through the bias of others describing this process from any other bias.

Thank you for your information Pegg. I am working and will get back to you on examples based on our discussions, since you are likely to be most familiar with those texts you've already used, and frankly, your texts were the original exposure that made me wonder what bible you were getting your quotes from in the beginning.

Clear

The goal of producing the NWT was to prepare a translation that would be faithful to the original text, would embody the latest scholarly findings gleaned from newly discovered Bible manuscripts, and would use language readily understood by today’s readers. Our brothers worked on it for over 12 years... im sure the process was not easy and they would have studied those master texts and examined the choice of words and idioms used in the translations.

Here is an excerpt from our publications which describe some of the changes made in the NWT:

Bible texts that had previously been only dimly understood became dramatically clear. For instance, consider the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (KingJames Version) It was rendered: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.” The apostle Paul’s admonition rendered “be careful for nothing” (King James Version) was translated: “Do not be anxious over anything.” (Philippians 4:6) And the apostle John’s reference to “the concupiscence of the flesh” (Douay Version) reads, “the desire of the flesh.” (1 John 2:16) Clearly, the New World Translation opened up a new world of understanding.

Various scholars were impressed. For example, British Bible scholar Alexander Thomson noted that the New World Translation is outstanding in accurately rendering the Greek present tense. To illustrate: Ephesians 5:25 reads “Husbands, continue loving your wives” instead of saying merely “Husbands, love your wife.” (King James Version) “No other version appears to have exhibited this fine feature with such fulness and frequency,” said Thomson regarding the New World Translation.​

Another outstanding feature of the New World Translation is its use of God’s personal name, Jehovah, in both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of the Scriptures. Since the Hebrew name for God appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone, it is clear that our Creator wants his worshipers to use his name and to know him as a person. (Exodus 34:6, 7) The New World Translation has helped millions of people to do so.

​

Im sure there is a lot more written about the NWT in our societies publications...you can even find some yourself in our online library

 

[Clear]

Hi Pegg :I have just a second for a quick note.

As I looked through your last post, the only sentence that actually had anything to do with the process of creating this bible was : " Our brothers worked on it for over 12 years... im sure the process was not easy and they would have studied those master texts and examined the choice of words and idioms used in the translations. " The rest was simply advertisement. If you say that you honestly do not know what the process of creation entailed then I will believe you.


I’ve not had time to go through your prior quotes for examples, however your last quote is a simple example to start with.


Within the quote you gave us tells us to “consider the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (KingJames Version) It was rendered: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”


“ Μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνευματι οτι αυτων εστιν η Βασιλεια των οθρανων.” is the Greek of Matt 5:3 (I’ll look later for variants)

“ blessed [are] the poor in spirit “… = King James Translation

“Happy [are] those conscious of their spiritual need….” = New World Translation



Where in this sentence is Franz finding the words “conscious of their spiritual need”.
Where does Franz find “conscious” for example? It doesn’t appear in the Greek.
What about the greek word for “need”. It isn’t in the Greek text in this sentence either.

Do you see the problem with such "interpretations" rather than "translations".
How does Franz create “conscious of their spiritual need.” From the Greek that does not have the word for “conscious” nor the word for “need” nor are they obviously implied (as the word “are” may be implied and and a verb is required in the english)

I can see how Franz could have rendered Μακαριοι as “happy”, though strangely, he then renders it differently as a form of “blessing” in vss 4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10.
What is the justification for giving it one meaning in one sentence, but a different meaning in the following 7 verses.

How does Franz explain why he thinks the greek should be translated in this way in Matt 5:3?

These sorts of unusual renderings smack of “interpretations” that are placed into the text and are not authentic “translations” of the given text.

Anyway, if you can explain how and where such a “translation” can be created, that would be helpful to understand the process Franz used to create his bible.


Pegg, (or anyone else), I appreciate any information on this point.



Clear
σιδρω

 

[Pegg]

Hi Pegg :I have just a second for a quick note.

As I looked through your last post, the only sentence that actually had anything to do with the process of creating this bible was : " Our brothers worked on it for over 12 years... im sure the process was not easy and they would have studied those master texts and examined the choice of words and idioms used in the translations. " The rest was simply advertisement. If you say that you honestly do not know what the process of creation entailed then I will believe you.

well i certainly wasnt there with them for 12 years watching their 'process' so i can't tell you how they did it. But it surely did include a lot of study into the translations of those master texts and the original meanings of the hebrew and greek languages. Our literature contains tonnes of references to the meanings of the hebrew and greek words and if you just look at our 'Insight on the Scriptures' book, you'll 2 volumes of their research listed in alphabetical order on every subject every individual and every event recorded in the bible.

I’ve not had time to go through your prior quotes for examples, however your last quote is a simple example to start with.
Within the quote you gave us tells us to “consider the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (KingJames Version) It was rendered: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”


“ Μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνευματι οτι αυτων εστιν η Βασιλεια των οθρανων.” is the Greek of Matt 5:3 (I’ll look later for variants)

“ blessed [are] the poor in spirit “… = King James Translation

“Happy [are] those conscious of their spiritual need….” = New World Translation



Where in this sentence is Franz finding the words “conscious of their spiritual need”.

Where does Franz find “conscious” for example? It doesn’t appear in the Greek.

What about the greek word for “need”. It isn’t in the Greek text in this sentence either.

in the greek interlinear, this verse literally translates as “those who are beggars for the spirit.”

Other translators chose a similar translation for this verse. For example,
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
3 He said, `God makes happy those who know that they need him. The kingdom of heaven is for them.


Why do you think other translators chose similar wording here? Isnt bible 'translation' more about 'conveying the correct meaning' rather then offering a word for word translation? I used to interpret for the deaf in sign language and i know that it is not possible to sign word for word... you have to convey the meaning of what is being said more then the 'words' themselves.

 

[Clear]

Regarding the Process by which the Jehovahs Witness Bible was created


Pegg mentioned : “…. it surely did include a lot of study into the translations of those master texts and the original meanings of the hebrew and greek languages. Our literature contains tonnes of references to the meanings of the hebrew and greek words and if you just look at our 'Insight on the Scriptures' book, you'll 2 volumes of their research listed in alphabetical order on every subject every individual and every event recorded in the bible. “


I think you are correct that Franz had a library with many references and lexicons and dictionaries, etc. It is because of this that it makes no sense then not to use such references and lexicons and dictionaries to render matthew 5:3 so incorrectly.



Pegg mentioned : “ in the greek interlinear, this verse literally translates as “those who are beggars for the spirit.”


I think this is a wonderful example of a good translation. It accounts for all words in the original Greek without adding words in english that are not in the original Greek. Franz disobeys both rules.


For example, His “translation” inappropriately removes the greek for “poor” or “beggar”, AND inappropriately adds concepts and words that are not IN the original greek sentence.


The Greek (having no variant) says : Μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνευματι


Taking away from original biblical words :
Where is greek πτωχοι represented in Franz’ “translation”? It’s not there.


Adding to the original biblical words :
Where, in the Greek sentence is ANY word meaning “conscious of”?. It’s not in the greek and is an addition by Franz.

Where, in the Greek is ANY word meaning “need”? It’s not in the greek and is another addition by Franz.


Pegg : This is a very, very, very simple “Jack and Jill went up the hill” level of Greek. It is not complicated. How does Franz come up with such a bizzare rendering of this simple, five word sentence? You mention that another version was similar (though the vast majority are not). Do you think he simply copied a variant English, not having read the greek? I think that even his 3 credit hour introductory course and his 4 semesters of classical greek would have been enough to prevent that.


My current theory is that, as a non-translator, Franz forms his own theological and philosophical interpretation of a text and, instead of inserting a textual translation, he then inserts his theological interpretation into the text.

Such a model explains also other, similar, strange and bizarre “translations” exist that are not biblical translations at all. It explains why some text is removed that should be there (e.g. πτωχοι) and some text is added that should not be there (e.g. “conscious of” and “need”) as the present example shows a model of this pattern. It seems that he’s creating a curious mixture of part personal commentary inside a biblical text.


Pegg, below are examples of translations that account for the three words of the Greek phrase we are discussing Μακαριοι – blessed, happy, etc. πτωχοι – poor, beggar, etc. πνευματι - spirit, spiritual, things of the spirit, etc.

Readers : I did not pick and choose special ones, but simply typed in “matthew 5:3” at bible hub to have it give me several version : The url for cutting and pasting is : Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New International Version
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New Living Translation
"God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.

English Standard Version
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New American Standard Bible
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

King James Bible
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"The poor in spirit are blessed, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

International Standard Version
"How blessed are those who are destitute in spirit, because the kingdom from heaven belongs to them!

NET Bible
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Blessed by The Spirit are the poor, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Blessed are those who recognize they are spiritually helpless. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.

King James 2000 Bible
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

American King James Version
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

American Standard Version
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
Blessed [are] the poor in spirit, for *theirs* is the kingdom of the heavens.

English Revised Version
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Webster's Bible Translation
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Weymouth New Testament
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for to them belongs the Kingdom of the Heavens.

World English Bible
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Young's Literal Translation
'Happy are the poor in spirit -- because theirs is the reign of the heavens.





2) Pegg explained : Secondly, our translation uses an existing translation as its basis. The Westcot and Hort translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts is the basis for the NWT....so its not like our writing committee sat down and made their own bible translation.




Yes, I can agree that the committee must have taken an English translation and then referred to some lexicon or dictionary or other source to discuss a less nuanced greek and used this as a basis for translating rather than a Hebrew or Greek itself. This theory would, I think, explain the phenomenon of a normal flow of translation and smooth translation that is interrupted and interspersed by the abrupt change to an unusual flow of different wording and the abrupt contextual changes.



Clear
νενεω

 

[Pegg]

Its interesting that the Youngs Literal translation begins the verse with the word 'happy' when no greek word for happy appears in the original text. I find that interesting because it comes from a translation where the literal 'thought' is being conveyed.

What do you make of that?

 

[Clear]

Pegg commented : “ Its interesting that the Youngs Literal translation begins the verse with the word 'happy' when no greek word for happy appears in the original text. I find that interesting because it comes from a translation where the literal 'thought' is being conveyed. What do you make of that? “



I make of it that you are simply unaware of the authentic use of the words that koine can use for “happy” since μαχαροις DOES appear in the text and it certainly CAN be used correctly for "happiness" as well as "blessedness".

Μαχαριζωis a verb that may certainly mean to deem or to account as "happy".

For example, in Vett Val. Papyri in Koine greek, a man born under certain planetary influences was “υπο πολλων μακαρισθησεται” It was also the word used in Ps 1:1, μακαροις ανηρ ος ουκ επορευθη εν Βουλη ασεβων...” ("Happy is the man that does not go into the council of the impious …”) and thus, אֹשור , (the hebrew word used in the LXX for "Happy") according to the linguist molton, “denotes a state of true well being” (and in fact, the linguist Molton uses Matt 5:3 as an example of this useage of both the Hebrew AND the greek forms).

The word is used for happiness in the New Comedy and from early Papyri (PSI III 176.16 from v / a.d., and the Christian papyri P Giss I.55.6 from vi.a.d). It was W.M. Ramsay (CR 33. P. 6) who points out that μακαριος became used more in Christian religious circles as opposed to μακαριτης tended to be used by secular sources. Thus, the secular sources were not describing being “blessed” by God, but rather a life which was “happy” by it’s own character. In OGIS 383.16 and 39 and 108 in the mid first century B.C., Antiochus also used the verbal μακαριστος in this way.


Clear

 

[Pegg]

Pegg commented : “ Its interesting that the Youngs Literal translation begins the verse with the word 'happy' when no greek word for happy appears in the original text. I find that interesting because it comes from a translation where the literal 'thought' is being conveyed. What do you make of that? “



I make of it that you are simply unaware of the authentic use of the words that koine can use for “happy” since μαχαροις DOES appear in the text and it certainly CAN be used correctly for "happiness" as well as "blessedness".

Μαχαριζωis a verb that may certainly mean to deem or to account as "happy".

For example, in Vett Val. Papyri in Koine greek, a man born under certain planetary influences was “υποπολλωνμακαρισθησεται” It was also the word used in Ps 1:1, μακαροις ανηρ ος ουκ επορευθη εν Βουλη ασεβων...” ("Happy is the man that does not go into the council of the impious …”) and thus, אֹשור , (the hebrew word used in the LXX for "Happy") according to the linguist molton, “denotes a state of true well being” (and in fact, the linguist Molton uses Matt 5:3 as an example of this useage of both the Hebrew AND the greek forms).

The word is used for happiness in the New Comedy and from early Papyri (PSI III 176.16 from v / a.d., and the Christian papyri P Giss I.55.6 from vi.a.d). It was W.M. Ramsay (CR 33. P. 6) who points out that μακαριος became used more in Christian religious circles as opposed to μακαριτης tended to be used by secular sources. Thus, the secular sources were not describing being “blessed” by God, but rather a life which was “happy” by it’s own character. In OGIS 383.16 and 39 and 108 in the mid first century B.C., Antiochus also used the verbal μακαριστος in this way.


Clear

If the word can be translated as 'happy', why do you have an objection to a translator using the word happy in the verse??

And i noticed that the GOD'S WORD® Translation uses similar translation when it uses the word 'recognize'
"Blessed are those who recognize they are spiritually helpless.
The NWT says "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need" which is quite similar; don't you think?

 

[Clear]

Pegg asked : “ If the word can be translated as 'happy', why do you have an objection to a translator using the word happy in the verse??“ # 14

You misunderstand. I have no objection to rendering “μακαροι" as reference those who are “happy” or those who are “blessed”. As I demonstrated in post # 13, the word can be used correctly in either case depending upon context. This is why I said in my initial post that “I can see how Franz could have rendered Μακαριοι as ‘happy’”. #8

I also said say : “… strangely, he [Franz] then renders it differently as a form of “blessing” in vss 4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10. What is the justification for giving it one meaning in one sentence, but a different meaning in the following 7 verses. “ I simply wanted you to consider the use of multiple words in a recurring, thematic expression that are broken by changing the meaning of the repeated introductory expression. It is NOT necessarily incorrect, but simply unusual and clumsy. It’s like listening to a lecture on history of the civil war and the instructor interjects the phrase : “I like salt and pepper on my eggs.”. While the statement may be correct, it breaks the context of any theme that contains similar repeating expressions.


Pegg says : " And i noticed that the GOD'S WORD® Translation uses similar translation when it uses the word 'recognize' "Blessed are those who recognize they are spiritually helpless. The NWT says "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need" which is quite similar; don't you think? "

Yes, both of these are similar examples of poor translation in that they both exclude words and concepts from the original greek text as well as making the mistake of adding words and concepts that are not in and are different than the source text. It is a case of inappropriate "adding to and taking away from". In this example, There is no greek word either explicit or implied for “recognize” or for “helpless”. Perhaps this translator in “God’s Word Translation” is making the same mistakes as Franz for similar motivations. It may boil down to Franz and the other translator confusing commentary for translation while they were creating their text and inserting commentary and philosophy instead of strictly translating.



Pegg, thanks for your patience in considering these issues. Most of us simply read the texts and none of these issues ever occur to us until we first are introduced to these concepts and they are often, uncomfortable to confront and discuss.



Clear
ειειφυω

 

[Pegg]

Pegg asked : “ If the word can be translated as 'happy', why do you have an objection to a translator using the word happy in the verse??“ # 14

You misunderstand. I have no objection to rendering “μακαροι" as reference those who are “happy” or those who are “blessed”. As I demonstrated in post # 13, the word can be used correctly in either case depending upon context. This is why I said in my initial post that “I can see how Franz could have rendered Μακαριοι as ‘happy’”. #8

I also said say : “… strangely, he [Franz] then renders it differently as a form of “blessing” in vss 4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10. What is the justification for giving it one meaning in one sentence, but a different meaning in the following 7 verses. “ I simply wanted you to consider the use of multiple words in a recurring, thematic expression that are broken by changing the meaning of the repeated introductory expression. It is NOT necessarily incorrect, but simply unusual and clumsy. It’s like listening to a lecture on history of the civil war and the instructor interjects the phrase : “I like salt and pepper on my eggs.”. While the statement may be correct, it breaks the context of any theme that contains similar repeating expressions.

all translators do this....and it depends on the context and on which english word best describes the meaning behind the greek word. The context should always be the focus of how something is translated because if you simply translated the text word for word, it would make very little sense and might even give the reader the wrong idea.

Pegg says : " And i noticed that the GOD'S WORD® Translation uses similar translation when it uses the word 'recognize' "Blessed are those who recognize they are spiritually helpless. The NWT says "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need" which is quite similar; don't you think? "

Yes, both of these are similar examples of poor translation in that they both exclude words and concepts from the original greek text as well as making the mistake of adding words and concepts that are not in and are different than the source text. It is a case of inappropriate "adding to and taking away from". In this example, There is no greek word either explicit or implied for “recognize” or for “helpless”. Perhaps this translator in “God’s Word Translation” is making the same mistakes as Franz for similar motivations. It may boil down to Franz and the other translator confusing commentary for translation while they were creating their text and inserting commentary and philosophy instead of strictly translating.

No, the fact is that some translators choose to convey the 'meaning' of the verse.

And when it comes to translation, that should be the goal. A good translator does this.... bad translators simply get hung up on words and forget that they are supposed to be 'translating' the meaning to the hearer.

Can i ask you if you have a prefered bible that you use...one that you believe does not have any perceived errors in translation?

 

[Clear]

Pegg said : "No, the fact is that some translators choose to convey the 'meaning' of the verse. “


Whose personal and subjective meaning of biblical verses do we use to create an objective and standard bible?

The greek “means” something different to Frederick Franz, (the Jehovahs Witness who created their bible) than to Luther, or Jerome or to other translators who have a different context and belief. This is partly why we cannot leave the text for insertions of personal theology in translation. The greek means something different to the Jehovahs Witness Frederick Franz who had only a 3 semester hour course in biblical greek than it means to an actual biblical scholar like Gerhard Aland or to Hort, or to Tischendorf, etc.

Perhaps, to help demonstrate the difference between what Frederick Franz did and what authentic biblical translators did in this verse, we can look at two simple sets of words, one set we have bias toward, and another set that we are blind to context. You say that you create your definitions from “scholars” (though I would argue that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness bible could hardly BE a biblical language “scholar” having had only a 3 semester hour introductory course in biblical greek…).


What does πτωχοι mean to the scholars Pegg?

Look at your lexicon or dictionary or any “scholars” reference and lets see where very basic and simple logical thought takes us.


Clear

 

[Pegg]

Pegg said : "No, the fact is that some translators choose to convey the 'meaning' of the verse. “


Whose personal and subjective meaning of biblical verses do we use to create an objective and standard bible?

The greek “means” something different to Frederick Franz, (the Jehovahs Witness who created their bible) than to Luther, or Jerome or to other translators who have a different context and belief. This is partly why we cannot leave the text for insertions of personal theology in translation. The greek means something different to the Jehovahs Witness Frederick Franz who had only a 3 semester hour course in biblical greek than it means to an actual biblical scholar like Gerhard Aland or to Hort, or to Tischendorf, etc.

Perhaps, to help demonstrate the difference between what Frederick Franz did and what authentic biblical translators did in this verse, we can look at two simple sets of words, one set we have bias toward, and another set that we are blind to context. You say that you create your definitions from “scholars” (though I would argue that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness bible could hardly BE a biblical language “scholar” having had only a 3 semester hour introductory course in biblical greek…).


What does πτωχοι mean to the scholars Pegg?

Look at your lexicon or dictionary or any “scholars” reference and lets see where very basic and simple logical thought takes us.


Clear

No, im not going to debate greek words with you. Nor am I going to follow you down the path of criticizing someones education. (not that brother Franz was solely responsible for the translation of the NWT)

If you want to discuss individual verses, then im happy to do that. So far, you've had an issue with the translation of 'Happy' as opposed to 'blessed' even though you yourself showed how the greek word can be translated into either word...and i pointed out that at least 2 other translators had chosen to use the word 'happy' too.

So do you have any more examples you would like to examine?

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

A) REGARDING HOW FREDERICK FRANZ (AND THE OTHER FOUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS) CREATED THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS BIBLE

The problem of adding to and taking away from biblical text and the meaning of the text

Clear asked Pegg (post # 17) “Whose personal and subjective meaning of biblical verses do we use to create an objective and standard bible?

The greek “means” something different to Frederick Franz, (the Jehovahs Witness who created their bible) than to Luther, or Jerome or to other translators who have a different context and belief. This is partly why we cannot leave the text for insertions of personal theology in translation. The greek means something different to the Jehovahs Witness Frederick Franz who had only a 3 semester hour course in biblical greek than it means to an actual biblical scholar like Gerhard Aland or to Hort, or to Tischendorf, etc.

Perhaps, to help demonstrate the difference between what Frederick Franz did and what authentic biblical translators did in this verse, we can look at two simple sets of words, one set we have bias toward, and another set that we are blind to context. You say that you create your definitions from “scholars” (though I would argue that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness bible could hardly BE a biblical language “scholar” having had only a 3 semester hour introductory course in biblical greek…).

What does πτωχοι mean to the scholars Pegg?”


Pegg responded (post # 18) No, im not going to debate greek words with you. Nor am I going to follow you down the path of criticizing someones education. (not that brother Franz was solely responsible for the translation of the NWT) “


Pegg, there is no need to “debate greek words” at all. You claimed that you take your meanings of words “from the scholars” and I am perfectly happy with that philosophy. We can even use your references from Vines if you prefer.

For examples :

We could use Thayer's Definition for πτωχός
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms, destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour, lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches,helpless, powerless to accomplish an end,
poor, needy
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit

1. destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

Or we could use Strong's Definition for πτωχός
From πτώσσω ptōssō (to crouch; akin to G4422 and the alternate of G4098); a beggar (as cringing), that is, pauper (strictly denoting absolute or public mendicancy, although also used in a qualified or relative sense; whereas G3993 properly means only straitened circumstances in private), literally (often as noun) or figuratively (distressed): - beggar (-ly), poor.

We can use Abbots, or Moultons, or Milligans, etc. Or we could use Vines definition since you’ve used that and seem to like it as a lexionary. Why don’t you give us your definition from Vines?



B) REGARDING WHETHER ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE “TRANSLATION COMMITTEE” HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL IN TRANSLATING FROM HEBREW OR GREEK

Pegg, you seem to want to change the historical description that no other but Franz on this committee had any significant knowledge and skill to translate or determine a translation from either Hebrew or Greek as being either correct or incorrect. If you wish to contradict the general board member Raymond Franz’ conclusion on this point, now is the time to do it. You could be correct, and some very simple data would correct this point if you want to offer it here.

Pegg, IF any of the other four members on the Jehovahs Witness “translation Committee” had any significant language background and ability that would qualify them to create a bible, PLEASE let us know this since the current historical information available to me shows no other person on this committee either had, or felt they had sufficient skills in ancient language to translate and create a bible.

Pegg, as a Jehovahs Witness, you are better qualified to answer and correct this point than myself since I am simply referring to general J.W. board member Raymond Franz' written description that none of the board members but Frederick Franz were qualified to translate from Biblical Greek or Hebrew. Are you aware of ANY linguistic ability in any other member than Frederick Franz that would have qualified the other members to translate and create a bible ?

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

3) DISCUSSING AN INDIVIDUAL VERSE - MATTHEW 5:3

Pegg said (post # 18) : “ If you want to discuss individual verses, then im happy to do that. “

Pegg, we ARE discussing an individual verse. We are discussing Matthew 5:3 and how it was “translated by Franz in his creation of the Jehovahs Witness Bible. (We are not discussing any other verse yet). Thank you for being willing to discuss this individual verse.



4) BOTH "HAPPY" AND "BLESSED" MAY BE CORRECT TRANSLATIONS FOR "Μαχαροι"

Pegg said : “ So far, you've had an issue with the translation of 'Happy' as opposed to 'blessed' even though you yourself showed how the greek word can be translated into either word...and i pointed out that at least 2 other translators had chosen to use the word 'happy' too. “


Pegg, I am not sure how you can be so very confused and incorrect in your conclusion about this simple point. I even gave you multiple historical textual examples from koine Papyri as to why I think Franz COULD correctly render μαχαροι as either "blessed" or "happy" (In fact, since μαχαροι is not in past tense, "happy" may be a better rendering).

I said in post # 13 : “ Μαχαριζωis a verb that may certainly mean to deem or to account as "happy".

For example, in Vett Val. Papyri in Koine greek, a man born under certain planetary influences was “υπο πολλων μακαρισθησεται” It was also the word used in Ps 1:1, μακαροις ανηρ ος ουκ επορευθη εν Βουλη ασεβων...” ("Happy is the man that does not go into the council of the impious …”) and thus, אֹשור , (the hebrew word used in the LXX for "Happy") according to the linguist molton, “denotes a state of true well being” (and in fact, the linguist Molton uses Matt 5:3 as an example of this useage of both the Hebrew AND the greek forms).

The word is used for happiness in the New Comedy and from early Papyri (PSI III 176.16 from v / a.d., and the Christian papyri P Giss I.55.6 from vi.a.d). It was W.M. Ramsay (CR 33. P. 6) who points out that μακαριος became used more in Christian religious circles as opposed to μακαριτης tended to be used by secular sources. Thus, the secular sources were not describing being “blessed” by God, but rather a life which was “happy” by it’s own character. In OGIS 383.16 and 39 and 108 in the mid first century B.C., Antiochus also used the verbal μακαριστος in this way. “


I was SUPPORTING Franz’ use of those who are “happy” as a legitimate meaning for “μακαροι”. I am trying to be as objective as I can and give him credit where it is due. I am NOT trying to discredit Franz’ every departure from the most common English translation. I think that using the same word “blessed” OR "happy" would have better kept the theme of the introduction to each verse. I simply pointed out that Franz shifts from "happy" to "blessed" and this was a clumsy and unneeded shift.



5) A STUDY OF FRANZ'S METHOD OF CREATING SCRIPTURE

If you remember, I initially wondered how the New Word Translation was created with so many, many unusual, clumsy, unnatural and erroneous points in it’s “translation”. You did not want to tell me so I looked it up. (Anyone may google “New World Translation committee”).

The data showed 5 Leading Jehovahs Witnesses were on this committee.

A further historical search revealed that only one man, Frederick Franz possessed ancient sufficient language skills to be able to “translate” from any ancient version in either greek or Hebrew.

A further historical search revealed that Frederick Franz had never taken ANY Hebrew in ANY college, but was trying to teach himself Hebrew. I did NOT think this qualified him to create a bible from Hebrew, but I DO think he was admirable and diligent and was a good example for the rest of us in his as to how we can seen to become better scholars. What he was doing in this educational attempt was admirable, not shameful.

A further historical search revealed that Frederick Franz had only taken a 3 hour introductory course in biblical greek, that is, the specific greek language that the New Testament (and greek Old Testament) were written in. I did NOT think this qualified him to create a bible from Greek manuscripts.

You were the one who finally told us that Franz took an English bible (Wescott Hort translation) and the committee then changed the words of this base text to create a bible for Jehovahs Witnesses.

Given these points, my question still remains as to how he decided to change certain verses to support his theology when his ability to translate even simple verses was so minimal.



6) WHY WE ARE DISCUSSING MATTHEW 5:3 RATHER THAN ANY OTHER VERSE

YOU were the one who provided Matthew 5:3 as an example of Franz’ wonderful translation skills.

I thought it was a GOOD verse to start examining since it was another example of the many “strange translations” of greek. It simply doesn’t reflect the greek words and it represents one of many types of departure from authentic Greek biblical manuscripts that I described he was making. It was also a very, very simple verse.

Although it may seem uncomfortable to discuss this very simply verse of Matthew 5:3, I can guarantee it does not get easier to discuss the more complicated and unusual renderings Franz came up with in other verses.

As a VERY, VERY simple example, the greek of Matthew 5:3 reads :

"Blessed are the poor in spirit..." RSVbible

“ Μακαριοιοι πτωχοι τω πνευματι…” Which Franz “translates” :

“Happy [are] those conscious of their [spiritual] need….” = New World Translation

The rendering of οι πτωχοι as “those who are conscious of their need” is incredibly unusual and does not exist in any lexicon or greek dictionary that I’ve ever seen.

You say you take such definitions from Scholars, but no scholar uses or has suggested this working definition in any greek lexicon.

Did Franz do this simply because he did not know the greek?

Was he following another translators mistake?

Was he inserting his own philosophy and interpretation into this sentence in the place of actual translation?

Did he know it was incorrect but did not care.

Whatever it was, there is some reason why Franz rendered the verse in this manner.

For example, IF Franz is assuming the word πτωχοιare “the poor” (e.g. instead of “the powerless”, “the needy”, “the destitute”, “the crouching”, etc).

None of these words add the quality of “consciousness” or unconsciousness; “awareness” or unaware, “infant (i.e. unaware)” or adult (potentially aware); “intelligent” or unintelligent, “living or dead, past or present or future.

The πτωχοι are a class who "lack". The concept of being "conscious" (or unconscious) of lack is not in the words' definition but must be added by another word.


CREATING A BIBLE BY USING THE AUTHORS INTERPRETATION AND PERSONAL MEANING

You seemed to indicate that Franz’ belief that he should change the words in the bible to reflect what he thinks the words mean is one way to translate. The difference is, that it is applying an interpretation TO words, instead of the words themselves.

While "translation" is simply moving words from one language to another, that is, it is a conversion, “interpretation” may involve an explanation of, or elucidation upon those words being translated. Textual translation is not exposing the deep meaning of a word, or it’s history or it’s context. It is not an exegesis or clarification of the word, but simply moving from one language to another. And yes, a degree of "interpretation" MUST be involved to achieve a correct "translation", at least enough to make some sense of words that have no direct translation into the same meaning in another language.

Franz is not translating in this case, he is “interpreting”. Having said this, I must say that ALL translators are guilty of “interpretation” and placing their own theology onto and into the biblical text. They simply can’t avoid seeing the world through their own viewpoints. Franz is no different in this thing. He simply seems to be much, much more overt at doing this.

I think you have, inadvertently, given us one good model for why the Jehovahs Witness Bible is so different. It is not a translation by Franz, but an application of his personal interpretation onto the text, regardless of what the text says.

For example, many, many historical and linguistic scholars have pointed out to the Jehovahs Witnesses, the error of applying the name Jehovah to a New Testament text that never had Jehovah in the text, simply because their doctrine is to “declare his name”. The doctrine may be admirable, but then it results in a skewed text. It opens the door for all Christian movements to simply create a bible that matches their theology rather than to create a theology that matches authentic biblical text. To the degree that this approach changes God standard to fit man’s translational opinions rather than encourages mankind to fit themselves to God’s standard, it is a mechanism of apostasy from Gods’ standards.

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS