1) No greek lectionary or greek dictionary defines the word πτοχοι as “conscious of need”
I am assuming that all forum readers who have tried to find any lexical or dictionary meaning of πτοχοι have discovered that they are unable to see a single incident where the specific word πτοχοιmeans a “consciousness of need”, but instead, it refers to “the poor” as a class, or “the beggars” as a class, or those who are in similar straits as a class.
I also expect that readers who have searched as I suggested, have discovered that any commentarian who knows and uses koine greek also uses the specific word “πτοχοι” as a reference to “the poor”, independent of whether the poor is conscious or unconscious of their situation.
It is ONLY by the addition of other words, such as τωπνευνατι (spiritually) that πτοχος can acquire addition lexical and contextual meaning and then come to mean “spiritually poor” (as opposed to being poor of money, or poor of heart such as depression, etc., or poor in knowledge poor (ignorance) or any other type of poverty).
2) No greek commentator does or can use the word πτοχοι for “consciousness of need” without adding further reference
Even Peggs example which uses the word “consciousness” in reference to Matt 5:3, had to use a german document from the 1800s by Meyer which was translated into English.
However, even Meyer demonstrates he must add “the poor in reference to their spirit “, thus demonstrating the principle that another reference MUST be made with the word “poor” before it can mean more than “poor”. One may assume “poor” refers to money, OR one must ask : “poor in WHAT??” (money, knowledge, attitude, poor health, etc). In this case, poor requires a reference to spirit before it can mean “poor in spirit”.
Also, Meyer demonstrates that he cannot use πτοχοιςas a definition for “consciousness” itself, but must explains the words “intended use” inside a larger sentence to which the word references.
Thus, even “consciousness” must reference another word before it can attach to other meaning (i.e. “conscious of what?”)
Meyer further, even gives us Bauers example that πτοχοι requires other words for context in his reference “those who are poor, but rich in the spiritual…” (he gives it in greek but this is an English translation - greek readers will see the reference plainly).
3) CREATING A COMMENTARY RATHER THAN A TRANSLATION
Pegg admits that they are not using the greek words in their “translation” : “And they were not translating words..... They were translating the meaning of the verse because the meaning is not conveyed by the word alone. “
Pegg and I are complete and absolute agreement on this point.
I have already pointed out that that Frederick Franz did not and could not have translated the Greek words with correct grammar and nuances since he was relatively uneducated in biblical greek (He had only one semester of introductory biblical greek, though more in classical greek).
It is obvious that Frederick Franz HAD to rely on the commentaries and the bibles produced by others who were educated in biblical greek and were able to translate biblical greek. Frederick Franz’ text itself confirms that Pegg and I are correct in our agreement on this specific point.
4) “…They were not translating words….” - Pegg
Certainly this is absolutely correct. They were NOT translating the words of any ancient Greek manuscript on this planet (that we know about).
Franz did not translate the greek words since he avoids authentic lexical meanings and gets the greek words wrong. Franz either did not know greek grammar or he disobeyed grammatical rules since he also breaks simple rules of greek grammar and does not follow authentic grammatical rules.
Franz paraphrases simple passages.
He is, in many of his departures from the authentic text, NOT using the authentic greek as a lexical source. For example, Matthew 5:3, in his version, was taken from an English source, not a greek one (I’ll explain this further on).
5) The creation of a "paraphrase" is not the same as the creation of a "translation"
The creation of a “bible” by means of using a commentary about the original biblical text rather than using the original biblical itself results in a product that is different than authentic translations of the actual New Testament.
For example, authentic biblical translations are similar enough to the original words that one is often able to translate relatively accurately back into the original greek from the translation. One can determine from an authentic and well done translation, what Jesus and the apostles actually said. One cannot do this with Franz’s bible.
For example : Franz’s rendering of “they who are conscious of their spiritual need” cannot BE back translated into the original greek as authentic translations of texts can often be (e.g. Ginsbergs "Massorah" and Erasmus first Greek printed bible, etc.)
This is due to the fact that Franz is NOT translating the biblical text, but paraphrasing and engaging in commentary..
For examples : The KJV uses “… the poor in spirit.” If one takes this English phrase, it is easily translated back from it parts, to the original. The poor = οι πτοχοι τω πνευματι (πνευμα would have a different ending, but it is close enough).
This process can be done to a translation because it is a translation of BOTH words and meaning. It is NOT a paraphrase or a commentary, but an authentic translation of the “original words” that Jesus spoke.
If a translator attempts this with Franz’s product “…those conscious of need...”, one cannot do this. “those conscious of” cannot BE rendered by “οι πτοχοι” in greek since the greek word for "consciousness" is not "πτοχοι" (the poor) but instead is a different word, and the word for “need” is not “πνευματι” (spiritual) but it is also a different word.
So, Franz’s product can carry meaning but, by reading Franz's paraphrase, one cannot know what Jesus actually said by reading his "translation". One can merely see the meaning Franz gives to the words that Jesus said. This is one important difference between translation and commentary.
The interlinear version Pegg offered as an example is also another good example of an actual “translation”. It says : “… those who are beggars for the spirit…. ”.
Again, an English, back to Greek translation of this sentence will result in the same or nearly the same greek words that Jesus spoke.
It is in singular dative (i.e. a class) and doesn’t change to possessive as Franz does. This verse requires a word for beggars, and πτοχοι mirrors the greek. This translation refers to spirit and thus requires a reference to πνευμα[τι] just as in the original.
Again, this cannot be done by the paraphrase or commentary which Franz created. His renders a possessive use of consciousness and need, neither of which use the two words of the original greek (πτοχοι& πνευματι).
5) Back translation as evidence of good translation
Authentic translations that DO translate BOTH actual words and grammar of the original Greek New Testament, AND meaning are characterized by the ability to back translate
This means that a good translation of a the text carries BOTH the meaning AND uses words that are in the original text in their original context and meaning as possible. One can “back translate” a good translation.
To the extent Frederick Franz inserts paraphrases and commentary into the biblical text instead of “translating the words” (which have meaning), when one reads the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation which Frederick Franz Created, one cannot know what Jesus or the apostles (or anyone else) actually said.
5) The Dependence upon commentaries and the need to avoid translational lectionaries and dictionaries
That point being made, I think the required references to commentaries, with required avoidance of translational lexicons and translational dictionaries serve as evidence that Frederick Franz did not render this verse by a scholarly translation from a lexicon or dictionary, but instead, must have relied up a commentary or other source to create his biblical text in this case of Matthew 5:3.
Is there a single reader who believes that Franz, with his single introductory level class in biblical Greek could read the greek in order to determine what the greek said and then was able to translate it any more correctly than the most able of translators have done. Is there anyone who believes that Frederick Franz, having had NO formal training in Hebrew whatsoever, actually DID read the Old Testament and was able to determine both what it mean and repair it’s flaws correctly?
Please Pegg. If you have no additional new relevant data, no additional, new, relevant logic, no additional new reasoning that will support the claim that Frederick Franz (and the other 4 members of his team who had less language ability than he did…) created a more correct overall translation of the bible than other trained and educated translators, then let’s leave this disagreement and go on to your next claim (if you still want to make the claim below…)
6) Pegg said : “He wasnt translating it.... a committee translated it. And they were not translating words..... They were translating the meaning of the verse because the meaning is not conveyed by the word alone.”
It is, irrelevant to me if the strange and bizarre renderings in the New World Bible were created by a single person who had only an introductory level education in biblical greek and no education in hebrew, or if this process involved a thousand uneducated and untrained individuals.
The product and the outcome was the same.
I do NOT want to start that specific discussion since I think it is another irrelevant tangent to the discussion and the textual changes speak for themselves. However, since it seems important to you, I will start another thread on this issue so that we can examine the individuals who made up this “translation committee” that created the jehovah’s witness bible and you can make your point regarding their qualifications and what the others on the committee were able to add to this project.
In any case Pegg, I hope your lifes journey is good and wonderful and happy. I also thank you for the information and discussion.
Clear
φιτωτζω
