If reviews of a film all rot, that tells me the movie's a stinker. If reviews gush with praise, that tells me the film's great. But if some reviewers savage a film and others praise it - the same film - what that tells me is not so much about the movie. That tells me about the reviewers.
So it is with the New World Translation, a Bible used primarily by Jehovah's Witnesses. Scholars give mixed reviews, with extremes at both ends.
Here's a nasty one:
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros.
On the other hand:
Original renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures into the English are extremely few. It therefore gives us much pleasure to welcome the publication of the first part of the New World Translation [of the Hebrew Scriptures], Genesis to Ruth. This version has evidently made a special effort to be thoroughly readable. No one could say it is deficient in its freshness and originality. Its terminology is by no means based on that of the previous versions.
Another sorehead:
Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation.
Then, again:
Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation. (in a letter dated Dec. 8, 1950): "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and in 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."
And:
"The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation."
What we learn here has little to do with the New World Translation and everything to do with scholars. They are not gods. They are humans, with the same mix of opinion, bias and pig-headedness suffered by all the rest of us. They put their pants on as we do. They are like psychiatrists in a murder trial, where both prosecution and defense searches for one compliant to their respective side. They are like Supreme Court nominees, where the liberal President appoints one with like-minded views, and a few years later the conservative President appoints his polar opposite. You don't tremble with fear when the other side produces a scholar who doesn't agree with you. You expect that to happen. Even sheer numbers of opposing scholars don't mean much. The view currently in vogue will always produce the greater number of scholars. Humans are like that. They run in herd mentality.
Line up all scholars with similar views and their writings indeed seem impressive. Line up the scholars with opposing views, and their writing also seems formidable. But combine the two, and one is sorely tempted to equate scholarship with so many rolls of toilet paper. They squabble no less than we lesser mortals. No one's saying to ignore them, but too many people employ them the way lawyers employ psychiatrists: they decide up front what they want to believe, then they search for scholars to buttress their case.
The other thing we learn about scholars is that the ones who can't stand the New World Translation are, with very few exceptions, Trinitarians. Believe that Jesus and God are synonymous and you will loathe the New World Translation. Believe otherwise, and you will be okay with it. You may critique it on this or that point, as with any translation. But you will rank it as a legitimate and intelligent translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.
There are few redder flags one can wave before the Trinitarian bull than John 1:1. It's easy to see why. The King James Version and most popular Bibles today render the verse:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Other than the insertion at 1 John 5:7, an insertion long recognizedas spurious, John 1:1 most directly states the Trinity, or at least two of the three parties to it. But the New World Translation - unforgivably in Trinitarian eyes - renders that verse:
In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
It's not the only translation to do so, but there aren't many. However, there are any number of translations that straddle between the two poles - that is, while not translating the Word as "a god," they render it in terms of an adjective or quality. Such as:
"and the Word was divine" - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
"so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
"the Logos was divine - A New Testament: A New Translation (James Moffatt)
"was face to face with God" - The Centenary Translation (Helen Barrett Mongomery)
"and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
Trinitarians grumble about these, but have evidently decided they can live with them. Not so with "a god" of the New World Translation.
Turning the tables on those who would charge the New World Translation of bias is a recent (2003) bookby Jason Beduhn entitled Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. Dr Beduhn teaches at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington. He has a lot of letters trailing his name, I can tell you.
His book compares 9 popular English translations, viewing selected verses, and concludes that the New World Translation is the most accurate, the most free of bias! John 1:1 is among the verses he examines. He writes:
"Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs." He also responds to those who charge the NWT translators with doctrinal bias: "It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek"
Search the internet and you will find furious discussion of Dr Beduhn, his book, John 1:1 and the other verses examined. Indeed, though I'm told he's active in the blogosphere, I can't find him anywhere. He is absolutely buried amidst attacks from Trinitarians, in near panic mode, desperate to undermine his credentials. Isn't his real language of expertise Pig Latin? Didn't he buy his degrees online? Doesn't he pick his nose a lot?
There is even some report that Jeopardy, the TV show, featured his book in asking what was the most accurate translation. The answer, of course, was the New World Translation. I'd be delighted to say the report's true, but I can't verify it. The mean Watchtower organization makes me go to meetings and knock on doors and read all their books and magazines, so I don't have enough time to sit at home and watch all the Jeopardy shows like I want. But frankly, I don't believe the report. Sounds too much like internet rumor to me.
“They squabble no less than we lesser mortals. No one's saying to ignore them, but too many people employ them the way lawyers employ psychiatrists: they decide up front what they want to believe, then they search for scholars to buttress their case.”
I’m afraid you’ve hit the nail on the head there, this selective filtering is one of the most common threads of the human condition, and to my mind one of the most annoying. So few people are willing to actually listen to an argument, there just waiting the other person out so they can retort. Rational conversation, sitting down and trying to work things out is tragically rare, and has been for so long that even pointing the fact out seems trite.
I use to be very much this sort of person, but time and experience has lead me to be less dogmatic. I want to hear all sides, I watch Fox News and I read The Nation. The funniest thing is how often groups and people who feel so opposed to one another can actually agree on things. Recently I’ve been reading a book by Pat Robertson and one by Gore Vidal, and was shocked to learn they both largely agreed that big business and finance are playing the American people for fools and are trying to control far to much of their lives. Now if you could put a coalition as diverse as the likes of those two together, you could probably do something about it, but culture war to often wins out.
Anyway I digress (it’s been awhile since I’ve done some blog writing and I’m feeling a little verbose). I though I’d offer kind of the Mormon story on biblical translation. Of course the Church is best known for a translation other then the Bible, the Book of Mormon, but that’s another topic, though interestingly there are only two real English language translations, the original Joseph Smith version (with slight, mostly punctuation changes over time (the original manuscript contained next to no punctuation)) and a modern English version from the Community of Christ’s publishing house.
Latter-day Saints traditionally use the King James Version of the Bible, in large part because our edition of the Book of Mormon uses the King James language. However Joseph Smith reportedly preferred a certain German translation, feeling it to be more accurate. Joseph Smith also produced a Bible translation sometimes referred to as The Inspired Version or JST (Joseph Smith Translation). Essentially that consisted of what he reported to be divinely guided alterations made to correct and enhance a Bible text that had been corrupted over time. Ironically the LDS don’t often use this version (except in foot notes in LDS prints of the King James Bible). I believe this is mainly because use of the ever popular King James Version has a certain public relations value, especially when proselytizing among American protestants. I myself have used several other version in private reading (though not frequently), including both the NIV (America’s second most popular Bible) and the Recovery Version, which seems to have as its goal much the same as the Witnesses outlined for their New World Translation, an emphasis on recapturing the historic meanings of the words in the text.
I’ve not read from a New World Translation myself, but have of course heard the negative charges about the book before. I was unaware that the translation is considered a legitimate one by some scholars outside of the faith, though I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising. Interesting to know.
Posted by: NateDredge | July 02, 2009 at 04:27 PM
Thanks, Nate. Good to hear from you. It didn't take me long blogging to realize that no one has ever ever ever changed his or her mind on the internet.
Posted by: tomsheepandgoats | July 02, 2009 at 11:54 PM
As an unashamed Trinitarian, I of course take umbrage with the NWT rendering of John 1:1. While it is possible to translate it "a god," that does not best fit with Greek grammar. Nor is that consistent with the way the word theos is translated in other sections of the NWT.
However, in the end I realize that it comes down to which scholars you trust. I've had 4 semesters of New Testament Greek in seminary and have learned from the textbooks of Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace, which are considered pretty much standards in the conservative evangelical seminary world. However, I also realize that they learned their Greek from someone, etc.
Personally, I trust the traditional understanding of the church on this one. Obviously you don't. Again, the question is which authorities you trust, right?
Posted by: Jason Chamberlain | July 30, 2009 at 08:52 PM
It's a fair comment, Jason. Thank you for it.
Maybe the effect of all these scholars is that the verse is nuetralized, and that one must look elsewhere is scripture to support/rebuff the trinity belief.
Posted by: tomsheepandgoats | July 31, 2009 at 12:38 AM
I would also point to John 8:58-59 for Jesus' claim to divinity for two reasons. One is that translating "ego eimi" to "I have been" seems bizarre for the present active indicative. I know that it is done in John 14:9, but that is to smooth out the English (incidentally, I checked in French and it doesn't suffer from this problem with translating the present active indicative). The other is that I don't understand why else the Jews would want to stone him unless they thought he had just committed the heresy of claiming to be God. They were upset about the Greek, not our attempts to render this faithfully into English.
Another would be John 20:28 with Thomas' reaction to the holes in Jesus' body. I find it hard to buy the argument that a faithful Jew like Thomas would blaspheme out of surprise.
All translation has some degree of theological bias since there are going to be ambiguities in places where you go from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to English. You think that Arius was right and the councils were wrong, but the historic church and I take the other approach. Again, it comes down to who you trust. I see Jesus as divine based on my understanding of the Greek of these and other passages. Would citing them and my reasons matter?
Posted by: Jason Chamberlain | July 31, 2009 at 05:58 AM
Asserting one was God's son would make one of the same "stuff" as God, and seems sufficient to me to ignite a charge of blasphemy.
Thomas says "my Lord and my God." It is purely the readers' assumption that he is equating the two.
Re John 8:58-59, it would be good to see how other translations have put it. I don't have that information at my fingertips. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been about one new English translation per year.
"Would citing them and my reasons matter?" Probably not, Jason. Not to say I don't appreciate your comments. I do. But I have found a discussion on the Trinity can become endless, never producing agreement. Having both stated our positions, my motto is "let God sort it out."
Posted by: tomsheepandgoats | August 01, 2009 at 02:56 AM
Personally, I'm not too interested in how other translations put John 8:58-59 unless my Greek education is inadequate. That's one of the joys of learning the original languages, but you still end up with that question of authority again. You trust your folks and I trust mine.
Regarding the matter of the Trinity, I believe it is of utmost importance that we get Jesus right. However, in addition to being a Trinitarian I am also a Calvinist which means that I don't think anyone is ever rationally persuaded into the kingdom of heaven.
Posted by: Jason Chamberlain | August 01, 2009 at 07:11 PM
I do not know Greek or the Greek grammar. Have a tough time with English. But I know for sure the Gospels were written for the common man, since most of mankind on this beautiful earth are common and understand basic language. Imagine if God had abandoned us to the learned of Greek and Hebrew, why, we would be without hope to say the least, all 6 Billion of us poor things. But, I know better than that, that, NO, God did not abandon us like that. I let God's infallable and consistant Word lead me. I let simpler to understand thoughts and statements that do not need a masters degree or a PHD to understand lead me and help me decide how to understand other more difficult verses, for they have to be in agreement and not contradict each other. For instance after Jesus was resurrected he told Mary in John 20:17, that her God and his God were the same. Also many years after Jesus' ascension to heaven while Jesus was sitting on the right hand of GOD, the apostle Paul identifies the position of Jesus in relationship to his Father in Ephesians 1:3, "Blessed be THE God .....of our Lord Jesus Christ". Now what Greek grammar could muddy that? Either God is Jesus's God as it is expressed here or not?
Allow me just one more... from Jesus' own mouth while sitting on God's right hand around the year 98-100 AD (long after his resurrection folks) is found in Rev. 3:12
where Jesus calls God "my God" three times. For an uneducated common man like me - and I hope my Lord Jesus is not attempting to confuse me here, because I love him - means only one thing and one thing only...yes you guessed it, that God is His God. If God is THE GOD of Jesus, the trinity has no chance. Therefore I have concluded that the trinity is just another artfully contrived teaching. My advice? Let simpler scriptures be your guide to explain other "conroversial" ones. Except, there are no controversial ones to us common people.
Posted by: Soren Hovsepian | August 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM
"Let simpler scriptures be your guide to explain other "conroversial" ones."
Sounds like a good approach.
Posted by: tomsheepandgoats | August 30, 2009 at 01:57 AM
SORRY FOR ANY MISSPELLED WORDS AND THE POOR ENGLISH GRAMMER. SOREN
Posted by: Soren Hovsepian | August 30, 2009 at 03:52 AM
Alas, Soren, you've regressed! At least insofar as grammar/grammer is concerned.
Oh, well. I always use spell check.......and one faithful brother from Virginia or somewhere who alerts me when I have nonetheless botched something.
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | August 30, 2009 at 12:04 PM
WELL TOM, I COULD NOT FIND SPELL CHECK ON THIS WEBSITE
HOWEVER AFTERWARDS, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LITTLE AND I FOUND A WAY
WHICH I HOPE IT WILL WORK, IS TO COPY AND PASTE THE TEXT INTO A WORD PROGRAM ETC AND CHECK IT OUT.(IT DID WORK !)
SORRY, ENGLISH IS NOT MY LANGUAGE, I HAD TO LEARN IT ALONG WITH ARABIC AND NORWEGIAN, ON TOP OF MY NATIVE LANGUAGE OF ARMENIAN. MY APOLOGIES.
Posted by: Soren Hovsepian | August 30, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Off the top of my head, I can't think of 4 more diverse languages than English, Norwegian, Armenian, and Arabic. You have my respect to tackle them all, all the more so because English really doesn't spell in any logically consistent way - any spelling "rules" are very loose and have no end of exceptions.
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | August 31, 2009 at 08:47 AM
Soren,
The Gospels were indeed written for the common man who spoke the language that they were written in. However, given that we are 2000 years removed from those languages someone needs to have some education in them if we are to understand what they mean.
Frankly, to me, you cannot get any simpler than His declaration in John 8:58 and the nagging question of why the Pharisees would want to stone Him unless He committed blasphemy. My Greek education further cements this for me.
As I wrote above, it all comes down to who you trust as your authority. It's nice to say that we trust "the Bible alone," but that's not entirely true. We trust those who have translated the Bible into a language that we can understand.
Posted by: Jason Chamberlain | September 01, 2009 at 10:47 AM