James Stewart: If you are looking for a book on The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, (in my opinion) you won't find it here. This book claims to be, "...a philological and linguistic approach to the issues, rather than a theological one."(Page xvii)
On page 155, Mr. Furuli states,
As we proceed with our discussion, we should keep in mind that the following section of this chapter (or any other part in this book) is not written to defend the renditions of the NWT or the arguments behind them.
Again on page 292 he states,
There is therefore, a need for literal Bible translations with extensive footnotes and appendices, so as to inform the reader of the different choices that have been made on his or her behalf. Because the NWT is just such a translation, it was chosen as the object of our study.
Mr. Furuli does state in note 8 on page xvii, "Any work will, to a certain extent, be colored by the author's theology, this is of course also the case with this book." This is too weak of an admission. What you find is a book that should have been entitled 'New World Translation Defended.' This book picks out three books critical of the New World Translation to refute. These three books are Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and The Gospel of John by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.; The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament [Out of print] by R.H. Countess; and So Many Versions [Out of print] by S. Kubo and W.F. Specht.
Considering the author's claims of providing an objective analysis, it is surprising that he attempts to refute books that are critical of the New World Translation.
Reply: Well, the book IS subtitled "With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses." The Introduction explains further:
"The Bible translation chosen as the object of study in this book is The New World Translation. As of 1996, 91 million copies have been printed in 16 languages. It is quite different from the mainline translations in its dynamic renderings of Greek and Hebrew verbs, in its many novel renderings of traditional and familiar terms, and in its renderings of passages traditionally used as evidence for the trinity doctrine. It is extremely literal, closely following the sentence structure of Hebrew and Greek, but at the same time has several elegant, idiomatic renderings. The quality of the translation, however, is widely disputed. Thus we have an ideal situation for study: A modern, literal Bible translation that, more than any other translation, is accused of being dogmatic, biased and at times even dishonest. A study of this translation and of the criticisms brought against it will throw light on how theology and bias influence Bible translation and the readers dependence upon the translators." p. xviDidn't Mr. Stewart read this??
James Stewart: This book is just a Jehovah's Witness apologetic. In the description of the author, it does not state that he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Reply: I own hundreds of books on Bible translation, and Bible theology. Few, and I mean few authors actually list the demomination that they belong to. They will, however, list their credentials, just as Rolf Furuli has:
"The Author: Rolf Furuli has earned his B.A. and mag.art degrees from the University of Oslo, Norway, with an emphasis on Hebrew. He has also studied Accadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Greek, Latin, Middle Egyptian, Syriac and Ugaritic, and has done postgraduate studies in applied linguistics and semantics. At present he is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, and is also working on a project where the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient inscriptions are studied with the goal of redefining the verbal system of classical Hebrew."Why should he be held to a different standard than other academic works? Is it because Stewart works under the assumption that any author that is a member of a mainstream church will not have biased thoughts clouded by theology, and that anyone who is a JW is naturally a liar and cannot work beyond his commitment to "Mother" or the "Borg?" Judging from his comments below, prejudice is hard to dismiss.
James: On pages XV and 45, he states that translation is interpretation. On page 27, he criticizes the TEV for some of its translations of SARX stating, ...thus, the interpreting is done for the reader, when it should be done by the reader.
But didn't he say that translation is interpretation (rhetorical question)?
Reply: The difference is the level of interpretation involved, as is pointed out even in other books:
"The dynamic equivalence translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a formal equivalence [Literal] translator generally does only as a matter of necessity [hence Rolf's "interpretation" on pp. xv and 45], the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a matter of choice." [See page 27 of Rolf's book]As explained, "human nature" is not the meaning of SARX. "It is not demanded by the context; it is an expression of the translators views." AND THEN, Professor Furuli goes on to equate this meaning of "interpretation" as "paraphrase", all of this still on page 27. Did the reviewer even read the entire book?
P. 70, Accuracy of Translation-The Primary Criterion of Evaluating Bible Versions with Special Reference to the New International Version.
James: Again on page 31, he states, Idiomatic translations convey words that represent the interpretations of the translators. Literal translations convey concepts that the readers can interpret. But didn't he say that translation is interpretation (rhetorical question)?
Reply: There is a point that Stewart failed to grasp in reading this book. The reader takes part in the interpretation process.
As explained by Professor Duthie:
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]With a literal translation as the NWT, the reader becomes the Dynamic Equivalent translator or Paraphraser, and hence, becomes the interpreter. The reader though loses out on this when he resorts to using a Bible like the TEV, CEV, the Message, etc. He is not given the opportunity to think for himself how the passage should be interpreted, but has allowed himself to be spoon-fed by a borg-like, mother-like translator. Others have no problem seeing this. Speaking of the NIV, Radmacher and Bible translator Zane Hodges write:
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie
"It [the NIV] is trying to do the work of a commentary. Yet this is really not a translator's task. A version of the Bible cannot try to eliminate the need for elaborations of meaning which commentators provide, or for the information found in Bible dictionaries. Here the NIV oversteps its proper role." P. 40, The NIV Reconsidered, by Earl Radmacher and Zane C. HodgesRobert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament-The Master's Seminary, states:
A certain degree of interpretation is unavoidable, no matter how hard the translator tries to exclude it. Yet a characteristic of formal equivalence is its effort to avoid interpretation as much as possible by transferring directly from the surface structure of the source language to the surface structure of the receptor language. By omitting the step of analysis that is built into the D-E approach, interpretation can be excluded to a much higher degree. Since D-E intentionally incorporates interpretation, it obviously has a significantly higher degree of interpretation than formal equivalence and is in a much stronger sense a system of hermeneutics than is formal equivalence.Perhaps it is time for James Stewart to get on the same page.
P. 6, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: A METHOD OF TRANSLATION OR A SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS?
James: On page 42, he states that Nida & Taber's translation (interpretation) of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader. But this is a two-edged sword. The New World Translation of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader.
Reply: The reference here is regarding the words PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU, which the NWT-1950, NRSV, NKJV, NAB, Byington, NASB, Perschbacher, KJV, Zerwick, Douay, Thayer's, Robertson, BAGD, HCSB, Lattimore, RSV, LITV, MKJV, ESV, YLT, render "foundation of the world," the NWT-1984, Thayer's, Strong's, BAGD and Rotherham render "founding of the world," while Moffatt and the New Berkeley Version prefer "before the world was founded." But Nida & Taber recommended the translation of "(God) creates the world." Now tell me, honestly, which one is *forced.* The DE translator has very little use for word-study, and discourages its target audience away from lexical references:
"The 1986 work by de Waard and Nida does refer to standard tools of lexicography, but it casts them in a negative light. Traditional bilingual dictionaries are labeled as deficient because they depend almost entirely on "glosses," i.e. surface structure transfer of meanings. The same authors criticize Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker for being very unsystematic and in failing to cover the ranges of meaning of individual words. It is evident from these criticisms that the analysis step in the D-E process covers the same ground that has traditionally been covered by exegesis, an exegesis based on principles of interpretation that compose the field of hermeneutics." Page 5 DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: A METHOD OF TRANSLATION OR A SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS?James: The largest problem with all of this is that he is contradicting his organization! In The Watchtower, 7/1/73,
page 402, it stated,
Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book.
And, in The Watchtower, 10/1/67, page 587, it stated,
Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason, the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind.
Reply: So...what is it? Is he or is he not a JW apologist? If the above, according to Stewart, proves that Furuli is "contradicting his organization" then he is not a JW, and your entire review was in vain.
When we look at the context of the above quotes, we get the following from the WT67:
"All the Law or Torah that Jehovah inspired Moses to write was for this theocratic organization of Israel. So were all the other books that now comprise the Hebrew Scriptures, or the “Old Testament” as some persons refer to them. But over fifteen centuries later, Paul, himself an Israelite and an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote concerning these books that make up three-quarters of our Bible: “For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Rom. 15:4) By this, Paul meant that the Bible, as an instruction book for the theocratic organization of Israel, had now become a book of instructions for the organization of the Christian congregation.I can agree with those comments, can't you.
As the canon of books of God’s Word was expanded and the Christian Greek Scriptures were added to complete the Bible, each book was written directly to the Christian congregation or to a member of the Christian congregation in its behalf."
The WT73 goes on to quote"
"For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God." (1 Cor. 2:10)It seems to me that most fundamental and mainstream Christian groups make the same claim, often at the point of deriding other groups to prop their supposed superiority:
"if you present the Bible verses to them, they will not hear them. They are not capable of hearing them. They do not have the Holy Spirit living inside them to bring that understanding."
http://home.earthlink.net/~defender/de01018.htm
"The Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to glorify Jesus—an indication that they do not have the Holy Spirit."
http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/cultofjw.htm
"The unsaved cannot really grasp spiritual teachings because they are not born again and do not have the Holy Spirit within to teach them these things."
http://www.gracenet.org/gnhtml/PEBhtml/PEB1.html
From a Catholic Website:
"We have found, in our own personal experiences, that Baptists and other so-called fundamentalists are among the least receptive to the fullness of the Gospel message, because they labor under the false impression that they, alone among Christians, adhere to the basic doctrines set forth in the Bible."
http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html
"This [the NWT] has obviously been changed to support their belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but not God the Son. At this point you have to ask yourself, why do they do this? The answer is that they are not saved and do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them."
http://associate.com/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/What_Is_A_Cult.shtml
"Unfortunately, the pope does not teach rightly. He teaches contrary to God's Word, thus revealing that he disobeys God, whose Word proclaims that the Holy Spirit is given ONLY to those that OBEY God."Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses are often talking out of both sides of their mouths.
http://www.localline2.com/~nicholas/page6.htm
Even Radmacher and Hodges, quoted above, admit that Evangelicals have a superiority complex:
"In today's evangelical world, biblical scholars are the new class of 'priests' who hold in their hands the 'secret' knowledge which the average lay person cannot himself comprehend. To be told that a translation is done by a large array of evangelical scholars may impart to that translation an aura of authority that it does not actually deserve."James: One glaring deficiency in this book is no discussion of the concepts of 'marked' and 'unmarked' meanings of words. This is fundamental to any book on translation. If you want to read a real book on Bible translation, Mr. Furuli references two books I would highly recommend. They are "The Theory and Practice of Translation by" E.A. Nida & C.R. Taber published by Leiden: Brill, 1974 and From One Language to Another by J. de Waard & E.A. Nida published by Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.
p. 23, The NIV Reconsidered
Reply: It would have been nice if James would have expanded on how deficient Professor Furuli's book is in this regard, and how the host of other books on Bible translation have remarked on this. The accusation is made, and left open. The end.
Perhaps more reading into "presuppositional pools" and how many are incorporating a later theology into an earlier text is demanded.
At any rate, Stewart's review is unfair and discriminatory. Incorporating quotes from old Watchtowers into a work that is not a Watchtower magazine apologetic is unwarranted, especially when it really had nothing to do with the subject at hand. It was just a chance for Stewart to appeal to a myopic mindset hell-bent on placing his lessers in a bad light, thereby creating a distinction of superiority for others, in that, "We would never say such a thing." All in all, it was inappropriate, and frankly, disturbing. In doing this he has placed himself into the realm of pseudo-scholarship as we have seen in Walter Martin, Ankerberg & Weldon, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Ron Rhodes, and a host of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment