[B-Greek] NWT: Is it an accurate translation of the Greek?
Paul Zellmer
pzellmer at sc.rr.com
Fri Feb 24 08:15:24 EST 2006
Iver,
Just a nit concerning your post.
You seem to be equating "accurate" with "good translation," and this may be
what Gene is getting at. But your objections are not on the basis of
accuracy. Rather, they are on the basis of either clarity or naturalness or
both.
Gene may not have thought this through with translation theory, but the
thrust of the controversy in this verse is not so much one of the accuracy
of the translation as it is the clarity (or, better, unambiguity) of the
Greek. Could a first century native Koine speaker know with reasonable
certainty what concept John meant by his words? If so, an *accurate*
translation would bring that concept and only that concept across. If not,
then an accurate translation would be ambiguous in the same areas and to the
same degree as the Greek.
Your statement that neither "the Word was God" or "the Word was a god" is
accurate to modern English speakers would only be true if we knew for sure
that (1) the first century Koine speaker would find the wording ambiguous,
and the translation does not bring across that ambiguity, or (2) the first
century Koine speaker would see a third (unspecified in your post) concept
in the phrase. I'm not sure that we know either of these options to be
true, although I doubt the second. As for the first, do we really know that
the first century Greek speaker found the phrase to be ambiguous? I have
yet to see evidence that this is the case.
As far as whether the two options mentioned are *good* translations depends
upon the translation philosophy being used. If one were seeking to have the
translation read as if it were written by a 21st century English speaker, a
good translation might well look different from a translation that was to be
used as a study Bible for a group of people who recognize that all
translations are inaccurate to a degree and who want to be able to recognize
the original Greek wording so that they can study out the meaning.
I'm not trying to start up a debate of translation theories on this list.
We have forums for such investigations.
Blessings,
Paul R. Zellmer
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Iver Larsen
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 4:03 AM
To: Gene Gardner; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] NWT: Is it an accurate translation of the Greek?
> In The New World Translation, John 1:1 is rendered as follows:
> Joh 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god.
...
> I would like to hear the opinions of the forum as to the accuracy of this
rendering.
> Thanks
> Gene Gardner
Well, neither "the Word was God" or "the Word was a god" are accurate
translations into modern English for the average
reader.
However, "accuracy" is a huge and complex topic, and it involves much more
than Greek and English grammar. It is
primarily a question of successful communication. Does a particular
rendering communicate as faithfully as possible the
intended meaning of the original text in its context to a new audience in a
new context with different suppositions and
using a different language?
To get a reasonable rendering of the intended qualitative and descriptive
rather than the identificational sense of
QEOS, I would suggest:
"the Word was with God and was like (or equal to) God", but I am not
expecting consensus. The NET rendering (the Word
was fully God) is also possible, and they have an excellent, brief comment
on exegetical and translation options. Of
course, a key question is what the intended audience understand by the words
"God" and "god" in English.
Iver Larsen
SIL Translation Consultant
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list