000			04139nam a22001817a 4500
005			20220301063808.0
007			ta
008			160607s2007 sa ||||fom| | 00| e eng d
040			_cSATS
100			_931 _aBaumgarten, Kenneth J.
245			_aA Critique of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures' Treatment of Nine Texts Employing θεος in Reference to Jesus Christ
260			_aJohannesburg _bSouth African Theological Seminary _c2007
300			_a169p _bPDF _cA4 _eTOC, Works Cited
502			_bMaster of Theology _cSouth African Theological Seminary _d2007 _gSupervisor: Dr. Kevin Smith
520			_aSince shortly after its initial publication in 1950, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures(NWT), has been the subject of critical examination by the academic community, as well as both Catholic and Protestant church-oriented publishers. A primary issue emphasized by reviewers is theological bias as it influences NWT's translation.Countess (1967:160), in regard to John 1:1, has noted that “a prior ‘preferred religious view’ on the part of the witnesses” has motivated the NWT translators to disregard and violate the rules of Greek grammar as a “grammatical means to a doctrinal end”.My proposed research is founded on the assumption that if a Bible translation's treatment of the original text, either in toto,or in regard to passages related to a specific major subject or theme, can be objectively determined to be erroneous, such a translation's usefulness as either an academic or devotional resource may be called into question. I do not assert that isolated minor differences in translations necessarily invalidate an entire translation, but systemic, concerted 2anomalies may certainly do so. As such, the Anti-trinitarianism of the Witnesses (Metzger 1953) and their treatment of related texts (Bowman 1991) cannot be ignored, and has not been ignored, being a common subject of most of the work to date(Steurman 1956).Bowman (1991:74) writes that “the case against the NWT must rest on the evidence from within the NWT itself;...” (he consequently concludes thatthe evidence is sufficient to reject NWT as an “unreliable translation”).Bowman's position is similar to my own, inasmuch as my thesis is predicated on a belief that theological bias on the part of NWT's translators is only a problem if it results in an erroneous translation of the text, and only such mistranslation of the Greek text calls into question the trustworthiness of NWT (or any other translation). All translators have biases. It is only when those biases override the translators’ allegiance tothe text that they become problematic.Which leads to another common theme in the extant body of critique; that of contradictions of NWT with its stated philosophy of translation. The great gift of the NWT's publishers to theirreaders is the inclusion of a very clear statement of purposes and principles in the forward to the first edition (1950). As early as 1951, the aims of the translators were being used as a standard for measuring their efforts and detecting controlling biases (Mattingly 1951:439). Countess, in his “Critical Analysis” (1952), masterfully and methodically identified and cataloged certaininconsistencies of NWT with the stated aims of the translators. 3The scope and import of these inconsistencies must have been early noted by the Watchtower Society, as subsequent editions of NWT included a much shortened forward, lacking the detail and force of the original.The work to date has thoroughly identified liberties taken with grammar and lexeme, as well as inconsistencies with NWT's stated aims, and has used Witness theology and doctrine as a backdrop for explaining the assumed motives behindthese different translations.What the extant body of critique has not done is establish and apply an objective test to its treatment of a major subject or theme of scripture (such as the Divinity of Christ), for determining the trustworthiness of NWT as an academic and/or devotional resource.
600	0	0	_932 _aJesus Christ _xDivinity
942			_2sats _cTHE
999			_c11 _d11