Does the NWT violate its own translation guidelines?

[Difflugia]

Does the Watch Tower Society's New World Translation violate the translation standards claimed by the New World Bible Translation Committee?

[Difflugia]

Broadly, my position is that the New World Translation violates its own stated translation standards. For the purposes of the debate (at least to start with), I'm referring to the 2013 revision of the New World Translation. The translation standard is laid out in Appendix A1 on page 1718 of the print edition and PDF.

Anyone that wants to join the debate, but doesn't have a copy of the NWT can download one or read it online:

• Link to the download page
• Direct link to the PDF
• Direct link to the epub
• Online Bible and link to Appendix A1

My claim is that there are multiple passages in the NWT that were translated in a way that violates any reasonable reading of the translation standards in Appendix A1, these statements in particular:

• "As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: 'We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.'"
• "Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text."
• "At the same time, extremes in rewording the text must be avoided. A translator who liberally paraphrases the Bible according to how he interprets the overall idea could distort the meaning of the text. How so? The translator may erroneously insert his opinion of what the original text means or may omit important details contained in the original text. So while paraphrases of the Bible may be easy to read, their very freeness at times may prevent the reader from getting the true message of the text."
• "Doctrinal bias can easily color a translator’s work. For example, Matthew 7:13 says: 'Spacious is the road leading offinto destruction.' Some translators, perhaps affected by doctrinal bias, have used the term “hell” rather than what the Greek term really means, namely, 'destruction.'"

In a recent thread, some apologetic defenses of the NWT text as compared to its stated translation philosophy:

The NWT does not currently claim to be a literal "word-for-word" translation of the Greek.

Their guidelines state they make individual choices as to whether translate a verse literally (word for word) or to favor translating the meaning on an individual bases.

The NWT explicity stated they will respect the grammatical rules of the TARGET language and hold themselves under no obligation to render respect the grammatical rules of Greek when writing (for example) ENGLISH.... The "meaning of a text" is often a matter of opinion, and the NWT committee (like any translational committee) make choices that they believe reflect the "meaning of the text".

There is no way to prove that the word "other" changes the "meaning of [Colossians 1:16-18]" ; whether is does or it doesn't is a matter of opinion. In the opinion of the NWT committee it does not change the meaning of the verse. The NWT never claimed they would agree with other translations as to "the meaning of the verse" so regardless of whether one agrees or not, they have NOT violated their own standards by adding the word "other".

The above applies to all other words added or omitted from orginal to the target language as the NWT does not claim to be a strictly "word for word" translation of the Greek

In the Greek, [προσκυνέω is] in both [Luke 4:8 and 24:52]. If someone wanted to do a word study, for example, the NWT obscures that relationship. In one place, Luke says that προσκυνέω should only apply to the Lord God. In another, Luke says that the disciples did προσκυνέω to Jesus.

The same word (especially an appellation) can apply to different subjects. The meaning would depend on the context. Since the NWT stated explicitly that they translate with the purpose of making the meaning clear (and will not necessarily adhere to a strict word for word rendition) there is no violation of their own purpose in a variation of rendition in this or any other passage. Their translational choices (as with all translators) hold to respect to the meaning of the original write and make that meaning clear to the target reader.

The NWT never claimed they would translate "Lukes" wording literally from Greek to the target language, only they would respect Luke's MEANING. Whether they have done so is a matter of opinion (it is obviously the opinion of the NWT committee that they have respected the meaning of Luke's passage). Whether one agrees with that choice or not, the fact is that they have in no way violated their own stated purpose in their rendition.

NOTE ABOVE The NWT Translation committee stated that they endeavored to give as literal a translation as possible * subject to the avoidance of "clumsiness" and / or the obscuring of what they deem to be the original thought (ie the meaning of the author). Any claim that they "failed to hold to their own stated standards" must demonstrate they ...


1. failed to respect what THEY deemed to be the orginal "thought" (orginal meaning and intent of the author) and /or
2. included what they deemed to be "clumsy" (awkward/difficult) renditions of passages in the target language.

CONCLUSION While it is true the NWT departs from what might be considered many mainstream renditions, those "departures" cannot by any stretch of the imagination be in violation of their own stated standards , namely to reflect as literal a rendition as they see fit and to reflect what they deem to be the authors original thought even if this means departing from a literal word for word rendition

There's a lot to unpack here. Broadly, it looks to me like the main claim is that the NWT's claim to be "as literal as possible" can nevertheless legitimately include doctrinal paraphrase while still reasonably adhering to their stated standard. To that end, I'd first like to explore what the NWT Translation Committee even means by their standard. If JehovahsWitness is correct about all of their exclusions to the Committee's standard being valid, does the standard even mean anything? I don't think it can.

[Difflugia]

To start with, I don't think that given the stated translation standards, the following statement can be true:

The NWT never claimed they would translate "Lukes" wording literally from Greek to the target language, only they would respect Luke's MEANING. Whether they have done so is a matter of opinion (it is obviously the opinion of the NWT committee that they have respected the meaning of Luke's passage). Whether one agrees with that choice or not, the fact is that they have in no way violated their own stated purpose in their rendition.

The Translation Committee said, in so many words, that the NWT is as literal as possible, when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text. Additionally, when they wrote that "[d]octrinal bias can easily color a translator’s work," this is intended to convey to a reasonable reader that avoiding doctrinally-colored translation is a part of their standard.

There are no context clues in either Luke 4:8 or 24:52 about whether προσκυνέω should mean "worship" or "do obeisance." Translating them differently depending on whether the subject is God or Jesus can only be a decision based on doctrine, rather than "the wording and structure" of English. Their claimed respect for what they consider to be Luke's meaning can only be the kind of doctrinal bias that they claimed to avoid as part of their standard.