How Good Is The NWT? - A Case Study

[childofdust]

Although I am providing my own analysis here, I welcome others to join me. Pick a couple verses from the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, and analyze the NWT to see what it does with the source text.

This study arises from a general question about how good (or not) is the New World Translation. I, like many others, have an acquaintance with it which is mostly disparaging. Most of the negative remarks about it, however, are either theologically focused (and thus not a proper analysis of translation) or pointed toward a few particular texts that are believed (again, for theological reasons) to provide some sort of measurement against which the entirety can then be summarily rejected.

My analysis seeks to do what others have not.
1. It has no stake in the matter (non-prejudiced).
2. It examines a text at random and in-depth instead of trying to find a key word or proof-text that represent an important position that I support.
3. Like any analysis of a translation should do, this deals primarily with the original languages, because a translation stands or falls on how it deals with the source text, not how it represents the theological reflections of its target audience.

The source text picked at random is Job 1:1-3.
The Hebrew text is the Masoretic Text represented by the Leningrad Codex.
Quoted portions of NWT are taken from Online Bible – Read or Download Free: MP3, AAC, PDF, EPUB, Audio.

Format: The Hebrew will be quoted one verse at a time. My own translation will be given. The rendering of the NWT will be provided. Then I will analyze the rendering of the NWT in comparison with the Hebrew. Other translations will be quoted to give further renderings and reference. At the end of each verse, a summary will be given.

Job 1:1 (MT)
אִ֛ישׁ הָיָ֥ה בְאֶֽרֶץ־ע֖וּץ אִיֹּ֣וב שְׁמֹ֑ו וְהָיָ֣ה ׀ הָאִ֣ישׁ הַה֗וּא תָּ֧ם וְיָשָׁ֛ר וִירֵ֥א אֱלֹהִ֖ים וְסָ֥ר מֵרָֽע׃

Job 1:1 (my translation)
A man there was in the land of Uz. Job [was] his name. That man was blameless and upright, fearful of Elohim and one who turns away from evil.

Job 1:1 (NWT)
There happened to be a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man proved to be blameless and upright, and fearing God and turning aside from bad.

First let's look at how Job begins. Normal Hebrew narrative (which this is), has a VSO orientation (Verb-Subject-Object). We would expect it to begin הָיָ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ but instead we have אִ֛ישׁ הָיָ֥ה. The subject has been fronted (SVO), which marks it as focused and emphasized. This tells us that what we are about to read/hear is not about something that happened, but about a person. This has been reflected by my translation “A man there was.” The NWT completely misses this grammatical feature and treats it as normal VSO “there happened to be a man.” So at the start, we see a lack of nuance in the way the Hebrew is read and rendered in NWT. But how does that compare to other translations?

NRSV: There was once a man
YLT: A man there hath been
HCSB: There was a man
NET: There was a man
NASB: There was a man

Strangely, only Young's Literal Translation reflects emphasis created by the Hebrew. The NWT reflects the standard lack of nuance present in most other translations.

NWT translates the verb הָיָ֣ה first as “happened to be” and then “proved to be.” Both of these are odd renderings. The verb can mean “happened,” but can also mean “to be.” Putting both down (happened to be) is redundant and unnecessary. The only translation that does similarly is YLT with a graceless “there hath been.” Of those who alter the SVO to VSO, the NRSV provides the best rendering with “there once was,” which gives it an element of storytelling instead of merely reporting an event.

If the first rendering of “hayah” in NWT was redundant and unnecessary, the second is perplexing. I have no idea why they put “proved” into it. Usually, the verb “to prove” indicates that something has been tested, examined, or established in a certain way by outside parties. The Hebrew gives us a plain vanilla statement about the character of Job from the standpoint of the narrator. He “was.” Other outside parties are not involved in determining Job's character at this point. To say “proved to be” is as strange as it is irrelevant.

NWT renders the last two phrases with participles “fearing God” and “turning aside.” It is quite possible that the verb “to turn” is the participle form (my translation follows that with “one who turns&#8221. Either perfect or participle are possible and both are reflected in different translations:

NRSV: turned away
YLT: turning aside
HCSB: turned away
NET: turned away
NASB: turning away

The other phrase, however, is not a participle. It is not even a verb. The word וִירֵ֥א is an adjective in construct form meaning “fearful of.” It could also be a headless relative clause meaning “[who] fears” or “who feared.” NWT's “fearing” is wide off the mark. Other translations are all over the map on this one:

NRSV: one who feared
YLT: fearing
HCSB: who feared
NET: one who feared
NASB: fearing

NWT renders it precisely the same as NASB and YLT, which is to say, badly. But the other translations don't do any better by rendering an adjective as a verb or participle. My translation is the only one that treats it according to its exact grammatical category like “fearful” like “blameless” and like “upright.”

NWT is the only translation I've seen to render רָֽע as “bad” instead of “evil.” It can mean both, but the point the Hebrew is communicating is the exemplary moral and religious character of Job (blameless, upright, fearful of Elohim). So to say he turns away from what is “bad” misses the point.

Summary: NWT makes the same translational choices that other literal translations make that are considered to be fairly decent by most people. Where those translations lack nuance, NWT lacks nuance as well. NWT tends to be a little bit more expansive than other literal translations. The bizarre thing is that where it expands, those few expansions add nothing relevant. They don't help communicate the meaning or intent of the Hebrew. In one place (“bad&#8221, the translator seems to have missed the intent of the story. So far then, I would say the NWT is similar to popular literal translations, but not quite as good.

 

[childofdust]

Job 1:2 (MT)
וַיִּוָּ֥לְדוּ לֹ֛ו שִׁבְעָ֥ה בָנִ֖ים וְשָׁלֹ֥ושׁ בָּנֹֽות׃

Job 1:2 (my translation)
Seven sons and three daughters were born to him.

Job 1:1 (NWT)
And seven sons and three daughters came to be born to him.

Short and sweet. The verse begins with a Past Narrative verb (traditionally called Waw Consecutive or Waw Conversive). The purpose of the Waw at the beginning of a Past Narrative is to indicate past tense, not to show conjunction. So having “and” at the beginning is quite unnecessary. Most other translations don't bother with it.

NRSV: There were born
YLT: And there are born
HCSB: He had
NET: Seven sons...were born
NASB: Seven sons...were born

NWT renders the verb וַיִּוָּ֥לְדוּ as “came to be born.” Like “happened to be” or “proved to be,” this adds something completely unnecessary and irrelevant. The verb means “they were born” plain and simple. NET and NASB are right on. HCSB simplifies the meaning to “he had,” which is quite acceptable. NRSV's “There were born” follows the Niphal form of the verb very closely, but is kind of awkward in English. YLT's “And there are born” is strange. I don't understand why YLT is rendering a passive verb in the present tense (“are” instead of “were”). At least the NWT carries the passive meaning through “came.”

Summary: Again, NWT is very literal. It continues to be slightly expansive for no hermeneutical or exegetical reason. Although it is not quite as good as NRSV, NASB, NET, or HCSB, it is better in this verse than YLT.

 

[childofdust]

Job 1:3 (MT)
וַיְהִ֣י מִ֠קְנֵהוּ שִֽׁבְעַ֨ת אַלְפֵי־צֹ֜אן וּשְׁלֹ֧שֶׁת אַלְפֵ֣י גְמַלִּ֗ים וַחֲמֵ֨שׁ מֵאֹ֤ות צֶֽמֶד־בָּקָר֙ וַחֲמֵ֣שׁ מֵאֹ֣ות אֲתֹונֹ֔ות וַעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֣ה מְאֹ֑ד וַיְהִי֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא גָּדֹ֖ול מִכָּל־בְּנֵי־קֶֽדֶם׃

Job 1:3 (my translation)
His livestock included 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 pairs of cattle, 500 female donkeys, and an exceedingly numerous staff, and that man was more venerable than anyone in the East.

Job 1:3 (NWT)
And his livestock got to be seven thousand sheep and three thousand camels and five hundred spans of cattle and five hundred she‐asses, along with a very large body of servants; and that man came to be the greatest of all the Orientals.

NWT's desire to slightly expand things continues with “got to be” instead of “were” and by putting an “and” at the beginning where the Waw shows tense, not conjunction. Let's see how others render these things:

NRSV: He had
YLT: and his substance is
HCSB: His estate included
NET: His possessions included
NASB: His possessions also were

- NASB has “were,” which is right on the money. But I have no idea why it adds “also,” which is nowhere in the text.
- HCSB and NET follow my rendering “included.”
- NRSV shortens it to “He had,” which, like HCSB in the previous verse, is quite acceptable.
- YLT goes wonky with the present tense “is.” The form of the verb וַיְהִ֣י is the only form in ancient Hebrew that has one purpose and one purpose only: to communicate past tense. And that is exactly what YLT does not render. YLT also adds the unnecessary “and.”

NET and NASB are the most literal with “possessions.” NRSV communicates the same thing by saying “he had.” YLT's “substance” is bizarre and out-of-place. HCSB's “estate” is a bit interpretive. My rendering and NWT's rendering “livestock” is somewhere between NET/NASB/NRSV and HCSB. YLT's “substance” is an error.

NWT translates צֶֽמֶד־בָּקָר֙ as “spans of cattle.” I have no idea where it gets “span” from. Perhaps it is using the meaning that refers to parcels of land (see 1 Sam 14:14). When referring to cattle, however, it means yoke/pair/team/couple. None of the other translations have anything like NWT:

NRSV: yoke of oxen
YLT: pairs of oxen
HCSB: yoke of oxen
NET: yoke of oxen

The word בָּקָר֙ can mean oxen, but it also means cattle. I don't think either one is better than the other. Whichever one you go with comes down to interpretive preference. But something like yoke or pairs is correct. NWT's “span” is an error.

I have rendered the phrase וַעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֣ה מְאֹ֑ד as “an exceedingly numerous staff.” The first word is singular. It can have a collective meaning, but it is not plural, which is evidenced by the singular adjective. The singular adjective is, literally, “great/big/many.” This is where I get my rendering “numerous.” The last word can also mean “very.” I rendered it “exceedingly.” Let's see the other translations.

NRSV: very many servants
YLT: a service very abundant
HCSB: a very large number of servants
NET: a very great household
NASB: very many servants

Those that keep the noun singular like my translation are YLT and NET.
Those that add something to make the subject singular are HCSB.
Those who go straight to plural are NRSV and NASB.

NWT has “a very large body of servants.” This fits best with HCSB. Just as HCSB adds “number” to make the subject singular, NWT adds “body” to do so. NWT and HCSB are the most expansionist in this part.

Between my “staff,” NWT's “service,” and NET's “household,” my translation and NWT are most specific. But whereas NWT is both specific and expansive, my translation is specific, but not expansive.

The adjective גָּדֹ֖ול literally means “greater.” In context, it might also mean “greatest.” I have been a bit interpretive here by rendering it with a synonym “more venerable.” I do this taking into account more of the story where Job looks back to the days when he was respected and honored by others (and thus, venerable). So this is an interpretive move motivated specifically by the text itself. NWT follows the others in saying either greater or greatest.

The phrase בְּנֵי־קֶֽדֶם means, literally, “sons of the east.” The word for “sons,” however, is functioning to describe a class or category of person like “sons of Belial,” which is quite literal, but really means “worthless people.” Here, the meaning is really “people of the east.” I rendered it “anyone in the east” to take into account other parts of the Hebrew. Other translations:

NRSV: the people of the east
YLT: sons of the east
HCSB: people of the east
NET: people in the east
NASB: men of the east

The two that stick out there are YLT and NASB. They both try to limit it to males, which is not what the Hebrew is communicating. The Hebrew is referring to all people who are “of the east,” not all people of the east who are male. In this case, YLT and NASB have rendered a much narrower meaning. Instead of expanding on the text, they have minimized it.

NWT has “all the Orientals.” Unfortunately, in current American English, the word “oriental” does not describe people. It refers to objects, ideas, regions, and things. Food can be oriental, clothing can be oriental, people are not. Between 1950 and 1960 when the NWT was published, it probably was still in use to refer to Asian people. But that is not an accepted meaning anymore. It carries a negative, racist meaning now. If the NWT ever updates its translation, it needs to drop this.

Overall Conclusion: NWT is very much like YLT. Both are expansive in ways that are not helpful and unnecessary. Both sometimes use strange words. Both sometimes miss the point. And both have errors. NWT is still, however, a very literal translation that follows the Hebrew fairly close, but not as close as NRSV, NASB, HCSB, NET, or my own translation.

 

[ElainaMor]

It doesn't matter how literal the NWT can be, it deliberately changes words in MANY key scriptures to change the meaning in order to fit JW theology and thus deny the diety of Christ and deny the trinity. I am an ex-JW so I'm not speaking from hear-say, I know this for a fact. So for me this is enough to call the NWT dangerous, false and even corrupt bible. Why anyone would defend the NWT in any way is beyond me, especially when it is used to deceive so many away from Salvation and bring them only to destruction.

 

[childofdust]

For those who read this thread, please note the difference between my judgment of the NWT and ElainaMor's:

1. Mine takes an in-depth look at the text and compares it at every point with the original language before coming to a conclusion on the validity of the translation. ElainaMor's doesn't even begin the process.

2. Mine is non-prejudiced. I have nothing either for or against the JWs. Therefore, my judgment is focused not on what the JWs think (which is irrelevant to how good a translation renders its source text), but on what the translation actually says. Unlike mine, ElainaMor's analysis is one that is heavily prejudiced against JWs and instead of rendering a judgment on how well the translation deals with its source text, she deals with the irrelevant topic of what JWs think. Unbeknownst to ElainaMor, there is a vast difference between what a book says and what people believe. To treat them as identical is a logical fallacy and has noting to do with the adequacy of a translation.

3. Whereas mine has shown exactly, in detail, what the NWT does or doesn't do, based on an analysis of the original language, ElainaMor has simply thrown out an unsubstantiated claim about how it “changes” things (quite a strange word to use since the act of translation doesn't have to do with “changing” the original, but with the recreation of a new text in a different language to stand beside it). My unbiased, in-depth analysis above shows no evidence of things being “changed” —rather, my evidence shows that the NWT operates under an expansionist mentality, has a few errors, misses a few things here and there, and contains outdated words, and that it is comparable to Young's Literal Translation.

 

[childofdust]

One way to avoid the error of trying to disqualify the NWT by saying what JWs believe is to show what the transaltor(s) of the NWT believed. This, at least, gets us closer to the actual work under discussion.

The NWT was translated by the New World Translation Committee, which, according to one of the previous members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses (Raymond V. Franz), was made up of Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. Of those, Frederick Franz was really the only one with enough training to do the translation. Frederick Franz became the President of the organization from 1977 to 1992 and was responsible for the revisions of the NWT as well. So the NWT is basically the translation of one person: Frederick W. Franz.

What did the translator think about the biblical texts? Let's get the first-hand report of his nephew:

“The Society's vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the organization's principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, "Why don't you see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says," or, if the subject primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, "what the Soncino commentaries say." Our Bethel Library contained shelf after shelf after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much importance to them, and, along with others in the department, felt some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly expressed it, using these commentaries was "sucking at the t-ts of Babylon the Great," the empire of false religion according to the Society's interpretation of the great Harlot of Revelation.

The more I looked up information in these commentaries, however, the more deeply impressed I was by the firm belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures the vast majority expressed. I was impressed even more so by the fact that, though some were written as early as the eighteenth century, the information was generally very worthwhile and accurate. I could not help but compare this with our own publications which, often within a few years, became "out of date" and ceased to be published. It was not that I felt these commentaries to be without error by any means; but the good certainly seemed to outweigh the occasional points I felt to be mistaken.”
--from Franz' Crisis of Conscience

So we see that the translator of NWT relied upon biblical commentaries and other reference works that were written by scholars in the field who came from Trinitarian Christian backgrounds (and thus repulsive to others in the organization). Far from sharing the JWs' distrust of Trinitarian perspectives, it seems that the translator depended upon those perspectives for his work and translation and sent others to them when they had questions. This is hardly the activity of a translator who set out to “change” things in order to align his translation with a more official perspective within his organization. And my analysis of Job 1:1-3 above demonstrates with evidence that it is just as faithful (if not moreso) than other translations by devout Trinitarians like Robert Young (Young's Translation).