Moved to:
Monday, September 12, 2016
Sunday, September 4, 2016
John 8:1-11 and the New World Translation
One, evidently mistaking the owner of this site as being with the JWs, demanded that I respond to the claim to the New World Translation and what Jesus wrote on the ground. Many sites have statements that appear to fault the NWT for "removing" parts of the Bible regarding John 7 and 8. Here are a few:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99LBdNmwOYE
http://avoidjw.org/2015/02/missing-verses/
My response:
I am not with the JWs, and rarely use the NWT, mostly due to the prejudice so many seem to have against it. At any rate, I consider it one of the more accurate translations, although I do agree that in some cases it appears to arbitraly word some verses in such a way so as to support their doctrine. Nevertheless, I don't know of any translation out there that does not do the same thing.
The site linked to mentions that John 8:1-11 has been removed. Of course, if those verses were not originally part of what John wrote, then in actuality, those translations that contain the verses actually join wth the adding of those verses to the Bible. I do notice that several Bible versions leave out those verses, put these verses in brackets, or otherwise note that the verse as probably being spurious; thus, this not just something involving the JWs NWT. The verses in question actually begin with John 7:53 through and including John 8:11. The NWT gives a footnote explaining that the Sinaitic, Vatican 1209, and evidently the Syriac Peshitta do not have these verses.
James Parkinson, in his "Corrected" Version, states:
|--97 Vss. 7:53-8:11 are not added by p66,75 B? LT copsa,pbo,ach2 sys,c geo. Twelve verses (about a woman taken in adultery and uncondemned by Jesus) are added here by 892 and a majority of lesser Gk. mss., ite vg. Vss. 8:3-11 alone are added by other lesser Gk. mss. after Lk 21:38, 24:53, Jo 7:36, or 21:25, sometimes marked as of doubtful authenticity. It is evident these verses were not written by the Apostle John or any other New Testament writer, whether their account is true or not.--|
A. T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, on John 7:53, states:
|--This [John 7:53] verse and through John 8:12 (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John's Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W) do not have it. It first appears in Codex Bezae. Some MSS. put it at the close of John's Gospel and some place it in Luke. It is probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John's Gospel. The Canterbury Version on which we are commenting puts the passage in brackets. Westcott and Hort place it at the end of the Gospel. --|
Charlest John Elliott (Elliott's Commentary for English Readers), under John 7:53, states:
|--The section which follows (John 7:53 to John 8:11) is one of the most striking instances of an undoubted addition to the original text of the Gospel narratives. We shall find reason to believe that it belongs to the Apostolic age, and preserves to us the record of an incident in the life of our Lord, but that it has not come to us from the pen of St. John. (Comp. Excursus B: Some Variations in the Text of St. John’s Gospel.) While, therefore, it is printed in the text here, our text being a reprint of the Authorised version, without addition or alteration, the reader will observe that it is an insertion which breaks the order of the discourse, and in working out the line of thought will bear this in mind.--|
Adam Clarke states under John 7:53:
|--This verse and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.--|
I could probably find more quotes from scholars, but I would like to point out that if the above quoted scholars are correct, then the NWT did not remove those verses, but they simply did not add those verses. This would mean that translations that contain those verses are based on adding those verses to the Bible.
I do not, however, believe that the translators of the NWT had any doctrinal bias for not including those verses.
-------
Addendum:
It is not for me to say that John did not write the verses being questioned; nor would I claim that John did write the verses. I do believe that more than likely John did write the verses in question, but probably not in the place where they are found in the Textus Receptus. I do not, at the present time, have my 1971 edition of the NWT with me, but it does usually add footnotes explaining differences in the manuscripts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99LBdNmwOYE
http://avoidjw.org/2015/02/missing-verses/
My response:
I am not with the JWs, and rarely use the NWT, mostly due to the prejudice so many seem to have against it. At any rate, I consider it one of the more accurate translations, although I do agree that in some cases it appears to arbitraly word some verses in such a way so as to support their doctrine. Nevertheless, I don't know of any translation out there that does not do the same thing.
The site linked to mentions that John 8:1-11 has been removed. Of course, if those verses were not originally part of what John wrote, then in actuality, those translations that contain the verses actually join wth the adding of those verses to the Bible. I do notice that several Bible versions leave out those verses, put these verses in brackets, or otherwise note that the verse as probably being spurious; thus, this not just something involving the JWs NWT. The verses in question actually begin with John 7:53 through and including John 8:11. The NWT gives a footnote explaining that the Sinaitic, Vatican 1209, and evidently the Syriac Peshitta do not have these verses.
James Parkinson, in his "Corrected" Version, states:
|--97 Vss. 7:53-8:11 are not added by p66,75 B? LT copsa,pbo,ach2 sys,c geo. Twelve verses (about a woman taken in adultery and uncondemned by Jesus) are added here by 892 and a majority of lesser Gk. mss., ite vg. Vss. 8:3-11 alone are added by other lesser Gk. mss. after Lk 21:38, 24:53, Jo 7:36, or 21:25, sometimes marked as of doubtful authenticity. It is evident these verses were not written by the Apostle John or any other New Testament writer, whether their account is true or not.--|
A. T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, on John 7:53, states:
|--This [John 7:53] verse and through John 8:12 (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John's Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W) do not have it. It first appears in Codex Bezae. Some MSS. put it at the close of John's Gospel and some place it in Luke. It is probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John's Gospel. The Canterbury Version on which we are commenting puts the passage in brackets. Westcott and Hort place it at the end of the Gospel. --|
Charlest John Elliott (Elliott's Commentary for English Readers), under John 7:53, states:
|--The section which follows (John 7:53 to John 8:11) is one of the most striking instances of an undoubted addition to the original text of the Gospel narratives. We shall find reason to believe that it belongs to the Apostolic age, and preserves to us the record of an incident in the life of our Lord, but that it has not come to us from the pen of St. John. (Comp. Excursus B: Some Variations in the Text of St. John’s Gospel.) While, therefore, it is printed in the text here, our text being a reprint of the Authorised version, without addition or alteration, the reader will observe that it is an insertion which breaks the order of the discourse, and in working out the line of thought will bear this in mind.--|
Adam Clarke states under John 7:53:
|--This verse and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.--|
I could probably find more quotes from scholars, but I would like to point out that if the above quoted scholars are correct, then the NWT did not remove those verses, but they simply did not add those verses. This would mean that translations that contain those verses are based on adding those verses to the Bible.
I do not, however, believe that the translators of the NWT had any doctrinal bias for not including those verses.
-------
Addendum:
It is not for me to say that John did not write the verses being questioned; nor would I claim that John did write the verses. I do believe that more than likely John did write the verses in question, but probably not in the place where they are found in the Textus Receptus. I do not, at the present time, have my 1971 edition of the NWT with me, but it does usually add footnotes explaining differences in the manuscripts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)