Talk:New World Translation

'Appendix C4'

A recently removed edit added that "Appendix C4 of the 2013 edition cites 134 versions in various languages that use the Divine Name in one form or another in their main text." Actually, that appendix only appears in the 2015—2019 Study edition, and the claim that all 134 use the so-called 'divine name' "in the main text" is also incorrect, as some only mention inclusion in footnotes, references or commentaries. Aside from these errors, the statement was presented in the article to suggest support for the NWT's frequent use of 'Jehovah' in the New Testament but for almost all of the translations listed, the appendix only says "some verses" or "various verses" of the other works use 'some form of the divine name', without indicating how many or which ones. Hence, even if properly cited, the statement as used in the article would be misleading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinion by Taylor

With regard to recent changes, and advice given, I felt it necessary to bring in more text [1].

Lord with two sizes of capital letters and God with a capital G and small letters. Then it turns around and does just the opposite, spells Lord with only one capital letter and God with all three capitals, of two sizes. Mama, what's happened to the Bible?" Could she tell him? You can. You know that you had Lord, in its own right, followed by Jehovah; so, to avoid saying Lord LORD, the small capitals were switched this time to GOD, put in to save the situation in an emergency. The Bible-to-be ought to find some better way than this, more sensible and more reverent. And if it refuses to translate the sacred name it ought at the very least to give full information in the margin. Cut out a few conjectures and put in this major fact. This blackout, a vindictive intolerance of God himself as revealed, is a scandal before the bar of the American conscience. Sometimes God chastens his people with pagans. Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very Name Jehovah, up surges that plebeian and outrageous movement that glorifies the Name as their name, "Jehovah's Witnesses." And they gather in assemblies under the very shadow of Columbia University, one hundred and twenty thousand strong. And they baptize (real meaning of the word, too) over three thousand converts to their Jehovah in one day, and next year over four thousand in a day. And one of their lawyers goes before our august Supreme Court and defies the Catholic judge on it to hold back their liberties, and that judge votes for him. And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and, lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times. And then our curious America says: "What's it all about? I bought a copy of the new Bible [RSV]. But I didn't find that word even in it.

— William Carey Taylor. Its Banishment of Many Bible Words § Jehovah – The Complete Banished Word. The New Bible, Pro and Con. New York: Vantage Press. OCLC 1085898453

It is a great pity not to be able to access the whole book on the website. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In context, Taylor’s ‘review’ seems more like a rant and it doesn’t really add anything of substance to the article. The article already clearly indicates that the NWT adds the name Jehovah to the NT. Taylor’s more general statements about the denomination are out of scope.—Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The book is a discussion of a Bible in which the author mentions different translations, and how they render different verses. Later on, he addresses the treatment of the name of God, from page 70, where Taylor states that he does not agree with the "banishment" of the name of God Jehovah (also in different verses). Additionally he mentions that in an assembly the NWT appears, and here is the opinion, in which he says that it was produced with "considerable scholarship".

In this sentence we do not see the opinion about adding Jehovah in the NT but unlike Metzger and BeDuhn, (who do not agree with the insertion of Jehovah in the NT), Taylor complains that in the new Bible [RSV] he does not find the name (probably in the OT).

The text was inserted to disprove "Not even clear he's talking about the NWT", not to mention "more general statements about the denomination", this seems to attack the straw man.

The opinion that "more like a rant and it doesn't really add anything of substance to the article.", when Taylor mentions "considerable scholarship", seems exaggerated.

I do not have access to the book, so, to make it easier (the treatment to Jehovah could be deleted), I have a popposal, and please review the history. Any suggestion or change is welcome. I don't know if it has any relevance, but the Baptist missionary (as was Taylor) Paul Besson, produced a translation of the NT with the name Jehovah. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It is good that you provided the text here to confirm the context. But the passage isn't particularly useful, especially given Taylor's overall tone (which diminishes the seriousness of his use of the expression "considerable scholarship", which is misleading in isolation), and the addition isn't particularly useful for confirming that the NWT contains the name Jehovah, which is already adequately presented. Taylor's references to the NWT and JWs generally are flippant and apparently tangential to his main purpose. It is not necessary for the article to contain every statement that any author has ever made about the NWT, nor is it necessary for this article to 'defend' the presence of Jehovah in the NWT's rendering of the New Testament. (If you don't have access to the book, how were you able to quote it? In general, you should cite where you found a statement if it is was quoted in some other work. It would not be appropriate to cherry-pick statements that have been collected in 'lists of statements supportive of the NWT'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Critical review

Should the critical review section be in a separate article? Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's necessary. The section isn't so overstuffed as to need its own article, and it makes sense to keep it here. Vyselink (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If anything, the section should probably be reduced, preferably retaining reviews of scholars and removing or reducing comments from theologians of 'rival' denominations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The first sentence in the section is a quick overview of the criticism. If we maybe just flesh it out a bit I think we can keep the links/references to the theologians reviews as sources. Say something like

"Criticism of the New World Translation is particularly concentrated on Christological issues, mainly the translation of the word kurios (Greek: κύριος) as "Jehovah"—usually translated "Lord" by the classical translators, its rendering of John 1:1, rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, and for being difficult to read" (or something to that effect) followed by the references so at least they can be searched by the reader if they are so inclined.

If the above was used, just a quick review shows that it would remove the Byington, Hoekema, Barclay, Parkinson and Ankerberg quotes, condensing the section a bit and relieving some bloat. And of course we could do something similar with several of the positive reviews, condense and eliminate the full quotes. I.e. "Some critics have praised its 'scholarly' attempts at an accurate conservative translation". Just spitballing here. Vyselink (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)