Updates don't come that often, which is understandable due to size and importance of the task.
I wonder if we'll see an update for the NWT any time soon / what changes, if any do you think it needs?
That could be a question for Mr BeDuhn.
There were some changes made to the NWT in a 2006 printing edition - "Some mechanical adjustments have been made on this printing". I was unable to find much info on what was actually changed, but I'm aware of a couple of word changes because I've seen a short video about it on YT a while ago, also brackets around worlds like [the] have been removed. Many people from my hall still use pre-2006 Bibles and seem unaware of the 2006 edition, although I'm sure the changes are tiny and aren't that important. The online NWT / Watchtower site, also uses the pre-2006 edition. Not sure why they don't update it.
It's disappointing that I never see the NWT listed on any scripture lookup sites, its more than good enough, (biblegateway, etc).
I hope the NWT does get updated. The Society as well as any other institution could benefit from the most recent scholarship of the dead sea scrolls. Since much has been put forth regarding research, no doubt a 1984 revised edition of the NWT could use an update.
Also, more recent scholarship and discovery of new papyri have shown or rather, have been showing that 616 is probably the original number of the beast (and not 666).
And finally, as unpopular as it may be, "ask me" in John 14:14 should be included given it is almost certainly original.
here's a good review of the new NIV http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/niv_2011.htm I can't tell if its a parody or if its serious
BTW, what makes you think "ask me" is *certainly* original, even W&H put it in brackets and the old MSS are split; I wouldn't mind a little smoother reading in the NWT at times though
The W&H text was produced in 1881, well before the discovery of many of our best and earlierst papyri.
The manuscript evidence for "ask me" is good.
Consider:
P66, P75vid, Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, 037, 038, among many others.
Vaticanus is probably the most important and best Greek manuscript in existence and it supports the "me" reading in John 14:14. In fact, the best manuscripts support such a reading.
The evidence is too compelling to simply brush aside and dismiss for theological reasons.
Whether one deems it appropriate to offer pray to Jesus or not is not really the issue, the issue is whether textually "ask me" should be included or not. The evidence suggests it should.
I agree that Coptic translations began appearing around the same time as P66 and maybe even P75, but the question would be: what are the dates of the available Coptic manuscript evidence with John 14:14? I doubt they would date as early as P75 or 66.
Even if we were to grant that in 2010 we have Coptic manuscripts dating from 200 CE, this is still not only a century removed from the original, but also a translation removed from from the original.
In other words, the Primary (Greek) evidence should be given more credence than later translations of a Primary source.
I would venture to say the Copts had a wider selection of MSS to look at than our handful and likely had both variants in front of them, in other words the coptic is evidence to [multiple?] Greek MSS without "me", especially if they chose to omit it. Consider their combining of variants in John 1:18; there's no way to know if 14:14 had me or not, regardless, if its in the main text it should footnoted that some MSS omit and vice versa
BTW my hopes for a revised NWT: 1) single text block with wider margins for notetaking 2)titus 2:13 to "manifestation of the glory" of the great god and our saviour, J.C. 3)list 'one of a kind god' for John 1:18 4)Col 2:9 to deity or divinity or godship 5)better argumentation in appendix (esp. w/ John 8:58, Ive been researching this in ANF and there are some juicy quotes for this verse by the "fathers", see Ambrose: exposition of the Christian faith; when I first saw it I thought it was to good to be true) 6)change Heb. 1:3 to 'of his very nature' 7)list "I am he" as variant for John 8:58 8)I wouldnt mind changing torture stake to just stake, it reads smoother that way 9)occasionally I run across passages that are just rough that could use a smoother reading
I also would like an update to the reasoning book, the intros are quite old and some of the arguments are... lame
Do you know if/when Furuli is updating "role" in the near future?
oh yeah, change phil 2:11 to "and every tongue should openly acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ to the glory of God, the Father" or similar
somebody tried to claim this means: "and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah/LORD to the glory of God the Father" which of course falls apart looking at the interlinear, but its still irritating.
To the extant that we can agree John 14:14 should be footnoted and readers should be made aware of the reality of this verse, I think we coincide.
Concerning Furuli, I don't know. I had been told by his publishers that a new revision was coming up in August but it is already November. I'm sure if you email him, he'll let you know. (That is, if he responds!)
Another suggestion for the NWT would be to remove "Jehovah" where there is no good evidence for its placement in the NT. That is, only keep "Jehovah" where there's a direct quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures. I think that would be the best route to go.
you sound like your reading to much Stafford ed. 3 (LOL), tho I dont see the need for the Divine Name in Acts 7:60 considering John 5:22, but that's just MHO. BTW, please star my youtube comment/respense to "shazoolo" "render S.S. to Jesus" so It will be seen
Interesting,
ReplyDeleteUpdates don't come that often, which is understandable due to size and importance of the task.
I wonder if we'll see an update for the NWT any time soon / what changes, if any do you think it needs?
That could be a question for Mr BeDuhn.
There were some changes made to the NWT in a 2006 printing edition - "Some mechanical adjustments have been made on this printing". I was unable to find much info on what was actually changed, but I'm aware of a couple of word changes because I've seen a short video about it on YT a while ago, also brackets around worlds like [the] have been removed. Many people from my hall still use pre-2006 Bibles and seem unaware of the 2006 edition, although I'm sure the changes are tiny and aren't that important. The online NWT / Watchtower site, also uses the pre-2006 edition. Not sure why they don't update it.
It's disappointing that I never see the NWT listed on any scripture lookup sites, its more than good enough, (biblegateway, etc).
N.
Hi, Nick:
ReplyDeleteI hope the NWT does get updated. The Society as well as any other institution could benefit from the most recent scholarship of the dead sea scrolls. Since much has been put forth regarding research, no doubt a 1984 revised edition of the NWT could use an update.
Also, more recent scholarship and discovery of new papyri have shown or rather, have been showing that 616 is probably the original number of the beast (and not 666).
And finally, as unpopular as it may be, "ask me" in John 14:14 should be included given it is almost certainly original.
Thanks for the question! I'll be sure to ask it.
here's a good review of the new NIV http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/niv_2011.htm
ReplyDeleteI can't tell if its a parody or if its serious
BTW, what makes you think "ask me" is *certainly* original, even W&H put it in brackets and the old MSS are split; I wouldn't mind a little smoother reading in the NWT at times though
Hi, Enedra:
ReplyDeleteThe W&H text was produced in 1881, well before the discovery of many of our best and earlierst papyri.
The manuscript evidence for "ask me" is good.
Consider:
P66, P75vid, Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, 037, 038, among many others.
Vaticanus is probably the most important and best Greek manuscript in existence and it supports the "me" reading in John 14:14. In fact, the best manuscripts support such a reading.
The evidence is too compelling to simply brush aside and dismiss for theological reasons.
Whether one deems it appropriate to offer pray to Jesus or not is not really the issue, the issue is whether textually "ask me" should be included or not. The evidence suggests it should.
Hope that sheds some light on the subject.
Best,
Ivan
W&H took into account Vaticanus (325 or later) and still left it in brackets in their text,
ReplyDeleteP66 (~200) P75 (~175-225)
The Coptic text is based off Alexandrian and is probably from the same time as P66 & P75; it omits "me",
the copts generally conflated any variants they had, such as at John 1:18
Regards,
enedra
Hi, Enedra:
ReplyDeleteI agree that Coptic translations began appearing around the same time as P66 and maybe even P75, but the question would be: what are the dates of the available Coptic manuscript evidence with John 14:14? I doubt they would date as early as P75 or 66.
Even if we were to grant that in 2010 we have Coptic manuscripts dating from 200 CE, this is still not only a century removed from the original, but also a translation removed from from the original.
In other words, the Primary (Greek) evidence should be given more credence than later translations of a Primary source.
Best,
Ivan
I would venture to say the Copts had a wider selection of MSS to look at than our handful and likely had both variants in front of them, in other words the coptic is evidence to [multiple?] Greek MSS without "me", especially if they chose to omit it. Consider their combining of variants in John 1:18; there's no way to know if 14:14 had me or not, regardless, if its in the main text it should footnoted that some MSS omit and vice versa
ReplyDeleteBTW my hopes for a revised NWT:
1) single text block with wider margins for notetaking
2)titus 2:13 to "manifestation of the glory" of the great god and our saviour, J.C.
3)list 'one of a kind god' for John 1:18
4)Col 2:9 to deity or divinity or godship
5)better argumentation in appendix (esp. w/ John 8:58, Ive been researching this in ANF and there are some juicy quotes for this verse by the "fathers", see Ambrose: exposition of the Christian faith; when I first saw it I thought it was to good to be true)
6)change Heb. 1:3 to 'of his very nature'
7)list "I am he" as variant for John 8:58
8)I wouldnt mind changing torture stake to just stake, it reads smoother that way
9)occasionally I run across passages that are just rough that could use a smoother reading
I also would like an update to the reasoning book, the intros are quite old and some of the arguments are... lame
Do you know if/when Furuli is updating "role" in the near future?
regards,
enedra
oh yeah, change phil 2:11 to "and every tongue should openly acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ to the glory of God, the Father" or similar
ReplyDeletesomebody tried to claim this means:
"and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah/LORD to the glory of God the Father" which of course falls apart looking at the interlinear, but its still irritating.
Hi, Enedra:
ReplyDeleteTo the extant that we can agree John 14:14 should be footnoted and readers should be made aware of the reality of this verse, I think we coincide.
Concerning Furuli, I don't know. I had been told by his publishers that a new revision was coming up in August but it is already November. I'm sure if you email him, he'll let you know. (That is, if he responds!)
Another suggestion for the NWT would be to remove "Jehovah" where there is no good evidence for its placement in the NT. That is, only keep "Jehovah" where there's a direct quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures. I think that would be the best route to go.
you sound like your reading to much Stafford ed. 3 (LOL), tho I dont see the need for the Divine Name in Acts 7:60 considering John 5:22, but that's just MHO. BTW, please star my youtube comment/respense to "shazoolo" "render S.S. to Jesus" so It will be seen
ReplyDeleteJohn16:23KJV"and in that day ye shall ask me NOTHING,verily,verily,I say unto you,whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name,he will give it you."
ReplyDelete