.....This raises the question of whether the translator should "inject his opinions" into his translation. This can be answered in the affimative, on the ground that it inevitably happens anyhow, so that the translator who supposes he "maintains neutrality", merely channeling ideas from the source language to the receptor language without influencing the result, deludes both himself and his readers. For English expresses the translator's opinion. A translator ideologically committed to not intruding his opinions does so in spite of himself, but without taking responsibility for it. (1)

.....Therefore, a translator should decide what a word or phrase means (in his opinion!) and then convey that meaning as clearly as possible. For example, in the case of upo nomon, precisely because wrong meanings have been conveyed in the past, the translator of the Jewish New Testament translates this expression into the English words "perverting the Torah into legalism and not simply law or torah and considers it his responsiblity to convey what he believes to be the one and only correct meaning in an unmistakable way as possible. Even when a Greek expression seems vague, capable of more than one interpretation, the translator should not transfer the ambiguity into English but should decide on one of the possible interpretations and render that one well. (In editions that supply alternative readings, the ambiguity can be discussed in a marginal note.) (2)

.....On the other side of the picture, this approach opens the door toabuse. Therefore, it must be stressed that the fact that the translator's opinions will necessarily be reflected in his translation does not mean that he should exploit his role, illegitimately swaying his readers toward a partisan position. (3)

Although the New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, has some credible scholarship, it is completely over ridden by the definite exploitation in the rendering of the Greek words and phrases in regard to the divinity of Christ and other areas as well. In this translation the word proskuneo is rendered "obeisance" when applied to Jesus and "worship" when applied to the father, solely depending on the translators (Frederick Franz) discretion. Other words are added and inserted in brackets that simply are not in the original text. In many of the New Testament scriptures, where there are direct quotes from the Hebrew scriptures that contain the tetragramaten, the tetragramaten is then deliberately added. However many of these verses that formerly applied to YHWH, now apply directly to Christ and to insert the tetragramaten is to translate a bias rendering, diminishing the role of Jesus Christ. (Matt 4:10; John 4:24; Heb 1:6)

.....There are of course other translations that claim neutrality in their rendering and yet when translating words, choose the best match that supports their belief in doctrines such as the trinity, a literal burning hell, an invisible presence of Christ, the continuance of a physical nation of Israel in God's plans, & etc . . . The translator will translate the Hebrew and Greek words and phrases to the English equivilent that conveys best their opinion and sways in their direction, regardless of being a literal or paraphrase translation. .

.....This is why students of the bible should read various translations. Rather then maintaining a principle bible translation for study and comparing it with others, it would be far more productive to read each translation seperately in addition to comparative study, and put away any other translations that have been previously read.

Footnotes:
(1) Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H Stern
(2) Ibid
(3) Ibid

Back to Lightbearer's
Former JW Info Page