Talk:Jason BeDuhn

Dr. Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is redundant.
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn is correct.
Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is correct.
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is not correct.

Objective POV removed

In my opinion, the sentence "...which generated controversy when he found the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) and the New American Bible (published by the American Catholic Church) to be more accurate than other respected translations linked to Protestant constituencies." does not follow NPOV rules. By saying "he found" it implied that he discovered something of provable truth, whereas there is still much debate on the validity of the New World Translation. I feel that "he wrote that the" is much more appropriate since its true that he wrote that, but not as strong as "he found". Whisperwolf (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Through analysis of the original language, and in comparison to other main stream bibles, BeDuhn indeed found that the NWT was the "most accurate" NT. "Found" is appropriate due to his objective method of discovery. He came to a conclusion based on his objective findings. Have you read the book? Duffer (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I note from your profile that you are a Jehovah's Witness, and from that readers of this discussion should draw their own conclusions of your own neutrality where this particular topic is concerned.

BeDuhn's book drew the conclusion that in his opinion the NWT was the most accurate, and it is right that Wikipedia reports that he drew the conclusion. But that conclusion is NOT SHARED among the bulk of his peers, and the majority of theological scholars disagree with him. As such, to present his opinions or conclusions as definite, not disputed, is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and as such I have reverted it to my wording again, and revised that section of the article so that the section can be appropriately flagged as NPOV disputed. Please read the guidelines on NPOV which clearly state that one authors opinion that is in conflict with the bulk of his peers is not to be represented as fact, as the wording you keep reverting this article to does. Whisperwolf (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BeDuhn, through objective analysis of the original language, found the NWT to be: "the most accurate of the translations compared ... judging by the passages we have looked at." (pg. 163) And: "..the biases of the NW translators do not account account for most of the differences of the NW from the other translations. Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation ofthe original expressions of the New Testament writers. The NW and NAB are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But the are remarkably good translations.." (pg. 165) Why can't we have "found" when he quite literally "found" the NWT to be the most accurate? It appears to me that you are uncomfortable with that fact, and for whatever reason, want to limit the significance of his findings. Also, who of BeDuhn's peers has published reviews of the NWT in comparison to any given modern translation, based on the Koine Greek, and not subjective theological interpretation? I believe the answer is none. So unless you're referring to Metzger & Mantey's misleading sound bites then I really do not know who comprises this "bulk of peers" that you mention. Duffer (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do "theological scholars" have to do with linguistic analysis? If you don't have the language right then you likely don't have the theology right. BeDuhn's book is about the language, not theology. Duffer (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's get at it this way. Consider the sentence "Bible translators, with very few exceptions, from the time of the original King James Version found that the correct translation of John 1:1 is 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God".

Would you accept the strength of that claim, the strength that the word "found" gave it - especially in the light that if it was an indisputable truth then it not only proves BeDuhn wrong (in saying the NWT was the most correct) but also infers that in some way HIS findings are wrong purely because their findings are right?

This is the argument behind the NPOV disagreement here. This one author makes arguments that his is the case, and indeed claims in his book that he's "found" this to be the case - but that doesn't make it so. It is his conclusion, and it's not accepted by the majority of bible translators.

For this reason alone, the section in the Wikipedia rules governing NPOV which states:

   * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
   * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
   * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

applies, and the word "found" - implying that this is undisputed truth, and not this one particular authors opinion, is quite clear.

It is beyond the scope and the place of Wikipedia to have the theological arguments behind BeDuhn - or anyone else's - findings; but he is in the minority in his opinion, so a subjective opinion (that specifically agrees or disagrees with him) is not appropriate for Wikipedia, where an objective view (acknowledging that he reached these conclusions, while also pointing out that these conclusions are not accepted by the majority of his peers) of "he wrote that" is more appropriate to the tone of a reporting media such as Wikipedia. Whisperwolf (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an illegitimate argument. You're comparing English translations with a book written about English translations. Your comparison would have to be between a book written about English translation(s) with other books written about English translation(s) to have any sort of majority/minority gauge; ones that include the NWT. The fact that BeDuhn objectively found, and proved linguistically, that the NWT is the most accurate New Testament (out of verses compared between the KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, NIV, AMP, LB, TEV). Find me other books that compare the NWT to the original greek, that disagree with BeDuhn, then you can say majority or minority.

Where in the book did BeDuhn claim that he "found" the NWT to be the most accurate? In his "Final Word" chapter recap (pgs: 162-3) he uses the phrases: "demonstrated", "could be seen", "emerged as", "revealed", "demonstrated at length", and "was shown". His objective analysis makes the case for NWT, does that not qualify his conclusions as a legitimate meaning for the word "scholarship"? How do you know his conclusions are not shared by the majority of translators? Where have they weighed in on the subject of linguistics, void of theological discussion? Duffer (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And really his findings are his findings, if scholars have published findings that differ, then those are their findings are they not? Isn't "find" the technical term for a conclusion drawn from objective analysis? Duffer (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)