Jump to content

Talk:Jason BeDuhn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.74.222 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 'authority' gauge; ones that include the NWT. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head. BeDuhn did NOT directly say that he "found" it to be the most accurate. Therefore, to use that wording here, implying something he himself never claimed, and strengthen your own POV that it has been "found" to be more accurate is using a weasel word and destroying the tone of a NPOV. Again, you should be reporting in the narrative in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, not strengthening or weakening an argument with personal beliefs. BeDuhn didn't use the term "found" - so why do you insist on it? Yes, he makes a case, but others make different cases. You can't simply say that one POV is true and another isn't purely because of your own beliefs. Whisperwolf (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got yourself going in circles. You were the one that claimed: "..and indeed claims in his book that he's "found" this to be the case - but that doesn't make it so". Here you're saying that BeDuhn claims he "found" something, but that claim doesn't mean he actually found something? Now you're saying (after I pointed out the BeDuhn said no such thing): "BeDuhn did NOT directly say that he "found" it to be the most accurate. Therefore, to use that wording here, implying something he himself never claimed". So now because he DIDN'T say he "found" something, we shouldn't say something that he didn't claim? When you thought BeDuhn claimed he "found", you objected. Now you're objecting because he didn't claim he "found?"
I don't know what else I can tell you. Your objections, rational, and comparisons make little or no sense. "Find"/"Findings" is a term applied to the conclusion of scholastic/scientific discovery and/or analysis (I am not claiming scientific analysis here). "Makes the case" implies that he set out to prove the NWT right, which as anyone who has ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK could tell you is not the case at all. On top of that, it is your admitted objective to downplay the significance of BeDuhns findings because biblical translation committees didn't translate verses of most modern bibles similar to the NWT (as if any reasonable person should compare a bible translation to a book ABOUT bias in bible translation, and then with this illegitimate comparison you have claimed BeDuhn is a minority of scholars). Duffer (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I assume from your consistent avoidance of answering my points and questions that you have no answer? BeDuhn did not used the word "found" so why do you insist on it? Do you agree or disagree that the wording "found" in the context it was used in this article is much stronger, claim wise, than "wrote that"? Do you agree that the inference "found" gives infers that it was a definitive and not a subjective inference? Because these are the only questions that are really appropriate to a wikipedia article. We could bash heads together on whether he was right or wrong for months, and we probably would still end up agreeing to disagree - that again is beyond the scope of Wikipedia (we should be having any theological or academic discussions elsewhere). All that matters to Wikipedia is that a NPOV is maintained in the article, so the burning questions I've asked in this paragraph you DO need to answer rather than try to present more evidence about the author being right or wrong. Whisperwolf (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if BeDuhn used the word "found" or not. I have not avoided anything. "Found"/"Find"/"Findings" are the terms used to describe conclusions drawn from scholastic/scientific findings. That's not POV to say what his findings are. They are his findings, in his book, described on his autobiography stub. I believe, accurately, that the word "found" is used appropriately to describe BeDuhn's scholarly conclusions that he based on objective analysis of the original language. You believe the word "found" is carrying more weight than it should, I understand your position. My position is that the term "found" accurately describes his conclusions based on his objective analysis. Duffer (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I maintain that "found" in this context is strong enough to be classifiable in this context, in Wikipedia, as a weasel-word. "wrote that" or "concluded that" are neutral because they are subjective-conclusive. They suggest that this person has written/concluded/found whatever. "found" in this context to the casual reader is literal-conclusive. It indicates a definate that doesn't exist because there is still controversy and disagreement about the conclusion. NPOV requires, in articles where you are documenting a persons findings, a subjective-conclusive unless there are no other notable disagreements. In BeDuhn's case, there are notable disagreements, so a literal-conclusive method of documenting his conclusions is not neutral. Whisperwolf (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these "notable disagreements?" Who else has compared the New Testaments of several mainstream bibles with each other (that also included the NWT in their comparison)? Seriously where are they? I would buy that book this instant. I whole heartedly disagree with your arguments, and rational. I am fairly annoyed that you haven't even read the book and keep referring to it's analysis as "subjective". But for the sake of fairness the entire paragraph is in need of clarity. I have edited accordingly. Duffer (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, in fact I think the article is more accurate with that edit. I withdraw my NPOV objection, and will remove the tag. Whisperwolf (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an ideal situation to have ones religious beliefs attacked by any means. However I must say that this book does justice to my beliefs for a change. Jehovah's Witnesses are not in the majority and neither was what Jesus himself was preaching to the Jewish community in his day. You get a sense that what he was instructing his disciples to do ("go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things".)was new and unpopular as is today. No one wants to be wrong in his belief, so I encourage all to thoroughly examine his beliefs without bias and see just where that leads you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctpreach1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason BeDuhn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Translation 'controversy'

@David Menafee: The article asserts that BeDuhn's Truth in Translation has been 'controversial' along with other claims, almost all of which are entirely unsourced. Citations were requested in February 2021. If citations are not provided indicating that the subject has actually received attention by notable authorities, the subsection may be reduced or removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

It's perhaps more appropriate for a surname page or a disambiguation page, but since there are none: what's the etymology of BeDuhn? At first I thought it's a spoonerism for "DeBuhn", but "Buhn" isn't something you'd ordinarily find in any language that uses "De" in surnames. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Perhaps try a name origins website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_BeDuhn&oldid=1204780410"