What is the difference between an autograph, manuscript, and a translation?

Answer 1

With regard to the Bible, the autographs were the original writings of the various books / letters. There are no autographs existing today.

Manuscripts were written on various materials over the centuries, many thousands of copies of which were made.

Translations occured when the original languages of the manuscripts were put into a different language. A translation must be made from authentic manuscripts in the original languages, requiring linguistic qualifications. Some Bibles purport to be translations when they are no such thing. For example, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is merely based on existing scholarly translation work - adjustments being made according to the wishes of those JWs in charge, none of whom had adequate linguistic qualifications to translate from the original biblical languages into English, or any other language.

Answer 2

An autograph is a signature.

A manuscript is a piece of literature.

A translation is is a manuscript that has been copied from one language into another.

Answer 3

Sasi is 90% correct.

How accurate is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures:

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

(Please note that according to Dr. Jason BeDuhn, only the NWT translated John 1:1 correctly)

Why did the translators of the:

ASB, NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Amplified, NJB, YLT (and the list could go on) feel the need to re- translate the bible into English?

Because as one translator put it. (Benjamin Wilson)

"The KJV has over 20,000 known errors in it."

"It is a notable fact that King James Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the original Greek."

"There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; beside others which are now obsolete."

"It has been highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of being placed in it as a genuine record."

----

Dr. Macknight said about the KJV:

"it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions"

"that their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect."

Dr. Gell:

"and only adapted to one sect;"

"some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by 'reasons of state'."

==============

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

States that the NWT is different not because of bias, but because it is more accurate.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the first to re-translate the bible into modern english,

They just did it better.
.

Answer 4

websters dictionary.