Why did the Jehovah's Witnesses change Matt 23:14?

Question

KJV
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
New World Translation
Mat 23:14---

I have been insulted by them for not providing examples. Well I got this from the Watchtower website.

How do they get from a whole sentence to two dashes?

Plastic Stars,

I appreciate your sentiment, but they will not come to my door. And the one time that I had a bible study scheduled with two of them, they never showed up. I was told by someone familiar with them that they were told not to do the study with my because I am Apostolic Pentecostal. When I have asked them questions, they don't answer, but change the subject. So your idea is really not workable. If they do not want to talk to me, I will go to where I can to find the information.

Answer 1

The verse is omitted in both the New World Translation and its predecessor, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. In a footnote in "KIT", they say that it is omitted because it was omitted in the Greek manuscripts of Westcott & Hort, upon which both Watchtower translations are based. Now, for those of you who don't know about Westcott and Hort, I would suggest that you do some very intense research on these two characters, as they were heretics, spiritists, supporters of Darwin and Marx, and had no area whatsoever with taking liberties with God's word. Is it any wonder that the WT would use their neutered and corrupted Greek text as a basis for all of their translations?

Answer 2

They did not.

Here is Matthew 23:14 from several respected translations:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
-

Bible in Basic English
-

Darby Bible Translation
-

English Revised Version
-

New World Translation
-[ftn]“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense offer long prayers; on this account you will receive judgment more abundantly.”[end footnote]


Clearly, nothing about Matthew 23:14 is even slightly difficult to reconcile with bible truth as it is understood by Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet, the most authoritative ancient manuscripts do not have anything at that verse, so quality translations do not include the seemingly spurious text in the main body. It is disingenuous and misleading to pretend that NWT is unique or unacceptable in its rendering of Matthew 23:14.

It would seem that this question is primarily intended to demean Jehovah's Witnesses, since they distribute NWT. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses do not rely on NWT or believe that it is particularly inspired in a way that others are not; Witnesses respect and use dozens of other translations.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20000622/

Answer 3

You'll be asking a lot of JW "haters" on here so you won't be getting a real, biblical answer. Many are biased to us because we serve the true God in the Bible though many think Jesus is God. Many church goers and the leader of your church don't understand completely what the Bible says so they believe that we changed our Bible to conform to our way of thinking, which is UNTRUE. The Bible clearly states at the end of Revelation that those who add or take away from the bible will be cursed...we have neither taken away or added any context. Our bible translations are just easier to understand and translated from the Hebrew and Greek meanings to have clearer meaning on what the scriptures are saying and telling us to do. Many people are happy in their lives to listen to their pastor preach and then do nothing in their lives that God requires of them. Church pastors need church members to fill their church, hence the passing of the collection plate...it's a business. The Bible clearly states that God "loves a cheerful giver" and should not give under complusion. We give voluntarily in discreet boxes that are in the Kingdom Hall, not by a passing collection plate...we give how much we want to give and if we want to give. We are Christians but we believe that Christ is God's son since the Bible states this and that God's name is Jehovah (Psalms 83:18). We have our annual memorial this Sunday for Jesus' death. He said we should commemorate his death each year (something that is NOT connected with pagan easter). Many people misunderstand us because we do not believe in the trinity and other "christian" beliefs b/c the Bible does not mention this. If you'd like further information on our beliefs and us then please use the links below to go to our OFFICIAL website.

Answer 4

The NWT is not alone in ommitting this verse. Here are some others

American Standard Version 1901
Bible in basic English 1965
Darby version 1884
Revised Standard Version 1947
Philips New Testamaent transl;ation 1972
Jeromes Latin Volgate 405 AD
Waymouth NT Translation 1912
Westcot and Hort master Greek Text 1881

Why have they done so? because this verse doers not appeas in the opldest of manuscripts and is generally belived to have been added to the text in later times. SO Bible translations that use the older master texts will omit this verse as well as many others.

Answer 5

Simon and Sassi both bring up good points.

These words are entirely in context with the "critique" of Jesus and God's promise to them that would pervert and take advantage of the weaker.

A scribe may not like those words and not keep them in a text and a pharisee may justify that they should be removed and were removed by squirming around and saying they are not in certain texts.

Yes Wescott and Hort were not Christian but indeed of the adversary. A TRUE Christian can not use their works to justify much anything.

Answer 6

I have nothing negative to say, I think some have addressed this as to myself I have not found it yet, will look at it now... I trust in Jehovah entirely...
I think it is great people are searching... I just wish there was no negativity said against anyone...
Agape love is what life is all about...
My concern is why do some feel it a gift from God to speak in tongues? This does disturb me and I don't understand how any view it as OK... Getting off the sub though... If I cannot understand it , it bothers me... Anything could be said and I would have no idea....
I post this because an Apostolic man once tried HARD to convert me... He said I would not be saved because I was not baptized, but that he would because even though he carried on sin openly, he was baptized... You don't have any idea how this hurt me for so long... This is what happens when one is uneducated with facts and truth...

Answer 7

That verse does NOT appear in the oldest and most reliable Bible manuscripts, and THAT is fact.

SEVERAL translations omit that spurious verse, not only Jehovah's Witnesses. Here are a few Bibles that do not include that verse:

New International Version
Darby Translation
New Living Translation
English Standard Version

and several others. Many translations, such as the New King James Version contain footnotes letting the reader know that the oldest manuscripts (mss) do not contain that verse.

Looks like it's the old KJV that's wrong. Did you know the KJV talks about unicorns? (Psalm 29:6; Deuteronomy 33:17) It seems to me that Jehovah's Witnesses are doing something right to be able to recognize false scripture from true scripture.

Answer 8

it's pure and simple the new world Translation bible was translated by people who were not Hebrew and Greek scholars, the bible is in error.

Answer 9

The big answer to your question is that the "Translators" of the NWT were five guys (yes, I can name them), four high school graduates and one who had two years of Greek in college and was proven in court not to be able to translate Hebrew at all.

The Society keeps their identities officialy "secret, so no man will get any glory". It's more likely they are avoiding the enbarrasement. Who they are is provable from many reliable sources.

A "translation" is defined as just that. Translated from the oldest existing manuscript. A version, like the "King James Version" and The American Standard Version" are simply updates from earlier English versions.

So to call the NWT a "translation" the translators would have to be Hebrew and Greek scholars, which they were not. The NWT, is at best a "version".

In fact looking at the qualifications of the "translating committee" it would have the quality of a high school book report." What they did was simply copy other translations and tweek it to fit their theology.

The main point hear is that who knows if that verse should be included or not? Maybe "according to the oldest avaiable manuscript" at this point in history it should be excluded. But who knows when other manuscripts will be discovered?

Also, a broader question is who decided which "books" were inspired and should be in the Bible and which books shouldn't? The Catholics add several books to the old testement and many consider these bogus, but who makes that decision?

The point is there is so much arguing among Bible advocates on this little word and that verb, the definite article ect.

The fact remains that no one can prove that the Bible is true and from God and that Jesus ever lived.

by seenotes, ABOC: It may interest you to know that most scholars date 1,2 and 3rd John after Revelation. That paragraph you refer to evidently pertains to Revelation only.

It's a scholarly point, not a theoligical point. Frankly, I don't care either way but you do, so before you shoot yourself in the foot again maybe you should study up a bit.

Answer 10

The verse is also omitted from the
Douay- Rheims,
The Contemporary English Bible,
The Darby,
The Good News Bible,
The Jewish Publication Society Bible,
The Septuagint as shown by E-Sword,
The Revised Version,
The Vulgate,
The Weymounth.

It's in italics in the American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version.

The verse is spurious is why it is omitted from the New World Translation and other Bibles.