Did the New World Translation Committee know Greek? (By: Lesriv Spencer – 02/06/2011. Updated: Nov. 30, 2013)

Why even ask this question?

A: Because it is human nature to question things. We want to know about the origin of many religious groups, and what they stand for. In regards to the New World Translation (NWT, hereafter), we want toknow how it came about. It is well known that the NWT has become one of the highest printing Bible translations in modern history, with much controversy surrounding the translation. So it is only reasonable to want to know who published this Bible version, and the background of the translators.

Notwithstanding, the publishers of this Bible version, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTS, from now on) has officially expressed that the translation Committee wished to remain anonymous, even after death. This action has led to arousing suspicion that the WT Society had something to hide, or that the Committee lacked the credentials to tackle such challenging task. This is more so because the religious group known as Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs, hereafter) who published this Bible version, is quite unorthodox when compared to mainstream religions.

For the greater part of their history, the group has been known for their practice of setting dates for the time of the “end” (“Armageddon”). Time has proven them wrong. They have stated after their failed expectations of 1975, that specific dates are no longer to be used regarding the time of the “end.” However, the WTS still holds on to the year “1914” as the start of “the last days,” and continuously keep teasing their followers with the idea that “Armageddon” is just around the corner. To that end, theSociety have readjusted the meaning of the biblical word for “generation” numerous times to fit their view of the moment, though the Bible clearly says we are not to know that particular time. When Jesus' disciples asked him, ‘if it was the time to restore the kingdom to Israel, he warned: ‘It is not up to you [us] to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.’ (Acts 1:7, New International Version. See also Mark 13:32.) Therefore, “Timing is the Father's business.” (The Message) Is this not a wake-up call to those placing implicit trust in human leaders? (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Psalm 146:3)

The JWs refusal (based on Acts 15:20,29) to accept blood transfusions, have not earned them many friends. They are known for not celebrating holidays and avoiding military service. They require members to preach “from house-to-house” (Acts 20:20); and they are advised against being “part of theworld” (John 17:16, 18:36). It is their belief that only 144,000 go to heaven (Revelation 14:1), whereasthe majority hope to live forever in earthly paradise (Matthew 6:10). They reject the doctrines of the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, and hellfire. (John 14:28; Ezequiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Acts 2:27,31) They also teach that Jehovah God has an earthly organization, directed by the “faithful and discreet slave” class. (Matthew 24:45) As a group, they practice shunningof ex-members with dire consequences. (2 John 10,11; 1 Corinthians 5:11) Furthermore, the WT Society discourages higher learning. Hence, having bachelor, master, or doctorate degrees is less common among the group than in other religious movements. With this background in mind, it becomes easier to see why mainstream religions are suspicious of their motives for producing a Bible translation.

Does anyone really know who were the translators of the New World Translation?

A: No one outside the Governing Body, and perhaps, their Writing Staff of JWs, can say with certainty

who were the translators, since the WT Society has never revealed the names of the NWT Committee. However, former members (Raymond Franz, former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses), and William Cetnar, who also worked at the WT Headquarters), claim the translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, Karl Klein, and Milton Henschel. I will point out two things: One, the WT Society has never confirmed or denied the revealed names by ex-members. Secondly, the list of the two do not match. This discrepancy may or may not be of consequence, but it should be mentioned. Thus, by not being provided with an official list of NWT translators, we are only left to speculate. Based on the little information we have, a definitive conclusion is not attainable. Hence, I will submit another viewpoint from a different angle, passed over by most critics, and provide some further details on the matter and hopefully convey some fairness to this controversial subject.

First of all, it should be mentioned that, as far as is known, none of the men on the alleged list of NWT Committee members had a Master or Ph.D in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Thus, the majority of the religious world have concluded that the New World Translation is a hoax. “They translated a text they could not read,” so it goes. There, you have an answer! ... End of subject! ... But wait! ... Not so fast!

If the NW Translation Committee lacked the college credentials to publish an acceptable translation for the academic masses, why did they pursue such challenging task?

A: The Watchtower, the main publication of the Watchtower Bible Society, had this to say in regards to the above question: “In translating God's Word, the New World Bible Translation Committee has felt that the particulars of their university or other educational training are not the important thing, though the translation itself testifies to their qualifications.” (w74, 768; w for Watchtower) The Witnesses have used many Bible translations throughout their modern history, and have publicly expressed gratitude for doing so. Even after publishing the New World Translation, many Witnesses still use other Bible versions in their private studies. However, in their public religious meetings, where available, they stick to the NWT for uniformity reasons. The Jehovah's Witnesses use the Bible quite a bit at their meetings, perhaps more so than other religious groups. In their weekly meetings, they are encouraged to follow the speaker when reading Scripture, thus, having a common Bible translation at hand is seen as a unifying factor. This is similar to other Churches narrowing their use to one Bible translation out of so many available. Also, the WT doctrines differ quite a bit from popular religions, and before the NWT was fully published in 1961, their public speakers had to spend more time explaining doctrine when reading from Bible versions that really reflected the beliefs of other religions.They perhaps felt it was distracting potential listeners from their message. (Note: This is not their official answer for producing their own Bible translation, but reasonably, one reason for it.) Furthermore, it was their sincere belief that they could actually produce a more accurate translation, notso dependent on hoary religious tradition.

Is the New World Translation a hoax? Is it a “perversion” instead of a translation?

If we were to believe every negative story being published about this Bible version, the answer would be a resounding, Yes! However, I don't buy it. Here's why: There is an important element left out in all this drive by WT detractors to make the NWT look horrible, unfit for the masses. What is it? This: The Watchtower Society does things in a different way from the norm, but they usually get things done. And for the most part, they do it good enough. You see, the WTS have enormous resources. Generally speaking, wherever or whenever they encounter a need of some kind, they do not have to go too far to find someone capable to do the job for them. What is so “different” about them that is

relevant to the subject of Bible translation?

Well, for one thing, the WTS does not pick their Governing Body (GB) candidates by their academic accreditation. They reportedly choose GB candidates for their general leadership aptitude and long records of loyal service to their organization. That seems foremost. The WTS may also look for potential candidates with specific qualities that could enhance their organization in various ways. It appears though, that they are reluctant to name individuals to the Governing Body who have a reputation of questioning the status quo. They may take that as a sign of arrogance. The GB members may or may not be part of the Writing Department. The Writing Staff itself may be composed of dozens of writers and researchers. Furthermore, they have at their disposal, many contributors (perhaps, “thousands”) from all over the globe. Members of their Writing Staff are likely chosen for their capabilities in the field, their experience, their knowledge, and so on. We may never know of their academic experience. But judging by the admissible quality of their publications, it could rightly be said that some of them are capable enough for the task.

Therefore, by focusing solely on the Governing Body and their credentials, WTS detractors are missingthe mark. The WTS Governing Body serves more as administrators, than as scholars. This implies then, that they would choose if necessary, someone outside the Governing Body to contribute their scholarly experience to the translation project. In their cloud of secrecy, the public will never get to know who actually contributed to any given project. Whether we agree or disagree with such methodology, the fact is that they feel comfortable with their own concept of ‘unity with divine purpose.’ There are indications that at least one, if not two, of the names revealed of the alleged NWT Committee members had the capability to either handle translation work, or serve as editors. Who contributed outside that Committee to the translation project is anyone's guess. Much of the information available from sources outside of the WTS about the NWT is merely “speculation.” The fact is that most JWs do not care to know these details as much as “outsiders” do. They trust their leaders will unitedly join forces to get things done. This is quite different from what most other religious groups do, which place far greater weight on academic accreditations.

Now, how does this all apply to the subject? A lot. The WTS produces literature in hundreds of languages. An earlier web page of theirs had stated: “The Watch Tower Society has produced literature in 594 languages and calls on the services of more than 3,200 volunteers to assist with translation worldwide. In the early 1980’s, a team of volunteers developed the world’s first multilanguage electronic phototypesetting system [MEPS], which currently has the capacity to process material in 741 languages, using 31 alphabets and character sets … Since 1926, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has published more than 178 million copies of the Bible in 108 languages.” (http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article43.htm Web page removed in 2012, and parts of it integrated in their main site: http://www.jw.org/en ) The Watchtower magazine itself is published in 204 languages. Newsmax Magazine actually referred to JWs as “Publishing Titans.” http://w3.newsmax.com/a/oct10/jehovah/

Think about that for a moment! How many other corporations do you know of having that capability? As of 2013, the Watch Tower Society has published 201 million copies of the New World Translation inmore than 120 languages. (NWT Revised Edition, October 2013 Printing)

We can only envision the amount of work and resources this entails. It likely takes “years” to accomplish each translation. It is said that some of these Bible translation projects have lasted twenty years or more. We are told of the NWT Greek language edition, the following: “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in Greek is the result of some seven years of painstaking work.”

(w98, 9/1, 32) It is not unusual for the WTS to publish books in dozens of languages (some approaching 100 languages) simultaneously. In contrast, the WTS has taken some sixty years to translate the NWT in more than 100 languages, in whole or in part, indicating they do not rush Bible translation work. With their gained translation experience, they have become quite skilled at it, and have developed computer programs and translation guides in different languages to facilitate the work of translators. It is said that these translation teams work closely with the Editorial Department in New York. Lately, they have accelerated Bible translation commitments. Says their Yearbook of JWs: “For the past seven years, the Governing Body [of JWs] has given high priority to Bible translation.” (2012,p. 27)

This is quite different from the perception that many religious folks have of the WTS. It is not unusual to hear comments such as this one: “The Watchtower people took the King James Version and they went verse by verse to change it to fit their doctrine.” If there was any truth to this statement, the original NWT could have been completed in a year or so. And really, anyone who takes the time, and sincerely compares both translations side by side, would quickly see that the wording and method of translation between the two versions are markedly different, and as a result, avoid making such baselesscomments.

The truth is that it took 14 years for the NWT Committee to finish their original translation into English. “The translating project was initiated back in 1946, and by 1960 both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of God’s Word had been rendered into English directly from the original languages […] The New World Translation was first issued as a single volume in 1961.” (w81 12/15, 11) A closeexamination into the “guts” of this translation will confirm that it was translated “directly from the original languages” and not by borrowing the language of another version.

As a translation itself, the critics often state that the NWT is too “literal,” “stiff and wooden.” I agree, but now that is only true of the earlier editions, since the 2013 Revised Edition changed all that! More on than later. Reading the earlier editions can sometimes be exasperating, due to its literal nature. Specifically, when reading the Old Testament, one could get the feeling at times of reading Hebrew with English words. An instance of Hebrew literalness is the reading found at Judges 14:3, pointed out purportedly by Dr. Goodspeed as an example of “regrettable grammar” in the Hebrew portion of the NWT, where Samson asks his father to get him a particular Philistine woman for wife (It turns out that God later used Samson to strike at Israel's greatest enemy at the time, the Philistines.) Below you have Judges 14:3 to compare the various editions with the Hebrew literal reading:

(Hebrew: “Her take-for-me because she she-is-right in-eyes-of-me.”) 1953 NWT Edition: “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.” 1984 NWT Edition: “Get just her for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.” 2013 NWT Edition: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”

Observe the un-English of the 1953 Edition expression of “Her get for me...” This is “Hebrew” with English words. The same can be said of the 1984 Edition rendering, “Get just her for me...”. Obviously, smooth English was not their main goal in the earlier editions. One may see by their translation choice here, that the translators strived to convey the Hebrew idiom into English by inserting the words “just” twice, and “is the one” in the sentence in the 1984 Edition. Why? Because the words for “her” and “she” in Hebrew are emphatic, and by reason of the meaningul nuance communicated by the idiomatic expression, ‘yasherah ve‘enay=she is just right (straight) in eyes of me’. Compare this with the 2013 Revised Edition above which now reads easier, and two other versions: The modern Jewish Bible (Tanakh): “Get me that one, for she is the one that pleases me”;

and the New Century Version: “Get that woman for me! She is the one I want.” In the NT, some parts of earlier editions were hard to follow along as well, like some of Paul's writings.The translation was not enjoyable to read for long. One had to go elsewhere to find a smoother translation. One frequent complaint made of the NWT was that it was “padded” with additional words than necessary. In a sense, that was true, owing to their translation principle of bringing out the full sense of the originals. The NWT was often awkward. Though many criticize that version as “wooden,” “over-translated”, and lacking elegance, others appreciate it for bringing to light many illuminating details of the “original” languages left out in other versions. (I for one, appreciate the value of its informative translated text, not to mention the useful copious notes of the 1984 Reference edition). After decades without a major revision, lo and behold, the 2013 NWT Revised Edition appears as a comprehensive revision. No longer it is fair to say that, overall, it is “padded”, “wooden,” or “over-translated.” On the downside, the translated text of the Revised Edition is not as ‘informative’as the previous editions were. Translation work is always a compromise. Propitiously, it appears that the WTS intends to keep the 1984 Reference Edition Online for that purpose.

The Watchtower Society has had some intellectually bright individuals leave the organization. As a religious organization, their leaders manifest an ever increasing obsession of controlling their followers. Other than directing attention to their own web page (http://www.jw.org/en), it appears they manifest a nearly paranoidal sentiment of its members freely using the Internet, perhaps for fear of losing their grip. So the whole picture is not looking any better. The WTS certainly has some things tosort out, before they make sense to mainstream folks. The question is, will they? Historically, the WTS has shown little sensibility for what others outside their organization think of them. Now that I have your attention, let me just say that, even though the WTS has their own problems to deal with, justabout everyone else does too, though not necessarily in the same areas. Besides, other Bible translations, are far from perfect. Nevertheless, I sincerely believe the New World Translation and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation are the best publication releases of the Watchtower organization, followed by their “Aid”/”Insight,” and “All Scripture” books. Other people may trash these publications, either verbally or physically, but I strongly disagree with their actions.

No, the NWT is not a hoax. It is a real translation. The academic publication Andover Newton Quarterly acknowledged the following of the New World Translation: “It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot or pseudo-historical fraud.” (9/66 13) The idea of the NWT being a “perversion” and not a real “version” comes from WTantagonists who object to the presence of this religious movement in any form. To many in the scholarly community, the idea of having independent Bible translators from an unorthodox religion who did not go to college with them is unacceptable, and logically exposed to harsh criticism.

How can we take them seriously if a good number of WT translators/writers lack formal training?

Assuming that Watchtower translators/writers lack formal training, this should not mean that they are “uneducated.” The number of Witnesses with formal training percentage wise are a minority, but whenone considers the total number of JWs, they could still have “thousands” of individuals with academic education, some of which may ‘volunteer’ in assisting with the translation process worldwide. Does anyone outside the WTS know for sure whether that's the case or not?

WT detractors who unfairly accuse the WTS of purposely hiding the names and qualifications of the translators fail to acknowledge publicly that the WTS started the practice of anonymity with their

publications years earlier (partial changes in 1916 and in 1931). Not doing so may reflect a lack of good will on their part. Their history book says: “Since 1942 it has been the general rule that literaturepublished by the Watch Tower Society does not draw attention to any individual as the writer.” (Jehovah's Witnesses – Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 1993, p. 146, Bold letters, underlines mine)

Dr. Walter E. Stuermann, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at the University of Tulsa, OK is one ofthe few with this insight publicly acknowledging this: “Since about the time of the beginning of [President] Knorr's leadership [1942], all the publications of the Watchtower Society have been anonymous, including the volumes of their New World Translation of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.” (The Bible and Modern Religions – III. Jehovah's Witnesses, Interpretation 10, 1965, p. 326) Thus, the fact that the translators of this Bible are “anonymous,” only confirms the tradition of “anonymity” that for years this religious organization had been practicing. It does not seem proper then, to condemn and ridicule the WT Society's decision of “anonymity” in their publications, or to insist in attributing malevolent motivations for the practice.

Keep in mind that the NWT was first published in 1950. Nowadays, reportedly, not even the names of public speakers at their conventions are being published. This anonymity may appear odd, but is not unique. Other Bible translations have also opted, at least initially, to not publish the names of their translation committees, such as The Twentieth Century New Testament, referred to by one scholar as “an excellent translation.” Those responsible for it, “a company of about twenty persons, members of various sections of the Christian Church,” wished “anonymity,” and merely signed their Preface “The Translators”, November, 1898. The English Bible in America tells us that this Committee, “who insisted on anonymity – worked for a number of years at considerable personal sacrifice and without any compensation.” (Page 330)

Likewise, the New American Standard Bible initially wrote: “We [the Lockman Foundation] have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits.” (The Jacket of the 1971 Reference Edition, NASB) The 1977 print, under Foreword, the NASB expressed the The Fourfold Aim of the Lockman Foundation, in which Aim 4 said: “They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no translation work will ever be personalized.” For some reason, they have however, revealed the names of the translators under petition.

The Septuagint, an ancient Bible translation from Hebrew to Greek was done by some 70 (or, 72) individuals (hence, the name LXX) whose names we can't account for. Nevertheless, the Septuagint may be the most important Bible translation ever. Throughout Bible translation history, numerous Bible editions have been produced anonymously. Although many Bible versions are judged by the reputation of their translators, Dr. Alan S. Duthie (Senior Lecturer in Linguistics in the University of Legon) keenly points out: “If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it help us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? Not directly. There is no substitute for examining the characteristics of each translation itself.” (Bible translations and how to choose between them, page 17, 1985. Bold and italic letters his.)

Professor Jason BeDuhn (Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff) had this to say in answer to a question* about the identity of the NWT translators: “I do not know who the translators of the NWT were … Whether or not such anonymity is a good idea, it is not necessary to know the identity of translators in order to judge the accuracy of their work. And if you find a pattern of inaccuracy, you can usually identify a bias that has interfered with their task as translators. If a translation is accurate, any bias the translators may or may not have had is irrelevant, since accuracy in the result is

what matters.” (*Private letter addressed to Mr. Joseph-Stephen Bonanno, dated 20/08/2001. Bonannokindly requested permission from BeDuhn to publish its content, and permission was granted. A word of thanks to Mr. Bonanno for the publication of the letter.)

That said, what little information we have on presumed NWT translators comes from ex-members, many of whom are labeled by the WT Society as “apostates.” I mentioned earlier the “shunning” practice by JWs of ex-members who have been disfellowshipped or who have dissociated from the religious group. The consequences of their shunning policy (based on 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 John 10, but misapplied in my opinion) are very painful, since their closest families and relatives are required to avoid “association” with them. They urge family members (unless they live in the same house) to ‘not even say hello’ to them, and much less “eating” with them. The WTS demonize “apostates.” Witnesses are advised to “loathe” apostates. ( = “loathe,” in the sense of feeling intense dislike, disgust or hatred for ex-members.)

When Witnesses feel a need to dissent, they feel trapped. A member of the faith does not have to be a long time critic of the WTS to get ‘shunned.’ There seems to be no honorable way of leaving the organization. For instance, if a member were to submit a note of resignation from the religious group, he or she would automatically receive the injurious repercussions of the “shunning” practice. The consequences of their “shunning” policy are truly devastating. This in turn has led to many if not most ex-JWs to carry lifetime resentment against the WTS. A group of ex-Witnesses in Brazil have tried to generate publicity to this harsh policy. This painful practice of “shunning” has even led some who leave the Organization to commit suicide. Many end up depressed and bitter. Regrettably, the Watchtower Society does not show any inclination to hear the moaning of the people, nor in relaxing itsinflexible position on the matter. It's all about control!

One wonders how Christ really views this practice in view of what he himself stated at Matthew 11:28-30: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy [religious] burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

Because of this most damaging “shunning” policy, former members of this religion, with perhaps the exception of a few who write about the WTS in a negative way, are not that likely to be “reasonable” or“impartial” in their assessments of the NWT, even when the translation itself has nothing to do with such policy. I am not saying everyone should promptly dismiss what they have to say, but only suggesting that ex-members may not be the “reliable” source to obtain the information the WT opponents are so desperately hoping to get, as they may well depict the NW translators as “incompetent” for the task, and not mention whatever virtues they may have. Regardless, some members of other religions, can't resist “grasping at straws,” anything potentially disparaging they can use to belittle the religious organization they so much dislike. The problem is that so much of this information being passed around on the NWT translation is patently false. And their “gullible” victims keep repeating the same mistakes.

It is also likely that even Raymond Franz and William Cetnar (ex-JWs who claimed to have identified the NW translators) did not have full knowledge of the NWT project, as to who else contributed to the project. A poster in an online discussion of the NWT wrote: “This was confirmed on this board some years ago by the poster maximus, who actually worked on the NWT as a proofreader. He observed that[Fred] Franz took great pains to conceal his work from anyone not directly approved to know*, such as the others on the NWT committee and a few other highly trusted people. Not even the proofreaders

were supposed to know. But occasionally someone slipped up, and so all of the proofreaders knew who was doing what.”

(*Why the “secrecy,” one may ask? Many people are suspicious of any corporation working under a veil of secrecy, even though it is not uncommon for corporations to do so. In this case, it appears to be a case of WT leaders wanting to provide exciting news of “new” releases at their yearly Conventions, not unlike commercial corporations who strive to engage their customers with new products all the time. Frequently, these corporations work away from public view. Whether Corporations of the like ofApple®, Google®, Oracle®, Samsung®, or some other, maintain full “secrecy” of product development, or work more “openly,” as Mozilla® and the Linux Foundation do, it can be said that quality is not determined by such policies alone. Quality products have been produced by both “secretive” and “open” corporations. The same principle could equally apply to religious corporations.)

On the subject of “formal” training, it should be pointed out, that many people for whatever reasons (“cost” and “health” being two of them), choose the path of self-education ( = autodidacts, self-taught), rather than engage in college training. We really can not dismiss this crowd. Why? Well, look at the following list and think about what they all had in common?

Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Walter Cronkite, Benjamin Franklin, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Dickens, George Washington, John Greenleaf Whittier, Peter Jennings, Rabbi Reuven Margolies, José Saramago (Nobel Prize Literature), William Blake, John Clare, Frank Lloyd Wright. and Leonardo Da Vinci. And these others? Georg Philipp Telemann, Joachim Raff, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodríguez, Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles. They were all largely self-taught. Leonardo da Vinci had formal training in the study of the arts, but self-taught as a mathematician, scientist, geologist, inventor, botanist, and writer.

To the above list we can add the famous duo of guitarists: Los Indios Tabajaras, two native Indians from the jungle of NE Brazil, who first had to make sure a guitar they found in the jungle was not a weapon, became virtuoso guitarists, recorded dozens of albums, learned to build and sell guitars, learned different languages, and in their time became the best-selling guitar duo in the world. They even modified their guitars so they could play all piano notes in their instruments. Listening to them play their own transcriptions (from piano compositions to guitar) of Flight of the Bumble Bee, Fantaisie-Impromptu, Op. 66, or Valse in C-Sharp will convince anyone that “formal” training alone will not necessarily produce the best sounding music. This prompted Chet Atkins, “Mr. Guitar,” to declare Nato Lima, the leading guitar player of the duo, along with Julian Bream, as one of the best players in the world (‘Julian Bream in the Classics, and Nato Lima between the Classics and Popular music,’ per Atkins).

Below, a sample of music produced by the self-taught duo. Pay special attention to Fantaisie-Impromptu Op. 66 of Chopin, which Nato says this piece is very difficult to play on the classical guitar, not only because it is technically demanding, but also because the “muscles” get tired in the first minute, making it even more challenging to play after that. Music lovers can find many pianists playing this piece, but, how many formally trained classical guitarists can play this like Nato? Can you name any? (“The Sound of Magic,” The Fretboard Journal, Issue 7: Fall, 2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW8MgtyYzno&feature=artist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPA6Dd3YCpk&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUSSIt_F_tc&feature=related

Although Claudio Arrau, the 20th century virtuoso pianist had formal training in music, he learned on

his own other four languages besides his native Spanish: English, German, French, and Italian.

In the Biblical field, we have Walter Pitts who taught himself Greek and Latin at just 10 years old. Thelate Rabbi Reuven Margolies (1889-1971), a great Torah scholar, was a self-taught Greek and Latinscholar. Michael S. Sanders, a Biblical scholar of archaelogy, egyptology and assyriology was self-taught. Luther G. Williams became a self-taught Bible scholar and brilliant pianist. John Kitto (Pictorial Bible and Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature) was a brilliant self-made scholar. Anthony Purver with no formal training translated the Quaker Bible. Ronald Barany translator of The Psalms is self-taught. Robert Young, author of Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, and of Young's AnalyticalConcordance to the Bible, was also self-taught and proficient in various ancient languages. John Brown, a shepherd, of Haddington, Scotland, taught himself Hebrew, Latin and Greek. He eventually became professor of divinity. William Carey (1761-1834, Baptist missionary), was self-taught, but with an exceptional gift for language, was instrumental in translating the Bible in many languages.

All this people, some very prominent, were for the most part self-taught. In fact, this is a small list out of the many, yes, tens of thousands of individuals who throughout history and to this very day who in spite of having little or no formal education, have never ceased to amaze the world with their talent andcapabilities. Some WTS critics (such as Dr. Walter R. Martin, a Baptist who founded the Christian Research Institute, an Evangelical Christian apologetics ministry) have stated that ‘the NW translators do not deserve our respect for their lack of college credentials.’ What?

If we were to take this statement seriously, then it would mean that all individuals in the above list, from all walks of life, do not deserve our respect either. Neither would the many Evangelical authors lacking university qualifications who distribute in conjunction millions of copies of their books. It would also mean that Bible writers who did not identify their Writings do not deserve respect. For the same reason, we would not respect those who toiled translating the Septuagint, since we do not have the names of the translators, nor do we have a list of their education credentials. Those who followed Jesus and became his disciples, some, like Peter and John, who later became Bible writers, “had no special training or education” and were considered ‘ordinary’ by the schooled crowds of their day. (Acts 4:13, New Century Version) Still, God used them to accomplish his will. We are reminded of Paul's words to the Christian Corinthians: “From the human point of view few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing.” “[God] chose what the world looks down on and despises and thinks is nothing, in order to destroy what the world thinks is important. This means that no one can boast in God's presence.” (1 Corinthians 1:26, 28, 29, Good News Translation, Underline and bold letters added.) Thus, it would be arrogance on one's part to even suggest that there is nothing to learn from people lacking academic education. Furthermore, some people tend to forget that Christians are saved by “grace,” not by “works.” (Ephesians 2:8, 9) Showing the list above of unusually gifted people who, with little or no formal education, were notable for their accomplishments in varying degrees, is in no way meant to diminish the respect and admiration I have for people who labor their way through years of university education. The general rule is that people with university training have a knowledge advantage in their respective fields over those who don't. Simple as that. Nonetheless, as impressive and admirable as is obtaining a Master or Ph.D accreditation, the truth is that not all university accredited individuals can match the accomplishments of those largely self-educated individuals in the list above.

According to Professor Duthie, “Some translators (e.g. Fenton, the Twentieth-Century NT translators,Byington) have had very little formal instruction in the biblical languages. Nevertheless, their Bible translations are not overwhelmingly inferior on that count.” (Bible translations and how to

choose between them, p. 21) In view of that, not much criticism of “ineptness,” if any, has been directed at those translators for having “little formal instruction in the biblical languages.” Why is that so? Most likely because their theology is more in line with mainstream religion than that of the NWT translators. Dr. Duthie is one scholar who does not go on a witch hunt to condemn the NWT. Others could learn from him. In fairness, we should not dismiss whatever possibility the New World translators and other WT writers found lacking formal training credentials may have of being respectable self-taught Bible intellectuals themselves. Obtaining information as a source from emotionally charged religious opponents, or even from dissatisfied ex-members of the WTS is no conclusive proof that the Society cannot find someone within their ranks capable of Bible translation. After all, if anyone has the experience and the resources to translate Bible material in many different languages, one could reasonably say that the WTS is as good as any.

And it would be so ironic, that they as a “Bible” Society, were to place less importance to the NWT Bible translation project than they would with their other publications. Keep in mind the WTS claims the Bible is their “main book” of use in their education programs. In their Foreword of the 1984 NWT, in just a few sentences they used the word ‘responsibility’ four times for what they felt toward God andsearching readers while producing the translation. And in the Foreword of the 2013 Revised Edition, the Committee added the following: “Recognizing the importance of the Bible’s message, we have undertaken the revision of this text with a profound respect for the content of the Bible. We feel the full weight of our responsibility to convey its message accurately.” The evidence is that they have spent far more time, energy and resources to the NW translation project than with any other publicationin their history. It is only fair to construe their translation effort as an honest endeavor just as we would with any other Bible translation.

Does the Watchtower Society have the capability and the know-how to produce quality publications?

Looking objectively at the whole picture, Yes! Producing a Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia is another category of reference work that requires careful research, a good grasp of Bible knowledge, and good judgment in selecting material to publish. Above all, accuracy of information presented is what ultimately determines the quality of such work. Here is a report as it appeared in the Watchtower of an interview published in a Swedish periodical with Bertil Persson, a clergyman who put the WT Bible Dictionary to the test, and reported his findings:

The Swedish periodical “Sökaren” (“The Seeker”) recently published an interview with Bertil Persson, a clergyman, author, editor and teacher of religion. He remarked that “the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses is castigated in the most diversified ways,” and that their Scandinavian critics range from religious historians and Bible scholars to ordinary people. However, Persson stated: “Behind the faith being preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses there is an amazing high-class and internationally oriented Bible science.” He then referred to the 1,700-page reference work “Aid to Bible Understanding,” prepared by Jehovah’s Witnesses and published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

“Only a few months ago,” remarked Persson, “I had some Christian and Jewish Bible scholars in the Middle East examine its presentation of facts that concern Oriental Bible science, and they are compelled, against any negative reports they may have heard, to acknowledge the enormous correctness with regard to the facts presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They say that there is nothing corresponding to this fact certainty in the Bible dictionaries of the West.” (w77 315, Note:The 1971 One Volume Dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding has been superseded by the updated 1988, 2 Vol., Insight on the Scriptures.) – End of quote.

How could this be? How is it possible that a group of Bible students lacking “formal” training can produce a Bible reference work with “enormous correctness with regard to the facts,” one of which it issaid, when put to the test in comparison with other scholarly works , “that there is nothing corresponding to this fact certainty in the Bible dictionaries of the West”? Should we not then, at least make allowance to this Bible Society for having the capability and the resources to produce a quality Bible translation?

Below, and throughout, you will find a few scholarly opinions on the NWT. It is not meant to indicate these approve of the WT Society's interpretations overall, but are presented only as an indication that some scholars do find scholarly merit in the NWT, not that they endorse the version unanimously:

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger: “On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators...Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent. [...] Some of the translations…are simply indefensible [such as “Jehovah in the NT; John 1:1; “other” in Col. 1:16].” (The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 151-52) This quote is significant considering that Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, who was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, contributor to many scholarly works*, and recognized as a world-class Greek scholar (Presbyterian), was clearly opposed to WT theology. He wrote some articles strongly criticizing WT doctrine. Nevertheless, he did admit being somewhat impressed with their translation work, an admission usually not expected from scholars of another faith who hold such strong divergent views. (*One such work is: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament)

Jason BeDuhn*: “Simply put, [the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, a WT publication] is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your ‘New World Bible Translation Committee’ hasdone its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your ‘New World Translation’ is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.” (In a letter to the WTS, dated 12 May 1997. w98 2/1 32) (*Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, atNorthern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, anda Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington. Dr. BeDuhn has used the Kingdom Interlinear in the classroom with his students.)

Samuel Haas: “While this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, December 1955, p. 283)

Rolf Furuli: “From a philological and linguistic point of view, therefore, the NWT is a very accurateand scholarly translation.” (Page 300) “Taking into account its target group and translation principles, NWT is an excellent piece of work. In particular, the NWT study edition is a good tool for Bible study, because it helps the readers to make informed choices.” (Pages 306-307) (The Role ofTheology and Bias in Bible Translation, Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, California, 1999. Furuli is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, Norway. He has also studied Greek and Latin. Furuli is said to be a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Now, the big question: Did the New Word Translation Committee know any Greek?

It would be odd indeed to assume that a Bible translation, which according to a scholar, produced a “superior” translation, was composed of individuals with ‘zero knowledge of biblical languages.’ Obviously then, there has been a distortion of facts. I will appeal to the few facts known, and some common sense to state my view on things. From what I have gathered so far, I find that of the list of presumed translators of the NWT Bible, it is probably fair to say the following:

Nathan Knorr and Milton Henschel had no formal training in biblical languages according to former WT Bethelites. Nathan Knorr served as the business administrator of the Committee, Milton Henschel did some legal/secretarial work in the translation project. If true, why were they even part of the NWT Committee? Was it the case to justify the project before the Board of Directors? I do not have the answers. Albert Schroeder and Karl Klein: No formal training in biblical languages. Ex-WTS Bethelites claim that Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.Schroeder and Klein contributed work to the NWT critical apparatus. One unverified report mentions that Schroeder was “knowledgeable” in biblical languages.

George D. Gangas, a Greek/Turkish national helped out in the Bible translation work. Again, no formal training in biblical languages. Gangas learned English as an adult when he was 24 years old. Some eight years later he began serving as a Greek translator for the WTS, initially, from English to Greek publications. He later learned to speak and write in Spanish (self-taught). He explains: “Here at[WT] Bethel I also learned to speak Spanish... I got a grammar book, and with the help of our literature and by listening to the way the Spanish people pronounced words, I learned Spanish!” (w66, 639) This is an unconventional way of learning a language, but it worked well for him. Many years later he appeared in a video, well advanced in age, saying: “I came here [to Bethel] ... I was a translator, and I was translating in Greek, in Spanish, and in English.” (How Awesome is this Place, 04:42) Those words seem to indicate that he translated not only from English to Greek as has been reported elsewhere, but also between those three languages as needed.

The WT Yearbook of 1994 reported: “In 1985 the [WT] Society chose Greece as a site for one of the special conventions that year.... For the benefit of the visitors, the talks were interpreted into several European languages as well as into Japanese. George Gangas, himself a Greek, spoke to the conventioners in Greek, much to the delight of his audience.” (Page 105)

George Gangas is often dismissed as a “capable” translator when the subject of the education credentials of the New World Translation Committee comes up, even though he worked for decades as a translator in the WT Headquarters. He likely gained a lot of translation experience from 1928, when he entered Bethel, to 1946, which was when the NWT project got under way. Anyone who objectively examines WT publications in different languages has to admit they do a decent job in the translation department. Gangas, expectedly, was a fine translator as well. Although Gangas apparently had no “formal” training in translation work, it is not unusual for some individuals, because of personal effort and ability, to become accomplished translators. In fact, some people make a living of it. Gangas did just that!

Critics may not accept his translation experience as a valid credential, and quickly point out that his knowledge of Greek was modern Greek, not Koine, biblical Greek. Some even say the two are a world apart, and that modern Greeks have difficulty reading the Bible in modern Greek. True to a certain point, but these critics sometimes speak as if it is an impossible thing for a Greek native speaker to “read,” study, or master biblical Greek (as a JW, i.e.) privately. Though anyone can clearly see the vastdifferences between the two forms of the language, the fact is, that even with all their differences,

modern Greek and Koine Greek are still both “Greek,” not Russian, or Korean or some other language. Of modern Greek we are told: “Modern Greek is a simplification of ancient Greek, which it resembles to a high degree. Literary, or written, Greek, in vocabulary and grammar, is almost identical with the Greek of the New Testament.” (Greek Made Easy, p. 5, 1938 ®. Third Edition, 1978, by George C. Divry, also author of Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary) Gangas was likely most familiar with “Kathareuousa,” the official language of modern Greece until 1976. This form of language is closer to biblical Greek than the more recent “Demotic” used since 1976. (* For a more detailed consideration of the similarity between biblical and modern Greek, see Note 1.)

In the name of fairness, there is a reasonable possibility that George Gangas added to his knowledge of modern Greek, biblical Greek. If he was able to learn Spanish on his own using a grammar book and other publications, and serve as a “translator” in various languages for an International Bible society, it would not be an unsurmountable task for him to learn the language differences between Koine and modern Greek. After all, he was presumably a member of the NWT Committee, and as such, would surely apply himself to the translation project, and have deep interest to contribute in any way he could.In the case of George Gangas, a native Greek speaker, he would not even have to learn a strange alphabet, or a “complete” new vocabulary. In fact, some who teach biblical Greek today, ask their students to use the modern Greek pronunciation instead of the theoretical Erasmian pronunciation taught in popular grammars. They are convinced that this is the best and most practical course to take. Obviously then, the frequent charge levied against the NW translation project that they “translated a text they could not ‘read’” is false. George Gangas not only “read” Greek, but “spoke” fluent Greek, something many accredited Bible scholars are not able to do.

Dr. Walter Martin, in a conversation with renowned grammarian Julius Mantey, said he visited the WT Headquarters, and met with “the only person in the WT who could read Greek” (a likely allusion to George Gangas). He put him to the test by asking him to read John 1:1, which he did. Martin then asked him, “What is the subject of the last clause of John 1:1?” Martin then tells his readers that he asked him twice, and that he didn't know. “This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn't know, the subject of the sentence of John 1:1,” said Martin. I find that statement itself questionable. Martin's claim, that “the only person in the WT to read Greek” was this one individual, not only runs contrary to logic, but the statement itself is as credible as someone else saying “that Martin was the only person in the State of New York (where he was born), to read Greek,” without getting to know all the people who lived in the State at his time. Martin's claim then, is deceptive. (See Note 2 at the end for other details on the subject.)

By Martin saying he met ‘the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek – which according to him, didn't know what the subject of a sentence was’ he brought up the implication of the WTS having no competent personnel to handle Greek translation. How would he know? How could he make such a blanket statement when he surely had no access to WT inner operations in this most “secretive” organization? But, is there a chance he could be right? Again, no!

Wikipedia states: “Ancient Greek texts, especially from Biblical Koine onwards, are thus relatively easy to understand for educated modern [Greek] speakers.” One would think that someone like theGreek native Gangas who worked as an experienced translator between three languages (and presumed member of the NWT Committee) for an International Bible Society was “educated” enough to “read” biblical Greek. Furthermore, the WTS in Greece alone have thousands of native Greek speakers, not tomention countless other Greek associates around the world, including some living in the New York cityarea. Which indicates, that Gangas was not “the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek.” Technically speaking, the WTS could have, within potential reach, dozens of available Greek-speaking volunteers able to pursue linguistic instruction to assist in Bible translation. Add to that a number of

JWs from other ethnic backgrounds who may likewise love biblical languages and dedicate time and effort to study them, whether formally, or on their own. It may have a smack of arrogance for someoneto claim: “I have never encountered one of them [JWs] who had any knowledge of the Greek language.” (Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana) Scholars Rolf Furuli, Greg Stafford and Nicholas Kip to name a few, have at one time or another been publicly linked to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. All three have studied Greek. Gangas was therefore not ‘the only one in the WT to read Greek.’

There are unverifiable reports that the WTS has had translation-experienced volunteers in Greece who are equally at home with both modern and biblical Greek, assisting the Society in Bible translation for decades. And this is something often overlooked by WT detractors, who focus only, incidentally, on a handful of unofficial American names from the New York Headquarters. There is another report by a former WT Brooklyn member, who mentioned that the Society hired a professional translator, who specialized in biblical languages, a non-JW, to assist in the translation project as well. Even another report has it, that the NWT Committee held communication with one or more scholars while working on the translation project. Though none of these reports are verifiable, they are all within possibility. Can anyone prove otherwise? Why then, is it seemingly impossible for critics to accept the notion that an International “Bible” Society with many Bible translation teams in place, could aptly produce their own Bible translation?

Besides, do you not find it strange that a prominent WT antagonist, like Walter Martin, with one hand jabs the WTS for being highly “secretive” for not disclosing the NWT translators' identity, and with theother, claims to know who is “the only person in the WT to read Greek”? By the way, where did the WT Society get the translators to work on their modern Greek translation? Did Martin ever get toknow them? That is not important, is it? The important thing in this matter is, that the International WT Society saw a need to produce a modern Greek translation, and they put their experience, know-how, and their resources to the task, and seven years later, it was done.

Opponents of the NWT are faced with a real dilemma at the time of explaining how the Watchtower Society were able to get translators to produce a modern Greek Bible translation, and at the same time sustain the premise that they cannot find one biblical Greek translator within their 3,200 translation volunteers, when both languages are basically, differences aside, thesame language. Is this assumption of NWT critics reasonable then? Is it such an impossible concept to envision the NWT modern Greek translators of ever becoming deeply involved in biblical Greek when they too are most likely Bible “devotees” themselves? Moreover, even if we assume for a moment that the NWT translators based their modern Greek translation on the English NWT, as it likely was the case, the fact is that no translator can escape fully the necessity of having to often collate the English readings with the original languages, in order to achieve the most accurate renderings. (This is specially so when one considers the NWT Greek edition took seven (7) years to accomplish, way too long a time if they were just simply translating from English to Greek and supposedly not comparing their work at all with the Hebrew and Greek Text.) The translation experience of any international corporation dealing with multi-language biblical translations will bear this out.

Keep in mind too, theoretically speaking, even if they did could not find one capable JW of reading Bible Greek among millions of followers (unlikely), they clearly have the financial resources of hiring the services of competent non-JWs Bible translators at will. Thus, not knowing how they did it, is all together different from saying they as a Society are not able to do it. Whatever approach they used,the resulting evidence is there for all to see. Click here:

For Greek: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/?contentLanguageFilter=el

Therefore, it does not make sense at all to claim these people (i.e. the WT translation leaders) ‘had no clue’ in the translation department. In fact, those exercising the heaviest criticisms against the WTS and its translation products, may themselves have ‘no clue’ whatsoever of the inner operations of this hermetically sealed organization. If anything, the visible “evidence” seems to point to the WTS of being at the forefront of translation work. Of another prominent, but unrelated Bible translation entity, the Website of the United Bible Societies claims of their capabilities: “They [UBS] are the biggest translator, publisher and distributor of the Bible in the world.” (http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org) Now, aside from the United Bible Societies, I don't think there are too many organizations around who can claim to have “3,200 translation volunteers” translating Bible material in hundreds of languages at hand, including translations of some of their publications in modern Hebrew, even when there, comparatively speaking, only a small number of JWs in Israel. For a look at their New Testament edition of the NWT in modern Hebrew, published in 2012, click here: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/?contentLanguageFilter=he

Since Walter Martin kept busy poking fun at alleged inadequacies of the WTS, here's something else to consider: Has the Christian Research Institute founded by Walter Martin ever produced their own “Hebrew” or “Greek” Bible translation? If so, I would love to check it out. It is incomprehensible at times, how, individuals who make the greatest noise (such as those prominent leaders who engage in the harshest criticism) have no “scholarly” publication* whatsoever to account for, such as a Bible translation or an Interlinear, when those who are made their object of scorn, have indeed published: a Bible encyclopedia; a Bible translation from the original languages (later renderedinto dozens of other languages, including modern Hebrew and Greek); and a Greek-English Interlineartranslation. As the saying goes: “Actions speak louder than words.” (* I do not consider “countercult” writings “scholarly” material.)

Note too, that Martin made no effort to discredit other self-taught scholars whose theology is more in line with his “evangelical” teaching. I have not seen any material of Martin focusing on known Christian leaders of the like of Beth Moore, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer, or any other Evangelical with little or no formal training. (There are dozens of prominent Evangelical writers whose sole credential presented in their books is one of “preacher,” “teacher,” or “best-selling author,” with no college credentials. I know so because I am the “owner” of some of these books). Yet, Martin or his followers do not criticize them, even though they have collectivelly sold millions of copies of their books. Likewise, Martin made no effort to criticize other self-taught Bible scholars mentioned in the previous list. It appears, then, that Martin's objection of the WTS and its NWT has little to do with whether they are self-taught in Greek or not, but more with having a prominent Bible translation with wide distribution supporting doctrine that runs counter to his Evangelical beliefs. Martin surely did notwant to appear as religiously biased and intolerant before the world, so he was hoping to steer people away from a “dangerous cult” by a smokescreen excuse that the WT translation does not deserve the people's respect and attention.

Now, let's briefly review the background of an alleged prominent member of the NWT Committee:

Frederic W. Franz: According to some WT insiders, Franz knew nine languages. According to his nephew, Raymond Franz, Fred Franz was the “principal translator of the Society's New World Translation.” (He was self-taught in various languages, including Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

We'll also take a look at the often cited Scotland court case where it is claimed that Franz failed a simple “Hebrew” test.) For details of Fred Franz life story, see Note 3 toward the end:

In September 1974, we are told, the Watch Tower Society made arrangements for a special meeting in atheater in São Paulo, Brazil, where visitor Frederic W. Franz, then vice president of the WTS, was to speak before 2,000 attendees. Massasue Kikuta, who has been a member of the branch staff since 1967, recalled: “ ‘Brother Franz surprised everyone by giving his talk in fluent Portuguese. Without using a Bible or any notes (his eyesight was already failing), he quoted and explained all of Psalm 91, verse by verse, for more than two hours, in spite of being 80 years of age.’ It was learned later that he did the same thing in Spanish for the brothers in Paraguay!” (Yearbook 1997, 102)

Add to this, the testimony of thousands of WT observers (at their international religious conventions) who have witnessed Fred Franz's abilities in his handling of various languages. According to a source, in one international convention site, in Chicago, he gave his speech, fluently, in three different languages before thousands of observers there. Hence, it is not far-fetched to assume he had a thoroughknowledge of biblical languages as well.

Of course, none of this information proves conclusively that he was a first-class Hebrew or Greek scholar. However, it does show that he was a highly intelligent man with good memory to boot. He had the ability to quickly learn a language, and coupled with the fact that he was “mentally disciplined”(according to his Nephew), there is little reason to doubt that Fred Franz was a Bible erudite capable of Bible translation work. He himself stated: “I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades.” He reportedly did the same with Hebrew, and continued his study of Biblical languages in private. A common mistake made by WTS antagonists when making criticism of the ‘inadequacy’ of the academic education of Fred Franz, is that they focus only on his known limited “formal” education but they do not take into account the education he obtained later, “in private,” as noted above.

It is also possible (since we are mentioning various possibilities here) that Fred Franz received the assistance of other individuals with linguistic expertise in the translation department. Barbara Anderson, a former member of JWs who worked for ten years at the WT Brooklyn Headquarters, and became a Writing Staff member, recalls that Fred Franz had a very close friend with a very heavy Jewish accent, Barry Horowitz, who was knowledgeable in the Hebrew language. Anderson wrote: “This man was the ‘expert’ Franz went to when he needed help to explain, translate, or interpret the Hebrew language for many of the complicated interpretive books which Franz, the ‘oracle,’ wrote for the organization.” (26 December 2008. Anderson was research assistant to senior Watchtower writer, Karl Adams, for the organization's history book, Jehovah's Witnesses – Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 1993.)

http://www.freeminds.org/index.phpoption=com_content&view=article&id=137:the-qgiven-onesq-jehovahs-provision-&catid=132:barbara-anderson&Itemid=338

There were possibly other untold contributors to the translation project as well who were not part of theNWT Committee. Norman E. Swift was one such contributor who made “modest” contributions to the project. In an email to the B-Hebrew mailing list he wrote:

“I find myself in a unique position to comment, because I proofread the MS of that volume of the NW Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures together with its page, galley and plate proofs until its releasein 1958. I worked with the anonymous translator on a daily basis. My memories are fond - and keen.... ” I tell you from personal knowledge that the translator was acutely aware of his presuppositions and freely admitted them, as do most good translators.

” My own contributions were modest, including some footnotes, hardly qualifying as translation. Others deemed part of the translation committee contributed to cross-references and the like but did not

translate. The ‘seven translators’ without training is a canard and should be put in the urban myth trashpile.

” While clunky and stiff because of its literalness, the translation is nevertheless a remarkable achievement precisely because of its translator's lack of [formal] ‘training’…

” Thanks for letting me share this bit of serendipity.

Norman E. Swift

My bona fides to Gregg [sic, ]:My name is to be found in the 1958 Yearbook, between Suiter, Swingle and Sydlik. The MS was typed by Arthur Gaux, linotypeset by Chester Goins, my overseers Colin Quackenbush and Karl Adams. F[rederick] W F[ranz]'s personal encouragement to begin study of ‘Essentials of Biblical Hebrew’ by Sampey and Yates [...], then used at at Columbia University, started my life-long love for Biblical languages.” – End of quote. (Posted Jun 14, 2001, at ibiblio.org, but page was later moved or deleted.)

As a poster of an online discussion of the NWT brought up: “Someone in the bowels of [WT] Bethel certainly knew enough to produce a translation, because the NWT didn't just appear out of thin air.” The translation, though criticized by many, has found praise by some scholars and Bible students alike.

S. Maclean Gilmore: “The New Testament edition was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” (Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26)

Charles Francis Potter: “In the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts ... with scholarly ability and acumen.” (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239. B.D. and an S.T.M. from Newton Theological Seminary as well as an M.A. from Bucknell in 1916)

Edgar Foster: “Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me … The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par excellence_.” (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)

William Carey Taylor: ‘The NT of the NWT contains considerable scholarship.’ (The New Bible Pro and Con, pp. 75-6, Baptist.)

Edgar J. Goodspeed: “I am…much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify […] Strange such good scholars as your people evidently are should not have noticed that apate Mt. 13:22 etc., is now known to mean ‘pleasure.’ ” [Note: Other translators side with the reading of “deceitfulness (deceptive power)” as it appears for apate in the NWT and KI.”] (Edgar J. Goodspeed was Professor of Greek at the Universityof Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of “The Bible an American Translation.” Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950; See also w 9/1/1952 p. 541, where Goodspeed is quoted as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptureswas “an interesting and scholarly work.”)

Thomas N. Winter: “The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order.” (Professor of Greek at the University of Nebraska, The Classical Journal (April-May 1974): 376.)

Did the Douglas Walsh court case not prove that Frederick Franz could not read Hebrew?

How could we leave the infamous Walsh court trial* of 1954 out of the subject? This trial was held to establish whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses should be recognized as a legal religious organization in Scotland. (*Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde, M. P. C.)

The Walsh case has been used for decades by WTS critics, and now published by dozens of websites around the world, as “proof” that Fred Franz could not read Hebrew, much less, translate from Hebrew to English. I do not question the veracity of the actual testimony of this trial per se, rather, I question the way NWT critics have distorted the trial testimony with its frequent misquotations and misrepresentations. During the trial, various WT officials gave testimony before the court. One of them was Fred Franz, who at the time was vice president of the WTS. At one point, Fred Franz was probed about his language skills. Franz was asked to translate Genesis 2:4. The following is an excerpt from the trial transcript (Cross-examination, pp. 102-103, par. F, emphasis added):

(Q): You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?

(A): I do not speak Hebrew. [Notice he did not say he could not read Hebrew, only that he did not

speak Hebrew.]

(Q): You do not!

(A). No.

Q): Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew? [Note: Not, translate from Hebrew into English]

(A): Which?

(Q): That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?

(A): You mean here?

(Q). Yes?

(A): No. I won't attempt to do that.

This portion of the trial transcript has been used by WT antagonists as “evidence” that Fred Franz couldnot ‘read’ Hebrew, or translate from Hebrew to English. Judging by the tone of their writings, it seems some immodest WT detractors enjoy poking fun at Franz's seemingly inadequacy in the Hebrew Department. Some even go around repeating in parrot fashion, that ‘any student who attends a first year Hebrew class, can translate the scripture that Fred Franz was asked to do without any difficulty, namely, Ge 2:4’.

On the other hand, Tony Wills, M.A., in his book, A People For His Name - A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and An Evaluation, writes: “[Frederick] Franz is a language scholar of no mean ability - he supervised the translation of the Bible from the original languages into the New World Translation, completed in 1961.” (Originally published in 1967 by Vantage Press. Lulu, 2006. Page 253)

The New York Times of December 24, 1992 described Fred Franz as “a religious Leader....[of] a Christian denomination” and “a biblical scholar.” The article claimed he was “versed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.” A. H. MacMillan, a former leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses who had access to WT records, and who published a history of the religious movement, said of Fred Franz: “Besides Spanish, Franz has a fluent knowledge of Portuguese and German and is conversant with French. He isalso a scholar of Hebrew and Greek as well as of Syriac and Latin, all of which contribute to making

him a thoroughly reliable mainstay on [WT President] Knorr's editorial staff.” (Faith On The March, 1957, p. 182, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.) Who is right then? How can we explain this discrepancy?

First of all, it should be noted that a lot of the sources citing from this trial as “proof” that Fred Franz was “incompetent” for Bible translation work, either distort or hide the fact that Franz was never asked to translate Gen. 2:4 from Hebrew to English, as commonly reported. The cross-examiner asked him ifhe was able to translate from English to Hebrew, which, is quite different. To that question Franz answered: “No. I won't attempt to do that.” And really, by Fred adding to his No! answer, “I won't attempt to do that” is vastly different from him saying, “No. I am not able to to that.”

Fred Franz certainly knew the difference between translating Genesis 2:4 from English to Hebrew as hewas asked to do, rather than Hebrew to English, which is the customary way of doing biblical translation. Franz knew that his knowledge of Hebrew or Greek was irrelevant to the subject at hand, which was whether Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to ordain ministers of religion. Franz was not obliged to go along with some lawyer's dubious tactics. Interestingly, this case was not the only one where Fred Franz refused to play along with higher authorities.

The following year after the Douglas Walsh case, during 1955, in Spain, Franz found himself in a somewhat unusual situation, but like the Scotland trial, he chose not to engage in disclosing certain matters. Fred Franz, who knew Spanish well, was in Spain serving in a secret assembly in the woods outside Barcelona (when there was a ban on the work of JWs in the country), was arrested along with some others by the Spanish military police, and were questioned. When it was Franz' turn to speak, he pretended not to know Spanish. This is what he said: “As I was an American citizen, I pretended not toknow Spanish.” He was cleared and finally dismissed. (w87 5/1 p. 29) “Pretended” could mean that he as an American citizen actually “lied” to them about not having knowledge of the Spanish language, which was not the case.

It is not unusual for WTS officials and travelling overseers to abstain from giving out full information to people they feel are not “entitled to know the truth.” A major WT publication, Insight on the Scriptures, had this to say under, “Lie”: “While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it.” Similar statements such as these have been made by the WTS through the years, indicating it is not an isolated comment. The WT Society may feel justified to do this under certain situations, for they mention the following examples under the heading, “Lie”: Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha, as having done something similar in peculiar situations. They also cite Acts 5:29 “We must obey God as ruler rather than men” when it is to the WTS organization's interest to do so.

Greg Stafford, an ex-JW apologist (?), and scholar, brought up the point that even experienced Hebrew teachers have some difficulty doing what Franz was asked to do in the court trial. He writes:

“Why would he [Franz ] refuse to do so? Perhaps the answer to this question will be better understood after we consider the following comments from William Sanford LaSor [Dr. William Sanford La Sor (1911-1991) was professor emeritus of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary at Pasadena, CA]: ‘All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial, composed perchance by one who does not use the language naturally, but rather it is the actual language of those who used it as their mother-tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the students to compose sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress errors on the student's mind. And, frankly, most of us who teach Biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it.’

” Now, considering Franz’ earlier testimony, that he had made himself familiar with Hebrew, and that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, and his admission that he could not speak Hebrew, we can certainly understand Franz’ refusal to translate Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew (not Hebrew

into English). For, as LaSor points out, even most teachers of Biblical Hebrew ‘do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it.’

” Thus, [Ron] Rhodes’ assessment of Franz’ testimony is superficial, inaccurate, and misleading. The same is true of Walter Martin’s handling of this trial. In his book The Kingdom of the Cults Martin gives the same appraisal of Franz’ testimony. [Walter] Martin, like Rhodes, also leaves out the pertinent data, and does not consider the facts as presented above. Martin goes even further in his attempt to discredit Franz’ knowledge of Hebrew. He says he asked a teacher of Hebrew (whose name we are not given) at Talbot Theological Seminary if Genesis 2:4 was a ‘particularly difficult verse to translate.’ Martin claims that the professor stated he would ‘never pass a first year Hebrew student whocould not translate that verse.’ Of course, after reviewing the court records above we know that Franz was not asked to translate the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4 into English, which is quite different from being asked to translate English into Hebrew. Still, it should not be overlooked that this verse is actually somewhat complicated. It has no finite verb but one Niphal infinitive construct, with suffix, and one Qal infinitive construct. In any event, Franz’ testimony on this matter cannot be used as an accurate barometer for his understanding of Hebrew, let alone Greek.” (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2nd Ed. Appendix B, p. 562)

In the same context, Rolf Furuli, lecturer of Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, Norway, relates his own experiment with two professors of Hebrew:

“I asked two of my colleagues who teach Hebrew at the University of Oslo, to translate the passage [at Ge 2:4]. Both had problems with the translation from English to Hebrew, even though they both are experienced teachers, and their results were very different.” (B-Hebrew discussion list, 15/6/01) Therefore, it is a highly questionable claim that ‘any student who attends a first year Hebrew class, can translate the scripture* that Fred Franz was asked to do without any difficulty, [*that is, Ge 2:4, from English to Hebrew without Bible aids in a courtroom].’

All Bible translators, not just the NWT translators, make generous use of lexicons, grammars, commentaries and other translation aids. Few, if any, of them approach their work so casually as to attempt to translate without recourse to all the printed scholarship that is available. It is simplynot expected of a translator that he or she should be able to work without any of these aids, much less in a courtroom scenario. As The Translator's Handbook by Morry Sofer explains (page 99): “No translator, no matter how accomplished or well versed in both the source and target languages, can do without dictionaries and reference literature.” (http://jehovah.to/xlation/fh.html)

Thus, considering the above, we can better understand why in the Douglas Walsh court trial, Fred Franzrefused to go along with the court examiner, not only because he surely felt the subject was irrelevant to the case beforehand (and it was), but he likely saw a cunning play at hand when the examiner seemingly brought up a consciously “tricky” scripture to translate from English to Hebrew, (not standard Bible translation), especially so in a courtroom situation. Franz was “smart” not to fall prey toa lawyer's sly tactic.

Another possibility is that Franz may have had concerns about going forward with the examiner's request of translating the verse he was asked to do, and risk being exposed in further investigation, as “the” main translator of the NWT (assuming he was “the” translator), instead of the “Committee” effortthat was being publicly communicated, a fact Franz was determined not to reveal, because of the specific request of “anonymity” by the WTS and the NWT Committee.

I once made a telephone call to Raymond Franz, former member of the JWs Governing Body and

nephew of Fred Franz, to ask him basically two questions: Who in particular worked on the Kingdom Interlinear Translation? And: What really happened there in the court trial in Scotland of 1954 when Fred Franz was asked to translate a verse in Genesis 2:4 from English to Hebrew, where he said, “No. Iwon't attempt to do that,”? I wanted to know the story as told by someone who knew him well, not onetold by WT detractors whose only wish could be that the Society would never accomplish their own Bible translation.

I asked Ray because (although some reports mentioned serious personal differences between Fred and Ray), it was said of Ray that he was quite fair in his assessments of his former fellow workers in the WT headquarters. To question #1 he answered: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation was basically thework of one man, Fred Franz. Other members in the Committee helped him out on related duties. (This is similar to what M. James Penton wrote: “to all intents and purposes the New World Translationis the work of one man, Frederick Franz.” – Apocalypse Delayed – The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses, by M. James Penton. 1985. University of Toronto Press) To question #2, he said the following, in essence: “I disagree with those who use the Scotland trial to make it appear that Fred Franz was not capable to read or translate from the Hebrew. I am quite familiar with Fred's capabilities, since I worked closely with him while there in the Headquarters. I can confidently say that he was ‘capable’ ofdeveloping a thorough knowledge of the Biblical languages. Fred did not feel comfortable with the way he was being grilled by the examiner, and the direction it was taking, so he chose not to attempt translating from English to Hebrew in that setting.” Ray gave me some other details, which incidentally, are very similar to statements he made in the following letter in answer to someone who asked about Frederick Franz' Bible translation capabilities.

Here are some further observations by Ray Franz from a letter he wrote in response to a question regarding his uncle Fred W. Franz' translating abilities. The letter which does not show the recipient's name on top, was submitted by a Michigan individual labeled “Death to the Pixies,” in a forum on religious subjects on 8/13/2006. I believe the letter truly originated from Raymond Franz, which not only shows his writing style, but because, it was virtually the same information – almost verbatim – Ray gave me over the phone, information he had similarly shared with numerous other individuals. Thus, I can confidently reproduce its message as genuinely his.

Raymond Franz wrote:

“... Fred Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, with high marks, and continued his studies personally thereafter. One need only read the critical notes accompanying the New World Translation to see the extent of his knowledge of Biblical Greek and its grammar. He was self-taught in Hebrew. However, knowing him personally I am satisfied that he was capable of developing a thorough knowledge of the language. He was unusually mentally disciplined. He taught himself Spanish, a language I spoke in Spanish-speaking countries for nearly 20 years. While in Brooklyn, I associated with a Spanish-speaking congregation that he attended. I heard his use of the language both there and, previously, in Spanish speaking countries. Whether in conversational expressions or in public talks that he gave in Spanish I did not once hear him make a single grammatical error. He similarly learned Portuguese and gave talks in that language. He knew German from his childhood (his father having been born in Germany).

” On one occasion, while in Cincinnati, I took Fred Franz (he himself did not drive) to a Hebrew museum which he knew contained a particular Biblical Hebrew manuscript that he wished to research. I stood alongside him while he read through the portions of the Hebrew text he wished to investigate. While working on the Watch Tower’s Bible dictionary Aid to Bible Understanding, on more than one occasion I had to seek out his assistance with reference to Hebrew renderings. He was always able to supply the needed information. In 1971, on a trip to Israel, we visited the Watch Tower’s branch

office located in Haifa. A member of the staff there, Dalia Erez, a young Jewish woman, native to the country, did Hebrew translation of the organization’s publications. She spent part of one day discussingwith Fred Franz certain translation problems she was experiencing and received his assistance and recommendations. She clearly found his knowledge of Hebrew solid.

” His knowledge of Hebrew was not equal to his knowledge of Greek and he was not an advanced or notable Hebrew scholar but his knowledge was sufficient to produce a creditable translation.

Sincerely,

Ray.

(End of Ray's letter)

Comments added by the recipient of Franz' letter:

“He seems generally miffed that so many people (usually dubious Evangelicals) incorrectly use his footnote in his book to state F.W. Franz had zero knowledge of Greek, or that he was wholly incapable of making a translation.” – End of quote.

It is clear from this letter, and from similar statements made to me and to others by Ray Franz, that the frequent misuse of his footnote in his book Crisis of Conscience (Page 57, where he states that Fred Franz had limited formal training in Greek and that he was “self-taught” in Hebrew), and the often cited Scotland trial case used to disparage Fred Franz's knowledge of biblical languages (which according to Ray himself, “has been blown out of proportion”), are not truly reflective of Fred's real capabilities in the biblical language department. Keep in mind these statements were made by Ray Franz after he was outed from the WT organization he supported for decades, and came from a man which is said not only had ‘a strained personal relationship’ with his uncle Fred, but also a man who became a victim himself of the hardship suffered caused by the “shunning” policy produced by the Watchtower Society. Yes, the late Ray Franz may have been considered an “evil apostate” in WT talk, but he was sincere enough to acknowledge before others that his uncle Fred Franz was unfairly misrepresented in this matter.

It is believed Fred Franz was the ghost writer behind J. Rutherford's published writings. The Watchtower stated: “The fourth president of the Society, Fred W. Franz, was also a fine example of humility. As vice president of the Society for some 32 years, he did much of the writing for the magazines and for the convention programs; yet in this regard he always kept in the background, never seeking to occupy the spotlight. A comparable ancient example might be cited. When Joab defeated the Ammonites at Rabbah, he made sure that King David received the credit for the victory.—2 Samuel12:26-28.” (w93 12/1 p.19)

All told, the fact is that Frederick W. Franz is long dead now. The WT detractors have been busy disparaging the reputation of WT Bible translators. But decades have gone by, and things change. Their criticisms have become boringly ancient. To spice things up, one would think that NWT critics would instead go for something more recent, like, who are the translators of the modern Hebrew and Greek NWT editions, and what are their qualifications? Furthermore, ¿Who are the “current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee” that initiated the comprehensive 2013 revision? (Words within quotation marks in the question are taken from the Foreword of the NWT Revised Edition – August, 2013. Underline added.)

Now, that would certainly be more exciting than dwelling on perceived language deficiencies of a dead man whose translation work is half the century mark.

Who is behind much of the criticism of the New World Translation?

Though a lot of negative publicity surrounds this Bible version, most raised charges against it seem to be a rehashing of the same information originating from only a few sources. I will list only some of thebetter known books published (and other sources). Some of these books have been revised several times, sometimes by different publishing houses. Following are some of the names implicated in the criticism directed at the WTS and its NWT, and some brief comments in response:

Walter R. Martin M.A., Ph.D, 1976. (Baptist). The Rise of the Cults (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1955). The Kingdom of the Cults. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1965). Martin, Walter Ralston, and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (Biblical Truth Publishing, Paterson, New Jersey, 1953).Walter Martin had the help of Dr. Julius Mantey, a Baptist Greek scholar in denunciating the NWT.

Martin: “The translation...‘a god’ instead of ‘God’ is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greekscholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of theGreek language many of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favorof the orthodox contention.”

Jason BeDuhn’s Response: “Similar to many other statements already mentioned which fall into thelogical fallacy of ‘no one I know translates it that way, so it cannot be translated that way.’ Evennon-Christian scholars are influenced by literary tradition.” (Statement made to Mr. Joseph-StephenBonanno in a private letter dated August 18, 2001, in answer to his question.)

Dr. Julius R. Mantey: “A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarlynor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’ ”

BeDuhn’s Response: “This statement is specious and without substance.” (Ibid, Bonanno)

Robert M. Bowman Jr., BA from California State University, a master's in Biblical Studies andTheology from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of a dozen books. UnderstandingJehovah’s Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do, 109-22. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1991. In his book, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, Bowman says (p. 17):

Bowman: “The purpose of this book is to refute the JW interpretation of John 1:1 and 8:58 and todefend the trinitarian interpretation of those texts.”

Furuli's response to his book: “His basic conclusions are also untenable because of faultypremises...A major blunder, however, is the confusion of reference and meaning in the word theos [atJn. 1:1]...His discussion of John 8:58 leaves much to be desired as far as linguistics is concerned. He isnot in touch with the conclusions of modern aspectual studies of Greek verbs and confuses Aktionsartand aspect. Because of his theological approach, he makes some propositions which are linguisticallyquite dramatic, but which cannot be upheld.” (op. cit., pp., 295-296)

Robert H. Countess. Ph.D. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982.

Robert M. Bowman Jr. had this to say of Countess' book: “Evangelical critique; some good information, but (in my opinion) not entirely accurate.” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Bibliography)

BeDuhn's response: “I have read Dr. Countess' book [The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation]. While I found a few good points in it, its argument is

mostly tendentious and disputable.”

Furuli's response: “His account of the NWT, therefore, is not a balanced, scholarly presentation; rather, it surrenders both to emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan spirit.” (op. cit., p. 294)

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland stated: “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘...the Word was a god,’a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.” (The Expository Times, vol. 65, October, 1953,Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark)

BeDuhn's response: “This statement is false, the NWT translation of John 1:1 is not ‘grammaticallyimpossible,’ andsomeone who says that it is, either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves‘intellectually dishonest.’ ” “But in the third clause of John 1:1, THEOS appears without the definitearticle, and therefore the most likely translation is indefinite ‘a god,’ or in an adjectival function‘divine.’ ” (Ibid, Letter to Bonanno.)

My response: Other Bible translators not belonging to this “sect” also translate this verse as does theNWT, and Barclay does not criticize them, or even mention them. Years later, Barclay admitted in aprivate letter (dated “20 May 1974”; later made “public”), to Mr. David Burnett of Australia, that it wasgrammatically possible to render John 1:1 as “...the Word was a God.” Although still clinging to theorthodox theological view, he concluded by saying: “The perfect translation is the New English Bibletranslation: ‘What God was the Word was.’ ” See: Ever yours, by William Barclay, edited by C. L.Rawlins, Labarum Publ., p. 205, 1985. For further information on John 1:1, seehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1 and http://www.scribd.com/doc/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Dr. Constable's Response: “They [the JWs] translate it ‘the Word was a god.’ Grammatically thisis a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article (‘a’) when no article ispresent in the Greek text, as here. However, that translation here is definitely incorrect because itreduces Jesus to less than God.” (Th.M; Th.D; Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition DallasTheological Seminary. Dr. Constable's Expository Bible Study Notes, Notes on John, 2012 E d i t i o n,Dr. Thomas L. Constable)

My Response: The issue then, is one of “theological” rather than “grammatical” nature. Is Jesus“less than God”? Well, Jesus only claimed to be “Son of God,” and called his Father ‘his God and ourGod.’ (John 10:36; 20:17) Jesus himself said that ‘the Father was greater than him.’ (John 14:28)And in heavenly descriptions the glorified Christ is never pictured as the equal of the Father... but as‘seating,’ or ‘standing’ near the throne belonging to God, ‘at God's right hand.’ (Acts 2:33; 7:54;Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22) Even staunch trinitarians (such as Julius Mantey and David A. Black)concede that Christ at John 1:1c is not “all of God”; “nor equal with the sum total of God.” Moreimportantly, Jesus Christ called his Father, “the only true God.” (John 17:3.) Even if a Christian wereto read somewhere in Scripture that Christ is “God,” the observation made by Peter Misselbrookquoting Barrett is on target: “The absence of the article [at John 1:1c] indicates that the Word is Godbut is not the only being of whom this is true.” (Notes on the Greek New Testament, Misselbrook'sMusings) Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: “I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholarwho would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse [John 1:1] insisted upon by the Jehovah'sWitnesses.”

Jason BeDuhn’s Response : “This is a specious argument without substance.” (Ibid, Bonanno)

Hebrews 1:6, “Worship,” or “obeisance” to Christ?

Ron Rhodes, Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary (1986); B.A., Houston Baptist University (1979): Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses. Harvest House Publishers (July 1, 1993)

According to a number of translations of Hebrews 1:6, God commands all angels to “worship” his “Firstborn,” Jesus. The Greek word here translated “worship” is proskyne'o. The NWT instead says: “But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘And let all God's angels do obeisance to him.’ ” Ron Rhodes criticizes the way the NWT translates this verse. “In Hebrews 1:6, we are told that Christ is worshipped (proskuneo) by the angels. But in the New World Translation, this superiority is obscured because of the way the Watchtower has butchered this verse.” (Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 171, Eugene, Oregon)

My response: When Rhodes says “this superiority is obscured because of the way the Watchtower has butchered this verse, he is referring to the translation of the Greek word proskyne'o by the word “obeisance” rather than “worship.” Sure, most religious folks feel comfortable with the traditional term“worship” used in many Bible translations in this verse, and certainly is one of the acceptable renderings for the Greek term. But, is translating “obeisance” for the Greek word, rather than “worship,” “butchering” this verse? Let's see!

Numerous NT Greek Dictionaries define proskyneo in part as:

A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament an Other Early Christian Literature, p. 716: “(fall downand) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully.”

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: “In the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication.”

The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament: “To worship, do obeisance, show respect, fall or prostrate before. […] In the NT, generally, to do reverence or homage to someone, usually by kneelingor prostrating oneself before him. In the Sept[uagint] it means to bow down, to prostrate oneself in reverence, homage (Gen. 19:1; 48:12).” (Spiros Zodhiates)

The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: “do obeisance (to), pay homage (to) –” (Frederick William Danker)

See also: Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words; Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament – Friberg-Miller; Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon; Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, by Abbot-Smith; Compact Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Souter-House; Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament, by William D. Mounce.

Does the context of Hebrews 1:6 support such translation? Various Bible translations answer:

“And let them bow before him--all messengers of God” (Young's Literal Translation)

‘Now let all messengers of God honour him’ (Ferrar Fenton's Translation)

“And let all the angels of God pay him homage” (George R. Noyes New Testament)

“And all of God's messengers should bow down to him.” (A Non-Ecclesiastical NT, Frank Daniel)

“And prostrate yourselves to him all God's angels” (21st Century New Testament)

“And let do obeisance to him all angels of God” (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot)

“and let all God's angels do him reverence” (The Bible in Living English, Steven T. Byington)

“Let all the angels of God bow down before him.” (Open English Bible)

“And let all the angels of God bow down to him” (Riverside New Testament, William G. Ballantine)

“Dénle homenaje [Give him homage] todos los ángeles de Dios [all angels of God]” (Pablo Besson)

“Let all the messengers of God bow low before him.” (2001 Translation - An American English Bible)

“And let all the messengers of God bow down in deference to him.” (CGV, Joseph Morovich)

“Let all the angels of God bow down before him” (Twentieth Century New Testament)

“Let all God’s angels kneel before him.” (Cotton Patch Version, Clarence Jordan)

“And let all God's angels bow before him” (Edgar J. Goodspeed New Testament)

“Et que tous les anges de Dieu lui rendent hommage [And let all angels of God pay him homage]” (French Darby Bible)

“And let all God's angels pay him homage” (The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield)

“Before him shall bow all messengers of God” (Andy Gaus New Testament)

“Let all God's angels pay him homage” (Revised English Bible)

“And may all the angels pay homage to him” (Heinz W. Cassirer's New Testament)

“Let all the angels of God pay him homage” (New Jerusalem Bible)

Rhodes fails to mention that other scholars shown above, agree, unintentionally perhaps, with the rendering found in the NWT. Why hide this information from his readers? Really, rendering proskyne'o as “obeisance” is in no way “butchering this verse.” The Greek word can be rendered “worship,” and that rendering is acceptable in many passages, such as those where Almighty God is theobject of such. Nevertheless, Christ taught others to worship only the Father. (Matthew 4:10, John 4:23) In Hebrews 1:6, Christ is spoken of as “Firstborn,” a term out of place for God, or “holy spirit”. Also, Hebrews 1:1,2 mentions ‘God speaking to us at the end of these days by means of a Son.’ (NWT in this section) Verse 3 says that this Son “is the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of his very being,” and after making a purification for our sins, “he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.” Verse 4 says “he has become better than the angels,” but never does it say he was God. Hebrews chapter 3 verses 1 and 2, tells us that Jesus, as “apostle and high priest” was faithful to [God] the One that made him such.” At Hebrews 5:7,8, Christ is spoken of as offering “supplications and also petitions to the One [God] who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears,” and that he “learned obedience [to God] from the things he suffered.”

Hebrews 8:1 and again at 10:12, 12:2 repeats that this “high priest” “sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,” a statement full in accord with similar ones made in other Bible books. Hebrews 9:14 says that Christ ‘offered himself without blemish to God...that we may worship the living God.’ Heb. 9:15 and also 12:24 says that Christ is “a mediator of a new covenant.” Heb. 9:24 says that ‘Christ entered heaven itself, now to appear before God on our behalf.’

The last chapter of Hebrews (13:20) makes a distinction again between “the God of peace, who broughtup from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus, with the blood of an everlasting covenant.” “Through him [Jesus] let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise...” (13:15) The letter to the Hebrews makes clear the role Jesus played in God's purpose. It never equals Christ with God in the book. Thus, proskyne'o or “worship” is rightly done to God. Since the book of Hebrews always

subordinates Christ to God, it is proper to render proskyne'o as “obeisance,” or, ‘pay homage’ to Christ with the knowledge that full, unconditional “worship” is due God the Father only, as Jesus himself requested. (Matthew 4:10; John 4:23,24)

Considering all of the above, Rhodes by not allowing an equally acceptable meaning of proskyne'o (besides “worship”), to do “obeisance” or, “homage” to someone, may have done a “butchering” himself of the meaning and interpretation of the Greek word within the context of Hebrews. And by Rhodes making such unsound rash statement, his scholarly judgment is brought into question, which could lead some of his readers to mistrust his writings.

(Note: Hebrews 1:8 has been used by some looking for support of a Christ being addressed as God as avocative. The previous verses show that God is the One speaking. Considering the context of Hebrewsas done above, it is best to render Heb. 1:8,9 as: “God is your throne … Therefore God, your God...” as other translators have done. Verse 9 clearly states that “God” anointed the Son. Again: critics lacking good faith hide this alternate translation from their readers as an equally valid option). Why?

After examining some of the critical material usually presented on the Internet, I come to the conclusion that a lot of it is actually a misrepresentation of facts, and not rarely, from the Evangelicalperspective. There are plenty of inaccuracies and omissions throughout their writings. They (or, theorganizations they represent) have a mission of denunciation, of disparaging the NWT, with littleconcern for fairness. They make it obvious from the start that the NWT is not acceptable, a Bibleversion to be avoided by everyone else. These “countercult” writings may be guilty of the same thingthey accuse the WTS of: “quoting out of context”; “not providing the full picture”; and “distortingfacts” seems to be their modus operandi.

Is it true that the New World translators “made up a Greek tense”?

Various websites charge that the NWT Committee “made up a Greek tense” at John 8:58. Is there any truth to this? No! The NWT Committee itself wrote in the “Foreword” of their translation: “There is no benefit in self-deception. More than that, those who provide a translation for the spiritual instruction of others come under a special responsibility as teachers before the divine Judge. Hence ourappreciation of the need of carefulness.” (1951 Edition, Page 7) Hence, it is unlikely that the Committee was purposely trying to deceive the public by ‘making up’ a Greek tense. Walter Martin may have been the first to declare that the NWT translators “invented” or “made up” a phony Greek tense. Since then, many have not resisted taking Martin's false statement as a fact, and spreading it all over the Web with questionable intent. This is as good case as any of how some writers rashly misrepresent the facts: An organization makes a statement, their opponents take it and spin it to say something totally opposite of what the original publication stated or intended.

For instance, John 8:58 is well known for Jesus having said to the Jews, according to traditional versions: “Before Abraham was, I am.” (KJV) Instead, the NWT have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” WT detractors say “I have been” is a wrong rendering, or, even that it is not a possible translation from the Greek. This is the idea behind Martin's insistence and those who support him as well, that the WTS ‘invented,’ or “made up” a phony Greek tense, so the religious masses would hopefully ignore the NWT as a legitimate translation. But Martin and his followers cannot hide the fact that the rendering, “I have been” at John 8:58 is a viable translation, withenough scholarly support for the translation. Not only that, the verb “eimi'” in ego eimi' cannot be rendered strictly the same way all the time. According to a Greek lexicographer, “eimi'” is “a function word, variously rendered am, are, is, was, were, will be depending on requirements of English structure; the resources of English permit numerous equivalent renderings.” (op. cit., Danker, p. 110)

Martin also keeps from his readers the fact that other Bible versions do translate similarly to the NWT at John 8:58. Why? See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35318309/The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of- alternate-readings-to-I-am-I-have-been-I-was-I-exist

For some reason defying human logic, WT opponents took the reference “properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense” appearing in early editions of the NWT as a reference to the Greek language. Walter Martin and Norman Klann wrote in reference the 1950 NWT New Testament volume footnote to John 8:58 of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society: “The term ‘perfect indefinite’ seems to be an invention of the author of the note.” (New York, NY: Biblical Truth Publishing Society, 1953, p. 54; Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1974, 1981 printing, page 53.) Since then, other religious writers have repeated Martin's claim as well.

Later editions of the NWT further clarified their understanding of the Greek phrase at John 8:58:

1963, NWT edition: “I have been [...] properly rendered in the perfect tense indicative.”

1969, Kingdom Interlinear Translation: “I have been [...] properly rendered in the perfect tense.”

1971, NWT edition with footnotes: “I have been [...] properly rendered in the perfect tense indicative.”

1985, Kingdom Interlinear Translation: “I have been [ego' eimi']. The action expressed by this verb began in the past, is still in progress, and is properly translated by the perfect indicative. See App 2F.”

The above notes appearing in various editions of the NWT express basically the same idea, but with different wording. There was never a contradiction in their understanding of it, nor in statement.

Watchtower's position:

A letter to Firpo W. Carr from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, dated February 7, 1978, has been made public by JWs apologists to further clarify the WTS' position. (Emphasis added).

“In the first edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures released in 1950, the footnote on John 8:58 explained why the New World Translation rendered the Greek phrase ego eimi as ‘I have been.’ It was stated that this phrase was properly ‘rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.’ It was never meant to say that there is a ‘perfect indefinite tense’ in Greek. What was meant was that the Greek present indicative ego eimi is here rendered into English in the perfect tense, ‘I have been,’ with an idea of indefiniteness. That is to say, no mention of the length of Jesus' prehuman existence is here given. ... The translators of the New World Translation are fully aware that there is no Greek tense known as the perfect indefinite tense, but when we translate this phrase into English, it is properly rendered in the perfect tense.” – End of quote.

Greg Stafford, scholar and author of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended - An Answer to Scholars and Critics, (2nd. Ed. 2000, Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, CA. pp. 259-281, 287,296, 303, 545) dealt withthis subject extensively. After carefully analyzing the WT publication statements throughout the years on John 8:58, and the Writings of prominent critics of the WTS, Stafford concluded:

“Not once, not in 1950, not in 1961, not in 1969, not in 1971, not in 1984 or in 1985, and certainly not in 2008 or here now near the end of 2009, has the Watchtower Society in any of its publications or elsewhere claimed the Greek verb eimi was ‘in the perfect indefinite tense’! The continued publicationof misrepresentations of NWT footnotes to John 8:58 must stop, and the fact that Trinitarians are so unable to police themselves over such obvious mistakes concerning important texts and grammatical issues does not speak well for the likes of Ankerberg, Weldon, Rhodes, Bowman, Morey and others who have had plenty of time to start telling the truth about the NWT and about its footnotes to John 8:58, and also to tell the truth about those who have published falsehoods concerning the same for

decades.”

Greg Stafford*,

“Upon the Lampstand,” December 17, 2009.

(*For other subjects by Greg Stafford, see: http://www.elihubooks.com/content/topical_index.php)

Mention should be made that other scholars often use “rendered in” with the meaning of “into” withoutspecifying so. (See Note 4 for examples.) They are not a target of Martin's or Bowman's criticism,however. Even AFTER the WTS made it clear that “rendered in” meant “rendered into [English], theykeep criticizing it.” The real motive of criticism here then, is not grammar, it is theology, their theologyversus the WT theology. The real problem seems to be, that the NWT does not support the Trinitydoctrine, not so much that the NWT translators could or should have been more explicit in theirexplanation of this scripture. In their mind the NW translators are “inept,” and that is not likely tochange with a simple WT clarification on the matter. The fact is that no one (including the WT, Martin,Bowman, or other) publishes a major work in a perfect form with no errors whatsoever, or statementswhich an author would later reconsider in another form.

In the above-mentioned letter to Joseph-Stephen Bonanno, Dr. BeDuhn expressed his personal views about the NWT, and of the frequent criticism this version receives, even mentioning certain critics by name. He concluded by saying: “Through all of this work [in preparation of his book], I have found that the NWT is one of the most accurate translations currently available. Of course, it has its weaknesses, as every translation does. But on comparison, it does quite well.” [...] “I hope you can see that I do not ‘ignore’ these predecessors and colleagues, but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly fallacious claims. I wish we could all approach this most important of issues with greater objectivity and desire for accuracy and truth, wherever it may lead us, rather than prejudging the outcome in advance of any attention and thought to the matter.”

Unrelated to the above, another reader, Ginny Tosken from Bloomington, exchanged some letters with Professor BeDuhn during January 1998, asking him about his letter being quoted in the Watchtower magazine, and of his view of “scholars” who criticize the NWT. He replied:

BeDuhn: “ ‘Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate’ may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that ‘all reputable scholars,’ ‘every Greek or biblical scholar,’ etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie.” (Note: BeDuhn did not name ‘the source’ he had in mind. My guess would be that the reference is to Walter Martin and Julius Mantey, since the argumentation criticsoften use to this day, often parrots their writings, language and all.)

Evidently, there must be a big motive for those individuals and the organizations they represent to continue misrepresenting the facts ... FUD. FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Politicians use it all the time. They know it works. Keep repeating a lie, until some of it sticks! That seems to be the slogan, not only of politicians, but of some overly-zealous religious people as well, some hiding behind their Masters and Ph.Ds. What drives them apparently, is their relentless desire to have church-goers ignore JWs completely, a religious group ever so present in their communities. The distribution and presence of the New World Translation worldwide is a prickly thorn to their flesh.

We don't have to become victims of deceit. We can be open to all reasonable presentations, and wise enough to reject mischief. Feel free to verify sources of information, and wisely demand a second opinion. We do well to remember the advice of Douglas Stuart (Ph.D) in his volume on commentaries:

“Just because a person is a ‘PhD’ doesn't NECESSARILY mean that he or she is right & you're wrong.”

When going over some of these Evangelical critiques focusing on the alleged inadequacies of the NWT, the reader can at times get this nagging feeling of the author's academic superiority, if as saying:

“Listen to me World, I know what I am talking about, I got the credentials, and I will easily prove to all that the NWT doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those Watchtower people are as odd and uneducated as any you can think of. They can't read the original languages like any of us can and hence, have no right to be in the Bible translation business. You are a fool if you pay them any attention.”

This arrogant tone comes through quite often in their captious writings. It is really a turn-off to many. We should all be reminded of the following when we are tempted to criticize harshly anyone disagreeing with us: ‘No human being can brag in God's presence.’ (1 Cor. 1:29, Common English Bible)

Let me be clear on one thing. I am not making a broad statement covering all Evangelicals, though it isgenerally easier to find harsh criticisms from the Evangelical camp than from Catholics. There are many perceptive Evangelicals who are likely to condemn this practice, and even acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, certain positive capabilities of the NWT Committee.

A harsh Evangelical critic of WT interpretation associated with the Christian “countercult” movement, concludes (not surprisingly), that the NWT is “unreliable,” but acknowledged the following in regards to the NWT:

“Thus the question, so often debated, of whether or not the translators of the NWT were scholars, or whether the NWT should be regarded as a scholarly work, is not terribly relevant to the question of the reliability of the NWT.....The fact is that the NWT shows evidence that those responsible for the revisions, the marginal notes, and the appendices, while not bona fide scholars, are quite capable of handling scholarly reference works and using them to develop their own interpretations of the Bible....Itwould be a mistake for evangelicals to rest their case against the NWT solely or primarily on the amateur status of its translators....the case against the NWT must rest on the evidence from within the NWT itself.” (Robert M. Bowman Jr, 1991, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 73-74)

Other scholars, call for reasonable caution. Dr. Duthie asks: “Is it fair to condemn a Bible version out of hand, merely because one, or all, of the translators was/were Jehovah's Witnesses, or Catholics, or Unitarians, or ‘liberals’? […] The answer is that none of these considerations [stated in the book], taken singly, should prevent us from taking due account of the actual merits and demerits of any Bible version, multiple as they are. ‘By their fruits you shall know them’. Otherwise, we would be jumping to unwarranted conclusions!” (How to Choose your Bible Wisely, page 211.)

And Dr. Frederick W. Danker, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, said the following: “Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. […] The ‘orthodox’ do not possess all the truth, yet one does well ‘to test the spirits.’”(Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, 1993. Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, MN, p. 194)

It is strange that Wikipedia, an online public encyclopedia published by volunteer editors, as a source ofinformation on “religious” topics, often turns out to be more precise in its reports of religious organizations, and certainly more balanced than the publications edited by “countercult experts,” albeit briefer in biblical subjects. Although Wikipedia faced a few bumps earlier on, it has refined their process to the point of becoming quite respectable in their field. Political and religious articles are locked down now when necessary. For a sample of what the Wikipedia editors have to go through whenever they face controversial subjects such as politics and religious subjects, take a look at this related inside view (lengthy) of an interesting exchange between Wikipedia editors and some readers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures/Archive_6

In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel in an interview submitted some favorable comments aboutthe Hebrew portion of the NWT (published by The Watchtower, 3/1/1991, p. 30). Shortly afterwards, he was flooded with inquiries about it. Following is an interesting quotation from Professor Kedar, after brief comments made by the website owner as found here: http://onlytruegod.org/defense/kedar.htm

“Following this quotation of Professor Kedar's comments in the above WT article, he received muchmail from those who wanted to know if he had been quoted correctly and by those who had a different view point from his. He replied to some, but, from a certain time, sent out a statement instead. We possess a copy, which he had kindly sent to us in November, 1995, which we will print out in it's entirety-the Professor had signed it and in his own writing had written, “permission to be published is granted only if quoted in full!”. You will be able to see that this Professor has his own views on religion and religious groups, large or small, including Jehovah's Witnesses. The main point however should not be lost. This Professor is a scholar in his own right and has expressed an opinion in regard to a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures - The New World Translation. Judge for yourselves what that opinion is. Herewith is that statement. All we ask is that you read it carefully. Where you see square brackets those words therein are ours. They are only to aid the reader with the meaning of terms they might not be familiar with.”

Kedar: “Since several individuals and institutions have addressed me concerning the following matter,I make this statement; henceforth it will be sent instead of a personal letter to anyone appealing to me to clarify my position.

” 1) Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that dealt with purely philological [pertaining to the study/science of languages] questions (such as the rendition of the causative hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of hebrew as well as an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target [English] language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the hebrew Bible, however, I have never comeupon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This was either not done or else the verse submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13, 6:3, 10:9, 15:5, 18:20 etc.) did not prove the point, namely a tendentious [with a purposed aim/biased] translation.

” 2) I beg to make clear that I do not feel any sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, my mistrust is not directed against the individual member of such sect but rather against the organisation that manipulates him and puts forward its dogmas and rules as the ultimate truth. It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organisations that fiercely oppose the witnesses do not behave any better. On the whole, synagogue, church and mosque also tend to exhibit dogmatic arrogance coupled with intolerance of and enmity with other confessions.

” 3) I cannot help expressing my deep conviction that the search for truth will never benefit by linguistic quibble. Whether the author using the word naephaesh denoted ‘soul’ as opposed to body (Lev 17:11) or meant something else, whether ‘almah’ means ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’ (Is 7:14) is of great interest to philologists and historians of religion; an argument for or against blood transfusion or the virgin-birth of Jesus respectively, cannot be derived from it.

” 4) Obviously, it is man's destiny to make the choice of his way a matter of conscience and to the best of his knowledge. There exists no simple set of rules such as could be learned from the mouth of a guru or the pages of an ancient venerable book. Those who pretend to act according to an infallible

guide, more often than not interpret the texts in accordance with their preconceived wishes and notions.”

Benjamin Kedar

Haifa 27.11.95

(Benjamin Kedar is Professor of History as well as the Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.M.A., Hebrew University of Israel, 1965; Ph.D., Yale University., 1969; Professor Emeritus, 2007; Ph.D., honoris causa, 2007, Haifa University,)

Does the New World Translation offer any value to people other than Jehovah's Witnesses?

Yes. First of all, because the NWT is widely distributed in many languages around the world, one is more likely to find the NWT in the local language. (By 2011, at least 76 percent of the world’s population had the “New World Translation” (in whole or in part) in their mother tongue.” – 2012 Yearbook) This may not sound significant enough for those of us who live in a country where a major language is spoken, where there are plenty of Bible versions to choose from, but in a country where there is a limited supply of Bibles, if any, having the NWT is of tremendous value, especially when oneconsiders the scholarship behind it. Because of limited resources, some of the available versions in the lesser spoken languages are of inferior quality, so the introduction of the NWT in those markets is greatly welcomed.

Regardless of one's religious persuasion, a familiarity with the NWT will allow one to confidently speak to others on the subject of Bible translation differences in various versions, and how faithful these may, or not be, to the Hebrew and Greek Text.

Even though the major languages offer dozens of Bible versions, most are really slight revisions of a few prominent ones. For instance, in the English market, many Bible versions follow the King James Version pattern: American Standard Version; Revised Standard Version; New American Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version, etc. Even when some versions claim they are “new,” they are not that different from the norm. For example, the English Standard Version seems to be another revision in the long line of King James tradition, not a totally fresh translation from the original.

On the other hand, fresh, new translations of the Bible are less common. Some of the distinctly unique Bible versions are: Rotherham's Emphasized Bible; The Jerusalem Bible; New American Bible; Young's Literal Translation; James Moffatt's Translation; Goodspeed's Translation; J.B. Phillip's translation; The Bible in Living English (Byington); New English Bible; The Message; Tanakh (JPS);Heinz W. Cassirer's translation; and the popular New International Version. You can add the New World Translation to this group.

I will list a few of the features of the English version of the NWT, some indicative of the translators' awareness of even minute details. It should not be taken to mean that the NWT is superior to all other translations in every way.

Multi-language support:

Anyone trying to learn other modern languages will find the NWT an asset. Since the NWT is a unified translation project, and the translation of the main text is literal for the most part, comparing one language edition with another will yield consistent translations. This can be a significant aid in

mastering a second language. The WTS provides many of their different language editions online at: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible Thanks WTS! Though we have the good efforts of Google Translate and other web translators on the market, there are not completely accurate, and may never be.These are good for a quick translation of a web page, but not “reliable” enough if you seek accurate translations of Scripture from one language to another. Keep in mind that most NWT editions in other languages are based on the English 1984 version. For now at least, they are not based on the most recent 2013 English edition. It will likely take years before other language versions are based on the 2013 Revised Edition.

Critical apparatus:

The excellent critical apparatus (cross-references {125,000}, more than 11,400 footnotes, and 43 Appendix sections) alone makes the NWT – with References worth obtaining. The New Catholic Encyclopedia calls it an “impressive critical apparatus.” Not only is it impressive, it is highly informative as well. The footnotes show manuscript variants, other possible renderings, and how the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures blend together. The footnotes show significant variants from the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and other ancient texts. (Note: Some NWT online editions do not show the critical apparatus.)

Example: At Luke 20:33, the word resurrection brings up this footnote: “Resurrection.” Gr., a-na-sta'sei, “raising up; standing up” (from a-na', “up,”) and sta'sis, (“standing”);Lat., re-sur-rec-ti-o'ne.

At John 12:26, “my minister” has the following footnote: “26* Minister.” Gr., di-a´ko-nos; Lat., mi-ni'ster (from mi'nus, “less”); J18,22 (Heb.), mesharethi', “my attendant.”

John 14:14 has Jesus saying: “If you ask* anything in my name, I will do it.” (NWT, KJV) But the NASB says: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Why the discrepancy? The NWT explains in a footnote: “14* Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 BWVgSyℵ h,p,“ask me.” Using textual symbols this footnote basically says:

“Codex Alexandrinus, a Greek manuscript from 5th century C.E., Bezae Codices, Greek and Latin manuscripts from 5th and 6th century, and Old Latin Versions, Itala, 2nd to 4th century read “ask,” and in agreement with John 15:16 and 16:23; but, Papyrus Bodmer 2, a Greek manuscript, from c. 200 C.E., ('Aleph) Codex Sinaiticus, a Greek manuscript from the 4th century, Vatican ms 1209, a Greek manuscript from the 4th century, Freer Gospels, 5th century, Latin Vulgate, c. 400, and Syriac Version Philoxenian-Harclean, 6th and 7th century, and Syriac Peshitta in Aramaic, 5th century read: “ask me.”

Paying close attention to the NWT footnotes will answer many a question brought up in Bible reading. The footnote of John 14:14 reveals why the translators chose the rendering, “If you ask anything in my name” instead of, “If you ask me anything in my name.”

Do the New World translators manifest comprehension of the original text?

Sufficiently so! An indicator of a translator's linguistic capability is the way verb forms of the Inspired Text are rendered, and how other grammatical functions, are dealt with, such as case forms, the article, prepositions, conjunctions, and other particulars. The NWT gives adequate attention to these matters.

In the Hebrew portion* of the 1984 and earlier editions of the NWT (Old Testament), the perfect and

the imperfect state of the verb are rendered expressing the condition of the action ... the perfect state as “complete” action, and the imperfect as “incomplete” action. A favorite Bible story of many is the one about Joseph, son of Jacob. The pre-2013 NWT by being so literal and by paying careful attention to Hebrew verb renderings, the account of Joseph comes out as very dynamic and emotional in its story telling. A lot of Hebrew flavor comes through. The 2013 NWT Edition does not slavishly follow Hebrew verb forms. It now shows Hebrew verbal forms only when contextually deemed necessary to convey the original meaning, as most versions habitually do.

(*The Hebrew verbal system is quite enigmatic. For one, Hebrew is time-indifferent. Take note that the NWT does not follow the Waw-Consecutive/Conversive theory which states that a Hebrew verb preceded by the ‘and -Waw’ can convert a verb, or verbs, from one state to another. The NWT is not alone rejecting the “theory.” Translator Benjamin W. Newton rejected the theory as “preposterous.” Also rejecting it: Robert Young's Literal Translation; The Concordant Version of the Old Testament; Dr. James Washington Watts' “Distinctive Translation”; and O. L. Barnes,' A New Approach to the Hebrew Tenses.)

For comparison purposes, various biblical passages of the NWT and other versions are presented. (Underlines and italics, added) First, an account of Pharaoh's first dream at Genesis 41:1-4:

New Revised Standard Version: “AFTER TWO whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing bythe Nile, 2 and there came up out of the Nile seven sleek and fat cows, and they grazed in the reed grass. 3 Then seven other cows, ugly and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. 4 The ugly and thin cows ate up the seven sleek and fat cows. And Pharaoh awoke.”

NWT, 1984: “1 And it came about at the end of two full years that Phar'aoh was dreaming and here he was standing by the river Nile. 2 And here ascending out of the river Nile were seven cows beautiful in appearance and fat-fleshed, and they went feeding among the Nile grass. 3 And here there were seven other cows ascending after them out of the river Nile, ugly in appearance and thin-fleshed, and they took their stand alongside the cows by the bank of the river Nile. 4 Then the cows that were ugly in appearance and thin-fleshed began to eat up the seven cows that were beautiful in appearance and fat. At this Phar'aoh woke up.” (Underlines mine)

NWT Revised, 2013: “At the end of two full years, Phar′aoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile River. 2 And there, coming up from the river, were seven fine-looking, fat cows, and they were feedingon the Nile grass. 3 There were seven other cows that looked ugly and thin coming up after them from the Nile, and they stood alongside the fat cows by the bank of the Nile. 4 Then the ugly, thin cows began to eat up the seven fine-looking, fat cows. At this Phar′aoh woke up.”

It's easy to see the difference between the NRSV and the 1984 NWT edition. The NRSV is briefer and the 1984 NWT seems padded with additional words. Those who like their story told with the least amount of words are going to like the NRSV better, or even the 2013 NWT edition, while those who like a more “informative” translated text, will likely prefer the 1984 NWT. I like both, on different occasions. The 1984 NWT ends up “wordy” because it attempts to transfer the Hebrew expressiveness into English. It is good to have choice. Even though the 1984 NWT is more verbose, there is nothing in the NWT account of Ge 41:1-4 that is not suggested somehow by the Hebrew text. For instance, the Hebrew words for “dreaming,” “standing,” and “ascending” are participles, which may indicate a continuous activity or state, usually expressed in English with words ending in “-ing.” The conjunction interjection we-hinneh which means “and behold,” is nicely dealt with by “and here...” Imperfect verbs are brought out as action in progress: “And it came about,” “went feeding,” “and

they took their stand,” “began to eat up,” and “At this Phar'aoh woke up.”

Whether the reader likes this “padding” of the pre-2013 NWT editions in the English translation from the Hebrew, or not, the fact is that many English Bible versions leave out many of the Hebraisms, and other grammar details that are found in the NWT. Some critics mention the issue of the “un-English” or “un-natural English” aspect of the translation of the NWT Old Testament of 1984 and earlier editions. This is due to this version's attempt to transfer the Hebrew way of thinking into the translation. In this sense, the 1984 NWT is unique. Although the most recent NWT 2013 Revised Edition has definitely gained in some areas, mainly in readability, it has lost its uniqueness in the revision process, which set it distinctly apart from every other translation out there. For some people, that may be a minus, for some others, a plus.

Here is a comparison of Genesis 45:14,15:

New International Version: “Then he threw his arms around his brother Benjamin and wept, and Benjamin embraced him, weeping. And he kissed all his brothers and wept over them. Afterward his brothers talked with him.”

NWT, 1984: “Then he fell upon the neck of Benjamin his brother and gave way to weeping, and Benjamin wept upon his neck. And he proceeded to kiss all his brothers and to weep over them, and after that his brothers spoke with him.”

NWT, 2013: “Then he embraced his brother Benjamin and gave way to weeping, and Benjamin wept with his arms around his neck. And he kissed all his brothers and wept over them, and after that his brothers spoke with him.”

The expressions, “Then he fell,” “gave way to weeping,” “And he proceeded to kiss,” “and to weep over them” appearing in earlier NWT editions indicate the imperfect state of the verbs, as action going on, or as incomplete action or state. On the other hand, when the NWT says “and Benjamin wept,” thisis a reflection of the Hebrew verb in its perfect state, which indicates complete action.

Exodus 2:23:

Douay-Rheims: “Now after a long time the king of Egypt died : and the children of Israel groaning, cried out because of the works : and their cry went up unto God from the works.

NWT, 1984: “And it came about during those many days that the king of Egypt finally died, but the sons of Israel continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the [true] God because of their slavery.”

NWT, 2013: “After a long time, the king of Egypt died, but the Israelites continued to groan because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help because of the slavery kept going up tothe true God.”

The 1984 renderings, “And it came about”; “finally died”; “continued to sigh”; “and to cry out”; “kept going up”; are all imperfect forms indicating action going on, or, incomplete action or state.

The same verse as translated by Dr. J. Wash Watts*, also reflecting careful Hebrew verb rendering: “Now, in the course of those many days, it came to pass that the king of Egypt died, the children of Israel continued to groan because of the bondage, to cry out, and their cry to go up to The [One True]

God because of the bondage.” (A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline, ©1977. Professor of Old Testament, *B.A., Furman University, Th.M., Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Brackets his.)

Genesis 2:17:

NWT, 1984: “for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”NWT, 2013: “for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The Hebrew infinitives (the absolute or the construct state) express the idea of a verb. When the infinitive absolute stands before a verb of the same root is used to intensify the certainty or force of the verbal idea, such as Genesis 2:17, NWT: “for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” (Literally: dying you will die) The NRSV and Moffatt ignore this by translating it: “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Exodus 20:8:

NWT, 1984: “Remembering the sabbath day to hold it sacred.”NWT, 2013: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it sacred.”

One place where the infinitive absolute (indefinite as to time) is ignored by most translations is in Exodus 20:8, where the 1984 NWT renders it: “Remembering the sabbath day to hold it sacred.” Most Bible versions use an imperative here, “Remember.” However, Dr. J. Wash Watts agrees with the1984 NWT rendering by translating it: “Remenbering the sabbath day in order to keep it holy.” The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament reads literally: “to-remember day-of the-Sabbath...” The Hebrew Interlinear Bible (Scripture 4 All) also shows the literal meaning: “to-remember.” The 1984 NWT has the following footnote for this verse: “ ‘Remembering.’ Heb., za-khohr'. This verb is not in the imperative mood but is in the infinitive absolute, indefinite as to time.” The Net Bible adds: “The infinitive absolute functions in place of the emphatic imperative here (see GKC 346 §113.bb); theabsolute stresses the basic verbal idea of the root – remembering. The verb includes the mental activityof recalling and pondering as well as the consequent actions for such remenbering.”

Ezequiel 18:4, (last part of verse):

New American Standard Bible, 1995: “The soul who sins will die.”NWT, 1984: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.”NWT, 2013: “The soul who sins is the one who will die.”

In this scripture of Eze. 18:4, the literal reading is as follows: “the-soul, the-one-sinning, she, she-will-die,” (or, “the soul, the one sinning, it, it will die.”) The Hebrew word for “sinning” is a Qal active participle, a verbal adjective expressing verbal action, such as a continuous activity or state... sinning. The Hebrew participle corresponds to the English present participles ending in -ing. Taking a look at the literal reading of this verse, we can readily see that the Hebrew statement here is emphatic, combining a participle with a personal pronoun, (she, or it, in English) a fact missed by most Bible versions. The Emphasized Bible and The Newberry Reference Bible are two other Bibles that display Hebrew emphasis throughout the text, but by other means, by the use of signs, etc. Why do they do thi? Well, it makes Scripture reading more dynamic, though admittedly, this is subjective. The warning found at Ezequiel 18:4 clearly shows that we are fully responsible for our actions, and anyone found “sinning” against God's will, will surely die.

Genesis 2:2

NWT, 1984: “And he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.”NWT, 2013: “And he began to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing.”

On the previous examples, interpretation may not be a big factor, but in some other cases it may changethe way we understand a biblical passage. Consider Genesis 2:2, where most Bible versions say that God “rested,” or, “ceased” from all his work on the seventh day, a rendering which implies completed action. In contrast, the NWT taking into account the imperfect form of the verb for “rest,” indicating an incomplete state, translates it: And he began to rest* on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing.” I leave it to discerning Bible students to determine whether this is significant enough in Bible exegesis. Nonetheless, a few points could be mentioned. The author of the NT book of Hebrews urges Christians to “enter God's rest.” (4:3-11) The writer of Hebrews quotes Genesis 2:2: “And God rested [Greek: Kaí katépausen, aorist=indefinite, ‘and down ceases,’ Concordant Greek Text] on the seventh day from all his works.” (Brackets added.) “So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.” (Heb. 4:4,9, NRSV) The Concordant Literal New Testament attempts to show the indefinite aspect of the aorist (indicated here by bold letters) by rendering a portion of Hebrews chapter 4, thus: “And God stops ‘on the seventh day from all His works’...For he who is entering into His stopping, he also stops from his works even as God from His own.’ ” (Vv. 4, 10. Note: Some scholars disagree with Concordant with its handling of the “aorist.” Nevertheless, some scholars do attempt to show the incomplete action at Genesis 2:2.

( * “Began to rest...” (Hebrew imperfect) Other translators deal with the hebrew imperfect thus: O.L. Barnes translates Genesis 2:2: “and he is resting on the seventh day from all his work which he had wrought”, A New Approach to the Hebrew Tenses, published by J. Thornton and Son, Oxford, 1965. Concordant Version of the Old Testament: “And ceasing is He on the seventh day from all His work which He does.” Julia Smith Translation: “and he will rest in the seventh day from all his work which he made.” Bible in Basic English: “and on the seventh day he took his rest from all the work which he had done.” exeGeses Companion Bible: “and on the seventh day he shabbathizes from all the work he worked.” Septuagint (Brenton): “και κατέπαυσε [“And he rested,” aorist=indefinite, undefined, unlimited].)”

Malachi 2:16:

NWT, 1984: “ ‘For he has hated a divorcing,’ Jehovah the God of Israel has said.”NWT, 2013: “ ‘For I hate divorce,’ says Jehovah the God of Israel”

At Malachi 2:16 many Bible versions say: “For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, God of Israel.” (New Jerusalem Bible; NWT 2013, etc.) In contrast, the 1984 NWT reads: “ ‘For he has hated a divorcing,’ Jehovah the God of Israel has said.” First of all, some translations do not use the word “divorce” at all in this text. Instead, these translations read: “sending away,” or “putting away.” (See Young's LT, KJV) The Hebrew words (ki-sane' shallach) at Malachi 2:16 are taken to mean: “God hates putting away”; “the sending away (of a wife), divorce”. “[sane’] is a participle”. (Keil-Delitzsch, Vol. 10, 454)

The NWT Reference Bible further clarifies the difference in a footnote to this text: “Lit., ‘a sending away.’ Lat., di-mit'te. See Mt 1:19 ftn.” The footnote for the word “divorce” at Matthew 1:19, says: “Or, to release. Lit., “to loose off.” This way, the NWT helps the reader see that divorce is not the strict

literal reading, but the implied meaning. The words “For he has hated” and “has said” translate verbs in the Qal perfect state. The Hebrew conjunction ki (for) appears before the words he has hated. The expression “a divorcing” translates a Hebrew verb in the Piel infinitive construct, which literally means, “a sending away,” “a sending out,” or, “a putting away,” and by extension, “a divorcing.” While the Julia Smith Translation renders the perfect: “For he hated sending away,” the NWT with the reading “For he has hated a divorcing,” offers a more informative rendition, and no less faithful to the Hebrew text.

Some scholars appreciate the NWT's attention to grammatical details. This is what Furuli said after examining the NWT (pre-2013 editions): “I myself have compared the entire Hebrew OT text with the English text of the NWT verse by verse, and it is evident to me that the translators have done a very good job.” “To give an example of the problems involved in translating the Hebrew verbs, and at the same time give a practical test of the quality of the NWT, I have chosen Psalm 107. From working with this Psalm in the classroom, I know it is difficult to translate, in terms of vocabulary, syntax and, not least, the verbs. After working with it in connection with this book, and comparing the NWT with other translations, my judgement is that the NWT translation of it is a really beautiful piece of work which recommends the scholarship of its translators.” (The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, p. 297; p. 103)

Professor Kedar added: “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.” (w. 91, 3/1,30)

John 11:34, “Jesus gave way to tears.”

On the New Testament side we find that the shortest verse in the Bible (Jesus wept, John 11:35) is not so short in the NWT, which reads: “Jesus gave way to tears.” Why? Because the NWT makes an effortto transmit Greek verb forms in English. In John 11:35, the Greek word for “gave way to tears” is in the ingressive aorist tense, which according to Leon Morris signifies, “He burst into tears.” Also: William Barclay, F.F. Bruce and William Beck all have, “burst into tears.” The Jonathan Mitchell New Testament reads: “Jesus sheds tears (let tears flow; gave way to tears; or: bursts into tears).” The NWTalso differentiates between the Greek word used in verse 35 of John 11 (dakrúo), and the Greek word used in verses 31 and 33 (klaío) for “weep” “weeping.” Vincent's Word Studies says dakrúo means to shed tears, weep silently, and klaío means to weep audibly. A lot of translations use the same word in English for the two Greek words in the account. Why should all this matter? As a matter of opinion, I find this account of Jesus reacting to Lazarus' death more touching, more emotional, more vivid, when we encounter the readings, “Then Jesus began to cry,” (Julian G. Anderson); or: “Jesus gave way to tears”; “Jesus burst into tears,” rather than the shorter, Jesus wept, not to mention that it reflects the Greek better. (Verses before and after, show Jesus was “deeply disturbed” and troubled”; “deeply stirred in spirit and greatly shaken”; “overcome by emotion,” as some Bibles describe it.)

Matthew 3:17

NWT: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

The aorist tense shows up in the last part of Matthew 3:17 as well, and is missed by many Bible versions. Most read this way (emphasis added): “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (KJV) The NWT reads instead: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” Theaorist tense may mark a definite occurrence of something at an unstated time in the past. The Son had already proved pleasing to his Father. Paul R. McReynolds translates it: “in whom I thought well.” And the Interlinear Greek New Testament has it: “in whom I have found delight.” Darby: “I have found my delight.” Complete Apostle's Bible: “in whom I have found delight.” Etheridge: “in whom I have delighted.”

Luke 15:20:

Revised Standard Version: “And he [the Prodigal son] arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.”

NWT, 1984: “So he [the Prodigal son] rose and went to his father. While he was yet a long way off, his father caught sight of him and was moved with pity, and he ran and fell upon his neck and tenderly kissed him.”NWT, 2013: “So he got up and went to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him and was moved with pity, and he ran and embraced him and tenderly kissed him.” The words saw him and kissed him in the RSV are translations of words appearing originally in the aorist tense. The RSV uses a simple English past for the aorist. The NWT makes an effort to show thepunctiliar or momentary verbal force of the aorist shown by the context, by using “caught sight of him.” The New American Bible and the Christian Community Bible do likewise. The rendering, “tenderly kissed him,” is a reflection of katephílesen, an intensified verbal force insinuated by combining kata'=down and phileo=affection. Hence, the meaning of the Greek word is, kiss down... tenderly, affectionately, or, repeatedly, as grammarian Thayer noted. Various other versions render it similarly, such as the one by E.V. Rieu. The word “neck” in the 1984 edition is more of a literal reading than “embraced,” for the Greek word is tra'khelon =neck, throat.

Luke 13:24: NWT: “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door.” KJV: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate.”

Once again we are faced with one translation using more words than some other versions. Why? Let's look at a literal translation of this verse: “Be struggling to enter through the narrow door.” Keith McCaslin explains: “The word strive in the Greek is to ‘agonize,’ which suggests that a person must put forth special effort to reach the goal, just as athletes do.” (TCBL) The Greek form used here agonízesthe is a present middle imperative plural which also means, “continue the struggle.” (Zerwick and Grosvenor) The Concordant Literal NT renders it: “Be struggling to be entering through the cramped door.” Or, “Struggle hard...to get in by the narrow gate” (The Kingdom New Testament) Other readings: “Do your best,” (Bible in Basic English); “Make every effort,” (NIV). The Net Bible translates: “Exert every effort...” “The idea is to exert one’s maximum effort (cf. BDAG 17 s.v.

γωνίζομαι 2.b, “strain every nerve to enter”) because of the supreme importance of attaining entry ἀinto the kingdom of God.”

Careful attention to the presence or absence of the article (“the”):

Some Bible versions ignore the absence of the article (“the”) before nouns preceding a verb in some Scriptures which can make a difference in how we understand them. John 1:1c is a prime example.

The presence of the article should be considered as well. “The New Testament justifies the observationof Buttmann that ‘the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason’ (Bt. 88).” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by Dana & Mantey, p. 140.)

If so, the translator should always consider whether it is possible to express in English any articular noun, phrase or clause that appears in the original Greek text. As A. T. Robertson pointed out: “The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom. [...] Its free use leads to exactness and finesse.” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 756) Granted, it is not always possible in English to do so, but some translatorsapparently do not pay the attention this matters deserve. The NWT generally does a fine job in this matter, but like most translations, it does not always adhere literally to the Greek text. In Luke 18:13, the tax collector, by using the Greek article, identifies himself as “the sinner.” As with most English translations, the NWT reads “a sinner” here. (However, the NWT in modern Greek retains the article: “τον αμαρτωλό” = the sinner.)

Why the reluctance of translators in rendering Luke 18:13 literally as “the sinner.” It could be that translators are more concerned with producing “smooth” English. Or, they perhaps prefer to draw attention to the publican as one sinner of many, instead of employing the article and view the tax-collector as thinking of himself alone as “the sinner.” These translators may feel that English does not require the article here to convey the intended Greek meaning. Whatever, I would rather have Bible translators stick to the Greek text here and use “the sinner” as does the New American Standard Bible, the Darby Bible Translation, Young's Literal Translation, and the International Standard Version. I think it is a stronger statement by the tax collector to say it as it appears in Young's Literal Translation: “And the tax-gatherer, having stood afar off, would not even the eyes lift up to the heaven, but was smiting on his breast, saying, God be propitious to me -- the sinner!” With slight variation, The International Standard Version adds a few words to the sentence: “'O God, be merciful to me, the sinner that I am!'” Translator E.V. Rieu does likewise. A.T. Robertson comments: “It is curious how modern scholars ignore this Greek article. The main point in the contrast lies in this article. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners. The publican thinks of himself alone as the sinner, not of others at all.” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, II, p. 234)

At Matthew 4:3,6 the NWT has the Devil saying to Jesus: “If you are a son of God... [Lit., if son you are of the God]. However, most translations read instead: “If you are the Son of God” The Greek word for “son” precedes a verb, and lacks the article (a grammatical construction emphasizing the quality aspect of the noun), and this should be conveyed in translation. The NWT is correct by using “ason” instead of “the Son” as other versions do. Another acceptable translation is “Son” without the article, as Young's Literal Translation does, “If Son thou art of God...”. Darby Bible Translation has it: “If thou be Son of God.” E.V. Rieu renders it: “If you are son of God.” The syntax shows the Devil is not questioning whether Jesus is the Son of God, but ‘was calling on Jesus to exercise his power as “son” of God, to prove to himself and all that he really is what the Father called him [“my Son,” Matthew 3:17].’ A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament. At issue was not his identity, forSatan knew well who Jesus was, but his character.

John 10:36, “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (NWT, 2013)

At John 10:36, most versions read, “because I said, I am the Son of God?” The article (the) is absent inthe Greek text before the word “Son” in this literal reading which says: “You are blaspheming, becauseI said Son of the God I am?” E.V. Rieu translates it: “a son of God.” Admittedly, it is difficult to

express this correctly in English as it appears in Greek without sounding odd. In some languages it is easier to bring out the qualitative idea of the article-less noun without sounding awkward, as is done in these two versions: Spanish Reina-Valera: “Hijo de Dios soy?”; and Portuguese Almeida Atualizada: “Sou Filho de Deus?” The Concordant Literal Version does that in English, as do some other interlinear translations, though it sounds quite un-English: “Seeing that I said, ‘Son of God am I’?” The NWT comes close with the smoother reading, “because I said I am God's Son?” The New English Bible, Beck, NIV, Moffatt, New Revised Standard Version and some northern European Bible versions read similarly. The focus on this account is not about Jesus being the Son of God, but on the character of his sonship of God. The New English Bible makes this clear by using “God's son” with a small s instead of a big S for son. Brooke F. Wescott says: “Son of God. The absence of the article (see xix7) fixes attention on the character and not on the person.” (The Gospel according to John)

John 1:1. The NWT translates this verse: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This is one controversial scripture. Most Christian Churches believe inthe doctrine of the Trinity, and will oppose the NWT not lightly. Thus, the majority favor the usual translation of KJV, “and the Word was God.” However, it should be noted of the fact that the KJV was more influenced by the way the Latin Vulgate renders John 1:1 than by the Greek text itself. In John 1:1, the word for God in Latin appears twice without the article (the) because Latin does not use articles. Greek does make use of the definite article (the, Greek: ho theós), which is used as a determiner before the first occurrence of “God” in the verse. And in the second instance of “God” (Greek, theós) in the verse, no article is used. So, in effect, John was saying within Jewish culture that ‘the Word was with the [True] God, and the Word was likewise divine (a god; godlike).’ By not employing the article before the second occurrence of “God,” and by placing theós before the verb and subject in the Greek, John was emphasizing the qualitative nature of the Word and not identifying Christ with the God he was with.

An ancient Bible text (Coptic) much closer to the time of Christ (about 200 CE) was produced with a translation similar to that of the NWT, namely, “a god was the Word.” The Coptic, unlike the Sanskrit and Latin, which had no article, employed the definite and indefinite article just as English does. The Coptic was accomplished at a time when Koine Greek was still a living language. Thus, it is significantthat translators of such an ancient translation dealt with John 1:1 the same way the NWT has done. This Coptic translation is older than the Vulgate, and came way before the Trinity was accepted as “truth” by mainstream churches, and 1,400 years before the publication of the King James Version. Therefore, we can not ignore this Coptic text in its historical setting. If the Coptic text were to support the idea that Christ was the one-and-only “God” in John 1:1c, it would certainly be brought up as a “very significant” evidence of Christ's deity. But since it does not, trinitarians hope to keep it away from public relevance, or, else, undermine it.

An accurate translation of John 1:1 will show a difference between the articular theós (the God) and theós (god, divine) without the article which stresses the indefinite-qualitative nature of the predicate and serves an adjectival function. Does your favorite Bible translation do this? For more information on this subject, read, “The Correct Translation of John 1:1,” here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

Hebrews 1:2, “Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son.”

Again, the Greek text has the Greek word for Son without the article. The context here does not have “Son” before a verb, as the other Scriptures above do, but after a preposition, 'ev. The idea behind the anarthrous noun “Son” in the Greek reading is “sonship,” that is, that God has spoken to us in these last

days by means of “a Son,” in contrast with other ways God communicated long ago with humans. The NIV reads instead: “But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” Other translations read similarly to the NIV here. Young's Literal Translation and International Standard Version agree with NWT.A Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament states of the expression: “[In Son], ‘in one who is a son.’ The absence of the article fixes attention upon the nature and not upon the personality of the mediator of a new revelation. God spake to us in one who has this character that He is Son (Wescott).”And Professor David Alan Black wrote: “Likewise, a qualitative force is seen in the fact that God has spoken en huio ‘in [one whose status is] Son,’ in contrast to his previous speaking en tois propheteais, ‘in the prophets’ (Heb. 1:1-2).” It's Still Greek To Me, p.77. I also like the fact that the NW translatorstook the literal reading “he spoke to us in Son” and rendered it “spoken to us by means of a Son.” Very clever! The basic meaning of the Greek preposition 'ev is “within” or “in,” but a resultant meaning with the instrumental case is: through*, by means of*, and that seems to fit the context best. (*“through a Son”, Weymouth NT; Williams NT; Common English Bible. The New American Bible, “through a son.” 21st Century New Testament has: “*by means of a Son.”)

The Greek present tense (used primarily of present time in the indicative) represents action as continuous. The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. Grammarians often state that the aorist tense may be represented by a dot (.), the present by a line (____), or broken line (.…...), and the perfect by the combination of the two (.______). That being the case, it is odd that many translators do not convey the idea of progress (or, continuous action) in their handling of the present tense, especially so with imperatives=commands. At Matthew 7:7, many translations have Jesus saying: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” (KJV) The words “ask” “seek” and “knock” are all present imperatives. The NWT does show a more urgent command: “Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. Matthew 6:33: “Keep on, then, seeking first the Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you.” (instead of, But seek first...) At Philippians 2:12 some translations just say: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” The NWT taking into account the present imperative, the text says: “Keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Or as the New Century Version puts it: “Keep on working to complete your salvation with fear and trembling.” Ephesians 5:25: ‘Husbands, continue loving your wives.’

In the present tense, a prohibition means more than not to do a thing, it means to stop doing it.

At Luke 23:28, Jesus, on his way to Golgotha, did not tell the women who were already crying for him, “do not weep for me,” as the NIV puts it, rather, “stop weeping for me.” (NWT) Likewise, to those selling doves at the temple, Jesus told them: “Stop making the house of my Father a house of commerce!” (John 2:16) At Matthew 7:1, the NWT reads: “Stop judging that you may not be judged.” Other translations offer a weaker and less accurate, “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged.” The NWT is not alone among Bible translations to render the Greek present tense as ongoing action, or repeated action. Other translations that also bring out the force of the present imperative witha negative particle are: the Williams New Testament, and the translation by Kenneth Wuest. The NWT is however, the best known and the most widely distributed translation to do so. Other popular translations do so at various places, but not as consistently as the NWT, Williams and Wuest translationsdo.

All this attention to detail by the NWT Bible Committee confirms that the NWT Committee was competent enough to produce a creditable translation. As a human product, it has its faults. But the

good in it outweighs the faults.

Concluding remarks:

It may seem that I sympathize with the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. The truth is that I am not a member of the movement, nor of any other. I partly sympathize with the NWT and some of its translation principles. I think the NWT has been unfairly categorized. I similarly sympathize with the efforts of other translators, because I enjoy comparing Bible versions, and try to spiritually benefit from such effort. I feel most Bible versions have their virtues and faults. I think this is true of the NWT as well. To better understand my point of view in general of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other faith groups within the religious context, see the extensive quotation (made in this article, which mentions 4 points) by Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel, because in essence I share his opinion.

I have considered different aspects of the New World Translation. This version has generated considerable criticism like no other in our era. In general, the bulk of the criticism is that as a translation is very “bad.” It is often said that the translators of this Bible version could not even “read” the original languages to carry out the translation task. However, I have provided enough information, to at least, cast doubt on such claims. In particular, one can point to three indicators which show that the common disparaging of this translation should not be taken too seriously.

First, while it is true that most scholars do not support the NWT, it is also true that there are a number of scholars who do acknowledge the NWT as a legitimate translation. Secondly, we should not expect the NWT to be popular in academia and mainstream, not because it lacks quality, but simply because the NWT does not follow prevailing religious conviction. The main reason why so many scholars and pastors want you to believe that the NWT is a “bad” translation, has little to do with translation issues, but more to do with the fact that the NWT does not support standard religious tradition.

If the NWT were to support the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, eternal torment, and other doctrinesof religious tradition, the NWT would not receive a hundredth of the criticism it receives. Anyone doing a review of the NWT will not want to be labeled as “biased.” Therefore, if the author of a reviewof the NWT has strong theological views in conflict with the doctrinal tendency of this version, it is likely the reviewer will find ways to justify that religious difference, by nitpicking on doctrinal issues mainstream folks will likely agree with, and to point out perhaps, to the supposed lack of “credibility” of the organization the NWT represents, for not providing the customary credentials of the translators.

Of course, this does not mean that no opponent has no legitimate reason to criticize the NWT. Many certainly do have them. But bear in mind one thing: any translation of the Bible will receive oppositionfrom somewhere. There is no way to satisfy everyone. And the more a translator pulls away from religious tradition, the more resistance it will create. The situation is well described by Dr. Kedar, “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.” “A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too.”

Thirdly, the internal evidence suggests that the NWT was done by someone with sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to undertake the difficult task of making a translation of that caliber. Scholar Robert M. McCoy acknowledged this: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblicaltranslation.” (Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, vol. 3, # 3, page 31) I find the often made claim that the translators did not have the scholarly acumen necessary to undertake a Bible translation

false.

So even if one sympathetic review of the JWs translation could not be found, the careful rendition of the “original” text is sufficient evidence to me that much of the criticism of the NWT is unfounded. Noone with reasonable objectivity can, in comparison, grab the NWT in one hand, and the Hebrew-Greek text in the other, and say that it does not mirror the “original” text well. The problem is that most people do not do this. They go by what other “experts” say on the matter, without realizing those experts themselves have their own religious agendas. It would be naive to think that only the NWT is doctrinally biased, and other Bible versions are not. In line with this, Dr. Duthie stated: “It [the NWT] is no more ‘full of heresies’ than any other translation.” (Bible translations and how to choose betweenthem, p. 103) It has been stated time and again that “a real [Bible] translation is in the main an interpretation.” (James Moffatt's NT, p. vii, and others) The fact is that it is virtually impossible to translate the original text and not introduce the translator's interpretation of it into the text. Even so called literal translations have to abide by this principle, at least, in some places. Often the informationthat the original text offers is limited and translators do not always have accurate knowledge of ancient customs, nor fully know the circumstancial context that led the original author to write as he did.

Consequently, all Bible translators end up interpreting many parts of the Bible, no matter how hard they try to avoid it. The truth is that the NWT is no more biased than other popular Bible translations. It surely seems to most people that the NWT is, if not the most biased, one of the most biased Bible versions ever published. And that perception is largely due to the minority representation of the NWT interpretation perspective. Most Bible readers of “standard” Bible versions cannot see their bias in playbecause they are brought up within the majority view circle. These are the same people who are all over the Net saying: “Almost all scholars, or the majority of scholars translate it this way...” In their mind, the majority view is equated with error-free or bias-free translation. The main objection to the NWT seems to be wrapped in emotional and theological dressing. Otherwise, critics would be equally targeting other prominent religious leaders who are found lacking the standard credentials to stand behind their works. And above all, they would also attack all scholars that translate similarly to the NWT. Moreover, it is interesting to note that most charges brought up against the NWT of “errors,” “discrepancies,” and “corruption,” have to do with Scriptures that are commonly used to support certain theological positions.

In this essay, mention was made of the main sources of criticism directed at the NWT. The most influential source on the religious scene seems to be that of “cult expert,” Evangelical Walter Martin, who founded the Christian Research Institute. Consideration was given to some of his criticisms, and how they turn out to be misinterpretations or distortions of WT statements. No one is above reproach, (not even the WTS, or Walter Martin for that matter), so valid criticisms should not be rejected outright.However, much of the expounded argumentation of Walter Martin have little fairness to go with it. Hiswritings, coupled with the public denunciation of Jehovah's Witnesses by scholar Julius Mantey, another Baptist, have been the basis for legions of followers to continue quoting them today. While their readers may accept Martin's and Mantey's distorted statements as revealed “truth,” the lack of honesty in some of these attacks have not gone unnoticed by perceptive and cautious people.

Dr. Kedar: “It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organisations that fiercely oppose the[Jehovah's W]itnesses do not behave any better [than the “sects” they target].”

I will repeat here BeDuhn's concluding remarks after analizing numerous criticims directed at the NWT. “ ‘Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate’ may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower

article came out has claimed that ‘all reputable scholars,’ ‘every Greek or biblical scholar,’ etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie.” (Letter to Ginny Tosken - January, 1998)

As stated before, “a real [Bible] translation is in the main an interpretation.” With this in mind, some scholars have shown they understand well the theological implication of Bible translation work. For instance:

James Parkinson: Author of “How to Choose a Bible Translation” had this to say of the NWT: “The Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation offers a relatively accurate translation from a different theological perspective.”

Walter E. Stuermann: “By this contibution [of the NWT] to the history of the printed English Bible...[...] The New World Society deserves commendation for its efforts. [...] Despite its faults, the versionhas many refreshing and suggestive translations of the Greek. A highly literal translation such asthe Society provides for us has its uses; we ought therefore to be grateful for their efforts. Asidefrom other uses the text provides a good basis upon which to found classroom discussion of textualanalysis and principles of translation [...] The textual notes are useful...When the version is usedwith caution, it will be found valuable in several respects .” (Professor of Philosophy and Religionat the University of Tusla, OK, USA, The Bible and Modern Religions - III. Jehovah's Witnesses,Interpretation 10, 1965, pp. 339, 342, 345)

New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The [NWT] work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement.”

F.F. Bruce: “Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations which we have cometo associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good...” (The English Bible: A History of Translations (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961). Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis Emeritus, University of Manchester, England.)

Jason BeDuhn: “But the facts are that all of the translations considered in this book are productsof people with theological commitments, that all contain biased translations of one sort oranother, and that the NW deserves to be assessed for accuracy by the same standards applied to theothers.” (Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, p. 39.)

BeDuhn: “And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.” (op. cit., Letter to Ginny Tosken, January 1998, comparing the NWT to other Bible versions.)

Alan S. Duthie: The “Jehovah's Witnesses: NWT, which is certainly not ‘filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult’ [Fee & Stuart, p.41], even though a few aberrations can be found.” (Page 30, Brackets his.) And on page 216: “Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses, or by Catholics, or by ..., because they must be full of heresies. Whether or not such a version actually contains any heresies, they would refuse even to look at it! It is true there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT (eg. the incoherent polytheism in Jn. 1:1 ‘The Word was with

God, and the Word was a god’), but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected (I have looked!) does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from ‘full’.” (How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Second edition, 1995.)

C. Houtman: “The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” (Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrifl, [Dutch Theological Magazine]. 38 1984, pp. 279-80)

Andover Newton Quarterly: “This translation, as J. Carter Swain observes, has its peculiarities and its excellences. All in all, it would seem that a reconsideration of the challenge of this movement to thehistorical churches is in order.” (January 1963, vol. 3, # 3, p. 31)

Some scholars even recommend the NWT among various versions to serious Bible readers:

Alan S. Duthie (Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana; MA in Greekand Hebrew from the University of St. Andrews; a Ph.D in linguistics from the University ofManchester; and a BD from the University of London):

“If you belong to that small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a ‘crib’ or ‘gloss’ translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant.” (Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them, p. 67)

And: “For detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB=KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version (Kingdom [Interlinear Translation], Marshall). (How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, p. 225)

To these recommendations by Dr. Duthie, I would add another interlinear translation to his list (published after Duthie's statements above), namely, Word Study New Testament Greek-English, by Paul R. McReynolds. It is a valuable literal translation that offers the NRSV on the right-hand column, and a useful lengthy Concordance coded to the main text with Strong's numbers. Other worthy Interlinear contenders are the Concordant Greek Text and the The Emphatic Diaglott. Others prefer theinterlinear versions of Alfred Marshall, Jay P. Green and the one by Brown, Comfort and Douglas.

It appears that the WTS has stopped printing a paper copy of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. While that is sad (in my opinion, this publication is a real gem), I am happy to report that the WTS has just released (in 2013) an app (“JW Library”) available for various platforms, which does contain various Bible translations, including: the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, King James Version, American Standard Version, Byington's Translation, NWT 1984 Edition, and its most recent release ofthe NWT Revised Edition (2013): http://www.jw.org/en/online-help/jw-library/

For those who harbor bias against the WTS, and fear the KIT, I would recommend the McReynolds Interlinear. It is well done, much better than some of the other loose translations masquerading as “interlinear” translations.

The Old Testament translation of many Bible versions are so much alike, that one wonders why some bother to translate it again and again with similar results. Not so with the NWT. The NWT is a rare breed (pre-2013, that is.) It stands on its own. It is not a copy of someone else's work. Its Hebrew-English translation is highly literal and colloquial at times. Above all, it is quite different fromtypical translations out-there. Another translation that has lots of interesting fresh renderings in the Old

Testament is that of translator Steven T. Byington, The Bible in Living English. The Concordant Version of the OT; The Emphasized Bible; The Five Books of Moses by Everett Fox; Tanakh; and Young's Literal Translation are also useful to those trying to get closer to the Hebrew Text.

A few words on the NWT Revised Edition of 2013: I have mixed feelings with this new arrival. The recent version is a comprehensive revision which improves readability by leaps and bounds, but from another angle, it has lost its uniqueness and charm, in my opinion. Now, it is closer in translation approach to other Bible versions. Overall, it was a good decision by the WTS to do an overall revision,and certainly it is a notable improvement in many areas. The previous versions admittedly were difficult to read in many places, and the Revised edition is superior in that sense. It has a much needed Glossary, and other new features. However, those who were fond of the special attention the earlier editions gave to the original languages, will likely be disappointed. But, with foresight, the WTS has provided an app with the apparent intention to continue the publication of the NWT - 1984 Reference Edition for those longing for a deeper study of the Bible.

The 1984 NWT Reference Bible makes for a good Study Bible. Many people love Scripture, and they know that to obtain maximum benefit from it, they use whatever tools are available to them in their search for greater comprehension of biblical teaching. As Bible translator Steven T. Byington aptly putit, after reviewing an early edition of the NWT: “The book does not give enjoyable continuous reading* [Because of its literal nature as explained earlier. The new edition modified that.]; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines.” (The ChristianCentury, November 1, 1950, page 1296)

Hopefully, this information may whet your appetite for further research.

(*WT response: “The translation it produced was meant not merely for good, enjoyable reading but more particularly for use of searching students of God's Word who do not have ready access to Greek dictionaries and exhaustive Bible concordances. […] All in all, the New World Translation shows nothing loose, careless or indifferent about it. It commends itself to those who want to attain a more precise understanding of the inspired writings of Christ's disciples, and thereby to delight themselves more in God's life-giving Word.” “The Christian Century,” May 9, 1951, pages 587 – 589)

(For those who would like to read a Spanish version of the above essay, click the following link.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51623596/%C2%BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Note 1: (Similarity between modern and biblical Greek)

How close are these two forms of Greek?

Modern Greek is derived from Medieval Greek which in turn is derived from Koine. (Vassilios Christides* writes about ‘the variations and differences that exist between the various forms of the Greek languages,’ but concludes: “Modern Greek developed from classical Greek. There is a linear continuity from the time of Homer to the present day. Unlike the Romance languages, which were created independently after the breakup of the Roman Empire, modern Greek is essentially the same as classical Greek.” Koine Greek was a simplified form of classical Greek. It is also known as Post-Classical Greek. (201 Modern Greek Verbs, p. vi. *Ph.D. from Princeton University, Associate Professor of Byzantine History University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Formerly Assistant Professor of

Byzantine and Modern Greek, Columbia University)

Paul L. Kaufman, who has taught Greek for over 25 years (Professor of N.T. Language and Literature at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon), wrote in his An Introductory Grammarof New Testament Greek the following: “Over the centuries, the Greek language has exhibited a remarkable continuity and has evidenced far fewer variations than the English language has since the time of Chaucer (c. 1340-1400). […] It is probably no overstatement to observe that the student who can read either Xenophon's Anabasis or Plato's Apology will have little difficulty reading the New Testament or even a modern Greek newspaper (except for some different vocabulary).” Likewise, it can be said that the student who can read modern Greek will have little difficulty reading the New Testament in Koine Greek. Wikipedia declares: “Strictly speaking ‘Demotic’ refers to all popular varieties of Modern Greek which followed a common evolution path from Koine and have retained a high degree of mutual intelligibility to the present day.” “Ancient Greek texts, especially from Biblical Koine onwards, are thus relatively easy to understand for educated modernspeakers.”

Just as it is easier for a native Italian or Spanish speaker to learn Latin, than it would be for an English speaker, whose language is more distant from Latin, I argue that learning Koine (common) Greek is far easier for a native Greek speaker than it would be for someone totally foreign to that culture.

I have seen some people argue a case that Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D. (author of The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament), whose background as a Greek native is an asset in his biblical work. Why would this be any different for George Gangas, a native Greek speaker? ______________________________________________________

Note 2: (About Walter Martin's statement of “the only person in the WT to read Greek,” who didn't know the “subject” of John 1:1c.):

Any student by middle school have studied what the subject and the predicate of a sentence are. If the person he was alluding to was George Gangas, I would have to say that it is more likely that this WT person was advised before-hand not to engage in ‘disputable matters,’ or noticed early on in the discussion who Walter Martin was, what he stood for, and of his well known tactics, rather than any fact of not having any knowledge of the subject in this verse. Gangas was likely chosen to form part ofthe NWT Committee for his linguistic abilities, not for his smile. Maybe he felt there was not much to gain from potentially ‘fighting over words’ with a known “debater” from a combative source. (2 Tim. 2:14) Many WT outsiders may not be aware that WT supporters are frequently taught to avoid confrontation with people who just want to “win arguments.” A WT publication provided as an aid for ministers (Reasoning from the Scriptures), will illustrate this: “This publication has not been prepared for the purpose of helping anyone to ‘win arguments’ with people who show no respect for the truth. Rather, it provides valuable information that is meant to be used in reasoning with individuals who willallow you to do so.” (Underlines added.)

As part of their educational goals, the WTS has at times written basic instruction on grammar, writing and other communication materials suitable for their ministers. For instance, the following WT publications addressed the subject/predicate sentence structure in grammar, and also, within the contextof John 1:1. (Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers, 1945, p. 154; Qualified To Be Ministers, 1955. Revised 1967, p. 121; w75, 11/15 703; w88, 6/1 17) The NWT itself addressed the subject and the predicate of John 1:1c in its Appendix. (1950, pp.774,775)

It is so strange then, that given that WT publications have explained the subject and the predicate of John 1:1c, an individual who knew Greek and presumably was part of the NWT Committee, would not

know this basic information, which appears in the Appendix of the NWT itself, and which he, being a member of the translation Committee purportedly approved. The late George Gangas was described bythe WTS as someone who loved asking Bible questions, “some of them simple, some of them more mind stretching.” (w94 12/1 31) Thus, George Gangas was no “dummy,” but someone intelligent enough to engage with anyone willing to discuss Bible material, but not confrontational.

It must be said too, that anyone caught off guard can feel uncomfortable being grilled on controversial subjects by an individual with dubious tactics or motives from a known contentious source. By Martin not revealing the name of the Greek reading WT person he spoke with, would indicate if anything, that one possible motive of the WT critic was to project the WTS as an entity, wholly incompetent to do anyBible translation work. The sad part of this encounter is that some folks accept this story as a significant “fact,” and go on repeating it.

The American Bible Society, together with the Greek Bible Society (associates of the United Bible Societies) have likewise published English and modern Greek editions of the Good News Bible (a.k.a.,Today's English Version, and The New Testament in Today's Greek Version, 2003). Now, by having oneof these organizations produce a Bible translation in modern Greek, ¿could anyone ever legitimately bring up the idea that they accomplished this feat with “zero” knowledge of biblical Greek? Of course not. Knowledge of the translator's names involved in the project is not really necessary to appreciate their translation efforts. The same could be true of the publication release of the NWT modern Greek edition, and of their New Testament edition in modern Hebrew as well: New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures -- Hebrew (bi7- Q), 2012, Germany.

In summary, it is not claimed here that any modern Greek speaker can easily become competent in biblical translation of Greek koine. But that in some cases, having modern Greek knowledge can be an asset when translating biblical Greek, and also that, multiple obstacles in differences between the two forms of the Greek language can be overcome with some effort.

__________________________

Note 3: Here are some details of Fred Franz's life story:

Franz was born in Covington, Kentucky in 1893. Frederick Franz and family moved to nearby Cincinnati, Ohio. He enrolled in Woodward High School at Cincinnati and chose the classical course. Took up the study of Latin—a study that he pursued for the next seven years. He was selected to be thevaledictorian for Woodward High School. He taught Sunday school in the Presbyterian Church and planned to become a minister. Entered the University of Cincinnati in 1911, taking the liberal arts course.

To the continued study of Latin, he added the study of Greek. Studied Bible Greek under Professor Arthur Kinsella. Studied classical Greek under Dr. Joseph Harry, an author of some Greek Works. “I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades.”

In addition to studying Greek and Latin at school, he got interested in learning Spanish, which he foundto be quite similar to Latin. Fred recounts: “A high point in my academic life was when Dr. Lyon, the university’s president, announced to an assembly of students in the auditorium that I had been chosen to go to Ohio State University to take competitive examinations with others to win the prize of the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, qualifying me for admission to Oxford University in England. One of the contestants outranked me with regard to field athletics, but because of my comparable grades, they

wanted to send me, along with him, to Oxford University. I appreciated that I had measured up to the requirements for gaining the scholarship, and, normally, this would have been very gratifying.”

I have never regretted that, shortly before the announcements by the educational authorities regarding the outcome of the examinations for the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship*, I wrote a letter to the authorities and advised them that I had lost interest in the Oxford University scholarship and that they should drop me from the list of contestants. This I did even though my professor in Greek at the university, Dr. Joseph Harry, informed me that I had been chosen to receive it.*” His brother sent him a booklet from the International Bible Students. This prompted Franz to leave University in 1914 (just a couple of weeks before the end of his third term there as a junior classman) without completing his degree, and become a full-time minister for the group. (w87 5/1 22-30)

( * A letter dated January 13, 1993, from the American Secretary of The Rhodes Scholarship Trust, to one Frank Russo stated:

Dear Mr. Russo

The only information kept by this Office of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust relating to Frederick W. Franz states that he took and passed the qualifying examination for the Rhodes Scholarship in 1913. We have no information whether or not he was offered a Rhodes Scholarship; we keep records only for those who are elected and enter Oxford University.

Yours sincerely,

David Alexander

American Secretary

“Following the Investigator biography of sect leader Frederick W Franz last March, reader Frank Russophoned the University of Cincinnati. Franz studied there from 9/1911 to 12/1913, completed 36 ‘classes’ scoring 23 A's, 8 B's and 5 C's. He did 90% of the studies for a degree before discontinuing.” http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/JwFranzFred29.htm)

One interesting detail of Fred Franz life story, is that he played the mandolin, sang solos as a tenor, and also served as an orchestra conductor (which requires a through knowledge of music (including the capability to read music, and an overall understanding of musical instruments and their techniques), indicative of his keen intellect. (w87, 5/1 p. 28)

A WT Bethel insider once told me that soon after communist rule was overthrown in Poland (starting in1989), and when there was an improvement in human rights, leading WT officials wanted to speak to Polish officials about expanding their religious work in the country, so Fred Franz volunteered to personally speak to them. Since he did not know Polish, he proceeded to study some basics in Polish grammar and within a short time had learned enough to engage in communication with high-rank government officials in Poland, an indication of his ability to quickly learn a new language.

___________________________________

Note 4: (Did the NWT Committee make up a phony Greek tense at John 8:58?):

NWT opponents took the reference “properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense” as a reference to the Greek language. Walter Martin and Norman Klann wrote in reference the 1950 NWT New Testament volume footnote to John 8:58 of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society: “The term ‘perfect indefinite’ seems to be an invention of the author of the note.” (New York, NY: Biblical Truth Publishing Society, 1953, p. 54; Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1974, 1981 printing, page 53.) The 1950 NWT of the Greek Scriptures had a footnote to John 8:58, which stated: “I have been=[ego' eimi'] after the a'orist infinitive clause [prin 'Abraám genésthai] and hence properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.”

In 1957 Martin claimed the NWT footnote to John 8:58 “invents a tense in the Greek and titles it ‘the perfect indefinite tense,’ a tense which does not exist in any known Greek grammar book.” (1957, 1974, p. 53, Jehovah’s Witnesses) “The term “perfect indefinite” is an invention of the author of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.” (1977 (1965) Kingdom of the Cults, pages 77-78)“The term ‘perfect indefinite’ is not a standard grammatical term, and its use here has been invented by the authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.” (2003 Kingdom of the Cults, page 111; 1985 Kingdom of the Cults, page 88.)

And Robert Bowman Jr. added coal to the fire when he wrote: “Changing ‘perfect indefinite tense’ to‘perfect tense indicative’ [in later NWT editions] does absolutely nothing to clarify that ‘rendered in’means rendered into English! If that is what the Society wished to clarify, all they had to do was addthe words ‘into English.’ Unless we assume that the persons responsible for the revised footnote wereutterly inept, it is inconceivable that what they were trying to do was to clarify that an English tensewas meant.” (p. 94) “Yet it is relevant to note that JWs have exhibited poor scholarship in their handling of the ‘perfectindefinite tense.’ ” (Robert Bowman Jr., 1989, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ and the Gospel ofJohn, Baker Book House Company, p. 98)

All the while, the NW Translation Committee from the start meant it to convey “rendered into” English as a perfect tense with an idea of indefiniteness. Wow! The NWT Committee perhaps never imagined this would end up as one big story, one of the most talked about in religious circles in recent history. Since misrepresentation and accusations of ineptness are being directed at the WTS, it is only fair to actually consider one definition of “render” by established sources:

Websters New World Dictionary (College, 4th Ed.) as: “to express in other words; esp., to translate: often with into.”

The Free Dictionary (vb, tr): “to translate (something) into another language or form.”

The American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Ed.): “To express in another language or form; translate.”

Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2d. Ed.): “to express in other words, as in another language; to translate.”

Merriam Websters Advanced Learner´s English Dictionary: “formal: TRANSLATE ▪ render Latin intoEnglish ▪ The word was incorrectly rendered as ´light.´”

Oxford English Dictionary (1985): “To reproduce or express in another language, to translate. Also const. into.”

Examples of usage:

The NET Bible, Acts 15:7, footnote: “‘Grk God chose among you from my mouth the Gentiles to hear the message of the gospel and to believe.’ The sense of this sentence in Greek is difficult to render in English.”

The Expository Times: “the [Greek] aorist is to be rendered in the present tense.”

Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles, tr. by John King: “The two first verbs [in James 5:6], being aorists, may be rendered in the present tense, especially as the last verb is in that tense.”

Wermuth's Greekbook: “Conversely, a “negative” command using the Present tense ([in the Greek] with ο )ὐ mandates the hearer’s “discontinuance” of an action. Therefore, “Do not love the world...” (1John 2:15) is more precisely rendered, “Stop loving the world...”

www.vitba.orgfofmb/chapter16.html: “The verb быць, to be, has no present tense conjugation [in Belarusian]. The verb to be is often rendered in the present tense as a pause, represented as a dash when written.”

Wikipedia, under Bist du bei mir: “A translation [from German] to English is difficult, because the original German is poetry and no perfect grammar. "Bist du bei mir" is short for the conditional "Wenn Du bei mir bist", the event of a future rendered in the present tense in the first two lines.”

An honest look at the above examples clearly shows that the words “into English” are not required as Martin and Bowman Jr. imply (though they could be used to remove any possible ambiguity) to express the intended thought. Note that in these samples, except the first one, the target language underconsideration was not mentioned, yet it is obvious the authors of the notes were not implying that “rendered in” must point to the source language being translated from, but rather, were referring to the target language at hand. Take this example above: “The two first verbs [in James 5:6], being aorists, may be rendered in the present tense, especially as the last verb is in that tense.” (Calvin's Commentaries) Notice this work does not add the words “into English” here.

Now, are we to take the expression above “may be rendered in the present tense” as a reference to theGreek language, because the two first verbs in James 5:6 are Greek aorists? Of course not! The language being read in Calvin's Commentaries is English, so it is fair to assume the phrase “rendered inthe present tense” must refer to the “English” translation, not the Greek, though the Greek also has a present tense. Was John Calvin “utterly inept” for doing so? Or, the translator of Calvin's work?

Considering the above, how could intelligent people, such as those Evangelical scholars in view, ever reach the conclusion that an explanation of the Greek expression (ego' eimi') being rendered in the “perfect indefinite tense” in an English Bible, must mean that the perfect indefinite tense is a Greek tense? A standard definition above of “render” is: “To express in another language or form; translate.”

If one were to insert the word “indefinite,” as this, “the perfect [indefinite] tense,” it would still not change the intended message. Why? Because “rendered in” is acceptable English for “into” another language, or form. Websters New World College Dictionary defines “render” thus: “to express in other words; esp., to translate: often with into.” So, why all the fuss? Is it due to theological bias?

That appears to be the case here, where critics are “making a mountain out of a mole hill.” These critics noticed that the NWT did not use a standard grammatical term (but not necessarily wrong*), they jumped on it, and took advantage of the situation to ridicule the NWT Committee as “inept” for Bible translation work. Theological bias plays a big role in these charges. Almost surely, if a footnote contained a similar grammatical explanation, but instead supported the traditional understanding of John 8:58 (that Jesus here was claiming a title of God), we would not be having this discussion right now. (*Furuli says: “Even though the semantic contents of the phrase may be fitting...[it] does not contribute much to the readers' understanding of the passage or the translation offered.”)

The expression “rendered in the perfect indefinite tense” appearing in early editions of the NWT was meant to convey: “rendered in the English perfect [indefinite] tense.” The “indefinite” part is obviously a reference to the fact that no mention of the length of Jesus' prehuman existence is given at John 8:58. Though the term perfect indefinite tense is not standard grammar terminology, it does appear in some older Grammars (A New English Grammar Logical and Historical, by Henry Sweet, 1900; and Crowell's Dictionary of English Grammar and of American Usage, by Maurice H. Wesseen, 1928). And some grammar sources to this day continue using the word indefinite when explaining certain verb forms of the English perfect.

“[The] present perfect tense [in English] describes an action that happened at an indefinite time in the past or that began in the past and continues in the present.” (2000, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, The Write Place.) “[The English] Present perfect is used to indicate that an activity or event has occurred without stating exactly when. The emphasis is on having had the experience. The time is indefinite – not important.” (http://www.grammar-quizzes.com)

The WTS updated the John 8:58 footnote in later NWT releases to reflect a more standard grammar terminology. However, there was never a contradiction in the various footnotes.

1963, NWT edition: “I have been [...] properly rendered in the perfect tense indicative.”

1971, NWT edition with footnotes: “I have been [...] properly rendered in the perfect tense indicative.”

1985, Kingdom Interlinear Translation: “I have been [ego' eimi']. The action expressed by this verb began in the past, is still in progress, and is properly translated by the perfect indicative. See App 2F.”

Another scholar, Rolf Furuli, who reviewed the NWT and John 8:58 came to the conclusion that out of three renderings considered, I was, I am, and I have been, his preference in order was: 1. I have been2. I was, and lastly, 3. I am. Furuli discusses some of the problems in translating John 8:58 literally into English, and believes the NWT translation of “I have been,” though, preferable to “I am,” could beimproved. He concludes: “There is however, one way to avoid the problems mentioned above, and that is to allow the addition of just a small element which in no way qualifies as interpolation. This is done by [Grammarian] K. L. McKay in his superb translation, “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.” (A new Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, New York: Peter Lang, 1994, p.42. Ibid, p. 238)

The thing in all this, is that even though Stafford suggested that “The continued publication of misrepresentations of NWT footnotes to John 8:58 must stop,” I do not see that happening at all. As stated above, even AFTER the WTS clarified their footnote to John 8:58, in numerous publications, andother scholars have chimed in with their support for the rendering “I have been,” the misrepresentationshave not diminished, and are likely to continue, no matter what.

_______________________

For a consideration of other Scriptures, see below:

For a consideration of John 1:1 (“God,” or “a god”?), click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a briefer consideration of John 1:1, with additional samples, click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

For a consideration of John 8:58 (“I am,” or “I have been”?), click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35318309/The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am-I-have-been-I-was-I-exist

For a consideration of John 17:3 (“taking in knowledge”), click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 3:16, click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76927834/Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of John 1:14 (“grace”), click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35002730/John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Exodus 2:25, click the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38676458/Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God-care-about-us

For a consideration of Translation Differences between Bible versions, click:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59484457/Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

En español, vea los siguientes enlaces:

¿Sabía griego el Comité de la Traducción del Nuevo Mundo?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51623596/%C2%BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Para una consideración de Juan 1:1, vea el siguiente enlace:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35899788/Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de-lecturas-alternativas

Para una consideración de Juan 8:58, vea el siguiente enlace:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36126649/Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-8-58-Lista-de-lecturas-alternativas-a-yo-soy

Para una consideración de Juan 17:3, vea el siguiente enlace:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74629981/Juan-17-3-%E2%80%98Adquiriendo-conocimiento%E2%80%99-de-Dios-y-Jesucristo

Para una consideración de 1 Timoteo 3:16, vea el siguiente enlace:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77336247/%C2%BFFue-Dios-manifestado-en-carne-1-Timoteo-3-16

_____________________________

If you would like to offer a comment on this essay, or submit suggestions or corrections, please addresssuch to: lesriv000@gmail.com

This document was produced with the free Office program LibreOffice using the Times New Roman Font, Main Size 12, originally in the open document format (odt = open document text).