Editing New World Translation (section)

=== Old Testament ===

Regarding the ''New World Translation''{{'}}s use of English in the first volume of the ''New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures'' (''Genesis to Ruth'', 1953), biblical scholar [[H. H. Rowley|Harold Henry Rowley]] was critical of what he called "wooden literalism" and "harsh construction". He characterized these as "an insult to the Word of God", citing various verses of Genesis as examples. Rowley concluded, "From beginning to end this [first] volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."<ref>H.H. Rowley, How Not To Translate the Bible, The Expository Times, 1953; 65; 41</ref> He added in a subsequent review that "the second volume shows the same faults as the first."<ref name="Gruss1970">{{cite book|last=Gruss|first=Edmond C.|title=Apostles of Denial: An Examination and Exposé of the History, Doctrines and Claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses|url=https://archive.org/stream/ApostlesOfDenial/1970_Apostles_Of_Denial#page/n222/mode/1up|date=1970|publisher=Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.|isbn=978-0-87552-305-7|pages=212–213}}</ref> While a member of the denomination, [[Rolf Furuli]]&mdash;a former professor in Semitic languages&mdash;said that a literal translation that follows the sentence structure of the source language rather than target language must be somewhat wooden and unidiomatic. Furuli added that Rowley's assessment based on his own preference for idiomatic translations ignores the NWT's stated objective of being as literal as possible.{{sfn|Furuli|1999|pp=293–294}}

Samuel Haas, in his 1955 review of the first volume of the NWT in the ''Journal of Biblical Literature'', stated that he did not agree with the introduction of the name Jehovah: "religious bias is shown most clearly in the policy of translating the tetragrammaton as Jehovah."{{sfn|Haas|1955|pp=282}} He concluded, "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."{{sfn|Haas|1955|pp=283}}

In 1960, [[Frederick William Danker]] wrote, "not to be snubbed is the ''New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Translation Committee''... 'the orthodox' do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to 'test the spirits'."{{sfn|Danker|1960|pp=194}}

In 1981, biblical scholar [[Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein]] stated that the Old Testament work is largely based on the formal structure of biblical Hebrew.{{sfn|Kedar-Kopfstein|1981|pp=262}} In 1989, Kedar-Kopfstein said, "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the 'New World Translation.' In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. ... Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."{{sfn|Andrews|2018|pp=18}} In 1993 Kedar-Kopfstein said that the NWT is one of his occasionally quoted reference works.{{sfn|Kedar-Kopfstein|1994|pp=17}}