Editing New World Translation (section)

=== New Testament ===

[[Edgar J. Goodspeed]], translator of the New Testament in ''[[The Bible: An American Translation|An American Translation]]'', positively evaluated the New World translation.{{sfn|Chryssides|2019|pp=232}} According to the October 15, 1999 issue of ''[[The Watchtower]]'', Goodspeed wrote to the Watch Tower Society in 1950 stating, "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."<ref>{{cite magazine|date=October 15, 1999|page=31|title=A Milestone for Lovers of God's Word|magazine=The Watchtower|publisher=Watch Tower Society}}</ref>

[[Steven T. Byington]] said in 1950, "Jehovah's Witnesses have made their own translation of the book for which they consider 'New Testament' an illegitimate name. It is well supplied with faults and merits."{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=588}} Byington reports that he agrees with the translation of some words and not others.{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=588–589}} Regarding the introduction of the name Jehovah instead of lord, Byington says: "fifteen pages of the preface present the arguments to justify this. I think the justification insufficient; but the 'Jehovah' does not shock a reader".{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=588}} He also says that the arrangement of the verse numbers escapes confusion "by making its verse numbers much lighter" and adds that "the use of a cheap quality of paper enables the publishers to cut the price below the already low price of the" [[Revised Standard Version]].{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=589}} Byington concludes: "the book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=589}}

In 1952, religious writer Alexander Thomson wrote of the ''New World Translation'': "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the ''New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures'', published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."<ref>Alexander Thomson, ''The Differentiator'', 1952, 55, 57 Nos. 2, 6</ref> In 1959, Thomson added that on the whole the version was quite a good one, even though it was padded with many English words which had no equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew.<ref>The Differentiator (June 1959), cited in Ian Croft, "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: Does It Really Have the Support of Greek Scholars?", Perth, Western Australia, ''Concerned Growth Ministries'', 1987, p. 2</ref>

[[Allen Wikgren]] (member of the ''[[New Revised Standard Version]]'' committee, as well as the committee which produced the [[United Bible Societies|USB]] Greek text) said in 1952, "independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as Verkyl's New Testament (1945) and the Jehovah's Witnesses' edition of the New Testament (1950)".{{sfn|Wikgren|1952|pp=99}} 

In 1953, former [[American Bible Society]] board member [[Bruce M. Metzger]] stated that the translation was written to support Jehovah's Witness doctrines, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek",{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=74}} and cited 6 examples (John 1:1,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=74–76}} Col. 1:15-17,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=76–78}} Phil. 2:6,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=78}} Titus 2:13,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=78–79}} 2 Pet. 1:1,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=79}} and Rev. 3:14{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=79}}). In 1964, Metzger again reviewed the NWT and concluded, "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged). They refer not only to modern translations [...] but to ancient translations as well. Frequently an intelligent use of a critical information is apparent".{{sfn|Paul|2003|pp=85}}{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=151}} Metzger noted that the consistency in the decision to translate "the same Greek word by the same word in English has a specious show of faithfulness to the original tends to produce a certain woodnness, resulting in the distortion of the effect of the original".{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=151}} Metzger considered the [[Names and titles of God in the New Testament#Some modern adaptations of the New Testament|rendering of Κύριος as Jehovah]] in the New World Translation to be indefensible: "Some of the translations which are simply indefensible include the following. The introduction of the word 'Jehovah' into the New Testament text".{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} He added, "it is entirely without critical significance to be told that modern translations of the New Testament" render 'Lord' by the Tetragrammaton.{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} Metzger also criticized the NWT's renderings of 3 verses: John 1:1{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} and Colossians 1:16,{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} as in 1953, and adds Jude 11–15.{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}}

[[J. Carter Swaim]] in 1953 wrote that "objection is sometimes made to new translations on the ground that to abolish archaic phrases tends to cheapen the Scripture".{{sfn|Swaim|1953|pp=39}} Referring to the ''New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures'' he added: "it is a translation that has its own peculiarities, and its own excellences too. The Witnesses, who are enthusiastic in the spread of their tenets, regard this as one of their most effective devices".{{sfn|Swaim|1953|pp=40}}

Theologian [[William Barclay (theologian)|William Barclay]] concluded in 1953, "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".{{sfn|Barclay|1953|}}{{sfn|Rhodes|2001|p=94}}

In 1954, [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] theologian [[Charles Francis Potter]] stated about the ''New World Translation'': "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word ''[[stauros]]'' as [[Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion#Jehovah's Witnesses|'stake' instead of 'cross']], and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen."<ref>''The faiths men live by,'' Kessinger Publishing, 1954, 239. {{ISBN|1-4254-8652-5}}.</ref>

Frederick E. Mayer wrote in 1954: "It is a version that lends support to denial of doctrines which the Christian churches consider basic, such as the co-equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the survival of the human person after physical death. It teaches the annihilation of the wicked, the non-existence of hell, and the purely animal nature of man's soul."<ref>{{cite book|last=Mayer|first=Frederick E.|title= The Religious Bodies of America (1st edition) |date=1954|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|edition=1961 Revised|isbn=978-0-75860-231-2|pages=469}}</ref><ref>{{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=210}}</ref>

In 1961 [[F. F. Bruce]] stated: "some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses (e. g. 'the Word was a god" in John 1:1)".{{sfn|Bruce|1961|pp=184}} He also stated that "some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good".{{sfn|Bruce|1961|pp=184}}

In his review in ''[[Andover Newton Theological School|Andover Newton]] Quarterly'' Robert M. McCoy reported in 1963: "in not a few instances the ''New World Translation'' contains passages which must be considered as 'theological translations.' This fact is particularly evident in those passages which express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|McCoy|1963|pp=29}} He concludes: "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 Biblical translation. This translation, as J. Carter Swaim observes, has its peculiarities and its excellences. All in all, it would seem that a reconsideration of the challenge of this movement to the historic churches is in order."{{sfn|McCoy|1963|pp=31}} 

In 1963, theologian [[Anthony A. Hoekema]] wrote, "Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself."<ref>Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism, William B. Eerdmans, 1963, {{ISBN|0802831176}}, pp. 208–209</ref>

[[Samuel MacLean Gilmour]] said in 1966: "in 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of The New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament translation is now far advanced. The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed —a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek and that made the Westcott and Hort Greek text basic to their translation. It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot or pseudo-historical fraud".{{sfn|MacLean Gilmour|1966|pp=26}}

In 1967, Robert H. Countess wrote that the "NWT has certain praiseworthy features—for example, an ''[[critical apparatus|apparatus criticus]]''—everyone must admit", but described the NWT's rendering of "a god" at John 1:1 as "most unfortunate for several reasons".{{sfn|Countess|1967|pp=160}} In 1982, in his critical analysis ''The Jehovah's Witness' New Testament'' he wrote that the NWT "must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."<ref>Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witness' New Testament, A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1982, {{ISBN|0875522106}}, pp. 91–93</ref> Rolf Furuli, while a member of the denomination, responded, "Countess ascribes to the NWT translators rules for translation which they have never expressed, and then he shows inconsistently the translators have followed these rules [...] His account of the NWT, therefore, is not a balanced, scholarly presentation; rather, it surrenders both to emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan spirit".{{sfn|Furuli|1999|pp=294–295}}

Julius R. Mantey, the co-author of ''A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament'' and ''A Hellenistic Greek Reader'', said in 1980 that the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is "a shocking mistranslation" and "Obsolete and incorrect".<ref name="Mantey"/>

In 2003, theologians John Weldon and [[John Ankerberg]] reviewed the ''New World Translation'', stating: "it is our goal in this article to briefly critique the English translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)".{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}} Weldon and Ankerberg accused the ''New World Translation''{{'}}s translators of renderings that conform "to their own preconceived and unbiblical theology",{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}} citing several examples that they considered to support theological views in favor of accurate translation.{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}}

The 2003 edition of the ''[[New Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' states, "[Jehovah's Witnesses] are allowed no other books than the Bible and the society's own publications, which includes its own translation of the Bible with an impressive [[critical apparatus]]. The work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement. In their so-called ''New World Translation'', the term ''[[Kyrios (Biblical term)|Kyrios]]'' is rendered Jehovah instead of Lord everywhere in the New Testament (237 times) except at Philippians 2.11, where St. Paul refers the word to Christ."{{sfn|Catholic University of America staff|2003|pp=751}}

In 2004, historian [[Jason BeDuhn]] examined New Testament passages in which he believed "bias is most likely to interfere with translation"{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} from nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=viii}} BeDuhn compared the ''King James'', the ''(New) Revised Standard'', the ''New International'', the ''New American Bible'', the ''New American Standard Bible'', the ''Amplified Bible'', the ''Living Bible'', ''Today's English'' and the NWT versions in Matthew 28:9, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15–20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, John 8:58, John 1:1.{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=pp. 163, 165, 169, 175, 176.}} For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn said that the ''New World Translation'' was "not bias free",{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} adding that whilst the general public and various biblical scholars might assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias, he considered it to be "the most accurate of the translations compared",{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=163}} and a "remarkably good translation".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} He added that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} Despite his positive review, BeDuhn said the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy",{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=169}} and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=170}} In rebuttal, Thomas Howe strongly criticized BeDuhn's positive review of the ''New World Translation'', stating that BeDuhn's main goal is to deny the deity of Christ.{{sfn|Howe|2010|pp=326 (back cover)}} According to Howe, "in this critical evaluation, BeDuhn's arguments are challenged and his conclusions called into question".{{sfn|Howe|2010|pp=}}{{sfn|Howe|2015|pp=}}

In 2008, Kenneth J. Baumgarten and Kevin Gary Smith published an article in the [[South African Theological Seminary]]'s journal, ''Conspectus'', entitled, "An Examination of the Consistency of the New World Translation with the Stated Philosophy of the Translators", in which they studied the use of "the Greek term θεός in reference to Jesus Christ" and concluded that "in seven of the nine sample texts, the NWT violates one or more of its stated translation values and principles. They said the most common violation is its pervasive tendency to subvert the most natural understanding of the Greek text in favour of a 'preferred religious view'."{{sfn|Baumgarten|Smith|2008|pp=}}

George D. Chryssides noted in 2016 that the New World Translation's rendering of passages about Christ's role in the creation of the world—for example, [[Colossians 1|Colossians 1:15-17]]—are phrased in such a way as to suggest that Christ was created and not, as the [[Nicene Creed]] states, "begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God."{{sfn|Chryssides|2016|pp=140}}