Does the New World Translation Committee know Greek?

(By: Lesriv Spencer – 02/06/2011. Updated: May, 2020)

Table of Contents – Click link to access page.

1. Why even ask this question?

2. Does anyone really know who were the translators of the New World Translation?
3. Why would the NW Translation Committee pursue such challenging task?
4. Is the New World Translation a hoax? A “perversion” instead of a translation?
5. Should we disregard the NWT because we don’t know who are the translators?
6. Does the Watchtower Society have the capability and the know-how to produce quality publications?
7. Does the New Word Translation Committee know any Greek?
8. A distortion of the intellectual capacity of an alleged member of the NWT Committee.
9. Did not a court case prove that Frederick Franz was unable to read Hebrew?
10. Who are the critics of the New World Translation?
11. Scholars speak out against Colossians 1:16 & Hebrews 1:6 in the NWT.
12. Is it true that the New World translators “made up a Greek tense” at John 8:58?
13. Does the New World Translation offer any value to people other than Jehovah's Witnesses?
14. Do the New World translators manifest comprehension of the original text?
15. Concluding remarks.

1. Why even ask this question?

A: Because it is human nature to question things. We want to know the origin of many religious
groups, and what they stand for. In regards to the New World Translation (NWT, hereafter), we
want to know 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) have 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.

I will only mention a few points here which may be related to the theme at hand. Jehovah’s
Witnesses are known for rejecting the Trinity doctrine. As a group, they practice shunning of ex-
members with dire consequences, which they base on 2 John 10,11 and 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.

2. 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 have 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 have never confirmed or denied
those names by ex-members in connection with their translation product. 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, outsiders 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 members on the alleged
list of the original NWT Committee had a Master or Ph.D in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Adding to
the mystery is the fact that the WTS published a thorough revision of the NWT in August 2013,
and in their “Foreword” they made reference to “current members of the New World Bible
Translation Committee.” Who then are these “current members”? Outside of the top leadership
of this organization, no one seems to know. 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!

3. Why would the NW Translation Committee 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 it is not uncommon to hear of some Witnesses using other Bible versions in their
private studies. However, in their public religious meetings, where available, they are known for
sticking to the NWT for uniformity reasons. 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. Since the WTS doctrines differ quite a bit from mainstream
religions, their public speakers had to spend more time (before the NWT was published in 1961, that
is), 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, not so dependent on hoary religious tradition.
4. Is the New World Translation a hoax? A “perversion” instead of a translation?

If we are 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 obviously 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 out 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 Watchtower leaders (the Governing Body [GB]) are not known for their
academic accreditation. Reportedly, most of the writing material being published comes from
the pen of the Writing Staff, not from GB members, though GB members may be part of the
Writing Department itself. Very little is known of the Writing Staff members and their
qualifications. Previous WT insiders have revealed that the Writing Department may be
composed of dozens of writers and researchers. Furthermore, they have at their disposal, many
contributors (perhaps, “thousands”) from all over the globe. Logically, those who qualify for a
position within the Writing Department 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
missing the mark. The Governing Body of JWs are more likely serving as administrators, than
scholars per se. 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 contributes 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 of the
names associated with the NWT Committee had the capability to handle translation work. Who
contributed outside that Committee to the translation project is anyone's guess. Much of the
information available from outside sources about the NWT is merely “speculation.” The fact is
that most JWs do not care to know of the translation details as much as “outsiders” do. They trust
that their leaders can unitedly join forces when necessary to get things done. This is quite
different from what most other religious groups do, who place far greater weight on academic
accreditations.

Now, how does this all apply to the subject? A lot. Wikipedia states: “The [JW] organization
produces a significant amount of literature as part of its evangelism activities. The Watch Tower
Society has produced over 220 million copies of the New World Translation in whole or in part in
over 160 languages. The Watchtower and Awake! are the most widely distributed magazines in
the world. Translation of Witness publications is done by over 2000 volunteers worldwide,
producing literature in over 950 languages.” (Under “Jehovah's Witnesses, Publishing”) Newsmax
Magazine actually referred to JWs as “Publishing Titans.”
Think about that for a moment! Can we envision the amount of work and resources this entails?
Each translation likely takes “years” to accomplish, some in double digits. 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 for translators. It is
said that these translation teams work closely with the Editorial Department in New York. They
have accelerated Bible translation commitments as well. 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 this was true, 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 baseless comments.

The truth is that it took 13 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 close examination 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.

Of the translation itself, the critics often state that the NWT is too “literal,” “stiff and wooden.” I
agree, but now that is mainly true of the earlier editions, since the 2013 Revised Edition changed
all that! More on than later. Reading the earlier editions can 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. You can compare the various editions of the NWT with the
Hebrew literal reading of Judges 14:3, and with two other versions.

Hebrew: “her take-for-me for 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.”
The Hebrew Bible: “Her take for me because she pleases me.” (Robert Alter, ©2019)
 Jewish (Tanakh): “Get me that one, for she is the one that pleases me”
New Century Version: “Get that woman for me! She is the one I want.”

Observe the un-English of the NWT 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 NWT 2013 Edition above with two other versions
which read easier.

In the NT, some parts of earlier editions were hard to follow along as well, like some of Paul's
writings. The earlier editions were not enjoyable for continuous reading. One had to go
elsewhere to find a smoother translation. One frequent complaint made of the earlier editions
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 this 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 it is “padded”, “wooden,” or “over-
translated,” with some exceptions, that is. 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.

As a religious organization, their leaders have come up with directives to disfellowship anyone
who challenges or even question their unyielding beliefs. They also 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 have some things to sort 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 have their own problems to deal with, just about 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 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 WT antagonists 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.

5. Should we disregard the NWT because we don’t know who are the translators?

Assuming for a moment that Watchtower translators/writers lack formal training, this should not
mean that they are all “uneducated.” The number of Witnesses with formal training percentage
wise are a minority, but when one 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.

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 the critics part. Their history book says: “Since 1942 it has been the general rule
that literature published 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, Underlines mine)

Dr. Walter E. Stuermann, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at the University of Tulsa, OK is
one of the 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. They use
anonymity in almost every facet of their organization. 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.

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, perhaps due to
mounting pressure, they later 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
is 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. Bonanno kindly 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. In the name of protecting their organization, the WT Society resorts to demonizing
“apostates” at any cost.

When JW members 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.’ Those intending to leave the group find
no honorable way of leaving. 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 must be truly devastating.
This in turn has led to many ex-JWs, if not most, to carry a lifetime resentment against the WTS.
This painful practice of “shunning” has even led some who leave the group to commit suicide.
Others end up depressed and bitter. Regrettably, the Watchtower Society have not shown any
inclination to hear the moaning of the people, nor in relaxing its inflexible position on the
matter. Cult experts claim one of the signatures of a “cultish” group is that of exercising control
over its members. It is ironic that this religious group known as a leading champion of religious
freedom around the globe for decades, they themselves do not grant free expression to their
members.

One wonders how Christ would view this practice taking into account 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, failing to 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. 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 of Apple®, 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. Leonardo da Vinci had formal
training in the study of the arts, but self-taught as a mathematician, scientist, geologist, inventor, botanist,
and writer. They were all largely self-taught. (Source: Wikipedia, “List of autodidacts”)

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. The late Rabbi Reuven Margolies (1889-1971), a great Torah scholar, was a self-
taught Greek and Latin scholar. 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 Analytical Concordance 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 and capabilities. 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 his 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 away 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, 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, Underlines 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 with little or no formal education, who 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 obtaining a Master or Ph.D accreditation is, the truth is that not all university
accredited individuals can match the accomplishments of those self-educated individuals in the
list above.

According to Professor Duthie, “Some other 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.” (Duthie
1985, Bible translations...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 about on a witch hunt looking to
condemn the NWT. Others could learn from him. In fairness, we should not dismiss whatever
likelihood 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 religious group 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 and searching readers while producing their 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 indicates that they have spent far more time, energy and resources to
the NW translation project than with any other publication in their history. It is only fair to
construe their translation effort as an honest endeavor just as we would with any other Bible
translation.

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

Looking objectively at the whole picture, one could say, 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 could 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 is
said, when put to the test in comparison with other scholarly works, “there is nothing
corresponding to this fact certainty in the Bible dictionaries of the West”? Should we not then
grant this Bible Society the benefit of doubt for having the capability and the resources to
produce a quality Bible translation?

Below, 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*, was opposed
to WT theology to the point of publishing some material 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. (*Metzger was
professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, recognized as a world-class Greek scholar (Presbyterian). He
contributed various scholarly works, most notably, 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’ has done 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, at Northern 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, and a 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
accurate and scholarly translation.” “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.” (The Role of Theology and
Bias in Bible Translation, Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, California, ©1999, pp 300, 306-307. Furuli is a
lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, Norway. He has also studied Greek and Latin. Furuli
was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses.)

7. Does 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. In first place, no one knows who
forms the current Committee of the NWT Revised Edition of 2013. Also, no one knows who are
the translators of the multi-language editions. Thus, no one outside of a very small group of
people within the Watchtower can rightly accuse the present NWT translators of not knowing
Hebrew or Greek, because there is no official statement on the identity of the translators.
However, this is what we know of the earlier NWT Bible efforts from unofficial sources.

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 an English-Greek translator for the WTS. 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 biblical Greek. True to
a certain point, but these critics sometimes speak as if it is an impossible task for a Greek native
speaker to “read,” study, or master biblical Greek (as a JW, i.e.) privately. Although anyone can
clearly see the vast differences 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 likelihood 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, he also “spoke” fluent Greek,
something many accredited Bible scholars are unable 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, not only runs contrary to logic,
but the statement itself would be as credible as someone else to claim, “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 making such claim, he was in effect, implying that the WTS had 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. Anyone well-informed knows
the WTS is known for being a “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
the Greek 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 to mention countless other Greek associates around the world, including
some living in the New York city area. 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. There is a smack of arrogance for someone to 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.’

Furthermore, 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 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 all fall within the range of probability. 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 cannot produce their
own Bible translation? Religious bias?

Besides, is it not a clear contradiction that a prominent WT antagonist, like Walter Martin, who
with one hand jabs the WTS for being highly “secretive” for not disclosing the NWT translators'
identity, and with the other, 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 to know them? 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.

NWT opponents are faced with a real dilemma when explaining how the Watchtower Society was
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 2,000
translation volunteers, when both languages are basically, differences aside, the same. 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 is likely the case,
the fact is that no translator can fully escape 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, a considerable
amount of time if they were just simply translating from English to Greek with zero collation with the
original languages.)

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 claiming they as a Society are not able to
do it. Whatever approach they used, the resulting evidence is there for all to see. For Greek:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/?contentLanguageFilter=el

Really, it does not make sense at all to claim the WT 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 tangible “evidence” points to the WTS of being at the
forefront of translation work. Now, aside from the United Bible Societies, I don't think there are
too many organizations around who can lay claim to having “2,000 translation volunteers”
translating Bible material in hundreds of languages at hand, including translations of some of
their publications into modern Hebrew, even when there are, comparatively speaking, only a
small number of JWs in Israel. For a look at their modern Hebrew edition announced in February
21, 2020, click here: https://www.jw.org/en/library/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 that 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 done so. They have published, a Bible encyclopedia, a Bible translation from the
original languages (later rendered into dozens of other languages, including modern Hebrew and
Greek), and a Greek-English Interlinear translation. 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 is obvious, 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 to do with having a prominent
Bible translation with wide distribution supporting doctrine that runs counter to his Evangelical
beliefs. Martin surely did not want 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.

8. A distortion of the intellectual capacity of an alleged member of the NWT Committee:

Frederic W. Franz: Some WT insiders say that 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 a theater 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)

These comments have been verified by 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 thorough knowledge of biblical languages as
well.

Of course, none of this information proves conclusively that he was a distinguished Hebrew or
Greek scholar. However, what it shows is 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 who
bring up Fred Franz’s ‘inadequate’ academic education, is that they focus only on his known
limited “formal” education, but they overlook 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. The Web page has been deprecated.)

There were possibly other untold contributors to the translation project as well who were not
part of the NWT 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 release in
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 Faiths 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 University of
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 Scriptures was “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.” (Associate Professor of Greek at the
University of Nebraska, The Classical Journal (April-May 1974): 376. Review of KIT.)

9. Did not a court case prove that Frederick Franz was unable to read Hebrew?

How could we leave the infamous Douglas 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
could not ‘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 is also 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 if he 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.” Take notice that Fred did not
say: “No. I am not able to do that,” which is quite different from what he actually said.
Fred Franz certainly knew the difference between translating Genesis 2:4 from English to Hebrew
as he was asked to do, rather than Hebrew to English, which is the norm in Bible translation work.
More significantly, Franz knew that his knowledge of Hebrew or Greek was irrelevant to the
subject at hand, which was whether Jehovah's Witnesses had 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, 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 to know Spanish.” He was cleared and finally dismissed. (w87 5/1 p. 29)
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 public 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 biblical precedents as having
done something similar in peculiar situations under the heading, “Lie”: Jesus, Abraham, Isaac,
Rahab, and Elisha. 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, a 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 [(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 who could 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 simply not
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 Franz refused 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 brought up a consciously “tricky” scripture to translate from English to
Hebrew (not a standard Bible translation procedure), especially so in a courtroom situation. Franz
was “smart” not to fall prey to a lawyer's sly tactic.
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: 1. Who in particular worked on the
Kingdom Interlinear Translation? 2. 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. I won't attempt to do that.”? I wanted to know the story told by someone
who knew him well, not one told by WT detractors whose only wish is that the group 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 the work 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 Translation is 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’ of developing 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 am convinced the letter 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 discussing with 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.
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.
10. Who are the critics 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. Topping
the list of prominent detractors, are the “counter-cult expert” Walter R. Martin, who along with
his ally Julius R. Mantey (two Baptists), form the main base from which the ideas of repudiation
on the NWT emanate. Their denunciations, full of disparaging statements, are repeated in
political fashion, as “truth” in countless written publications and on the internet. Frequently, the
criticisms turn out to be rather distortions of the Watchtower publications, and in other cases,
sharp differences of doctrinal opinion.
I will list only some of the better known sources. Some of these books have been revised several
times, sometimes by different publishing houses. Following are some of criticisms directed at
the WTS and its NWT, and some brief comments in response:
Walter R. Martin M.A., Ph.D, 1976. 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 claimed: “The translation...‘a god’ instead of ‘God’ is
erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation
rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christians, and
cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention.”
Jason BeDuhn’s Response: “Similar to many other statements already mentioned which fall into the logical
fallacy of ‘no one I know translates it that way, so it cannot be translated that way.’ Even non-Christian
scholars are influenced by literary tradition.” (Statement made to Mr. Joseph-Stephen Bonanno 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 scholarly nor
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 and Theology
from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of a dozen books. Understanding Jehovah’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: “The purpose of this book is to refute the JW interpretation of
John 1:1 and 8:58 and to defend the trinitarian interpretation of those texts.” (Page 17)

Furuli's response to his book: “His basic conclusions are also untenable because of faulty premises...A
major blunder, however, is the confusion of reference and meaning in the word theos [at Jn. 1:1]...His
discussion of John 8:58 leaves much to be desired as far as linguistics is concerned. He is not in touch with
the conclusions of modern aspectual studies of Greek verbs and confuses Aktionsart and aspect. Because
of his theological approach, he makes some propositions which are linguistically quite dramatic, but which
cannot be upheld.” (Furuli 1999, pp., 295-296)

Robert H. Countess. Ph.D. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, ©1982, 1987. Countess: states: “In the opinion of this
investigator the New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures 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.” (Page 93)
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. Kudos to Robert M. Bowman Jr. for
standing up against unlisted distortions in this publication from Dr. Countess. I mentioned a couple of them in my
article on John 1:1. https://www.scribd.com/document/475073347/The-Correct-Translation-of-John-1-1-God-or-a-god)

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.” (op. cit., Letter to Bonanno.)
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.” (Furuli 1999, 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 ‘grammatically
impossible,’ and someone 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 definite article,
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 the NWT,
and Barclay does not criticize them, or even mention them. Years later, Barclay admitted in a private letter
(dated “20 May 1974”; later made “public”) , to Mr. David Burnett of Australia, that it was grammatically possible
to render John 1:1 as “...the Word was a God.” Although still clinging to the orthodox theological view, he
concluded by saying: “The perfect translation is the New English Bible translation: ‘What God was the
Word was.’ ” See: Ever yours, by William Barclay, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., p. 205, 1985.

Dr. Thomas L. Constable's Response: “They [the JWs] translate it ‘the Word was a god.’ Grammatically this
is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article (‘a’) when no article is present
in the Greek text, as here. However, that translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to
less than God.” (Th.M; Th.D; Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr.
Constable's Expository Bible Study Notes, Notes on John, 2017 E d i t i o n, p. 17)
My Response: The issue then, is 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 our God.’ (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.” More importantly, Jesus Christ called his Father, “the only true God.”
(John 17:3) Even if a Christian were to read somewhere in Scripture that Christ is “God,” the observation
made by Peter Misselbrook quoting Barrett is on target: “The absence of the article [at John 1:1c] indicates
that the Word is God but is not the only being of whom this is true.” (Notes on the Greek New Testament,
Misselbrook's Musings)

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: “I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who
would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse [John 1:1] insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses.”

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

(In the link below you will find listed close to 150 Bible sources which translate John 1:1 differently from
tradition. Is Dr. Boyer skipping over all religious material online not in accord with his theology?) See:
https://www.scribd.com/document/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternative-Readings

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
Evangelical perspective. There are plenty of inaccuracies and omissions throughout their
writings. They (or, the organizations they represent) have a mission of denunciation, of
disparaging the NWT, with little concern for fairness. They make it obvious from the start that
the NWT is not acceptable, a Bible version to be avoided by everyone else. These “countercult”
writings are surprisingly guilty of the same thing they accuse the WTS of: “quoting out of
context”; “not providing the full picture”; and “distorting facts” which seems to be their modus
operandi.

11. Scholars speak out against Colossians 1:16 & Hebrews 1:6 in the NWT.

Various scholars have taken issue with the renderings, “all other things” at Col. 1:16, and
“obeisance” instead of “worship,” at Hebrews 1:6 in regards to Jesus in the NWT. They feel this
version is debasing Jesus Christ from “God” to “a god.” However, scholars frequently do not
present the full picture here. Check the following two links for the missing details:

For Col. 1:16, http://www.scribd.com/doc/209607822/Colossians-1-16-Is-the-translation-all-other-things-appropriate

For Hebrews 1:6,8, see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/252268649/Does-Hebrews-1-6-8-prove-Jesus-is-God

12. Is it true that the New World translators “made up a Greek tense” at John 8:58?

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 our appreciation 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 taken Martin's false statement as a fact,
and have been busy 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 claim “I have been” is a wrong
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, with enough
scholarly support for the translation. Not only that, the “I have been” critics have not been
forthcoming in disclosing that the verb “eimi'” in ego eimi' cannot be rendered strictly the same
way in every place. 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.” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament, by Frederick W. Danker with Kathryn Krug, p. 110. ©2009, The University of Chicago.)

Martin also keeps from his readers the fact that other Bible versions do translate similarly to the
NWT at John 8:58. Why hide that? 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 with this
subject extensively. After carefully analyzing the WT publication statements throughout the
years on John 8:58, and the publications 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 publication of
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.”
(“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”
without specifying 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], they keep criticizing it.” The real motive of criticism here then, is not grammar, it is
theology, their theology versus the WT theology. The real problem seems to be that the NWT
does not support the Trinity doctrine, not so much that the NWT translators could or should
have been more explicit in their explanation of this scripture. In their mind the NW translators
are “inept,” and that is not likely to change 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 statements which 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.”
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 on their favor. Keep repeating a lie, until some
of it sticks! This, however, 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.
This arrogant tone comes through quite often in their captious writings, and is a turn-off to
many. We should all be reminded of the following when we are tempted to criticize harshly
anyone who disagree 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 is generally easier to find harsh criticisms from the Evangelical camp than from
Catholics. There are many perceptive Evangelicals who are turned-off by this practice, and even
acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, the competence 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....It would 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. Alan S. 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. ©1995, Second edition, by Paternoster
Press & the Bible Society, Carlisle & Swindon, U.K.)

And Frederick W. Danker, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at
Chicago, wrote 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 of information 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-Kopfstein, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, submitted some

favorable comments in an interview about the 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 much
mail 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 come upon 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-Kopfstein (born 1 August 1923) was an Israeli professor emeritus and scholar of Biblical Hebrew at
University of Haifa. He received his Doctorate from Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1968. He was director of the Old
Testament Seminary of the University of Haifa and the Chairman of its Department of Bible Studies. He was also a
Research Associate for the Hebrew University Bible Project in charge of Latin Versions. He is known for his
contributions to the understanding of Old Testament language Semantics. (From Wikipedia, “Biography.”)

13. 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 important 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 one considers 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 welcome.
Regardless of one's religious persuasion, a familiarity with the NWT will allow anyone 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 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 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 some
NWT editions in other languages may still be based on the English 1984 version, and not on the
most recent and simpler 2013 English edition. It will take some time before more language
versions based on the 2013 Revised Edition are available.

Critical apparatus:

The excellent critical apparatus of the NWT – with References, 1984 edition (125,000 cross-
references, more than 11,400 footnotes, and 43 Appendix sections) alone makes the version
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-á 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 ℵBWVgSyh,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.” The lack of this
information has led to dubious assumptions online.

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

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* (Old Testament) of the NWT (1984 and earlier editions), the perfect and the
imperfect state of the verb were 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. In the pre-2013 NWT editions (by being so literal),
the account of Joseph comes out more dynamic and emotional in its story telling than other
versions. 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. There are gains and
disadvantages in following either protocol. The earlier editions gives the reader more insight of
the original languages. The new revision on the other hand is more concise and emphasizes
simplicity, readability and a more contemporary language. It is not easy for translators to make
hard decisions like these. For now, the material which follows presents some advantages of the
previous translation method.

(*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 by the
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 feeding on 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
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 earlier 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 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 improved in some areas, mainly in readability, it has lost some of its uniqueness
in the revision process. 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,” this is a reflection of the Hebrew verb in its perfect state, which indicates
completed 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 to the 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:

Hebrew: “for in-day-of to-eat-you from-him [the tree] to-die you-will-die.”

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:

Hebrew: “to-remember day-of the-sabbath to-declare-holy-him.”

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,’ as does the 2013 NWT.
However, Dr. J. Wash Watts agrees with the 1984 NWT rendering by translating it: “Remenbering
the sabbath day in order to keep it holy.” 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); the absolute stresses the basic
verbal idea of the root – remembering. The verb includes the mental activity of recalling and
pondering as well as the consequent actions for such remenbering.”

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

Hebrew: “the-soul [feminine gender], the-one-sinning, she, she-will-die.”

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.”

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, a fact glossed over by most Bible versions. Of the three Bible readings above, the
NASB is the weakest of the group. 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
change the 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 the discerning Bible student
to determine whether this is significant enough in Bible exegesis. Nonetheless, a few points are
worth mentioning. 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:

Hebrew: “For he has hated to send out he has said Yahweh God of Israel.”
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 1984 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, “to send out” (“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.” (Furuli 1999, pp. 297, 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 effort to 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 NWT also 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.”
The aorist 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 the punctiliar 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 the Greek katephílesen, an intensified verbal
force insinuated by the combination of, 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. ἀγωνίζομαι 2.b, “strain every nerve to enter”) because of the supreme importance of
attaining entry into 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 observation of 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. ©1955, The Macmillan Co.)

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. ©1934, Broadman Press, Nashville) Granted, it is not
always possible in English to do so, but some translators apparently do not pay the attention
this matters deserve.

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 “a son” 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].’ (Ibid, Word Pictures) At issue was not his identity, for Satan
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 in the Greek text before the word “Son” in this literal reading which says: “You are
blaspheming, because I 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: The Spanish Reina-Valera:
“Hijo de Dios soy?”; and the 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 to 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, Vol. 1, 71. Reprinted 1980, Baker Book House)

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 in the 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 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
had no 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 250 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 significant that the translators of this 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 in rendering 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 translators took 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 simply 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 with a 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 translations do.

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.

15. 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 disagree with some of their
doctrines just as I disagree with some of the doctrines of other religious groups. 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 which casts 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 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
doctrines of religious tradition, the NWT would not receive a hundredth of the criticism it
receives. 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 opposition from 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.” (op.cit., Kedar)

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 Biblical translation.” (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.

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 own interpretation of it into the text.
Even so called literal translations have to abide by this principle, at least, in some places. Often
the information that 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. It would be naive to think that only the NWT is doctrinally biased, and
other Bible versions are not. In fact, some claim the NWT is the most biased Bible version ever
published. And that perception is largely due to the minority representation of the NWT
interpretation perspective within the mainstream religious world. The truth is that the NWT is no
more biased than other popular Bible translations. The problem is that most people do not
realize this. They go by what some “experts” say on the matter, without realizing these “experts”
have their own religious agendas. In line with this, Dr. Duthie stated: “It [the NWT] is no more
‘full of heresies’ than any other translation.” (Duthie 1985, Bible translations..., p. 103) Most Bible
readers of “standard” Bible versions cannot see their bias in play because 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. Thus, 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. While
their readers may readily accept those denunciations as revealed “truth,” the lack of honesty in
some of these attacks have not gone unnoticed by perceptive 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.... But whatever the source, it is a lie.” (op. cit., Letter to
Tosken – Jan., 1998)

Since “a real [Bible] translation is in the main an interpretation,” 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 version has many
refreshing and suggestive translations of the Greek. A highly literal translation such as the Society
provides for us has its uses; we ought therefore to be grateful for their efforts. Aside from other uses the
text provides a good basis upon which to found classroom discussion of textual analysis and principles of
translation [...] The textual notes are useful ... When the version is used with caution, it will be found
valuable in several respects.” (Professor of Philosophy and Religion at 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 come to
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 products of
people with theological commitments, that all contain biased translations of one sort or another, and that
the NW deserves to be assessed for accuracy by the same standards applied to the others.” (Truth in
Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, p. 39.) “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 G. Tosken, Jan., 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’.” (Duthie 1995, Choose Your Bible Wisely, 216)

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 the
historical 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 Greek and Hebrew from
the University of St. Andrews; a Ph.D in linguistics from the University of Manchester; 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.” (Duthie 1985, Bible Translations..., p. 67. *NWT = New World Translation)

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). (Duthie 1995, Choose...Bible Wisely, p. 225. *NWT = New World Translation))

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. Worthy
mention should be made of the Concordant Greek Text and the The Emphatic Diaglott. Others
prefer the interlinear versions of Alfred Marshall, Jay P. Green and the one by Brown, Comfort
and Douglas.

It appears 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 of the NWT Revised Edition (2013): http://www.jw.org/en/online-help/jw-library/

For those who harbor bias against the WTS, 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
from typical 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; Robert Alter’s The Hebrew Bible, 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 quite a bit of 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 editions 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. Unfortunately,
one very useful feature dropped from previous editions was the title headings appearing on
every page. The ‘Outlines’ at the beginning of each Bible book in the 2013 edition cannot replace
those useful page headings. Also, 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 online 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 put it, 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 Christian Century, November 1, 1950, page 1296)

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

(*WT’s 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 Grammar of 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 modern
speakers.”

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 biblical 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 of the 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) Some 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 will allow 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 context of 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 by
the 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 any Bible
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 one of 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 releases of the NWT New & Old Testaments modern editions in
both Hebrew and Greek.

In summary, I am not making a claim here that any modern Greek speaker can easily become competent
in biblical translation of Greek Koine. That said, having modern Greek knowledge can be an asset when
doing translation work involving biblical Greek, and also, multiple obstacles in differences between the
two forms of the Greek language can be overcomed 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 the valedictorian
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 found to
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 Russo
phoned 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 in
1989), 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 add the words
‘into English.’ Unless we assume that the persons responsible for the revised footnote were utterly inept, it
is inconceivable that what they were trying to do was to clarify that an English tense was meant.” (p. 94)
“Yet it is relevant to note that JWs have exhibited poor scholarship in their handling of the ‘perfect
indefinite tense.’”(Robert Bowman Jr., 1989, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ and the Gospel of John, 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 Learneŕ s English Dictionary: “formal: TRANSLATE ▪ render Latin into English ▪
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 οὐ))
mandates the hearer’s “discontinuance” of an action. Therefore, “Do not love the world...” (1 John 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, with the exception of the first one, the target language
under consideration 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 the
Greek 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 in the 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 otherwise 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 be taken as a reference to 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 indicative [or, 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. For instance:
“[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 been 2. 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 be improved. 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, and other
scholars have chimed in with their support for the rendering “I have been,” the misrepresentations have
not diminished, and are likely to continue, no matter what.

_______________________

Other subjects by the same author (For Spanish, see below):

Exodus 2:25: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38676458/Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God-care-about-us
Matthew 5:3, ‘the poor in spirit’: https://www.scribd.com/document/35085619/Matthew-5-3-Blessed-are-the-poor-in-spirit
John 1:1, https://www.scribd.com/document/475073347/The-Correct-Translation-of-John-1-1-God-or-a-god
John 1:1, Briefer text, with additional samples: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings
John 1:14 (“grace”): http://www.scribd.com/doc/35002730/John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace
John 8:58: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35318309/The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am
John 17:3: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus
Acts 20:28, https://www.scribd.com/doc/231244155/Acts-20-28-Whose-blood-God-s-Or-Christ-s
Colossians 1:16, “all other things”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209607822/Colossians-1-16-Is-the-translation-all-other-things-appropriate
1 Timothy 3:16, http://www.scribd.com/doc/76927834/Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16
Hebrews 1:6,8, https://www.scribd.com/doc/252268649/Does-Hebrews-1-6-8-prove-Jesus-is-God
Do the NW translators know Greek? http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek
Translation Differences in selected verses: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59484457/Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers
The Trinity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/160286056/Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense
Was Jesus Created First? https://www.scribd.com/document/378080373/Was-Jesus-Created-First

Otros temas – en español – por el mismo autor:

Juan 1:1, ¿“un dios”?: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35899788/Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de-lecturas-alternativas
Juan 1:1, https://www.scribd.com/document/358556923/Lecturas-variantes-a-la-tradicional-de-Juan-1-1
Juan 1:1, Lista de lecturas variantes: https://www.scribd.com/document/358556923/Lista-de-lecturas-suplentes-a-la-tradicional-de-Juan-1-1
Juan 8:58, “yo soy”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36126649/La-traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-8-58-Lista-de-lecturas-alternas-a-yo-soy
Juan 17:3, ‘adquirir conocimiento’: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74629981/Juan-17-3-%E2%80%98Adquiriendo-conocimiento%E2%80%99-de-Dios-y-Jesucristo
Colosenses 1:16, “todas las otras cosas”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209601066/Colosenses-1-16-%C2%BFEs-la-traduccion-
%E2%80%9Ctodas-las-otras-cosas%E2%80%9D-apropiada
1 Timoteo 3:16, http://www.scribd.com/doc/77336247/%C2%BFFue-Dios-manifestado-en-carne-1-Timoteo-3-16
¿Enseña Hebreos 1:6,8 que Jesús es Dios? https://www.scribd.com/doc/255738165/Ensena-Hebreos-1-6-8-que-Jesucristo-es-Dios
¿Acaso tiene sentido la Trinidad? http://www.scribd.com/doc/173779117/%C2%BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad
¿Conocen los traductores de la TNM griego? http://www.scribd.com/doc/51623596/%C2%BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document was written using the free and open LibreOffice Writer, using main Font Noto Sans, Size 11 –
originally in the .odt (Open Document Text) format. To submit comments, suggestions or corrections:
lesriv000@gmx.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------