An article entitled, “Positive comments about The New World Translation from non-Witness Scholars” can be found if you go to JW.ORG then click on “About Us” then in the Search Box type, “Is the NWT Accurate” or simply click here.
Click here for the definitive work on this topic. This work contains many scholars the WT has used over the years that appear to endorse The
Edgar Goodspeed. This is reported to be a quote in a personal letter from Goodspeed to the WTBTS that appeared in the Awake! of March 22, 1987, page 14. However, the letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Also, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Goodspeed died in 1962 so when the WT started using this quote from a personal letter, Goodspeed was not alive to refute their claim.
Dr. Allen Wikgren does not go on to define which “independent readings” of the
NWT he finds to be “of merit.” We do not know what Dr. Wikgren thought about
the NWT’s more controversial
renderings, such as John 1:1 or Colossians 1:16.
Alexanader Thomson, it should be noted had no formal training in Greek or
Hebrew. His articles on the NWT in The Differentiator, cannot be found and The Differentiator was not considered a
scholarly publication.
S. MacLean Gilmour was selectively quoted by the WT. He also said, “The New
Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been
revealed. It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of
phrase. . . “
Thomas N. Winter’s positive comments are almost all directed towards the
literal translation in the KIT – very
little is said of the NWT. The
literal translation in the KIT is
generally very good and often may be used to demonstrate problems with the NWT. My series of blogs entitled Presto
Change-O! (Part 1 is here) shows where the WT has
deviated from the KIT.
Benjamin Kedar received his PhD from Yale in 1969, but not in Hebrew. It will be
noted that he limits his comments to the Hebrew Bible. Few scholars have
complained about the
Jason David BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School
What do true Bible scholars think of the NWT?
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible," "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible," "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said, "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” calls the NWT "a shocking transliteration." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
The translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin).
I wrote a blog about the reliability of the NWT here.
No comments:
Post a Comment