By Mike Spencer, Spiritwatch Ministries

Source: This article may be

viewed at :
http://www.spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.ht
m

What is the New World Translation? The New World Translation is a Bible version
prepared, printed, and distributed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. of
Brooklyn, New York. It was produced in stages between 1950 and 1960. The
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. is the official publishing organ of the Jehovah’s
Witness (JW) religious sect. Since its final completion in 1960, the New World
Translation has been rendered into dozens of languages for use by Jehovah’s Witnesses
worldwide. While early editions of the New World Translation were printed with a bright
green cover, more recent editions have a black or dark brown cover, making them look
more like ordinary Bibles. The translation has been revised three times: once in 1969,
once in 1970, and again in 1984. In 1984 the Watchtower Society produced a large print
study edition. It contains center column references, footnotes, and appendices, most of
which seem to have been expressly designed to argue in favor of the Jehovah’s Witness
sect’s controversial theological perspectives on a variety of issues.

All Jehovah’s Witnesses, beginning with their earliest involvement in the Jehovah’s
Witness sect, are trained to regard the elite Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses as
God’s authorized representatives on Earth. The Governing Body is the ruling council of
the Jehovah’s Witness sect. It numbers about a dozen men and is loosely based on the
Twelve Apostles of the New Testament (1). Since the Governing Body and the
Watchtower Society are (according to their own claim) “God’s channel” of
communication, every piece of literature printed on the Watchtower Society’s printing
presses (including the New World Translation of the Bible) is regarded by all loyal
Jehovah’s Witnesses as “spiritual food” from “the hand of Jehovah" (2). To question,
doubt, or oppose the New World Translation is, in the mind of a Jehovah’s Witness,
tantamount to opposing God. For more information on how the Society boldly claims this
authority to interpret the Bible as it sees fit, click here.

What motivated the Jehovah’s Witness leadership to produce the New World Translation?
The Jehovah’s Witness sect’s leadership, who published the New Testament portion of
their New World Translation in 1950, were surprisingly candid about their reasons for
doing so. I invite the discerning reader to study carefully the following comments, which
appeared in their Watchtower magazine dated 9 /15 /1950, p.314. I have taken the liberty
of highlighting those passages that are especially worthy of notice:

Preparing and releasing the “New World Translation”

 We acknowledge our debt to all the Bible versions which we have used in
attaining to what truth of God’s Word we enjoy today. We do not discourage the
use of any of these Bible versions, but shall ourselves go on making suitable use
of them. However, during all our years of using these versions down to the latest
of them, we have found them defective. In one or another vital respect they are
inconsistent and unsatisfactory, infected with religious traditions or worldly
philosophy and hence not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God
has restored to his devoted people who call upon his name and seek to serve him
with one accord. Especially has this been true in the case of the Christian Greek
Scriptures [the New Testament], which throw light and place proper
interpretation upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. More and more the need has
been felt for a translation in modern speech, in harmony with revealed truth, and
yet furnishing us the basis for gaining further truth by faithfully presenting the
sense of the original writings; a translation just as understandable to modern
readers as the original writings of Christ’s disciples were understandable to the
simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day. Jesus reminded us that our
heavenly Father knows the needs of his children before they ever ask him. How
has he [Jehovah] made provision for us in this need which we now keenly feel?
(3)

The Watchtower article then proceeds to describe the rapid production and dissemination
of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (the Jehovah’s Witness
New Testament), implying, of course, that this remarkable event was “Jehovah’s
provision” for their keenly felt need.

In the above Watchtower article note carefully how the writer characterizes all other
Bible translations as “not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God has
restored to his devoted people.” To put it plainly, the writer is saying that all other
translations are unsatisfactory because they do not agree with the Jehovah’s Witness
sect’s alleged “restored sacred truths”. “Sacred truths” in the above Watchtower article is
merely a buzzword for the doctrinal system of the Jehovah’s Witness sect; a doctrinal
system that God has [allegedly] restored to his people (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) in these
latter days through the agency of the Jehovah’s Witness leadership (“God’s channel” of
communication).

Notice also, in the above Watchtower article, how the writer describes the Jehovah’s
Witnesses need for a Bible translation “in harmony with revealed truth.” In other words,
the Jehovah’s Witness leadership needed a Bible translation that harmonized with their
[alleged] “revelations”. In view of these clear statements in the Jehovah’s Witness sect’s
own Watchtower magazine, can anyone doubt that this is the real reason why the New
World Translation was produced?

Consider these two important truths about the art of Bible translation:

1. Accurately translating the entire Bible from the original ancient Greek,
ancient Hebrew, and ancient Aramaic is a task requiring a considerable
 degree of technical expertise. It is a job for bona fide Greek and Hebrew
scholars. It is not a job for amateurs or dilettantes armed with a lexicon
and having little real understanding of the subtleties of Greek and Hebrew
grammar.
2. Having an accurate translation of the Bible is very important since the
Bible is the only infallible means we have for obtaining detailed
information about God and his will for our lives. Scripture defines our
belief, our practice and therefore, how we will live.

Four red flags of warning must be raised about the New World Translation:

1. The New World Translation is entirely the product of one religious sect.
Translations produced by one individual or one sect should always be
approached with caution. Translations produced by teams of scholars
representing a diversity of theological perspectives are safer. The diverse
theology of the translators in such cases forms a built-in safeguard against
any one sect or individual smuggling (either deliberately or inadvertently)
their own doctrinal bias into the translation. The New International
Version and the New American Standard Bible are good examples of
“safe” translations (i.e. ones produced by theologically diverse teams of
highly competent Greek and Hebrew scholars).
2. The Watchtower leadership has repeatedly refused to divulge the names
and/or academic qualifications of the people within their organization who
produced the New World Translation (4). Common sense should tell
anyone that it is not wise to trust a Bible translation produced by totally
anonymous translators, whatever might be their stated reasons for wishing
to remain anonymous. How are we to know whether they have the
necessary expertise to produce an accurate translation? Let me illustrate.
Suppose your ten-year-old son needs a kidney transplant. Suppose that a
man you have never met before approaches you, claiming to be a surgeon,
and offers to perform the operation free of charge. Yet your repeated
requests to know this man’s name, to find out whether or not he graduated
from medical school, or to learn whether he is a member of the American
Medical Association are politely rebuffed. The “surgeon,” allegedly
because he is extremely humble and wishes to receive no glory or credit
for his good deeds, simply refuses reveal this information about himself.
Would you allow this man to operate on your son? If you would not trust
a loved ones mortal life to an anonymous (possibly unqualified)
“surgeon”, why would you trust your eternal destiny to a committee of
anonymous (possibly unqualified) Bible translators?
3. Numerous qualified Greek scholars of international renown have voiced
serious reservations about the New World Translation. Dr. Bruce Metzger
of Princeton University (arguably the world’s foremost living Greek
scholar) calls many of the New World Translation’s renderings
“erroneous" (5). Dr. Julius R. Mantey (co-author of A Manual Grammar
of the Greek New Testament and A Hellenistic Greek Reader) called it “a
 shocking mistranslation”(6). Dr Robert Countess concluded, in his PhD
dissertation on the New World Translation, “it [the New World
Translation] must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some
points it is actually dishonest" (7).
4. As far as we have been able to determine, no baptized Jehovah’s Witness
has ever been awarded a post-graduate academic degree by an accredited
institution in the field of Biblical Greek or Hebrew. This is rather startling
in a religious sect of approximately six million people who pride
themselves on being zealous students of the Bible. One would be hard
pressed to find any Christian group of similar size that could not boast of
at least a half-dozen or so persons with advanced academic degrees in
fields relating to Biblical languages. It is, of course, possible that there are
Jehovah’s Witnesses with advanced degrees in Greek and Hebrew that we
do not know about. If you know of any such persons please contact us
immediately and we will gladly post a correction (as soon as we are able
to verify their degrees by contacting the academic institution in question.)

Comparison of Scholarly Qualifications Of NWT / NASB Translators

Although the Jehovah’s Witness leadership desperately wants the names of the New
World Translation’s translators to remain unknown (for reasons that shall soon become
clear), the names have, in fact, been revealed by former high- ranking members of the
Jehovah’s Witness sect (8). Are these men qualified to correct the [allegedly] defective,
inconsistent, and unsatisfactory translations produced by other Bible translators? Listed
below (in the right-hand column) are the names and academic qualifications of the
translators who produced the New World Translation. As a comparison, the names and
credentials of the translators of the New American Standard Bible are listed in the left-
hand column. We invite the discerning reader to judge for himself which English
translation (the NASB or the New World Translation) is more likely to accurately
represent the meaning of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the Bible.

The NASB Translation Committee The New World Translation Committee

The New American Standard Bible was
produced by a diverse team of 40
translators, each with earned doctorates in
the field of Biblical languages. Their
names are as follows: (9)
Dr. Peter Ahn
Dr. Warren Allen
Dr. Gleason Archer
The New World Translation committee
consisted of four members of the Jehovah’s
Witness religious sect. Their names and
scholarly qualifications are as follows: (10)
Nathan Knorr: President of the Watchtower
Society (no academic training in any Biblical
language)
Fred Franz: (no academic degree in any
Biblical language, though he did study Greek
for two years at the University of Cincinnati)
Dr. Herman Austel Albert Schroeder: (no academic training in
any Biblical language)
Dr. Kenneth Lee Barker
George Gangas: (no academic training in any
Dr. Fred Bush Biblical language)

Dr. David L. Cooper

Dr. Richard W. Cramer

Dr. Edward R. Daglish

Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg

Dr. Harvey Finley

Dr. Paul Gray

Dr. George Giacumakis

Dr. Edward F. Harrison

Dr. John Hartley

Dr. F.B. Huey, Jr.

Dr. Charles Isbell

Dr. David W. Kerr

Dr. William L. Lane

Dr. Timothy Lin

Dr. Oscar Lowry

Dr. Elmer Martens

Dr. Henry R. Moeller

Dr. Reuben A. Olsen

Dr. J. Barton Payne

Dr. Walter Penner

Dr. John Rea

Dr. W.L. Reed

Dr. Robert N. Schaper

Dr. Moises Silva

Dr. Ralph L. Smith

Dr. Merrill C. Tenney

Dr Robert L. Thomas

Dr. George Townsend

Dr. Bruce Waltke

Dr. Lowell C. Wendt

Dr. William C. Williams

Dr. Herbert M. Wolf

Dr. Kenneth Wuest

Dr. Fred Young

Three Examples Of NWT Alterations Of Biblical Text For Doctrinal Purposes

It is our belief that the New World Translation is a doctrinally driven translation. By this
we mean that the people who produced it were motivated primarily by the desire to
render the text of the Bible in such a way as to make it agree with the doctrinal teachings
of the Jehovah’s Witness religious sect (11). It is also our belief that the basic principles
of Greek grammar, the overwhelming consensus of Greek language scholarship, and the
established scholarly principles for evaluating Biblical manuscript evidence have been
consistently ignored by the NWT translators whenever the rigorous application of the
same would result in a rendering of the Biblical text that would contradict Jehovah’s
Witness theology. Consider the following three examples. In each case the New World
Translation deviates significantly from not only two major, scholarly, modern
translations, but also two of the Watchtower’s own interlinear Greek-English translations
of the New Testament text.

Example #1 : (words in bold type are my emphasis)

And not only this, but also
we ourselves, having the
first fruits of the Spirit, even
we ourselves groan within
ourselves, waiting eagerly
for our adoption as sons, the
redemption of our body.
(Rom. 8:23, NASB)
… the redemption of the
body of us. (Rom. 8:23, The
Emphatic Diaglott)
Not only so, but we ourselves, … the release by ransom of
who have the firstfruits of the the body of us. (Rom. 8:23,
Spirit, groan inwardly as we The Kingdom Interlinear
wait eagerly for our adoption Translation of the Greek
as sons, the redemption of our Scriptures)
bodies. (Rom. 8:23, NIV)
… the release from our bodies
by ransom. (Rom. 8:23, The
New World Translation)

In the above passage Paul clearly states that he earnestly expected his body to be
redeemed. Yet the Jehovah’s Witness translators totally reverse the meaning of the text
by deleting the word “of” and inserting the word “from” in its place. Why? Because the
official teaching of the JW leadership is that all members of the “faithful slave” class
(Paul included) will be restored to life as invisible “spirit beings”. Paul’s physical body
(according to JW theology) will never be redeemed (i.e. resurrected) by God. Yet it is
clear in Romans 8:23 that the redemption of (and not from) the body is the correct
translation. Why is this, you ask?

First, a Greek noun in the genitive case (such as “the body” in Romans 8:23) following
this particular Greek word for redemption (apolutrosin) is invariably the object of the
redemption. See, for example, Ephesians 1:14 where Paul uses the identical linguistic
construction (apolutrosin followed by a genitive case noun) to refer to “the redemption of
the purchased possession” (12). Second, in the immediate context of Romans 8:23 Paul
is describing the body’s redemption as an integral part of God’s redemption of the
material world from its bondage to the principle of death and decay. Since the world will
not be “ransomed away” from its body (i.e. its physicality), there is no reason to suppose
that Paul (and other early Christians) expected to be “ransomed away” from their
physical bodies either (13). Third, two of the publications printed by the Watchtower
Society on its own printing presses (the Emphatic Diaglott and The Kingdom Interlinear
Translation) agree with the NASB and the NIV in opposition to the New World
Translation! Jesus said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mk. 3:25). The
Jehovah’s Witnesses own testimony about Romans 8:23 is divided against itself. It
cannot stand.

Example #2: (words in bold type are my emphasis)

And this is eternal life, that Now this is eternal life, that But this is the everlasting life
they may know Thee, the they may know you, the only in order that they may be
only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom Thou hast
sent. (John 17:3, NASB)
And this is the age-lasting
life, that they might know
thee the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent. (John 17:3, The
Emphatic Diaglott)
true God, and Jesus Christ, knowing you the only true
whom you have sent. (John God and Jesus Christ whom
17:3, NIV) you sent forth. (John 17:3,
The Kingdom Interlinear
Translation of the Greek
Scriptures)
This means everlasting life,
their taking in knowledge of
you, the only true God, and of
the one whom you sent forth,
Jesus Christ. (John 17:3, The
New World Translation)

In John 17:3 the New World Translation reads “this means everlasting life, their taking in
knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”
Yet a literal rendering of the Greek in this passage reads “this is eternal life, that they
might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” In the Watchtower
Society’s rendering, the path to eternal life is through human effort, i.e. a continuous,
lifelong process of “taking in knowledge” about God and Christ (using only approved
Watchtower study materials, of course!)(14).

In the correct, literal rendering of this text, however, eternal life is based upon knowing
God and Christ, i.e. in an intimate, personal way. It is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless,
that Jehovah’s Witnesses know nothing of the intimate communion with their Creator
enjoyed by true Christians. Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses are even warned by their leaders
not to be too “familiar” with Jehovah in their prayers, lest they incur his displeasure
(15)! Interestingly, the introduction to the 1984 study edition of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures states, “paraphrases of the Scriptures are
not offered" (16). Yet in this particular case the JW translators clearly violate their own
stated policy. They do offer us an ungrammatical and inaccurate paraphrase in John
17:3. Why? Could this “translation” be a clever ploy by JW leaders to scare JWs at the
local level into regularly attending Watchtower magazine study sessions at their local
Kingdom Halls? You decide.

Example #3: (words in bold type are my emphasis)

Knowing that from the Lord Since you know that you will having known that you will
you will receive the reward receive an inheritance from receive back the gift back in
of the inheritance. It is the the Lord as a reward. It is the exchange of the inheritance
Lord Christ whom you Lord Christ you are serving. from Lord; be you slaving to
serve (Colossians 3:24, (Colossians 3:24, NIV) the Lord Christ (Colossians
NASB) 3:24, The Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the
Greek Scriptures)
Knowing that from the Lord For you know that it is from
you will receive the Jehovah you will receive the
recompense of the
inheritance, for you serve
anointed Lord (Colossians
3:24, The Emphatic
Diaglott)
due reward of the inheritance,
slave for the Master Christ.
(Colossians 3:24, New World
Translation)

In over 200 places in the New Testament (the exact number is 231) the New World
Translation deletes the word “Lord” (Gk: kurios) or “God” (Gk: theos) from the Biblical
text and inserts the proper name “Jehovah” in its place. Why? Because the Jehovah’s
Witness sect places great emphasis on the regular and frequent use of God’s proper
name. The regular use of the name “Jehovah” is said by Jehovah’s Witnesses to be one of
the identifying marks of the true Christian faith. But this extraordinary claim can hardly
be supported if no New Testament writer uses the name “Jehovah” even once. The fact
of the matter is that no ancient New Testament manuscript or manuscript fragment has
ever been found that contains the proper name “Jehovah”.

Space does not permit a detailed look at the lengthy and involved arguments advanced by
the JW leadership to justify its wholesale alteration of the Biblical text. We will content
ourselves with a brief outline of their arguments and a brief refutation of the same (17).

JW Arguments Justifying Their Insertion Of “Jehovah” Into The New Testament Text

Argument #1: The New Testament contains frequent quotes from the LXX (The
Septuagint; an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament).

Argument #2: Ancient manuscripts of the LXX had the name “Jehovah” either in a
transliteration or in Ancient Hebrew characters (YHWH) preserved in the text.

Argument #3: When quoting from the LXX, the New Testament writers would always
have preserved the divine name, since using substitutes (such as “God” or “Lord”) for the
divine name is an unscriptural practice.

Argument #4: At some point in the second or third centuries A.D. all references to the
divine name must have been removed from the text of the New Testament by the scribes.

Argument #5: Therefore, when the NWT translators insert “Jehovah” into the New
Testament text in place of “God” or “Lord” they are not really changing the Bible, as
some allege. They are really only restoring what the text must have originally said before
it was altered by the scribes in the early centuries A.D.

Refutation of These Watchtower Arguments Concerning These Insertions

Argument #1: This is true. The New Testament writers do indeed frequently quote from
the LXX.
Argument #2: This is a half-truth. What the JW leadership doesn’t tell you is that only
some copies of the LXX Old Testament preserve the word “Jehovah”. The vast majority
of surviving LXX manuscripts, however, use “Lord” (Gk. kurios) to translate the divine
name. By failing to mention this important fact the JW leaders create the false
impression that all ancient LXX manuscripts contain the name “Jehovah,” when in fact
very few of them did.

Argument #3: Is using a substitute (such as “God” or Lord”) in place of the divine name
really an “unscriptural” practice, as JWs claim? Compare Psalm 53 with Psalm 14.
These two psalms are virtually identical except for the fact that in Psalm 53 the word
“God” (Heb. Elohim) is substituted in place of the word “Jehovah” (Heb. YHWH) four
times. Note also how in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:21), Jesus has the son
saying, “I have sinned against heaven…” (using the word “heaven” as a substitute for the
divine name). Note also Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:64 about the Son of man “sitting
at the right hand of Power.” Here Jesus uses the word “Power” as a substitute for the
divine name. If using substitutes for the divine name is an unscriptural practice (as JW
leaders claim) we must then logically accuse Jesus himself of being “unscriptural”. Do
we really wish to do that?

Argument #4: This bold JW assertion essentially amounts to an unproved “conspiracy

theory” for which there is no supporting evidence. The fact remains that no ancient
manuscript or manuscript fragment of any portion of the New Testament has ever been
found that contains the name “Jehovah”.

Argument #5: Is it wise to utterly reject the unanimous testimony of over 5000 ancient
New Testament manuscripts? Is it wise to make over 200 alterations in the Biblical text
solely on the strength of an unproven, modern-day conspiracy theory? Yet this is
precisely what JW translators have done. Finally, it should be pointed out that the NWT
frequently inserts the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament text even in places where
there is no direct quotation of the LXX Old Testament involved. Even if all of the JW
leadership’s arguments about the New Testament’s quoting from the LXX were valid, it
would still not justify the NWT translators’ insertion of “Jehovah” into such texts as
Colossians 3:24 and Romans 14:6-8.

Refuting Three Basic Arguments Of Witnesses Defending The New World Translation.

JWs regularly use three basic arguments in support of their own Bible translation. Let us
consider these arguments one at a time.

• JW argument #1: “Other translation committees (such as the NASB Bible

translation committee) have chosen to remain anonymous. So our decision to
keep the identities of the New World Translation committee members a secret is
not an unusual practice.”

Answer: Although the Lockman Foundation (publisher of the NASB) does not directly
list the names of their translators in the Bibles they print, they do make these names
available on request. Just write (or e-mail) the Lockman Foundation for this
information. They will be glad to provide it (18)!

• JW argument #2: “Some other Bible translations say the same thing as the New
World Translation in certain disputed verses.”

Answer: Not all Bible translations are created equal. There are quite literally hundreds
of English-language translations of the New Testament alone (some estimates put the
number as high as 1000!). The vast majority of these are obscure translations done by
people who were poorly qualified to translate the Bible. Many of these translators were
cultists, seeking to impart their own doctrinal slant on the Bible. Given this diverse
smorgasbord of Bible versions to choose from, it is not at all surprising that the JW
translators have frequently been able to find other translations to quote in support of their
own controversial renderings of the Biblical text. But the real question we ought to be
asking is not “has somebody else ever translated it this way, too” but rather “is this
obscure translator I’m quoting really a reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar?” Strangely,
JWs never seem to ask the latter question. Perhaps they have learned from experience
that it doesn’t pay to examine their sources too closely (19)!

• JW Argument #3: “Many scholars endorse the New World Translation.”

Answer: Do they really? Examine these alleged scholarly endorsements of the
New World Translation closely and ask yourself the following questions: (20)

(1) Is the reviewer who appears to be endorsing the NWT a bona fide Greek or
Hebrew Scholar? What are the reviewer’s scholarly qualifications? Just because
the Watchtower refers to someone as “noted Greek scholar X” doesn’t mean he
really is one! Check him out.

(2) Are the reviewer’s comments about the NWT really being reported fully and
accurately? Is the reviewer being quoted in context? (JW writers are quite
notorious for quoting Bible scholars out of context in support of their pet
theories). Ask to see a copy of the entire scholarly article. Read it carefully.
Does the reviewer note any problems with the NWT?

(3) Does the reviewer give evidence that he has carefully studied the NWT and
brought all of his scholarly expertise to bear on his examination? Is the review in
question really an in-depth review? Some reviews (even those done by bona fide
scholars) can be rather perfunctory. Does the reviewer give numerous actual
examples drawn from the text of the NWT to illustrate his comments or does he
content himself with vague generalities? It goes without saying that the more
detailed and in-depth a scholarly review is, the more seriously it should be taken.

(4) Is the review in question really a review of the NWT? I only mention this point
because JWs have actually been known to circulate a brief review of their
Kingdom Interlinear Translation as proof of the scholarly legitimacy of the NWT.
 But, clearly, an endorsement of the one book cannot necessarily be construed as
an endorsement of the other.

(5) Can the alleged scholarly endorsements of the NWT be verified by independent
means? Second-hand anecdotes and private letters of doubtful authenticity (that
seem to exist only in the Watchtower’s own files) can hardly be said to carry the
same weight as an in-depth, published scholarly review.

(6) Will the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are providing you with scholarly endorsements
of the NWT also provide you with copies of any scholarly reviews that are critical
of the NWT (so that you can examine both sides of the issue and make up your
own mind)? Will they tell you where you can find such critical reviews? If not,
why not? Why are they afraid of giving you access to all of the information you
need to make an informed decision? Ask your JW friend if he has ever read a
negative critical review of the NWT. If not, then why not? Ask him if he would
be willing to read a negative critical review if you could show him one.

For further recommended reading:

• Bowman, Robert, Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses (Baker Book

House: Grand Rapids, 1991). An outstanding book by one of the world’s
foremost authorities on the Jehovah’s Witness sect. Especially worthy of
note are his chapters on “The New World Translation” (pp. 65-74),
“Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Divine Name” (pp. 109-122), and “What
scholars think of the New World Translation” (pp. 125-139).

• “The Divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures,” pp. 1564-1566 in

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, with References, (The
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc, Brooklyn, NY, 1984). This is
the article in the Jehovah’s Witness study Bible in which the JW
leadership seeks to justify its insertion of the proper name “Jehovah” into
the New Testament over 200 times. Of particular interest are the
numerous Hebrew “J” manuscripts listed by the Watchtower Society in
this article as manuscript support for its renderings. But these “J”
manuscripts are not ancient manuscripts at all! They are, in fact, all
modern Hebrew versions of the New Testament, produced between 1385
and 1981. As such, they can hardly be considered as relevant evidence
bearing upon the original contents of the ancient Greek New Testament.
(But don’t they look impressive and scholarly all lined up in a row?)

• Mason, Doug, JEHOVAH in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World

Translation, (Bethel Ministries, Manhattan Beach, California, 1987). An
excellent critique of the JWs’ use of “Jehovah” in the New World
Translation, focusing largely on the manuscript evidence. Highly
recommended by Robert Bowman.
 • Countess, Robert H., The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament.
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New
Jersey, 1982). This is the definitive scholarly review of the New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It was written by a highly
qualified (PhD) Greek scholar. Read all of the scholarly reviews given to
you by your JW friends, but don’t make up your mind about the NWT
until you have read this book, too!

ENDNOTES

(1) While rejecting the title “apostles,” the Governing Body does see itself as filling basically the same
niche in Jehovah’s modern-day organization that the Apostles occupied in the First Century church.

(2) See, for example, The Watchtower, 2/1/52, p. 80

(3) The Watchtower, 9/15/50, p. 314

(4) Although the Watchtower to this day refuses to name the translators, former members of the Jehovah’s
Witness sect have revealed their names. See below under the heading “A Side by side comparison…”

(5) Bruce M. Metzger, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today, (April, 1953), p. 74. See
also Metzger’s “The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures” in The Bible Translator
(July, 1964). Dr. Metzger is the George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature
Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is the author of hundreds of articles on Bible translation,
textual criticism, the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. He has published numerous
books, including the New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content; The Text of the New
Testament; Manuscripts of the Greek Bible; A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament; Lexical
Aids for Students of New Testament Greek; and The Canon of the New Testament. He was the general
editor of the New Testament Tools and Studies series, The Reader’s Digest Bible, and The Oxford
Companion to the Bible and was on the editorial boards of the International Greek New Testament Project,
the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, and the New
Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

(6) Dr. Mantey made this comment on videotape. See the video “Witnesses of Jehovah,” distributed by
Impact Resources, P.O. Box 1169, Murrieta, CA, 92564.

(7) Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witness New Testament, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1982, p. 91.

(8) See, for example, Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, Commentary Press, Atlanta, 1992, p. 50 note.
Ray Franz was the nephew of one of the NWT translators and later served for nine years as one of the
members of the elite “Governing Body” (the ruling council of the Jehovah’s Witness sect).

(9) These names were provided by the Lockman Foundation in answer to my e-mail request. For more info
on the NASB translation contact the Lockman Foundation at www.gospelcom.net/lockman

(10) Franz, Crisis of Conscience, p. 50 note

(11) In saying this we are doing little more than taking the Jehovah’s Witness leadership at its word. By
their own admission the New World Translation arose out of their “need” for a Bible translation “in
harmony with revealed truth” (“revealed truth” in this context meaning exactly the same thing to a
Jehovah’s Witness as “Jehovah’s Witness doctrine”). The Watchtower, 9/15/50, p. 314

(12) Interestingly, the New World Translation translates this Greek construction in Ephesians 1:14 more or
less correctly. It is only in Romans 8:23, when a correct translation would jeopardize their theology, that
they feel the need to deviate.

(13) To put it simply, Christ did not shed his blood to rescue us from our physical bodies, as though our
bodies were evil entities. He did, however, shed his blood to (among other things) rescue us from the
principle of sin and death. It should also be pointed out that in Romans 7:24 the phrase “the body of this
death” refers not to Paul’s physical body, but to the sin nature that dwelt within Paul (7:17,23). By
mistranslating Romans 8:23 the Jehovah’s Witnesses are, in fact, introducing a pagan Gnostic concept
(matter=evil) into the Biblical text. Only a Gnostic would view his body as something he needed to be
“ransomed” (i.e. rescued) from.

(14) See The Watchtower, 2/15/83, p. 12, in which “taking in knowledge” about God is listed as one of the
key requirements for inheriting everlasting life.

(15) The Watchtower, 6/1/85, p. 31

(16) The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, With References, The Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, Brooklyn: 1984, p.7.

(17) For the full JW argument, see The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, With References, pp.
1564-1565. The only argument of any significance I haven’t mentioned here concerns an article Written by
George Howard in the Journal of Biblical Literature (vol. 96, 1977, p. 63). Howard’s controversial theory
that the New Testament manuscripts might have originally contained the tetragrammaton (YHWH), though
hailed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, has been universally rejected by the scholarly community as too
speculative. To date, no New Testament manuscript has yet surfaced that would lend any credence to
Howard’s theory.

(18) The e-mail address of the Lockman Foundation is www.gospelcom.net/lockman

(19) For many years the Watchtower backed up its translation of John 1:1 (“the word was a god”) by
quoting from an obscure translation whose author (Johannes Greber) claimed to have received his
translation by dictation from spirits! The Watchtower magazine condemned Greber and his translation in
1956 (2/15/56, p. 110), but two later Watchtower books (published in 1962 and 1965 respectively) quoted
Greber’s rendering in John 1:1 as supporting evidence for the New World Translation. (see The Word:
Who is He? Accordong to John, p. 5, and Make Sure of All Things, p. 489). It wasn’t until 1983 that the
Watchtower finally stopped quoting from Greber’s New Testament, though it had known of Greber’s
spiritism for nearly three decades.

(20) Most of the following questions were adapted from Robert Bowman’s book Understanding Jehovah’s
Witnesses, p. 139. (See below under “Recommended Reading” for bibliographic information).

Source: This article may be viewed at : http://www.spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.htm