03:51 am - Monday 08 February 2016

Exactly how much training in Biblical languages did the New World Translation “translators” (editors) have?

By admin - Mon Jun 18, 8:28 pm

by dodeckahedron

Question by : Exactly how much training in Biblical languages did the New World Translation “translators” (editors) have?

“They have all the training that they need. They are generally monks.”
Um.. Are we talking about the same version here..? :S

Best answer:

Answer by David
probably none

What do you think? Answer below!


Comments 1 - 10 of 10First« PrevNext »Last
  1. 0

    They have all the training that they need. They are generally monks.

  2. 0


  3. 0

    I find this comment reliable (because of the source, Bruce Metzger, one of the most highly-regarded Biblical language scholars of our time).

    Former American Bible Society board member Dr. Bruce M. Metzger concluded that “on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators,”[63] but identified instances where the translation has been written to support doctrine, with “several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.”[64] Metzger noted a number of “indefensible” characteristics of the translation, including its use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament.

    - Jim, http://www.BibleSelector.com/

  4. 0

    *** w99 10/15 pp. 28-31 A Milestone for Lovers of God’s Word ***
    Just who translated this remarkable Bible? The Watchtower of September 15, 1950, said: “The men who compose the translation committee have indicated their desire . . . to remain anonymous, and specifically do not want their names to be published while they are in life or after death. The purpose of the translation is to exalt the name of the living, true God.” Some critics charged that the work should be summarily dismissed as the product of amateurs, but not all took such an unreasonable stance. Writes Alan S. Duthie: “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.”
    Unique Features
    Millions of readers have done just that and have discovered the New World Translation to be not only readable but scrupulously accurate. Its translators worked from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages, using the best texts available. Unusual care was also exercised to render the ancient text as literally as possible but in language that would readily be understood. Accordingly, some scholars praised this translation for its integrity and accuracy. For example, the Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 said: “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.”
    The translators opened up a new world of Biblical understanding. Bible texts that had previously been only dimly understood became dramatically clear. For example, the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3, “blessed are the poor in spirit” (King James Version), was rendered in a way that made sense: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.” The New World Translation is also quite consistent and uniform in its rendering of key terms. The Greek word psy‧khe′, for example, was translated “soul” in each of its occurrences. As a result, readers can quickly discern that contrary to religious theories, the soul is not immortal!—Matthew 2:20; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 17:33.

  5. 0

    They were all jews who found inspiration in jesus . Luke I believe was a Greek

  6. 0

    Seeing as I am not one of the “translators” (editors) I can not answer that. Why don’t you ask them instead?

  7. 0

    Monks are catholic.
    NWTranslators are NOT qualified; they are ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew language. So they wrote their own version, and rejected by the mainstream catholics and protestants group.
    Suffice to say, nwt is just a mere book and so spurious that it is not worthy to be called bible. The unqualified authors are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit that guided our apostles and ancient fathers.

  8. 0

    Some people don’t know what the NWT is. There’s so many new types of bibles and “holy” books out there its hard to keep track if not aware of the truth.

    We don’t know. They won’t tell anyone outside the JW’s. And I really wonder if they even revealed such a thing to the JW’s, which is ironic because it originally started out as a bible study club. I just saw a JW answer a question with the statement of, “We don’t twist scripture to make it do and say what we want.” Reworking the entire bible to make it do and say what they want is not twisting scripture, eh? Sheesh. They must be mormon.

  9. 0

    None. The committee responsible for the New World Translation had zero scholastic accreditation in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. Recently, a Jehovah’s Witness left me an official Jehovah’s Witness document ‘New World Translation’ (pages 276 – 280) I will now quote from it:

    “On what is the ‘New World Translation’ based? As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the NWT benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.” (Note, Westcott and Hort were Roman Catholic scholars and their work was based on the Codex Vaticanus.)

    “Who were the translators? When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.”

    Since then, it has come to light (via William Cetnar, who worked for many years at Brooklyn HQ) that the original members of that Committee were:
    Nathan H Knorr
    Frederick W Franz
    A D Schroeder
    G D Gangas
    Milton G Henschel

    Frederick Franz was the only one to have a college education, although he did not complete his degree course, neither did he major in either Hebrew or Greek.

    “Is it really a scholarly translation? Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.”

    Given the original Committee members are now known, their scholastic credentials can be examined and the evidence is that not one of them were qualified to translate Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.

  10. 0


    You have based your questions and its conclusions on an unfounded assumption derived from the testimony of a highly questionable and prejudiced source. The fact of the matter is that the translators of the NWT have chosen to not reveal their names so absolutely no one knows who the translators were. There are some names which are good guesses for some, but there is no evidence to confirm these assumptions. Nor, can the translators be limited to these guesses.

    The fact that we do not know the NWT translators has absolutely no bearing on the correctness of the translation.

    Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the original jacket of the Reference Edition of the NASB stated: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.” Similarly, The Twentieth Century New Testament’s translators were unknown until 50 years after its release.

    Though we can now find the names of these translators, how could anyone have appraised the accuracy of the NASB or the TCNT when they were first released? Not by the names or credentials of the translators but by looking at the translation itself. And now that we know the translators, does that change the judgment regarding accuracy? No. Incidentally, the TCNT is recognized as a good translation despite the fact that the translators did not have the expected formal training in original languages and translation work.

    Therefore, the names and credentials of the New World Translation Committee is not crucial to determining accuracy. Indeed, the names and credentials of translators behind any Bible translation has never been necessary in determining whether a translation can be trusted.

    Scholar Alan S. Duthie says: “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.”

    Therefore, those who insist that we must know the names and education of translators to determine a translation’s accuracy are mistaken. This argument is actually a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority). The implication is that evidence for an accurate translation is contingent on someone with University degrees. This is manifestly false as proven by many bad translations by University trained scholars and good ones by those without degrees in Hebrew and Greek. Nor do University degrees save a translation from criticism by theologically prejudiced and uninformed individuals–just look at the criticisms against the NIV and other modern versions by so-called experts.

    The fact is that the NWT has been praised by many scholars even when they don’t agree with the Witnesses belief:

    The most recent is Jason BeDuhn in his book “Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.” He chose the NWT as most accurate in comparison with several other well-known versions (Jason David BeDuhn, University Press of America).

    “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars…”– Alexander Thompson, The Differentiator (British religious Journal)

    “…the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts…with scholarly ability and acumen.”– Charles Francis Potter, The Faith Men Live by

    “The New Testament translation was made by a committee…that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”– S. MacLean Gilmore, the Andover Newtion Quarterly, September 1966, Vol. 7, Number 1, pages 25-6.

    What I personally found over the years is that in every case where the NWT is criticized by so-called “scholars” it has usually proved to be accurate, and at the very least its rendering is solidly based on the laws of translation such as following the original grammar and word definitions. In almost all cases I found that the NWT was more accurate than the vast majority of other translations. *Most* criticisms brought against it are usually themselves *unwarranted and unfairly biased. *

    This is something that is being repeatedly proved even in this forum. That is why you mainly hear prejudicial comments, and unsupported accusations against the NWT by regular posters here. They know that when they raise a specific translation difference they will receive a scholarly response proving that the NWT translation is an accurate rendering of the original.

    The NWT always proves to be an accurate and faithful translation.



Comments 1 - 10 of 10First« PrevNext »Last

Leave a Reply

Turn on pictures to see the captcha *

Powered by Yahoo! Answers