New World Translation Committee Scholars? YES!

“…but now, by Jehovah’s undeserved kindness, I have the extreme pleasure of releasing to the “International Theocracy’s Increase Assembly” of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.” N. H. Knorr - August 2, 1950

It didn’t take long until people started challenging the scholarship of the New World Translation’s translators. Well, how scholarly were they?

At first, the New World Translation was faulted for removing parts of 1 John 5:7. Now, almost every modern Evangelical Bible translation does the same. At first, the New World Translation was faulted for translating 1 Timothy 3:16 as “he was manifest” instead of “God was manifest.” Now, almost every modern Evangelical Bible translation does the same. At first, the New World Translation was faulted for translating Acts 20:28 as “blood of his own Son.” Now, the NET Bible and other Evangelical translations do the same, and the ESV translation footnote shows it as legitimate. So, we see today’s modern and popular Evangelical Bibles have been getting closer and closer to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation, whether they admit it or not. It seems the New World Bible Translation Committee was 30, 40, or more years ahead of the theologians that went to various seminaries and colleges, and took that long to get more on par with the scholarly translators of the New World Translation.

But it doesn’t stop there. For some, the biggest problem with the New World Translation was John 1:1c: “the Word was a god.” Well, guess what? First, more recent scholars such as James White, Dan Wallace, and the footnotes in both the NET, ESV, and other modern translations now show “a god” is one of at least three possible Greek translating options. Next, we see in Wayne Grudem’s recent publication, Systematic Theology, something that is rarely mentioned: “if John had wanted to say “the Word was a god,” it would have been written this way” which is exactly as it appears in the ancient Greek text of John 1:1. How well-publicized is this fact?

Thirdly, there are Bible translation scholars that now teach John 1:1c is qualitative. The Greek text is highlighting a quality that Jesus has, rather than identifying who he is. Still, scholars continue to translate John 1:1 as an identifier of Jesus instead of a qualifier of Jesus. Do they realize this misleads readers of their translations to draw an inaccurate conclusion of the point God’s holy spirit inspired the Apostle John to make in that spirit-inspired writing?

Noteworthy, the translators of the New World Translation translated John 1:1 as qualitative right from the very first edition: Jesus has qualities like a god, or is divine. Many scholars today know that John 1:1c is qualitative, but if they make that point clearly known to all, it may be at the bottom of the footnotes or comments. They know if they were to reword the actual biblical text of John 1:1c more pointedly than the traditional “the Word was God,” people might mistakenly view fault with that translation simply because it’s different, or because it’s a little closer to the New World Translation.

A website I once followed featured a modern Bible translation — The Updated American Standard Version. I would regularly post examples of how this translation was often worded very much like the New World Translation. After posting countless examples, one of the translators sent me a personal message asking me to quit comparing their translation to the New World Translation, otherwise, “no one will buy it.”

Anyway, some alleged one reason the New World Translation says “a god” is because of a non-trinitarian bias. Well, perhaps one reason other translators translate “the Word was God” is because they have a trinitarian bias. It goes both ways. The New World Bible Translation Committee boldly translates John 1:1c in a qualitative way — the way many scholars say it should be — yet do little to make it obvious. Don’t they believe they are spiritually accountable? And yet they want to claim the New World Bible Translation Committee isn’t scholarly.

Another point with the New World Translation: more scholars now know that the Divine Name, Yahweh/Jehovah, was still used and written during the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that a hundred or so years afterward, the Divine Name was removed from those original New Testament writings and replaced with nomina sacra, just as Jesus’ name was also removed and replaced with nomina sacra. Today’s scholars have been recently learning and catching up to the New World Bible Translation Committee on this. What took them so long?

I should also mention other topics today’s scholars have been recently learning more on: “I am” and “only-begotten,” which are clearly discussed here. Some scholars are really out to make the New World Translation appear bad, but doing so only makes it that much easier for us to demonstrate how wrong those scholars are.

In summary, the proof of scholarship is in the text itself. Since 1950, the New World Translation removed parts of 1 John 5:7, corrects 1 Timothy 3:16, and revises Acts 20:28 — now newer Evangelical Bibles do so too. The New World Translation translated John 1:1 qualitatively — now newer Evangelical Bibles reluctantly do so, perhaps in the footnotes. The New World Translation said the Divine Name was in the New Testament — now newer Evangelical Bible commentaries are catching on.

So, how can anyone truly allege that the New World Bible Translation Committee didn’t have scholars, when today’s scholars are finally realizing what the New World Bible Translation Committee had already learned as far back as 1950? Why weren’t their churches, colleges, and seminaries educating their high-tuition-paying students on what the New World Bible Translation Committee already knew and was publishing free of charge? It goes to show you don’t need to go to their specific seminaries to learn and to be scholars, as if you couldn’t possibly learn anywhere else. Well, give them credit — at least now they’re learning what the New World Bible Translation Committee scholars already knew for at least 75 years now.

This is a transcript from the following video;

https://youtu.be/6XNECLq5R5c?si=3-4Yi0AO_tNbfWIP