Defending the New World Translation — What Scholars Actually Say

## Introduction: Every Translation Has a Bias

Before we defend the NWT, we need to acknowledge something that most people don't realize: every Bible translation carries theological bias. Every single one. The translators are human. They come from denominations. They hold beliefs. And those beliefs inevitably influence the choices they make when the original language allows more than one possible rendering.

The question isn't whether a translation is biased. The question is whether the bias moves the translation CLOSER to or FURTHER from what the original Hebrew and Greek actually say. And that's where the NWT stands apart.

---

## Part 1: The Scholar Who Changed the Conversation — Jason David BeDuhn

### Who Is BeDuhn?

Jason David BeDuhn is an Associate Professor and former Chair of the Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion at Northern Arizona University. He holds expertise in comparative religion, biblical languages, and translation theory. He is NOT a Jehovah's Witness. He has no affiliation with the Watch Tower Society. He is an independent academic with no theological axe to grind.

In 2003, BeDuhn published *Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.* He compared nine major English translations of the New Testament, examining specific passages where theological bias is most likely to influence translation choices: the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, Amplified Bible, Living Bible, TEV, and the New World Translation.

### What Did BeDuhn Find?

His conclusion was remarkable. BeDuhn found that the New World Translation emerged as the most accurate of the nine translations compared. He called it a "remarkably good" translation, noting it was "better by far" and "consistently better" than some of the others.

BeDuhn noted that the general public and many Bible scholars assume the differences in the NWT result from religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he stated that most differences are actually due to "the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers."

### BeDuhn on Specific Passages

📌 **John 1:1** — BeDuhn found that only the NWT adheres exactly to the literal meaning of the Greek clause *theos ēn ho logos*. The other translations followed an interpretive tradition that ignores the nuance in John's choice of expression. He concluded the NWT's rendering is "superior to that of the other eight translations compared."

📌 **John 8:58** — Only the NWT and the Living Bible render the verbal expression *ego eimi* into a coherent part of its larger context, accurately following the Greek idiom.

📌 **Philippians 2:6** — The NWT had the most accurate translation of *harpagmos*, offering "seizure" consistent with its handling of other words derived from the verb *harpazo*.

📌 **Proskyneō (worship/obeisance)** — The NWT and the New American Bible handle this Greek word most consistently, accurately translating it as "do obeisance" rather than switching to "worship" when Jesus is the recipient — which is what Trinitarian bias looks like in practice.

### Why This Matters

BeDuhn stated explicitly that he is biased only "in favor of the original Greek." His conclusions were based solely on comparing each translation against the original Greek text. When an independent scholar with no ties to Jehovah's Witnesses examines nine major translations and concludes the NWT is the most accurate, that deserves serious attention.

---

## Part 2: What Other Scholars Have Said

BeDuhn is not alone. Multiple independent scholars have recognized the quality of the NWT:

📌 **Edgar J. Goodspeed** (University of Chicago, translator of *An American Translation*): "I am much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning."

📌 **Professor Allen Wikgren** (University of Chicago): Cited the NWT as an example of a modern speech version that often has "independent readings of merit."

📌 **Alexander Thomson** (British Bible critic): "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing."

📌 **Professor Thomas N. Winter** (University of Nebraska): The translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

📌 **Professor Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein** (Hebrew scholar, Israel): "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible."

📌 **Professor S. MacLean Gilmour**: Acknowledged that the NWT translators "possessed an unusual competence in Greek."

📌 **Bruce M. Metzger** (Princeton): Noted that "one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators."

These scholars represent universities across the world — Chicago, Princeton, Nebraska, Israeli universities, British academic institutions. The scholarly recognition of the NWT's quality is real and documented.

---

## Part 3: The Common Criticisms — Addressed

### Criticism 1: "The NWT adds 'other' in Colossians 1:16-17"

The NWT renders Colossians 1:16 as "by means of him all OTHER things were created." Critics say the word "other" isn't in the Greek.

The NWT places "other" in brackets — clearly marked as an added word for clarity. And the context justifies it. Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus "the firstborn of ALL creation." If he is the firstborn OF creation, he is part of it — the first member of the created order. Therefore, everything ELSE was created through him. The word "other" makes explicit what the context already implies.

Other translations add words not in the Greek regularly — without brackets. The NWT is more transparent about its additions than most.

### Criticism 2: "The NWT inserts 'Jehovah' in the New Testament"

The NWT restores the divine name in places where New Testament writers are quoting from the Old Testament — passages where the original Hebrew contained the Tetragrammaton.

When Paul quoted Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13, the original text said YHWH. Greek copyists replaced it with *Kyrios* (Lord). This is supported by physical evidence: Papyrus Fouad 266 — a Septuagint manuscript predating Nicaea — contains the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters within the Greek text. The NWT isn't adding something that was never there. It's restoring something that was removed.

### Criticism 3: "John 1:1 — 'a god' is wrong"

BeDuhn specifically analyzed this verse and concluded the NWT's rendering is superior to the other eight translations. The anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb is qualitative — describing the nature of the Word, not identifying him as the Almighty God.

Philip Harner confirmed this in the *Journal of Biblical Literature*. William Barclay stated that John is not identifying the Word with God. The Sahidic Coptic translation (3rd-4th century) used the indefinite article — "a god" — because Coptic, like English, has an indefinite article, and those early translators chose to use it.

The NWT follows the Greek grammar. Most other translations follow the theological tradition established after Nicaea.

### Criticism 4: "The translators had no credentials"

The translation committee chose to remain anonymous — deliberately, to prevent individuals from receiving glory that belongs to Jehovah. But the quality of the work speaks for itself. BeDuhn acknowledged the anonymity and still concluded the NWT was the most accurate translation in his comparison. You don't need to know the chef's name to evaluate whether the meal is good. You taste it and compare it to the original recipe.

### Criticism 5: "It's biased toward JW theology"

BeDuhn addressed this directly. He noted that while the NWT is "not bias free" (no translation is), most of its differences from other translations are due to greater accuracy, not theological manipulation. He found that mainstream translations are actually MORE biased in key passages — adding Trinitarian interpretations where the Greek doesn't require them.

The real question: which direction does the bias run? If a translation renders *proskyneō* as "worship" when directed at Jesus but "bow down" when directed at human kings — that's a Trinitarian bias imposed on the text. The NWT renders it consistently as "do obeisance" regardless of the recipient. That's LESS biased, not more.

---

## Part 4: What Makes the NWT Different

### God's Name Restored

The most distinctive feature of the NWT is the restoration of the divine name Jehovah throughout. Other translations removed God's name — which appears nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew manuscripts — and replaced it with "LORD" in capital letters.

God himself said: "Jehovah... this is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:15). The NWT restores what the original writers wrote.

### Consistent Translation of Key Terms

The NWT strives for consistency. *Proskyneō* is consistently "do obeisance" rather than switching based on who the recipient is. *Psykhē* (soul) is rendered according to its actual meaning in each context — "soul," "life," "person" — rather than importing the Greek philosophical concept of an immortal soul that the Hebrew writers never intended.

### Based on the Best Available Manuscripts

The NWT is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, the Nestle-Aland text, and the United Bible Societies text, also referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Syriac versions, the Latin Vulgate, and various papyri.

### Clear, Modern Language

The 2013 revision was designed to be clear and readable in modern English while maintaining accuracy. It avoids archaic language while staying faithful to the original text — a balance few translations achieve.

---

## Part 5: The Real Issue — Tradition vs. Text

The fundamental debate comes down to one question: should a translation follow theological tradition or follow the original text?

Most English translations were produced within the Trinitarian tradition. Their translators grew up in Trinitarian churches, studied at Trinitarian seminaries, and worked within Trinitarian publishing houses. When the Greek allowed more than one rendering, they naturally chose the one that supported their theology.

The NWT was produced outside that tradition. Its translators had no allegiance to the Nicene Creed or any post-biblical creed. Their only stated allegiance was to the text itself. That's why their renderings sometimes differ from the mainstream — not because they're distorting the text, but because they're reading it without 1,700 years of Trinitarian assumptions.

BeDuhn noted that the NWT is "free of the shadow of the King James Version" — meaning it doesn't simply echo the translation choices made in 1611 under a Trinitarian framework. It goes back to the Greek and starts fresh. And in his analysis, that independence produced greater accuracy, not less.

---

## Conclusion

The New World Translation is not perfect. No translation is. But the claim that it is a "biased distortion" doesn't hold up under scholarly scrutiny.

An independent professor with no ties to Jehovah's Witnesses compared nine major translations and found the NWT to be the most accurate. Multiple scholars from prestigious universities have recognized its quality. Its renderings of controversial passages are supported by Greek grammar and confirmed by ancient manuscript evidence.

The real bias in this debate isn't in the NWT. It's in the assumption that any translation produced outside the Trinitarian tradition must be wrong. When you remove that assumption and simply compare translations against the original Greek and Hebrew — the NWT consistently holds its ground and often surpasses the alternatives.

Don't take anyone's word for it — including ours. Get a copy of the NWT. Get a Greek interlinear. Compare verse by verse. That's all we've ever asked.

---

*Acts 17:11 — "They carefully examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."*

*Examine. Compare. Decide for yourself.*

*For more Bible study resources, visit [nwtprogress.com](https://nwtprogress.com)*