# The New World Translation — Anonymous and Unqualified

*Can you trust a Bible translated by unnamed, untrained scholars?*

**Strength:** Strong | **Tone:** Good | **Topic:** NWT Translation

## Doorstep Question

> "Who translated the New World Translation? Can you name a single person on the translation committee and tell me their qualifications in biblical Greek or Hebrew?"

## JW Claim

The New World Translation is the most accurate Bible translation because
it restores God's name (Jehovah) and is based on the oldest manuscripts.
The translators wished to remain anonymous to give all glory to Jehovah.

## Strategy

Point out three verifiable facts: (1) The translators have been identified through court documents — Fred Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. (2) In the 1954 Walsh Trial in Scotland, Fred Franz (the primary translator) admitted under oath that he could not translate a simple Hebrew verse (Genesis 2:4). (3) No committee member had formal training in biblical Greek or Hebrew. Then ask: "Every other major Bible translation lists its translators and their credentials. Why would the Watchtower hide theirs?"

## Key Insight

The NWT is the only major translation that renders John 1:1 as "a god" and inserts "other" into Colossians 1. Every qualified Greek scholar — including those with no Christian bias — rejects these renderings.

## JW Responses & Counters

### Response 1

**JW says:** "The translators wanted to remain anonymous to avoid glory"

**Counter:** But we know who they are — it came out in court. Fred Franz was tested under oath and couldn't translate basic Hebrew. If the translators were qualified, why hide their credentials? Every other Bible translation is proud to show its scholars' work.

### Response 2

**JW says:** "Other translations removed God's name — ours restores it"

**Counter:** The NWT inserted "Jehovah" 237 times into the New Testament where it does not appear in any Greek manuscript. Not a single NT manuscript — out of over 5,000 — contains the Tetragrammaton. That's not restoring; that's adding to the text.

### Response 3

**JW says:** "Every Bible takes things out and adds things in — even the King James version says so. The NWT is no worse than any other translation."

**Counter:** I hear you, and you're right that translations make different choices. But there are two completely different things going on here. When the ESV or the NASB picks one reading over another, they're choosing between actual Greek manuscripts that disagree — and they footnote it: "some manuscripts read…" That's a textual variant. It already exists in the manuscript tradition; the translator is just deciding which witness to follow. The NWT's most famous changes are categorically different — they have zero manuscript support. The 237 places it inserts "Jehovah" into the New Testament have no manuscript variant to cite, because every single one of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts agrees the word there is Kyrios or Theos. The Watchtower's own publication The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever admits it on page 23: "no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books of Matthew to Revelation contains God's name in full." Same with the four insertions of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 — there is no Greek word in the text for "other"; allos and heteros never appear. The NWT's own Kingdom Interlinear renders John 1:1 word-for-word as "god was the Word" — the indefinite article "a" comes only in the right-hand column. So the comparison isn't fair: other translations are picking between actual manuscript readings; the NWT is making changes nothing in the manuscripts asked for. Can you show me a single Greek manuscript that has "Jehovah" in Romans 10:13?

### Response 4

**JW says:** "But the NWT footnotes its choices with the J-references. That's the same as what other translations do."

**Counter:** The J-references look like a critical apparatus, but they're actually Hebrew back-translations from the 14th to 20th centuries — J1 through J27 are dated 1385 to 1976 CE. They aren't witnesses to the original Greek text; they're modern Hebrew translations of the Greek that some translators chose to put "Jehovah" back into. So when the NWT footnotes Romans 10:13 as "J7-14, 16-18", it's citing modern Hebrew Bibles that themselves don't have any independent manuscript authority for the Greek reading. The one actual scholar the Watchtower cited for this approach — George Howard — wrote a personal letter on 3 July 1997 specifically repudiating how the Society had used his work. The footnote system is the shape of a critical apparatus without the substance of one. Compare this to the ESV's footnote on John 7:53 — "some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11" — and the asymmetry becomes clear: one cites real manuscripts, the other cites modern translations of translations.

## What to Avoid

Don't say "your Bible is fake." Instead, invite them to compare specific verses side by side. Let the differences speak for themselves. The goal is to plant a seed of doubt about the translation's reliability, not to insult something they treasure.

## Homework

Learn three facts well enough to state them without notes: the translators were identified through court documents, Fred Franz could not translate Genesis 2:4 under oath at the 1954 Walsh Trial, and no committee member had formal training in biblical Greek or Hebrew. Read John 1:1 and Colossians 1:16–17 in the NWT and another translation side by side, so you can invite comparison rather than criticise a Bible they treasure. Practise the doorstep question aloud as a genuine enquiry. Expect 'every translation adds and removes things'; rehearse the difference between choosing among real manuscript readings and making changes with no manuscript support, and be ready to ask about Romans 10:13.

## Next Moves

- [Colossians 1 — Inserted 'Other'](/arguments/colossians1-other.md)
- ['A God' = Polytheism](/arguments/john1-polytheism.md)

---
*Source: Greg Sukert / Dr. James White*