JWTruth.orgDocumented comparison resource
Search

The Bible and the translation · Claim record

The Watchtower of 1 December 2004 said BeDuhn 'examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations'; the book compares nine, and BeDuhn himself refers on page 133 to 'the other eight translations we are comparing'. JW.org's later FAQ gives the number correctly as nine.

Claim ID claim-bible-w04-eight-not-nineConcerns 1 December 2004Context
Context · 1 December 2004 Verified

The Watchtower of 1 December 2004 said BeDuhn 'examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations'; the book compares nine, and BeDuhn himself refers on page 133 to 'the other eight translations we are comparing'. JW.org's later FAQ gives the number correctly as nine. The Watchtower, 1 December 2004Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003JW.org Frequently Asked Questions, 19 September 2026

Show the evidence (3 sources)
Primary JW publication Verified

The Watchtower, “A “Remarkably Good” Translation”

1 December 2004 · p.30 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.””

A one-page article in The Watchtower of 1 December 2004 reporting BeDuhn's book. It states that he 'examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures', and quotes him further on 'the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers'.

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Opened on the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and the wording confirmed against the page (w04 12/1 p. 30). [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] Fetched and read again; the quotation is verbatim, and the page marker in the Watchtower Online Library HTML (data-no="30") confirms p. 30. The article's own citation gives the book's title as 'Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament', which is the correct title and the one now used in the BeDuhn records.

Corroborated by. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-verdict

Notes. The article does say BeDuhn was 'critical of some of its translation choices' but does not say what the criticism was. It gives the number of translations compared as eight; BeDuhn compares nine.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-w04-remarkably-good

Peer-reviewed / scholarly Supported

Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, “Chapter 11, 'And the Word Was …'”

2003 · pp.124-125, 133 · Jason David BeDuhn (Northern Arizona University) · University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland

“Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with 'doctrinal bias' for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the most obvious sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek. (pp. 124-125) … Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. (p. 133)”

BeDuhn defends 'and the Word was a god' as a defensible rendering of the Greek, drawing on Philip Harner's 1973 study of qualitative predicate nouns, and argues that the customary rendering owes more to the King James tradition than to the grammar. The same p. 133 paragraph ends: 'All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves this, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader.' This is the rendering Bruce Metzger called a 'frightful mistranslation' in 1953 and 'not justified' in 1964.

Official source Link not auto-checkable

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. The book itself was never opened. The previous confidence label of 'verified' rested entirely on Google Books' in-volume snippet search, which no longer runs from this environment at all: books.google.com, books.google.co.uk, books.google.de, books.google.ca and www.googleapis.com/books/v1 all answer HTTP 429, and WebFetch is redirected to Google's 'sorry' interstitial. An auditor cannot reproduce the retrieval, and a snippet is in any case not the document. Downgraded to 'supported' on 19 September 2026. Both passages were confirmed independently on that date against reproductions that quote them in full with page attributions: pp. 124-125 at rfmcelroyiii.wordpress.com, p. 133 at tetragrammaton.org. BeDuhn's own sigla for the New World Translation is 'NW', not 'NWT': Allin quotes him with 'NW', the reproduction of pp. 124-125 has 'the NW translation', and JW.org expands it as 'The NW [New World Translation]'. The tetragrammaton.org reproduction silently prints 'NWT' throughout. Where the two differ, 'NW' is used here. Until the printed book is in hand, do not present these quotations as letter-perfect. One reproduction prints 'the other eight translation we are comparing'; the singular is evidently that site's typing slip and 'translations' is used above.

Scan provenance. Not opened. The pp. 124-125 passage is transcribed from the excerpt collection at rfmcelroyiii.wordpress.com and the p. 133 paragraph from the long review at tetragrammaton.org; the two are independent of each other.

Notes. BeDuhn's own preferred rendering is not the New World Translation's; he says on p. 133 that he does not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] The earlier version began the quotation with a bracketed supply, '[the NW rendering of] John 1:1 is superior…'. The bracket was unnecessary: the printed sentence is 'The NW translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing', and it is preceded by 'Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible', which is the sentence that gives the passage its force. Both have been restored. Note also that the page is pp. 124-125, not p. 125 alone.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-john-1-1

Primary JW publication Verified

JW.org Frequently Asked Questions, “Is the New World Translation Accurate?”

19 September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: 'The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.' Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: 'Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.'—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.”

The page sets out three reasons the New World Translation differs from other Bibles (reliability, faithfulness, literalness), explains the omission of the Apocrypha and of later manuscript additions, and then, under the heading 'Positive comments about the New World Translation from non-Witness scholars', gives nine favourable comments: Edgar J. Goodspeed (a letter dated 8 December 1950), Allen Wikgren (The Interpreter's Bible, vol. I, p. 99), Alexander Thomson (The Differentiator, April 1952, p. 52), Charles Francis Potter (The Faiths Men Live By, p. 300), Robert M. McCoy (Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, p. 31), S. MacLean Gilmour (Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, p. 26), Thomas N. Winter (The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, p. 376), Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein (a statement of 1989) and Jason David BeDuhn. A footnote states that the comments 'apply to editions of the English New World Translation prior to the 2013 revision'.

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. The whole page was fetched and read on 19 September 2026 and every quotation above was transcribed from it. The page is undated, so the access date is recorded as its date; its content may change. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] The page was fetched and read again. The BeDuhn quotation above is verbatim. One correction: the page carries nine favourable comments, not eight — the earlier version of this record enumerated eight and left out Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, who appears between Winter and BeDuhn. The claim built on this record has been corrected to match.

Corroborated by. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-verdict, src-nwt-winter-1974-classical-journal

Notes. The page quotes BeDuhn's favourable verdict (pp. 163, 165) and does not mention his appendix (pp. 169-181), in which he calls the use of 'Jehovah' in the New Testament an inaccuracy. Of the nine favourable comments, four are cited to journals or reference works (Wikgren, McCoy, Gilmour, Winter), one to a scholarly monograph (BeDuhn) and four to a private letter, a privately circulated magazine, a general-readership book and an undated personal statement (Goodspeed, Thomson, Potter, Kedar-Kopfstein). Of the nine, only the Winter and BeDuhn items have been checked against their originals in this research, and the Winter one checks out.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-jw-faq-accurate

Claim page

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-bible-w04-eight-not-nine/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.