The Expository Times, “How Not to Translate the Bible (review in the 'Literature' section)”
“From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”
A review of the 1953 New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Volume I. The reviewer also objects to the translation's 'wooden literalism' and its treatment of the Hebrew text.
Official source (opens in new tab) Link not auto-checkable
Provenance and verification note for The Expository Times, How Not to Translate the Bible (review in the 'Literature' section)
Confidence note. The article could not be opened: journals.sagepub.com returns HTTP 403 to automated requests. What was confirmed on 19 September 2026 is that Crossref's record for The Expository Times vol. 65 no. 2 (November 1953) lists pp. 41-46 as the unsigned 'Literature' book-review section, which is consistent with a signed review beginning at p. 41; no separately indexed article titled 'How Not to Translate the Bible' exists in that volume. The quoted sentence, and the November 1953 / vol. 65 / p. 41 citation, appear in the same form on two independent secondary sites (exjw.org.uk and reachouttrust.org). Rowley's authorship rests on those secondary attributions, not on anything opened here. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] The HTTP 403 from SAGE was reproduced. Two further, better-quality attestations were found, neither of them an advocacy site: Wikipedia's article on the New World Translation carries a full journal citation — Rowley, H. H., 1953, 'How Not To Translate the Bible', The Expository Times 65, pp. 41-42 — and attaches the same sentence to p. 41; and George D. Chryssides, a mainstream academic writer on the movement, discusses 'the unfavourable criticisms by Harold Henry Rowley (1953)' as a real item of 1953 criticism. That makes fabrication very unlikely, but it still does not put the words in front of an auditor's eyes. 'supported' remains correct; do not upgrade until the page is read.
Notes. H. H. Rowley (1890-1969) was Professor of Semitic Languages at Manchester and a leading Old Testament scholar; he wrote the 'Recent Foreign Theology' column in The Expository Times throughout this period, which makes the attribution plausible but does not establish it. The review concerns the Hebrew Scriptures volume, not the 1950 New Testament. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] Two further points for the next pass: a second Rowley review, of Volume II, is attested in the secondary literature ('the second volume shows the same faults as the first'); and Chryssides judged in 2019 that Rowley's criticism, unlike Metzger's, was 'extremely vague' — which is a fair thing to tell readers alongside the famous sentence.
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-rowley-1953-expository-times