I corresponded with Jason BeDuhn in January 1998 shortly after he was quoted in the Watchtower as praising the Kingdom Interlinear. We exchanged several e-mails, and he gave his permission for me to quote from one of them. Below are pieces of the original Watchtower quote, my questions, his answers, and comments, all merged into one transcript.
Ginny
----------
Dear Dr. BeDuhn:
My name is [Ginny Tosken]. I live in Bloomington, have attended IU, grew up as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and was disfellowshipped in 19XX. I have corresponded with Robert Orsi some over the past year about his class on American religions, offering myself as a question and-answer subject should his students find that helpful.
When I read your quotation in the February 1, 1998 Watchtower, I once again contacted Dr. Orsi because I was surprised at your endorsement of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the implied endorsement by Indiana University. . . .
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, one is taught that the Watchtower magazine is God's channel of communication with his people on earth, and most faithful Jehovah's Witnesses accept its contents completely without question, with complete trust. One of the discoveries one makes when one begins to question and investigate the religion is that the Watchtower Society has a long history of scholastic dishonesty. They cite quotations out of context and quote "experts" who upon investigation turn out not to be experts at all. This is a deeply wounding realization for most Jehovah's Witnesses, to learn that they have been betrayed by an organization which they viewed as a loving parent. . . .
My own intent in writing to Dr. Orsi [then head of Religious Studies Department at Indiana University] was to to determine if indeed you are a reputable scholar, which Dr. Orsi assures me you are. I also wanted to see if the quotation in the Watchtower was accurate and in
context, in what classes you had used the translation, and how.
BeDuhn: I wrote a letter to the WBTS, thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class. I did this as a gesture of appreciation. I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book. The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views. Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider, because I found their translation weak. I personally don't find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones; this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive. My comments were specifically about the KIT book, and were not meant, and should not be taken, as an endorsement of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am a historian, and am in no position to judge the merits of a contemporary Christian denomination. . . .
As for the use of "experts" -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagrees. Many people who put themselves forward as "experts" are not, in the case of Biblical studies because they don't know the languages and haven't bothered to make a close study of scholarship.
I used the KIT in a gospels course I taught, because I wanted to point out things that are hard to see in the more commonly available translations. Although the students didn't know Greek, by using an interlinear I was able to show them very subtle things in the text, and introduce them to a few Greek terms that are very important to understand.
Ginny:I am by no means a Biblical scholar. When I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I was told by the Watchtower Society that the New World Translation was the most accurate and best translation available, and I believed that. Since those days, I have learned that other scholars believe it is atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate. Thus my surprise when you were quoted as saying, "Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available" and "Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translation in use today."
BeDuhn: "Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate" may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that "all reputable scholars," "every Greek or biblical scholar," etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between.
For your characterization to be correct, you would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a "hyper-literal" translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.
Ginny: Also, from past experience and reading, I predict that the Watchtower Society will use your quotation for years to come in support of the New World Translation, and by association, in support of the religion itself.
I would like very much to understand the reasons behind your statement . . . If you have time and the inclination to answer, my specific questions follow below.
"I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . .
Ginny: From a search on the internet, I believe you taught this course as a visiting professor. Is that right? While you were on the faculty of Western Maryland University?
BeDuhn: I graduated from the Ph.D. program in religious studies at IU in 1995. I held an appointment as Visiting Assistant Professor there for the fall semester of 1995, and for the full year 1996-1997. I held a visiting professorship at Western Maryland College for the spring semester of 1996. All of these were temporary appointments, as this year I have a one year appointment at the University of Indianapolis.
"This is primarily a course in the Gospels."
Ginny: What specifically was the course?
BeDuhn: It was the "Development of the Jesus Traditions" course -- a 300 level class, taught this semester by Anne Schechter.
"Your help came in the form of copies of the 'The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures' which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students."
Ginny: How did you make the decision to use 'The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures'? And how did you obtain the volumes? Did you seek them out or were they offered to you by Jehovah's Witnesses? Were you charged for the volumes? Did your students pay for them as textbooks or make a donation?
BeDuhn: I'm not sure of why such details are important to you. I ordered a copy of the KIT back in the 1980's directly from the WBTS. I think I had come across the book in a university library, and it looked worth having. I put it on my textbook order because it was a handy, reasonable accurate, cheap interlinear (interlinears are usually quite pricey). I found out when the semester began that the bookstores had been unable to obtain it because the WBTS will not sell their publications to bookstores. So I got on the phone, called the Bloomington Jehovah's Witnesses, and one gentleman arranged for the books I needed to be shipped from New York. I gave the books to my students without charge (they were happy to get free textbooks of course), and collected most of them at the end of the semester so that I could use them in future classes. A few students asked to keep their copies and I allowed them to. I myself made a donation to the WBTS, as suggested by the gentleman who procured them for me, a donation that was considerably less than the value of the books they provided, in my judgment.
"Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses?"
Ginny: Is this actually the question you were answering? Do you use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in many of your college courses, or just this one you taught at IU?
BeDuhn: Yes, this is actually a paraphrase of a rhetorical question I wrote in the letter. I have not had an opportunity to teach a similar course where the books would be used.
"He answers: "Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available."
Ginny: Best in what way? Are there many interlinear New Testaments available?
BeDuhn: No, there are not very many. As I said, accurate, inexpensive (even more than I thought), and for the other reasons cited below.
"I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well.
Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, is many ways, superior to the most successful translation in use today."
Ginny: So, do I understand correctly that you are praising both the the word for word translation of the Watchtower Society directly below the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the New World Translation reproduced in the right column? In what ways is it "superior to the most successful translation in use today"?
BeDuhn: The interlinear is what I payed most attention to. Of course it is based on Westcott & Hort. ONe difference I noted is a very slavish word for word correspondence in the English words used to parallel the Greek. This is good. Most interlinears do a bit of interpretation already in selecting a variety of English words for one Greek word, depending on context. This interpretive move is best left for translations. The problem with most available translations is that they are loose interpretations of the Greek. Many are actually paraphrases. The NRSV has made a major move in the direction of paraphrase even from the RSV, which already had a lot of problems of this kind. Also, many English words no longer mean what they did when first selected to translate the Greek, and so they have misleading or confusing connotations. The NWT is fresh, idiosyncratic English, forcing my students to grapple with the possible meaning. A good translation should not cover up problems in the text, but fully expose them to our search for understanding. The NWT allows this to happen, no matter what the Witnesses intended.
----------
Here are my comments to Mr. BeDuhn after receiving his reply:
My comments were specifically about the KIT book, and were not meant, and should not be taken, as an endorsement of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
After reading your replies to my questions, I've come to realize how little I actually know about the merits of the New World Translation. As I said before, when I was a JW, I easily accepted that it was the best and most accurate translation available. When I detowered, I made the mistake of quickly accepting the differing opinions I read, that the translation is atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate, without investigating these claims myself. I'm beginning to see that the NWT is just like any other translation -- it has its strengths and its faults.
So, I've had to ask myself, why did your praise for it touch such a nerve for me? I've come to realize that it's because the NWT is such an integral part of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. While some JWs will use other translations to get a broader understanding of a particular text, the NWT is the ultimate authority and no more to be questioned than the religion and the Watchtower Society itself. While I now understand your intent and reasons for praising the KIT book, your quotation in the Watchtower will be read by current JWs as proof that the Watchtower Society is indeed God's heavenly mouthpiece and that the translation itself must certainly have been guided by divine inspiration. And who alone but God's own chosen people would have such a wonderful translation, one praised by a Biblical scholar, a professor at Indiana University, a university whose Religious Studies department was rated #1 by the Gourman Report?
I must accept that you cannot control how your comments are interpreted, nor can you control if more is read into them than is actually there.
As for the use of "experts" -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagrees. Many people who put themselves forward as "experts" are not, in the case of Biblical studies because they don't know the languages and haven't bothered to make a close study of scholarship.
In the case of the Watchtower Society, it goes a bit further than just citing those who agree with them and dismissing those who disagree. In their literature they have deliberately manipulated quotations to support their beliefs. And it has been the Watchtower Society which has usually presented people as experts who are not, rather than it being a case of the supposed experts pushing themselves to the fore. An example of the type of scholastic dishonesty employed by the Watchtower Society is the book _Life--How did it Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?_ I am thinking particularly of their reliance on quotations from Francis Hitching, who the Society presents as an evolutionist and scientist. A detailed examination of the methods used in this book may be found at: http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=WO&Dato=20010101&Kategori=DOCTRINE5&Lopenr=9999344&Ref=AR
"Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate" may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that "all reputable scholars," "every Greek or biblical scholar," etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source.
Shortly after your article appeared, I saw a notice about it on one of the ex-JW mailing lists. The phrases "atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate," "all reputable scholars," and "every Greek or biblical scholar" were used in this post. I must shamefacedly admit that in my emotional volatility upon reading your quotation, I responded quickly, without much thought, and used the post as the basis for my own mails to you and Dr. Orsi. I regret this. It is very stupid to use phrases with words such as "all" or "every" unless there is absolutely unanimous condemnation, which is certainly not true in this case. And to fling about the phrase "all reputable scholars" is, of course, an insult to you and your scholarship. I apologize for that.
In trying to trace the source of these phrases, I found an article entitled, "What Greek Scholars Really Think!" I found it at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/jw-015.txt
And I can't say that this article is fair. It has a Christian agenda, only considers the rendering of John 1:1, and does not present any of the positive statements about the New World Translation.
But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between.
After reading your reply, I realize that I was just as quick to judge the New World Translation as atrocious as I once was to judge it as the best. And I made both judgments without researching the matter for myself, but instead accepted the word of others. I did a quick search on the net to see what I could find, and came up with over 1000 hits. So, if I truly want to weigh the merits and faults of the NWT, I have some reading to do.
I realized, too, that I reacted strongly to your quotation not because I care so much about the relative merits of the NWT, but because of my own wounds at the hand of the Society. I do not have a Christian or Trinitarian agenda as some who have written to you do; it matters not to me whether Jesus is God or a god or divine. For those ex-JWs who do now have this agenda, your quotation was doubly provocative. In a way we ex-JWs are like abused children. The Watchtower Society was our mother. The NWT was one of the implements of her abuse. While this does not excuse the rude reactions thrown your way in the name of scholarly debate, I do hope it helps you understand why the reactions are coming.
For your characterization to be correct, you would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a "hyper-literal" translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.
I understand. If every translation is biased, it seems futile to point out the biases of the NWT. And as I say above, I realize this is not the heart of the issue for me. Even if the JWs were denied the NWT, were forced to use another translation in their daily studies, I believe they could still twist the scriptures to "prove" their own doctrine; it just wouldn't be quite so easy.
In case it might be interesting to you, I did find two web sites which list problems found in the New World Translation:
http://home.earthlink.net/~defender/de01014.html
[above link now outdated]
http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw97.html
I'm not sure of why such details are important to you.
My questions about how you obtained the KITs and whether you paid for them were not directly related to your quotation in the Watchtower, but again, to my wounds as an ex-JW.
Until 1990 Jehovah's Witnesses routinely charged for literature. In February 1990 the Watchtower Society began distributing literature based solely on donation. JWs were told this was a simplified arrangement which was motivated by concern for the poor, would be instituted worldwide to show JW unity, and would separate JWs from commercialized religion. When I discovered that this change was actually made to avoid paying sales tax and was not made worldwide, I felt betrayed and angry. Thus my curiosity about how the JWs handled the financial end of the book transaction.
Details about the "simplified literature arrangement" can be found at:
http://www.ultranet.com/~comments/swaggart.html
Thank you for responding to my questions so promptly. Your reply helped me sift my own motivations. My main concern is that I know your quotation will be used by the Society forever after in support of a religion that deeply damages its members and even kills some. I understand that this was not your intent.
