Thanks Juan Miguel for your kind comments. Thanks everyone else for theirs too, including TTSWYF. It is good to see how people view things, and give us a chance to learn from others.
This thread about the NWT translation work being done in the shadows is probably due to a couple of reasons. Though it is evident that at least one, perhaps two members of the NWT Committee had enough knowledge to tackle translation work (perhaps Franz and Gangas), none of those alleged members had a Master's, much less a Doctorate degree. Yes, it would be embarrassing to publicly acknowledge they had no college credentials. I have no doubt that F. Franz was capable as he said, of 'applying himself furiously to the task of having a command in Greek.' There are far too many witnesses confirming that he was good with languages. I myself heard him speak in three languages, two of which I could follow along with his speech. The second language being Spanish, and he definitely had command of that one. Yet, he was self-taught on that one. If he mastered the Spanish and Portuguese the way he did on his own, no doubt he excelled on his 'applying himself furiously to have a command in Greek.' I heard him personally twice speak in a few languages, without reading a manuscript, and citing more than a full chapter verse by verse in those foreign languages.
Raymond Franz also later admitted that Fred Franz was "unusually disciplined" in the study of bible languages. Whether it was all Fred Franz's language command, or if he benefited from Gangas being a native Greek speaker, we will not know. Before someone snaps back telling me that Gangas knew modern Greek... yes, it was, however, it would not be insurmountable for Gangas to apply himself in Koiné Greek as a contributor. He worked as a translator in Bethel as a translator of English to Greek, Greek to English, and he also served as a Spanish translator when necessary. Gangas was no dummy. Different sources confirm that it is far easier for a native modern Greek speaker to pick up whatever differences there are with Koine, than it would be for a non-Greek speaker to learn koine. Gangas spoke Greek, something other Greek scholars cannot do. Whatever the explanation, the fact is someone in Bethel had a command of Greek good enough to get Andover Newton Quarterly to admit the NWT exhibited "unusual competence in Greek." Another interesting tidbit is, that some tried to make E.G. Goodspeed. a highly respected Greek scholar from Chicago Univ. condemn the NWT, and all they could get from him was a criticism of some Hebrew renderings. On the Greek he held fast to what he had stated in a letter to the WT, i.e. 'that the NWT displayed depth of knowledge... sound serious learning of which he could testify,' and that he was pleased with the NWT NT.
Also, it should be stated, that the WT started anonymity way before the 1940's, which was when (specif. 1942) when they made it sort of a general rule not to publish the names of the authors of their publications. That is at least 8 years before the NWT was published. Furthermore, scores of bible versions throughout bible history have published many editions anonymously. The 20th Century NT being one of them.
Someone here asked whether the Jews' reaction to Jesus saying "ego eimi" (Jn 8:58) was proof enough that he must have been claiming divinity. The Jerusalem Bible says that Jesus was claiming "a divine mode of existence," (Spanish Jerusalem Bible footnote) which would indicate that Jesus was not claiming divine equality with God by saying ego eimi. The English JB has a footnote which says: "The claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v.58) is, for the Jews, blasphemy, for which the penalty is stoning. Lv 24:16." So it seems these scholars understand Jesus claiming "a divine mode of existence," but stopping short of identifying himself as the "I am" of Ex 3:14, where translators erroneously go by the reading of the LXX rather than the Hebrew, for theological reasons.
Grammarian Kenneth L. Mckay tells us that "the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction." (Expository Times 107 p. 302)
And let us not forget John 10:33-36, where Jews wanted to stone Jesus for just claiming to be, not that he was the God (no Greek article), but God' Son. Hence, Daniel Mace New Testament and James L. Tomanek NT render 10:33 as "a God."
Jesus finished his argument by saying that he was only claiming to be God's Son. (10:36) In harmony with Jesus' own claim, it is more reasonable to take ego eimi, not as a claim of full divinity with God, but as stating: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born," (Grammarian K. McKay's translation) or, "I was alive before Abraham was born!" Simple English Bible.
