Maybe you are right, but a person doesn't need to go to university to learn Greek or Hebrew. I know a number of ordinary Witnesses who have learned Hebrew and Greek, some at university, some in their spare time. I have taken classes in Hebrew and Coptic, one degree level, the other not, but both pretty similar in how far they went. Hebrew is not a difficult language to get the basics. A lot of the OT contains hapax legomena and unique constructions anyway and even good Classical Hebrew scholars will be relying heavily on textual commentaries, grammars and lexicons to make sense of the text.
To put it another way, given that Jackson has an interest in languages and translation, and that he is on the Governing Body that initiated the revised NWT, it would be pretty surprising if he was not heavily involved, and if he did not at least attempt to grapple the original languages to some extent.
Having said that, there is little if any use of technical, scholarly language on textual or linguistic issues in the appendices. The discussion of the divine name relies on the same old quotes the Society have been using for decades, and fails to reference more recent scholarship that could be cited in their favour. At least Fred Franz made an effort to use scholarly language, as if to convey that he understood the scholarly literature and knew what he was talking about on linguistic and textual matters. There is precious little evidence in the revised NWT of original scholarly engagement with the text, and much to suggest that the revision is primarily stylistic in its scope.
