Apognophos said: "Just to be clear, I don't really believe that the original Committee was qualified enough to do their own translation (and in any case they used pre-existing scholarly works as a guide)."
How can you be so sure? The only people who seem so sure of what you said are anti-JWs, mainly dubious Evangelicals, per Ray Franz. Even the info Ray Franz provided was not complete, and virtually admitted that Fred was self-taught. He later told many others that his footnote was blown out of proportion, and that he felt that Fred had enough knowledge to make a creditable translation. It is not clear who else worked with Fred. It is a kept secret, just as the practice of what many Corporations are working on next it is not made publicly known.
Contrary to common belief that the NWT Committee had cero knowledge of the original languages, the translation itself testifies that someone did. There are far too many language particulars and difficulties to deal with, and some hard decisions to be made. The NWT made decisions which show someone had sufficient knowledge in those languages. Some scholars have admitted to that. Why not take their word for once instead of just taking specific statements made by ultra-zealous religious opponents only?
Take Judges 14:3, where alledgedly Goodspeed found the NWT grammar "regrettable." The problem was that the NWT Committee was too concerned back then in the 1950's to follow the Hebrew word for word, and aimed to provide the reader with Hebrew flavor. The text will show what Samson said to his father (Samson was interested in a Philistine woman in this case).
1953: NWT Edition: “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.”
1984 Edition: "Get just her for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes."
2013 Edition: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”
Which one better reflects the Hebrew better? I would say the 1953 & 1984 Editions provided finer Hebrew details left out in the Revision. However, most people would rather read the Revised reading because it is simply more readable. But to provide the earlier reading, some Hebrew knowledge is required to get the pulse of the original statement with its Hebrew idiom and particular emphasis in a couple of places. The Committee obviously tried to convey the Hebrew closely.
If Goodspeed criticized the translation there, it was the English choice for the Hebrew. He was not attacking the lack of Hebrew knowledge of the translators. Actually, Goodspeed praised the NWT Committee for its depth of knowledge. However, as we all know, the original NWT was very un-English...almost like reading Hebrew with English words. The 2013 Edition smoothed out the Hebrew readings quite a bit, a daunting task which does require some knowledge of the originals as well, unless they are willing to make an ass of themselves, which I doubt is the case here.
I
