BeDuhn lauds the KIT for its accuracy as an interlinear translation and its utility in academic settings. He emphasizes its "slavish word-for-word correspondence," which exposes linguistic nuances and forces readers to grapple with the text's original meaning. While the KIT may be a helpful academic tool, its underlying Greek text (Westcott & Hort) is itself subject to scholarly debate, and it represents only one textual tradition. Moreover, the interlinear's literalism can sometimes obscure meaning in cases where context and idiom demand a more dynamic translation.
BeDuhn defends the NWT as generally accurate and “hyper-literal,” emphasizing that it avoids interpretive glosses often found in mainstream translations. Hyper-literal translations, while exposing readers to the text's structure, can lead to awkward or misleading renderings. For instance, the NWT’s approach in passages like John 1:1 (“a god”) or Colossians 1:15 (adding “other”) reflects interpretive choices influenced by JW doctrine. While these may not be "grammatically impossible," they can still introduce theological bias under the guise of literalism.
BeDuhn argues that all translations reflect some level of bias, stemming from the theological or doctrinal assumptions of their translators. While bias is indeed present in all translations, not all biases are equal. The NWT has been criticized for systematic doctrinal bias that aligns closely with JW doctrines, particularly regarding the deity of Christ and the use of “Jehovah” in the NT. By contrast, many mainstream translations aim for a broader ecumenical consensus.
The Watchtower's history of taking scholars’ statements out of context warrants scrutiny. By omitting BeDuhn’s criticisms of the NWT and KIT, the organization risks misleading its readers, particularly given the deference many JWs afford to such endorsements.
The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 instances in the NT, despite the absence of the Tetragrammaton in all known Greek manuscripts. BeDuhn’s critique in his later writings acknowledges this as a conjectural emendation unsupported by manuscript evidence. This practice reflects theological bias, as it aligns with JW emphasis on the divine name, even at the expense of textual fidelity. It also obscures the NT authors' apparent identification of Jesus with OT references to Yahweh (e.g., Philippians 2:10–11, quoting Isaiah 45:23). BeDuhn criticizes the NWT’s substitution of "Jehovah" for Kyrios (Lord) in the NT, noting that this choice is not supported by manuscript evidence. While he acknowledges that the Watchtower’s theory about the removal of the divine name from early Christian texts might be plausible, he rightly concludes that the current state of evidence does not support this claim. The insertion of “Jehovah” into the NT by the NWT is one of its most controversial features. This choice introduces theological bias, as it aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ distinctive focus on the divine name. While some OT quotations in the NT might justify restoring the Tetragrammaton, the wholesale replacement of Kyrios with “Jehovah” is not only conjectural but also inconsistent with the textual evidence.
BeDuhn defends the grammatical possibility of “a god” as a rendering, though he concedes that “divine” might better reflect the qualitative nuance of theos in this context. BeDuhn’s argument in favor of the NWT centers on its adherence to Greek grammar, particularly in controversial passages like John 1:1. His assertion that the NWT's rendering of the third clause as "a god" or "divine" is grammatically valid aligns with the understanding of theos without the definite article in Greek. While this argument has linguistic merit, it overlooks the theological implications of rendering theos as "a god." Critics argue that this rendering introduces theological bias by diminishing the traditional understanding of Christ’s deity, a point that BeDuhn downplays as an interpretive choice rather than a distortion. The NWT’s rendering of “a god” introduces theological implications that are inconsistent with Johannine monotheism. The broader context of John’s Gospel, including verses like John 1:3 and John 20:28, supports an understanding of the Logos as fully divine rather than a subordinate deity.
BeDuhn draws an interesting parallel between Mark 12:26–27 and John 1:1, noting that the absence of the article in theos in Mark 12:27 allows for a categorical or indefinite sense. While this observation is linguistically valid, the context of John 1:1 differs significantly. The Prologue of John is a theological statement about the Logos's identity, emphasizing the Word’s intrinsic divinity rather than placing it in a generic “god” category. John 1:1's prologue is widely understood as affirming the Word’s deity, paralleling the "Logos" with the monotheistic God of Jewish tradition. Translating theos as "a god" risks conflicting with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, potentially introducing a theological bias of Arianism. BeDuhn critiques the application of Colwell’s Rule by arguing it presupposes definiteness rather than proving it. While his criticism has validity, Colwell’s Rule remains a significant framework in Greek syntax, particularly when analyzing predicate nominatives like theos in John 1:1. Many scholars argue that the absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite but emphasizes its qualitative aspect, supporting the translation "the Word was God" as a categorical affirmation of the Logos’ divine nature. BeDuhn views John 1:1 as an initial step in the development of Christological thought, which later led to doctrines like the Trinity. While this perspective aligns with historical-critical approaches, it risks downplaying the high Christology evident throughout John’s Gospel.
BeDuhn highlights the inconsistency in various translations’ handling of theos, noting that all translations exhibit some bias. However, he overlooks the inconsistency within the NWT itself, particularly its selective use of "Jehovah" in the NT. As BeDuhn acknowledges in his appendix critique, the insertion of "Jehovah" lacks textual support in the Greek manuscripts and is based on conjectural emendation. This practice undermines the NWT’s claim to objectivity and introduces a significant theological bias aligning with JW doctrine. BeDuhn’s dismissal of prominent scholars’ critiques of the NWT as "biased" or "theological rather than linguistic" can itself be seen as overly dismissive. While bias exists in translation, his blanket critique of traditional interpretations risks downplaying legitimate scholarly concerns about the NWT’s theological motivations. For instance, his dismissal of Metzger’s and Westcott’s criticisms as “theological” overlooks the fact that theological coherence and linguistic fidelity are often intertwined in biblical exegesis.
While BeDuhn defends the NWT's rendering as "grammatically possible", most scholars argue it fails to reflect the qualitative nuance of theos in the text, which suggests divine nature rather than indefiniteness. The qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1 is supported by the immediate context (e.g., John 1:3, 1:18) and the larger narrative of John’s Gospel, which culminates in Thomas’s confession of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Rendering theos as “a god” not only creates theological ambiguity but also introduces an interpretation that aligns more closely with Jehovah’s Witness theology than with the text’s intent.
BeDuhn’s treatment of John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God!”) as an interpretive issue rather than a clear affirmation of Christ’s deity is also problematic. While he correctly notes that the context of John’s Gospel must inform the interpretation, his reluctance to acknowledge this verse as a culmination of the Logos theology presented in John 1:1 appears to reflect his own theological hesitancy rather than an unbiased analysis.
BeDuhn suggests that "divine" might be a preferable translation to "a god" in John 1:1c, as it captures the qualitative nature of the term. This suggestion underscores a valid point that a qualitative understanding of theos aligns with John’s theology. However, the NWT’s choice of "a god" implies henotheism to many English readers, creating a disconnect with both the text's Jewish monotheistic roots and its intended meaning.
Examples like Colossians 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation” with “other”), Philippians 2:6 (“gave no consideration to a seizure”), and Titus 2:13 (rendering that separates “God” and “Savior”) highlight interpretive choices that align with JW doctrine. These choices go beyond grammatical fidelity, often reshaping the text to fit a pre-existing theological framework. Such renderings are at odds with mainstream scholarship and the broader consensus of early Christian interpretation.
BeDuhn points out that mainstream biblical scholars rarely review the NWT, not because of unanimous condemnation but due to its peripheral status in academic circles. While the lack of scholarly reviews may limit informed critique, the absence of positive scholarly consensus is also telling. The NWT’s idiosyncrasies and theological biases have prevented its acceptance as a reliable translation outside JW circles.
BeDuhn’s concern that his praise for the KIT might be misused by the Watchtower to bolster its religious claims is valid. The organization’s history of presenting scholars’ comments out of context, as seen in other cases, underscores the need for caution. While his defense of the NWT against blanket condemnation is fair, his critiques often fail to fully address the theological and doctrinal motivations behind the NWT’s most controversial renderings. The NWT’s systematic alignment with JW theology in key texts—especially concerning the deity of Christ and the insertion of “Jehovah” in the NT—raises legitimate concerns about its reliability as an unbiased translation. BeDuhn’s observations remind us of the importance of critical engagement with all translations, recognizing both their strengths and their limitations. However, the broader scholarly and theological critiques of the NWT remain valid and should not be dismissed as merely biased reactions.