Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, “Appendix, 'The Use of “Jehovah” in the NW New Testament'”
“Having concluded that the NW is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am referring to the use of 'Jehovah' in the NW New Testament. … But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name 'Jehovah' into the New Testament, as the NW does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169) … To suggest such a reading not supported by the manuscript evidence is called making a conjectural emendation. It is an emendation because you are repairing, 'mending,' a text you believe is defective. It is conjectural because it is a hypothesis… The editors of the NW are making a conjectural emendation when they replace kurios, which would be translated 'Lord,' with 'Jehovah.' (p. 171) … The inconsistency of the NW translators in not using 'Jehovah' in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3, and 1 Peter 3:15 shows that interpretation rather than a principle of translation is involved in deciding where to use 'Jehovah'. (p. 175) … [The zeal of the NW editors …] has carried them too far, and into a harmonizing practice of their own. … Their principle of 'emendation' does not seem to work. (p. 177)”
In the appendix that follows his favourable overall verdict, BeDuhn argues that putting 'Jehovah' into the New Testament, where no surviving Greek manuscript has it, is a 'conjectural emendation' (p. 171) — repairing a text one believes to be defective — rather than translation, and that the translators applied their own rule inconsistently. He lists five verses at which they used 'God' instead (Romans 11:2; 11:8; Galatians 1:15; Hebrews 9:20; 1 Peter 4:14), saying 'I cannot say why the NW editors abandoned their principle of conjectural emendation in these five cases; it makes no difference in the meaning of the text' (p. 174), and then three at which, by their own principles, 'Jehovah' should have appeared and did not: 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3 and 1 Peter 3:15 (pp. 174-175). Of the last two he writes that 'the NW translators have deviated from the principles by which they would normally use “Jehovah”, and they have done so quite obviously because of bias'. He nevertheless ends the appendix still defending the translators' motive.
Official source (opens in new tab) Link not auto-checkable
Provenance and verification note for Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Appendix, 'The Use of “Jehovah” in the NW New Testament'
Confidence note. The book itself was never opened. The previous confidence label of 'verified' rested entirely on Google Books' in-volume snippet search, which no longer runs from this environment at all: books.google.com, books.google.co.uk, books.google.de, books.google.ca and www.googleapis.com/books/v1 all answer HTTP 429, and WebFetch is redirected to Google's 'sorry' interstitial. An auditor cannot reproduce the retrieval, and a snippet is in any case not the document. Downgraded to 'supported' on 19 September 2026. What was confirmed independently on that date, from two reproductions that do not depend on each other: the p. 169 sentence (tetragrammaton.org, which reproduces the opening of the appendix in full); the p. 171 definition of conjectural emendation (same); the p. 174 and p. 175 material about the eight verses (same); and the p. 175 sentence and both p. 177 fragments (Trevor Allin's critique, which quotes them with page attributions and is hostile to BeDuhn, so has no motive to soften him). BeDuhn's own sigla for the New World Translation is 'NW', not 'NWT': Allin quotes him with 'NW', the reproduction of pp. 124-125 has 'the NW translation', and JW.org expands it as 'The NW [New World Translation]'. The tetragrammaton.org reproduction silently prints 'NWT' throughout. Where the two differ, 'NW' is used here. Until the printed book is in hand, do not present these quotations as letter-perfect. Two fragments that appeared in the earlier version of this record have been removed because no reproduction anywhere attests them: a second p. 177 sentence, 'I personally do not agree with that practice, and think that identifications of “Lord” with “Jehovah” should be placed in footnotes', and a p. 170 phrase, 'denominationally preferred expressions for God'. Neither may be published unless the book is read.
Scan provenance. Not opened. The quotations below are transcribed from two independent published reproductions: the long review at tetragrammaton.org, which quotes pp. 169 and 171-175 at length, and Trevor Allin's critique (src-nwt-allin-2026-review), which quotes pp. 175 and 177 with page attributions. The two agree word for word on the p. 175 sentence.
Corroborated by. src-nwt-allin-2026-review
Notes. This is the half of BeDuhn's assessment that Watch Tower publications do not quote. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] The opening clause matters and was missing before: BeDuhn introduces the criticism by restating his favourable verdict in the very same sentence — 'Having concluded that the NW is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss…'. A page that quotes the 'inaccuracy' half without that clause is doing to BeDuhn what JW.org does to him in the other direction.
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-jehovah-appendix