JWTruth.orgDocumented comparison resource
Search

The Bible and the translation · Claim record

Thomas N. Winter, then a classicist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, reviewed the Kingdom Interlinear Translation favourably in The Classical Journal in 1974, writing that 'the integrity of the text is preserved', that 'the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate', that 'the book has been very carefully compiled and printed', and recommending that a classicist or Bible student 'bring him in and place an order' when a Witness calls.

Claim ID claim-bible-winter-1974-favourableConcerns April 1974Explicit statement
Explicit statement · April 1974 Verified

Thomas N. Winter, then a classicist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, reviewed the Kingdom Interlinear Translation favourably in The Classical Journal in 1974, writing that 'the integrity of the text is preserved', that 'the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate', that 'the book has been very carefully compiled and printed', and recommending that a classicist or Bible student 'bring him in and place an order' when a Witness calls. The Classical Journal, April 1974JW.org Frequently Asked Questions, 19 September 2026

The organisation’s position or later explanation: Jehovah's Witnesses cite this review on JW.org for the sentence 'The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate', attributed to page 376. That quotation is accurate: the printed review reads 'The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.'

Show the evidence (2 sources)
Peer-reviewed / scholarly Verified

The Classical Journal, “Review of New World Bible Translation Committee's The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures”

April 1974 · pp.375-376 · Thomas Nelson Winter (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) · Classical Association of the Middle West and South

“This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. Thus the interlinear feature of this book is no translation at all. A text with instant vocabulary more correctly describes it. … The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. … The book has been very carefully compiled and printed. In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place an order.”

A short, favourable review of the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The review opens 'An original Greek text for two dollars is something of a miracle, and it should not surprise us that it took a world-wide group of Bible students to pull it off.' Winter sets a line of the Kingdom Interlinear beside a line of an ordinary Latin interlinear, says the latter's 'mixmastered Latin… is anathema to any classicist', and reports that he gave the Kingdom Interlinear to several second-year Greek students as an auxiliary text and that their Greek improved. His one worked example of accuracy is that where the King James and Revised Standard have 'wise men' for magoi, the Kingdom Interlinear has 'astrologers', 'a more correct and informative rendition'.

Official source Scan of original

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Opened and read in full on 19 September 2026 — the whole printed review, not the repository abstract. The repository's PDF (cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=classicsfacpub) returns HTTP 403 to automated requests from this environment but opens through the Wayback Machine; it reproduces the printed review, headed 'APRIL-MAY, 1974' and signed 'THOMAS N. WINTER, University of Nebraska'. The quotations above are transcribed from it. The repository record gives the citation as The Classical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Apr.-May 1974), pp. 375-376, and carries the JSTOR SICI string 0009-8353(197404/05)69:4<375:TKITOT>2.0.CO;2-F, which independently encodes volume 69, issue 4, first page 375.

Scan provenance. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln repository's own PDF of the printed review, which reproduces the review in full, headed 'APRIL-MAY, 1974' and signed 'THOMAS N. WINTER, University of Nebraska'. The live viewcontent.cgi URL returns HTTP 403 to automated requests; the Wayback Machine's copy of the same PDF opens normally. Note that the repository's record page at /classicsfacpub/27 carries only a shortened abstract of the review, not the whole of it.

Corroborated by. src-nwt-jw-faq-accurate

Notes. The citation repeated in Watch Tower publications and across the internet, 'The Classical Journal 66 (April-May 1974)', gives the wrong volume: volume 66 covers 1970-71. The author's own university, and the JSTOR SICI string on the same page, give volume 69, no. 4. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] An earlier version of this record said that the sentence Jehovah's Witnesses quote — 'The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate' — did not appear in the text reproduced by Winter's university and was unconfirmed. That was wrong, and it was wrong because the repository's record page carries only a condensed abstract. The full PDF has the sentence, in this form: 'The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.' JW.org's quotation of it is accurate, and the site must say so. What the site may fairly add is the context: Winter was assessing a Greek text with word-by-word glosses as a teaching aid for classicists, and his single worked example of accuracy is 'astrologers' for magoi.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-winter-1974-classical-journal

Primary JW publication Verified

JW.org Frequently Asked Questions, “Is the New World Translation Accurate?”

19 September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: 'The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.' Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: 'Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.'—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.”

The page sets out three reasons the New World Translation differs from other Bibles (reliability, faithfulness, literalness), explains the omission of the Apocrypha and of later manuscript additions, and then, under the heading 'Positive comments about the New World Translation from non-Witness scholars', gives nine favourable comments: Edgar J. Goodspeed (a letter dated 8 December 1950), Allen Wikgren (The Interpreter's Bible, vol. I, p. 99), Alexander Thomson (The Differentiator, April 1952, p. 52), Charles Francis Potter (The Faiths Men Live By, p. 300), Robert M. McCoy (Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, p. 31), S. MacLean Gilmour (Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, p. 26), Thomas N. Winter (The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, p. 376), Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein (a statement of 1989) and Jason David BeDuhn. A footnote states that the comments 'apply to editions of the English New World Translation prior to the 2013 revision'.

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. The whole page was fetched and read on 19 September 2026 and every quotation above was transcribed from it. The page is undated, so the access date is recorded as its date; its content may change. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] The page was fetched and read again. The BeDuhn quotation above is verbatim. One correction: the page carries nine favourable comments, not eight — the earlier version of this record enumerated eight and left out Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, who appears between Winter and BeDuhn. The claim built on this record has been corrected to match.

Corroborated by. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-verdict, src-nwt-winter-1974-classical-journal

Notes. The page quotes BeDuhn's favourable verdict (pp. 163, 165) and does not mention his appendix (pp. 169-181), in which he calls the use of 'Jehovah' in the New Testament an inaccuracy. Of the nine favourable comments, four are cited to journals or reference works (Wikgren, McCoy, Gilmour, Winter), one to a scholarly monograph (BeDuhn) and four to a private letter, a privately circulated magazine, a general-readership book and an undated personal statement (Goodspeed, Thomson, Potter, Kedar-Kopfstein). Of the nine, only the Winter and BeDuhn items have been checked against their originals in this research, and the Winter one checks out.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwt-jw-faq-accurate

Claim page

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-bible-winter-1974-favourable/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.