Journal of Biblical Literature, “Review: New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. I”
“[While] this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages.”
A review of the 1953 New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Volume I (Genesis to Ruth), in the principal North American journal of biblical studies. The sentence above is the review's conclusion. It is not the whole of Haas's criticism: the secondary literature also quotes him from p. 282 to the effect that 'religious bias is shown most clearly in the policy of translating the tetragrammaton as Jehovah', and that he objected to 'Jehovah' being substituted for 'Adonai' at Genesis 18:3. Quoting only the concluding sentence therefore understates rather than overstates his criticism.
Source officielle (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet) Lien non vérifiable automatiquement
Note de provenance et de vérification for Journal of Biblical Literature, Review: New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. I
Note sur la fiabilité. The existence and citation of the review were confirmed in the Crossref record on 19 September 2026: Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 74, issue 4, December 1955, first page 282, reviewer Samuel S. Haas, DOI 10.2307/3261681. The text of the review could not be opened; the JSTOR item page returns only a stub to automated requests. [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] Two problems with the wording. First, the opening word is not settled: the reproduction carried by Wikipedia, which cites Haas 1955 p. 283 directly, begins 'this work indicates a great deal of effort…' with no 'While', and reads as a fragment; the advocacy sites give 'While this work indicates…'. The bracket above marks that the first word is supplied and unconfirmed. Second, the review runs pp. 282-283, so the sentence's page is plausible but unconfirmed. Do not print this sentence without saying that the original was not read.
Notes. A second contemporary review of the same volume exists and appears not to be used on either side of the popular argument: J. J. Owens, 'Book Review: New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures', Review & Expositor vol. 53 (April 1956), pp. 253-254, DOI 10.1177/003463735605300239 (confirmed in Crossref; text not opened). Owens is quoted in the secondary literature as finding that 'the literalness and stiff expressions' detract, which is a criticism of style rather than of doctrine.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-nwt-haas-1955-jbl