Thursday, January 3, 2008

More on the NWT

Yesterday, in a post demonstrating the reliability of the various English translations of the Bible, I made the parenthetic comment that the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses is indeed a biased and inaccurate rendering of the original Greek of the New Testament. A reader directed me here to a website dedicated to defending the NWT as reliable and unbiased. I encourage my readers to check it out (if they want) before reading my take on what is there offered in such defense.

In addressing the arguments made at this website, my goal is not to "win an argument." The authors of the site hope that anyone taking "issue with the renderings as found in the New World Translation or any other translation" would "do so in a manner that is an effort to seek out the truth and in a way that is scholarly, honest, and fair." I agree wholeheartedly, and so my goal (in interacting with the arguments put forth at this site) is to seek truth and to do so with love for these fellow beings who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, men and women for whom Christ laid down His life.

Having said that, I find the site's introductory arguments unpersuasive, and that because they represent fallacious reasoning.

The first argument seems to be that the NWT can't be all that bad, since by 1998 it had sold 100 million copies. This is an example of the argumentum ad populum or "popular appeal" fallacy. Whether or not a large number--or even a majority--of people believe something is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true. Arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, made it to the top of the Bestsellers' List and enjoyed great popularity. But this popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not his main thesis (that religion of all varieties is both delusional and dangerous) is true. In the same way, the fact that the NWT has sold so many copies is irrelevant to the question of whether it accurately translates the Greek of the New Testament.

The second argument is that, just as the NWT has received a great deal of criticism, so too did Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German. Since most scholars now consider Luther to have produced a trustworthy translation, we should extend the same appraisal to the NWT. To complete this analogy, the authors of the site argue that in both cases the reason for the criticism was that the new translations (Luther's and the NWT) served to expose the shortcomings of the traditional religion of their respective days.

This argument is an example of a faulty analogy. To be sure, the two characteristics mentioned (each received criticism and each upset the traditional religion of the time) represent similarities between Luther's translation and the NWT. But with regard to the question of whether either is biased, there are significant differences that make the analogy break down. The most important difference, of course, is at the heart of my original claim. And that is this... Today, a host of experts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek who come from a wide diversity of theological positions have access to each of these translations and to the abundant copies in the original languages. And they, while finding specific points at which Luther likely erred, find his translation to be free of bias and that of the JWs to display a very clear (non-Trinitarian) bias. (I'll be glad to provide specific examples in another post.)

Another analogy used by the site's authors is more obviously faulty...
Criticisms of the New World Translation should not be surprising. In Jesus' day, he and his followers were the object of criticism, ridicule, and abuse. This was more often than not from religious leaders and men. Those who were 'looked up to' and respected as being learned men (Jn. 7:45-49). Likewise today Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes the object of criticism, ridicule, and abuse. Not least their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
In other words, if we don't condone the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus then we shouldn't condone criticism of the NWT. I trust that my readers immediately recognize the illegitimacy of this equation.

So these are the arguments meant to defend the NWT against the charge of bias. In that attempt, they fail. Moreover, though Jehovah's Witnesses like to claim that this translation was produced in a scholarly manner, the evidence doesn't support this claim. Unlike almost every other English translation, this one was done so anonymously. There is no way to assess the qualifications of its translators because they were unwilling to attach their names and reputations to it.* All we can address is the translation itself, and non-JW experts are unanimous in recognizing it as a distorted rendering of the original languages, one designed to support the doctrines and practices unique to this modern group.



*JWs will respond that the translators chose to remain anonymous for fear that pride would otherwise overtake them. One need not be praised by others, however, to be consumed by pride. Moreover, being numbered with a host of other editors (as is typical of all of our other modern English translations) is hardly a guarantee of fame and stardom in our culture.

10 comments:

CresceNet said...

Gostei muito desse post e seu blog é muito interessante, vou passar por aqui sempre =) Depois dá uma passada lá no meu site, que é sobre o CresceNet, espero que goste. O endereço dele é http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . Um abraço.

Rick Gerhardt said...

Muito obrigado!

simplybiblical said...

Greetings Rick Gerhardt;

You wrote:

<< Yesterday, in a post demonstrating the reliability of the various English translations of the Bible, I made the parenthetic comment that the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses is indeed a biased and inaccurate rendering of the original Greek of the New Testament. A reader directed me here to a website dedicated to defending the NWT as reliable and unbiased. I encourage my readers to check it out (if they want) before reading my take on what is there offered in such defense. >>

<< In addressing the arguments made at this website, my goal is not to "win an argument." The authors of the site hope that anyone taking "issue with the renderings as found in the New World Translation or any other translation" would "do so in a manner that is an effort to seek out the truth and in a way that is scholarly, honest, and fair." I agree wholeheartedly, and so my goal (in interacting with the arguments put forth at this site) is to seek truth and to do so with love for these fellow beings who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, men and women for whom Christ laid down His life. >>

Nice to hear all this so far, unfortunately your comments further on in your post dispute your claims to fairness sorry to say.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …Having said that, I find the site's introductory arguments unpersuasive, and that because they represent fallacious reasoning. >>

Really?....And how so exactly?

Gerhardt cont:

<< …The first argument seems to be that the NWT can't be all that bad, since by 1998 it had sold 100 million copies. This is an example of the argumentum ad populum or "popular appeal" fallacy. Whether or not a large number--or even a majority--of people believe something is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true. Arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, made it to the top of the Bestsellers' List and enjoyed great popularity. But this popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not his main thesis (that religion of all varieties is both delusional and dangerous) is true. In the same way, the fact that the NWT has sold so many copies is irrelevant to the question of whether it accurately translates the Greek of the New Testament. >>

All I see the NWT Defended web-site doing is simply quoting an issue of the Watchtower magazine that made note of exceeding the 100 millionth publication of the NWT which is remarkable in light of the severe criticism and outright opposition it has received from ardent critics and antagonists since its inception. Yet it continues to grow and thrive in spite of it all, which is admittedly to its credit. But at no time does the NWT Defended web-site or the Watchtower article imply this to be a criteria to establish its accuracy. This is really just an assumption of yours Mr. Gerhardt, and quite a wrong one at that I'm afraid.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …The second argument is that, just as the NWT has received a great deal of criticism, so too did Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German. Since most scholars now consider Luther to have produced a trustworthy translation, we should extend the same appraisal to the NWT. >>

Where does the web-site put forth such an argument Mr. Gerhardt? It is only quoting the 5/1/99 Watchtower article (page 26) "The New World Translation Scholarly and Honest." Which points out how as Luther's translation was once scorned and vilified by the religious opponents of his day only to be later praised by modern scholarship at present, so to *could be* the case with the NWT given such a timeframe. The point being that as with Luther (or any other historically maligned version) the present criticism and ridicule commonly heaped upon the NWT today by its religious detractors cannot, and should not, be used as evidence of inferior quality.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …To complete this analogy, the authors of the site argue that in both cases the reason for the criticism was that the new translations (Luther's and the NWT) served to expose the shortcomings of the traditional religion of their respective days. >>

<< This argument is an example of a faulty analogy. To be sure, the two characteristics mentioned (each received criticism and each upset the traditional religion of the time) represent similarities between Luther's translation and the NWT. But with regard to the question of whether either is biased, there are significant differences that make the analogy break down. The most important difference, of course, is at the heart of my original claim. And that is this... Today, a host of experts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek who come from a wide diversity of theological positions have access to each of these translations and to the abundant copies in the original languages. >>

Regardless of any alleged "theological diversity" amongst them, I usually find that any honest inquiry into the backgrounds of these types of notable "hosts of experts" routinely cited by NWT opponents will quickly find those involved in negatively critiquing the NWT in public statements and articles to be primarily theological objections of religious scholars who are virtually all of a Trinitarian persuasion having various affiliations or sympathies to the critic's preferred theology or doctrines.

Some notable scholars will also simply tell the NWT opponents what they wish to hear by stating the obligatory negative things about the NWT merely for the public record. So as not to be bothered by them any longer.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …And they, while finding specific points at which Luther likely erred, find his translation to be free of bias and that of the JWs to display a very clear (non-Trinitarian) bias. >>

Or is it perhaps a case of the age-old popular religious tradition of always *assuming* the Bible teaches the Trinity beforehand, when the truth is, the scriptures actually do not? Therefore if the NWT renders the text honestly and free of Trinitarian bias, then this fact is simply revealed, though obviously interpreted by the doctrine’s adherents as "anti-Trinitarian" bias on the part of the New World Bible Translation Committee.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …(I'll be glad to provide specific examples in another post.) >>

Look forward to seeing them.

Gerhardt cont:

<< Another analogy used by the site's authors is more obviously faulty... >>

<< Criticisms of the New World Translation should not be surprising. In Jesus' day, he and his followers were the object of criticism, ridicule, and abuse. This was more often than not from religious leaders and men. Those who were 'looked up to' and respected as being learned men (Jn. 7:45-49). Likewise today Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes the object of criticism, ridicule, and abuse. Not least their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. >>

<< In other words, if we don't condone the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus then we shouldn't condone criticism of the NWT. I trust that my readers immediately recognize the illegitimacy of this equation. >>

No, all the web-site is saying is that it should come as no surprise today that the NWT is so heavily disparaged by those who are considered by modern society as leading clerics and religious scholars since it tends to expose their false doctrines and teachings as did Christ and the apostles expose the apostate ecclesiastical authorities of their day and who's scholarship was despised for doing so as well.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …So these are the arguments meant to defend the NWT against the charge of bias. In that attempt, they fail. >>

No, Mr. Gerhardt, these are your misconstrued interpretations of the reasoned arguments put forth on the "NWT Defended web-site." And it is only in this light which, "they fail." Or in other words, you knowingly or not, set-up a number of "strawmen" supposedly proffered by JWs as argumentation, to which you then go on to easily knock down.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …Moreover, though Jehovah's Witnesses like to claim that this translation was produced in a scholarly manner, the evidence doesn't support this claim. Unlike every other translation ever produced, this one was done so anonymously. >>

Not only is anonymity irrelevant to the question of a version's scholarly production. But your claim is not true here Mr. Gerhardt as the "Twentieth Century New Testament" was produced anonymously as was the NASB in its original 1971 edition.

I would also offer a word of advice here. Considering that the Bible is indeed the great "Book of books," historically translated in whole or part far more times than any other work of literature in tens of thousands of versions and languages. You should never make such sweeping claims like "every other translation produced" was not done anonymously or "every other version" is either "this" or "that" way in any respect, since no one can truely know this for sure.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …There is no way to assess the qualifications of its translators because they were unwilling to attach their names and reputations to it.* All we can address is the translation itself,…>>

Which is what it should be, since the quality of a translation should really be accessed on its merits alone and not on how high or many credentialed translators worked on it. As Bible critic Alan Duthie wrote in "How To Choose Your Bible Wisely" regarding this:

"If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it help us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? Not directly. There is no substitute for examining the characteristics of each translation itself." (See the same 10/15/99 WT mag. article mentioned on the web-site, page 28).

Gerhardt cont:

<< …and non-JW experts are unanimous in recognizing it as a distorted rendering of the original languages, one designed to support the doctrines and practices unique to this modern group. >>

"Unanimous" Mr. Gerhardt? Among most staunch Trinitarian "experts" I would imagine. But this is another unadvised sweeping claim and I suggest you do indeed need to carefully read the articles posted on the NWT Defended web-site. And here would be a good place to start http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm

Gerhardt cont:

<< *JWs will respond that the translators chose to remain anonymous for fear that pride would otherwise overtake them. One need not be praised by others, however, to be consumed by pride. Moreover, being numbered with a host of other editors (as is typical of all of our other modern English translations) is hardly a guarantee of fame and stardom in our culture. >>

While I obviously can't say how every JW will personally respond in such an area. The correct one is as given in the 12/15/74 edition of the Watchtower magazine page 767. See under the "Questions from Readers" for the society's response to the question.

"Why does the New World Translation not show, in its preface, the names and scholastic standing of its translators?"

Regards;

simplybiblical

simplybiblical said...

Note of correction:

I wrote in my earlier post

<< Which is what it should be, since the quality of a translation should really be *accessed* on its merits alone and not on how high or many credentialed translators worked on it. As Bible critic Alan Duthie wrote in "How To Choose Your Bible Wisely" regarding this: >>

I meant to say "Which is what it should be, since the quality of a translation should really be *assessed* on its merits..."

Sorry for that, MS Word over-correcting words it thinks you meant to spell, and I did not catch it before posting.

simplybiblical

Memra said...

Seems to me that there was at least one other Bible translation that was produced anonymously that later came to be widely accepted. Even Jesus' apostles used it. It was called the Septuagint.

Tradition assigns the first five books of the Septuagint to unnamed "elders of Israel," but as for the rest of it, nobody knows who the translators were.

Nor did it seem to matter.

As for the scholars who condemn the NWT, they are almost, if not entirely, Trinitarian in their own outlook, presupposition, and bias, and the verses they find fault with are mostly the ones that bear on the Trinity. So, how really objective are such scholars?

simplybiblical said...

Memra wrote:

<< Seems to me that there was at least one other Bible translation that was produced anonymously that later came to be widely accepted. Even Jesus' apostles used it. It was called the Septuagint. >>

<< Tradition assigns the first five books of the Septuagint to unnamed "elders of Israel," but as for the rest of it, nobody knows who the translators were. >>

<< Nor did it seem to matter. >>

Very true;

It may also be of interest to note that when identities of the anonymous translating committee of the Twentieth Century New Testament (1898) were finally discovered years later through unofficial channels. They were found to be comprised almost to a tee of unlettered men and women or lay persons. Yet that did not prevent noteworthy Trinitarian scholars such as the late eminent Dr. Bruce Metzger, who was one of the earliest and harshest critics of the NWT, from lauding it with praise for its excellence.

So now all of a sudden scholarly credentials and formal training in the ancient languages Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or what have you, didn't seem so important in this case. Why you may ask? The answer is obvious. The TCNT renders many of those cherished passages to Trinitarians (see below) in ways that please them the most.

Memra cont:

<< …As for the scholars who condemn the NWT, they are almost, if not entirely, Trinitarian in their own outlook, presupposition, and bias, and the verses they find fault with are mostly the ones that bear on the Trinity. So, how really objective are such scholars? >>

Amen to that;

After scholary accusers cumtomarily make blanket condemnations of the entire New World Translation which is composed of over 1500 pages of text. What do they usually do when pressed for specific examples of the NWT's corruptness?

Largely make a beeline for those Christological passages mostly located in the New Testament that are rendered by the NWT in ways which irk them theologically. John 1:1; 8:58; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Heb 1:8;...ect.

Even though all the NWT's renditions of these and other verses with the exception of maybe Jn. 1:1, are in fact translated in the same or similar way in many of the popular mainstream Bible versions' text or footnotes produced by Trinitarian scholars themselves!

And even the NWT's highly controversial John 1:1, "the Word was a god" (or "a God") has been used in almost 100 different lesser known Bible versions throughout history, almost all produced by qualified scholars as has been documented in a forthcoming book on the topic by author Alan Craig. Moderator of the JohnOneOne Yahoo discussion list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/

simplybiblical

Rick Gerhardt said...

simplybiblical:

Thanks for reading.

Let me review where we've been. I wrote a post about the reliability of the many modern English translations of the Bible, and especially of the New Testament (since it is generally the issue of Jesus' identity that causes skeptics to find justification for dismissing the Bible). In that post, I admitted that there is one English translation--the NWT--that can be seen to be biased.

A response to that blog referred me to the website defending the NWT. So, in my next post, I interacted with the introductory article on that site, my assumption being that the goal of that article was to defend the NWT against the charge of bias.

Much of your subsequent response seems to be claiming that this article wasn't really making any such arguments. You could be right. Perhaps the article was meant only to give us unconnected facts about the sales success of the NWT, a historical note about Luther, and a spurious equating of JWs with Jesus Himself. If that is the case, then that article is really not worth responding to at all.

But the person who directed me to it seemed to believe (as I did once I read it) that this article was meant to persuade us that the charge of bias is incorrect. So my second post was meant to show that all of the (things he took to be) arguments in that article involved fallacious reasoning. In each case--and I interacted with each of the (apparent) arguments in the article--I identified the fallacy. (You seem to have missed this, but they included the ad populum fallacy and faulty analogies.)

I have not yet made any positive case for bias in the NWT, but will do that (since the interest in my blog is suddenly higher than normal).

You also charged me with being unfair, but didn't support that claim. Again, I have so far merely identified errors in what I took to be meant as an attempt at persuasive argument. I'm not sure where unfairness might have crept in here. Nonetheless, I regret even the perception that I have been unfair.

Thank you for pointing out that there are, in fact, a couple of other modern English translations (or editions thereof) that were produced anonymously. I have edited my claim in this regard accordingly. Nonetheless, the weight of the claim still stands--academic integrity is generally deemed to be supported by the willingness of editors and translators to stand behind their work, to allow their names and reputations to be associated with the resulting text.

Again, thanks for your interest.

simplybiblical said...

Rick Gerhardt wrote:

<< Thanks for reading. >>

No problem, I found it interesting and worthy of comment. Even though I do disagree with it. :)

Gerhardt cont:

<< Let me review where we've been. I wrote a post about the reliability of the many modern English translations of the Bible, and especially of the New Testament (since it is generally the issue of Jesus' identity that causes skeptics to find justification for dismissing the Bible). In that post, I admitted that there is one English translation--the NWT--that can be seen to be biased. >>

<< A response to that blog referred me to the website defending the NWT. So, in my next post, I interacted with the introductory article on that site, my assumption being that the goal of that article was to defend the NWT against the charge of bias. >>

<< Much of your subsequent response seems to be claiming that this article wasn't really making any such arguments. You could be right. Perhaps the article was meant only to give us unconnected facts about the sales success of the NWT, a historical note about Luther, and a spurious equating of JWs with Jesus Himself. If that is the case, then that article is really not worth responding to at all. >>

I would say that if your intent was to respond to any sort of genuine apologetic of the NWT. The introductory web-page located on the NWT Defended site would not be the place for that. But for starters the link I referred you to earlier.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm

As I find the introduction to be essentially an attempt to encourage the reader to "wipe the slate clean if you will," and try to approach the NWT in all fairness with an open mind.

And not to be put off or prejudiced by the many rash criticisms commonly heard from its adversaries for the historical reasons stated as examples for following this unwise path. The ordeal of Luther's version, the Jewish intelligentsia' disparagement of Christ and the apostles scholarship, ect.

Or the bottom line is, please permit the NWT a fair trial is all.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …But the person who directed me to it seemed to believe (as I did once I read it) that this article was meant to persuade us that the charge of bias is incorrect. ...>>

You say "seemed to," but are you sure the intent of the individual who referred you to the site meant just the introductory page or the articles published on the entire site?

Gerhardt cont:

<< …So my second post was meant to show that all of the (things he took to be) arguments in that article involved fallacious reasoning. In each case--and I interacted with each of the (apparent) arguments in the article--I identified the fallacy. (You seem to have missed this, but they included the ad populum fallacy and faulty analogies.) >>

I'm sorry Mr. Gerhardt, but I really do not feel I have really "missed" a thing in your attempt at making analogies for what you felt were apologetic arguments being offered on the introductory web-page (see more later).

I am simply stating that they were both incorrect and uncalled for since the goal of the introduction was to encourage the reader to give the NWT a fair shake before forming any prior views based on its opponents' claims.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …I have not yet made any positive case for bias in the NWT, but will do that (since the interest in my blog is suddenly higher than normal). >>

Fair enough then, though I must say, if such can actually be proven in any substantial way, it will be the first I have ever seen in over 25 years of using the NWT as a main study Bible, and investigating all manner of criticism of it. I mean that while it is indeed a truism that obviously no Bible translation is perfect, and all versions including the NWT have at the very least some bias.

I have never seen any sustainable evidence to support the egregious level of it commonly asserted by the harsher critics.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …You also charged me with being unfair, but didn't support that claim. Again, I have so far merely identified errors in what I took to be meant as an attempt at persuasive argument. I'm not sure where unfairness might have crept in here. Nonetheless, I regret even the perception that I have been unfair. >>

Now on this point Mr. Gerhardt as noted above, I am willing to retract my accusation of unfairness against you in that it was perhaps nothing intentional. And you simply misinterpreted the introduction to the NWT Defended web-site by thinking it was giving an apology for the NWT at this point, to which you then attempted to respond to.

If this was the case, and I sincerely hope it was, then please accept my heartfelt apologies.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …Thank you for pointing out that there are, in fact, a couple of other modern English translations (or editions thereof) that were produced anonymously. I have edited my claim in this regard accordingly. …>>

Those are the two which just happened to come to mind when I posted my response Mr. Gerhardt. And in no way did I intend to imply that those are the only two.

Nor was I limiting it to only "English versions." As this would require an extensive study of the catalogs of all known Bible versions. An endeavor far beyond anything I have ever done or would attempt to do.

Gerhardt cont:

<< …Nonetheless, the weight of the claim still stands--academic integrity is generally deemed to be supported by the willingness of editors and translators to stand behind their work, to allow their names and reputations to be associated with the resulting text. >>

<< Again, thanks for your interest. >>

While totally agreeing with the first part of your statement that editors and translators should stand behind their work, to which the Watchtower Society certainly does for the NWT along with all its other publications. I'm afraid I see a complete disconnect in the second part in the need for a specific mention of "their names and reputations to be associated with the resulting text" as you contend.

Beyond purely academic interest, I fail to see why this is really necessary to assess the quality of a Bible translation. And of what *real* benefit is it for me to know this?

Also given the highly emotional nature of religion with its hotbed of strong opinion, how is the question of "how many PhDs did the translating committee have,?" or some other, a true guarantor of accuracy in Bible translation?

I therefore must concur with the Society when they once wrote in response to a publication critical of the NWT called "The Baptist Record" long ago back in 1950;

"…A true scholar would first investigate and honestly study a newly produced work before passing judgment upon its producers according to his own preconceived notions and indoctrination. A trustworthy scholar will in this case follow the Scriptural rule, ‘Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.’—1 Thessalonians 5:21."—WT Magazine 11/15/50 page 454.

And I take it that the "proven things" and any "good" that may be gleaned from them, which this scripture refers to applies to *any place* in which it may be found. And not only from the hands of worldly recognized and credentialed scholars.

Look forward to seeing your upcoming "proof" of the NWT's malfeasance.

Regards;

simplybiblical

none said...

How do I send you a two-page response to your statments on the NWT?

Please inform.

Nelson A. Herle, Jr.
Nelsonaherle@AOL.com

simplybiblical said...

And for those who may be further interested:

After a rather quick investigation. Here are some other complete English Bible versions published by anonymous committees down through history;

"The Holy Bible" (Old Testament protion) Being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments, Made by Order of King James I. Carefully Revised and Amended, the meaning of the sacred original being given, in
accordance with the best translations and the most approved Hebrew and Greek lexicographers;...By several Biblical Scholars ...Philadelphia: Stereotyped by L. Johnson. (Kay and Brothers, Printers) Published for David Bernard, by J.B. Lippincott, 1842.

"The Holy Bible" (both Old and New Testament versions) ... Carefully Revised and Amended, by Several Biblical Scholars. Sixth Edition. Mannaville, Jefferson Co., New York: Published by D.S. Dean and Rhodes Barker, Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott & Co., Stereotyped by L. Johnson, 1847.

The Holy Bible ... With the Marginal Readings Adopted by General Convention. Authorized to be read in Churches... New York: [Printed by Norwood Press, Norwood, Mass.) Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1903.

"Tercentenary Commemoration
Bible." The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues ... 1611; the text carefully corrected and amended by American Scholars, 1911. New York: Oxford University Press, American Branch.
(Supposes to be a 'corrected' rather than revised or retranslated text, by 34 eminent Hebrew and Greek scholars. It is, however, a severe revision of the AV.)

"The Holy Bible." Translated from
the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Sponsored by the Episcopal
Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine ... Paterson, New Jersey: St. Anthony Guild, '(i
1948-1961. [Confraternity Version)

"The New Catholic Edition of the Bible," Translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Old Testament, Douay Version, with Newly Edited Annotations of Bishop Challoner and a New Translation of the Book of Psalms from the New Latin Version; Approved by Pope Pius XII and the New Testament Confraternity Edition, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version; Edited by Catholic Scholars under the Patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian 1949

"Modern King James version of the Holy Bible." New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962. (Copyright by Jay Green).

"Today's English Version" ("The Good News Bible") 1966 ed..
New York: American Bible Society

"The Bible Reader," and Interfaith Interpretation with Notes from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Traditions. New York: Bruce Publications Co., 1969. (The RSV with selections from other translations old and new

"The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible" containing the Old and New Testaments. The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible is designed to restore to the scriptures the Sacred Name of the MOST HIGH and His Son from the Sacred Original on the Basis of the Rotherham Version. Revised by Missionary Dispensary Bible Research. Buena Park, Calif.: Missionary Dispensary Bible Research, 1970.

"The Psalms." A New Translation for worship, Pointed for Singing to Anglican Chant. Published in cooperation with church information office by Collins. (English text by David L. Frost, John A. Emerton, Andrew A. MacIntosh) London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1977.

"The Psalms," a New Translation for worship prepared by David L. Frost and a panel of Hebrew and Biblical Scholars. London: Collins Liturgical, 1977.

"The Sacred Scriptures," Bethel Edition.
Premier Publication. Bethel, Pa.: Assemblies of Jahweh, 1981.

There are also many other anonymous versions of abridged and partial versions of the Bible text produced for various purposes throughout history as well. However I have limited this particular list to only complete translations.

And of course I find no record of complaints against any of the aforementioned versions for their respective translating committees' choice to remain anonymous.

A revealing double standard I presume?

simplybiblical