Here’s what is known (and debated) about who translated the New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible.
The NWT was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee — a group formed in 1947. (Wikipedia)
According to the publishers, the members of the committee asked not to be named, saying they “did not want to advertise themselves but let all the glory go to the Author of the Scriptures” (i.e. God). (Wikipedia)
As a result, the NWT (in its own printings) does not list the translators’ names or their credentials. (JW.ORG)
Although officially anonymous, several names have been widely associated with the translation of the NWT — based largely on testimonies of former members of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (the organization that publishes the NWT). (Wikipedia)
According to these sources, those involved include:
Frederick W. Franz — often described as the principal or main translator. (Bible Researcher)
Nathan H. Knorr — then President of the Watch Tower Society. (Bible Researcher)
Albert D. Schroeder — identified as a member of the translation committee. (Wikipedia)
George D. Gangas — also cited as a committee member. (Bible Researcher)
Milton G. Henschel — another name sometimes added to the list. (Reachout Trust)
Some sources also include Karl F. Klein among those involved. (Christian Pure)
The fact that the NWT translators remained officially anonymous has been a point of criticism. Some argue that the lack of transparency regarding the translators’ qualifications makes independent scholarly review difficult. (Wikipedia)
Among the names cited, Frederick W. Franz is often described as the only one with any formal exposure to biblical languages — reportedly he studied classical Greek for part of his college education and also was “self-taught” in Hebrew, Latin, and several modern languages. (4Jehovah)
Other listed members (Knorr, Schroeder, Gangas, Henschel, Klein) are generally described as having no formal training in Hebrew, Greek or related languages — at least by critics of the NWT. (Bible Researcher)
Because of this mix — official anonymity + later partial disclosures by insiders — there is no fully verified public roster of all the translators, nor a public record of their academic qualifications.
Here’s a more detailed list of all the names commonly proposed (by former insiders and critics) as being among the translators of New World Translation (NWT) — along with what is (publicly) known or argued about their roles, backgrounds, and training.
⚠️ Important caveat: the official publisher (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, WTBTS) never published a roster of translators. The names below come from ex-members, critics, and secondary sources — not from any official declaration. That’s why there remain significant disputes and uncertainty. (Wikipedia)
| Name | Alleged Role / What is Known | Education / Language Training* |
|---|---|---|
| Frederick W. Franz | Usually described as the “chief” or principal translator/editor of the NWT. Many sources credit him with doing the bulk of the translation work. (Wikipedia) | Studied classical Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati (did not complete a degree); he later reportedly taught himself Hebrew. (Bible Researcher) |
| Nathan H. Knorr | Identified as a member of the original translation committee. At the time of NWT’s production, he was president of the WTS. (Bible Researcher) | No credible evidence of formal training in biblical languages. Most sources list him as lacking recognized qualifications for translation from Hebrew/Greek. (Bible Ready) |
| Albert D. Schroeder | Named by former insiders as a committee member. (Wikipedia) | According to critics, he had no specialized training in Hebrew or Greek. Reportedly had dropped out of college (engineering studies) — not theology or languages. (Bible Ready) |
| George D. Gangas | Also named among the committee. (Bible Researcher) | Known to have spoken modern Greek (as a native or fluent speaker), but that is not equivalent to knowing Koine Greek of the New Testament. Critics argue this does not demonstrate qualification for biblical translation. (Bible Ready) |
| Milton G. Henschel | Sometimes listed among those responsible for the translation. (exjw.org.uk) | According to available sources, he had no formal training in ancient biblical languages. (Bible Ready) |
| Karl F. Klein (sometimes included) | Some sources — but less consistently than the above five — add Klein as a participant in the translation committee. (exjw.org.uk) | Also reportedly lacked formal biblical-language or theological training, according to critics. (Bible Ready) |
The NWT itself — and the WTS — maintain that the translation was done by an entity called the New World Bible Translation Committee, formed in 1947. (Wikipedia)
The WTS honored a request by the committee not to publish the translators’ names, claiming the goal was humility and to give glory to God rather than to human translators. (Wikipedia)
On the public record (official NWT editions, front matter, etc.), you will not find individual translator names or academic credentials. (JW.ORG)
The most commonly cited source for the list above is a former member of the WTS Governing Body, Raymond V. Franz, who — after leaving the organization — identified the above names in his 1983 book Crisis of Conscience. (Wikipedia)
Other ex-members (for example, someone named William Cetnar, who worked at the headquarters during translation) have also testified or are cited as confirming that those names were known among insiders. (Reachout Trust)
However, because the organization never publicly confirmed the list — or allowed external verification of skill levels — many scholars and critics view the “translator roster” as unverified and suspect. (Wikipedia)
Of the names above, only Frederick W. Franz is ever described as having had some formal exposure to biblical languages (Greek classes in college, self-taught Hebrew). Even that is far short of the usual scholarly credentials associated with major Bible translations. (Wikipedia)
The others reportedly lacked recognized degrees or training in Hebrew, Koine Greek, or Aramaic. Critics argue this raises serious questions about the translation’s accuracy and reliability. (Bible Ready)
The small size of the committee (allegedly just 5–6 people) contrasts sharply with most modern translations, which typically involve large teams of scholars, editors, and reviewers with formal academic credentials. (Wikipedia)
✅ We know the translation was produced by a committee called the New World Bible Translation Committee, started in 1947. (Wikipedia)
✅ We know that the WTS did not publish the translators’ names, citing humility and deference to God. (JW.ORG)
✅ We know that former insiders and critics have named a set of individuals — the six listed above — as the likely members of that committee. (Bible Researcher)
⚠️ We do not know with certainty that these six persons are actually the complete committee (or that no others were involved). Because the WTS never released an official roster, there is no independently verifiable record.
⚠️ We do not know the full extent or depth of their scholastic training in biblical languages. What is publicly reported suggests minimal to modest training (in one case), and in other cases, none.
Below is a clear, chronologically organized history of the New World Translation (NWT) — its development, publication stages, revisions, and major changes — from its origins (1940s) to the present editions used by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Around 1946–1947, when Nathan Homer Knorr was president, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WTS) established a secretive group known as the New World Bible Translation Committee.
The names of the translators have never been officially released.
Produce a Bible that the WTS believed would more accurately reflect Hebrew and Greek texts, and avoid what they considered doctrinal bias found in traditional translations.
Emphasis was placed on using “Jehovah” as the Divine Name in both OT and NT.
The NWT was not originally released as a single complete Bible. It came out in parts, beginning with the New Testament.
This was the first published portion (the New Testament).
Notable features:
Use of “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament
Strong tendency toward literal renderings
Non-traditional phrasing in Christological passages (e.g., John 1:1, Col. 1:15–20)
Genesis through Job
Format: Volume set, not a single book.
Psalms through Malachi.
Completion of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The complete NWT was first published as a single-volume Bible.
Included cross references, footnotes, and an appendix with translation explanations.
This edition became the standard among Jehovah’s Witnesses for decades.
Provided Greek text (Westcott & Hort) alongside NWT’s NT.
Published by the Watch Tower Society; used often in JW teaching.
Not technically a revision of the NWT, but closely tied to it.
Updated Greek text comparisons and marginal notes.
The NWT underwent two major text revisions in the late 20th century.
Minor adjustments in wording, punctuation, and marginal notes.
No major doctrinal changes.
This was a major milestone and is often called the “1984 Reference Edition.”
Larger size, with extensive footnotes, maps, appendices, and cross-references.
Improved readability.
Some terminology was updated.
Some verses were adjusted in line with newer manuscript findings (for example, involving punctuation or clarifying phrases).
This became the most widely used edition for 30 years.
This is the current official NWT.
Make the translation more readable, especially for public reading and new Bible readers.
Simplify archaic language.
Improve consistency with modern textual scholarship.
Standardize terminology globally.
Vocabulary simplified (e.g., “long-suffering” → “patience”).
Verse layout improved for readability.
Some wording changed for clarity and natural English.
Footnotes simplified and reduced.
Some doctrinally significant renderings remain the same (e.g., John 1:1 “the Word was a god”).
The 2013 revision introduced a lightweight gray hardcover edition.
Digital versions released on JW Library app and JW.org.
The NWT (2013) has been adapted into hundreds of languages, many using simplified vocabulary for universal readability.
Some languages received special revisions in the late 2010s to harmonize with the 2013 English edition.
Small adjustments (not major revisions) to digital text appear occasionally.
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1946–47 | Translation committee formed |
| 1950 | NT released |
| 1953–1960 | OT released in volumes |
| 1961 | First complete NWT Bible |
| 1969 | First Kingdom Interlinear (KIT) |
| 1970 | First revision |
| 1984 | Major revision (“Reference Bible”) |
| 2013 | Major modern revision (current edition) |
| 2015–present | Ongoing language editions, minor updates |
These differences fall into several categories: language style, translation choices, formatting, footnotes/appendices, and doctrinally sensitive renderings.
The 2013 revision significantly modernized the English.
| 1984 Edition | 2013 Revision |
|---|---|
| “Long-suffering” | “Patient” |
| “Loving-kindness” | “Loyal love” |
| “Conduct yourselves as becomes” | “Behave in a way” |
| “Abhor what is wicked” | “Hate what is bad” |
| “Expanse” (in Genesis) | “Expanse” is sometimes kept, but many archaic terms elsewhere were updated |
Shorter sentences
Simpler grammar
More contemporary English idioms
Removal of archaic or formal phrasing
Designed to be readable at an approximately 5th–6th grade level
Not all changes affect meaning, but several do.
| Verse | 1984 NWT | 2013 NWT |
|---|---|---|
| Psalm 23:4 | “your rod and your staff are the things that comfort me” | “your rod and your staff reassure me” |
| Matthew 5:3 | “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need” | “Happy are those who recognize their spiritual need” |
| John 1:1c | “the Word was a god” | Same (no doctrinal change) |
| Romans 12:11 | “Have plenty to do and not be lazy” | “Do not be lazy in your efforts” |
| 1 John 5:19 | “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one” | “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one” (same wording) |
The 2013 revision tended to:
Make idioms more natural
Simplify wordiness
Avoid obscure phrasing
Avoid overly literal renderings when unclear in English
Paragraph formatting replaces verse-by-verse blocks
Section headings added throughout
Poetry (Psalms, prophets) displayed in poetic lines
More readable typeface
Lighter, thinner Bible due to modern paper and layout
Verse numbers moved to the margin rather than embedded in the text
Makes reading more like a narrative book
This is one of the biggest differences.
Extensive footnotes
Technical notes on Hebrew / Greek terms
Large appendix with articles:
Use of the Divine Name
Additional doctrinal explanations
Maps, charts, archaeological notes
Explanation of translation choices (e.g., “torture stake,” “Jehovah” in NT)
Very large set of cross-references printed in the margins
Footnotes greatly reduced and simplified
Focus on:
Clarifying alternative readings
Defining idioms
Explaining literal renderings
Most technical details removed
The appendix is shorter, containing:
Basic study tools
Maps
Brief articles on select topics
Cross-references reduced and placed at the bottom of pages
The 2013 edition is easier to read but has far fewer technical resources built in.
Many distinctive NWT renderings remained the same between 1984 and 2013.
John 1:1 — “the Word was a god”
Luke 23:43 — punctuation giving “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”
“Torture stake” instead of “cross”
Philippians 2:6 — “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God”
“Jehovah” used in both OT and NT (237 times in NT)
Some renderings were softened to be less awkward but still doctrinally aligned.
Example:
Colossians 1:16–17 — The 1984 edition inserted “[other]” five times with brackets, to make it read: “all [other] things”, which was criticized because “other” does not appear in Greek.
2013 revision keeps “other,” but removes the brackets and revises the footnotes to justify the interpretation more clearly.
Some personal names standardized to match more common English forms
Animals, measurements, and plants standardized with modern terminology
Rendering of weights/measures more consistent (sometimes updated to approximate metric equivalents in footnotes)
The 2013 edition removed or trimmed several features from the 1984 edition:
Many technical appendices eliminated
Lexical notes (Hebrew/Greek root meanings) greatly reduced
Chronological charts simplified
Explanations of translation decisions shortened
Maps updated and simplified
Table of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures removed
Dense
Heavily technical
Filled with notes
Verse-by-verse layout
Closer to a study Bible
Fluid reading
Narrative-style formatting
Minimal notes
Smoothed English
Focused on readability and public use
| Category | 1984 Edition | 2013 Edition |
|---|---|---|
| Language | Formal, technical, sometimes archaic | Simplified, modern, readable |
| Footnotes | Extensive and detailed | Minimal and simplified |
| Appendix | Large, doctrinal & technical | Short and basic |
| Formatting | Verse-by-verse, dense | Paragraphs, headings, poetry format |
| Doctrinal renderings | Distinctive JW interpretations | Mostly unchanged |
| Translation updates | More literal, sometimes wooden | Smoother idiomatic English |
| Study tools | Strong scholarly emphasis | Strong readability emphasis |
Below is a best-effort, focused list of the most important places where the New World Translation (both the 1984 Reference Edition and the 2013 revision) gives a rendering that appears motivated by Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology. For each passage I list: (A) how the NWT renders it, (B) how most mainstream translations render it, (C) the textual/translation issue behind the choice, and (D) the doctrinal significance. I cite both Watchtower/WJ-run material and independent/critical sources so you can see both sides.
Note: the Watch Tower Society publishes explanations defending these renderings; critics and many academic translators disagree on the best rendering or on whether the NWT’s choice is justified. I cite representative sources for each entry. (JW.org)
| Passage | NWT rendering (1984 & 2013) | Typical mainstream rendering (KJV/NASB/ESV/NIV) | Textual/translation issue | Doctrinal implication / why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John 1:1 (c) | “the Word was a god.” | “the Word was God.” | Greek uses θεός (theos) without the article in the final clause; most scholars take the clause as qualitative (“was God”) rather than indefinite. JW position argues article distribution supports “a god.” Watchtower defends this reading. (JW.org) | Direct bearing on the deity of Christ. NWT’s “a god” supports the JW teaching that the Word (Jesus) is divine in a created / godlike sense but not Almighty God. Critics say this departs from the clear Johannine theology and mainstream grammar. (JW.org) |
| Col 1:16–17 | NWT reads 5x “all other things” (in some editions bracketed) — i.e., Jesus created other things. | Most translations: “all things” (i.e., Jesus is agent of creation of everything). | The Greek τὰ πάντα normally means “all things.” Inserting “other” is interpretive (argued by JW editors to safeguard “firstborn” language). Critics say “other” is not in the Greek. (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange) | If “other” is inserted, it implies Jesus himself is among created things (supporting the JW doctrine that Christ is a created being), rather than being Creator of everything. Critics see this as theology driving translation. (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange) |
| Php 2:6 | NWT: “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal with God.” (phrasing differs but sense similar in 2013) | Most: “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped” (or “a thing to be grasped”). | Greek term ἁρπαγμόν/ἁρπαγμόν (harpagmon) is debated: “a thing to be grasped” / “something to be exploited.” The NWT chooses wording that emphasizes Jesus did not try to seize equality. (JW.org) | Affects whether Christ is portrayed as already equal to God or as not claiming equality — NWT wording supports the view that Jesus did not (and does not) possess equality with Jehovah, consistent with JW Christology. Critics argue the mainstream rendering better matches the grammar and context (kenosis hymn). (JW.org) |
| Luke 23:43 | NWT: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (comma placed before “today”) | Most: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (comma after “tell you”) | The Greek has no punctuation; placing the comma before or after today changes emphasis/timing. JW placement typically avoids implying the thief entered paradise that very day (consistent with JW teaching that the dead are unconscious until resurrection). Watchtower articles defend this punctuation choice. (JW Library) | Punctuation affects belief about the intermediate state (immediate presence with Jesus vs. “sleep” until resurrection). NWT’s comma placement supports the idea that the thief’s reward is future rather than immediate conscious life after death. Critics call this an unsupported punctuation decision used to support doctrine. (JW Library) |
| Acts 20:28 | NWT (2013): “the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.” (some earlier/other readings render differently) | Many main translations: “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” (i.e., “his own blood” — read as God’s blood) | Greek phrase τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος (“of his own blood”) can be read as “his own [blood]” (i.e., God’s own blood) or “the blood of his own [Son]” (implied son). Manuscript/grammatical ambiguity and theological choices influence translation. JW editions prefer “blood of his own Son.” (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange) | If rendered “his own blood” (God’s blood) the verse is a strong proof-text for Christ’s deity (God shed his own blood). NWT’s alternate reading avoids implying Jehovah bled — consistent with JW denial that Jesus is Almighty God. Critics say the NWT reading is motivated by doctrine rather than best textual judgment. (Defending The New World Translation) |
| “Cross” terms — stauros (e.g., Mat 27, Gal 3:13, etc.) | NWT uses “torture stake” or “torture stake”/“torture-pole” instead of “cross.” | Most translations: “cross” (or “tree” in Galatians 3:13 / Deuteronomy quotes sometimes “tree”). | The Greek stauros in classical usage could mean upright stake; later Christian usage and context often imply a cross with a crossbeam. JW choice emphasizes stake/ pole. Watchtower materials argue for “stake.” Critics (and archaeological/historical scholarship) argue that by NT times stauros could mean a cross and that contextual evidence supports cross. (JW Library) | “Torture stake” diminishes the traditional image of a cross and supports JW historical claims about the instrument; critics see the change as sectarian and not compelled by the evidence. (Catholic Answers) |
| Use of the Divine Name (Tetragrammaton) in NT | NWT inserts “Jehovah” in the New Testament ~237 times (and consistently in OT). | Most modern translations use “LORD” (in OT), and do not insert “Jehovah” into the NT. | No extant Greek NT manuscripts preserve the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Greek NT text; JW argument: original authors sometimes quoted OT passages that contained the divine name and it should be restored. Critics and textual scholars say there’s no manuscript support to insert YHWH into NT Greek text. (JW.org) | Inserting “Jehovah” into NT passages affects Christology and the identity of speakers (it highlights the Father’s name in contexts where mainstream translations use “Lord” and could imply different speaker relationships). Most scholars reject insertion due to lack of manuscript support. (JW.org) |
| Heb 1:6 | NWT: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” (uses “do obeisance” / “bow” instead of “worship”) | Most: “And let all God’s angels worship him.” | Greek προσκυνήσατωσαν normally translated “worship.” NWT prefers softer terms (“do obeisance”) arguing for a distinction between respectful homage and worship reserved to God. JW literature defends this nuance. (JW.org) | If the action is rendered “obeisance” rather than “worship,” it supports JW teaching that Jesus is to be honored but not worshiped as Almighty God. Critics say the verb proskyneō means “worship” in the New Testament usage and NWT’s softer wording downplays worship of Christ. (Department of Christian Defense) |
| Rev 1:8; 22:13 & “Alpha and Omega” passages | NWT tends to identify the title “Alpha and Omega / First and Last” primarily with Jehovah and will distinguish verses where Jesus speaks, asserting the title belongs to Jehovah (and sometimes distinguishing speakers). | Most translations present the phrasing as used by both Father and Son in Revelation (depending on the verse/context). | Textual context and speaker identification in Revelation lead to debates whether the title belongs to Father, Son, or both (and how JW theology assigns it). There are also textual variants for the clause in Rev 1:11. (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange) | Emphasizing the title as belonging uniquely to Jehovah (and distinguishing Jesus’ later statements) supports JW separation of Jehovah (Almighty) from Jesus (created). Critics argue Revelation context shows strong identification of the Son with divine titles in several places. (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange) |
This table covers the most frequently cited and theologically salient differences (John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, Philippians 2:6, Luke 23:43, Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:6, use of stauros and the Tetragrammaton in the NT, plus Revelation titles). It is not an absolutely exhaustive list of every wording difference in the entire Bible text, but it does cover the places critics and scholars most often point to as doctrinally motivated. (JW.org)
In many of these cases the NWT’s choices rest on interpretive or even punctuational decisions, or on reading ambiguous Greek constructions in a theologically compatible way; Watchtower publications discuss and defend most of these choices. See Watchtower/WOL pages for their explanations. (JW.org)
Independent scholars and most mainstream translations generally disagree with these NWT choices, or at least find them insufficiently justified by the Greek manuscripts or by historical-linguistic evidence; critics often say theology drove translation rather than neutral exegesis. Examples of critical discussion can be found in the academic and apologetics literature. (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange)