ClaimThe Bible and the translationverified2000sExplicit statement

La Bible et la traduction · Claim record

Dans Truth in Translation (University Press of America, 2003), Jason BeDuhn, alors professeur associé d’études religieuses à la Northern Arizona University, a comparé neuf Nouveaux Testaments anglais sur un ensemble de passages contestés et a conclu que, « bien qu’il soit difficile de quantifier ce genre d’analyse », la Traduction du monde nouveau « apparaît comme la plus exacte des traductions comparées », la New American Bible venant « juste derrière ».

Claim ID claim-bible-beduhn-2003-most-accurateConcerns 2003Déclaration explicite

L’affirmation et ses preuves

Déclaration explicite · 2003 Vérifié

Dans Truth in Translation (University Press of America, 2003), Jason BeDuhn, alors professeur associé d’études religieuses à la Northern Arizona University, a comparé neuf Nouveaux Testaments anglais sur un ensemble de passages contestés et a conclu que, « bien qu’il soit difficile de quantifier ce genre d’analyse », la Traduction du monde nouveau « apparaît comme la plus exacte des traductions comparées », la New American Bible venant « juste derrière ». Source: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003Source: JW.org Frequently Asked Questions, 19 septembre 2026Source: The Watchtower, 1 décembre 2004

Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Les Témoins de Jéhovah citent ce verdict sur JW.org et l’ont cité dans La Tour de Garde du 1er décembre 2004 sous le titre “A ‘Remarkably Good’ Translation”.

Afficher les preuves (3 sources)
Évalué par des pairs / universitaire Étayé

Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, “Chapter 12, 'A Final Word'”

2003 · pp.163, 165 · Jason David BeDuhn (Northern Arizona University) · University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland (ISBN 0761825568 / 076182555X)

“While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. Holding a close second to the NW in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked at, is the NAB. (p. 163) … The NW and NAB are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations, better by far than the deeply flawed TEV, certainly better as a translation than the LB and AB, which are not really translations at all, consistently better than the heavily biased NIV … (p. 165)”

BeDuhn compares nine English New Testaments (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NAB, Amplified, Living Bible, Today's English Version and the New World Translation) across a set of disputed passages. The same summary paragraph continues: 'Both of these are translations produced by single denominations of Christianity… I have pondered why these two translations, of all those considered, turned out to be the least biased.' On p. 165 he also writes of 'bias in the NW, where in my opinion accuracy was impaired by the commitments of the translators', adding that 'the biases of the NW translators do not account for most of the differences of the NW from the other translations', which are due to 'the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers'.

Note de provenance et de vérification for Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Chapter 12, 'A Final Word'

Note sur la fiabilité. 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: the p. 163 sentence, in full and with its opening hedge, is reproduced at tetragrammaton.org; the p. 165 sentence is attested down to 'certainly better as a translation than the LB and AB'; and the fragments 'remarkably good', 'better by far' and 'consistently better' are quoted from pp. 163, 165 by The Watchtower of 1 December 2004, which has been read. The tail 'consistently better than the heavily biased NIV' is attested only in part — 'consistently better' is in the Watchtower, 'heavily biased NIV' is not — so the trailing ellipsis must stay. 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.

Provenance de la numérisation. Not opened. The quotations below are transcribed from two independent published reproductions of the passage: the long review at tetragrammaton.org, which quotes the summary paragraph in full, and — for the second half — the partial quotation in The Watchtower of 1 December 2004 and on JW.org.

Corroboré par. src-nwt-jw-faq-accurate, src-nwt-w04-remarkably-good

Notes. This is the passage Jehovah's Witnesses quote. The organisation's 2004 Watchtower article says BeDuhn compared 'eight major translations'; the book compares nine (BeDuhn writes on p. 133 of 'the other eight translations we are comparing'). [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] The earlier version of this record began the quotation at 'the most accurate of the translations compared', with the preceding words supplied in brackets. That dropped BeDuhn's own hedge, 'While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that…', which is exactly the half JW.org also drops. The hedge has been restored and must be printed with the verdict.

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-verdict

Publication primaire des Témoins de Jéhovah Vérifié

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

19 septembre 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'.

Note de provenance et de vérification for JW.org Frequently Asked Questions, Is the New World Translation Accurate?

Note sur la fiabilité. 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.

Corroboré par. 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.

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-nwt-jw-faq-accurate

Publication primaire des Témoins de Jéhovah Vérifié

The Watchtower, “A “Remarkably Good” Translation”

1 décembre 2004 · p.30 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.””

A one-page article in The Watchtower of 1 December 2004 reporting BeDuhn's book. It states that he 'examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures', and quotes him further on 'the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers'.

Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, A “Remarkably Good” Translation

Note sur la fiabilité. Opened on the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and the wording confirmed against the page (w04 12/1 p. 30). [Independent audit, 19 September 2026] Fetched and read again; the quotation is verbatim, and the page marker in the Watchtower Online Library HTML (data-no="30") confirms p. 30. The article's own citation gives the book's title as 'Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament', which is the correct title and the one now used in the BeDuhn records.

Corroboré par. src-nwt-beduhn-2003-verdict

Notes. The article does say BeDuhn was 'critical of some of its translation choices' but does not say what the criticism was. It gives the number of translations compared as eight; BeDuhn compares nine.

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-nwt-w04-remarkably-good

Page de l’affirmation Corriger ou mettre à jour

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/fr/evidence/claim-bible-beduhn-2003-most-accurate/. 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.