There is nothing to prove. He was not alone in praising the very scholarly work behind the New World Translation, as I posted along with Dr Goodspeed's qualified and very positive comments.
- Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited the New World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.”—The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.
- Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.
- Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: “The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.”—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.
- Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.
- Professor S. MacLean Gilmour, while not agreeing with some renderings in the New World Translation, still acknowledged that its translators “possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, page 26.
- In his review of the New World Translation that forms part of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Associate Professor Thomas N. Winter wrote: “The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, page 376.
- Professor Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”
- 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.
Regards,
LB
My time is limited today.
"
"Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as Verkyl's New Testament (1945) and the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament (1950)" (The Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99).
Dr. Wikgren was quoted accurately and completely. That is to say, he does not go on to define which "independent readings" of the NWT he finds to be "of merit." We do not know what Dr. Wikgren thought about the NWT's more controversial renderings, such as John 1:1 or Colossians 1:16.
Dr. Wikgren, referring to all of the modern English versions he has been discussing says this: "A free, idiomatic rendering is not concerned about literal meanings" (IBID). Thus, his endorsement may be less than Witnesses would like.
Verkyl's New Testament (also known as the
New Berkley Version) reads "and the Word was God" for John 1:1c, and does not insert "other" into the text of Colossian 1:16. None of the dozen or so other modern English versions Dr. Wikgren discusses render these verses as does the NWT. It is therefore unlikely that Dr. Wikgren would include the NWT readings of these verses among those he considers meritorious."
For an Answer: Chrisitian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT
I did not find the quote in this online edition of the quote.
Full text of "The Interpreter S Bible The Holy Scriptures In The King James And Revised Standard Versions With General Articles And Introduction Exegesis Exposition For Each Book Of The Bible Volume I"
"
Here are Wikgren’s comments in full:
“Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as Verkyl’s New Testament (1945) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses edition of the New Testament (1950)” (The Interpreter’s Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99).
Dr. Wikgren was quoted accurately and completely. That is to say, he does not go on to define which “independent readings” of the NWT he finds to be “of merit.” We do not know what Dr. Wikgren thought about the NWT’s more controversial renderings, such as John 1:1 or Colossians 1:16.
Dr. Wikgren, referring to all of the modern English versions he has been discussing says this: “A free, idiomatic rendering is not concerned about literal meanings” (IBID). Thus, his endorsement may be less than Witnesses would like.
Verkyl’s New Testament (also known as the New Berkley Version) reads “and the Word was God” for John 1:1c, and does not insert “other” into the text of Colossian 1:16. None of the dozen or so other modern English versions Dr. Wikgren discusses render these verses as does the NWT. It is therefore unlikely that Dr. Wikgren would include the NWT readings of these verses among those he considers meritorious.
[Vickey] Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.
[Steve] Thomson had no formal training in Greek or Hebrew. He published several articles on the NWT in The Differentiator, apparently a privately published journal that appeared briefly in the 1950’s. The Differentiator is not considered a scholarly journal – indeed, I have been unable to locate a single copy in print or on microfilm – and there is no evidence that it was so considered during its publication.
Thomson later wrote that while he generally endorsed the NWT, he found it to be “padded with many English words which had no equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew” (The Differentiator [June 1959], cited in Ian Croft, “The New World Translation and Its Critics”).
Thus, Thomson does not appear to have been a recognized scholar in Biblical Languages, his review of the NWT was not published in a scholarly journal, and his endorsement is not quite as positive as the Watchtower might hope.
[Vickey] Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: “The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.”—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.
[Steve] In the Preface to his book, Potter writes the following: “This book is written to help people appreciate the good in religions other than their own….It is true to some extent that ‘every man grows in error,’ but too much stress has been put on that point by captious critics of religion. In this book the emphasis is rather on the more inspiring fact that ‘every man glimpses a truth” (IBID, p. v).
Thus, it does not appear that Potter’s intention is to render a critical evaluation of the NWT. His words must be taken in the context of his attempt to emphasize the “good” he finds in all religions. We must also consider what criteria Potter uses to consider the merits he finds in the NWT.
Reflecting the continual development of his personal religious thought away from orthodoxy toward more liberalism, Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York in 1929. The organization stated as its philosophy a “faith in the supreme value and self-perfectibility of human personality, conceived socially as well as individually.”
In founding the Humanist Society, Potter left the Unitarian ministry behind and declared that the Society would have no creed, clergy, baptisms or prayers. “I had given up my fast dwindling belief in the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity,” he wrote. “Now, fifteen years later, I was leaving not only Christianity—if Unitarianism is Christianity—but Theism as well.”
Potter’s education does not reflect that of a trained Biblical scholar, and he has not been recognized within the scholarly community as such. The reader may judge to what degree Potter’s theological “development” influenced his favorable opinion of the NWT, which (as the full quote indicates) is not entirely without criticism, despite the stated intention of his book.
[Vickey] Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.
[Steve] McCoy, though generally well-disposed towards the NWT, is not above offering some criticism, which is not generally included when Jehovah’s Witnesses cite McCoy as an endorsement.
For example, he chides the NWT for rendering Matthew 5:9 as “Happy are the peaceable” rather than “the peacemakers:” “One could question why the translators have not stayed closer to the original meaning, as do most translators” (IBID).
McCoy continues with a more general assessment of the presence of theological bias in the NWT: “In not a few instances the New World Translation contains passages which must be considered as `theological translations.’ This fact is particularly evident in those passages which express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ.” (IBID).
Mr. McCoy was a graduate of Andover Newton Seminary. He held degrees of Bachelor of Divinity (1955) from the Boston University School of Theology, and Master of Sacred Theology from Andover Newton. Though well-educated, he does not have the academic or professional credentials of a Biblical scholar, nor is he recognized as one by those who are. His opinion, of course, is worth hearing, particularly when all of it is heard."
Major Problems with the New World Translation
For those who want to know the truth about the quotes our JW friends use follow this link!
For an Answer: Chrisitian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT
Use <ctrl> <F> find, search text to find the author of a quote. 
