(I really don't know why my last post ended which such small fonts... )
Sorry to bring this up again, but I think you left a few odd references to the "Jesuits" in your correction:
***
Here is the quote from the foreword from the 1951 NWT:-
"The original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, were inspired. No translation of these Sacred writings into another language, is inspired... The Greek text that we have used as a basis of our NW translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken in to consideration other texts including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk ..."
Why would the NWT committee use the Jesuit scholar's work mentioned above in this capacity?
The reason is very clear. These Jesuit "translations" are not the oldest and most accurate manuscripts at all but are in fact relatively recent copies of Greek back into Hebrew. which happen to contain the name "Jehovah" or YHWH . Does this sound like the NWT is "unfettered" by Christendom's teachings? How can it be when these Jesuits (a high order of the Catholic Church) and the manuscripts they favour are part of the very entity they repudiate in the WTS publications? So these sources , i. e. the Catholic Church are viable when it suits their purposes and vehemently condemned at other times. Is this not hypocrisy of the highest order?
***
This still links (wrongly) the Jesuits Bover and Merk who produced a critical edition of the Greek NT based on ancient Greek mss (and other ancient witnesses to the text such as translations and quotations), just like Westcott, Hort and Nestle, and did not include any divine name other than what they found in ancient mss (kurios, theos), with the "J" references which you correctly present after that. Imo you'd better forget about the Jesuits entirely and either (1) drop the whole passage, or (2) just keep the 1951 NWT quote and then make a short transition to the J-references (e.g. "But did they actually follow the ancient Greek text established by those ["Christendom"] scholars, as they claim? Not really. They threw in another series of later peculiar documents which have nothing to do with scholarly textual criticism because they are not witnesses to the ancient Greek text...")