I know this an old thread. But FYI, Benjamin Kedar you guys refer to is not the right one.
The actual scholar who evaluated NWT and provided multiple comments of it is a Hebrew scholar from University of Haifa. His full name is Benjamin Kedar-Kopftstein as noted in jw.org.
See Wikipedia for his full biography. He is often confused with Benjamin Z Kedar, professor of Jewish History from Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
He has multiple reviews on Hebrew part of NWT to various sources. I got this from multiple forums in the internet.
Harris, Doug (1993). Awake to the Watch Tower. Reachout Trust. pp. 347–349. ISBN 0-951-36322-0. Another source they quote both in WT and All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial is Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel. "In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said: 'In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. ... Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.'" I have two personal letters from Prof. Dr. Kedar who is a research fellow of the Hebrew University Bible Project. ... An extract reads as follows ... It is evident that I do not share the tenets of so-called Jehova's [sic] Witnesses. i.e the Watchtower people, but I have absolutely no wish to get involved in sectarian jealousies and quibbles. A quite different question is that of their Bible translation, ... I have checked hundreds of verses and have never found what one may consider a tendentious misinterpretation of Hebrew text of the Old Testament (Haifa, 1st March 1992). ... As you have correctly stated all my pronouncements on the watchtower version refer exclusively to the Hebrew portion of the Bible, i.e the Old Testament, of which I have checked hundreds of verses. I am not qualified to pass judgement on the corresponding English version of the Greek New Testament. ...(Haifa, 9th May 1992)
Furuli, Rolf (1999). The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. Elihu Books. pp. 296–297. ISBN 0-9659814-4-4. I agree with the words of the Israeli professor Benjamin Kedar: 'Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that dealt with purely philological questions (such as the rendition of the causative hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This either was not done or else the verse submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13, 6:3, 10:9, 15:5, 18:20 etc.) did not prove the point, namely a tendentious translation.'* ... *This quote is from a general letter that Kedar sends out to those who inquire about his views of the NWT. Regarding his views ...
Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin (January 1981). "Die Stammbildung qôṭel als Übersetzungsproblem" [The rooting qôṭel as a translation problem]. Journal of Old Testament scholarship (Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft) (in German, English, and Biblical Hebrew). 93 (2): 254–279. Retrieved December 9, 2017. p.262: "In sharp contrast to this free translation, LXX [Septuagint] and NWT are largely based on the formal structure of the source language [ancient Hebrew]."
Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin (1973). "The Interpretative Element in Transliteration" (PDF). Textus: Studies of the Hebrew University Bible Project (in English, Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek). 8: 55–77. This article quotes NWT many times supporting primary source statement that the professor uses it in his linguistic studies.
Below two extra quotes are from avoidjw website here, where he claim to have encouraged his students to use it.
(Some extra information is here compared to original quote first appeared in WT publications, not sure where avoidjw got it from)
The Hebrew scholar Dr. Benjamin Kedar of Israel, Professor emeritus of ancient classical Hebrew, former Head of the Department of Old Testament Studies in the University of Haifa and Assistant in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, evaluated the New World Translation as follows: “With Regard to the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION: 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. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. To my English speaking students I always recommend a comparison between the King James Version and the New World Translation by which they are made aware of the objective difficulties in the original text as well as the different possibilities of interpretation. Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain” — Letter, June 12, 1989, translated from the German, UaP.
(Below letter is translated using google translate as appeared on avoidjw website)
Professor Benjamin Kedar: In a letter dated September 27, 1987: "I have quoted the NWT translation because there is an independent (from the King James translation!) Reproduction that must unabashedly decode every occurrence of the QOTEL. The sectarian bias is hardly, if ever, expressed here "(letter of 27 September 1987 with reference to his article)
