How credible are NWT’s critiques?: R. H. COUNTESS and John 1:1, Part I.

by Wonderment 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  pre.western { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "Noto Sans CJK SC Regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

  pre.western { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "Noto Sans CJK SC Regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

  pre.western { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "Noto Sans CJK SC Regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

  pre.western { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "Noto Sans CJK SC Regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

  How credible are NWT’s critiques?: Countess and John 1:1, Part I.
  
  Robert H. Countess (1937-2005), was a college professor, lecturer, author and pastor. He earned a B.A., M.A., Ph.D. from Bob Jones University, the M.L.S. from Georgetown University and the D.Min. from Drew University. He served on several university and college faculites, including Covenant College and Tennessee State University.
  
  In 1982, Robert H. Countess, a Presbyterian, published one of his best known works: The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation. As to the motive which prompted the author to write his book on the NWT, we read from his pen: “NWT is, in some ways, like milk, but milk with an admixture of arsenic … this kind of mixing could very well prove injurious to one’s health.” (Introduction, p. xiv) And on page 4 this work wrote: “...There have been set forth examples to show whether or not the doctrine of the deity of Christ and the Holy spirit has suffered or been excised by NWT translators. In connection with this point the investigator endeavored to establish exegetically this doctrine of deity as it relates to the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
  
  Countess’ book has received a lot of publicity, and numerous individuals in the last few decades have quoted this book as a reliable source. But, is it? In this article, I will analize some of the claims made by the author and my observations on them. This appears below as “CLAIM” and “FACT.” My copy of Countess’ book from which I’m quoting is the Second Edition of January, 1987 (©1982) published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Underlines added for emphasis.
  
  CLAIM (This claim is a quote from the May 1,1951 NWT Appendix (p. 774), the basis for his study), p. 42: “Careful translators recognize that the articular construction points to a quality about someone.”
  
  FACT: The above is a misquote. This is what the NWT Appendix actually said: “Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” Thus, according to the NWT, it is the anarthrous (without the article) construction, and not the articular one which points to a quality about someone. This is important to bring to everyone’s attention for the simple reason that the author’s main argument of chapter four of the book is that ‘the NWT did not abide by their principle’ as stated in the Appendix. You would think that the publication would get something as critical as this right by the 2nd edition printing.
  
  CLAIM: “In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers.” (pp. 54-55)
  
  FACT: An interesting statistic, for sure! The “trinitarian” public likes the results of this study, because it is all over the internet. I would be rich if I made a dollar everytime someone quoted this. In fact, it has been quoted various times in this website in support of the belief that the NWT is trash by translating John 1:1 as “a god.” Let’s look at the facts.
  
  First, the NWT did not write a “rule,” “principle,” or “canon” (his words) that all anarthrous nouns (without the Greek article) had to be translated as “indefinite” (with an “a” before the noun), and all nouns with the Greek article to be translated with the English article “the” (as in “the God” at all times. The WTS have never expressed such principle. If the Watchtower editors really believed in such principle, would they not apply it to their own translation throughout? The implication is that the WT people is incompetent by inventing such rule, and the rest of the people is stupid enough if they believe it.
  
  Didn’t the NWT express a principle regarding the article? I think they did. But they did not express a “rule” or rigid principle which applied in every case. This is what the Appendix said about the article after quoting Goodspeed’s and Moffatt’s “divine” renderings at John 1.1:
  
  “Every honest person will have to admit that John’s saying that the Word or Logos ‘was divine’ [per Moffatt & Goodspeed] is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God. The reason for their rendering the Greek word ‘divine’, and not ‘God’, is that it is the Greek noun theos’ without the definite article, hence an anarhrous theos’. The God with whom the Word or Logos was originally is designated here by the Greek expression [ho theós], theos’ preceded by the definite article ho, hence an articular theos’. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone. That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 40, paragraph vii [“The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character.”].” (1951 NWT Appendix, p. 774)
  
  We can surmise from this statements that the NW translators expressed what they did based on the input of two parameters. One being the translations of Moffatt and Goodspeed which both rendered, the Logos/Word was “divine” at John 1.1. Secondly, Dana & Mantey’s Grammar provided the grounds for the “principle” on the Greek article. In all the criticisms leveled at the NWT, I haven’t yet seen one critic candid enough to include the following excerpts which appear in D&M’s Grammar: “When identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) And: “The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view. […] The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character.” (Ibid, pp. 139, 140)
  
  Also: “Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the article is not used. This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. An object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality. To convey the first point of view the Greek uses the article; for the second the anarthrous construction is used.” (p. 149. Opinion: The first sentence of the quote sounds very much like Colwell. But I believe the meaning of “definite” for anarthrous constructions is open to debate, more on that later.)
  
  It is obvious that the NW translators had this material in mind as they wrote the Appendix material on John 1:1. Of more importance is this statement of Dana & Mantey which critics conveniently leave out:
  
  “There are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in Greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (Ibid, p. 141)
  
  So, what can we conclude from this information? My take is that the “principle” on the article expressed by the NWT Committee in the Appendix was borrowed from Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. The NWT Committee was fully aware there were no rules for the use of the article, but they agreed with Dana & Mantey on the fundamental principle underlying its significance, giving rise to a normal usage. I find it disingenuous that Countess would only target the NWT for criticism for expressing a principle on “normal usage” of the article, and not tell his readers that the NWT was merely echoing Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. Is that honest?
  
  The fact is that Dana & Mantey’s Grammar is not the only source expressing a principle or general rule on the use of the article. Numerours scholars have done so. I will provide you with a few samples:
  
  “The primary function of the article is to make something definite.” “A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article [“the,” in English]….” (An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 57, 58, by Williams Douglas Chamberlain)
  
  J. Harold Greenlee: “General rule – Nouns with the definite article are either definite or generic…. Nouns without the definite article are either indefinite or qualitative.” (A Concise Exegetical Grammar New Testament Greek, p. 37)
  
  Brooks & Winbery: “Generally, though not always, sustantives with the article are definite or generic, while those without the article are indefinite or qualitative.” (Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 67)
  
  “In general, the presence of the article [“the”] emphasizes particular identity, while the absence of the article emphasizes quality or characteristics.” (Learn To Read New Testament Greek, p. 30, by David Alan Black)
  
  The NWT comments in the Appendix of the 1951 edition are in harmony with these stated principles on the article by other scholars. Thus, Countess invented the notion that the NWT made up a rigid rule.
  If these scholars can state principles or general rules regarding the article, and get away with it, why then demonize the NWT Committee for expressing the same thing? How many critics do you know of who make their readers aware of these principles before condemning the NWT? Were you made aware of them?
  
  On Part II, I will consider Countess’ famous claim that the NWT was “ninety-four percent unfaithful” to their principle on the use of the article. Further, I will disclose the force behind Countess’ conclusions on the matter. Stay tuned!
• 

  smiddy3

  I would just quote the "Kingdom Interlinear of The Christian Greek Scripture" by the WTB&TS emphasizing the word for word translation "and god was the word"
• 

  Wonderment

  smiddy3: I would just quote the "Kingdom Interlinear of The Christian Greek Scripture" by the WTB&TS emphasizing the word for word translation "and god was the word"

  First, thanks for your input.

  Unless I am wrong, you have brought this matter before to our attention. And you are correct that KIT does read at John 1:1, "and god was the word." But, are you implying that rendering it, "and the word was a god" is incorrect?
  
• 

  smiddy3

  What i am saying is that the WT used the Greek text "and God was the word" and then they interpret it to mean "the word was a god"

  Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God ,Gods word ,they either believe what it says or they want to "interpret" what God meant to say.

  Is God so incompetent that he can`t say what he means ? or that he does not mean what he says ?

  The reason that their are over 40,000 Christian sects in the world is simply because they all interpret the scriptures to what God meant to say according to their own agenda and not what is stated in the oldest existing manuscripts .

  That`s just my 2 cents worth.
• 

  Wonderment

  smiddy3,

  You are so right that there is such great confusion all-around. Nobody likes it that way. But what can we do?

  As respect to John 1:1, the lack of uniformity in translation is due to language differences, as you well know. However, many people think that to be accurate we have the original word for word expression. It’s not as simple as that.

  For example, Paul was called theós (god) by the islanders at Acts 28.6. If we want to approximate the Greek word for word, we would arrive at something like this: "they were saying him to be god." However, most translations end up with this: "they began to say that he was a god."

  If instead of Paul, it was Jesus being spoken of, most religionists today would surely render like so: "they began to say he was God." And they would argue in favor of that for a lifetime.
  
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  Referring My take is that the “principle” on the article expressed by the NWT Committee in the Appendix was borrowed from Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. The NWT Committee was fully aware there were no rules for the use of the article, but they agreed with Dana & Mantey on the fundamental principle underlying its significance, giving rise to a normal usage. I find it disingenuous that Countess would only target the NWT for criticism for expressing a principle on “normal usage” of the article, and not tell his readers that the NWT was merely echoing Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. Is that honest?

  Dr. Mantey the world famous bible translator when JW made up the NWT disagreed with the Watchtowers miscitation of him and protested against the NWT and publicly urged the Watchtower not to use his name as support for the translation.

  
  

  "Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article." http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/1manteyletter.html

  http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.Overview.htm

  The following is a 2007 thesis by Baumgarten which I found thematizing the NWT and also relating to Mr. Countess . Perhaps this might be interesting in this regard.

  This is a thesis I found relating "Countess". Perhaps this might be interesting in this regard.
  

  A CRITIQUE OF THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES' TREATMENT OF NINE TEXTS EMPLOYING ΘΕΌΣ IN REFERENCE TO JESUS CHRIST. by KENNETH J. BAUMGARTEN

  https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Baumgarten%20K,%20MTh%20Thesis%20(Final).pdf

  
  Countess (1967:160), in regard to John 1:1, has noted that “a prior ‘preferred religious view’ on the part of the witnesses” has motivated the NWT translators to disregard and violate the rules of Greek grammar as a “grammatical means to a doctrinal end” (page 1)

  It is not the specific bias of the translators that renders the NWT unsuitable for academic or devotional use; rather the fact that this bias came to exert a controlling influence which resulted in erroneous translation (p. 146 ff

  John 1: 1 treated at page 40

  more: "I conclude that (1) the theological biases of the translators have caused them to violate their own stated philosophy of translation and the rules of Koine Greek grammar and exegesis, (2) resulting in a treatment of the original text that can be objectively determined to be erroneous, and (3) the NWT must therefore be deemed untrustworthy as either an academic or devotional resource. These conclusions confirm my original hypothesis. It might be inferred from the amount of and nature of the supporting documentation in the NWT that the translators believed themselves to be conveying an accurate translation. However, the tendency to embrace readings which deliberately conceal other plausible readings has resulted in the promotion of a “preferred religious view.” One can only conclude that the consistency shown in this regard betrays a strategy designed to subvert possible interpretations which conflict with Jehovah's Witness doctrine. All translators have biases, and these biases are only problematic if and when they become a controlling influence in the translation process, as they have in the case of the NWT. Jehovah’s Witnesses, catholics, protestants, atheists, or Buddhists are equally capable of producing an accurate and trustworthy NT translation, if they adhere to the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis, and sound values and philosophy of translation. It is not the specific bias of the translators that renders the NWT unsuitable for academic or devotional use; 150 rather the fact that this bias came to exert a controlling influence which resulted in erroneous translation. Page 148 ff

  page 40 ff:
  The NWT advocates one translation for each major Greek word, without changing the meaning of the text. Countess (1982:54-55) notes that of 282 anarthrous occurrences of θεός in the NT, the NWT only translates 16 of these occurrences “a god, god, gods, or godly.” This means that in regard to what is arguably the most “major word” (NWT 1950:9) in the NT, the NWT was inconsistent with its stated philosophy 94 percent of the time.9 In its treatment of John 1:1, the 1950 NWT violates every aspect of it’s stated philosophy and values of translation. The revised edition corrects the issues related to John 1:1a, but does not remedy the (a) “preferred religious view,” (b) inconsistent application of Greek grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, and (c) inconsistent translation of major Greek words (θεός) observed in the treatment of John 1:1c.
  
• 

  MightyV8

  smiddy3,
  Is God so incompetent that he can`t say what he means ? or that he does not mean what he says ?

  Better still why didn't Jesus write something down, after the books of Matthew Mark Luke and John all of them just quoting what Jesus said?

  We could have the book of Jesus straight from the horse's mouth.....But ohhh NOOOO! That would make things to clear and understandable

  
  
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  Watchtower wrote to Caris:

  Dear Friend,
  We have your recent letter in which you ask why the New World Bible Translation Committee felt justified in using the quotation from A Manual Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Dana and Manty [sic] on page 1158 of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures in support of their translation of John 1:1.
  Of course, for us to quote them and to show that their work allows for a certain understanding is quite different than saying that Dana and Manty [sic] personally agree with that view. Dana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity, but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.
  In their grammar, Dana and Manty [sic] set out the rule. From that rule they attempt to argue in support of the trinity. The rule, however, that they propose is plainly and unmistakably stated in their book. In the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and also in the Interlinear, the same rule was taken that they used and accept for just what it says. It was shown that it is possible to argue in favor of the fact that the Word of God was "a god" or a divine personality. Of course, Trinitarians do not like this. But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a person's statement or presentation of the facts, one does not have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts....We, in quoting the facts, do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted. Similarly, in quoting the "rule" set out by Dana and Manty [sic], we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity concept. We can take the plainly stated "rule" and with it show that the rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is consistent and reasonable.
  ....Despite the claims of some that Colwell's rule is inflexible, he himself recognizes that it cannot be. Rather, how the translator interprets the surrounding verses, and, indeed, the whole Bible, is what will determine how he translates John 1:1.
  ....However, Jehovah's Witnesses believe the simple, clear words of Jesus when he said: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28).
  ....Incidentally, Bishop Westcott, co-producer of the noted Westcott & Hort Text of the Christian Scriptures said: "It is necessarily without the article (the'os not ho the'os) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." (Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C.F.D. Moule, 1953 ed.)
  Sincerely in Jehovah's service,
  Watchtower B&T Society of New York, Inc.

  (an excerpt from the entire letter, published in The Scholarly Dishonesty of the Watchtower ©1976 by Michael Van Buskirk)

  And this is Mantey's reaction to this letter to Caris

  http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm

  You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence...theos en ho logosemphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris.

  You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence...theos en ho logosemphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris.
  
  

  http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/1manteyletter.html
  
• 

  Wonderment

  TheWonderofYou,

  I have examined both sides of the issue, and it appears to me that Julius Mantey had little justification for his diatribe. His complaint has more to do with religious sentimental overtones than plain rationale.

  As for the Countess numbers he put forth, its simply a flawed conclusion. I will explain this further when I get some rest. I appreciate your comments.
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  Referring to the question: Does " theos "without article in greek perhaps mean not god the father but simply "a God".

  Is it possible according to grammar?

  Dr. Jeff Vickens says it's complicated. Listen to his answer to JW. Begin listening at 14:40 to come to the core.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_qV0UcJZs

  https://www.youtube.com/attribution?v=i1Lek2-uQvs

  Further excerpt from from gotquestions

  www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

  There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.
  1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.
  2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.
  3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
  The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.
  The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.