Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

Wonderment

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT, Part II

Robert H. Countess made the case in his book that the NWT ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article. Under Summary and Conclusions, he stated: “Chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that NWT’s translators poorly understood the Greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘God’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) Is Countess conclusion correct?

This is what the NWT actually said after observing that both Moffatt and Goodspeed rendered John 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “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.” In making this statement, the NW translators also had in mind the Grammar by Dana & Mantey, in which they stated: “When identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) Also: “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) Nowhere did the NWT ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is ALWAYS equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is ALWAYS to be understood as = ‘God.’ Even the WTS would have to agree with Countess that such principle is “not legitimate.”

Colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the Watchtower had made their position clear enough. In 1975 the WT wrote: “This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a ‘the,’ understanding then as definite, though the definite article is missing.” (The Watchtower, 1975, p. 702. Italics theirs.) Hence, if Colwell misunderstood the wording of the 1951 NWT Appendix, the 1975 article should have eliminated any doubts. Colwell had at least 6 years to correct his misunderstanding. Even if he was not aware of the Watchtower article of 1975 in 1982, surely, by the suggestion of others, by the 2nd Edition of 1987, he should have corrected his position on good will alone. Just like Dana & Mantey never expressed a definitive rule for the use of the article, the NWT didn’t either. In Part I of this article, I quoted various scholars who used similar wording as the NWT did regarding the use of the article. None have been charged of formulating a strict rule. Only the NWT have been singled out. Is that fair!

Thus, Countess started his argumentation on the wrong foot. He went further by claiming the now famous statistic quoted by zillions: “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) Countess repeated this assumption various times throughout his book, it’s like he had suddenly received this marvelous epiphany from God. The problem is that he got it all wrong. Do you know who likely led him into this wrong path? E.C. Colwell! That’s who!

Countess wrote: “The present investigator strongly inclines toward the results of Colwell’s study and believes that serious grammatical and theological criticism must treat of this rule, either furthering its verification or completely demolishing it. More than four decades have passed since Colwell set forth his view. To the knowledge of this writer, no exhaustive investigation has yet transpired during this time. However, his work has not passed unnoticed.” Then Countess goes on to mention Bruce Metzger for doctrinal support. Bruce had chided the NWT ‘for overlooking an established rule of Greek grammar (Colwell’s).’

I find a couple of blunders in Countess’ statement above: There is no doubt that Bruce Metzger was a top scholar with ample knowledge and experience. But having fallen victim to Colwell’s reasonings is no evidence of Colwell’s principle being sound, instead, it shows that an otherwise intelligent scholar can be blindsided by a doctrinal agenda. Countess was so confident in Colwell’s rule that he spoke of it as: “...whose right to a place in Greek grammars seems conclusive.” Then he arrogantly added: “It would be interesting to see a confrontation of NWT translators with Colrule [Colwell’s rule], for they are apparently ignorant of it.” (p. 92) No, I don’t think the NWT translators were “ignorant of it,” rather, they just didn’t fall for it, because they likely saw more holes in “Colwell’s rule” than in Swiss cheese.

Another blunder was this declaration: “More than four decades have passed since Colwell set forth his view. To the knowledge of this writer, no exhaustive investigation has yet transpired during this time.” Even the posters in this website have been made aware that in 1973 (9 years before Countess’ publication), Philip B. Harner published what has become a highly respected summary of qualitative predicate nouns, as in John 1:1c (Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1. 1973, Vol 92 p. 75). Many scholars agree that Harner’s study went further than Colwell’s. Even Dr. Julius R. Mantey, in his letter to the Watchtower Society, acknowledged: “Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject.” (July 11, 1974)

Other scholars have also pointed out Colwell’s flaws in his article, among them, Wallace, Dixon, Hartley, BeDuhn, and Richard A. Young. The Net Bible concedes: “Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.” What is the real reason people have fallen victim to Colwell’s argumentation? Dr. Rodney J. Decker answers: “[Colwell's rule] has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.” (A Summary of Colwell's Rule, February, 1995) There is a theological motive to push Colwell’ study to the masses. It is a “theory” (to use Colwell’s admission) that failed to achieve factual legitimacy. Having Metzger and Countess become two of its many victims only confirms the need for all of us to be cautious with claims challenging Jesus’ plain statement, “the Father is greater than I am.” (John 14.28)

A question that comes up is, why would Countess ignore Harner’s study of 1973 altogether in the first edition of his book (1982)? He had 9 years to consider it. This question becomes more relevant since Countess in the Second Edition of the book (1987) did not address the 1984 NWT Reference Edition which published a segment addressing Harner’s conclusion: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” (JBL, p. 87) This glaring omission undermines Countess’ credibility.

Again, what about Countess’ 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.” Trinitarian advocates find this tidbit more juicy than a flavorful steak.

However, it is all wrong! For a couple of reasons: First, as I noted in Part I, the NWT did express a principle in regards to the article, but NOT an invariable principle which had be followed in EVERY case. The NWT Editors did not formulate a fixed principle on the use of the Greek article anymore than did Dana & Mantey and the army of scholars who have expressed corresponding principles on the article using similar language. Countess concluded that the NWT made up a rule where theós = “a god,” and ho theós = “God” in EVERY case. No translator does that or believes that! So Countess’ claim cannot stand if he gets the basic principle about the article wrong.

The second reason Countess’ assumptions are wrong is that the numbers he came up with do not take into account numerous variables which can, and do affect the translation of anarthrous predicate nouns. No translator will render theós (god) without the article the same way every time. Why make such demand from the NWT translators. It is very unreasonable to expect such inflexibility from a translator. He does not make the same demand from others who have expressed similar principles on the article alike. Is that fair?

Countess provides a useful list in the Appendix of the book, Table V, where he notes how the NWT rendered every occurrence of theós in the New Testament. For the book of John, he reports 61 cases of “theós” with the article, in which the NWT has “God” in every case. However, for the anarthrous “theós” (without the article) he notes 20 occurrences in John. Observe the variables involved which make most of these instances virtually impossible to translate consistently in an indefinite manner. Daniel B. Wallace observes that “there are at least ten constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrous.” (The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 110) Some of these constructions are found in the association of theós within the Gospel of John.

20 occurrences of the anarthrous theós (without the article) in John (NWT) are shown below:

1:1c, “a god” (simple nominative, non-prepositional predicate) – indefinite-qualitative.
1:6, “God” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “beside God”).
1:12, “God,” (genitive construction, “children of God”).
1:13, “God,” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “out of God”).
1:18, “God,” (accusative noun, “God no one has seen”).
1:18, “god” (nominative noun followed by the article, used as a pronominal relative, and a verbal
participle: “only-begotten god the [one] being into the bosom of the Father).
3:2, “God” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “from God”).
3:21, “God” (prepositional phrase in the dative, “in God”).
6:45, “God” (prepositional phrase, genitive, “of God”).
8:54, “God” (nominative followed by plural pronoun in the genitive: “that God of YOU is [WH].”
UBS Text has, “that God of us is.”
9:16, “God” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “beside of God”).
9:33, “God” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “beside of God”)
10:33, “a god” (accusative noun, in harmony with anarthrous “man” before it) – qualitative.
10:34, “gods” (nominative, plural, before the verb: “that I said gods YOU are.”) - qualitative.
10:35, “gods” (accusative, plural: “If he called gods those against whom the word”) - qualitative.
13:3, “God” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “from God”).
16:30, “God” (prepositional phrase in the genitive, “from God”).
19:7, “God,” (genitive construction, “of God”).
20:17, “God,” (accusative construction followed by a pronoun in the genitive: “God of me")
20:17, “God,” (accusative construction followed by a pronoun in the genitive: “and God of YOU”).
Both of these instances are preceded by the articular phrase: “the Father of me.”

The NWT rendered “theós” without the article as “God” 15 times.
The NRSV rendered “theós” without the article as “God” 18 times.
The NIV rendered “theós” without the article as “God” 18 times.
James L. Tomanek N.T.* rendered “theós” without the article as “God” 15 times.
Goodspeed N.T.* rendered “theós” without the article as “God” 16 times.
(*Both Tomanek and Goodspeed preferred the reading Son over God at John 1.18, 2nd instance)

This comparison of various translators show that for the most part they rendered “theós” similarly. Goodspeed rendered “divine” at John 1.1, and Tomanek rendered “a God” at both John 1.1 and 10.33. NONE of these translators followed a rigid rule with predicate nouns lacking the Greek article with these factors in place.

Why do these translators render most of these anarthrous instances of theós in a definite manner? They do so because most of these Scriptures contain grammatical constructions which tend to make the noun definite, like prepositional phrases, genitives, participles, demonstratives, or other factors affecting their description. Please take note that out of this list of 20 instances of theós, the only simple nominative singular, in the list without any variables in the clause (like prepositions, genitives, etc.) is the one from John 1.1. This means there is no grammatical reason to avoid the indefinite article in the verse. Is this significant? Smyth’s Greek Grammar stated: “The article is very often omitted in phrases containing a preposition.” (#1128) And Dana & Mantey wrote, “The use of prepositions, possessive and demonstrative pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 137) There is no preposition in the clause of John 1.1c.

Yes. Countess himself included the following quote which oddly disputes his claim that the NWT were biased in their handling of theós without the article: “Blass-Debrunner, basing comment upon an exhaustive study by Bernhard Weiss, observed that whenever the Jewish or Christian God is in view, the article is present, but that it may be omitted after prepositions and if in the genitive when depending on an anarthrous noun.” (Friedrich Blass’ Grammatick, p. 251,1. Page 47 - Countess book.)

Something often overlooked by NWT critics is the fact that Colwell used such improper “prepositional” examples almost exclusively to “prove” his rule, like he did with a main sample, John 1:49. This is another reason to reject Colwell’s theory, and Countess’ argumentation, for using it as his foundation for his criticisms. Another relevant matter left out from Countess’ argumentation is that he did not include predicate nouns other than theós. Theós has limited applications. Theós is generally reserved for God, and sparringly for Christ and other living beings in a few places. A consideration of other predicate nouns which parallel the syntax of John 1.1 would throw additional light on the matter. It would make even more clear that Countess’ reasonings as exposed in his book are flawed.

Colwell made a big fuss about the position of the predicate noun in the phrase, whether it preceded or followed the verb. However, “The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, J. Gresham Machen, p. 27) Hansen & Quinn: “The basic grammatical relations of subject, verb, and direct object are shown in Greek by the inflection of nouns and verbs. Word order is free to express emphasis, contrast, balance, and variety.” (Greek – An Intensive Course, p. 30) Word order is thus, not the main determinant in whether a noun is definite or indefinite.

Countess made two valid observations: “Grammarians past and present realize the difficulty in making hard and fast rules governing the use of the article.” (p. 46) “The article...does not admit of hard and fast rules.” (p. 56) I bet the WT editors would agree with these statements. (See wt 75, p. 702) It would have been equitative if Colwell gave the NWT translators some leeway in this matter. Colwell said of the NWT: “At some points it is actually dishonest.” (p.93) It is Colwell’s misrepresentation of the WT position on the article which I find dishonest.

I have plenty of reasons to be angry at the Watchtower Society for their responsibility in establishing damaging policies affecting me and my family directly, and countless others, for decades. That said, in the case of Colwell, Countess, and other critics ganging up against the WT regarding some translation matters, I have to side with the WT. In my opinion, the WT Society have presented the more accurate and fair account of the issues surrounding the use of the Greek article compared with the misrepresentation and inaccurate information presented by its detractors. I hope this information is of value for truth seekers.

TD

Colwell made a big fuss about the position of the predicate noun......However, “The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, J. Gresham Machen, p. 27)

Seriously?

ακούγεται σαν παρθένος να μιλάει για σεξ.....

slimboyfat

I have always wanted to buy this book. It is a gap on my library. But it has always been a bit expensive whenever I have looked. It’s an important book in so far as it’s the only book-long evaluation of the NWT as far as I’m aware. (Apart from new one below)

I guess you are aware that Furuli made extensive replies to this book in his book “Theology and Bias in Bible Translation”? And BeDuhn of course discusses the NWT alongside other versions.

I have been looking around for reviews of the revised NWT and there have not been many. But recently this book was published. I wonder if you have looked at it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/REVIEWING-World-Translation-Jehovahs-Witnesses-ebook/dp/B079DGQF5D/

Wonderment

TD,

What I meant was that Colwell focused on pronouncing a noun as either definite or indefinite by the presence or absence of the article and its word order. One cannot make such a broad conclusion. Acts 28.6 has theós (although in the accusative) before the verb and some manuscripts after the verb. The interpretation is the same. Isn’t it?

Not sure if you have Machen’s book, but this is what he said in context: "But Greek can vary the order for purposes of emphasis or euphony much more freely than English. Thus the sentence, an apostle says a word, is in Greek normally [apóstolos légei lógon]. But [légei apóstolos lógon] and [lógon légei apóstolos] are both perfectly possible. The English translation must be determined by observing the endings, not by observing the order." (p. 27)

And Alfred Marshall: "So in Greek --within limits-- the order of words is a matter of style and emphasis; the verb may come first or last, which are the two emphatic positions." (New Testament Greek Primer, p. 22)

bennyk

John 15:1b would appear to violate Colwell's "rule"...

TheWonderofYou

Colwell rule:

(found at:

community/discussion/7905/coptic-experts-and-theologians-john-1-1)

That is Colwell's rule your useing. Wallace argues that the value of Colwell's is not for exegesis since it does not establish definiteness but only suggest probable word order in certain cases. Rather, "it is validity is for textual criticism is as follow: if it is obvious that a pre-verbal pn is definite, the MSS which lack the article are more likely to support the original reading." (Wallace, 188.) This does not help, of course. When the variant involves not just the article, but also word order. See the example (CR 16) were b and evidence this combination pattern
http://www.ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf

TD

Wonderment,

Thus the sentence, an apostle says a word, is in Greek normally [apóstolos légei lógon]. But [légei apóstolos lógon] and [lógon légei apóstolos] are both perfectly possible.

Students of Ancient Greek learn this during their first week of class. E.C. Colwell was almost certainly biased, but he doesn't come across as incompetent or stupid.

The problem with John 1:1 is its ambiguity, which is why students quibble over the word order. It doesn't rigidly drive the grammar as it does in English, but word order does convey subtleties.

Wonderment

First, a needed correction in next to last paragraph, I wrote:

It would have been equitative if Colwell gave the NWT translators some leeway in this matter. Colwell said of the NWT: “At some points it is actually dishonest.” (p.93) It is Colwell’s misrepresentation of the WT position on the article which I find dishonest.

Is supposed to be "Countess" instead of Colwell in all three instances.

bennyk: John 15:1b would appear to violate Colwell's "rule"...

Yes, according to Colwell, a predicate noun ahead of the verb is expected to be definite by its word order, like in John 1.1. In John 15.1, the article was used with the predicate nominative though it precedes the verb (Lit., the Father of me the farmer is). If the article is removed, it becomes: my Father is a farmer, not my Father is farmer.

TD: E.C. Colwell was almost certainly biased, but he doesn't come across as incompetent or stupid.

Colwell was considered a very competent scholar. However, in his drive to prove Torrey (who asserted Semitic influence in various Scriptures) wrong, or not completely right, plus having a personal wish to bolster Christ’s deity made him overlook some important matters, like the force of qualitative nouns in many of the Scriptures he considered. Somehow I get the impression that some scholars are seeking to reduce the incidence or impact of indefinite nouns in the translation of some Scriptures.

TheWonderofYou

I dont know Countess and neither Colwell neither will I ever hardly read their books because I am German. So I contributed something what I thought could be helpful.

Generally I wonder if NWT wants to say relating to their texting "a God" that this is to be understand as "identification of the logos" or as "characteristic nature" - predicate nominative before verb - of the logos what is also "Trinitarian view?

I think that latter is from the context the only correct understanding.

Not that the word is this or that god or perhaps any god, or simply a God of more of its kind. But god is the divine nature of the word. And that the word has all attributes of the divine nature, of god

Even if you say Sherlock is a puppet, the question is do you identify it as " a puppet " one from many or as being of puppet nature possessing all attributes of puppets. But puppet is not an adjective

Or e.g. Miss So and So is artist, the artist, or "an artist would be an identifcation: an artist of many or the artist. Definite or indefinite.

Or is "an artist" a predicative noun to be read : artist is what she is. This is what describes her best. Her nature, profession, characteristics.

Wonderment

Slim:

In Countess' book, in chapter 3, he discusses the divine name (21 pp.). He also provided four Tables in the Appendix in relation to it. I bring this up, because you have done quite a bit of research on the subject, and you seem to be fair when addressing polemical themes.

By the way, I value and respect God's name. I am willing to make copies of those pages for you, if I'm allowed to.

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

Share this