Posts by Wonderment

21

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

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert 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.

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.

11

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

by Wonderment in

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 { }

Wonderment

TheWonderofYou,

Jeff Vickens is wrong. Other scholars disagree with him.

"Would you translate a similar syntax at Act 28:4 (By all means murderer is the man) like so: Surely, the man is the murderer? Wait, all translations render it as :

This man must be a murderer.” (New International Version)

John 1:2 confirms that those who translate with an indefinite form are in the right. There is no way that we should understand clause c of verse one as definite as many suggest:

The God Jesus was in the beginning with the God.
But it is appropriate to understand it like so: "Jesus (a godlike one) was in the beginning with the God." This also fits better with John’s conclusion at 20.31:

But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If Jeff Vickens was correct, we would see instead at 20.31: "Jesus is ~~the Son of~~ God."

Which of the two renderings agree better with John’s conclusion?

Which of the two renderings (God, or a god) agree better with Jesus’ own words at John 20.17: ‘I am going back to my God’? Jesus being the reflection of God’s glory was able to explain the Father God to us. (Hebrews 1:3; John 1.18)

11

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

by Wonderment in

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 { }

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.

11

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

by Wonderment in

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 { }

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.

11

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

by Wonderment in

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 { }

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?

11

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

by Wonderment in

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 { }

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 { }

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!

32

What’s your favorite "News" website?

by Wonderment in

news in general are supposed to be unbiased.

but given how commercial and political interests get their tentacles around them, finding a fully unbiased news website is not so easy.. here in america some would rather trust bbc or reuters than they do cnn or fox news.

any favorites?.

Wonderment

News in general are supposed to be unbiased. But given how commercial and political interests get their tentacles around them, finding a fully unbiased news website is not so easy.

Here in America some would rather trust BBC or Reuters than they do CNN or Fox news. What’s your take? Any favorites?

9

The dishonesty of JWs vs mainstream churches

by Wonderment in

one of the most vexing matters confronting us as christians has to do with the apparent lack of honesty of so-called "christian" teachers on the many issues they frequently talk about.

this should not be shocking to us since scripture tells us that "everyone has sinned.

" (rom.

Wonderment

One of the most vexing matters confronting us as Christians has to do with the apparent lack of honesty of so-called "Christian" teachers on the many issues they frequently talk about. This should not be shocking to us since Scripture tells us that "everyone has sinned. " (Rom. 5.12, GNT) And Romans 3.4 does say: "God is honest, and everyone else is a liar." (GW) We could say that Christian teachers being "human" as they are, are going to transmit the wrong information to us at times, whether this is done on purpose or not, that’s another matter.

I have no doubt that both the WT Society and mainstream religious groups have lied to us. Who does the most lying is not so easy to determine. Who can you trust? On the positive side, I bet that most religious people do not go about on purpose trying to deceive others. Just as Saul of Tarsus was convinced of his righteous ways when persecuting Christians, so too, many are sincere in their Christian beliefs. It was not our decision to choose the country where we were born. In many cases, we inherited the religion of our parents with all its faults. The fact is that the knowledge we currently have is partial. No one knows everything.

When Christ disciples asked him: "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction." (Acts 1.6,7) From this statement, we can say that those religious folks who pretend to have the answers as to ‘the time and hour of the end’ are going beyond what they should. Luke 21.8 reports Jesus saying: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them." If this is so, why are some prophecies given with time frames in Scripture?

The WT record in the past century regarding dates on the time of the end can’t be taken too seriously. They have failed us, and themselves. The WTS likes to pass the blame to the brotherhood for "their eager expectations." That’s not good! Furthermore, there are some reports of the WT Society avoiding their government responsibilities by not paying ‘to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.’ (Mark 12.17) And then they tell us we have to be ALWAYS honest, even when reporting our taxes. They often fool government agencies the world over for financial gain. Why are they not abiding by Russian rules? Why have some missionaries being caught transporting WT money and stocks illegally from one country to another? Am I missing something here?

And then we perceive the deceit behind their doctrine of "the faithful and discreet slave," in order to exercise control over their "brothers." The doctrine "from house to house" is another cunning move lacking honesty, for what is meant by this expression is not exactly what the WT preaches. The WT policy on child molesters is not enough, and reminds me of the famous WT lawyer (Covington) saying in Court: "Unity at all costs."

On the other hand, surprisingly, I find the WT has a much better record representing Scriptures such as John 1.1; John 1.18; John 8.58; Acts 20.28; Hebrews 1.8, among others, compared to that of predominant religious groups. I know some in this site will disagree with me, but that has been my experience. The stand of many scholars on these Scriptures, and the way they attack their opposers is embarrassingly dishonest. They frequently hide valuable information from their readers, and are not fair at all with anyone who disagrees with them. See here for one sample on John 8.58: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5360109848887296/how-credible-nwts-critiques-allin-john-8-58-2

Another example of distorted information presented to the public is illustrated by this article:

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/129670/new-world-translation-mess

On E.C. Colwell on John 1.1 who many have trusted with all their heart, there is brief information here, for those who missed it: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5754325897838592/colwells-rule-must-die

Hundreds of folks cite Robert H. Countess and his book as an authority -- in his critique of John 1.1 in the NWT. However, Countess is off in his conclusions. Perhaps, I will write something briefly on the subject one of these days.

Where I find most dishonesty within the WT deals mainly with organizational procedures, and whatever they are willing to do to justify their questionable actions as "Jehovah’s organization" before the world. Some of you have also called attention to NWT passages that have been tweaked to support the organization policies. Not to mention those WT doctrines lacking Scriptural basis.

Mainstream churches and their leaders have been caught cheating as well. Many churchgoers have stopped going to church altogether. The don’t trust their leaders one bit. Who can we trust?

God and Christ! That’s who!

7

Colwell’s Rule must die!

by Wonderment in

colwell, a trinitarian methodist, was apparently affected by various translators of his time and before, that were translating john 1:1 differently from the norm: "the word was god.

" you had moffatt’s version saying "the word was divine" (1922); a french bible, "a divine being" (1928); belsham, "a god" (1808); benjamin wilson: "a god" (1864); robert young: "a god" in his commentary of 1985. colwell likely knew that various french and german bibles were being published challenging the traditional rendering "god" of john 1:1 as well.. so he set out to prove them wrong.

he began by formulating a "rule" regarding predicate nouns and the greek article, whether they occurred after or before the verb.

Wonderment

My slip: Robert Young’s Commentary where he writes John 1:1 means: "more lit[erally] "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" was published in 1865, not 1985. Thus, he preceded Colwell’s article of 1933.

7

Colwell’s Rule must die!

by Wonderment in

colwell, a trinitarian methodist, was apparently affected by various translators of his time and before, that were translating john 1:1 differently from the norm: "the word was god.

" you had moffatt’s version saying "the word was divine" (1922); a french bible, "a divine being" (1928); belsham, "a god" (1808); benjamin wilson: "a god" (1864); robert young: "a god" in his commentary of 1985. colwell likely knew that various french and german bibles were being published challenging the traditional rendering "god" of john 1:1 as well.. so he set out to prove them wrong.

he began by formulating a "rule" regarding predicate nouns and the greek article, whether they occurred after or before the verb.

Wonderment

E.C. Colwell, a Trinitarian Methodist, was apparently affected by various translators of his time and before, that were translating John 1:1 differently from the norm: "the Word was God." You had Moffatt’s version saying "the Word was divine" (1922); a French Bible, "a divine being" (1928); Belsham, "a god" (1808); Benjamin Wilson: "a god" (1864); Robert Young: "a god" in his Commentary of 1985. Colwell likely knew that various French and German Bibles were being published challenging the traditional rendering "God" of John 1:1 as well.

So he set out to prove them wrong. He began by formulating a "rule" regarding predicate nouns and the Greek article, whether they occurred after or before the verb. He was looking for Scriptures he understood were "definite" in the English translation, but were lacking the article in Greek when they occurred before the verb, but had it after the verb. In all, he examined 367 predicate nouns. He was influenced by Scriptures such as Matthew 12:48,50 (where one noun, "mother," had the article after the verb and the other before the verb did not), John 1:49 and John 9:5, where this last one didn’t have the article but in John 8:12 did, and he concluded that they were definite all the same. Bingo, someone finally had the weapon to destroy those "heretics," so he thought.

He concluded, "Kai theós en ho lógos" looks much more like "And the Word was God" when viewed with reference to this rule." This was only a "theory" as he labeled it. However, Trinitarians the world over rejoiced in having the ultimate weapon to neutralize the opposition. Walter Martin, Robert H. Countess, and Bruce Metzger, to name three scholars, were ecstatic, and used it repeatedly against the JWs to "prove" their error.

The problem was that the rule was flawed from the beginning, and it didn’t prove these predicate nouns were definite. After the NWT (which ignored the rule) was published, other translators too disregarded Colwell’s Rule, and went on to translate John 1:1, as "divine," "divine being," "god" (instead of God), etc. Not only that, some scholars of repute, like C.H. Dodd, have admitted publicly, that grammar-wise, you could translate both ways.

Grammarians too have pointed out the error of Colwell’s Rule, such as Turner and Wallace. Nonetheless, there are a few remaining scholars who won’t let the "rule" die in peace, like David A. Black, and Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer in their book, Going Deeper with NT Greek, who still quote Colwell like it were the Bible. Not so fast!

The problem with Colwell’s Rule is that he went in looking for definite predicate nouns, when from the start it was not clear they were definite to begin with, like in John 1:1. In other words, he used his own criteria or interpretation to determine they were definite. And that ladies and gentlemen is the crux of the problem. What is a definite predicate noun for him, may be qualitative or indefinite to another.

Worse, he did not consider in the main qualitative and indefinite nouns in his study. He also ignored in his paper prepositional phrases, relative clauses, proper nouns, etc. Colwell admitted his "rule" had 15 exceptions in the New Testament. What kind of rule is that, with 15 exceptions? That’s not counting all the ones he considered "definite," which potentially may not be.

In all, Colwell’s Rule should be thrown in the trash heap where it belongs.