Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
-
-
-
61
Immigration: The Truth about the LIe - CRIME
by Wonderment inimmigration: the truth about the lie: crimecrime: do immigrants increase rates of violence?
there has been a lot of talk about how immigrants pose a threat to the safety of this country by increasing crime rates.
is there any truth to this, or is it "fake news.
-
-
Wonderment
Immigration: The Truth about the Lie: CRIME
CRIME: Do immigrants increase rates of violence? There has been a lot of talk about how immigrants pose a threat to the safety of this country by increasing crime rates. Is there any truth to this, or is it "fake news."
Wikipedia: “In fact, most studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates.
FOX News (07/12/2017): “Fear of an illegal immigrant crime wave is sparked by the fear that they are overwhelmingly murderers, rapists, and thieves. In reality, illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates and live in places with lower crimes rates than native-born Americans.... Looking at all incarcerated prisoners in state, federal, and local adult correctional facilities provides a more accurate picture of illegal immigrant criminality. Based on census data, the numbers show that illegal immigrants are about 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.”
NPR (05/02/2018): “The Trump administration regularly asserts that undocumented immigrants are predatory and threaten public safety…. Now, four academic studies (University of Wisconsin - 2 Studies; Cato Institute; U.K. journal Migration Letters) show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems.... U.K. journal Migration Letters shows that youthful undocumented immigrants engage in less crime than do legal immigrants of U.S.-born peers.”
University of Pennsylvania: "For those who are skeptical that these findings are true, consider the case of El Paso, Texas a working class city of approximately 700,000 people that sits opposite the Rio Grande.... More than 80% of El Paso's residents are Hispanic and the vast majority of these individuals are of Mexican origin. A large population of El Paso's Hispanic population are immigrants. In fact, El Paso has one of the highest proportions of immigrants among U.S. cities. Many of these migrants are undocumented. If those who fear Mexican immigration are right, then El Paso should be a hotbed of violence. As it turns out, El Paso is one of the safest cities in the United States with a homicide rate of 2.4 per 100,000 residents.
New York Times (03/30/2018):
“The Trump administration’s first year of immigration policy has relied on claims that immigrants bring crime into America. President Trump’s latest target is sanctuary cities. ‘Every day, sanctuary cities release illegal immigrants, drug dealers, traffickers, gang members back into our communities,’ he said last week. ‘They’re safe havens for just some terrible people.’ As of 2017, according to Gallup polls, almost half of Americans agreed that immigrants make crime worse. But is it true that immigration drives crime? Many studies have shown that it does not.
“Immigrant populations in the United States have been growing fast for decades now. Crime in the same period, however, has moved in the opposite direction, with the national rate of violent crime today well below what it was in 1980.... The 10 places with the largest increases in immigrants all had lower levels of crime in 2016 than in 1980.”
What do you think? Are these sources reliable? Or, are they "fake news"? -
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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
Doug Mason,
Is the material released on the link your own? I see no date or name for authorship.
There is some good stuff in there. Surely, there are many unanswered questions. It takes faith to believe strongly in whatever we choose to believe.
Thanks!
You wrote: "Is the Watchtower's rationale equally as fanciful as the Trinitarian's?"
The WT Society goes by the KISS principle: Keep it Simple Stupid."
Easier said than done!
-
1
Bach’s Chaconne
by Wonderment inchaconne bwv 1004, partita no.
2 d minor:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fchz5yssi .
-
-
Wonderment
Chaconne BWV 1004, Partita No. 2 D minor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Fchz5YSSI
This is one beautiful performance that I cannot get out of my head. It is played by Scottish-born, and for many years based in Brazil, Paul Galbraith, with a special instrument, an 8 string guitar that rests on the floor by a metal support, unlike the conventional guitar of six strings.
Violinist Joshua Bell has said the Chaconne is "not just one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, but one of the greatest achievements of any man in history. It's a spiritually powerful piece, emotionally powerful, structurally perfect." (Wikipedia)
Paul plays Chaconne on a slower tempo, but WOW! His sensitivity, and accuracy are outstanding. This instrument has remarkable bass sounds. Truly a sublime work to share.
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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
TD: Why do you believe θεός is qualitative in 1:1c? Do you believe it's entirely a function of the nominative or do you think the odd placement of the word also plays a part?
There are a couple of reasons why I think θεός is qualitative or indefinite over definite.
The fact that it is an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb, and these normally are translated in English versions as indefinite or qualitative. Of course, I’m referring to constructions where the nominative is not accompanied with prepositional phrases, or genitives, etc., which may require a definite sense.
We have John 8:.48 as one example of such: ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ = that Samaritan are you. Here most English Bibles render the predicate nominative as: "that you are a Samaritan," not definite, "the Samaritan."
One other example is taken from The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 10:1, Greek: μετὰ παρρησίας ἄκουε· Χριστιανός εἰμι = with boldness be hearing Christian I am . This should not be translated: "with boldness be hearing the Christian I am." Roberts-Donaldson translated this so: “Hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian.” The indefinite article is used to point out the qualitative nuance of the predicate.
In Spanish, one could translate as: "Escúchame declarar con valentía, soy [un] cristiano." The indefinite article "un" can be dispensed with to emphasize the qualitative force of the noun. But in English one would expect, "I am a Christian."
The same can be said of John 4.19, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ = I perceive that prophet are you = I perceive that you are a prophet. NOT: the prophet. Again, in Spanish, one can translate both ways: Tú eres profeta," or "Tú eres un profeta." In English, is not normal to say: "I see that you are prophet." Thus the indefinite article is used to bring out the qualitative notion of the predicate. Of course, I am not suggesting that qualitative and indefinite are exchangeable concepts. But that often, the distinction is not so easy to determine. They are not mutually exclusive. Hence, Wallace labeled this one as "indefinite-qualitative."
The other reason is context. John is speaking of two individuals, not one. John uses an anarthrous predicate theós sandwiched between two other instances of arthrous theón in verse one and two. I think that’s done intentionally. John differentiates between God and the Logos throughout chapter one. In verse 18, John makes clear that" the only begotten Son" is the one able to explain the invisible Father.
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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
Slim,
No, I have not read Frank Shaw’s book. I don’t have it. It’s very pricey, so I am not sure if I will buy it.
How would you like me to send you the copies of the pages (Countess’) on the divine name?
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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
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.
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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
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.
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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
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)
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert 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.