Referring My take is that the “principle” on the article expressed by the NWT Committee in the Appendix was borrowed from Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. The NWT Committee was fully aware there were no rules for the use of the article, but they agreed with Dana & Mantey on the fundamental principle underlying its significance, giving rise to a normal usage. I find it disingenuous that Countess would only target the NWT for criticism for expressing a principle on “normal usage” of the article, and not tell his readers that the NWT was merely echoing Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. Is that honest?
Dr. Mantey the world famous bible translator when JW made up the NWT disagreed with the Watchtowers miscitation of him and protested against the NWT and publicly urged the Watchtower not to use his name as support for the translation.
"Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article." http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/1manteyletter.html
The following is a 2007 thesis by Baumgarten which I found thematizing the NWT and also relating to Mr. Countess . Perhaps this might be interesting in this regard.
This is a thesis I found relating "Countess". Perhaps this might be interesting in this regard.
https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Baumgarten%20K,%20MTh%20Thesis%20(Final).pdf
Countess (1967:160), in regard to John 1:1, has noted that “a prior ‘preferred religious view’ on the part of the witnesses” has motivated the NWT translators to disregard and violate the rules of Greek grammar as a “grammatical means to a doctrinal end” (page 1)It is not the specific bias of the translators that renders the NWT unsuitable for academic or devotional use; rather the fact that this bias came to exert a controlling influence which resulted in erroneous translation (p. 146 ff
John 1: 1 treated at page 40
more: "I conclude that (1) the theological biases of the translators have caused them to violate their own stated philosophy of translation and the rules of Koine Greek grammar and exegesis, (2) resulting in a treatment of the original text that can be objectively determined to be erroneous, and (3) the NWT must therefore be deemed untrustworthy as either an academic or devotional resource. These conclusions confirm my original hypothesis. It might be inferred from the amount of and nature of the supporting documentation in the NWT that the translators believed themselves to be conveying an accurate translation. However, the tendency to embrace readings which deliberately conceal other plausible readings has resulted in the promotion of a “preferred religious view.” One can only conclude that the consistency shown in this regard betrays a strategy designed to subvert possible interpretations which conflict with Jehovah's Witness doctrine. All translators have biases, and these biases are only problematic if and when they become a controlling influence in the translation process, as they have in the case of the NWT. Jehovah’s Witnesses, catholics, protestants, atheists, or Buddhists are equally capable of producing an accurate and trustworthy NT translation, if they adhere to the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis, and sound values and philosophy of translation. It is not the specific bias of the translators that renders the NWT unsuitable for academic or devotional use; 150 rather the fact that this bias came to exert a controlling influence which resulted in erroneous translation. Page 148 ff
page 40 ff:
The NWT advocates one translation for each major Greek word, without
changing the meaning of the text. Countess (1982:54-55) notes that of 282
anarthrous occurrences of θεός in the NT, the NWT only translates 16 of these
occurrences “a god, god, gods, or godly.” This means that in regard to what is
arguably the most “major word” (NWT 1950:9) in the NT, the NWT was
inconsistent with its stated philosophy 94 percent of the time.9
In its treatment of John 1:1, the 1950 NWT violates every aspect of it’s stated
philosophy and values of translation. The revised edition corrects the issues
related to John 1:1a, but does not remedy the (a) “preferred religious view,” (b)
inconsistent application of Greek grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, and (c)
inconsistent translation of major Greek words (θεός) observed in the treatment of
John 1:1c.