[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #715
b-greek-digest Sunday, 21 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 715
In this issue:
Re: washing of regeneration (...
Re: Colwell rule
"No unpublished thoughts"
Greek via PC
A Lukan shift in terms
Re: Colwell rule
Re: Colwell rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 01:29:05 -0400
Subject: Re: washing of regeneration (...
Dear Jim,
"Washing of clothes" doesn't mean that the clothes are doing the washing,
in which case, the genitive is a so-called "objective genitive", a
possibility in the phrase under consideration, but more likely "of
regeneration" is used adjectivally, i.e., "regenerative washing".
Richard Arthur, NH lisatia@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 23:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
This is in response to the many who requested an elaboration of my thesis
on the abuse of Colwell's rule. It is entitled, "The Significance of the
Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John," and can be obtained at Dallas
Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX. Here is the conclusion of the thesis
taken verbatim from my own copy.
"The use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is
significant. It is qualitative in 65 out of 74 occurrences, or 88%
probability. When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb
it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it
follows the verb the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of
19 occurrences, or 68%.
"The implications of this are equally significant. No longer
should Colwell's rule mislead us into thinking that an anarthrous
predicate nominative preceding the verb is just as definite as the
articular predicate nominative following the verb and that "there need be
no doctrinal significance in the dropping of the article, for it is
simply a matter of word-order." (footnoted quoting from Colwell, Journal
of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):13) Our conclusions show that when John
wished to express a definite predicate nominative, he usually wrote it
after the verb with the article, 66 of 77 occurrences or 86%
probability. When he wished to express a qualitative predicate
nominative with the verb, he usually wrote it before the verb without the
article, 50 of 63 occurrences or 80% probability.
"Finally, we may conclude three things about John 1:1. First,
Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for
definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives
preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule asserts nothing
about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate
nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the
converse of the rule, and as such is not
cessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that
anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are
qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast
with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), and on the basis of
the comparison with the first two clauses in 1:1 (where two eternal
qualities of the Logos are laid out), we conclude that theos is 1:1c
stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical
probability of theos being qualitative, rather than definite or
indefinite, is quite high, 94%.
Paul Dixon, pastor Ladd Hill Bible Church, Wilsonville, OR
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 14:16:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: "No unpublished thoughts"
The formulation, "X said that Y never had an unpublished thought," is at
least a century old. I personally have heard it repeated about on;y a dozen
or so scholars, but I suspect it has been applied to everyone who publishes
an unusually high number of pieces. Ernest DeWitt Burton was reputed to
have said it of young Edgar J. Goodspeed, and certainly Martin Marty and
Jack Neusner have been frequent recipients of the gag-line.
Ueberlieferungsgeschichte might help us sort this one out; Formgeschichte
makes it too easy.
Bibfeldt was, I believe, a sibling of the Viennese psychiatrist (whose
name I forget at the moment) often quoted by Robert Maynard Hutchens--
the one who demonstrated that the daily commuter on a train had reached the
pinnacle of human expectations. Jerry Brauer use to regale his classmates
(including me, when we were students together) with tales of Bibfeldt. And
Marty has been on his trail for a few decades. Bob Brown, who used to
retail a story or two about Bibfeldt, speaks truly when he hails the
wider circulation of the Bibfeldt legacy.
Many thank to Paul Moser for sharing this delectable with us!
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 14:21:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Greek via PC
The unsigned inquiry (perhaps, from the address line, named Ramon Gomez?)
about whether software already exists with which to learn Greek:
Yes, several forms exist. To my mind, of those I've seen, the
best is the one by John Hurd at the University of Toronto. He has
recently retired, but I'm sure he still has this program around.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: TonyPr684@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 17:41:59 -0400
Subject: A Lukan shift in terms
This is my first effort to enter substantively into the B-Greek forum. It
stems from a paper I'm preparing, and comes only after considerable research
on my part. It has to do with the word "compassionate" in Luke.
Luke uses a form of splagxni/zomai for "compassionate" in 1:78 (re God); 7:13
(re Jesus in Nain); 10:33 (re father of prodigal son) and 15:20 (re good
Samaritan). Yet, in 3:36 (re God) he uses oi)kti/rmonej / oi)kti/rmwn, and
this is the only instance where he uses this word form, both in the gospel
and in Acts.
My question is: Why the change? I'm aware that 3:36 is considered a part of Q
according to the International Q Project (reported in JBL, 113/3 [1994]
495-499). (The folks at Clarement, Stan Anderson specifically, graciously
e-mailed me the databases and responses on this text but they're in a format
that my PC apparently can't translate.)
For those who agree with the Q hypothesis, would it be valid to say that Luke
here was preserving a distinct form so he kept the different word? Are there
any other less speculative explanations?
For those who don't agree with Q, what other plausible explanations might
there be?
Is there any connection with the fact that--according to Kittel--in the LXX,
oi)ti/w is common whereas splagxni/zomai is rare?
Anyone care to respond?
Tony Prete
Haddonfield, NJ
------------------------------
From: Derrick Green <dgreen@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
On Fri, 19 May 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> "Finally, we may conclude three things about John 1:1. First,
> Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for
> definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives
> preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule asserts nothing
> about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate
> nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the
> converse of the rule, and as such is not
> cessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that
> anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are
> qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast
> with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), and on the basis of
> the comparison with the first two clauses in 1:1 (where two eternal
> qualities of the Logos are laid out), we conclude that theos is 1:1c
> stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical
> probability of theos being qualitative, rather than definite or
> indefinite, is quite high, 94%.
This topic is interesting to me. Have you read 'Jehovah's Witnesses,
Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John' by Robert Bowman? It seems that
his conclusion about applying Colwell's rule to John 1:1 is the same as
yours. He goes out of his way to show that taking your position does not
in any way imply the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation that the Logos
was simply 'a god.' Do you think that this interpretation gives the JWs
any leg to stand on? Could seeing theos as qualitative give enough leeway
to interpret Jn 1:1 as saying that the Logos had the qualities of God,
but was not God?
In Christ,
- ---
Derrick Green
dgreen@iclnet.org
Springfield, VA
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 21:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
My conclusions regarding Jn 1:1 and Colwell's rule do not support the JW
interpretation of 'a god.' The anarthrous noun in the Greek has always
denoted qualitativeness, not indefiniteness versus definiteness. The
zeal among some to grab Colwell's rule as a proof for the definiteness of
theos in 1:1c is illogical. That was my contention. His rule cannot be
applied to determine definiteness. Besides, if theos in 1:1c is
definite, then we end up with Sabellianism, because a definite theos in
1:1c then refers back to the articular ton theon of 1:1b who is God the
Father.
Taking theos qualitatively best supports the doctrine of the
trinity, for then the Father and the Logos are deity.
Paul Dixon
On Sat, 20 May 1995, Derrick Green wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
>
> > "Finally, we may conclude three things about John 1:1. First,
> > Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for
> > definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives
> > preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule asserts nothing
> > about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate
> > nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the
> > converse of the rule, and as such is not
> > cessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that
> > anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are
> > qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast
> > with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), and on the basis of
> > the comparison with the first two clauses in 1:1 (where two eternal
> > qualities of the Logos are laid out), we conclude that theos is 1:1c
> > stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical
> > probability of theos being qualitative, rather than definite or
> > indefinite, is quite high, 94%.
>
> This topic is interesting to me. Have you read 'Jehovah's Witnesses,
> Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John' by Robert Bowman? It seems that
> his conclusion about applying Colwell's rule to John 1:1 is the same as
> yours. He goes out of his way to show that taking your position does not
> in any way imply the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation that the Logos
> was simply 'a god.' Do you think that this interpretation gives the JWs
> any leg to stand on? Could seeing theos as qualitative give enough leeway
> to interpret Jn 1:1 as saying that the Logos had the qualities of God,
> but was not God?
>
> In Christ,
> ---
> Derrick Green
> dgreen@iclnet.org
> Springfield, VA
>
>
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #715
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu