From: YOUNG@cstcc.cc.tn.us
Date: Mon Aug 14 1995 - 13:22:09 EDT
Dear Friends,
Permit me to respond to Eric Weiss' post of 10 August mentioning
my treatment of the Colwell Rule to John 1:1. One problem in applying
the Colwell Rule as I noted on page 65 (*Intermediate NT Greek*) is
to determine when a noun is definite. The Colwell Rule must have this
information in order to work; the Rule does not itself establish that
a noun is definite as Paul Dixon has clearly articulated. To attempt
to establish QEOS is definite solely on the basis of the Colwell Rule
is an abuse of the Rule.
First, I suggested (p. 66), and this could be contested, that QEOS
is definite because it was thought of by the early Christian community
as monadic. I find this especially appealing since much of the
primitive Christian thought was informed by Jewish thought (cf. Deut.
6:4).
Second, the position of QEOS before the verb HN is probably due to
its being fronted. This clause initial position gives special emphasis
to QEOS that it would not have if it were in the clause final position.
The author is calling attention to Christ's deity and in so doing is
setting forth his theme that runs throughout the book.
Third, we can apply the Colwell Rule (Definite predicate nominatives
do not have articles when preceding the verb) to confirm that the
anarthrous QEOS does not mean the noun is non-differentiated, or one
of many of the same class (a god). Of course, if QEOS were definite
in its own right (being monadic), then the Colwell Rule would be
unnecessary to show it is not non-differentiated.
I fully realize that my proposal (which is partially based on
Kuehne's series of articles) presents a paradox of faith (the Word was
with God, and the Word was God). It is questionable to think that we
MUST resolve all biblical paradoxes, especially those involving the
Godhead. God is indeed a mystery. But if a reasonable explanation
of some aspect is presented, then we should listen. Thus I am very
open to the idea of the anarthrous QEOS being qualitative (a view I
taught for many years) and find Paul Dixson's four reasons (5/24/95
post) for a qualitative QEOS provocative and worthy of more study.
Richard A. Young
[Note: I am not actually a subscriber to B-Greek. My wife is, and
she relays messages to me at Emory. So my responses may be a little
slower than others. Her email address is young@cstcc.cc.tn.us]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT