From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Date: Sun Aug 20 1995 - 23:51:45 EDT
Let me illustrate my contention that it is a logical misuse of
Colwell's Rule to apply it to the Jn 1:1c debate over definiteness.
Now it is true to say "If a man is a citizen of Oregon, then he
is a citizen of the United States." It it invalid to infer from this,
however, that "if a man is a citizen of the United States, then he is a
citizen of Oregon." This is an assertion of the converse of the given
conditional and as such is not logically valid.
Likewise, Colwell's Rule say (in the conditional form), "if a
definite predicate noun precedes the copulative, then it tends to be
anarthrous." It is invalid to deduce from this, "if an anarthrous
predicate noun precedes the copulative, then it tends to be definite."
This is what Colwell himself erroneously deduced (see earlier post - or
ask for it). Many others subsequently followed suit.
In my thesis I did what Colwell should have done in order to
affirm the probability of definiteness based upon usage in John's
Gospel. I considered all anarthrous predicate nouns with the copulative
(either stated or implied) in John's Gospel, then determined
definiteness, indefinites or qualitativeness from the immediate context.
I found that in 65 of 74 occurrences the noun was qualitative. In 50 of
53 occurrences where the noun preceded the verb, it was qualitative.
Forget Colwell's Rule altogether in the discussion at Jn 1:1c.
It cannot logically apply.
Paul S. Dixon
On Sun, 20 Aug 1995 KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> | You are correct in concluding that it is inappropriate to apply
> | Colwell's rule to Jn 1:1c. The conditions are not the same. In Jn 1:1c
> | we have an anarthrous predicate noun. Colwell's Rule applies only to
> | definite predicate nouns. Forget Colwell here.
>
> But J 1:1c is the _locus classicus_ of Colwell's Rule. Colwell argued that
> 87% of the time when one finds a definite predicate noun preceding an
> equative verb it will be anarthrous.
>
> Perhaps the question is not whether Colwell's Rule applies to J 1:1c, but
> whether Colwell's Rule applies at all. In an earlier post I noted the fact
> that when ALL instances of anarthrous nouns preceding EIMI or GINOMAI in the
> GNT have been studied it was found that definite nouns and indefinite nouns
> "make up an approximately equal proportion of the entire list" (D.A. Carson,
> _Exegetical Fallacies_, 87). It is possible that Colwell's Rule is also
> mitigated by the fact that Colwell begins his research by limiting his sample
> data to instances of anarthrous nouns which HE has deemed to be definite. By
> what criteria does he make this decision? Nigel Turner (_Syntax_, vol 3 in
> J.H. Moulton, _A Grammar of New Testament Greek_, 184) notes that Colwell did
> not consider proper nouns or qualitative nouns (as AGAPH in HO THEOS AGAPH
> ESTIN) in his counting of the data. Turner concludes that, while Colwell's
> "canon may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means."
>
> In my first post concerning J 1:1c I was careful to measure my words and to
> cite Colwell's Rule as corroborative evidence consisting of a good
> "probability" that the clause in question should be translated "the Word was
> God" instead of "the Word was a god." Even at the time I was uneasy about
> Colwell's Rule as I have been for some time. (I must admit my bias, because I
> would really LIKE Colwell's Rule to be reliable. If his 87% probability is
> accurate, then he probably did detect a "general tendency" which could be
> helpful in exegesis.) Then, however, after reading Paul Dixon's post which
> related how Colwell himself misused his own Rule, I have become even more
> skeptical.
>
> I am a little closer to answering the question: What becomes of Colwell's
> Rule?
>
> Kevin L. Anderson
> Concord, CA
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT