From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Thu Aug 17 1995 - 01:50:23 EDT
Alan M Feuerbacher posted a stimulating discussion of the translation of the
final clause in J 1:1. I believe he is correct in pointing out how
notoriously difficult it is to formulate a hard and fast rule concerning the
usage of the Greek article. Perhaps the closest thing to a hard and fast rule
concerning KAI THEOS HHN HO LOGOS in J 1:1 was set forth by E.C. Colwell,
"Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," JBL 52
(1933):12-21. Colwell observed that if a definite noun preceded a copulative
verb, it was normally anarthrous; it if followed, it was articular. However,
it must be recalled that Colwell started out by making a judgment-call on
what constitutes a definite noun in a particular instance; and many Greek
scholars have considered this to be a preliminary flaw in his methodology.
Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of being
translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of definite
predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous. Now, this sounds
like some impressive research, as long as one takes into consideration the
sampling of data that Colwell actually studied. It cannot be forgotten that
Colwell investigated every instance in which DEFINITE predicate nouns
preceded the copulative verb. D.A. Carson has reported in _Exegetical
Fallacies_ (Baker, 1984, p 87) that one of his students, Ed Dewey, employed
GRAMCORD in order to investigate every occurence where any type of anarthrous
noun precedes either EIMI or GINOMAI, and he discovered that the nouns in the
exhaustive list were divided nearly equally into definite and indefinite
types.
Be that as it may, it must be contended that Colwell's Rule has not been
disproved. Colwell did not argue that a predicate noun which precedes a
copulative verb is likely to be anarthrous. Rather, he argued that a DEFINITE
predicate noun which precedes a copulative verb is likely to be anarthrous.
Therefore, Colwell's Rule is useful in assisting in the ajudication of the J
1:1 debate. But at this point Alan Feuerbacher is again correct in positing
that the final clause in J 1:1 cannot be firmly translated on the basis of
sheer grammar alone, for the definiteness or indefiniteness of THEOS has to
be determined on other (both narrow and broad contextual) grounds before
Colwell's probability would even have any bearing. Here I would point out
that Alan's reference to J 1:18 as an instance where the anarthrous THEON is
certainly to be understood as definite is helpful. THEON in 1:18 works
against the Watchtower, the Way, or whomever by tipping the scales in favor
of taking THEOS in 1:1 as definite. Furthermore, as Murray Harris and many
others have noted, John the Evangelist (along with the whole lot of NT
authors) was most certainly a monotheist, and to apprehend John as saying
that the Logos is another god would make him contradict himself. Hence, the
definiteness of THEOS in 1:1 is nearly certain. Although there is the
grammatical possibility that the clause under consideration may be translated
"and the Logos was a god," this possibility within the context of John's
Gospel is quite remote. Colwell's Rule tends to corroborate the greater
probability that the phrase in question ought to be translated "and the Logos
was God."
True, the interpretation of J 1:1 does not turn on grammar alone (although
Colwell's Rule may demonstrate a valuable statistical probability concerning
the grammar which we find); but then again, no interpretation can be based
merely upon grammar. Grammar alone cannot even account for understanding
exchanges between speakers of English, let alone ancient Greek. I have
learned that a knowledge of Greek often does not aid one in solving problems
of interpretation, although it does allow a person to better understand the
problems themselves and to consequently make more informed decisions
regarding them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT