From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 22 1995 - 11:52:24 EDT
Again, I would like to thank Paul Dixon for laying out his reasoning for
rejecting Colwell's Rule as applicable in the interpretation J 1:1c. I have
understood his logical point from his first post on, and I have long been
aware of the misuse of Colwell's Rule, although I did NOT realize that
Colwell himself had logically violated his own rule. However, I would
especially like to thank Paul for presenting at least a summary of the data
he worked with and the conclusions he came to. In doing this he has all but
directly answered the question I have been trying to get an answer to all
along. I am not so much concerned with whether or not Colwell's Rule applies
to J 1:1c, but with whether or not it is a valid canon at all for the usage
of the Greek definite article. From looking at the bit of research that Paul
has provided, it appears to me that Colwell's Rule does not fare very well at
all.
Let me do some summing up on this topic:
(1) Colwell's sampling of data was small and narrow (Colwell admits that he
has selected only DEFINITE anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the
copulative verb).
(2) We have already seen that Colwell reasoned in a circle regarding the
thesis he attempted to put forth.
(3) Others (Paul Dixon and Ed Dewey) have produced data that clearly mitigate
the force of Colwell's Rule.
Until I have the time to do some computerized searches and interpretation of
my own I would have to tentatively set Colwell's Rule aside. In the past I
have taught Greek students (with some caution) that Colwell's Rule was valid.
Now I do not believe I would have the basis for holding up Colwell's Rule as
valid while the jury is still out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT