From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Date: Thu Aug 10 1995 - 11:09:56 EDT
Colwell himself, and many others since, failed to properly apply
the rule he created. The misapplication is a typical assertion of the
converse of the conditional. His rule (definite predicate nominatives
preceding the verb tend to be anarthrous) is not the same thing as
saying, "anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb tend to be
definite." It is like saying, 'If B, then A' follows from 'If A, then B.'
Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives, then
asserted the probability of articularity. If his rule is valid, its only
application may be in textual criticism where the probability of
articularity may help to determine which alternative readings is
correct. But, then again, should we not opt for the more difficult reading?
What I did in my thesis was to consider anarthrous predicate
nominatives in John, then determine the probability of definiteness,
indefiniteness, or qualitativeness.
Again, I'll happily forward the conclusion of my thesis on to
anybody who requests it.
One more thing. JWs have apparently misunderstood my thesis.
Just because I reject Colwell's Rule at Jn 1:1 does not mean I prefer a
definite rendering. The probability of qualitativeness is quite high.
Besides, the immediate context (first two clauses of 1:1, and 1:14) argue
for it.
Paul Dixon
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 7:56:10 -24000
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
To: pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org
Subject: re: Re: Colwell rule (fwd)
[Please excuse my difficulty in grasping some of this. I have only had one
year of Greek and am reading Young's grammar in preparation for 2nd year
Greek--which starts in 2 weeks. The Colwell rule and other things like
Granville Sharp are terms I've come across in my reading, but are not things
we learned in 1st year Greek.]
When you say [re: my quote from Young's grammar] "this is an excellent
example of those who have erroneously applied Colwell's rule," are you
referring to Young himself? He gives 2 ways to respond to the NWT rendering
of John 1:1c:
- the first way (which Young prefers) being applying the Colwell rule
and saying that QEOS is definite in its own right [and also monadic];
- the second way (which Young does not opt for) being that QEOS is
being used in a qualitative sense.
Are you saying that Young, by choosing the first way or view, is wrongly
applying the Colwell rule, and that he should choose the second way because
QEOS is qualitative?
Thanks!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT