J 1:1 and Colwell's Rule--Again

From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Sun Aug 20 1995 - 17:31:35 EDT


| 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