From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Date: Sat Aug 19 1995 - 00:48:25 EDT
So, what becomes of Colwell's Rule? Colwell considered only
definite predicate nouns, then asserted the probability of articularity.
If his rule is valid, then its only application may be in the writing of
koine Greek where the author has a definite predicate noun in mind and
wishes to write it preceding the copulative verb. The rule would suggest
he do so without the definite article.
It might have application in textual criticism where variant
readings may include articular and anarthrous constructions. If we know
the predicate noun to be definite (?), then Colwell's probabilities might
help us decide. But, then again, if the probability tells us the
expected rendering, should we not opt for the more difficult reading?
The main thing about this whole thing is the mislogic employed by
Colwell and the many who have followed suit. Let's get back to a clear
understanding of what is implied by the conditional statement. "If A,
then B" does not imply, "If B, then A." Nor does "If A, then B," imply
"If not A, then not B."
I personally have seen the conditional abused repeatedly. Mark
16:16 (accept the reading for the sake of argument) says, "He who
believes and is baptized shall be saved." Some, of course, have deduced
from this that if a man believes but is not baptized, then he is not
saved. Scripture, however, never says if a man is not baptized, then he
is not saved. It does say, though, if he does not believe, then he is
condemned already (Mk 16:16b).
Paul Dixon
On Fri, 18 Aug 1995 KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> It is truly unfortunate that so much misunderstanding and misuse of Colwell's
> Rule has been propogated for the cause of orthodoxy--and all this revolving
> around one verse of Scripture, J 1:1. Why, even in the recent Greek grammar
> authored by David Alan Black (Broadman, 1993, on p 182) Colwell's Rule is
> incorrectly articulated (pardon the pun, please). But, then again, now I am
> not so sure about that either.
>
> Paul Dixon in a recent post has cited E.C. Colwell himself as employing his
> "Rule" in a circular fashion.
>
> > "Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the
> definiteness
> > of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have
> decreased the
> > definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article" (E.
> C. Colwell, "A
> > Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek Testament," JBL 52
> (1933):13).
>
> If I had doubts before about Colwell's Rule, or discomfort about talking of
> an 87% probability that a definite predicate noun preceding an equative verb
> will be anarthrous, I am woefully uncertain now. If Colwell himself played
> fast and loose with his own Rule, then what can be said concerning the
> soundness of his research methodology as a whole on this matter? Perhaps I
> had better go back and read Colwell's 1933 article. Or better yet, I ought to
> take a look at the raw data of the Greek Testament and discover for myself
> whether Colwell was really on to something or not.
>
> I would like to thank Paul Dixon for such an informative post, although I
> would have liked to have read more of what he has to say upon this head.
> Hence, I am curious to ask him the same question that I have asked myself:
> So 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