Jn 1:1, Colwell's Rule, & Wallace's Grammar

Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:57:39 -0700 (PDT)

Wallace's much awaited grammar finally arrived. I am pleased to find
that he acknowledges my master's thesis (The Significance of the
Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John) as the original exposure of the
abuse of Colwell's Rule both by Colwell himself and by subsequent
scholars (p. 259 ff). My thesis advisor, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson,
encouraged back in 1975 to seek publication. I did so, but was rejected
by JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature) for ad hominem reasons
(essentially they asked who I was to challenge such an established
scholar). Perhaps now I should write the article and quote Wallace who
quotes me.

I do have a couple of clarifications and/or corrections of what Wallace
said. First, even though Wallace agrees with me that the significance of
the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitativeness, he later cites me
with Harner (p. 262) as concluding "that the anarthrous preverbal PN
(predicate nominative) is still closer to definiteness than is the
anarthrous post-copulative predicate nominative." Hogwash. Here is the
first paragraph of my conclusion.
"The use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is
significant. It is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences, or 88%
probability. When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb
it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it
follows the verb the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of
19 occurrences, or 68%."

Paul S. Dixon, Pastor Check out my doctoral product:
Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a Model for
Wilsonville, OR 97070 Evangelism Today"