My objection is not that DIABOLOS *could* be definite, it *could* be
grammatically speaking. However, I disagree that the anarthrous/
qualitative preference should be criticized given the application to Judas.
John 6:70 KAI EX hUMWN EIS DIABOLOS ESTIN
KJV and one of you is a devil?
NKJ and one of you is a devil?"
ASV and one of you is a devil?
RSV and one of you is a devil?"
NRS Yet one of you is a devil."
NIV Yet one of you is a devil!"
NAS and yet one of you is a devil?"
NAB and yet one of you is a devil?"
NWT yet one of you is a slanderer.
BBE and one of you is a son of the Evil One?
YLT and of you--one is a devil.
The grammar cites two reasons:
1) There is only one devil. (presupposition?)
2) Colwell's "rule"
First, I am under the impression that there are many devils. 2 Tim 3:3
states that men would be DIABOLOI. [Although there is only one definite
DIABOLOS]. The word DIABOLOS in itself does not suggest a spirit or man.
Second, Colwell stated in connection with his observations (in "A Definite
Rule," p.20): "if the *context suggests* that the predicate is definite, it
should be translated as a definite noun." [emphasis mine]. Hardly an
Harner's (in JBL, 1973) and Paul Dixon's analysis of pre-copulative
anarthrous predicate nominatives suggests a qualitative emphasis rather
than definite. In application to John 6:70b, this would make Judas 'one who
reflects the nature or character or qualitites of the devil,' but this
would not make DIABOLOS definite. Even Harner stated that in English one
might need to insert the "a" even if qualitative (e.g. John 9:24 hOUTOS hO
ANQRWPOS hAMARTWLOS ESTIN "this man is *a* sinner")
I agree that *grammatically* one can translate the John 6:70 to be
definite. However, I see no objection to what I consider to be more
plausible, that DIABOLOS describes Judas' character and that he is also one
of the class of all those who can be called DIABOLOI.
Is this how others see it as well?