[B-Greek] IWANNHN 1:1
Stefano Pizzorni
stefano.pizzorni at tiscali.it
Sun Mar 6 17:05:04 EST 2005
Dear Richard,
I know that this topic is very theologically biased and so often Colwell's rule is misunderstood or forced accredit trinitary positions.
I think that your definition of Colwell's rule is incomplete, actually you state correctly that:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb"
This means only that when a noun is definite (a priori!) don't need that article when precedes the verb. But this not legitimate the opposite, you cannot say that an anarthrous name preceding the verb it must be necessary definite. It could be definite or indefinite, it depend the context.
Harner, that studies both definite and indefinite anarthrous names in NT, states that Colwell's construction involved only 20% definite nouns. His essay shows that most of pre-verbal anarthrous names are qualitative.
According with Wallace (p.268) here seems very hard that QEOS could be definite for the following reasons:
1. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre verbal PN are monadic in genitive construction, or are proper name. None of which condition seems be true here, so although grammatically possible this diminishing the probability of a definite QEOS in John 1:1c.
2. Calling QEOS definite in 1:1c would be admit a convertible proposition with LOGOS (i.e. the Word = God and God = the word) but this argument is very problematic because in 1:1b hO QEOS is the Father in person not only qualitatively.
At my opinion here is not possible to state any evidence only by grammar construction, we can just say that grammatically definite, indefinite or qualitative is possible. Of course a qualitative names could be also indefinite or definite, I'm not agree with Harner about split nouns in two groups: definite/indefinite and qualitative. QEOS and LOGOS are numeral refer to person and so qualitative nature should be not an alternative but to adds up at definite/indefinite.
However I think that the debate here is definitively theological involving principally context and the definition of "hO QOES/QEOS" concept in Semitic monotheistic culture.
I'm sorry for my bad English, I'm hope to have been comprehensible!
Stefano Pizzorni
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list