[b-greek] Re: theos and ho theos'

From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Mon Mar 05 2001 - 12:24:30 EST


This was sent to me privately, but was apparently meant for the whole
list (see last paragraph). Hence, I return it to the list.

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 04:08:34 EST Polycarp66@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 3/3/2001 11:02:26 AM Central Standard Time,
> dixonps@juno.com writes:
>
>
> > I thought Colwell's fallacy, as well as the fallacy of subsequent
> > scholars, had by now been fairly well documented and read in
> > seminaries. The fallacy is what motivated my thesis in 1975.
>> Colwell himself and subsequent scholars, including the venerable
>> C.F.D. Moule above, committed logical blunder by concluding
>> from Colwell's rule that any degree of definitenees may be affirmed
>> from an anarthrous predicate nominative whether it be precopulative
>> or otherwise.
> >
> > Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding
> > the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about
> > definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives
>> preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the
>> rule, and as such is not a valid implication. Colwell considered
>> only definite predicate nouns in his study. In my study I did what
>> he should have done and considered all occurrences of the
>> anarthrous predicate nominative in John's gospel, contextually
>> determined the nuance of each, then drawing statistical conclusions.
>> Check Wallace's "Beyond the Basics" and other late grammars for
>> attestation of this.
> >
> > Besides, if QEOS in 1:1c is definite, does this mean the LOGOS of
> > 1:1c is to be identified with the TON QEON of 1:1b, so that the LOGOS

>> is both PROS TON QEON and TON QEON?
> >
> > Paul Dixon
> >
>
> Actually, it's not Colwell's fallacy. It's some interpretations of
Colwell's
> rule that are fallacious. As Wallace, your mentor, notes It may be
definite
> or may not be be definite. The context must determine. In this case
the
> context is the gospel of John. It would seem that the entire thrust of
the
> gospel of John is to assert that Jesus=Logos=God. Such usages as
> EGW EIMI for the Hebrew "I am" passages -- particularly Isaiah.

Yes, it was Colwell's fallacy, as well. He drew the same erroneous
conclusion as did subsequent scholars. Even your original post on this
alluded to it, if I recall correctly. Regardless, I could retrieve the
documentation from my thesis, if necessary. Wallace was not my mentor.
If anything, I was his, at least in this area. He quotes me several
times in his grammar, demonstrating this. Agreed that the context must
determine definiteness. Keep in mind, however, that Colwell considered
only what he considered to be definite predicate nominatives. His rule,
then, affirms only something about the probability or statistical
likelihood of articularity, which is hardly useful for exegetical
purposes, since the articularity of the noun can be observed from the
text.

Simply put, if one wants to affirm the likelihood of the definiteness of
an anarthous predicate nominative by an author, he cannot do so by
considering only the anarthous predicate nominatives that happen to be
definite. He has to do what I did in my thesis: consider all occurrences
of the anarthrous predicate nominative in that book, then ascertain from
the context those that are definite. That number divided by the
universal set gives the percentage or statistical likelihood of the
definiteness of an anarthrous predicate nominative pulled at random.

Keep in mind my thesis does not support any particular theological
persuasion. In fact, part of the motivation for the thesis was to expose
a faulty defense of a position I personally take, as many were using
Colwell's rule to argue for the definiteness of QEOS in Jn 1:1c in
opposition to those arguing for indefiniteness. My thesis argues for
neither. It argues for the qualitative nuance of QEOS.

>
> As regards your question whether " the LOGOS is both PROS TON QEON
> and TON QEON?" This is getting into theology and is thus not a proper
item
> for this venue. I will, however answer though that must be the end of
the
> matter -- no further discussion. Yes, "very God of very God."
>
> gfsomsel

No so. This is not getting into theology. It is simply a matter of
saying that if one views QEOS in 1:1c as being definite, then it
undoubtedly refers the identification back to the immediately preceding
TON QEON. The problem with this is simply a matter of absurdity. How
can the QEOS be both the TON QEON and PROS TON QEON? How can something
or someone be both itself / himself and towards or face to face with
itself/himself?

Paul Dixon

Dr. Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Evangelical Free Church
Iowa Falls, IA
http://members.aol.com/dixonps

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:21 EST