Posts by Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

2 Chronicles 36:20 is a direct statement that this prophecy [Jeremiah 25:10-12] was fulfilled when the "royalty of Persia" came to power and the Jews no longer were servants to the king of Babylon. Therefore, the period of 70 years foretold by Jeremiah ended when the Persians conquered Babylon, and the king of Babylon was punished, in 539 B.C.

Yes, that much was clear to me when I answered your question about the year that the royalty of Persia began to reign.

However, I wondered how the WTS reconciled this and so did a bit of research. The book Babylon the Great Has Fallen! - God's Kingdom Rules!, 1963, pp.364-366 had this to say:

In calculating the "first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," we must faithfully proceed according to the inspired Word of Jehovah God. We accept from secular historians the year 539 B.C. as a fixed date, marking the downfall of Babylon, the Third World Power. But the Bible introduces, immediately after the fall of Babylon in that year of 539 B.C., the reign at Babylon of Darius the Mede. (Daniel 5:30, 31) The prophet Daniel, who was there at Babylon, speaks of the "first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans." (Daniel 9:1; 11:1; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28) In harmony with the Bible we must accept at least one year, with possibly part of a second year, for King Darius the Mede. Hence, at the earliest, the first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun till late in the year 538 B.C. to extend over into the following year of 537 B.C.
Cyrus decree was evidently not issued before the first year of Darius the Mede was disposed of and Cyrus became sole ruler of Babylon. The Bible does not say that it was in the first year of the reign of King Darius the Mede that Cyrus issued his decree, nor does the Bible say that Jerusalem's desolation came to an end in the first year of King Darius' reign. It was in the first year of his reign that the prophet Daniel studied Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Jerusalem's desolation, and this study on Daniel's part must have been before Cyrus issued his decree in his own name in his own first year of his reign aside from Darius the Mede. Daniel 9:1-18.

In view of the time that it took the homesick Jews to get ready and then make the trek back to Judah and Jerusalem, the decree of Cyrus must have been made toward the close of winter and the beginning of spring of 537 B.C.
[Footnotes]
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia
says: "Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as King of Babylon, King of all the Lands." Cyrus thus had himself proclaimed as king of Babylon and as the legitimate successor to the deposed King Nabonidus. By doing this he did not have to reconquer the Babylonian Empire. Babylon's foreign possessions, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and the borderlands of the desert, all came to be tributary to Cyrus.See The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (1956), page 75, paragraph 3.
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.

The cuneiform tablet entitled "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" mentions Cyrus' first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus' second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of
Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D.75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.

Now if I had remembered that (I last studied the Babylon book when I was a schoolboy) I would not have been quite as dogmatic that the year "the royalty of Persia [i.e. Cyrus] began to reign" was 539. The Hebrew word meaning "began to reign" is malak and means to become a king or to be made a king and so I guess it could refer to the regnal year.

Alas, Alan, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It's late now so I will try to complete my reply tomorrow and address the rest of your argument then.

Best wishes,

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 9 January 2003 0:17:13

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

Let the games resume.

So here is my point: 2 Chronicles 36:20 states (NWT): "Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign." According to this scripture, until what event did the Jewish captives remain servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons? In what year did that event occur? Note the parallel with my hypothetical question.

What is this anyway...a Watchtower Study ? Read the question, read the answer...oh well, done it often enough so I won't quibble now.

The Jewish captives remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign (or, came to power). As verse 22 then speaks of the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that would be the year they ended their servitude to Nebuchadnezzar. There seems to be a consensus that this was in 539 B.C.E.

Farkel:

Rolf Furuli has been caught in scholarly dishonesty in the past.

I do not doubt your word on this but wonder if you could be more specific as it has the appearance of mud-slinging without any tangible mud. Thanks.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 9 January 2003 0:7:8

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

Apparently it was the transposition of the phrase "four hundred and fifty years" from a position after the phrase "after these things he gave them judges until Samuel" to a position before it that caused the incorrect rendering [of Acts 13:20] based on the older NT manuscripts.

Yes, it was the transposition of this phrase which caused the incorrect rendering but it was the older NT manuscripts (except for codex Bezae) which had the correct rendering. The incorrect rendering was based on the Textus Receptus collated by Erasmus.

Codex Bezae is an unusual manuscript with variant readings in many places, dated to the fifth century, and had a number of scribal correctors. In Acts 13: 20 the original scribe wrote:

'And all that during "u kai v [English : u and n]" years, he gave judges until Samuel the prophet.'

The second corrector thought this was either unclear or in error and apparently copied from another manuscript the transposed phrase on which the King James Version is based. There is one other early manuscript (codex Laudianus - sixth century) which also supports this reading.

However, as I said, the NT texts used for the KJV and Emphatic Diaglott were not the only ones available to obtain an accurate rendering of Acts 13:20 when C. T. Russell first published Nelson Barbour's Bible chronology in 1877 in Three Worlds, and certainly not by the time the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was founded.

Quite right. In addition to the texts you refer to, there was even a Greek New Testament published in 1864 (edited by Edward Hansell) with codices A, B, C, D and E in parallel columns for comparison.

...if Russell were delving into translational details to this extent, while claiming that God was working exclusively through him to teach mankind "the truth", surely he must have also dealt with the above-mentioned Greek texts and complete translations that render Acts 13:20 properly. We are left with only two possibilities: Russell was incompetent as a scholar; and/or Russell deliberately suppressed the textual problems so as to lend a false sense of solidity to his chronological claims in the minds of his readers. As far as I'm concerned, it's a combination of both, such that Russell was so confident that God was guiding him that he just ran with whatever evidence jibed with the conclusion he wanted to reach, and ignored all other evidence, and so deceived himself and his readers.

I agree that Russell ignored this textual problem, but in my opinion he did so because the Alexandrian text apparently places the period of 450 years between the distribution of the land of Canaan (verse 19) and the appointment of the judges (verse 20) which is clearly at odds with the account in the OT. I think that by nature Russel would use the textual tradition which would support the internal harmony of the Bible rather than that which apparently contradicts. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament suggests that the origin of the transposition was probably to prevent the reader from drawing this erroneous conclusion about the 450 years. As there was some doubt as to which text was correct, I am inclined to give Russell and his motives the benefit of the doubt.

Earnest : In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" (UBS, 1971, pp.406,407), Bruce Metzger discusses these two texts of Acts 13:20 and indicates the UBS Translation Committee had a high degree of doubt in selecting the older reading as the more accurate.
AlanF : I don't get that sense from what this reference says. It speaks of difficulties "both textual and exegetical", but I see no comments to the effect that the Committee had any "high degree of doubt" about their selection. Can you tell me what they said that leads you to this conclusion?

On page xxviii of the Introduction it explains that "in order to indicate the relative degree of certainty in the mind of the Committee for the reading adopted as the text, an identifying letter is included within braces at the beginning of each set of textual variants. The letter {A} signifies that the text is virtually certain, while {B} indicates that there is some degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. The letter {C} means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while {D} shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. In fact, among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading."

The selection for Acts 13:20 is identified with {D}- a very high degree of doubt.

And, finally:

Now, to make my point, when I finally make it, crystal clear, let me ask another question: If I told you that my two brothers came to be employees of IBM's hard drive design division until Fujitsu bought the division, could my statement in any way be taken to allow that my brothers were employed by IBM after Fujitsu took over? This time, please explain your reasoning.

I had an excellent chess match this evening at the local club. I played King's Gambit and gave away three pawns in order to have what turned out to be an overwhelming strategical advantage. I have a sneaky feeling that your offering me one of those pawns...but I'll play anyway.

My answer must be "no" because the word "until" indicates that when Fujitsu bought the division your brothers were no longer employees of IBM's hard drive design division. Actually, that would still allow them to be employed by IBM in some other division although that is not the natural and obvious sense of the statement. But you ask could your statement "in any way be taken to allow" that they remain employees of IBM so my final answer must be "yes".

Your move.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 7 January 2003 0:10:25

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply.

Earnest : Then you have differences in the manuscripts themselves for various time-periods given. That is why 1874 was 100 years too early.
AlanF : So far as I know, the differences in the manuscripts you're talking about are Bible manuscripts, not ancient Babylonian or Persian manuscripts. As for the 100-year error that led Nelson Barbour to decide on 1874, there was no excuse for it.

Yes. I should have made it clear I was referring to bible manuscripts. In the article "Erroneous Chronology and False Conclusions" in Zion's Watch Tower of May 15, 1896, pp.112-113 it has a footnote discussion of Acts 13:19,20 :

"He (God) divided their land to them by lot; and after that he gave them Judges about (during) the space of four hundred and fifty years...until Samuel the Prophet (inclusive)...
Footnote :
The record of 1 Kings 6:1 is evidently a transcriber's error, 480 being stated instead of 580. The latter agrees perfectly with the Apostle's statement [above], and is in accord with the lapping and broken periods of the Judgeships and captivities recorded in the Book of the Judges.
The Emphatic Diaglott has the following foot note on Acts 13:20:- "A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Bible chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one seems entirely satisfactory; i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1 has been corrupted by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5), which is very similar in form. This would make 580 (intead of 480) from the exode to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul's chronology."

As it happens it was Acts 13:20, not 1 Kings 6:1, which was at fault as 'Insight on the Scriptures', Vol. I, p.462 explains:

At Acts chapter 13 the apostle Paul reviewed Gods dealings with Israel from the choosing of the forefathers on through the period in Egypt, the Exodus, the wilderness wandering, the conquest of Canaan, and the distribution of the land, and then stated: "All that during about four hundred and fifty years. And after these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet." (Ac 13:20) Considerable misunderstanding has resulted from the King James rendering of this text, which reads: "And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet." However, the most ancient manuscripts (including the Sinaitic, Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, and the Alexandrine), as well as most modern translations (such as JB, Kx, and others; vss 19, 20, AS, RS, AT), all favor the previous translation, which shows the period of the Judges coming after the 450 years. Since the period of "about four hundred and fifty years" had its start with Gods choosing the forefathers of Israel, it would seem to have begun in the year 1918 B.C.E. with the birth of Isaac, the original "seed" promised to Abraham.

I think you are a bit harsh to suggest there was no excuse for their mistake. In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" (UBS, 1971, pp.406,407), Bruce Metzger discusses these two texts of Acts 13:20 and indicates the UBS Translation Committee had a high degree of doubt in selecting the older reading as the more accurate. The fact that Josephus agrees almost exactly with the Textus Receptus (i.e. the King James rendering) likely gave it greater weight at the time. Just as an aside, I also found it interesting that the (Dimbleby-Totten) chronology criticised by the Watchtower article had the period of the Judges correct and expected 6000 years to end in 2002 !! Welcome to the millenium.

However, I agree with you that a desire for it to be in their time likely influenced their chronology. In this respect Newton was truly remarkable. He considered the Second Coming to be centuries away from his time and one of the dates he postulated was that the "time, times & half time" does not end before 2060 nor after 2344. Of this he said :

"I mention this period not to assert it, but only to shew that there is little reason to expect it earlier, & thereby to put a stop to the rash conjectures of Interpreters who are frequently assigning the time of the end, & thereby bringing the sacred Prophecies into discredit as often as their conjectures do not come to pass. It is not for us to know the times & seasons which God has put in his own breast."
(Never At Rest - A Biography of Isaac Newton, CUP, 1996 reprint, p.816)

Further in your reply you said:

Earnest : There is also ambiguity as to what the time-period refers to which is true of the seventy years.
AlanF : Only if you ignore the unambiguous scriptural passages. Please read my challenge to "scholar" with respect to my hypothetical statement about when I finished college, respond to it yourself, and I will prove it to you.

Your question was : "If I told you that I attended college in Massachusetts until June, 1980, and you later learned that I actually attended until June, 1982, would you consider my statement true or false? Why?"

I would consider your statement false because you imply that you stopped attending in June, 1980.

I await your proof and am sure you won't disappoint.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 6 January 2003 19:16:53

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Farkel,

There are a number of problems when you derive a date using biblical chronology. You first have to have an absolute date for an event which is also referred to in scripture. That would be the year 539 for the Fall of Babylon, which is the "limited secular support" I referred to. I am not entirely convinced it is absolute as the Nabonidus Chronicle does not support it but am happy to defer to those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. Then you have differences in the manuscripts themselves for various time-periods given. That is why 1874 was 100 years too early. There is also ambiguity as to what the time-period refers to which is true of the seventy years.

With all this uncertainty I am very reluctant to base an entire theology on unseen events in heaven derived from these dates. I wouldn't be too concerned about the BA MA nonsense. In my opinion it is a form of intellectual one-upmanship and would only be used by someone insecure about the truth of what they say. Even Isaac Newton, who took a great interest in the bible and eschatology, wrote with the wisdom of a true scholar that "the folly of Interpreters has been, to foretel times and things by this Prophecy, as if God designed to make them Prophets" (Observations upon the Prophecies, p. 251).

Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Scholar:

In the book 'Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom', page 133, it tells us that in 1876 Russell was persuaded by N.H.Barbour that Christ's invisible presence began in 1874 :

This was influenced by the belief that the seventh millenium of human history had begun in 1873 and that a period of divine disfavor...upon natural Israel would end in 1878. The chronology was flawed because of relying on an inaccurate rendering of Acts 13:20 in the King James Version, belief that there was a transcription error at 1 Kings 6:1, and failure to take into account Biblical synchronisms in the dating of reigns of the kings of Judah and of Israel. A clearer understanding of Biblical chronology was published in 1943, in the book 'The Truth Shall Make You Free,'...as well as in later publications.

I do wonder, in view of the limited secular support for 607, the false expectations of the time, and the complexity of biblical chronology, whether 1914 would not have been dropped, as 1874 and 1975 have been, if the First World War had not made the year indelible. What do you think ?

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 4 January 2003 18:40:25

6

Is this a big hole in the "great crowd&quo...

by yesidid in

there seems to be a gaping hole [another one] in the wts teaching on the two classes.

could someone correct me if i am wrong.

they teach there are only two classes, the 144,000 who are going to heaven and the great crowd who will live on earth.

Earnest

They would be the "other sheep" of which the "great crowd" are a subset.

The distinction between these two classes was made in a w95 4/15 Questions From Readers below:

Technically speaking, is there a difference between the Biblical terms
"other sheep" and "great crowd"?
Yes, though we should not be unduly sensitive about word usage or be upset if someone uses the terms interchangeably.

Most Christians are familiar with the passages where we find these terms. John 10:16 is one. There Jesus said: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd." The other expression, "great crowd," appears at Revelation 7:9. We read: "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands."
Let us consider John 10:16 first. Who are the sheep? Well, it would be good to fix in mind that all of Jesus loyal followers are referred to as sheep. At Luke 12:32, he called those of his disciples who would be going to heaven the "little flock." A flock of what? Of sheep. The "sheep" of the "little flock" will be part of the Kingdom in heaven. However, there are others, those with a different hope, whom Jesus also views as sheep.

We can see this in John chapter 10. After speaking about sheep such as his apostles whom he would call to life in heaven, Jesus added in
verse 16: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring." Jehovahs Witnesses have long recognized that in this verse Jesus was speaking of people having the prospect of life on earth. Many faithful ones in pre-Christian times, such as Abraham, Sarah, Noah, and Malachi, had such prospects. So we can rightly include them as part of the "other sheep" of John 10:16. During the Millennium, such faithful pre-Christian witnesses will be resurrected and will then learn of and accept Christ Jesus, becoming "other sheep" of the Fine Shepherd.
We also know that since the general call of the heavenly class ended, millions have become true Christians. These too are rightly termed "other sheep," since they are not part of the "little flock." Rather, the other sheep today look forward to living right on into an earthly paradise.

Now, what can be said about the identity of the "great crowd" mentioned at Revelation 7:9? Well, look at
verse 13 and the question, "Who are they and where did they come from?" We find the answer at Revelation 7:14: "These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation." So the "great crowd" is composed of those who come out of, or survive, the great tribulation. As verse 17 says, they will be guided to fountains of waters of life on earth.
Understandably, though, for these to survive the approaching great tribulation, they must earlier have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, becoming true worshipers. Hence, though Revelation 7:9 is describing this crowd after the tribulation, we may apply the term "great crowd" to all with earthly hopes who are rendering Jehovah sacred service now, just before the great tribulation breaks out with the nations attack on false religion.

In summary, we might remember "other sheep" as the broader term, encompassing all of Gods servants having the hope of living forever on earth. It includes the more limited category of sheeplike ones today who are being gathered as a "great crowd" with the hope of living right through the impending great tribulation. Most of those loyal Christians alive today are of the "other sheep," and they are part of the "great crowd" as well.

It is worth repeating that, fine as it is to be clear on these specifics, there is no need for any Christian to be overly word conscious - what might be called word critical. Paul warned about some who were "puffed up with pride" and involved in "debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4) If we personally recognize certain distinctions between terms, fine. Yet, we need not, either outwardly or inwardly, be critical of another who may not use Biblical terms quite as precisely.

Although JWs do speak of themselves as being part of the "great crowd", on the Publishers Record Card one is either "Anointed" or "OS".

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 3 January 2003 9:48:32

6

Is this a big hole in the "great crowd&quo...

by yesidid in

there seems to be a gaping hole [another one] in the wts teaching on the two classes.

could someone correct me if i am wrong.

they teach there are only two classes, the 144,000 who are going to heaven and the great crowd who will live on earth.

Earnest

They would be the "other sheep" of which the "great crowd" are a subset.

6

Liftons "Loaded Language" in JWs

by refiners fire in

thought reform and the psychology of totalism page 429.. regarding the criteria of loaded language, lifton writes:.

...."the language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought terminating clich.

alternate ideas.

Earnest

Thanks for sharing this, rf. Interesting (to me) that the examples you chose were from August/September 1971. I finished my schooling in November 1971. Ripe for the plucking.

Like you I have taken an interest in word triggers...cross, evolution, trinity...which create an automatic response without consideration that they mean different things to different people. But what was a real eye-opener to me was reading the book 'Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China' by Jung Chang, which is a semi-biographical account of life in the Republic of China this past century. The similarities in the methods used to propagate doctrine and life-style were unnervingly identical. While I do still hover on the fringe I make a point of skipping emotive buzzwords which makes for some disjointed singing as you can imagine.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 2 January 2003 21:15:41

45

Jesus Is God (John 1:1)

by JesusISJehovah in

according to john 1:1, jesus is god.

how do jehovah's witnesses rationalize that blatant statement of jesus' deity?

Earnest

"Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" This is from the article [ Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns at http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm] you recommended.

That is just restating Colwell's Rule. In the article it evaluates Colwell's Rule and lists five problems with Colwell's method of investigation including:

Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder. Colwells rule Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article came to be seen as Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwells original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category (definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwells rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.
Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a semantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context. ... In short he begged the question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb.
Where he regarded his rule most important, in the area of translation and interpretation, is exactly where it is in fact most irrelevant yet ironically most dangerous, especially the latter. When his rule is applied prescriptively in the fashion he and others since him have, it is most damaging to the semantics of the pre-copulative anarthrous construction as a whole. For when it is determined that most pre-copulative anarthrous PNs are in fact not definite, then one has to ask what use the rule serves at all in determining such. It is one grand question begging venture, therefore, to cite his rule for ascertaining any semantic preponderance anywhere, not to mention disputable passages like John 1:1c. Footnote: In re-reading [Colwell's] article [A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament], one is struck by the sudden illogical shift from describing the preponderance of definite PNs that happen to be anarthrous, to a prescription about anarthrous pre-copulative PNs towards definiteness.
Illegitimate Usage of Colwell
Thereafter Colwells conclusions were accepted nearly unanimously in the scholarly world. Many evangelicals, because of the implications to John 1:1, unwittingly assumed, as Metzger did, the converse of Colwells rule which led to its abuse. His actual rule states, Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article. This statement, however, was taken to imply that anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. This type of abuse bled into the commentaries on John as well. Later research seriously questioned this consensus of opinion by attempting to demonstrate that pre-copulative anarthrous PNs were predominately qualitative in nature, a fact not considered seriously enough within the semantic range of some, including Colwell.

So maybe those translators that Lew cited were Greek scholars too !?

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 31 December 2002 6:8:23