Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part VIII

Chapter 10 of Exegetical Gems is titled Colwell's Canon: it concentrates on 1 Timothy 6:10 rather than John 1:1. 1 Timothy 6:10 famously warns (WH): ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστὶν ἡ φιλαργυρία, ἧς τινὲς ὀρεγόμενοι ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς.

Questions to think about for this verse: should one translate the Greek "a root of all evil" or "the root of all evil"? Additionally, is money a/the root of "all kinds of evil" or "of all evil"? Merkle answers these questions in the process of explaining Colwell's Canon.

In words similar to Merkle's, Richard A. Young offers this account of Colwell's Canon (Intermediate NT Greek, page 65):

"Although there are exceptions, the Colwell rule does seem to be correct for the majority of cases. Colwell (1933:13) states, 'A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.' For example, a definite predicate nominative with the article follows the linking verb in John 8:12 EGW EIMI TO FWS TOU KOSMOU, whereas the same predicate nominative without the article precedes the verb in John 9:5 FWS EIMI TOU KOSMOU."

Merkle uses the same scriptures as Young does, but he explains that context can help us determine whether anarthrous predicate nominatives are definite or not: he then quickly returns to 1 Timothy 6:10. 

It is complex to determine whether 1 Timothy 6:10 should be translated "a root" (indefinite) or "the root" (definite). ἡ φιλαργυρία is the subject nominative while ῥίζα is the anarthrous predicate nominative: ῥίζα is anarthrous because it is preverbal but that does not mean it's necessarily definite. Translations go both ways here. Regarding the compound word φιλαργυρία in the LXX, see 4 Maccabees 1:26:

κατὰ μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀλαζονεία, καὶ φιλαργυρία καὶ φιλοδοξία καὶ φιλονικία, ἀπιστία καὶ βασκανία

So, how should one render the Greek of 1 Timothy 6:10?

ESV: But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

NET has "the root of all evils." However, it appears doubtful that money is the total source of all evil. 

Besides theological concerns, Merkle asks the reader to take the literary context into account and to recall Colwell's Canon. For instance, Timothy is being warned that he has opponents in the congregation who already have been deceived by money (1 Timothy 6:3-5). But there is another consideration: Paul apparently is quoting a proverb which expresses a general truth. If he is relaying a proverb in 1 Timothy 6:10, this would give support to the definite rendering, "the root."

Linda Belleville (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) provides these insights: “Root” comes first in Greek for emphasis. It denotes the origin or source of evil deeds. The Greek emphasizes “each and every kind of” evil. “Evil” has an article, thereby making the abstract noun concrete. It is “evil acts” or “wrong choices,” rather than evil as an idea or force that is in view. The love of money is, lit., “the love of silver.” Next to gold, silver was the most highly valued metal in the ancient world.

Merkle reckons that the definite rendering should prevail for all of the aforesaid reasons. He concludes the chapter by quoting Philip H. Towner for evidentiary support.

I will end with a quote from Daniel B. Wallace (GGBB, page 260, ftn. 18): "This is not to say that his [Colwell's] rule is invalid. Rather, it is to say that its validity is for textual criticism rather than for grammar. Textual criticism was Colwell's real love anyway (he is frequently regarded as the father of modern American NT textual criticism). The rule's validity for textual criticism is as follows: If it is obvious that a pre-verbal PN is definite, the MSS that lack the article are more likely to support the original reading. The issue of meaning is not in view; rather, the presence or absence of the article is."