grammatical analysis descends to satire - J. Edward Komoszewski GSR paper

Steven Avery


There is a surreal aspect to many of the Granville Sharp Rule discussions. This paper from J. Edward Komoszewski we are highlighting today is not special in that regard, it just takes the surrealistic pillow to new heights. A paper from one of the Daniel Wallace minions.

Frequency And Distribution Of The Titles "Lord Jesus Christ" And "Savior Jesus Christ' In The New Testament (2004)

J. Edward Komoszewski

The absurdity of this whole line of inquiry, probabilistic counting of what terms are proper names used by what authors in what books in order to anachronistically apply categories to a 1790 supposed rule that is built on special pleading and presupposition. The beat goes on.

And ultimately, it reaches the point where Granville Sharp Rule studies are indistinguishable from satire. I wrote about this a few times, here I just want it documented in one place. And CARM posts will vanish over time, so they get a type of priority in being mirrored, if the topics are worthy.

error begets convolution - GSR runs aground - statisticians directing language

Steven Avery - March 31, 2010

The GSR morass only gets deeper and thicker.

J. Ed Komoszewski, (ThM 2000) a graduate of DTS, presumably a student under Daniel Wallace, actually tries to justify the distinction between

Saviour Jesus Christ

Lord Jesus Christ

Now clearly these two are prima facie grammatically and pluralistically identical, so if there is to be a difference for the GSR, it will have to be founded on the fluid definition of a "proper noun". And it is necessary to salvage "Saviour" otherwise there are no Christological passages left ! So here we are working with the two lonely remnants of Sharp's Folly.

2 Peter 1:1

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us
through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

First .. oops .. Komoszewski simply ignores the Daniel Wallace definition:

"a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized"

Why ? Who can tell in this world. And he looks for a more convoluted attempt. The goal is to make the word Savoiur a "Title" rather than a part of a "Proper Noun" because, you see... grammar is known to make huge distinctions between Titles and Proper Nouns. :)

I'm sure you stop every couple of hours before saying a phrase like "Greetings to the Governor of Arkansas and President Bill Clinton." to try to determine which word is a Title, which is a Proper Noun. (You might also wonder if the phrase is one person or two, especially if you know Mike Huckabee might be there.)

And can you imagine an apostle or NT writer, e.g. on the island of Patmos, ready to write about the Lord Jesus, calculating out how idiomatic or ultra-grammatic is an expression (let's see .. 7 times in the LXX, 3 times in Peter's epistles .. I guess I should use the phrase this way and not that way). Let me introduce you to the Komoszewski way !

The New World Translation and Christologically Significant Article-Substantive-Kaiv

J. Ed Komoszewski

The case for a different grammar rule for the two phrases :

Saviour Jesus Christ

Lord Jesus Christ

Is one of the most convoluted writings I have ever seen, J. Ed Komoszewski does calculations of LXX usage of the terms, and graphs of the NT usages. As if Greek grammar, or any language grammar, is based on head-splitting calculations built around artificial and malleable constructs like "what is a proper name".

If anybody thinks this makes any sense, watch out for the bridge salesman when they come your way.


Incidentally, in case anyone wonders, since the article is contra an NWT advocate .. I believe the NWT, in addition to the corrupt underlying text, is one of the most tampered translations around. Especially since they do shenanigans of selective insertion, for their doctrinal purposes, of the Tetragram into the NT. An action that is truly absurd and irresponsible. (Also numerous other errors, like John 1:1, the fabrication of the Tetragram is the real doozy.) The Granville Sharp and Tetragram "correction" attempts against the pure Bible I see as two sides of the same "Bible-correction for doctrine" coin. However the discussion here is focused on the GSR.

J. Edward Komoszewski does math calcs for the Wallace-Sharp Rehabilitation Clinic
Steven Avery - Nov 3,2013

This next one is a review, similar to the current post, which is more complete. It takes you to the most recent CARM discussion, which has interesting aspects, although Granville Sharp Rules is the key thread..

obliterating the line between grammatical studies and satire

Steven Avery - Nov 24, 2014[/COLOR]


One of the problems is that any of this nonsense is actually taken seriously. Ok, I understand some writers going into this morass and offering counter-statistics and arguments, but really, when the whole construct is absurd, it does not really matter.

As to who plays with J. Edward in this grammatical probability swamp, you can see on the 2014 the posts by jim on the second thread above. Jim is a contra whose posts tend to the incomprehensible, however on this one specific issue of the GSR he does ok.

Greg Stafford, some sort of eclectic JW:

A Response to Ed Komoszewski's Article Entitled:

The New World Translation and Christologically Significant Article-Substantive-Kaiv-Substantive Constructions in the New Testament

Yes, the JWs can occasionally be on the right side of an argument. The Stopped Clock Syndrome, right twice a day. Think of their rejection of the pagan yahweh and insistence upon Jehovah. Although they mangle the Bible, e.g. with all the Jehovah entries in the NT.

However, my point is much simpler. We are walking in the theatre of the grammatical absurd.


We might as well be studying:

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (1995)
Alan D. Sokal


Steven Avery
Last edited:


The rule is simple, and works of nouns that are plural and not proper names. For the specific Christological texts Sharp advances, the Greek text you use to translate has to also have the specific variant readings Sharp is using. In about half the instances, you'll find a different Greek reading in the TR than what Sharp uses.

It's not just Biblical Greek, it's native Greek as well. Both Stafford and Abbot make mistakes regarding it. I'm not familiar with the article above (I will read it) but in general I find that your reasoning here would be like objecting to this most basic rule of spelling because it has two notable exceptions:

"I" before "e," except after "c," or when sounding like "a" as in "neighbor" or "weigh"

"Surely that's special pleading!" And yet you'll find it is universal. And it has a pattern, because someone reasoned out the rule when standardizing English spelling. The same holds true for the Greek article--someone or someones made deliberate choices about how to use it.

Steven Avery


See also


You seem to be stuck in 1798. Go backwards and forwards, the rule of the article still existed and was still employed.

Also, when the Greek reading Sharp uses from Alexandrinus, or another manuscript, is not also found in the AV or critical texts, how is it special pleading to note it doesn't apply to our text? You realize that is a textual, not a grammatical issue, right?
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Just so you understand: you don't know Greek, and shouldn't presume to lecture others about it.

The whole issue of proper names, quasi-proper names, titles, proper nouns, etc. and such is just a quicksand morass in any language. It is subjective, cumbersome and gernally meaningless. And it only became a feature in the Granville Sharp discussion out of necessity, when the Sharpians needed to plug the leaking and sinking ship.

The biggest joke is the paper by J. Edward Komoszewski:

Frequency And Distribution Of The Titles "Lord Jesus Christ" And "Savior Jesus Christ' In The New Testament (2004)
J. Edward Komoszewski

"The absurdity of this whole line of inquiry, probabilistic counting of what terms are proper names used by what authors in what books in order to anachronistically apply categories to a 1790 supposed rule that is built on special pleading and presupposition. The beat goes on."


John Milton might like it because it is worthless and convoluted.

Thus I do not really agree with TRJM trying to work with these categories, either.

See the post on the absurdity of "our Saviour Jesus Christ" radically changing the meaning of a sentence compared to just "Jesus Christ".