Steven Avery
Administrator
Richard Porson's Famous Handwriting
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1631982414895#c3160280336533812410
Hi Alexander and ETC friends,
Granville Sharp's intention was that eight verses would be changed from the Authorized Version (there was a ninth but it was oddball.) The verses would change from the very common New Testament mode of dual addressing (dozens of verses) to an identity singularity, declaring Jesus is God. This was to be accomplished not directly, but by a grammatical subtlety.
(And new translation would be missing the actual interpretative nuance of the text, Ephesians 5:5 being a good example, noting John Calvin's commentary)
In the Daniel Wallace iteration, and in the NETBible , most all of those eight have been discarded, due to a variety of reasons, including textual variants, and certain sophistries and special pleadings within the context of Granville Sharp Rule analysis. It does make for a humorous study. A pile of exceptions a mile high!
Note that there is also a plagiarism concern as to the actual Granville Sharp studies, noted by John Pye Smith in 1821, noting the French work of Herman Royaards. (To be fair, this is a complicated discussion.)
So now there are only two of eight verses "standing", Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, and those two very shakily since the arguments against the identity translation are very strong. Thus it is incorrect to call the Daniel Wallace material "The Granville Sharp Rule", unless you add "Radically Reduced" at the end.
One of the most fascinating areas of New Testament translational study.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1631982414895#c3160280336533812410
Hi Alexander and ETC friends,
Granville Sharp's intention was that eight verses would be changed from the Authorized Version (there was a ninth but it was oddball.) The verses would change from the very common New Testament mode of dual addressing (dozens of verses) to an identity singularity, declaring Jesus is God. This was to be accomplished not directly, but by a grammatical subtlety.
(And new translation would be missing the actual interpretative nuance of the text, Ephesians 5:5 being a good example, noting John Calvin's commentary)
In the Daniel Wallace iteration, and in the NETBible , most all of those eight have been discarded, due to a variety of reasons, including textual variants, and certain sophistries and special pleadings within the context of Granville Sharp Rule analysis. It does make for a humorous study. A pile of exceptions a mile high!
Note that there is also a plagiarism concern as to the actual Granville Sharp studies, noted by John Pye Smith in 1821, noting the French work of Herman Royaards. (To be fair, this is a complicated discussion.)
So now there are only two of eight verses "standing", Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, and those two very shakily since the arguments against the identity translation are very strong. Thus it is incorrect to call the Daniel Wallace material "The Granville Sharp Rule", unless you add "Radically Reduced" at the end.
One of the most fascinating areas of New Testament translational study.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Last edited: