sorting out epithets in the latest GSR iteration

Steven Avery

Administrator
I may be far too kind in talking of this as a Rule for Fools.

Let us take

Holy Spirit
Holy Ghost
Comforter - Paraclete
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of God
Spirit of Christ
Gift - given by Augustine as a proper name

Is Holy Spirit the only one that is a proper name?
Why? What is the substantive grammatical difference?

In the New Testament the grammar is often pointing to Paraclete masculine rather than Pneuma neuter, which is auxiliary.
So why is Paraclete not a proper name?

Brian quotes as epithets
over all
Great

Lots of discussion here

Per Brian, Granville Sharp could not figure it out.
Sharp made a simple mistake. Normally, epithets apply under the rule. However, his mistake was using passages where an epithet was attached as a close apposition to a proper name, and is thus part of the name itself. That doesn't invalidate the rule.

Brian can not figure it out, he has to guess how the apostle was thinking about grammatical categories.

I only stated uncertainty as to whether those who first called Jesus "Christ" utilize "Christ" as a name (as we consider it today) or (as in the OT) an epithet, and because I can't "mind-read" that, I would take it as a proper name. ...

"Christ" (see comment above) and "Holy Spirit" are considered proper names. "God," "Savior," "Master," "Lord," "Father," "Son," "Advocate," "Comforter" on the other hand are considered common nouns and can serve as epithets. An epithet is "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing." (M-W). Basic logic dictates that if an epithet accompanies or is used in place of the name of a person or thing, that proper name of that person or thing itself is not an epithet. For example, in "Lord Jesus Christ," Lord is an epithet (a description, i.e. title, of dignity) and "Jesus Christ" is a proper name. Basic logic holds that plural nouns are not singular and that ordinal numbers are not epithets. Just apply the rule to what it states falls under it. That is all.

Neither of the above constructions fall under Sharp's rule, as Holy Spirit is a proper name, not an epithet. "Comforter," on the other hand, would be an epithet of "Holy Spirit." That's why I said, if it is involved in the construction it would be in apposition to the construction.

I don't see how you could understand "Holy Spirit" as a personal description.

The whole thing is so dumb.

And I am enjoying working with this nonsense, up to a few minutes.

All of the Granville Sharp nonsense is based on Backwards Targeting.
Know what the Target is, and then make the definitions try to match the Target.

grammatical analysis descends to satire
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
do we not baptize also "in the name of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)? Both the Son and the Father have proper names--the former being Jesus and the latter, Jehovah in the AV .Then by what name would you refer to the Spirit?

Now Father is NOT a proper name under Sharp-Winter? Only the Tetragram?
Which ones are "personal descriptions"?

Btw, read the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism.
You will see that that baptism was in the name of Jesus.

It is funny, you want to use the Matthew verse to identify the name of the Holy Ghost, but when it comes to the Father, you want to jump to Jehovah. Do you baptize in the name of Jehovah? (Hopefully not.)
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
What "latest iteration"? The rule applies to singular, personal epithet. What's changed?

If you can't figure out by now why things, ordinals, plurals, and proper names don't fall under those categories, there's not much more I can do to help you out.

Per Brian, Granville Sharp could not figure it out.
But that's not really what I said, is it? The construction is not rocket science. I'm also not a fan of being selectively quoted, where you leave out this particular context (below):

Except Sharp didn't make the rule. It was widely recognized before him, and even Glassius notes the rule with the same exceptions. The general consensus is that Sharp made a simple mistake.
In Beza's 1588/98 Greek text (the main Greek text utilized by the KJV translators) the other Sharp passages outside of Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Ephesians 5:5 either contain a second article or have a comma after God, which breaks up the construction. Just because Sharp used variants from Alexandrinus, etc. outside the Textus Receptus doesn't mean his translations of the variant readings were incorrect.

And in all three of those passages (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Ephesians 5:5), Beza (1519-1605) notes that the single article demonstrates that the Greek constructions require we view one subject (that is, the one person, Jesus Christ) as being spoken of, and that they testify of the Deity of Christ. And this, well before Sharp. How did Sharp get that rule to Beza, who died 193 years prior to the publication of his remarks?

Brian can not figure it out, he has to guess how the apostle was thinking about grammatical categories.
I'm doing just fine, thank you.

You don't seem to put much thought into what you write.

Now Father is NOT a proper name under Sharp-Winter? Only the Tetragram?
Which ones are "personal descriptions"?

Btw, read the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism.
You will see that that baptism was in the name of Jesus.

It is funny, you want to use the Matthew verse to identify the name of the Holy Ghost, but when it comes to the Father, you want to jump to Jehovah. Do you baptize in the name of Jehovah? (Hopefully not.)
You've started to argue into the absurd, and ignoring an answer already given. You're merely asking the difference between a proper name and a common noun, which I think you can understand on your own. Steven, Brian, etc. are proper names.

Do you have kids? If you do, then "Father" describes you as one having children. Is that your real name? You are, of course, someone's son, therefore "son" describes you as being a male child of someone. Is that your real name? Or do we disregard your name as a proper name because it comes from a Greek word meaning "wreath, crown." Will that confuse you as to how Steven can be regarded as a proper name?

Are you insinuating, as others do, that the words of Matthew are spurious in this point? Because despite saying you adhere to a "Pure Bible," you seem to have no problem attacking it or proposing alternate translations when it suits your purpose.

Regardless, you've really not understood my point at all. The name by which the Holy Spirit is referred to is . . . Holy Spirit. God, Saviour, Lord are all epithets of Jesus and of Jehovah.

Holy Spirit
Holy Ghost
Comforter - Paraclete
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of God
Spirit of Christ
Gift - given by Augustine as a proper name
Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are the same name, just different translations of the same Greek. This represents the proper name of the Holy Spirit as defined in the scriptures. Comforter/Paraclete, as well as Spirit of Truth and Spirit of Christ are all epithets of the Holy Spirit. "Gift" is peculiar to Augustine, but this would also be considered an epithet.

I'd love to see how you could consider the Holy Spirit a "personal description."

The whole thing is so dumb.
I'm not too concerned about how I am looking here, I think you've turned this whole discussion into an absolute red herring and most people will see that. If there were people.
 
Last edited:
Top