Titus 2:13 - the modern versions mangle "our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
Steven Avery - Dec 5, 2017
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...-trinitological-catalog?p=4944401#post4944401

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


In English, if you talk of “our Saviour" you are using a possessive adjective “our” and so you do not also add an article: "the our Saviour”" is gibberish. Thus, the possessive adjective “our” is functioning, in a sense, as a definite article, in that it refers to a specific, defined noun element. The book == Our book, in that there is a specificity of a particular book that is lacking if it is anarthous or an indefinite article.


In Titus 2:13, how is this aspect handled by Wallace, Sharp and others? Rather than a missing article, it looks as if the possessive adjective is working as the de facto article, thus modifying the grammar parsing (and, if you want to play the game, you can even add this to the myriad Sharp rule exceptions.)

When you look at the actual text (see below), and simply understand it in the English as well, it is clear that ἡμῶν (our) has a major potential impact on the verse understanding, and basically ship-wrecks the identity attempt. Take out the our from the English AV, and you can have an identity verse. So the modern translators had to find ways to move the our from its natural and clear position.

Now I realize that the Daniel Wallace translation in NETBible is:
"“our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”"

This translation has applied an “our” to the previous nouns, that are viewed as a double adjective to the glory. It looks like an awkward usage and placement, and we find the definite article τοῦ is actually untranslated.

When you look at the actual breakdown of the two translations (e.g. in BlueLetterBible) this aspect becomes even more interesting.

(Note: In the parsing below we can allow that the forms of the words are under discussion and you might change the English .. e.g. noun to adjective):

TR and CT
ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
appearing..the glorious the great... God and Savoiur ..our ..Jesus ..Christ

AV
the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/...t_conc_1131013

NetBible
the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/net/...t_conc_1131013

Note all the funniness, the definite article τοῦ is gone in the NetBible, replaced with an our. Yet by the parsing given in BlueLetterBible the our is not the ἡμῶν that really is connected to Saviour.

It looks like the natural grammar is ignored, and a stiff, convoluted attempt is made, simply in order to comply with the supposed rules of Granville Sharp.

They simply could not leave the powerful and natural:

our Saviour Jesus Christ

alone ..
They had to mess up the translation.

Titus 1:4 (AV)
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith:
Grace, mercy, and peace,
from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.


Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Gregory Blunt shows that the natural and obvious grammar is as in the AV

Granville Sharp Rules
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...-granville-sharps-rules?p=4951943#post4951943

Now let us return to Titus 2:13 and the GSR. Gregory Blunt is often underestimated in his early critique of Sharp.
Gregory Blunt is likely the pen name for Thomas Pearne (c. 1753-1827)

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


προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

It appears then, from what has been said, that the text contains two proper names, God and Jesus. Each of these is attended by its appropriate description. To the one is prefixed the epithet of great, or mighty ; and to the other is prefixed, in like manner and situation, the corresponding epithet of our saviour. The sentence, therefore, naturally and obviously, divides itself into two parts; and the structure of it plainly points out two distinct and separate beings. p. 88

Gregory Blunt is the pen name for Thomas Pearne (c. 1753-1827)

Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. on His Remarks Upon the Uses of the Article in the Greek Testament (1803)
Gregory Blunt
https://books.google.com/books?id=obJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA88


This is clear and sound.
Blunt also discusses how God must be a proper name, not an appellative, in p. 86-87. A good read.

Then on p. 89 he discusses the problems with the first adjectives placement in the Sharp construction, how it would really mean including the very unlikely "great Saviour". The two nouns are being grouped with one adjectival description of Jesus Christ, then Great should apply to both, and great is never applied to Saviour.
For if, according to your mode of construing, the two nouns θεοῦ and (Gr-Saviour) be understood as descriptive appellations of one and the same person, then, as I have shewn you, when I investigated the nature of your general form for such expressions, the article which precedes the first noun must be supplied by ellipsis before the second. But the idiom of the language, if we would follow the natural and obvious construction, requires, that when we bring forward the article from the first noun to the second, we should also bring forward whatever intervenes between that article and the first noun, that is, in this case, the adjective great. But that adjective is altogether inapplicable to the second noun, Saviour, and cannot be construed with it. Nay, the word saviour is never found throughout the New Testament accompanied with any adjective whatever. These two nouns, therefore, God and saviour, are not here intended to be descriptions of one and the same being. p. 88-89


One really interesting part follows when he looks at the possessive adjective our, my point above.
The position of ἡμῶν also militates against your interpretation. For though it may, in such a situation, be construed with both, and often is so construed, yet the most obvious and natural construction is to restrict and confine it to the noun to which it is immediately annexed, unless something forbids, or points out a different construction. And here there is nothing to forbid, but your fanciful, unfounded theory' of the article. p. 89

And if our is naturally and properly placed with Saviour, the whole Granville Sharp attempt falls apart, as it is acting with the sense of a definite article.

The next one is style and consistency:

The order of the words is likewise against your interpretation. For if the two nouns were both intended to describe the greatness of Jesus’s person, it is natural to suppose the writer would rise in his description ; but here, on the contrary, he sinks. It is an anti-climax. There is also an odd mixture of a metaphysical description, God, with one that is moral, saviour. p. 89


The section continues with additional excellent material, including Erasmus.

All of the word order and related issues are rather easy to understand, and all support the natural flow of the text as in the AV.

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


===========================

The reference to Samuel Clarke contra Nelson goes back to 1714, way before the Sharp nonsense of trying to make a "rule".

A Reply to the Objections of Robert Nelson, Esq: And of an Anonymous Author [i.e. James Knight] Against Dr. Clarke's Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. Being a Commentary Upon Forty Select Texts of Scripture. To which is Added, An Answer to the Remarks of the Author Of, Some Considerations Concerning the Trinity, and the Ways of Managing that Controversy (1714)
Samuel Clarke
https://books.google.com/books?id=BhstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA85


Blunt defers to Clarke's p. 85-89 for more New Testament style discussion of how the apostles writer of God and Lord and Christ.

Steven Avery
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Winer knew the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν - our Saviour - helps refute the GSR attempt on Titus 2:13

From the CARM page
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...-granville-sharps-rules?p=4952213#post4952213

word order and adjective analysis is the simple refutation of the GSR mangling of Titus 2:13


Ezra Abbot mentions that Benedict Winter pointed out how "our" makes the Saviour definite. (Remember, Wallace attacks Winer rather unfairly, in a bogeyman approach to the historical analysis.)

"σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν (Winer)"

On the construction of Titus ii. 13 (1888)
Ezra Abbot

https://books.google.com/books?id=SCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA452
And thus if the trailing noun is definite, the identity translation of the GSR fails, it is as if there were in fact two definite articles. (Another exception, ho-hum.)

Abbot, after discussing a couple of examples, also gives a classic quote that could be one sentence that simply ends the controversy.

But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects connected by καὶ is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to conceive of them as united in some common relation, while the repetition of the article would present them to the mind as distinct objects of thought.
Simple enough.
The end of the Granville Sharp Rule charade.

Even in Titus 2:13, one of the last two verses where anybody tries to place in a Sharpite text, a simple look at the verse shows you that the AV text was pure, simple, consistent and flows directly from the Greek.

Remember, the purpose of Sharp was supposedly to correct the AV text, verses which he said were "wrongly translated in the Common English Versions", but instead he just gave us mangling.

Steven
 
Abbot, after discussing a couple of examples, also gives a classic quote that could be one sentence that simply ends the controversy.
Ezra Abbot was a Unitarian who worked on the ASV, and who was one of the individuals that strenuously advocated the corruption of 1 Timothy 3:16 and a (failed) corruption of the translation in Romans 9:5 (which also testifies of the Deity of Christ). Knowing this, I would advise caution in taking his arguments to heart.

Without entering too much controversy over the Granville Sharp rule, what I will note here is that there is a unanimous consent among the Greek writers that the Deity of Christ is asserted in Titus 2:13 (and also 2 Peter 1:1). For example, Gregory of Nyssa (335-384) lists three passages utilized by everyone in his day to defend the Deity of Christ:

ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὰς Παύλου φωνὰς δι' ἀκριβείας οἶμαι δεῖν παρατίθεσθαι πᾶσιν οὔσας σχεδὸν διὰ στόματος, ὃς οὐ μόνον θεόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέγαν θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ὀνομάζει τὸν κύριον, πρὸς μὲν Ῥωμαίους λέγων ὅτι Ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, πρὸς δὲ τὸν μαθητὴν ἑαυτοῦ Τίτον γράφων Κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι Ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. (Against Eunomius, 11.2)​
But I do not think it necessary to set forth in detail the utterances of Paul, since they are, as one may say, in all men's mouths, who gives the Lord the appellation not only of "God," but also of "great God" and "God over all," saying to the Romans, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever," (Romans 9:5), and writing to his disciple Titus, "According to the appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ," (Titus 2:13), and to Timothy he plainly proclaims, "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit." (1 Timothy 3:16)

Thus I would be extremely hesitant to depart from an understanding handed down by native speakers in favor of debates laid down by grammarians who utilize Greek as a second language. Having been to foreign countries and seeing the best professional English they provide, I am constantly reminded not to have too high a trust in my abilities as a translator, but to be ready to learn when corrected.

1611 Punctuation​

As for punctuation, the construction of the 1769 KJV, "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" defines Jesus as "the Great God and our Savior," and avoids the ambiguity of "our great God and Savior" (is there one God? Or is He a "god," "little g" as the Watchtower Society advances). I would not insist to much on the rendering in the 1611 translation. You'll note in the 1611 edition, just like Titus 2:13 the commas in Galatians 1:4 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3 also occur after God: i.e., "God, and our Father." And still now in the 1769 edition, God is spoken of as "God and our Father," not "our God and Father." But none of these things are intended to separate "God" from "Father." These commas are all removed in the 1769 edition, as the manner of punctuation was changing.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ezra Abbot was a sharp cookie. He was mostly right on John 1:18 as only-begotten Son, and mostly wrong on some other issues, including Romans 9:5 (if he was defending the Socinian gloss).

The Granville Sharp issues have to be studied with their own tabula rasa, and AV defenders tend to try to fit their interpretations to match Sharp (or Royaards.)

These are very different issues than 1 Timothy 3:16, where once we have the right text, everything flows without hindrance.

First, neither of these are identity (Jesus is God) translations, even disregarding the 1611 comma.

Romans 9:5 (AV-PCE)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

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


On Titus 2:13 the view of Gregory of Nyssa looks a bit more fluid in another spot.

St Gregory of Nyssa On Virginity, Complete
https://www.elpenor.org/nyssa/virginity.asp?pg=29

That the truth of this statement may be perceived, we will verify it thus. It is so, first, because a man who has thus died once for all to sin lives for the future to God; he brings forth no more fruit unto death; and having so far as in him lies made an end of this life within him according to the flesh, he awaits thenceforth the expected blessing of the manifestation of the great God, refraining from putting any distance between himself and this coming of God by an intervening posterity: secondly, because he enjoys even in this present life a certain exquisite glory of all the blessed results of our resurrection.

Now, of the eight Granville Sharp verses, to try to change the AV text, afaik Titus 2:13 is the only one of the eight with significant ECW support for an identity translation, and that is 4th century and later.

It is in that context that one should read Abbot's comment:

Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis:
On the Construction of Titus ii. 13.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tQonAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA8 -
1882 - also 1888

It is true that many writers of the fourth century and later apply the passage to Christ. At that period, and earlier, when QEOS had become a common appellation of Christ, and especially when he was very often called “our God” or “our God and Saviour,” the construction of Tit. ii. 13 which refers the QEOU to him would seem the most natural. But the New Testament use of language is widely different; and on that account a construction which would seem most natural in the fourth century, might not even suggest itself to a reader in the first century. That the orthodox Fathers should give to an ambiguous passage the construction which suited their theology and the use of the language in their time was almost a matter of course, and furnishes no evidence that their resolution of the ambiguity is the true one.

1635222278836.png


Since this is the only Granville Sharp verse that was picked up on by some commentators of that day, I would say that he does have a point, even if it is designed to fit his low Christology.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Abbot wrote this

Notes on Scriveners' "Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," 3rd Edition (1885)
Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=SDs_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA47
1635244418037.png


Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA414

Is this an Arabic ms. that should be mentioned in the Mark ending discussion?

And of mild interest in our 1 Timothy, although it could easily have the relative pronoun wrong.

=============================

Also from Abbot on Chrysostom

The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: And Other Critical Essays (1888)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MZcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA299

1635245192265.png


=============================

Memoir (1865 to 1883, many editions)

Memoir of the controversy respecting the three heavenly witnesses, I John v. 7: including critical notices of the principal writers on both sides of the discussion -
http://books.google.com/books?id=iwgXAAAAYAAJ

However, this is all about the heavenly witnesses, references to 1 Timothy 3:16 are few.

=============================

The Bibliotheca Sacra and Biblical Repository, Volume 18 (1861)
On the Readings of John i. 18
https://books.google.com/books?id=xrIWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA850

1635245550392.png


Our apparatuses page has 33 365 442 2127, did one show up later?
Are they all legit?

Presumably 2127 was not considered a ms. at that time, or was connected with 365 or one ms. has a different reading.

Manuscript 365 and Family 2127
https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html#m365

=============================

The Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine, Volume 3 (1875)
The Reading u 0nly-begotten God,” John i. 18.
https://books.google.com/books?id=V0oiAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA570

Here Abbot is correct to say that only-begotten God/god is a doctrinal disaster to the orthodox, contra John Lightfoot and Tregelles. While he is unorthodox, he is honest in analysis, something I find to be generally true, which is why I avoid the genetic fallacy.

Not sure of Origen and Eusebius on John 1:1.

1635245805114.png

1635245844523.png


Maybe p. 560, but not about verse swapping theory.

1635253909468.png


=============================

VERSE SWAPPING THEORY - Tit-for-tat

There are more examples of commentators offering a tit-for-tat analysis.
"We give up these verses and claim that one, or more."

Here I discussed Lightfoot in 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/posts/10152259266556693/?comment_id=10152264511961693

An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament: With Remarks on Its Revision Upon Critical Principles : Together with a Collation of the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in Common Use (1854)
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles
http://books.google.com/books?id=uwc_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

1635254697804.png

(what a disaster)


Archibald Thomas Robertson - Granville Sharp swap - p. 187 -
https://archive.org/stream/s8expositor21londuoft#page/186/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=weuPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA214


1635254915514.png


Evangelical Textual Criticism
Richard Porson’s Famous Handwriting - Sept, 2021
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/12/richard-porsons-famous-handwriting.html


One of the purposes of the GSR was to regain new verses to compensate for the challenges on 1 Timothy 3:16 and the heavenly witnesses. Tit for tat text-tonics.

Archibald Thomas Robertson put it like this, referring to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

"It is true that thus we have two passages added to the side of the Trinitarian argument to make up
for the loss of 1 Timothy iii. 16 and 1 John v. 7-8."

The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ
https://archive.org/details/s8expositor21londuoft

However, it is best not to decide on Bible texts based on what you would like them to say!

Bibliotheca sacra: a theological quarterly, Volume 25 (1868)
THE PRESENT ATTITUDE OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY TOWARDS THE PROMINENT FORMS OF ASSAULT.
Christianity and the Chief Forms of Assault
Samuel Colcord Bartlett
https://books.google.com/books?id=7WRPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA155
1635254250310.png

(continues with more distressing nonsense)

Athenaeum
https://books.google.com/books?id=LE5DAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA775

=============================
 

Attachments

  • 1635254745228.png
    1635254745228.png
    195.3 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
On Titus 2:13 the view of Gregory of Nyssa looks a bit more fluid in another spot.
Thank you for the response--almost too many fronts open to keep a focused dialogue!

In general practice one would not dismiss a certain reference for one they might consider "fluid," though I think maybe you misread it of Christ? The subject is a man who has died for sin once and for all awaiting the appearing of the great God...

The article operates similar on some ways in English, not others. If time permits sometime in the next week or so I will prepare a careful response. Part of the problem comes when the article is misused or passages it doesn't actually apply to are used to dismiss it.

Here Abbot is correct to say that only-begotten God/god is a doctrinal disaster to the orthodox, contra John Lightfoot and Tregelles.
I agree here.

Ezra Abbot was a sharp cookie.
Normally I would agree on Mr. Abbott, but not in places where he has shown a clear conflict of interest.

Then on p. 89 he discusses the problems with the first adjectives placement in the Sharp construction, how it would really mean including the very unlikely "great Saviour". The two nouns are being grouped with one adjectival description of Jesus Christ,
This feels very forced.

In English, if you talk of “our Saviour" you are using a possessive adjective “our” and so you do not also add an article: "the our Saviour”" is gibberish.
But it would not be uncommon in Greek. For example:

εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 1:4)​
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ (Titus 1:3; Titus 3:4; 1 Timothy 2:3)​
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 3:6)​

"It is true that many writers of the fourth century and later apply the passage to Christ."
Here the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis utilized a general argument reproduced uncritically in books that in no way accurately represents the ante-Nicene writers. The ante-Nicene writers freely spoke of Christ as God (e.g., in the 1st century, from the scriptures; in the 2nd, by Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Epistle of Smyrna concerning the death of Polycarp, Athenagoras, Melito, Mathetes, Tatian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Caius, Clement of Alexandria; in the 3rd. Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Origen, Tertullian, Novatian, etc!). It's the Arians that sprung up in the 4th century, not the Orthodox.

Our selection of writers and writings narrows as we approach the first and second centuries. Much of what was written then hasn't survived--including some of the most important works of that time. We still don't have a full copy of Irenaeus in Greek (luckily there is the Latin translation to fill the gaps) and his Demonstration only survives in the Armenian. Yet he was one of the most important writers of his day. The reason the number of quotations increase around the fourth century is that we have more writings and writers available to us. But before that time, sometimes it's sparse.

In this case, we have two that I know of. Clement of Alexandria (195), in the first chapter of his Exhortation to the Heathen, quotes the passage and attributes it to "the Word," which is Christ. Contra Abbot, there is no other context but "the Word," Clement speaks of Him as both "God and man" and supports his statements with the text of Titus 2:11-13:

This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man— the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word [i.e., God the Word] that was in the beginning, and before the beginning. (Exhortation to the Heathen, 1)

Hippolytus writes,

These things, therefore, I have briefly set before you, O Theophilus, drawing from scripture itself, in order that, maintaining by faith that which is written, and anticipating the things that are to be, you may keep yourself free of offence both toward God and toward men, "looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour,' at which time, having raised the saints among us, He [antecedent: our God and Savior, i.e., Jesus Christ who raises up the saints] will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.'" (On Christ and Antichrist, 67).​

Contra Abbot--who evasively seizes on the absence of μεγάλου ("there is nothing to show that he adopted the construction which refers the τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to him" - emphasis mine)--the construction is quite clear. Hippolytus omits "Jesus Christ" from the end of the verse and proceeds to utilize "our God and Savior" as the antecedent for "He," referring to Christ, who raises up the saints. This connection is all the more clear when proceeds to add, "glorifying the Father." As this is a direct address from Hippolytus to Theophilus, "He" in both instances refers to "our God and Saviour," i.e., Christ. There is no other antecedent.

For Romans 9:5, you can see Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 6.

Since this is the only Granville Sharp verse that was picked up on by some commentators of that day
The grammar has been known and was applied even as far back as Beza.

Our apparatuses page has 33 365 442 2127, did one show up later?
Are they all legit?

Presumably 2127 was not considered a ms. at that time, or was connected with 365 or one ms. has a different reading.
I have 33 365 1175 2127. 442 (and 463) do read OC, but both seem to stem from actual textual problems due to the commentary and they aren't always cited. 442 is one of the ones Burgon inquired about (Paul 73, Revision Revised, p. 444) and they noted it was an abridged paraphrase. Having looked at it, I can understand why he didn't receive a satisfactory correspondence. Usually the commentary contains a scholia by Cyril that begins with OC (the previous context is unknown), but it is missing and I suspect it is absorbed into the text. I have a note up in my manuscript list: https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/1-timothy-3-16-manuscript-evidence.2230/
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The grammar has been known and was applied even as far back as Beza.

As a tendency, or possible emphasis, not a rule as Granville Sharp tried. Thus, the Geneva Bible only took one of the eight verses to translate as an identity verse, and that was 2 Peter 1:1, which afaik has no ECW support as an identity verse. The same is true for 2 Thessalonians 1:12 1 Timothy 4:21 and 2 Timothy 5:1.

And I do have a page on the pre-Sharp discussions of the omitted article, while Erasmus and Beza are meant to be handled separately.




I'll go over the various parts of your post in segments.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
For Romans 9:5, you can see Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 6.

And I see this translation text.

"Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed "

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z8YUAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA57

Edward Burton commentary
https://books.google.com/books?id=ymNjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA90

If I remember right, there are three major translations,

1) full identity
2) high Christology, but not identity
3) Socinian gloss that was in the RV footnote

And the one above is #2.

Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA126

1635278376611.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis utilized a general argument reproduced uncritically in books that in no way accurately represents the ante-Nicene writers. The ante-Nicene writers freely spoke of Christ as God (e.g., in the 1st century, from the scriptures; in the 2nd, by Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Epistle of Smyrna concerning the death of Polycarp, Athenagoras, Melito, Mathetes, Tatian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Caius, Clement of Alexandria; in the 3rd. Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Origen, Tertullian, Novatian, etc!). It's the Arians that sprung up in the 4th century, not the Orthodox. (snip)

In this case, we have two that I know of. Clement of Alexandria (195), in the first chapter of his Exhortation to the Heathen, quotes the passage and attributes it to "the Word," which is Christ. Contra Abbot, there is no other context but "the Word," Clement speaks of Him as both "God and man" and supports his statements with the text of Titus 2:11-13:

This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man— the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word [i.e., God the Word] that was in the beginning, and before the beginning. (Exhortation to the Heathen, 1)

Hippolytus writes,

These things, therefore, I have briefly set before you, O Theophilus, drawing from scripture itself, in order that, maintaining by faith that which is written, and anticipating the things that are to be, you may keep yourself free of offence both toward God and toward men, "looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour,' at which time, having raised the saints among us, He [antecedent: our God and Savior, i.e., Jesus Christ who raises up the saints] will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.'" (On Christ and Antichrist, 67).​

Contra Abbot--who evasively seizes on the absence of μεγάλου ("there is nothing to show that he adopted the construction which refers the τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to him" - emphasis mine)--the construction is quite clear. Hippolytus omits "Jesus Christ" from the end of the verse and proceeds to utilize "our God and Savior" as the antecedent for "He," referring to Christ, who raises up the saints. This connection is all the more clear when proceeds to add, "glorifying the Father." As this is a direct address from Hippolytus to Theophilus, "He" in both instances refers to "our God and Saviour," i.e., Christ. There is no other antecedent.

"The ante-Nicene writers freely spoke of Christ as God"

Often true, (and that leads to the charge that naive modalism contradicts the Sharp Rule) however not in the Granville Sharp verses, against with the possible exception of Titus 2:13. Titus 2:13 has lots of elements that can either support or act against the identity idea, so again it is more fluid. Most of the other verses are less complex, and the church writers did NOT use them for identity, Jesus is God, argumentation.

And I can see your disagreement with Abbot on these two Ante-Nicene references.

Edward Burton mentions that there are actually two refs from Hippolytus in the Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

Edward Burton
https://books.google.com/books?id=Px9AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA116

Benjamin Hall Kennedy
http://books.google.com/books?id=lLQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA28

Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=SCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA444

If you argue that some ECW support the Granville Sharp construction on Titus 2:13, and this acts as a Sharp vindication, what do you do with their absence on the other seven verses?

======================================

And I had actually gone into this question of Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria a while back.

Titus 2:13 - ECW
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Where an apostolic writer wanted to declare "Jesus is God", it would be very easy to do without placing the declaration in a grammatical subtlety that is ambiguous as to meaning. All eight Granville Sharp retranslations of the Authorized Version fail as proof texts and all eight fail as restranslations of the AV text. That includes the two that have some historical support in Titus (church writers) and 1 Peter (e.g. Geneva Bible). They all entail loss of meaning if the identity translation is brought forth.

And dual addressing is a fundamental part of apostolic writing, with dozens of examples.

An interesting case is Ephesians 5:5, and various commentaries, including John Calvin. Also, earlier, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Chrysostom and Jerome and others. Structurally, this might be the simplest of the eight GSR verses. So why did all these early church writers miss the gist? (From the point of view of GSR promoters.)

We can ignore the Wallace attempt to force the Rule down to two verses. Lots of special pleading taken to a high art. Although this was really already largely in view as early as Middleton.

For many the Granville Sharp verses are also a distraction away from 1 Timothy 3:16 and also the heavenly witnesses, Isaiah 9:6 and other basic scriptural verses.
 
And I see this translation text.

"Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed "
Which is a witness to the Deity of Christ, and this was well understood, for example, in the same century the KJV was first published (e.g. Bp. John Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, 1659, p. 263), as identifying Christ as "God." I will leave the rest of this argument to Burgon, who has already devoted four pages to the topic (Revision Revised, pp. 210-214). He enumerates about 60 ECW (see p. 213), beginning with Irenaeus, unanimously proclaiming here the Deity of Christ, along with the manuscripts and versions.

And I can see your disagreement with Abbot on these two Ante-Nicene references.
Because I've mapped out and reduced Abbot's argument to its simplest terms. Let's just take a look at how he treats the quotation in Hippolytus:
  1. Hippolytus alludes to the text, but doesn't quote it.
    With the exception of the omission of μεγάλου, which may either be an elliptical omission (not uncommon for an ECW to do) or fallen out through homoioteleuton, the passage is quoted verbatim.
  2. Hippolytus borrows the construction "God and our Savior" and uses it of Christ.
    This point actually reinforces the grammatical structure of Titus 2:13. Admitting Hippolytus is referring to Christ as τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν absolutely self destructs every argument he poses to the contrary.
  3. Had Hippolytus quoted the text in full, he may not have applied all the terms (+"glorious" and +"great") to the same subject.
    Sigh.
It's not an argument, but a sophism. I'll advise again not to keep trusting Unitarians and Socinians with Christological passages.

The same is true for 2 Thessalonians 1:12 1 Timothy 4:21 and 2 Timothy 5:1.
Probably because two of the three verses don't exist :)

(You've swapped the chapter numbers in two of the verses. )
If you argue that some ECW support the Granville Sharp construction on Titus 2:13, and this acts as a Sharp vindication, what do you do with their absence on the other seven verses?
What I am saying is much simpler. You say that Titus 2:13 is "fluid," yet it is not "fluid" among the Greeks. If it were, there would not be uniformity, but discord. So I say that because the writers are unanimous, the meaning is obvious. A passage does not become "fluid" or "ambiguous" because English speaking Socinians and Unitarians jump in and muddy the waters to try and expel every reference to the Deity of Christ in the scriptures. It's what they do, and they gradually try to peel of Orthodox writers to lend their views legitimacy. They've been among the chief driving forces behind modern textual criticism and the expulsion of the passages you're focusing on. This is why Burgon was up in arms over the Socinian/Unitarian influences on the revisory committee. At my last count, they literally have about 110 passages in their crosshairs.

the church writers did NOT use them for identity, Jesus is God, argumentation.
They actually do, I noted at least one of them above, and will expand that briefly below. As noted already, Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) notes it as one of the passages, along with Romans 9:5 and 1 Timothy 3:16 "in all men's mouths" when defending the Deity of Christ against the Christological heresies of his time.

John Chrysostom (347-407), commenting on Titus 2:13, writes, "'Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour.' Where are those who say that the Son is inferior to the Father?" (Homily 5 On Titus).

In another place he utilizes Romans 9:5, Ephesians 5:5, Titus 2:13, and John 1:1 to proclaim the Deity of Christ:
And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God." (On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2)
And against the Arians, he produces Titus 2:13 to defend the Deity of Christ against the Arians in his Commentary on Philippians 2:

"But the Son, he [Arius] says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, "Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God" . . . How then do you speak of small and great?

Theodoret of Cyrus (423-457), after reasoning on the Deity of Christ from Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, writes,

Here he says that he who according to the flesh derived his descent from the Jews is eternal God, and is praised by the right minded as Lord of all created things. The same teaching is given us in the apostle's words to the excellent Titus: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ." Here he calls the same one both Savior and great God and Jesus Christ." (Letters, 146)

This is in addition to those mentioned before, namely Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and Hippolytus (c. 160-236), who quote the passage and clearly attribute it to the Son even when there was no argument necessitating they do so.

If you argue that some ECW support the Granville Sharp construction on Titus 2:13, and this acts as a Sharp vindication, what do you do with their absence on the other seven verses?
A little less than half of the passages Granville Sharp proposed don't apply to the readings of the TR due to a differing construction or punctuation present in the TR. If the variants are not widespread, I would not expect much ECW support for them.

The examples that exist as relates to Christ's Deity in the TR are Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Ephesians 5:5, and 2 Thessalonians 1:12. And though you say otherwise, the first three actually are used to defend the Deity of Christ in the ECW.

No applicable construction is found in the TR of Acts 20:28, and there is a comma present in Jude 4 after "God."

I don't agree with Sharp in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. I would expect the construction τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The usage of the article here I understand to speak of the Grace that is shared both of Father and Son.

2 Timothy 4:1 (TR) Διαμαρτύρομαι οὖν ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, since the article is found both before "God" and before "Lord," there is a clear distinction in the construction between God the Father and Jesus Christ His Son. Sharp's rule does not apply to the critical texts either, as "Jesus Christ" is a proper name.

As it relates to Titus 2:13, note the reading τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (Galatians 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:3, 3:13), "our God and Father" is rendered "God and our Father" in the KJV. Neither you nor I would hold the passage as it stands in the KJV as speaking of two people. The construction is no different than "God and our Savior" in Titus 2:13.

2 Peter 1:1 is grammatically no different in construction vs. 2 Peter 1:11

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:1)​
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:11)​

So then, is Jesus Lord and not God? Or do we divide God and Lord from Jesus, so that it is "Our Lord, and the Savior Jesus Christ"? The way we distinguish is the placement of the article. If you eliminate the rules of the article or just treat it like the English, every passage the article is present in becomes "ambiguous."

These passages distinguishes Christ in particular as "Lord" or "Savior" by the placing of the article:

ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1 Tim. 1:12)​
ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (2 Tim. 1:2)​
ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 1:4)​
In 2 Peter 1:2, there is a major exception to the rule where a proper name is utilized. In such a case, the article serves to unite the reference of "knowledge" as being both of the Father and of the Son, whereas the article distinguishes Jesus in particular as "Lord."

τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν​
I feel you are expending a lot of energy "kicking against the pricks."

Often true, (and that leads to the charge that naive modalism contradicts the Sharp Rule)
But the early Christians were not naive (oneness) modalists; I'm not sure where this seemingly scorched earth approach is coming from. Hearing what the wrote is one thing, reading it is another. I don't quite follow what you mean, "that naive modalism contradicts the Sharp rule"?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
A little less than half of the passages Granville Sharp proposed don't apply to the readings of the TR due to a differing construction or punctuation present in the TR. If the variants are not widespread, I would not expect much ECW support for them.

This does not make sense. (Details are analyzed below.)

Sharp was "correcting" the AV and doing that usually with the common TR text. The argument is made that one or two of his verses do not apply to the modern Critical Text, and thus could be ignored by Wallace, et al.

The verse in Jude 4 was the main one, so it was ignored by Wallace et al. (This is before all their silliness on proper names, et al, claiming that Sharp did not understand his rule.)

You do realize that some want to omit Titus 2:13 because Jesus Christ is a proper name, this category exclusion stuff is actually rather funny, and is used for classic special pleading. And wacky statistical analysis. I think that was in one of the urls below, trying to decide exactly what was the Titus 2:13 phrase unit, I could search great God again to find it.

On Jude 4 the TR reading is different than CT.
You say


"there is a comma present in Jude 4 after "God."

Are you saying this was another Sharp blunder? That he ignored a comma in the Greek? Have to check, he may have given the argument that the original Greek of the 1st century would not have the comma?

2 Timothy 4:1 (TR) Διαμαρτύρομαι οὖν ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, since the article is found both before "God" and before "Lord," there is a clear distinction in the construction between God the Father and Jesus Christ His Son. Sharp's rule does not apply to the critical texts either, as "Jesus Christ" is a proper name.

It looks like you are saying this was a super-blunder by Sharp. hmmmm.
This requires a bit of checking.


I don't agree with Sharp in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. I would expect the construction τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The usage of the article here I understand to speak of the Grace that is shared both of Father and Son.

Another case where the "Rule" is OVERRULED by context and sense.

On Acts 20;28, Granville Sharp did go to the Byzantine Majority conflation corruption. So that would be removed from both a Critical Text or Received Text analysis, as simply one of many Sharp blunders. Why he did that is a puzzle, and I would go back to his section to see if he gives any hints. Most likely, it was part of his verse-stuffing agenda. (This should be checked that it is included in pages that show major Byzantine corruptions like 1 John 2:21b, Acts 8:37, and the heavenly witnesses.) This should be included as another Sharp error since no Byzantine editions known support his claim of Acts 20:28 being an identity verse. You say


"No applicable construction is found in the TR of Acts 20:28".

This is true, but in the Byzantine text Sharp was simply wrong, again, in translation.

========================

Sharp also blundered on Philippians 3:3, with his own new Deity translation, but that was just an oddball outlier it was not claimed to be part of the verses changed because of the "Rule".

Christopher Wordsworth also mangled James 1:1. Wordsworth was a main supporter, and mangled the supposed ECW supports.


So far, the only GSR reading that clearly does not apply to TR-AV analysis is the Acts 20:28 nonsense (I doubt any Byzantine edition follows his mistranslation there). A couple of others are on the bubble.

========================

Let's get specific.
Questions for you.

How many AV verses do you believe are mistranslated and should instead have a Sharp-style correction?


Do you agree that both the AV of 1611 and the current text (my recommendation, Pure Cambridge Edition) do not support any Sharp corrections?

Do you claim there actually is a Rule?

========================

Pure Bible Forum
overview of pure Bible verses that Granville Sharp sought to "correct"
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
But the early Christians were not naive (oneness) modalists; I'm not sure where this seemingly scorched earth approach is coming from. Hearing what the wrote is one thing, reading it is another. I don't quite follow what you mean, "that naive modalism contradicts the Sharp rule"?

Quotes were given from Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria which looked to be breaking Sharp's Rule. There may be more.

Wallace in his paper blamed this on naive modalism (it was misprinted online as nave modalism .)
http://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
http://books.google.com/books?id=xD11FZNLWpYC&pg=PA271

Wallace got ripped to shreds on the b-Greek group for making doctrinal Christological exceptions.
However, creative exceptions is the name of the Granville Sharp game.

The phrase itself was used by:

Wilhelm Bossuet (1865-1920)
http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/BoussetOutline.pdf

Adolf Harnack (1851-1930)
https://books.google.com/books?id=XaE8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA52
https://books.google.com/books?id=XaE8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180

I'll plan on expanding this post, or setting up a Granville Sharp Rule / naive modalism thread. (Also checking the urls above.)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
And I see this translation text.
"Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed "

Which is a witness to the Deity of Christ, and this was well understood, for example, in the same century the KJV was first published (e.g. Bp. John Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, 1659, p. 263), as identifying Christ as "God." I will leave the rest of this argument to Burgon, who has already devoted four pages to the topic (Revision Revised, pp. 210-214). He enumerates about 60 ECW (see p. 213), beginning with Irenaeus, unanimously proclaiming here the Deity of Christ, along with the manuscripts and versions.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

You are mixing up two different questions.

1) How is the Deity of Christ defended?

2) Does such and such a verse directly declare "Jesus is God"?

Using the Romans 9:5 verse, properly translated above in the AV, the answer to #2 is no.

If you want that declaration, you need the modern version mistranslations:

NAS: - “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”
NIV: - “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
ESV - "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
NET - "To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen."

These versions tend to change their texts, and sometimes may not have the identity translation.

Modern versions will frequently translate to doctrine.

As mentioned earlier, there is a third translation text, which Burgon calls a Socinian gloss.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Because I've mapped out and reduced Abbot's argument to its simplest terms. Let's just take a look at how he treats the quotation in Hippolytus:
  1. Hippolytus alludes to the text, but doesn't quote it.
    With the exception of the omission of μεγάλου, which may either be an elliptical omission (not uncommon for an ECW to do) or fallen out through homoioteleuton, the passage is quoted verbatim.
  2. Hippolytus borrows the construction "God and our Savior" and uses it of Christ.
    This point actually reinforces the grammatical structure of Titus 2:13. Admitting Hippolytus is referring to Christ as τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν absolutely self destructs every argument he poses to the contrary.
  3. Had Hippolytus quoted the text in full, he may not have applied all the terms (+"glorious" and +"great") to the same subject.
    Sigh.
It's not an argument, but a sophism. I'll advise again not to keep trusting Unitarians and Socinians with Christological passages.

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

Do you consider the AV as errrant on this verse?

Returning to Abbot.

Your reduction seems to miss a lot of what Abbot wrote, including four omissions rather than two, and his principle argument about calling Christ the great God..

On the Construction of Titus ii. 13.
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA7


1635333900128.png

1635333931507.png


Since we have already pointed out that Titus 2:13 is the one exception of having good ECW support for an identity translation, the issue of the two possible Ante-Nicene supports is very minor. Thus going into each detail is not really significant. Nothing really changes if Hippolytus read this one verse as "Jesus is God".

Btw, you said that Abbot was fiercely opposed to "God was manifest in the flesh" in his writings. However, he barely mentions the verse, so were you just coming to a general conclusion, or did you actually read an article he wrote on the topic?

==================================================

It would be interesting to see how different writers relate to the great God question.

Lardner
https://books.google.com/books?id=yX49AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA578
1635334783179.png


==================================================

Granville Sharp says each person is the great God.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J2dLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24

==================================================

C. Stirling Bartholemew
http://alternate-readings.blogspot.com/2011/05/god-is-great-what-about-jesus.html

Henry Alford and J. E. Huther both consider God the Father to be the referent of μεγάλου θεοῦ in Titus 2:13. Alford asks the expositor to consider all the places in the NT and particularly the Pastorals where [ὁ] θεὸς is joined with [ὁ] σωτήρ and based on patterns of reference (i.e., the referent of σωτήρ) to consider the probability that both θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος would be applied to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in a single clause. Alford doesn't consider it very probable.

==================================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ephesians 5:5 you surprisingly want to retranslate, apparently. You say it is used in deity apologetics, but you could not say that if you felt the translation was wrong. Right?

You have from Chrysostom

"No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."

However, it clearly is not being used in an identity translation way.
So what relevance is it if Chrysostom includes it in a Deity context as a throw-in verse?

I think this was your only try outside Titus 2:13 of ECW usage of a Sharp verse in identity mode.

And what I wrote above is confirmed so far.
(You are continually mixing up the two issues I mentioned earlier.)


An interesting case is Ephesians 5:5, and various commentaries, including John Calvin. Also, earlier, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Chrysostom and Jerome and others. Structurally, this might be the simplest of the eight GSR verses. So why did all these early church writers miss the gist? (From the point of view of GSR promoters.)

===========================

2 Peter 1:1 as well.


Both can use their own post.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Which is a witness to the Deity of Christ, and this was well understood, for example, in the same century the KJV was first published (e.g. Bp. John Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, 1659, p. 263), as identifying Christ as "God." I will leave the rest of this argument to Burgon, who has already devoted four pages to the topic (Revision Revised, pp. 210-214). He enumerates about 60 ECW (see p. 213), beginning with Irenaeus, unanimously proclaiming here the Deity of Christ, along with the manuscripts and versions.

None of this is FOR the identity translation (see the corrupt versions above.)

It is for the AV text,

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

against the Socinian glosses, one of which made the RV margin.

The fact that Burgon writes:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Revision_Revised/GglFAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA211

1635339859424.png


is simply because he was so aghast at the RV margin.

If you simply read the text, it is beautiful high Christology verse, but it is not a "Jesus is God" verse.

As for John Pearson, he definitely puts a lot of effort into making the verse an identity verse, of sorts.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KQo8AQAAMAAJ&pg=pa263

1635340025011.png

1635340085511.png

1635340158229.png

1635340259109.png
 
Last edited:
Sharp was "correcting" the AV and doing that usually with the common TR text.
I've read Sharp's actual work, and even re-read it to respond because your characterization didn't seem correct to me, then I double checked the readings of the TR. Maybe you could take the time to do the same before inundating me with Google search quotes? He expressly utilizes variants from Alexandrinus, etc. for some of those texts. Acts 20:28 in the TR simply doesn't read "God and Christ". It's a conflated Byzantine variant. I literally quoted 2 Timothy 4:1 straight out of the Textus Receptus, and the article is present in two instances, not one, so that two persons are in view. His variant only has the article before "God."

It's still there, above. In Jude 4, the TR has a comma after God, which is punctuation if you want to be a purist about the text. That's 3 of the 8 (actually, he has 9). I then proceeded to deal with another 4 that I have familiarity with.

1 Timothy 5:21 doesn't apply to the critical text because the second noun, "Jesus Christ," can't be a proper name. Also in the critical text, 2 Timothy 4:1 can't be used because it would literally violate the rule of the article. You can't join a proper name to the construction. it would be like saying, "Our administrator and Steven Avery." In Acts 20:28, the critical text sides with the Textus Receptus. There is not two nouns, only one: "God"

The next time before you accuse me of stating things incorrectly, I would hope you would actually take the time to verify the references for yourself.

Ephesians 5:5 you surprisingly want to retranslate, apparently. You say it is used in deity apologetics, but you could not say that if you felt the translation was wrong. Right?
I didn't advocate retranslating it. My opinion on the matter is similar to the instance in 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Because Paul is utilizing a list, "the Kingdom of God and Christ," the single article speaks of that Kingdom as belonging to both God and Christ. I merely noted you were incorrect in your assessment of the ECW. I may add, it is rather difficult to keep a focused dialogue when too many fronts are open simultaneously.

four omissions rather than two
My reduction isn't missing anything. It's not an "omission" to truncate a verse in quotation, so that "glorious" is not quoted. Otherwise, the whole bible is essentially omitted. "Great" does not affect the construction at all and as I said due to the repetition of the genitive stem it may have been accidentally lost through transcription. Hippolytus utilizes "He" specifically of the "Jesus Christ," utilizing "God and Savior" as the antecedent, and we know this interpretation is derived from the passage he is expounding and that he doesn't quote. Abbot basically admits that, so trying to hold onto the argument as you do makes no sense to me. I'm not going to go on forever repeating myself.

However, it clearly is not being used in an identity translation way.
So what relevance is it if Chrysostom includes it in a Deity context as a throw-in verse?
In context he's literally reasoning on passages that demonstrate the Deity of Christ. Hence right after quoting it, he notes that in John 1:1 Jesus is identified "by the same name of God."

I'm not mixing up verses you sent. You gave me references to two verses that don't exist. I corrected them according to Sharp's list. As for Titus 2:13, no, the translation "God and our Savior" is no different in construction "God and our Father," used of God the Father. Titus 2:13 in the KJV proclaims the Deity of Christ, and I've said that already.

1) How is the Deity of Christ defended?

2) Does such and such a verse directly declare "Jesus is God"?

Using the Romans 9:5 verse, properly translated above in the AV, the answer to #2 is no.
Because it says outright that Jesus is "over all" and "God blessed forever," otherwise, "God blessed forever" is a fragment. It doesn't mean He was blessed by God forever. And if there was ambiguity, the reading is absolutely free of any whatsoever in the language it was translated from: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, "who is, over all, God blessed forever." Or are you contending it was a proof text for the Deity of Christ in Greek until it came into the King's English?

Feel free to follow the link to Pearson, he had no trouble understanding that in 1659. It has been more than 400 years since the KJV was translated, and the language has evolved. It needs to be understood in the grammar and structure of its day; you can't judge it by the rules and conventions of modern English. Doing that is why so many individuals say it was "mistranslated" here or there. The meaning of the words were correct when translated, but some have changed. That does not make them "errors."

Lastly, about your comment on Abbot "fiercely opposed," I did refer to the company of Socinians and Unitarians he was joined to. I don't even see such a place where I mentioned Abbot by name above, or used the words "fiercely opposed." If I had written that, it would have been caught in proofing and edited out.
 
Last edited:
Top