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

[Steven Avery]

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.

Do you believe your opinion? If you did you would condemn any faux apologetics that attempts to use Ephesians 5:5 or 2 Thessalonians 1:12 as identity Sharp verses as negative, harmful claims.

You claimed I was incorrect because Chrysostom included Ephesians 5:5, with an English non-identity text, in a group of verses. Proving nothing. Now there may be some Sharp ECW refs that in fact work outside Titus 2:13, but you have not given any. I never made a dogmatic claim, so I was not “incorrect” even if one or two shows up.

 

[Steven Avery]

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."

I wrote,about the Byzantine conflation corruption text of Acts 20:28 above, and pointed out that Sharp’s Rule was once again a failure with that text.

We had a great CARM thread years back, now gone-thread. For that we read Royaards, Sharp, Blunt, Winstanley, Wordsworth, Burgess, Middleton, Wallace, Porter and much more. Maybe you should become more familiar with the history.

We had a lot of fun categorizing the exception groups!

 

[Brianrw]

Do you believe your opinion? If you did you would condemn any faux apologetics that attempts to use Ephesians 5:5 or 2 Thessalonians 1:12 as identity Sharp verses as negative, harmful claims.

You claimed I was incorrect because Chrysostom included Ephesians 5:5, with an English non-identity text, in a group of verses. Proving nothing. Now there may be some Sharp ECW refs that in fact work outside Titus 2:13, but you have not given any. I never made a dogmatic claim, so I was not “incorrect” even if one or two shows up.

I will always correct where facts are incorrectly stated. It's not necessarily agreement/disagreement. Citing Chrysostom did not mean I agreed with him, but that your statement was incorrect, and I believe the words I quoted were clear. But I apologize if I misunderstood. I would recommend you track the work down in the nearest library and verify the quote for yourself. Perhaps a correspondence may be able to get it for you. To you it's "an English non-identity text," but for him it's a Greek "identity text" to borrow your wording. Otherwise the context of the next passage, stating the "same name of God" is applied to him in John 1:1, loses one of its antecedents.

I'm not sure you are following me correctly. Outside the proposed Christological references, there are roughly 80 instances in the New Testament of constructions falling under Sharp's rule, and there are no exceptions to its validity in any of those cases. It's been covered, reviewed, analyzed, and covered again (and I'm not talking about examples that have arisen through misapplication or misunderstanding of the rule). The rule is valid.

Sharp simply falls under scrutiny on Christological passages he chose, as it's not a good practice to establish rules of grammar in areas of variation, but he has. As those variants aren't necessarily regarded as the authentic readings, we don't follow his translation in those places simply because the text is different.

As for Ephesians 5:5, the question again is whether or not Paul utilizes "Christ" as a proper name (i.e., synonymous with "Jesus"), or as an title or appellation. As such, it's not an example where it easily lands on one side or the other. Chrysostom understands it as the latter, but I see in Paul's writings "Christ" and "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" and "the Lord Jesus" are synonymous, so that I understand it as functioning like a proper name. But even in that case there is a nuance of the rule that still applies, that the Kingdom is a single kingdom belonging to both Father and Son. I would straight translate "of Christ and God."

I believe both of the examples above represent the consensus of modern grammarians and translators. They are not examples of how Granville Sharp's rule "doesn't work," but rather instances where in his zeal to find passages of Christological significance he has simply overreached.

I wrote,about the Byzantine conflation corruption text of Acts 20:28 above, and pointed out that Sharp’s Rule was once again a failure with that text.

We had a great CARM thread years back, now gone-thread. For that we read Royaards, Sharp, Blunt, Winstanley, Wordsworth, Burgess, Middleton, Wallace, Porter and much more. Maybe you should become more familiar with the history.

We had a lot of fun categorizing the exception groups!

An unnecessary issue in my opinion, but I disagree with you. It's not something I care to dive into either.

My knowledge of its history is fine. In Greek, a rule applies or doesn't apply. It's usually noted as "an exception," but that does not mean it is a place where the rule fails. Nor is it an example that the rule is misunderstood. It means it's superseded by another rule that does apply. One can simply post texts from a number of books in support of point, enough opinions exist to do this. The harder part is sifting through, verifying facts, eliminating misstatements, crossing out speculation, and generally weighing the reliability of the witnesses. As such, I note you've dug up several texts here there and everywhere which--though interesting to the history--have been superseded on many points.

 

[Brianrw]

(Continued from previous post)

Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 455) - Rom. 9:5, Titus 2:13, Eph. 5:5. Additional references from commentary​

To add to the ECW testimonies already provided above, I have since noted that Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (ca. 455), writes in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:6:

For anyone who wants can easily learn from the scriptures that Paul often calls the Son "God." For he says, "awaiting the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And also, "from whom, according to the flesh, [came] Christ, who is over all, God" (Romans 9:5). And "in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Ephesians 5:5. In context, he reads with the intent, "Christ--[who is] even God"). And there are countless other texts like these. (Greek: PG 82, col. 289)​

Just like Chrysostom, he proclaims the Deity of Christ from Romans 9:5, TItus 2:13 and Ephesians 5:5. And also his commentary on Romans 9:5:

Whose are the fathers, the renowned, the celebrated, of whom God was called the God (Exod. iii. 15); and then in the last place he adduces the greatest of the blessings, "And of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." And, indeed, the addition of the "concerning the flesh" had been enough to evidence the divinity of the Lord Christ, yet, as in the opening of the epistle having said, "who was of the seed of David according to the flesh," he subjoined, "and was declared to be the Son of God with power," so here also after the concerning the flesh, he adds, "who is over all, God blessed for ever;" both exhibiting thereby the difference of the natures, and teaching how just reason he had for his lamentation, since while of them according to the flesh was He who was God over all, they had fallen from their height, and become aliens from that relationship.​

​

He also notes in his commentary that Paul, "Calls Christ Great and God, refuting the heretical blasphemy." (Greek: PG 82, col. 865)

 

[Steven Avery]

(Continued from previous post)

Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 455) - Rom. 9:5, Titus 2:13, Eph. 5:5. Additional references from commentary​

To add to the ECW testimonies already provided above, I have since noted that Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (ca. 455), writes in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:6:

For anyone who wants can easily learn from the scriptures that Paul often calls the Son "God." For he says, "awaiting the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And also, "from whom, according to the flesh, [came] Christ, who is over all, God" (Romans 9:5). And "in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Ephesians 5:5. In context, he reads with the intent, "Christ--[who is] even God"). And there are countless other texts like these. (Greek: PG 82, col. 289)​

Just like Chrysostom, he proclaims the Deity of Christ from Romans 9:5, TItus 2:13 and Ephesians 5:5. And also his commentary on Romans 9:5:

Whose are the fathers, the renowned, the celebrated, of whom God was called the God (Exod. iii. 15); and then in the last place he adduces the greatest of the blessings, "And of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." And, indeed, the addition of the "concerning the flesh" had been enough to evidence the divinity of the Lord Christ, yet, as in the opening of the epistle having said, "who was of the seed of David according to the flesh," he subjoined, "and was declared to be the Son of God with power," so here also after the concerning the flesh, he adds, "who is over all, God blessed for ever;" both exhibiting thereby the difference of the natures, and teaching how just reason he had for his lamentation, since while of them according to the flesh was He who was God over all, they had fallen from their height, and become aliens from that relationship.​

​

He also notes in his commentary that Paul, "Calls Christ Great and God, refuting the heretical blasphemy." (Greek: PG 82, col. 865)

Looks like largely a repetition of Chrysostom. Again, including Ephesians 5:5 in a group of verses does not really give you the grammatical "intent". Especially note the phrase "the greatest of the blessings" which looks to be the doxology of God to Jesus. Overall, he seems to be mixing and matching, straddling.

It is very possible that he joins the identity ECW on Titus 2:13, but I would like more than the short phrase above, ok I will take the Latin.

In theology he studied chiefly the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus, St. John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14574b.htm

We do not get identity translations in our English text of Letter 151.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707151.htm

The nature of this latter was susceptible of destruction, while the power of the former raised what was being destroyed. Furthermore it is in obedience to the divine Scriptures that we acknowledge the Christ to be God and man. That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. And again, That was the true light which lights every man that comes into the world. And the Lord Himself distinctly teaches us, He that has seen me has seen the Father. And I and my Father are one and I am in the Father and the Father in me, John 10:38 transposed and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power and in the epistle to the Philippians Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant. And in the Epistle to the Romans, Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed forever. Amen. And in the epistle to Titus Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Similar in Letter 83 and his Commentary on Romans, for Romans 9:5.

Did you reject the identity mistranslations that I showed from four modern versions in Romans 9:5?

And I know you made high Christology claims for Romans 9:5, fair enough, but that is definitely not identity "Jesus is God" as in the mistranslations. It is more simply like the verses in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and other verses in Colossians, and 1 Corinthians 8:6.

You do not seem to understand the difference between a high Christology verse, and claiming that a verse says "Jesus is God", against the AV text, and the natural sense and flow of the NT verses.

Why not simply list the verses where you feel the AV has an errant text?

 

[Brianrw]

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

What part of "A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our Lord's eternal Godhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture," was difficult for you?

Burgon dedicates 4 pages--not merely the little snippet you provide. In the event you missed it you can start on p. 210 (link), and refer in particular to the extensive evidence he provides to demonstrate it on pp. 211 (link), especially 212 (link) and 213 (link), and lastly, 214 (link). Not only this, but the correspondence he received back from his manuscript inquiries on the ancient versions was attached with the scathing assessment that, "There is absolutely not a shadow, not a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions, to warrant what they do."

He goes on to list--from the second century on--sixty ECW that understood it exactly thus, and it was also the reading of all the versions. Why do you suppose the Socinians were trying to conjecturally emend the Greek text so that it no longer spoke of Christ as God? Certainly, if it hadn't, they would have had no reason to corrupt the text.

As for John Pearson, he definitely puts a lot of effort into making the verse an identity verse, of sorts.

Beginning with, "First, it is evident Christ is called God," is not putting a lot of effort in. His exposition on the verse follows because the purpose of the book is to expound the truth of the Nicene Creed. I can also refer you to the commentary of Matthew Henry (1662-1714):

Lest the Jews should think meanly of him, because he was of their alliance, he here speaks thus honourably concerning him: and it is a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever. ​

It seems he had no difficulty whatsoever in reading the passage. How is it that Bishop Pearson, Matthew Henry, and other English theologians understood that passage in Romans 9:5 in the 1700s as referring to Christ as God, but you can't understand it now? It's because you're not reading it right.

It is very possible that he joins the identity ECW on Titus 2:13, but I would like more than the short phrase above, ok I will take the Latin.

The quotation is from his Interpretation (i.e. Commentary) of the Epistle to Titus, commenting directly on the verse in the epistle written by Paul. What exactly do you think Magum autem Deum nominavit Christum would otherwise mean? Theodoret is directly stating that Paul is calling Christ both "Great" and "God."

Again, including Ephesians 5:5 in a group of verses does not really give you the grammatical "intent".

It does, because they are texts identified by Theodoret as specifically calling Christ "God." He states this plainly, and there's no occasion for controversy whatsoever.

Did you reject the identity mistranslations that I showed from four modern versions in Romans 9:5?

And I know you made high Christology claims for Romans 9:5, fair enough, but that is definitely not identity "Jesus is God" as in the mistranslations. It is more simply like the verses in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and other verses in Colossians, and 1 Corinthians 8:6.

It's like saying two translations are translated correctly, but only one of them must be right. It's a false dichotomy. Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1 in both the KJV and the modern versions all testify the same thing, that Christ is "over all, God," "great God," and both "God and Savior." It's also wrong to judge the translation of the KJV by the standards of today. The KJV was last revised in 1769, which was two and a half centuries ago. It's not merely "thee," "thy," "thine," "ye," or the stem "-est" that have changed. The manner of punctuating has evolved. Grammar has evolved. Word order and structure have evolved. What was easily and commonly read by them in their day is no longer so to readers of our day. So if you want to teach the KJV, you need to teach it rightly.

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

I don't know exactly how you are reading it, except that you believe "God blessed forever" in the KJV is a fragment. It doesn't say, "blessed by God forever," or "God is blessed forever."

We do not get identity translations in our English text of Letter 151.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707151.htm

Which, if correct, would be meaningless when in other clear instances of his writings we do. But again, you are not analyzing the construction correctly. I.e.,

Furthermore it is in obedience to the divine Scriptures that we acknowledge the Christ to be God and man. That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John . . . And the Lord Himself . . . and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews . . . and in the epistle to the Philippians . . . And in the Epistle to the Romans . . . And in the epistle to Titus...​

Why not simply list the verses where you feel the AV has an errant text?

Because I don't have a list, the KJV is fine. I've also said why I differ from Sharp on 2 Thess. 1:12 and Eph. 5:5 (quoting the opposing ECW here is noting evidence). I'm telling you that you are not reading the passages correctly, and therefore you are not teaching them correctly, and you are spending an immense amount of time defending your POV at all costs. So many of the silly accusations against the KJV come from people who have no idea how to read that period of English. All the more reason we have to be careful ourselves.

As I've stated before, constructions such as "God and our Father" (a quote straight from the KJV in Gal. 1:4, Phl. 4:20, 1 Th. 1:3) would not be utilized today. We would say, "Our God and Father." Both mean the same thing, but the period English is different and so the expression is different. If you want to teach and understand the KJV rightly, then you need to understand the period English it belongs to.

 

[Brianrw]

Continued from previous post

For example:

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1​

Just to reinforce what I am saying above, Granville Sharp lived from 1735 to 1813. He wrote his remarks (rather, his observations) in the Greek article in 1778, and it was published two decades later in 1798. And yet Matthew Henry, who died more than two decades before Sharp was born, had no difficulty recognizing the usage of the article and the reference in the passage to the Deity of Christ.

To look for the glories of another world, to which a sober, righteous, and godly life in this is preparative: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Hope, by a metonymy, is put for the thing hoped for, namely, heaven and the felicities thereof, called emphatically that hope, because it is the great thing we look and long and wait for; and a blessed hope, because, when attained, we shall be completely happy for ever. And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. This denotes both the time of the accomplishing of our hope and the sureness and greatness of it: it will be at the second appearing of Christ, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels, Lu. 9:26. His own glory which he had before the world was; and his Father's, being the express image of his person, and as God-man, his delegated ruler and Judge; and of the holy angels, as his ministers and glorious attendants. His first coming was in meanness, to satisfy justice and purchase happiness; his second will be in majesty, to bestow and instate his people in it. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto those that look for him will he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation, Heb. 9:28. The great God and our Saviour (or even our Saviour) Jesus Christ; for they are not two subjects, but one only, as appears by the single article, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος, not καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος, and so is καὶ rendered 1 Co. 15:24, When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί. Christ then is the great God, not figuratively, as magistrates and others are sometimes called gods, or as appearing and acting in the name of God, but properly and absolutely, the true God (1 Jn. 5:20), the mighty God (Isa. 9:6), who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2:6. In his second coming he will reward his servants, and bring them to glory with him.​

​

The Greek μέγας is the same word used to translate גִּבּוֹר (gibôr) in Isaiah 9:6 LXX. In our English Bibles, gibôr is translated "mighty" ("mighty God"), and it is likely the specific passage to which Paul is referring.

And commenting on the beginning of 2 Peter 1:1,

(1.) This Jesus Christ is God, yea, our God, as it is in the original. He is truly God, an infinite Being, who has wrought out this righteousness, and therefore it must be of infinite value.​

​

You'll also find similar results in Ephesians 5:5, where he expounds it in two possible interpretations, one being that it speaks of Christ "who is God."

 

[Steven Avery]

Good info.
And I will add it to the pre-Sharp page (other than Erasmus and Beza.)

Pure Bible Forum
incredible Glassius analysis of misplaced grammar and article arguments

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/incredible-glassius-analysis-of-misplaced-grammar-and-article-arguments.1573/

Not sure who is the actual author.

Matthew Henry (1662-1714)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry

Henry's well-known six-volume Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (1708–10) or Complete Commentary provides an exhaustive verse-by-verse study of the Bible, covering the whole of the Old Testament, and the Gospels and Acts in the New Testament. Thirteen other non-conformist ministers finished the sixth volume of Romans through Revelation after Henry's death, partly based on notes taken by Henry's hearers.

 

[Brianrw]

A lot of times an author dies with manuscripts that are incomplete, and these are edited and compiled posthumously with supplemental material to fill what is lacking. If it is attributed to the author, you can assume the bulk of it comes from his recorded statements and writings.

 

[Steven Avery]

He actually gives 4 interpretations of Ephesians 5:5, I placed the pic on the page with Glassius et al.

"partly based on notes taken by Henry's hearers."
They said they worked with notes from hearers, not his manuscripts, I have no reason to doubt that. And I esteem the whole group as honourable Christian non-conformist and dedicated writers. John Reynolds (or maybe Thomas Reynolds) is credited with the heavenly witnesses section. The post-humous part only involved one of six volumes, so it is all part of the Matthew Henry commentary.

 

[Steven Avery]

" 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.

Once again, Burgon was countering the weak and vapid mistranslations of the Socinian glosses.

Revision Revised.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA213

There is no doubt that Romans 9:5 is a majestic high Christology verse.

You want to make it, like Murray's errant 6,8 and 9, a "Jesus is God" verse.
This would match the mistranslation of Titus 2:13.

 

[Brianrw]

Once again, Burgon was countering the weak and vapid mistranslations of the Socinian glosses. . . . There is no doubt that Romans 9:5 is a majestic high Christology verse.

You are understating the case Burgon is making. He notes of Romans 9:5, specifically, that,

A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD's eternal Godhead is nowhere to be found in the scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate this record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:--​

​

'Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after flesh, and translate, He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever : or, He who is over all is God, blessed for ever. Others punctuate, flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever' (The Revision Revised, p. 211)​

It's not what I am making it. It is how it has been understood as far back as we have witnesses to it, both in Greek and English! High Christology includes the aspect of His Deity. As Paul here delivers a doxology to Christ as God, it is also a "Jesus is God" verse. It's what makes the Socinian gloss so egregious, and why Burgon was so incensed.

A "mistranslation" of Titus 2:13 would be one in which the rules of Greek grammar are ignored, misunderstood, or set aside. The Greek authors, who didn't require an English translation, quote it as speaking of Christ as both "Great God" and "Savior," and the rules of the article directly support such a reading. I trust you wouldn't say they mistranslated it?

As for the AV rendering of Romans 9:5, Abbot is not our friend here, or in any other passage that testifies of Christ's Deity. On p. 112 of the work you continuously cite, Abbot writes,

But the construction followed in the common version [i.e. Romans 9:5 KJV] is also grammatically objectionable; and if we assume that the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ to be God, this construction likewise suits the context.​

The "common version" is another name by which the AV was referred, and there is nothing "grammatically objectionable" about the reading. His express purpose is to undermine the reading of the AV, which he admits testifies to the Deity of Christ. I'll add to this, that it absolutely should not take 67 pages to sort out a Greek passage that exhibits no ambiguity whatsoever.

 

[Steven Avery]

A "mistranslation" of Titus 2:13 would be one in which the rules of Greek grammar are ignored, misunderstood, or set aside.

Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1443989495692935/

Here is a little quote that applies very well when contras try to attack the AV grammar in geek-tech, anachronistic, or simply erroneous ways.

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

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek

"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."

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

Glassius, in his Philologia Sacra, Lib. 3, Tractat. 11. makes the following his Third Canon.
**** False hypotheses and errors may easily arise, and be introduced by a nice and needless attention to the ARTICLE ***

 

[Steven Avery]

While the incredible CARM discussion is gone, this one includes Vasileios Tsialas and is a superb read.

b-Greek
Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=460

 

[Brianrw]

Here is a little quote that applies very well when contras try to attack the AV grammar in geek-tech, anachronistic, or simply erroneous ways.

Precisely why I have appealed to the passages first as understood by the early Christian writers, and secondly as observed from experience with the Greek New Testament and other writers. Thus I find that the grammar I learned holds true.

 

[Steven Avery]

Granville Sharp was not fluent in Greek. He invented his "Rule", with apparently some plagiarism, for one doctrinal purpose, to change the AV into Jesus is God verses. He built in a ton of exceptions to try to make the rule and blundered right and left. Later a whole nother group of exceptions were added, one piled on another. Many more exceptions than would be needed to demolish the "Rule".

This is so simple, I am surprised that Brian, normally very sharp, is still stuck in GSR land.

 

[Steven Avery]

Precisely why I have appealed to the passages first as understood by the early Christian writers, and secondly as observed from experience with the Greek New Testament and other writers. Thus I find that the grammar I learned holds true.

PRELIMINARY NOTE: Checking the ECW on Titus 2:13, it is quite a mixed bag.
This had been begun:

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/titus-2-13-ecw.51/

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

Selectively, and with difficulties.

There is decent ECW support in two verses, one GS-Titus 2:13 and the Romans verse, but when there is virtually no support, as in all the other GSR verses, you do not use that as an argument against the rule. (And going through all the ECW on Titus 2:13 has not been done here on this forum, the quotes do not always match the claims, this came up with Wordsworth.)

Consistency is the issue (and the lack thereof).

And in Romans 9:5 there are incredible complications in discerning the distinctions between high Christology (as in the simple, beautiful read of the AV) and the fake claims that the verse should be corrected from the AV and say "Jesus is God". Those claims are the flip-side of the fake Socinian claims.

On the GSR, you should have read that thread above before responding.

You really have been duped on the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools.

It is acceptable argumentation to use the ECW for the identity mistranslation of Titus 2:13. Although that should have a full review of quotes. However, if you do that, you should be consistent and say that this is the only text where you want to correct the AV, since no other text has significant ECW support.

 

[Steven Avery]

Looks like largely a repetition of Chrysostom. Again, including Ephesians 5:5 in a group of verses does not really give you the grammatical "intent". Especially note the phrase "the greatest of the blessings" which looks to be the doxology of God to Jesus. Overall, he seems to be mixing and matching, straddling.

ACCS uses a Theodoret of Cyrus quote from Letter 146 NPNF 2 3:319 with this common ECW identity error from Theodoret.

Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
edited by Thomas C. Oden
https://books.google.com/books?id=dcZcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA300

A good example where the Geneva Bibles and the AV improved upon some ECWs, in the only Sharp verse that does have some significant ECW support.

 

[Brianrw]

Theodoret was a Greek writer and native Greek speaker; if it is thus as you say that the rule is not valid, there is nothing otherwise in the Greek that distinguishes it as speaking of one person. It is therefore doubtful that Theodoret (or Chrysostom, or Gregory, or any other writer) would have employed it so boldly as a clear testimony of the Deity of Christ against the Christological heresies of their day. Yet this place and the Greek writers are unanimous, and the most logical conclusion for such unanimity is that they understood the rule of the article the same as Glassius, Beza, Sharp, etc. who came after them.

The number of writers who understood the Greek rule of the article in this place which I have produced thus far goes well into the double digits before Sharp in 1798, from the late 1500s through the 1700s, including Glassius (stating the rule in virtually identical terms as Sharp), Beza, Owen, Goodwin, Fell, Hippolyte, Gailhard, Tolliston, Fleming (al), Beveridge, Grabe, Edwards, Guyse, Waterland, Henry, Calamy, de Gols, Witham, Wheatly, Gill, Ridgley, Abbadie, Fletcher, Fawcett. Thus far, 23 names in all, so that the premise that Sharp "invented" the rule is entirely untenable.

There is decent ECW support in two verses, one GS-Titus 2:13 and the Romans verse, but when there is virtually no support, as in all the other GSR verses, you do not use that as an argument against the rule.

Because it's not. Almost half the readings are not found in the Textus Receptus because he utilizes Alexandrinus and other manuscripts with questionable variants. That is a textual issue, not an issue with the rule itself.

The rule extends far beyond the Christological references offered by Sharp. There are at least about 80 instances of the "Sharp" construction in the NT, and there are no exceptions among them. It's not just a Christologically based rule, it is a rule that applies to constructions throughout the New Testament.

 

[Steven Avery]

In a nother couple places Sharp failed to understand that an epithet, which normally falls under the rule, when attached to a proper name as a close apposition is to be treated as a proper name itself.

Do you have a “final answer” of Winter Rules that includes exceptions and examples missed by Sharp”

Do you have a special page where “personal descriptions” and other terms that are subject to varying understandings, like “proper names” are all made crystal clear?