Granville Sharp Rules
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...43#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