Hippolytus and Noetus - Novatian - Greg Stafford on the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools

Steven Avery

Administrator
In other threads, too, coalesce here.

TWO references.

"God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological Import
Greg Stafford

Hippolytus refers to Romans 9:5 twice in his work Against the Heresy of one Noetus. The first reference is used in relation to the Noetians argument that Christ was the Father Himself![14] Hyppolytus then uses Romans 9:5 in support of his own view that Christ is indeed "God over all," for the Father has delivered all things to him (compare Mt 11:27).[15] He also refers to 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and John 20:17 to show that while Christ is indeed "Lord of all," the Father "is Lord of him." Thus, the grammar of the passage is such that the Noetians felt justified in seeing a reference to Christ as the Father in Romans 9:5. Hippolytus viewed the entire text as a reference to Christ as "God over all," in a somewhat Trinitarian sense, but he still qualified the use of "over all" in such a way that allowed the Father to be Lord over Christ.

Hippolytus applies the term "God" to Christ in Romans 9:5 in such a way that it is redefined to be consistent with Hippolytus’ analogy of "light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun."[16] The Bible does not use the term God in this way, nor does it make use of such analogies when it comes to the issue of the Logos as theos, in relation to God the Father.

[14] ANF 5, 224.
[15] Ibid., 225.
[16] Ibid., 227.
 

Brianrw

Member
Jehovah's Witnesses United?

Noetus​

"Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being himself the Father . . . for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, 'Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." (Against Noetus, 2)

Hippolytus​

"Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, All things are delivered unto me of my Father. He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father;" and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father . . . Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine.” (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 6, 8)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jehovah's Witnesses United?

Greg Stafford the best discussion of the fact that Hippolytus has two references, with some details.
Anybody else make that clear? e.g. Abbot only had chapter 6.

And I am not big on genetic fallacies.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
(Novatian, 257 A.D., A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XIII)
https://books.google.com/books?id=EcA7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA327

Had these from Hippolytus, now moved to Novatian

1636689490439.png

Ha
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Greg Stafford the best discussion of the fact that Hippolytus has two references.
Anybody else make that clear?
I've had it marked in my own notes from reading the work but I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

And I am not big on genetic fallacies.
I can go through the article and count the mistakes off the top of my head, on top of the NWT being his choice translation, and the Watchtower Society literature being notorious for coloring the testimony of the early writers (Stafford, I don't know). But I didn't commit a fallacy here, I simply quoted the writers.

Stafford got most of it right on these two writers in your quote above, though a little coloring on the note about Trinitarianism. The editorializing on the last section raised a flag. The "ray" statement occurs 5 chapters later, when he could dealt with the more immediate context. Hippolytus appears to be quoting Irenaeus in c. 8.

Here is the third from Hippolytus.

Novatian​

It's from Novatian, On the Trinity and the correct chapter is 13. He quotes Romans 9:5 again in chapter 30:

...we ought by no means to reject those marks of Christ's divinity which are laid down in the Scriptures, that we may not, by corrupting the authority of the Scriptures, be held to have corrupted the integrity of our holy faith. And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. And, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us. And, My Lord and my God. And, Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore. What, then, shall we say? Does Scripture set before us two Gods? How, then, does it say that God is one? Or is not Christ God also? How, then, is it said to Christ, My Lord and my God?​
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I've had it marked in my own notes from reading the work but I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

I can go through the article and count the mistakes off the top of my head, on top of the NWT being his choice translation, and the Watchtower Society literature being notorious for coloring the testimony of the early writers (Stafford, I don't know). But I didn't commit a fallacy here, I simply quoted the writers.

Stafford got most of it right on these two writers in your quote above, though a little coloring on the note about Trinitarianism. The editorializing on the last section raised a flag. The "ray" statement occurs 5 chapters later, when he could dealt with the more immediate context. Hippolytus appears to be quoting Irenaeus in c. 8.

Greg Stafford has actually done a reasonable job on the Granville Sharp stuff, mixing it up with Wallace. Except that he accepts some of the nonsense structure from the debate. However, the b-greek forum which you should read, and the old CARM forum no longer up but I have notes, have been the best.

Wallace is a statistically illiterate, but I will quote him anyway.

statistical illiteracy in textual scholarship - Daniel Wallace struggles with numbers
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ip-daniel-wallace-struggles-with-numbers.294/

By a genetic fallacy, I would never quote Wallace, or James Price, or James White (who is good on jabs and related issues.)

The most hilarious article on the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools was by an associate or former student of Wallace, J. Edward Komoszewski .

grammatical analysis descends to satire - J. Edward Komoszewski GSR paper

Brian, maybe you should read this, since you are a big fan of Sharp groupings like titles, proper nouns, proper names (how about quasi-proper names) or whatevers, in grammatiacal analysis, it will be right up your alley. Plus I have a comment there about the NWT, since Stafford and Komoszewski have sparred. It points to some CARM posts that are gone from the old forum, but there is enough there to laugh or cry.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Stafford has actually done a reasonable job on the Granville Sharp stuff, mixing it up with Wallace. Except that he accepts some of the nonsense structure from the debate. However, the b-greek forum which you should read, and the old CARM forum no longer up but I have notes, have been the best.
Socinians, Unitarians, and the JWs have a long history of manipulating biblical texts and bending or outright misapplying (or not applying) the rules of Greek grammar to fit in places they disagree, and if you hang around their writings for too long without really having a concept of the Greek or what they are saying, it will start to rub off on your thinking. The JWs, such as Stafford, have a notoriously corrupt New Testament translation, which he defends. Rebuttals can sound good to people who don't really know how to weigh or judge what they are reading. This holds true on remarks about the rule of the article. To be fair, I'll cover at least one example below:

Stafford - Example, Misuse of the rule of the article​

One example Stafford notes to discredit the reading of Christ as "God" in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is a proposed parallel of Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and "1 (sic) Thess. 1:12." (this is reproduced uncritically other places too; it should be 2 Thess. 1:12). He borrows this mistake from Abbot (Abbot provided another "parallel" from Matthew 21:12, but it uses plural nouns in violation of the rule):

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Thess. 1:12 TR)
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Titus 2:13)
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:1)

They certainly appear similar, and both Stafford and Abbot are right that 2 Thess. 1:12 refers to two people, contra Sharp (at least so far as the TR is concerned, which contains a comma). However, they are absolutely wrong in citing it as a parallel to Titus 2:13.

2 Peter 1:1 forms an identical grammatical construction of 2 Peter 1:11, which is the passage it ought to have been compared with:

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:1)​
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:11)​

Thus 2 Peter has Christ as both "God" and "Lord." This is not arbitrary. When the authors clearly want to distinguish between two persons, they do. For example, at the beginning of Titus (1:4):

εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν​
"peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."​
No article is placed before either, thus there are two people in view. He offers peace in the name of the Father, and he offers peace in the name of the Son. Or in 2 Timothy 4:1 (the variant used by Sharp is not found in here the TR),
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ​
"From God, and the Lord Jesus Christ"​

The article is placed both before "God" and before "the Lord Jesus Christ," thus clearly showing that a charge is made before the Father and also before the Son--appealing to them as 2 witnesses.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Did you read how far off the rails goes the J. Edward Komoszewski, using your manner of thinking?
Did you read the b-greek forum?

Oh, did you forget that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the AV are not Sharp translations? As you know, the article was well understood at that time, see the Glassius page, and the Erasmus and Beza viewpoints.

You, like Sharp, want to corrupt the AV.
It is not only Socinians who are able to corrupt the Bible.

Depends on the verse and the agenda.

Mistranslations away from the AV are an abomination from any side.

Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New Testament: containing many new proofs of the divinity of Christ, from passages, which are wrongly translated in the common English version.
Granville Sharp
1636701780244.png



Brian, thou art the man.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You, like Sharp, want to corrupt the AV.
News to me. I thought I was reading it fine . . .

Disagreeing with Steven Avery is not corrupting the AV.

I have disagreements with Sharp on the Christological texts he chose, and based on a survey of 50 English authors from the 1620s to 1798, I'm pretty sure I'd be in good company when I say Sharp, just as you do, is not reading the English of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 correctly (virtually all the authors I found have Titus 2:13 referring to Christ as God, and the few that do comment on 2 Peter 1:1 say likewise).

Since I follow the TR, there's nothing to correct in multiple examples Sharp gives from Alexandrinus, or other manuscripts, that don't match the Greek text I use. Is that special pleading? Is that an exception to grammar? Does having a different Greek text suddenly nullify a rule of grammar? Does the fact that Sharp, Abbot, etc. made mistakes either to prove or disprove that were over time caught and corrected mean we have to stay stuck in Sharp, 1798? We've pretty much purged the mistake, and reiterated one point about close appositions involving proper names. Now that the dust has settled, long past 1798, the rule applied correctly where such a construction falls under the rules, there are no exceptions. None. Zero.

By now, you are merely using Sharp as a straw man. In the list I provide elsewhere in the forum, there are now about 12 or so authors who remark on the usage of the article in Titus 2:13 long before Sharp.

I've said this before, but you haven't listened, and you won't here either. There's nothing I suggest in the AV that should be "corrected." Disagreeing with Steven Avery's interpretation of the AV, and misunderstandings of the Greek language, etc. is not attacking or corrupting the AV itself. You don't know Greek.

You're pretty much shooting your mouth off about Greek, and many things you don't really understand. How about getting off the soapbox now and sticking to task.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
By now, you are merely using Sharp as a straw man. In the list I provide elsewhere in the forum, there are now about 12 or so authors who remark on the usage of the article in Titus 2:13 long before Sharp.

None of them talk of a rule, and one or two or three are very much against a rule.
You miss that, because you only look for confirmation bias commentaries.

None of them mistranslate more than one, or maybe two, verses.

Focus.

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

It is hilarious that you are now accusing Sharp of misreading English.
If he could not properly read English, his own language, why was he making a mess in a language he did not speak?
 

Brianrw

Member
You can knock this off.

None of them talk of a rule, and one or two or three are very much against a rule.
You miss that, because you only look for confirmation bias commentaries.
And yet, no references? Just a general statement? They are clearly marked. I said corrections are welcome. Don't waste my time with generalities.

Your wording is evasive. When they mention the placement of the article being before God, and not before Christ, stating that the reading of Titus 2:13 therefore speaks of one person, that is them applying the same rule of the article to the construction that Sharp does later in 1798. So yes, that is them remarking on the usage of the article in Titus 2:13. FYI if they knew about it then, it follows Sharp didn't "invent it" in 1798. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

"One" or "two" or "three"--is it single, double, or triple? That number apparently just felt right? Maybe it's 4, or even 5. We discussed Whitby, in his retractions, is one. After he became a Unitarian, and after he started proposing Unitarian emendations to the Greek texts. So you are at, precisely, 1. [Edit. actually, it is 0. Whitby doesn't dispute the rule of the article, but refers to a one Dr. Clarke without any explanation; Last Thoughts, p. 59. Clarke himself expresses the validity of the Rule, though he ignores it in Titus 2:13 because he thinks maybe the article was just left out because sometimes it is omitted from proper names. But that doesn't address the grammatical argument.].

Remember I stopped the search at 1798, so that Sharp doesn't bias the sample. Right there you are at, precisely, 1. Sure you can note the Socinians in the group if you find any, but since they felt at liberty to knowingly emend the text or deliberately mistranslate it on numerous occasions, their opinion has decidedly less weight.

I'll wait for the rest.

"Focus."
:)
It is hilarious that you are now accusing Sharp of misreading English.
If he could not properly read English, his own language, why was he making a mess in a language he did not speak?
Because you've never misread anything in your life? That's hilarious :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
When they mention the placement of the article being before God, and not before Christ, stating that the reading of Titus 2:13 therefore speaks of one person, that is them applying the same rule of the article to the construction that Sharp does later in 1798. So yes, that is them remarking on the usage of the article in Titus 2:13. FYI if they knew about it then, it follows Sharp didn't "invent it" in 1798. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the same writer does not make an identity translation of 2 Peter 1:1, Ephesians 5:5 and any other verses that do not have a textual excuse, it is all total nonsense to claim they saw a rule.

At most they are talking about a tendency that would depend the actual context of the verse.


Glassius, in his Philologia Sacra, Lib. 3. Tractat. ii. 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.

In his enlargement upon this canon, he observes, that the article very frequently, nay, most usually, is destitute of emphasis ; that no stress can or ought to be laid upon the presence or absence of it, for the proof of any doctrine ; and that, therefore, certain rules respecting it, which he mentions afterwards (and which follow) rest on a very slippery foundation. ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=jQUUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA374 - 1784 - Glassius was c. 1640

One of your problems is that you do not read pages like the one with Glassius, or the b-greek forum. You only read what you hope will give you conformation bias. You are so quick to comment you did not even look at the hilarious J. Edward Komoszewski paper.

And that is why I have to say so often ... focus.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
I didn't search for 2 Peter 1:1, but I happened upon it in some places. How do you think the KJV translators understood 2 Peter 1:11? Clearly in 1:1 they made a deliberate choice to say "God and our Saviour," not merely, "our God and Saviour." Just our God?

Glassius, in his Philologia Sacra, Lib. 3. Tractat. ii. 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.

In his enlargement upon this canon, he observes, that the article very frequently, nay, most usually, is destitute of emphasis ; that no stress can or ought to be laid upon the presence or absence of it, for the proof of any doctrine ; and that, therefore, certain rules respecting it, which he mentions afterwards (and which follow) rest on a very slippery foundation. ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=jQUUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA374 - 1784 - Glassius was c. 1640
I've read the "Glassius" comments thoroughly at this point, but none of them address the "Sharp" rule of the article. What follows are examples of how commentators in the past have abused the use of the article to form doctrinal proofs beyond what the usage of the article actually allows. He lists clear abuses resulting in silly and untrue conclusions such as, for example:
  1. If the article is before the "Holy Spirit" means the person of the Holy Sprit, if not, it's the gifts.
  2. That the law, depending on the usage of the article, could mean the law of nature vs. the law of Moses.
  3. That Christ is not the power of God, but a power of God, when the article in such a construction is not necessary for definiteness.
  4. That "God" with the article means the God over all, but without, it does not refer to the same being.
  5. Whether an article is before "man" or not.
  6. That the article missing before God in John 1:1 means Christ is not the same God. The response aptly notes such a statement violates the actual rules of Greek grammar.
  7. "Before men," because of the article, means, "Before all men."
Have I missed any? Demonstrating silly instances where individuals have abused the use of the article completely unrelated to the "Sharp" rule, does not nullify valid uses of the article elsewhere. He states that the article is devoid of such emphasis (i.e., overemphasis) as seen above, not that it is devoid of legitimate use or meaning. It hardly needs to be said, that neglecting the rules altogether, is itself an abuse that very well could be expanded upon in the above work.

[Edit. Glassius (1593-1656), in another place of this work not referenced here actually does speak favorably of the rule of the article that is later expounded by Sharp:

Whenever an article is added emphatically to the first word, it includes all other additional epithets, and shows that there is a conversation about the same subject. (Quandoque articulus emphatice prime voci additus, reliqua omnia epitheta adjecta includit, & de eodem subjecto sermonem esse ostendit.)​
Jude v. 4 καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. This article, common to all these epithets, shows that Christ is here called "the only master, God and Lord." Erasmus, by converting the first accusative into the nominative, weakens the sentence in a most savage way, for he translates: "And God, who is the only master, and our Lord Jesus," etc. (Ac Deum, qui folus est herus, ac Dominum nostrum Jesum, etc.). So also Tit. 2, 13 (which may be seen in this place of Erasmus' annotations), 2 Pet. 1:1, Eph. 5:5 in which, because of the many epithets common to this article, they are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ." (in quibus, ob communem hunc plurium epithetorum articulum, non obscura divinitatis verae Christi documenta sunt.)​
(Translation credit: Brian Winter)​
He proceeds expound it to the effect that it does not apply to plural examples.]
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
In my honest opinion, that's just silly. And it's a silly comment.

The people who devoted their time reading through the NT to disprove Sharp already found the opposite was true. He'd be better off looking for (if they really exist) the places where he couldn't make the construction fit, and then see why it didn't, if there's a pattern. But if he has the time to waste, let him do his thing if it makes him happy.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
So do you think Paul and Peter and Jude and John were thinking along these types of lines:

”if I write Lord Jesus Christ here, I will be declaring that Jesus is God, or the Father”

however

”If I write Jesus Christ here, or just Jesus, I will not be saying Jesus is God, it will interpret differently, dual addressing”

And then he chose which one to write?

=====

Am I silly?

Or does that term apply to the Sharpians and Wallacians?

====

Oh, did you explain the naive modalism exception?
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You must not think much before you write. :ROFLMAO: Because I write a lot, and I think very specifically about how to write sentences that are not misunderstood. Heresies have been started by misunderstandings, Paul was under perpetual threats from the accusations of the Jews. So yes, in spite of your silly examples I think he chose and expressed his words carefully.

Paul wrote under inspiration of the Spirit. If the Spirit inspired it in a certain way, then I think it is foolish to make light of it, speaking in general.

Done for the night, and probably for several days. Too much to do.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
And I definitely do not think in the absurd concepts you place around Peter and Paul.

The Holy Spirit did not instruct anybody in the NT to think in terms of Sharp-Wallace gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Top