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

[Brianrw]

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.

I'd tread lightly here.

Your arguments don't stand without the "Sharp-Wallace" straw men, and no amount of loaded language actually supports your position. Abusing a rule, then making it parallel to a passage where the rule is properly followed, in order to disprove the rule itself and the proper translation (e.g., Stafford, Abbot), is utterly fallacious. Yet, you've adopted that author as one of your blunt instruments against a time tested and valid rule of the article. The rule of the article was recognized long before Sharp, not only among the English commentators, but is also demonstrable in how the Greek authors read and commented on these passages.

In the AV, God and our Saviour Jesus Christ means Christ is both God and our Saviour, every bit as much as the "Sharp" construction translated "God and our Father" in the AV refers to God the Father. Sharp proposes it should be read "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" I agree with him on the meaning but he has not considered the pitfall of that translation: is He merely our God? Or is He, simply, God? The "Sharp" construction also happens in 2 Peter 1:11, "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," being identical in construction to 2 Peter 1:1, and the AV translators followed it just fine. Were they winging it?

That's my last comment for a while. Really. We can table all this for another time.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'd tread lightly here.
Your arguments don't stand without the "Sharp-Wallace" straw men, ther time.

The arguments against the bogus rule are 100%.

How do you get around Peter and Paul meaning different things with the same words?
Don't just posture, answer the question!

When will you relate to the naive modalism exceptions?
There are many others, but this one is important because it is especially Christological, which is where Sharp wants to change the AV verses.

Why not read the b-greek forum?

 

[Brianrw]

The arguments against the bogus rule are 100%.

But you haven't successfully made that case. You provided a very nice Glassius commentary going over several really silly abuses of the article, yet nothing to do with the specific rule in question (which I noted in detail here, and generally here). In another place, noting "exceptions" that actually don't fall under the rule as Sharp states it in 1803.

You also champion Stafford, a Jehovah's Witness who—following Abbot, a Unitarian—tries to dismiss the proper rule of the article in Titus 2:13 through false equivalence.

There are many others, but this one is important because it is especially Christological, which is where Sharp wants to change the AV verses.

From 1636, when it was "express" to William Prynne, virtually all the writers I've found to quote Titus 2:13 before Sharp likewise read it as demonstrating His Deity. No less than 22 writers also made remarks on the usage of the article here in the Greek idiom, so early as 1683 (as of this writing). The evidence being so, I am well within bounds to contend Sharp wrongly accented the English passage (Cf. the similarly constructed "God and our Father," Gal. 1:4, Phil. 4:20, 1 Thess. 1:3 and "of God, and of the Father" Col. 2:2). I am also within bounds to say the AV reading, when accented correctly, is not at odds with the Greek.

A particularly relevant comment supporting both of these statements is offered by Dr. William Beveridge (1637-1708), who not only comments on the "Greek Idiom," but also how it would be rightly translated in his day to refer to one person, Christ, and thus "the great God, and our Saviour"--the very same text found in the AV edition of his time:

First, In the Greek text, one and the same article serves both these predicates, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, not τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν; which we therefore rightly translate of the Great God, and our Saviour, not of the great God and of our Saviour; as if the great God, and our Saviour, were here two distinct persons: For the Greek idiom would not admit of such an interpretation; constantly requiring that where only one article is used in common to two predicates, they be both referred to the same subjects; and by consequence, that it is Jesus Christ alone who is here called both great God, and our Saviour.​

How do you get around Peter and Paul meaning different things with the same words?

I don't have to. 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 are Peter and Paul saying that Christ is "God and our Saviour." Both follow the same rule of the article. But if the same construction "God and Christ" were found in Peter, I would treat it the same way. Since it only occurs in Paul, I only mention Paul.

 

[Steven Avery]

But you haven't successfully made that case. You provided a very nice Glassius commentary going over several really silly abuses of the article,

Glassius was answering people in his time, and pre-answering the Sharp-Wallace-Winter Rule. He was clearly astute. And I am glad that you read his material, and gave some examples, but earlier you seemed to be attacking him simply because he could not foresee how dumb somebody would be 150 years later.

Sharp and his later reconstructionists (Wallace-Winter) proved his point perfectly.

 

[Brianrw]

Glassius was answering people in his time, and pre-answering the Sharp-Wallace-Winter Rule. He was clearly astute.

No, he actually wasn't, and this is another fallacy of irrelevance. You don't seem to even understand what you are reading at all. Every point addressed silly (and somewhat entertaining) abuses of the article. This was answered specifically in another place. There literally is nothing in Glassius' commentary that deals with the "Sharp-Wallace" (and now "Winter" ) rule. Since you don't understand Greek, I even took the time to explain all the examples to you so you could follow. If I don't know something, I'm not going to just shoot my mouth off. It's not my fault if I tell you the truth and you don't believe me. That's your problem.

And I am glad that you read his material, and gave some examples,

I believe I gave all the examples.

but earlier you seemed to be attacking him simply because he could not foresee how dumb somebody would be 150 years later.

I did no such thing, you're putting words in my mouth. I actually enjoyed his commentary, FYI, and it's useful. I just said it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem to think Sharp "invented" the rule, as you state elsewhere. I've told you before, it's simply not true. Glassius lived 1593-1656. The earliest remarks on the article I've uncovered are roughly contemporary: Thomas Goodwin (1683); John Fell (1684), Hippolyte (1696), Jean Gailhard (1697), John Tolliston (1701), Robert Fleming Jr. (1705). William Beveridge in 1710 is especially clear on the matter, and the the number after them and before Sharp is in the double digits--including some very eminent names of the time: Grabe (1712), John edwards (1713), John Guyse (1719), Daniel Waterland (1720), Matthew Henry (posthumously in 1721, though CF. commentary on Ps. 95), Edmund Calamy (1722), Gerard De Gols (1726), Robert Witham (1733), Charles Wheatly (1738), John Gill (1746-48), Thomas Ridgley (1770), Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777), John Fletcher and Joseph Benson (1790), John Fawcett (1781). Do try to keep your opinions properly informed.

 

[Steven Avery]

You seem to think Sharp "invented" the rule, as you state elsewhere. I've told you before, it's simply not true. Glassius lived 1593-1656. The earliest remarks on the article I've uncovered are roughly contemporary: Thomas Goodwin (1683); John Fell (1684), Hippolyte (1696), Jean Gailhard (1697), John Tolliston (1701), Robert Fleming Jr. (1705). William Beveridge in 1710 is especially clear on the matter, and the the number after them and before Sharp is in the double digits--including some very eminent names of the time: Grabe (1712), John edwards (1713), John Guyse (1719), Daniel Waterland (1720), Matthew Henry (posthumously in 1721, though CF. commentary on Ps. 95), Edmund Calamy (1722), Gerard De Gols (1726), Robert Witham (1733), Charles Wheatly (1738), John Gill (1746-48), Thomas Ridgley (1770), Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777), John Fletcher and Joseph Benson (1790), John Fawcett (1781). Do try to keep your opinions properly informed.

Remarks on the article is not a claim on a rule. Sharp did not talk of a tendency, based on context, or relatedness and connection, rather than identity.

And since Erasmus and Beza had both discussed the article usage, there is no surprise that it was an ongoing conversation. It is nice to see what people say, but Sharp in fact did invent the bogus rule, specifically to correct the AV text. Although there are indications of plagiarism as well.

 

[Brianrw]

Remarks on the article is not a claim on a rule.

This is a really silly comment. When they state that the article occurring before "God" and not before "Saviour," according to the Greek idiom, indicates one person rather than two, it is pretty clear they understood how the article works in the Greek. Sharp's rule is not much more complexly worded than that. He just notes personal description regarding dignity, office, etc. These men are not writing a grammatical thesis, only pointing out how the Greek is read and understood in that construction.

Even if some of them are more express than others, the sheer volume of writers who remark on it and state accordingly that one person is in view renders it very difficult to accept that the rule as stated by Sharp significantly deviated from their understanding of it.

William Beveridge in 1710 (quoted above) would be among one of the more relevant witnesses to our discussion, both to how the Greek was read and how the 1611 reading was read:

First, In the Greek text, one and the same article serves both these predicates, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, not τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν; which we therefore rightly translate of the Great God, and our Saviour, not of the great God and of our Saviour; as if the great God, and our Saviour, were here two distinct persons: For the Greek idiom would not admit of such an interpretation; constantly requiring that where only one article is used in common to two predicates, they be both referred to the same subjects; and by consequence, that it is Jesus Christ alone who is here called both great God, and our Saviour.​

​

Predicates, of course, being the key word not to miss here. Hippolyte's comments in 1696 are also useful in the matter.

Sharp didn't exactly email the rule to Beza or whoever else comments on the article in such a construction before his time. Your argument involves a paradox and an anachronism that you can't keep shifting back and forth. Clearly, Sharp did not invent the rule.

 

[Steven Avery]

This is a really silly comment. When they state that the article occurring before "God" and not before "Saviour," according to the Greek idiom, indicates one person rather than two, it is pretty clear they understood how the article works in the Greek.

Except that they did not apply it in other verses, based on context. They did not make the Sharp blunders. So the silliness is in your pretensions.

We should go back to the 8 (you say 9, you might be including his Philippians blunder) verses, subtract the 3 or 4 that were Sharp textual blunders, and then after subtracting the two in hot dispute, we will have the 2 or 3 that everybody knows that there is no Rule.

PBF
overview of pure Bible verses that Granville Sharp sought to "correct"
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...es-that-granville-sharp-sought-to-correct.52/

I will go back now to my list of verses and try to fill that in.

 

[Steven Avery]

There literally is nothing in Glassius' commentary that deals with the "Sharp-Wallace" (and now "Winter" ) rule.

And I doubt that you have read all of Glassius.

John Eadie says he supports the identity translation of Ephesians 5:5.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FqkGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA375

Yahoogroups archive, which may be on my disk, has a discussion of his writing on this topic in 2011.

You can see some of his article discussion from, and translation by, Barry Hofstetter:

Glassius, BeDuhn, and the KJV Translators
https://web.archive.org/web/2014021...11/13/glassius-beduhn-and-the-kjv-translators

Nevertheless, it must be added that this observation is not universal [KAQOLOU), that if two are joined, the first by the article, the second without, that they refer to the same subject. The contrary is found in Mt 21:12, Mk 2:15, Lk 19:45, where hOI PWLOUNTES KAI AGORAZONTES are joined, the former with the article, the latter without. Different sellers and different buyers are nevertheless understood.

Again, you are undermining your credibility by coming to hasty conclusions. Remember, you make awkward attacks on my having Glassius on the page as a pre-Sharp analyst with astuteness.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is a longer section discussing Glassius and Sharp.
Maybe this will help you see the loss of credibility in your "nothing" claim (which came after your attack on including Glassius at all!)

Critical Review (1804) p. 160-168
https://books.google.com/books?id=hDwFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA163

Continues...

If you were teachable, you would be helped by this Journal article (more than one), even with some limitations..

Interesting is

And later he has some analysis of the Wordsworth claims, including Ephesians 5:5. p. 166, where he says the Latin interpreters agree with the Authorized Version.

The second section goes into:

Gregory Blunt p. 273-283
http://books.google.com/books?id=hDwFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273

It would be interesting to see how they approach his Greek-English grammatical similarity aspect.

Glassius comes up similarly in this 1810 article with Middleton trying to shore up Sharp.

The Monthly Review - (1810)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-ZKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA157

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is one Glassius "nothing" section

Philologiae Sacrae, Qva Totius Sacrosanctae Veteris & Novi Testamenti, Scripturae, Tum Stylus Et Literatura, Tum Sensus Et Genuinae Interpretationis Ratio Expenditur; Libri Quinque: Qvorum I. II. Generalia de S. Scripturae stylo & sensu; III. IV. Grammatica Sacra; V. Rhetorica Sacra, comprehensa (1686)
https://books.google.com/books?id=CZRYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA502
https://books.google.com/books?id=VJNYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA502

 

[Brianrw]

Nevertheless, it must be added that this observation is not universal [KAQOLOU), that if two are joined, the first by the article, the second without, that they refer to the same subject. The contrary is found in Mt 21:12, Mk 2:15, Lk 19:45, where hOI PWLOUNTES KAI AGORAZONTES are joined, the former with the article, the latter without. Different sellers and different buyers are nevertheless understood.

These examples do not apply to Sharp's first rule, as plural references are not personal descriptions regarding dignity, etc., and by nature, being plural, simply cannot refer to one and the same thing (the Greek text in Luke 19:45 isn't transliterated recognizably, it is from τοὺς (plural) πωλοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ Καὶ ἀγοράζοντας).

And I doubt that you have read all of Glassius.

I read the link you gave me. In the comment above, Glassius, we are told, "asserts" interpretations similar to Sharp in those passages, but his actual words are not allowed to be heard. It turns out that Glassius--when commenting on the usage of the Greek Article (beginning p. 498)--did not consider these "obscure" at all, though the above text makes it sound that way. Thank you very much for providing the original work (translated below):

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 . . . 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 . . . Thus also Tit. 2, 13 (which may be seen in this place of Erasmus' annotations), 2 Pet. 1:1, Eph. 5:5 in which, on account of this common article of several epithets, they are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ." (non obscura divinitatis verae Christi documenta sunt.)​

​

The same applies to God the Father [in] 2 Cor. 1[:3]: Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.​

This is not the impression given in the quote above, or the way you appeal to him everywhere else. He did not consider this places obscure at all. He only states that there are better passages of scriptures from which to establish the doctrine of Christ's Deity.

He follows with the simple caution that the rule cannot be said to be universal (i.e. that if two things are conjoined, the former of which is place with the article and the latter without the article, that they are speaking of the same subject). He notes, for example, that the opposite is true in the case of the specific plural references noted above. This same thing, however, is both admitted and accounted for in Sharp's Remarks, and I have already addressed those same examples above.

 

[Steven Avery]

Glassius, we are told, "asserts" interpretations similar to Sharp in those passages, but his actual words are not allowed to be heard. It turns out that Glassius--when commenting on the usage of the Greek Article (beginning p. 498)--did not consider these "obscure" at all, though the above text makes it sound that way. Thank you very much for providing the original work (translated below):

You put "obscure" in quotes here, I want to see the word where it was quoted, for context. If there is no spot, tacky.
You even use obscure three times. Did you just plug it in for attempted posturing points?

This is a credibility issue, again.

 

[Brianrw]

You put "obscure" in quotes here, I want to see the word where it was quoted, for context. If there is no spot, tacky.
You even use obscure three times. Did you just plug it in for attempted posturing points?

This is a credibility issue, again.

I'm quoting Glassius who writes (of Jude 4, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Ephesians 5:5) non obscura divinitatis verae Christi documenta sunt, "they are not obscure (non obscura) proofs of the true divinity of Christ." In other words, I find no "unsteadiness and uncertainty" on Glassius' part, which is how his position is characterized in the Critical Reviewer above. You provided the reference to Glassius' Sacred Philology (Philologiae Sacrae), which is translated below. Commenting in his section on the uses of the Greek Article (De Articulo Graecorum), Glassius writes:

Note​

​

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.)​

​

The same applies to God the Father, 2 Cor. 1[:3]. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.​

​

He then clarifies that this cannot be applied universally, specifically that it does not apply to plural constructions.

I keep telling you the truth, you just keep saying I've erred or am lying, and you impugn my credibility but never actually demonstrate why I have a credibility issue.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm quoting Glassius who writes (of Jude 4, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Ephesians 5:5) non obscura divinitatis verae Christi documenta sunt, "they are not obscure (non obscura) proofs of the true divinity of Christ." In other words, I find no "unsteadiness and uncertainty" on Glassius' part, which is how his position is characterized in the Critical Reviewer above.

No more "quote" games, please.

If you do not like what the editor of the Critical Review says, then quote him directly and give your problematic element. He understsands that Glassius is taking an "Orthodox" position on some verses, yet then he is warning about too much emphasis on the article. Seems clear enough. As is your style, you did not translate one key part.

Glassius, according to you, would have been a total dumbo on Jude 4. Also he erred on Ephesians 5, only total dupes today try to make that into an identity verse.

Glassius is wrong on the other two verses as well, however you share still defend those two, like Wallace.

And he omitted one or two verses, if he really thought there was a Rule.

Stick with the Authorized Version. Stop these absurd corrections of the Authorized Version that you struggle to defend. You should publicly disavow any prestense that you consider the Authorized Version the pure and perfect word of God. You attack it in three verses for sure.

 

[Brianrw]

No more quote games, please.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You misunderstood what I wrote, and thus accused me of inserting a word out of nowhere and impugned my credibility. I responded to clarify the understanding. I've now finished translating the whole section on this usage.

Note​

​

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.)​

​

The same applies to God the Father, 2 Cor. 1[:3]. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.​

It must be added, however, that this observation (that if two things are conjoined--the first with an article placed before it, and the latter without an article--they speak of that [same] subject) is not universal. It is the opposite among Matt. 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45, where we find οἱ πωλοῦντες καὶ ἀγοράζοντες [viz. plural references to epithets, the nominative standing for any case in which they may be found] are conjoined. The former contains the article, but not the latter. And yet some are understood as sellers, others as buyers. From this it is clear that they are not the most effective/substantial, where emphasis on the article is taken for proving articles of faith, nor are they of such importance to be strengthened by this unique class of proofs.
​

- Glassius, Sacred Philology​

​

(Note: the reviewer's quote has validissima ("effective") for solidissima ("substantial") and omits confortandae ("strengthened"). It may be from a different edition, but the meaning is not much affected).

​

Glassius indicates two things above: it must be applied to epithets yet it does not work with plural epithets as in Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45. Sharp explains it virtually the same way. Glassius does not express "unsteadiness and uncertainty" in regards to the interpretation of Jude 4, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and Ephesians 5:5, which he says "are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ" (The Latin obscura, "obscure," literally means "shadowy or indistinct"). He cautions, however, that proving or strengthening articles of faith by appealing to the presence or absence of an article does not make the most effective argument.

​

Stick with the Authorized Version. Stop these absurd corrections of the Authorized Version that you struggle to defend.

Disagreeing with Steven Avery is not the same as disagreeing with the AV, no matter how strongly you feel you are correct. I have said, calling as witnesses before God a host of other writers and commentators from the 1600s and 1700s, and as witnesses the early Christian writers who both wrote and spoke in Greek, that in Titus 2:13, Christ is called "the great God and our Saviour." That is the wording of the AV, which I have never proposed needs "corrections."

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You misunderstood what I wrote, and thus accused me of inserting a word out of nowhere and impugned my credibility. I responded to clarify the understanding. I've now finished translating the whole section on this usage.

Nothing was "misunderstood". You muddied the discussion by emphasizing a "quote", without saying who it was from, or what was the context, and it turned out to be a Latin word, not English, with a different context. You impugned your own credibility.

Much later, you tried to clean up the mess. You should have apologized for the "quote". In fact, an apology is still the proper road.

 

[Steven Avery]

Disagreeing with Steven Avery is not the same as disagreeing with the AV, no matter how strongly you feel you are correct. I have said, calling as witnesses before God a host of other writers and commentators from the 1600s and 1700s, and as witnesses the early Christian writers who both wrote and spoke in Greek, that in Titus 2:13, Christ is called "the great God and our Saviour." That is the wording of the AV, which I have never proposed needs "corrections."

Again, Titus 2:13 is the ONLY Sharp verse that has substantive ECW support, although it is quite mixed on its own account. .

So, by your standards of that support, there is NO RULE! There is a suggested retranslation of ONE VERSE out of the Sharp 4 or 5 attempts that are not immediately discarded because of his textual blunders.

And it trivially obvious that you want to change the AV text, to be like that given by Sharp or Wallace. You are simply deceiving yourself to pretend otherwise.

 

[Steven Avery]

Glassius indicates two things above: it must be applied to epithets yet it does not work with plural epithets as in Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45. Sharp explains it virtually the same way. Glassius does not express "unsteadiness and uncertainty" in regards to the interpretation of Jude 4, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and Ephesians 5:5, which he says "are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ" (The Latin obscura, "obscure," literally means "shadowy or indistinct"). He cautions, however, that proving or strengthening articles of faith by appealing to the presence or absence of an article does not make the most effective argument.

So Glassius blundered on Jude 4. And gave an absurd claim.
And he errred badly on Ephesians 5:5, he should have simply read Calvin and accepted a pure and true exposition.

Glassius omitted 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 5:21, which he should have included if he thought there was a rule.

Then he pointed out that you should not overemphasize the article and that any such argument is not the most effective.

Glassius is all over the map, scholastically unsteady, so the reviewer of the Critical Review was fine. Your pained criticisms go nowhere, you were just trying to make a diversion from giving an apology of integrity for your faux "obscure" quote. Diversion rejected.

Glassius does show that scholars struggled on this question way before the Sharp blunders, textual errors, lack of logic and absurd claims (nine in all, 8 on the Rule) that he would use to try to correct the Authorized Version text. You are following in the footsteps of darkness, of Bible correction, of shoddy scholarship and mind-reading grammatical categories of New Testament writers and definitional shuffle-boards leading to Rule # juggling.

A horrid mess of porridge.
You are selling your scholastic soul just to try to change some Authorized Version texts.

You should stick to verses like 1 Timothy 3:16, where you AFFIRM the AV text.

You might even be able to help on the heavenly witnesses, AFFIRMING the AV text. Assist in refuting the Snapp-Hofstetter nonsense.

 

[Brianrw]

Glassius omitted 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 5:21, which he should have included if he thought there was a rule.

Glassius literally states the rule among his rules of usage regarding the Greek article. The TR, which Glassius uses, contains commas in the two examples above after God.

Am I correct in understanding your rule as follows?

1. Sharp offers 2 Thess. 1:12 and 1 Timothy 5:21 as examples of a construction fitting the rule.
2. Both texts contain commas that break up the construction in Beza's TR, so neither construction fits the rule (the latter may involve a variant)
3. Therefore Glassius, because he does not state these in support of the rule, does not see this as a rule at all

I don't see how that conclusion follows. Please revise.

Glassius is all over the map, scholastically unsteady, so the reviewer of the Critical Review was fine. Your pained criticisms go nowhere, you were just trying to make a diversion from giving an apology of integrity for your faux "obscure" quote. Diversion rejected.

Glassius had been your hero on the matter thus far until this morning. What changed? Is it because his statement of the rule is not actually materially different from Sharp's?