incredible Glassius analysis of misplaced grammar and article arguments

Steven Avery

Administrator
Early discussions on article concepts similar to the later Granville Sharp stuff.
Not including Erasmus and Beza, who are handled separately.

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

Salomo Glassius (1593-1656)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomo_Glassius

Christian Noldius (1626-1683)
https://words.fromoldbooks.org/Chalmers-Biography/n/noldius-christian.html

check for the right Rambach - it was long ago in 1834 so it is more likely:
Johann Jacob Rambach (1693-1735)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Rambach_(Theologe,_1693)
or possibly
Johann Jakob Rambach - (1737-1818)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Rambach_(Theologe,_1737)
unlikely:
August Jacob Rambach (1777-1851)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Jacob_Rambach

Augustinus Dathus (Dalthus)
Agostino Dati (1420-1478)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostino_Dati
http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/itali/autoren/augustinus_itali.html

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

Theological Repository (1784)
https://books.google.com/books?id=jQUUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA374
p. 374-380

This article is sent in by "Erasmus" and covers Glassius and Noldius.

Granville Sharp had started up with his nonsense in 1778,.
1778 letter - p. 1-24 (not sure if it was published anywhere at that time, and it may have a lot of back-editing.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=e1oXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1


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
ECW
Didymus Alexandrinus ...
Origen ...
Asterius, the friend of Arius ...
Athanasius quotes Asterius
Photinians and some early church writers


(Socinius ,a certain rule ..) ****
Bellarmine and Antichrist
Luther
Joseph Scaliger
Causaubon
Christian Noldius

Notice how some of these are ECW!

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

The Biblical Repository, Volume 4 (1834)
Prof. Stuart on the Greek article
https://books.google.com/books?id=ceQZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA304

Glass and Rambach long ago called in question the rule that we have now been examining; and Winer and Matthiae have most fully shown how small a claim it has upon our acknowledgment.

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

Barry Hofstetter
The same source on b-Latin turned up a quotation from Carlo Passaglia, (19th century) who cites Augustinus Dathius (or Dathus) with a nearly identical statement. If the attribution is correct, it's quite significant, since Dathus is a 15th-early 16th century figure (a contemporary of Erasmus). It's quite possible that Glassius was using Dathus without attribution.
https://web.archive.org/web/2014021...11/13/glassius-beduhn-and-the-kjv-translators

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

Carlo Passaglia (1850)
http://books.google.com/books?id=5QlMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA352

Passaglia and Dathus.jpg

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

In 2011 some of Glassius material was discussed on the B-Latin Yahoogroup forum.
That has a Glassius pun and other material.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matthew Henry, or the later contributors after he passed, partly working with some notes from his studies, surprises us with a Sharpian style analysis of Titus 2:13, overemphasizing the article. Also extracts from 2 Peter 1:1 and the mention of Ephesians 5:5.

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and Ephesians 5:5
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...our-saviour-jesus-christ.455/page-2#post-8511

Ephesians 5:5
https://books.google.com/books?id=nLBLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA193

1635600344607.png

1635600681989.png


2 Peter 1:1
1635601284707.png

1635601797561.png


 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The next pre-Sharp addition is Thomas Ridgley.

the fun-damental questions of interpretation and text/punctuation

He even talks of correcting the AV, which is in the Sharp title, so he may have been one of Sharp's plagiarism sources.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sharp hss a reference to Daniel Whitby, and he has an article reference. This can be searched out in his commentary.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
We have much more on Glassius :

First, Brian attacks the reference, and does not find the spot, and goes bazooka.

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.

And you draw more irrelevant conclusions from Glassius, who while mentioning silly abuses of the article, does not touch this topic at all. .... thou shalt not bear false witness.

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" :ROFLMAO:) rule.


So Brian errred on all this. Fair enough. It happens.
And never had even a small mea culpa.

He did do a nice analysis of another section.

Note the unseemly belligerance, mocking etc. On his own false conclusion. This is the real problem.

And another example of why Brian is losing credibility.

The new Glassius material is in three posts here:
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
So Brian errred on all this. Fair enough. It happens.
And never had even a small mea culpa.
It is one thing to assert I have erred. It is another to show that I've erred. You haven't done that.

I'm not trying to mock or be belligerent, so I'm sorry you've taken it that way and I apologize for hurting your feelings.

First, Brian attacks the reference, and does not find the spot, and goes bazooka.
I didn't attack the reference. It's a really good article and I enjoyed it. But he doesn't say in it what you think he is saying. He's detailing abuses of the article, but nothing that touches the topic at hand. I told you the truth above. You've said I "erred," but have not showed it. Not even a quote or page number to show what you say I missed.

Glassius provides a very specific commentary on the relevant texts here, but not in the article you provided. Among his many points detailing the Usage of the Article (De Articulo Graecorum), Glassius writes:
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 . . . 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, 2 Cor. 1[:3]. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.​
The word "epithet" means "an adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality characteristic of the person or thing mentioned" or "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing" (MW) It is precisely the same thing Sharp notes in his Rule 1. Glassius goes on to note that the usage cannot be said to be universal because it cannot be applied in instances where the plural is used, which Sharp also notes.

Thus he confines the usage to personal and singular, and that it must relate to an epithet. How is that different from Sharp?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
It is one thing to assert I have erred. It is another to show that I've erred. You haven't done that.

You aggressively said that Glassius had nothing on the topic (of the Sharp verses). That was an error.

You did not find it, fair enough, and you try to blame me for not finding it quicker. I gave you what I had at the time.

Your tone was way off.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
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 . . .

Is this your view now?
That Jude 4 should be an identity verse in the TR-AV text?

You dance around so much, it is very hard to keep track.
 

Brianrw

Member
Is this your view now?
That Jude 4 should be an identity verse in the TR-AV text?

You dance around so much, it is very hard to keep track.
I only quoted Glassius, I did not offer a comment on that passage in any place, one way or the other, so I'm not sure how that is "danc[ing] around." I've not changed my point in any matter. The problem is you don't seem shy about wresting my views or what I am saying, even to the extent of literally putting words in my mouth or confusing what I am saying with what someone else is saying. You're the one who is being unsteady here, because you have no compass or foundation in the matter, and are a terrible listener.

Since you asked, thought I've noted it before, the Textus Receptus has a comma in the passage in (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν) which breaks up the construction. So strictly speaking, no. But if you disregard or omit the Greek comma, yes, that's what the passage says. It is one of Sharp's Christological passages, but not typically discussed by modern grammarians who follow the critical text where "God" is omitted. But even there, it is still a "Sharp" construction and modern translators do follow the construction along the line of "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Since you asked, thought I've noted it before, the Textus Receptus has a comma in the passage in (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν) which breaks up the construction. So strictly speaking, no. But if you disregard or omit the Greek comma, yes, that's what the passage says. It is one of Sharp's Christological passages, but not typically discussed by modern grammarians who follow the critical text where "God" is omitted. But even there, it is still a "Sharp" construction and modern translators do follow the construction along the line of "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Jude 4 (AV)
For there are certain men crept in unawares,
who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,
ungodly men,
turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness,
and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

So you agree this is one of the dozens of dual addressing verses?
Where there is a clear separation/distinction between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord God.

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

So do we care how anyone translates a corruption?

Jude 4 (NRSV)
For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

So now Master/Potentate fits your description of a Rule One "personal description"? Not Rule 4?
Can you explain how that is determined?
Thanks!

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

Steven Avery

Administrator
I only quoted Glassius, I did not offer a comment on that passage in any place, one way or the other, so I'm not sure how that is "danc[ing] around."

If you think he was wrong, or blundering, you should indicate that at the time of the quote.
It certainly looks like approval otherwise.

Also on Ephesians 5:5 you have been vague and equivocal, dancing around.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Looking above on Hofstetter discussing Dathus.

Dathus was really writing around 1450, so if he is correctly mentioned, we would find an article aspect in his writings long before Erasmus.

Agostino Dati
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostino_Dati

Augustinus <Dati> (Agostino Dati, 1420-1478):
[ Opera ] Augustini dati senensis opera / [Hrsg.: Hieronymus Dathus Nicolaus Dathus]. - Senis: ex Archetypo per Symionem Nicolai Nardi, 1503. Sexto kal. Novembris. - [14] , CCLXXXX lvs. ; 2o. - Type area 27 x 16,5 cm - Call number: Sch 051/254
http://mateo.uni-mannheim.de/itali/autoren/augustinus_itali.html#ad03

The 2011 b-latin Yahoogroups reference to Carlos Passaglia referencing Dathus should be on another computer.

However, it might be right here, after Passaglia discusses Sharp verses.
At any rate, we appear to be quoting a 1400s scholar on article usage.
And we can see if Glassius is dependent on Dathus, however Glassius may be far more thorough .

Yet there is an identical quote!
So if the writings here are accurate, Glassius at least had Dathus in front of him and used his text.

Commentarius de praerogativis beati Petri
http://books.google.com/books?id=5QlMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA352

1637373478116.png


Dathius is also mentioned on p. 414 and p. 465.

Glassius quote
https://books.google.com/books?id=qcAPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA163
1637374048593.png


Alternate ref to Glassius
https://books.google.com/books?id=JbnkAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA157
1637374375670.png
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
If you think he was wrong, or blundering, you should indicate that at the time of the quote.
It certainly looks like approval otherwise.

Also on Ephesians 5:5 you have been vague and equivocal, dancing around.
No, I'm just not afraid to produce evidence that may oppose my own, as in Ephesians 5:5. I don't agree with Sharp, Chrysostom, Theodoret, but the fact is true that in the OT, anointed was used as an epithet. And if I find writers who support the opposing view, I will quote them. Today, we regard it of Jesus as a name. Because I can't "mind-read" which way Paul and his contemporaries understood it, I will err on the side of caution and treat it as a proper name.

As for Jude 4, he quotes a passage without punctuation, and thus translates it correctly, so there was nothing to note or argue. The version of the TR I have, however, has a comma. If Sharp quotes from Alexandrinus, where the TR or CT disagree, that does not automatically make his translation wrong. It's just a textual issue.

I fully translated Glassius' entire statement on this matter, which includes the texts noted above. The problem is both of those sources above have obscured the context. Again, it is as follows, including the statement of the rule:

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​
Yet there is an identical quote!
Not quite identical, but very nearly. There is some difference after "buyers," where the quote ends, Ex quo patet dubia et infirma saepe esse, quae ex articulorum emphasi desmuntur argumento pro articulis fidei comprobandis, "From this it is evident that there are often doubts and weakness in such arguments that are gathered from the emphasis of articles as an argument for the approval of the articles of faith."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
No, I'm just not afraid to produce evidence that may oppose my own, as in Ephesians 5:5. I don't agree with Sharp, Chrysostom, Theodoret, but the fact is true that in the OT, anointed was used as an epithet. And if I find writers who support the opposing view, I will quote them. Today, we regard it of Jesus as a name. Because I can't "mind-read" which way Paul and his contemporaries understood it, I will err on the side of caution and treat it as a proper name.

So the actual meaning, and translational text, will vary based on how the apostolic writer thinks of the grammatical category of names. (Or proper names.) And that will be parsed through the scholarly view of the thinking patterns of the apostolic writers. Mind-reading taken to a high art.

And I am amazed that any Rule aficionado actually thinks this is serious.

Could use its own thread - or put it on the GSR satire thread.
 

Brianrw

Member
So the actual meaning, and translational text, will vary based on how the apostolic writer thinks of the grammatical category of names. (Or proper names.) And that will be parsed through the scholarly view of the thinking patterns of the apostolic writers. Mind-reading taken to a high art.

And I am amazed that any Rule aficionado actually thinks this is serious.

Could use its own thread - or put it on the GSR satire thread.
Somehow you come up with these strange points from your own mind. And you've never had experience translating, have you? What other languages do you speak?

Do you know any Greek at all? Even slight? (You should answer, but you won't. Nor do you need to, because I know the answer already).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The story from Granville Sharp was shady, and there is a suspicion of plagiarism. (Even in the Burgess telling there is a strange gap and a helper unidentified.) This was noted by John Pye Smith

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah: An Inquiry with a View to a Satisfactory Determination of the Doctrine Taught in the Holy Scriptures Concerning the Person of Christ, Including a Careful Examination of the Rev. Thomas Belsham's Cahn Inquiry and of Other Unitarian Works of the Same Subject, Volume 3 (1821)
John Pye Smith
http://books.google.com/books?id=gAE3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA696

1640377224976.png


More details here.
https://web.archive.org/web/2017031...eg_Stafford_Dan_Wallace_revised_1.30.2012.pdf

It is also possible that Glassius was part of the plagiarism motif.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
If you wish to wrestle with the dead, you need be accurate in your accusations, since they are no longer around to defend themselves. The first reference does not substantiate your accusation of plagiarism. The above note is attached to the statement, "This is the constant usage of the New Testament writers."

A link to a 32 page paper is far too broad. I will read it as I have time, but a search on plagiar yielded no hits.

As has been noted before, Sharp didn't "invent" the rule, but it existed long before him.

I remember answering it, and told you I have no Greek background.
As should be noted here, in answer to my comments above.

Many issues are exceedingly easy, I learn and study and understand, and refer to native Greek-fluent friends.
Also from elsewhere. Modern Greek and koine (Biblical) Greek are not the same.
 
Last edited:
Top