the most wonderful handy-dandy exception - "not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons"

[Steven Avery]

Sharp’s Rule and Antitrinitarian Theologies: A Bicentennial Defense of Granville
Sharp’s Argument for the Deity of Christ
Robert M. Bowman, Jr. (1998 Revised Edition)
https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/SharpsRule.pdf

The Atlanta Christian Apologetics Project
http://www.AtlantaApologist.org

and if the nouns are (d) not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons.

 

[Steven Avery]

b-greek - Wes Williams
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2000-October/013953.html

One reviewer 190 years ago expressed his sentiment on the formulation of limitations on limitations to form a "rule" to promote doctrine. Daniel Veysie proposed an additional limitation on Sharp's "rule" in his work "On the Greek Prepositive Article, its Nature and Uses," Oxford, 1810. This work came under attack, in "The Monthly Review," Vol. 67, 1812, pp. 161-178, 273-290. The reviewer wrote on pp. 284, 285:

Monthly Review
https://books.google.com/books?id=lYQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA284

"Yet Mr. Veysie has added further limitations to those which were invented by Mr. Sharp. . . . Verily, this adding of limitation to limitation appeareth to us to be 'all vanity and vexation of spirit!' We would advise the advocates for the rule to be contended with _one_ limitation, which we are rather surprised that they have not long ago adopted; since it requires no great comprehension of mind to see that it will furnish them with all that they seek, will cut off every example that can possibly lift up his head against the rule, and will render it really inviolable. We would recommend it to the to say that, if one of the nouns be theos and the other any personal description of Jesus, in that case they _must_ denote one and the same individual."

Of the Greek prepositive article, its nature and uses; a grammatical dissertation (1810)
Daniel Veysie
http://books.google.com/books?id=scoUAAAAQAAJ

Veysie - "they have narrowed the rule only to maintain the rule"

 

[Steven Avery]

Middleton - "absolutely incompatible" -
http://books.google.com/books?id=0LfTEuP9cV0C&pg=PA67

Monthly Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=hAAwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156

Mack Truck exception clause -

 

[Brianrw]

Middleton - "absolutely incompatible" -
http://books.google.com/books?id=0LfTEuP9cV0C&pg=PA67

Interesting seeing far-back examples from the 5th/6th century BC, I'm not sure how classical examples touch Koine Greek, and the Greek spoken in subsequent ages.

But I'm also curious how, for examples, "the wars of the Peloponnesians and Athenians" (τον πολέμων των πελοποννησίων και αθηναίων) falls under the category of singular, personal epithets, to which the rule applies?

Or how does μεγιστας και ελαχιστας ("maximum and minimum"), without an article, and without a subject supplied?

Or how does των μύθων τοις Τρωικοις και Περσικοις ("the myths of the Trojans and Persians")?

Or how does τοις Θάσιοις και βυζαντιοις ("the Thassians and the Byzantines")?

Or how does τους Τραγωδούς τε και Κωμωδούς ("the Tragedies and Comedies")?

Or how does εν όσοις υπάρχει το προτέρων και υστέρων ("in those [plural] who exist before and after")? And why could this not exist in the singular, of one person?

Or how does περί του αδύνατου τε και αναγκαίου ("about the impossible and necessary")?

Or how does το ταυτό και έτερον ("the same and another")?

Or how doesτου αρτίου και περιττού, του δικαίου και άδικου ("of the even and odd, of the just and unjust")?

How does a group of examples that break every condition of the rule "destroy the rule itself" (which applies to singular, personal epithets)?

 

[Steven Avery]

You like Glassius, but he blundered right and left in applying his ideas, hitting the wrong verses. At least he was aware that you should be careful with article claims, which does apply to his hopeful monster claims on the wrong verses.

You say Sharp did not know his rule, he was essentially a grammatical (and textual) moron, by your reckoning.

Now you say his biggest supporter, Middleton, was a disaster. Another Sharpian moron.

You have totally disowned the changes made by Daniel Wallace. Without any analysis as to why he changed everything. Another Sharpian moron.

The Wallace support by J. Edward Komoszewski, with the statistical analysis, you considered a joke. Too absurd to even be moronic.

So you have to start fresh, and write a book or paper, like Daniel Wallace did, and find some supporters.

You agreed that you have to mind-read the New Testament writers to guess how they understood the Winter categories. The rules change based on how Peter, Paul and Jude look at Greek grammar categories and buckets as filtered through Sharp and the various Winter corrections.

You are obviously special pleading right and left, you have a target (two verses for sure, and maybe more based on your ambiguities) and the Rules are made, defined and adjusted to meet the special NT target. Try to find this "Rule" outside of New Testament writings.

And I am understanding now that the "Granville Sharp Rule for Fools" is far too kind. Well, it does describe the dupes, but not the charlatan rule makers.

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

btw, Why did you say Holy Spirit is a proper name, but not Paraclete? Why would one be an "epithet" but not the other?

Proper names, personal descriptions, epithets, all are part of your mind-numbing experience.

Lord, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, Christ.
Paul would have to analyze grammar categories to guide his writing. To determine whether it fits the Sharp Rules. Wait, if I use this one it means Jesus is God, but not if I use this other one. What idiocy. And Paul might do the categories and definitions differently that Peter, Jude et al. None dare call this scholarship.

Even a bright guy like you should some day wake up and smell the herb tea. However, you are simply bound in grammatical iniquity.

Nothing in your Rules really makes sense.
Anything that does not fit becomes part of the rule as an exception.

The Rule actually presupposes Trinitarian Orthodoxy, with a rather wild definition of "persons", similar to that of Social Trinitarians, and generally disclaimed by doctrinal writers. So the Rule is worthless even coming out of the gate. It is Preaching to the Choir. As scholarship, it is dung.

Psst. You could claim Titus 2:13 as an identity verse without any recourse to being a Rule Fool.
You would be wrong, and trying to correct the AV, but at least you would maintain some scholastic integrity.

 

[Brianrw]

Please stop launching into unnecessary and erroneous diatribes that both misstate and misrepresent my views, and are akin to slander. Usually ad hominem attacks are a last resort when the argument is being lost.

I'll respond to some of the more glaring misstatements from above, and for the rest will urge the readers to take what you say with a grain of salt, and look at my actual statements instead.

You like Glassius, but he blundered right and left in applying his ideas, hitting the wrong verses. At least he was aware that you should be careful with article claims, which does apply to his hopeful monster claims on the wrong vers

Glassius was your champion until you realized he directly contradicted you, at which point he became an incoherent blunderer to you.

Proper names, personal descriptions, epithets, all are part of your mind-numbing experience.

It seems that you are trying to make something incredibly difficult and confusing out of something that is in fact not difficult at all.

Nothing in your Rules really makes sense.
Anything that does not fit becomes part of the rule as an exception.

The rule applies to singular, personal epithet. That is not a rule with a list of a hundred exceptions, nor is it a complex or confusing statement. Every example that fails to fall under that rule will fail on one, two, or all of those points.

Now you say his biggest supporter, Middleton, was a disaster. Another Sharpian moron.

I didn't. You posted Middleton's quotes as though they supported your position. I translated them so you could see they didn't.

You agreed that you have to mind-read the New Testament writers to guess how they understood the Winter categories. The rules change based on how Peter, Paul and Jude look at Greek grammar categories and buckets as filtered through Sharp and the various Winter corrections.

I agreed to no such thing. I said that though "Christ," which means one who is ceremonially anointed, is in scripture used as a title, but some people take it as a proper name. That does not change a rule, it just affects how someone might translate one passage of scripture in modern times.

As this would affect precisely one passage of scripture, I feel your statement above is quite exaggerated and unnecessary.

You have totally disowned the changes made by Daniel Wallace. Without any analysis as to why he changed everything. Another Sharpian moron.

I didn't call him a moron, nor is he. I didn't "disown" Wallace because I am not a follower of his work. His statement of the rule is as follows, which I think is unnecessarily verbose:

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.​

​

The problem is that Wallace has broadened from "epithet" to "common noun." This walks him into the larger problem that ordinal and cardinal numbers also fall under the class of common nouns, and so he has to now note them as exceptions. This is not really an additional exception, since they didn't fall under Sharp's "personal description"/Glassius' "epithet" in the first place. They also don't fall under Wallace's #2 (personal), and with the exception of "first" or "one," cannot otherwise be considered "singular." So as I said, the rule as stated by Wallace is not wrong, per se. It is just unnecessarily complex.

There is nothing above that is not covered in the simple statement Singular, personal epithet, which by that very statement excludes personal names, ordinals, things, plurals. So I don't need to make a more convoluted statement as above.

The Wallace support by J. Edward Komoszewski, with the statistical analysis, you considered a joke. Too absurd to even be moronic.

You're putting words in my mouth. I thought a statistical analysis was a waste of time, but I didn't say his argument was a joke. It's his prerogative to do so. Someone may find it useful, just not me.

Psst. You could claim Titus 2:13 as an identity verse without any recourse to being a Rule Fool.
You would be wrong, and trying to correct the AV, but at least you would maintain some scholastic integrity.

Titus 2:13 in the AV calls Christ "the great God and our Saviour." My scholastic integrity is just fine. This is the way the Greek writers read it. It is the way the Latin writers read it. It is the way the English commentators read it from 1611 to 1798. It's even noted in the Greek edition utilized by the AV translators. More than enough evidence has been produced by me in support of this, and I'm not seeing you turning up much in support of your views except the writings of Unitarians, Socinians, and Jehovah's Witnesses--heretical movements that are notorious for corrupting the scriptures.

 

[Steven Avery]

Please stop launching into unnecessary and erroneous diatribes that both misstate and misrepresent my views, and are akin to slander. Usually ad hominem attacks are a last resort when the argument is being lost.

You obviously do not know what is an ad hominem, either by the classical or modern usage.

Saying you are a bright guy who should see the errors of his position is NOT an ad hominem.

 

[Steven Avery]

Middleton was dealing with the actual Sharp Rule not one of your reformulations. It is anachronistic to pretend the Winter Rules should be used by Middleton. Logic 101.

 

[Steven Avery]

The problem is that Wallace has broadened from "epithet" to "common noun." This walks him into the larger problem that ordinal and cardinal numbers also fall under the class of common nouns, and so he has to now note them as exceptions. This is not really an additional exception, since they didn't fall under Sharp's "personal description"/Glassius' "epithet" in the first place. They also don't fall under Wallace's #2 (personal), and with the exception of "first" or "one," cannot otherwise be considered "singular." So as I said, the rule as stated by Wallace is not wrong, per se. It is just unnecessarily complex.

Go back to Sharp.
Where is the supposed “epithet” category?

Are you just making things up?

 

[Brianrw]

You've basically been attacking my character and (almost immediately above on this page) my motives, which is ad hominem. I'm not looking at a target. In another place I must have listed at least thirty examples in the new testament, just in a short space, where the same rule of the article is applied. I apply it the same to them as I do to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. I apply the same grammatical rules to 2 Peter 1:11 as I do the identical construction of 2 Peter 1:1. And you have yet to demonstrate any special pleading on my part, and this is all the more evident in the way you consistently misstate, misrepresent, and utterly exaggerate my views beyond recognition.

Your argument is not strong when it rests on such tactics.

Go back to Sharp.
Where is the supposed “epithet” category?

It's the word used by Glassius in his statement of the rule. It's a characterizing word or title accompanying or in place of a noun. If you want, I can go back to Sharp's wordy statement but you kept pretending I made that up as well. You were actually accusing me of reformulating Sharp's rule when I was applying it exactly, which was absolutely absurd.

Singular​

= to Sharp, who states, "except the nouns be . . . in the plural number." (p. 6)​

​

Personal ​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description," etc. (p. 3)​

​

Personal description, etc.​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" (p.3) and "except the nouns be proper names" (p. 6)​

Please explain exactly how I have "reformulated" Sharp's rule?

You'll note that plurals, proper names, ordinals, and (impersonal) things never applied to Sharp's rule to begin with. Therefore it is not a "reformulation" to call out people trying to discredit it with examples that involve plurals, ordinals, things, proper names.

Middleton was dealing with the actual Sharp Rule not one of your reformulations. It is anachronistic to pretend the Winter Rules should be used by Middleton. Logic 101.

Please state below how my condensed statement of the rule (above, for your convenience) has added or changed the requirements as given by Sharp in his 1803 remarks on the definite article.

 

[Steven Avery]

.It's the word used by Glassius in his statement of the rule.

Sharp formulated the supposed Rule.

Epithet is a confusing word, and it was not part of Sharp’s Rule.

You want it in the brand new Winter Rule, which goes nowhere.

I list various NT words, and you are unable to say which are “epithets” and which are not, and why, so we know a priori if Paul or Peter will think them subject to identity-article grammar (Based on your mind-reading.)

==========

Comforter, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of holiness, Gift

Lord, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, Son, Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, God of Israel, the living God, Word

Father, God, God the Father, Father God, Jehovah

==========

Which of these 25 are subject to Winter Rule #1, as epithets, and which are not, and why.

This is simply asking you to define the usage of a confusing term.

==========

So your Rule is already outside of Sharp and a pile of junk.

And then we go into “persons” and all your other categories like “proper names”.

We have junk everywhere.

epiithet
noun
1. an adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality characteristic of the person or thing mentioned.
"old men are often unfairly awarded the epithet “dirty.”

Why not be honest and admit that the definitions and exceptions are confusing and flexible, and are juggled around for one purpose, to end up with the “right” verses standing,

Try to be honest.

 

[Brianrw]

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.
-Glassius, Sacred Philology

Sharp formulated the supposed Rule.

Epithet is a confusing word, and it was not part of Sharp’s Rule.

You want it in the Winter Rule,

noun

1. an adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality characteristic of the person or thing mentioned.
   "old men are often unfairly awarded the epithet “dirty.”"

I quoted sharp saying "personal description," and you kept pretending they were my words and I made them up as a reformulation of the rule. So I switched to Glassius because I was tired of the nonsense. Then you say I made up what Glassius said, so I'll go back to Sharp. It doesn't matter to me either way, since I don't personally see the difference.

So again, let's make this clear that I am following Sharp's formulation of the rule without emendation:​

Singular​

= to Sharp, who states, "except the nouns be . . . in the plural number." (p. 6)​

​

Personal ​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description," etc. (p. 3)​

​

Personal description, etc.​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" (p.3) and "except the nouns be proper names" (p. 6)​

Please explain exactly how I have "reformulated" Sharp's rule?

You'll note that plurals, proper names, ordinals, and (impersonal) things never applied to Sharp's rule to begin with. Therefore it is not a "reformulation" to call out people trying to discredit it with examples that involve plurals, ordinals, things, proper names.

 

[Steven Avery]

Waiting for your answer on the 22 terms above.

==========

Comforter, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of holiness, Gift

Lord, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, Son, Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Word

Father, God, God the Father, Father God, Jehovah, God of Israel, the living God

==========

Which of these 25 are subject to Winter Rule #1, as epithets, and which are not, and why?

This is simply asking you to define the usage of a confusing term.

==========n

If you cannot say, there is no reason to waste more time on other problems, the Winter Rule is junk.

 

[Brianrw]

Comforter, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of holiness

Lord, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, Son, Christ, Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, God of Israel, the living God

Father, God, God the Father, Father God, Jehovah

The proper names in the list are Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, Jesus, and Jehovah.

The rest are appellatives (an identifying name or title; appellation)

Again.​

Singular​

= to Sharp, who states, "except the nouns be . . . in the plural number." (p. 6)​

​

Personal ​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description," etc. (p. 3)​

​

Personal description, etc.​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" (p.3) and "except the nouns be proper names" (p. 6)​

Please explain exactly how I have "reformulated" Sharp's rule to make it the "Winter Rule"?

 

[Steven Avery]

The proper names in the list are Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, Jesus, and Jehovah.

The other 22 are epithets?

Paraclete and God and Christ and Son are an “adjective or descriptive phrase”?

Are you sure English is your native language?

Why is Holy Spirit a “proper name”, it is grouped with Father and Son, and Word, which are not names.

Jesus Christ (added) and Lord Jesus Christ are not proper names?
Really?

Didn’t you say that they would depend on the grammatical thinking categories of the NT author?
Or, more precisely, your subjective perception of their Greek grammatical categories.

===========

Do you pray to the Holy Spirit?

Do you pray to the Yahweh-Jupiter entity?

 

[Steven Avery]

I’ll add some more majestic titles that you falsely call epithets here:

Philippians 1:19 (AV)
For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer,
and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

 

[Steven Avery]

2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us
through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Jesus Christ is a proper name to Peter.

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Jesus Christ is a proper name to Paul.

Even by your own definitions, there is no identity.

 

[Steven Avery]

Ephesians 5:5 (AV)
For this ye know, that no whoremonger,
nor unclean person, nor covetous man,
who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

No epithets.

Anyway, you have been unsure and confused on this verse, for whatever reasons.

After all this you still do not have a final answer.

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.

I am reviewing Ephesians 5:5, which like Colossians 2:2, is a carryover from the Bishop's Bible and both involve an archaic construction. In the latter, we read "of God, and of the Father," which is intended to refer to one person.

 

[Steven Avery]

The other 22 are epithets?

Paraclete and God and Christ and Son are an “adjective or descriptive phrase”?

Your micro-managing silly grammar claims is a cheapening of the Holiness of God and Christ. And other majestic titles given in the Bible for the Creator, for the Messiah, etc.

This approach should bring any true Christian to a state of revulsion. That revulsion about your grammatical arrogance against God is one reason I am spending extra time and effort.

 

[Brianrw]

Steven Avery said:
Comforter, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of holiness

Lord, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, Son, Christ, Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, God of Israel, the living God

Father, God, God the Father, Father God, Jehovah

The only reason you keep going on about this is that you want to keep your "naive modalism" example intact, which actually doesn't fit the rule.

Your micro-managing silly grammar claims is a cheapening of the Holiness of God and Christ. And other majestic titles given in the Bible for the Creator, for the Messiah, etc.

This approach should bring any true Christian to a state of revulsion. That revulsion about your grammatical arrogance against God is one reason I am spending extra time and effort.

This is a sophism. Christ's Holiness is not cheapened by discussing the grammatical distinction of terms and how they convey ideas in language. I could argue the reverse, that by obfuscating these passages you are robbing Christ of His proper distinction of "God" in such places.

The proper names/nouns in the list are Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, Jesus, and Jehovah. I don't recall seeing "Word" when I read the list before, but yes, that would serve as a proper name as well, and the same would be so of Immanuel.

The rest are appellatives (an identifying name or title; appellation) or join appellatives in apposition to another noun. Proper names refer to such names as "Steven," "Brian," "Peter," "Paul," "Jesus," etc. Does it cheapen Christ's Holiness to say "Lord," for instance, is a title?

Apellative​

1. noun A common name, in distinction from a proper name. A common name, or appellative, stands for a whole class, genus, or species of beings, or for universal ideas. Thus, tree is the name of all plants of a particular class; plant and vegetable are names of things that grow out of the earth. A proper name, on the other hand, stands for a single thing; as, Rome, Washington, Lake Erie.
   
2. noun An appellation or title; a descriptive name.

Oxford Learner's ​

a common noun that is used to address a person or thing, for example ‘mother’ or ‘doctor’​

​

Proper Name (also called a proper noun)​

noun: proper name​

1. a name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters, e.g., Larry, Mexico, and Boston Red Sox. (Oxford languages)
   
   
2. A common noun is the generic name for one item in a class or group. A proper noun, on the other hand, names a noun precisely . . . The distinction between common and proper nouns is usually quite easy to make, but it can occasionally be more difficult to intuit. (Grammerly)

You should be able to figure it out from there. For instance, Jehovah is called both "God" and "Father." "God" describes Him as a deity. "Father" describes Him as one having a son. Jesus is called "Lord," which describes him as a ruler; "Christ," which describes Him as one who has been ceremonially anointed; and "Son of God," which describes Him as being God's Son. Spirit of Truth identifies one particular spirit, that which pertains to Truth, and is used in reference to the Holy Spirit. "Comforter" is a descriptive name of the Holy Spirit as one who brings comfort (thus, "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost," John 14:26).

There are many called "god," "lord," "father," "son," "comforter." There are also spirits. Spirit of God refers to a single spirit which is of God, which is the Holy Spirit. "Jesus of Nazereth" distinguishes Jesus from others named Jesus by stating His home town. "God of Israel" denotes one specific god, that of the Israelite nation (Jehovah), as opposed to the so-called gods of other countries.

Anyway, you have been unsure and confused on this verse, for whatever reasons.

It's not important to me as it is to you, since the validity of the rule does not hinge on whether "Christ" is taken as an appellative (which seems to me most probable) or a proper name/noun. But the latter is how it is viewed in English. As even Grammerly states, "The distinction between common and proper nouns is usually quite easy to make, but it can occasionally be more difficult to intuit." Since this affects only a single place in the whole New Testament, I'm not concerned as you are.

In the meantime, I'm looking into the early writers and the English of the Bishop's Bible era to see how it was commented on. I don't feel the need to rush. Until then, as I've said, I'll err on the side of caution. Further needling of this

After all this you still do not have a final answer.

The rule is not affected by me having a "final answer." But I will take my time to look into it, and not be hurried by incessant badgering.

Again.​

Singular​

= to Sharp, who states, "except the nouns be . . . in the plural number." (p. 6)​

​

Personal ​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description," etc. (p. 3)​

​

Personal description, etc.​

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" (p.3) and "except the nouns be proper names" (p. 6)​

Please explain exactly how I have "reformulated" Sharp's rule to make it the "Winter Rule"?

You've accused me of this a number of times. If you can't substantiate the claim, then you both need to drop this nonsense and you owe me an apology for slandering me thus all over this forum.