the naive modalism exception

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule (2004)
Daniel Wallace
https://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule


Calvin Winstanley illustrated from patristic literature instances in which, if Sharp’s rule applied, the personal distinctions within the Trinity would seem to be blurred. For example, Polycarp speaks of “glory to the God and Father and Holy Spirit” (τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι);208 Clement of Alexandria gives praise “to the only Father and Son” (τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ).209

....

There may be a different way to deal with Winstanley’s coup de grâce. As a preliminary comment to our suggestion, it should be pointed out that (1) all of the texts which belong in this fourth category are found in patristic literature;211 (2) all of the texts that Winstanley produced are, in fact, found in second or early third century patristic literature; (3) all of the texts involve only members of the Trinity; and (4) all of the texts involve at least two terms to describe the first person of the Trinity—e.g., “the only Father,” or “the God and Father,” etc.

It would seem that we are assuming too much about their own christological articulation when we read early church fathers. There are glimpses, here and there, that in their zeal to defend the deity of Christ they proved too much. Ignatius, for example, speaks of “the blood of God” (Eph. 1:1). The appellation “Lord and God” was often used of Christ, as well as “Savior and God,” though hardly ever was the reverse order observed in these early writers. Ignatius drops the conjunction altogether in most of his affirmations. Such language, of course, does seem to be appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of the apostolic age, but at the same time it renders the statements about the deity of Christ, if not more direct, certainly more blunt. Others seemed at times to blur the distinctions between members of the Trinity.212 This is not to say that they were unaware of the distinctions necessarily, but simply that their articulation was not what it would be in 325 or 451. At the same time, in their zeal to defend the faith—and to practice the faith—these fathers did occasionally overstate their case. Bousset argues that

This sort of hymnological community theology, the distinctive mark of which is a reveling in contradiction, finally had to lead to a complete deification, i.e., to the supplanting of God the Father or the denial of any difference between Father and Son. What is stirring here is naïve Modalism which the Logos theologians later met as their most suspicious and intolerant opponent.213

Bousset goes on to give illustrations from the second century writers who claimed that Christ “alone is the God of truth, indeed he himself [is] the Father of truth, Father of the heights, true and only God . . . “; he is even called “Lord merciful Father, redeemer Christ.”214 It is no wonder that Bousset quips, “Naïve Modalism cannot be more strongly expressed, and here it is expressed in the unreflective language of prayer.”215

208 Martyrdom of Polycarp, ch. 22.

209 Paedagogus 3.12.101.

210 Doctrine of the Greek Article, 67-69. Kuehne (“Christ’s Deity [Part IV],” 18-19), and Blum (“Studies in Problem Areas,” 32-34) use similar reasoning.

211 This, of course, would not inherently have to be the case.

212 Admittedly, the NT in places seems a bit fuzzy about such distinctions (cf. Acts 20:28; 2 Cor 3:17; 1 Thess 3:11, etc.).

213 Kyrios Christos, 327.

214 Ibid., 328-29.

215 Ibid., 329. For other early examples of such confusion, see R. A. Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 4, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, etc.

Also from Daniel Wallace:

Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (2009)
by Daniel B. Wallace
https://books.google.com/books?id=xD11FZNLWpYC&pg=PA271


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

On the earlier CARM forum this came up a lot, along with semantic pairing and flexible proper noun, and whether that means Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria were modalists, progressive revelation, a bit about Middleton, a Bowman note, and what this does to the Burgess claim that the GSR is "clear, definite and uniform", and Paul was a binitarian, according to Daniel Wallace.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Earlier to Brian

PBF -Titus 2:13 - the modern versions mangle "our Saviour Jesus Christ"
Quotes were given from Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria which looked to be breaking Sharp's Rule. There may be more.

Wallace in his paper blamed this on naive modalism (it was misprinted online as nave modalism .)
http://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
http://books.google.com/books?id=xD11FZNLWpYC&pg=PA271

Wallace got ripped to shreds on the b-Greek group for making doctrinal Christological exceptions.
However, creative exceptions is the name of the Granville Sharp game.

The phrase itself was used by:

Wilhelm Bossuet (1865-1920)
http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/BoussetOutline.pdf

Adolf Harnack (1851-1930)
https://books.google.com/books?id=XaE8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA52
https://books.google.com/books?id=XaE8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180

PBF
the naive modalism exception


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

b-greek forum
Examples of the Granville Sharp Rule Outside the NT
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=460&sid=615029

Extracts planned, including Christological aspects as on this thread.

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

ETC
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1632173735791#c6109656042167288179

Anonymous 9/20/2021 5:00 pm
Disregard, I found some citations in the BGreek thread you mentioned, summarizing a section of his monograph. Rather shocking considering that he makes the exact opposite statement (or implication) in his large grammar, i.e. that not a single patristic exception could be found. Though upon closer examination, what he actually says is that not a single patristic exception could be found *regarding the exegesis of those texts*, not regarding their own Greek usage.


"τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν" Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 4,8 (per Vasileios Tsaias) seems decisive, but I suppose the argument would be that here πατηρ and υιος are used as names ... Clearly I need to read the full monograph.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Another Exception to Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: A Further Response to Dan Wallace (With an Appendix) (2010)
Greg Stafford
http://www.elihubooks.com/data/topi.../Another_Exception_toSharpsrule_7.26.2010.pdf


1636886669190.png


62 Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos, JohnE. Seely, trans. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), page 327.

1636886906773.png

1636887004495.png


Stafford continues with additional exceptions to the bogus "rule".
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
General discussions including naive modalism.

James White's (mis)use of Melito of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son) (2011)
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/james-whites-misuse-of-melito-of-sardis.html

Doctrine of God and Christ. Bonner characterized Melito's teaching by Harnack's phrase 'naïve modalism"; i.e. Christ is equated with God with no serious consideration of the implications.


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

Melito of Sardis – Introduction (2013)
Joel Watts
https://unsettledchristianity.com/unus-deus-melito-of-sardis/

Campbell Bonner characterized Melito’s theology as naïve Modalism, since “Christ is equated with God with no serious considerations of the implications.” Campbell Bonner, The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis and Some Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel (London: Christophers, 1940), 2728. See Hall, Melito of Sardis, xliii. The theologian Krüger in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1888, p. 434, sqq commented that Alexander, the mentor of Athanasius and Bishop of Alexandra during the Nicene Council, studied the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up his tract περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος εἰς τὸ πάθος into a homiletical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to savour of ‘modalism.’ (Schaff)

Melito has a “Christocentric monotheism,” as seen also in all of his doxologies, which are all addressed to Christ, and never to the Father (On the Passover 10, 45, 65, 105; frag. 15; new frag. 2.23)


========================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Clement of Alexandria
https://lamejortraducciondelabiblia.blogspot.com/2017/02/la-regla-de-granville-sharp.html
"τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ"

6 τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, υἱῷ καὶ πατρί, παιδαγωγῷ καὶ διδασκάλῳ υἱῷ, σὺν καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι (Paed. 3.12.101).
Discussed by
Richard J. Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity,” NTS 27 (1981): 322–41

This Spanish site lays out the Greek

1636889406480.png


The Clement Greek text also shows up in a French review of Porter and Wallace, by Didier Fontaine, which has Staffords discussion of Royaards too.
http://areopage.net/blog/2014/01/11/sharps-rule-wallace-vs-porter/

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

Off the GSR topic.

Clement is reluctant to include the Holy Spirit (this is hymn doctrine) but it is an interesting topic.

The Angelomorphic Spirit in Early Christianity: Revelation, the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria

Schaaf
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.xii.html#fna_v.xiv.xii-p16.2
In Clement of Alexandria we find very little progress beyond this point. Yet he calls the Holy Spirit the third member of the sacred triad, and requires thanksgiving to be addressed to him as to the Son and the Father.1030
1030 Paed. III. p. 311: Ἐυχαριστοῦντας αἰνεῖν τῷ μόνῳ Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ —σὺν καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεῦματι.


===========================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
From the b-greek.

Paul Rittman
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1914&sid=7644eed0c2f389fcd08b06fea70e5be6#p1914

As far as the 24 instances, Wallace mentions six categories of examples (lists of more than two nouns, when an ordinal numbers is attached to one of the nouns, etc.); Wallace also mentioned one specific category.

"In a few patristic writers, particularly of the second and third centuries, we read of "the Father and Son" or similar expressions in a TSKS construction... But the fact that all such patristic violations of Sharp's rule spoke of members of the Trinity,... and that the same writers elsewhere gave ample evidence of writing in conformity to the semantics of Sharp's rule, suggests that this exception is not really an exception." (p. 281)

Then he goes on to discuss the difference between "person" and "being", the formula from the Nicene and Chalcedonian confessions. Not having read the book, it appears that he wasn't exactly saying that Clement et al. didn't follow this rule, but that they typically did, but occasionally (or perhaps even every time), when referring to the Trinity, would not.

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

Searching "patristic" in the Wallace book brings up more quotes. Not all are viewable online.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Starting to list the exception classes
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1907#p1907
Wallace
https://books.google.com/books?id=xD11FZNLWpYC&pg=PA132
1636897877837.png


In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article -substantive—καὶ -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.

99 By this point we are excluding from the purview of the rule indefinite pronouns functioning as articles before the second substantive. See previous discussion.
100 Except for the patristic class to be discussed in chapter 12. It is our contention that the patristic usage will not in any way modify this rule.


Calvin Winstanley summarized by Wallace
https://books.google.com/books?id=xD11FZNLWpYC&pg=PA132


1636897695513.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Six classes of exceptions after the original Sharp exceptions and before more like semantic pairing.

Winstanley exceptions and Wallace adds two more

generic singulars,
translation Greek
several substantives in the construction
patristic usage.
ordinal numerals
indefinite pronoun before the second substantive

More will be added here
semantic pairing - Bowman "not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons"
classical Greek exceptions from Middleton and Stafford
New Testament examples based on context or flexible definitions of proper nouns
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Let me take a play from the above playbook: I'm going to propose, in English, to demonstrate on the above criteria that the rule of the English article, "the" is itself bogus based on the construction:

"The nice administrator and researcher Steven Avery." (I am being facetious in saying what follows) While this could be understood as referring to one person, the article following before "nice administrator" and not before "researcher," the following constructions show that association to be ambiguous at best:
  1. "The only Father and Son." Clearly, the Father and Son are two persons, so the construction above must speak of two persons.
  2. "The first and second helping." Clearly, the first and second helping cannot be the same, therefore supporting that the above sentence speaks of two persons.
  3. "The dog, even the cockerspaniel, and the poodle." Clearly, these are three entities, not one. Again, supporting that the above passage speaks of two persons.
  4. "The axis and tilt of the earth." Again, clearly, supporting the two person view.
  5. "The car fixed by the father and son." Definitely shows the above passage refers to two persons.
  6. "The long and short of it." No question. The above passage refers to two persons.
Thus by these six exceptions, we conclude that 2 persons are in view: (1) "The nice administrator" and (2) the "researcher Steven Avery." Following the logic of the examples above, we can therefore conclude by these six exceptions that the rule of the Article in English is absolutely, 100%, a joke. An absolute rule for fools.

In this case, Greek and English are fairly similar. So let's go back and read what Sharp wrote, that the required nouns for Sharp's first rule are nouns "of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill." (Remarks, 1803, p. 3). Please reread those 6 examples now and tell me why "The nice administrator and researcher Steven Avery" is on person.

Wallace here, actually hasn't helped at all. The simple answer was already provided by Sharp.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
b-Greek - page 1
MAubrey
More accurately, there are a handful (24) of instances in the church fathers where the rule doesn't work. That particular section in Wallace's book (267-272) is what you'd be interested in there,
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1908#p1908

Some of those pages are not immediately available. Is the 24 the number of the handful ??
We shall see.

Paul Rittman - p. 1

As far as the 24 instances, Wallace mentions six categories of examples (lists of more than two nouns, when an ordinal numbers is attached to one of the nouns, etc.); Wallace also mentioned one specific category. "In a few patristic writers, particularly of the second and third centuries, we read of "the Father and Son" or similar expressions in a TSKS construction... But the fact that all such patristic violations of Sharp's rule spoke of members of the Trinity,... and that the same writers elsewhere gave ample evidence of writing in conformity to the semantics of Sharp's rule, suggests that this exception is not really an exception." (p. 281) Then he goes on to discuss the difference between "person" and "being", the formula from the Nicene and Chalcedonian confessions. Not having read the book, it appears that he wasn't exactly saying that Clement et al. didn't follow this rule, but that they typically did, but occasionally (or perhaps even every time), when referring to the Trinity, would not.

So it does look like 24 exception instances. And Wallace tries to add more categories of exceptions to the rule, such as a Trinity exception.

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

Vasileios Tsialas » July 25th, 2011
It is a logical tendency in the Greek language, not an absolute rule. It cannot be an absolute rule when it has exceptions, when it is so complicated in order to avoid (unsuccessfully) exceptions; it cannot be an absolute rule in a developing lingua franca spoken mostly by multinational groups, and when it overlooks overwhelming historical data in the case of theology.

Note that Vasileios is one of the few posters on this forum for whom Greek is his native tongue.

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1443989495692935/

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek
"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."

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

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek
b-Greek - page 2

I would be very interested to see how Wallace deals with cases as the ones below:

σαφῶς τὰ δύο πρόσωπα ἐπέδειξεν͵ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ.—Hippolytus, De benedictionibus Isaaci et Jacobi 76.4.
τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν.—Gregory Nyssenus, Contra Eunomium 4,8.

(and other 33 such occurrences with του πατρός και υιού in TLG [1st-5th centuries] C.E.)

Or:
κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν͵ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ Υἱοῦ.—Pseudo-Basilius,Oratio pro inimicis et amicis 30,828.

Or:
ληφθέντων αἰχμαλώτων αὐτοῦ τῆς μητρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν τέκνων ἔφυγεν.—Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 11,316.

As regards the historical evidence, it is impossible for me to consider that Paul and Peter where a kind of proto-Sabellians, identifying Christ with the Almighty God, and I think that I am in accordance with the mainstream scholarship of Patrology.

Beyond that, which can be easily proven, I think that Peter’s phraseology shows his word economy:

A ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
B ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

If B, which is in the text exactly after A, speaks of two persons, I don’t see why A cannot do the same. And I don’t believe that Peter was anxious enough to open a grammar book in order to check if his constructions comply with all the aspects of Sharp’s rule.

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

Daniel Wallace

But the fact that all such patristic violations of Sharp's rule spoke of members of the Trinity,... and that the same writers elsewhere gave ample evidence of writing in conformity to the semantics of Sharp's rule, suggests that this exception is not really an exception." (p. 281)

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

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek
b-Greek - page 2

If Wallace really means that there is a peculiar “Trinity-Grammar,” I really don’t understand what this could mean and how it could help us in reading 1 Peter 1:1.

1) To say that a specific doctrine has special grammatical rules sounds a bit weird to me. Of course, my knowledge and experience is nothing comparing to Wallace’, but I really need a heavy burden of evidence, before accepting something like that.

2) Wallace’ statement is misleading and seems fundamentally baseless because the definition of “Trinity” evolved during three centuries. Hence, if we don’t have a standard doctrine, how can we have a standard pattern of expression with standard meaning? Of course, we cannot. And can we speak of a “Trinity” in the NT? I believe the vast majority of experts in Biblical Studies and Patrology would deny that.

3) If the purpose of Sharp’s rule is to prove an fundamental aspect of the doctrine of Trinity, then to support this rule by taking for granted that there is a Trinity doctrine is a fallacy, and specifically a circular argument.

4) And, generally speaking, the argument seems to me a paradox. If Sharp’s rule doesn’t apply to the persons of the Trinity, then why do we apply it to 1 Peter 1:1, where (supposedly) we have persons of the “Trinity?”

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

David Lim
asks about John 13:14, where both Lord and Master have definite articles. He also gives the Josephus url.
John 13:14 (AV)
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
ει ουν εγω ενιψα υμων τους ποδας ο κυριος και ο διδασκαλος και υμεις οφειλετε αλληλων νιπτειν τους ποδας
if exceptions are based on the context, it cannot be a grammatical rule (changed later to syntactical rule) but rather a semantically based principle, can it?)
Rule 1 and 6 go together, but Gregory Blunt points out that rules 5 and 6 are not rules at all, p. xv, making this unnecessary.

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

Stephen Carlson
b-greek p. 3

Many of the qualifications and exceptions seem poorly motivated except to fit a fairly small corpus. Frankly, that proposed Trinitarian exception was the last straw for me on his categorical approach, especially since he seemed very keen on applying a suitably refined Granville-Sharp rule to Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in order to affirm a major element of Trinitarian theology.

===================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"The nice administrator and researcher Steven Avery."

"The nice administrator and researcher Steven Avery tries to use his PureBibleForum as a special internet study spot, often in line with Facebook groups PureBible and Textus Receptus Academy"

One person. No problemo to be one.

Could be one person, could be two, depending on context.
Here is an example for two.

"The nice administrator and researcher Steven Avery are collaborating on online studies on the heavenly witnesses."

The nice administrator might be Nick Sayers.
And Steven Avery could be one of five researchers therefore mitigating against a definite article. Or Nick may also be a researcher.

In this case, Greek and English are fairly similar.

As properly pointed out by Gregory Blunt, who was likely

Thomas Pearne (c. 1753-1827).
http://books.google.com/books?id=ihASAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA239

p. xiv - checking for more spots. p.
p. 8 - good on Sharp's confusion on proper names and similar categories.

p. 12

Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., on his remarks upon the uses of the article in the Greek Testament (1803)
Gregory Blunt (pseud.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=obJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA12

1636938256054.png

1636938323099.png


And continues.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You haven't dealt with the 6 objections that show Steven Avery can't be our nice administrator, so it must be referring to Nick Sayers. You only tried to follow the rule of the English article where the exceptions are mounting that's 100% bogus. :ROFLMAO: And you walked into my point.

I'm a bit surprised at Wallace's approach, honestly. A rule of grammar is supposed to state what it applies to, not what it doesn't apply to. Sharp has defined it far more clearly and simply than Wallace:

RULE 1​
When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." (Remarks, 1803, p. 3).​

σαφῶς τὰ δύο πρόσωπα ἐπέδειξεν͵ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ.—Hippolytus, De benedictionibus Isaaci et Jacobi 76.4.
τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν.—Gregory Nyssenus, Contra Eunomium 4,8.

(and other 33 such occurrences with του πατρός και υιού in TLG [1st-5th centuries] C.E.)
Rule 4, (p. 11): "Yet it is otherwise when the nouns are not of personal description or application; for, then they denote distinct things or qualities."

Or:
κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν͵ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ Υἱοῦ.—Pseudo-Basilius,Oratio pro inimicis et amicis 30,828.

Or:
ληφθέντων αἰχμαλώτων αὐτοῦ τῆς μητρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν τέκνων ἔφυγεν.—Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 11,316Rule 4.
Rule 4. "Father" and "Son" are not a "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill." The first example breaks up the construction with a comma, strictly speaking.

A ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
B ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.
A Rule 1.
B Rule 4.
A proper name is not "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill."

The only example above that strictly follows Sharp's Rule 1, as Sharp states it, is 2 Peter 1:1.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
You haven't dealt with the 6 objections that show Steven Avery can't be our nice administrator, so it must be referring to Nick Sayers. You only tried to follow the rule of the English article where the exceptions are mounting that's 100% bogus. :ROFLMAO: And you walked into my point.

The statement is grammatically ambiguous, as are the NT texts. Context is king.
There is no reason for me to deal with a proposed bogus rule, or proposed exceptions to a bogus rule.

You are confusing yourself by driving in circles, as if you are looking for a race track.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
. Sharp has defined it far more clearly and simply than Wallace:

RULE 1​
When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." (Remarks, 1803, p. 3).​

Nothing about proper names.
Are God, Father, Lord Christ, Spirit - personal descriptions?

You might enjoy reading Gregory Blunt, who worked through the Sharp Haze.

Then you might apply the various groups of exceptions, starting with Naive Modalism, and the Trinitarian exception.

Or is the Greek language "Rule" now limited to the New Testament?
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You are confusing yourself by driving in circles, as if you are looking for a race track.
By following the rule as properly stated?

Then you might apply the various group of Naive Modalism exceptions.
Like the one at the top of the page, I think, that doesn't even fall under Sharp's first rule of the article? I'll have to brush up on my list of fallacies, but misapplying Sharp's first rule to a passage then using it to dismiss Sharp is definitely sophistry.

One person. No problemo to be one.
Nope. Has to be two. You need to see through the Anglo-Saxon haze and understand that the English rule of the article is 100% bogus. I gave you six examples. I could easily make it 24, or 32, or a hundred. How about, "the cat and dog." Or "the rain and thunder." Doesn't matter if they are following different rules, the fact that they use "the" something "and" something must mean they all have to be treated the same. :ROFLMAO:

You might enjoy reading Gregory Blunt, who worked through the Sharp Haze.
Sigh.

I forgot to add, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν: Rule 4.

Then you might apply the various group of Naive Modalism exceptions.
Meanwhile, I'm keep piling on "exceptions" to the commonly held English rule of the article in the "nice administrator," etc. statement that are every bit as absurd as the examples you're providing here, until you actually understand how silly you sound.

Your naive Modalism "exception," τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι is Rule 4, speaking of God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not Rule 1. We're discussing Rule 1.

The statement is grammatically ambiguous, as are the NT texts. Context is king.
Ok. How many persons are referenced in Titus 2:14?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Meanwhile, I'm keep piling on "exceptions" to the commonly held English rule of the article in the "nice administrator," etc. statement that are every bit as absurd as the examples you're providing here, until you actually understand how silly you sound.

Exceptions to the Sharp bogus rule are not reverse rules in the opposite direction.
 

Brianrw

Member
Exceptions to the Sharp bogus rule are not reverse rules in the opposite direction.
Every grammatical rule has exceptions. There's no exception. By nature, a rule distinguishes something to apply to one thing, and therefore not another. If I apply your reasoning, one might contend everything that doesn't fall under a rule is an exception, and this will quickly devolve into a reductio ad absurdum where nothing can be regarded a proper rule at all.

If you want to refute Sharp, you would have to do so by mentioning passage where the Rule 1 actually ought to apply, not places in general that are simply article noun-something-"and"-noun something. I.e., "The father and son." is simply Sharp, Rule 1 Construction, not in one places, not in thirty places. It simply does not meet the criteria. And that's pretty much what you are doing above, arguing ignoratio elenchi for instances falling under Rule 4, not Rule 1, to disprove Rule 1. And you draw more irrelevant conclusions from Glassius, who while mentioning silly abuses of the article, does not touch this topic at all. You'd realize how silly these things look if you actually took the immense labor of learning the language. But as you have not, but are bearing witness against it, I will refer you back to the words of the Lord: thou shalt not bear false witness.

Exceptions to the Sharp bogus rule are not reverse rules in the opposite direction.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Every grammatical rule has exceptions. There's no exception.

“War is peace / freedom is slavery / ignorance is strength.”

Sharp through Winter is the 1984 of Greek grammar.
For you, every place that Sharp constructions from Greek writers fail, the "Rule" is proven. Since "there is no exception".

And I have many questions to you above that you would not answer.
So, we can pack it in, unless you become responsive.
All you do is avoidance and cherry-picking, and more diversion, and it is because you are emotionally invested.

You would not even relate to the examples of naive modalism exceptions given by Wallace. Wait, you said Wallace was wrong on one. Now even Wallace blunders everywhere, like Sharp. You seem to claim about the Polycarp quote:

We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with whom be glory to God the Father and the Holy Spirit,

Rule 4
"nouns are not of personal description or application"

Yet you would not answer my question above about personal nouns.
Are God, Father, Lord Christ, Spirit - personal descriptions?
Why is God or God the Father a "personal noun?"
And if you call the Holy Spirit a person, then why is it not a "personal noun:"?

All this definitional nonsense only arose in the Sharp attempt to change some AV verses. We will move all the definitions around to include A and not include B because that fits our attempt. And we will call any exception part of the Rule.

You have been played. And have become the player.

Some of the gentlemen on b-greek, to their credit, both those with native Greek and seminarian Greek, tore the whole thing to shreds.

Even the proposed NT verses basically do not work as well, although you hold out one or two of the group as hopeful monster corrections of the AV. We have four or five after adjusting for Sharp textual blunders.

Exceptions to the Sharp bogus rule are not reverse rules in the opposite direction.

This was in the context of our ambiguous administrator English verse and whatever upside-down analogy you were attempting. Your attempt was not even up to the level of gibberish.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Sharp through Winter is the 1984 of Greek grammar.
For you, every place that Sharp constructions from Greek writers fail, the "Rule" is proven. Since "there is no exception".
:ROFLMAO: You provided specific examples that do not fall under Sharp's Rule 1 as he stated it. The arguments I saw where against Wallace, who makes (to me at least) an unnecessarily convoluted argument clearing up the exceptions when sticking to Sharp's statement would have saved him a lot of time. I also don't need to respond to comments made against Wallace and his method because I have never appealed to Wallace.

I should not have to describe to you why the constructions you gave don't fall under the rule as Sharp states it. Wallace could improve his argument greatly by simply confining its scope, as Sharp does, by clarifying what falls within it, rather than what falls outside of it. It's not that Wallace from what I see above is "wrong," per se (assuming he is being fairly represented above, which may not be the case), but that his method invites unnecessary criticism.

And I have many questions to you above that you would not answer.
So, we can pack it in, unless you become responsive.
You've said I haven't answered you before in the past in places I answered multiple times. You really should read more carefully. On the other hand, while saying context is king, you yourself haven't answered how many persons are mentioned in Titus 2:14.

Rule 4
"nouns are not of personal description or application"

Yet you would not answer my question above about personal nouns.
As though I have not repeatedly said this already: Rule 1 applies in specific cases. When the examples you provide do not meet the criteria, it means they fall under the governance of another rule. You are giving examples that fit Sharp's 4th rule and pretending they fit Rule #1. They don't. You have misapplied the rule, and that is the proper response. An "exception" to the rule means the rule would normally apply but for some reason it doesn't. But when a construction doesn't fall under the rule at all, it's not really an "exception" in the sense you are using. It is excepted/exempted from the rule altogether. To repeat it again, Sharp writes (and the square brackets are his own):

RULE 1​
When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." (Sharp, Remarks..., 1803, p. 3).​

I should not have to tell you why ordinal numbers or words like "Father" and "Son" and "Holy Spirit" and proper names like "Jesus" don't fit the above description of "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill." The above rule operates very similarly to the article in English on this point. E.g., "The great inventor and respected businessman Thomas Edison" refers to Thomas Edison. But it cannot be applied in such instances as, "The first and second reason," and "the father and son." Your argument is as though Sharp's rule is article noun "and" noun. That is an oversimplification, and it is why you are finding so many "exceptions." To review, this is what your arguments above consist of:

Oversimplification, "simplification of something to such an extent that a distorted impression is given."

Ignoratio elenchi is "a logical fallacy which consists in apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted."

False equivalence (i.e., comparing apples and oranges) is "a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning."

I've tried to point this out multiple times to give you an opportunity to reformulate your statements, but you seem rather intent on staying the course.
 
Last edited:
Top