From: GregStffrd (GregStffrd@aol.com)
Date: Tue Apr 14 1998 - 12:23:01 EDT
The McKay family wrote:
<< Greg Stafford wrote:
[big snip]
I recommend that
>anyone interested in the G. Sharp issue obtain Wallace's thesis, or at
least
>his Grammar, and consider what he has to say. Then, to round out your
>understanding, read the Excursus in my book, which contains a consideration
of
>all relevant literature, including Wallace's thesis, and make up your own
>mind.
David:
<< I was interested to find out what Dan Wallace thinks of the use of his work
in Greg Stafford's book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended" so I wrote to him,
and he has given me permission to quote from his reply to me.
WALLACE:
The results of Stafford's method are completely predictable ... He has
selectively quoted from my works, ignoring the accompanying data given in
many places ... His
argument that "Savior Jesus Christ" is a title was dealt with quite
adequately
in Murray Harris' Jesus as God, as well as my dissertation, but Stafford
ignores the arguments ...>>
Of course, I addressed both Harris' and Wallace's arguments on this issue. So,
unless he offers anyspecifics, I cannot take Wallace seriously, here.
<< He fails to note, for example, that (1) no proper names are ever used in
the
NT in conformity to the Granville Sharp rule, and (2) THEOS comprises the
single
largest set of examples that DO fit the Granville Sharp rule...>>
What?! I am entirely aware of this matter involving proper names, and that is
PRECISELY why examples, like 2 Peter 1:1, which contain a proper name in the
second position, do not conform to the rule. The majority of examples Wallace
offers for a pool of comparision do NOT have a proper name in the second
position, whether taken in apposition to the second KAI-joined noun or not.
Neither do his examples from the first-century papyri provide any exact
parallels.
As for THEOS, it does not have a proper name used in connection with it in 2
Peter 1:1, and I am not arguing for THEOS as a proper name. In fact, I argue
AGAINST THEOS, by itself, being a proper name! How Wallace could have missed
this is beyond me.
<< Further, I do not have to defend either Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as
affirming the deity of Christ; some good scholars whom I respect have done
otherwise. But a lack of affirmation is not a denial...>>
Who says he has to confirm anything? I merely believe that his handling of the
exceptions from the LXX and the Patristics leaves much to be desired, and is,
as he says, "completely predictable. He also fails to deal adequatly with the
nuances of the christoloically significant passages in NT, lumping them
together with GS constructions that are not precise parallels, and drawing
conclusions based on such comparisions.
<< Stafford supplies ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that THEOS is ever used in the NT as
a
proper noun ... Indeed, the evidence is decidedly against him on this...>>
This is truly remarkable. I don't have my book with me right now, but if any
of you do, check for a rather lengthy footnote that gives a number of
possibilities concerning THEOS as a proper name. I also provide an example
from Paul's writings, which Wallace ignores, that seems to provide even
greater reason for rejecting THEOS as a proper name. Clearly he has not read
my work very carefully, and that is unfortunate.
If I may say so, it is just such careless reading of sources that has led to
many inaccurate claims against Jehovah's Witnesses, but I know this is not the
place to get into those claims.
I have much more to say on the this matter concerning my book, Wallace, and
the GS rule, and I will do so when I return this evening.
Greg Stafford
University of Wisconsin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT