From: GregStffrd@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 18:06:36 EDT
In a message dated 10/02/2000 5:10:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
burer@bible.org writes:
<< Dear Greg:
Traditionally Granville Sharp's rule is defined as not applying to proper
names. Arguing that semantic equivalents are are also excluded goes beyond
the scope
of the rule, in my opinion. I'd like to know how you came to include "terms
carrying the semantic weight of proper names" in your definition, since this
is an addition to how Sharp's rule is usually defined.
Best regards,
Michael Burer
Ph.D. Student
Dallas Theological Seminary
>>
Dear Michael:
I published a lengthy discussion of this very subject in my book, Jehovah's
Witnesses Defended, (http://www.elihubooks.com). Be sure to consider the 2d.
edition, if you are interested, though the first also contains a useful
discussion.
My conclusions are based on data derived from the NT and other contemporary
sources. This view, in certain respects, is not really new, for even Dan
Wallace, DTS professor, in his thesis on the subject, admits to the view that
certain terms (such as "Lord" in 2 Thess. 1:12 or "Christ" in Eph 5:5) carry
the same weight as proper names.
I argue that the same is true for other terms, such as "God" and "Savior,"
*especially* when they are used in conjunction with a proper name, such as
"Jesus Christ" (as in Titus 2:13) which effectively limits the application of
"Savior," there. Whether "Jesus Christ is also in apposition to "the Great
God" is another matter (as is the question of whether or not "the Great God"
was a term restricted in its application to God the Father by the early
Christians and Jews [I believe that it was and document why in my book]), but
no one can claim that "Jesus Christ" is not appositional to "Savior."
I spoke to Dan about this subject a few years back, over the phone, and asked
him what he thought about 1 Timothy 6:13, which he was not aware of at that
time (as a GS text), and he pulled out his text, read it, and said that he
viewed "Christ" as a proper name and thus not a legitimate example of the GS
rule. I believe that in addition to the this the appositional force of what
is said about God and Christ in that 1 Timothy 6:13 effectively make definite
the terms joined by KAI. (Of course, QEOU there is also definite because of
the article.)
When we say proper names do not work as part of the GS rule, it is because
these terms do not require the use of the article to be made sufficiently
definite. The same is true, indeed, *even more so the case I would argue,*
for terms that are restricted in their application to particular beings,
whereas even proper names are capable of being applied to more than one
being. (This same may not be true with terms carrying the semantic weight of
proper names, which would then make their weight even greater, comparatively
speaking.)
For more, please see my Excursus on the GS rule, in partial response to
Wallace's thesis, and my forthcoming volume devoted exclusively to the GS
rule apart from doctrinal considerations of a particular group.
Best regards,
Greg Stafford
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:37 EDT