5/6/2023 0 Comments New world trainslation bible![]() ![]() Stafford’s first attempt at establishing the case for a compound proper name begins with “the Great God” ( tou' megavlou qeou') in Titus 2:13. However, Stafford has not assembled nearly enough primary data to establish his case. If he can somehow demonstrate the fact that “the Great God” (Titus 2:13) or “Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13 2 Pet 1:1) are compound proper names, then the limitations on Sharp’s rule apply and two distinct persons are intended. Stafford’s argument for viewing two persons in the christologically significant TSKS constructions relies almost exclusively on his attempt to find compound proper names. On the one hand, his arguments depend almost exclusively on one area of limited data, 8 and on the other hand, he almost completely ignores an overwhelming corpus of contrary evidence. 5 Both Abbot and the NWT appendix show an imprecise understanding of Sharp’s rule, and the latest NWT apologia 6 shows a continuation of that trend.ĭespite the somewhat complex approach to his argument, Greg Stafford’s discussion of christologically significant TSKS constructions 7 can be broken down rather simply. However, Paul’s reference in Philippians 2:25 to Epaphroditus as toVn ajdelfoVn kaiV sunergoVn kaiV sustratiwvthn mou (“my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier”) clearly demonstrates that the intrusion of a genitive pronoun does not invalidate Sharp’s rule. In addition to his two proposed parallel TSKS constructions, Abbot appealed to Winer’s argument that the insertion of hJmw'n before swth'ro" in Titus 2:13 definitizes the noun, thus explaining the absence of the second article. ![]() 3 Abbot’s second example in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 of a distinction between the Father and Jesus Christ also falls outside the scope of Sharp’s rule, since kurivou =Ihsou' Cristou' is a common title possessing the qualities of a proper name. This is not parallel to Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 where two singular nouns are in view, and it ignores the fact that not all plural participles in the TSKS construction require identical referents. 2 First, his example in Matthew 21:12 of two distinct groups buying and selling in the temple employs the use of plural participles. 1 Of course, Abbot’s theory encounters a slight problem here, since neither of his supposed parallels fall within the scope of Granville Sharp’s rule. In an effort to defend the assertion that two distinct persons are in view in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the New World Translation (NWT) committee approvingly quotes Abbot’s appeal to two supposedly parallel article-substantive- kaiv-substantive (TSKS) constructions in the New Testament. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |