The Fictional "Smart's Rule"

[dizzle]

The Fictional “Smart’s Rule”


On another thread a discussion of John 20:28 sprung up where the idea of a “new” rule in Greek was invoked to get out of what this passage means. In that thread OS asked where the information was cut and pasted from and everyone got all indignant. I then pointed out that Tsmith denied cutting and pasting it but that it appeared to come from work on the Bgreek list by a Dan Parker at which point more hackles were raised and I was told – “So don't accuse people without the facts” which of course I did not do, and Tsmith admitted they all traced back to an original source, Martin Smart of whom no one I know of (enlighten us all) is aware of a published or peer reviewed positive analysis of his work The majority of any discussion on it took palce in that very Bgreek discussion I referenced so my “it appears” comment was perfectly reasonable.

Now it was said that Mr. Bowman does not deal with the John 20:28 construction. Here is the article in question:
Smart's Rule: A Critique
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

Since 2000, a particular claim concerning biblical Greek grammar known as
“Smart’s rule” has been circulating on the Web. This rule is thought by
its advocates to prove that in John 20:28 Thomas must have been speaking
of two persons and not one when he said “My Lord and my God!” That is, the
rule supposedly proves that Thomas was speaking of Jesus as his Lord but
of the Father as his God.
Oddly enough, I cannot find any exposition of the rule from Smart himself.
Mr. Smart appears to be Martin Smart, who was and, I presume, still is a
Jehovah’s Witness. Beyond that I have no information about Mr. Smart and
have not seen anything in writing from him presenting or defending his own
rule.
Most of the references to Smart’s rule on the Web appear on a listserv
known as B-Greek, in its archived discussions from late 2000 and early
2001 (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/). Recently, on a listserv that I
moderate (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/), one of the
list members touted Smart’s rule as superior to Sharp’s rule, which is a
well-known and much-discussed rule of Greek grammar.
Let us, then, take a look at Smart’s rule and see if there is anything to
it.

Defining Smart’s Rule

The writer who actually presented and defended Smart’s rule on B-Greek was
a Jehovah’s Witness named Dan Parker. Here is how he defined the rule:

“In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects
two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither
have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal
pronoun in the genitive or the personal pronoun is repeated for
perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in
view.” Dan Parker, “Re: John 20:28 and Smart’s rule. Correction,” B-Greek
listserv, 2/1/2001 ;
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-02/4231.html
(bracketed material in original).

Note that Smart’s rule as given by Parker actually covers four types of
constructions:

Article + Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive + Pronoun
Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive + Pronoun
Article + Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive
Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive

It does not matter whether the pronoun precedes or follows the
substantive.

The way that Smart’s rule is worded, it may seem to be qualified in such a
way that it need not apply to all texts using the third and fourth
constructions (i.e., those that do not repeat the pronoun “for
perspicuity”). However, from Parker’s contention that the rule proves that
John 20:28 is speaking of two persons, I infer that what he (and
presumably Smart) mean is that whenever the pronoun is repeated with the
second substantive the repetition is for the sake of perspicuity and that
in all such cases the second noun still refers to someone different than
the first substantive.

According to Parker, then, the rule has no exceptions in biblical Greek
when the following conditions are met:

The text is not translation Greek (i.e., the Greek OT is entirely
excluded).
There are two substantives of personal description joined by KAI.
Either both substantives have an article or neither of them has one.
Either the first substantive alone, or both substantives, are modified
by a personal pronoun in the genitive (i.e., texts in which neither is
so modified, or in which the second substantive alone is so modified,
are not included).


The Repetition of the Pronoun

As already noted, in constructions thought to be governed by Smart’s rule
a pronoun in the genitive case must be attached to the first substantive
and may be attached to the second substantive “for perspicuity.” I am not
sure why this qualification is attached since Parker and others who
endorse the rule seem to think that it applies to any text in which the
pronoun is repeated with the second substantive.
As stated, the rule refers to a few pages in Winer to document this idea
of the repetition of the pronoun for perspicuity. The fact is that Winer
was not referring to a doubling of the same pronoun or even necessarily
the use of two pronouns. Rather, he was speaking of the use of a pronoun
that in some sense is redundant but is used because the antecedent is
already several words or more distant:

4. A repetition of this pronoun (autos), and also of the other personal
pronouns, occurs,
a. When subjoined for the sake of perspicuity, in sentences where the
principal noun is followed by a number of other words…. In the majority
of these passages a participial construction, equivalent to an
independent clause, precedes; in this same case even the Greek authors
often add the pronoun [citing Pausanius, Herodotus, Plato, et. al.]….
[G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament prepared as a
solid basis for the interpretation of the New Testament, 7th ed., enl.
and improved by Gottlieb Lünemann, rev. and authorized translation
(Andover: W. F. Draper, 1897), 147-48.]

The NT texts that Winer cites as examples of his point often do not even
use two pronouns. Instead, they use a pronoun to refer back to an
antecedent substantive that is far enough back in a somewhat complex
sentence structure, so that the pronoun helps to make the antecedent
clearer:

“The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and to those who
were sitting in the land and shadow of death, a light has dawned to them
[autois]” (Matt. 4:16).

“Now when he had gone out to the entrance, another woman saw him [auton]…”
(Matt. 26:71).

“Therefore, the one who knows the good thing to do and does not do [it],
to him [autô] it is sin” (James 4:17 ).

In Winer’s other examples, sometimes two pronouns are used and they are
the same (Acts 7:21 , auton…auton; Col. 2:13, humas…humas; Rev. 6:4,
autô…autô), sometimes the two pronouns are of different cases (Mark 5:2,
autou…autô [Winer has autô…autô]; Mark 9:28 , autou…auton; Matt. 8:1,
autou…autô), and in a couple of instances it is hard to tell which pronoun
Winer meant (Matt. 5:40; Phil. 1:7). None of Winer’s examples are examples
of what is called Smart’s rule.

As best I can tell, then, Winer’s treatment of the pronoun used for
perspicuity has no bearing or relevance to Smart’s rule.

Alleged Examples of Smart’s Rule

In one of his posts to B-Greek, Dan Parker offered the following lists of
examples of texts fitting Smart’s rule. This same list has appeared
verbatim elsewhere, notably on a web site defending Jehovah’s Witness
doctrine (“An Online Response to a Kevin Quick Defender,”
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kquickresponse.htm):

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49; Mk 3:31
,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21; Jn 2:12; 4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro
16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb
1:7 is a LXX quote and is therefore translation Greek.]

Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35; Ro 1:7;
1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2; Phil 1:3)

Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) - (Mk 6:21;
10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2; Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re
11:18)

This is the only list I have been able to find of alleged examples.

Before going any further, some corrections to the list of verse references
are needed. The first paragraph appears to cite Mark 8:20, 21, followed by
Luke 8:21, but in fact the first two references should be to Luke 8:20, 21
(so that the next one is actually a repeat). There are thus only 20 verses
listed in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, “Phil 1:3” is a
reference to Philemon 3. In the third paragraph, the first reference in
Luke should be to Luke 2:33, not 2:23 .

Next, in the interest of giving Smart’s rule every chance, we should take
note of other texts that appear to fit its parameters successfully. I have
found a few other such references: Matthew 12:50; 13:55 ; and John 19:25.

We have, then, 42 references listed by Dan Parker (not 43, since he
accidentally counted Luke 8:21 twice), plus three more references, for a
total of 45 NT references (to my knowledge) that have been or might be
cited as examples of Smart’s rule.

The Semantics of Conjoined Substantives

The first question that needs to be asked about these example texts is
whether there would be any possibility of the substantives being
understood as referring to a single referent regardless of the articles or
pronouns attached to them. The answer in most of these texts is an
unequivocal no. The semantic relation between the substantives alone is
enough to make their different referents unambiguous.

In 26 of our 45 examples, the substantives include terms designating
family relationships that must be held by different individuals. These
include:

· 6 texts that speak of a person’s father and mother (Mark 7:10 ;
10:7, 19; Luke 2:33 ; 18:20 ; Eph. 6:2)
· 12 texts that speak of a person’s mother, brothers, and sisters
(Matt. 12:47 , 49, 50; 13:55 ; Mark 3:31 , 32, 33, 34, 35; Luke 8:20 , 21;
John 19:25 ).

In addition, the texts include references to the following:

· sons and daughters (Acts 2:17 )
· Timothy’s grandmother and mother (2 Tim. 1:5)
· one’s father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters (Luke
14:26 )
· Jesus (referred to as “he”) and his mother, brothers, and disciples
(John 2:12 )
· Jacob (“himself”), his sons, and his cattle (!) (John 4:12)
· Martha, her sister, and Lazarus (John 11:5)
· Jacob his (Joseph’s) father and all his relatives (Acts 7:14 )
· Cornelius’s relatives and friends (Acts 10:24 )

Since it is impossible for any of these texts to be referring to a single
individual, or even to be using the conjoined plural nouns to refer to the
same group (since one’s sons cannot also be one’s daughters or one’s
cattle, for example!), these texts cannot tell us anything as to the
possible semantic significance of the placement of the possessive pronouns
with regard to the nouns not having the same referent.

Twelve of the remaining examples refer to God the Father and to Jesus
Christ (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; 1
Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:1; Phm. 3). All but two of
these (1 Thess. 3:11 ; 2 Thess. 2:16 ) occur in a Pauline salutation, and
all but one (1 Tim. 1:1, which has “God our Savior and Christ Jesus our
hope”) uses essentially the same wording: “God our Father and [the] Lord
Jesus Christ” (note the slight variations in the two non-salutation
examples). In all 10 of the salutation examples, the two compound noun
groups are anarthrous. The style and setting in Paul’s letters in all of
these 10 examples fits the usual Greek opening of a letter at that time,
in which good wishes were passed along from the letter writer’s companions
closest to the recipients (“Ted to Mary. Cheers from Dad and Bill. We wish
you were here.”) Even if we didn’t already know that God our Father was
someone different from the Lord Jesus Christ, we would know simply by
reading these salutations in their context that the two were different
referents. The use or nonuse of the pronoun “our” to modify “Father” would
make absolutely no difference in how these salutations would be read.

This leaves only seven examples of constructions supposedly governed by
Smart’s rule. That isn’t much on which to base a rule of grammar. But
let’s look at these remaining texts to see what evidence they might yield
in support of Smart’s rule.

Weak Support for the Rule

In Mark 6:4, Jesus says, “A prophet is not without honor except in his
hometown and among his relatives and in his household.” There are two
reasons for questioning whether this text fits the parameters of Smart’s
rule at all. First, the terms “hometown” (patris) and “household” (oikia)
do not describe persons in the way that “relative” (sungenês) does.
Rather, they refer to entities composed of persons. I am unsure whether
Smart’s rule could be extended to include such substantives, assuming the
rule were valid. Second and more telling, the three nouns are not simply
connected by kai, as Smart’s rule assumes, but are parts of three
prepositional phrases using en (“in,” “among”) connected by kai. That
having been said, in this instance we do not have terms referring to
separate referents. Jesus’ statement proceeds from the largest unit (his
hometown) to a subset of that unit (his relatives) to a subset of that
unit (his own family or household).

Mark 6:21 speaks of Herod’s “leaders and the commanders and the leading
men of Galilee .” These do appear to be three distinct groups of men, and
so this text apparently does fit Smart’s rule.

In Mark 16:7, the angel at the tomb tells the women to tell “his disciples
and Peter.” Of course, Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples, so here again,
as in Mark 6:4, the second term is a subset of the first.

In Romans 16:21, Paul writes, “Timothy my fellow worker greets you, and
also Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.” Grammatically, Paul
connects the four proper names together with kai; the expression “my
fellow worker” is in apposition to “Timothy” and the expression “my
kinsmen” is in apposition to the other three names. This text, then, is a
dubious example of Smart’s rule.

Hebrews 8:11 is a quotation from the Greek Old Testament, and so according
to Parker’s definition cannot be used in support of Smart’s rule. That is
probably just as well, since the substantives are arguably synonyms: “And
they shall not teach everyone his fellow-citizen [politên] and everyone
his brother [adelphon]….” In this context “brother” probably means
something like “fellow countryman.” At any rate, the two nouns do not
refer to separate groups.

Revelation 6:11 refers to “their fellow servants and their brothers who
were about to be killed just as they had been.” In this text the martyred
believers in Christ are told to rest while others are martyred for their
faith just as they had been. These others are described as “their fellow
servants [sundouloi] and their brothers [adelphoi].” Since all believers
are considered servants of Christ and brothers of one another, the two
nouns here refer to the same group. Therefore, this text appears to be a
fairly clear counterexample to Smart’s rule. Furthermore, it is a text in
which the possessive pronoun is repeated, as in John 20:28.

Finally, Revelation 11:18 the time is said to have come for God to reward
“your slaves the prophets and the saints and those who fear your name”
(tois doulois sou tois prophêtais kai tois hagiois kai tois phoboumenois
to onoma sou). God’s servants the prophets are presumably a subset of the
saints, and indeed of those who fear God’s name. It is also likely that
the saints are identical with those who fear God’s name. This text,
therefore, does not seem to fit Smart’s rule very well, and may be at
least partially contrary to Smart’s rule.

Of these seven texts, only one clearly fits what Smart’s rule claims (that
the two substantives have different referents), namely, Mark 6:21 . Romans
16:21 probably is irrelevant because the two substantives qualified by
possessive pronouns are in apposition to proper names and are not strictly
speaking in regimen with each other. In all of the other texts, the two or
three substantives are either synonymous or one substantive is a subset of
the other. Revelation 6:11 is a reasonable clear counterexample to Smart’s
rule.

More Counterexamples to Smart’s Rule

So far I have found two more clear counterexamples to Smart’s rule.

2 Corinthians 8:23. “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker
among you [koinônos emos kai eis humas sunergos]….” Note that the nouns
“partner” (koinônos) and “fellow worker” (sunergos) both explicitly
describe the same person, namely, Titus. This text, then, is a clear
counterexample to Smart’s rule.

Philippians 2:25. “But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus,
my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier (ton adelphon kai sunergon
kai sustratiôtên mou), who is also your messenger and minister to my need
(humôn de apostolon kai leitourgon tês xreias mou).” Remarkably, in this
one verse we have an illustration of Sharp’s rule in the first half of the
verse and a clear counterexample of Smart’s rule in the second half of the
verse. The noun string ton adelphon kai sunergon kai sustratiôtên
perfectly fits Sharp’s rule. The second noun string describing
Epaphroditus, humôn de apostolon kai leitourgon tês xreias mou, fits the
syntax structure of Smart’s rule (possessive pronoun—noun—kai—noun, with
the two anarthrous nouns in regimen), yet the nouns both have the same
referent. Therefore, this text also is a clear counterexample to Smart’s
rule.

Conclusion

Smart’s rule finds all of its support in texts where the two or three
nouns in regimen must have different referents because of the semantics of
the nouns in question (e.g., father and mother, or mother and sons). In
texts where this is not the case, more often than not the nouns do not
have separate referents. Sometimes the referents are overlapping, or one
refers to a subset of the other noun; and sometimes the referent is
identical.

The bottom line is that the presence or absence of a possessive pronoun
has no bearing on the exegesis of phrases in which two or more
substantives are connected by kai. Where the substantives are in regimen
(all having the article or all lacking the article), the meaning of the
terms in context is the only real consideration in determining whether the
substantives have one or more referent. In texts where the substantives
used are generally synonyms, as in John 20:28 (“Lord” and “God”), the
presumption should be that they have the same referent unless the context
explicitly indicates otherwise.




And like at least one of our posters here, Martin Smart will not give any qualifications he has to be forumalating Greek rules, see here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2562.html

And here is a refutation of Smart’s hypothesis:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2537.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2538.html

After inquiring with a couple participants of Bgreek, I discovered it is considered a nonrule by the participants of that group.

[AVmetro]

After inquiring with a couple participants of Bgreek, I discovered it is considered a nonrule by the participants of that group.

For patently obvious reasons as the above demonstrates.

I would certainly be interested in seeing a line by line rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's above critique.

God bless

[dizzle]

I am sure there are more references on BGreek as well. I am in the process of hunting them down. But, I have to ask if someone is going to challenge the BGreek participants, what qualifications they have to do so? Martin Smart apparently refuses to gives his... sayikng it will prejudice someone in favor or against the rule... well that risk is one that has to be taken I wold think. A layperson has every right to inquire of the qualifications of those who presume to teach the flock.

[Cal_Minian]

DeeDee offers a link on B-GREEK to Smart's rule which asks about his qualifications.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2562.html

Dear DeeDee,
There were dozens of posts on Smart's rule on B-GREEK over a couple of months.

Interestingly, Carl Conrad, one of the moderators on the list and a Greek professor replied to the link you gave and basically said he would like to see the rule discussed on its own merits rather than have character assasination.


http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2563.html

Just a comment of my own on this item: while some may think that's enough
to put this thread to rest, I myself think the question depends more upon
the evidence that has been offered in support of or in opposition to the
proposition in question than upon whether or not the gentleman in question
declares his identity; naturally, I'd be curious to know more about him,
but I don't think the validity of what he has to say depends upon what we
know about himself. Our FAQ on "Netiquette" for B-Greek says this about
signatures:

'It is a courtesy expected of B-Greek subscribers that messages should
indicate, at least in the "From" header, the personal name as well as the
e-address, or else should at least sign their posts with personal names.
Indications of the locality from which they write would help personalize
further for others the sender of a message. Academic or institutional
information may be appended also, but there is no privilege associated with
any academic or institutional status so-indicated.'

I had something to do with the phrasing of that last sentence and it does
express something of my own feelings about "academic" credentials: the
problem with "academic" credentials is that they indicate formal training
of some sort somewhere and they may impress some people quite a bit, but I
have seen some opinions and assessments made by people with seemingly
strong "academic" credentials that I personally haven't found worth taking
seriously; on the other hand I've seen credible and important opinions and
assessments made by persons without discernible academic credentials. My
own view is that the worth of an opinion or assessment has more to do with
the evidence and argumentation supporting it than with the professed
credentials the person offering the opinion or assessment can adduce.
--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/


Now that you have provided some links to the discussion I'll see what I can dig up. The rule has also been discussed on other forums and I might be able to find something on these specific texts.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131916#post131916)
IronMetro:



For patently obvious reasons as the above demonstrates.

I would certainly be interested in seeing a line by line rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's above critique.

God bless

Here is an interesting view of John 20:28 by Augustine (this should positively THRILL Oldshepherd).


http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2485.html

As for whether one
or two persons are in view, consider Augustine in "Tractate CXXI":

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my
God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged
the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the
means of what he saw and touched, he now put far
away from him every doubt, and believed the other."

Also, from a more modern commentator:

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words
was hotly debated by early church theologians
who wanted to use it in support of their own
christological definitions. Those who understood
'My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer
to God were suspected of christological heresy
in the fifth century CE. Many modern commentators
have also rejected that interpretation and instead
they understood the confession as an assertion
that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they
are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to
logos [logos]. But it is perfectly appropriate for
Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a
confession of faith both in Jesus and his Lord and
in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the
confession in this way actually makes much better
sense in the context of the Fourth Gospel. In 14.1
belief both in God and in Jesus is encouraged, in
a context in which Thomas is particularly singled
out ... If we understand Thomas's confession as an
assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in
20.31 becomes an anti-climax. (Margaret Davies,
Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel"
(JSNTSup69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1992), 125-126)

But more importantly, so as not to get into a theological debate, I am
more interested in whether "Smart's rule" has exceptions to it in
the GNT.


Sincerely,
Dan Parker

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131909#post131909)
Dee Dee Warren:



http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2538.html

Parker refuted that thread here:


http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2547.html
>> Stephen, do you reject Sharp's rule based upon Proverbs 24:21 in the LXX
>> of "FOBOU TON QEON UIE KAI BASILEA"?

> What possible relevance does this have to do with the clear example
> that contradicts Smart's "rule"? I'm still curious how you would
> handle Ps 5:2 LXX. Prov 24:21 LXX is a red herring.

> Stephen Carlson

Stephen, I did not go into more detail on this because I assumed you
had read my response to this which I posted earlier to Kevin Woodruff
regarding his quotation of Murray Harris' use of Ps 5:3. I posted
the following at that time, in part:


"1) Porter (The poor man's Porter, Rodney Decker) and Winer
(35-38) do not agree that the grammar of the NT is affected
by any Hebraic or Aramaic influence.

2) BDF (81) agrees and considers the LXX and "passages
translated from a Semitic language" to have Hebraic
influence.

3) Therefore Harris' example of Ps 5:3 is not a good
parallel to John 20:28, because Winer says that although most
of the LXX manages to produce good Greek, Psalms generally
does not and that "The translation of the Psalms is, in
general, one of the most heedless." (Winer 35-38)"


This apparently was not clear, so I will attempt to elaborate.

Harris said:

"Finally the repeated MOU, so far from necessarily indicating
two distinct addressees, simply reflects the repetition of the
pronominal suffix with copulated nouns in Hebrew and Aramaic (as
shown in the LXX's Ps 5:3 by HO BASILEUS MOU MAI HO THEOS MOU)"

Harris speaking of the fact that the nouns "King" and "God" in
the Hebrew of Psalm 5:2 both have first person pronominal suffixes.
His stated view is that the reason for the double MOU in both Ps 5:3 and
John 20:28 is that they are both influenced by the same Hebrew syntax.
This is an admission that without the Hebraic influence it would
"necessarily" indicate that two persons are in view. The sole reason
he gives to the contrary is his view that if Thomas spoke Aramaic it
would affect the syntax of John 20:28. This is an admission that such a
"rule" as Smart has proposed does indeed have merit!


Where Harris goes wrong is that he does not support his contention that
this indeed happened at John 20:28. To make it worse all the leading
grammarians disagree with him on the point of whether this phenomena
actually occurs with any frequency in NT Greek.

The reason I used Proverbs 24:21 is because both Smart and Sharp
eliminate "Translation" Greek from their rules for precisely this reason.
If you do not agree that this is a valid exception then you must also
agree that Sharp's rule also has an exception ... and that is Proverbs
24:21. I will not try to force you do admit this if you do not wish.

In the article written by D L. Christiansen "A Reexamination of Granville
Sharp's Rule" he has the following footnote #16:

"The sole LXX contender for the title of Sharp's dethroner
(Proverbs 24:21 [FOBOU TON QEON UIE KAI BASILEA]) is not
admissible, even though it clearly contradicts the rule; the
omission of the article before the clearly distinct is a comment,
not on hellenistic Greek syntax, but on the slavish
method of translation employed by certain of the LXX scribes.
cf. Wallace, Selected Notes, 104-5; also Thomas Fanshaw Middleton,
The Doctrine of the Greek Article, new ed., (London: J.G .F.
& J. Rivington, et al, 1841): 120."

Smart's rule clearly states right up front that only "Native" Greek is
covered by the rule. Therefore, Psalms in the LXX cannot be used as
a exception to Smart's rule. This exception is not arbitrary, but based
on a documented characteristic of some Hebrew that is translated into
Greek.

I would also like to comment on some of the criticisms of the rule with
respect to the number of exceptions. The exceptions are actually far
fewer than Sharps because:

1) Sharps excludes plural nouns, Smarts does not.
2) Sharps excludes quasi proper names, Smarts does not.
3) Smarts works with both articular nouns and anarthrous nouns.


Sincerely,
Dan Parker

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131921#post131921)
Dee Dee Warren:

I am sure there are more references on BGreek as well. I am in the process of hunting them down. But, I have to ask if someone is going to challenge the BGreek participants, what qualifications they have to do so? Martin Smart apparently refuses to gives his... sayikng it will prejudice someone in favor or against the rule... well that risk is one that has to be taken I wold think. A layperson has every right to inquire of the qualifications of those who presume to teach the flock.

On a related thread a reference was made to (Granville) Sharp, who discovered the rule of Greek grammar which bears his name. It is true Sharp was a self-taught Greek scholar, without any appropriate degrees, but he published his rule and it was reviewed by scholars, of his day up to the present day.

OTOH, this so-called "Smart's rule" has been around since late 2000, according to its supporters on BGreek, and has not been published. One must ask why hasn't this so-called rule been thoroughly documented, i.e. all the apllicable scriptures exegeted, and the complete rule and all documentation been submitted to the academic community for review? Instead we see it touted by "good friends" of Smart on a few discussion forums.

Should not a "Rule," so-called, which changes the way the Bible is interpreted not be given to the entire world? Why should hundreds and thousands of believers perish, as surely they must, because they misinterpret the Bible, when there is a new "Rule" which will show them "The Truth," but this "truth" is virtually shrouded in secrecy? Why isn't this "truth" being shouted from the rooftops?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131940#post131940)
Cal_Minian:

Here is an interesting view of John 20:28 by Augustine (this should positively THRILL Oldshepherd).

Not really! I am more interested in the early church fathers in the first three centuries. The farther, in time, one gets away from Jesus and His disciples the more potential for error creeping in. Do you have any applicable quotes or should I post mine?

Note, here what Augustin has to say about Thomas.
St. Aurelius Augustin Psalm L [354-430 AD]

And Thomas, that was holding Man, understood God as he was able. For when he had handled the scars, he cried out, "My Lord, and my God." Yet the Lord was showing that form, and that flesh, which they had seen upon the Cross, which had been laid in the sepulchre. He stayed with them forty days. ...But what was said to Thomas handling? "Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed; blessed are they that see not, and believe." We are foretold. That world called from the rising of the sun unto the going down seeth not, and believeth. Hidden then is the God of gods, both to those among whom He walked, and to those by whom He was crucified, and to those before whose eyes He rose, and to us who believe on Him in heaven sitting, whom we have not seen on earth walking. But even if we were to see, should we not see that which the Jews saw and crucified? It is more, that not seeing we believe Christ to be God, than that they seeing deemed Him only to be man. They in a word by thinking evil slew, we by believing well are made alive.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-08/npnf1-08-57.htm

[dizzle]

Interestingly, Carl Conrad, one of the moderators on the list and a Greek professor replied to the link you gave and basically said he would like to see the rule discussed on its own merits rather than have character assasination.


Carl said nothing about "character assisination" and it is hardly (the violin plays softly) character assisination to inquire as to one's credentials. One may disagree as to their importance, but I am sorry it is suspicious to me when someone will not reveal what their qualifications are or are not, especially on a scholarly list like BGreek. And those there have the benefit of being more schooled in Greek than the average layperson such as myself. I, as a layperson, have every right to ask the qualifications of those who are presuming to teach me. Would you attend a school where the teachers would not tell you what their qualifications were? I think no. So spare me on character assination, if you or Mr. Smart is going to expound upon Greek, I am not the bad guy or character assasin to know why you think you are qualified.

And again, I have spoke with two members of BGreek, who do not believe that Mr. Parker has refuted any denunciations of his rule. So we what we have is you (who will not reveal if you are qualified - so I must presume you are not) and me (who admit I have no qualifications) posting things about which we are unqualified. I take what I understand as the majority position as BGreek to be much more weighty at this point, and as I understand it, Mr. Parker has received almost no support nor has Mr. Smart. There have been no rigorous peer reviews, and it is quite presumptous to declare something a rule on such a tenuouis basis.

And later on a member addressed Carl's post as follows:


The concept has wider application than to academic titles.

The matter of Smart's rule was originally raised as a question, whether or
not Smart's rule applied to a particular verse. It was only after quite some
probing by other list members that acknowledgement was made that it had
never even been so much as published.

And yet, it had been birthed into BGreek with all the status of a "rule".

The comparison with academic titles is obvious. Just as a person's argument
is not advanced in the least by academic credentials subjoined to the
individual's name, no more is one's argument advanced by calling it a
"rule".

I value highly the role of BGreek as an educative forum. I certainly learn
from others' contributions, and suspect we all do. It is precisely because
ours is so helpful a forum that the positioning of Smart's dictum as a
"rule" stands against the best traditions of BGreek, and deserves censure as
being tendentious and likely to carry weight with those who may be younger
in their Greek studies (when grammatical "rules" are inviolable and demand
unquestioning acceptance), or simply unaware that what some call Smart's
"rule" is merely a proposition - and unpublished and without scholarly
acceptance at that.

Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)



http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2593.html

I also found this very insightful

Dan Parker Wrote

> I have found no exceptions to Smart's rule.

You are staring one in the face. Do I understand this correctly? Are you
saying that according to this rule by Dr. Smart, Thomas must be addressing
two different persons in John 20:28, Jesus and God the Father? If this is
the case then John 20:28 is your exception. If I have missed your point here
just stop reading, and hit delete.

The thematic structure of John's Gospel from start to finish is against your
reading of John 20:28. All through the gospel, from the prolog to the major
dramatic peak at the end of chapter 8, to the confession of Thomas in John
20:28 this one issue is being stressed over and over again.

When we look at the high level thematic discourse structure of John it just
leaves little room for doubt about what is being said in John 20:28. This is
a macro structural issue in the Gospel, and no about of quibbling and nit
picking about grammatical minutia, or inventing new rules will make this
macro structural issue go away.

I can say this with a fair amount of confidence since every commentary on
John in my library clearly supports this view, including: Marcus Dods,
H. Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, B.F. Westcott, D.A. Carson and L. Morris. It is
somewhat humorous that the three mega scholars H. Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, and
B.F. Westcott were the most dogmatic about this, according to them there is
not contest here. They consider Thomas' confession in John 20:28 a major
structural component in John's thematic development.

I thought that James D. G. Dunn might take a different view, since he has
written extensively on the *development* of NT Christology so I thought he
might be the odd man out on this but it didn't work out that way. J. D. G.
Dunn was in enthusiastic agreement with all of the works mentioned above.

So here is your exception.

Clay



http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-10/2515.html

[Cal_Minian]

Dear DeeDee,
I agree that from what I read on B-GREEK, most participants did not endorse the rule. For that matter they rejected the rule for the same reason they rejected Sharp's rule. They feel context should be the main determining factor in issues like this.

However I would venture to say that not many Trinitarians on this list are likely to consider discarding Sharp's rule any time soon :teeth:

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Now that you have provided some links to the discussion I'll see what I can dig up. The rule has also been discussed on other forums and I might be able to find something on these specific texts.

As I recall, Tsmith stated that Mr. Bowman's critique was "refuted" elsewhere. That should save you some digging if you're looking for ideas to initiate a full reply to the above. I'm more interested in a line by line address of the material rather than argumentation by link.

Here is an interesting view of John 20:28 by Augustine (this should positively THRILL Oldshepherd).

You made this reply in answer to my quote requesting a "line by line rebuttal" of Mr. Bowman's critique. Why?

An excellent point from context:

Several days ago, in a discussion of John 20:28, Dan Parker advised David McKay,

>As for whether one or two persons are in view, consider Augustine in
'Tractate CXXI':

>"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other."

In assessing the value of any single comment it is important to observe its context. The relevance to Augustine's being cited in the matter of John 20:28 is as follows.

Augustine's tractate concerns John 20, verses 10-29, the earlier part of which deals with Mary's weeping at the tomb, supposing that her Lord had been taken away, and then seeing the risen Lord, who tells her not to touch him; the latter part deals with Jesus' appearance to the disciples, Thomas not being present, and his appearance to the disciples eight days later, on which occasion Thomas was given the opportunity to touch Jesus but answered and EIPEN AUTWi, hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU.

Augustine discusses in some detail why Mary is told by the Lord, 'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to the Father.' He expresses two possibilities. The first is 'that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was symbolized, which did not believe on Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father'. The second, which Augustine deals with at greater length, is 'that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched spiritually, that He and the Father are one.' Augustine explains, 'For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the
inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, 'Touch me not'. In the working out of his argument, Augustine explains the
words 'For I am not yet ascended to my Father' with the comment, 'there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father.'

Of some significance in reference to his later comments regarding Thomas, Augustine asks, 'How could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man?'

Augustine then deals with the Lord's appearance to the disciples, when the doors were shut - 'But the shutting of doors,' Augustine comments, 'presented no obstacle to the matter of His body, wherein Godhead resided.'

It is then that Augustine deals with the appearance of the Lord to Thomas, and it is against this background that Augustine makes his comment,

'Thomas answered and said unto Him, "My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other.'

In its context, Augustine's comment withstands misunderstooding; he has made clear that Jesus is 'God, in no wise unequal with the Father' and that in him 'Godhead resided'.

It is only for the sake of those who see his words taken out of context (or who perhaps cannot correctly weigh the value of secondary sources even when seen in context) that it is necessary to explain that which, when read in its context, is clear: in saying of Thomas that he 'touched the man and
acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched', Augustine does not have in view two persons; he is saying that Thomas apprehended Jesus not only as man but as God. He touched Jesus as a man - but understood him to
be God, who cannot be touched. And when he says that Thomas 'by means of what he saw and touched … believed the other' he is expressing that Thomas, seeing Jesus with his earthly body that bore the marks of his death but now
risen and alive before him, understood him to be truly and fully God. Unlike Mary who believed on him carnally, weeping over him as a man, Thomas saw and touched a man but acknowledged him as God.

In calling Augustine as an expert witness, Dan Parker calls to the stand one whose testimony tears apart his own argument. And that this is so may be seen by all who have not only the interest to check Augustine's tractate (which may be viewed at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-126.htm#P3820_2093367 <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-126.htm>) but also the time to read it carefully and allowing the comment cited to have its full weight in context.

Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)

Found here (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-02/4285.html).

See also:

<x-flowed>
Dear Friends,

I noticed on this list a number of comments on John 20:28 and Augustine's commentary on this passage. It must be remembered nevertheless that while Augustine was an excellent philosopher and theologian, he was illiterate in the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek (as was Thomas Aquinas later in
the thirteenth century) unlike his contemporary colleague, Jerome. I sometimes wonder whether it is worthwhile to use Augustine in an area in which he holds little or no authority from a grammatical point of view...no offence to St.Augustine.

Tony Costa

Found here (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-02/4321.html).

This is, of course as you know, a tangent issue.

Again, I had stated:

I would certainly be interested in seeing a line by line rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's above critique.

......

God bless

[Tsmith]

For this reply, I am only going to deal with Rob's so-called counter examples to Smart's Rule that are specifically related to the John 20:28 construction. Since this is the issue at hand, we will deal with this. I could take the time to go further into it, but really, at this time, there is no need.


evelation 6:11 refers to “their fellow servants and their brothers who were about to be killed just as they had been.” In this text the martyred believers in Christ are told to rest while others are martyred for their faith just as they had been. These others are described as “their fellow servants [sundouloi] and their brothers [adelphoi].” Since all believers are considered servants of Christ and brothers of one another, the two nouns here refer to the same group. Therefore, this text appears to be a fairly clear counterexample to Smart’s rule. Furthermore, it is a text in which the possessive pronoun is repeated, as in John 20:28.

Unfortunately for Rob, any attempted example from Revelation is void by default. Perhaps Rob is not aware of this, but Revelation really is not Koine Greek at all. Note the following from Vincent's Word Studies on Revelation:

"“The language,” says Dr. Davidson, “departs materially from the usual Greek of the New Testament, presenting anomalies, incorrectnesses, peculiar constructions, and awkward dispositions of words, which have no parallel.... The language is so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of Greek.”"

2 Corinthians 8:23. “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you [koinônos emos kai eis humas sunergos]….” Note that the nouns “partner” (koinônos) and “fellow worker” (sunergos) both explicitly describe the same person, namely, Titus. This text, then, is a clear counterexample to Smart’s rule.

Actually, this is not a counterexample at all. EMOS is not a personal pronoun in the genitive, as the rule requires. Perhaps Rob is not aware as to what a personal pronoun in the genitive is.

So, those are the two examples Rob provided in attempts to refute the John 20:28 construction. However, neither of them hold even a little bit of water, so the rule is FAR from refuted.

-Tony

[OldShepherd]

Quoted from a post above.

Several days ago, in a discussion of John 20:28, Dan Parker advised David McKay,

>As for whether one or two persons are in view, consider Augustine in
'Tractate CXXI':

>"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other."

In assessing the value of any single comment it is important to observe its context. The relevance to Augustine's being cited in the matter of John 20:28 is as follows.

For Dan Parker and his supporters on this forum. Talk about twisting sources and quoting out of context. Here is more of the tractate quoted above. Is Augustin saying that Jesus was only a man? Say on Augustin!
Tractate CXXI.

For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, "Touch me not;" that is, Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions; let not your thoughts stretch outwards to what I have been made in thy behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby thou hast thyself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? "For I am not yet ascended," He says, "to my Father:" there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father. "But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father." He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. "And my God, and your God." Nor did He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-126.htm#P3820_2093367

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131972#post131972)
Cal_Minian:

Dear DeeDee,
I agree that from what I read on B-GREEK, most participants did not endorse the rule. For that matter they rejected the rule for the same reason they rejected Sharp's rule. They feel context should be the main determining factor in issues like this.


Care to document this? Or are they criticising sloppy formulations of Sharp's rule, rather than his own careful formulation?

When kai (‘and’) connects two singular nouns, which are describing a person and are not proper names, of the same case; and if the definite article (‘the’) precedes the first noun and is absent from the second noun, both nouns refer to the same person.

Applying this to Titus 2:13, the text should read:

the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Just about all Bible translations made after Sharp formulated his rule (he was also busy with founding the Bible Society and campaigning against slavery) have translated the passage this way, which is a crystal clear statement of the deity of Christ. This includes the NKJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, ESV, RSV, CEV, Young's Literal, Darby, Message, New Living Translation and Amplified. About the only one that doesn't is the New World Perversion by the Jehovah's Witness cult.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132026#post132026)
Socrates:
Just about all Bible translations made after Sharp formulated his rule (he was also busy with founding the Bible Society and campaigning against slavery) have translated the passage this way, which is a crystal clear statement of the deity of Christ. This includes the NKJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, ESV, RSV, CEV, Young's Literal, Darby, Message, New Living Translation and Amplified. About the only one that doesn't is the New World Perversion by the Jehovah's Witness cult.


You just opened a can of worms on this one.

(ASV) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(DRB) Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(GB) Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ,

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(Webster) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;

(LO) expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(Murdock) looking for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah;


I could keep going, but I will stop. The text here reads this:

PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKAPIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIPHANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hEMWN IHSOU XRISTOU

It is the appearing of the DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU, or the glory of the great God that we find, not the person of the great God. Further, TOU MEGALOU QEOU has sufficient semantic force as a proper name to remove this from the realm of Sharp's Rule, making it a non-issue.

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 08:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132026#post132026)
Socrates:


About the only one that doesn't is the New World Perversion by the Jehovah's Witness cult.



Dear Socrates,
I did not know this forum was bigoted. I have reported this post to the moderators. If they side with you, this will be the last post I read or respond to on this forum.

Best Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Normally an opinion expressed as such is not unallowable. However, because you have taken a high level of offense I have went ahead and made the appropriate edit. I also ask that you please hold yourself to this same standard of "anti-bigotry''. Thank you.

Today @ 10:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132045#post132045)
Cal_Minian:


Dear Socrates,
I did not know this forum was bigoted. I have reported this post to the moderators. If they side with you, this will be the last post I read or respond to on this forum.

Best Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minion stated:

I did not know this forum was bigoted.

Please refrain from making such a blanket accusation.

TSmith stated:

For this reply, I am only going to deal with Rob's so-called counter examples to Smart's Rule that are specifically related to the John 20:28 construction. Since this is the issue at hand, we will deal with this. I could take the time to go further into it, but really, at this time, there is no need.

Despite what you feel, some would like to see the critique addressed in a non-piecemeal fashion. The critique is relatively short so this should not be a complicated task.

It is the appearing of the DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU, or the glory of the great God that we find, not the person of the great God. Further, TOU MEGALOU QEOU has sufficient semantic force as a proper name to remove this from the realm of Sharp's Rule, making it a non-issue.

The appearing of the 'glory of God' can just as easily entail the presence of God i.e. Christ. It does not necessitate it but it certainly does not exclude the appearance of the person to whom the glory belongs.

The simple fact that "God and Savior" was well known as a titular application (See Harris) warrants a well substantiated basis upon which to contend your above assertion.
That aside, will you now proceed with a full refutation of Mr. Bowman's critique? That topic upon which this thread is based?
Thank you.

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 05:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132066#post132066)
IronMetro:

Despite what you feel, some would like to see the critique addressed in a non-piecemeal fashion. The critique is relatively short so this should not be a complicated task.

Well I'm sure some would like it, but that type of reply would take significantly more time than I care to apply to it. The fact remains that the two counter examples Rob gave to the John 20:28 construction totally fail, so that is the real issue.

Really, why should it even be needed to take such time when Rob can't even recognize a personal pronoun in the genitive?


The appearing of the 'glory of God' can just as easily entail the presence of God i.e. Christ. It does not necessitate it but it certainly does not exclude the appearance of the person to whom the glory belongs.

It does not REQUIRE it, but it is strongly indicated by such. Further so by this verse:

Mar 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.

-Tony

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132032#post132032)
Tsmith:

You just opened a can of worms on this one.

(ASV) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(DRB) Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(GB) Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ,

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(Webster) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;

(LO) expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(Murdock) looking for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah;

My mistake about ASV :doh:, but many of the others miss the point, because they predate Granville Sharp, e.g. KJV, DRB, GB. Webster, LO and Murdock seem to be obscure translations.

I could keep going, but I will stop.

Oh, please do. I listed by far the most credible and widely used translations, so feel free to list all the obscure ones you can find. But please check the dates this time.

The text here reads this:

PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKAPIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIPHANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hEMWN IHSOU XRISTOU

It is the appearing of the DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU, or the glory of the great God that we find, not the person of the great God.

Come off it -- the glory belongs to one Person, Jesus Christ, who is described by the compoung "great God and Savior" by the Rule.

Further, TOU MEGALOU QEOU has sufficient semantic force as a proper name to remove this from the realm of Sharp's Rule, making it a non-issue.

That's not what Sharp thought!

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132092#post132092)
Socrates:



My mistake about ASV :doh:, but many of the others miss the point, because they predate Granville Sharp, e.g. KJV, DRB, GB. Webster, LO and Murdock seem to be obscure translations.

Call them obscure if you want, but that does not make them any less valid.



Oh, please do. I listed by far the most credible and widely used translations, so feel free to list all the obscure ones you can find. But please check the dates this time.

I don't need to do this. I was simply making the point that I can.


Come off it -- the glory belongs to one Person, Jesus Christ, who is described by the compoung &quot;great God and Savior&quot; by the Rule.

Actually, the glory that Christ comes in is the glory of his Father.

Mark 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.

So yes, you have the glory of the great God appearing, not the person of the great God. So either Jesus is appearing with God the Father's glory as Mark states, or the person of Jesus is not appearing at all and it is only his glory.


That's not what Sharp thought!

Well that is nice, but that doesn't change the simple reality of it.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132095#post132095)
Tsmith:

Actually, the glory that Christ comes in is the glory of his Father.

Mark 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.

And what about these verses?
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and Father's, and of the holy angels.
Question: How many thrones in heaven and how many sitting on that/those thrones?
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as [I]I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Jesus on the one throne with The Father)

Rev 4:2 a throne was set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne. (one throne, one on the throne)

Rev 4:9 him that sat on the throne (Rev 5:7) (one, on the one throne)

Rev 5:13 him that sitteth upon the throne, (Rev 6:16) (one, on the one throne)

Rev 7:10 God which sitteth upon the throne, (one, God, on one throne)

Rev 7:15 the throne of God (Rev 14:5) (one throne)

Rev 12:5 God, and [to] his throne. (one, God, on one throne)

Rev 19:4 God that sat on the throne, (one, God, on one throne)

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, (one, on the one throne)

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne (one, on the one throne)

Rev 22:1 the throne (sing.) of God and of the Lamb. (one throne, but the throne is both God’s and the lamb)

Rev 22:3 the throne (sing.) of God and of the Lamb (one throne, but the throne is both God’s and the lamb)

[AVmetro]

Well I'm sure some would like it, but that type of reply would take significantly more time than I care to apply to it. The fact remains that the two counter examples Rob gave to the John 20:28 construction totally fail, so that is the real issue.

I honestly see no reason to refrain from forming a comphrehensive rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's critique. You had previously claimed it to have been refuted elsewhere. Certainly the homework is done for you ergo a quick line by line should be reaching near completion.

Yes, many are patently awaiting a full response to the critique. That is, of course, why it was given it's own thread.

We aren't rushing you. Take your time and give it the attention one would need to convince a skeptical audience.

8<

It does not REQUIRE it, but it is strongly indicated by such. Further so by this verse:

Mar 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.

See the post previously made by Old Shepherd. The glory is that of the Son as well. See also Jn17:5..cf..Rev5:13. An equality of glory in fact. I also made the pertinent reference to Harris on the titular nature of the {whole}phrase "Our God and Savior". Your labeling it as a "personal name" is opinion at best.

Might I take this time to ask why it would bother you to call Christ "theos" in this instance whereas it doesn't in those areas where the application is indisputable?

Call them obscure if you want, but that does not make them any less valid.

They are obscure for a reason. Soc's point being, they won't do well in convincing us of top-notch scholarship.

I don't need to do this. I was simply making the point that I can.

It would aid your case to employ those versions made with the awarence of Sharp's Rule in mind. This shows a difference of scholarly opinion (from the standpoint of bible versions) as opposed to mere ignorance.

Actually, the glory that Christ comes in is the glory of his Father.

Mark 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.

So yes, you have the glory of the great God appearing, not the person of the great God. So either Jesus is appearing with God the Father's glory as Mark states, or the person of Jesus is not appearing at all and it is only his glory.

Or rather Christ {who is God} is appearing in His own glory as well as that of His Father's. It is given to them in equality (e.g. Rev5:13 etc.). Your are assuming Unitarianism in that the application of the word "God" to Christ must in turn exclude a reference to the Father. Not so.

Well that is nice, but that doesn't change the simple reality of it.

And labeling your view as "the reality" concerning a passage under dispute is not impressive either.

God bless

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132017#post132017)
Tsmith:

For this reply, I am only going to deal with Rob's so-called counter examples to Smart's Rule that are specifically related to the John 20:28 construction. Since this is the issue at hand, we will deal with this. I could take the time to go further into it, but really, at this time, there is no need.

Unfortunately for Rob, any attempted example from Revelation is void by default. Perhaps Rob is not aware of this, but Revelation really is not Koine Greek at all. Note the following from Vincent's Word Studies on Revelation:

&quot;“The language,” says Dr. Davidson, “departs materially from the usual Greek of the New Testament, presenting anomalies, incorrectnesses, peculiar constructions, and awkward dispositions of words, which have no parallel.... The language is so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of Greek.”&quot;

If Revelation is NOT Koine Greek and examples from Rev. do not refute the so-called Smart's Rule, why did Dan Parker use two examples Rev. 6:11, and 11:18 as a proof texts for the rule?
The rule is stated as:

"In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."

There is no example in the GNT where this construction has one person in view.

I was asked off-list to provide all the examples which support this rule in the GNT, and did email it to the individual, but had never posted the list to B-GREEK. The categories are as follows:

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49; Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33
,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12 ; 4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th
2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; [i]Re 6:11 [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is
therefore translation Greek.]

Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35; Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2; Phil 1:3)

Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) - (Mk 6:21; 10:7,19;
16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2; Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-02/4229.html

Actually, this is not a counterexample at all. EMOS is not a personal pronoun in the genitive, as the rule requires. Perhaps Rob is not aware as to what a personal pronoun in the genitive is.

So, those are the two examples Rob provided in attempts to refute the John 20:28 construction. However, neither of them hold even a little bit of water, so the rule is FAR from refuted.

As for 2 Cor 8:23, here's what Smyth's grammar has to say about emos: The possessive pronoun in "the first and second persons are equivalents of the possessive genitives of the personal pronouns: emos = mou, sos = sou" (§1196, 299).

Care to comment?

And OBTW it will take more than the opinion of one scholar to prove that Revelation is not Koine Greek. A few grammatical quirks does not do it. I venture to say that most of us here will have a few grammatical faux pas, in our own native language, English.

Revelation was addressed to seven churches in Asia, which was not a Hebrew/Aramaic speaking area. John would not have written (edited to add: those seven churches) in those languages.

[Jaltus]

Apocalyptic intentionally uses abbreviated sentences and syntax.

Note that through chapter 3 of Revelation the syntax is normal, but one it hits the apocalyptic sections, it shifts.

AFAIK, nobody in the academy would be inclined to agree with Dr. Davidson.

I suggest reading Beale, Mounce, et al on if Revelation is Koine Greek.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132120#post132120)
IronMetro:



I honestly see no reason to refrain from forming a comphrehensive rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's critique. You had previously claimed it to have been refuted elsewhere. Certainly the homework is done for you ergo a quick line by line should be reaching near completion.

Again, it is a matter of time. I simply do not see a need.

See the post previously made by Old Shepherd. The glory is that of the Son as well. See also Jn17:5..cf..Rev5:13. An equality of glory in fact. I also made the pertinent reference to Harris on the titular nature of the {whole}phrase &quot;Our God and Savior&quot;. Your labeling it as a &quot;personal name&quot; is opinion at best.

I fail to see where it is the same glory. Certainly Jesus has glory, but I do not see where it is called the same glory or equal glory.

As for TOU MEGALOU QEOU having the force of a proper name, I would say this is far from opinion. Jehovah himself is explicitly identified as The Great God in the OT. We can find this at Deut. 7:21; 10:17; Neh 1:5; 9:32;Psa 85:10.

Here, let us focus on Psalms 85:10. It reads, in part:

hO QEOS MONOS hO MEGAS

This here is idenitfying Jehovah as "the only Great God." So we definitely have Jehovah, being the only one of such, having the semantic force of a proper name, just as The President of the United States is only of George W. Bush.



Might I take this time to ask why it would bother you to call Christ &quot;theos&quot; in this instance whereas it doesn't in those areas where the application is indisputable?

It doesn't bother me, theologically, at all. I simply do not believe this verse is calling him such for grammatical reasons as well as statistical.


They are obscure for a reason. Soc's point being, they won't do well in convincing us of top-notch scholarship.

Obscure does not mean poor. Obscure translations are often done by the most top-notch scholars.


It would aid your case to employ those versions made with the awarence of Sharp's Rule in mind. This shows a difference of scholarly opinion (from the standpoint of bible versions) as opposed to mere ignorance.

The ASV is one such version that does so. I believe you will find several of the other translations I listed post-date Sharp's Rule as well.


Or rather Christ {who is God} is appearing in His own glory as well as that of His Father's. It is given to them in equality (e.g. Rev5:13 etc.). Your are assuming Unitarianism in that the application of the word &quot;God&quot; to Christ must in turn exclude a reference to the Father. Not so.

The point is that we have two items here. We have the glory of one and then we have a person. If a person appears, it is a given that their glory will appear. You cannot appear without your own glory, but it is the fact that the glory of the great God, who we identified to be Jehovah alone, the God of Jesus (Micah 5:4), is where we find a seperation.


And labeling your view as &quot;the reality&quot; concerning a passage under dispute is not impressive either.

God bless

I have nobody to impress.

-Tony

[Tsmith]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132141#post132141)
OldShepherd:



If Revelation is NOT Koine Greek and examples from Rev. do not refute the so-called Smart's Rule, why did Dan Parker use two examples Rev. 6:11, and 11:18 as a proof texts for the rule?
The rule is stated as:

&quot;In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view.&quot;

There is no example in the GNT where this construction has one person in view.

I was asked off-list to provide all the examples which support this rule in the GNT, and did email it to the individual, but had never posted the list to B-GREEK. The categories are as follows:

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49; Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33
,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12 ; 4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th
2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; [i]Re 6:11 [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is
therefore translation Greek.]

Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35; Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2; Phil 1:3)

Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) - (Mk 6:21; 10:7,19;
16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2; Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-02/4229.html



Interesting question. I will investigate this question, but I believe the point still remains on Rob not disproving the rule.

As for 2 Cor 8:23, here's what Smyth's grammar has to say about emos: The possessive pronoun in &quot;the first and second persons are equivalents of the possessive genitives of the personal pronouns: emos = mou, sos = sou&quot; (§1196, 299).

Care to comment?


While they do provide a function, the fact remains that this does fall outside the rule because they actually are not. That really is a total side issue, because the rule states the the pronoun in the genitive is repeated for perspicuity. The verse in question uses EMOS alone, which does not fall within the john 20:28 construction anyway, so I'm not sure why I even brought this one up.



[b]And OBTW it will take more than the opinion of one scholar to prove that Revelation is not Koine Greek. A few grammatical quirks does not do it. I venture to say that most of us here will have a few grammatical faux pas, in our own native language, English.

Actually, there is significant documentation on Revelation being ungrammatical. We could dig through stuff bit-by-bit, but this is of interest. Consider it my reply to Jaltus as well.

Robertson's Word Pictures:

Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in Rev_1:4), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (Revelation in Schaff’s Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften, p. 85). Radermacher (Neutestamentliche Grammatik, p. 3) calls it “the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity,” and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (Grammar, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: “Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form.”


-Tony

[Jaltus]

How about something from the last 20 years or so?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132437#post132437)
Jaltus:

How about something from the last 20 years or so?

No can do for the time being. I'm out of town for the time being and I only have with me what it on my laptop and in my brain. Perhaps Cal has some information on this topic.


-Tony

[Jaltus]

I'd be interested. I know that Revelation is full of clipped sentences etc, but I have never heard it discussed as non-Koine Greek.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132457#post132457)
Jaltus:

I'd be interested. I know that Revelation is full of clipped sentences etc, but I have never heard it discussed as non-Koine Greek.

We perhaps should not call it non-koine Greek, but poor koine greek.

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132457#post132457)
Jaltus:

I'd be interested. I know that Revelation is full of clipped sentences etc, but I have never heard it discussed as non-Koine Greek.

The versions of Smart's rule that I have seen even on JW web sites are apparently outdated. I am not at liberty to post the entire rule. I believe it is undergoing some minor updates prior to being released. I do not know when that will be. The version that was posted on B-GREEK did not have the explanation of the grammatical basis or the footnotes. Below are two footnotes that deal with the book of Revelation.

Best Regards,
Cal


Revelation excluded from consideration for non-standard grammar. Revelation 6:11 likely a Hebraism, however If one group is in view (scholars are split) and this is idiomatic Greek the kai would be epexegetical and not copulative. "11c EWS PLHRWQWSIN KAI OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN OI MELLONTES APOKTENNESQAI WS KAI AUTOI lit. "until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they were was complete." In the phrase "their fellow servants and brothers," that both plural nouns are articular and both are preceded by the conjunction kai, "and," suggests the possibility that the two separate groups are in view (Zahn, 2:362; Ulfgard, Feast, 56). However, the connecting kai may well be epexegetical so that the phrase should probably be construed as meaning "their fellow servants, that is, their brothers," thus describing a single group from two perspectives (Beckwith, 527; Charles, 1:177; Mounce, 160)." (Aune Rev. 6:11c))

The N. T. writers considered separately exhibit extremely few purely grammatical peculiarities. Only the book of Rev. requires particular, though not exceptional, attention in a treatise on the grammar of the N. T. (Winer 39); There is every reason to believe that the author of Revelation was either inexpert in Greek or deliberately provocative in his choice of Semitic constructions; and although one recoils from the thought that a man who wrote Greek, or translated into Greek, could follow Hebrew syntax as far as to put a future tense where a past tense was required, he so often does this that the instances cannot be explained in any other way. His book abounds in grammatical solecisrns which are clearly Hebraic. (Turner 159); The Apocalypse is perhaps the extreme case. Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form. But just because the weird dialect is the native speech of its author, if he must use Greek, we accept it without apology; no anthology of the rarest gems in human literature could be complete without contributions from its pages. (Moulton 2); Contrasting the Gospel of John to Revelation Moulton says: "The linguistic evidence all goes to show that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a man who, while cultured to the last degree, wrote Greek after the fashion of men of quite elementary attainment. His uneasy movement in the region of unfamiliar idiom is never suffered to betray him into a breach of the laws of grammar." (Moulton 33 §18b) "Very different are the phenomena that meet us in that marvelous book which so fittingly closes the canon of the NT. The Greek of the Apocalypse differs in an extraordinary degree from that of the Fourth Gospel. Not only does it display a greater freedom in copiousness of vocabulary and elaborate phraseology; it is simply defiant of the restraints of grammar." (Moulton 33a §19)

[Jaltus]

Um, wouldn't every single time two words appear with a KAI between them and those two words refer to the same thing be an epexegetical KAI?

Thus, the question is really what kind of KAI it is instead of the rule being in the least helpful for determining the construction.

In other words, the rule has to assume it is copulative in order to prove it is copulative! It is a circular rule!

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132577#post132577)
Jaltus:

Um, wouldn't every single time two words appear with a KAI between them and those two words refer to the same thing be an epexegetical KAI?

Thus, the question is really what kind of KAI it is instead of the rule being in the least helpful for determining the construction.

In other words, the rule has to assume it is copulative in order to prove it is copulative! It is a circular rule!

Dear Jaltus,
Sharp makes the same distinction for the same reason as Smart does. Sharp says "When the copulative kai ....

BDF page 227 in §442 for kai "The properly copulative meaning of kai ‘and’ is to be distinguished from the adjunctive ‘also’."

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

But you distinguished between copulative and epexegetical, that is what I am arguing with. The epexegetical KAI should not exist. Please show from a grammar that there even is such a thing.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132696#post132696)
Jaltus:

But you distinguished between copulative and epexegetical, that is what I am arguing with. The epexegetical KAI should not exist. Please show from a grammar that there even is such a thing.

Jaltus,
After all we have been through and you doubt my veracity with respect to Greek? :ponder:

How sure are you of yourself on this? If I show you an example of a Greek grammar that mentions "epexegetical kai" will you:

1) Admit publicly that I know more Greek than you do.
2) Call the local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and ask for a bible study.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

No, but I would admit you taught me something. Wallace, on p. 678 of GGBB lists only two epexegetical conjunctions, ina and oti.

Why, if you know one point of Greek grammar better than I do, would I say you know all of Greek better? That could very well be false.

I humbly admit there is a lot I do not know. At the same time, there is a lot I very definitely do know, and it contradicts a lot of what you have claimed so far (which is why I believe you have avoided refuting point by point my original arguments).

:jaltus:

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132734#post132734)
Jaltus:

No, but I would admit you taught me something. Wallace, on p. 678 of GGBB lists only two epexegetical conjunctions, ina and oti.

Why, if you know one point of Greek grammar better than I do, would I say you know all of Greek better? That could very well be false.

I humbly admit there is a lot I do not know. At the same time, there is a lot I very definitely do know, and it contradicts a lot of what you have claimed so far (which is why I believe you have avoided refuting point by point my original arguments).

:jaltus:

Dear Jaltus,
I am here for the same reason that you are, to learn and (I presume) to have fun.

However, I have been ridiculed on this board for my theological affilication and lack of credentials from a Seminary. Jesus and his disciples were ridiculed for the same reason. I am in good company.


The reference to 'epexegetical kai' is in the same section of BDF which I gave earlier.

The offer for the bible study still stands :angel:

Best Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132470#post132470)
Tsmith:

We perhaps should not call it non-koine Greek, but poor koine greek.

-Tony

Excellent Dude! I think I said that! Isn't that what I said? Yes that is what I said.

[dizzle]

Today @ 09:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132747#post132747)
Cal_Minian:


However, I have been ridiculed on this board for my theological affilication and lack of credentials from a Seminary. Jesus and his disciples were ridiculed for the same reason. I am in good company.

Playing the martyr and comparing yourself to Jesus in the same breath? You were never ridiculed for a lack of credentials, so please cut that out. You would never disclose before whether you had them or not so give me a break. Also, you were not ridiculed for your theological affiliation. Another member gave their opinion of the category that the WTBTS belongs in, a category with which I, and most of evangelical Christianity agree. An opinion was also expressed as to the quality of the NWT, an opinon with which I also agree. Now if we are going to talk about alleged ridicule, you have not been "respectful" of Trinitarianism, nor has anyone asked you to, but don't play the violion and the martyr card. We cannot both be right. I believe and have no problem saying, that one cannot deny the deity of Christ, and your affiliation says that one cannot affirm it, and be a Christian. So we are the same in having strong convictions, so lets cut the doody and not call it ridicule.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132775#post132775)
Dee Dee Warren:

Playing the martyr and comparing yourself to Jesus in the same breath? You were never ridiculed for a lack of credentials, so please cut that out. You would never disclose before whether you had them or not so give me a break. Also, you were not ridiculed for your theological affiliation. Another member gave their opinion of the category that the WTBTS belongs in, a category with which I, and most of evangelical Christianity agree. An opinion was also expressed as to the quality of the NWT, an opinon with which I also agree. Now if we are going to talk about alleged ridicule, you have not been &quot;respectful&quot; of Trinitarianism, nor has anyone asked you to, but don't play the violion and the martyr card. We cannot both be right. I believe and have no problem saying, that one cannot deny the deity of Christ, and your affiliation says that one cannot affirm it, and be a Christian. So we are the same in having strong convictions, so lets cut the doody and not call it ridicule.

Hear! Hear! Go Girl! NOI

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132775#post132775)
Dee Dee Warren:


An opinion was also expressed as to the quality of the NWT, an opinon with which I also agree.



Funny, didn't you say prior that you do not know Hebrew or Greek? So you really are not in a position to agree or disagree. I believe this would be following the crowd out of ignorance. I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called "one of the most accurate translations..."

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132781#post132781)
OldShepherd:



Hear! Hear! Go Girl! NOI


Thats our little woman!

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132784#post132784)
Tsmith:

Funny, didn't you say prior that you do not know Hebrew or Greek? So you really are not in a position to agree or disagree. I believe this would be following the crowd out of ignorance. I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called &quot;one of the most accurate translations...&quot;

-Tony

"I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called &quot;one of the most accurate translations...&quot;" What else would you expect? LDS scholars also call their version "one fo the most accurate, etc."

"following the crowd out of ignorance." I would be real careful using phrases like this to DDW. Don't cry when you get your head handed to you.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132787#post132787)
OldShepherd:



&quot;I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called &amp;quot;one of the most accurate translations...&amp;quot;&quot; What else would you expect? LDS scholars also call their version &quot;one fo the most accurate, etc.&quot;

This doesn't make any sense. The author is not a JW.


&quot;following the crowd out of ignorance.&quot; I would be real careful using phrases like this to DDW. Don't cry when you get your head handed to you.
[/quote]

LOL. No, it is ignorance. I can comfortably say this one.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132793#post132793)
Tsmith:



This doesn't make any sense. The author is not a JW.




Here is info on BeDuhn. If I feel ok tomorrow I may start a series of reviews on the book.


Jason David BeDuhn is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a P1i.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles n die areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220
www.univpress.com

[AVmetro]

2) Call the local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and ask for a bible study.

If I do this will I receive an answer regarding 1935? That's a serious question.

However, I have been ridiculed on this board for my theological affilication and lack of credentials from a Seminary. Jesus and his disciples were ridiculed for the same reason. I am in good company.

Jesus was also inspired. Are you staking that claim? Secondly, Christ, on occasion, chastised the disciples Himself on account of their lack of understanding. :wink:

Funny, didn't you say prior that you do not know Hebrew or Greek? So you really are not in a position to agree or disagree.

Interesting. And the translators of the NWT (Franz et al) knew how much of wha..?

I believe this would be following the crowd out of ignorance. I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called "one of the most accurate translations..."

Countered by the many critiques of the NWT being a "frightening mistranslation" etc.

This doesn't make any sense. The author is not a JW.

However, he certainly appears to be sympathetic with their theology in some areas. That inference being only from the little I've seen, though. :smile:

[AVmetro]

Again, it is a matter of time. I simply do not see a need.

You have had an ample amount of time to produce more than you have thus far. You have explicitly stated in the not too distant past that Mr. Bowman's critique was "refuted" elsewhere. I am simply requesting that you take this alledged "refutation", put it into your own words, and form a viable line by line response. "Time" should not even be an issue in this case.

Tangents..:

I fail to see where it is the same glory. Certainly Jesus has glory, but I do not see where it is called the same glory or equal glory.

Rev5:13 is a prime example. Glory is given equally to both Father and Son by the whole of creation. See Col1:15 where creation was created for Christ. Looking into the OT, we see that YHWH created all of creation for His own personal glory (Is43:6-7). Glory He will not share with any other (Is42:8; 48:11). Yet, in the context of Rev5:13, we have all of creation, which was created for Christ, giving equal praise and glory to the Father and Lamb (See A.T. Robertson). Nothing clearer than the Trinitarian view could be explicitly drawn from this passage.

As for TOU MEGALOU QEOU having the force of a proper name, I would say this is far from opinion. Jehovah himself is explicitly identified as The Great God in the OT. We can find this at Deut. 7:21; 10:17; Neh 1:5; 9:32;Psa 85:10.

I was referring to the titular use of the phrase {as a whole} "God and Savior" not simply "The Great God". Again, see Harris.

Here, let us focus on Psalms 85:10. It reads, in part:

hO QEOS MONOS hO MEGAS

This here is idenitfying Jehovah as "the only Great God." So we definitely have Jehovah, being the only one of such, having the semantic force of a proper name, just as The President of the United States is only of George W. Bush.

I don't believe the above necessitates that it be taken as a proper name.

Is45:21. "A righteous God and a Savior"

President, afterall, is still a title. It must simply be "taken as" a 'proper name' if one chooses to use it as such. Of course that is not to say that it couldn't. It simply isn't necessitated.

Secondly, considering the consistency of parallels in 2Peter i.e.1:11, 2:20, 3:2 and 3:18, I find the burden of proof to be on the one who simply asserts an alternate explanation by insisting on the use of 'theos' as a 'proper name'.

It doesn't bother me, theologically, at all. I simply do not believe this verse is calling him such for grammatical reasons as well as statistical.

If it didn't pose a threat to the detractor, there wouldn't be such an effort to counter the Trintarian interpretation. Where we would expect a mediocre reply {in the case of "it doesn't bother me"}, we recieve a tenacious effort. Telling. "our God" would be similar in implication to the "my God" of Jn20:28. The rub of the argument here being the use of 'theos' as applied to a being.

8<

The point is that we have two items here. We have the glory of one and then we have a person. If a person appears, it is a given that their glory will appear. You cannot appear without your own glory, but it is the fact that the glory of the great God, who we identified to be Jehovah alone, the God of Jesus (Micah 5:4), is where we find a seperation.

You bring in the a priori assumption that the Father, only is "God" ergo the "glory" must be in reference to the glory of the Father, not the Son. However, as has already been demonstrated (OS et al), Christ is said to also come in His own 'glory' {It should be noted that if the Father and Son share glory, then the point is seen even more so}. If Christ is 'God' then the "glory of God" is perfectly able to be in reference to Christ Jesus, as God. Your above argument necessitates nothing. :wink:

8<

God bless

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132402#post132402)
Tsmith:

IMetro: See the post previously made by Old Shepherd. The glory is that of the Son as well. See also Jn17:5..cf..Rev5:13. An equality of glory in fact. I also made the pertinent reference to Harris on the titular nature of the {whole}phrase "Our God and Savior". Your labeling it as a "personal name" is opinion at best.

I fail to see where it is the same glory. Certainly Jesus has glory, but I do not see where it is called the same glory or equal glory.

-Tony

Along with the discussion Of Christ's and/or The Father's glory, see my post, above, with the discussion of thrones and occupants in Revelation. One throne, one occupant, but Christ sits on the ONE throne with the father and it is the throne of God and of the Lamb.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132784#post132784)
Tsmith:




Funny, didn't you say prior that you do not know Hebrew or Greek? So you really are not in a position to agree or disagree. I believe this would be following the crowd out of ignorance. I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called &quot;one of the most accurate translations...&quot;

-Tony


You believe what you like, but where again are those qualifications of the NWT translators? Nowhere to be found. And any translation driven by an organziation's need to make the text fit its doctrines is suspect to say the least. And I do not need to know Hebrew or Greek, as God has seen fit to equip the church with those who do, and all you have done is shift goalposts and deflected. By your reasoning carried down to its logical ends, I should not trust any translation since I do not know the language. But no, you say such a thing, and then ask me to believe OTHER men who crow about OTHER men who produced a faulty translation. I can find you numerous books which say the complete opposite. Through study and research one does not have to personally know the original languages for tools are out there for the diligent student.

Shall I suggest a few books for you to read? Didn't think so. Nice of the NWT to put "other" in brackets now though, gotta give it up to them there.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 09:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132734#post132734)
Jaltus:

Why, if you know one point of Greek grammar better than I do, would I say you know all of Greek better? That could very well be false.


:jaltus:

Persons with hobby horse issues often knew the minutae of some rules better than others. My hobby horse issue is well known, and some people hearing me expound on that, erroneously assume that I am that knowledgeable on other issues, such as soteriology, which I am not. So I am not surprised that Cal was able to dig out some obscurity, but the arrogance then in his presumption that follows is astounding.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132787#post132787)
OldShepherd:



&quot;I suggest you read the book Truth in Translation, where the NWT is called &amp;quot;one of the most accurate translations...&amp;quot;&quot; What else would you expect? LDS scholars also call their version &quot;one fo the most accurate, etc.&quot;

Oh yes of course OS, LDS would do the same thing. How many books can we dig out telling us that hte KJV is inspired? Do we want to see who has more books out?



&quot;following the crowd out of ignorance.&quot; I would be real careful using phrases like this to DDW. Don't cry when you get your head handed to you.

Well you know OS, things like that don't get me worked up none, I need a little amusement in my day. And anyone who knows me and my nasty little habit of NOT following the crowd will be heavily bemused, and I find it heavy in irony that someone who has loyalties to a organization that demands complete adherance and punishes apostasy mightily would make such a statement.... oh well.... at least it is better than the next one.....

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132785#post132785)
Cal_Minian:




Thats our little woman!


There you go!!! Nice way to talk down to someone's gender in the middle of a theology debate! Whoo hoooo!!!!

[Tsmith]

Today @ 10:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132977#post132977)
Dee Dee Warren:




You believe what you like, but where again are those qualifications of the NWT translators? Nowhere to be found. And any translation driven by an organziation's need to make the text fit its doctrines is suspect to say the least. And I do not need to know Hebrew or Greek, as God has seen fit to equip the church with those who do, and all you have done is shift goalposts and deflected. By your reasoning carried down to its logical ends, I should not trust any translation since I do not know the language. But no, you say such a thing, and then ask me to believe OTHER men who crow about OTHER men who produced a faulty translation. I can find you numerous books which say the complete opposite. Through study and research one does not have to personally know the original languages for tools are out there for the diligent student.

Shall I suggest a few books for you to read? Didn't think so. Nice of the NWT to put &quot;other&quot; in brackets now though, gotta give it up to them there.


Translation: I'm entirely clueless on the matter and I like to ramble a lot so I just believe whatever anyone tells me on the matter that agrees with the view I want to have, whether it is true or not.

As for the other in brackets, you better go read the Col 1:15 thread, as while I didn't address this specifically as the topic, stuff I have said has not only proven that it is allowable based on NT grammar, but actually that other is implied.

-Tony

[Tsmith]

Today @ 08:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132917#post132917)
OldShepherd:



I fail to see where it is the same glory. Certainly Jesus has glory, but I do not see where it is called the same glory or equal glory.

-Tony

Along with the discussion Of Christ's and/or The Father's glory, see my post, above, with the discussion of thrones and occupants in Revelation. One throne, one occupant, but Christ sits on the ONE throne with the father and it is the throne of God and of the Lamb. [/QUOTE]

Actually, Jesus stands at the right hand of that throne (Acts 7:55,56) and then, only for a time allowed by the Father, does he sit on it (1 Cor 15:24-28).

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132981#post132981)
Dee Dee Warren:




There you go!!! Nice way to talk down to someone's gender in the middle of a theology debate! Whoo hoooo!!!!

Dear DeeDee,
And I thought I had complemented you!

My apologies,

Cal

[Jaltus]

Yesterday @ 08:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132747#post132747)
Cal_Minian:
However, I have been ridiculed on this board for my theological affilication and lack of credentials from a Seminary. Jesus and his disciples were ridiculed for the same reason. I am in good company.

Welcome to the club, we all get ridiculed for our beliefs at some point in time. It never plays well, however, to make yourself out a martyr. Once people get to know you, assuming you are not a one trick pony like DDW (just kidding! don't hurt me, :ddw: ), then you'll do fine. Seminary training is not a necessity, but it does help to show you have studied the languages and are not relying only on tools, especially outdated or poor ones (e.g. Vine's and Strong's).

The reference to 'epexegetical kai' is in the same section of BDF which I gave earlier.

The offer for the bible study still stands :angel:

Best Regards,
Cal

Actually, this is quite misleading, as the only mention of "epexegetical KAI" by BDF is in reference to indirect discourse and not to grouping nouns. Thus, it is well outside of the character of what we were debating (the only example BDF gives is John 1:16, which no other grammar agrees with, such as Wallace or Turner). It is hard to make an entire catagory (and argument) out of one example.

In any event, this ended up proving your own point wrong, since two nouns can never be related by an epexegetical KAI, it can only (assuming you think it really exists) introduce indirect discourse.

For myself, I think BDF is wrong, probably due to how outdated it is (first run was 1896).

I believe my point still stands, unless you think a grammar from over a century ago should outweigh modern scholarship. Next time I'll remember to tag "from the last 100 years" when I ask for proof from a grammar. Actually, it should be only 25 years, to be honest, due to the revolution in Greek grammar that has taken place since Fanning and Porter have published.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 10:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133265#post133265)
Jaltus:



Welcome to the club, we all get ridiculed for our beliefs at some point in time. It never plays well, however, to make yourself out a martyr. Once people get to know you, assuming you are not a one trick pony like DDW (just kidding! don't hurt me, :ddw: ), then you'll do fine. Seminary training is not a necessity, but it does help to show you have studied the languages and are not relying only on tools, especially outdated or poor ones (e.g. Vine's and Strong's).



Actually, this is quite misleading, as the only mention of &quot;epexegetical KAI&quot; by BDF is in reference to indirect discourse and not to grouping nouns. Thus, it is well outside of the character of what we were debating (the only example BDF gives is John 1:16, which no other grammar agrees with, such as Wallace or Turner). It is hard to make an entire catagory (and argument) out of one example.

In any event, this ended up proving your own point wrong, since two nouns can never be related by an epexegetical KAI, it can only (assuming you think it really exists) introduce indirect discourse.

For myself, I think BDF is wrong, probably due to how outdated it is (first run was 1896).

I believe my point still stands, unless you think a grammar from over a century ago should outweigh modern scholarship. Next time I'll remember to tag &quot;from the last 100 years&quot; when I ask for proof from a grammar. Actually, it should be only 25 years, to be honest, due to the revolution in Greek grammar that has taken place since Fanning and Porter have published.

Jaltus:
Actually, this is quite misleading, as the only mention of "epexegetical KAI" by BDF is in reference to indirect discourse and not to grouping nouns.


Cal:
Dear Jaltus:
I am not sure what you mean by indirect discourse impacting the grouping of the substantives in John 1:16. Could you be more specific?

Jaltus:
Thus, it is well outside of the character of what we were debating (the only example BDF gives is John 1:16, which no other grammar agrees with, such as Wallace or Turner). It is hard to make an entire catagory (and argument) out of one example.

Cal:
That is where you are wrong. I counted 12 examples in the INDEX OF REFERENCES at the end of BDF starting on page 302, which reference §442, 9.

In addition while BDAG is not a grammar they do agree with BDF and list that section in 495c. The gloss is very similar, with "that is to say" for the "and so, that is" of BDAG. Here is the definition from BDAG.


BDAG 495 "c. oft. explicative; i.e., a word or clause is connected by means of KAI w. another word or clause, for the purpose of explaining what goes before it and so, that is, B-D-F §442,9. "


What BDAG (495c) calls "explicative" BDF calls "epexegetical kai." I counted eight verses from BDAG 495c that are linked to in §442, 9 in the INDEX OF REFERENCES.

Jaltus:
In any event, this ended up proving your own point wrong, since two nouns can never be related by an epexegetical KAI, it can only (assuming you think it really exists) introduce indirect discourse.

Cal:
BDAG gives the example of Romans 1:5 carin kai apostolh grace, that is (KAI), the office of an apostle. Both BDAG and BDF list John 1:16 kai carin anati caritos that is, grace upon grace," where the explicative (epexegetical) KAI introduces this substantive to explain what went before it, that is, ek tou plhrwmatos


Jaltus:
For myself, I think BDF is wrong, probably due to how outdated it is (first run was 1896).

Cal:
If it is outdated, why does Wallace’s GGBB quote it so often?

Jaltus:
I believe my point still stands, unless you think a grammar from over a century ago should outweigh modern scholarship. Next time I'll remember to tag "from the last 100 years" when I ask for proof from a grammar. Actually, it should be only 25 years, to be honest, due to the revolution in Greek grammar that has taken place since Fanning and Porter have published.

Cal:
Well, now we have BDAG from 2000 which uses the word "explicative" instead of "epexegetical." I am sure you can see the root "explain" in both of those terms. Of course the overlap of over half a dozen examples from BDAG 495c and BDF §442, 9 proves the two terms are interchangeable in addition to the listing of §442, 9 in BDAG 495c for the explicative KAI.

Back to the original reason for this discussion is the fact that -- The Word Biblical Commentary (Volume 52b, David E. Aune, 1998, General Editor Bruce Metzger) said that Revelation 6:11 was a candidate for an example of the "epexegetical kai." This is also confirmed by some English Translations such as Weymouth who translates the verse "until the full number of their fellow bondservants should also be complete- namely (KAI) of their brethren who were soon to be killed just as they had been,." and the Bible in Basic English which renders it "the other servants, (KAI) their brothers."

Therefore, in addition for the strong evidence that the KOINH of Revelation 6:11 is impacted by Semitic influence it is also not an exception to Smarts rule because if it is not a Semitism the KAI is also not copulative.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133239#post133239)
Tsmith:




Translation: I'm entirely clueless on the matter and I like to ramble a lot so I just believe whatever anyone tells me on the matter that agrees with the view I want to have, whether it is true or not.



A moment of silence as the irony sinks in. ahh, that was beautiful. It brought a tear to my eye.

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133240#post133240)
Tsmith:

Actually, Jesus stands at the right hand of that throne (Acts 7:55,56) and then, only for a time allowed by the Father, does he sit on it (1 Cor 15:24-28).

-Tony

Very demonstrably false!!! Oh boy... this is one that I will be glad to thrash you on. Please be sure to catch me after I finish responding in the A&O thread.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133240#post133240)
Tsmith:

OS: Along with the discussion Of Christ's and/or The Father's glory, see my post, above, with the discussion of thrones and occupants in Revelation. One throne, one occupant, but Christ sits on the ONE throne with the father and it is the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Actually, Jesus stands at the right hand of that throne (Acts 7:55,56) and then, only for a time allowed by the Father, does he sit on it (1 Cor 15:24-28).

-Tony

Have your actually read Revelation?
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Jesus on the one throne WITH The Father but the other verses I listed previously show that there is only ONE (1) on the throne.

And OBTW the other 17 N.T. verses which speak of Jesus at the right hand of God, say sitting! Mat 22:44, 26:64, Mk 12:36, 14:62, 16:19, Lk 20:42, 22:69, Act 2:34, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Heb 1:3, 1:13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2, Col 3:1, 1 Pet 3:22.

[Jaltus]

Actually, BDF calls it both an epexegetical KAI and an explicative KAI.

Of course those are two slightly different things (explicative means it explains, so the second is a subset or a more exact point of the first, whereas epexegetical means it gives an exact instantiation of the previous).

Thus, it seems to be a bit problematic.

As for Wallace quoting BDF, he sure does, but he also disagrees with them a lot as well.

I'll get back to this thread tomorrow.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133580#post133580)
Jaltus:

Actually, BDF calls it both an epexegetical KAI and an explicative KAI.

Of course those are two slightly different things (explicative means it explains, so the second is a subset or a more exact point of the first, whereas epexegetical means it gives an exact instantiation of the previous).

Thus, it seems to be a bit problematic.

As for Wallace quoting BDF, he sure does, but he also disagrees with them a lot as well.

I'll get back to this thread tomorrow.

Dear Jaltus,
Don't forget the Word Commentary with Bruce Metzger as Editor called Revelation 6:11 an example of "epexetetical kai." That puts the proper term in the proper place for Smart's rule. I do not really care if it is called explicative or epexegetical or adjunctive. (However I am curious where BDF says the epexegetical kai is equivalent to the explicative kai)

What it does mean is that the kai there is not copulative and therefore does not fall under either Sharp's or Smart's rule.



Best Regards,
Cal

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133574#post133574)
OldShepherd:



Have your actually read Revelation?
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Jesus on the one throne WITH The Father but the other verses I listed previously show that there is only ONE (1) on the throne.


And OBTW the other 17 N.T. verses which speak of Jesus at the right hand of God, say sitting! Mat 22:44, 26:64, Mk 12:36, 14:62, 16:19, Lk 20:42, 22:69, Act 2:34, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Heb 1:3, 1:13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2, Col 3:1, 1 Pet 3:22.

I don't dispute this, but we have to keep in mind that the Bible speaks of the 1000 year reign and we still cannot neglect 1 cor 15:24-28. We must take it all in harmony.

-Tony

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133693#post133693)
Tsmith:

I don't dispute this, but we have to keep in mind that the Bible speaks of the 1000 year reign and we still cannot neglect 1 cor 15:24-28. We must take it all in harmony.

-Tony

My Theology/Christology does not have a problem with that passage and the several passages in Revelation previously quoted.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 08:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133701#post133701)
OldShepherd:



My Theology/Christology does not have a problem with that passage and the several passages in Revelation previously quoted.

Dear OldShepherd,
My Theology/Christology does not have a problem with that passage and the several passages in Revelation previously quoted.

I could say the same thing, err, well, I just did!

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Translation: I'm entirely clueless on the matter and I like to ramble a lot

Re-translation: I just had my own line of reasoning nailed to my organization and their credentials.

so I just believe whatever anyone tells me on the matter that agrees with the view I want to have, whether it is true or not.

...and then there was good ole 1975 :lol:

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134801#post134801)
IronMetro:



Re-translation: I just had my own line of reasoning nailed to my organization and their credentials.



...and then there was good ole 1975 :lol:

Dear IronMetro,
May I ask where you worship? You know I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but if you are going to be criticizing my beliefs it might be a bit fairer for me to see that your own fellowship has never made predictions.

As far as 1975 goes, we were told in 1966 not to predict that date for anythink specific even though we still believe by chronology that this date marked 6000 years since Adam was created.

Here is the quote:


"Brother Franz [at the Baltimore assembly in 1966] went on to say: You have noticed the chart [on pages 31-35 in the book Life Everlasting--in Freedom of the Sons of God]. It shows that 6000 years of human experience will end in 1975, in about nine years from now. What does that mean? Does it mean that God's reset day began 4026 B.C.E.? It could have. The Life Everlasting book does not say it did not. The book merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it ... What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?" asked Brother Franz. "Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could!. All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could! It could!. Does it mean that the attack of God of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah witnesses to wipe them out, then God himself will be put out of actions? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975." "Rejoicing over 'God's Sons of Liberty' Spiritual Feast," The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, Page 631.



Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

May I ask where you worship? You know I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but if you are going to be criticizing my beliefs it might be a bit fairer for me to see that your own fellowship has never made predictions.

Yes, you may. I'm non-denominational. :smile:

As far as 1975 goes, we were told in 1966 not to predict that date for anythink specific even though we still believe by chronology that this date marked 6000 years since Adam was created.

For the simple reason that the WTS knows they aren't correct in their assumptions. In the least they doubt their own accuracy. It's called "opening a backdoor through which to escape". When the prophecy fails all they have to do is say "See! see! We said you didn't have to accept it!"

Nevertheless this does not negate the fact that it was pressed. The issue was taught from 1966 to it's failure... How much weight do you think the statement "You can accept it or reject it" bears in light of this? :smile:

See:
"For what?" you may ask. To do the Kingdom preaching work. The remaining time is short, and, as Jesus put it, "the good news has to be preached first," before the old system comes to its end. (Mark 13:10) True, there are more than 300,000 helpers in the field in this country, but we know you will agree that more are needed to get the job done thoroughly. (December 1967 KM p.1)

It is a real pleasure to have a part in the finest work done on earth today, the work Jehovah is asking us to do in these "last days," isn't it? All of us appreciate that there is little time left for this present system of things. In the remaining time it is our desire to share in the preaching work as fully as possible so as to help many more honest-hearted persons to escape from Babylon the Great. (October 1967 KM p.1)

Since we have dedicated ourselves to Jehovah, we want to do his will to the fullest extent possible. Making some special effort to do more than the usual helps us live up to our dedication. In view of the short period of time left, we want to do this as often as circumstances permit. Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6,000 years of man's existence on earth is completed. Do you remember what we learned at the assemblies last summer? The majority of people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out, and there are no resurrection hopes for those who are destroyed then. So, now more than ever, it is vital not to ignore that spirit of wanting to do more. (March 1968 KM pp.3-6)

More recently earnest researchers of the Holy Bible have made
a recheck of its chronology. According to their calculations the six millenniums of mankind's life on earth would end in the mid-seventies. Thus the seventh millennium from man's creation by Jehovah God would begin within less than ten years...

In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be "Lord even of the sabbath day," his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. ( The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years, 1969 pp.25-26)

A few weeks ago you heard a letter read to your congregation about the October 8 special issue of Awake! But by now you no doubt have your own copy, and you have seen for yourself what it contains. Isn't it fine? How appropriate this material is for our magazine that bears the title "Awake!" With a powerful array of facts, persuasive argument and visual aids it drives home the point that we really are living in the "last days." Kindly but firmly it emphasizes the fact that the time left is very short and that, if a person wants to serve God and survive into his righteous new system, he must take the necessary steps now. (October 1968 KM)
Now read the following post-1975:
In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated. (March 15, 1980 Watchtower pp.17-18)

Ironically, prior:

Still some persons may say: "How can you be sure? Maybe it is later than many people think. But maybe it is not as late as some persons claim. People have been mistaken about these prophecies before.".... True, there have been those in times past who predicted an "end to the world," even announcing a specific date.... Yet, nothing happened. The "end" did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. (October 8, 1968 Awake! p.23)

Read the entirety of the article from which the above citations were taken here (http://www.freeminds.org/history/all1975.htm). Read it in full, put yourself in the shoes of a '75 JW and tell me how much bearing the statment "accept it or not" holds in reality. Why do you think so many left?

The large volumes of failed "predictions" are indicative that God is not with the organization. Furthermore, the fact that the society must put forth obvious rationalizations such as "new light/old light" and place extreme nuances on the meaning of "prophet" is telling in itself.

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135019#post135019)
IronMetro:



Yes, you may. I'm non-denominational. :smile:



For the simple reason that the WTS knows they aren't correct in their assumptions. In the least they doubt their own accuracy. It's called &quot;opening a backdoor through which to escape&quot;. When the prophecy fails all they have to do is say &quot;See! see! We said you didn't have to accept it!&quot;

Nevertheless this does not negate the fact that it was pressed. The issue was taught from 1966 to it's failure... How much weight do you think the statement &quot;You can accept it or reject it&quot; bears in light of this? :smile:

See:
&quot;For what?&quot; you may ask. To do the Kingdom preaching work. The remaining time is short, and, as Jesus put it, &quot;the good news has to be preached first,&quot; before the old system comes to its end. (Mark 13:10) True, there are more than 300,000 helpers in the field in this country, but we know you will agree that more are needed to get the job done thoroughly. (December 1967 KM p.1)

It is a real pleasure to have a part in the finest work done on earth today, the work Jehovah is asking us to do in these &quot;last days,&quot; isn't it? All of us appreciate that there is little time left for this present system of things. In the remaining time it is our desire to share in the preaching work as fully as possible so as to help many more honest-hearted persons to escape from Babylon the Great. (October 1967 KM p.1)

Since we have dedicated ourselves to Jehovah, we want to do his will to the fullest extent possible. Making some special effort to do more than the usual helps us live up to our dedication. In view of the short period of time left, we want to do this as often as circumstances permit. Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6,000 years of man's existence on earth is completed. Do you remember what we learned at the assemblies last summer? The majority of people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out, and there are no resurrection hopes for those who are destroyed then. So, now more than ever, it is vital not to ignore that spirit of wanting to do more. (March 1968 KM pp.3-6)

More recently earnest researchers of the Holy Bible have made
a recheck of its chronology. According to their calculations the six millenniums of mankind's life on earth would end in the mid-seventies. Thus the seventh millennium from man's creation by Jehovah God would begin within less than ten years...

In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be &quot;Lord even of the sabbath day,&quot; his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. ( The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years, 1969 pp.25-26)

A few weeks ago you heard a letter read to your congregation about the October 8 special issue of Awake! But by now you no doubt have your own copy, and you have seen for yourself what it contains. Isn't it fine? How appropriate this material is for our magazine that bears the title &quot;Awake!&quot; With a powerful array of facts, persuasive argument and visual aids it drives home the point that we really are living in the &quot;last days.&quot; Kindly but firmly it emphasizes the fact that the time left is very short and that, if a person wants to serve God and survive into his righteous new system, he must take the necessary steps now. (October 1968 KM)
Now read the following post-1975:
In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated. (March 15, 1980 Watchtower pp.17-18)

Ironically, prior:

Still some persons may say: &quot;How can you be sure? Maybe it is later than many people think. But maybe it is not as late as some persons claim. People have been mistaken about these prophecies before.&quot;.... True, there have been those in times past who predicted an &quot;end to the world,&quot; even announcing a specific date.... Yet, nothing happened. The &quot;end&quot; did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. (October 8, 1968 Awake! p.23)

Read the entirety of the article from which the above citations were taken here (http://www.freeminds.org/history/all1975.htm). Read it in full, put yourself in the shoes of a '75 JW and tell me how much bearing the statment &quot;accept it or not&quot; holds in reality. Why do you think so many left?

The large volumes of failed &quot;predictions&quot; are indicative that God is not with the organization. Furthermore, the fact that the society must put forth obvious rationalizations such as &quot;new light/old light&quot; and place extreme nuances on the meaning of &quot;prophet&quot; is telling in itself.

God bless

Now in all those same articles, go get the quotes where they talk about how their chronology is reasonable accurate about not infallible, the ones where they quote Jesus stating that not even he knows the day or the other and so neither do they, and how they don't know, but IF this were to be fulfilled in such a matter, it would be reasonable. In other words, represent the situation accurately, as it was far from a prediction.

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

[QUOTE]Today @ 11:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135019#post135019)
IronMetro:


IronMetro:
Yes, you may. I'm non-denominational. :smile:

Cal:
Are you Calvary Chapel? Does your church have something written on the building that identifies you more than "non-denominational"?

As for the pressing on 1975, I was baptized as a Jehovah's Witness in the early 1970s and I never thought that the end was going to come in 1975.

You see, I lived it. Did some believe it? I am sure some did. But I did not know anyone personally who did, and that is a fact.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

06-26-2003 @ 05:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133580#post133580)
Jaltus:

Actually, BDF calls it both an epexegetical KAI and an explicative KAI.

Of course those are two slightly different things (explicative means it explains, so the second is a subset or a more exact point of the first, whereas epexegetical means it gives an exact instantiation of the previous).

Thus, it seems to be a bit problematic.

As for Wallace quoting BDF, he sure does, but he also disagrees with them a lot as well.

I'll get back to this thread tomorrow.

Jaltus,
Just checking in to see if there has been any activity. I hope you are enjoying your break from this. I am very interested in your response to Rev 6:11.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

I'll get back to you this week or, more likely, weekend.

I had a good break, but got sick on the last day in Alaska, meaning the flight home was awful and only made me feel worse. I was sick for three days, just in time for class this afternoon (yuck).

[Cal_Minian]

07-07-2003 @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142840#post142840)
Jaltus:

I'll get back to you this week or, more likely, weekend.

I had a good break, but got sick on the last day in Alaska, meaning the flight home was awful and only made me feel worse. I was sick for three days, just in time for class this afternoon (yuck).

Challenge to Jaltus on Revelation 6:11 as an exception to Smart’s Rule

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=150367#post150367

[Cal_Minian]

06-26-2003 @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133554#post133554)
Cal_Minian:



Jaltus:
Actually, this is quite misleading, as the only mention of &quot;epexegetical KAI&quot; by BDF is in reference to indirect discourse and not to grouping nouns.


Cal:
Dear Jaltus:
I am not sure what you mean by indirect discourse impacting the grouping of the substantives in John 1:16. Could you be more specific?

Jaltus:
Thus, it is well outside of the character of what we were debating (the only example BDF gives is John 1:16, which no other grammar agrees with, such as Wallace or Turner). It is hard to make an entire catagory (and argument) out of one example.

Cal:
That is where you are wrong. I counted 12 examples in the INDEX OF REFERENCES at the end of BDF starting on page 302, which reference §442, 9.

In addition while BDAG is not a grammar they do agree with BDF and list that section in 495c. The gloss is very similar, with &quot;that is to say&quot; for the &quot;and so, that is&quot; of BDAG. Here is the definition from BDAG.



What BDAG (495c) calls &quot;explicative&quot; BDF calls &quot;epexegetical kai.&quot; I counted eight verses from BDAG 495c that are linked to in §442, 9 in the INDEX OF REFERENCES.

Jaltus:
In any event, this ended up proving your own point wrong, since two nouns can never be related by an epexegetical KAI, it can only (assuming you think it really exists) introduce indirect discourse.

Cal:
BDAG gives the example of Romans 1:5 carin kai apostolh grace, that is (KAI), the office of an apostle. Both BDAG and BDF list John 1:16 kai carin anati caritos that is, grace upon grace,&quot; where the explicative (epexegetical) KAI introduces this substantive to explain what went before it, that is, ek tou plhrwmatos


Jaltus:
For myself, I think BDF is wrong, probably due to how outdated it is (first run was 1896).

Cal:
If it is outdated, why does Wallace’s GGBB quote it so often?

Jaltus:
I believe my point still stands, unless you think a grammar from over a century ago should outweigh modern scholarship. Next time I'll remember to tag &quot;from the last 100 years&quot; when I ask for proof from a grammar. Actually, it should be only 25 years, to be honest, due to the revolution in Greek grammar that has taken place since Fanning and Porter have published.

Cal:
Well, now we have BDAG from 2000 which uses the word &quot;explicative&quot; instead of &quot;epexegetical.&quot; I am sure you can see the root &quot;explain&quot; in both of those terms. Of course the overlap of over half a dozen examples from BDAG 495c and BDF §442, 9 proves the two terms are interchangeable in addition to the listing of §442, 9 in BDAG 495c for the explicative KAI.

Back to the original reason for this discussion is the fact that -- The Word Biblical Commentary (Volume 52b, David E. Aune, 1998, General Editor Bruce Metzger) said that Revelation 6:11 was a candidate for an example of the &quot;epexegetical kai.&quot; This is also confirmed by some English Translations such as Weymouth who translates the verse &quot;until the full number of their fellow bondservants should also be complete- namely (KAI) of their brethren who were soon to be killed just as they had been,.&quot; and the Bible in Basic English which renders it &quot;the other servants, (KAI) their brothers.&quot;

Therefore, in addition for the strong evidence that the KOINH of Revelation 6:11 is impacted by Semitic influence it is also not an exception to Smarts rule because if it is not a Semitism the KAI is also not copulative.

Kind Regards,
Cal


My latest reply to Jaltus is at
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&forumid=34&threadid=7377

Kind Regards,
Fred Rouse (aka Cal_Minian)