@Earnest
Your most
recent reply turns on two new propositions. First, you maintain that the version
of Sharp’s canon restated by Daniel Wallace is reliable only because he
shielded it behind a set of ad‑hoc caveats—especially the proviso “not proper
names”—and you argue that, were the title “the God” functioning as a proper name in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 in the same way that ὁ Βάαλ functions in Judg 2:13 LXX, the verses would fall
outside Wallace’s definition and the whole
discussion would dissolve. Second, you suggest that Hippolytus, whose single‑referent citation of
Titus 2:13 I adduced, is theologically
unstable and therefore an unsafe witness. Both lines of criticism misdescribe
the linguistic evidence.
Wallace’s
three explicit limitations—singular, personal, common nouns—are not
retrospective patches; they retrace the parameters Sharp himself announced in
1798. Sharp excluded
plurals because number is a morpho‑semantic feature that can collapse reference
within a single noun (e.g., “the soldiers
and centurions”); he excluded proper names because,
in Greek as in other languages, a proper name resists further defining
restriction and therefore cannot be “described” by an adjoining common noun. What Wallace supplied was a clearer
taxonomic label (“TSKS construction”) and a computer‑assisted verification of
Sharp’s inductive claim against a vastly larger documentary corpus. The delimiters are methodological,
not ad‑hoc: a rule formulated from homogeneous data must specify which
items belong to the data‑set. If scientific controls invalidate a proposed counter‑example because the
example falls outside the population under study, that is not special pleading
but responsible sampling.
Hence, unlike
Baal, which is a proper name with inherent definiteness, θεός is a
common noun meaning “god” or “deity,” used flexibly in the NT to denote the
Father, the divine essence, or, in specific contexts, the Son. The Septuagint’s
use of “the Baal” (ὁ Βάαλ) as a proper name does not parallel θεός, as Baal’s definiteness
stems from its status as a named deity, whereas θεός derives its
reference from context and grammatical markers, such as the article in a TSKS
(article-substantive-kai-substantive) construction. In the OT, God’s proper
name is “Yahweh,” typically rendered as “Kyrios” in the LXX, not
“theos,” which remains a common noun even when referring to the one true God. Your
attempt to equate θεός with a proper name overlooks this distinction,
as θεός lacks the inherent specificity of a proper noun and is governed
by syntactic rules, including Sharp’s, which apply to common nouns. Wallace’s
qualification excluding proper names addresses cases where inherent
definiteness could disrupt co-referentiality, but since θεός and σωτὴρ are
both common nouns, the TSKS construction in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 reliably
indicates a single referent—Jesus Christ—without requiring an exception.
The
imagined phrase ὁ Βάαλ καὶ σωτὴρ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός would indeed be disqualified in precisely the way Sharp
anticipated: Βάαλ is a proper name, so the string never enters the evidential
pool. By definition,
then, its dual‑referent force is irrelevant to the rule. What matters is the semantic
category of θεός in the passages at issue. In Greek θεός is not a proper name but a common noun functioning as a title; it is
inflected for case, preceded by modifiers, negated, and, crucially, used
broadly of many entities (ὁ θεός, θεὸς τις, θεοὶ πολλοί). That is why θεός is subject to the article’s unifying
force in scores of pagan and Jewish texts and why the NT can drop the article
when θεός is employed qualitatively (Jn 1:1c). The contrast with Βάαλ is structural: Βάαλ never takes an adjectival modifier,
never appears in the plural, and never designates anything other than the
Levantine deity; θεός behaves exactly like the other
common nouns—κύριος, σωτήρ, ἡγεμών, πατήρ—that furnish Sharp’s database. Hence the “proper‑name” qualifier does not exempt “the God” in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 from the rule; it confirms that the rule applies.
Baal, as a
proper name, does not appear in the NT in such a construction, and no
equivalent TSKS structure with a proper name and a common noun exists in Koine
Greek to support the claim of dual reference. The absence of documented
exceptions in native Greek prose, whether in the NT, LXX, papyri, or
inscriptions, underscores the robustness of Sharp’s rule when applied to common
nouns like “theos” and “soter.” Your assertion that θεός functions as an
identifier akin to a proper name in Peter and Paul’s writings conflates
semantic frequency with syntactic constraint. While θεός often denotes
the Father, this is a theological convention, not a grammatical absolute, and
the TSKS structure’s clear signaling of co-referentiality overrides such
conventions in specific instances.
Appeal to
usage (“Peter and Paul generally reserve ὁ θεός for the Father”) cannot convert
a common noun into a proper name. The very epistles under discussion demonstrate
that the authors felt free to widen or narrow the denotation when syntax
dictated: 2 Peter 1:2 repeats ὁ θεός with a second article precisely to mark a shift of reference; 1 Tim 2:3 sets ὁ θεός beside σωτὴρ ἡμῶν under separate articles; in both
places the single vs. dual article is the mechanism by which readers discern
whether co‑reference is intended. The semantics do not override the grammar; the
grammar regulates the semantics.
Turning to your
critique of Hippolytus’ citation of Titus 2:13, the claim that his Treatise
on Christ and Antichrist is primarily eschatological and thus irrelevant to
Christological debates is unpersuasive. You further argue that Hippolytus’
theological complexity—his alleged accusation of modalism against Pope
Zephyrinus and advocacy for the Logos doctrine—makes his use of Titus 2:13 an
unreliable support for a unitary reading, as he likely would not have
interpreted it as identifying Christ as God. This objection, however, misjudges
both the context of Hippolytus’ citation and his theological framework. In the
Treatise, Hippolytus cites Titus 2:13, stating, “Paul also, speaking
to this effect, says: ‘Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
appearing of our great God and Savior’” (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist,
paragraph 67). The preserved Greek fragment in the Syriac catena mirrors the
original text: “τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” with a single article governing both “theou” and “soteros,” followed
by the appositive “Iesou Christou.” Hippolytus immediately identifies the
subject as “our Lord Jesus Christ, the King,” indicating that he understood the
phrase as applying to Christ.
Your
emphasis on the eschatological focus of the Treatise does not diminish its
Christological significance. In early Christian thought, eschatology and
Christology are deeply intertwined, as Christ’s return in glory is a
manifestation of his divine authority. The title “great God and Savior” in
Titus 2:13, as cited by Hippolytus, underscores Christ’s divine role in the
Parousia, reinforcing rather than negating a high Christology. Your
characterization of Hippolytus as a “wild card” due to uncertainties about his
biography or episcopal status is irrelevant to the linguistic evidence. His
alleged accusation of modalism against Zephyrinus and support for the Logos
doctrine do not preclude a unitary reading of Titus 2:13. The Logos doctrine,
as developed by early fathers, affirms the Son’s divinity while distinguishing
him from the Father, aligning with the application of divine titles to Christ.
Hippolytus’ citation, consistent with the TSKS construction, supports the
interpretation that Christ is both “God and Savior,” and your attempt to
dismiss it as eschatologically driven or theologically incompatible lacks
substantiation.
Hence, whether
Hippolytus later accused Zephyrinus of modalism is beside the grammatical
point: his sentence shows how a Greek theologian trained in the Logos tradition
instinctively read the single‑article clause. The citation is pre‑Nicene,
explicit, and philologically unmixed; its eschatological setting strengthens,
not weakens, the evidence, for it demonstrates that early exegetes could deploy
the clause in practical homiletic argument without stumbling over its supposed
ambiguity.
Thus the
rhetorical contrast you propose—either Sharp’s rule is “without exception” or
the verses are “obvious counter‑examples”—is misplaced. There is still no instance in Greek,
biblical or extra‑biblical, of a single‑article TSKS string with singular,
personal, common nouns that indisputably names two different persons. The Greek of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 matches the rule’s parameters exactly; θεός there is a common noun; the earliest extant patristic commentary
applies the clauses to Christ alone; subsequent exegetes do the same. Until a genuine grammatical counter‑instance
is produced, the canon stands intact, and the titles remain joined: “Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior.”
In
conclusion, your objections do not undermine the application of Granville
Sharp’s rule to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The claim that θεός
functions as a proper name akin to Baal misrepresents its status as a common
noun, rendering the analogy invalid and Sharp’s rule applicable. The absence of
documented TSKS exceptions in Koine Greek further supports the unitary reading.
Hippolytus’ citation of Titus 2:13, far from being irrelevant due to its
eschatological context or his theological positions, reinforces the
identification of Christ as “our God and Savior,” consistent with the
grammatical structure and early Christian Christology.
@slimboyfat
The charge
that τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts 20:28 is “wildly wrong” text‑critically rests on an over‑simplified collation and an under‑appreciation
of how eclectic editors weigh witnesses. All three major critical editions now
in use—NA 28, UBS 5, and SBLGNT—print ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ as the Ausgangstext; none treats
the alternative ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου as equipollent, and none relegates τοῦ θεοῦ to the margin. That consensus emerges from the
combined force of three considerations: the quality of the earliest witnesses,
the coherence of the scribal trajectories, and internal probability.
Externally,
τοῦ θεοῦ is carried by the two oldest continuous-text manuscripts of Acts, 𝔓⁷⁴ (c. AD 200) and 01 (א, Sinaiticus *), as well as by the Alexandrian master codex 03 (B, Vaticanus), the independent
Alexandrian 1175, and the Old Latin ita, c, e, plus both Sahidic and Bohairic
Coptic traditions. 02 (A) and 04 (C *), which read τοῦ κυρίου, are
younger (mid‑fifth‑century) and both exhibit characteristic conflate expansions
in this portion of Acts; the Western 05 (D) also supports κυρίου, but its singular readings
throughout Acts are so exuberant that, in a variant with balanced internal
support, its testimony is discounted. The Byzantine text is late and divided:
roughly half the K‑group manuscripts echo κυρίου, others expand to “the Lord and God,” a harmonizing conflation that
betrays secondary alteration.
Internally,
scribes were far more likely to exchange the less familiar “God’s blood”
for the common liturgical phrase “the Lord’s blood” than vice versa. The
expression τὸ αἷμα τοῦ θεοῦ jars against both biblical idiom and Jewish sensitivities; its very
awkwardness argues for originality. Transcriptionally, one need posit only a
single pious harmonization—switching to κυρίου under the influence of
Eucharistic language—to explain the secondary reading, whereas recovering τοῦ θεοῦ from κυρίου requires a
wholly unmotivated change toward the more difficult text, violating the lectio
difficilior principle.
Once τοῦ θεοῦ is secured, the genitive τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἰδίου follows the well‑attested Semitic idiom “one’s
own,” paralleled in Ps B. Sol. 12:4 and codified in LSJ s.v. ἴδιος B. The construction can mean either “God’s own blood” (objective genitive) or “the
blood of his own one”
(possessive genitive of relation); both readings locate the shedding of blood
inside the divine sphere. The first was adopted by Clement, Athanasius, and the
NT text of Polycarp’s Martyrdom; the second was favored
by Chrysostom and the Antiochene school. Whichever nuance one prefers, Luke’s
wording makes no sense unless Jesus shares the identity of the one whom Paul
has just called “God.”
Therefore,
the most recent scholarly apparatus (NA 28 siglum {A}) assigns the highest rating to τοῦ θεοῦ, and the UBS 5 gives it a confidence level B, signaling
only a remote possibility of alternative authenticity. To describe the evidence
as “extremely mixed” is to flatten crucial distinctions of age,
lineage, and transcriptional probability; to say that τοῦ θεοῦ appears in “every uncial hand
except one ninth‑century corrector” was a compressed way of noting that all pre‑Byzantine
uncials except 02 and 04, plus one corrected layer of Sinaiticus, read θεοῦ, and that no extant majuscule
earlier than the fifth century says otherwise. The mistaken notion that the
attestation is evenly divided confuses numerical counts with genealogical
weight. Textual critics do not poll manuscripts; they evaluate them. On that
evaluative scale τοῦ θεοῦ is demonstrably superior, and the passage remains one of Luke’s most
striking ascriptions of divine prerogative to the crucified and risen Lord.
FYI: Acts 20:28 – Smuggling in an Emendation?
