aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 984 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  45

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @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?
• 
  45

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  The contrast you draw between “hundreds of places where God is called God” and “a handful of disputed texts” that ascribe the title to Christ rests on two false assumptions: that the only way the New Testament affirms the Son’s deity is by attaching the noun θεός to his name, and that statistical frequency of a title in one semantic register can overrule grammatical signals, intertextual resonance, and the wider pattern of divine prerogatives that the same documents lavish on Jesus. In apostolic usage the Father is indeed the customary bearer of the article-bearing nominative ὁ θεός. That convention, however, is part of what later theology calls appropriatio: Father, Son and Spirit share every divine attribute, yet Scripture ordinarily reserves Father-language for the first person, Lord-language for the second, and Spirit-language for the third, without thereby restricting the divine essence to one person. Precisely because the writers normally employ ὁ θεός for the Father, the occasions on which they breach the pattern are the more theologically arresting—and that is what happens in the very lines you dismiss as “flimsy.”

  Take Romans 9:5. From Irenaeus onward Greek and Latin fathers, native readers of the language, punctuated the clause so that Christ is “God over all, blessed for ever.” The alternative punctuation was first canvassed in the Enlightenment for dogmatic reasons, not grammatical ones; it requires an abrupt shift from relative clause to doxology without connective, a construction foreign to Paul’s style. The oldest manuscripts offer no punctuation; the earliest interpreters, who processed the text by ear, heard it as a single sentence naming Christ as theos.
  

  First Timothy 3:16 is a red herring. Even if one follows the Alexandrian reading ὃς ἐφανερώθη (and many contemporary critical editors do not), the verse is irrelevant to the cumulative case. Trinitarian doctrine does not hang on a single variant.
  

  Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are not “disputed” in any way that weakens their force. In both, a single article precedes two singular, personal, common nouns joined by καί—“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” No uncontested example has been found, in biblical or non-biblical Koine prose, where that syntactic frame names two distinct individuals. Modern translators who insert a second English determiner are not following Greek grammar; they are overriding it to protect a prior theology.

  Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45 LXX, where the human king of Israel is addressed as ho theos because he represents God. The writer applies the verse to the risen Jesus because the typological shadow has met its archetype. Verse 9 does not rescind the title; it continues the citation where the messianic king is anointed “above his companions”—a statement about royal exaltation, not about the Son’s creaturehood. The contrast is between Christ and redeemed humans, not between a divine Father and a non-divine Son.

  Acts 20:28 is text-critically secure: τοῦ θεοῦ appears in every uncial hand except one ninth-century corrector. The most natural construal of τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου is either “the blood of his own” (genitive of relation) or, with equally ancient support, “the blood of his own [= God’s own blood],” a Semitic idiom echoed in the martyr Polycarp’s prayer. In either case the passage places Jesus inside the sphere of the divine identity.

  First John 5:20 closes with a climactic pronoun: “This is the true God and eternal life.” The nearest syntactic antecedent is “Jesus Christ,” not “the one who is true.” Patristic commentators, once again native Greek speakers, took it of the Son; modern objections turn on presupposition, not grammar.

  John 1:18 is not “disputed” in a way that demotes Christ. The earliest papyri (𝔓66, 𝔓75) and both Alexandrian uncials read μονογενὴς θεός, “the only-begotten God,” a harder reading that scribes were tempted to soften. Even if one prefers the Byzantine τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ, the verse still makes the Son the unique exegete of the invisible God, a role no creature could fulfil.

  John 1:1 does not spread divinity across “levels.” In the predicate position θεός lacks the article because John is asserting what the Word is, not who the Word is; Colwell’s canon, recognized by all major grammars, explains the construction. Nothing in Greek semantics demands a lower-case “g” when θεός is anarthrous; the Father himself is called θεός without the article across the New Testament and the Septuagint.

  John 20:28 is not ambiguous. The text reports Thomas’ address to Jesus; two vocatives governed by the personal pronoun μου leave no syntactic space for a metaphor or an aside. Jesus’ immediate response—“Because you have seen me, you have come to believe”—confirms that Thomas’ confession is the climax of Johannine Christology, not a mistake Jesus hurried to correct.

  Your appeal to raw word counts is therefore beside the point. The evangelists and Paul rarely need the noun θεός to evince Christ’s deity, because they ascribe to him Yahweh’s prerogatives: creation, judgment, dominion over nature, grant of life, forgiveness of sins, reception of worship. They apply to him Yahweh’s titles: Lord of glory, First and Last, α and Ω. They place him within Israel’s monotheistic confession: Romans 10:13 invokes Joel 2:32 of Jesus; Philippians 2:10-11 folds him into Isaiah 45:23. They baptize in one name shared by Father, Son and Spirit (Matt 28:19), bless congregations from the threefold source (2 Cor 13:14), and speak of the Spirit of Jesus empowering believers (Acts 16:7). A theology that refuses to integrate these data because the word “God” appears with an article more often for the Father than for the Son impoverishes exegesis to a bookkeeping exercise.

  Nor does textual criticism collapse the case. The passages you list as uncertain survive in multiple early witnesses; only 1 Tim 3:16 is materially altered by a variant, and orthodox Christology never depended on that line. Every doctrine in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed can be demonstrated from readings common to all manuscript traditions.

  When the entire spectrum of evidence is considered—titles, functions, doxologies, worship, prophetic fulfilment, syntactic markers—New Testament Christology is anything but flimsy. What is flimsy is an approach that counts uses of ὁ θεός, discounts every other mode of divine attribution, and then declares the witness “ambiguous.” The early Church, immersed in the same Greek texts and unconstrained by later doctrinal battles, saw the implications clearly enough to sing to Christ as God within a generation of Easter. Your minimalist canon therefore explains less of the primary data than the Trinitarian synthesis you dismiss.
• 
  45

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Your response insists that the early Christians cannot be presumed to have read the Greek clauses in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 as a single title for Christ, fundamentally because, as you argue, Peter and Paul never elsewhere apply “the God” (ὁ θεός) to Jesus. You contend that to interpret these two verses as identifying Christ as “the God and Savior” would be to introduce a unique and unlikely exception to their usage; conversely, you argue, reading these as exceptions to Sharp’s rule is an equally interpretive move, and the decision ultimately turns on translator preference. However, this is a misconstrual of how linguistic evidence and historical Greek usage function.

  The heart of your objection is that exceptional syntax should not override habitual semantics, i.e., since Peter and Paul habitually use ὁ θεός for the Father, the “natural” reading here must be dual-referent. But this prioritizes distributional statistics over grammatical signal. The question is not whether these verses are the “only” examples of Peter or Paul applying ὁ θεός to Christ (though even this is not strictly accurate, since the appositional “Jesus Christ” in both verses is introduced to explicate who is meant); the issue is whether the TSKS construction—a single article governing two singular, personal, common nouns linked by καί—functions consistently as a marker of co-reference in Koine Greek. All evidence shows that it does.

  It is indeed true that across the Petrine and Pauline corpora, “the God” most frequently designates the Father, reflecting a common NT convention where the Father is the primary referent of this title. This pattern aligns with a theological framework often described as Trinitarian appropriation, wherein distinct titles—ὁ θεός for the Father, ὁ κύριος for the Son, and τὸ πνεῦμα for the Holy Spirit—are typically ascribed to specific persons within the Godhead. However, this observation of statistical regularity does not constitute a categorical prohibition against applying “the God” to Christ, particularly when the syntax of a specific passage suggests otherwise. Language, especially in theological discourse, is not rigidly bound by habitual usage but can adapt to context and grammatical cues. In Titus 2:13, the construction reads “τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” (“of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”), and in 2 Peter 1:1, it is “τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” (“of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”). In both instances, a single article (τοῦ) governs the two nouns “God” (θεοῦ) and “Savior” (σωτῆρος), followed by the appositive “Jesus Christ.” This structure, known as the TSKS construction (article-substantive-καί-substantive), is the focus of Granville Sharp’s rule, which observes that in Koine Greek, when two singular, personal, common nouns are connected by “and” (καί) and share a single article, they typically refer to the same individual. Far from being an extraordinary coincidence requiring an exception, this pattern is a well-documented feature of the language Peter and Paul employed.

  Sharp’s rule is not an arbitrary “grammatical law” imposed after the fact, but a descriptive generalization derived from the entire extant corpus of Koine Greek, both biblical and secular. The TSKS construction is a robust pattern, not a conjectural anomaly. It is not the case that one is “creating an exception to Sharp’s rule” by reading these two verses as dual-referent; rather, such a reading would constitute the first genuine exception ever documented in original Greek prose. No example of a single-article, singular-personal-common TSKS string with dual reference has been shown from the NT, LXX, papyri, inscriptions, or classical literature. The rule’s strength lies precisely in this universality: exceptions are not unknown because of oversight, but because Greek did not use the structure to encode dual reference.

  Your argument implies that the consistent use of “the God” for the Father elsewhere in their writings imposes a semantic constraint that outweighs the syntactic evidence of these specific verses. However, this prioritizes a general trend over the particular grammatical context, which is methodologically problematic. The regular use of ὁ θεός for the Father in the Pauline and Petrine corpus is not in dispute. Yet syntax trumps frequency when the two conflict. Languages always allow for motivated, context-sensitive departures from ordinary referential patterns when grammar and rhetorical intention demand it. For example, John 20:28—regardless of whether Peter or Paul wrote before or after John—shows that ὁ θεός could be used for Christ without hesitation in the first-century Christian milieu, and it is only later dogmatic tradition that tried to make such usage rare or impossible. The “statistical” argument simply does not outweigh the hard grammatical evidence when the structure in question is precisely one whose function is to override ambiguity and signal reference unity.

  The TSKS construction is not an arbitrary invention but a descriptive principle derived from extensive analysis of Koine Greek texts, both biblical and non-biblical. For example, in secular documents like papyri and inscriptions, similar single-article constructions routinely denote a single referent, and no unambiguous counterexample has been identified where such a structure clearly refers to two distinct persons. In the NT itself, the contrast between 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:2 is instructive: while 1:1 uses a single article to link “God” and “Savior” as a unified title for Jesus Christ, 1:2 employs separate articles to distinguish two referents. This deliberate variation within the same epistle suggests intentionality in the unitary reading of 1:1, undermining the notion that applying “the God” to Christ here is an unlikely anomaly. To insist that Peter and Paul could not deviate from their usual terminology overlooks the flexibility inherent in Koine Greek and the theological innovation present in early Christian writings, where Christ’s divine identity was increasingly articulated.

  You further contend that interpreting these verses as a single title for Christ would make them the only exceptions to Peter and Paul’s use of “the God,” while interpreting them as referring to two persons (God and Christ) would make them the only exceptions to Sharp’s rule, presenting translators with a dilemma between two exceptional readings. This framing, however, misrepresents the nature of Sharp’s rule and the burden of proof. Sharp’s rule is not a rigid law that admits exceptions in the same way a semantic convention might; it is an empirical observation of how Greek speakers consistently used the article in such constructions. The absence of clear counterexamples in Koine Greek—where a single-article TSKS structure with singular, personal, common nouns indisputably denotes two individuals—places the onus on those advocating a dual-referent reading to demonstrate that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 deviate from this norm. Your position assumes that the statistical prevalence of “the God” for the Father is sufficient to override the grammatical signal, but without textual evidence of such an exception within the TSKS framework, this assumption lacks substantiation. Conversely, the unitary reading aligns with the syntax and does not require an exception to Sharp’s rule; it simply acknowledges that Peter and Paul, in these instances, applied “the God” to Christ, a usage consistent with broader NT Christology, as seen in John 20:28, where Thomas addresses Jesus as “ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου” (“my Lord and my God”). While John’s Gospel may postdate Peter and Paul, it reflects a first-century milieu in which such flexibility was possible, suggesting that the unitary reading is not an isolated aberration but part of an emerging theological vocabulary.

  You frame the interpretive dilemma as a choice between creating an exception to term usage (“the God” for Christ) or to a grammatical rule (Sharp’s). But these are not equivalent. Habitual semantic patterns are, by definition, general; they admit exceptions when grammatical or contextual markers so indicate. Grammatical rules—especially ones as widely attested as the TSKS construction—admit exceptions only if a counterexample can be demonstrated. Since no such example has ever been identified, the “exception” is not in the application of the rule, but in denying it when its conditions are met. If Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are not read as unitary, it would be the only clear case where the syntax was ignored in favor of a semantic expectation. That would be a genuine anomaly.

  You note that whether or not a comma is placed—separating “God” and “Savior”—reflects an interpretive choice, and that every understanding of these verses creates an exception either to the use of “the God” or to Sharp’s rule. However, this equivalence between the two options does not hold when we consider the original Greek text over later translations. Early Greek manuscripts, written in scriptio continua without punctuation, rely on article placement rather than commas to convey meaning. In both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the single article (τοῦ) unifies “God” and “Savior,” a structure that native Greek readers would naturally interpret as a single referent absent explicit markers to the contrary. Jerome’s Vulgate, for instance, renders 2 Peter 1:1 as “in iustitia Dei nostri et salvatoris Iesu Christi” (“through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”), with a single possessive (nostri) governing both nouns, mirroring the Greek as closely as Latin permits despite its lack of a direct article equivalent. The later insertion of commas in editions like the 1592 Clementine Vulgate reflects editorial decisions, not the original syntax of Jerome. Similarly, the KJV’s rendering introduces a second determiner in English, a choice necessitated by the language’s limitations but not dictated by the Greek, which lacks such a division. These translational choices, while interpretive, do not alter the underlying grammatical cohesion of the TSKS construction, which favors the unitary reading. Later English versions, and some modern translations influenced by anti-Trinitarian dogmatics, introduce division by adding an article, a comma, or a second possessive, but this is a matter of the constraints and conventions of target languages, not a reflection of ambiguity or division in the Greek.

  Your suggestion that the translator must choose between an exception to a daily-used term (“the God”) and an exception to a grammatical rule implies a parity that overlooks the primacy of syntax in determining meaning. Peter and Paul’s frequent use of “the God” for the Father is a semantic tendency, not a grammatical absolute, and can be contextually adapted, as evidenced by the NT’s theological development. Sharp’s rule, by contrast, is a syntactic principle grounded in the language’s structure, not a subjective preference. The early Christian audience, immersed in Koine Greek, would not have required punctuation or later translational cues to discern the meaning; the single article itself signaled that “God and Savior” was a unified title. The possibility that some early Christians read it otherwise, as you concede, is not impossible, but the likelihood hinges on the text’s intrinsic properties, not on speculative exceptions to an observed pattern. The unitary reading does not demand an extraordinary coincidence but follows the natural flow of the Greek, supported by early citations like Hippolytus of Rome’s reference to Titus 2:13 as “our God and Savior” in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, which aligns with the TSKS structure and a high Christology.

  The absence of explicit evidence for early Christian readers interpreting the clause as unitary is simply an argument from silence. Early Christian readers of Greek—unlike post-Reformation translators—did not have punctuation; their understanding was guided by article distribution, which was far more decisive in Koine than in modern English. Patristic citations such as Hippolytus’ “our God and Savior” (explicitly referring to Christ), and the entire chain of post-Nicene commentators, show that the only controversy was over the meaning of the Greek, not over the grammar of the clause itself. When those church fathers who fought Arianism quoted Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1, their entire case rested on the grammatical unity signaled by the Greek article.

  To summarize: Your claim that “exceptional syntax” cannot plausibly override semantic custom is backwards. Greek syntax is not a “suggestion” but the engine of reference. If Greek speakers and writers wanted to specify two persons, they repeated the article, as in 2 Peter 1:2 or in Galatians 1:4. When they meant one, they gave only one article, and no native Greek ever mistook the meaning. The possibility that “maybe some” read these as unitary is not “unlikely,” but—according to the overwhelming evidence of Greek usage—precisely what the grammar compelled. There is no interpretive parity between respecting Greek syntactic unity and overriding it for the sake of modern theological discomfort or statistical habit.

  While Peter and Paul typically use “the God” for the Father otherwise, this convention does not preclude its application to Christ when the grammar—here, a single article governing two nouns—clearly indicates a unified referent. The interpretive nature of translations, with their commas or determiner adjustments, reflects linguistic and theological choices made centuries later, not the original text’s intent. Rather than requiring an unlikely exception to either terminology or grammar, the unitary reading of these verses as affirming Jesus as “our God and Savior” emerges as the most coherent interpretation, consistent with the linguistic evidence and the theological trajectory of the early church. Without a Koine Greek counterexample demonstrating a dual-referent TSKS construction, the traditional understanding remains not only plausible but probable.

  Until an authentic counterexample is produced—a Koine sentence with a single-article TSKS structure of singular personal common nouns that clearly identifies two individuals—the most responsible reading of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is ascriptions of one referent: Jesus Christ, “our God and Savior.” Far from being an “extraordinary coincidence,” this is the natural, linguistically warranted reading, and the burden of proof lies not on those who follow the grammar, but on those who wish to ignore it.
• 
  45

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Your latest rejoinder reduces to a single contention: because later translators of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 sometimes placed a comma after “God” and repeated no possessive before “Savior,” early Christians cannot be presumed to have read the Greek clauses as a single title of Christ; consequently Granville Sharp’s canon is said merely to “dictate” a theological conclusion that the first generations of believers may never have drawn. The contention overlooks three interconnected facts: Greek manuscripts were copied without syntactic punctuation; Jerome’s Latin and the Authorised Version are interpretive renderings, not grammatically neutral mirrors of the source; and native readers of Koine did not need an eighteenth-century English abolitionist to teach them how their own article worked. Once those points are recognized the appeal to later commas loses all probative force.

  First, no early Greek witness to either epistle inserts any punctuation mark between θεοῦ and σωτῆρος. Punctuation appears sporadically only after the ninth century and was added by scribes for the convenience of non-native readers. The apostolic audience encountered a continuous script in which article placement—not editorial stops—signalled whether two nouns shared the same determination. In τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ a single τοῦ necessarily controls both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος; if the writer had wished to disconnect the nouns he would, as he does in the next sentence (τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν), have repeated the article. The grammar is self-interpreting; commas are an extraneous layer imposed a millennium later.

  Secondly, Jerome’s Latin confirms rather than contradicts the unitary force of the Greek. The genitive nostri occurs once—iustitia Dei nostri et Salvatoris Iesu Christi—and in classical usage a single possessive following two coordinated genitives ordinarily ranges over both unless re-specified. The comma you cite belongs to the 1592 Clementine edition; fourth-century manuscripts of the Vulgate show no break at all. Jerome therefore reproduced the Greek structure as closely as Latin allowed (Latin lacks a direct equivalent to the Greek article): one genitive article (nostri), two substantives, one referent. The Stuttgart critical edition of the Vulgate renders both Titus 2:13 (“expectantes beatam spem et adventum gloriae magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi”) and 2 Peter 1:1 (“in iustitia Dei nostri et salvatoris Iesu Christi”) without commas.

  The KJV translators, working without a fully articulated account of the Greek article, rendered 2 Peter 1:1 “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Because English has no case-form article that can span two nouns, they faced a binary choice: allow “our” to govern both nouns (“of our God and Saviour”) or confine it to the second. Their decision for the latter was an interpretation—and was recognized as such by contemporaries. Post-Reformation English versions were shaped by pre-critical doctrinal scruples, not by discoveries in Greek syntax that lay still in the future. Later English versions (especially those aiming for formal equivalence) have often recognized the force of the single article and rendered both verses as referring to Jesus as “our God and Savior.”

  Thirdly, Sharp’s canon is inductive, not prescriptive. It describes what every extant sample of pre-Byzantine prose actually does when two singular, personal, common nouns appear in an article-substantive-καί-substantive string. Patristic authors who wrote Greek absorbed the rule unconsciously because it was part of their linguistic competence. When Hippolytus, Origen, or the Syriac catena cite Titus 2:13, they leave the single article untouched and apply the whole expression to Christ. When Chrysostom or Basil expound the verse, they read it exactly as Sharp would later formulate: ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ is the same person, our Lord Jesus Christ. These Church Fathers do not follow Sharp; Sharp, eighteen centuries after the fact, articulated what they instinctively followed.

  The argument from silence—that no pre-Nicene author explicitly uses these two verses as proof texts—is irrelevant to sentence-level semantics. Meaning is encoded in syntax before it is exploited in controversy; its reality does not wait upon later quotation indexes.

  Hence the putative authority of a seventeenth-century comma or of Jerome’s later punctuation cannot revoke the determiner pattern that the apostolic authors themselves employed. Early Christians who read Greek did not need commas to recognize that a single article before δύο ὀνόματα usually fuses them. Modern translators who choose to break that bond must supply a second determiner because English demands it; but the very necessity of the addition exposes the fact that the Greek gives none. Sharp’s description therefore remains the only linguistic account that explains the data without importing an alien punctuation code. Until a genuine Koine counter-instance surfaces—one in which an article-substantive-καί-substantive string of singular personal common nouns unambiguously names two different people—the default reading of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 will continue to be the one the grammar itself projects: Jesus Christ, “our great God and Savior.”

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  Your latest sally reveals more about your own presuppositions than you might care to admit. The charge that Trinitarians “desperately” scour the NT for “a verse or two” is less an argument than an exercise in projection. It would be comical, if it weren’t so tired, to see this shopworn narrative hauled out once again: the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was manufactured by special pleading, imposed onto a supposedly unitarian text, and propped up only by “faith commitment” rather than scholarship. This is a caricature, not a critique.

  First, let’s address the persistent myth that “only” a handful of passages supply the Trinitarian data. In reality, the unity and distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit permeate every stratum of the NT. Jesus is confessed as Lord (κύριος) in terms drawn directly from the Septuagint’s rendering of the divine name (e.g., Romans 10:9-13, Philippians 2:9-11), receives worship due to God alone (Matthew 28:17, Revelation 5:13-14), forgives sins (Mark 2:5-7), is pre-existent with the Father (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17), and is invoked alongside the Father and Spirit in liturgical, baptismal, and benedictory formulas (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21). The Gospels, Pauline letters, and Catholic epistles are replete with language that presupposes a divine identity for Christ that cannot be reduced to mere agency or exalted creaturehood. The so-called “dozens and dozens” of verses where the Son is distinct from the Father are not embarrassing difficulties—they are the very warp and woof of Trinitarian dogma, which holds to personal distinction within a single divine essence. This is not “explained away;” it is precisely what the doctrine exists to account for.

  Second, the notion that only confessional scholars find the Trinity in the text is a self-serving fantasy. The standard lexica, grammars, and critical commentaries—produced by believers and agnostics alike—repeatedly acknowledge that the earliest Christians worshipped Christ in a manner that forced an expansion of Jewish monotheism. One need only read the likes of Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, or even the skeptical James D.G. Dunn, who admits the “binitarian shape” of earliest Christian devotion, to see that the evidence cannot be dismissed as mere dogmatic overlay. The argument that “purely historical” scholarship yields only a low Christology is wishful thinking; the historical-critical enterprise has, if anything, made clear how radical and theologically innovative the early Church was in identifying Jesus with the prerogatives, worship, and names of the one God of Israel. Even Bart Ehrman, hardly a champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy, concedes that Paul and John present a “high Christology” that is staggeringly close to later doctrine.

  Your accusation is essentially a confession: you start with an anti-Trinitarian premise, filter every text through that grid, and then congratulate yourself on your own objectivity. It’s the oldest polemical trick in the book—assuming what you claim to prove, then dismissing all contrary evidence as “desperate.” The difference is, Trinitarians have the grammar, the syntax, and the entire trajectory of early Christian worship and confession on their side. If you’re reduced to the claim that only “faith-committed” scholars see the Trinity in the NT, perhaps it’s time to ask whether your own reading is the one that requires the special pleading.

  So let’s be clear: the “low bar” is not in the Trinitarian reading, but in the refusal to grapple honestly with the language, history, and lived faith of the New Testament Church. If the doctrine of the Trinity was so self-evidently absent, why did the entire Christian movement across the Greek-speaking world spend three centuries elaborating, defending, and dying for it—while your alleged “purely historical” readings went unrecorded until the enlightenment? The desperate one is not the tradition which has anchored Christian faith for two millennia, but the revisionist impulse that must ignore the whole shape and force of the apostolic witness in order to maintain a modern, reductionist dogma of its own.
• 
  45

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Your line of reasoning advanced against the traditional, unitary reading of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 basically rests on three points: a supposed silence of pre-Nicene writers, the allegedly derivative character of post-Nicene exegesis, and a claim that Hippolytus’ citation of Titus 2:13 is merely eschatological. None of these objections survives close inspection of the linguistic data or the documentary record.

  The appeal to silence is weakest where the grammar is clearest. Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 each contain a single-article, singular-personal TSKS string—τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Granville Sharp did not invent the rule that governs such clauses; he described what native users of Koine Greek do when they place two common nouns inside one determiner phrase. Across the documentary papyri, dedicatory inscriptions, official rescripts and the NT corpus there is no uncontested instance in which that syntactic frame designates two distinct individuals. Because the rule is inductive, one counter-example would falsify it; none has been produced. When grammar delivers so univocal a verdict, the absence of an explicit pre-Nicene commentary is an argument from silence against a mountain of linguistic noise.

  Even that silence is overstated. The evidential weight of patristic citation is never measured by raw arithmetic but by the intersection of three factors: the circulation history of a document, the thematic interests of the writer who happens to quote it, and the form in which the text is transmitted. Second Peter was a fringe text in most eastern collections until the fourth century; Titus, though canonical from the start, offered far more homiletic material in chapters 1 and 3 than in a single eschatological verse set deep in paraenesis. To conclude from the relative silence of the fragmentary ante-Nicene record that the earliest readers must have read both clauses in a two-person sense is therefore a non sequitur. The question is not, “How many quotations survive?” but, “When a second- or third-century author does allude to Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1, how does he construe the syntax?” On that narrower and linguistically relevant point the evidence is both earlier and clearer than your survey allows.

  You posit that the lack of pre-Nicene commentary explicitly supporting Christ’s deity in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is difficult to reconcile with the claim that early readers understood these verses in this way. However, this overlooks the available evidence from pre-Nicene fathers and the historical context of early Christian writings. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 CE), in his Exhortation to the Heathen (Chapter I), quotes Titus 2:11–13, specifically highlighting verse 13: “looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen). The context of this citation is a discussion contrasting pagan idolatry with the salvific role of Christ, who is presented as the manifestation of God’s grace. The phrasing “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” suggests that Clement understood the verse as referring to Jesus as both God and Savior, aligning with the traditional interpretation. While Ezra Abbot argues that Clement does not explicitly use this passage to prove Christ’s deity, the quotation’s context—emphasizing Christ’s divine role in salvation—implies a high Christology consistent with divine attribution.

  Similarly, Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 CE), in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist (paragraph 67), cites Titus 2:13 as “looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Savior” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist). The Greek fragment preserved in the Syriac catena reads τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; the Latin translator renders illustrationem Dei et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi; neither version inserts a determiner before Salvatoris, the English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection renders it as “our God and Savior,” indicating a single referent—Jesus Christ. This is consistent with the TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) construction in Koine Greek, where a single article governing two nouns typically denotes a single entity, as articulated by Granville Sharp’s rule (Granville Sharp’s Rule). Hippolytus cites the line to prove that at the Parousia it is God whom the nations will behold—and then immediately identifies the subject as “our Lord Jesus Christ, the King.” The eschatological setting does not mute the Christological force; rather, it depends on it. The presence of these citations from pre-Nicene fathers undermines the claim of a complete absence of early commentary supporting Christ’s deity. Hippolytus, is therefore not an isolated oddity but one element in a steady trajectory.

  You note that Hippolytus’ reference to Titus 2:13 in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist is primarily eschatological and thus irrelevant to discussions of Christ’s deity. While the treatise focuses on the Antichrist and end-time prophecies, the citation of Titus 2:13 is significant for its Christological implications. The phrase, as rendered in the Ante-Nicene Fathers translation, clearly identifies Jesus as “our God and Savior,” aligning with the TSKS construction that denotes a single referent. The eschatological context, which anticipates Christ’s glorious return, does not negate but rather enhances the Christological affirmation, as the title “God and Savior” underscores Jesus’ divine authority in the culmination of history. Your attempt to separate eschatology from Christology is unconvincing, as early Christian eschatology often intertwined with affirmations of Christ’s divine identity, as seen in other texts like Revelation 1:8, where Christ is associated with divine titles.

  You also reference the Greek phrase “ἐπιφάνειαν τῦ Θεύ και Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν” and its Latin translation, “illustrationem Dei & Salvatoris nostri,” suggesting that the phrasing may not support a single referent. However, the Greek text, uses a single article (τῦ), consistent with the TSKS construction, which strongly favors the interpretation that “God and Savior” refers to Jesus Christ. The Latin translation’s use of “&” reflects the limitations of Latin in replicating Greek’s single-article construction, not a theological distinction. Thus, Hippolytus’ citation supports the traditional interpretation, and the eschatological focus does not diminish its Christological significance.

  The absence of Second-Peter citations before the fourth century is unsurprising: Origen already knew that many in his day questioned the letter’s authenticity, and Eusebius classified it among the ἀντιλεγόμενα. Hence, the scarcity of pre-Nicene citations is due to the epistle’s disputed canonicity in the early church. Eusebius, in his Church History (Book 3, Chapter 3), lists 2 Peter among the “disputed writings,” noting that it was “nevertheless recognized by many” but not universally accepted as canonical. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 CE), one of the earliest canonical lists, does not explicitly mention 2 Peter, though it acknowledges the Apocalypse of Peter with reservations about its public reading. This historical context explains the limited citations of 2 Peter 1:1 in pre-Nicene literature. However, the verse’s grammatical structure, “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou,” mirrors the TSKS construction of Titus 2:13, strongly suggesting that “our God and Savior” refers to Jesus Christ. The absence of direct pre-Nicene commentary does not negate this linguistic evidence, as the early church’s acceptance of 2 Peter as canonical by the fourth century implies that its Christological implications were consistent with orthodox theology.

  You note that the mentioned Church Fathers—John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesarea—were born after the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), suggesting that their Trinitarian interpretations of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are expected but not reflective of early readings. While these Church Fathers operated within a post-Nicene theological framework, their consistent use of these verses to affirm Christ’s deity indicates a continuity with earlier interpretations rather than a novel imposition. For example, Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Philippians (Philippians 2:5–8), cites Titus 2:13 to argue for Christ’s equality with the Father, calling Him “the great God” and countering claims of the Son’s inferiority (Early Church Fathers on Titus 2:13). Similarly, Theodoret, in his Letter to John the Œconomus, uses Titus 2:13 to affirm the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures, referring to Him as “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Gregory of Nyssa, in Against Eunomius (Books VI and XI), and Basil, in De Spiritu Sancto (Chapter XVI), also cite Titus 2:13 to support Christ’s full divinity and equality with the Father. These citations reflect a robust engagement with the verses to defend orthodox Christology against heresies like Arianism.

  Your dismissal of these post-Nicene interpretations overlooks the fact that the Council of Nicaea did not “invent” Trinitarian theology but formalized pre-existing beliefs about Christ’s deity. The pre-Nicene citations from Clement and Hippolytus, combined with the grammatical evidence, suggest that the post-Nicene fathers were explicating a theological tradition already present in the early church. The continuity is further supported by the broader Christological affirmations of pre-Nicene fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, who, while not directly citing these verses, refers to Jesus as “our God” in his Epistle to the Ephesians (18:2), indicating an early high Christology.

  Hence, the insistence that post-Nicene fathers can be discounted because they wrote after 325 misconstrues the nature of doctrinal development. Councils did not confer new meanings on Greek clauses; they codified readings already widespread. When these Church Fathers defend the single-referent interpretation, they do so precisely because the clause structure supplies their best ammunition against Arian objections. If the syntax naturally suggested two persons, these polemicists would have avoided it, not built their case upon it.

  Your emphasis on the rarity of pre-Nicene commentary must be contextualized within the historical realities of early Christian literature. The surviving corpus of pre-Nicene writings is limited, and the focus of many texts was on apologetics, ethics, or eschatology rather than systematic theology. The acceptance of Titus and 2 Peter as canonical by the fourth century, as evidenced by their inclusion in later canonical lists like that of Athanasius (367 CE), suggests that their Christological implications were consistent with early Christian beliefs. The Muratorian Fragment’s inclusion of Titus among Paul’s epistles further supports its early acceptance, reinforcing the likelihood that its interpretation aligned with the high Christology seen in other early writings, such as Ignatius’ letters.

  Table of Patristic Citations for Titus 2:13

  Church Father	Work	Citation of Titus 2:13	Context
  Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 CE)	Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter I	“looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”	Contrasting pagan idolatry with Christ’s salvific role, implying divine status.
  Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 CE)	Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Paragraph 67	“looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Savior”	Eschatological discussion of Christ’s return, affirming His divinity.
  John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 CE)	Homilies on Philippians (Philippians 2:5–8)	Refers to Christ as “the great God”	Argues for Christ’s equality with the Father against claims of inferiority.
  Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–457 CE)	Letter to John the Œconomus	“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”	Affirms the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures.
  Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395 CE)	Against Eunomius, Books VI and XI	Cites Titus 2:13 to affirm Christ as “the great God and our Savior”	Counters Arianism by upholding Christ’s full divinity.
  Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379 CE)	De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XVI	“our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”	Highlights the Trinity’s role in salvation, linking Christ’s deity to the Father and Spirit.

  To sum up, your latest objections do not sufficiently undermine the traditional interpretation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 as affirming Jesus’ deity. Pre-Nicene evidence from Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome demonstrates that Titus 2:13 was understood to refer to Jesus as “God and Savior,” supported by the TSKS grammatical construction. The scarcity of pre-Nicene citations for 2 Peter 1:1 is attributable to its disputed canonicity, but the identical grammatical structure provides strong linguistic evidence for the same interpretation. Post-Nicene fathers like Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory, and Basil consistently used these verses to affirm Christ’s divinity, reflecting a theological continuity with earlier traditions. Finally, Hippolytus’ eschatological use of Titus 2:13 does not negate its Christological significance, as the title “our God and Savior” clearly attributes deity to Jesus.

  The net result is unchanged: every piece of surviving Greek that fits Sharp’s syntactic parameters yields one person, never two; pre-Nicene writers who cite the relevant verses reproduce the text exactly as we have it, with no hint of article insertion; and the alleged counter-evidence consists either of silence or of translations that inevitably resolve Greek constructions into the constraints of another language. Until a genuine Koine sentence can be produced in which a single-article TSKS construction of singular personal common nouns indubitably names distinct individuals, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 remain straightforward affirmations that Jesus Christ is “our God and Saviour.”
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The mere grammatical possibility does not equate to contextual or exegetical validity. Barclay’s reported statement that “a god” is “grammatically impossible” reflects his earlier view, but even his later concession in a private letter is limited to grammatical potential, not endorsement of the rendering in context. Gundry’s note that “a god” is “grammatically possible but not favored” explicitly prioritizes the qualitative interpretation, as does Smith’s preference for “divine” over “a god” due to the Johannine context. Bruce’s admission that “theos en ho logos” could be translated as “a god” is qualified by his insistence that context favors “the Word was (the) God,” and his reference to Sabellianism (equating the Word with the Father) is a misstep, as no mainstream scholar advocates a definite rendering that collapses the distinction between the Word and “ho theos.” Harris and Dodd similarly allow “a god” as a word-for-word possibility but reject it as incompatible with John’s theology, emphasizing the qualitative force of “theos” as conveying divine essence. These scholars’ concessions are not endorsements of the NWT’s rendering but reflect the flexibility of Greek syntax in isolation, which must be constrained by context—a point the NWT apologists underplay.

  The preposition “pros” in John 1:1b (“the Word was with [the] God”) denotes relational proximity, not necessarily two separate deities, and is consistent with a distinction in personhood within the same divine essence. The anarthrous “theos” in 1:1c is best understood as qualitative, emphasizing the Word’s divine nature, not its membership in a class of gods. The claim that the distinction between “ho theos” and “theos” necessitates “a god” to reflect two separate“theoi” (gods) introduces a polytheistic implication foreign to John’s Second Temple Jewish monotheism, where only one true God exists (Deut 6:4; Isa 44:6). The qualitative rendering—“the Word was God”—preserves both the distinction in personhood (via “pros”) and the shared divine nature, aligning with the prologue’s portrayal of the Word as Creator (John 1:3) and revealer of the Father (John 1:18).

  In Mark 6:49, “phantasma” (spirit) and in John 4:19, “prophētēs” (prophet) are category nouns, where the indefinite article in English reflects membership in a class or a stylistic choice for readability. In contrast, “theos” in John 1:1c is a monadic, abstract noun in a creedal statement, emphasizing essence rather than class membership. The reliance on these examples overlooks the semantic distinction: “theos” in John’s prologue is not a generic term but a reference to the unique divine nature, as evidenced by the Word’s role in creation and intimate relation with “ho theos.” The NWT’s appendix misapplies these parallels by ignoring the theological weight of John 1:1c, where an indefinite rendering would suggest a lesser deity, contradicting the monotheistic context.

  In Acts 28:4, “phoneus” (murderer) is a category noun, and the context (the islanders’ inference based on a snakebite) supports an indefinite sense (“one among murderers”). John 1:1c, however, involves “theos” in a metaphysical assertion about the Word’s pre-existent nature, not a descriptive category. BeDuhn’s preference for “the Word was divine” acknowledges the qualitative force but does not endorse “a god” as the best rendering; his point is that the anarthrous preverbal nominative emphasizes quality, which “divine” captures better than “a god,” which implies a separate deity. Stafford’s argument that the indefinite article conveys both qualitative and indefinite aspects conflates English translation conventions with Greek syntax, where the qualitative force predominates in such constructions, as Harner’s study of over 250 examples demonstrates.

  The reference to 1 Kings 18:27 in the Septuagint (“theos estin,” “he is a god”) as a parallel is also misleading. This passage, where Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, uses “theos” sarcastically to denote a false deity, not a divine being in the Johannine sense. The syntactic similarity (anarthrous preverbal nominative) does not override the contextual difference: John 1:1c is a theological affirmation within a monotheistic framework, not a satirical remark about idolatry. The claim that the indefinite article can convey both qualitative and indefinite aspects in English is true but irrelevant, as the Greek “theos” in John 1:1c prioritizes quality over indefiniteness, as supported by Vincent Taylor’s observation that the anarthrous “theos” gives an “adjectival quality” akin to “divine.”

  The NWT does not dogmatically assert that all anarthrous nouns are indefinite, but their defense of “a god” in John 1:1c misinterprets Colwell’s Rule. The rule states that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb often lacks the article, but Harner’s refinement clarifies that such nouns are primarily qualitative in theological contexts. The accusation that critics like Countess exhibit ignorance by expecting uniform indefinite translations ignores the NWT’s own inconsistency: rendering “theos” as “God” in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 (twice) without the article, while choosing “a god” in 1:1c. This selective rendering suggests theological bias, as BeDuhn notes that different grammatical rules govern nominative (John 1:1c) versus genitive forms, but the NWT’s choices reflect a preference for distinguishing Jesus from “ho theos” rather than consistent application of syntactic principles.

  Chamberlain’s point supports the qualitative interpretation—“the Word was God” as a statement of divine essence—not the indefinite “a god.” His analogy to “ho theos agapē estin” (1 John 4:8, “God is love”) illustrates that anarthrous predicates describe quality without equating the subject and predicate, but this does not justify “a god,” which implies a separate deity. The claim that the NWT recognizes “theos” as primarily qualitative yet chooses “a god” for literalness and context is inconsistent, as “a god” prioritizes indefiniteness over the qualitative force Chamberlain and others emphasize.

  The suggestion that John could have written “ho logos ēn pros ho patera, kai theos ēn ho logos” to clarify the Word’s distinction from the Father is speculative and irrelevant. The existing text, with “pros ton theon” and anarthrous “theos,” achieves the same distinction: the Word is with “the God” (the Father) and shares the divine nature (qualitative “theos”). The proposal introduces a hypothetical construction that does not alter the syntactic reality of John 1:1c, where the anarthrous preverbal nominative favors a qualitative reading, as confirmed by Dana and Mantey’s A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Their comparison to Xenophon’s Anabasis (1:4:6) supports the qualitative force, not the indefinite “a god,” despite the claim that the NWT’s appendix aligns with this grammar. Mantey’s objection to the NWT’s use of his work reflects a misunderstanding, but his grammar still prioritizes quality over indefiniteness in such constructions.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  Your objection attempts to leverage Barclay’s private letter as evidence of a "shift" in his scholarly view and, by implication, as a validation of the Watchtower’s reading of John 1:1c. However, your argument does not withstand scrutiny, either in terms of scholarly methodology or the context of Barclay’s lifelong work.

  It is simply incorrect to claim that Barclay’s private admission—that the Greek could be translated as “a god”—represents a change in his scholarly position. What Barclay consistently argued, both before and after this letter, is that while a literal grammatical construction could, in a vacuum, be rendered as “a god,” the overwhelming context of Johannine theology and first-century monotheism rules this out as a meaningful or faithful translation. His letter is not a reversal of decades of published scholarship but an honest acknowledgment of theoretical grammatical possibilities—followed immediately by a rejection of their contextual appropriateness. Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c] so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a god’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” This is hardly an endorsement of the NWT. To claim otherwise is to ignore Barclay’s plain qualifying clause—which is precisely what Jehovah’s Witnesses have historically done when quoting him.

  In all his published work, Barclay is clear that the absence of the article in θεός at John 1:1c signals a qualitative, not indefinite, force. The entire point of his grammatical excursus is that the Greek construction marks the Word as sharing in the very being and essence of God—not as a member of a class of lesser “gods.” In Many Witnesses, One Lord, Barclay writes: “He [John] says that the word was theos—without the article—which means that the word was, as we would say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God.” Far from supporting the “a god” translation, Barclay’s entire interpretive enterprise is to rule it out as contextually and theologically impossible.

  Barclay was so concerned about the Watchtower’s misuse of his comments that he issued a clarification letter to Donald Shoemaker. In it, he wrote: “The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.” His complaint was not about a “shift,” but about being misrepresented. The context is anti-modalist—not anti-Trinitarian, and certainly not anti-divinity.

  Barclay’s scholarship represents the consensus of serious Greek grammarians and exegetes. He explicitly commended translations such as the NEB’s “What God was, the Word was,” or Kenneth Wuest’s “the Word was as to his essence essential deity.” These, as he notes, “brilliantly solve the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering.” The qualitative force does not allow a simple indefinite article in English (“a god”), because that would suggest the Logos is one god among others—a theological and contextual error that both Barclay and virtually every reputable scholar reject.

  It is also worth noting that Barclay himself was not a confessional Trinitarian; his theology was unorthodox is many regards. Yet, he categorically rejects the Watchtower’s reading of John 1:1c as contextually wrong. Thus, to claim that his letter to Rawlins shows a “shift in his scholarly view” is not only unsubstantiated, but contradicted by Barclay’s own explicit statements and the entirety of his critical output. It is not about his “religious views,” but about his philological and exegetical integrity.

  Even scholars who are not Trinitarian—such as James D. G. Dunn and others—recognize that the absence of the article in John 1:1c points to qualitative significance, not indefiniteness. To ignore this context and exploit a single phrase from a private letter (with its crucial caveat omitted) is a textbook case of quote-mining and scholarly misrepresentation.

  To sum up, the thrust of your objection rests not on a genuine shift in Barclay’s understanding, but on a partial and decontextualized reading of his words, a tactic that Barclay himself vigorously protested. His scholarship, like that of every major commentator since, is clear: the Greek grammar of John 1:1c cannot be made to support the theology advanced by the NWT, and any attempt to do so is not only a distortion of Greek, but a profound misreading of the Gospel’s message. The qualitative sense—“the Word was fully divine, of the same essence as God”—remains the only contextually and grammatically defensible reading.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Acluetofindtheuser

  The historical record does not sustain the claim that a later ecclesiastical policy—much less a specifically “Catholic” one—“removed” the Tetragrammaton from the Old Testament in order to “blur” a supposed hard distinction between the Father and the Son. All textual evidence available for the Hebrew Bible long before the rise of catholic Christianity already displays the complex reverential avoidance of pronouncing the four-letter name, and the same pattern governs the Greek, Aramaic, and later Latin witnesses that Christians inherited. The Dead Sea Scrolls (third century BCE to first century CE) establish that Jewish copyists themselves either retained the divine name in archaic Hebrew characters embedded within an otherwise square-script text or replaced it with surrogate devices. In several Qumran copies of the Greek Septuagint the translators leave blank spaces, insert paleo-Hebrew characters, or write ΙΑΩ, but they nowhere substitute Κύριος at the behest of any Christian authority; the phenomenon predates Christianity and reflects intra-Jewish scribal conventions. These data undercut any hypothesis that the post-Nicene church engineered a “suppression” of the Tetragrammaton.

  The scribes who produced the earliest complete Greek Psalters and Pentateuchs for Christian use—Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus among them—follow the same Jewish scribal logic. They write κύριος where their Vorlage already had the surrogate, and they mark κύριος with the nomen sacrum ΚΣ to signal reverence. Nothing in the codicological strata indicates a revision from an earlier Greek text that once contained יהוה in full. Indeed, every extant Greek manuscript of the New Testament, from the Bodmer and Chester Beatty papyri onward, deploys κύριος and θεός in Old Testament quotations with no trace of Hebrew letters. If a large-scale excision of the name had occurred after the second century, it would have required a perfectly coordinated effort across geographically distinct copying centers, leaving no residual mixture of divine name forms—a scenario text criticism rejects as implausible.

  The English typographical convention of writing LORD (small caps) for יהוה and Lord (capital L only) for אדני is a Reformation-era device meant to mirror the Masoretic pointing that signals how the Hebrew consonants are to be read liturgically. It is not a theological sleight of hand designed to insert the Christological title into Israel’s Scriptures; it is an attempt to show in English the distinction that Jewish readers had observed for at least a millennium. Because the Septuagint’s κύριος rendered both tetragrammaton and אדני with a single term, New Testament writers could exploit Isaiah 40–55 or Joel 3 (2:32) to make messianic claims about Jesus without altering their Scripture’s wording. They did so openly and polemically, not by surreptitiously suppressing the name but by reading Israel’s Bible through the Midrashic techniques common to Second Temple Judaism. Paul’s deployment of Joel 3 in Romans 10 is programmatic: he cites the verse as written (“everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”) and then interprets “Lord” Christologically. The move presupposes, rather than fabricates, the long-standing Septuagint practice.

  The assertion that “other Abrahamic faiths do not believe in the Trinity for a reason” says nothing about the textual history of the Tetragrammaton. Rabbinic Judaism renounced any pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton centuries before Christians proclaimed Jesus as κύριος; Islam arose in the seventh century and fashioned its own theological grammar. Those later developments cannot be marshalled as evidence that first-century Christians manipulated Scripture. They attest instead to divergent post-biblical trajectories in the conceptualization of divine unity, not to antecedent textual tampering.

  Finally, the analogy to the Witnesses’ blood prohibition collapses on different grounds. The apostolic decree of Acts 15 concerns dietary and ritual purity in a mixed Jewish–Gentile setting, not the vocalization of the divine name. Whether one endorses or rejects the modern Witnesses’ application of that decree has no bearing on the demonstrable fact that the Hebrew Bible’s consonantal text, stabilized by Jewish scribes, never stood under ecclesiastical censorship, and that the Greek New Testament, copied by Christians, never contained the Tetragrammaton in the first place.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Wonderment

  Your reply attempts to counter the overwhelming scholarly consensus regarding the qualitative sense of θεός in John 1:1c by assembling a list of quotations from various commentators, some of whom admit that, at the most basic lexical level, “a god” is grammatically possible. But this tactic, while superficially impressive, does not address the underlying grammatical, contextual, and theological realities that have shaped nearly every major translation and reputable scholarly commentary for the past century.

  Your citation of William Barclay is misleading both in intent and effect. Barclay’s private admission—that one could, as a matter of “so far as the Greek goes,” translate John 1:1c as “a god”—does not represent a shift in his scholarly view, nor does it support the Watchtower’s theology. On the contrary, Barclay is explicit in his published works that the absence of the article with θεός in John 1:1c is not indefinite, but qualitative, meaning that the Word shares fully in the essence of God without being a separate “god” among many. As he writes in his commentary: “John does not say that the Word was the God (ho theos); to have said that would have been to identify the Word with God. He says that the Word was theos—without the article—which means that the Word was, as we would say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God.” Barclay’s remark about the grammatical possibility of “a god” simply acknowledges a theoretical ambiguity in Greek, not a contextual or theological endorsement of the NWT reading. His overall work, including his commentaries, consistently supports the traditional Trinitarian view, suggesting that while “a god” is grammatically permissible, it is not contextually appropriate. Your emphasis on this private letter overlooks Barclay's broader theological framework, which aligns with the qualitative interpretation. Such caveats are a mark of scholarly rigor, not of agreement with Arian doctrine.

  The same applies to your invocation of Harris, Constable, Harner, and others. The fact that an indefinite rendering is “possible” at the most abstract grammatical level does not mean it is plausible or contextually appropriate in John 1:1c. Harner’s influential 1973 study, which you reference, is universally acknowledged as the decisive argument for the qualitative sense. Harner wrote: “anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb are primarily qualitative in force; they indicate that the subject belongs to the class named, but they also attribute the quality of the class to the subject.” In the case of John 1:1c, Harner found that the construction “theos ēn ho logos” asserts that the Word possesses the very nature of God, not that the Word is a mere member of a class of gods. Harner is clear: the qualitative sense “is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” The qualitative reading, therefore, is not a halfway house between “the God” and “a god,” but the grammatical means by which the Greek expresses the highest and fullest identification with the divine nature short of personal identity.

  Harris’s call for explanation in rendering “God” refers to the need for nuanced exegesis, not support for “a god”; his work affirms the Word’s full divinity. Constable’s acknowledgment of the grammatical possibility of “a god” is tempered by his Trinitarian stance, favoring the qualitative interpretation in his Expository Notes. Harner’s emphasis on the qualitative force, rejecting definiteness, aligns with the consensus that θεός conveys essence, not a class of gods, and the claim of “Trinitarian bias” is unsubstantiated given Harner’s empirical analysis. Similarly, T.L. Constable is cited as acknowledging that “a god” is a possible translation since the indefinite article can be supplied when no article is present in Greek. While this is true grammatically, Constable's Trinitarian view indicates he favors "the Word was God" as the more accurate rendering, given the context. The possibility of multiple translations does not negate the consensus that the qualitative sense is preferred in John 1:1c, where the Word's divine essence is at stake.

  Philip Harner's statement that the qualitative force of θεός is so prominent that it cannot be regarded as definite is often misinterpreted. Harner does not support an indefinite rendering; rather, he argues against definiteness to maintain the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, aligning with the qualitative understanding that the Word shares the divine nature fully. This supports the traditional translation, not "a god." C.H. Dodd's comment that "the Word was a god" cannot be faulted as a word-for-word translation is technically correct but misleading. Translation involves conveying intended meaning within context, not just literal rendering. Dodd's own works likely support the qualitative interpretation, as his focus was on the theological implications of John's prologue, which affirm the Word's divinity.

  Other scholars cited, such as Sjef van Tilborg ("And a God was the word"), William R. Harwood, and Bruce Vawter, may have translations or interpretations supporting “a god,” but their views are not representative of the scholarly consensus. Van Tilborg's work, for instance, is less cited in mainstream biblical studies, and Harwood's credentials (e.g., Ph.D. from Columbia Pacific University, a non-accredited institution) raise questions about academic rigor. Vawter's comment that "the Word is a divine being in his own right" does not necessarily imply a lesser deity but can be understood qualitatively, consistent with Trinitarian doctrine.

  The NABRE’s note on predication, Barrett’s emphasis on the Word’s nature, Vawter’s affirmation of the Word as a divine being, and the minority renderings by van Tilborg and Harwood do not overturn the consensus. These sources either support the qualitative interpretation or are outliers lacking mainstream support. The use of John 10:36 and 14:28 to suggest a lesser status ignores Johannine theology, where “Son of God” implies divine equality, and 14:28 refers to functional, not ontological, subordination. The call to avoid dogmatism does not negate the evidence: the qualitative rendering is supported by syntax, context, and John’s monotheism, making “the Word was God” the most accurate translation.

  Your quotation from Wallace and Dixon, noting that “it is difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times,” is both true and irrelevant. Indeed, the nature of anarthrous Greek predicates can sometimes be ambiguous, but, as both scholars stress, context is always the final arbiter. In the specific case of John 1:1c, the Prologue’s highly stylized, creedal language, the preceding reference to “the God” (ton theon), and the immediate context of creation (“all things were made through him”) collectively preclude an indefinite sense. Wallace’s massive Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is not a polemic for Trinitarian theology, but a meticulous analysis of the language of the NT, and its findings are not contested by any major critical scholar. The so-called “potential” for an indefinite meaning is a red herring in this context; Wallace’s actual conclusion is that the qualitative sense is contextually demanded and virtually certain here.

  Wallace’s admission that distinguishing indefinite from qualitative nouns can be difficult does not equate to endorsing “a god” in John 1:1c. His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics stresses that context determines the sense, and the prologue’s theology demands a qualitative θεός. Your appeal to translation practices in the NT and Septuagint misapplies category nouns (e.g., Acts 28:4, “a murderer”) to the monadic θεός in a creedal statement. The NET Bible clarifies that Colwell’s Rule supports a qualitative, not indefinite, rendering, while Dodd’s allowance for “a god” as a word-for-word translation is a grammatical note, not an endorsement, as his exegesis favors the Word’s divinity. The Net Bible's note that Colwell's Rule permits but does not demand a definite translation is accurate, but in John 1:1c, θεός is not definite. The rule allows for definite nouns without the article in certain constructions, but Harner's analysis shows that in this specific construction, the qualitative sense is more appropriate, aligning with the context.

  You also cite a handful of alternative translations and commentators—van Tilborg, Harwood, Vawter, Barrett, Dodd—each of whom, at best, suggest that “a god” is a woodenly literal, grammatically possible rendering. But you fail to show that any of these authorities believe such a rendering is actually correct in context. C.H. Dodd, for example, is not advocating for “a god” as a meaningful translation, but is rather illustrating what a word-for-word gloss would look like, immediately adding that “such a rendering cannot be faulted” only at the level of interlinear translation—not at the level of contextual interpretation. Dodd, Barrett, and others are clear that the real meaning in context is qualitative, not indefinite.

  Your argument that the NWT’s rendering is validated by “diversity” among interpreters is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The existence of various proposals for how best to translate the clause—ranging from “the Word was divine” (to stress the qualitative force) to “what God was, the Word was” (to capture the sense of shared essence)—does not establish “a god” as a serious scholarly option. Indeed, the vast majority of critical translations reject “a god” for the very reason that it is contextually and theologically misleading, suggesting a kind of polytheism or subordinationism foreign to both Johannine theology and Second Temple Judaism. No critical commentary or major translation today opts for “a god” as the best rendering.

  You basically repeat the Watchtower’s familiar trope that “Trinitarian” scholars are merely driven by dogma rather than evidence, while the NWT alone reflects the Greek. This is demonstrably false. The argument for the qualitative force of anarthrous predicates is based on large-scale studies of Greek syntax (Harner, Dixon, Wallace, Porter, etc.) across biblical and extra-biblical literature. It is adopted by critical, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and even non-Christian scholars alike. The NWT stands almost alone among major translations in rendering “a god,” and this isolation is not due to conspiratorial bias but to the weight of grammatical and contextual evidence.

  Your claim that "the Word was God" leads readers to believe the noun is definite, not qualitative, and that Harner and Wallace argue against Colwell's theory of definiteness. However, this misrepresents their positions. Harner and Wallace do critique misapplications of Colwell's Rule, which suggests definite predicate nominatives often lack the article, but they advocate for a qualitative understanding, not indefiniteness. The traditional translation "the Word was God" in English can convey the qualitative force, as "God" functions both as a proper noun and a predicate indicating divine nature, clarified by the context of John 1:1 distinguishing between “with [the] God” and “was God.”

  Wallace's concession that it is difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times is taken out of context. This difficulty applies to certain passages where context is ambiguous, not to John 1:1c, where the prologue's theological and literary context strongly favors the qualitative sense. Wallace's diagrams map possible intersections but do not suggest equivalence; context remains decisive, and in John 1:1c, it demands qualitative predication.

  Your reference to translators regularly employing indefinite articles for pre-verbal anarthrous predicates is not supported by systematic analysis. While some translations do so for readability, as in Acts 28:4 (“This man must be a murderer”), this reflects English idiom, not Greek grammar. In John 1:1c, the context of the Logos's role as Creator and intimate relation with the Father (John 1:3-4) excludes an indefinite sense, which would imply polytheism, contrary to John's monotheistic framework.

  The appeal to Jesus’s statements in John 10:36 and 14:28 as proof that he never claimed full divinity again fails to grasp Johannine Christology. In John’s Gospel, the Son’s unique Sonship (1:14, 18; 5:18; 10:33-36) is itself a claim to equality with God, as recognized by Jesus’s Jewish opponents. The Prologue’s affirmation that the Logos was both “with [the] God” and “was God” balances personal distinction with essential unity. The qualitative reading of θεός in John 1:1c precisely expresses this: the Word is fully divine (possesses all that it means to be God) yet is personally distinct from the Father.

  You cite Barrett as saying, “the Word is God but is not the only being of whom this is true,” as if this implies the existence of other gods. In context, Barrett’s point is that the Word, as fully divine, is not identical with the Father (i.e., is not all that the term “God” can mean in terms of personal identity), not that there are multiple gods. His exegesis remains squarely within monotheistic boundaries.

  The point about “imposing” dogma is a rhetorical flourish, not a scholarly argument. It is not “dogmatism” to report that nearly all modern critical study and translation of John 1:1c rejects “a god” as the correct rendering; it is simply an observation of the current scholarly consensus based on rigorous analysis. To “evoke ideas in others” is admirable in dialogue, but it does not relieve anyone of the responsibility to reckon honestly with the evidence and its overwhelmingly one-sided conclusion.

  The call for avoiding dogmatism and suggesting ideas rather than imposing views is valid in principle, but it does not address the scholarly consensus based on rigorous analysis. The evidence, from Harner, Wallace, Dixon, and others, consistently supports the qualitative interpretation of θεός in John 1:1c, affirming "the Word was God" as the most accurate rendering. The case for “a god” is strictly grammatically possible but contextually and theologically weak, and it has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by leading scholars in biblical studies, as demonstrated by the detailed analysis above.

  Finally, your argument fails to explain why, if “a god” is the correct sense, the earliest Christian communities—steeped in the monotheism of the Shema (Deut 6:4) and hostile to any suggestion of multiple gods—would have ever accepted such language. The entire theological trajectory of John’s Gospel, culminating in Thomas’s confession (“My Lord and my God!” John 20:28), presupposes and proclaims the unique, full deity of the Logos. The qualitative force of θεός in John 1:1c is not merely a Trinitarian dogma, but the clear result of both Greek syntax and Johannine theology.

  In conclusion, the list of quotations you provide—none of which endorse “a god” as the contextually correct translation—does not overturn the consistent findings of critical scholarship. The anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c is, by all major studies, a qualitative predicate, and the Word is thus presented as fully and truly God, without confusion of persons or division of essence. The Watchtower’s rendering, “a god,” remains an outlier, rejected not out of dogmatism, but because it distorts both the grammar and the theology of the Prologue. The best scholarship in the field, across confessional boundaries, has indeed repeatedly refuted this reading—on linguistic, historical, and theological grounds.
• 
  45

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Your latest rejoinder reiterates three assertions that require close linguistic scrutiny. First, you restate that in Peter and Paul “the God” (ὁ θεός or its oblique forms) always designates the Father and therefore cannot name Christ; second, you deny that any pre-Nicene writer cites Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as a unitary title; third, you claim that the KJV translators merely “applied” ἡμῶν to σωτήρ rather than imposing an interpretive gloss. Each contention collapses once the primary Greek evidence is examined with the methodological controls that modern grammarians apply to article usage.

  Peter and Paul employ ὁ θεός hundreds of times, and in the overwhelming majority of those occurrences the reference is indeed the Father. Nothing in Sharp’s canon denies that statistical regularity. The canon concerns what happens when two singular, personal, common nouns are bound together inside a single determiner phrase. Neither author provides a counter-example within that syntactic frame. Your argument adduces no sentence of the form τοῦ/ὁ θεοῦ X καὶ Y in which the nouns unambiguously point to distinct persons. That absence is decisive: frequency of another usage elsewhere cannot override the grammar of a concrete clause in which the article welds δύο ὀνόματα into μία ἔννοια.

  While it is accurate that ὁ θεός most often designates the Father in the Petrine and Pauline corpora—reflecting the convention of Trinitarian appropriation where ὁ θεός is ascribed to the Father as the source (archē) within the Godhead—this does not preclude exceptions where context or syntax indicates otherwise. The word θεός operates in three senses in the NT: as a designation for the Father (appropriatio), as a reference to the entire Trinity (the divine essence, theotēs), and as a qualitative descriptor of divinity/deity (quiddity). These senses coexist without contradiction, meaning that the habitual use of ὁ θεός for the Father does not exclude its application to the Son in specific instances. Your claim hinges on the absence of explicit instances where Peter or Paul call Jesus ὁ θεός, but this overlooks the syntactic evidence in passages like 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, where Granville Sharp’s rule suggests a single referent for “our God and Savior.” In 2 Peter 1:1, the construction “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou” features a single article (“tou”) governing both “theou” (God) and “sōtēros” (Savior), followed by the appositive “Iēsou Christou” (Jesus Christ). This TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) structure, as Sharp observed, consistently indicates co-referentiality in Koine Greek when applied to singular, personal, common nouns. Your assertion that ὁ θεός must refer to the Father here assumes a semantic inevitability that overrides the grammatical signal, a methodological error that prioritizes customary usage over syntax. Moreover, the immediate contrast with 2 Peter 1:2—where separate articles distinguish “tou theou” and “Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn”—reinforces the intentional unity in 1:1, suggesting Peter adapted traditional language to affirm Christ’s deity.

  You further argue that because Peter’s and Paul’s letters were likely written before the Gospel of John (post-70 CE), John’s usage of ὁ θεός for Jesus in John 20:28 could not have influenced their terminology, thus reinforcing the exclusivity of ὁ θεός for the Father in their writings. This chronological point, while historically plausible, does not negate the broader linguistic and theological context shared by NT authors. Even if Peter and Paul wrote earlier, the early Christian community operated within a developing Christological framework where divine titles were flexibly applied. John 20:28, where Thomas declares “ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou” (my Lord and my God) directly to Jesus, demonstrates that ὁ θεός could be extended to the Son within the first-century church. The grammar—confirmed by “eipen auto” (he said to Him, not “to them”)—leaves no ambiguity that Jesus is the referent, challenging the notion that ὁ θεός is exclusively the Father’s title. While John’s Gospel may postdate Peter and Paul, it reflects the same theological milieu, and its usage provides a precedent that undermines your rigid rule. Peter and Paul, as native Greek speakers or writers within a Hellenized context, were not bound by an unyielding convention but could innovate within their linguistic framework, as evidenced by the TSKS construction in 2 Peter 1:1. The dating of John does not isolate Peter and Paul from this flexibility; rather, it highlights a continuity of thought across the NT, where the Son’s divinity is progressively revealed and expressed.

  You contend that John consistently uses ὁ θεός for the Father throughout his Gospel, from John 1:1 onward, and thus has no reason to be inconsistent in verse 28. You argue that John’s purpose statement in 20:31 would be absurd if Jesus were called ὁ θεός (implying the Father) three verses earlier, unless John intended to equate Jesus with the Father. This objection misrepresents both the grammar and theology of John’s Gospel. First, the claim of absolute consistency overlooks the immediate context of John 20:28, where Thomas’s exclamation is unequivocally directed at Jesus. The possessive pronouns “mou” (my) and the verb “eipen auto” (he said to Him) grammatically tie ὁ θεός to Jesus, not the Father, making it impossible to sustain your interpretation without distorting the syntax. Second, the assumption that John’s usage must be rigid ignores the flexibility of NT language. In John 1:1, “ton theon” refers to the Father, while the anarthrous θεός affirms the Logos’s divine nature (quiddity), showing John’s capacity to vary terminology within a single passage. This flexibility extends to 20:28, where ὁ θεός as a title of appropriatio is applied to Jesus to affirm His divinity, not to equate Him with the Father. Third, the purpose statement in 20:31 does not contradict this application. “Son of God” in John carries profound implications of divine sonship and unity with the Father (cf. John 5:18, 10:30), and does not preclude Jesus being called ὁ θεός in a specific context. Your suggestion that this implies Jesus is “both the Father and the Son” mischaracterizes Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes persons within the Godhead while affirming their shared essence (theotēs). John’s use of ὁ θεός for Jesus is not an inconsistency but a deliberate theological statement, consistent with the Gospel’s broader Christological aims.

  Hence, your exclusion of John 20:28 by chronological fencing is linguistically immaterial. The question is not whether Peter or Paul read John; the question is whether Koine Greek permits ὁ θεός to be predicated of Christ. Thomas’s confession proves that the language provides such elasticity. Once the title is shown to be transferable, appeal to a presumed semantic impossibility in Peter and Paul is removed; the only remaining test is the local syntax of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, which meets Sharp’s criteria exactly. Against this, you merely invoke “common-sense distribution” and describe the Trinitarian appeal to appropriationes as the retrojection of a fourth-century lens onto first-century prose. Yet appropriation is not a Nicene “invention;” it is the analytical name later theologians gave to a lexical pattern already visible in the NT—Father ordinarily ὁ θεός, Son ordinarily ὁ κύριος, Spirit ordinarily τὸ πνεῦμα—while all three persons may bear each other’s titles under determined conditions. That pattern is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it explains why ὁ θεός could be extended to the Son without erasing its ordinary Father-reference. Your insistence that such extension is “inconsistent” smuggles into the debate a unitarian premise that the very texts in dispute appear designed to challenge.

  Trinitarian appropriation, as a theological framework, indeed crystallized in later centuries, particularly through patristic literature and conciliar definitions such as Nicaea (325 CE). However, this does not mean it imposes an anachronistic interpretation on the NT texts. Rather, it articulates relational distinctions within the Godhead that are already implicit in the first-century writings. In established NT terminology, ὁ θεός is generally the standard designation for the Father, ὁ κύριος for the Son, and τὸ πνεῦμα for the Holy Spirit. This convention reflects a pattern of ascription—termed appropriatio in theology—where titles are attributed to specific persons of the Trinity to highlight their roles, not to deny their shared divine essence. Your surprise at this approach overlooks the fact that such distinctions are rooted in the texts themselves, not merely in later dogma. For instance, the relational dynamics between the Father and the Son are evident in passages like John 1:1, where “ton theon” (the Father) is distinguished from the anarthrous θεός (the divine nature of the Logos), suggesting an early awareness of personal distinction within a unified divinity. Linguistic analysis, including Granville Sharp’s rule, further supports this by focusing on syntactic patterns operative in Koine Greek, not on fourth-century theological constructs. Thus, interpreting ὁ θεός in light of these distinctions is not anachronistic but a recognition of the grammatical and theological seeds present in the first-century milieu.

  After all, your entire “fourth-century” objection rests on the premise that the Christian kerygma (the core proclamation) and doctrine were artificially altered in the centuries following the apostles as part of an imperial conspiracy. However, this is simply ruled out by the dogma of indefectibility (indefectabilitas)—meaning that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Furthermore, history does not support such a claim; at most, we can speak of a development of doctrine in the sense articulated by John Henry Newman.

  Granville Sharp’s rule is a syntactic observation, not a theological assertion dependent on patristic exegesis. It rests on the consistent pattern in Koine Greek where a single article governing two singular, personal, common nouns joined by “kai” indicates one referent, as seen in 2 Peter 1:1 (“tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros”) and Titus 2:13 (“tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn”). The scarcity of explicit pre-Nicene commentary on these specific verses does not undermine this linguistic principle, as the rule’s validity derives from its uniformity across a broad corpus, including non-biblical texts. Early church fathers like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus affirm Christ’s deity in general terms, even if they do not directly cite these passages, suggesting a Christological trajectory compatible with Sharp’s interpretation. Your demand for patristic support inverts the burden of proof: it is your dual-referent reading that departs from the grammatical norm, requiring evidence of an exception within Koine Greek syntax, which you fail to provide. The absence of pre-Nicene citations either way reflects the limited scope of surviving texts, not a refutation of the rule’s application.

  The church fathers frequently cited Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 to support core Christian doctrines, especially concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, His equality with the Father, and the hope of His second coming. These verses were pivotal in theological debates, particularly in response to heresies that questioned Christ’s divine nature. An overview of how key figures among the church fathers utilized these scriptures illustrates their centrality in early Christian thought.

  Titus 2:13 was extensively used by the fathers to affirm Christ’s divinity, His role as Savior, and the eschatological expectation of His return. The phrase "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" became a cornerstone for asserting that Jesus is both fully divine and equal to the Father. For example, Hippolytus, in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, quoted Titus 2:13 to emphasize the Christian hope in Christ’s second coming. He referred to Jesus as "our God and Savior," linking this directly to the resurrection of the saints and the glorification of the Father. This reinforced both the eschatological and divine aspects of Christ’s identity.

  Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Matthew, Philippians, and John, drew upon Titus 2:13 for several purposes. In the Homilies on Matthew (Matthew 17:10), he used the verse to distinguish Christ’s two advents: His first in grace and His second in glory, urging believers to live righteously while awaiting the "blessed hope" of "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." In Homilies on Philippians (Philippians 2:5-8), he cited it to affirm Christ’s divinity, calling Him "the great God" and countering claims of the Son’s inferiority to the Father. Similarly, in the Homilies on John (John 1:1), Chrysostom referenced the verse to argue for the Son’s eternal nature, noting that "the great God" applies to Jesus, thus aligning His attributes with those of the Father.

  Theodoret also made significant use of Titus 2:13, particularly in his letter To John the Œconomus, where he affirmed the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures by calling Him "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." This supported the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In his Letter to the Monks, Theodoret again quoted the verse to emphasize Christ’s glorious appearing as both God and Savior, defending the orthodox view of His dual nature against heresies such as Arianism.

  Gregory of Nyssa, in his work Against Eunomius, especially in Books VI and XI, cited Titus 2:13 to argue against Eunomius, affirming that Christ is "the great God and our Savior" and thus upholding His full divinity. He also used the verse to counter Marcionite dualism, asserting the unity of the Godhead and rejecting any division between good and evil deities.

  Basil referenced Titus 2:13 in both his Dogmatic Works and De Spiritu Sancto. In the former, he used the verse to argue for the Son’s equality with the Father, showing that "the great God" applies to Jesus and demonstrates His divine nature. In De Spiritu Sancto (Chapter XVI), Basil quoted the verse to highlight the role of the Trinity in salvation, linking the work of the Spirit to Christ’s dispensations as "our great God and Saviour."

  Turning to 2 Peter 1:1 we find that this verse, though cited less frequently, was also used to affirm Christ’s divinity and Peter’s apostolic witness, often in contexts related to the foundation of the Church and eschatological hope. Theodoret cited 2 Peter 1:1 alongside Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16 ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God") to affirm Christ’s divine sonship and His role as the Church’s foundation, connecting this to the unity of His natures. Chrysostom, in his Homily on Acts 15:13-15, referenced 2 Peter 1:1 indirectly through Peter’s authority, relating it to his leadership in the early Church and the inclusion of Gentiles, as prophesied by Peter. This underscored the apostolic testimony to Christ’s divinity. Additionally, apocryphal texts such as the Revelation of Esdras and the Apocalypse of Peter alluded to 2 Peter 1:1 in the context of the righteousness of believers and their eschatological hope, though often in a more indirect way. In the Revelation of Esdras, the verse is reflected in a vision about the afterlife form of the righteous, while the Apocalypse of Peter references the "like precious faith" and the hope held by Christ’s followers.

  Synthesizing the usage of these verses, we see that Titus 2:13 was consistently employed to affirm Christ’s deity—calling Him "the great God" to counter heresies such as Arianism and Marcionism—and to highlight the hope of His second coming, connecting Christian ethics and eschatological expectation. It was also a key support for the doctrine of the hypostatic union, emphasizing Christ’s dual nature as both God and man. 2 Peter 1:1, meanwhile, was used to reinforce Peter’s authoritative witness to Christ’s divinity and role as Savior, and to connect Christ’s righteousness to the faith of believers, especially in discussions about the Church’s foundation and the inclusion of Gentiles.

  The theological implications of these quotations by the church fathers reflect a unified stance on three key points. First, both verses were central to proving that Jesus is fully God and equal to the Father, especially in the face of heretical challenges. Second, Titus 2:13, in particular, was often linked to the doctrine of the Trinity, highlighting the Son’s unity with the Father and the Spirit in salvation history. Third, the "blessed hope" mentioned in Titus 2:13 underscored the anticipation of Christ’s return, a central theme in early Christian teaching.

  Finally, the KJV rendering necessarily introduces a second determiner in English because Early Modern English lacks a casus obliquus article that can govern two nouns simultaneously. Greek does possess such a device; the KJV translators tacitly decided that Peter intended distinct referents and so allocated the pronoun to the second noun. That is interpretive, not mechanically literal. Had they wished to reproduce the Greek construction, they could have written “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” as the Rheims–Douai did from the Latin Vulgate. This alternative reflects exegetical preference, not grammatical requirement.

  The KJV, completed in 1611, predates Sharp’s 1798 articulation of the TSKS rule and reflects a translational decision made without the benefit of his grammatical insight. In the Greek text, “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou” features a single article (“tou”) unifying “theou” and “sōtēros,” suggesting one referent—Jesus Christ as both God and Savior. The KJV’s separation of “God” and “our Saviour” introduces a second determiner in English, aligning with stylistic or theological preferences rather than the Greek syntax. The translators’ understanding, while historically significant, does not override the grammatical cohesion indicated by the TSKS construction. The contrast with 2 Peter 1:2—where “tou theou” and “Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn” use separate articles to distinguish referents—further supports the unity in 1:1, a nuance the KJV obscures. Your defense of the KJV as a faithful translation of intent assumes a dual-referent meaning that the Greek structure does not necessitate, highlighting a reliance on later interpretive tradition rather than the original text’s syntax.

  In sum, your defense of a dual-referent reading depends on (i) treating a statistical default as a categorical prohibition, (ii) dismissing counter-evidence by restricting the corpus ad hoc, (iii) overlooking early witnesses that do take the clauses as unitary, and (iv) mistaking an English determiner for the Greek article. Until a genuine counter-example is produced—namely, an original Koine sentence whose single-article TSKS string of singular personal common nouns indubitably designates two persons—Sharp’s canon remains the only linguistic key that unlocks Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. By that key Peter and Paul announce, in unison, that the one they worship is “Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.”

  Your objections fail to dismantle the application of Granville Sharp’s rule to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. The claim that ὁ θεός always refers to the Father in Peter and Paul overstates a convention into an inflexible rule, ignoring syntactic evidence like the TSKS construction and exceptions such as John 20:28. The appeal to John’s later dating and supposed consistency does not negate the flexibility of NT language or the grammatical clarity of Thomas’s confession. The absence of pre-Nicene citations supporting a single referent does not refute Sharp’s rule, which stands on linguistic grounds, while the KJV’s rendering reflects a translational choice, not a definitive rebuttal of the Greek syntax. Ultimately, your position rests on a semantic presupposition that overrides the text’s grammatical signals, whereas Sharp’s rule offers a robust, evidence-based interpretation affirming Jesus as “our God and Savior” in these passages.