From: Wes Williams (WesWilliams@usa.net)
Date: Tue Apr 14 1998 - 22:24:25 EDT
>Greg Stafford wrote:
> I recommend that
>>anyone interested in the G. Sharp issue obtain Wallace's thesis, or at
>>his Grammar, and consider what he has to say. Then, to round out your
>>understanding, read the Excursus in my book, which contains a
>>all relevant literature, including Wallace's thesis, and make up your own
>I was interested to find out what Dan Wallace thinks of the use of his work
>in Greg Stafford's book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended" so I wrote to him,
>and he has given me permission to quote from his reply to me.
>The results of Stafford's method are completely predictable ... He has
>selectively quoted from my works, ignoring the accompanying data given in
>many places ... His
>argument that "Savior Jesus Christ" is a title was dealt with quite
>in Murray Harris' Jesus as God, as well as my dissertation, but Stafford
>ignores the arguments ...
>He fails to note, for example, that (1) no proper names are ever used in
>NT in conformity to the Granville Sharp rule, and (2) THEOS comprises the
>largest set of examples that DO fit the Granville Sharp rule...
>Further, I do not have to defend either Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as
>affirming the deity of Christ; some good scholars whom I respect have done
>otherwise. But a lack of affirmation is not a denial...
>Stafford supplies ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that THEOS is ever used in the NT as
>proper noun ... Indeed, the evidence is decidedly against him on this...
Would it be possible to post Wallace's entire response, without the
ellipses? I know you are careful with quotations, but I, for one, would like
to see the comments in their full context. Stafford forwarded his book to a
number of people on the list and I was one who received it and read this
chapter. I see that Wallace also received one. But I came away with a much
different impression than that reflected above.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT