From: J. Ed Komoszewski (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 11 1998 - 18:58:08 EDT
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Edgar Foster
>---"J. Ed Komoszewski" wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Foster
>> Ephesians 5:5, 2 Timothy 4:1 and Titus 1:4 all contain a proper name
>> (i.e., one which cannot be pluralized). 2 Thessalonians 1:12 can
>> seen as consistent with the GS rule if KURIOU is separated from the
>> proper name IHSOU XRISTOU, which is unlikely since it is a familiar
>> in the epistles. Thus, IMHO, none of the passages you cited are
>> exceptions to Sharp's rule.
>> Ed Komoszewski
>Dear Mr. Komoszewski
>Does not Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 also contain proper names? Wouldn't
>the same exclusionary principle apply to these passages as well?
Dear Mr. Foster,
I do not personally see a parallel between KURIOU IHSOU XRISTOU and
SWTHROS IHSOU XRISTOU. Whereas the former has taken on the
characteristics of a proper name through repeated use in the epistles,
the latter is not predominant enough to warrant the same. Thus due to
frequency of usage, I view the former as proper and the latter as titular
(since MEGAS is nowhere else used as a description of the Father in the
New Testament, I do not view the phrase MEGALOU QEOU as proper either).
I also think it is important to consider work done by Moulton, Cullmann,
Harris and Wallace which argues for the idiomatic force of the phrase
QEOS KAI SWTHR, thus making a separation of this combination in Tit. 2:13
and 2 Pet. 1:1 difficult. It is my humble opinion that this idiom which
antedates the New Testament and always deifies one person places the
burden of proof on one wishing to break the construction in the New
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT