From: GregStffrd (GregStffrd@aol.com)
Date: Sat Apr 11 1998 - 20:53:02 EDT
You wrote in response to E. Foster:
>2 Thess. 1:12
The sense that I get from reading the NT is that the phrase KURIOS
IHSOUS XRISTOS has become a frozen form proper name for Jesus by
this point (the same cannot be said about SWTHR used in Titus 2:13,
2 Pet 1:1 since the "name" SWTHR IHSOUS XRISTOS doesn't really occur;
its either got a hHMWN in it or is used in conjunction with KURIOS;
moreover, apart from 2Pet it doesn't occur, and thus its clear that
it hasn't achieved some mutually agreed upon status as a "name".)...
Actually, SWTHROS IHSOU CHRISTOU does occur apart from hHMWN and KYRIOS. That
is how 2 Peter 1:1 ends. The hHMWN is used with TOU THEOU. Also, we can see
the beginnings of "Savior" as a proper name in Titus, but even if we restrict
our investigation to 2 Peter, who is to say that the writer of 2 Peter did not
consider "Savior Jesus Christ" a compound proper name?
>As for 2 Pet. 1:1, it is debatable whether or not the GS rule applies
>there. In view of the context, I would not equate Christ with QHEOS.
>This may also be a case of the quasi-personal names that Stafford
<< You are certainly entitled to your view. I've not see Stafford's
work, but up till now the standard objection to the G-S in 2Pet 1:1;
Tit 2:13 has been that QEOS is a proper name, with which I would
I did not consider THEOS a proper name per se. But I do believe that the NT
use of THEOS is almost entirely restricted to the Father, so that a reference
to THEOS would, more often than not, call to mind the Father of Jesus Christ.
So it may have the force of a proper name in certain instances, just like
<< I'm really not sure what a "quasi-personal
name" would be ? But unless Stafford is referring to QEOS in both
of these passages, the point, as far as I can tell, would be irrelevant,
since IHSOU XRISTOU in both passages is not part of the G-S construction;
Jesus' name is in apposition to the QEOS and SWTHR. >>
I think that is the very point we are trying to prove, isn't it? I can see it
in apposition to both nouns, but I can also see it in apposition to only the
second noun, "Savior," similar to 2 Thess. 1:12. In fact, the two texts are
parallel in all respects, except for the use of "Savior" versus "Lord."
<< I still think the
G-S rule applies in these two passages....does this make me a hopelessy
brain-dead dogmatic fundamentalist ? I certainly hope not; I'm
making this judgment on the basis of grammar alone...>>
I can appreciate where you are coming from, Dale, but should our decisions be
based solely on grammar? Are there not other factors to consider, like the
context and the habitual usage of titles and phrases for one person over
<<I really don't care
if the G-S construction is proven wrong here and everywhere. >>
And it does not matter to me if it is right here or elsewhere. If it is
applied in 2 Peter 1:1 it does not tell me anything different from John 1:1 or
1:18. I am merely interested in the different nuances of each verse, and what
they may indicate, as I am sure you are, also.
>One more question: if the absence of the article vis-a'-vis the second
>substantive means that Jesus is BOTH God and Savior in Tit. 2:13, is
>the converse also true?
<< I don't follow the question.
I.e., in John 20:28 an article precedes both
>KURIOS and QEOS. Therefore we have an article-noun-kai-article-noun
>construction. Any significance here?
<< If you mean that because there is an article in front of both that the
nouns must thereby refer to two different people...I'd say not. Aside
from the obvious contextual meaning, it has been my observation that
the inclusion of both articles does not necessarily indicate that the
the two nouns are different persons/things; they may be, but not
I agree. But is that not what proponents of GS argue, namely: "If a second
person were intended a second article would have been used"?
<< In the case of John 20:28 the MOU virtually demands an
article with the noun it goes with...and since there are two MOUs, there
are two articles. >>
Yes, that is one reason the article was used, but it does rule out the
possibility that the second article separates the two nouns. In fact, I think
that only one possessive would have been necessary, as in Rev. 4:11, had one
person been intended.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT