[b-greek] Re: Smart's less contrived than Sharp's

From: Dan Parker (stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 11:02:31 EST


>
> Dan, what sources can you cite which see "Saviour Jesus Christ" as a title
> of Christ?

David, Although I do not generally believe in exegesis by consensus I will
provide a source.

Also, I think you are a bit confused as to the issues.

J. Ed Komoszewski on Wallace's bible.org site states that both "Savior
Jesus Christ" and "Lord Jesus Christ" are titles in the NT. They give
a chart showing the frequence of usage of these titles. They, however,
don't view the examples of "Savior Jesus Christ" as numerous enough to
qualify as a compound proper name.

This illustrates my point with regards to the contrived rules of the
Sharp's revisionists. If one inserts a term as being excluded from the
rule as they have done with "Saviour Jesus Christ" but cannot demonstrate
with 100% certainty that a given term is or is not a compound proper
name, then even if the rule is 100% infalable it is only as good as
the weakest link. Their weak link is a doozy!

If the Sharp's revisionists do not even agree with Sharp as to what
constitutes a proper name (e.g. Eph 5:5, etc) then what hope do we mere
mortals have in deciphering this mess?

This also illustrates just how dependent Sharp's rule is on
statistics. One wonders just how many examples they would need of
"Saviour Jesus Christ" to qualify it as a compound proper name.

It is interesting to note that the instances where they consider QEOS
to apply to the Christ hardly numbers more than the examples of "Savior
Jesus Christ" in the GNT, but I don't see this as an obstacle to their
view that this title applies to the Christ, do you?



> > In addition I view it as _very_ contrived to eliminate "Christ"
> > and "Lord" from Sharp's rule but not "Savior Jesus Christ."
> >
>
> In the 5 instances of this in the NT, it would seem to me that the writer is
> not using SWTHR as title:
>
> ... THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU
> KAI SWTHROS hHMWN
> IHSOU CRISTOU [Titus 2:13]
>
> ...TOU QEOU hHMWN
> KAI SWTHROS
> IHSOU CRISTOU [2 Peter 1:1]
>
> ... TOU KURIOU hHMWN
> KAI SWTHROS
> IHSOU CRISTOU [2 Peter 1:11]
>
> ... TOU KURIOU [hHMWN]
> KAI SWTHROS
> IHSOU CRISTOU [2 Peter 2:20]
>
> ... TOU KURIOU hHMWN
> KAI SWTHROS
> IHSOU CRISTOU [2 Peter 3:18]
>
> The NT clearly uses the title "Lord Jesus Christ" but I can't see "Saviour
> Jesus Christ" as a title.
>
> David McKay
> musicke@ozemail.com.au

David, I don't blame you for being confused, because the rule has gotten
so convoluted that it's worthless.

Smart's rule is not based on questionable statistics of ambiguous terms
like Sharp's revised rule.

The elegant simplicity of Smart's rule with no confusing contrived and
ambiguous elements is a fresh of breath air in comparison.


Sincerely,
Dan Parker


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:50 EDT