Thursday, September 16, 2021

Richard Porson’s Famous Handwriting

Although he published little, the Cambridge classicist Richard Porson (1759–1808) is best known for his insight into Greek meter, accentuation, and orthography. He was apparently skeptical of Granville Sharp’s rule about the use of the Greek article that has been so important to New Testament studies. he was even suspected by some of having written a tract against it under the pseudonym “Gregory Blunt” (pun intended). More popularly, he was known for “an astonishing memory, a turn for satire and badinage, beautiful penmanship, personal slovenliness, and alcoholism” (Naiditch, xxi). But Porson denied having written it and his biographer agrees (Watson, 267270). His greatest legacy, as far as I am concerned, is his Greek handwriting that was turned into what I consider the best Greek typeface ever designed in Britain. 

The original characters were cut by Richard Austin and cast by Caslon and Catherwood. Austin was paid 22 pounds and 7 shillings. It was first used in 1809 in E. D. Clarke’s Greek Marbles brought from the shores of the Euxine. Its simplicity and lack of ligatures made it easy to read so that it was quickly copied and by the mid 19th century it was “almost universal in Britain” (Bowman, 2). You can see it in all sorts of books from Metzger’s Lexical Aids to Westcott and Hort’s GNT to Loeb Classical Library. One reviewer at the time compared the new type to the “disgustingly luxuriant” types of Bodoni and said that, in contrast, “the eye of the scholar now peruses, with a satisfaction bordering on delight, the porsonic type” (Bowman, 2). 

Porson’s Book Notes from c. 1800 (source)

Porson’s handwriting

The original type specimen from Cambridge University Press (from Bowman)

It was also used for the early editions of the UBS Greek New Testament but this changed—to Metzger’s chagrin. He says that he was not happy about the change to the “less attractive and harder to read [type] than the beautiful Porson font of Greek type that I had recommended for the earlier editions” (Reminiscences, 73). Kurt Aland admits as much in the intro to the NA26 (p. 43*) when he says “the font used [for NA26] is certainly lacking in the simplicity and clarity of that used for The Greek New Testament.” Given its ties to Cambridge, I tried to get the THGNT editors to use it but they went with Adobe Text instead (not a bad choice).

Westcott and Hort’s GNT (1881)

You can download a digital version of Porson from the Greek Font Society.

Further reading


  1. Alexander Thomson9/16/2021 2:38 pm

    Peter, Thank you for this article, which I shall study!

    Though perhaps not directly concerned with textual criticism as such,the Granville Sharp rule both intrigued and alarmed me over fifty years ago, just before I entered on my Classical and Biblical studies at University.

    The result was that, over a period of two years, I studied the matter (as an addition to my curriculum and for an award) and presented a paper to, and led a seminar of, a joint meeting of Classical Greek scholars and New Testament scholars (about a dozen in total). I had come to the conclusion that I could not endorse the Granville Sharp rule, and, in response to my asking the scholars for their views on the rule, not one of said that s/he endorsed it.

    Now, it may be said that this was before the subsequent revival of interest by New Testament scholars (but not by Classicists?). So, may I please ask here for a prescribed reading list, in order to revisit the topic?

    If we take Titus 2:13 as an/the prime example, the translation of each of the following six "Reformation" English versions is of interest : (1) Wiclif 1568 "the glory of the great god, and our saviour Jesus Christ"; (2) Tyndall 1534 "the glorious appearing of the mighty God, and of our savior Jesus Christ"; (3) Bishop's (Cranmer's) Bible 1540 "the glory of the great God, and of our saviour Jesus (4) Tomson (translating Beza's Greek text) 1599 "of the mightie God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ"; (5) Geneva Bible 1606 "the glory of the mighty God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ"; (6) AV/KJV 1611 "of the great God, and our saviour Jesus Christ".

    Thus, six worthy translations are unanimous in entering the comma, to distinguish two persons. This seems to me to be overwhelming evidence of the godly line of translation!

    The AV/KJV seems to have dropped the commas in the Oxford 1760/1762 and Cambridge 1769 editions, and (surprisingly?) not rectified in either Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible or Norton's 2005/2011 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible; and almost all subsequent editions (including those approved by KJV-Only advocates) fail to include the commas

    1. No, the canon has been examined at length by Dan Wallace and found to be legitimate when properly understood (which it often hasn’t been). See his big grammar or his monograph Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance.

    2. Alexander Thomson9/16/2021 7:42 pm

      Peter, Thank you. the monograph seems to be out of print, and the usual secondhand places don't have it! Anyone here have a spare copy, please, or a copy for sale/lease (UK)? Do yopu think that the Greek scholars before Wallace, and many Classicists after him, just got it wrong?

    3. As he shows in some detail, many got it wrong because they misunderstood the original principle. But Wallace's study gives a lot more detail, expanding our understanding of when the principle does and doesn't work.

    4. Dear Alexander,

      I found the Wallace Monograph here:

      In the Netherlands:

      In germany: (also as e-book)

      In Abebooks:

      And here:,
      though I don't know, whether this is realy "kosher"


    5. Alexander Thomson9/17/2021 6:19 pm

      Peter, I find it difficult to believe that so many past and present scholars got it wrong. But,I shall do some extensive reading and thinking on the matter. Many thanks.

    6. Alexander Thomson9/17/2021 6:24 pm

      Jean, Many thanks!

    7. Hi Alexander and ETC friends,

      Granville Sharp's intention was that eight verses would be changed from the Authorized Version (there was a ninth but it was oddball. The verses would change from the very common New Testament mode of dual addressing (dozens of verses) to an identity singularity, declaring Jesus is God. This was to be accomplished not directly, but by a grammatical subtlety.

      (And new translation would be missing the actual interpretative nuance of the text, Ephesians 5:5 being a good example, noting John Calvin's commentary)

      In the Daniel Wallace iteration, and in the NETBible , most all of those eight have been discarded, due to a variety of reasons, including textual variants, and certain sophistries and special pleadings within the context of Granville Sharp Rule analysis. It does make for a humorous study. A pile of exceptions a mile high!

      Note that there is also a plagiarism concern as to the actual Granville Sharp studies, noted by John Pye Smith in 1821, noting the French work of Herman Royaards. (To be fair, this is a complicated discussion.)

      So now there are only two of eight verses "standing", Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, and those two very shakily since the arguments against the identity translation are very strong. Thus it is incorrect to call the Daniel Wallace material "The Granville Sharp Rule", unless you add "Radically Reduced" at the end.

      One of the most fascinating areas of New Testament translational study.


      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY, USA

    8. Alexander Thomson9/18/2021 11:17 pm


      Thank you for your comments.

      It is interesting that the Renaissance and reformation Greek scholars, as well as many present Classicists, do not accept the Granville Sharp rule; and also that the foundational translations from Wiclif to the AV/KJV did not recognise it. I know that Granville Sharp's motive was to find textual support for his Trinitarianism ; a case of a theological theory driving a grammatical exercise. I have had about eighteen Study Bibles (about half being academic ones for the NRSV) and about ten one-volume commentaries( of which five are liberal-academic in nature); and i have (but probably should not have) been amazed at their silence about on the translation of the two texts that you mention, or their brief/mere acceptance that only one person is the subject of the relevant phrase. Yet, I have met many instances where these and other texts are put forward without comment as being proof of "the deity/divinity of Jesus" or "the Trinity" or the like. And the translational problems seem to be ignored by almost everbody at such texts as John 1:18, where the adopted critical reading certainly cannot mean what it is translated as meaning.

    9. Alexander Thomson9/18/2021 11:35 pm

      I just wonder why so little discussion is paid, in the books that I mentioned, to such unambiguous texts, free from textual variants, as John 17:3 and 1 Timothy 2:5?

    10. The name of Sharp's book is helpful.
      "Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New Testament: containing many new proofs of the divinity of Christ, from passages, which are wrongly translated in the common English version."

      In 1777 Granville Sharp, following Johann Kasper Velthausen and John Berriman, had defended the TR reading of 1 Timothy 3:16. "God was manifest in the flesh". In "A tract on the law of nature and principles of action in man." Confuting Johann Jakob Wetstein and Edward Harwood. Now Granville Sharp was trying another tack.

      One of the purposes of the GSR was to regain new verses to compensate for the challenges on 1 Timothy 3:16 and the heavenly witnesses. Tit for tat text-tonics.

      Archibald Thomas Robertson put it like this, referring to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

      "It is true that thus we have two passages added to the side of the Trinitarian argument to make up
      for the loss of 1 Timothy iii. 16 and 1 John v. 7-8."

      The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ

      However, it is best not to decide on Bible texts based on what you would like them to say!

      For context, you might find this helpful!

      overview of pure Bible verses that Granville Sharp sought to "correct"

      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY, USA

    11. Steven, How would you translate 2 Peter 1:1, "ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ", as found in the vast majority of manuscripts and as printed by publishers of the TR such as Stephanus?

    12. Alexander Thomson9/19/2021 11:54 am


      I cannot speak for Steven; but I find interesting the following.

      The AV/KJV Translators of 1611,having many translations and commentators before them, and being themselves avid and experienced Greek scholars, had no doubt about their translation. They issued : "..of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Note the presence of the comma - to distinguish two persons - and the absence of a marginal note offering an alternative translation. Somewhere along the line - and I suspect Parris' Oxford edition(s) of (1760 and) 1769, and hence Blayney's Cambridge edition of 1769 - the distinguishing comma was surreptitiously dropped. And so, amazingly, even the careful Scrivener, in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873, "was carried away also by their dissimulation", not only omitting the comma but also adding an unAuthorised(!) note - "Gr[eek] of our God and Saviour"! And also, Norton in his New Cambridge Paragraph Bible of (2005 and) 2011 repeats both of Scrivener's errors! Since then, most editions have omitted the comma, sometimes inserting a marginal note. I get the distinct impression of lazy copying and unexamined printing! {Sorry - called away hope to return!]

    13. Alexander Thomson9/19/2021 4:01 pm

      The English Revisers of 1881 translated the relevant words as " the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"; but they had a marginal note of "..{Or} our God and {the} Saviour..".[{} encloses italic type.] So, they seemed to prefer, in their text, the one-person referent; but to but recognise, in their note, a reference to two persons.

      The American Revisers of 1901 put into their text the words, "of our God and {the} Saviour Jesus Christ", thereby referring to two persons - but perhaps indicating, by the italic definite article, that there was a split in the Committee. It was in the margin that they noted the one-person referent, by noting, " Or, {our God and Saviour}..".

      The RSV of 1971 had in the text the words, "..of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"; while their marginal note read, "..of our god and the Savior Jesus Christ" {no italic type] -- a definite one-person reference in the text, but a definite two-person reference in the note.

      The NRSV of 1989 has, in the text, the words, "..of our god and Savio[u]r Jesus Christ"; while the marginal notes reads, "..of our God and the Savio[u]r Jesus Christ" - reproducing its exemplar RSV's words and interpretations.

      So, the AV/KJV had definite reference to two persons; unAuthorised(!) omission of the comma was made; and revisions have probably favoured the one-person referent but have also recognised the possibility of a reference to two persons.

    14. Alexander Thomson9/19/2021 4:24 pm

      Other Classicists and I would have wished to see the 'HMON of our text follow CWTHPOC, in order to say that, very probably, only one person was being referred to. as the text stands, I think that most Classicists (and certainly those whom I have consulted over many years) would say that the text is referring to two individuals or else is ambiguous.The fact is that Koine Greek is not that of the highly-polished intellectualist that one finds in the best Classical authors! I am now a Biblical Unitarian; but, even when a Trinitarian, I had long recognised the dishonest clinging to the notion that these "ambiguous" texts *had* to be translated in a Trinitarian direction : they may be consistent with Trinitarianism, but the are consistent also with Biblical Unitarianism. Trinitarianism has to be buttressed by *unambiguous* texts!

    15. Alexander Thomson9/19/2021 4:45 pm

      Let me conclude by quoting one of the best comments that I have seen on the translation of the relevant words at 2 Peter 1:1. They were written in 1881, in the [Anglican and Trinitarian] "speaker's Commentary", by J R Lumby, Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge : " {of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ}...In the best MSS. the pronoun is with God. The translation should be, 'of *our* God and *the* Saviour Jesus Christ'. It is indeed possible to explain both 'God' and 'Saviour' here as titles given to Jesus Christ, and so to render 'our God and Saviour Jesus Christ'. but as the Father and the Son are spoken of in contradistinction in the next verse, it is better to preserve the distinction here also. it should moreover be observed that that we nowhere else find 'God' and 'Saviour' used of Christ. 'Lord and Saviour' occurs in this Epistle (1:11, 3:18) and elsewhere in the New Testament very frequently."

    16. Thanks, Andrew!

      One important point. Anybody who discusses the Granville Sharp Rule in terms of "how many persons" has already placed a doctrinal tinge over the question. Since they are usually starting with the presumption that ontological beings and entities (including the Holy Spirit) are "persons". That may be popular doctrine, but it is not impelled by the Bible and is easily disputed.

      And I like the explanation given by Granville Penn (1761–1844.) Discussing the fundamental issues in

      2 Peter 1:1 (AV)
      Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

      "Had the apostle intended here to say, as Macknight and Bloomfield maintain, ‘our God and Saviour J. C.,’ he would surely have said,
      που Θεός και Σωτήρας ημών Ιησούς Χριστός "

      Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant: With an Expository Preface (1837)
      Granville Penn

      This is the fundamental issue. While the singular and dual addressing translations are both grammatically feasible, it simply makes no sense at all that Paul, seeking to give an incredibly important doctrinal Christological statement, would hide this in a super-subtle grammatical nuance! Based on a "Rule" that is unknown in normative, historic Greek grammar.

      Matthew above asked me for my translation. Misses the point. Two widely divergent English translations are grammatically feasible. That is why you have to seek the bigger contextual picture. And my conclusion is that New Testament Greek scholarship has been played.


      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY, USA

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    18. Actually, I think translation is the point here, Steven. The Greek may be ambiguous in other verses where the Granville Sharp rule is invoked, but here it hardly matters whether the Granville Sharp rule is valid or not; the KJV translation is hardly justifiable. The Greek text is "ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" in most Greek manuscripts; the Greeks have that, but what does it mean in English?
      In the quote of seven Greek words you gave, there are half a dozen errors. That does not inspire confidence in either the source of your quote, or in you, wherever the errors came from. So, it may be those who do not know Greek who are trying to play New Testament Greek scholarship.

    19. Alexander Thomson9/19/2021 8:52 pm


      That is an uncharitable "response"! Simply silently correct the typos, refrain from pejorative comment, and deal with Steven's substantive point!

      I know Greek, and I have responded to you; so, will you deal with what I wrote?

      Many thanks.

    20. Thank you Andrew.

      There have been many substantive points, from you as well, that are simply not addressed.

      Peter Gurry understandably referred to Daniel Wallace as the authority. However, Wallace is not really defending Sharp at all, dumping most all of his verse claims, leading to the irony that he was clueless about his own rule!

      And Daniel Wallace coming up with more unusual exceptions. One, a phrase from Harnack, being "naive modalism." Wallace uses this to discount early church writers whose texts contradict his claims!

      (Welcome to the wild world of Sharp Apologetics. One apologist even gets into wacky statistical pct analysis of proper nouns, etc!)

      The b-greek forum has some excellent points as well.

      Matthew seems to be only interested in whether he can call the AV text errant. Based on how well it matches the most common Greek text. Reasonable question, but far afield from Richard Porson and the GSR.

      Here is a point about Porson and the "Rule".

      Life of Richard Porson (1861)
      John Selby Watson

      When Porson, however, was asked his opinion of Sharp’s rule, he intimated distrust of it, and assigned such reasons for his distrust as appeared decisive to those that could judge of them.* p. 269

      Matthew is welcome to give his own 2 Peter 1:1 translation, but he has not done that, so we do not even know if he believes in the Sharp identity claim, or not.

      Matthew, thanks for pointing out that my quick transcription was faulty. Apologies. However, I left the url right there so you can see the Granville Penn English and Greek text.

      Granville Penn's comment is spot-on, right to the heart of the matter. There would be far easier ways for Paul to call Jesus "our God and Saviour" than an ultra-dubious analysis based on a grammatical nuance subtlety.

      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY USA

    21. Alexander Thomson9/19/2021 11:02 pm

      In his book , "The Trinity in the New Testament" (1962, corrected edition 1969, Arthur W Wainwright re-ignited the question of the relevant New Testament texts. In 1992, Murray J Harris re-examined the matter, in his book, "Jesus as God : The New testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus". both concluded that "..there are seven passages in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ is called God" (Wainwright, page 65) - and their seven passages are the same : I list them as Harris set them out in a table (page 272) --- three regarded as certain - John 01:01, John 20:28, Romans 09:05; three regarded as very probable - Titus 02:13, Hebrews 01:08,02 Peter 01:01; one regarded as probable - John 01:18. [Only three regarded as certain!] but, all seven texts have been argued about, as to text ans/or translation, for a very long time -- and the argument is by no means between Trinitarians on the one side and non-Trinitarians on the other side! Of course, the texts concern only the Father and the Son - the Holy Spirit is absent from them! An ontological relationship between Father and Son simply cannot be established - and certainly not established beyond doubt - from these texts. Plain and unambiguous texts, such as John 17:03 and 1 Timothy 02:05, do clearly establish the nature(s) of the father and of the Son, and of their mutual relationship. Textual criticism and proper translation and doctrinal understanding cannot, in the end, be separated!

    22. Alex,
      I am sorry for any uncharitableness in my reply to Steven. It would seem appropriate, however, that, when discussing whether or not a technical Greek rule that applies to only a couple verses, accuracy in at least most cases (pun intended) would be expected. At this point, we get the impression that Steven knows a lot about the Greek New Testament but does not know Greek. But he can correct me if I am mistaken. Not that anyone has to know Greek to comment on the question, but to say that Greek scholars are "clueless" and their work is "wacky"...
      But you asked me to deal with what you wrote. I am not sure what you are referring to, because your messages are mostly a survey of what translators have thought about 2 Peter 1:1. It was helpful, and I think that the phrase in question (δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ) could be translated either as "the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" or as "the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ", but not as "the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ".
      I think that translating it as "the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ" is still somewhat ambiguous in English (it can be taken to refer to either one person or two), just as the Greek is ambiguous (that is, not everyone agrees that Granville Sharp's rule is valid), just as Titus 2:13, as translated in the KJV ("the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ") is somewhat ambiguous.
      And perhaps we could remember that the scholars who translated the Geneva Bible and other early English Bibles translated 2 Peter 1:1 as "the righteousnesse of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ".

    23. Hi Matthew B,

      "to say that Greek scholars are "clueless" and their work is "wacky"...

      You seem to have missed the actual context of my words! :)

      The "clueless" remark was not about a Greek scholar, it was about Granville Sharp. And the idea that he is wrong on 6 of his verses.

      "leading to the irony that he was clueless about his own rule!"

      De facto, it is Daniel Wallace and company who is saying that Sharp was clueless! He set up categories, but he could not apply them properly!

      What type of "Rule" is applied improperly most of the time! This is why it should be called:

      The Daniel Wallace Rule .. or

      The Granville Sharp Rule Radically Reduced

      The comment of "wacky statistical pct analysis of proper nouns, etc" refers to a specific paper, by a gentleman who aligns with the Daniel Wallace approach.

      Frequency And Distribution Of The Titles "Lord Jesus Christ" And "Savior Jesus Christ' In The New Testament (2004)
      J. Edward Komoszewski

      My comment:

      "The absurdity of this whole line of inquiry, probabilistic counting of what terms are proper names used by what authors in what books in order to anachronistically apply categories to a 1790 supposed rule that is built on special pleading and presupposition. The beat goes on."

      More details here:

      grammatical analysis descends to satire - J. Edward Komoszewski GSR paper

      Thanks for the feedback. It has spurred a little additional inquiry.

      Some of the Greek scholars have actually been very strong in pointing out Daniel Wallace weaknesses in his approach to the Granville Sharp rule. Some is on that b-greek forum, especially Vasileios Tsialas from Greece. Stanley Porter is another.

      blessings and grace in Jesus name,

      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY, USA

    24. Alexander Thomson9/20/2021 3:55 pm


      Yes, you *were* uncharitable - not simply "for any uncharitableness"; but, I note your apology, which Steven seems tacitly to have accepted. So, we can all pass on from the matter!

      We seem now to be agreed that Titus 02:13 is a dead duck if one is trying to establish the *certainty* that Jesus is being called "God". I hope that others (some of whom write in study Bibles and commentaries and other tomes) would so honestly accept that conclusion!

      Even if the comma is surreptitiously omitted in the AV/KJV at the verse, I wonder whether the position would be irretrievable? The phrase, without the comma, is, as you have noted, somewhat ambiguous; and, if the comma is to be omitted, but two persons are intended, I should have expected the phrase to be, 2of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ" ; indeed, until I discovered that the Translators had inserted the comma, I had concluded from the subsequent editions that the Translators, masters of English that they were, had studiously created the English ambiguity!

      On 2 Peter 1:1, it is the case that the English translations before the AV/KJV had the words, ".. of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ", very probably referring to one person. but, half a century of ripened Greek scholarship took place between the last of those translations, the Geneva Bible, and the AV/KJV; and the Translators, many of them, and many steeped in Greek (and other) learning, opted to refer to two persons, by translating as "of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ" - the comma being inserted! So, the maturer/maturest English scholarship was reflected in the AV/KJV (and, no, I am not a KJV-Onlyist!).

      Let me reproduce here what I wrote above.........."Let me conclude by quoting one of the best comments that I have seen on the translation of the relevant words at 2 Peter 1:1. They were written in 1881, in the [Anglican and Trinitarian] "speaker's Commentary", by J R Lumby, Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge : " {of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ}...In the best MSS. the pronoun is with God. The translation should be, 'of *our* God and *the* Saviour Jesus Christ'. It is indeed possible to explain both 'God' and 'Saviour' here as titles given to Jesus Christ, and so to render 'our God and Saviour Jesus Christ'. but as the Father and the Son are spoken of in contradistinction in the next verse, it is better to preserve the distinction here also. it should moreover be observed that that we nowhere else find 'God' and 'Saviour' used of Christ. 'Lord and Saviour' occurs in this Epistle (1:11, 3:18) and elsewhere in the New Testament very frequently."

    25. Hello Steven,

      Could you provide a citation for the following? "Wallace uses this [a comment from Harnack about modalism?] to discount early church writers whose texts contradict his claims". Specifically, which early church writers and which texts?


    26. Alexander Thomson9/20/2021 4:45 pm

      I should have mentioned Brian J Wright's chapter, "Jesus as Theos : A Textual Examination", in the book of 2011, "Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament", edited by Daniel B Wallace. Wright names as those who looked at a preliminary draft and who made valuable suggestions, J K Elliot, Gordon D Fee, P J Williams, Daniel B Wallace, Tommy Wasserman, Darrell Bock and Chris Caragounis. Wright initially contemplated seventeen texts, he dismissed, for various reasons, the following ten of them : Romans 09:05, Colossians 02:12, Matthew 01:23, John 17:03, Ephesians 05:05, 2 Thessalonians 01:12, 1 Timothy 03:16, Titus 02:13, 1 John 05:20, Jude 04. He then examined the following seven texts : John 01:01, John 01:18, John 20:28, Acts 20:28, Galatians 02:20, Hebrews 01:18, 2 Peter 01:01. He concludes (page 265 )that there is " *at least* [his stress] one text that undoubtedly calls Jesus 'theos' in every respect (John 20:28) and with several others .. we can assume as much .. with a similar degree of certainty ([the other six in his list]..". So, if one text "undoubtedly calls Jesus 'theos'", how does " a similar degree of certainty" relate to that original "certainty"?! Are there degrees of "certainty"? It seems that only one swallow is enough to make the spring [as the Greeks thought]! And perhaps that swallow can swallow anything!

    27. Disregard, I found some citations in the BGreek thread you mentioned, summarizing a section of his monograph. Rather shocking considering that he makes the exact opposite statement (or implication) in his large grammar, i.e. that not a single patristic exception could be found. Though upon closer examination, what he actually says is that not a single patristic exception could be found *regarding the exegesis of those texts*, not regarding their own Greek usage.

      "τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν" Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 4,8 (per Vasileios Tsaias) seems decisive, but I suppose the argument would be that here πατηρ and υιος are used as names ... Clearly I need to read the full monograph.

    28. Gentlemen, I’ve been out of town over the weekend and am just now seeing this thread. I’d like to kindly ask that you take your conversation elsewhere since it is off topic. Thanks.

    29. Alexander Thomson9/20/2021 7:23 pm

      Peter...if you so insist! But, how is it off topic? Does it not touch vitally on establishing a text and then translating and understanding that text? Might you know, please, of a suitable forum for the discussion? Many thanks.

    30. Hi,

      Peter, just answering the "naive modalism" question above!

      Here you can see naive modalism used to handwave the citations of Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria which were disobedient to the Rules.

      Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule

      Also in:

      Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (2009) p. 271
      By Daniel B. Wallace

      Appreciate your finding of Nyssa (below) from the b-Greek forum!


      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY USA

    31. Now this one should be on the topic of Richard Porson's legacy. No more on this thread on the Granville Sharp Rule or the question of the deity of Jesus!

      We should point out that Richard Porson (1759-1808) in Biblical studies is known mostly for his written dispute with George Travis on the heavenly witnesses, after Travis confronted Edward Gibbon (Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.)

      Richard Porson was able to highlight some errors of Travis, and also his sneering, mocking style, matching his heavy drinking, has led even today to a scholastic fan club of sorts. You can learn a lot about "cheap debating tricks" from Porson.

      Thomas Rennell said of "Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis. in answer to his Defence of the three heavenly Witnesses" :

      “It is just such a book as the devil would write, if he could hold a pen.”

      The debate itself was fascinating. Travis did some fine research, but when he erred, it could be a real doozy. The debate echoed throughout the 1800s, with Thomas Burgess, Thomas Turton and Charles Forster all making major contributions. Today the debate is not really understood.

      Richard Porson - drunkard

      Porson died in 1808, under 50 years old, likely his drinking made a major contribution to his early passing. He can be described as an agnostic and skeptic, not at all a Bible believer.


      Here is a quote from Porson about Montfortianus:

      "The freshness of the ink and materials might then have led to a detection of the imposture ...
      About Montfortianus,"

      It is my belief that palaeographic studies should see if that measure applies to Codex Sinaiticus! :)


      Steven Avery
      Dutchess County, NY USA

  2. Are those fonts at the Greek Font Society free downloads?

    1. Yes! All of them are freely available for use under the SIL Open Font License (OFL).

  3. I saw the title of this post and instantly knew who wrote it without reading another word.

  4. That GFS website is marvelous, thank you Peter. Though I think GFS Elpis takes the cake for readability.

    I heard Elijah was working on a "reader's edition" of THGNT2 that will use GFS Elpis, two columns per page (slightly wider page format), verse numbers moved into the margins, Eusebian apparatus, citations of the Byz text (and just a *few* notable minuscules), and Greek numerals. Alot of people are saying that would really distinguish it from other editions and improve the (already superior) reading experience. "Alot" meaning at least one.

  5. Lee Van Cleef9/21/2021 6:24 am

    Peter Gurry,

    You're such a little girl.

    Read your bloody post:

    "He was apparently skeptical of Granville Sharp’s rule..."