Dan Wallace announces the release of his new monograph Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (New York: Peter Lang, 2009). I heard about this book a while ago through various of Wallace’s writings and I’m very excited that it has finally been published. Of major significance to my interests is his affirmation of the deity of Christ in Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 contra Fee in Pauline Christology. Fortunately, he interacts with Fee’s work on these passages so that should be worth the price of the book alone (which unfortunately is too expensive for me right now). It will be on sale at SBL late this month so if you see it and want to pick a copy up for me then you have my sincerest thanks in advance!
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
This looks like it might be an important book. I know I’ll have to read it, as I’m very interested in Eph 2:20 (which the blog says is “discussed at length”).
John: Yeah, I can’t wait, but unfortunately I’ll have to (unless I can obtain a review copy).
Hey Nick, I am slowly working my way through Fee’s book on Christology, and I have not read the sections Titus and 2 Peter. I don’t have the book with me right now (I’m at work), but what is Fee’s position on these verses? You have me wondering.
Robert: In a nutshell Fee argues that ‘theos’ in these passages refers to the Father as per Paul’s usual usage of the term. Wallace on the other hand says that ‘theos’ refers to Jesus as per the Granville Sharp rule.
Good to know, I’ll pay close attention when I get to that part.
I haven’t read Fee’s Pualine Christology – but at first glance at Wallace’s post – just reading the Titus passage, it is obvious it is refering to Jesus – I really would be even more curious to read Fee on this as it seems quite blatant it is referring to Jesus (at least, in the English that is).
Brian: I didn’t find Fee persuasive, but some of his reviewers feel he made a good case even if they ultimately don’t agree. Check the RBL reviews of Pauline Christology. I’d like to see what Wallace says but it looks like it will be a while, I got turned down for a review copy. :(
If I recall correctly, and there’s always a chance I’m not, Fee argues that the Granville Sharp rule doesn’t apply because, he claims, theos is a proper name. Since the Granville Sharp rule doesn’t apply to proper names, Titus 2:13 is not referring to Jesus as “God.” Not sure if I agree, but it’s an interesting point. (There’s actually more to the argument, but I don’t have the book in front of me so this is all I can offer at the moment.)
Yeah Nick, you will probably get your hands on Wallace’s book way before I do. So when you get it, I hope you tell us about it in comparison to Fee and also this little essay here. [ http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=17 ]
Danny: I’d disagree with Fee on that point, but I’ll go back and read him again just to make sure how strong my disagreement would be.
Troy: Judging from the table of contents I think that Wallace will be addressing the claims made in that thread about Sharp’s critics.
Nick: disagree with Fee on what? That theos is a proper name, or on the relation of proper names to the Granville Sharp rule? I’m assuming the former, since I don’t think the latter is debated much.
I tend to think an argument against theos being a proper name is that it occurs with possessives, like “my god” or “our god.” Proper names aren’t used with possessives, at least not in the NT. They don’t say “my Paul” or “my Jerusalem.” (Though I realize “my Jesus” is pretty common in our language, it is not in the NT as far as I know.)
Anyway, as I said before, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at it, so I’m a little rusty.
Danny: Yes, that theos is a proper name.