The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his105/sharp.lzh/SHARP.TXT

Text File | 1991-09-14 | 21KB | 354 lines

EXP:"Our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"  Grandvill Sharp's rule  by James White

   GRANVILLE SHARP'S RULE: TITUS 2:13, 2 PETER 1:1

   This article sheet is divided into two sections. The first is a
brief, basic discussion of what is known as "Granville Sharp's Rule."
This rule is very important in translating and understanding Titus 2:13
and 2 Peter 1:1 (as well as other passages), and as these passages bear
directly on the discussion of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, we
feel Christians should be informed on the subject. The second section
of this paper is a much more in-depth discussion of the same subject,
providing references for those familiar with the Greek language and the
translation of the New Testament.

   Section 1

   Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two
nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or
Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are
connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the")
while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.
In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by
the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article.
Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.
This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological
grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical
objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do
so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in
favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence
from the text itself.

   In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the
"epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this
word is reserved for Christ and Him alone.[1] It is immediately
followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He
might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people
for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference
here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary.
There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14
either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly
referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages
that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can
hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle
goes on to describe His works as the works of God!

   The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have
simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided
for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say,
"clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.[2] Such translation on
the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little
book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp"
constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would
argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For
example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in
reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No
problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's
theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is
identical to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being
different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into
English:

   1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

   1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

   Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages!
The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one
would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ"
at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus
Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow
our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.

   Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion
said,

   Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let
these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories
about the theology of the writers.

   There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to
translate 2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit.
2:13, "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real
scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian
scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the
foundations will be destroyed.[3]

   Hopefully all involved can echo Dr. Robertson's words. We need not
think that God's Word is our enemy, or that we must twist it around to
suit our needs. God's truth will stand firm, despite all of mankind's
attempts to hide it, or twist it. Christians are looking for that
blessed hope; the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior,
Jesus Christ. In the meantime, let us do good deeds to others, living
in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

   Anyone familiar with the "koine" Greek, the language of the common
people in Jesus' day, knows that it is a very expressive and full
language. It is indeed complicated, and it rarely follows its own rules
all the time. A common joke amongst Greek students is the foolishness
of using the word "always" when asking a question of the professor.
There is seemingly always an exception to the rule.

   One would expect, then, to find a number of exceptions to the rule
here under consideration, that of Granville Sharp. But before that can
be determined, we need first to define the rule itself. That sounds
simple, but it has been my discovery that it is not. Take, for example,
the definition given by Curtis Vaughn and Virtus Gideon:

   "If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" and the
article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or
things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers
to the same person or thing referred to in the first."[1]

   Kenneth Wuest, in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament
defines it this way:

   "We have Granville Sharp's rule here, which says that when there are
two nouns in the same case connected by a "kai" (and), the first noun
having the article, the second noun not having the article, the second
noun refers to the same thing the first noun does and is a further
description of it."[2]

   Note the absence of the second part of Vaughn and Gideon's
definition, that of the two nouns both with articles. Dana Mantey give
probably the most accurate definition when they write:

   "The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still
proves to be true: "When the copulative "kai" connects two nouns of the
same case, if the article "ho" or any of its cases precedes the first
of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second
noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that
is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it
denotes a further description of the first-named person."[3]

   However, much to my surprise, I have found that none of these
definitions, even the one by Dana and Mantey, accurately reflect what
Granville Sharp actually said or meant. It has been due to these less-
than-accurate definitions that Sharp's rule has come in for a lot of
the criticism that it has. One of the longest and best discussions that
I have been able to find is found in A. T. Robertson's fine work, The
Minister and His Greek New Testament, pages 61 through 68, under the
title, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ." It was here that I
first found an accurate rendering of Granville Sharp's actual rule.
Since that time I have been fortunate enough to track down an 1807
edition of Granville Sharp's actual work entitled, 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. This work
actually puts forth six rules, the other five being corollaries of the
first.

   Granville Sharp's rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:

   "When the copulative "kai" connects two nouns of the same case [viz.
nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal
description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and
attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article
"ho", or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or
participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle,
the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or
described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther
description of the first named person."[4]

   The vital point that is available to the reader of Sharp's work is
this: Sharp's rule is valid only for singulars, not plurals; and it is
not intended to be applied to proper names. His rule only applies to
persons, not things. As you can see, Granville Sharp's rule is much
more limited in its scope than the more modern definitions reveal.

   Does this more accurate and definite definition make a big
difference? Indeed it does! There are 79 occurrences of "Granville
Sharp" constructions in the writings of Paul, using Vaughn and Gideon's
definition. Hence, here we have constructions that mix singulars and
plurals, descriptions of places and things, and constructions that
reflect both nouns as having the article. A quick glance over the list
reveals a maximum of 15 exceptions, and a minimum of five. Even this
ratio would be considered very good for a general rule of grammar.
However, Sharp claimed that the rule "always" held true. Obviously, if
the modern versions of his rule are accurate, Sharp was not. But when
the constructions in the New Testament that truly follow Granville
Sharp's rule are examined, a very unusual thing happens: it is found to
be entirely exceptionless! As Robertson quotes from Sharp's work, "But,
though Sharp's principle was attacked, he held to it and affirms (p.
115) that though he had examined several thousand examples of this
type, "the apostle and high priest of our confession Jesus" (Heb. 3:1),
he had never found an exception."[5] From my own research, I concur
with Sharp. The rule, in its pure form, is exceptionless.

   An examination of a few key texts is in order. The two that have
most triggered the controversy over the rule are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter
1:1. Both passages exhibit what might be called "classical" Sharp
constructions. Titus 2:13: "ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes
doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou," and 2 Peter
1:1: "tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou." Titus 2:13 is
correctly translated as "the blessed hope and the appearing of our
great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," and 2 Peter 1:1, "our God and
Savior, Jesus Christ." The reason for the controversy is, of course,
quite obvious. Should these texts stand, the Arian theological position
becomes untenable. Hence Greek grammarians of the rank even of George
B. Winer have taken their best shot at these passages, all to no avail.
The 2 Peter passage seems to be the strongest of all the passages,
especially due to its context. Four other Sharp constructions occur in
2 Peter, a rather high occurrence in a letter that is only three
chapters long. The other examples occur in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18.
For brevity's sake, I will examine only 1:11, as it is almost identical
with 1:1 in wording (exchange "kuriou" for "theou"), and it is
identical in form: "tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou," "our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." No one has any problem seeing that both
"Lord" and "Savior" refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, and that
both nouns are to be taken under the one article. Why, then, balk at
correctly translating 1:1?? It is an identical construction. Titus 2:13
also occurs in a context that strongly supports the contention of
Sharp's rule. First, the term "epiphaneian" is never used of the Father
anywhere in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:10,
4:1, Tit. 2:13).[6] Hence, the anti- trinitarian argument is in trouble
from the start. Verse 14 continues, "who gave Himself for us, that He
might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people
for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." It is interesting to
note also that Psalm 130:8 says that it is Yahweh that redeems from all
iniquities. There is no contextual, syntactical, or grammatical
argument that can be urged against either of these passages. Only a
theological prejudice could interfere with translation. Why, then, does
the AV, the ASV, and a few other older versions incorrectly translate
these passages? Robertson maintains that it is mainly due to the
influence of George B. Winer and his grammatical work. For three
generations his work was supreme, and many scholars did not feel
inclined to "fly in his face" and insist on the correct translation of
these passages. However, Winer himself, being an anti- trinitarian,
admitted that it was not grammatical grounds that led him to reject the
correct rendering of Titus 2:13, but theological ones. In the
Winer-Moulton Grammar (as cited by Robertson), page 162, Winer said,
"Considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to
believe that "soteros" is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with
"theou", Christ being first called "megas theos", and then "soter.""
However, Robertson put it well when he said, "Sharp stands vindicated
after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what
they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the
writers."[7]

   Kenneth Wuest in his Expanded Translation brings out the Sharp
constructions in a number of other instances. For example, 2
Thessalonians 1:12 reads, "in accordance with the grace of our God,
even the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Timothy 5:21: "I solemnly charge you in
the presence of our God, even Jesus Christ,..." and 2 Timothy 4:1: "I
solemnly charge you as one who is living in the presence of our God,
even Christ Jesus,..." All these demonstrate further examples of
Sharp's rule. Not all examples, of course, deal with the fact of the
Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 3:2 reads, "ton
adelphon hemon kai sunergon," "our brother and fellow-worker," in
reference to Timothy. Philemon 1 contains a similar reference, and
Hebrews 3:1 is yet another example. One of the most often repeated
examples has to do with the idiom, "God and Father." Pure Sharp
constructions occur at 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians
5:20, Philippians 4:20, and 1 Thessalonians 3:11. Finally, other
examples of Sharp constructions occur at 1 Corinthians 5:10, 7:8, 7:34,
Ephesians 5:5, Philippians 2:25, and Colossians 4:7. There are, of
course, others outside the writings of the Apostle Paul.

   Having seen that Granville Sharp correctly identified a rule of
grammar that the ancient "koine" Greek writers faithfully followed,
next we will examine whether the more modern and far less accurate
definitions of Sharp's rule can be used effectively. Some examples that
follow Sharp's principle (but are not actually Sharp constructions)
include Romans 3:21, "by the law and the prophets," demonstrating the
use of the article with both nouns. Others are Romans 15:4, "through
the grace and through the exhortation," 2 Corinthians 8:4, "the gift
and the fellowship," and 1 Thessalonians 3:6, "your faith and your
love." Some that have only the one article are Philippians 1:20,
"according to my eager expectation and hope," 2:17, "upon the sacrifice
and sacrificial offering of your faith," and Colossians 2:8, "through
philosophy and empty deception." There are, however, a number of
exceptions, such as Philippians 1:19, "through your entreaty and the
support of the Spirit," and 2 Corinthians 1:6, "your encouragement and
salvation." Robertson[8] demonstrates that when both nouns have the
article, they are to be distinguished. He lists Mt. 23:2, Mk. 2:18,
6:21, 11:9, 11:18, 12:13, Lk. 11:39, 15:6, 23:4, Jn. 4:37, 1 Cor. 3:8,
Jas. 3:11, Acts 26:30, Rev. 18:20, adding that the list can be extended
indefinitely. He also mentions that at times, the use of one article
with two nouns can demonstrate that the author was viewing the two
things as one, even though they might be numerically or generically
distinct. Also noted is the fact that differences in number and gender
tend to bring the article into play.

   On the basis of the foregoing, unless the context demands otherwise,
the interpreter would do well to consider the possibility that the
author, when using a construction that utilizes two nouns, the first
having the article, and the second not, had in mind one object for both
nouns (participles or adjectives). Also, when both nouns have the
article, it is quite likely that the writer meant to keep them quite
distinct. Though these suggestions do lend themselves to exceptions,
they can be generally quite helpful. When discussing the real Granville
Sharp rule, however, totally different considerations need be applied.
A real Sharp construction will hold to what Sharp actually said, and
will hold true in all cases. Hence, Sharp's rule is an invaluable
instrument in the interpreter's bag. Unlike so many rules, one does not
have to worry about the many exceptions to the rule. It is amusing to
imagine the Apostle Paul listening in on a discussion amongst modern
grammarians, and being very confused as to just what "Granville Sharp's
rule" is. He certainly would acknowledge the fact of what he wrote and
what it meant, but we must remember that all Granville Sharp did was
accurately observe a principle that had been around for over 1700
years. Paul never kept Granville Sharp's rule: Granville Sharp
correctly followed Paul's rule (and Peter's and James' and so on).
Sharp's rule has stood the test of time, and will continue to be a
strong force to be reckoned with in the future.

   Footnotes:

   1. 2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 4:8, Tit. 2:13. W.
F. Moulton, A. S. Geden, H. K. Moulton, Concordance to the Greek
Testament, 5th edition, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980) p. 374.

   2. Alford, New Testament for English Readers, p. 1671.

   3. A. T. Robertson, The Minister and his Greek New Testament, pp.
66-67.

   1. Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83.

   2. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies In the Greek New Testament, 2:195.

   3. Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.
147.

   4. Granville Sharp, 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, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p.
3.

   5. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 62.

   6. W. F. Moulton, and A. S. Geden, Concordance to the Greek
Testament, p. 374.

   7. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 66.
Further scholarly corroboration of this interpretation of these
passages can be found in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the Greek
New Testament, vol. 6, pages 147-148, in Nicoll's Expositor's Greek
Testament, vol. 5, p. 123, and in B. B. Warfield, Biblical and
Theological Studies, pp. 68-71. Grundmann, in Kittel's Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 540 says, "Hence we have to
take Jesus Christ as the megas theos. This is demanded by the position
of the article, by the term epiphaneia ..., and by the stereotyped
nature of the expression...Hence the best rendering is: "We wait for
the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and
Saviour Jesus Christ."

   8. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research, pp. 786-787.

   Article written and researched by: James White, B.A., M.A.