|
This information 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.
********************************************
Section 2:
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 and
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:
(On Section 1:)
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.
(On Section 2:)
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.
|
