A greater indepth analysis of the Granville Sharp Rule" (so-called) and Daniel Wallace's Refinement of it?
The paper below is from my research paper, and due credit to the author, unfortunately, the author's name was unknown at the time.
Summary
Many Trinitarians maintain that the Granville Sharp
Rule makes Jesus “God” in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Yet, there are some alarming facts behind this rule that most
Christians know nothing about.
Granville Sharp created six rules on the Greek article
but scholars reject rules 2-6.
Granville Sharp claimed that eight verses were mistranslated in
the KJV Bible and needed to be changed to make Jesus God (Ephesians 5:5, 2
Thessalonians 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 4, Acts
20:28, 2 Timothy 4:1).
However, most Trinitarian scholars reject six of these eight
verses which leave Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
There is more. Dr. Daniel Wallace quietly re-defined Granville
Sharp’s first rule, while claiming that Granville Sharp’s first rule is valid.
Evidence will also be submitted that Wallace’s refinement of Sharp’s rule is
also invalid.
Please continue reading as we expand this summary and much more.
Introduction
This study will primarily use three
books. The first is, 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 book, written by Granville Sharp, was published in 1803. It is
his fourth and final edition, and therefore, essential when investigating his
grammatical rules.
The next two books are Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), and
Granville Sharp’s
Canon and Its Kin (2009).
Both books were written by Dr. Daniel Wallace, Senior Research Professor of New
Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
The work and research of Dr. Daniel
Wallace will be examined because it is widely cited today and has become
influential to affirm that Jesus is God Himself in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Granville
Sharp
Granville Sharp (1735-1813) was an
English scholar, social activist, slave abolitionist, author, and much more. He
left his mark on Christianity with six rules he created surrounding the Greek article. Based
on the title of his book above, Granville Sharp maintained that he uncovered
“many new proofs of the divinity of Jesus” and that these verses were “wrongly
translated” in the KJV.
Rules of
Grammar vs Principles of Grammar
A rule in grammar should not be
confused with a general principle. A rule of grammar is more definitive than a
principle of grammar. Because Granville Sharp’s first rule used the word
“always” when the conditions were met, the rule (when applicable) applied 100%
of the time. If this rule is not absolute, it should be discarded or
reclassified into a general principle of Koine Greek grammar.
Before a rule in grammar is accepted
and deployed it should be tested and verified. Just because someone creates ‘a
rule’ does not automatically make it authoritative.
Before testing Granville Sharp’s first
rule, it’s necessary to determine which elements are included.
The Original
Granville Sharp Rule
In his book, Granville Sharp
provides six rules with verses and explanations. What is known
today as the Granville Sharp rule is a refinement of his first rule. Here
is Granville Sharp’s first rule:
“When the copulative και 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 ὁ, 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 . . . “ (3).
Unless you are already familiar with
this rule, a quick conceptualization is unlikely. Because this rule is
complicated, an investigation requires diligent study. Since influential
Trinitarian scholars have affirmed its validity, Christians have rested on this
validation.
A breakdown
of Sharp’s First Rule
“When the copulative και connects two
nouns of the same case”
Let’s stop here. The word “copulative”
describes a connecting word. The Greek word “και” is usually translated into
English as “and.”
This can be illustrated as noun (same
case) και noun (same case).
In Biblical Greek, nouns contain one of
five cases.
Continuing on, “When the copulative και
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],”
Here Sharp narrows nouns that qualify.
They must be “substantive, adjective, or participles” that are of “personal
description.” Then he further illustrates these personal nouns by providing a
description. Mr. Sharp went on to include several verses in his book to
illustrate these personal qualities.
The rule continues, “if the article ὁ, 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 . . . “ (3).
This rule must have the correct
sequence to be valid. It is article, personal noun (or participle), followed by
another personal noun (or participle). The article cannot be repeated before
the second noun or participle.
Now, we move on to the outcome when the
rule is triggered. There is one or two possible outcomes depending on
interpretation.
If only one outcome is understood, both
nouns describe the same person.
The second interpretation considers the
word “or.” When the rule is active, it always relates to the same
person that is expressed. In order words, they are not the
same person but there is a relationship or connection between them. The second
possible outcome is: “it always denotes a farther description of the
first-named person.” This means that they are the same person.
If this is confusing, it will be
discussed in more detail.
Dr. Daniel
Wallace’s Refinement of Granville Sharp’s First Rule
Sharp did not discuss plural nouns in
his first rule. In fact, after saying nothing about plural nouns in his rule,
Sharp went on to strikingly write three pages later that some plural nouns
where allowed: “there is no exception or instance of the like mode of
expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different
from what is here laid down, except that nouns be proper names, or in
the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions; though there
are not wanting examples, even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly
agreeable [sic] to this rule.” (G. Sharp, Remarks on the Uses
of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament [3d
ed.; London: Rivington, 1803] 6).
This quote seems to explain why Sharp
did not restrict plural nouns to his rule.
While Granville Sharp did not say when
plural nouns were admissible, he explicitly left the door open for exceptions
agreeable to his rule.
Because the allowance of plurals within
the boundaries of Granville Sharp’s rule is theologically disastrous, Wallace
excluded all plural nouns in his revision.
To demonstrate how theological
disastrous plural nouns are, to follow are two examples.
In Matthew 3:7, the Pharisees and
Sadducees would be one group of people, not two.
Similarly, in Ephesians 4:11, the
shepherds and teachers should be understood as one group of people without
distinction against the semantic force of the sentence.
In 2009, Dr. Daniel Wallace released
the book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. After the
publication of this book, Dr. Stanley E. Porter, a Trinitarian and
distinguished professor at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
published a rebuking review of Wallace’s book. He writes, “In his attempt to
prove Sharp’s rule at almost any cost, Wallace ends up becoming one of those
who has misunderstood Sharp, like those he so sharply criticizes in chapters 2
and 3.”
Porter, S. E. (2010). Review of
Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance by Daniel B.
Wallace. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 53(4),
831.
Dr. Porter further writes, “It is fine
if Wallace wishes to modify or change or restrict Sharp’s rule, but he probably
should then not make claims for the new rule as if it were Sharp’s rule, as
indicated above” Porter, S. E. (2013). Granville Sharp’s Rule: A Response
To Dan Wallace, Or Why A Critical Book Review Should Be Left
Alone. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56, 56(1), 98.
This is a sad commentary on what I
believe Stanley Porter interprets as dishonest scholarship. I have placed links
for some exchange that occurred between Dr. Wallace and Dr. Porter. Some of
this writing is a consequence of reading their exchange.
The Wallace
Revision and Proper Names
Granville Sharp’s first rule does not
forbid proper names. But Wallace excluded them in his definition. Did Sharp
intend to include or exclude proper names?
When Sharp explained his first rule in
the pages that followed, he said: “there is no exception or instance of the
like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a
construction different from what is here laid down, except that nouns
be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there
are many exceptions; though there are not wanting examples, even
of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly agreeable [sic] to this rule.” (G.
Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of
the New Testament [3d ed.; London: Rivington, 1803] 6).
While it is clear that some plural
nouns were allowed (already discussed), there is some ambiguity
here regarding proper names because of the word “or.”
However, this ambiguity is lifted
because Sharp, when covering his first rule, lists several Christological
verses that include personal names.
Wallace confessed: “Granville Sharp
believed that several Christologically significant texts involved the TSKS
construction. However, several of these involved dubious textual variants
(e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2
Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1).” Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p. 276).
We are going to cover these four verses
later. I just wanted to demonstrate that Wallace admits that Sharp included
proper names within the scope of his first rule. But Wallace backflips by
claiming that Sharp excluded them:
“However, a perusal of his monograph
reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely ONLY to personal,
singular, non-proper nouns” Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p. 271). Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.
And
“Therefore, according to Sharp, the
rule applied absolutely only with personal,
singular, and non-proper nouns.” Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p.
272). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Wallace contradicts himself. He admits
that Sharp allowed plural names and yet sadly claims that he forbids them.
Here are some examples from the New
Testament that demonstrate the fallacy of Sharp’s original rule with proper
names:
In Matthew 17:1, Peter, James, and John
would be the same person.
In Matthew 27:56, James and Joseph
would be the same person.
Sharp imposed a double standard by
allowing proper names under his rule for select Christological verses while not
applying this standard to non-Christological verses, thereby averting a
disaster. Wallace, in contrast, reconfigures Sharp as someone who prohibited
all proper names.
Did Wallace
Revise the Outcome to Always be the Same Referent?
According to Sharp’s first rule, when
activated, there are one or two outcomes, depending on how one understands his
first rule. Here is the phrase that contains ambiguity: “…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 . .
. “ (3).
Dr. Wallace’s understanding is that
this entire phrase results in one outcome when the rule is active: “a farther
description of the first-named person.” As stated earlier, Wallace compressed
this entire statement in his refinement to say: “they always referred to the
same person.”
A second understanding that I think is
more probable contains two possible outcomes when the rule is triggered. The
first outcome considers that the word “relates“ indicates a connection between
two persons, who are not the same person. Please notice it does not say “the
latter always is the same person that is expressed, but
relates.
This understanding is consistent with
the word “or” which separates a second outcome that we discussed where both
nouns describe the same person.
This second understanding (which
contains two possible outcomes) is supported by Dr. Porter. He writes, “Wallace
further stresses that Sharp means that the substantives must have an “identical
referent” (p. 52 n. 95; cf. p. 91); however, that is not what the rule says. It
is only when Sharp is discussing Christologically significant examples that he
uses such terms as “identity of person(s)” (Sharp, Remarks 28,
30). Wallace seems to have a narrower view of the rule than did Sharp himself”
( Porter, S. E. (2010). Review of Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin:
Semantics and Significance by Daniel B. Wallace. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 53(4), 828–832).
Finally, if two possible outcomes are
understood, and had Sharp’s original rule been valid, it did not automatically
make Jesus “God” in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Wallace’s
Subjective definition of Proper Names
Wallace’s refinement of Sharp to forbid
all proper nouns faced another hurdle. Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 contain
proper nouns that Wallace disallows. So Wallace may have redefined proper nouns
expressly for these verses. He writes:
“A proper noun is
defined as a noun which cannot be “pluralized” (272). Let’s
stop here. This fabricated rule communicates that since the word “God” can also
be pluralized (gods: John 10:34), it is not a proper noun. Because the word
“God” in the context is a proper noun, Wallace apparently diminished Almighty
God to a common noun. In contrast, translations correctly capitalized this word
here because it is a proper name for God. In fact, it is the most cited name
for God in the Bible.
This rule, which appears inspired by
theological necessity is only a rule in disguise. There are exceptions. In his
book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance,
Wallace states, “On the other hand, it is possible on a rare occasion for even
a proper name to be pluralized” (160). He then goes on to provide exceptions.
Earlier, a quote was provided by
Wallace admitting that Sharp allowed proper names in his rule; notice these
verses [read only verse references]: “Granville Sharp believed that several
Christologically significant texts involved the TSKS construction. However,
several of these involved dubious textual variants (e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and
others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1).” Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p.
276).
Let’s consider these four verses.
Proper names applicable to the original Granville Sharp Rule are noted.
“5For you may be sure of this, that
everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an
idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God”
(Ephesians 5:5).
“12so that the name of our Lord Jesus
may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and
the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Th 1:12).
“21In the presence of God and
of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep
these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (1 Ti 5:21).
“1 I charge you in the presence
of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the
living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom” (2 Ti 4:1).
Granville Sharp applied his rule to
these four verses because he allowed proper names. But Wallace, on the other
hand, based on his refinement of Sharp, forbids proper names.
The two verses that Wallace has
influenced Trinitarians to believe that make Jesus God, also also includes
proper names. This is a colossal double standard.
“13 Waiting
for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior
Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).
“Simeon
Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a
faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior
Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).
The Trinitarian NET Bible writes the
following note for Titus 2:13:
“The only issue is whether terms such
as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper
names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his
masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that
a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God”
(θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were
occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and
hence, do fit Sharp’s rule” Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible
First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies
Press.
In my reading of both Middleton and
Sharp, I don’t recall any mention that proper names in Greek could not be
pluralized. While I could have missed this; if you find this, please let
me know.
Secondly, Jesus is used in the New
Testament as a proper name over 900 times. But Wallace won’t allow this here
because he wants the Apostle Paul and Peter to call Jesus God in the New
Testament which they don’t.
Flattery and
Revised History
Wallace embellishes, “Even Sharp’s
opponents could not find any exceptions; all had to admit that the rule was
valid in the NT.” Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p. 273).
Many Christians hear and believe such
flattery. Why does Wallace even call them “Sharp’s opponents” since they all
admitted the validity of his rule?
Dr. Wallace is not the only scholar to
exaggerate. The NET Bible boasts, “Although there have been 200 years of
attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule
stands vindicated after all the dust has settled” Biblical Studies Press.
(2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible.
Biblical Studies Press.
Such exaggerations I suspect come from
the deeply held Trinitarian presupposition that because Jesus is God Himself
—no objective counter examinations are even considered.
But under the cover of lies and deceit,
is the truth. Some opponents provided solid objections.
One of Sharp’s contemporaries and
critics was Trinitarian scholar Calvin Winstanley. His refutation of Sharp’s
canon should have forever dismissed Sharp’s rules. But because some theologians
force Trinitarian presuppositions into God’s Word, Sharp’s rule (at least in a
revised form) lives on.
Dr. Wallace who claimed, “Even
Sharp’s opponents could not find any exceptions” performed an
about-face and infers that Winstanley found exceptions to Sharp’s rule. He
writes, “In fact, he produced numerous examples outside the NT that fit
these requirements [when writing of Sharp’s first rule] but
which bore a different semantic force, viz., referring to two individuals
rather than one.” (63) Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin.
Let’s stop there. Today’s Sharp’s rule
states that when the conditions are present, it always describes
one person without exceptions. So Wallace’s “semantic force” exception is an
implicit admission that the rule is invalid because semantic forces in
sentences exist. But of course, no semantic force considerations are allowed in
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 where one person is in view.
Wallace continues, “The second edition
of A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English Version of the New
Testament, published six years after Sharp’s death (1819), constitutes to this
day the latest and most complete list of exceptions to Sharp’s rule. We can
enlarge on the categories of exceptions that he found. Winstanley is to be
regarded as the most formidable adversary of Sharp’s rule, but not the most
influential.” (63). Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin.
Again, Wallace has it both ways. Now
there are so many exceptions to Sharp’s rule that they can be categorized, wow!
Sharp’s Six
Rules
As mentioned in the introduction, Sharp
did not construct one rule, but six. But today, no credible Christian Greek
grammarian, Christian college, or university to my knowledge uses rules two
through six.
Sharp unbelievably claimed that rules
2-6 demonstrate how the first rule was valid: “The rules which follow [2-6] are
intended only to illustrate the particularity of the several sentences which
fall under the first rule, by showing, in other sentences, the different senses
that are occasioned by adding, omitting, or repeating, the article, as well
with the copulative as without it.” (51).
He also wrote, “The Various uses of the
article and copulative, expressed in the five last rules and their exceptions,
must amply illustrate, to every attentive reader, the difference and
particularity of those sentences, which fall under the first and principal
rule; and therefore, I may now proceed, with more confidence to point out
several important corrections that ought to be made in our common translation
of the New Testament ….” (19-20).
Sharp is saying that rules 2-6
illustrate the qualities or particulars of several sentences that illustrate
the first rule. But sadly, this is untrue. These additional rules are
contradictory.
His second rule states: “A repetition
of the article before the second noun, if the copulative be omitted, will have
the same effect and power: [Lets pause here. This is a different construction
altogether than the first rule. It involves article-noun-article-noun. He is
saying that this construction will have the same effect and power. But this is
illogical. How can a strikingly different construction demonstrate the first
rule’s construction? But it gets more bazaar. He continues, “for, it donates a
further description of the same person, property or thing, that is
expressed by the first noun; as in the following examples:”
The first rule was not about
properties or things. It dealt with personal nouns that related to each other
or described the same person. When non-personal nouns are introduced into
Sharp’s rule it brings additional contradictions.
Some of the verses that Sharp provided
to illustrate his second rule even included nouns with different cases. This
further broadens the scope and introducing more contradictions.
Conclusion
Granville Sharp’s rule has no place in
righteous, exegetical scholarship. It’s objectionable that this fabricated rule
lives on and has made its way into exegetical commentaries, Christian
universities, the mouth of scholars, pastors, and laymen alike.
In his book, Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Wallace
brilliantly writes, “The nature of language is such that grammar
cannot be isolated from other elements such as context, lexeme, or
other grammatical features” Wallace, D. B. (1996). (p. xiii). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan. This accurate statement is incompatible with Granville Sharp’s first
rule. Granville Sharp’s rule is a mechanical construction that brings meaning
to a sentence independent of “other elements such as context,
lexeme, or other grammatical features.”
I believe that most who advance Sharp’s
rule are sincere and don’t doubt its applicability. Because Trinitarians
already believe that Jesus is God incarnate, it’s easy to contend for a rule
without verification.
A consultation with the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Post Nicene Fathers, and other early Greek writings provide no
evidence that such a rule existed. This omission coincides with Sharp’s
formulation of this rule.
May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ bless you, beloved, as you follow Christ’s footsteps to the Father’s
house.
Links
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_801-870_BookReviews.pdf Under this link, search for “Granville Sharp’s
Canon and Its Kin”
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-1/JETS_56-1_93-100_Porter.pdf
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-1/JETS_56-1_101-106_Wallace.pdf
Source:
http://www.trinityexamined.com/the-granville-sharp-rule-exposed/
No comments:
Post a Comment