Talk:Granville Sharp

Untitled

'finally it was laid down in the case of James Somersett that a slave becomes free the moment he sets foot on English territory'

Not sure that's right. The judgement stated that no man could be forcibly transported from Britain into slavery, as Somersett's owner was trying to do. Slavery itself endured.

Also 'English territory' at this time would include such places as the Carolinas, Barbados and Jamaica, where blacks were clearly not free.

Pic

A 1794 portrait of Sharp by George Dance, much copied by later artists.

Sharp's Rule Is A Circular Argument

The Circular Argument Known As Sharp’s Rule

There are two ways of drawing a conclusion regarding the facts of a matter. (1) The un-interpreted facts can determine the conclusion. (2) The conclusion can be predetermined independently of the facts, and the facts can then be interpreted according to the predetermined conclusion.

The second way of drawing a conclusion is called circular reasoning or circular argumentation because the reasoning follows a circle. The interpretation of the facts is justified by the predetermined conclusion, and the predetermined conclusion is in turn (circularly) justified by the interpretation of the facts. Circular reasoning is a way of evading the un-interpreted facts of a matter.

Sharp’s Rule is a circular argument that is designed by Mr. Granville Sharp to reach a specific goal. The goal is to justify the belief that the noun “God” in the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 refers, not to the Father, but to the Son.

In Acts 13:50, we see the phrase “the Paul and Barnabas,” and in Ephesians 5:5, we see the phrase “the Christ and God,” and in 1 Corinthians 15:24, we see the phrase “the God and Father.” Each of those three phrases is an article-noun-kai-noun construction. Two singular, personal nouns having the same grammatical case are connected by the conjunction kai (and) in the Greek New Testament, and an article precedes the first noun, but not the second noun.

If we allow the un-interpreted facts (what is actually written in the Greek New Testament) regarding those three phrases to determine a conclusion, then the conclusion is simply this. The two nouns in a singular, personal article-noun-kai-noun construction can refer either to two persons, as in Acts 13:50 (the Paul and Barnabas) or in Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God, meaning the Son and Father), or to one person, as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 (the God and Father, meaning the Father, who is God), depending on the context.

If we do not allow the un-interpreted facts to determine the conclusion, then the conclusion can be predetermined to be whatever we want it to be, and then the facts can be interpretively forced into agreement with the predetermined conclusion (circular reasoning). That is what Mr. Sharp does.

Mr. Sharp sees the phrase “the God and Father” in 1 Corinthians 15:24, and without considering all of the facts, he predetermines the conclusion that a singular, personal article-noun-kai-noun conclusion must refers to one person instead of two persons.

Then Mr. Sharp sees the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5, and based on his predetermined conclusion, he assumes that the phrase “the Christ and God” must refer to one person (the Son, who is God) instead of two persons (the Son and Father).

Then Mr. Sharp sees the phrase “the Paul and Barnabas” in Acts 13:50, and based on his predetermined conclusion, he further assumes that a proper name functions differently with an article than a non-proper noun functions with an article, and that the phrase “the Paul and Barnabas” (or any article-noun-kai-noun conclusion containing a proper name) is therefore not a refutation of his original predetermined conclusion, but an exception to it.

The un-interpreted facts that Mr. Sharp’s circular argument (Sharp’s Rule) evades are (1) that a proper name does not function differently with an article than a non-proper noun functions with an article and (2) that it is contextually clear that the nouns “God” and “Christ” refer to the Father and Son (two persons) throughout Ephesians 5:1-6.

In footnote 7 on page 237 in his 2009 book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin, Dr. Daniel Wallace says, “It is possible that the reason proper names do not fit Sharp’s Rule is that they are usually in the second place. Since they do not require an article to be definite, one cannot conclude that the article carries over to the proper name in the sense of referential identity.”

Dr. Wallace implies that a non-proper noun requires an article in order to be definite and that a proper name functions differently with an article than a non-proper noun functions with an article.

On page 252 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace says (the words in [brackets] are added by me for clarification), “Third, proper names are usually anarthrous [not preceded by an article] (since they need no article to be definite), except in cases of anaphora [referring back to what has already been stated], contrast or other similar situations, but in the nominative [the nominative case], θεός [God] is used almost always with the article.”

Dr. Wallace says that we know that the noun “God” is not a proper name, because it is preceded by an article in the nominative case, whereas a proper name is not preceded by an article in the nominative case, because a proper name functions differently with an article than a non-proper noun functions with an article.

However, in the book of Acts, each of the nouns “Christ” and “God” and “Felix” is preceded by an article in the nominative case 100% of the time, and the noun “Lord” is preceded by an article in the nominative case 75% of the time, and the noun “Paul” is preceded by an article in the nominative case 85% of the time.

In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, each of the nouns “Christ” (4:15, 5:2, 5:14, 5:23, 5:25) and “God” (1:3, 1:17, 2:4, 2:10, 4:32) and “Lord” (5:29, 6:9) is preceded by an article in the nominative case 100% of the time. The noun “Savior” (5:23) is not preceded by an article in the nominative case.

Note. In Ephesians 4:15, the noun “Christ” is preceded by an article in the nominative case in the Majority Text and in the Received Text, but not in the Critical Text Greek New Testament.

Therefore, the claim that a proper name functions differently with an article than a non-proper noun functions with an article is simply not true.

Contrary to what Mr. Sharp and Dr. Wallace claim, a proper name and a non-proper noun function the same way with an article in the Greek New Testament.

On page 160 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace says, “it may be taken as a principle of Greek grammar that proper names do not pluralize,” and on page 252 and in footnote 52 on page 252 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace says (the words in [brackets] are added by me for clarification), “θεός [God] occurs in the plural frequently in the NT, while no other personal proper name does. … Matthew 24:24 has ψευδοχριστοί [false-christs] … Χριστός [Christ] in the Gospels is not yet a proper name, as it is in the epistles.”

Dr. Wallace suggests that since the noun “Christ” is not written in the plural form in the Greek New Testament, it is therefore a personal proper name.

However, the noun “Galatians” occurs in Galatians 3:1, which appears to be a plural, personal proper name. Also, the noun “Savior” is not written in the plural form in the Greek New Testament, and yet Dr. Wallace considers the noun “Savior” to be a personal non-proper noun.

Therefore, Dr. Wallace’s claim that the noun “Christ” is a proper name instead of a title appears to be a purely arbitrary claim without any basis in what is actually written in the Greek New Testament.

In Acts 2:36, Luke quotes Peter to say (a word-for-word English translation of the Greek), “also LORD, him, and CHRIST he-made, the God, this the Jesus, whom you you-crucified.”

Just as Bob (a proper name) can be made supervisor (a title) by the boss (a title), likewise the Jesus (a proper name) was made Lord (a title) and Christ (a title) by the God (a title) in Acts 2:36.

Luke quotes Peter to classify the nouns “Lord” and “Christ” exactly the same way in Acts 2:36. Both nouns are titles that God gives to Jesus. The noun “Christ” is no less a title and no more a proper name than the noun “Lord” is.

Why does Dr. Wallace try so hard to convince the reader of his 2009 book that the noun “Christ” in the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 is a proper name? Because he knows that the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 refers to two persons (the Son and Father).

On page 283 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace says, “Nevertheless, it should be noted that in Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21 and 2 Timothy 4:1, the TSKS construction still suggested some sort of unity between God and Christ.”

Therefore, to admit that the noun “Christ” in the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 is a non-proper noun is to admit that Ephesians 5:5 contains a singular, personal, non-proper article-noun-kai-noun construction that refers to two person (the Son and Father), which is to admit that Ephesians 5:5 refutes Sharp’s Rule (the belief that a singular, personal, non-proper article-noun-kai-noun construction cannot refer to two persons).

The fact that the nouns “Christ” (a title) and “God” (a title) in Ephesians 5:5 refer to two persons (the Son and Father) is clear from the context (Ephesians 5:1-6).

Ephesians 5:1 you-must-become … imitators OF-THE GOD … 2 … you-must-walk in love according-as also THE CHRIST he-loved us and he-gave himself on-behalf-of us offering and sacrifice TO-THE GOD … 5 … every fornicator or unclean-one or coveter … not he-has inheritance in THE kingdom OF-THE CHRIST and GOD. 6 … because-of these-things … it-comes, THE wrath OF-THE GOD …

The unusual sequence (the Christ and God instead of the God and Christ) in the phrase “the kingdom of-the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 is further evidence that Paul is referring to the Son and Father, because that sequence is consistent with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 that the Christ must reign over the kingdom until he gives the kingdom to the God and Father.

1 Corinthians 15:22 … in THE CHRIST all-ones they-will-be-made-alive. 23 each-one, But, in the own order. First-fruit, CHRIST. Afterward, the-ones OF-THE CHRIST in the coming of-him. 24 AFTERWARD, the end, whenever HE-WOULD-GIVE-OVER the kingdom TO-THE GOD and FATHER … 25 it-is-necessary, For, HIM TO-REIGN UNTIL which HE-WOULD-PLACE all the enemies under the feet of-him … 28 whenever, But, it-would-be-subordinated TO-HIM, the-things all, at-that-time also HIMSELF THE SON he-will-be-subordinated TO-THE-ONE HAVING-SUBORDINATED to-him the-things all, that he-would-be, THE GOD, the-things all in all-things.

Thus, as shown above, the claim that a proper name functions differently with an article than a non-proper noun functions with an article is not true, and the claim that the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 cannot refer to two persons (the Son and Father) is not true, and the claim that the noun “Christ” in the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 is a proper name is not true, all of which proves that Sharp’s Rule is not true.

In footnote 7 on page 237 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace admits that "Middleton accepts this text [Ephesians 5:5] as fitting Sharp's Canon [a singular, personal, non-proper article-noun-kai-noun construction]" and that "Ephesians 5:5 then may well fit Sharp's Rule [a singular, personal, non-proper article-noun-kai-noun construction]." However, Dr. Wallace says that "we must therefore remain undecided in this volume." Dr. Wallace is compelled to be "undecided" about whether the noun "Christ" is a title or whether it is a proper name, because to admit the truth (that the noun "Christ" is a title instead of a proper name) is to admit that Sharp's Rule (the belief that a singular, personal, non-proper article-noun-kai-noun construction cannot refer to two persons) is a false belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Jim7 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Two Nouns Connected By Kai

When two singular, personal nouns having the same grammatical case are connected by kai (and) in the Greek Old Testament (LXX / Septuagint) or in the Greek New Testament, the two nouns can refer either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context.

If neither of the two nouns is preceded by an article (noun-kai-noun), then the two nouns (referring either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context) are not explicitly expressed either as one idea or as two ideas.

1. Paul and Barnabas (two persons / Acts 15:35) 2. man and woman (two persons / Jeremiah 28:22 in the LXX [51:22 in the Masoretic Text]) 3. servant and apostle (one person / 2 Peter 1:1)

If only the first noun is preceded by an article (article-noun-kai-noun), then the two nouns (referring either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context) are explicitly expressed as one idea.

1. THE Paul and Barnabas (two persons / Acts 13:50) 2. THE Christ and God (two persons / Ephesians 5:5) 3. THE God and Father (one person / 1 Corinthians 15:24)

If each of the two nouns is preceded by an article (article-noun-kai-article-noun), then the two nouns (referring either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context) are explicitly expressed as two ideas.

1. THE Paul and THE Barnabas (two persons / Acts 13:43) 2. THE Father and THE Son (two persons / 1 John 2:22) 3. THE Lord and THE Teacher (one person / John 13:14)

As shown above, it is the context, not the presence or absence of an article, that determines whether the two nouns refer to two persons or whether they refer to one person.

If the presence or absence of an article (instead of the context) determined whether the two nouns referred to two persons or whether they referred to one person, then the examples shown above could not occur.

The presence or absence of an article determines the manner in which the two nouns (referring either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context) are expressed, either as neither one idea nor two ideas (noun-kai-noun), or as one idea (article-noun-kai-noun), or as two ideas (article-noun-kai-article-noun).

Two nouns referring to two persons can be expressed as one idea (the Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:50 / the Christ and God in Ephesians 5:5), and two nouns referring to one person can be expressed as two ideas (the Lord and the Teacher in John 13:14).

In 1 John 2:22, the two nouns in the phrase “the Father and the Son” (referring to two persons) are expressed as two ideas, because John is expressing the idea that if someone denies the Son, then that person denies not only the Son, but also the Father. Therefore, John says, “the-one denying THE Father and THE Son.”

If John had wished to express the unity (one idea) of the Father and Son, then John would have used one article (article-noun-kai-noun) to express that unity (one idea). John would have said (hypothetically), “they-reign, THE Father and Son, over the kingdom,” just as Paul says in Ephesians 5:5, “THE kingdom of THE Christ and God.”

The fact that Paul uses the noun “God” in reference to the Father (not in reference to the Son) in his epistles is indicated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, where Paul says, “But to-us, one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ.”

The Central Fallacy of Sharp’s Rule

The fact that an article functions as an adjective when used with a noun and that it functions as a substantive when used with an adjective or participle is discussed by Dr. Herbert Smyth (1857-1937) in sections 1099, 1100 and 1102 in his 1920 book, A Greek Grammar for Colleges. (The words in [brackets] are added by me for clarification.)

1099. The article ὁ, ἡ, τό, was originally a demonstrative pronoun …

1100. … In Homer ὁ, ἡ, τό is usually a demonstrative pronoun and is used SUBSTANTIVELY or ADJECTIVELY … also … as the personal pronoun of the third person … ἀλλὰ τὸ θαυμάζω [but THAT I-wonder / substantival use / the article functions as a SUBSTANTIVE (demonstrative pronoun)] … τὸν λωβητῆρα ἐπεσβόλον [THAT slanderer rash / adjectival use / the article functions as an ADJECTIVE that modifies the noun] … τὴν δ' ἐγὼ οὐ λύσω [HER, but, I not I-shall-release / substantival use / the article functions as a SUBSTANTIVE (personal pronoun)] ...

1102. ὁ, ἡ, τό often approaches to its later use as the definite article or is actually so used … b. Often with adjectives and participles used SUBSTANTIVELY … οἱ ἄλλοι [THE-ONES other / article-adjective / the article functions as a SUBSTANTIVE that is modified by the adjective] … τὰ ἐσσόμενα [THE-THINGS going-to-be / article-participle / the article functions as a SUBSTANTIVE that is modified by the participle] … τὸ πάρος [THE-THING former / article-adjective / the article functions as a SUBSTANTIVE that is modified by the adjective] … The attributive ADJECTIVE before the noun … τὰ μέγιστα ἄεθλα [THE greatest prizes / article-adjective-noun / the article functions as an ADJECTIVE that modifies (along with the other adjective) the noun]

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:6:31.NewPerseusMonographs

Sharp’s Rule claims that the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 must refer to one person because the phrase “the-one ungodly and sinful” in 1 Peter 4:18 must refer to one person and because the phrase “the-one hearing and seeing” in Revelation 22:8 must refer to one person.

Sharp’s Rule claims that all three phrases have the same grammatical structure (article-substantive-kai-substantive) and the same meaning (one person).

Sharp’s Rule is incorrect.

An article-noun-kai-noun construction is a modifier-substantive-kai-substantive construction (two substantives), and therefore it can refer either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context. The two nouns are the two substantives.

An article-adjective-kai-adjective or article-participle-kai-participle construction is a substantive-modifier-kai-modifier construction (one substantive), and therefore it must refer to one person. The one article is the one substantive.

The fundamental fallacy of Sharp’s Rule is the false claim that the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians 5:5 is the same as the phrase “the-one ungodly and sinful” in 1 Peter 4:18 and the same as the phrase “the-one hearing and seeing” in Revelation 22:8, and that since each of the phrases “the-one ungodly and sinful” and “the-one hearing and seeing” must refer to one person, the phrase “the Christ and God”’ must therefore also refer to one person.

Sharp’s Rule is incorrect.

The reason that each of the phrases “the-one ungodly and sinful” and “the-one hearing and seeing” must refer to one person is that each of those two phrases is a one-substantive construction. The one article is the one substantive.

The reason that the phrase “the Christ and God” can refer either to two persons or to one person, depending on the context (in this instance, the context indicates that it refers to two persons [the Son and Father]), is that it is a two-substantive construction. The two nouns are the two substantives.

Titus 2:13

On pages 267-272, Dr. Wallace says, “Clement of Alexandria gives praise ‘to the only Father and Son’ (τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ). To this kind of exception Middleton can only reply that no ambiguity could result, for the distinctions in the members of the Trinity were obvious to all. I find this kind of response to be the weakest link in the vindication of Sharp’s rule … here Sharp’s advocates appeal to common sense … One could just as easily argue … that since Paul nowhere else explicitly identifies Christ as God, there is no ambiguity in his meaning in Titus 2:13 (that is to say, two persons are obviously meant). … it is almost exclusively the second and early third century fathers who seem to violate Sharp’s Rule … their alleged abuses are all in references to the members of the Trinity … there is demonstrable nave modalism [the belief that the Father, Son and Spirit are one (the same) person] in this early period … Indeed, rather than refute Sharp’s Rule [the belief that the two singular, personal, non-proper nouns in an article-noun-kai-noun construction must refer to one (the same) person], these proof texts seem to confirm it.”

Thus, according to Dr. Wallace, the reason that Clement uses the phrase “the only Father and Son” in Paedagogus (Instructor), Book 3, Chapter 12, is that he is a modalist and that he therefore believes that the Father and Son are one (the same) person.

However, in Paedagogus, Book 1, Chapter 2, Clement writes, “our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God.”

Those are not the words of someone that thinks that the Father and Son are one (the same) person. Clement appears to be no more modalistic than Paul is.

In Titus 2:13, Paul says, “the great God and Savior of-us Jesus Christ.” That is an article-adjective-noun-kai-noun construction.

When an attributive adjective is used in the first attributive position (article-adjective-noun) to modify two subsequent nouns (article-adjective-noun-kai-noun), it agrees in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent noun. The two nouns can be any two nouns. They do NOT have to refer to one (the same) person.

Dr. Herbert Smyth (1857-1937) discusses this in section 1030 in his 1920 book, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (the words in [brackets] are added by me for clarification).

1030. An attributive adjective belonging to more than one substantive agrees with the nearest … τὸν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα καὶ γυναῖκα [THE beautiful and-good MAN and WOMAN] … P. G. [Plato, Gorgias] 470e.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:6:22:0.NewPerseusMonographs

In Paedagogus (Instructor), Book 3, Chapter 12, Clement of Alexandria says, “THE only FATHER and SON.” That is an article-adjective-noun-kai-noun construction.

We see an article-adjective-noun-kai-noun construction used by Plato in Gorgias 470e and by Paul in Titus 2:13 and by Clement in Paedagogus (Book 3, Chapter 12).

THE beautiful and-good MAN and WOMAN / THE great GOD and SAVIOR of-us Jesus Christ / THE only FATHER and SON

The two nouns do NOT refer to one (the same) person in any of those three instances.

The phrase “God Father and Christ Jesus the Savior of-us” in Titus 1:4 and the phrase “the great God and Savior of-us Jesus Christ” in Titus 2:13 are synonymous references to the Father and Son.

The fact that Paul uses the noun “God” in reference to the Father (not in reference to the Son) in his epistles is indicated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, where Paul says, “But to-us, one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ.”

The Irony of Sharp’s Rule

Dr. Thomas Burgess edited Mr. Granville Sharp’s book, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament (1798, 1802, 1803, 1807), in promotion of Mr. Sharp’s grammatical argument (Sharp’s Rule).

Dr. Burgess also promoted Dr. Frederick Nolan’s grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma, which is described on pages 257, 260 and 565 in Dr. Nolan’s 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate.

In both instances, Dr. Burgess was attracted to what appeared to him to be grammatical proof of the Trinity.

Dr. Burgess was attracted to what he thought was Mr. Sharp’s grammatical proof that Jesus Christ was God in Ephesians 5:5 and Titus 2:13.

Dr. Burgess was also attracted to what he thought was Dr. Nolan’s grammatical proof of the authenticity of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text.

In 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text Greek New Testament, we see “the-ones bearing-witness in the heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.” In that construction, we see three articular (preceded by an article) appositional (added) nouns (the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit) added to a substantival (functioning as a substantive) articular participle (the-ones bearing-witness).

That same idea could be conveyed by an adjectival (functioning as an adjective) articular participle (the bearing-witness) modifying three subsequent anarthrous (not preceded by an article) nouns (Father, Word and Holy Spirit).

Thus, “the-ones bearing-witness in the heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit” could be reworded to say “the bearing-witness in the heaven Father, Word and Holy Spirit.”

That would be an article-participle-noun-kai-noun construction, which would be comparable to the article-adjective-noun-kai-noun construction “the only Master, God and Lord Jesus Christ” in Jude 1:4 in the Majority Text and Received Text.

Just as Sharp’s Rule would require the nouns “Master” and “God” and “Lord” in the article-adjective-noun-kai-noun construction “the only Master, God and Lord Jesus Christ” in Jude 1:4 in the Received Text to be references to one (the same) person, likewise Sharp’s Rule would require the nouns “Father” and “Word” and “Spirit” in the reworded article-participle-noun-kai-noun construction “the bearing-witness in the heaven Father, Word and Holy Spirit” in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text to be references to one (the same) person.

The same grammatical argument (Sharp’s Rule) that would require the nouns “Christ” and “God” in Ephesians 5:5 and the nouns “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2:13 and the nouns “Master” and “God” and “Lord” in Jude 1:4 to refer to one (the same) person in defense of the Trinity would also require the nouns “Father” and “Word” and “Spirit” in 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to one (the same) person in denial of the Trinity.

Ironic, isn’t it.

7Jim7 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

In Sharp's 1812 publication, "xxi.18" seems to be mistake for Matt.16.18.