The Fictional “Smart’s Rule”


On another thread a discussion of John 20:28 sprung up where the idea of a “new” rule in Greek was invoked to get out of what this passage means. In that thread OS asked where the information was cut and pasted from and everyone got all indignant. I then pointed out that Tsmith denied cutting and pasting it but that it appeared to come from work on the Bgreek list by a Dan Parker at which point more hackles were raised and I was told – “So don't accuse people without the facts” which of course I did not do, and Tsmith admitted they all traced back to an original source, Martin Smart of whom no one I know of (enlighten us all) is aware of a published or peer reviewed positive analysis of his work The majority of any discussion on it took palce in that very Bgreek discussion I referenced so my “it appears” comment was perfectly reasonable.

Now it was said that Mr. Bowman does not deal with the John 20:28 construction. Here is the article in question:
Smart's Rule: A Critique
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

Since 2000, a particular claim concerning biblical Greek grammar known as
“Smart’s rule” has been circulating on the Web. This rule is thought by
its advocates to prove that in John 20:28 Thomas must have been speaking
of two persons and not one when he said “My Lord and my God!” That is, the
rule supposedly proves that Thomas was speaking of Jesus as his Lord but
of the Father as his God.
Oddly enough, I cannot find any exposition of the rule from Smart himself.
Mr. Smart appears to be Martin Smart, who was and, I presume, still is a
Jehovah’s Witness. Beyond that I have no information about Mr. Smart and
have not seen anything in writing from him presenting or defending his own
rule.
Most of the references to Smart’s rule on the Web appear on a listserv
known as B-Greek, in its archived discussions from late 2000 and early
2001 (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/). Recently, on a listserv that I
moderate (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/), one of the
list members touted Smart’s rule as superior to Sharp’s rule, which is a
well-known and much-discussed rule of Greek grammar.
Let us, then, take a look at Smart’s rule and see if there is anything to
it.

Defining Smart’s Rule

The writer who actually presented and defended Smart’s rule on B-Greek was
a Jehovah’s Witness named Dan Parker. Here is how he defined the rule:

“In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects
two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither
have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal
pronoun in the genitive or the personal pronoun is repeated for
perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in
view.” Dan Parker, “Re: John 20:28 and Smart’s rule. Correction,” B-Greek
listserv, 2/1/2001 ;
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...1-02/4231.html
(bracketed material in original).

Note that Smart’s rule as given by Parker actually covers four types of
constructions:

Article + Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive + Pronoun
Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive + Pronoun
Article + Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive
Substantive + Pronoun + kai + Article + Substantive

It does not matter whether the pronoun precedes or follows the
substantive.

The way that Smart’s rule is worded, it may seem to be qualified in such a
way that it need not apply to all texts using the third and fourth
constructions (i.e., those that do not repeat the pronoun “for
perspicuity”). However, from Parker’s contention that the rule proves that
John 20:28 is speaking of two persons, I infer that what he (and
presumably Smart) mean is that whenever the pronoun is repeated with the
second substantive the repetition is for the sake of perspicuity and that
in all such cases the second noun still refers to someone different than
the first substantive.

According to Parker, then, the rule has no exceptions in biblical Greek
when the following conditions are met:

The text is not translation Greek (i.e., the Greek OT is entirely
excluded).
There are two substantives of personal description joined by KAI.
Either both substantives have an article or neither of them has one.
Either the first substantive alone, or both substantives, are modified
by a personal pronoun in the genitive (i.e., texts in which neither is
so modified, or in which the second substantive alone is so modified,
are not included).


The Repetition of the Pronoun

As already noted, in constructions thought to be governed by Smart’s rule
a pronoun in the genitive case must be attached to the first substantive
and may be attached to the second substantive “for perspicuity.” I am not
sure why this qualification is attached since Parker and others who
endorse the rule seem to think that it applies to any text in which the
pronoun is repeated with the second substantive.
As stated, the rule refers to a few pages in Winer to document this idea
of the repetition of the pronoun for perspicuity. The fact is that Winer
was not referring to a doubling of the same pronoun or even necessarily
the use of two pronouns. Rather, he was speaking of the use of a pronoun
that in some sense is redundant but is used because the antecedent is
already several words or more distant:

4. A repetition of this pronoun (autos), and also of the other personal
pronouns, occurs,
a. When subjoined for the sake of perspicuity, in sentences where the
principal noun is followed by a number of other words…. In the majority
of these passages a participial construction, equivalent to an
independent clause, precedes; in this same case even the Greek authors
often add the pronoun [citing Pausanius, Herodotus, Plato, et. al.]….
[G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament prepared as a
solid basis for the interpretation of the New Testament, 7th ed., enl.
and improved by Gottlieb Lünemann, rev. and authorized translation
(Andover: W. F. Draper, 1897), 147-48.]

The NT texts that Winer cites as examples of his point often do not even
use two pronouns. Instead, they use a pronoun to refer back to an
antecedent substantive that is far enough back in a somewhat complex
sentence structure, so that the pronoun helps to make the antecedent
clearer:

“The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and to those who
were sitting in the land and shadow of death, a light has dawned to them
[autois]” (Matt. 4:16).

“Now when he had gone out to the entrance, another woman saw him [auton]…”
(Matt. 26:71).

“Therefore, the one who knows the good thing to do and does not do [it],
to him [autô] it is sin” (James 4:17 ).

In Winer’s other examples, sometimes two pronouns are used and they are
the same (Acts 7:21 , auton…auton; Col. 2:13, humas…humas; Rev. 6:4,
autô…autô), sometimes the two pronouns are of different cases (Mark 5:2,
autou…autô [Winer has autô…autô]; Mark 9:28 , autou…auton; Matt. 8:1,
autou…autô), and in a couple of instances it is hard to tell which pronoun
Winer meant (Matt. 5:40; Phil. 1:7). None of Winer’s examples are examples
of what is called Smart’s rule.

As best I can tell, then, Winer’s treatment of the pronoun used for
perspicuity has no bearing or relevance to Smart’s rule.

Alleged Examples of Smart’s Rule

In one of his posts to B-Greek, Dan Parker offered the following lists of
examples of texts fitting Smart’s rule. This same list has appeared
verbatim elsewhere, notably on a web site defending Jehovah’s Witness
doctrine (“An Online Response to a Kevin Quick Defender,”
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.c...ckresponse.htm):

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49; Mk 3:31
,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21; Jn 2:12; 4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro
16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb
1:7 is a LXX quote and is therefore translation Greek.]

Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35; Ro 1:7;
1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2; Phil 1:3)

Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) - (Mk 6:21;
10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2; Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re
11:18)

This is the only list I have been able to find of alleged examples.

Before going any further, some corrections to the list of verse references
are needed. The first paragraph appears to cite Mark 8:20, 21, followed by
Luke 8:21, but in fact the first two references should be to Luke 8:20, 21
(so that the next one is actually a repeat). There are thus only 20 verses
listed in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, “Phil 1:3” is a
reference to Philemon 3. In the third paragraph, the first reference in
Luke should be to Luke 2:33, not 2:23 .

Next, in the interest of giving Smart’s rule every chance, we should take
note of other texts that appear to fit its parameters successfully. I have
found a few other such references: Matthew 12:50; 13:55 ; and John 19:25.

We have, then, 42 references listed by Dan Parker (not 43, since he
accidentally counted Luke 8:21 twice), plus three more references, for a
total of 45 NT references (to my knowledge) that have been or might be
cited as examples of Smart’s rule.

The Semantics of Conjoined Substantives

The first question that needs to be asked about these example texts is
whether there would be any possibility of the substantives being
understood as referring to a single referent regardless of the articles or
pronouns attached to them. The answer in most of these texts is an
unequivocal no. The semantic relation between the substantives alone is
enough to make their different referents unambiguous.

In 26 of our 45 examples, the substantives include terms designating
family relationships that must be held by different individuals. These
include:

· 6 texts that speak of a person’s father and mother (Mark 7:10 ;
10:7, 19; Luke 2:33 ; 18:20 ; Eph. 6:2)
· 12 texts that speak of a person’s mother, brothers, and sisters
(Matt. 12:47 , 49, 50; 13:55 ; Mark 3:31 , 32, 33, 34, 35; Luke 8:20 , 21;
John 19:25 ).

In addition, the texts include references to the following:

· sons and daughters (Acts 2:17 )
· Timothy’s grandmother and mother (2 Tim. 1:5)
· one’s father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters (Luke
14:26 )
· Jesus (referred to as “he”) and his mother, brothers, and disciples
(John 2:12 )
· Jacob (“himself”), his sons, and his cattle (!) (John 4:12)
· Martha, her sister, and Lazarus (John 11:5)
· Jacob his (Joseph’s) father and all his relatives (Acts 7:14 )
· Cornelius’s relatives and friends (Acts 10:24 )

Since it is impossible for any of these texts to be referring to a single
individual, or even to be using the conjoined plural nouns to refer to the
same group (since one’s sons cannot also be one’s daughters or one’s
cattle, for example!), these texts cannot tell us anything as to the
possible semantic significance of the placement of the possessive pronouns
with regard to the nouns not having the same referent.

Twelve of the remaining examples refer to God the Father and to Jesus
Christ (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; 1
Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:1; Phm. 3). All but two of
these (1 Thess. 3:11 ; 2 Thess. 2:16 ) occur in a Pauline salutation, and
all but one (1 Tim. 1:1, which has “God our Savior and Christ Jesus our
hope”) uses essentially the same wording: “God our Father and [the] Lord
Jesus Christ” (note the slight variations in the two non-salutation
examples). In all 10 of the salutation examples, the two compound noun
groups are anarthrous. The style and setting in Paul’s letters in all of
these 10 examples fits the usual Greek opening of a letter at that time,
in which good wishes were passed along from the letter writer’s companions
closest to the recipients (“Ted to Mary. Cheers from Dad and Bill. We wish
you were here.”) Even if we didn’t already know that God our Father was
someone different from the Lord Jesus Christ, we would know simply by
reading these salutations in their context that the two were different
referents. The use or nonuse of the pronoun “our” to modify “Father” would
make absolutely no difference in how these salutations would be read.

This leaves only seven examples of constructions supposedly governed by
Smart’s rule. That isn’t much on which to base a rule of grammar. But
let’s look at these remaining texts to see what evidence they might yield
in support of Smart’s rule.

Weak Support for the Rule

In Mark 6:4, Jesus says, “A prophet is not without honor except in his
hometown and among his relatives and in his household.” There are two
reasons for questioning whether this text fits the parameters of Smart’s
rule at all. First, the terms “hometown” (patris) and “household” (oikia)
do not describe persons in the way that “relative” (sungenês) does.
Rather, they refer to entities composed of persons. I am unsure whether
Smart’s rule could be extended to include such substantives, assuming the
rule were valid. Second and more telling, the three nouns are not simply
connected by kai, as Smart’s rule assumes, but are parts of three
prepositional phrases using en (“in,” “among”) connected by kai. That
having been said, in this instance we do not have terms referring to
separate referents. Jesus’ statement proceeds from the largest unit (his
hometown) to a subset of that unit (his relatives) to a subset of that
unit (his own family or household).

Mark 6:21 speaks of Herod’s “leaders and the commanders and the leading
men of Galilee .” These do appear to be three distinct groups of men, and
so this text apparently does fit Smart’s rule.

In Mark 16:7, the angel at the tomb tells the women to tell “his disciples
and Peter.” Of course, Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples, so here again,
as in Mark 6:4, the second term is a subset of the first.

In Romans 16:21, Paul writes, “Timothy my fellow worker greets you, and
also Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.” Grammatically, Paul
connects the four proper names together with kai; the expression “my
fellow worker” is in apposition to “Timothy” and the expression “my
kinsmen” is in apposition to the other three names. This text, then, is a
dubious example of Smart’s rule.

Hebrews 8:11 is a quotation from the Greek Old Testament, and so according
to Parker’s definition cannot be used in support of Smart’s rule. That is
probably just as well, since the substantives are arguably synonyms: “And
they shall not teach everyone his fellow-citizen [politên] and everyone
his brother [adelphon]….” In this context “brother” probably means
something like “fellow countryman.” At any rate, the two nouns do not
refer to separate groups.

Revelation 6:11 refers to “their fellow servants and their brothers who
were about to be killed just as they had been.” In this text the martyred
believers in Christ are told to rest while others are martyred for their
faith just as they had been. These others are described as “their fellow
servants [sundouloi] and their brothers [adelphoi].” Since all believers
are considered servants of Christ and brothers of one another, the two
nouns here refer to the same group. Therefore, this text appears to be a
fairly clear counterexample to Smart’s rule. Furthermore, it is a text in
which the possessive pronoun is repeated, as in John 20:28.

Finally, Revelation 11:18 the time is said to have come for God to reward
“your slaves the prophets and the saints and those who fear your name”
(tois doulois sou tois prophêtais kai tois hagiois kai tois phoboumenois
to onoma sou). God’s servants the prophets are presumably a subset of the
saints, and indeed of those who fear God’s name. It is also likely that
the saints are identical with those who fear God’s name. This text,
therefore, does not seem to fit Smart’s rule very well, and may be at
least partially contrary to Smart’s rule.

Of these seven texts, only one clearly fits what Smart’s rule claims (that
the two substantives have different referents), namely, Mark 6:21 . Romans
16:21 probably is irrelevant because the two substantives qualified by
possessive pronouns are in apposition to proper names and are not strictly
speaking in regimen with each other. In all of the other texts, the two or
three substantives are either synonymous or one substantive is a subset of
the other. Revelation 6:11 is a reasonable clear counterexample to Smart’s
rule.

More Counterexamples to Smart’s Rule

So far I have found two more clear counterexamples to Smart’s rule.

2 Corinthians 8:23. “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker
among you [koinônos emos kai eis humas sunergos]….” Note that the nouns
“partner” (koinônos) and “fellow worker” (sunergos) both explicitly
describe the same person, namely, Titus. This text, then, is a clear
counterexample to Smart’s rule.

Philippians 2:25. “But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus,
my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier (ton adelphon kai sunergon
kai sustratiôtên mou), who is also your messenger and minister to my need
(humôn de apostolon kai leitourgon tês xreias mou).” Remarkably, in this
one verse we have an illustration of Sharp’s rule in the first half of the
verse and a clear counterexample of Smart’s rule in the second half of the
verse. The noun string ton adelphon kai sunergon kai sustratiôtên
perfectly fits Sharp’s rule. The second noun string describing
Epaphroditus, humôn de apostolon kai leitourgon tês xreias mou, fits the
syntax structure of Smart’s rule (possessive pronoun—noun—kai—noun, with
the two anarthrous nouns in regimen), yet the nouns both have the same
referent. Therefore, this text also is a clear counterexample to Smart’s
rule.

Conclusion

Smart’s rule finds all of its support in texts where the two or three
nouns in regimen must have different referents because of the semantics of
the nouns in question (e.g., father and mother, or mother and sons). In
texts where this is not the case, more often than not the nouns do not
have separate referents. Sometimes the referents are overlapping, or one
refers to a subset of the other noun; and sometimes the referent is
identical.

The bottom line is that the presence or absence of a possessive pronoun
has no bearing on the exegesis of phrases in which two or more
substantives are connected by kai. Where the substantives are in regimen
(all having the article or all lacking the article), the meaning of the
terms in context is the only real consideration in determining whether the
substantives have one or more referent. In texts where the substantives
used are generally synonyms, as in John 20:28 (“Lord” and “God”), the
presumption should be that they have the same referent unless the context
explicitly indicates otherwise.




And like at least one of our posters here, Martin Smart will not give any qualifications he has to be forumalating Greek rules, see here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2562.html

And here is a refutation of Smart’s hypothesis:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2537.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2538.html

After inquiring with a couple participants of Bgreek, I discovered it is considered a nonrule by the participants of that group.

After inquiring with a couple participants of Bgreek, I discovered it is considered a nonrule by the participants of that group.

For patently obvious reasons as the above demonstrates.

I would certainly be interested in seeing a line by line rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's above critique.

God bless

I am sure there are more references on BGreek as well. I am in the process of hunting them down. But, I have to ask if someone is going to challenge the BGreek participants, what qualifications they have to do so? Martin Smart apparently refuses to gives his... sayikng it will prejudice someone in favor or against the rule... well that risk is one that has to be taken I wold think. A layperson has every right to inquire of the qualifications of those who presume to teach the flock.

DeeDee offers a link on B-GREEK to Smart's rule which asks about his qualifications.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2562.html

Dear DeeDee,
There were dozens of posts on Smart's rule on B-GREEK over a couple of months.

Interestingly, Carl Conrad, one of the moderators on the list and a Greek professor replied to the link you gave and basically said he would like to see the rule discussed on its own merits rather than have character assasination.


http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2563.html

Just a comment of my own on this item: while some may think that's enough
to put this thread to rest, I myself think the question depends more upon
the evidence that has been offered in support of or in opposition to the
proposition in question than upon whether or not the gentleman in question
declares his identity; naturally, I'd be curious to know more about him,
but I don't think the validity of what he has to say depends upon what we
know about himself. Our FAQ on "Netiquette" for B-Greek says this about
signatures:

'It is a courtesy expected of B-Greek subscribers that messages should
indicate, at least in the "From" header, the personal name as well as the
e-address, or else should at least sign their posts with personal names.
Indications of the locality from which they write would help personalize
further for others the sender of a message. Academic or institutional
information may be appended also, but there is no privilege associated with
any academic or institutional status so-indicated.'

I had something to do with the phrasing of that last sentence and it does
express something of my own feelings about "academic" credentials: the
problem with "academic" credentials is that they indicate formal training
of some sort somewhere and they may impress some people quite a bit, but I
have seen some opinions and assessments made by people with seemingly
strong "academic" credentials that I personally haven't found worth taking
seriously; on the other hand I've seen credible and important opinions and
assessments made by persons without discernible academic credentials. My
own view is that the worth of an opinion or assessment has more to do with
the evidence and argumentation supporting it than with the professed
credentials the person offering the opinion or assessment can adduce.
--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Now that you have provided some links to the discussion I'll see what I can dig up. The rule has also been discussed on other forums and I might be able to find something on these specific texts.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here
IronMetro:



For patently obvious reasons as the above demonstrates.

I would certainly be interested in seeing a line by line rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's above critique.

God bless

Here is an interesting view of John 20:28 by Augustine (this should positively THRILL Oldshepherd).

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2485.html

As for whether one
or two persons are in view, consider Augustine in "Tractate CXXI":

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my
God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged
the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the
means of what he saw and touched, he now put far
away from him every doubt, and believed the other."

Also, from a more modern commentator:

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words
was hotly debated by early church theologians
who wanted to use it in support of their own
christological definitions. Those who understood
'My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer
to God were suspected of christological heresy
in the fifth century CE. Many modern commentators
have also rejected that interpretation and instead
they understood the confession as an assertion
that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they
are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to
logos [logos]. But it is perfectly appropriate for
Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a
confession of faith both in Jesus and his Lord and
in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the
confession in this way actually makes much better
sense in the context of the Fourth Gospel. In 14.1
belief both in God and in Jesus is encouraged, in
a context in which Thomas is particularly singled
out ... If we understand Thomas's confession as an
assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in
20.31 becomes an anti-climax. (Margaret Davies,
Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel"
(JSNTSup69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1992), 125-126)

But more importantly, so as not to get into a theological debate, I am
more interested in whether "Smart's rule" has exceptions to it in
the GNT.


Sincerely,
Dan Parker

Today @ 04:56 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2538.html

Parker refuted that thread here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2547.html
>> Stephen, do you reject Sharp's rule based upon Proverbs 24:21 in the LXX
>> of "FOBOU TON QEON UIE KAI BASILEA"?

> What possible relevance does this have to do with the clear example
> that contradicts Smart's "rule"? I'm still curious how you would
> handle Ps 5:2 LXX. Prov 24:21 LXX is a red herring.

> Stephen Carlson

Stephen, I did not go into more detail on this because I assumed you
had read my response to this which I posted earlier to Kevin Woodruff
regarding his quotation of Murray Harris' use of Ps 5:3. I posted
the following at that time, in part:


"1) Porter (The poor man's Porter, Rodney Decker) and Winer
(35-38) do not agree that the grammar of the NT is affected
by any Hebraic or Aramaic influence.

2) BDF (81) agrees and considers the LXX and "passages
translated from a Semitic language" to have Hebraic
influence.

3) Therefore Harris' example of Ps 5:3 is not a good
parallel to John 20:28, because Winer says that although most
of the LXX manages to produce good Greek, Psalms generally
does not and that "The translation of the Psalms is, in
general, one of the most heedless." (Winer 35-38)"


This apparently was not clear, so I will attempt to elaborate.

Harris said:

"Finally the repeated MOU, so far from necessarily indicating
two distinct addressees, simply reflects the repetition of the
pronominal suffix with copulated nouns in Hebrew and Aramaic (as
shown in the LXX's Ps 5:3 by HO BASILEUS MOU MAI HO THEOS MOU)"

Harris speaking of the fact that the nouns "King" and "God" in
the Hebrew of Psalm 5:2 both have first person pronominal suffixes.
His stated view is that the reason for the double MOU in both Ps 5:3 and
John 20:28 is that they are both influenced by the same Hebrew syntax.
This is an admission that without the Hebraic influence it would
"necessarily" indicate that two persons are in view. The sole reason
he gives to the contrary is his view that if Thomas spoke Aramaic it
would affect the syntax of John 20:28. This is an admission that such a
"rule" as Smart has proposed does indeed have merit!


Where Harris goes wrong is that he does not support his contention that
this indeed happened at John 20:28. To make it worse all the leading
grammarians disagree with him on the point of whether this phenomena
actually occurs with any frequency in NT Greek.

The reason I used Proverbs 24:21 is because both Smart and Sharp
eliminate "Translation" Greek from their rules for precisely this reason.
If you do not agree that this is a valid exception then you must also
agree that Sharp's rule also has an exception ... and that is Proverbs
24:21. I will not try to force you do admit this if you do not wish.

In the article written by D L. Christiansen "A Reexamination of Granville
Sharp's Rule" he has the following footnote #16:

"The sole LXX contender for the title of Sharp's dethroner
(Proverbs 24:21 [FOBOU TON QEON UIE KAI BASILEA]) is not
admissible, even though it clearly contradicts the rule; the
omission of the article before the clearly distinct is a comment,
not on hellenistic Greek syntax, but on the slavish
method of translation employed by certain of the LXX scribes.
cf. Wallace, Selected Notes, 104-5; also Thomas Fanshaw Middleton,
The Doctrine of the Greek Article, new ed., (London: J.G .F.
& J. Rivington, et al, 1841): 120."

Smart's rule clearly states right up front that only "Native" Greek is
covered by the rule. Therefore, Psalms in the LXX cannot be used as
a exception to Smart's rule. This exception is not arbitrary, but based
on a documented characteristic of some Hebrew that is translated into
Greek.

I would also like to comment on some of the criticisms of the rule with
respect to the number of exceptions. The exceptions are actually far
fewer than Sharps because:

1) Sharps excludes plural nouns, Smarts does not.
2) Sharps excludes quasi proper names, Smarts does not.
3) Smarts works with both articular nouns and anarthrous nouns.


Sincerely,
Dan Parker

Today @ 10:19 AM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I am sure there are more references on BGreek as well. I am in the process of hunting them down. But, I have to ask if someone is going to challenge the BGreek participants, what qualifications they have to do so? Martin Smart apparently refuses to gives his... sayikng it will prejudice someone in favor or against the rule... well that risk is one that has to be taken I wold think. A layperson has every right to inquire of the qualifications of those who presume to teach the flock.

On a related thread a reference was made to (Granville) Sharp, who discovered the rule of Greek grammar which bears his name. It is true Sharp was a self-taught Greek scholar, without any appropriate degrees, but he published his rule and it was reviewed by scholars, of his day up to the present day.

OTOH, this so-called "Smart's rule" has been around since late 2000, according to its supporters on BGreek, and has not been published. One must ask why hasn't this so-called rule been thoroughly documented, i.e. all the apllicable scriptures exegeted, and the complete rule and all documentation been submitted to the academic community for review? Instead we see it touted by "good friends" of Smart on a few discussion forums.

Should not a "Rule," so-called, which changes the way the Bible is interpreted not be given to the entire world? Why should hundreds and thousands of believers perish, as surely they must, because they misinterpret the Bible, when there is a new "Rule" which will show them "The Truth," but this "truth" is virtually shrouded in secrecy? Why isn't this "truth" being shouted from the rooftops?

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Here is an interesting view of John 20:28 by Augustine (this should positively THRILL Oldshepherd).

Not really! I am more interested in the early church fathers in the first three centuries. The farther, in time, one gets away from Jesus and His disciples the more potential for error creeping in. Do you have any applicable quotes or should I post mine?

Note, here what Augustin has to say about Thomas.

• St. Aurelius Augustin Psalm L [354-430 AD]
  
  And Thomas, that was holding Man, understood God as he was able. For when he had handled the scars, he cried out, "My Lord, and my God." Yet the Lord was showing that form, and that flesh, which they had seen upon the Cross, which had been laid in the sepulchre. He stayed with them forty days. ...But what was said to Thomas handling? "Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed; blessed are they that see not, and believe." We are foretold. That world called from the rising of the sun unto the going down seeth not, and believeth. Hidden then is the God of gods, both to those among whom He walked, and to those by whom He was crucified, and to those before whose eyes He rose, and to us who believe on Him in heaven sitting, whom we have not seen on earth walking. But even if we were to see, should we not see that which the Jews saw and crucified? It is more, that not seeing we believe Christ to be God, than that they seeing deemed Him only to be man. They in a word by thinking evil slew, we by believing well are made alive.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-08/npnf1-08-57.htm

Interestingly, Carl Conrad, one of the moderators on the list and a Greek professor replied to the link you gave and basically said he would like to see the rule discussed on its own merits rather than have character assasination.

Carl said nothing about "character assisination" and it is hardly (the violin plays softly) character assisination to inquire as to one's credentials. One may disagree as to their importance, but I am sorry it is suspicious to me when someone will not reveal what their qualifications are or are not, especially on a scholarly list like BGreek. And those there have the benefit of being more schooled in Greek than the average layperson such as myself. I, as a layperson, have every right to ask the qualifications of those who are presuming to teach me. Would you attend a school where the teachers would not tell you what their qualifications were? I think no. So spare me on character assination, if you or Mr. Smart is going to expound upon Greek, I am not the bad guy or character assasin to know why you think you are qualified.

And again, I have spoke with two members of BGreek, who do not believe that Mr. Parker has refuted any denunciations of his rule. So we what we have is you (who will not reveal if you are qualified - so I must presume you are not) and me (who admit I have no qualifications) posting things about which we are unqualified. I take what I understand as the majority position as BGreek to be much more weighty at this point, and as I understand it, Mr. Parker has received almost no support nor has Mr. Smart. There have been no rigorous peer reviews, and it is quite presumptous to declare something a rule on such a tenuouis basis.

And later on a member addressed Carl's post as follows:

The concept has wider application than to academic titles.

The matter of Smart's rule was originally raised as a question, whether or
not Smart's rule applied to a particular verse. It was only after quite some
probing by other list members that acknowledgement was made that it had
never even been so much as published.

And yet, it had been birthed into BGreek with all the status of a "rule".

The comparison with academic titles is obvious. Just as a person's argument
is not advanced in the least by academic credentials subjoined to the
individual's name, no more is one's argument advanced by calling it a
"rule".

I value highly the role of BGreek as an educative forum. I certainly learn
from others' contributions, and suspect we all do. It is precisely because
ours is so helpful a forum that the positioning of Smart's dictum as a
"rule" stands against the best traditions of BGreek, and deserves censure as
being tendentious and likely to carry weight with those who may be younger
in their Greek studies (when grammatical "rules" are inviolable and demand
unquestioning acceptance), or simply unaware that what some call Smart's
"rule" is merely a proposition - and unpublished and without scholarly
acceptance at that.

Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2593.html

I also found this very insightful

Dan Parker Wrote

> I have found no exceptions to Smart's rule.

You are staring one in the face. Do I understand this correctly? Are you
saying that according to this rule by Dr. Smart, Thomas must be addressing
two different persons in John 20:28, Jesus and God the Father? If this is
the case then John 20:28 is your exception. If I have missed your point here
just stop reading, and hit delete.

The thematic structure of John's Gospel from start to finish is against your
reading of John 20:28. All through the gospel, from the prolog to the major
dramatic peak at the end of chapter 8, to the confession of Thomas in John
20:28 this one issue is being stressed over and over again.

When we look at the high level thematic discourse structure of John it just
leaves little room for doubt about what is being said in John 20:28. This is
a macro structural issue in the Gospel, and no about of quibbling and nit
picking about grammatical minutia, or inventing new rules will make this
macro structural issue go away.

I can say this with a fair amount of confidence since every commentary on
John in my library clearly supports this view, including: Marcus Dods,
H. Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, B.F. Westcott, D.A. Carson and L. Morris. It is
somewhat humorous that the three mega scholars H. Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, and
B.F. Westcott were the most dogmatic about this, according to them there is
not contest here. They consider Thomas' confession in John 20:28 a major
structural component in John's thematic development.

I thought that James D. G. Dunn might take a different view, since he has
written extensively on the *development* of NT Christology so I thought he
might be the odd man out on this but it didn't work out that way. J. D. G.
Dunn was in enthusiastic agreement with all of the works mentioned above.

So here is your exception.

Clay

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...0-10/2515.html

Dear DeeDee,
I agree that from what I read on B-GREEK, most participants did not endorse the rule. For that matter they rejected the rule for the same reason they rejected Sharp's rule. They feel context should be the main determining factor in issues like this.

However I would venture to say that not many Trinitarians on this list are likely to consider discarding Sharp's rule any time soon

Kind Regards,
Cal

Now that you have provided some links to the discussion I'll see what I can dig up. The rule has also been discussed on other forums and I might be able to find something on these specific texts.

As I recall, Tsmith stated that Mr. Bowman's critique was "refuted" elsewhere. That should save you some digging if you're looking for ideas to initiate a full reply to the above. I'm more interested in a line by line address of the material rather than argumentation by link.

Here is an interesting view of John 20:28 by Augustine (this should positively THRILL Oldshepherd).

You made this reply in answer to my quote requesting a "line by line rebuttal" of Mr. Bowman's critique. Why?

An excellent point from context:

Several days ago, in a discussion of John 20:28, Dan Parker advised David McKay,

>As for whether one or two persons are in view, consider Augustine in
'Tractate CXXI':

>"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other."

In assessing the value of any single comment it is important to observe its context. The relevance to Augustine's being cited in the matter of John 20:28 is as follows.

Augustine's tractate concerns John 20, verses 10-29, the earlier part of which deals with Mary's weeping at the tomb, supposing that her Lord had been taken away, and then seeing the risen Lord, who tells her not to touch him; the latter part deals with Jesus' appearance to the disciples, Thomas not being present, and his appearance to the disciples eight days later, on which occasion Thomas was given the opportunity to touch Jesus but answered and EIPEN AUTWi, hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU.

Augustine discusses in some detail why Mary is told by the Lord, 'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to the Father.' He expresses two possibilities. The first is 'that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was symbolized, which did not believe on Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father'. The second, which Augustine deals with at greater length, is 'that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched spiritually, that He and the Father are one.' Augustine explains, 'For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the
inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, 'Touch me not'. In the working out of his argument, Augustine explains the
words 'For I am not yet ascended to my Father' with the comment, 'there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father.'

Of some significance in reference to his later comments regarding Thomas, Augustine asks, 'How could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man?'

Augustine then deals with the Lord's appearance to the disciples, when the doors were shut - 'But the shutting of doors,' Augustine comments, 'presented no obstacle to the matter of His body, wherein Godhead resided.'

It is then that Augustine deals with the appearance of the Lord to Thomas, and it is against this background that Augustine makes his comment,

'Thomas answered and said unto Him, "My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other.'

In its context, Augustine's comment withstands misunderstooding; he has made clear that Jesus is 'God, in no wise unequal with the Father' and that in him 'Godhead resided'.

It is only for the sake of those who see his words taken out of context (or who perhaps cannot correctly weigh the value of secondary sources even when seen in context) that it is necessary to explain that which, when read in its context, is clear: in saying of Thomas that he 'touched the man and
acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched', Augustine does not have in view two persons; he is saying that Thomas apprehended Jesus not only as man but as God. He touched Jesus as a man - but understood him to
be God, who cannot be touched. And when he says that Thomas 'by means of what he saw and touched … believed the other' he is expressing that Thomas, seeing Jesus with his earthly body that bore the marks of his death but now
risen and alive before him, understood him to be truly and fully God. Unlike Mary who believed on him carnally, weeping over him as a man, Thomas saw and touched a man but acknowledged him as God.

In calling Augustine as an expert witness, Dan Parker calls to the stand one whose testimony tears apart his own argument. And that this is so may be seen by all who have not only the interest to check Augustine's tractate (which may be viewed at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-0...#P3820_2093367 <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-126.htm>) but also the time to read it carefully and allowing the comment cited to have its full weight in context.

Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)

Found here.

See also:

<x-flowed>
Dear Friends,

I noticed on this list a number of comments on John 20:28 and Augustine's commentary on this passage. It must be remembered nevertheless that while Augustine was an excellent philosopher and theologian, he was illiterate in the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek (as was Thomas Aquinas later in
the thirteenth century) unlike his contemporary colleague, Jerome. I sometimes wonder whether it is worthwhile to use Augustine in an area in which he holds little or no authority from a grammatical point of view...no offence to St.Augustine.

Tony Costa

Found here.

This is, of course as you know, a tangent issue.

Again, I had stated:

I would certainly be interested in seeing a line by line rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's above critique.

......

God bless

For this reply, I am only going to deal with Rob's so-called counter examples to Smart's Rule that are specifically related to the John 20:28 construction. Since this is the issue at hand, we will deal with this. I could take the time to go further into it, but really, at this time, there is no need.

evelation 6:11 refers to “their fellow servants and their brothers who were about to be killed just as they had been.” In this text the martyred believers in Christ are told to rest while others are martyred for their faith just as they had been. These others are described as “their fellow servants [sundouloi] and their brothers [adelphoi].” Since all believers are considered servants of Christ and brothers of one another, the two nouns here refer to the same group. Therefore, this text appears to be a fairly clear counterexample to Smart’s rule. Furthermore, it is a text in which the possessive pronoun is repeated, as in John 20:28.

Unfortunately for Rob, any attempted example from Revelation is void by default. Perhaps Rob is not aware of this, but Revelation really is not Koine Greek at all. Note the following from Vincent's Word Studies on Revelation:

"“The language,” says Dr. Davidson, “departs materially from the usual Greek of the New Testament, presenting anomalies, incorrectnesses, peculiar constructions, and awkward dispositions of words, which have no parallel.... The language is so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of Greek.”"

2 Corinthians 8:23. “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you [koinônos emos kai eis humas sunergos]….” Note that the nouns “partner” (koinônos) and “fellow worker” (sunergos) both explicitly describe the same person, namely, Titus. This text, then, is a clear counterexample to Smart’s rule.

Actually, this is not a counterexample at all. EMOS is not a personal pronoun in the genitive, as the rule requires. Perhaps Rob is not aware as to what a personal pronoun in the genitive is.

So, those are the two examples Rob provided in attempts to refute the John 20:28 construction. However, neither of them hold even a little bit of water, so the rule is FAR from refuted.

-Tony

Quoted from a post above.

Several days ago, in a discussion of John 20:28, Dan Parker advised David McKay,

>As for whether one or two persons are in view, consider Augustine in
'Tractate CXXI':

>"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other."

In assessing the value of any single comment it is important to observe its context. The relevance to Augustine's being cited in the matter of John 20:28 is as follows.

For Dan Parker and his supporters on this forum. Talk about twisting sources and quoting out of context. Here is more of the tractate quoted above. Is Augustin saying that Jesus was only a man? Say on Augustin!

• Tractate CXXI.
  
  For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, "Touch me not;" that is, Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions; let not your thoughts stretch outwards to what I have been made in thy behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby thou hast thyself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? "For I am not yet ascended," He says, "to my Father:" there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father. "But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father." He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. "And my God, and your God." Nor did He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-0...#P3820_2093367

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear DeeDee,
I agree that from what I read on B-GREEK, most participants did not endorse the rule. For that matter they rejected the rule for the same reason they rejected Sharp's rule. They feel context should be the main determining factor in issues like this.

Care to document this? Or are they criticising sloppy formulations of Sharp's rule, rather than his own careful formulation?

When kai (‘and’) connects two singular nouns, which are describing a person and are not proper names, of the same case; and if the definite article (‘the’) precedes the first noun and is absent from the second noun, both nouns refer to the same person.

Applying this to Titus 2:13, the text should read:

the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Just about all Bible translations made after Sharp formulated his rule (he was also busy with founding the Bible Society and campaigning against slavery) have translated the passage this way, which is a crystal clear statement of the deity of Christ. This includes the NKJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, ESV, RSV, CEV, Young's Literal, Darby, Message, New Living Translation and Amplified. About the only one that doesn't is the New World Perversion • Edited by a Moderator •.

Today @ 04:15 AM post located here
Socrates:
Just about all Bible translations made after Sharp formulated his rule (he was also busy with founding the Bible Society and campaigning against slavery) have translated the passage this way, which is a crystal clear statement of the deity of Christ. This includes the NKJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, ESV, RSV, CEV, Young's Literal, Darby, Message, New Living Translation and Amplified. About the only one that doesn't is the New World Perversion by the Jehovah's Witness cult.

You just opened a can of worms on this one.

(ASV) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(DRB) Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(GB) Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ,

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(Webster) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;

(LO) expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(Murdock) looking for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah;


I could keep going, but I will stop. The text here reads this:

PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKAPIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIPHANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hEMWN IHSOU XRISTOU

It is the appearing of the DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU, or the glory of the great God that we find, not the person of the great God. Further, TOU MEGALOU QEOU has sufficient semantic force as a proper name to remove this from the realm of Sharp's Rule, making it a non-issue.

-Tony

Today @ 08:15 PM post located here
Socrates:


About the only one that doesn't is the New World Perversion by the Jehovah's Witness cult.

Dear Socrates,
I did not know this forum was bigoted. I have reported this post to the moderators. If they side with you, this will be the last post I read or respond to on this forum.

Best Regards,
Cal