Jason BeDuhn has a whole chapter on this. This is really a great book! Once again I limit my quotes for copyright reasons. I suggest that the Trins must have this book! There is too much information for me to quote it all.

• 2Peter 1:1 tou qeou hmwn kai swthros Ihsou Cristou - of the God of us and (of the) Saviour Jesus Christ:
  2Peter 1:2 tou qeou kai Ihsou tou kuriou hmmon - of the God and (of) Jesus the lord of us

All of the translations we are comparing properly maintain the distinction between "God" and "Jesus, our Lord" in verse 2, while most ignore it in verse 1, But the grammatical structure of the two sentences is identical, making it very doubtful that they should be translated in different ways. In English, we have to have an article before a common noun (the savior) and riot before a name (Jesus); but that is something about proper English expression, not about the original Greek.
Those who defend the translations that read as if only Jesus is spoken of in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 attempt to distinguish those two passages from the parallel examples I have given by something called "Sharp’s Rule." In 1798, the amateur theologian Granville Sharp published a book in which he argued that when there are two nouns of the same form ("case") joined by "and" (kai), only the first of which has the article, the nouns are identified as the same thing. Close examination oft his much-used "rule" shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological agenda in creating it, namely, to prove that the verses we are examining in this chapter call Jesus God."


"Sharp’s Rule" does not survive close scrutiny. ... The problem is not with Sharp’s honesty or his diligence, but with the premises by which he did his work. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament. ... If we turn to the standard work of Greek grammar, that of Smyth, we find no "Sharp’s Rule." But we do find several "rules" that may explain the pattern Sharp thought he was seeing in the New Testament. Smyth, section 1143, says: "A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and produces the effect of a single notion." That sounds an awful lot like "Sharp’s Rule," doesn’t it? But what exactly is meant by "a single notion"? Smyth gives two examples: "the generals and captains (the commanding officers)"; "the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet)." You can see from these examples that the two nouns combined by "and" are not identical; the individual words do not represent the same thing. Instead, by being combined, they suggest a larger whole. The generals and the captains together make up the more general category of "commanding officers," just as the various sized ships together constitute the fleet as a whole. So the article-noun-"and"-noun construction does combine individual things into larger wholes, but it does not necessarily identify them as one and the same thing. This is further clarified by Smyth in section 1144: "A repeated article lays stress on each word." So when a writer wants to sharply distinguish two things, he or she will use the article with each noun; but when the two things in some way work together or belong to a broader unified whole, the article is left off of the second noun. Other "rules" established by examining the whole of Greek literature also can account for what we see in Titus and 2 Peter. The absence of the article before "Savior" could just as well be explained by section 1129 of Smyth’s grammar: "Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article." Smyth gives the examples "man," "soldier," and "god." "Savior" clearly fits this same description. Or one might consider section 1140: "Several appellatives, treated like proper names, may omit the article." Smyth here uses the example of "king"; the term "Savior" certainly would have the same level of definiteness for a Christian writer.

While we’re on the subject of Sharp’s attempt to distinguish personal names from personal titles in constructing his rule, it should be pointed out that ho theos ("the God") functions as a proper name ("God") in the New Testament. So by a strict reading of "Sharp’s Rule," it wouldn’t even apply to the verses Sharp hoped to interpret.

TRUTH IN TRANSLATION
For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220 www.univpress.com

Today @ 10:16 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Jason BeDuhn has a whole chapter on this. This is really a great book! Once again I limit my quotes for copyright reasons. I suggest that the Trins must have this book! There is too much information for me to quote it all.

I do NOT need to read this book this brief quote is enough for me. Evidently Mssr DeBuhn does NOT know what Sharp's rule is.

The generals and the captains together make up the more general category of "commanding officers," just as the various sized ships together constitute the fleet as a whole. So the article-noun-"and"-noun construction does combine individual things into larger wholes, but it does not necessarily identify them as one and the same thing.

Both the supposed "counter examples" are excluded from the rule, see (d) below. Generals and captains semantically denote two separate groups. "Greater" and "smaller" ships semantically denote two different groups.

• Sharp's Rule
  
  In Greek, when two nouns of the same case are connected by kai ("and"), and the definite article appears before the first noun but not before the second, both nouns refer to the same person if the nouns are (1) personal, (2) singular, and (3) non-proper nouns, and if the nouns are (d) not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons.

Today @ 06:49 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



I do NOT need to read this book this brief quote is enough for me. Evidently Mssr DeBuhn does NOT know what Sharp's rule is.



Both the supposed "counter examples" are excluded from the rule, see (d) below. Generals and captains semantically denote two separate groups. "Greater" and "smaller" ships semantically denote two different groups.

• Sharp's Rule
  
  In Greek, when two nouns of the same case are connected by kai ("and"), and the definite article appears before the first noun but not before the second, both nouns refer to the same person if the nouns are (1) personal, (2) singular, and (3) non-proper nouns, and if the nouns are (d) not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons.

Dear OldShepherd,
You did not quote Sharp's rule. Sharp did not exclude plurals. Someone has tampered with Sharp's rule!


I have one for you:

KJV Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who
is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God.

Is "Christ and of God" one or two persons according to Sharp's rule?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 12:03 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
You did not quote Sharp's rule. Sharp did not exclude plurals. Someone has tampered with Sharp's rule!

Prove it! Also "plurals" are irrelevant to my response.

I have one for you:

KJV Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who
is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God.

Is "Christ and of God" one or two persons according to Sharp's rule?

That passage is NOT a Sharp's construction! Neither Christ nor God have the definite article.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Today @ 07:47 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



Prove it! Also "plurals" are irrelevant to my response.



Is "Christ and of God" one or two persons according to Sharp's rule?

That passage is NOT a Sharp's construction! Neither Christ nor God have the definite article.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Dear Carlos,
Actually the Greek is tou Cristou kai qeou .

CHRISTOU is articular with TOU and Granville Sharp listed this as one that conformed to his rule.

What do you think about Sharp now?

Regards,
Cal

Today @ 01:45 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
Actually the Greek is tou Cristou kai qeou .

CHRISTOU is articular with TOU and Granville Sharp listed this as one that conformed to his rule.

What do you think about Sharp now?

It would appear that I did miss the definite article in that verse. Note, according to Dr. White, Wuest, NOT Sharp, cited Eph 5:5 as an example of a Sharp's construction. Do you have documentation to the contrary?

I have no problem whatsoever with Sharp or his rule. But as I stated I do have a problem with people like DeBuhn who read their own presuppositions into their *ahem* "conclusions." As I have clearly shown Sharp's rule excludes DeBuhns presumed counter examples, because, in both instances, the nouns semantically denote separate entities. Eph 5:5 the Father and Christ are in some sense the same. And OBTW the original connotation of "persona," as applied to the Godhead, did not [edited to add: necessarily] mean an individual human being, the common misunderstanding among anti-Trinitarians.

• Granville Sharp's Rule
  Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1
  
  by James White
  
  Kenneth Wuest in his _Expanded Translation_ brings out the Sharp constructions in a number of other instances. For example, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 reads, "in accordance with the grace of our God, even the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Timothy 5:21: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of our God, even Jesus Christ,..." and 2 Timothy 4:1: "I solemnly charge you as one who is living in the presence of our God, even Christ Jesus,..." All these demonstrate further examples of Sharp's rule. Not all examples, of course, deal with the fact of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 3:2 reads, ton adelphon hemon kai sunergon, "our brother and fellow-worker," in reference to Timothy. Philemon 1 contains a similar reference, and Hebrews 3:1 is yet another example. One of the most often repeated examples has to do with the idiom, "God and Father." Pure Sharp constructions occur at 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 5:20, Philippians 4:20, and 1 Thessalonians 3:11. Finally, other examples of Sharp constructions occur at 1 Corinthians 5:10, 7:8, 7:34, Ephesians 5:5, Philippians 2:25, and Colossians 4:7. There are, of course, others outside the writings of the Apostle Paul.
  • • •
  On the basis of the foregoing, unless the context demands otherwise, the interpreter would do well to consider the possibility that the author, when using a construction that utilizes two nouns, the first having the article, and the second not, had in mind one object for both nouns (participles or adjectives). Also, when both nouns have the article, it is quite likely that the writer meant to keep them quite distinct. Though these suggestions do lend themselves to exceptions, they can be generally quite helpful. When discussing the real Granville Sharp rule, however, totally different considerations need be applied. A real Sharp construction will hold to what Sharp actually said, and will hold true in all cases. Hence, Sharp's rule is an invaluable instrument in the interpreter's bag. Unlike so many rules, one does not have to worry about the many exceptions to the rule. It is amusing to imagine the Apostle Paul listening in on a discussion amongst modern grammarians, and being very confused as to just what "Granville Sharp's rule" is. He certainly would acknowledge the fact of what he wrote and what it meant, but we must remember that all Granville Sharp did was accurately observe a principle that had been around for over 1700 years. Paul never kept Granville Sharp's rule: Granville Sharp correctly followed Paul's rule (and Peter's and James' and so on). Sharp's rule has stood the test of time, and will continue to be a strong force to be reckoned with in the future.
  
  http://www.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html

Also see Wallace.

• In the statement of this rule, Sharp only discussed substantives (i.e., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. But whether he intended the rule to apply to impersonal nouns and/or plurals can hardly be determined from this definition. As well, he did not clearly exclude proper names from the rule's application. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns. For example, two pages later he points out that; 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 the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions . . . .; 14 Later on he explicitly states that impersonal constructions are within the purview of his second, third, fifth, and sixth rules, but not the first.15 In an appendix Sharp chastises Blunt for bringing in impersonal constructions as exceptions to the rule.16

Best Regards,
Carlos

Lety me quote what Wallace has to say about Sharp's rule, GGBB 271:

The rule is as follows:

[i]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 ο, or any of its cases, precedes the first of 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] i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person...

Although Sharp discusses here only personal substantives in the singular, it is not clear from this statement whether he intended to restrict his rule to such. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns.

Thus, you argument is in fact nullified and this Jason BeDuhn has shown a lack of research.

You see it may not be explicit in the rule itself (though it does seem a likely caveat due to the restriction of being personal), but the monograph as a whole limits the rule quite clearly. If one takes the time to read it (and I have read part of it, though it was years ago), it is obvious that the rule was limited to singulars only, and so all scholars I have read assume it to fit just such cases.

Thank you Jaltus, very enligthening to me.

Yesterday @ 10:46 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

OldShepherd
It would appear that I did miss the definite article in that verse. Note, according to Dr. White, Wuest, NOT Sharp, cited Eph 5:5 as an example of a Sharp's construction. Do you have documentation to the contrary?

Cal
Yes, Daniel Wallace GGBB 276.

I said Sharp did not limit his rule to plurals and you said to prove it. Ok, here is the rule as stated by Sharp which can be found in Daniel Wallace’s GGBB page 271.

When the copulative kai/ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the later 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

OldShepherd
I have no problem whatsoever with Sharp or his rule. But as I stated I do have a problem with people like DeBuhn who read their own presuppositions into their *ahem* "conclusions."

Cal
With all due respect, you have not read Jason BeDuhn’s book, not even the whole chapter on this subject.

OldShepherd
As I have clearly shown Sharp's rule excludes DeBuhns presumed counter examples, because, in both instances, the nouns semantically denote separate entities.

Cal
You mean like God and Christ?

OldShepherd
Eph 5:5 the Father and Christ are in some sense the same.

Cal
Yes, but do you consider Eph 5:5 to fit Sharp’s rule as he himself claimed? To apply Sharp’s rule to Ephesians 5:5 would make them the same person. That is the whole point of Sharp’s rule when applied to 2Peter 1:1. Will you accept that in God and Savior in 2Peter 1:1 they are not the same person?

Also, here is an example that is an exception to Sharp’s rule.

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear God and the king; and do not disobey either of them. The Greek for God is articular with TON QEON and king is anarthrous with BASILEA and they are connected with KAI in the LXX.


Kind Regards,
Cal

Yesterday @ 11:27 PM post located here
Jaltus:

Let me quote what Wallace has to say about Sharp's rule, GGBB 271:

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, (viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill), if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of 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...

Although Sharp discusses here only personal substantives in the singular, it is not clear from this statement whether he intended to restrict his rule to such. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns.


Thus, you argument is in fact nullified and this Jason BeDuhn has shown a lack of research.

You see it may not be explicit in the rule itself (though it does seem a likely caveat due to the restriction of being personal), but the monograph as a whole limits the rule quite clearly. If one takes the time to read it (and I have read part of it, though it was years ago), it is obvious that the rule was limited to singulars only, and so all scholars I have read assume it to fit just such cases.

Dear Jaltus,

Dear Jaltus,
Dr. BeDuhn does not blindly accept what Wallace has to say on the subject. He recognizes that a rule to be valid must work for more than just the small corpus of the New Testament. BeDuhn therefore shows from Smyth's grammar (which covers both biblical and extra-biblical Greek) that Smyth does have rules to explain ALL the examples.

Proverbs 24:21 is an exception both to Sharp's rule and Wallace’s restatement of it as quoted by you. Therefore what Smyth says about these constructions is valid universally for KOINH Greek.

That is BeDuhn's point which is something you have not addressed.


Kind Regards,
Cal

Are you reversing yourself?

On one thread you said that OT poetry was not considered real Koine Greek. In this thread you are saying it is. Do you plan on making up your mind?

You see, both Job and Proverbs are wisdom literature, both written with the same literary style, if not the same rhetorical style. Both asre wisdom literature, even if Job is monologues and Proverbs is sayins, both are still forms of poetry (in Hebrew).

So which is it? Are they Koine or not?

Today @ 11:33 AM post located here
Jaltus:

Are you reversing yourself?

On one thread you said that OT poetry was not considered real Koine Greek. In this thread you are saying it is. Do you plan on making up your mind?

You see, both Job and Proverbs are wisdom literature, both written with the same literary style, if not the same rhetorical style. Both asre wisdom literature, even if Job is monologues and Proverbs is sayins, both are still forms of poetry (in Hebrew).

So which is it? Are they Koine or not?

Dear Jaltus,
I do not see the elements of Hebrew Poetry in Proverbs 8:21 which were unmistakenly present in your passages from Job.

Could you please proceed from your generalization and show me the specific indicator of Hebrew poetry that you would claim eliminates this from Sharp's rule? I think even Wallace admits this is an exception.

Regards,
Cal