Acts 2:23

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Wed Aug 11 10:57:12 EDT 1999


In a message dated 8/10/99 10:18:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
ccinc at surfree.com writes:

<< To Greg:
 So is Sharps rule two personal pronouns separated by "and" with "the"before 
the first personal pronoun but not the second? >>


Dear Chris:

Here is Sharp's rule as defined by Sharp himself:

"When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns 
(either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, 
respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, 
properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article hO, or any of its 
cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not 
repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to 
the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or 
participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named 
person."---Remarks on the Use of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of 
the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from 
Passages which are wrongly Translated in the Common English Version 
(Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins, 1807), page 3. 


Here is Daniel Wallace's revision of the rule:

"In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single 
article modifies two substantives connected by KAI (thus, 
article-substantive-KAI-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular 
(both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns 
(not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent."---Daniel B. 
Wallace, "The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by KAI in the New 
Testament: Semantics and Significance" (Ph.D. dissertation: Dallas 
Theological Seminary, 1995), pp. 134-135, 279.


Though not given in his actual statement of the rule, Sharp also excluded 
proper names and plural nouns.  Thus, two key differences between Sharp's 
rule and what Wallace considers the "Sharper" rule are: 1) this rule would 
not apply when the Greek is that used to translate another language (for 
example, from Hebrew to Greek, as in the case of the LXX), and 2) the nouns 
must not only be grammatically singular, but semantically singular as well 
(that is, not generic nouns, which are used in a general or universal sense). 
But Wallace makes other refinements to Sharp's rule, particularly as they 
relate to proper names and what constitutes them.

I do not believe the case for excluding translation Greek is sound, and it 
seems predicated on eliminating a notable exception to Sharp's rule, namely, 
Proverbs 24:21. The longer version of Ignatius contains this passage in his 
epistle to the Smyrnaeans (ANF 1, chap. 9, 90). Wallace also notes that 
other, later Fathers quote it as well. (Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 
127, note 121) But, again, I fail to see how these references can rightly be 
excluded on the basis of being considered "translation Greek." After all, 
these writers, had they understood the idiom in the Greek of Proverbs 24:21 
to denote one person, not two, could have cited it in a way that would have 
been free from ambiguity. They obviously did not believe that their use of an 
article-noun-KAI-noun construction in this case would create any confusion 
concerning the identity of God and the king, otherwise they would have 
translated the passage in such a way as to be free from ambiguity.

Wallace accepts "Lord Jesus" or Lord Jesus Christ" as the equivalent to a 
proper name,  and possibly even "Christ" when used alone. I agree, and would 
add that any compound expression containing a proper name (!), such as 
"Savior Jesus Christ" similarly functions with the restrictive force of a 
proper name, there being no doubt regarding the one to whom "Savior" applies. 
I also accept other compound expressions and titles as the equivalent of 
proper names, for reasons given elsewhere.

Greg Stafford



More information about the B-Greek mailing list