Acts 2:23
Richard Neil Mendoza
pistos at pacbell.net
Thu Aug 12 05:56:01 EDT 1999
On 08/12/99, ""Joe Friberg" <JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net>" wrote:
> NOTE: This message was originally prepared early yesterday (8/10), but
unfortunately my outgoing email was not working (and I did not realize
it).
In the interim, several messages have been posted to this thread, and
while there appears to be some overlap between this and other messages, I
am sending the message unedited. --Joe F.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Neil Mendoza [mailto:pistos at pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:39 AM
> Recently I contacted Daniel B. Wallace about Acts 2:23 and if he believed
> it contains an example of Granville Sharp's rule. I had previously
> encounted it as an example of Sharp's rule in one of Kenneth
> Wuest's books,
> but couldn't find it as an example in any Greek grammar. When Wallace's
> grammar came out with the most examples of Sharp's rule I was
> disappointed
> to find Acts 2:23 absent from this section. Anyways, he informed me that
> he disagrees with Wuest and doesn't believe it to be an example
> of Sharp's
> rule because it is impersonal construction.
Wallace (pp. 270-72) discusses the instigation and specifications of
Granville Sharp's rule, which was originally stated to focus narrowly on
the construction 'article + personal substantive description + kai +
personal substantive description' for the specific purpose of butressing
the case from the NT for the deity of Christ (i.e., Ti 2.13, 2 Pt 1.1).
Granville Sharp's focus and interest were narrowly theological, and
Wallace
wants to maintain the same delineation.
However, in general, an 'article + coordinated nouns' construction does
indicate a close association of the nouns in some form of hendiadys (see
my
email of 7/22/99 for suggested categories of hendiadys). Many grammarians
apparently call this more general principle 'Granville Sharp's rule' (cf.
Greenlee p. 23).
- Since I was basing my interpretation on memory and I didn't have
Wallace's grammar available to me, I forgot that to qualify for Granville
Sharp's rule int must be a personal attribute or description. Kenneth
Wuest applied looser qualifications for the rule.
> I also noticed
> elsewhere that
> Stephen Baugh says it is an example of a hendiadys, in which the copula
> substitutes a subordinating clause. I just don't see this when I read
> BOULE KAI PROGNOSEI (counsel and foreknowledge), two nouns in the
> same case
> and person connected by KAI.
I'm not sure what he means here; is he referring to a translation value of
something like 'the appointed plan, which is the foreknowledge of God'??
- No, it would be a hendiadys in Gk before translation.
> Can someone tell me why this is a hendiadys
> and not an example of Granville Sharp's rule?
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list