Sharp rule - 2 Thess 2:1 ff

Suedaleg at aol.com Suedaleg at aol.com
Sun May 14 02:00:55 EDT 2000


I was quite interested in the three recent lines on this section and even 
considered adding an opinion.  The subject is sufficiently tangled I took a 
long time to think about what a response should be.  I have finally condensed 
it to a technical clarification, and a philosophical/theological opinion 
(which will not get much time here).

The question:  The Sharp rule (  or Granville Sharp as I first learned it ) 
is essentially that two nouns, connected by KAI, with the article on only the 
first refer to the same person.  I looked in my, now ancient, copy of Dana & 
Mantey and found the following:

"When the coppulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article 
hO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nor 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 further description of the first named person."

I also have a lot of hand written notes around this paragraph, including 
"personal description", "probably singular", and "not absolute".  I remenber 
being taught that the rule only applied to personal substantives, not to idea 
substantives (?) .  If this is so, it does not apply to the construction in 2 
Thess 2:1.  However I also remember a theology prof. using GS to support 
another theological point from another passage, and thinking at the time that 
he was not correct in that usage.  The question is: how far does this rule 
apply to non personal substantives, if at all?  Could you clarify any other 
restrictions or applications?

I sometimes translate this construction as an emphatic use of KAI in order to 
clearly show the idea that the two are indeed the same person.  Is this 
permissable?

Finally, I promised a philosophical/theological opinion on this passage.  
This discussion probably is not proper subject for this list so if any would 
like to discuss this further, I will be glad to do so "off-list".

I think that most disagreements on what 2Th 2 says is a question not of what 
the Greek says, but of what the English means.  Having said this and allowing 
for the fact that I am a pre-milleniallist and pre-tribulationist, I hold 
some opinons on this passage which as far as I can discern are in the 
minority among Pre-M/Pre-T's.  I think it is impossible, and perhaps unwise, 
to come to either of these two positions from this passage alone. In fact my 
support for Pre-T comes more from the OT than from the NT.  As to this 
section, I simply am not sure whether the comming and the gathering are the 
same or different events, I lean toward the same, but I don't think it 
matters.  I think they are only one (or two) phase of a broader Day of the 
Lord/Day of Christ (1TH 5:2; 2Th 2:2).  Well, as I previously said I am 
willing to descuss this in greater detail "off list" so if you are 
interested, let me know.

Dale Greenlee
<suedaleg at aol.com>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list