Date: Thu Jun 20 1996 - 09:02:35 EDT
>Sharp himself did not exclude the quasi proper names
>Khristou Iesou/ Kurios Khristou Iesou. So 1 Tim 6:13
>remains an exception.
At the risk of imposing yet ANOTHER restriction to Sharp's rule <g>, I fail
to see how 1 Tim. 6:13 is a problem text for Sharp. I assume you are
referring to the phrase TA PANTA KAI XRISTOU IHSOU.
The problem here is that the article TA is neuter plural accusative while
XRISTOU IHSOU is masculine singluar genitive. Sharp's rule depends on the
single article governing both substantives.
Even without Sharp's rule, most grammars suggest a relationship between two
substatives when they are governed by the same article. Sharp merely defines
this relationship in a narrowly defined construction. In this case, however,
the article doesn't govern the genitive substantives. Thus, Sharp's rule
I admit that Sharp's rule is narrowly defined and thus filled with exceptions
and regulations. Still, the narrowness of the rule is what makes Sharp's
rule absolute. It ALWAYS applies when properly used.
Calvary Theological Seminary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT