Re[2]: Sharp's Rule Extension/ Exceptions

Date: Tue Jun 18 1996 - 14:00:00 EDT

>>>As Dan Wallace points out in his forthcoming grammar, .... In order
     for the two substantives to be considered as referring to the same
     person in an article-substantive-kai-substantive construction, there
     are three specific criterion which must be met:
     1. Neither should be impersonal.
     2. Neither should be plural.
     3. Neither should be a proper name.<<<
     It is of note that a thesis is being prepared to show the limitations
     of Sharp's rule. It answers and inclludes points from Wallace's
     original thesis. The author said to request a copy from It will be ready in about a month.
>> 1 Tim 6:13 is another type of article-noun-kai-noun
>> construction where the second noun is clearly a distinct
>> person from the first, although it fits 1, 2, and 3 above.
> This one seems to violate the 3rd restriction... is not XRISTOU
> IHSOU a proper name? Perhaps I missed something here? Please let
> me know if I am not following your point...
     Sharp himself did not exclude the quasi proper names Khristou Iesou/
     Kurios Khristou Iesou. So 1 Tim 6:13 remains an exception.
     But bringing up quasi proper names truly does open up the subject.
     Perhaps another criterion: "Neither should be a quasi proper name"
     should be added. This would just about eliminate the Sharp debate
     from the N.T., which would be wonderful. Let's follow the reasoning
     to which your question leads.
     If we wish to exclude quasi proper names, then we examine Paul's use
     of "Soteros Iesou Khristou" as to whether or not it falls in the same
     category of a quasi proper name. We find that it does. When
     "Soteros Iesou Khristou" appears before kai, it has the article. When
     it follows kai, EVEN IN NON-SHARP CONSTRUCTIONS, it LACKS the article.
     Soteros by itself is one thing. But "Soteros Iesou Khristou" is quite
     It is this very point that causes some translators to reject Sharp's
     rule at Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 (beside the parallel contextual
     constructions at Titus 1:4 and 2 Pet 1:2). I include the comments of
     Ezra Abbot as one while commenting on Titus 2:13 in "The Authorship of
     the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays", Boston, 1888, pp.
     439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found:
     "Take an example from the New Testament. ... In the case before us
     [Titus 2:13], the omission of the article before soteros seems to me
     to present no difficulty, -- not because soteros is made sufficiently
     definite by the addition of hemon (Winer), for, since God as well as
     Christ is also called "our Savior," he doxa tou megalou Theou kai
     soteros hemon, STANDING ALONE, would most naturally be understood of
     one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of Iesou
     Khristou to soteros hemon changes the case entirely, restricting the
     soteros hemon to a person or being who, according to Paul's HABITUAL
     USE OF LANGUAGE, is distinguished from the person or being whom he
     designates as ho theos, so that there was no need of the repetition of
     the article to prevent ambiguity. "
     He continues with 2 Thess. 1:12:
     "So in 2 Thess. 2:12, the expression kata ten kharin tou Theou hemon
     kai kuriou would naturally be understood of one subject, and the
     article would be required before kuriou if two were intended; but the
     simple addition of Iesou Khristou to kuriou makes the reference to the
     two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article."
     Therefore Mark, the exclusion of quasi proper names from Sharp's rule
     would cause 2 Thess 1:12, 1 Tim 5:21, 1 Tim 6:13, 2 Tim 4:1, Jude 4 to
     be excluded (Khristou Iesou; Kurios Khristou Iesou), and it would also
     exclude Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 (Soteros Iesou Khristou). And that
     just about eliminates the Sharp's rule debate in the N.T! Frankly, I
     think Sharp should have excluded quasi proper names from his rule
     since they truly are definite references to distinct persons.
     Sincerely and truly yours,
     P.S. If Dan Wallace injects "antecedent probability" into his
     grammar, I hope he will also address constructions with quasi proper
     names with the probabililty equation so that we compare apples with
     apples and the probability will not appear surprisingly large.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT