From: Dan Parker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Nov 05 2000 - 20:46:14 EST
> In a message dated 11/4/00 4:31:41 PM, email@example.com writes:
> << I would offer John 17:3 for your consideration. The expression that
> I have in mind is TON MONON ALHQINON QEON KAI hON APESTEILAS. This
> is article + substantive + KAI + substantive and meets your criteria.
> This appears to be an exception to Sharps. It appears that you place
> great merit in the fact that "there are no exceptions in the GNT,"
> ... well, maybe one now ;) Therefore you should also embrace Smart's
> rule. Is this the case? >>
> Actually Sharp's rule does not apply here because TON MONON ALHQINON QEON is
> in apposition to SE and hON APESTEILAS is in aposition to IHSOUN CRISTON. KAI
> links SE to IHSOUN CRISTON. Even if the KAI did link TON MONON ALHQINON QEON
> to hON APESTEILAS, the latter is a relative clause and therefore fall outside
> the parameters of the construction.
> Charles E. Powell, Ph.D.
> (h) firstname.lastname@example.org
> (w) email@example.com
> (h) 972-231-4166
> (w) 214-841-3763
Charles, where in Sharp's rule does it state that one of the substantives
must be independent and not in apposition to something? Is this yet
_another_ exception to Sharp's rule ;-)
It also appears that your logic is circular. If you assume that just TON
MONON ALHQINON QEON is in apposition to SE and that hON APESTEILAS is
in apposition to IHSOUN CRISTON you have already decided ahead of time
what the passage says. Both substantives are also in the same case and
this view is also re-enforced because of Jesus apparently speaking about
himself in the third person. That is why there are some who consider
that TON MONON ALHQINON QEON KAI hON APESTEILAS IHSOUN CRISTON is all
in apposition to SE, and that it is a proper example of Sharp's.
Also, I do not understand what we learn about Greek by continuing to
add exceptions to Sharp's rule, like the next one which you propose
the exclusion of certain types of substantives. Both Smyth  and
Porter [Idioms, 245] give the substantive as one of the functions of
the relative clause. Porter actually says that the "substantival relative
clause" is "the most common form of relative clause in the NT." (ibid)
It also does not appear that the relative pronoun functions as a definite
article [invalidating it from Sharps], thus identifying the one who was
sent from God as a unique individual who could be recognized by this
appellation alone, because Jesus was not the only one ever sent from
God. (Cf. John 1:6) The use of the relative clause with an unspecified
referent is used elsewhere in the book of John (e.g. hON EXEIS at Jn
4:18) [Porter's Idioms, 251]
Therefore, I again submit that Sharp's has decidedly more exceptions
that only seem to be introduced to bolster the rule itself and serve
no other useful purpose.
On the other hand, Smart's rule just has the rule itself with no further
exceptions needed, including plurals, proper names, quasi-proper names,
relative clauses, and anything in apposition to the substantives,
etc .....and there are _no_ exceptions to Smart's rule.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:40 EDT