From: Daniel L. Christiansen (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 17:31:25 EST
Dan Parker wrote [snipped]:
> The rule as first proposed by Granville Sharp did not exclude plurals.
> However, Sharp's revisionists have added exclusions to Sharp's original
> rule to appear to make in an iron-clad fact. Since modern Sharp's
> revisionists have changed the rule so substantially to fit their needs
> I wonder why they still continue to call it Sharp's rule.
While I have no real desire to re-enter this thread in general (which I had imagined
was long dead), I do wonder where this particular statement comes from. The
exclusion of plural substantives from Sharp's construction is implicit in Sharp's
initial statement of his rule, on the first page of his article: his reference to hO
is later clarified as being a reference to hO as opposed to hOI. This exlusion of
plurals is made explicit on page 6 of the article, although Sharp notes here that
sometimes plurals will fulfill the rule, as well.
In short, the multitude of exceptions were Sharp's own, and not the addition of
later writers. Indeed, many grammars misquote and misapply Sharp, because they
leave out his exceptions.
Daniel L. Christiansen
Professor of Biblical Languages, Portland Bible College
Adjunct Professor, Bible Department, Multnomah Bible College
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 - 15:36:49 EDT