From: Jason A. Hare (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jun 22 2001 - 01:07:28 EDT
Pardon my impulsive statement. _After_ I sent that last message to the
list about Wallace *not* taking Titus 2.13 as an example of Sharp's Rule,
I checked out the grammar itself from the Ozark Christian College library.
Having reviewed Wallace's comments, I see that I was mistaken. He *does*
hold that Titus 2.13 (and 2 Peter 1.1) are great examples from Sharp's
Thanks for the correction. I did read Wallace's comments before I
received your e-mail. I appreciate what you have to say. Where can I
find your published discussion of TSKS constructions?
> Dear Jason:
> I know that Rev. 4:11 compromises that rule. But you asked whether Rev. 4:11 compromises "Sharp's Rule." That is universally understood to mean his rule concerning ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, not his sixth rule, which you rightly quoted. Rev. 4:11 does not contradict "Sharp's Rule" but it does help us appreciate that the solution offered by some for the ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, that is, a solution in terms of how a Greek writer *could have* communicated more than one person(that is, by repeating the article before the second KAI-joined noun), is false.
> By the way, Wallace most certainly does believe the Christ's deity is expressed in Titus 2:13. It is 2Thess. 1:11 and others like it that he doubts. You might consider reading my published discussion of these issues after you consider what Wallace has to say. He doubts those texts containing "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" as he sees these expressions as equivalents to proper names. I argue that they may or may not be the equivalent to proper names, but they without question contain proper names ("Jesus Christ") and that if they are not compound expressions (that is, "Savior-Jesus-Christ," "Lord-Jesus-Christ," etc.) then there is no doubt at all that the proper name restricts the application of the noun by being in apposition to it (that is, "Savior, Jesus Christ," "Lord, Jesus Christ," etc.), making the application of the anarthrous noun definite.
> Hence, texts containing such expressions, that is, those texts containing non-proper nouns, cannot be compared to these others and grouped together with them. Yet, that is what Wallace does.
> If we do not make such a comparison, then the pool of examples shrinks considerably. What we find with what's left is that there are instances involving these compound/appositional texts that do apply more than one substantive to the same person (as we see several times in 2 Peter) and other places where they do not. This is much like the pattern that exists with proper names ("John," James" and the like) used apart from common nouns or not in apposition to common or even quasi-proper nouns ("God," "Lord," "Christ," etc.) and texts like Rev. 4:11 where the article precedes both nouns. Sometimes they apply to the same person, and other times (particularly with quasi-proper nouns and cases where the article is repeated) they apply to more than one person.
> Hope that helps.
> Best regards,
> Greg Stafford
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 - 15:36:59 EDT