If he had been an ordinary man of the earth, he would have sinned, since Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. "For starters, he was the only man who did not sin; he was the perfect image of God — which the first Adam failed to live up to when he ate from the tree.
What do you mean by “not an ordinary man” ? The bible says he was a human being like us in all ways, and subject to temptation like us all, yet without sin. If none of us can live the kind of life he did, then he was not a genuine human being & effectively cheating & the bible is lying when it tells us that we are able to , and should emulate him.If he had been an ordinary man of the earth, he would have sinned, since Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. "
εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον
Your doctrine is far more incoherent then mine, because it violates the spiritual reality of human existence. It's an illusion and a self-deception.
Whilst I disagree with Apollinaris the Younger as to the ψυχῆς, of Christ being replaced completely by o λόγος from οὐρανός, such that there was no human ψυχῆς (this denying the kenosis of Phil 2:7), I believe he was on the right lines. I recall discussing this before: as it is written God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) breathed πνοή ζωής into Adam, so it breathed the same into Jesus, even o λόγος from οὐρανός (subject to kenosis).What do you mean by “not an ordinary man” ? The bible says he was a human being like us in all ways, and subject to temptation like us all, yet without sin. If none of us can live the kind of life he did, then he was not a genuine human being & effectively cheating & the bible is lying when it tells us that we are able to , and should emulate him.
You are an unorthodox (heterodox) Trinitarian I suppose : acknowledging that he was God "before" the Incarnation, but not during. This position is just as unscriptural.Whilst I disagree with Apollinaris the Younger as to the ψυχῆς, of Christ being replaced completely by o λόγος from οὐρανός, such that there was no human ψυχῆς (this denying the kenosis of Phil 2:7), I believe he was on the right lines. I recall discussing this before: as it is written God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) breathed πνοή ζωής into Adam, so it breathed the same into Jesus, even o λόγος from οὐρανός (subject to kenosis).
Hardly. The bible shows the Θεὸς title of the Father being applied also to (a) the Word in heaven, (b) humans on earth, in particular The son of God, cf. John 10:34-36 but always in a qualified sense.You are an unorthodox (heterodox) Trinitarian I suppose : acknowledging that he was God "before" the Incarnation, but not during. This position is just as unscriptural.
Sorry, I'm playing a bit of catch up here. Both of these texts are examples of a direct address, so they do not fall under the umbrella of the rule. Sharp notes this exception and used John 20:28 in particular as an example. Additionally, in Revelation 4:11 the Andreas family variant which has Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν may tell us something of how ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν --the reading of most manuscripts--was understood.The biggest problems that I have with Sharp's rule are that it does not reckon with all instances of TSKS constructions and that it assumes the article's main purpose is to allow the reader to determine the number of individuals being referred to. These problems obscure the actual function of the article, and the rule is hard pressed to explain the article when it is repeated when a single individual is in view like in John 20:28 or Rev. 4:11.
I think it's possible to overcomplicate things. There are no exceptions to the "Sharp" rule #1 in the GNT, over at least eighty examples. I also don't recall seeing a significant number of exceptions outside the GNT, and all the ones I have had proposed to me as exceptions have failed on some point of the rule (plural, impersonal, proper names, al.). So often the rule is accused based upon a misunderstanding of it. Sharp's biggest problem isn't the rule itself, but the textual variants he chose for some of the passages.Or, as I've suggested, Sharp's rule has nothing to do with it, but the application of the rule leads to a similar conclusion by chance. But my disagreement with the rule does not mean the discussion isn't worth having. From what I've seen, I think my suggestion has better explanatory power, fewer problems, and less complexity.
I don't find it plausible here for some reason:But if you suppose, for instance, that the purpose of the article is to inform the reader whether the author is viewing the individuals/groups/things individually or collectively, there is ambiguity in passages like Tit. 2:13. The testimony of the ECFs concerning their understanding of the passage isn't proof of the validity of the rule. It only demonstrates that the grammatical and syntactical features of the language allowed them to reach the same conclusion about the author's meaning without informing us how they reached that conclusion. If the term "God" does distinguish the Father from Jesus, the single article uniting them might indicate that the coming glory is of them collectively (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Such would imply that the glory which Jesus possesses is on the level of God himself. This is especially true when the remainder of the passage speaks clearly of Jesus doing things that are otherwise attributed to God ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον.
No worries.Sorry, I'm playing a bit of catch up here.
What justification is there for assuming a direct address would dictate a change in the grammar? If these examples read, "Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" and "ἄξιός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν" what difference would it make? What justification is there for this exception? My complaints are that the rule offers no explanation for its exceptions and that it offers no proof that the article's purpose is for identification of the number of persons involved as it supposes. Indeed, it is the use or disuse of the article in the exceptions that suggests that marking the number of people that are involved is at best one among other ways that the article is being used.Both of these texts are examples of a direct address, so they do not fall under the umbrella of the rule. Sharp notes this exception and used John 20:28 in particular as an example. Additionally, in Revelation 4:11 the Andreas family variant which has Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν may tell us something of how ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν --the reading of most manuscripts--was understood.
What do these things have to do with the complaints that I have raised about it? Sharp's rule 1 comes with built-in exceptions.I think it's possible to overcomplicate things. There are no exceptions to the "Sharp" rule #1 in the GNT, over at least eighty examples. I also don't recall seeing a significant number of exceptions outside the GNT, and all the ones I have had proposed to me as exceptions have failed on some point of the rule (plural, impersonal, proper names, al.). So often the rule is accused based upon a misunderstanding of it. Sharp's biggest problem isn't the rule itself, but the textual variants he chose for some of the passages.
Sharp notes Rule 6 applies to two individuals (I didn't want to quote elliptically, so I bolded the sentences surrounding somewhat superfluous details),What justification is there for assuming a direct address would dictate a change in the grammar? If these examples read, "Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" and "ἄξιός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν" what difference would it make? What justification is there for this exception?
I hope the above addresses your question. I may not be following your point correctly. Unfortunately, I usually come to these at the end of the day and my mind is already fried!What do these things have to do with the complaints that I have raised about it? Sharp's rule 1 comes with built-in exceptions.
I'm glad you took the time to write this before I responded to the earlier part, because I fear we've been talking past each other. I've given the first rule below (with transliteration for the Greek) and some remarks about it. That's the part I was intending to discuss, though the diversion may well have been my own fault.Sharp notes Rule 6 applies to two individuals (I didn't want to quote elliptically, so I bolded the sentences surrounding somewhat superfluous details),
Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeably to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule, or even the first, (for, this exception relates to both rules,) the context most explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate: as in I Thess. iii. 6 . . . And also in John, xx. 28 . . . If the two nouns (viz. ὁ κύριός and ὁ θεός μου) . . . were the leading nominative substantives of a sentence, they would express the descriptive qualities or dignities of two distinct persons, according to the sixth rule; but, in this last text, two distinct divine characters are applied to one person only ; for, the context clearly expresses to whom the words were addressed by Thomas... (Remarks..., pp. 15, 16)He proceeds after that to note several other examples of the exceptions, particularly in Revelation (1:8, 17, 18; 22:2, 13--I'm just skimming quickly). IMHO I think he should have listed this as a separate rule.
I hope the above addresses your question. I may not be following your point correctly. Unfortunately, I usually come to these at the end of the day and my mind is already fried!
You're right, there is no such thing as "the Sharps rule" of Greek grammar. The only rule that exists in the bible on this score is the TSKTS rule whereby when you have two substantives, where at least one is the functional equivalent of a proper name and both are singular, then two individuals are in view. No exceptions.I'm glad you took the time to write this before I responded to the earlier part, because I fear we've been talking past each other. I've given the first rule below (with transliteration for the Greek) and some remarks about it. That's the part I was intending to discuss, though the diversion may well have been my own fault.
1) When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.
Sharp seemed to be aware of his rule's inability to account for certain passages and gave several exceptions to it throughout his work. For instance, he said that his rule did not apply to plurals or proper names among a few others. Some have since attempted to fortify the rule by clarifying Sharp's earlier remarks and/or expanding upon the exceptions to the rule. However, these combined efforts have done little to demonstrate that rule's conclusion is not circular and have done nothing to demonstrate that it is a legitimate grammatical rule on its own. I feel that the problem with Sharp's rule rests on the fact that he relates the TSKS construction exclusively to "the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person." To put it in the simplest terms I can, I think his conclusion is too narrow.
Consider a few passages with me:
Mk. 5:37 "καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα μετ’ αὐτοῦ συνακολουθῆσαι εἰ μὴ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰακώβου."
Mt. 16:1 "Καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι πειράζοντες ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν σημεῖον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτοῖς."
If the grammatical structure were all that mattered, these passages should fit Sharp's rule since they are TSKS constructions. Sharp's rule fails to account for them not because they use names and plurals but because they cannot refer back to the "person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle," and the use of the article isn't necessary to identify the people involved. In the first example, we can understand that the three men listed in the TSKS construction comprise a single group who Jesus allowed to accompany him. In the second example, the Pharisees and Sadducees already refer to distinct groups. There is no risk of confusion with the presence or the absence of the article. Here, as in the last example, they can be considered as forming a single group, though we have no conception of whether that is because they are traveling together in an actual group or whether they are acting with a common purpose in tempting him or asking questions, etc.
Jn. 11:19 πολλοὶ δὲ ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐληλύθεισαν πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριὰμ ἵνα παραμυθήσωνται αὐτὰς περὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ.
In this example, the use of the TSKS construction could refer to the sister's shared grief or location.
Perhaps this will help clarify what I am meaning about Tit. 2:13 "προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ," where it is possible that Jesus and God are jointly in view in the glory/appearance (however you take it) spoken of. If the TSKS construction doesn't relate to people as Sharp articulated, there are other explanations for it.
As for the side conversation that Sharp's first rule has no exceptions in the New Testament, I doubt that many people follow the rule consistently. (But I'm truly not suggesting that you are among that number). I just doubt there are many Sharp's devotees who have taken the time to develop their own guidelines for distinguishing between quasi-proper names for instance. For my part I've always found it strange that there is so much discussion about II Pet. 1:1 and so little discussion of II Pet. 1:2.
Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν."
Did any of this clarify my meaning? I've enjoyed the discussion, even though preparing this has taken up far too much of my time.
Don't see how that has anything to do with whether one or two individuals are in view with the construction. This is a red herring distraction on the Trinitarians' part; either that or you folks genuinely continue to have conceptional difficulties regarding this issue. I'll give you a simple English example to demonstrate the point since the Greek examples from the bible I gave earlier went over your head:for, the context clearly expresses to whom the words were addressed by Thomas... (Remarks..., pp. 15, 16)
He proceeds after that to note several other examples of the exceptions, particularly in Revelation (1:8, 17, 18; 22:2, 13--I'm just skimming quickly). IMHO I think he should have listed this as a separate rule.
I hope the above addresses your question. I may not be following your point correctly. Unfortunately, I usually come to these at the end of the day and my mind is already fried!
Most manuscripts in Mark 5:37 read εἰ μὴ Πέτρον... but both examples fall under the umbrella of a different rule. In this case, they are all common in that they were singled out by Jesus. In the second, the Pharisees and Sadducees (rivals, no less) came together for the purpose of tempting Jesus. But I think we are both more or less agreed on how to interpret these examples. They just don't fall under the "Sharp Rule 1."Consider a few passages with me:
Mk. 5:37 "καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα μετ’ αὐτοῦ συνακολουθῆσαι εἰ μὴ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰακώβου."
Mt. 16:1 "Καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι πειράζοντες ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν σημεῖον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτοῖς."
If the grammatical structure were all that mattered, these passages should fit Sharp's rule since they are TSKS constructions. Sharp's rule fails to account for them not because they use names and plurals but because they cannot refer back to the "person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle," and the use of the article isn't necessary to identify the people involved.
Agreed. This would usually be noted by grammarians as well.Jn. 11:19 πολλοὶ δὲ ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐληλύθεισαν πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριὰμ ἵνα παραμυθήσωνται αὐτὰς περὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ.
In this example, the use of the TSKS construction could refer to the sister's shared grief or location.
Multiple individuals have been through the GNT trying to find exceptions, and even Winstanley--regarded as Sharp's greatest "adversary"--was forced to admit that, outside the Christologically significant passages, there were no exceptions in the GNT. I don't see how this would be circular.However, these combined efforts have done little to demonstrate that rule's conclusion is not circular and have done nothing to demonstrate that it is a legitimate grammatical rule on its own.
He actually doesn't do this, but it's almost as though he had a lawyer help him write his remarks so if you don't read them carefully or thoroughly, you'll miss some important details. There are actually a number of competent individuals--whether detractors or supporters--who misapplied the rules through misunderstanding.I feel that the problem with Sharp's rule rests on the fact that he relates the TSKS construction exclusively to "the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person." To put it in the simplest terms I can, I think his conclusion is too narrow.
Contextually, yes, you might make that point but then at 1:3 we're back to one subject. Also at Titus 2:14, we have one subject. I don't find these types of statements regarding the Godhead uncommon in the Old Testament or in the New, and I do feel that can complicate the matter. Consider passages like Isaiah 48:12-16, Jeremiah 50:40, Hosea 1:7, Zechariah 2:8 and 12:10.For my part I've always found it strange that there is so much discussion about II Pet. 1:1 and so little discussion of II Pet. 1:2.
Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν."
I'm not sure why this rule gets pinned on Sharp, as though it wasn't known before. For example, the German theologians Salamo Glassus notes it in his Sacred Philology, written somewhere around the 1640s and he cautions that it does not apply to plurals. Beza in the late 1500s also remarks on it. As I said before, Erasmus, al. subverted the rule in the formative years of the revival of Greek study in Europe and he was sharply criticized for it.You're right, there is no such thing as "the Sharps rule" of Greek grammar.
Outside the Christologically significant passages there are no exceptions to Rule 1 when the rule is properly followed. There are at least eighty or so examples, and I provided a significant number of them in examples earlier in the thread.The only rule that exists in the bible on this score is the TSKTS rule whereby when you have two substantives, where at least one is the functional equivalent of a proper name and both are singular, then two individuals are in view. No exceptions.
Is your dog present in the context? Because otherwise Jack just called his friend a dog...Jack exclaimed to/towards John, "My friend & my dog!"
Yes obviously. Just as God is “present” “in the context “ of John 20:28. Also, even without “context” I doubt any sane person would call his friend a literal dog. So even had there been no context it would be a good assumption that a true and good person would not call his friend a literal dog.Is there a dog present in the context? Because otherwise Jack just called his friend a dog...
I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. It would be an awkward English construction, "and he saw his dog and his friend John, and said to him (John), 'My friend and my dog." Sane or not sane has nothing to do with it, since TRJM wrote poorly. You gave an extremely poor example, and you missed my point completely.Yes obviously. Just as God is “present” “in the context “ of John 20:28. Also, even without “context” I doubt any sane person would call his friend a literal dog. So even had there been no context it would be a good assumption that a true and good person would not call his friend a literal dog.
I’m glad though that you finally get the point about εἶπεν αὐτῷ.
I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. It would be an awkward English construction, "and he saw his dog and his friend John, and said to him (John), 'My friend and my dog." Sane or not sane has nothing to do with it, since TRJM wrote poorly. You gave an extremely poor example, and you missed my point completely.
I'm also getting tired of you saying the Greek can only mean this or that, without exception, when clearly the vast majority of Greeks themselves disagree, and you are going against the broad consensus of grammarians and commentators of the passage as well.
I'm aware of that function. I just find it to be an implausible solution because nothing contextually or grammatically supports it. The address is specifically to Jesus, with no one else as your English example required. It involves a supposition that Thomas has reduced a recital of the Lord's name to an exclamatory remark--something that is generally regarded to be contrary to the commandments--and that Christ would actually commend him for it.We’re dealing with Koine Greek here: it is called a nominative of exclamation.
I'm not a Unitarian who has to deny and obscure the meaning of the passage at all costs. I didn't say the Greek of John 20:28 was awkward. I said your dog and friend example "would be an awkward English construction."Nothing “awkward” about it. You seem to be in denial at this point, I fear.
Everything contextually and grammatically supports it. Read this thread for the details.I'm aware of that function. I just find it to be an implausible solution because nothing contextually or grammatically supports it. The address is specifically to Jesus, with no one else as your English example required. It involves a supposition that Thomas has reduced a recital of the Lord's name to an exclamatory remark--something that is generally regarded to be contrary to the commandments--and that Christ would actually commend him for it.
What are you going to do with such places as ἄξιος εἶ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, as we find in most manuscripts of Revelation 4:11? Because it's also an address, the article can be added before both nouns. That this was understood can be observed in the normalized form of address, Ἄξιος εἶ Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν present here in other manuscripts.
Or when Christ addresses the Father on the cross, he says, Ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου (Mark 15:34). Is that two separate Gods? Certainly not, since the nominative stands for a vocative and that is abundantly clear from Θεέ μου θεέ μου as it is translated in Matthew 27:46. These are agnate constructions.
I'm not a Unitarian who has to deny and obscure the meaning of the passage at all costs. I didn't say the Greek of John 20:28 was awkward. I said your dog and friend example "would be an awkward English construction."
Not everyone learns Greek on the fly from blogs, websites and forums. Some of us actually take the time to learn the grammar itself before commenting on it. All I see is another long thread where Sharp's rule 6 is applied to constructions it's not supposed to be applied to (as Sharp himself observed).Everything contextually and grammatically supports it. Read this thread for the details.
You don’t seem to have read the whole thread.Not everyone learns Greek on the fly from blogs, websites and forums. Some of us actually take the time to learn the grammar itself before commenting on it. All I see is another long thread where Sharp's rule 6 is applied to constructions it's not supposed to be applied to (as Sharp himself observed).
The only question I have is whether you are suggesting that the text I quoted for Mark 5:37 is ungrammatical.Most manuscripts in Mark 5:37 read εἰ μὴ Πέτρον... but both examples fall under the umbrella of a different rule. In this case, they are all common in that they were singled out by Jesus. In the second, the Pharisees and Sadducees (rivals, no less) came together for the purpose of tempting Jesus. But I think we are both more or less agreed on how to interpret these examples.
Of course, the examples I gave don't fall under "Sharp Rule 1" because Sharp defined the rule and wrote it to exclude what didn't fit. I hope to make clear why the examples I gave are relevant somewhere below.They just don't fall under the "Sharp Rule 1."
I'm going to jump around relative to the remarks I quoted above, so please bear with me. I don't know what all you mean when you refer to "John" as an author who "deliberately breaks the rules," but there are two immediate concerns. The first is that I don't know what works you attribute to "John." I don't think the author of Revelation and the author of the Gospel of John are the same person. I don't find the grammar in the Gospel of John to be rule breaking. The situation is quite different if Revelation. The second problem, conveniently enough, is the question of "rule breaking" itself. Fluent speakers of a language don't often think about what is grammatically correct. We know what words we can use to express ourselves, and we are content with some level of ambiguity. Context will usually make our intended meaning clear, but when the sentence is unclear it is still grammatically correct more often than not.Grammar itself is by design, and a lot of deliberate thought goes into it. Exceptions are quite normal. What an "exception" usually means is that the construction fails to fall under the umbrella of the rule, chiefly because it falls under the umbrella of another. How a grammarian chooses to express these may be more or less complicated. Stating exceptions more or less prevents others from forming a caricature of the rule where misunderstanding may be present.
I believe the rules could be more simply classed (where καὶ is involved) and generally stated as follows:
Of course, I didn't have a lawyer present when writing these ?. So really in these cases, the article serves to remove--not create--ambiguity. We could say #2 is an exception to #1, or that #3 is an exception to #2. But really what we have is three separate rules.
- With personal titles, descriptions and epithets of the same case (singular)
- Article before the first and not second = 1 subject.
- Article before both = 2 subjects.
- Article absent before both = 2 subjects
- With plurals, things (impersonal), and proper names
- Article before first item in a list and not before the next = both are on parity w/ a particular unifying aspect.
- Article absent = normal list
- With a direct address
- The article may be placed emphatically before each title of address.
Of course, someone somewhere will always break a rule--whether or deliberately or accidentally. John, for example, is a prime example of an author who deliberately breaks the rules. So in that situation, we have to ask "why."
It appears that Sharp's rules fall under the scope of these general remarks. He seems to be narrowing the application of these principles, so can it rightly be said that the cases that don't fit Sharp's canon are breaking his rule. It seems more accurate to say that there are instances where it is unclear what the function of the article is.Smyth said:1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχα_γοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2.2.8, τὰ_ς μεγίστα_ς καὶ ἐλαχίστα_ς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1.10, ““ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος” the calumniation and envy of the multitude” P. A. 28a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: ““περὶ τὰ_ς ἑαυτ ῶν ψυ_χὰ_ς καὶ σώματα” concerning their own lives and persons” X. A. 3.2.20.
[*] 1144. A repeated article lays stress on each word: ““ὁ Θρᾷξ καὶ ὁ βάρβαρος” the Thracian and the barbarian” D. 23.132 (here the subject remains the same), ““οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ λοχα_γοί” the generals and the captains” X. A. 7.1.13.
It is circular to claim that the Christologically significant passages must adhere to Sharp's rule, because the other passages in the New Testament do. The debated passages do not share the same pragmatic features. When you look at the full range of TSKS and TSKTS constructions in the New Testament without the blinders of Sharp's exceptions, it is beyond doubt that the article serves a greater purpose than simply denoting the number of individuals. Sharp failed to demonstrate that the explanations that already exist for passages with names, plurals, etc. don't also hold true in the narrow instances where his rule applies. There are other grammatical explanations that can account for what we see in the text.Multiple individuals have been through the GNT trying to find exceptions, and even Winstanley--regarded as Sharp's greatest "adversary"--was forced to admit that, outside the Christologically significant passages, there were no exceptions in the GNT. I don't see how this would be circular.
I was quoting his remarks, so I've at least got that much right. My point was that his explanations seem to relate everything to number of people. Do you know of an exception?He actually doesn't do this, but it's almost as though he had a lawyer help him write his remarks so if you don't read them carefully or thoroughly, you'll miss some important details. There are actually a number of competent individuals--whether detractors or supporters--who misapplied the rules through misunderstanding.
I was only trying to demonstrate how inconsistent many are in their application of the rules. (And how strained some of the justifications can be, e.g. ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ is only ever used for one person in the literature.)Contextually, yes, you might make that point but then at 1:3 we're back to one subject. Also at Titus 2:14, we have one subject. I don't find these types of statements regarding the Godhead uncommon in the Old Testament or in the New, and I do feel that can complicate the matter. Consider passages like Isaiah 48:12-16, Jeremiah 50:40, Hosea 1:7, Zechariah 2:8 and 12:10.