No, not at all. I just noted the variant.
Because they fall under the umbrella of an altogether different rule of grammar. Salamo Glassius noted the same rule with virtually the same exceptions (if you parse the wording correctly) back in the 1640s in his Sacred Philology:
I didn't mean to say you misquoted him. I meant that some of Sharp's exceptions are noted after the rule and its examples have been stated.
I don't really agree that it is inconsistent. But I will note that Sharp was writing not as a grammarian but directed his arguments against the Socinians and Unitarians. I wrote what I believe a simplistic overview of the rules would be, and in my experience they will all neatly fall under those classes. If you note an exception that falls outside those classes that I listed, it would be of interest. So I think the "exceptions" can be overstated.
As I wrote above, the exceptions are written into Sharp's rule:
I didn't mean in these cases (e.g. John 20:28). Particularly, some points in Revelation which is what you noted also. It seems we are in agreement. My point was only that sometimes the rules are broken for a reason. I apologize for the confusion.
I would have to know the greater context of the Thracian and the Barbarian. If it's one individual, I'm assuming that has already been addressed in the context. I mentioned "direct address" because that was the case with John 20:28, but you'll note my quote above of Sharp doesn't necessitate this be the only method.
I agree with this. I don't follow all of Sharp's examples, and I think he could have written the rules better. But he also wasn't a grammarian, so his rules are written more like a lawyer would write them than a grammarian. You should consider how I suggested them above, and if you offer criticism from there it would be appreciated.
Or are we speaking of one who is (according to the English idiom) "a Thracian and a barbarian"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with this work. I'll have to read it when I have time. Immediately jumping into the text, I'm not familiar with its characters.
I never add or omit anything with malicious intent, but if you note specifically I can correct myself. I either have to write quickly between things or I have to write late. Both are a bad mix for being thorough. I wasn't saying at all that anything was ungrammatical, so I believe we have a misunderstanding on this point. I wasn't implying that anyone in the examples was breaking rules. I just said that for various reasons it's impossible for any rule to be 100% adhered to in 100% of cases. Maybe I'm not expressing it right? I don't think we are actually in disagreement over this. I may just not be expressing my thoughts correctly.
A proper name by nature distinguishes a particular individual, so two in tandem denotes two individuals and cannot form a singular reference. Speaking generally--I understand there may be a Simon called "Kepha" or "Peter," but this would normally be noted by context. E.g. the Pharisees and Sadduccees may have a common purpose, but they are in fact rival factions. Also, plurals by nature denote multiple individuals, and therefore cannot take on a singular or personal reference. Things also have limitations: a stone is not a leaf, and a leaf is not a stone. I'm speaking in general, and I don't have a lawyer on hand to think of all the potential exceptions. In many cases, we don't need an article to remove ambiguity or designate a single subject being spoken of.
Yes, I pretty much read the whole thread, which was locked down because it meandered off topic. I'd almost think that Isaac Newton was you. Or at least you borrowed his Jack, John, dog argument. His points didn't fare so well over there, so why not try them here instead...
You'd be right.
So give us one good reason why Isaac Newton's understanding of John 20:28 is bad ? I can give you a few why yours is impossible. One good reason, at a time.
Okay. Just checking. The comment there taken with the comment further down about John's rule breaking made me wonder.
My question from above is relevant here again: how do you know that they fall under a "different rule of grammar"? If you look at the exceptions that I gave the use of the article relates to a feature that certainly has nothing to do with personhood.
That can be said of passages like John 20:28 and Proverbs 24:21 because you have the benefit of additional information to steer you out of trouble. In the passages where the words and phrases used could on their own refer to specific individuals, that is not the case. In passages like II Pet. 1:1-2 (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.), where the term "God" might be understood in reference to the Father or to Jesus, there is no sure way to know whether or not the passage refers to one or two individuals. To claim that these ambiguous passages must conform to Sharp's rule because all the other passages do is circular reasoning, because, as I have tried to explain, there are other factors that can explain the use of the article other than whether or not a single person is in view as seems to be the focus of Sharp's rule.
I didn't take it that way. I just don't know of anywhere where he mentions anything other than number of people being in view, but it's been a long time since I've read his work. Even Salamo Glassius above referred to the use of the article relating to "subjects" which is broader than the scope of persons in Sharp's rules as I understand them. And as you have said, maybe I have missed his remarks outside of that context. Do you know if he ever states that his rules apply to something other than the number of individuals in view?
Really? You don't think that it is inconsistent for the net bible to make a distinction to have a different number of people referred to in the TSKS constructions in I Peter 1:1 and I Peter 1:2?
I understand that. My point was that direct address does not change the application of the structure. Context does. Again, it seems to me that Sharp formulated rules to refer to the constructions referring back to people. Essentially he states that TSKS = one person and TSKTS = two people. As far as I know, he doesn't have an explanation for when the terms used in these constructions don't refer to people but expand upon a thought or idea, as in II Peter 1:1-2 where the phrases are modifying "righteousness" and "knowledge"
No problem.
It was addressed in context. My point was the specific issue of direct address. The main issue is that I don't know of Sharp relating his construction to anything other than people.
I'll do that. It'll be after I finish up with your next post, and I don't know how long it will take. If you want to wait until I've finished them all to respond, that would probably help.
The only point was about direct address. We are good.
I understand you. I was only asking for clarification. I feel you always act in good faith in our interactions.
Except in instances where an individual may be described by two or more names which does occur.
I spoke too soon! But, yes, this would usually be noted in context unless the correspondents already possessed the background necessary to make sense of it. Also in describing these constructions, even those of a more general nature, we would do well to remember how specific and relatively rare these constructions are.
That's very true. But I would expect those instances where the article is not needed to be the most helpful for determining why the article might have been used.
Right. And the same hold true in reverse, titles and descriptions can take different names. It's very tricky business.
Why don't you just come out and say "my understanding of John 20:28 is bad?" Why are you pretending like you are not Isaac Newton?
I see your point, but honestly, I would consider a direct address as a change of context. I would say all the rules involve nuances of context.
This seems to me to be a good example of an enumeration, where the article serves to form a sort of conceptual unity. I don't see this as identical to such a passage, for example, as Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν (Philemon 1:1) or Ἐπαϕρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελϕὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συστρατιώτην μου... (Philippians 2:25), where you have a name attached to multiple descriptors.
Or they are also united under feature that they might possibly refer to Christ as "God," which will always draw contest from those who believe Christ is not called "God" in the scriptures. I don't find that presumption (which others keep appealing to) a good place to start.
Both these passages involve variations of wording and punctuation. That makes it difficult to pin down with patristic support and I would be less inclined to appeal to the construction here.
I have not studied Ephesians 5:5 much, but coincidentally have come across references to it by Chrysostom of Constantinople, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret of Cyrus. Wordsworth said he encountered the same construction hundreds of times (not necessarily in the context of this verse), and always of one person. Since two of these were archbishops of major Sees of the church, I assume that this understanding was probably widespread. I regard Christ as a title, but "in the kingdom of Christ and God" really is probably the only way to translate it without turning it into a paraphrase.
I've never seen any Greek father comment on this as referring to Christ as God to my recollection. I note that when Chrysostom comments, after quoting the passage he writes, "that is, this grace He Himself has given us, that He may be glorified in us, and that He may glorify us in Him." This does not rule out that two individuals are spoken of, but it is not the clear sort of testimony I would hope to see.
Since both of these involve textual variants, it's more difficult to pin down precedent with the Greek fathers so many of us would prefer just to err on the side of caution. In most manuscripts I believe there are two articles in 2 Timothy 4:1, so I certainly would not adopt a translation where only one individual is spoken of. In the NA/UBS for 1 Timothy 5:21 κυρίου is omitted.
The attributive genitive is a common feature in Paul's writings and that is shaped by the influence of the Hebrew language, and the passage isn't contested in any Greek literature I'm aware of. I don't see any evidence in Greek of any other understanding prior to Erasmus, and it's generally regarded that Winer caused the most trouble in European understanding of the usage of the article in this passage. In v. 14, there's one subject, though that may not necessarily be conclusive. This passage is most frequently appealed to among the Greek fathers, since the Arians said that Christ was a "little god" and clearly is not anarthrous.
Sharp's work was actually more of a polemic against the Socinians and Unitarians, so the focus really was on individuals. But grammarians went deeper into plural and impersonal and essentially concluded that his rules are sound. Since our knowledge of the language is constantly being refined, I am not much concerned about slight modifications in the wording, even though I think Wallace's reformulation really didn't add anything new, just made it more verbose.
.
Rather: appearing of the glory.
I agree that direct address can be a change of context, but it isn't one that, alone, demands a particular understanding of a TSKS/TSKTS construction.
I agree with you, and that's been my point all along. They aren't the same. The example TSKS constructions you have given here refer back to a person. The example from Herodotus is seemingly a result of these individuals' shared circumstance. The problems for Sharp's rules arise when there is more than one explanation possible for the use of a single article. That is precisely what we see in passages like Eph. 5:5.
Sharp seems to me to have missed the obvious difference of passages like Herodotus above and Eph. 5:5 precisely because he assumed that the TSKS construction's purpose is to distinguish the number of people being referred to. The potential problem that I am describing here doesn't seem to cross his mind in his remarks on Eph. 5:5.
I know the feeling. I end up looking for more than I am able to keep up with.
He said he encountered the phrase "The kingdom of ___ and ___" hundreds of times? Was he talking about Patristic literature?
"The kingdom of Christ and of God"
Tracking down these citations is a worthwhile effort, but I don't think it sheds much light on this matter. Many (most?) of the passages aren't ambiguous anyway, and the ECF remarks only show their understanding of the texts. We have no way of knowing which of their conclusions were based on theology and which were based on grammar.
I can respect that. It is caution that prevents me from accepting Sharp's rules unconditionally.
If you feel that 2 Tim. 4:1 should follow the majority, we can strike it from discussion for simplicity's sake.
I believe where you have "2 Tim. 4:1" you meant I Tim. 5:21, right? This is by far the most interesting verse of the two. I'm a bit surprised you see any unity at all. (I'm not intending to be snarky.) Is it because of the use of a proper name or the like?
I wouldn't expect it to be contested. They wouldn't have a problem with "the kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of Christ." So, I wouldn't expect them to have a problem with "the kingdom of God and Christ." (Talking about ECFs, not Jewish authors, obviously)
Then I dread to think what you'd say about me!
It's an attributive genitive. It is a construction very favorable to Hebrew speakers, and one Paul uses frequently.
Yes.
I think it's fair that Sharp dealt with the Greek of the New Testament.
In the patristic literature I've seen this passage quoted in only three places that I recall, and all of them speak of the passage as referring to Christ as God. But it's one of those things where I just have to keep my eyes open--I may have seen it elsewhere, and I may in the future. What I can say is that I don't recall every seeing it clearly used of two individuals.
I feel that would be the best way to approach it.
Our best is no substitute for native understanding. I'm not just looking at how they understood the passages, but how they might quote their opponents on it or how their opponents would respond. I don't think the same argument would last for centuries if the defense was merely, "the passage is ambiguous" or "you misread it" or "another way to interpret is." I have seen them make the opposite comment, though, that Paul is plainly referring to Christ as "great God."
I don't recall my thought process back that far. ? The texts have two articles at 2 Timothy 4:1. Yes, 1 Tim. 5:21 is an interesting example. I noted my thoughts above. In 1 Timothy 5:21 there's certainly a conceptual unity. Unless I find patristic support for this passage, I think that (Κυρίου) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is far more safely taken as a proper name.
I'm pretty laid back.Then I dread to think what you'd say about me!
Sounds good. It was roughly jotted down. "Direct address" is probably too narrow.