The Granville Sharp Rule
From Textus Receptus
This rule states that when two nouns are connected by και and the article precedes only the first noun, the two nouns always refer to the same person when neither noun is impersonal, plural nor a proper name.
Contents |
Granville's letters
One of Granville's letters written in 1778 (published in 1798), propounded what has come to be known as The Granville Sharp Rule (in actuality only the first of six principles involving the article that Sharp articulated). This is the rule as stated in Sharp's book, Remarks On The Uses Of The Definitive Article In The Greek Text of the New Testament (Philadelphia: B.B. Hopkins and Co., 1807):
- When the copulative kai (“and”) connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill] if the articles ho (“the”), or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and it 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. (p. 3)
This rule is claimed to have a profound bearing on Unitarian doctrine, which led to a ‘celebrated controversy’, in which many leading divines took part, including Christopher Wordsworth.
Daniel Wallace
Daniel B. Wallace says about Sharp:
- “His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious truth ... As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”
But Wallace claims that this rule is often too broadly applied. “Sharp’s rule Number 1” does not always work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, a phrase that follows the form article-noun-“and”-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which is one a subset of the other, or two identical groups. In other words, the rule is of very specific and limited application.
Daniel B. Wallace in his Selected Notes on the Syntax of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed., 1981, p. 100, quotes "Granville Sharp's Rule":
- "When the copulative kai [`and'] connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles), of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article [ho], 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..."
Wallace's "Exhaustive List" of Sharp's Constructions with nouns:
1. Mark 12:26 - "The God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of ..."
2. Jn. 20:17 - "The God of me and Father of you and God of me and ..."
3. Ro. 15:6 - "The God and Father of the Lord of us"
4. 1 Cor. 15:24 - "To the God and Father"
5. 2 Cor. 1:3 (a) - "the God and Father of the Lord of us"
6. 2 Cor. 1:3 (b) - "the Father of the mercies and God of all comfort"
7. 2 Cor. 11:31 - "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus"
8. Gal. 1:4 - "the will of the God and Father of us"
9. Eph. 5:20 - "to the God and Father"
10. Eph. 6:21 - "the loved brother and faithful servant in Lord"
11. Eph. 4:20 - "to the but God and Father of us"
12. Col. 3:17 - (Not in Westcott and Hort, Nestle, or UBS text as a Sharp's construction)
13. Col. 4:17 - "the loved brother & faithful servant and fellow slave in Lord"
14. 1 Thess. 1:3 - "Of the God and Father of us"
15. 1 Thess. 3:2 - "the brother of us and servant of the God"
16. 1 Thess. 3:11 - "the God and Father of us and the Lord of us Jesus Christ"
17. 1 Thess. 3:13 - "of the God and Father of us"
18. 1 Tim. 6:15 - "the King of ... and Lord of ..."
19. James 1:27 - "beside the God and Father"
20. 1 Pet. 1:3 - "the God and Father of the Lord of us of Jesus Christ"
21. 1 Pet. 2:25 - "upon the shepherd and overseer of ..."
22. 1 Pet. 5:1 - "the fellow older man and witness of ..."
23. 2 Pet. 1:11 - "Of the Lord of us and of Savior Jesus Christ"
24. 2 Pet. 2:20 - "Of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ"
25. 2 Pet. 3:2 - "Of the Lord and Savior"
26. 2 Pet. 3:18 - "Of the Lord of us and of Savior Jesus Christ"
27. 1 Jn. 5:20 - "this is the true God and LIFE [abstract] everlasting"
28. Jude 4 - "the only master and Lord of us, Jesus Christ"
29. Rev. 1:6 - "To the God and Father of him"
30. Rev. 1:9 - "the brother of you and co-sharer in ..."
Also Examined Separately by Wallace (pp. 102-103)
31. Eph. 1:3 - "the God and Father of ..."
32. James 3:9 - "the Lord and Father"
33. Mark 6:3 - "the son of Mary and brother of James"
34. Luke 20:37 - "the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob"
35. Phil. 2:25 - "the brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier of me"
The above list is Wallace's "exhaustive list" of all nouns used in Sharp's constructions (except, of course, for the 4 trinitarian "proofs").
Notice that all but James 3:9 and 1 John 5:20 are part of "prepositional" constructions (Col. 3:17 is not in a Sharp's Construction in the best trinitarian texts and refers only to the Father who is God). 1 John 5:20 violates Wallace's own rule: it has a non-personal noun ("life")! "Life" is also abstract (see study on Wallace's "Qualitative" Rule for John 1:1).
Wallace's "Exhaustive List" of Sharp's Constructions (participles) include:
- 1. Matt. 7:26 - "the (one) hearing of me ... and not doing them"
- 2. Matt. 13:23 - "the (one) the word hearing and comprehending"
- 3. Mark 15:29 - "the (one) tearing down the temple and building (it)"
- 4. Mark 16:16 - "the (one) having believed and having been baptized"
- 5. Luke 6:49 - "the (one) but having heard and not having done"
- 6. Luke 12:47 - "the (one) having known the will ... not having prepared"
- 7. Luke 13:34 - "the (one) killing the prophets and stoning the (ones) having been sent forth"
- 8. John 3:29 - "the (one) having stood and hearing"
- 9. John 5:24 - "the (one) the word of me hearing and believing"
- 10. John 5:35 - "the (one) burning and shining"
- 11. John 6:33
- 12. John 6:40
- 13. John 6:45
- 14. John 6:54
- 15. John 6:56
- 16. John 8:50
- 17. John 9:8
- 18. John 11:2
- 19. John 11:26
- 20. John 12:29
- 21. John 12:48
- 22. John 14:21
- 23. Acts 10:35
- 24. Acts 15:38
- 25. Romans 2:3
- 26. 1 Cor. 11:29
- 27. 1 Cor. 16:16
- 28. 2 Cor. 1:21
- 29. 2 Cor. 5:15
- 30. 2 Cor. 5:18
- 31. Gal. 1:15
- 32. Gal. 2:20
- 33. Gal. 3:5
- 34. Eph. 2:14 (listed separately, p. 103)
- 35. 2 Thess. 2:4
- 36. 2 Thess. 2:16
- 37. 1 Tim. 5:5
- 38. 2 Tim. 1:9
- 39. Heb. 7:1
- 40. James 1:5
- 41. 1 Pet. 1:21
- 42. 1 John 2:9
- 43. Rev. 1:5
- 44. Rev. 3:7
- 45. Rev. 16:15
- 46. Rev. 22:8
Calvin Winstanley
Of Granville Sharp's most successful critic, Calvin Winstanley, Wallace says:
- "Winstanley conceded 'There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts [i.e. the ones Sharp used to adduce Christ's deity] be such ... it is nothing surprising to find all these particular texts in question appearing as the exceptions to your rule, and the sole exceptions ... in the New Testament' - an obvious concession that he could find no exceptions save for the ones he supposed exist in the christologically pregnant texts."
What Wallace neglects by use of ellipses (...) is the flow of Winstanley's argument as well as the character of his theology. Winstanley's quote argued that one could not apply Sharp's rule to the possible exceptions unless it could be shown that extra-biblical literature also followed Sharp's rule. Through multiple examples Winstanley showed that in classical Greek and in patristic Greek - all the literature surrounding the New Testament, the rule simply did not apply consistently. Wallace's quote comes from the end of Winstanley's argument in which he clearly is not conceding the point. To complete Winstanley's argument:
- "There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts be such; which you think utterly improbable. You would argue, then, that if these texts were exceptions, there would be more. I do not perceive any great weight in this hypothetical reasoning. But, however plausible it may appear, the reply is at hand. There are no other words so likely to yield exceptions; because there are no other words, between which the insertion of the copulative, would effect so remarkable a deviation from the established form of constructing them to express one person; and of course, would so pointedly suggest a difference of signification."
Winstanley was a trinitarian Christian, but cautioned that a rule that held true only in the New Testament in all but the disputed cases was too flimsy a ground on which to try to prove the divinity of Christ to the Socinians (Unitarians). Instead he said, "[I think] there are much more cogent arguments in reserve, when [Sharp's] rule of interpretation shall be abandoned." His biggest criticisms of Sharp's rule rest in the fact that 1) the early church fathers do not follow it and 2) the early church father's never invoked this rule to prove the divinity of Christ (though it would have been an obvious tool against such heresy). He concludes, "Hence it may be presumed that the doctrine then rested on other grounds."
While it is affirmed by Wallace and other biblical scholars that there is more and more confirmation of this rule, there are trinitarian scholars who continue to believe Winstanley's refutation sufficient.
A. Bowser
A. Bowser quotes Sharp's Rule somewhat more simply:
- "When the copulative `and' connects two nouns of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun."[1]
Supporters of the rule
Dana & Mantey
“The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still proves to be true: `When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO 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 further description of the first-named person.'” (A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, p. 147)
James White
James White in his book, The King James Only Controversy, on page 270 he incorrectly says of the first rule: “His rule only applies to persons, not things.” but in Durham’s book, on page 22, he clearly states under the section, “Sharp’s first rule regularly applied to things”:
- Thirty-three verses were found in which Sharp’s rule was applied to things rather than persons. These verses were subdivided according to five categories: (1) Entities, (2) Characteristics, (3) Activities, (4) Locations, and (5) Times.
To give a few brief examples from the book:
- (1) Acts 1:25 “this ministry and apostleship”; Acts 2:23 “the predetermined plan and foreknowledge”.
- (2) Mark 8:38 “this adulterous and sinful generation”; Mark 16:14 “their unbelief and hardness of heart”.
- (3) Hebrews 6:7 “that drinks…and brings forth”.
- (4) Matthew 23:37 “who kills…and stones”.
- (5) Matthew 24:36 “that day and hour”; Acts 2:20 “the great and glorious day”.
