Granville Rule, is it really a Rule?
Below is an excellent paper by, “Darrell George” on whether Sharp’s Rule is actually a valid Rule,
it also investigates what the Trinitarian Dr. Daniel Wallace has to say on the
matter, as many Trinitarians and Oneness believers cite him. Permission
was granted to use this paper by its author “Darrell George”.
By: Darrell George.
Summary
Many
Trinitarians maintain that the Granville Sharp Rule makes Jesus “God”
in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Yet, there are some alarming facts behind this rule
that most Christians know nothing about.
Granville
Sharp created six rules on the Greek article but scholars reject
rules 2-6.
Granville Sharp claimed that eight verses were
mistranslated in the KJV Bible and needed to be changed to make Jesus God
(Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1,
Jude 4, Acts 20:28, 2 Timothy 4:1).
However, most Trinitarian scholars reject six of
these eight verses which leave Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
There
is more. Dr. Daniel Wallace quietly re-defined Granville Sharp’s first rule,
while claiming that Granville Sharp’s first rule is valid. Evidence
will also be submitted that Wallace’s refinement of Sharp’s rule is also
invalid.
Please
continue reading as we expand this summary and much more.
Introduction
This
study will primarily use three books. The first is, Remarks on the
Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament,
Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are
Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version. This book, written by
Granville Sharp, was published in 1803. It is his fourth and final edition, and
therefore, essential when investigating his grammatical rules.
The
next two books are Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), and
Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin (2009). Both books were written by Dr.
Daniel Wallace, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at
Dallas Theological Seminary.
The work and research of Dr. Daniel Wallace will be
examined because it is widely cited today and has become influential to affirm
that Jesus is God Himself in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Granville
Sharp (1735-1813) was an English scholar, social activist, slave abolitionist,
author, and much more. He left his mark on Christianity with six rules he
created surrounding the Greek article. Based on the
title of his book above, Granville Sharp maintained that he uncovered “many new
proofs of the divinity of Jesus” and that these verses were “wrongly
translated” in the KJV.
Rules of
Grammar vs Principles of Grammar
A rule in grammar should not be
confused with a general principle.
A rule of grammar is more definitive than a
principle of grammar. Because Granville Sharp’s
first rule used the word “always” when the conditions were met, the rule (when
applicable) applied 100% of the time. If this rule is not absolute, it
should be discarded or reclassified into a general principle of Koine Greek
grammar.
Before
a rule in grammar is accepted and deployed it should be tested and verified. Just
because someone creates ‘a rule’ does not automatically make it authoritative.
Before
testing Granville Sharp’s first rule, it’s necessary to determine which elements
are included.
The
Original Granville Sharp Rule
In
his book, Granville Sharp provides six rules with verses and
explanations. What is known today as the Granville Sharp rule is a refinement
of his first rule. Here is Granville Sharp’s first rule:
“When
the copulative και 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 ὁ, 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 . . . “ (3).
Unless
you are already familiar with this rule, a quick conceptualization is unlikely.
Because this rule is complicated, an investigation requires diligent study.
Since influential Trinitarian scholars have affirmed its validity, Christians
have rested on this validation.
A
breakdown of Sharp’s First Rule
“When
the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case”
Let’s
stop here. The word “copulative” describes a connecting word. The Greek word
“και” is usually translated into English as “and.”
This
can be illustrated as noun (same case) και noun (same case).
In
Biblical Greek, nouns contain one of five cases.
Continuing
on, “When the copulative και 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],”
Here Sharp narrows nouns that qualify. They must be “substantive, adjective,
or participles” that are of “personal description.” Then he further illustrates
these personal nouns by providing a description. Mr. Sharp went on to include
several verses in his book to illustrate these personal qualities.
The rule continues, “if the article ὁ, 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 . .
. “ (3).
This rule must have the correct sequence to be
valid. It is article, personal noun (or participle), followed by another
personal noun (or participle). The article cannot be repeated before the second
noun or participle.
Now,
we move on to the outcome when the rule is triggered. There is one or two possible
outcomes depending on interpretation.
If
only one outcome is understood, both nouns describe the same person.
The
second interpretation considers the word “or.” When the rule is active, it
always relates to the same person that is expressed. In order words,
they are not the same person but there is a relationship or
connection between them. The second possible outcome is: “it always denotes a
farther description of the first-named person.” This means that they are the
same person.
If
this is confusing, it will be discussed in more detail.
Dr.
Daniel Wallace’s Refinement of Granville Sharp’s First Rule.
Sharp did not discuss plural nouns in his first
rule. In fact, after saying nothing about plural nouns in his rule, Sharp went
on to strikingly write three pages later that some plural nouns where
allowed:
“there is no exception or instance
of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a
construction different from what is here laid down, except that nouns be proper
names, or in the plural number; in which case there
are many exceptions; though there are not wanting
examples, even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly agreeable [sic] to
this rule.”
(G.
Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text
of the New Testament [3d ed.; London: Rivington, 1803] 6).
This quote seems to explain why Sharp did not
restrict plural nouns to his rule.
While Granville Sharp did not say when plural nouns
were admissible, he explicitly left the door open for exceptions agreeable to
his rule.
Because the allowance of plurals within the
boundaries of Granville Sharp’s rule is theologically disastrous, Wallace
excluded all plural nouns in his revision.
To
demonstrate how theologically disastrous plural nouns are, to follow are two
examples.
In Matthew 3:7, the Pharisees and
Sadducees would be one group of people, not two.
Similarly,
in Ephesians 4:11, the shepherds and
teachers should be understood as one group of people without distinction
against the semantic force of the sentence.
In
2009, Dr. Daniel Wallace released the book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and
Its Kin. After the publication of this book, Dr. Stanley E. Porter, a Trinitarian and distinguished professor at
McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada published a rebuking review of Wallace’s book. He writes,
“In his attempt to prove Sharp’s rule at almost any
cost, Wallace ends up becoming one of those who has misunderstood Sharp, like
those he so sharply criticizes in chapters 2 and 3.”
Porter,
S. E. (2010). Review of Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and
Significance by Daniel B. Wallace. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, 53(4), 831.
Dr. Porter further writes,
“It is fine if Wallace wishes to modify or change
or restrict Sharp’s rule, but he probably should then not make claims for the
new rule as if it were Sharp’s rule, as indicated above”
Porter,
S. E. (2013). Granville Sharp’s Rule: A Response To Dan Wallace, Or Why A
Critical Book Review Should Be Left Alone. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 56, 56(1), 98.
This is a sad commentary on what I believe Stanley
Porter interprets as dishonest scholarship. I have placed links for some exchange
that occurred between Dr. Wallace and Dr. Porter. Some of this writing is a
consequence of reading their exchange.
The
Wallace Revision and Proper Names
Granville Sharp’s first rule does not forbid proper
names. But Wallace excluded them in his definition. Did Sharp intend to include
or exclude proper names?
When
Sharp explained his first rule in the pages that followed, he said:
“there
is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of,
which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid
down, except that nouns be proper names, or in the plural
number; in which case there are many exceptions; though there
are not wanting examples, even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly
agreeable [sic] to this rule.”
(G.
Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of
the New Testament [3d ed.; London: Rivington, 1803] 6).
While it is clear that some plural nouns were
allowed (already discussed), there
is some ambiguity here regarding proper names because of the word “or.”
However, this ambiguity is lifted because Sharp,
when covering his first rule, lists several Christological verses that include
personal names.
Wallace confessed:
“Granville
Sharp believed that several Christologically significant texts involved the
TSKS construction. However, several of these involved dubious textual variants
(e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2
Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1).” Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p. 276).
We are going to cover these four verses later. I
just wanted to demonstrate that Wallace admits that Sharp included proper names
within the scope of his first rule. But Wallace backflips by claiming that
Sharp excluded them:
“However,
a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied
absolutely ONLY to personal, singular, non-proper nouns”
Wallace,
D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the
New Testament (p. 271). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
And
“Therefore,
according to Sharp, the rule applied absolutely only with
personal, singular, and non-proper nouns.” Wallace, D. B.
(1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament (p. 272). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Wallace contradicts himself. He admits that Sharp
allowed plural names and yet sadly claims that he forbids them.
Here are some examples from the New Testament that
demonstrate the fallacy of Sharp’s original rule with proper names:
In
Matthew 17:1, Peter, James, and John would be the same person.
In
Matthew 27:56, James and Joseph would be the same person.
Sharp imposed a double standard by allowing proper names under his
rule for select Christological verses while not applying this standard to
non-Christological verses, thereby averting a disaster. Wallace, in contrast,
reconfigures Sharp as someone who prohibited all proper names.
Did
Wallace Revise the Outcome to Always be the Same Referent?
According
to Sharp’s first rule, when activated, there are one or two outcomes, depending
on how one understands his first rule. Here is the phrase that contains
ambiguity:
“…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 . . . “ (3).
Dr. Wallace’s understanding is that this entire
phrase results in one outcome when the rule is active:
“a
farther description of the first-named person.”
As stated earlier, Wallace compressed this entire
statement in his refinement to say: “they always referred to the same person.”
A second understanding that I think is more probable contains
two possible outcomes when the rule is triggered. The first outcome
considers that the word “relates” indicates a connection between two persons,
who are not the same person. Please notice it does not say “the latter
always is the same person that is expressed, but relates.
This
understanding is consistent with the word “or” which separates a second outcome
that we discussed where both nouns describe the same person.
This second understanding (which contains two
possible outcomes) is supported by Dr. Porter. He writes,
“Wallace further stresses that Sharp means that the
substantives must have an “identical referent” (p. 52 n. 95; cf. p. 91);
however, that is not what the rule says. It is only when Sharp is discussing
Christologically significant examples that he uses such terms as “identity of
person(s)”
(Sharp, Remarks 28,
30). Wallace seems to have a narrower view of the rule than did Sharp himself”
( Porter, S. E. (2010). Review of Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin:
Semantics and Significance by Daniel B. Wallace. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 53(4), 828–832).
Finally, if two possible outcomes are
understood, and had Sharp’s original rule been valid, it did not automatically
make Jesus “God” in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Wallace’s
Subjective definition of Proper Names
Wallace’s refinement of Sharp to forbid
all proper nouns faced another hurdle.
Titus
2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 contain proper nouns that Wallace disallows. So Wallace
may have redefined proper nouns expressly for these verses. He writes:
“A proper noun
is defined as a noun which cannot be
“pluralized”
(272). Let’s stop here. This fabricated rule
communicates that since the word “God” can also be pluralized (gods: John
10:34), it is not a proper noun. Because the word “God” in the context is a
proper noun, Wallace apparently diminished Almighty God to a common noun. In
contrast, translations correctly capitalized this word here because it is a
proper name for God. In fact, it is the most cited name for God in the Bible.
This
rule, which appears inspired by theological necessity is only a
rule in disguise.
There are exceptions. In his book, Granville Sharp’s
Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, Wallace states,
“On the other hand, it is possible on a rare
occasion for even a proper name to be pluralized” (160). He then goes on to provide
exceptions.
Earlier, a quote was provided by Wallace admitting
that Sharp allowed proper names in his rule; notice these verses [read only verse
references]:
“Granville
Sharp believed that several Christologically significant texts involved the
TSKS construction. However, several of these involved dubious textual variants
(e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2
Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1).” Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p. 276).
Let’s consider these four verses. Proper
names applicable to the original Granville Sharp Rule are noted.
“5
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure,
or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom
of Christ and God” (Ephesians 5:5).
“12
so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him,
according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus
Christ” (2 Th 1:12).
“21
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and
of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing
nothing from partiality” (1 Ti 5:21).
“1 I
charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus,
who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom”
(2 Ti 4:1).
Granville Sharp applied his rule to these four
verses because he allowed proper names. But Wallace, on the other hand, based
on his refinement of Sharp, forbids proper names.
The two verses that Wallace has influenced
Trinitarians to believe that make Jesus God, also includes proper names.
This is a colossal double standard.
“13 Waiting for our blessed hope, the
appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior
Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of
Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by
the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”
(2 Peter 1:1).
The Trinitarian NET Bible writes the
following note for Titus 2:13:
“The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and
“Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and
others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that
a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the
plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule”
Biblical
Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET
Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
In my reading of both Middleton and Sharp, I don’t
recall any mention that proper names in Greek could not be pluralized. While I could have missed this;
if you find this, please let me know.
Secondly, Jesus is used in the New Testament as a
proper name over 900 times. But Wallace won’t allow this here because he
wants the Apostle Paul and Peter to call Jesus God in the New Testament which
they don’t.
Flattery
and Revised History
Wallace embellishes, “Even Sharp’s opponents could
not find any exceptions; all had to admit that the rule was valid in the
NT.” Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (p. 273).
Many
Christians hear and believe such flattery. Why does Wallace even call them “Sharp’s
opponents” since they all admitted the validity of his rule?
Dr. Wallace is not the only scholar to
exaggerate.
The
NET Bible boasts,
“Although there have been 200 years of attempts to
dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands
vindicated after all the dust has settled”
Biblical
Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.;
The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
Such exaggerations I suspect come from the deeply
held Trinitarian presupposition that because Jesus is God Himself —no objective
counter examinations are even considered.
But under the cover of lies and deceit, is the
truth. Some opponents provided solid objections.
One of Sharp’s contemporaries and critics was
Trinitarian scholar Calvin Winstanley. His refutation of Sharp’s canon should
have forever dismissed Sharp’s rules. But because some theologians force
Trinitarian presuppositions into God’s Word, Sharp’s rule (at least in a
revised form) lives on.
Dr.
Wallace who claimed,
“Even
Sharp’s opponents could not find any exceptions” performed an about-face and infers
that Winstanley found exceptions to Sharp’s rule. He writes,
“In fact,
he produced numerous examples outside the NT that fit these requirements [when
writing of Sharp’s first rule] but
which bore a different semantic force, viz., referring to two individuals
rather than one.” (63) Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its
Kin.
Let’s stop there. Today’s Sharp’s rule states that when
the conditions are present, it always describes one person
without exceptions. So Wallace’s “semantic force” exception is an implicit admission that
the rule is invalid because semantic forces in sentences exist. But
of course, no semantic force considerations are allowed in Titus 2:13 and 2
Peter 1:1 where one person is in view.
Wallace
continues,
“The second edition of A Vindication of Certain
Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament, published six
years after Sharp’s death (1819), constitutes to this day the latest and most
complete list of exceptions to Sharp’s rule. We can enlarge on the categories
of exceptions that he found. Winstanley is to be regarded as the most
formidable adversary of Sharp’s rule, but not the most influential.”
(63). Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin.
Again, Wallace has it both ways. Now there are so
many exceptions to Sharp’s rule that they can be categorized, wow!
Sharp’s
Six Rules
As mentioned
in the introduction, Sharp did not construct one rule, but six. But today, no
credible Christian Greek grammarian, Christian college, or university to my
knowledge uses rules two through six.
Sharp unbelievably claimed that rules
2-6 demonstrate how the first rule was valid: “The rules which follow [2-6] are
intended only to illustrate the particularity of the several sentences which
fall under the first rule, by showing, in other sentences, the different senses
that are occasioned by adding, omitting, or repeating, the article, as well
with the copulative as without it.” (51).
He also wrote, “The Various uses of the article and
copulative, expressed in the five last rules and their exceptions, must amply
illustrate, to every attentive reader, the difference and particularity of
those sentences, which fall under the first and principal rule; and therefore,
I may now proceed, with more confidence to point out several important
corrections that ought to be made in our common translation of the New Testament
….” (19-20).
Sharp is saying that rules 2-6
illustrate the
qualities or particulars of several sentences that illustrate the first rule.
But sadly, this is untrue. These additional rules are contradictory.
His second rule states: “A repetition of the article before
the second noun, if the copulative be omitted, will have the same effect and
power: [Let’s pause here. This is a different construction altogether than the
first rule. It involves article-noun-article-noun. He is saying that this construction
will have the same effect and power. But this is illogical. How can a
strikingly different construction demonstrate the first rule’s construction?
But it gets more bazaar. He continues,
“for, it donates a further description of the same person, property or
thing that is expressed by the first noun; as in the following examples:”
The first rule was not about properties or things. It dealt with personal nouns
that related to each other or described the same person. When non-personal
nouns are introduced into Sharp’s rule it brings additional
contradictions.
Some of the verses that Sharp provided to
illustrate his second rule even included nouns with different cases. This
further broadens the scope and introducing more contradictions.
Conclusion
Granville Sharp’s rule has no place in righteous,
exegetical scholarship. It’s objectionable that this fabricated rule lives on
and has made its way into exegetical commentaries, Christian universities, the
mouth of scholars, pastors, and laymen alike.
In
his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the
New Testament, Wallace brilliantly writes,
“The nature of language is such that grammar cannot be isolated from other
elements such as context, lexeme, or other grammatical features”
Wallace,
D. B. (1996). (p. xiii). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
This accurate statement is incompatible with
Granville Sharp’s first rule. Granville Sharp’s rule is a mechanical
construction that brings meaning to a sentence independent of “other elements such as context,
lexeme, or other grammatical features.”
I
believe that most who advance Sharp’s rule are sincere and don’t doubt its
applicability. Because Trinitarians already believe that Jesus is God
incarnate, it’s easy to contend for a rule without verification.
A consultation with the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Post
Nicene Fathers, and other early Greek writings provide no evidence that such a
rule existed. This omission coincides with Sharp’s formulation of this rule.
May
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ bless you, beloved, as you follow
Christ’s footsteps to the Father’s house.
Links
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_801-870_BookReviews.pdf Under this link,
search for “Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin”
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-1/JETS_56-1_93-100_Porter.pdf
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-1/JETS_56-1_101-106_Wallace.pdf
