Granville Sharp's Rule — Titus 2:13, etc

[CutlerB]

Dear community,

I am currently annotating the EPUB version of the “New World Translation” to be able to see quick responses on verses that might be brought up by JWs. Currently I’m doing the part on the Divinity of Christ. I came across two passages that have brought up some conflict in the past and even today. These are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both deal with the Divinity of Christ.

I found there is something called “Granville Sharp’s Rule” that is significant here. However I have not been able to properly understand this rule and how the two passages are to be correctly rendered (“great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”). I hope there are some here who know about Biblical Greek and can expound on this a little.

Speaking of the JW translation, they touch on the rule also. I will quote one instance in which they do so, with the request that this be refuted, if possible.

In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50;*15:22;*Eph 5:5;*2Th 1:12;*1Ti 5:21;*6:13;2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p.109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in κοινή [koi·ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”

A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp.*439-457. On p.*452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so·te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he·mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν * changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The·os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·ta′ ten kha′rin tou The·ou′ he·mon′ kai ky·ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου * makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”

Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.
**

This is from Appendix 6E of the “New World Translation”. In short, my questions are these:

1. What is Sharp’s rule, when does it apply and are there exceptions?
2. What bearing do the verses given in the quote have on the topic, are they valid objections?
3. Is the statement “Verse 2 of 2 Peter Chapter 1 makes a clear distinction between God and Christ” a valid objection to the common rendering?

I hope this is clear enough. If not, please let me know.

Thank you to everyone,

CutlerB

 

[mercytruth]

Dear community,

I am currently annotating the EPUB version of the “New World Translation” to be able to see quick responses on verses that might be brought up by JWs. Currently I’m doing the part on the Divinity of Christ. I came across two passages that have brought up some conflict in the past and even today. These are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both deal with the Divinity of Christ.

I found there is something called “Granville Sharp’s Rule” that is significant here. However I have not been able to properly understand this rule and how the two passages are to be correctly rendered (“great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”). I hope there are some here who know about Biblical Greek and can expound on this a little.

Speaking of the JW translation, they touch on the rule also. I will quote one instance in which they do so, with the request that this be refuted, if possible.

This is from Appendix 6E of the “New World Translation”. In short, my questions are these:

1. What is Sharp’s rule, when does it apply and are there exceptions?
2. What bearing do the verses given in the quote have on the topic, are they valid objections?
3. Is the statement “Verse 2 of 2 Peter Chapter 1 makes a clear distinction between God and Christ” a valid objection to the common rendering?

I hope this is clear enough. If not, please let me know.

Thank you to everyone,

CutlerB

There are exceptions to Sharp’s rule which he, himself delineates.

This article is a very scholarly and lengthy article which covers all the exceptions of Greek grammar that Sharp delineated as exceptions to the rule of the definite article used as linkage in Greek.

The exceptions are quoted as:

To sum up: by ruling impersonal, plural, and proper nouns as outside the scope of his principle, Sharp demonstrated an intuitive sensitivity to the semantics of the TSKS construction which has eluded most of his modern-day advocates. Middleton then gave articulation to Sharp’s intuition. The reasons for such strictures seem to be inherent within the language itself. It has to be determined, of course, whether the rule is valid even within such limitations.

bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule

In other words, Sharp’s understanding of the definite article linking the contested scriptures in **Titus 2:13 **; 2 Peter 1:1 to Christ with deity stands unrefutable. The JW’s do not have any basis for arguing against Sharp’s rule of the definite article providing linkage, of ‘God’ with ‘Christ’ in these two scriptures.

There may be other reasons from the text and grammar of these two texts in not linking God with Christ in these texts, but the exceptions to Sharp’s rule as explained by Sharp is not one of them.

I think the above article would be an excellent resource in your annotation of the EPUB.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[CutlerB]

Sounds great! Thank you!

 

[LionHeart777]

I stumbled across this thread and was not aware of the subject matter. The article mercytruth gave is quite extensive (I will read it all eventually I hope.)

In the meantime, maybe I can be of some help by cutting and pasting “nuggets” of info I come across.

For example Cutler B, the citation you give from Appendix 6E of the “New World Translation”, has a scholar, Ezra Abbot, who uses St. Matthew 21:12 as part of his argument. I found the following in the footnote of the article which mercytruth gave:

46 Even a scholar the stature of Ezra Abbot, though interacting explicitly with Sharp and Middleton (‘Titus II. 13’), failed on two counts in his understanding of Sharp’s rule: (1) he suggests that touV" pwlou’nta" kaiV ajgoravzonta" in Matt 21:12 proves Sharp’s rule wrong (‘No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying,’ 452), even though plural substantives are involved; and (2) he argues that English syntax is wholly analogous to Greek with reference to Sharp’s rule (451-52). Yet, as we have seen, in his appendix, Sharp rightly takes G. Blunt to task for just such a supposition (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 126, 147).

Source: bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule (emphasis mine)

I believe that citation of Abbot I bolded is found within the larger citation of Abbot used in Appendix 6E of the “New World Translation” which you cited in your OP.