Revelation 4:11

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Jun 21 05:28:59 EDT 2001

 

Rev 4.9 (Double Accentuation) Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) > Revelation 4.11> AXIOS EI, hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS hHMWN,> LABEIN THN DOXAN KAI THN TIMHN KAI THN DUNAMIN,> hOTI SU EKTISAS TA PANTA> KAI DIA TO QELHMA SOU HSAN KAI EKTISQHSAN.> > I’m just curious about the first part of the verse… Is it OK grammar for> John to have included an article for both KURIOS and QEOS? Is there> anything inherently wrong with this… in regard to Granville Sharp’s> Rule?Sharp actually formulated 6 rules regarding use of the article, and yes, this is an OK construction. One of Sharp’s rules dealt with it but I forget what he said about it since it’s been over 20 years since I was able to get my hands on his book.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

Rev 4.9 (Double Accentuation)Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Jason A. Hare language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 21 06:16:10 EDT 2001

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Rev 4.9 (Double Accentuation) > Sharp actually formulated 6 rules regarding use of the article, and > yes, this is an OK construction. One of Sharp’s rules dealt with it > but I forget what he said about it since it’s been over 20 years since > I was able to get my hands on his book.> > Dave Washburn> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashburDave,I read through Sharp’s book when I was at Ozark Christian College (where Iam no longer a student). I can go back to their library for a refresher(I think I was a first-semester sophomore when I read it last). Thanksfor your reference, though. I’ll go check out his book and see what hehas to say about this construction.Regards,Jason

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)Rev 4.9 (Double Accentuation)

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Jason A. Hare language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 21 02:56:33 EDT 2001

 

Book questions Rev 4.9 (Double Accentuation) Revelation 4.11AXIOS EI, hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS hHMWN,LABEIN THN DOXAN KAI THN TIMHN KAI THN DUNAMIN,hOTI SU EKTISAS TA PANTAKAI DIA TO QELHMA SOU HSAN KAI EKTISQHSAN.I’m just curious about the first part of the verse… Is it OK grammar forJohn to have included an article for both KURIOS and QEOS? Is thereanything inherently wrong with this… in regard to Granville Sharp’sRule?Thanks,Jason

 

Book questionsRev 4.9 (Double Accentuation)

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Thu Jun 21 11:52:39 EDT 2001

 

2 Cor. 3:18 1 John 3:6a In a message dated 06/20/2001 11:56:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, language_lover64801 at yahoo.com writes:<< I’m just curious about the first part of the verse… Is it OK grammar for John to have included an article for both KURIOS and QEOS? Is there anything inherently wrong with this… in regard to Granville Sharp’s Rule? Thanks, Jason >>Dear Jason:No, it does not conflict with Sharp’s rule in as much as Sharp discussed the implications of substantives connected by KAI where only the first was preceded by the article. However, your example does nullify the argument often offered by strong advocates of Sharp, namely, that if two persons are meant in certain texts then the article could simply have been used before the second noun. Your example, and many others, shows that this is not the case. Thus, we need to be careful when we approach such texts and let the restrictive force of the nouns and the context have a say in whether or not one or two persons are meant in ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN and ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-ARTICLE-NOUN constructions. There are exceptions to both when the aforementioned (restrictive force [proper names and terms equivalent or in excess of proper names in terms of being restricted to one known person] and context) are considered. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

2 Cor. 3:181 John 3:6a

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Jason A. Hare language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 21 15:53:48 EDT 2001

 

2 Cor. 3:18 Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Greg,Granville Sharp’s Sixth Rule:”And as the insertion of the copulative KAI between nouns of the samecase, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that thesecond noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from thepreceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative wheneach of the nouns are preceded by articles.”I did manage to make it back to Ozark Christian College today and checkout Sharp’s book. Also, since I do not have access to my own library, Ichecked out Wallace’s book while I was there. He has a section in theredealing with Sharp’s rule and its restrictions (pp. 270-290). I’m goingto do some more reading on this specific construction (TSKTS) to see whatWallace has to say. (He states that Titus 2.13 [TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAISWTHROS hHMWN] is not a reference to the deity of Jesus. I need to read_why_ THEOS should not be taken as a title/quality rather than as a properreference.)Regards,Jason> Dear Jason:> > No, it does not conflict with Sharp’s rule in as much as Sharp discussed the> implications of substantives connected by KAI where only the first was > preceded by the article. However, your example does nullify the argument> often offered by strong advocates of Sharp, namely, that if two persons are> meant in certain texts then the article could simply have been used before> the second noun. Your example, and many others, shows that this is not the> case. Thus, we need to be careful when we approach such texts and let the> restrictive force of the nouns and the context have a say in whether or not> one or two persons are meant in ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN and > ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-ARTICLE-NOUN constructions. There are exceptions to both> when the aforementioned (restrictive force [proper names and terms equivalent> or in excess of proper names in terms of being restricted to one known > person] and context) are considered. > > Best regards,> > Greg Stafford

 

2 Cor. 3:18Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Jason A. Hare language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 21 15:56:43 EDT 2001

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) “hOUTOS/hAUTH Word Order” and “Questions about questions” > I need to read> _why_ THEOS should not be taken as a title/quality rather than as a proper> reference.oops (transliteration)…. QEOSJason

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)”hOUTOS/hAUTH Word Order” and “Questions about questions”

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Jun 21 18:08:53 EDT 2001

 

Cindy Westfall Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Jason,It’s been a long time since I read Sharp’s book, as I mentioned, but as I recall his sixth rule listed six examples and seven exceptions or something like that, which could tend to call that rule into question! I do recall that one of his rules had more exceptions than examples, and I’m thinking it was the sixth. Please correct me on this.> Greg,> > Granville Sharp’s Sixth Rule:> “And as the insertion of the copulative KAI between nouns of the same> case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the> second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the> preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when> each of the nouns are preceded by articles.”> > I did manage to make it back to Ozark Christian College today and check> out Sharp’s book. Also, since I do not have access to my own library, I> checked out Wallace’s book while I was there. He has a section in there> dealing with Sharp’s rule and its restrictions (pp. 270-290). I’m going> to do some more reading on this specific construction (TSKTS) to see what> Wallace has to say. (He states that Titus 2.13 [TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI> SWTHROS hHMWN] is not a reference to the deity of Jesus. I need to read> _why_ THEOS should not be taken as a title/quality rather than as a proper> reference.)> > Regards,> Jason> > > Dear Jason:> > > > No, it does not conflict with Sharp’s rule in as much as Sharp discussed the> > implications of substantives connected by KAI where only the first was > > preceded by the article. However, your example does nullify the argument> > often offered by strong advocates of Sharp, namely, that if two persons are> > meant in certain texts then the article could simply have been used before> > the second noun. Your example, and many others, shows that this is not the> > case. Thus, we need to be careful when we approach such texts and let the> > restrictive force of the nouns and the context have a say in whether or not> > one or two persons are meant in ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN and > > ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-ARTICLE-NOUN constructions. There are exceptions to both> > when the aforementioned (restrictive force [proper names and terms equivalent> > or in excess of proper names in terms of being restricted to one known > > person] and context) are considered. > > > > Best regards,> > > > Greg Stafford> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [dwashbur at nyx.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

Cindy WestfallRev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Thu Jun 21 20:23:41 EDT 2001

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Sharp’s rule Dear Jason:I know that Rev. 4:11 compromises that rule. But you asked whether Rev. 4:11 compromises “Sharp’s Rule.” That is universally understood to mean his rule concerning ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, not his sixth rule, which you rightly quoted. Rev. 4:11 does not contradict “Sharp’s Rule” but it does help us appreciate that the solution offered by some for the ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, that is, a solution in terms of how a Greek writer *could have* communicated more than one person(that is, by repeating the article before the second KAI-joined noun), is false. By the way, Wallace most certainly does believe the Christ’s deity is expressed in Titus 2:13. It is 2Thess. 1:11 and others like it that he doubts. You might consider reading my published discussion of these issues after you consider what Wallace has to say. He doubts those texts containing “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” as he sees these expressions as equivalents to proper names. I argue that they may or may not be the equivalent to proper names, but they without question contain proper names (“Jesus Christ”) and that if they are not compound expressions (that is, “Savior-Jesus-Christ,” “Lord-Jesus-Christ,” etc.) then there is no doubt at all that the proper name restricts the application of the noun by being in apposition to it (that is, “Savior, Jesus Christ,” “Lord, Jesus Christ,” etc.), making the application of the anarthrous noun definite. Hence, texts containing such expressions, that is, those texts containing non-proper nouns, cannot be compared to these others and grouped together with them. Yet, that is what Wallace does. If we do not make such a comparison, then the pool of examples shrinks considerably. What we find with what’s left is that there are instances involving these compound/appositional texts that do apply more than one substantive to the same person (as we see several times in 2 Peter) and other places where they do not. This is much like the pattern that exists with proper names (“John,” James” and the like) used apart from common nouns or not in apposition to common or even quasi-proper nouns (“God,” “Lord,” “Christ,” etc.) and texts like Rev. 4:11 where the article precedes both nouns. Sometimes they apply to the same person, and other times (particularly with quasi-proper nouns and cases where the article is repeated) they apply to more than one person. Hope that helps. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)Sharp’s rule

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Thu Jun 21 20:23:39 EDT 2001

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Dear Jason:I know that Rev. 4:11 compromises that rule. But you asked whether Rev. 4:11 compromises “Sharp’s Rule.” That is universally understood to mean his rule concerning ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, not his sixth rule, which you rightly quoted. Rev. 4:11 does not contradict “Sharp’s Rule” but it does help us appreciate that the solution offered by some for the ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, that is, a solution in terms of how a Greek writer *could have* communicated more than one person(that is, by repeating the article before the second KAI-joined noun), is false. By the way, Wallace most certainly does believe the Christ’s deity is expressed in Titus 2:13. It is 2Thess. 1:11 and others like it that he doubts. You might consider reading my published discussion of these issues after you consider what Wallace has to say. He doubts those texts containing “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” as he sees these expressions as equivalents to proper names. I argue that they may or may not be the equivalent to proper names, but they without question contain proper names (“Jesus Christ”) and that if they are not compound expressions (that is, “Savior-Jesus-Christ,” “Lord-Jesus-Christ,” etc.) then there is no doubt at all that the proper name restricts the application of the noun by being in apposition to it (that is, “Savior, Jesus Christ,” “Lord, Jesus Christ,” etc.), making the application of the anarthrous noun definite. Hence, texts containing such expressions, that is, those texts containing non-proper nouns, cannot be compared to these others and grouped together with them. Yet, that is what Wallace does. If we do not make such a comparison, then the pool of examples shrinks considerably. What we find with what’s left is that there are instances involving these compound/appositional texts that do apply more than one substantive to the same person (as we see several times in 2 Peter) and other places where they do not. This is much like the pattern that exists with proper names (“John,” James” and the like) used apart from common nouns or not in apposition to common or even quasi-proper nouns (“God,” “Lord,” “Christ,” etc.) and texts like Rev. 4:11 where the article precedes both nouns. Sometimes they apply to the same person, and other times (particularly with quasi-proper nouns and cases where the article is repeated) they apply to more than one person. Hope that helps. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule)

Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Jason A. Hare language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 22 01:07:28 EDT 2001

 

Sharp’s rule Sharp’s rule Greg,Pardon my impulsive statement. _After_ I sent that last message to thelist about Wallace *not* taking Titus 2.13 as an example of Sharp’s Rule,I checked out the grammar itself from the Ozark Christian College library. Having reviewed Wallace’s comments, I see that I was mistaken. He *does*hold that Titus 2.13 (and 2 Peter 1.1) are great examples from Sharp’swriting.Thanks for the correction. I did read Wallace’s comments before Ireceived your e-mail. I appreciate what you have to say. Where can Ifind your published discussion of TSKS constructions?Regards,Jason> Dear Jason:> > I know that Rev. 4:11 compromises that rule. But you asked whether Rev. 4:11 compromises “Sharp’s Rule.” That is universally understood to mean his rule concerning ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, not his sixth rule, which you rightly quoted. Rev. 4:11 does not contradict “Sharp’s Rule” but it does help us appreciate that the solution offered by some for the ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN constructions, that is, a solution in terms of how a Greek writer *could have* communicated more than one person(that is, by repeating the article before the second KAI-joined noun), is false.> > By the way, Wallace most certainly does believe the Christ’s deity is expressed in Titus 2:13. It is 2Thess. 1:11 and others like it that he doubts. You might consider reading my published discussion of these issues after you consider what Wallace has to say. He doubts those texts containing “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” as he sees these expressions as equivalents to proper names. I argue that they may or may not be the equivalent to proper names, but they without question contain proper names (“Jesus Christ”) and that if they are not compound expressions (that is, “Savior-Jesus-Christ,” “Lord-Jesus-Christ,” etc.) then there is no doubt at all that the proper name restricts the application of the noun by being in apposition to it (that is, “Savior, Jesus Christ,” “Lord, Jesus Christ,” etc.), making the application of the anarthrous noun definite.> > > Hence, texts containing such expressions, that is, those texts containing non-proper nouns, cannot be compared to these others and grouped together with them. Yet, that is what Wallace does.> > If we do not make such a comparison, then the pool of examples shrinks considerably. What we find with what’s left is that there are instances involving these compound/appositional texts that do apply more than one substantive to the same person (as we see several times in 2 Peter) and other places where they do not. This is much like the pattern that exists with proper names (“John,” James” and the like) used apart from common nouns or not in apposition to common or even quasi-proper nouns (“God,” “Lord,” “Christ,” etc.) and texts like Rev. 4:11 where the article precedes both nouns. Sometimes they apply to the same person, and other times (particularly with quasi-proper nouns and cases where the article is repeated) they apply to more than one person.> > Hope that helps. > > Best regards,> > Greg Stafford

 

Sharp’s ruleSharp’s rule