Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents
“Those who defend translations that read as if only Jesus is spoken of in both Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1 attempt to distinguish those two passages from the parallel examples I have given by something called “Sharp’s Rule.” In 1798, the amateur theologian Granville Sharp published a book in which he argued that when there are two nouns of the same form (“case”) joined by “and” (kai), only the first of which has the article, the nouns are identified as the same thing. Close examination of this much used “rule” shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological agenda in creating it, namely to prove that the verses we are examining in this chapter call Jesus 'God.'” Jason Beduhn (Truth in Translation)
This scripture (Titus 2:13) can possibly be translated different ways, depending upon the translator's understanding of what is being said, or bias. Albert Barnes, although he contends that Jesus is being called the great God in Titus 2:13, does state: "It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, 'the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior,' or separately, as of the Father and the Son, 'the glory of the great God, and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.'" Since, Jesus is definitely NOT the "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), the correct procedure should be to view Titus 2:13 from that perspective.
A parallel arises when comparing Titus 2:13 to Titus 1:4. Titus 1:4 mentions “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” No translator merges the two into “the Father and Savior, Christ Jesus” as though referencing only Jesus.
As Nigel Turner (who writes as a Trinitarian) says:
"Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is clearly a separation in ideas. 'The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.' (Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, volume III, p. 181. The references is to Titus 2:13)...The same grammatical problem faces expositors of 2 Peter 1:1. Henry Alford is one of many Trinitarians who argue that Jesus is not called 'God' in this verse. For him, the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in Titus 2:13, by the much more significant fact that both Peter and Paul normally distinguish clearly between God and Jesus Christ."
Norton makes some great points and shows the irrelevance of the Granville Sharp Rule in “proving” the Trinity. Because no ambiguity between Christ and God would arise in the minds of the readers due to the omission of the article, it can be omitted without a problem. Likewise, there was no need for a second article in Matthew 21:12 in the phrase, “all the [ones] selling and buying,” or in Ephesians 2:20 in the phrase, “the apostles and prophets,” because no one would ever think that “sold” and “bought” meant the same thing, or that “apostles” and “prophets” were somehow the same office. This same is true all over the Bible. There is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. The “rule” therefore begs the question. It can be made to apply only if it can be shown that an ambiguity would have arisen in the minds of the first century readers between Christ and God. Because the whole of Scripture clearly shows the difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp “Rule” is not a valid reason to make Christ God.
This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here
One of the critical flaws of “Sharp’s Rule” as it’s used by apologists seems to involve a deliberate blind spot that causes its proponents to either end the evaluation prematurely, or to dismiss what would seem to be a rather important consideration.
What I mean is, proponents will observe that proper names are excluded, but they fail to ask the next questions, which seem rather pertinent:
(1) Why are proper names excluded; and
(2) Is it possible that the exclusion of proper names can reveal why 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 may be exceptions to the rule?
As to why proper names are excluded, I suspect that this is because such names have high degree of restrictive force in contexts where they appear.
Do the words “God” and “Savior” have a high degree of restrictive force in the contexts in question? Yes, clearly they do, and I would argue that this restrictive force is equivalent to that which applies to proper names.
I suspect that this is why a second article wasn’t needed at Proverbs 24:21. It has nothing to do with differences between “translation Greek” and non-translation Greek, as some have argued in an attempt to avoid the problem this text presents to those who would like to believe that there are no exceptions to the “rule.”
Another thing that is noteworthy is that there are textual variants to 2 Peter 1:1 that may well represent the original reading. That would mean that the reading in the majority of the Greek texts is a later alteration to the text. There are Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, Sahidic, and Greek manuscripts (including Sinaiticus and (044)) that have “Lord” instead of God, and read, “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Translations from the Aramaic read: “our Lord and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”...As for the Granville Sharp rule, Greek grammarians such as Turner and Norton show that there is no evidence that there was an actual “rule” of grammar like the Granville Sharp rule, and in any case, there is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. Because Scripture clearly shows a difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp “Rule” does not apply in verses such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/comm/2-Pet/1/1
What though of Sharp's Rule? Firstly, Sharp was trying to find a rule to show that Jesus Christ was "God." That was his aim. Also, he only looked at the Greek New Testament. One would be ill advised to obtain a 'rule' from such a small corpus of Greek. These two observations should make one careful about accepting this 'rule' or at least thinking that this rule has to apply in any given Greek sentence where the article-noun KAI noun construction(with all the limitations Sharp and others give it for the one person view)exists. But did Sharp find anything or see something? Yes, he did. What he observed was a principle, not a rule! But not that this principle would show that the "great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ" are necessarily the same person. What he saw can be described as "a combined enumeration." This is "an enumeration of two or more persons or things, joined by a connective particle[such as kai, "and"] and where the Article[ho, "the"] before the first only intimates a connection between the whole, forming one object of thought."(Handbook To the Grammar of the Greek Testament section 232 by Rev. Samuel G. Green). We can find many examples of this in the Greek N.T.(We have highlighted the Greek article and the connective particle in each in red and these ones are in fact Green's examples in the above cited section in his Grammar).
Ephesians 2:20: "EPI TW QEMELIW TWN APOSTOWN KAI PROPHHTWN," "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Here, the "apostles" are not the same subjects as the "prophets" but as Green says there is a connection between them, one which is "one object of thought" in Paul's mind here. We see this at Colossians 2:12: "TA ENTALMATA KAI DIDASKALIAS TWN ANQRWPWN, "the commandments and teachings of men." The "commandments" and "teachings" of men were not being here identified as one and the same but "together constituting one system"(Green). Matthew 17:1 : "TON PETRON KAI IAKWBON KAI IWANNHM, "Peter and James and John." The three were not the same person but an inseparable group. This nicely leads us to Titus 2:13. Paul was not there necessarily identifying the "great God" with "Savior Jesus Christ" as one and the same but they were an inseparable two subjects in "the blessed hope and manifestation" Paul mentions here. Green's last example is in fact Titus 2:13 where he writes after giving the Greek and Ellicott's translation:
"Here are two cases of enumeration, each with a single article: (1) the "manifestation" is but another expression for the "hope;" and (2) the latter phrase may imply, on the above stated principle, either that God(the Father) and Jesus Christ the Saviour are so inseparably conjoined that the glory of each is the same(R[evised] V[ersion][1881] marg[in]) or else, as the R.V. has it....that God in this passage is, like Saviour, an epithet of Christ...."
Did you see the two options given by Green there? So, 'Sharp's Rule' is nothing more than the above stated principle(not a rule!)and in connection with Titus 2:13 the Greek is in fact ambiguous and may mean either of the two choices Green gives so that one could legitimately translate and make the "great God" and the "Savior Jesus Christ" two separate subjects(as the New World Translation, New American Bible, the James Moffatt translation and others have done and others give in a footnote as the alternative translation)or one. Yes, the grammar here does not decide it. Any appeal to Sharp's rule as being decisive in this matter then is invalid. What decides the matter in all these texts including those like Titus 2:13 is the author's wider treatment of the person or persons he mentions. In Paul we consistently find he makes a distinction between the one who he says is and thinks of as QEOS and this one's Son. 1 Thessalonians 1:9 is a good example. The author of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agrees that “the rule that the one article indicates the one subject… [cannot] be too strongly relied upon as decisive.” Humphreys, A. E., The Epistles to Timothy & Titus, Cambridge University Press, 1895.)
No comments:
Post a Comment