Granville Rule
Comments
-
How do I :
MJ. Smith posted to Re: Granville Rule in the Logos Desktop App forum
See logosres:cidbdocgkgram;ref=GrammaticalConstructions.gsharp
Getting an error when trying to see your post.
It is not showing up here
0 -
I deleted it because I wrote it while your post lacked the screen shots and I had misunderstood your problem.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Good Morning Bob,
When I perform a search for that Grammatical Construction, in the NA28 1 Thess. 1.3 does show up. However, there are several hits that I get that are no part of that construction; for example, Matt7:26...and others. Which Greek text are you searching?
0 -
Thanx for you efforts. Here is Daniel Wallaces explaination of the 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
Although Sharp discusses here only personal substantives in the singular, it is not clear from this statement whether he intended to restrict his rule to such. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns.In other words, in the TSKS construction, the second noun refers to the same person mentioned with the first noun when:
(1) neither is impersonal;
(2) neither is plural;
(3) neither is a proper name.Therefore, according to Sharp, the rule applied absolutely only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns. The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s principle have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth.
Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pp. 271–272). Zondervan.Looking at the morphology that is in agreement, and looking at the phrase as
"the hearer" - and - "the not doer" does Matt 7:26 not qualify?
I admit I may be a bit beyond my depth here, but I would like to be more able to understand.
All help is much appreciated!
0 -
The Logos documentation:
[quote]
Granville Sharp’s First Rule
A grammatical construction consisting of an article with a substantive, the conjunction και, and an anarthrous substantive agreeing in case and number with the previous. Sharp surmised that the lack of an article in the second substantive indicated both substantives were in relation to the same entity instead of separate entities.Example: Mark 6:3
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου
The son of Mary and brother of JamesMore Information
• This can be searched for with {Section <GramCon GSharp>} in the Bible Search (Basic Search can also be used).
• The two substantives can be the same class (noun και noun) or mixed classes (participle και adjective).
• Daniel Wallace provides a detailed discussion of this construction in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
• Wallace also dedicates an entire essay to the Granville Sharp Construction titled Sharp Redivivus?—A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule
• Stanley E. Porter also provides a discussion of this construction in Idioms of the Greek New Testament
James Parks, Greek Grammatical Constructions Documentation (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2015).
Using the old search syntax given in the documentation provides the new format section:grammaticalConstructions:"Granville Sharp". Remember that the interlinear is not your friend here - look at the Greek source text.
Karl Fritz Jr. said:Just venturing a quick guess based on a cursory glance at the documentation from Logos:
That link underlined in red is here: https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
I searched for "13:23" and found it mentioned in footnote #84 of that article:
Appears to be related to a textual variant and maybe(?) because of one other grammatical consideration. Some include it as an instance of the rule, some don't. I didn't read the article, but it appears pretty thorough. The issue is evidently a bit complex, or over my head at least.
Karl
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Perhaps this may be a little simplified definition: Granville Sharp’s rule states that when you have two nouns, that are not proper names (such as Cephas, Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word “and,” and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*.
0 -
Bob Diebel said:
"the hearer" - and - "the not doer" does Matt 7:26 not qualify?
This verse does not qualify because the "kai" separates a pronoun and an adverb, not two improper nouns, which is the requirement to have the Granville sharp construction, which is why I would disagree with the team at Logos that this should be under that rule. Now, is the hearer and the doer the same person? Yes! However, they are not part of that construction although the final answer is the same.
0 -
In case there is interest, there was a well-known exchange between Daniel Wallace and Stanley Porter on Sharp's Rule that appeared in JETS in 2013.
0 -
Thanx to all for the help. I was able to find the original Granville Sharp Doc. and an excellent explanation by Daniel B. Wallace. See:
https://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
Trying to understand why Logos and Daniel B. Wallace include Matt 7:26, I researched the attachment.
As for my original query, I am still investigating.
Your help was appreciated.
0 -
Col 3:17 is not seen as included in the Granville Sharp rule since it is a variant text.
Some manuscripts do not include "και"
0
