Why isn't Matthew 13:23 tagged as a Granville Sharp Construction?
I'm trying to make sure I understand the Granville Sharp rule so I've been playing around with syntax searches in Logos and comparing the results to the Grammatical Construction tagging. My search brought up both Matthew 13:20 and 13:23, but Logos only has 13:20 tagged as a Granville Sharp construction. Shouldn't they both have the Granville Sharp construction tag? The wording and structure of the relevant words are almost identical except for a different second participle. See below:
Mat 13:20: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων αὐτόν (tagged by Logos)
Mat 13:23: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς (not tagged by Logos)
Is there something I'm missing or is this an oversight in the tagging? Both verses have an article for the first substantive and not for the second, they are connected by kai. The participles are singular and of the same case, they refer to a person, and neither are proper names. The wording is identical until after the kai. Matthew 13:23 even seems to be the more straightforward example visually.
Was this one missed by Faithlife?
Comments
-
It's been a long time since I played with this, but I checked my "Granville Sharp Participles Search", which I remember had 63 results - and you can see, Matt 13:23 is caught:
Here is my search, if it helps. Sorry the Dark mode isn't great, but you know that from the forums...
0 -
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
0 -
I think I figured out why it wasn't included in Dan Wallace's list and therefore not included in Logos's tagging (Faithlife appears to have used Wallace's list as THE comprehensive list). Per Dan Wallace in Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule footnote #84:
"
On the textual front, Kuehne mentions Nestle’s 20th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (1950) as the basis of his research (ibid., 16), while neither Durham nor Sharp mention their textual basis. Our study is based on the text of Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition of Novum Te s tamentum Graece (= UBSGNT 4 ). Thus, for example, ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθείς in Mark 16:16 , since it is found in double brackets in Nestle-Aland 27 , is omitted from our list. Note also the variae lectiones in Matt 12:22; 13:23 ; Mark 12:26 ; Gal 1:15 ; Col 1:3, 12; 2:2; 3:17 . In passing, we note that every one of these variant readings do have an identical referent." In other words, Wallace didn't include Matt 13:23 in his list because it contains a variant reading. The variant is for the word for "understands" (συνιείς). Interestingly enough, even the variant reading (συνιων) still fits the rule, as Wallace states above. It's the same word (lemma:συνίημι@VPAP-SNM) according to the Morphology Chart.
I think Faithlife should consider including this verse in the tagging. Whether you accept the NA28 text reading or the variant reading it still fits the rule. I came across Mark 16:16 (mentioned by Wallace above) as I was reviewing my search results as well. Wallace didn't include it because it's part of the Longer Ending of Mark that's in double brackets in the NA27.
I know textual variants can be tricky but Faithlife should at least revisit this list on a case-by-case basis.
0 -
Looks like Karl beat me to it. lol
0 -
It's been a long time since I played with this, but I checked my "Granville Sharp Participles Search", which I remember had 63 results - and you can see, Matt 13:23 is caught:
I used a search that a kind Logos user had made public in Docs and I also got 63 results even though the search is not identical to yours (though it's very close). Since it was close to other queries I had seen posted in some older forums I decided not to try and modify it and just go through the results to see how/if the rule applied.
0
