George Vance Smith on Sharp's Rule, from The Bible and Its Theology as Popularly Taught: A Review, Comparison, and Re-Statement by G.Vance Smith, B.A. Philos. & Theol. Doct. 1892
In the Epistles there are two passages which have been considered of great importance, as direct testimonies for the deity of Christ. They have not been noticed in the body of this work, chiefly from the desire not to burden the text with too many of such details; but a few brief remarks may be introduced here. The passages referred to are Titus ii. 13 and 1 John v. 20, to which may be added 2 Pet. i. 1 (R. V.)
Titus ii. 13.—In the Authorized Version this runs as follows: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Dean Alford (N. T. revised) varies thus: ". . .. hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Thus, many others, as Winer, Bunsen and De Wette, distinguishing between "the great God" and Jesus Christ.
Dr. Liddon, however, as might be expected, renders thus: "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," exactly following the translation of Bishop Ellicott (Past. Ep. p. 259). R.V. also reads, "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
The R.V. rendering of 2 Pet. i. 1 is similar: "the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In both these cases the margin fairly gives notice that the old translation may be correct; and in both eases the American Revision Committee recommend that the new text and its margin should change places. Thus it is clear that the old translation carries as much authority as the new one; and the question may be asked, Why then did the English revisers alter it—and that too in opposition to their own good rule, to make as few alterations as possible? The following statement applies to both these texts.
It is acknowledged by the highest authorities that there is nothing in the grammatical form of either passage to determine its translation the one way or the other. It may be correctly represented by both renderings. In the presence of this doubt, the ordinary reader may be well satisfied to follow the guidance of such scholars as Meyer and Winer, who (in Titus ii. 13) are agreed in telling us that two subjects of thought are here designated, and that Jesus Christ accordingly is not described as "the great God." The judgment of these scholars is the more valuable because their conclusion has been dictated, they tell us, simply by a due regard to the usual tenor of St. Paul's language, in reference to God and to Christ. Winer enforces his view of Tit. ii. 13, by the following note: "In the above remarks I had no intention to deny that, in point of grammar, SWTHROS HMWN [Saviour of us, i.e. our Saviour] may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article TOU; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings, that this Apostle cannot have called Christ the great God, induced me to shew that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause KAI SWT....CRISTOU by itself, as referring to a second subject." To this note the English translator of Winer appends these words:—"This passage is very carefully examined by Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford in loc; and though these writers come to different conclusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the former rendering the words, 'of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ'), they are entirely agreed as to the admissibility of both renderings in point of grammar." (Winer, Gram. N. T., ed. by Moulton, p. 162.)
Probably nothing more is needed to enable the English reader to see that the rendering of the Authorized is amply justified and could only have been changed under some unavowed dogmatic influence. The point in question may be easily illustrated. Thus: the words hO FILIPPOS KAI ALEXANDOS do not convey or imply that Philip and Alexander are one and the same person, because they were known to have been two; so neither does hO QEOS HMWN KAI KURIOS necessarily imply that God and Christ are one and the same, inasmuch as they also were equally known to be two, and are everywhere recognized and spoken of as two.
To the correctness of the resulting position there is a remarkable testimony under the hand and seal of the revisers themselves! In 2 Thess. i. 12, we have exactly the same form of expression as in 2 Pet. i. 1. The words and their order are all the same, except only that KURIOS, Lord, takes the place of SWTHR, Saviour. Thus:—(a) 2 Pet. i. 1: literally, "the God of us and Saviour Jesus Christ;" (b) 2 Thess. i. 12: literally, "the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ." In (a) the R.V. rendering is "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;" in (b) it is "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." To which of these inconsistent translations of the same form of words will the revisers adhere as correct?
Bishop Ellicott has the following remark—quite in harmony with the above interpretation: "It must be candidly avowed that it is very doubtful whether on the grammatical principle last alluded to [the union of two substantives under the vinculum of a common article] the interpretation of this passage can be fully settled." The Bishop goes on to give in detail the reasons which have determined him to render as he has done, and concludes his comment in these words: "It ought not to be suppressed that some of the best versions, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian (not, however, Ethiopic), and some Fathers of unquestioned orthodoxy, adopted the other interpretation the true rendering of the clause really turns more upon exegesis than upon grammar, and this the student should not fail clearly to bear in mind. (Pastoral Epistles, p. 201.) This last remark is one to which every fair-minded reader will assent; but he will remember that exegesis, here as elsewhere, ought to be illustrated and confirmed by the usual strain of the N.T. writings, and should not be in opposition to it.
The same excellent authority, although on exegetical grounds defending the new rendering, has yet expressly guarded himself against too servile a deference to the rule of the article above referred to. His words are clear and to the point:—"Lastly, several examples of what is called Granville Sharp's rule, or the inference from the presence of the article before only the first of two substantives connected by KAI, that they both refer to the same person or class, must be deemed very doubtful. The rule is sound in principle, but in the case of proper names or quasi-proper names, cannot safely be pressed."—Aids to Faith (4th ed.), p. 462
[Comp. the well known words of Bishop Pearson: "We must not think to decide this controversy by the articles, of which the sacred penmen were not curious, and the transcribers have been very careless." —On the Creed (ed. 1842), p. 229, note.]
In the Epistles there are two passages which have been considered of great importance, as direct testimonies for the deity of Christ. They have not been noticed in the body of this work, chiefly from the desire not to burden the text with too many of such details; but a few brief remarks may be introduced here. The passages referred to are Titus ii. 13 and 1 John v. 20, to which may be added 2 Pet. i. 1 (R. V.)
Titus ii. 13.—In the Authorized Version this runs as follows: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Dean Alford (N. T. revised) varies thus: ". . .. hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Thus, many others, as Winer, Bunsen and De Wette, distinguishing between "the great God" and Jesus Christ.
Dr. Liddon, however, as might be expected, renders thus: "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," exactly following the translation of Bishop Ellicott (Past. Ep. p. 259). R.V. also reads, "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
The R.V. rendering of 2 Pet. i. 1 is similar: "the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In both these cases the margin fairly gives notice that the old translation may be correct; and in both eases the American Revision Committee recommend that the new text and its margin should change places. Thus it is clear that the old translation carries as much authority as the new one; and the question may be asked, Why then did the English revisers alter it—and that too in opposition to their own good rule, to make as few alterations as possible? The following statement applies to both these texts.
It is acknowledged by the highest authorities that there is nothing in the grammatical form of either passage to determine its translation the one way or the other. It may be correctly represented by both renderings. In the presence of this doubt, the ordinary reader may be well satisfied to follow the guidance of such scholars as Meyer and Winer, who (in Titus ii. 13) are agreed in telling us that two subjects of thought are here designated, and that Jesus Christ accordingly is not described as "the great God." The judgment of these scholars is the more valuable because their conclusion has been dictated, they tell us, simply by a due regard to the usual tenor of St. Paul's language, in reference to God and to Christ. Winer enforces his view of Tit. ii. 13, by the following note: "In the above remarks I had no intention to deny that, in point of grammar, SWTHROS HMWN [Saviour of us, i.e. our Saviour] may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article TOU; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings, that this Apostle cannot have called Christ the great God, induced me to shew that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause KAI SWT....CRISTOU by itself, as referring to a second subject." To this note the English translator of Winer appends these words:—"This passage is very carefully examined by Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford in loc; and though these writers come to different conclusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the former rendering the words, 'of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ'), they are entirely agreed as to the admissibility of both renderings in point of grammar." (Winer, Gram. N. T., ed. by Moulton, p. 162.)
Probably nothing more is needed to enable the English reader to see that the rendering of the Authorized is amply justified and could only have been changed under some unavowed dogmatic influence. The point in question may be easily illustrated. Thus: the words hO FILIPPOS KAI ALEXANDOS do not convey or imply that Philip and Alexander are one and the same person, because they were known to have been two; so neither does hO QEOS HMWN KAI KURIOS necessarily imply that God and Christ are one and the same, inasmuch as they also were equally known to be two, and are everywhere recognized and spoken of as two.
To the correctness of the resulting position there is a remarkable testimony under the hand and seal of the revisers themselves! In 2 Thess. i. 12, we have exactly the same form of expression as in 2 Pet. i. 1. The words and their order are all the same, except only that KURIOS, Lord, takes the place of SWTHR, Saviour. Thus:—(a) 2 Pet. i. 1: literally, "the God of us and Saviour Jesus Christ;" (b) 2 Thess. i. 12: literally, "the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ." In (a) the R.V. rendering is "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;" in (b) it is "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." To which of these inconsistent translations of the same form of words will the revisers adhere as correct?
Bishop Ellicott has the following remark—quite in harmony with the above interpretation: "It must be candidly avowed that it is very doubtful whether on the grammatical principle last alluded to [the union of two substantives under the vinculum of a common article] the interpretation of this passage can be fully settled." The Bishop goes on to give in detail the reasons which have determined him to render as he has done, and concludes his comment in these words: "It ought not to be suppressed that some of the best versions, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian (not, however, Ethiopic), and some Fathers of unquestioned orthodoxy, adopted the other interpretation the true rendering of the clause really turns more upon exegesis than upon grammar, and this the student should not fail clearly to bear in mind. (Pastoral Epistles, p. 201.) This last remark is one to which every fair-minded reader will assent; but he will remember that exegesis, here as elsewhere, ought to be illustrated and confirmed by the usual strain of the N.T. writings, and should not be in opposition to it.
The same excellent authority, although on exegetical grounds defending the new rendering, has yet expressly guarded himself against too servile a deference to the rule of the article above referred to. His words are clear and to the point:—"Lastly, several examples of what is called Granville Sharp's rule, or the inference from the presence of the article before only the first of two substantives connected by KAI, that they both refer to the same person or class, must be deemed very doubtful. The rule is sound in principle, but in the case of proper names or quasi-proper names, cannot safely be pressed."—Aids to Faith (4th ed.), p. 462
[Comp. the well known words of Bishop Pearson: "We must not think to decide this controversy by the articles, of which the sacred penmen were not curious, and the transcribers have been very careless." —On the Creed (ed. 1842), p. 229, note.]
For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here
This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here
