Sharp’s Rule Before Granville Sharp

In this post I will cite the statements of various textual critics, theologians and/or scholars in respect to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and the Deity of Christ. Specifically, I will be quoting these authorities to see whether they were aware of the particular Greek construction, which Granville Sharp in 1798 wrote about, concerning the use of the definite article in texts that focus on the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  

Sharp discovered that whenever two singular, personal nouns/participles/adjectives that are not proper names, are connected by the Greek conjunction kai (“and”), with the definite article appearing only before the first noun/participle/adjective, then both nouns/participles/adjectives refer to a single individual or to the same person.

Erasmus

The following quotations are taken from the Collected Works of Erasmus: Paraphrases on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, the Epistles of Peter and Jude, the Epistle of James, the Epistles of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated and annotated by John J. Bateman, published by University of Toronto Press in 1994. All emphasis will be mine.

“… Conspicuous with the same glory, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will appear together with the Father and will impart to his members the same glory of immortality with which he himself shines forth.¹⁷…” (P. 63)

17 Erasmus follows Ambrosiaster, who virtually alone among the early church Fathers understands the phrase 'our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ' to refer to the Father and the Son separately and not just to Jesus. This position involved Erasmus in endless controversy, especially with Lee, Sancho Carranza, and a group of Spanish monks; cf. the annotation on Titus 2:13 (magni del et salvatoris] LB vi 9710; Responsio ad annotationes Lei LB ix 2736-2748; Apologia ad Carranzam LB ix 4HD-412C; and Apologia adversus monachos LB IX 1O43C. Modern scholars are equally at odds over the meaning of the phrase; cf. Fee Titus, Kelly Pastoral Epistles, and Spicq Epitres pastorales on 2:13, and Murray J. Harris, ‘Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ' Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F.F. Bruce on His 80th Birthday edited by Donald A. Hagner. (P. 290)

Erasmus was clearly unaware of this rule of Greek grammar.

What Erasmus wrote about another disputed text, namely, 1 John 5:7, which speaks of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit being one, is interesting as well:

With what defences was he armed when he came? Jesus Christ came through water and blood: through water to wash away our sins from us, through blood to bestow immortal life on us.⁶ Though free from every sin he wanted to be baptized in order to grant us innocence.⁷ He wanted to die on the cross in order to open the way for us to immortality. These two were not the only signs through which he gave evidence that he was the Christ and the Saviour, to receive baptism like a guilty person and to die on the cross like a criminal, though he alone of all was free from every sin. The Spirit too, appearing in the form of a dove, gave evidence about him,⁸ that he was the one whom the Father had given to be the Saviour of the world. For the Spirit too is truth just as the Father and the Son are. The truth of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one. For⁹ there are three in heaven who furnish testimony to Christ: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. The Father, who not once but twice sent forth his voice from the sky¹⁰ and publicly testified that this was his uniquely beloved Son in whom he found no offence; the Word, who, by performing so many miracles and by dying and rising again, showed that he was the true Christ, both God and human alike, the reconciler of God and humankind; the Holy Spirit, who descended on his head at baptism¹¹ and after the resurrection glided down upon the disciples.¹² The agreement of these three is absolute. The Father is the author, the Son the messenger, the Spirit the inspirer. There are likewise three things on earth which attest Christ: the human spirit which he laid down on the cross, the water, and the blood which flowed from his side in death.¹³ And these three witnesses are in agreement.¹⁴ They testify that he was a man. The first three declare him to be God.¹⁵ (Pp. 197-198)

6 The view that in 5:6 'water' refers to the baptism of Christ, 1310001' to his passion and death occurs in Bede Exp 1 loannis CCL 121 320:64-321:69 / Hurst 216. Bede also sees in these words a reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. See Brown Epistles 572-8 for a survey of the various interpretations of the words 'through water and blood.’

7 That Jesus, who was without sin, submitted to a baptism of repentance posed a problem both in the early church and subsequently. See e.g. Robert H. Gundry Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Mich 1982) 50-1 on Matt 3:14, and C.E.B. Cranfield The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge 1985) 51-2. The latter quotes Calvin's view that Jesus allowed himself to be baptized so 'that He might consecrate baptism in His own body, that we might have it in common with him.' Erasmus' own solution of the problem may be found in the paraphrase on Matt 3:14-15 (LB VII i/A-D), where he argues that everything that Jesus submitted to during his life - circumcision, purification in the Temple, baptism, the scourging, crucifixion - he did not for himself but for us: to impart his innocence [i.e. righteousness] to us and to provide us with an example to follow. The idea that Jesus' life is an example for believers is patristic; c.f. CWE 46 118 n74, 145 n38, 207 n.6. Both explanations occur repeatedly in the Paraphrases on the Epistles.

8 C.f. Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32, though in the Fourth Gospel it is John the Baptist who testifies. Bede Exp 1 loannis 5:6 CCL 121 321:70-4 / Hurst 216 refers the mention of the Spirit in this verse to the descent of the dove at Jesus' baptism. C.f. Brown Epistles 579-80.

9 The Greek manuscripts which Erasmus used in preparing the first two editions of the Novum Testamentum (Basel 1516 and 1519) did not contain the following passage in 5:7-8: '... in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth...' This passage was known only from Latin manuscripts until the Codex Montfortianus (no 61 in the list of codices in NTGL) was produced containing a Greek text of it; see Brown Epistles 775-87 for the history of the passage. When informed of the existence of the Codex Montfortianus and the Greek text in it, Erasmus added the Greek text together with a Latin version to his third edition of the Novum Testamentum (Basel 1522). The inclusion of the passage in the Paraphrase on 1 John suggests that Erasmus had already received a copy of the Greek text by December 1520, unless he is simply paraphrasing the text of the Vulgate as he often does elsewhere. For a discussion of the entire matter see H.J. de Jonge, 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980) 381-9 and Rummel Annotations 40 and 132-4.

10 At Jesus' baptism (Matt 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22) and transfiguration (Matt 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35; c.f. also 2 Pet 1:17) 11 C.f. Matt 3:16 and the parallel passages in Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32.

11 C.f. Matt 3:16 and the parallel passages in Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32.

12 C.f. Acts 2:2-3. Erasmus' language in the paraphrase is reminiscent of the NOTES TO PAGES 197-8 348 description of descents of divinities from the sky found in Roman literature; c.f. e.g. Martial 8.32.1 or Virgil Aeneid 7.620.

13 C.f. John 19:30 and 34. Bede Exp 1 loannis 5:7-8 CCL 121 321:85-99 / Hurst 217, whose text of 1 John did not contain the words about the three witnesses in heaven, assumes that the water and blood mentioned in verse 8 refer to the blood and water which flowed - miraculously according to Bede - from Jesus' side and 'bear witness that Jesus is truth because this could not have happened if Jesus did not have the true nature of flesh/ Bede, however, believes that the spirit is here the Holy Spirit who descended on Jesus after baptism, which also seems to be the view of all other commentators. In referring all three witnesses – the spirit as well as the water and blood – to Jesus' death on the cross Erasmus may be following Augustine who says in his Collatio cum Maximino 2.22.3 42 794-5: 'We know that three things issued from the body of the Lord when he was hanging on the cross: first, the spirit - hence it is written "And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit" [John 19:30]; secondly, when his side was pierced by the lance, blood and water [issued].' Augustine goes on to consider the three physical witnesses of spirit, water, and blood to be an allegory of the Trinity. Erasmus ignored this allegorical interpretation of the text and was censured in 1527 by a committee of Spanish monks who accused him of defending [Greek] manuscripts which in their view were corrupt because they did not contain the passage about the heavenly witnesses, of impugning the authority of Jerome because he rejected the authenticity of a text which in their view Jerome had translated, of sustaining the cause of Arianism, and of waging inexorable war against the testimony of the three divine witnesses, rejecting censure and heaping up frivolous arguments from all sides against the text. See the Apologia adversus monachos LB IX 1O29E-F, and for the history of this controversy, Rummel Critics II 81-105.

14 The sentence - 'and these three agree' (RSV) - in 5:8 is omitted in the Codex Montfortianus, which led Erasmus to believe that its Greek text about the three heavenly witnesses was a translation of the Vulgate; see his Apologia ad annotationes Stunicae ASD ix-2 258:538-40 and his annotation on 1 John 5:7 (tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo) LB vi 10796-1081F especially 1080D.

15 Bede Exp 1 loannis 5:7-8 CCL 121 32:85-105 / Hurst 217-8 makes the same point that the three witnesses - Holy Spirit, blood and water - testify to the dual nature of Christ, true God and true human. 16 John the Baptist; c.f. John 1:15, 19-34. (Pp. 248-249)

Theodor Beza

Beza was John Calvin’s successor and an influential textual New Testament critic. Here is how Titus 2:13 is rendered in Beza’s Latin Novum Testamentum, p. 243: 

Exspeclantes beatam illam spem, et illustrem ilium adventum gloriae magni illius Dei, ac Servatori nostri, nempe Jesu Christi (PDF WITH TEXT)

“Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God, and Savior of us, Jesus Christ,”

The evidence from Beza’s writings show that he believed that this verse identified Jesus Christ as our great God and Savior:

“… Speaking further of the rule in question, the same learned editor fays to Mr. Sharp, I call the rule yours; for, though it was acknowledged and applied by Beza and others * to some of the texts alleged by you, yet never was it so prominently, because singly, or so effectually, as in your Remarks.' This testimony of Theodore Beza, an acknowledged scholar, and a translator of the whole New Testament, is particularly valuable; and, as it has not been given at length, in what has hitherto been published, we shall here infer it. In commenting on the text, Tit. ii. 13, epiphaneian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou after speaking of the epiphaneian which he rightly insists must belong to Christ, and which he translates adventus, he thus proceeds: ‘Quod autem ad alterum attinet quum scriptum lit, e. tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon I. X. non tou megalou theou kai soteros, dico non magis probabiliter ista posse ad duas diistinctas personas referrim quam illam locutionem, ho theos kai pater Soteros, theos kai pater, communis: quum praefertim, ut ante dixi, nunquam eiphaneia aut parousia nisi uni Filio tribuatur. Itaque fie concludo, Christum Jesum hie aperte Magnum Deum dici, qui et beata ilia Spes nostra metonymice vocatu. Illi igitur ut vere magno et aeterno Deo, fit gloria et laus omnis, in faecula faeculcrum.’ Here the rule, repeating the article, is fittingly laid down, as by Mr. Sharp, and the same conclusion, with equal distinctness, drawn.” (Granville Sharp, Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New Testament, containing many new proofs of the divinity of Christ, from passages which are wrongly translated in the common English version [Sold by Ernor & Hood, F. & C. Rivington J. White, & J. Hatchard & L. Pennington, Durham: Third Edition 1803], pp. 104-105: PDF)

Beza is not the only one among the biblical critics who has noticed this idiom; it has occasionally been urged by various writers. Abundant praise is due to Mr. Granville Sharp for bringing it forward in the distinct manner he has, and for illustrating it by so great a variety of apposite examples; but we mull not, if we would be correct, consider it as his discovery even among the moderns. Wolfius says, Articulus ta prasmittendus fuisset voci Soteros (in Tit. ii. 13) fiquidem hic a megalou theou distingui debuisset.' In loco. Drusius, on the same text, says, 'Non solum Deus, sed etiam Deus Magnus, vocatur hic Christus' (in Grit. Sacro); where, though the rule is not mentioned, it is taken for granted as undeniable Bishop Bull, Calovius, Vitringa, and Dr Twells, are all referred to by Woltius, as supporting this sense, on the verse of Titus above-mentioned: and Erasmus, who speaks of that passage as ambiguous, had too much knowledge of Greek not to own, that the omission of the article had some force against that opinion.' Quanquam omissus articulus, in libris Gracis, facit nonnihil pro diveria fententia. Megalou Theou kai Soter. evidentius distinxisset personas si dixisset, kai tou Soteros.' Rev." (Ibid., p. 104; emphasis mine)

Here's a rough translation of Beza’s Latin:

“But as for the other, when it is written, e. tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon I. X. not tou megalou theou kai soteros, I say that it is no more probable that these things can be attributed to two distinct persons than that expression, ho theos kai pater soteros, theos kai pater, is common: since, as I said before, epiphania or parousia is never attributed except to one Son. Therefore I conclude that Christ Jesus is here openly called the Great God, who is also metonymically called that blessed Hope of ours. To Him, therefore, as truly great and eternal God, all glory and praise is due, in the most humble of manners.

Beza's footnote from 1598 on 2 Pet. 1:1 reads:

"Of our God and Savior," etc. tou theou hemon kai soteros, etc.  These words must be explained conjunctively, because there is a single article, as explained more fully at Titus 2:13. Therefore, this passage also contains a clear testimony to the divinity of Christ.”

The foregoing indicates that Beza had some awareness of Sharp’s first rule. As New Testament textual critic Dr. Daniel B. Wallace notes:

²⁵ For a detailed treatment, see D. B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Καί in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995) 50-80.  What should be noted here is that the first wave of reactions to Sharp’s canon were sort of a backhanded confirmation of his rule.  One reviewer stated that the rule had been known for quite some time and that Sharp was not the first to state this principle.  In the British Critic 20.1 (July, 1802), the unnamed reviewer mentions Beza, Wolfius, Drusius, Bishop Bull, Calovius, Vitringa, and Dr. Twells as those who knew of the rule before Sharp.  Nevertheless, they do not lay down the limitations of the canon as Sharp had done.  Beza’s comments on Titus 2:13, which the reviewer gratuitously regarded as being just as clear as Sharp’s rule, are quoted here (Theodor Beza, Annotationes Maiores in Novum Dn. Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum [2 vols.; n.p.: n.p., 1594] 2.478):

Quod autem ad alterum attinet, quum scriptum sit, ἐπιφανvειαν [sic] τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, non autem τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος, dico non magis probabiliter ista posse ad duas distinctas personas referri quàm illam loquutionem ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.  Nam id certè postulat Graeci sermonis usus, quum unus tantùm sit articulus, duobus istis, nempe Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος & Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, communis: quum praesertim (ut antè dixi) nunquam ἐπιφανvεια [sic] aut παρουσία nisi uni Filio tribuatur.  Itaque sic concludo, Christum Iesum hic apertè magnum Deum dici, qui & beata illa spes nostra metonymicè vocatur.  Illi igitur, ut verè magno & aeterno Deo, . . . sit gloria & laus omnis in secula seculorum.

The only substantive grammatical insight Beza makes is that the single article unites both nouns.  He sees this unity as indicating identity not because of the construction alone, but because of theological considerations.  Clearly this is by no means as specific as Sharp’s rule.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that Beza’s instincts on the passage (and other christologically significant texts) ran along the same lines as Sharp’s (cf. Beza, Annotationes Maiores 2.376 [on Eph 5:5], 2.586 [on 2 Pet 1:1]). (Wallace, Sharp Redivivus? – A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule; emphasis mine)

Geneva Bible Study Notes

Tit 2:13 (e) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(e) Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure of speech metonymy, our hope.

2Pe 1:1 Simon (1) Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the (a) righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

(1) A greeting, in which he gives them to understand that he deals with them as Christ's ambassadors, and otherwise agrees with them in the same faith which is grounded on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour.

(a) In that God, in standing by his promises, showed himself faithful, and therefore just to us.

Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], (2) who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

(2) Or, "who is God over all, blessed for ever." A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ.

It is important to mention the fact that Beza's annotations formed an integral part of the Geneva Bible, specifically in relation to the New Testament. In fact, Beza's 1565 Latin New Testament annotations were translated into English and incorporated within many Geneva Bibles, especially those printed after 1576 by Laurence Tomson. 

Further Reading

GRANVILLE SHARP & CHRIST'S DEITY

Ephesians 5:5: Another Example of Granville Sharp’s First Rule?

Jesus Christ: The Great God, King & Shepherd

Codex Sinaiticus & 2 Peter 1:1

KJV & SHARP’S FIRST RULE

Biblical Verses That Call Jesus God

NT USE OF THEOS SOTER & THE DEITY OF CHRIST

Jesus Christ: The God Who Saved & Punished During the Exodus

Christ: The Great God Jehovah Has Come!