Granville "Sharp's Rule," the "Sharper Rule," and the "Sharpest Rule"

If you are familiar with New Testament (NT) studies involving translations of certain texts which may or may not call Jesus of Nazareth "G-god," then you have probably heard of "Sharp's rule." However, unless you have taken a great deal of time to sort through the history of issues related to the discussion and to the application of this "rule" to various NT (and other) texts, you may not realize its many limitations or how to best determine whether "Sharp's rule" is even applicable.

The history and the controversies surrounding Sharp's rule have given rise to what Dallas Theological Seminary Professor Daniel B. Wallace in his 1995 doctoral dissertation presents as the '"Sharper rule."  But do Wallace's revisions to Sharp's rule, and his explanations for its exceptions, give us the "Sharpest rule" according to the best available evidence? I do not believe it does.

As I have studied this issue for some time, as have Wallace and others, it is again time for me to present some of the best reasons for my position, and then let each person decide whether to use "Sharp's rule," the "Sharper rule," or to use what I consider the "Sharpest rule." Based on my review and presentation of good reasons (see links below), I conclude Wallace and others who agree with him here (Trinitarian writers and scholars, mostly) have failed to adequately treat and respond to numerous critical issues related both to Sharp's rule and to Wallace's "Sharper rule."

While I have previously addressed Wallace's 1995 doctoral thesis in a 44 page "Excursus" in the Second Edition of my Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Elihu Books, 2000), a copy of which can be read online here, the issues involved in this discussion are such that I did not think it practical to include my "Excursus" on Sharp's rule in my Third Edition (Elihu Books, 2009) as I indicated in the Introduction, page xv. Further, last year Wallace published a revised version of his dissertation on Sharp's rule through Peter Lang, as part of Lang's "Studies in Biblical Greek" (volume 14) series: Daniel B. Wallace, Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, D.A. Carson, ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 2009).

In his 2009 book on Sharp's Canon and Its Kin, Wallace cites my 2000 publication (page 254, note 59) and its Excursus on Sharp's rule, but Wallace fails to address my entire range of arguments, choosing instead to refer to an online response by J. Ed Komoszewski written in 1999, a year before my 2000 Excursus was published. It is not possible, therefore, for Komoszewski's 1999 article to have been a response to my 2000 Excursus, though Wallace cites Komoszewski's 1999 article as if that is what it is! Wallace also nowhere references or cites my online response to Komoszewski's 1999 article, which I wrote over ten years ago and which has been online ever since.

There are other concerns relating to Sharp's rule, to Wallace's "Sharper rule," and where it concerns the responses given (or not given) by Wallace, by Komoszewski, and by other Trinitarians to my arguments and to what others have written concerning Sharp's rule over the years. Some of these concerns regarding the history, discussion, and application of Sharp's rule are presented and considered further in my online paper, "Another Exception to Sharp's Canon and Its Kin," July 26, 2010, to be listed as number "2" in the coming Elihu Online Papers page [January 30, 2012 *AUTHOR UPDATE*: The latest revised version of this paper is now listed on the Elihu Online Papers page as, "Another Exception to Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: A Further Response to Dan Wallace (With an Appendix)."]. This page which will replace the current use of IN MEDIO for its part in the presentation of information related to the activities and beliefs of Christian Witnesses of Jah throughout the world.

My new online paper is only the beginning of my further response to Wallace and to others regarding these issues. More will follow in my, The "Sharpest Rule": A Review and Restatement of Greek's Most Tragic Rule.

A Letter from A.T. Robertson to E.J. Goodspeed about "Russellite Propaganda"

In my answer to the question, "Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?" ("Upon the Lampstand," December 17, 2009), on page 8 and on the related note on page 14 (for note 38 on page 8), I wrote  the following in part concerning a possible reason for why renowned Southern Baptist Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) failed to properly identify the Greek idiom used in John 8:58, namely, because in my view Robertson was "at times overly motivated by loyalty to Trinitarianism." 

Here is what I wrote from my pages 8 and 14 on this point in a larger context:

Though several Greek and New Testament scholars before K.L. McKay accurately wrote about the meaning of John 8:58, McKay has helped to further undo part of the damage done by Trinitarian scholars such as A.T. Robertson, whose theology appears to have overridden his grammatical skills when it comes to texts such as John 8:58. ... [A.T.] Robertson was at times overly motivated by loyalty to Trinitarianism in his treatment of certain grammatical issues, which can be seen in his handling of the use of eimi in John 8:58. Consider Robertson’s lamenting of “those who” believed various things during his time, including “those who accept the New Testament writings as adequate interpretations of Christ and Christianity, but who say that Trinitarianism is a misinterpretation of the New Testament” (A.T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1977], page 61).

The Elihu Books Topical Index now contains a copy of a handwritten letter from A.T. Robertson to Bible translator E.J. Goodspeed (1871-1962) dated May 19, 1931, which I believe further reveals a theological bias which may explain why at times in his writings Robertson cites or even discusses certain theologically charged texts (like John 8:58), only to then abandon a full and fair  grammatical assessment in favor of the assumption of Trinitarianism.  

This does not mean Robertson's works are not full of much that is useful, enlightening, and historically interesting. But I do believe this letter from Robertson to Goodspeed further reveals the importance of keeping Robertson's knowledge, in particular his written expression of that knowledge, in its proper and full context, especially given the wide and longstanding circulation that Robertson's writings have been given, which writings should be accepted or rejected based on the good reasons provided or not provided or considered thoroughly or even at all by Robertson, as with anyone else's writings.

In this letter (a transcription of which I provide below) Robertson expresses his receipt and appreciation for Goodspeed's (then) newly released, "Strange New Gospels," in which Goodspeed reviews various documents and texts related to the New Testament, as understood during that early part of the twentieth century (in the mid to late 1920s). In writing to Goodspeed about this new work, Robertson brings up the English "Concordant N.T.," which Robertson calls "Russellite propaganda," referring to the founder and first president of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (later Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), C.T. Russell (1852-1916).

Here is my transcription of the letter below the handwritten date:

My dear Dr. Goodspeed: I have
only this morning, after my re-
covery from the influenza,
read your useful and timely
"Strange Gospels."

I get frequent inquires about
some of that stuff and I am
glad to be able to tell of your
careful presentation of the facts.

Only this morning I have a
letter from California (sent
by way

from New Zealand) about the

[Page 2]
Concordant N.T.; a Russellite
propaganda which is de-
ceiving many innocent people.
I denounce it on occasion.
I wish you would take one chapter (or one N.T. book)
in it and expose its fal-
lacies and hallucinations.

It is doing much more
harm than the "Strange Gospels."
I have marked in the circular
the "New Short Grammar"
(Richard R. Smith, Inc.) which
you may stumble on.

Cordially yours,
A.T. Robertson

Clearly, despite being a learned and accomplished Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson was heavily influenced by his theology, so much so that he considered other groups' views (such as those of the "Russellites" and those expressed in the "Concordant N.T.") to be "propaganda which is deceiving many innocent people," and whose "hallucinations" Robertson 'denounced on occasion.'

Yet, it is A.T. Robertson whom we also find characterizing  another well-regarded Greek grammarians before him, G.B. Winer, as having "exerted a pernicious influence" over those scholars who differed with Robertson (including Winer) over texts such as Titus 2:13. But this very text is one Robertson himself interprets according to later (that is, post-biblical) theological constructs, specifically, those having to do with the Trinity and its concepts of "God" as positively referring not only to the Trinity (though only "one God" is claimed) but also applying positively to the "persons" of the Trinity, none of whom are individual beings themselves, but all of whom share equally in the one being of the Trinity. This equal sharing is what it is that allows Robertson to use "God" or "Deity" for Jesus in New Testament texts such as Titus 2:13.—See Robertson's, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," The Expositor, 8th Series, volume 21 (1921), pages 182-188.

See page 275 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, note 103, for the reference to Robertson's characterization of Winer (which is on page 187 of "The Greek Article" article by Robertson, cited above). See Chapter 2 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended for a discussion of how Trinitarian writers and scholars have for centuries (for over 1,500 years, in fact) misinterpreted the use of "G-god" nearly everywhere if not, in fact, everywhere the original words for "G-god" appear in the Old and in the New Testaments, as well as in many if not in all Dead Sea Scroll and Jewish Pseudepigraphal literature available to date.—See Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, Chapter 2.

Of course, Trinitarians' view and uses of "G-god" would not necessarily keep them from using the same terms for "G-god" of idols or for non-Judeo-Christian "gods," accurately. Yet, because the words informing Trinitarianism are either biblical words (for examples, "God," "Father," and "Son") or they seem like and may in some sense be biblical words, but the biblical meaning and what we read about the meaning of the same words in the writings of Trinitarians are nothing alike. This includes the word "person," which is used by Trinitarians in a theological, metaphysical sense for members of the Trinity, though "person" is never used in this same way in the Bible in relation to the Trinity, or for the Trinity itself, leaving Trinitarians such as Dr. James White to refer to the Trinity as a "what" as opposed to the three "persons" of the Trinity who are "who's."—See James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), page 27, and my review and response to the same in my Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, pages 134-154.

Still, unless people require the Trinitarian to explain the basis for his or her use of every single use of the words for "G-god," then it will be that much more difficult for you and for them to see the meanings given to the words for "G-god" and for related, descriptive words and phrases such as "Son" or "sons of God" in the biblical writings and in other, related literature written or available during the biblical periods.