GRANVILLE SHARP'S RULE

Bruce A. Baker
Pastor, Concord Baptist Church, Bates City, Missouri
In the year 1798, a layman who was completely self-taught published a small book that he had written twenty
years earlier. In it he articulated six principles regarding the use of the article in the Greek New Testament.
Despite the brevity of the work and the lack of formal education of the author, this book is now considered a
classic in the specialty of Greek grammar. The layman's name was Granville Sharp.
Granville Sharp's accomplishments,1 considering his lack of formal education, are astounding. He filed and won
several lawsuits in England aimed at ending the slave trade. Ultimately, slavery itself was abolished in England, due
in no small part to his strenuous efforts behind the scenes. Although he never left his native England, his influence
was felt well beyond its borders. Sharp's pamphlet decrying the tyranny of taxation without representation was sent
to America by Benjamin Franklin, where it was immediately reprinted in the thousands. Sharp founded the country of
Sierra Leone in West Africa as a haven for homeless former slaves after he became aware of their plight on the streets
of London. By the time of his death in 1813, he was a celebrated figure on three continents.
His book, 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, was as brief as the title was longoriginally only sixty pages. Even though subsequent editions added a
comparatively lengthy preface, the main impact of Sharp's book continues to be Rule One.
When the copulative kaiv connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (eit her substantive or adjective, or
participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, (sic) and attributes,
properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article oJ, 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.2

After stating this rule, Sharp explained and expanded the parameters of this rule. According to Sharp, the
construction article-substantive3kaivsubstantive must meet four requirements in order for both substantives to
point to the same referent. The substantives must (1) be personal, (2) be singular, (3) be common (not proper) and, (4)
agree in gender and case. Wallace agrees with this summary of Sharp's argument, stating,
In the statement of this rule, Sharp only discussed substantives (i.e., nouns, substantival adjectives,
substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not
the plural. . . . A perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to
personal, singular, non-proper nouns.4

1
The entire account of Granville Sharp's life was taken from Daniel B. Wallace, "Granville Sharp: A Model of
Evangelical Scholarship and Social Activism" (paper presented at the National Conference of the Evangelical
Theological Society, Philadelphia, 16 November 1995).
2

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, 1st American ed. from the 3d London ed. (Philadelphia: Hopkins, 1807), 3. Out of
circulation for years, this book has recently been reprinted by Original Word Publishing, ISBN: 0962654442.
3
A substantive is either a noun or another part of speech that can be used as a noun, such as a pronoun,
adjective, or participle.
4

Wallace, "Granville Sharp," 15.

SHARP'S RULE AND TITUS 2:13

Sharp's rule was not immediately accepted upon publication. His lack of formal training led some (particularly the
Socinians) to attack his rule on that account alone.5 None of his detractors, however, were able to produce one
exception to his rule within the New Testament. Calvin Winstanley "was able to show four classes of exceptions to
Sharp's rule in Greek literature outside the NT. Nevertheless, none of these exceptions impacted in any way the
Christologically pregnant texts that Sharp's rule was aimed at." 6
The highly respected nineteenth century Greek grammarian, Georg Benedict Winer, however, "virtually sounded
the
death
knell
to
Sharp's
rule." 7
Winer
remarked,
"In
Tit.
ii.13,
ejpifavneian th' dovxh tou' megavlou qeou' kai; swth'ro hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou', considerations derived from Paul's
system of doctrine lead me to believe that swth'ro is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with qeou." 8 In footnote
two, Winer continues,
In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grammar, swth'ro 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 show that there is no grammatical
obstacle to our taking the clause kai; swth'ro . . . Cristou' by itself, as referring to a second subject.9

Even though Winer offers no evidence, grammatical or otherwise, for his conclusion, his stature as a grammarian
effectively silenced Sharp. Wallace writes, "Ironically, what Winstanley could not do in a tightly argued, compact
book of fifty-five pages (all in eight-point type), Winer did in a single footnote!" 10

SHARP'S RULE EXPLAINED

Some clarification at this point might be in order. Sharp's rule concerns the construction article-substantive
kaivsubstantive. A proper understanding of Sharp's Rule requires the understanding of the restrictions upon it.11
For example, this rule applies only to substantives that refer to persons, and not to substantives that refer to
anything else. The phrase, "the desk and chair," would not fall under Sharp's rule as the nouns refer to objects rather
than persons. Thus, the phrase dia; th' prau?thto kai; ejjpieikeiva tou' Cristou' (through the meekness and
gentleness of Christ) in 2 Corinthians 10:112 does not fall under Sharp's rule because the substantives refer to
characteristics rather than persons.
Since this rule only refers to singular substantives, the phrase "the rulers and princes" would be excluded as
well. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply Sharp's rule to the phrase tw'n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw'n (the
apostles and prophets) in Ephesians 2:20 to make a case that both substantives refer to the same group of people.

Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected b y kai; in the New Testament, 56.

Wallace, "Granville Sharp," 17.

Ibid., 18.

G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, Regarded as A Sure Basis for New Testament
Exegesis, trans. and rev. W. F. Moulton, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1877), 162.
9

Ibid.

10

Wallace, "Granville Sharp," 18.

11
These restrictions may be found in the terms of the rule itself or in Sharp's explanation of the rule. He writes,
"There is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a
construction different from what is here laid down, except that nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in
which cases there are many exceptions." Sharp, Uses of the Definitive Article, 5-6.
12

All citations from the Greek New Testament are taken from Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New
Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).

Proper names are also excluded, making the phrase "the teacher and Joe" exempt. An example would be the
phrase ajpo; pavsh th' jIoudaiva kai; jIerousalh;;m kai; th' paralivou Tuvrou kai; Sidw'no (from all over Judea, from
Jerusalem, and from the coast of Tyre and Sidon) in Luke 6:17. One could argue that either the construction "(the)
Judea and Jerusalem" or the construction "(the) Tyre and Sidon" referred to a single referent according to Sharp's
rule if it were not for the fact that proper names are involved. Understanding the restrictions is vital to understanding
the rule.
While not explicitly stated by Sharp, this rule is also clearly limited to substantives that agree in gender and case
since the same article governs both substantives. Thus, the construction masculine nominative article-masculine
nominative substantivekaivfeminine nominative substantive would not fall under this rule. As with most
examples of this restriction, it is obvious that the two substantives oJ covrto kai; karpo;n in Matthew 13:26
(ejblavsthsen oJ covrto kai; karpo;n ejpoivhsen, the wheat sprang up and bore grain) do not refer to the same referent.
Clearly the masculine singular nominative article cannot govern karpo;n, an accusative noun.
In addition to the restrictions imposed by Sharp himself, Wallace has added four more qualifications to answer
the objections of Winstanley. Winstanley correctly observed that Aristotle used Sharp's construction with singular
nouns that were semantically plural (that is, representing a class of persons). In these constructions the referents
were different. Thus the rule must be limited to substantives that are singular both grammatically and semantically.
Another problem area for Sharp's rule is the LXX. Proverbs 24:21 (LXX) fits Sharp's construction
(fobou' to;n qeovn, uije,v kai; basileva, fear God, O son, and the King).13 Wallace offers several plausible explanations of
this anomaly,14 although he admits they are speculations. Whatever the reason for this variation, the use of Greek in
the LXX does not represent the standard usage of koine Greek as found in the New Testament and the papyri.15
Thus, his modified rule excludes the use of Sharp's Rule to translation Greek.
It is important to remember that, when both substantives meet the above requirements, the construction refers to
the same referent. It does not merely unite the substantives or state equality. Sharp's rule states that both
substantives refer to an identical referent!
Wallace has restated Granville Sharp's rule in order to explicitly state all the restrictions and to enhance the
readability of the rule. His restated rule is as follows:
In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives
connected by kaiv (thus, article -substantivekaiv-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both
grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have
the same referent.16

SURVEY OF LITERATURE CONCERNING SHARP'S RULE

Even though Winer objected to Sharp's rule on theological grounds, most grammarians now accept the validity
of Sharp's rule. What is amazing is the frequency with which it is misquoted and misapplied. Wallace writes, "Almost
without exception, those who seem to be acquainted with Sharp's rule and agree with its validity misunderstand it

13

Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979).

14

Wallace suggests the following: 1) The construction might be the unconscious choice of the translator
because of the tension between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. This tension might contribute to
unusual forms in the receptor language since the translation of the LXX, especially in the later books, tends to be
quite unsteady. 2) The construction might have been a conscious choice of the translator in order to stress the
intervening vocative instead of the grammatical construction. 3) Poetic considerations such as Greek meter might
have demanded such a construction. See Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by kaiv in the
New Testament, 12527.
15

Wallace points out that this is the only construction in the LXX that violates Sharp's Rule. Ibid., 127.

16

Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by kaiv in the New Testament: Semantics
and Significance (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary), 134-35.

and abuse it. This widespread misunderstanding shows no partialitygrammarians, exegetes, and theologians alike
are culpable." 17 A survey of modern grammars proves Wallace correct.
Dana and Mantey quote Sharp almost word-for-word.
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article oJ 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.18

Unfortunately, there is no discussion of the restrictions that qualify the rule. Without these restrictions, readers
who depend on Dana and Mantey will misapply the rule in many texts.
Wuest also misuses Sharp's rule. In his article, "The Greek Article in New Testament Interpretation," he defines
Sharp's rule: "Two nouns in the same case are connected by kaiv, the first noun, articular, the second, anarthrous, the
second noun referring to the same person or thing expressed by the first noun and being a further description of it." 19
His failure to consider the restrictions on the rule leads him to erroneously apply the rule to the phrase "the hope and
the appearing"20 in Titus 2:13, thus applying the rule to impersonal substantives. He goes on to apply the rule to
plural nouns, stating,
The same rule identifies the "pastors and teachers " of Ephesians 4:11 (AV) as one individual, a teaching pastor
or a didactic shepherd, pointing to expository preaching as the staple diet which is to feed the flock of God. All
this is lost to the expositor who does not make use of the Greek New Testament.21

One feels compelled to correct the last sentence so it reads, "All this is lost to the expositor who makes a correct
use of the Greek New Testament." Yet Wuest is not alone. Stanley Porter also confuses the rule. He writes,
In the early nineteenth century, Granville Sharp developed a rule (one of several) regarding use of the article with
substantives in NT Greek. Unfortunately, this rule has been widely misunderstood. Granville Sharp's rule states
simply that if a single article links two or more singular substantives (excluding personal names), the second
and subsequent substantives are related to or further describe the first. (emphasis his)22

Misunderstood indeed, since this definition fails to mention the requirement Granville Sharp placed upon the
singular substantives being personal. This oversight leads Porter to list an instance as his first example that does not
fit the rule that Sharp formulated. "Ephesians 3.18: to; plavto kai; mh'ko kai; u}yo kai; bavqo (the breadth and length
and height and depth), with four units of measure joined together." 23 Since units of measure are abstract concepts
and do not refer to people, Sharp's Rule cannot apply in this case.24

17

Ibid.

18

H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan,
1955), 147.
19
Kenneth Wuest, "Use of Greek NT-Part IV: Greek Article in New Testament Interpretation," Bibliotheca Sacra
118 (1961): 28.
20

Ibid.

21

Ibid.

22

Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic P, 1995), 110.

23

Ibid.

24

Those who appreciate irony will enjoy reading Porter's dedication on the back of the title page of his grammar.
"To Jeffrey T. Reed, John Wesley Reed, and the memory of Granville Sharp."

In contrast to the works listed above, R. A. Young correctly states Sharp's Rule in his intermediate grammar,
including the restrictions. He properly applies the rule to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.25

CONCLUSION
Those who reject the validity of Granville Sharp's rule usually do so because of a misunderstanding of what the
rule actually states. If stated correctly and applied strictly, it serves as a solid exegetical device which can be applied
to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 without reservation. As Granville Sharp originally stated in the title of his book, his Rule
One supplies Proofs for the Divinity of Christ.

25

Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), 63.