That is why Sharp wanted to improve, change, correct the AV.
I addressed this above already, that the further ahead in time from the translation, conventions of English sentence construction evolve to a point where once easily understood constructions can be in danger of being misread. I will respond the same as I have to you, that Sharp has simply misread it.
Some examples of the same archaic English structure utilized in Titus 2:13:
- τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, "of God and our Father" (Gal. 1:4, Phil. 4:20, 1 Thess. 1:3).
- τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ, "to God and the Father" (Col. 1:3, Col. 3:17, Eph. 5:20, Jas. 1:27)
- τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς, "of God, and of the Father" (Col. 2:2)
All of these are "Sharp" constructions, all of them appropriately use the rule. Do they speak of one person, or two? Were they "
mistranslated"? Certainly not. Since you say the "Sharp" rule is invalid, however, what is the distinguishing proof, outside of your own theological concept?
The issue is not about Sharp, who is for the most part being used by you as a straw man against the Greek usage of the article. The Greeks had their own rules of grammar, which English speaking grammarians both learn from them and observe from their writings. Just because Sharp stretched the rule for a couple of passages, or wanted to correct the KJV, does not change how the article is supposed to be used when translating into English.
You say "they don't work," but you can't say
why. I both told you
where it doesn't work and
why. You just criticize a rule that rings true everywhere in the New Testament when applied correctly, and say it doesn't work because it has built in exceptions. That's how rules work, e.g.: "
I before
E, except after
C, or when sounding like
A as in
neighbor or
weigh." By your standard, that's "not much of a rule," because there are two exceptions. It's easy to be contrarian. Defending your own position is difficult.
Please read the Carl Conrad page that I put above.
He goes into the appostive question, and once that is gone from your argument, all your attempts go kaput.
Conrad makes two viable options: (1) That the passage speaks of Christ as "God who is over all" or (2) that the ending should be "blessed forever [be] God who is over all." He then gives it over to prayerful analysis. Which is your preferred reading? The AV certainly doesn't supply the translation he advocates.
Metzger addresses this in his dissenting opinion in his
Textual Commentary (2nd Ed., pp. 460-462; the rest of the committee felt it was "tantamount to impossible" that Paul, in his theology, would ever call Christ "God blessed for ever"). Metzger calls the proposal followed by Conrad as “awkward” and “unnatural.” (2nd Ed., pp. 460-462.):
The interpretation that refers the passage to Christ suits the structure of the sentence, whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural . . . If the clause ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ. is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word ὢν is superfluous, for "he who is God over all" is most simply represented by ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." . . . Pauline doxologies . . . are never asyndetic, but always attach themselves to that which precedes . . . Asyndetic doxologies, not only in the Bible but also in Semitic inscriptions, are differently constructed; the verb or verbal adjective always precedes the name of God, and never follows it, as here . . . In light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel's unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point.” He says in his article on the punctuation of the passage, “Put another way, in Rom. 9:5 it is grammatically unnatural that a participle which stands in juxtaposition to the phrase ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ‘should first be divorced from it and then given the force of a wish, receiving a different person as its subject.
Again, there is a difference between being
contrarian and actually defending your view. You haven't shown yourself right, you are only wildly throwing alternate translations at me--none of which match the reading of the AV or your preferred interpretation--and then attacking me as though I'm trying to change the AV. It doesn't make any logical sense. I want you to provide sources that advocate
your understanding of the verse.
How well do you know Greek?