Exegetical Fallacies - D. A. Carson

seem to. For example, R. C. H. Lenski is notoriously unreliable in his treatment of the Greek article,
frequently making appeal either to the presence (or absence) of the article in Greek to establish the
corresponding pattern in English, or aligning the articular noun with a specific meaning (e.g., articular
voµoc [nomos] represents Mosaic law; anarthrous voµo; [nomos] represents the principle of law).18
FIGURE 5
3. The article: the Granville Sharp rule
Some grammars present the rule in a rather simplistic form, such as the following:
Sharp's rule states: it two substantives are connected by taxi and both have the article, they refer
to different persons or things ... ; if the first has an article and the second does not, the second
refers to the same person or thing as the first.... Of course the rule could also he applied to a
series of three or more.19
The initial fallacy is in formulating the Granville Sharp rule with less care than Granville Sharp did.
Sharp's rule is in fact quite complex, too complex to analyze here. What is quite clear, however, is that he
excluded plural nouns from his rule (not to mention other restrictions). Thus if one article governs two
plural substantives joined by Kai. (kai), there is no reason to think that the two substantives refer to the
same thing, even though the article groups them together so that in certain respects they function as a single
entity.20
Failure to recognize this point lies behind the insistence of some scholars that Matthew is
anachronistic in his treatment of the Jewish leaders. In Matthew 16:1, 6 and elsewhere, Matthew lumps
Pharisees and Sadducees together under one article. Only those so far removed from Jesus' day (it is said)
that they were unaware that Pharisees and Sadducees were separate and distinct parties could have used
such a construction here. The fallacy, of course, lies in relying upon the Granville Sharp rule where Sharp
himself explicitly insists his rule does not operate. The error of the commentators is at least
understandable, since so many of the standard grammars also get this point wrong, but Sharp himself can
scarcely be blamed.21 As I have shown elsewhere, only one article governs both nouns in expressions
like "the Epicureans and Stoics" (Acts 17:18).22 Indeed, the only place where T6V (1)ap16aiwv xat
YU68OuKalwV (ton Pharisaion kai Saddoukaiou) is found outside Matthew is in Acts 23:7; and in this
context the doctrinal disparity between the two groups is presupposed. In each pair, the two nouns are
linked together for the purpose at hand. In Acts 23:7, the purpose at hand is the dispute that broke out
between them. In Matthew 16:1, the Pharisees and Sadducees are linked in their question to Jesus,
presumably as they function together as representatives of the Sanhedrin. In 16:6, 11, 12 the use of the
phrase T6 V (Dap16aiwv xai Ecx Souxaiwv (ton Pharisaion kai Saddoukaion, of the Pharisees and