[B-Greek] Re: 2 Cor 3:18, KAQAPER clause

Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Sun Jun 5 13:33:32 EDT 2005


Since no one has responded to my post, I'll correct an error, and try to 
explain where
I am coming from. First, a little more context:

2 Cor 3:16-18  HNIKA DE AN EPISTREYHi PROS KURION, PERIAIREITAI
TO KALUMMA. [17] hO DE KURIOS TO PNEUMA ESTIN; hOU DE TO PNEUMA 
KURIOU, ELEUQERIA. [18] hHMEIS DE PANTES ANAKEKALUMMENWi PROSWPWi 
THN DOXAN KURIOU KATOPRIZOMENOI THN AUTHN EIKONA METAMORFOUMEQA
APO DOXHS EIS DOXAN KAQAPER APO KURIOU PNEUMATOS.

To make sense of the KAQAPER clause one must supply a subject
and a verb (as well as figuring out the likely reference of APO
KURIOU PNEUMATOS). One exegetical option is to supply TOUTO (not
DOXA, as I suggested in my original post) as a reference to the 
process described in the preceding clause. I think this lies 
behind some of the standard formal equivlence translations: 

NRSV 'for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit'
ESV 'for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit'.
NIV 'which comes from the Lord who is the Spirit' 

My problem with tis option is that KAQAPER is a comparative
conjunction. So in my first post I meant to ask if anyone 
could answer the charge that these translations are simply 
indefensible.

Another option has been canvassed. The verb to be supplied
is rather a form of METAMORFOW, and the clause refers to the
transforming power of the glory of Yahweh, revealed on Sinai:
'just as one is transformed by the Lord of the Spirit'. This
does justice to KAQAPER, but I have difficulty with this
proposed subject - which is why I quoted vv. 16-18. In v. 16,
EPISTREYHi also lacks a subject, but a strong case exists for
supplying 'he', with reference to Moses. (When Moses enters 
the Tent of Meeting he removes his veil). The idea in 3:17-18,
then, is that 'we all', whether Jews or Gentiles, are like 
Moses in the Tent of Meeting, in that we see the Lord with 
unveiled face.

So, I like the interpretation, 

'just as he was transformed by the Lord of the Spirit'.

But before I denounce the traditional interpretation of the
KAQAPER clause as simply wrong-headed, I would really like
to know if anyone can justify it. Surely I must be missing 
something?

Many thanks.
Paul Toseland






 











More information about the B-Greek mailing list