[B-Greek] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14
yancywsmith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Fri Aug 25 17:50:11 EDT 2006
QEOS and SWTHR seem to be titles to me, and precisely the kind of
title that would be given to a human being that had died and been
transferred to heaven and who rules as LORD. Nuf said. But on "glory"
it seems that Mr. Ross has the better argument, if I understand it.
Harold's arguments in favor of taking DOXHS as an attributive
genitive (a semitism) rather than as an objective genitive boil down
to a matter of preference. I think that Carl is right in arguing that
there is a semitism here, but not in the way I understood him and
Harold to be arguing. Rather, it should be read as metonym or
sunekdoke and "of our Great God and Savior" is a possessive (for lack
of a better term).
HH said:
> 1) DOXA seems parallel with ELPIDA. We are waiting for our hope in
> Jesus
> to be realized. We are waiting for the appearing of Jesus.
This seems to me a very weak argument indeed, since nothing precludes
understanding "the manifestation of the glory" to refer to anything
other than Jesus.
It is probably best to take DOXHS in this case as a case of metonymy
or sunekdoke, the use of a single characteristic to identify a more
complex entity which is one of the basic characteristics of
cognition. Thus, in the phrase:
ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου
θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ
(EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS IHSOU CRISTOU)
it implies Jesus himself. BDAG does not offer a translation, BTW, but
places this phrase under the heading of "brightness, splendor,
radiance" (a distinctive aspect of כָבוֹד kabôd and not
common in classical and non-Jewish, Hellenistic Greek).To take this
as case of metonymy still falls within the category of
Septuagintalism or a Semitism. The language is probably the language
of liturgy, which is inherently conservative of idiomatic phrasiology.
HH said:
> 2) The word ELPIDA has an adjectival modifier, but there is no
> adjective
> from the root DOX-, so if one wants such a modifier, he would need to
> use the noun DOXA in the genitive.
What about ENDOXOS, -ON (Luke 7:25)?
> 3) This gives a good pairing of concepts: "blessed hope" and "glorious
> appearing."
This is not so much a pairing of concepts as a restatement
("epexegetical" KAI) where "the blessed hope" is precisely the
"manifestation of the glory of our the great God and our Savior" (or,
our Great God and Savior).
> 4) It seems questionable that the writer would want too long a
> string of
> "of" modifiers. In other words, the sentence seems a bit clumsier with
> the "appearing of the glory" interpretation.
Take a look at doxological and liturgical texts, this sensibility
goes out the window in such cases. Further, look at doxological texts
from Paul and deutero-paulines.
> 5) In actuality, we are waiting for Jesus rather than glory. The
> translation "glorious appearing" keeps the focus on Jesus a bit better
> in my mind. It gets us to him a bit faster. So I think that
> stylistically the adjectival rendering is preferable.
Harold reads this as "we are waiting," which is a dangerous path to
take in translation, since Titus was not primarily written "to us."
The immediate context shows that 2:10-13 must be relevant to slaves
(see below). I am surprised by this argument and frankly, don't know
what to make of it. Is this an argument from theology or from grammar
or style, if of style, then from what category of style? You might
cf. Phil 3:21.
Other uses of DOXA as metonym or sunekdoke for a spirit/god/God being
2 Pet 2:10 beings:αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ
τρέμουσιν
AUTHADEIS, DOXAS OU TREMOUSIN
‘arrogant people showing no respect for the glorious powers above’
Rom 6:4 ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ
νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός
hWSPER HGERQH CRISTOS EK NEKRWN DIA THS DOXHS TOU PATROS
2 Pet 1:17
ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης
hUPO THS MEGALOPREPOUS DOXHS
‘from the Sublime Glory’
Finally, William Ross' observation of two "manifestations" in Tit
2:1-10 is shrewd and right on the money, and his reading connects
this passage better to the immediately preceding context. 2:10-13 is
given as grounds for the admonition of slaves to maintain proper
submission for their human masters. The grounds statement is that the
manifestation of the grace of God teaches a life of reverent
"waiting." Particularly pertinent to slaves is that, at the end of
the waiting period there is an a manifestation of glory. Even though
the glory directly refers to the glory of the Savior a secondary
effect of this reading would be the implication that the slaves in
question would share in that glory by being honored by Jesus Christ
for their faithful service in adorning the teaching of God our Savior.
Yancy Smith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
5636 Wedgworth Rd.
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Aug 25, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:
> Dear Bill,
>
>> Thank you Harold.
>> Might not the following actually refer to posession?
>> TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS
>> "the body belonging to sin"?
>>
>>
>
>
> HH: It does not seem particularly apt.
>
>> Regardless, though, of the ability of the genitive to be
>> adjectival, themost compelling factors seem to be:
>> * the fact that "appearance of the glory" is available -
>> whichcontra-indicates resorting to the adjectival reading* the
>> context in which two appearances are contrasted:
>>
>> 11 [->]epefanh[<-] gar h cariv tou yeou swthriov pasin anyrwpoiv
>> 12 paideuousa hmav ina arnhsamenoi thn asebeian kai tav kosmikav
>> epiyumiavswfronwv kai dikaiwv kai eusebwv zhswmen en tw nun aiwni
>> 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai [->]epifaneian[<-] thv
>> doxhv toumegalou yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou
>> Ie: The context places us between two appearances, one future -
>> one past
>>
>
>
> HH: Thanks for pointing out the reuse of the root, which is
> interesting.
> Both interpretations give two appearances. I think what you mean is
> that
> grace appeared in the past, and glory will appear in the future.
> This is
> certainly an argument worth considering.
>
>> Would you agree, at least, that this reading is grammatically
>> possible, andhence preferable to the adjectival?
>>
>
>
> HH: I'll agree to possible, but I am not so ready to concede
> preferable.
> We know it's possible because several major translations have
> handled it
> as "appearing off the glory."
>
>
>> And if not, then what in the context orgrammar is compelling
>> toward and adjectival function for the genitive noun?
>>
>>
>
>
> HH: Here are some reasons favoring the adjectival idea:
>
> 1) DOXA seems parallel with ELPIDA. We are waiting for our hope in
> Jesus
> to be realized. We are waiting for the appearing of Jesus.
>
> 2) The word ELPIDA has an adjectival modifier, but there is no
> adjective
> from the root DOX-, so if one wants such a modifier, he would need to
> use the noun DOXA in the genitive.
>
> 3) This gives a good pairing of concepts: "blessed hope" and "glorious
> appearing."
>
> 4) It seems questionable that the writer would want too long a
> string of
> "of" modifiers. In other words, the sentence seems a bit clumsier with
> the "appearing of the glory" interpretation.
>
> 5) In actuality, we are waiting for Jesus rather than glory. The
> translation "glorious appearing" keeps the focus on Jesus a bit better
> in my mind. It gets us to him a bit faster. So I think that
> stylistically the adjectival rendering is preferable.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list