Andrew,
I read most of these authors yesterday. It seems like every attempt to eradicate the fundamental ambiguity in the text will after all the smoke clears prove to be a failure in as much as the text will still be there, unharmed, ambiguous as ever. The sort of exegesis that attempts to stamp out all uncertainties by means of exhaustive analysis just ends up with a long list of possible readings and assigning some sort of probability rating to the various alternatives. I suspect there are better ways to treat an ancient text. I am open to suggestions.
Hendiadys in Titus 2.13
-
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm
Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13
Concerning whether it makes sense to have "the glory of God" appearing, it seems well established in the writings that it can refer to something definite that can be seen, such as in 1 Sam 4:21, 2 Chr 5:14, Acts 7:55, Rev 15:8, so at the very least it isn't as unlikely as we might suppose due to our modern concept of "glory".
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am
Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13
I think we have another instance of hendiadys in this verse
He is specifically designating Jesus Christ as being God.προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13
Stirling, I cheered (quietly, so as not to wake anyone else) when I read this this morning. A better way to read an ancient text? Of course there is, and that involves actually reading it and realizing that it's written in a language, an ordinary, human language intended for communication. So many people (including scholars who should know better) seem to have the idea that it's really a secret code with a precision that, if we get the key, we can unlock its secrets (and, not coincidentally, solve a theological problem that might be a bit on the thorny side for the exegete). For Titus 2:13, the overall effect or meaning of the verse is pretty obvious. Nailing down the precise grammar in terms of meta-language, not so much. I might also add a) that if an ambiguity is there, the author likely intended it, and it probably did not trouble the early readers/hearers of the text and b) the ambiguity could be something we are missing, probably resolvable from the meta-context to which we no longer have access. We should not be more definite than the text itself.Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Andrew,
I read most of these authors yesterday. It seems like every attempt to eradicate the fundamental ambiguity in the text will after all the smoke clears prove to be a failure in as much as the text will still be there, unharmed, ambiguous as ever. The sort of exegesis that attempts to stamp out all uncertainties by means of exhaustive analysis just ends up with a long list of possible readings and assigning some sort of probability rating to the various alternatives. I suspect there are better ways to treat an ancient text. I am open to suggestions.
-
- Posts: 265
- Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
- Location: Oxford, England
- Contact:
Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13
David, if you are referring to what I said about it being awkward, I didn't mean that it doesn't make sense for God's glory to appear. I was trying to understand why most recent commentators are resorting to an epexegetical reading of the first καί, rather than just taking ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν as paired together, which seems more natural to me. I was suggesting that the two words, at least at first sight, have a different type of relationship to glory - we can quite easily think of God's glory appearing (is what I meant), but not of of God's glory hoping - rather, we may hope for His glory.David Lim wrote:Concerning whether it makes sense to have "the glory of God" appearing, it seems well established in the writings that it can refer to something definite that can be seen, such as in 1 Sam 4:21, 2 Chr 5:14, Acts 7:55, Rev 15:8, so at the very least it isn't as unlikely as we might suppose due to our modern concept of "glory".
Andrew