Titus 2 13

[] Titus 2:13 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Sun Aug 13 15:52:42 EDT 2006

[] AIWNOS – eternity /of old in Micah 5:2 LXX? [] Titus 2:13 Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou megalouyeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou”Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of thegod’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives. The term”VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to indulgeme on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the god’sgreat one.”William RossVGB, Argentina

[] AIWNOS – eternity /of old in Micah 5:2 LXX?[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 17:08:21 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 You might consider Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the great God even our savior Jesus Christ. The omission of the article before óùôçñïò [SWTHROS] might well indicate that they are to be considered to refer to one and the same person. èåïí åðéöáíç êáé êïéíïí ôïõ áíèñùðéíïõ âéïõ óùôçñá [QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON TOU ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA was used of Julius Caesar. See Moule, _Idiom Book of New Testament Greek_, pp. 109-10; Lock, ICC _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; Mounce, WBC 46 _Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 786. ___________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou megalouyeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou”Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of thegod’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives. The term”VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to indulgeme on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the god’sgreat one.”William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Sun Aug 13 17:12:31 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Thank you for the response.I don’t see where you address DOXHS.William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/13/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > You might consider> > Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the great God even our> savior Jesus Christ.> > The omission of the article before σωτηρος [SWTHROS] might well indicate> that they are to be considered to refer to one and the same person. θεον> επιφανη και κοινον του ανθρωπινου βιου σωτηρα [QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON TOU> ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA was used of Julius Caesar. See Moule, _Idiom Book of> New Testament Greek_, pp. 109-10; Lock, ICC _A Critical and Exegetical> Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; Mounce, WBC 46 _Pastoral> Epistles_, in loc.; A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament> in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 786.> > ___________> > *William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com>* wrote:> > Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?> > > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou megalou> yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> “Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of the> god’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”> > The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives. The> term> “VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to> indulge> me on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the> god’s> great one.”> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call> rates.> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>> > —

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 17:19:35 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 It’s called haplography. I omitted it accidentally. Read “the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God, even . . .” Sorry about that. ___________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for the response.I don’t see where you address DOXHS.William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/13/06, George F Somsel wrote:> > You might consider> > Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the great God even our> savior Jesus Christ.> > The omission of the article before óùôçñïò [SWTHROS] might well indicate> that they are to be considered to refer to one and the same person. èåïí> åðéöáíç êáé êïéíïí ôïõ áíèñùðéíïõ âéïõ óùôçñá [QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON TOU> ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA was used of Julius Caesar. See Moule, _Idiom Book of> New Testament Greek_, pp. 109-10; Lock, ICC _A Critical and Exegetical> Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; Mounce, WBC 46 _Pastoral> Epistles_, in loc.; A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament> in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 786.> > ___________> > *William Ross * wrote:> > Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?> > > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou megalou> yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> “Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of the> god’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”> > The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives. The> term> “VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to> indulge> me on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the> god’s> great one.”> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call> rates.> > > —– home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Sun Aug 13 17:41:38 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Would you say that the text allows for the following?:”eagerly awaiting the appearance of:* the glory of the great godand* our savior anointed JesusIe: that they are looking forward to two distinct things?It seems to me that the appearance of the two things above is thoroughlyPauline, whereas referring to Jesus as “the great god” is unprecedented.Paul refers to the “appearance” of the [time of] favor in the same sentence:Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared [EPEFANH] toall men,12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should livesoberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the greatGod and our Saviour Jesus Christ;So, he says, the favor has appeared – now look for the glory – and also oursavior. That should be a thoroughly familiar theme. So the KAI connectsthese two appearances, yes?William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/13/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > It’s called haplography. I omitted it accidentally. Read> > “the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God, even . .> .”> > Sorry about that.> ___________> > > *William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com>* wrote:> > Thank you for the response.> > I don’t see where you address DOXHS.> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > > On 8/13/06, George F Somsel wrote:> >> > You might consider> >> > Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the great God even our> > savior Jesus Christ.> >> > The omission of the article before σωτηρος [SWTHROS] might well indicate> > that they are to be considered to refer to one and the same person. θεον> > επιφανη και κοινον του ανθρωπινου βιου σωτηρα [QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON> TOU> > ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA was used of Julius Caesar. See Moule, _Idiom Book> of> > New Testament Greek_, pp. 109-10; Lock, ICC _A Critical and Exegetical> > Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; Mounce, WBC 46 _Pastoral> > Epistles_, in loc.; A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New> Testament> > in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 786.> >> > ___________> >> > *William Ross * wrote:> >> > Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?> >> >> > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou> megalou> > yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> > “Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of> the> > god’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”> >> > The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives. The> > term> > “VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to> > indulge> > me on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the> > god’s> > great one.”> >> > William Ross> > VGB, Argentina> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> >> >> >> > george> > gfsomsel> > _________> >> > ——————————> > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call> > rates.> >> >> >> > > —> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates> starting at 1¢/min.> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>> > — William RossVGB, Argentina

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 17:49:31 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 I would be inclined to say that they are looking for ONE (1) thing expressed under two forms: 1. The appearance of the glory of the great God [which is also] 2. Our saviour Jesus Christ. ____________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: Would you say that the text allows for the following?:”eagerly awaiting the appearance of:* the glory of the great godand* our savior anointed JesusIe: that they are looking forward to two distinct things?It seems to me that the appearance of the two things above is thoroughlyPauline, whereas referring to Jesus as “the great god” is unprecedented.Paul refers to the “appearance” of the [time of] favor in the same sentence:Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared [EPEFANH] toall men,12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should livesoberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the greatGod and our Saviour Jesus Christ;So, he says, the favor has appeared – now look for the glory – and also oursavior. That should be a thoroughly familiar theme. So the KAI connectsthese two appearances, yes?William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/13/06, George F Somsel wrote:> > It’s called haplography. I omitted it accidentally. Read> > “the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God, even . .> .”> > Sorry about that.> ___________> > > *William Ross * wrote:> > Thank you for the response.> > I don’t see where you address DOXHS.> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > > On 8/13/06, George F Somsel wrote:> >> > You might consider> >> > Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the great God even our> > savior Jesus Christ.> >> > The omission of the article before ÏÏÏÎ·ÏÎ¿Ï [SWTHROS] might well indicate> > that they are to be considered to refer to one and the same person. Î¸ÎµÎ¿Î½> > ÎµÏÎ¹ÏÎ±Î½Î· ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½Î¿Î½ ÏÎ¿Ï Î±Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï Î²Î¹Î¿Ï ÏÏÏÎ·ÏÎ± [QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON> TOU> > ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA was used of Julius Caesar. See Moule, _Idiom Book> of> > New Testament Greek_, pp. 109-10; Lock, ICC _A Critical and Exegetical> > Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; Mounce, WBC 46 _Pastoral> > Epistles_, in loc.; A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New> Testament> > in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 786.> >> > ___________> >> > *William Ross * wrote:> >> > Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?> >> >> > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou> megalou> > yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> > “Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of> the> > god’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”> >> > The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives. The> > term> > “VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to> > indulge> > me on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the> > god’s> > great one.”> >> > William Ross> > VGB, Argentina> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> >> >> >> > george> > gfsomsel> > _________> >> > ——————————> > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call> > rates.> >> >> >> > > —> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates> starting at 1Â¢/min.> > > — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Sun Aug 13 22:35:48 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Issue #1: Is it really “great god?” I’m not sure that is a foregoneconclusion. The genitive would normally be “great [one] of god” if I am notmistaken. I know of no scriptural precedent for “great god” for either Jesusor the father, except perhaps in the LXX, in the form TOU QEOU TOU MEGALOU(Ezra 5:8) but still not really the kind of title being suggested.Issue #2: Sharp’s Rule does not seem to apply.William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/13/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > I would be inclined to say that they are looking for ONE (1) thing> expressed under two forms:> > 1. The appearance of the glory of the great God [which is also]> 2. Our saviour Jesus Christ.> > ____________> > > *William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com>* wrote:> > Would you say that the text allows for the following?:> > “eagerly awaiting the appearance of:> > * the glory of the great god> and> * our savior anointed Jesus> > Ie: that they are looking forward to two distinct things?> > It seems to me that the appearance of the two things above is thoroughly> Pauline, whereas referring to Jesus as “the great god” is unprecedented.> > Paul refers to the “appearance” of the [time of] favor in the same> sentence:> > Tit 2:> 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared [EPEFANH] to> all men,> 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live> soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;> 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great> God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;> > So, he says, the favor has appeared – now look for the glory – and also> our> savior. That should be a thoroughly familiar theme. So the KAI connects> these two appearances, yes?> > > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > On 8/13/06, George F Somsel wrote:> >> > It’s called haplography. I omitted it accidentally. Read> >> > “the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God, even . .> > .”> >> > Sorry about that.> > ___________> >> >> > *William Ross * wrote:> >> > Thank you for the response.> >> > I don’t see where you address DOXHS.> >> > William Ross> > VGB, Argentina> >> >> >> > On 8/13/06, George F Somsel wrote:> > >> > > You might consider> > >> > > Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the great God even our> > > savior Jesus Christ.> > >> > > The omission of the article before σωτηρος [SWTHROS] might well> indicate> > > that they are to be considered to refer to one and the same person.> θεον> > > επιφανη και κοινον του ανθρωπινου βιου σωτηρα [QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON> > TOU> > > ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA was used of Julius Caesar. See Moule, _Idiom> Book> > of> > > New Testament Greek_, pp. 109-10; Lock, ICC _A Critical and Exegetical> > > Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_, in loc.; Mounce, WBC 46> _Pastoral> > > Epistles_, in loc.; A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New> > Testament> > > in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 786.> > >> > > ___________> > >> > > *William Ross * wrote:> > >> > > Yea or nay on this translation of Titus 2:13?> > >> > >> > > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou> > megalou> > > yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> > > “Looking forward to the happy hope and the appearance of the glory of> > the> > > god’s VIP and our savior anointed Jesus”> > >> > > The part I most want to focus on is the treatment of the genitives.> The> > > term> > > “VIP” is obviously anachronistic and abbreviated. I would ask you to> > > indulge> > > me on that, knowing that what I understand it to literally say is “the> > > god’s> > > great one.”> > >> > > William Ross> > > VGB, Argentina> > > —> > > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > > mailing list> > > at lists.ibiblio.org> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > george> > > gfsomsel> > > _________> > >> > > ——————————> > > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call> > > rates.> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > —> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> >> >> >> > george> > gfsomsel> > _________> >> > ——————————> > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great> rates> > starting at 1¢/min.> >> >> >> > > —> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger�s low PC-to-Phone call> rates.> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>> > —

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Aug 14 10:47:44 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 William Ross wrote:>Issue #1: Is it really “great god?” I’m not sure that is a foregoneconclusion. The genitive would normally be “great [one] of god” if I am notmistaken. I know of no scriptural precedent for “great god” for either Jesusor the father, except perhaps in the LXX, in the form TOU QEOU TOU MEGALOU(Ezra 5:8) but still not really the kind of title being suggested.> > HH: Yes, it is the “great God.” That seems obvious.>Issue #2: Sharp’s Rule does not seem to apply.> > HH: Sharp’s rule does seem to apply. Here is a summary of it, showing examples quite like this one in Tit 2:13:http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/sharp.htmHH: Please explain why you don’t think it applies.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Mon Aug 14 15:08:14 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Perhaps there is some characteristic of the genitive with which I am notfamiliar that makes it obvious that TOU MEGALOU THEOU intends “thegreat god.” Please advise. In my present understanding of the genitive, theconstruction reads “the great [one] of god.” I mean, does hUIOU THEOU(Romans 1:4) mean “the son god?”This issue obviates discussion of GS.Bill RossOn 8/14/06, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:> > William Ross wrote:> > >Issue #1: Is it really “great god?” I’m not sure that is a> foregoneconclusion. The genitive would normally be “great [one] of god” if I> am notmistaken. I know of no scriptural precedent for “great god” for either> Jesusor the father, except perhaps in the LXX, in the form TOU QEOU TOU> MEGALOU(Ezra 5:8) but still not really the kind of title being suggested.> >> >> > HH: Yes, it is the “great God.” That seems obvious.> > >Issue #2: Sharp’s Rule does not seem to apply.> >> >> > HH: Sharp’s rule does seem to apply. Here is a summary of it, showing> examples quite like this one in Tit 2:13:> > http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/sharp.htm> > HH: Please explain why you don’t think it applies.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 14 15:56:35 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:08 PM, William Ross wrote:> Perhaps there is some characteristic of the genitive with which I > am not> familiar that makes it obvious that TOU MEGALOU THEOU intends “the> great god.” Please advise. In my present understanding of the > genitive, the> construction reads “the great [one] of god.” I mean, does hUIOU THEOU> (Romans 1:4) mean “the son god?”This is a matter of position of the adjective with regard to the article and noun — it’s generally handled pretty early in first- level Greek grammars. An adjective (here MEGALOU) situated between the article (here TOU) and the noun governed by the article (here QEOU — and note that we use “Q” for theta –) is attributive. Rom 1:4 is different, there we have a noun in the genitive hUIOU followed by another noun in the genitive QEOU; QEOU is genitive dependent upon hUIOU and so the phrase means “son of God.” But the reason why hUIOU is genitive depends upon the larger structure of vss. 3-4 PERI TOU hUIOU … TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA SARKA, TOU hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU EN DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA hAGIOSUNHS EX ANASTASEWS NEKRWN, IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN. In this structure hUIOU “son” happens to be in the genitive because ultimately it is in accord with the hUIOU back in vs. 3 that is object of the preposition QEOU.> This issue obviates discussion of GS.No it doesn’t, because TOU MEGALOU QEOU is not independent of its context; the whole phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN does conform to the Granville-Sharpe rule in that both nouns — QEOU and SWTHROS are governed by the same article TOU.> > Bill Ross> > > > On 8/14/06, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:>> >> William Ross wrote:>> >>> Issue #1: Is it really “great god?” I’m not sure that is a>> foregoneconclusion. The genitive would normally be “great [one] of >> god” if I>> am notmistaken. I know of no scriptural precedent for “great god” >> for either>> Jesusor the father, except perhaps in the LXX, in the form TOU >> QEOU TOU>> MEGALOU(Ezra 5:8) but still not really the kind of title being >> suggested.>>> >>> >> >> HH: Yes, it is the “great God.” That seems obvious.>> >>> Issue #2: Sharp’s Rule does not seem to apply.>>> >>> >> >> HH: Sharp’s rule does seem to apply. Here is a summary of it, showing>> examples quite like this one in Tit 2:13:>> >> http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/sharp.htm>> >> HH: Please explain why you don’t think it applies.>> >> Yours,>> Harold Holmyard>> —>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > > > — > > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Edgar Foster edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 14 16:05:25 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Contrasting AIWNOS and HMERWN AIWNOS Bill,George has stated a view that is pretty standard in NTGreek grammars. See _Intermediate New Testament Greek:A Linguistic and Exegetical Apparoach_ by Richard A.Young and _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_ by DanielB. Wallace.However, there is also an interesting essay in_Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essayson Discourse Analysis_ (edited by David A. Black)written by Kermit Titrud entitled “The Function of KAIin the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2Peter_. See pages 240-270. Concerning the GS Rule, Titrud writes: “It is not,however, always the case that the two constituents areone and the same being or thing” (p. 249).Nevertheless, he employs Acts 23:7 and Revelation 2:8to substantiate this argument, which might beill-advised in this context. While studying the papyri, I came across anotherexample that might be of interest for the “great god”discussion: ASKLAS ONNWFRIS hO PROGEGRAMMENOS,OSMOLCIS ADELFOS WN KAI hIEROGLUFOS OSEIRIOS QEOUMEGISTOU.I find the nomenclature for Osiris of interest. And heis most surely being called “the most great god” (A.S.Hunt), not great one of God.Best regards,Edgar Foster— George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> I would be inclined to say that they are looking for> ONE (1) thing expressed under two forms: > > 1. The appearance of the glory of the great God> [which is also]> 2. Our saviour Jesus Christ.__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Titus 2:13[] Contrasting AIWNOS and HMERWN AIWNOS

[] Titus 2:13 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Aug 14 17:08:49 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Dear Bill,>Perhaps there is some characteristic of the genitive with which I am not>familiar that makes it obvious that TOU MEGALOU THEOU intends “the>great god.” Please advise. In my present understanding of the genitive, the>construction reads “the great [one] of god.” I mean, does hUIOU THEOU>(Romans 1:4) mean “the son god?”> > HH: hUIOS is a noun, but MEGAS is an adjective meaning “great,” and the natural expectation is that the adjective will modify the noun with which it stands and with which it agrees in number, gender, and case. Of course it can be nominalized, but one expects the context and grammar to clarify that such a nominalization is present, since otherwise the construction would be naturally taken as an adjective modifying its noun. The words as they stand would suggest the normal reading of “great God,” and the context does not suggest a special nominalization.>This issue obviates discussion of GS.> > HH: I don’t know what you mean about obviating discussion of Granville Sharp, if that is what you mean. For even if the words meant “the great one of God,” they would still apply to Jesus, and the Granville Sharp rule would still be applicable. Just go to commentaries on this passage. I have never read anyone claim that the words mean “the great one of God.” Sure words can mean all kinds of things, but that is evidently not what is intended. Here is the comment on these words in the NET Bible:tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Jason Kerrigan jasonandshon at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 14 21:50:45 EDT 2006

[] asyndeton in Jas 1:27 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.” Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXH TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13 would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction. I also believe Sharp’s rule originated with Granville Sharp. It is contradicted in the LXX, and Erasmus knew nothing of it. Jason Kerrigan ———————————Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

[] asyndeton in Jas 1:27[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Mon Aug 14 22:32:14 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 At 06:50 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, Jason Kerrigan wrote:>Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.” Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXH TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13 would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.For Tit 2:13 to mean “Great Glory,” it would have to beTHS DOXH THS MEGALHS instead so that the adjective agreesin gender with the noun it modifies. However, the genderof MEGALOU is masculine (or neuter) and does not agreewith the gender of DOXH, which is feminine. As a result,it must refer to something else, i.e., the followingremainder of the noun phrase: QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWNIHSOU CRISTOU.In Rev 12:14, on the other hand, MEGALOU does agree withAETOU, and there is no remainder of a noun phrase headedby TOU following MEGALOU.Stephen Carlson — Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comWeblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 15 05:56:12 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.” > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13 > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to number, gender, and case:Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” — (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book” or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb: “the book which (is) big.”Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender, and case as the noun.Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both formulations mean “The book is big.”The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in meaning to “the big eagle.”But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together grammaticallyPROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Jason Hare jaihare at gmail.com
Tue Aug 15 11:52:24 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Adjectival genitive in Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Carl,This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v. predicateposition and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since youmentioned that THS DOXHS της δοξης is functioning adjectivally in Titus 2:13– if this is a semiticism.In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to theHebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language tolink two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express aadjectival relationship?Best regards,JasonOn 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> > > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> number, gender, and case:> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> “the book which (is) big.”> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> and case as the noun.> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> formulations mean “The book is big.”> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> meaning to “the big eagle.”> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> grammatically> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — Jason A. Harejaihare at gmail.comJoplin, Missouri (USA)

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Adjectival genitive in Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Adjectival genitive in Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 15 11:59:50 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 On Aug 15, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Jason Hare wrote:> Carl,> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v. > predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — > since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS της δοξης is functioning > adjectivally in Titus 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar > to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek > language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to > express a> adjectival relationship?Yes … and yes. I think this is probably a Semitism; surely THN EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS means “glorious appearing.” On the other hand, I don’t think that a descriptive genitive functioning like an adjective modifying its head noun is by any means alien to Greek. I’ve even seen it argued that the genitive of the self-same noun attached to a noun adjectivally intensifies the head noun, i.e. that the Aristotelian phrase NOHSIS NOHSEWS means “knowing/intuition par excellence” rather than “knowing of knowing” — NOHSEWS is not an “objective” genitive.> > > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>> >> >> On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:>> >>> Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”>>> Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13>>> would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why>>> MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation>>> 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.>> >> Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in>> relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to>> number, gender, and case:>> >> Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —>> (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective>> is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)>> Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”>> or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by>> a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function>> of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately>> preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this>> is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it>> is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:>> “the book which (is) big.”>> >> Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by>> the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,>> and case as the noun.>> >> Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:>> >> MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the>> verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both>> formulations mean “The book is big.”>> >> The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the>> “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the>> genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in>> meaning to “the big eagle.”>> >> But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together>> grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together>> grammatically>> >> PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU>> MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …>> lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of>> our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “>> >> THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding>> noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of>> glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is>> genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun>> EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”>> >> In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU>> TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really>> understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You>> have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited>> from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and>> genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by>> another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have>> failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the>> larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from>> the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243>> cwconrad2 at mac.com>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> >> >> —>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > > > — > Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 09:29:08 EDT 2006

[] Adjectival genitive in Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for severalreasons:* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”Am I mistaken on any of these points?Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” withhHMWN?I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/15/06, Jason Hare <jaihare at gmail.com> wrote:> > Carl,> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS της δοξης is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?> > Best regards,> Jason> > > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina

[] Adjectival genitive in Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 10:20:41 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 Text PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU I must confess that you have me puzzled in several respects. 1. What does Tit 2.13 have to do with Re 12.14? 2. Does your comment regarding “the appearance of the glory” have some connection to your other comments? These seem to be separate concerns. 3. By what logic do you conclude that Sharp’s rule does not apply? Because you conceive of “The Great God” as a title? The exception to Sharp’s rule, to the best of my knowledge does not include titles but only proper names. I refer you to Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61 where he states EP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU QEOU KAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWN IHS. XT. KAI TOU PNEUMATOS Note that here “the Father of all things” could equally be taken as a title yet DESPOTOU QEOU clearly refers to the same. On the other hand, TOU SWTHROS hHMWN has its own article and therefore is not to be identified with PATROS TWN hOLWN. The same is true with regard to TOU PNEUMATOS. It should also be noted that SWTHR KAI QEOS was a term used with regard to Ptolemy I. It would be unthinkable to say regarding this usage that it designated two separate individuals. There is another problem with what you wrote — or rather two problems: 1. Paul’s Greek was not perfect. 2. It is dubious that Paul was the author of Titus. ________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for severalreasons:* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”Am I mistaken on any of these points?Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” withhHMWN?I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:> > Carl,> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?> > Best regards,> Jason> > > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 10:21:29 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Dear William,>This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me.> HH: If you mean Jason’s question about the adjectival use of the genitive being a Semiticism, Dan Wallace’s _Greek Grammar beyond the Basics_ suggests that it is not a Semiticism. He says that the force of the genitive is generally adjectival (p. 76). He defines it as the case of qualification and occasionally separation. As qualification, it defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, and limits. It is similar to the adjective but more emphatic. He has a category called the adjectival genitive and says that it really touches at the heart of the genitive. There is an attributive genitive, which allows a translation for EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS like “glorious appearing.” Wallace gives the example of “body of sin,” TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS (Rom 6:6), which can be understood as “sinful body.”> I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for severalreasons:>* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”>Am I mistaken on any of these points?> > >Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?> HH: No, Sharp’s Rule does apply. See Wallace at pages 270-290, where there is a discussion of this passage in particular. There is no proper name disqualification of the rule here in the Tit 2:13 phrase. A word like QEOS is different than a proper name because it can be pluralized (QEOI), but proper names cannot.>In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” withhHMWN?> > > HH: You cannot always do one-for-one literal translating and then judge by the English, for Greek grammar works differently than English grammar.Yours,Harold Holmyard>On 8/15/06, Jason Hare <jaihare at gmail.com> wrote:>> Carl,>> This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS της δοξης is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.>> In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?>> Best regards,> Jason>>> On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” –> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>>>> –> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > >

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14
[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 10:44:58 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Is there a contrast in John 1:18? Dear William,I am resubmitting this in case my answer was hidden by the formatting:>In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” with hHMWN?>> HH: You cannot always do one-for-one literal translating and thenjudge by the English, for Greek grammar works differently than English grammar.>On 8/15/06, Jason Hare <jaihare at gmail.com> wrote:>> Carl,>> This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS της δοξης is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.>> In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?>> Best regards,> Jason>>> On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” –> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>>>> –> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> >Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Is there a contrast in John 1:18?

[] Titus 2:13 Wounded Ego woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 13:19:48 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 Thank you for your response, George. I apologize for the misleadingreference to Revelation in the subject of my response. It was there becauseit was in that thread that the post to which I was responding appeared. Ihave changed the subject heading. The logic by which I infer that Sharps Rule does not apply is that thetitle the Great God would not be pluralized. THEOI is a legitimate pluralbut the Great Gods if indeed the Great God is a title would not atleast not without some irony at least in monotheistic circles. The example you give from Justin would not be equivalent to Titus in thatSharps Rule is only relevant to the construction of the title itself thetitle would include both nouns: in the name of god, the Father and Masterof All That is, father and master are linked to each other per SharpsRule, rather than the title the father of all being linked to another nounlike this the Father of All (and master). I also think that Father and Master of All is more descriptive than atitle, per se, than the Great God but I wont argue that if you considerit both as laying claim to being formal titles. What we would want to find an example of would be a title that isintrinsically singular (and not realistically liable to be pluralized), withthe article, being linked to a noun qualified by hHMWN. Ie: Your examplewould be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure: EP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU hHMWN IHS. XT. What I meant by perfect is that Paul or the author of Titus is, I believe,generally conceded to be a native Greek speaker while John is oftensuspected to have Greek as a second language. Would it be off topic for me to mention how inconsistent with history itseems to me that Paul addresses a crowd in Jerusalem in the first century inHebrew? Wasnt it a dead language then? Even if Paul really were a Jew(which does not seem likely) and were really raised at Gamaliels feet,learning Hebrew (which does not seem likely), would the crowd haveunderstood a public address in Hebrew? Wasnt it a dead language by then? William RossVGB, Argentina _____ From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:21 AMTo: William Ross; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 TextPROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOUKAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU I must confess that you have me puzzled in several respects. 1. What does Tit 2.13 have to do with Re 12.14?2. Does your comment regarding “the appearance of the glory” have someconnection to your other comments? These seem to be separate concerns.3. By what logic do you conclude that Sharp’s rule does not apply? Becauseyou conceive of “The Great God” as a title? The exception to Sharp’s rule,to the best of my knowledge does not include titles but only proper names. I refer you to Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61 where he states EP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU QEOU KAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWNIHS. XT. KAI TOU PNEUMATOS Note that here “the Father of all things” could equally be taken as a titleyet DESPOTOU QEOU clearly refers to the same. On the other hand, TOUSWTHROS hHMWN has its own article and therefore is not to be identified withPATROS TWN hOLWN. The same is true with regard to TOU PNEUMATOS. It shouldalso be noted that SWTHR KAI QEOS was a term used with regard to Ptolemy I.It would be unthinkable to say regarding this usage that it designated twoseparate individuals. There is another problem with what you wrote — or rather two problems:1. Paul’s Greek was not perfect.2. It is dubious that Paul was the author of Titus.________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote:This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for severalreasons:* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”Am I mistaken on any of these points?Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” withhHMWN?I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:> > Carl,> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?> > Best regards,> Jason> > > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ _____ Do you Yahoo!?Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40788/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/handraisers> Yahoo! Mail.

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 13:31:56 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Thank you Harold.Might not the following actually refer to posession?TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS”the body belonging to sin”?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 anyrwpoiv12 paideuousa hmav ina arnhsamenoi thn asebeian kai tav kosmikav epiyumiavswfronwv kai dikaiwv kai eusebwv zhswmen en tw nun aiwni13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai [->]epifaneian[<-] thv doxhv toumegalou yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsouIe: The context places us between two appearances – one past, one future.Would you agree, at least, that this reading is grammatically possible, andhence preferable to the adjectival? And if not, then what in the context orgrammar is compelling toward and adjectival function for the genitive noun?Thanks so much for your response.William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/25/06, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:> > Dear William,> > >This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how> thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me.> >> > HH: If you mean Jason’s question about the adjectival use of the> genitive being a Semiticism, Dan Wallace’s _Greek Grammar beyond the> Basics_ suggests that it is not a Semiticism. He says that the force of> the genitive is generally adjectival (p. 76). He defines it as the case> of qualification and occasionally separation. As qualification, it> defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, and limits. It is similar to> the adjective but more emphatic. He has a category called the> adjectival genitive and says that it really touches at the heart of the> genitive. There is an attributive genitive, which allows a translation> for EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS like “glorious appearing.” Wallace gives the> example of “body of sin,” TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS (Rom 6:6), which can be> understood as “sinful body.”> > > I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for> severalreasons:> >* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking> Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the> noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is> perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only> employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically> “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the> appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the> appearance of “glory”> >Am I mistaken on any of these points?> >> >> > >Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply> tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not> apply?> >> > HH: No, Sharp’s Rule does apply. See Wallace at pages 270-290, where> there is a discussion of this passage in particular. There is no proper> name disqualification of the rule here in the Tit 2:13 phrase. A word> like QEOS is different than a proper name because it can be pluralized> (QEOI), but proper names cannot.> > >In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash”> withhHMWN?> >> >> >> HH: You cannot always do one-for-one literal translating and then judge> by the English, for Greek grammar works differently than English grammar.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > >On 8/15/06, Jason Hare <jaihare at gmail.com> wrote:>> Carl,>> This is a bit> off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and> article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that> THS DOXHS της δοξης is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this> is a semiticism.>> In other words, do you think that Paul was using> something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature> of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the> second) to express a> adjectival relationship?>> Best regards,> Jason>>> On> 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >> >> > On Aug> 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU> AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved> that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.”> Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the> antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to> correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the> article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as> to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA> BIBLION: “the big book” –> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter> singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the> noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big> book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed> by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function>> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding> noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very> similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very> similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which> (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is> “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same> number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are> versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA> — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s> standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> >> The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative> attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of> “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”>> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> >> grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> >> grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS> DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit.> “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great> God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular> feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning> as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU> KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the> preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >>> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> >> TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> >> understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have> focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev> 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun> followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in> agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic> relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually> isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which> it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington> University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >>> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>>>> –> Jason A.> Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page:> http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> >> >> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 13:57:45 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 I’m not sure what you are trying to get at when you state ” I infer that Sharps Rule does not apply is that the title the Great God would not be pluralized.” Sharp’s rule doesn’t speak of the possibility of being pluralized. It states that it DOES NOT COVER plurals. You wrote, “Your example would be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure: . . .” Why? I see no problem with ONOMATOS TOU PATROU TWN hOLWN. Why are you attempting to put so many conditions upon it which aren’t really relevant? __________________ Wounded Ego <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for your response, George. I apologize for the misleadingreference to Revelation in the subject of my response. It was there becauseit was in that thread that the post to which I was responding appeared. Ihave changed the subject heading.The logic by which I infer that Sharps Rule does not apply is that thetitle the Great God would not be pluralized. THEOI is a legitimate pluralbut the Great Gods if indeed the Great God is a title would not atleast not without some irony at least in monotheistic circles. The example you give from Justin would not be equivalent to Titus in thatSharps Rule is only relevant to the construction of the title itself thetitle would include both nouns: in the name of god, the Father and Masterof All That is, father and master are linked to each other per SharpsRule, rather than the title the father of all being linked to another nounlike this the Father of All (and master).I also think that Father and Master of All is more descriptive than atitle, per se, than the Great God but I wont argue that if you considerit both as laying claim to being formal titles.What we would want to find an example of would be a title that isintrinsically singular (and not realistically liable to be pluralized), withthe article, being linked to a noun qualified by hHMWN. Ie: Your examplewould be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure:EP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU hHMWN IHS. XT.What I meant by perfect is that Paul or the author of Titus is, I believe,generally conceded to be a native Greek speaker while John is oftensuspected to have Greek as a second language.Would it be off topic for me to mention how inconsistent with history itseems to me that Paul addresses a crowd in Jerusalem in the first century inHebrew? Wasnt it a dead language then? Even if Paul really were a Jew(which does not seem likely) and were really raised at Gamaliels feet,learning Hebrew (which does not seem likely), would the crowd haveunderstood a public address in Hebrew? Wasnt it a dead language by then?William RossVGB, Argentina_____ From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:21 AMTo: William Ross; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14TextPROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOUKAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOUI must confess that you have me puzzled in several respects. 1. What does Tit 2.13 have to do with Re 12.14?2. Does your comment regarding “the appearance of the glory” have someconnection to your other comments? These seem to be separate concerns.3. By what logic do you conclude that Sharp’s rule does not apply? Becauseyou conceive of “The Great God” as a title? The exception to Sharp’s rule,to the best of my knowledge does not include titles but only proper names.I refer you to Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61 where he statesEP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU QEOU KAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWNIHS. XT. KAI TOU PNEUMATOSNote that here “the Father of all things” could equally be taken as a titleyet DESPOTOU QEOU clearly refers to the same. On the other hand, TOUSWTHROS hHMWN has its own article and therefore is not to be identified withPATROS TWN hOLWN. The same is true with regard to TOU PNEUMATOS. It shouldalso be noted that SWTHR KAI QEOS was a term used with regard to Ptolemy I.It would be unthinkable to say regarding this usage that it designated twoseparate individuals.There is another problem with what you wrote — or rather two problems:1. Paul’s Greek was not perfect.2. It is dubious that Paul was the author of Titus.________William Ross wrote:This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for severalreasons:* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”Am I mistaken on any of these points?Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” withhHMWN?I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:> > Carl,> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?> > Best regards,> Jason> > > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel______________ Do you Yahoo!?Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-newisers> Yahoo! Mail.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 14:41:39 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Obviously, I’m not Harold, but I will say that simply because something is possible does not mean that it is preferable (assuming it is possible, but I don’t recall what the discussion was). What is preferable is what conforms to the common usage or to the usage of the author. __________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Harold.Might not the following actually refer to posession?TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS”the body belonging to sin”?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 anyrwpoiv12 paideuousa hmav ina arnhsamenoi thn asebeian kai tav kosmikav epiyumiavswfronwv kai dikaiwv kai eusebwv zhswmen en tw nun aiwni13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai [->]epifaneian[<-] thv doxhv toumegalou yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsouIe: The context places us between two appearances – one past, one future.Would you agree, at least, that this reading is grammatically possible, andhence preferable to the adjectival? And if not, then what in the context orgrammar is compelling toward and adjectival function for the genitive noun?Thanks so much for your response.William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/25/06, Harold Holmyard wrote:> > Dear William,> > >This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how> thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me.> >> > HH: If you mean Jason’s question about the adjectival use of the> genitive being a Semiticism, Dan Wallace’s _Greek Grammar beyond the> Basics_ suggests that it is not a Semiticism. He says that the force of> the genitive is generally adjectival (p. 76). He defines it as the case> of qualification and occasionally separation. As qualification, it> defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, and limits. It is similar to> the adjective but more emphatic. He has a category called the> adjectival genitive and says that it really touches at the heart of the> genitive. There is an attributive genitive, which allows a translation> for EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS like “glorious appearing.” Wallace gives the> example of “body of sin,” TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS (Rom 6:6), which can be> understood as “sinful body.”> > > I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for> severalreasons:> >* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking> Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the> noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is> perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only> employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically> “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the> appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the> appearance of “glory”> >Am I mistaken on any of these points?> >> >> > >Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply> tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not> apply?> >> > HH: No, Sharp’s Rule does apply. See Wallace at pages 270-290, where> there is a discussion of this passage in particular. There is no proper> name disqualification of the rule here in the Tit 2:13 phrase. A word> like QEOS is different than a proper name because it can be pluralized> (QEOI), but proper names cannot.> > >In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash”> withhHMWN?> >> >> >> HH: You cannot always do one-for-one literal translating and then judge> by the English, for Greek grammar works differently than English grammar.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > >On 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:>> Carl,>> This is a bit> off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and> article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that> THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this> is a semiticism.>> In other words, do you think that Paul was using> something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature> of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the> second) to express a> adjectival relationship?>> Best regards,> Jason>>> On> 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug> 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU> AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved> that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.”> Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the> antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to> correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the> article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as> to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA> BIBLION: “the big book” –> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter> singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the> noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big> book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed> by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function>> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding> noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very> similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very> similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which> (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is> “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same> number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are> versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA> — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s> standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> >> The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative> attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of> “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”>> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> >> grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> >> grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS> DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit.> “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great> God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular> feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning> as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU> KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the> preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >>> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> >> TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> >> understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have> focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev> 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun> followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in> agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic> relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually> isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which> it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington> University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >>> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>>>> –> Jason A.> Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page:> http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> >> >> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 16:02:47 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Thank you George, for that pertinent inquiry.As I understand Wallace, the “key to identification” of an adjectival nounin the genitive is the distinct absence of another option. See Wallace pages81 and 82 “Key to identification.” He gives preference to the thought of”posession” over “description.” For “description” he says “…if none of theother categories fit” while if “belonging to” works, then that would be thelikely usage.Please let me know if I am misreading Wallace on this matter, or if, afterreading this, you still disagree on other more compelling grounds.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaPS: I apologize to all for the use of a font – producing gobbledy-gook.On 8/25/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > Obviously, I’m not Harold, but I will say that simply because something> is possible does not mean that it is preferable (assuming it is possible,> but I don’t recall what the discussion was). What is preferable is what> conforms to the common usage or to the usage of the author.> > __________> > > *William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com>* wrote:> > Thank you Harold.> > Might not the following actually refer to posession?> > TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS> > “the body belonging to sin”?> > Regardless, though, of the ability of the genitive to be adjectival, the> most compelling factors seem to be:> > * the fact that “appearance of the glory” is available – which> contra-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 epiyumiav> swfronwv kai dikaiwv kai eusebwv zhswmen en tw nun aiwni> > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai [->]epifaneian[<-] thv doxhv tou> megalou yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> > Ie: The context places us between two appearances – one past, one future.> > Would you agree, at least, that this reading is grammatically possible,> and> hence preferable to the adjectival? And if not, then what in the context> or> grammar is compelling toward and adjectival function for the genitive> noun?> > Thanks so much for your response.> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > > On 8/25/06, Harold Holmyard wrote:> >> > Dear William,> >> > >This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how> > thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me.> > >> >> > HH: If you mean Jason’s question about the adjectival use of the> > genitive being a Semiticism, Dan Wallace’s _Greek Grammar beyond the> > Basics_ suggests that it is not a Semiticism. He says that the force of> > the genitive is generally adjectival (p. 76). He defines it as the case> > of qualification and occasionally separation. As qualification, it> > defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, and limits. It is similar to> > the adjective but more emphatic. He has a category called the> > adjectival genitive and says that it really touches at the heart of the> > genitive. There is an attributive genitive, which allows a translation> > for EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS like “glorious appearing.” Wallace gives the> > example of “body of sin,” TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS (Rom 6:6), which can be> > understood as “sinful body.”> >> > > I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory”> for> > severalreasons:> > >* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking> > Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses> the> > noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is> > perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only> > employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen> technically> > “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the> > appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the> > appearance of “glory”> > >Am I mistaken on any of these points?> > >> > >> >> > >Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only> apply> > tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not> > apply?> > >> >> > HH: No, Sharp’s Rule does apply. See Wallace at pages 270-290, where> > there is a discussion of this passage in particular. There is no proper> > name disqualification of the rule here in the Tit 2:13 phrase. A word> > like QEOS is different than a proper name because it can be pluralized> > (QEOI), but proper names cannot.> >> > >In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash”> > withhHMWN?> > >> > >> > >> > HH: You cannot always do one-for-one literal translating and then judge> > by the English, for Greek grammar works differently than English> grammar.> >> > Yours,> > Harold Holmyard> >> > >On 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:>> Carl,>> This is a bit> > > off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position> and> > article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned> that> > THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if> this> > > is a semiticism.>> In other words, do you think that Paul was using> > something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural> feature> > of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in> the> > second) to express a> adjectival relationship?>> Best regards,> Jason>>>> On> > 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug> > > 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14:> TOU> > AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved> > that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great> Glory.”> > Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of> the> > antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am> open to> > correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of> the> > article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement> as> > to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO> MEGA> > BIBLION: “the big book” –> > (article, adjective, and noun are all> neuter> > singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the> > noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big> > book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is> followed> > by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the> function>> > > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> >> preceding> > noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very> > similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also> very> > similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book> which> > (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is> > “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same> > number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above> are> > versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION> MEGA> > — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s> > standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”>> >> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> >> “Alternative> > attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case> form of> > “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big> eagle.”>> > >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> >> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> >> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS> > DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit.> > “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our> great> > God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular> > feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here> functioning> > as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU> QEOU> > KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the> > preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”>> >>> > > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU>> >> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> >> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> >> have> > focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from> Rev> > 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive> noun> > followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive> form in> > agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the> syntactic> > relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually> > isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in> which> > it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington> > University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> > 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >>> >>> > > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > > > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>>>> –> Jason A.> > Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page:> > http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list>> > at lists.ibiblio.org>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> Do you Yahoo!?> Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40788/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/handraisers>> > — William RossVGB, Argentina

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 16:11:53 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 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

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 William Ross woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 16:16:56 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Here is what Wallace said about plurals the GS Rule:”Although Sharp discusses here only personal substantives in the singular,it is not clear from this statement whether he intended to restrict his rule tosuch. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule couldbe applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-propernouns.4040″ (Wallace GGBB pg 272)That was not, however, what I was referring to. I was referring towhat constituted a proper noun as opposed to a common noun. Thatrelates to the noun in question’s ability to be pluralized:”42 42. A proper noun is defined as a noun which cannot be”pluralized”—thus it doesnot include titles. A person’s name, therefore, is proper andconsequently does not fitthe rule. But θεός is not proper because it can be pluralized—thus,when θεός is in aTSKS construction in which both nouns are singular and personal, itfits Sharp’s rule.Since θεοί is possible (cf. John 10:34), θεός is not a proper name.For a detaileddiscussion on the grammatical use of θεός in the NT, cf. B. Weiss,”Der Gebrauch desArtikels bei den Gottesnamen,” TSK 84 (1911) 319-92, 503–38; R. W. Funk, “TheSyntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical PaulineProblems” (Ph.D.dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1953) 46, 154–67; Wallace, “TheArticle withMultiple Substantives,” 260–63.”Wallace GGBB footnote 42.My musings related to the issue of THEOU being part of a title thatcould not be pluralized. I was wondering if it ought, therefore, to betreated as a proper, as opposed to common, noun.Your example was not syntactically identical in that the two nouns arewithin the title and do not constitute the linking of a proper and acommon noun but rather two common (or perhaps two proper) nouns.William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/25/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > > I’m not sure what you are trying to get at when you state ” I infer that Sharp’s Rule does not apply is that the title “the Great God” would not be pluralized.” Sharp’s rule doesn’t speak of the possibility of being pluralized. It states that it DOES NOT COVER plurals.> > You wrote, “Your example would be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure: . . .” Why? I see no problem with ONOMATOS TOU PATROU TWN hOLWN. Why are you attempting to put so many conditions upon it which aren’t really relevant?> > __________________> > > > Wounded Ego <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote:> > > Thank you for your response, George. I apologize for the misleading> reference to Revelation in the subject of my response. It was there because> it was in that thread that the post to which I was responding appeared. I> have changed the subject heading.> > > > The logic by which I infer that Sharp’s Rule does not apply is that the> title “the Great God” would not be pluralized. THEOI is a legitimate plural> but “the Great Gods” – if indeed “the Great God” is a title would not – at> least not without some irony – at least in monotheistic circles.> > > > The example you give from Justin would not be equivalent to Titus in that> Sharp’s Rule is only relevant to the construction of the title itself – the> title would include both nouns: “in the name of god, the Father and Master> of All…” That is, “father and master” are linked to each other per Sharp’s> Rule, rather than the title “the father of all” being linked to another noun> like this “the Father of All (and master).”> > > > I also think that “Father and Master of All” is more descriptive than a> title, per se, than “the Great God” but I won’t argue that if you consider> it both as laying claim to being formal titles.> > > > What we would want to find an example of would be a title that is> intrinsically singular (and not realistically liable to be pluralized), with> the article, being linked to a noun qualified by hHMWN. Ie: Your example> would be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure:> > > > EP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU hHMWN IHS. XT.> > > > What I meant by “perfect” is that Paul or the author of Titus is, I believe,> generally conceded to be a native Greek speaker while John is often> suspected to have Greek as a second language.> > > > Would it be off topic for me to mention how inconsistent with history it> seems to me that Paul addresses a crowd in Jerusalem in the first century in> Hebrew? Wasn’t it a dead language then? Even if Paul really were a Jew> (which does not seem likely) and were really raised at Gamaliel’s feet,> learning Hebrew (which does not seem likely), would the crowd have> understood a public address in Hebrew? Wasn’t it a dead language by then?> > > > William Ross> > VGB, Argentina> > > > > > _____> > From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:21 AM> To: William Ross; at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14> > > > Text> > PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU> KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU> > > > I must confess that you have me puzzled in several respects.> > > > 1. What does Tit 2.13 have to do with Re 12.14?> > 2. Does your comment regarding “the appearance of the glory” have some> connection to your other comments? These seem to be separate concerns.> > 3. By what logic do you conclude that Sharp’s rule does not apply? Because> you conceive of “The Great God” as a title? The exception to Sharp’s rule,> to the best of my knowledge does not include titles but only proper names.> > > > I refer you to Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61 where he states> > > > EP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU QEOU KAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWN> IHS. XT. KAI TOU PNEUMATOS> > > > Note that here “the Father of all things” could equally be taken as a title> yet DESPOTOU QEOU clearly refers to the same. On the other hand, TOU> SWTHROS hHMWN has its own article and therefore is not to be identified with> PATROS TWN hOLWN. The same is true with regard to TOU PNEUMATOS. It should> also be noted that SWTHR KAI QEOS was a term used with regard to Ptolemy I.> It would be unthinkable to say regarding this usage that it designated two> separate individuals.> > > > There is another problem with what you wrote — or rather two problems:> > 1. Paul’s Greek was not perfect.> > 2. It is dubious that Paul was the author of Titus.> > > ________> > > > > > William Ross wrote:> > This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how this> conclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I would> think that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for several> reasons:> > * Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrew> about the correct way to be adjectival> * in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far as> I can see.> * Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greek> speaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which are> then technically “septuagintisms” I should think)> * the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’s> favor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”> > Am I mistaken on any of these points?> > Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply to> the one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?> In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” with> hHMWN?> > I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.> > Thanks,> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > > > On 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:> >> > Carl,> >> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> > predicate> > position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> > mentioned that THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> > 2:13> > — if this is a semiticism.> >> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> > Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> > link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> > adjectival relationship?> >> > Best regards,> > Jason> >> >> > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > >> > >> > > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> > >> > > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> > >> > > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > > number, gender, and case:> > >> > > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> > > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > > “the book which (is) big.”> > >> > > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > > and case as the noun.> > >> > > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> > >> > > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > > formulations mean “The book is big.”> > >> > > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > > meaning to “the big eagle.”> > >> > > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > > grammatically> > >> > > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> > >> > > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> > >> > > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> > >> > > Carl W. Conrad> > > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > >> > >> > > —> > > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > > mailing list> > > at lists.ibiblio.org> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > >> >> >> >> > —> > Jason A. Hare> > jaihare at gmail.com> > Joplin, Missouri (USA)> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > > > _____> > Do you Yahoo!?> Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new> > isers> Yahoo! Mail.> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > > ________________________________Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Greatrates starting at 1¢/min.> > > — William RossVGB, Argentina

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Fri Aug 25 17:15:40 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 I don’t think you could consider Hebrew a dead language, even as late as 135C. E. It was used, along with Greek and Aramaic, in the Bar Kochbacorrespondence that has been discovered. Because of the diaspora, Jerusalembecame cosmopolitian, especially during the feasts. From the time of theMaccabees, it was a special distinction to use the “language of theirfathers.” It is debated whither it was Hebrew or Aramaic when it isreferenced to the story of the Mother and her 7 sons in 2 Maccabees 7:21.Hebrew is still a living language today, and so is Greek.Dave SmithHudson, NC—– Original Message —– From: “Wounded Ego” <woundedegomusic at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 13:19Subject: Re: [] Titus 2:13Would it be off topic for me to mention how inconsistent with history itseems to me that Paul addresses a crowd in Jerusalem in the first century inHebrew? Wasn’t it a dead language then? Even if Paul really were a Jew(which does not seem likely) and were really raised at Gamaliel’s feet,learning Hebrew (which does not seem likely), would the crowd haveunderstood a public address in Hebrew? Wasn’t it a dead language by then?William RossVGB, Argentina _____From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com]Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:21 AMTo: William Ross; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14TextPROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOUKAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOUI must confess that you have me puzzled in several respects.1. What does Tit 2.13 have to do with Re 12.14?2. Does your comment regarding “the appearance of the glory” have someconnection to your other comments? These seem to be separate concerns.3. By what logic do you conclude that Sharp’s rule does not apply? Becauseyou conceive of “The Great God” as a title? The exception to Sharp’s rule,to the best of my knowledge does not include titles but only proper names.I refer you to Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61 where he statesEP’ ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU QEOU KAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWNIHS. XT. KAI TOU PNEUMATOSNote that here “the Father of all things” could equally be taken as a titleyet DESPOTOU QEOU clearly refers to the same. On the other hand, TOUSWTHROS hHMWN has its own article and therefore is not to be identified withPATROS TWN hOLWN. The same is true with regard to TOU PNEUMATOS. It shouldalso be noted that SWTHR KAI QEOS was a term used with regard to Ptolemy I.It would be unthinkable to say regarding this usage that it designated twoseparate individuals.There is another problem with what you wrote — or rather two problems:1. Paul’s Greek was not perfect.2. It is dubious that Paul was the author of Titus.________William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote:This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory” for severalreasons:* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen technically “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the appearance of “glory”Am I mistaken on any of these points?Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only apply tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not apply?In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash” withhHMWN?I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaOn 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:> > Carl,> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned that THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if this is a semiticism.> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a> adjectival relationship?> > Best regards,> Jason> > > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great Glory.” Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: “the big book” —> > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is followed by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function> > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book which (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> > “Alternative attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case form of “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big eagle.”> >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit. “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our great God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”> >> > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive form in agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ _____Do you Yahoo!?Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40788/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/handraisers> Yahoo! Mail.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 yancywsmith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Fri Aug 25 17:50:11 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 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 being2 Pet 2:10 beings:αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσινAUTHADEIS, 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 πατρόςhWSPER HGERQH CRISTOS EK NEKRWN DIA THS DOXHS TOU PATROS2 Pet 1:17ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξηςhUPO 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 Smithyancywsmith at sbcglobal.net5636 Wedgworth Rd.Fort Worth, TX 76133817-361-7565On 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> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 18:22:05 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Dear George and Bill,>Obviously, I’m not Harold, but I will say that simply because something is possible does not mean that it is preferable (assuming it is possible, but I don’t recall what the discussion was). What is preferable is what conforms to the common usage or to the usage of the author.> > HH: This is a good point that also crossed my mind. So how does the NT treat the genitive of DOXA when it modifies a noun. Here is the NIV take on such verses in the NT. I think I gave all cases. Look for the words “glory” or “glorious.” There are some instances where “glory” receives emphasis as a separate concept and it is best to treat it as a noun. But in many places the word can be translated as “glorious” or “of glory,” and it is more a question of style as to which one prefers. The NIV, I believe the following verses show, translates the genitive of DOXA with a noun as “glorious” more often than not. My outlook on Tit 2:13 is that the noun does not need separate emphasis and so “glorious” may be preferable. But since Bill may argue for an allusion back to the “grace” of God appearing in Tit 2:11, perhaps something is lost in translation no matter what one chooses.NIV Matt. 19:28 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.NIV Matt. 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.HH: I see no reason why this could not be: “he will sit on his glorious thone.” The Greek is: TOTE KAQISEI EPI QRONOU DOXHS AUTOU. The NET Bible agrees with me and has:“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.HH: The NLT agrees: “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne.”HH: So does the ESV: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.”NIV Acts 7:2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.HH: This has a nice sound. To say “the glorious God” might suggest to some that there is an inglorious God.NIV Rom. 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of GodNIV Rom. 9:23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory —NIV 1Cor. 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.NIV 2Cor. 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.HH: Again, this may be able to go the other way. Here is the NET Bible: “among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.”NIV 2Cor. 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.HH: Here the NET Bible makes the change again: “For God, who said “Let light shine out of darkness,”12 is the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in the face of Christ.”HH: Let me switch to the NRSV just for the following verse, since it gives a more literal rendering than the NIV:NRSV 2Cor. 4:17 For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure,NIV Eph. 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.NIV Eph. 1:14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession — to the praise of his glory.NIV Eph. 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.NIV Eph. 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,NIV Eph. 3:16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,NIV Phil 3:21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious bodyNIV Col. 1:11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfullyNIV Col. 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.NIV 2Th. 2:14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.NIV 1Tim. 1:11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.NIV Heb. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.NIV Heb. 9:5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.HH: There is no definite article here, so the NET Bible has: “And above the ark were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Now is not the time to speak of these things in detail.”NIV James 2:1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism.NIV 1Pet. 4:13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.NIV 1Pet. 4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.NIV 1Pet. 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:NIV 1Pet. 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 18:49:04 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU Rather than looking at pp 81-82 you should look at pp 86-87 “Attributive Genitive, Genitive of Quality.” “If the noun in the genitive can be converted into an attributive adjective, modifying the noun to which the genitive stands related, then the genitive is very likely an attributive genitive.” “Body of sin” = “sinful body” or, in this instance, “appearance of glory” = “glorious appearance.” ____________ William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote: Thank you George, for that pertinent inquiry.As I understand Wallace, the “key to identification” of an adjectival nounin the genitive is the distinct absence of another option. See Wallace pages81 and 82 “Key to identification.” He gives preference to the thought of”posession” over “description.” For “description” he says “…if none of theother categories fit” while if “belonging to” works, then that would be thelikely usage.Please let me know if I am misreading Wallace on this matter, or if, afterreading this, you still disagree on other more compelling grounds.Thanks,William RossVGB, ArgentinaPS: I apologize to all for the use of a font – producing gobbledy-gook.On 8/25/06, George F Somsel wrote:> > Obviously, I’m not Harold, but I will say that simply because something> is possible does not mean that it is preferable (assuming it is possible,> but I don’t recall what the discussion was). What is preferable is what> conforms to the common usage or to the usage of the author.> > __________> > > *William Ross * wrote:> > Thank you Harold.> > Might not the following actually refer to posession?> > TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS> > “the body belonging to sin”?> > Regardless, though, of the ability of the genitive to be adjectival, the> most compelling factors seem to be:> > * the fact that “appearance of the glory” is available – which> contra-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 epiyumiav> swfronwv kai dikaiwv kai eusebwv zhswmen en tw nun aiwni> > 13 prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai [->]epifaneian[<-] thv doxhv tou> megalou yeou kai swthrov hmwn cristou ihsou> > Ie: The context places us between two appearances – one past, one future.> > Would you agree, at least, that this reading is grammatically possible,> and> hence preferable to the adjectival? And if not, then what in the context> or> grammar is compelling toward and adjectival function for the genitive> noun?> > Thanks so much for your response.> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > > On 8/25/06, Harold Holmyard wrote:> >> > Dear William,> >> > >This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how> > thisconclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me.> > >> >> > HH: If you mean Jason’s question about the adjectival use of the> > genitive being a Semiticism, Dan Wallace’s _Greek Grammar beyond the> > Basics_ suggests that it is not a Semiticism. He says that the force of> > the genitive is generally adjectival (p. 76). He defines it as the case> > of qualification and occasionally separation. As qualification, it> > defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, and limits. It is similar to> > the adjective but more emphatic. He has a category called the> > adjectival genitive and says that it really touches at the heart of the> > genitive. There is an attributive genitive, which allows a translation> > for EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS like “glorious appearing.” Wallace gives the> > example of “body of sin,” TO SWMA THS hARMATIAS (Rom 6:6), which can be> > understood as “sinful body.”> >> > > I wouldthink that Paul is referring to “the appearance of the glory”> for> > severalreasons:> > >* Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking> > Hebrewabout the correct way to be adjectival* in other places, Paul uses> the> > noun form exclusively as a noun, as far asI can see.* Paul’s greek is> > perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greekspeaker and only> > employs “semitisms” when he is quoting the LXX (which arethen> technically> > “septuagintisms” I should think)* the context is his contrasting the> > appearance of [the time of] “god’sfavor” in the preceding verse with the> > appearance of “glory”> > >Am I mistaken on any of these points?> > >> > >> >> > >Also, if “the Great God” is conceived of as a title that would only> apply> > tothe one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp’s Rule does not> > apply?> > >> >> > HH: No, Sharp’s Rule does apply. See Wallace at pages 270-290, where> > there is a discussion of this passage in particular. There is no proper> > name disqualification of the rule here in the Tit 2:13 phrase. A word> > like QEOS is different than a proper name because it can be pluralized> > (QEOI), but proper names cannot.> >> > >In effect, doesn’t the appearance of the definite article “clash”> > withhHMWN?> > >> > >> > >> > HH: You cannot always do one-for-one literal translating and then judge> > by the English, for Greek grammar works differently than English> grammar.> >> > Yours,> > Harold Holmyard> >> > >On 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:>> Carl,>> This is a bit> > > off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.> predicate> position> and> > article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering — since you> mentioned> that> > THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus> 2:13> — if> this> > > is a semiticism.>> In other words, do you think that Paul was using> > something similar to the> Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural> feature> > of the Greek language to> link two nouns together (using the genitive in> the> > second) to express a> adjectival relationship?>> Best regards,> Jason>>>> On> > 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> >> > On Aug> > > 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:> >> > > Revelation 12:14:> TOU> > AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, “great eagle.”> > > Likewise I have bellieved> > that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13> > > would read, “Great> Glory.”> > Can anyone shed some light on why> > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of> the> > antecedent noun in Revelation> > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am> open to> > correction.> >> > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of> the> > article in> > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement> as> > to> > number, gender, and case:> >> > Standard Attributive position: TO> MEGA> > BIBLION: “the big book” –> > (article, adjective, and noun are all> neuter> > singular; the adjective> > is “sandwiched” between the article and the> > noun)> > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: “the big> > book”> > or “the book, the big (one)” — the article-noun group is> followed> > by> > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the> function>> > > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately> >> preceding> > noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this> > is very> > similar to apposition of “the book” and “the big one” and it> > is also> very> > similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:> > “the book> which> > (is) big.”> >> > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is> > “embraced” by> > the article which, like the adjective, has the same> > number, gender,> > and case as the noun.> >> > Different from the above> are> > versions of the Predicate position:> >> > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION> MEGA> > — in both these formulations the> > verb “be” is in ellipsis (that’s> > standard Greek practice). Both> > formulations mean “The book is big.”>> >> >> > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the> >> “Alternative> > attributive position”: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the> > genitive-case> form of> > “the eagle, the big (one)” or identical in> > meaning to “the big> eagle.”>> > >> > But in Titus 2:13 you’re isolating elements that belong together> >> > grammatically () and linking elements that don’t belong together> >> > grammatically> >> > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS> > DOXHS TOU> > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU …> > lit.> > “awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of> > our> great> > God and savior Jesus Christ … “> >> > THS DOXHS is genitive singular> > feminine dependent upon the preceding> > noun EPIFANEIAN (here> functioning> > as if it were an adjective: “of> > glory” = “glorious), but TOU MEGALOU> QEOU> > KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is> > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the> > preceding noun> > EPIFANEIAN: “appearing of our great God and saviior.”>> >>> > > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU>> >> > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really> >> > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You> >> have> > focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you’ve cited> > from> Rev> > 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and> > genitive> noun> > followed by another genitive article followed by> > another genitive> form in> > agreement with the article — but you have> > failed to see the> syntactic> > relationship of the elements in the> > larger group and have actually> > isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from> > the larger syntactic group in> which> > it belongs.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington> > University (Retired)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> > 675-4243> > cwconrad2 at mac.com> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >>> >>> > > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > > > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>>>> –> Jason A.> > Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri (USA)> —> home page:> > http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list>> > at lists.ibiblio.org>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > —> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> > ——————————> Do you Yahoo!?> Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail.> > — William RossVGB, Argentina— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 18:56:41 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 William Ross wrote:>Thank you George, for that pertinent inquiry.> >As I understand Wallace, the “key to identification” of an adjectival noun>in the genitive is the distinct absence of another option. See Wallace pages>81 and 82 “Key to identification.” He gives preference to the thought of>“posession” over “description.” For “description” he says “…if none of the>other categories fit” while if “belonging to” works, then that would be the>likely usage.> >Please let me know if I am misreading Wallace on this matter, or if, after>reading this, you still disagree on other more compelling grounds.> > HH: Yes, it is a misreading. First, all the categories on pages 79-107 are under the heading of “A. Adjectival Genitive” (p. 78). Second, the discussion on pages 79-81 is on the “descriptive genitive,” the first sub-category of Adjectival Genitive. The chart on p. 80 shows that all the other categories are within “descriptive genitive.” So when Wallace talks about preferring another category than descriptive genitive if possible, he is just preferring a more exact category if one is identifiable. Possessive genitive is a large sub-category within the descriptive genitive, but so is attributive genitive. There is no automatic preference for the possessive genitive. And attributive genitive is just the sub-category that I referred to in talking about “sinful body” in Rom 6:6, not the descriptive genitive.Yours,Harold Holmyard>

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 Edgar Foster edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 21:24:41 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Speaking of Sharp’s Rule, I came across a passage inMaximus of Tyre (Dissertatio 2.10) and I wonderwhether it has any relevance to the aforesaid rule:hO MEN GAR QEOS, hO TWN ONTWN PATHR KAI DHMIOURGOS,[hO] PRESBUTEROS MEN hHLIOU . . . Of course, Maximus is extracting concepts from Timaeus28C:TON MEN OUN POIHTHN KAI PATERA TOUS hEUREIN. . . Plato seems to have one entity in mind, althoughPlutarch interprets Timaeus 28C as a reference to atranscendent Father along with a Demiurge.Best wishes,Edgar Foster— George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> I’m not sure what you are trying to get at when you> state ” I infer that Sharps Rule does not apply is> that the title the Great God would not be> pluralized.” Sharp’s rule doesn’t speak of the> possibility of being pluralized. It states that it> DOES NOT COVER plurals. > > You wrote, “Your example would be syntactically> equivalent if it had the following structure: . . .”> Why? I see no problem with ONOMATOS TOU PATROU TWN> hOLWN. Why are you attempting to put so many> conditions upon it which aren’t really relevant?__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 21:55:25 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Edgar Foster wrote:>Speaking of Sharp’s Rule, I came across a passage in>Maximus of Tyre (Dissertatio 2.10) and I wonder>whether it has any relevance to the aforesaid rule:> >hO MEN GAR QEOS, hO TWN ONTWN PATHR KAI DHMIOURGOS,>[hO] PRESBUTEROS MEN hHLIOU . . . > >Of course, Maximus is extracting concepts from Timaeus>28C:> >TON MEN OUN POIHTHN KAI PATERA TOUS hEUREIN. . . > >Plato seems to have one entity in mind, although>Plutarch interprets Timaeus 28C as a reference to a>transcendent Father along with a Demiurge.> > HH: I would think yes, so what Plutarch said strikes me as odd.Yours,Harold Holmyard> > >

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Edgar Foster edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 22:32:47 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Dear Harold,I am sorry, but it is not Plutarch that construesTimaeus 28C as a reference to two entities. It isNumenius of Apamea (floruit 150 CE). See Ropbert M.Grant. _Gods and the One God_ (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1986), 81.See Numenius (Fragment 17).Best regards,Edgar Foster— Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:> Edgar Foster wrote:> > >Speaking of Sharp’s Rule, I came across a passage> in> >Maximus of Tyre (Dissertatio 2.10) and I wonder> >whether it has any relevance to the aforesaid rule:> >> >hO MEN GAR QEOS, hO TWN ONTWN PATHR KAI DHMIOURGOS,> >[hO] PRESBUTEROS MEN hHLIOU . . . > >> >Of course, Maximus is extracting concepts from> Timaeus> >28C:> >> >TON MEN OUN POIHTHN KAI PATERA TOUS hEUREIN. . . > >> >Plato seems to have one entity in mind, although> >Plutarch interprets Timaeus 28C as a reference to a> >transcendent Father along with a Demiurge.> > > >> > > > HH: I would think yes, so what Plutarch said strikes> me as odd.__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 25 22:41:24 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Dear Edgar,You wrote:>Maximus of Tyre (Dissertatio 2.10) and I wonder>whether it has any relevance to the aforesaid rule:> >hO MEN GAR QEOS, hO TWN ONTWN PATHR KAI DHMIOURGOS,>[hO] PRESBUTEROS MEN hHLIOU . . . > >Of course, Maximus is extracting concepts from Timaeus 28C:> >TON MEN OUN POIHTHN KAI PATERA TOUS hEUREIN. . . > >Plato seems to have one entity in mind, although>[Numenius] interprets Timaeus 28C as a reference to a>transcendent Father along with a Demiurge.> > >It is Numenius of Apamea (floruit 150 CE). See Ropbert M.>Grant. _Gods and the One God_ (Philadelphia:>Westminster Press, 1986), 81.> >See Numenius (Fragment 17).> > HH: Maybe Numenius was predisposed to intrerpret like that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numenius_of_ApameaHis chief divergence from Plato is the distinction between the “first god” and the “demiurge.” This is probably due to the influence of the Valentinian Gnostics and the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophers (especially Philo and his theory of the Logos). According to Proclus (Comment. in Timaeum, 93), Numenius held that there was a kind of trinity of gods, the members of which he designated as “father,” “maker,” and “that which is made,” i.e. the world. The first is the supreme deity or pure intelligence, the second the creator of the world, the third the world. His works were highly esteemed by the Neoplatonists, and Amelius (who was critical of gnosticism see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism) is said to have composed nearly two books of commentaries upon them.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Aug 26 22:56:23 EDT 2006

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 [] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14 Dear Yancy,>>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.> > HH: It’s the grammar that I’m struggling with because “blessed hope” seems to need some kind of modifier to clarify what idea is in view. So is it the blessed hope of the glory, or is it the blessed hope of our God and Savior Jesus Christ? It can go both ways, since Jesus is described elsewhere as our hope (1 Tim 1:1), but also Pauline texts use phrases like “the hope of glory” (Col 1:27).>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.> HH: Yes, I understand the idea.>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)?> > HH: I didn’t think of that word, thanks, but DOXA is used all the time in the way I am describing.>>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).> > HH: Yes, but they both may be modified by the same thing if they are modified by “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” That’s what made them a pair too, in my thinking. If DOXA just goes with EPIFANEIA as an objective genitive (“appearing of the glory”), that would cut off “blessed hope” from “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Then you would not have the double modification, and that would leave “blessed hope” somewhat abstract. With the “and” it might even be vague.>>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.”> HH: This is incorrect. The text says “us” in verse 12, which is the same sentence. The verse relates to all believers.> The immediate context shows that 2:10-13 must be relevant to slaves (see below).> HH: There is a paragraph division at verse 11 in the UBS text and most translations.> 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.> > HH: You just seem to have missed part of the meaning here. The grace of God has appeared to all men, not just slaves. So the “us” is all men. We are to live in a new way; there is also a “we” in verse 12. And there is an “our” in verse 13. This is the great God and Savior of all men. And the text continues in this vein in verse 14 with “us” twice.>Other uses of DOXA as metonym or sunekdoke for a spirit/god/God being2 Pet 2:10 beings:αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσινAUTHADEIS, 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 πατρόςhWSPER HGERQH CRISTOS EK NEKRWN DIA THS DOXHS TOU PATROS2 Pet 1:17ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξηςhUPO THS MEGALOPREPOUS DOXHS‘from the Sublime Glory’> > HH: I don’t know if you’re saying that DOXA here is equivalent to Christ, but it does not seem that way because it is modified by “Jesus Christ.” So unless you are viewing that as a genitive of apposition, equating DOXA with Jesus, I would not equate the usage exactly with 2 Pet 1:17. However, your idea of a synecdoche could still work, with the appearing of the glory implying the appearing of the rest of Christ. It is interesting that this word EPIFANEIA occurs six times in the NT, and every other occurrence refers to Jesus Christ’s coming (2 Th 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8). That might favor the appearing being that of Jesus, but the synecdoche idea would allow that.HH: I have to agree with you that William has a good point. Not only are grace and glory appearing, but both are modified by “of God,” and a word suggesting salvation is present in both cases (SWTHRIOS [v. 11]; SWTHROS [v. 12]). So it could be that we are waiting for the blessed hope of the glory of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and we are waiting for the appearing of the glory of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.HH: The KJV has “glorious appearing,” and the ASV made a deliberate change to “appearing of the glory,” kept by the NASB. The NRSV also made that change, preserving an early change seen in the RSV that may go back to the RV. The ESV also retained that reading.>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.> > HH: That makes sense, Yancy. The terms SWTHROS and QEOU, some form of which appear in verses 11 and 12, appear earlier in verse 10 in words about the slaves.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14[] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14

[] Titus 2:13 David Weiner cdweiner at comcast.net
Sun Mar 2 09:50:58 EST 2008

[] EPODHGEI [] Titus 2:13 In Titus 2:13 we find the phrase EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS. I also find two translations, a) glorious manifestation and b) appearing of the glory. Are both of these valid translations?Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN. Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here?Thanks,David Weiner

[] EPODHGEI[] Titus 2:13
[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 2 14:38:34 EST 2008

[] Titus 2:13 [] Acts 5:3 PSEUDOMAI/YEUDOMAI + Acc. προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOUWallace, who seems to endlessly multiply genitive types, would classify the usage translated by “glorious manifestation” as an aporetic genitive or “drip-pan” genitive which he identifies through a translation (!!) as an adjectival usage — “characterized by” (p 80). It bears a similarity to the Hebrew use of the construct relation where you would find a phrase such as “Lord of glory” meaning “glorious Lord.” (c) When the gen. is an attribute or quality, 1 K. 20:31 מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד clement kings; Jud. 11:1 גִּבּוֹר חַיִל a valiant hero; Lev. 19:36 מֹֽאזְנֵי צֶדֶק right balances; Is. 43:28 שָׂרֵי קֹדֶשׁ holy princes, and very often in later writings. Davidson, A. B. (1902). Hebrew syntax (3d ed.) (32). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: David Weiner <cdweiner at comcast.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sunday, March 2, 2008 9:50:58 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13In Titus 2:13 we find the phrase EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS. I also find two translations, a) glorious manifestation and b) appearing of the glory. Are both of these valid translations?Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN. Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here?Thanks,David Weiner— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[] Titus 2:13[] Acts 5:3 PSEUDOMAI/YEUDOMAI + Acc.

[] Titus 2:13 Robert Newman rob at designceramics.co.uk
Wed Mar 5 05:40:21 EST 2008

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 David,I see that your second question has not been addressed (unless someone replied to it off list). You ask:> Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN.> Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here?The simple answer is that the words (which in addition to the portion you quote add the personal name IHSOU XRISTOU) allow for one person to be in view or for two to be in view. One has to look wider than the verse itself to in order to make a personal decision about what the author had in mind.RegardsRobert Newman—– Original Message —– From: “David Weiner” <cdweiner at comcast.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:50 PMSubject: [] Titus 2:13> In Titus 2:13 we find the phrase EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS. I also find two> translations, a) glorious manifestation and b) appearing of the glory.> Are both of these valid translations?> > Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN.> Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here?> > Thanks,> David Weiner> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 – Release Date: 2/28/2008 > 12:14> > — I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.It has removed 391 spam emails to date.Paying users do not have this message in their emails.Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 5 07:49:17 EST 2008

[] Matt6:34: Parsing Query [] Titus 2:13 What we find here is an example of Granville Sharp rule276. (1) With two or more substantives connected by καί [KAI] the article can be carried over from the first to the others especially if the gender and number are the same, but also occasionally when the gender is different: C 2:22 κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων [KATA TA ENTALMATA KAI DIDASKALIAS TWN ANQRWPWN] (allusion to LXX Is 29:13 where κατὰ τὰ [KATA TA] is missing; κατὰ [τὰ] [KATA [[TA]] ] could be dittography). (2) On the other hand, there are cases where the repetition of the article with the same gender or number is necessary or more appropriate: A 26:30 ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών [hO BASILEUS KAI hO hHGEMWN] (different persons). With τε καί [TE KAI] the article is usually repeated, though in A 14:5 τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ (τῶν add. D) Ἰουδαίων [TWN EQNWN TE KAI (TWN add. D) IOUDAIWN] it is not. There are frequent variants but mostly of no consequence. (3) The article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by καί [KAI]: T 2:13 (τὴν) ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ. [(THN) EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN I. XR.] In the case of two connected substantival expressions, e.g. R 4:12 τοῖς [TOIS] (om. Beza cj.) στοιχοῦσιν [STOIXOUSIN], the article is not good Greek and is superfluous.—Paul: Funk 239–43.Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Robert Newman <rob at designceramics.co.uk>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 5:40:21 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13David,I see that your second question has not been addressed (unless someone replied to it off list). You ask:> Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN.> Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here?The simple answer is that the words (which in addition to the portion you quote add the personal name IHSOU XRISTOU) allow for one person to be in view or for two to be in view. One has to look wider than the verse itself to in order to make a personal decision about what the author had in mind.RegardsRobert Newman—– Original Message —– From: “David Weiner” <cdweiner at comcast.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:50 PMSubject: [] Titus 2:13> In Titus 2:13 we find the phrase EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS. I also find two> translations, a) glorious manifestation and b) appearing of the glory.> Are both of these valid translations?> > Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN.> Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here?> > Thanks,> David Weiner> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 – Release Date: 2/28/2008 > 12:14> > — I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.It has removed 391 spam emails to date.Paying users do not have this message in their emails.Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[] Matt6:34: Parsing Query[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Robert Newman rob at designceramics.co.uk
Thu Mar 6 09:49:59 EST 2008

[] Titus 2:13 [] SWSON … EK in JOHN 12:27 Dear George,You evidently refer to the Granville Sharp’s first rule for use of the definite article. (first presented in his book Remarks on the Definite Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version. published 1798)The question of the application of this rule to Titus 2:13 must have been discussed previously on this list????The portion you quote from BDF does not appear to restate Sharp’s rule as such, but is certainly relevant to the construction we have in this verse.Granville Sharp himself applied his first rule to the text in question. Sharp’s rule applies to the so called TSKS construction (article-substantive-KAI-substantive) to restate it as Wallace does “in the TSKS construction, the second noun (that is substantive adjective, substantive participle, or noun) refers to the same person mentioned with the first noun when:1) neither is impersonal2) neither is plural3) neither is a proper nameTherefore, according to Sharp, the rule applied absolutely only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns.”These exceptions are important. Indeed if the rule applied when personal names are in use we would have to conclude that Paul and Barnabus are the same person.Acts 13:50 oi` de. VIoudai/oi parw,trunan ta.j sebome,naj gunai/kaj ta.j euvsch,monaj kai. tou.j prw,touj th/j po,lewj kai. evph,geiran diwgmo.n evpi. to.n Pau/lon kai. Barnaba/n kai. evxe,balon auvtou.j avpo. tw/n o`ri,wn auvtw/nÅTON PAULON KAI BARNABANSome have questioned whether this rule can really be applied to Titus 2:13 because of the presence of the proper name IESOUS along with the second noun.προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOUWhat is signalled by TOU MEGALOU QEOU? Whilst Wallace (note on pg272 of GGBB) is correct that QEOS is not a Proper Noun because it has a plural form (QEOI), hO QEOS is semantically used as such. It might be that Titus 2:13 is rephrasing the earlier statement at 1:4 so that TOU MEGALOU QEOU = the PATROS. If that is what TOU MEGALOU QEOU signals then two persons are in view.The verse can be understood either of one person or two. Detailed discussions of this issue such as that by Harris (Jesus as God), show that it is hard to be dogmatic. I would not like to argue either way. Further, see the renderings and footnotes in versions such as the NAB and NEB, clearly at least some portion of scholars accept that the verse can be understood as of one person or as of two. The translator’s Note in the Translator’s New Testament says:”our great God and Saviour, Jesus ChristThe Greek here may alternatively be translated ‘the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’. The former translation applies both the words ‘God’ and ‘Saviour’ to Christ. The latter distinguishes between the great God (the Father) and our Saviour Christ. Paul rarely calls Christ God – Ro 9:5 is a possible exception – though Christ’s divinity is fundamental to him. The latter alternative would, therefore, be more in accordance with NT vocabulary. On the other hand, the context here deals with the second coming and saving work of Christ. This seems a strong enough argument to override the unusual vocabulary. the Greek construction also is slightly in favour of the translation in TT” (British and Foreign Bible Society)The comments in BDF give the view that the two phrases connected by KAI are in apposition so that is why the article is dropped before the second phrase. It is however debatable as to whether Sharps first rule can be properly applied to prove they are in apposition, so that one person is described. (Apparently, as the note in GGBB pg 272 indicates R.W.Funks Ph.D. dissertation (1953) was on this topic.)I have not set out in this post to argue a particular perspective other than that the verse can be understood as speaking of one person or of two persons. One has to look wider than the verse, or decide from what they know of the NT what they think was meant. The verse itself proves neither that one person or that two persons are in view.RegardsRobert NewmanEssex, England —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel To: Robert Newman ; at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 What we find here is an example of Granville Sharp rule 276. (1) With two or more substantives connected by καί [KAI] the article can be carried over from the first to the others especially if the gender and number are the same, but also occasionally when the gender is different: C 2:22 κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων [KATA TA ENTALMATA KAI DIDASKALIAS TWN ANQRWPWN] (allusion to LXX Is 29:13 where κατὰ τὰ [KATA TA] is missing; κατὰ [τὰ] [KATA [[TA]] ] could be dittography). (2) On the other hand, there are cases where the repetition of the article with the same gender or number is necessary or more appropriate: A 26:30 ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών [hO BASILEUS KAI hO hHGEMWN] (different persons). With τε καί [TE KAI] the article is usually repeated, though in A 14:5 τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ (τῶν add. D) Ἰουδαίων [TWN EQNWN TE KAI (TWN add. D) IOUDAIWN] it is not. There are frequent variants but mostly of no consequence. (3) The article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by καί [KAI]: T 2:13 (τὴν) ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ. [(THN) EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN I. XR.] In the case of two connected substantival expressions, e.g. R 4:12 τοῖς [TOIS] (om. Beza cj.) στοιχοῦσιν [STOIXOUSIN], the article is not good Greek and is superfluous.—Paul: Funk 239–43. Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus _________ —– Original Message —- From: Robert Newman <rob at designceramics.co.uk> To: at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 5:40:21 AM Subject: [] Titus 2:13 David, I see that your second question has not been addressed (unless someone replied to it off list). You ask: > Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN. > Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here? The simple answer is that the words (which in addition to the portion you quote add the personal name IHSOU XRISTOU) allow for one person to be in view or for two to be in view. One has to look wider than the verse itself to in order to make a personal decision about what the author had in mind. Regards Robert Newman —– Original Message —– From: “David Weiner” <cdweiner at comcast.net> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:50 PM Subject: [] Titus 2:13 > In Titus 2:13 we find the phrase EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS. I also find two > translations, a) glorious manifestation and b) appearing of the glory. > Are both of these valid translations? > > Also, in that verse is the phrase TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN. > Does the text ‘prove’ that one or two persons are in view here? > > Thanks, > David Weiner > — > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ > > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 – Release Date: 2/28/2008 > 12:14 > > — I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 391 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/—————————————————————————— Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.—————————————————————————— No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.4/1312 – Release Date: 3/4/2008 21:46– I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.It has removed 395 spam emails to date.Paying users do not have this message in their emails.Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

[] Titus 2:13[] SWSON … EK in JOHN 12:27

[] Titus 2:13 Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com
Sun Jul 25 12:38:20 EDT 2010

[] different meaning [] Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore

[] different meaning[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 25 13:14:52 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 Tom wrote:<Which of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:>Hi, Tom,They are all valid translations. Each is great, but taken all togetherthey are terrific. Your average translation is above average. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 10:38:20 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Sun Jul 25 13:15:32 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 —– Original Message —– From: “Tom Moore” <tom at katabiblon.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:38 PMSubject: [] Titus 2:13> προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου > θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,> PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI > QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU> > Which of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:I betcha a dollar that if you go to the archives, you’ll find plenty of discussion on this verse. However, I see no question concerning Greek grammar or syntax here?N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)Mentor, TNARShttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 25 14:10:53 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION I believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations. While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 9:38:20 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 25 14:08:50 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION 1, 2 and 6 are incorrect. 2.6. The GranvilleSharpRuleIn the early nineteenth century, GranvilleSharpdeveloped a rule (one of several) regarding use of the article with substantives in NT Greek. Unfortunately, this rule has been widely misunderstood. GranvilleSharp’s rule states simply that if a single article links two or more singular substantives (excluding personal names), the second and subsequent substantives are related to or further describe the first.2Eph. 3.18: τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος(the breadth and length and height and depth), with four units of measure joined together.Acts 26.30: ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών(the king and the governor), where the king and the governor are separate people.There are some examples which are not covered by Sharp’s rule.Jn 20.28: ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου(my lord and my God), where the article is repeated for the same individual. Sharp’s rule does not address instances where items with individual articles may be equated.Mt. 17.1: τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ(Peter and James and John his brother), where one article covers several personal names; cf. Mk 9.2, where an article precedes each name. Sharp’s rule does not apply to personal names.Several significant difficulties with Sharp’s rule have arisen. One difficulty is the resistance by some to the implications of his analysis for treatment of certain passages.Tit. 2.13: τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; cf. also 2 Pet. 1.1, 11; 2.20; 3.18; Eph. 5.20. Should this passage be translated ‘the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (a statement with christological implications), or ‘the glory of the great God and of our saviour, Jesus Christ,’ or ‘the glory of our great God, namely our saviour Jesus Christ’? Grammarians and commentators have differed in opinion, with Moulton and Robertson2 opting for the first on the basis of parallels in the papyri, as well as the application of Sharp’s rule, and with Winer3 arguing for the second on theological grounds.Porter, S. E. (1999). Idioms of the Greek New Testament (110). Sheffield: JSOT. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 9:38:20 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Sun Jul 25 16:32:44 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Augment in participle (John 1:6) Hi Tom,#1 and #5 mean the same thing, though #5 is rather clumsy.Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi———- Original Message ———-From: “Tom Moore” <tom at katabiblon.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: [] Titus 2:13Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:38:20 +0000προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆ&sigmaf; δόξη&sigmaf; τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρο&sigmaf; ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/____________________________________________________________Penny Stock Jumping 2000%Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c4c9fc59ccbf3e3dafst03vuc

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Augment in participle (John 1:6)

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 25 17:01:50 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Hi, George,Why is number #2 incorrect? Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:10:53 PMSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTIONI believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations. While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 9:38:20 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 25 17:12:05 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Because #2 distinguishes between “the Great God” and “[our] Savior” making them separate entities. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 2:01:50 PMSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTIONHi, George,Why is number #2 incorrect?Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS ________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:10:53 PMSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTIONI believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations. While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 9:38:20 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 25 17:37:31 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Okay I see your point, but I understood #2 to be saying that Jesus is both the great God and our Savior, not that they are twodifferent things.It seems to me if you are looking for an incorrect rendering based on yourpoint above, #3 or #4 would be better, since these seem to say the glory isof God and the appearance is of Jesus, making them separate. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 3:12:05 PMSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTIONBecause #2 distinguishes between “the Great God” and “[our] Savior” making them separate entities. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________ From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 2:01:50 PMSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTIONHi, George,Why is number #2 incorrect? Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS ________________________________ From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:10:53 PMSubject: Re: [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTIONI believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations. While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sun, July 25, 2010 9:38:20 AMSubject: [] Titus 2:13προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOI QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOUWhich of these are not valid translations of Ti. 2:13:Awaiting the happy expectation and…1) glorious appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;2) glorious appearance of [both] the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ;3) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is both] the glory of the great God, and our savior;4) appearance of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory, [the glory] of our great God and savior; 5) appearance of the glory of Jesus Christ, [who is both] our great God, and [our] savior;6) appearance of [both] the glory the great God, and of our savior Jesus Christ.Thanks,Tom Moore— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 19:07:11 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com> wrote:> Okay I see your point, but I understood #2 to be saying that> Jesus is both the great God and our Savior, not that they are two> different things.> As it is the way #2 written down, two different entities are meant.To correct it, the comma after ‘God’ needs to be removed and beinserted after ‘Savior’.Oun Kwon.<clipped>> > Mark L>

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 19:10:11 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> I believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations.> While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect.> george> gfsomsel> > Yes, #1 is incorrect. The comma after ‘God’ has to be deleted.Oun Kwon.

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 19:12:07 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com> wrote:> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:>> I believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations.>> While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect.>> george>> gfsomsel>> >> > > Yes, #1 is incorrect. The comma after ‘God’ has to be deleted.> > Oun Kwon.> Ditto for #5. The comma after ‘God’ has to be deleted.Oun Kwon.

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 19:20:10 EDT 2010

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION [] Titus 2:13 On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com> wrote:> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com> wrote:>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:>>> I believe I erroneously included #1 in the list of incorrect translations.>>> While #6 can be misleading, it is not necessarily incorrect.>>> george>>> gfsomsel>>> >>> >> >> Yes, #1 is incorrect. The comma after ‘God’ has to be deleted.>> >> Oun Kwon.>> > > Ditto for #5. The comma after ‘God’ has to be deleted.> > Oun Kwon.> Conclusion: All are incorrect. Please correct me ;-)#1 is incorrect (the comma issue)#2 is incorrect (the comma issue)#3 is incorrect – no such meaning can be found from the Greek text.#4 is incorrect – the text does not say “J.C. is the glory”.#5 is incorrect (the comma issue)#6 is incorrect – There seems to be a typo – Was there supposed to be’of’ after ‘glory’?Oun Kwon.

[] Titus 2:13 CORRECTION[] Titus 2:13

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply