Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Andrew Chapman » July 4th, 2014, 12:10 pm

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, [Titus 2.13]

Titus 2.13 is included in the list of examples of hendiadys in BDF 442.16. Which καί they referring to, and are either of them a true hendiadys?

a) τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης..

Some take the first καί to be epexegetical: awaiting the blessed hope, [that is,] the appearing of.. The hope then is objective, the thing hoped for, which is the appearing of the glory of..

I have seen this described as a hendiadys. But my impression was that in a true hendiadys the pair of terms joined by καί can normally be rendered either with a genitive - the hope of the appearing; or adjectivally - the hoped-for appearing. 'The hope of the appearing' is subjective hope, I think, as if we were waiting until we received the ability to hope. 'The hoped-for appearing' won't work here, I think, because it would have to be the blessed-hoped for appearing or somesuch.

Also, the word hendiadys seems to be used for a balanced pair of short terms, whereas here the epexegetical material carries on.

b) τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

I know it is a matter of much discussion whether Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ here. If He is, then possibly this might be called a hendiadys since two terms are joined into one, but this is surely to do with the scope of the article, rather than anything else.
.............
So I don't yet see how either can be a hendiadys in the normal sense. Thanks for your help,

Andrew

P.S. Blass says [Thackeray, 1905 p.163]:
The article appears to be dropped, not unnaturally, between two clauses in apposition connected by καὶ, in Titus 2.13 (τὴν) ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ],


so if I am understanding correctly what he means by the two clauses in apposition, I think he is indeed reading the καί in an epexegetical way as 'that is,..'.
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 131
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Andrew Chapman » July 6th, 2014, 8:37 am

Regarding προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης.., Ellicott [Pastoral Epistles at the verse] writes:

Theodoret seems to regard the whole expression as a mere ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, scil., τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐλπίδα: this is not satisfactory...


So perhaps this is the kind of thing that is being referred to at BDF 442.16? Blass's comment on the second half of the verse is reproduced almost word for word at BDF 276.3:

The article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by καὶ: T 2:13 (τὴν) ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ].


I need to respond to this from Philip Payne [NTS 2008, 240]:

In Titus 2.13 also, hendiadys specifies meaning: ‘our blessed hope, (καὶ) the appearing of the glory of
our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’ RSV; cf. NIV, BDF §442 (16).


It seems to me that the RSV is understanding this first καὶ in an epexegetical way, meaning 'that is,'; and that this would not normally be termed a hendiadys. A hendiadys, according to BDF 442.16 is used to avoid a series of dependent genitives: so when they list Titus 2.12 in that section, are they saying that Paul writes:

ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to avoid saying

ἐλπίδα τῆς ἐπιφανείας τῆς δόξης τοῦ κ.τ.λ.

i.e. is BDF reading this as 'waiting for the blessed hope of the appearing of..' rather than:

'waiting for the blessed hope: the appearing of..' ?

Thanks, Andrew
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 131
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » July 12th, 2014, 2:15 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:Regarding προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης.., Ellicott [Pastoral Epistles at the verse] writes:

Theodoret seems to regard the whole expression as a mere ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, scil., τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐλπίδα: this is not satisfactory...


So perhaps this is the kind of thing that is being referred to at BDF 442.16? Blass's comment on the second half of the verse is reproduced almost word for word at BDF 276.3:

The article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by καὶ: T 2:13 (τὴν) ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ].


I need to respond to this from Philip Payne [NTS 2008, 240]:

In Titus 2.13 also, hendiadys specifies meaning: ‘our blessed hope, (καὶ) the appearing of the glory of
our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’ RSV; cf. NIV, BDF §442 (16).


It seems to me that the RSV is understanding this first καὶ in an epexegetical way, meaning 'that is,'; and that this would not normally be termed a hendiadys. A hendiadys, according to BDF 442.16 is used to avoid a series of dependent genitives: so when they list Titus 2.12 in that section, are they saying that Paul writes:

ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to avoid saying

ἐλπίδα τῆς ἐπιφανείας τῆς δόξης τοῦ κ.τ.λ.

i.e. is BDF reading this as 'waiting for the blessed hope of the appearing of..' rather than:

'waiting for the blessed hope: the appearing of..' ?

Thanks, Andrew


I made a tour of the secondary literature on hand and ended up wondering "where is the Hendiadys in Titus 2.13"

Alford finds fault with the AV rendering ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης as a Hendiadys "the glorious appearing" but that doesn't seem to be the same Hendiadys other people are talking about.

(KJV)Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 186
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Barry Hofstetter » July 12th, 2014, 11:19 am

Since the nouns in a hendiadys are normally in the same case, I have always taken τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to be the hendiadys, "of the glory of the the great God" = something like "of the great and glorious God..."
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 563
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » July 12th, 2014, 12:37 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Since the nouns in a hendiadys are normally in the same case, I have always taken τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to be the hendiadys, "of the glory of the the great God" = something like "of the great and glorious God..."


Thank you Berry, that helps. So a hendiadys doesn't require a conjunction. That disambiguates Alford's comment. When J.N.D. Kelly states that ἐπιφάνειαν … is in virtual apposition to ἐλπίδα that is not a description of hendiadys. Others suggest that ἐπιφάνειαν … is epexegetical, explaining the content of ἐλπίδα. Neither of these observations are covered by hendiadys, right? This metalanguage does get in the way when you are reading secondary literature.

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 186
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » July 12th, 2014, 1:21 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Since the nouns in a hendiadys are normally in the same case, I have always taken τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to be the hendiadys, "of the glory of the the great God" = something like "of the great and glorious God..."


Thank you Berry, that helps. So a hendiadys doesn't require a conjunction. That disambiguates Alford's comment. When J.N.D. Kelly states that ἐπιφάνειαν … is in virtual apposition to ἐλπίδα that is not a description of hendiadys. Others suggest that ἐπιφάνειαν … is epexegetical, explaining the content of ἐλπίδα. Neither of these observations are covered by hendiadys, right? This metalanguage does get in the way when you are reading secondary literature.

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,


Ellicott [1] claims Theodoret "seems to regard the whole expression [μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν …] as a mere ἕν διὰ δυοῖν. Ellicott disagrees. ἕν διὰ δυοῖν = hendiadys, right?



[1] Ellicott p186 https://archive.org/stream/criticalgram ... 6/mode/2up
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 186
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Barry Hofstetter » July 12th, 2014, 1:32 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Since the nouns in a hendiadys are normally in the same case, I have always taken τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to be the hendiadys, "of the glory of the the great God" = something like "of the great and glorious God..."


Thank you Berry, that helps. So a hendiadys doesn't require a conjunction. That disambiguates Alford's comment. When J.N.D. Kelly states that ἐπιφάνειαν … is in virtual apposition to ἐλπίδα that is not a description of hendiadys. Others suggest that ἐπιφάνειαν … is epexegetical, explaining the content of ἐλπίδα. Neither of these observations are covered by hendiadys, right? This metalanguage does get in the way when you are reading secondary literature.

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,


That's why I try to avoid reading secondary literature as much as possible. But yeah, I don't see those as hendiadyses either.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 563
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Stephen Carlson » July 12th, 2014, 1:57 pm

I've always thought that hendiadys requires a conjunction (otherwise it's something else like an appositive genitive), though I'm open to evidence that the broader understanding is actually current.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1808
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Barry Hofstetter » July 12th, 2014, 5:20 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:I've always thought that hendiadys requires a conjunction (otherwise it's something else like an appositive genitive), though I'm open to evidence that the broader understanding is actually current.


You are right -- they are supposed to be the same case but connected by a copula, so I retract my statement above. Oh, I think I'm still reading it right, but we can't call it a hendiadys by the normal definition of the figure.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 563
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Hendiadys in Titus 2.13

Postby Andrew Chapman » July 13th, 2014, 10:34 am

Bernard [Pastoral Epistles, 1899] says that to render ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης as 'glorious appearing' is 'a quite unjustifiable hendiadys'; so the word does seem to have been used sometimes for this type of genitive construction. But in the literature about hendiadys - eg Sansone 'On the Greek hendiadys' - it's usually two single words linked by καί.

In any case, the reference in BDF which prompted my original enquiry is under the entry on καί.

Regarding the actual meaning of the text, there seems to be a stark divergence of opinion.

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Ellicott said:

'[τῆς δόξης] is plainly dependent on ἐλπίδα, as well as on ἐπιφάνειαν.., the two substantives being closely united, and under the vinculum of a common article.'

Robertson [p.786 1st/2nd ed.'s] said of τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης that 'the one article unites closely the two substantives', which seems to be along the same lines.

But Fee said
'The first "and" is almost certainly equal to "even" or "namely" (thus, "the hope that brings blessing, namely, the appearing...")

Knight seems to be about halfway in between:

προσδεχόμενοι has as its object two nouns, ἐλπίδα, "hope," and ἐπιφάνειαν, "appearing," joined by καί and governed by a single definite article. The first noun is qualified by the adjective μακαρίαν and the second by the genitive construction τῆς δόξης, which itself in turn is qualified by another genitive construction.

I think I may have read somewhere on this forum that one reaches for the epexegetical use of καί if forced to do so, if a simple conjunctive use doesn't make sense. Here I see a natural difficulty with joining ἐλπίδα and ἐπιφάνειαν together and having τῆς δόξης dependent (grammatically) on both of them. This is that we hope for glory, whereas glory appears; it looks like the first is an objective genitive and the second is subjective. So it seems awkward.

But I don't think this objection is well-based, because as I said earlier in the thread, if we are waiting for the hope then it must be conceived objectively. The hope is the glory, perhaps. But probably Ellicott is more precise here:
'ἐλπίς is still not purely objective, the 'res sperata,' τὸ ἐλπιζόμενον.., but is only contemplated under objective aspects.. our hope being considered as something definite and substantive.. The nature of the hope is more fully defined by the gen. δόξης with which it is associated..

although I don't believe I yet fully grasp what he means by 'objective aspects'.

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 131
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Next

Return to Syntax and Grammar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest