One might suppose that "the might of his glory" really doesn't make too much sense in English, if for example one needs to explain it to a child
I agree that it's not a concept that fits naturally into our understanding, but perhaps we need to stretch our understanding to accomodate the divine revelation? I think of the fact that when God's glory appeared in the temple, the priests could not stand. In other words, it was stronger than they were, if one wanted to explain it to a child.
I just read Daniel Wallace on attributive genitives. I think I understand that if it were only τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης, then it would not be problematic to regard this as an attributive genitive - the attribute of glory is attributed to the head noun. As in the English 'rod of iron', say (I think Wallace classifies this as genitive of material but the idea is the same, I think).
However, when there is a chain (a concatenation) of genitives, then each noun in the genitive modifies the noun that precedes it, and one starts at the right as it were, and works back. So in the case of τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, the personal pronoun should modify the glory -
His glory - first. But now 'His glory' does not work so easily as an attributive genitive, I think, which is why Meyer says 'not "His glorious power".. against which αὐτοῦ should have been a sufficient warning'.
This seems to be why F.F. Bruce and others suggest a Semitic influence. Zerwick says that the use of the attributive genitive is 'extended' in Biblical Greek because of Semitic influence, but goes on to say that:
This Semitic manner of speaking becomes even more alien to Greek idiom, if the possessive pronoun or a demonstrative which applies to the whole compound, and so to the qualified substantive, is put with the genitive that qualifies it
and gives several examples, including Matthew 19:28 'θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ', which he says = 'his glorious throne'. In a note he says that:
As a general rule, the Semitic languages add suffixes to the last member alone of compound expressions, even though they refer to the entire compound.
So I can see, in principle, how, owing to Semitic influence, the personal pronoun could come at the end of a chain of genitives in Biblical Greek, contrary to normal Greek grammar, . But I find it easier to understand how a good case can be made for Semitic influence on syntax in Matthew than in Paul, who I would have thought was sufficiently immersed in Greek culture and language to write in normal Greek.
Wallace's approach appears to be simply to abandon normal grammar for the case of δόξης:
Normally in gen. chains (a.k.a. concatenative genitives) each successive gen. modifies the one that precedes it, but there are many exceptions, especially with δόξης.
and I think this may be reflected in the NET Bible, for which he was New Testament editor, with τῆς δόξης being translated more frequently as 'glorious' in these concatenations of genitives, than in most other translations.
For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:6, for:
φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ
the NET Bible has 'the light of the glorious knowledge of God' whereas most translations have 'the light of the knowledge of the glory of God' [NASB], or somesuch.
In Romans 8:21, for:
ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ
many translations from the KJV onwards had 'the glorious liberty (or freedom) of the children of God',
causing Sanday and Headlam to comment:
δουλείας corresponds to ὑποτάγη , the state of subjection or thraldom to dissolution and decay. The opposite to this is the full and free development of all the powers which attends the state of δόξα. 'Glorious liberty' is a poor translation and does not express the idea : δόξα, ' the glorified state,' is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and έλευθερία is its characteristic, ' the liberty of the glory of the children of God.'
making the point that since τῆς φθορᾶς can not be attributive, it is unlikely that τῆς δόξης will be, if one is to get the force of the comparison: from the slavery of decay to the freedom of the glorified state.
Andrew