glorius appearance - or - appearing of the glory

Steven Avery


The Hebrew idiom

Jameson;n973451 said:
These guys specifically reject the Semitic use of τῆς δόξας as an adjective. When Jews pray the Shema (שמע), it is traditional (the religious tradition says that it comes from the days of the Tabernacle) to say the following line after the first line of the Shema:
ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד
bār?ḵ šēm kĕḇ?ḏ malk?ṯ? lĕʿ?lām wāʿeḏ

Here we have kĕḇ?ḏ (that is, kāḇ?ḏ "glory") being used as an adjective. It doesn't mean "blessed is the name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever." Rather, both of the nouns that are attached to šēm ("name") are adjectival in sense. It means "blessed is his glorious royal name forever and ever." It isn't blessing his kingdom but his name, and the two nouns "glory" and "his kingdom" are attached to this head noun as descriptors.

This is what we see in Titus 2.13, too. The word "glory" is used in this way to describe the word "appearing." It means "glorious appearing."

This is also demonstrated well in the use of ʿ?r kodš?ḵā (עיר קדשך) in Daniel 9.24. It literally means "the city of your holiness," but the word "holiness" (kṓḏeš קדש) is used here in an adjectival sense. It is describing the city. Thus, "city of your holiness" must be understood as "your holy city." Similarly, "appearing of your glory" means "your glorious appearing," and "appearing of the glory of the great God" means "the glorious appearing of the great God."

There is nothing tricky going on here. This is how we understand this Semitic idiom. It's odd that they make a fuss about this.

Jameson;n974378 said:
Do you know what a "Hebraism" or "Semitism" is? It's when Hebrew-speaking Jews who spoke Greek as a second language were thinking in Hebrew and translating those thoughts into Greek - and the result is Greek that looks like Hebrew. In order to identify a Hebraism or Semitic use of Greek, you need first to identify the structure from Hebrew (or Aramaic) that is being used and pulled into Greek.

This use of τῆς δόξας is a Hebraism. They are not using it in the regular classical Greek way. They are using a noun in the genitive as if it were a Hebrew construct phrase. The fact that you don't know Hebrew doesn't make Hebrew a non-starter. Sorry.

Steven Avery;n1226896 said:
the subject matter is the glorious appearance of Jesus Christ


I'm not sure if Winer addresses the glorious appearance, however we have this:

The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, Volume 34 (1874)
Winer's Greek Testament Grammar

"The following extract from Beelen's Grammar to be noticed by-and-by—will bring out Winer's relation the grammatico-dogmatical exposition of Titus ii. 13 ... For the subject matter is the glorious appearance of Jesus Christ or His glorious coming"

Steven Avery
p. 5

Steven Avery;n1232064 said:
Titus 2:13 - Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing


Titus 2:13 (AV-PCE)
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The issue has nothing to do with his writing style. If some cases are "impossible" it is simply a reflection of the particular constructions that would be exceedingly awkward adjectively.

glory of God
glory of the Father
glory that excelleth
praise of his glory
glory of his power

Total nonsense. Here are examples from the AV, with no strain at all:

Romans 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God,
should shine unto them.

Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Colossians 1:11
Strengthened with all might,
according to his glorious power,
unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;

1 Timothy 1:11
According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,
which was committed to my trust.

And what does Gordon Fee say about the verses above?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Jameson;n1232859 said:
Excellently executed.
p. 9

Steven Avery;n1240289 said:
eschew grammatical technical enchiridions



The GSR is a funny bird. It was fabricated out of grammatical papier-m?ch? and Lego, held together by scotch tape and seminarian rhetoric, and defended by the law firm of Special and Pleading. Anybody whose heart is for the integrity of scripture will reject any such bogus "Rule" or "Canon".

Back in the 1500s and 1600s the learned men (Geneva, AV) we're well aware of the grammatical aspects, and Erasmus was given a little tussle by Beza, and this was all well understood in 1611. Even in the next era, men like Drusius, Glassius and Grotius reviewed the issue of identity vs. dual addressing in the grammatical construction, with the article being one component. The idea that something new came forth in 1790 is simply a charade.

The Sharp pseudo-correction, working with some reflections of Hermanus Royaards, was simply a scholastic abomination. (One major motivation was the loss by some of the gumption to hold high and strong their pure scripture texts of "God was manifest in the flesh" and the heavenly witnesses. So they wanted to play tit for tat with Holy Scripture.)

They ended up trying to use a municipality code-book to bind up the flow and understanding of language.

Vasileios Tsialas from Athens, in a note:
Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion.

Writing on the GSR on a Biblical Greek forum:
It is a logical tendency in the Greek language, not an absolute rule. It cannot be an absolute rule when it has exceptions, when it is so complicated in order to avoid (unsuccessfully) exceptions; it cannot be an absolute rule in a developing lingua franca spoken mostly by multinational groups, and when it overlooks overwhelming historical data in the case of theology.

Then in an error of era with versions more and more politicized, when we have the version of the month club, came the new Wallace-Sharp Limitations. One of the most absurd and convoluted grammatico-logico disasters ever seen. It took me a while to even understand the whole shell game.

And that's where we are today. You should not have to have any special Christology to just say no to absurdity. Even if a person wants to argue, with some difficulty, for the identity translation of Titus 2:13, the best residue from the original Sharp contraption, it should be done on an honest platform. Not by the shallowness of backing into a bogus rule.


And I also placed the above on Facebook on the PureBible forum as a friendly iron sharpeneth discussion platform available about the GSR. The second quote from Vasileios Tsialas was from a b-greek forum discussion in August, 2011 Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT. One of the better short discussions. CARM has had one or two interesting long discussions, especially Granville Sharp Rules. The longer thread has a lot of the GSR history that is simply not available in the normal literature.

Jameson;n1241296 said:
I appreciate this response. If I understand you correctly, and I feel that I do, you're not saying that TKTS constructions do not often work like what Sharp was trying to convey. That is, ὁ στρατηγὸς καὶ ἡγεμὼν ἡμῶν would still mean "our general and leader," referring to one person as laid out in Smyth's grammar. The difference is that there is no binding force of the "rule" as Sharp tried to restrict it. There are exceptions, there are clear examples where the TKTS rule would simply be "broken" if we understood Sharp as correct - and, therefore, it cannot be a hard and fast rule. Rather than such a binding rule, we should take the TKTS construction referring to one and the same individual as a tendency in language (not just Greek, as it happens in English, too). You're not saying that it isn't the tendency of the language, but only that building a rule out of it that tries to account for every exception and allow people to force an interpretation or prediction on the text is beyond the scope of the natural use of the language.

Do I understand correctly?
Last edited:

Steven Avery

more from the thread - not glorious appearing

some more elements of the GSR absurdity (minor)

John 1:18 - the only begotten Son - don't mess with the text, don't mistranslate (and a couple of follow-ups)

iron sharpeneth (the KJVO issue and my Greek studies)

dual addressing #1 - my verses (separate thread here)

dual addressing #2 - Granville Penn

dual addressing #3 - Benjamin Hall Kennedy

Jim1;n1244089 said:
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

The absurdity of Sharp’s Rule is demonstrated in the fact that the proponents of Sharp’s Rule think that τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ refers to two persons, but that τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ does not refer to the same two persons.
2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 2 Peter 1:11 - similar grammatical constructions (ECW acknowledgement) - p. 11

Titus 2:13 in the ECW - p. 12

Middleton - Robertson - Wallace

Jim1;n1248252 said:
In the 1803 edition of his 1798 book, Sharp identifies 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:2 and 3:18 as Sharp’s-Rule constructions on page 4, and 2 Peter 1:1 as a Sharp’s-Rule construction on pages 20-22 and 52-53.

Middleton makes the 2 Peter 1:1 = 2 Peter 1:11 argument on page 432-433 in the 1833 edition of his 1808 book,
and on pages 622-623 in the original 1808 edition.;view=1up;seq=652

Robertson makes that argument on pages 185-186 in his 1921 article on pages 182-188 in the 1921 (volume 21) edition of the journal titled, The Expositor.

Wallace’s version of Sharp’s Rule, explained on pages 270-290 in his 1996 book,
appears to be derived from the things written about Sharp’s Rule by Middleton and Robertson.

Georg Winer as bogey-man argument - p. 12

Steven Avery;n1248512 said:
the Wallace modernization of the Middleton rejections

One important example. The Georg Winer as bogey-man argument came straight from A. T. Robertson, e.g. talking on the revision:

All you have to do is read the earlier writers like Bloomfield and Buttmann, and then the excellent articles by Ezra Abbot and Benjamin Hall Kennedy (both on the revision committee) on Titus 2:13 to know that the Robertson argument of Winer-intimidation is specious poisoning-the-well agitprop. (More details on that are in the Granville Sharp Rules thread.) Abbot especially was a sharp cookie, agree or disagree, and gave lots of value-added detail and analysis to the discussions. Yet Robertson and then Wallace play the Georg Benedikt Winer (1789-1858) intimidation from the grave nonsense to the hilt.

The opposition to the Granville Sharp rule actually can be seen with Middleton, who junked most of the verses as useless for Sharp's purpose while still trying to proclaim some degree of fealty to the rule. Wallace was following that lead of two-faced rejection and proclamation.

2 Peter 1:1 - 1:2 - p. 12

John Milton;n1248533 said:
Jim, Thanks for those invaluable links. I find it interesting that Middleton quotes Winstanley as follows (footnote 1 p. 432, see quote below) concerning 2 Peter 1:1 , but is never able to proffer a reasonable objection or counter, but simply make a snide remark (not in quote below, see link):

"I answer, because he (apostle Peter) appears to me to have explained himself in the very next verse, ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. It is not very probable that he would thus, in immediate consecution, use the words God and the Savior Jesus Christ, and God and our Lord Jesus Christ , first to signify one Person and then two, without any assignable reason for so remarkable a difference."

My sentiment exactly.
Last edited: