Barry Hofstetter wrote: Ah, yes, good old Bullinger. Just be careful in using him. His major flaw is that he often sees literary devices where again it is doubtful that the original author intended them. At any rate, if in heaven John should inform me, "Why, yes, of course I intended a hendiadys there (and thanks for reading my little book)," then I wouldn't be at all disappointed...
Thank you very much for participating in this discussion. It is very important for me.
Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 8th, 2014, 2:49 pm
Ah, yes, good old Bullinger. Just be careful in using him. His major flaw is that he often sees literary devices where again it is doubtful that the original author intended them. At any rate, if in heaven John should inform me, "Why, yes, of course I intended a hendiadys there (and thanks for reading my little book)," then I wouldn't be at all disappointed...Dmitriy Reznik wrote: FYI. Just found Figures Of Speech Used in the Bible of E.W.Bullinger (page 663-664) who also understands John 1:17 as hendiadys: https://archive.org/stream/cu3192402927 ... 7/mode/2up
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 8th, 2014, 7:26 am
FYI. Just found Figures Of Speech Used in the Bible of E.W.Bullinger (page 663-664) who also understands John 1:17 as hendiadys: https://archive.org/stream/cu3192402927 ... 7/mode/2up Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 7th, 2014, 10:12 am
I agree with this. I just think that for a Jew like the author of the Gospel of John the Hebrew combination of words we discussed was so common that he might use it naturally without even thinking whether or not his readers would understand it as he does.Barry Hofstetter wrote: I am not at all sure that ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια would register as a hendiadys to an ancient speaker of Greek even if the phrase so translated in the LXX was originally a hendiadys in the Hebrew.
I am not arguing about how to understand correctly e.g. Ja 5:10 or Lk 2:47. I just gave them as examples of BDF taking them as hendiadyses (at least in my edition). And they understand them as hendiadys, as we can see from English translations of the passages. Again, I am not insisting that BDF is correct. Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 6th, 2014, 9:28 amBarry Hofstetter wrote:Section 442 is about καί and it's various usages. 442(16) is indeed about hendiadys, but we only know that from the translations of the examples given and the fact that in 442(5) it says "On καί in constructions with hendiadys s. infra (16)." Now, the citation from Aristophanes is clearly a hendiadys, and was undoubtedly so intended by the author (in fact, it's examples like these that we use to teach the concept). The example Mk 6:26/Mt 14:9 is not nearly so clear, and notice that they supply a question mark to indicate that they are giving it only as a possible example. In my edition of BDF, I don't see Ja 5:10 or Lk 2:47 listed, but again, neither of these are necessary hendiadyses on the same level as the Aristophanes citation. While they could be so interpreted as you render above, they could also simply be separate but related concepts, each author giving two examples/reasons in the context of his discourse.Dmitriy Reznik wrote:In 442(16) (which is an article on hendiadys) several examples are given, among which Ja 5:10 (of perseverance in suffering) and Lk 2:47 (at his intelligent answers). Also, in the additional section for (16) we find Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9 (because of the oath taken before his guests). I did not say that this Grammar mentioned John 1:17. I just said that it gave examples with hendiadyses using articles. One may agree or not with the authors, but that is what they say.
Thanks. Don't know when I'll have time, but I will try to look at the relevant sections.Dmitriy Reznik wrote: Here it is: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/2 ... 9024_1.pdf
The main point is that even constructions which are true Semitisms (and I disagree that they are that common) are understandable and explainable in terms of the target language (in this case Greek). I am not at all sure that ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια would register as a hendiadys to an ancient speaker of Greek even if the phrase so translated in the LXX was originally a hendiadys in the Hebrew.Dmitriy Reznik wrote: Yes, I read Deissmann's "Light from the ancient East" on this. But even Deissmann did not think that there were no Semitisms in the New Testament at all, in fact, he believed there were many of them. But I agree that this forum is not a good place for discussing this.
Section 442 is about καί and it's various usages. 442(16) is indeed about hendiadys, but we only know that from the translations of the examples given and the fact that in 442(5) it says "On καί in constructions with hendiadys s. infra (16)." Now, the citation from Aristophanes is clearly a hendiadys, and was undoubtedly so intended by the author (in fact, it's examples like these that we use to teach the concept). The example Mk 6:26/Mt 14:9 is not nearly so clear, and notice that they supply a question mark to indicate that they are giving it only as a possible example. In my edition of BDF, I don't see Ja 5:10 or Lk 2:47 listed, but again, neither of these are necessary hendiadyses on the same level as the Aristophanes citation. While they could be so interpreted as you render above, they could also simply be separate but related concepts, each author giving two examples/reasons in the context of his discourse. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 6th, 2014, 7:19 amDmitriy Reznik wrote: In 442(16) (which is an article on hendiadys) several examples are given, among which Ja 5:10 (of perseverance in suffering) and Lk 2:47 (at his intelligent answers). Also, in the additional section for (16) we find Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9 (because of the oath taken before his guests). I did not say that this Grammar mentioned John 1:17. I just said that it gave examples with hendiadyses using articles. One may agree or not with the authors, but that is what they say.
Here it is: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/2 ... 9024_1.pdfBarry Hofstetter wrote: Thanks, that's helpful. Link to the book?
Yes, I read Deissmann's "Light from the ancient East" on this. But even Deissmann did not think that there were no Semitisms in the New Testament at all, in fact, he believed there were many of them. But I agree that this forum is not a good place for discussing this.Barry Hofstetter wrote: Now, I'm not going to argue the Hebrew on , but I will point out again for emphasis that the Greek needs to be explained on its own without reference to any possible underlying Semitisms. One of the interesting observations to arise from the early study of the non-literary papyri is that a number of constructions which up to that time had been considered Semitisms could be found in the papyri, which shows that they were part of the everyday Greek of the period, and not due to a Semitic influence on the language.
In 442(16) (which is an article on hendiadys) several examples are given, among which Ja 5:10 (of perseverance in suffering) and Lk 2:47 (at his intelligent answers). Also, in the additional section for (16) we find Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9 (because of the oath taken before his guests). I did not say that this Grammar mentioned John 1:17. I just said that it gave examples with hendiadyses using articles. One may agree or not with the authors, but that is what they say. Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 5th, 2014, 2:45 pmBarry Hofstetter wrote: Secondly, earlier you cited BDF in support of your claim that the definite article could be used with a hendiadys. My copy of BDF does not have John 1:17 as one of it's Greek references, and lists "hendiadys" in the subject index under section 442 (16), which, interestingly enough, gives two examples of possible hendiadyses without mentioning the word, and it makes no reference to the definite article in the construction. Where did you see this in BDF?
Thanks, that's helpful. Link to the book? Now, I'm not going to argue the Hebrew on , but I will point out again for emphasis that the Greek needs to be explained on its own without reference to any possible underlying Semitisms. One of the interesting observations to arise from the early study of the non-literary papyri is that a number of constructions which up to that time had been considered Semitisms could be found in the papyri, which shows that they were part of the everyday Greek of the period, and not due to a Semitic influence on the language. Secondly, earlier you cited BDF in support of your claim that the definite article could be used with a hendiadys. My copy of BDF does not have John 1:17 as one of it's Greek references, and lists "hendiadys" in the subject index under section 442 (16), which, interestingly enough, gives two examples of possible hendiadyses without mentioning the word, and it makes no reference to the definite article in the construction. Where did you see this in BDF? Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 5th, 2014, 6:59 am
I met this opinion in several places, but I am not able to find them now or even recall where I could find them. Some information I did find in HENDIADYS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE of Dr. Rosmari Lillas (University of Gothenburg).Barry Hofstetter wrote: Dimitry, you mention "many scholars" who believe that it is, can you list, oh say, five?
Several scholars have contributed to the two volumes of TWOT and there are 15 examples of suggested hendiadyses given in the articles.361 The term is used for the following constructions; I. Dissimilar nouns, e.g., חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת, lit. ‘loving-kindness and truth’ (Gen 24:29), which is a hendiadys, according to Harris, but he remarks cautiously that “the phrase means either ‘faithful love’ or ‘true kindness’ or the like.”362
G. J. Botterweck/H. Ringgren, H-J. Fabry, eds. (TWAT, 1973–2000; TDOT, 1977–2006) TDOT consists of fifteen volumes comprised of numerous articles by several scholars. The term hendiadys is used in 31 articles by a total of 35 contributors to TDOT.366 The term hendiadys refers to combined components in biblical Hebrew, but occasionally examples of proposed hendiadyses in Akkadian, Ugaritic and in one instance in Palmyrene, are also given.367 However, the term is used in various ways for the following combinations of components in the HB; I. Dissimilar nouns, e.g., חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת, lit. ‘loving-kindness and truth’ (Gen 47:29), and one of the nouns interpreted as an attribute, in this case “steadfast love.”
2. Secondly, a slightly different approach is when both of the nouns are reinterpreted as adjectives, but none of them are subordinated to the other. This can be demonstrated by e.g., Westerman’s interpretation of the combination חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת, lit. ‘loving-kindness and truth.’ He refers to these nouns combined in Gen 47:29 as “really a hendiadys,” and interprets them “loyal and true,” in an understandable attempt to translate ‘do with me loving-kindness and truth,’ which he transforms into “be loyal and true to me.”
These are only a few quotations from that book. It contains much more examples with exact references, which I omitted Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 4th, 2014, 11:00 pmOrlinsky refers also to Gen 47:29 but translates the same components there as “steadfast loyalty.”
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I did not remember the Hebrew term for it, and Dimtry meant something else by the English terminology. I note that Williams lists it as a possible hendiadys. Dimitry, you mention "many scholars" who believe that it is, can you list, oh say, five? To me, we have two separate concepts which are linked, but one does not appear to me to modify the other. I also don't think that someone of the time who knew Greek reasonably well would have looked at ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια and recognized it as a hendiadys, for the reasons I've already advanced. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 4th, 2014, 7:18 amtimothy_p_mcmahon wrote: I believe Barry is looking for סמיכות (construct chain). In Williams Hebrew Syntax he gives examples of hendiadys in Hebrew both as construct chains and as two nouns coordinated by vav. He includes חסד ואמת as a "possible example."
I believe Barry is looking for סמיכות (construct chain). In Williams Hebrew Syntax he gives examples of hendiadys in Hebrew both as construct chains and as two nouns coordinated by vav. He includes חסד ואמת as a "possible example." Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — July 3rd, 2014, 4:19 pm
Do you mean smichut? I did not suggest that חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת is used in smichut. When I said "construct", I meant "combination of words" (sorry for my limited English). So the combination חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת should have been well known to the readers of the Bible, and if it meant "true mercy" (as many scholars seem to believe), then John might expect from his readers to recognize the same meaning in ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια, too... I guess... Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 3rd, 2014, 3:37 pmBarry Hofstetter wrote: Examples of "mercy and truth" in a construct relationship. I looked a several in the limited time that I had, and none of them were in a construct relationship, as you seemed to suggest was common with the phrase. If you could cite the ones you had in mind, I'd appreciate it.
Examples of "mercy and truth" in a construct relationship. I looked a several in the limited time that I had, and none of them were in a construct relationship, as you seemed to suggest was common with the phrase. If you could cite the ones you had in mind, I'd appreciate it. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 3rd, 2014, 2:55 pmDmitriy Reznik wrote:I am not sure I understand. Could you please explain what examples you are asking about?Barry Hofstetter wrote:I spot checked a few of these in comparison with the Hebrew, and none of them used a construct, simply a paratactic such as חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת. Do you have any examples where the phrase is used to translate a Hebrew construct relationship?
I am not sure I understand. Could you please explain what examples you are asking about? Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 3rd, 2014, 12:33 pmBarry Hofstetter wrote: I spot checked a few of these in comparison with the Hebrew, and none of them used a construct, simply a paratactic such as חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת. Do you have any examples where the phrase is used to translate a Hebrew construct relationship?
I spot checked a few of these in comparison with the Hebrew, and none of them used a construct, simply a paratactic such as חֶ֥סֶד וֶ֝אֱמֶ֗ת. Do you have any examples where the phrase is used to translate a Hebrew construct relationship? As for Paul and midrashic exegesis, I don't think it's a fair comparison. The churches were established, and already would have received a goodly amount of instruction, which would have familiarized them at least in a general way with such an approach to Scripture. This is different from needing reference to a Hebrew/Aramaic expression to make sense out of a Greek phrase. As I mentioned earlier (it may have been in a different discussion), John's audience seems to be primarily Gentile, since John feels the need to explain Jewish customs to them. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 3rd, 2014, 8:40 amDmitriy Reznik wrote: Thank you very much Barry for your answer. Still I would like to mention concerning the last statement that though any author wants to be understood, yet often he cannot become somebody other than he is. I mean, it is hard for the author to change his mindset even for the sake of his audience. E.g. Paul very often uses Jewish midrashic argumentation even though he was writing to the Greeks. Speaking of the construct we are discussing, "mercy and truth" is used in Hebrew Bible quite often, and is translated in the Septuagint as "ἔλεος καὶ ἀλήθεια" or "ἐλεημοσύνη καὶ ἀλήθεια". So I am not sure that this popular expression was only a subtle idea for John or anybody who read the Scripture. Sincerely, Dmitriy Reznik
Thank you very much Barry for your answer. Still I would like to mention concerning the last statement that though any author wants to be understood, yet often he cannot become somebody other than he is. I mean, it is hard for the author to change his mindset even for the sake of his audience. E.g. Paul very often uses Jewish midrashic argumentation even though he was writing to the Greeks. Speaking of the construct we are discussing, "mercy and truth" is used in Hebrew Bible quite often, and is translated in the Septuagint as "ἔλεος καὶ ἀλήθεια" or "ἐλεημοσύνη καὶ ἀλήθεια". So I am not sure that this popular expression was only a subtle idea for John or anybody who read the Scripture. Sincerely, Dmitriy Reznik Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 3rd, 2014, 8:19 am
I'm not sure it's a strict "rule." I have noticed before, and Smyth's examples agree with me, that hendiades seem normally to be anarthrous in Greek, in cases where the author is unambiguously using this literary device. That doesn't mean that there are not examples where the article might be used, just tthat I can't think of them. My sense of the Greek is that making each noun articular distinguishes them as two separate concepts, not combining them as a hendiadys would demand. I have unfortunately escaped where I keep my BDF (a resource I do not yet have electronically), so I can't check exactly what it says. I am also very suspicious of imputing such literary devices to the gospel authors. In the classical tradition, authors deliberately used such devices, and you have later antiquity authors analyzing and discussing them (e.g., Quintillian). I think it's possible that a few NT authors might have had sufficient training in rhetoric and poetry that they might deliberately use them. Ernst Kasemann certainly thought Paul used classical rhetorical style in composing his letters (think Demosthones or Cicero), and I think the writer to the Hebrews shows sufficient literary background that he self-consciously uses certainl literary devices. But I'm not so sure about the gospel writers, who employ a very different style and approach (including Luke, who shows familiarity with broader Greek literature in Acts but sticks closely to the synoptic outline in his gospel, although he varies syntax and vocabulary in interesting ways). My initial question when I suspect a literary device is "Did the author do so deliberately, or is he doing it simply because it sounded right to him to write it that way?" I see students doing this all the time in papers that they write, the accidental use of a literary device. I brought it up to one student (who used the nicest tricolon crescens), and she quipped "But I didn't mean anything by it!"Dmitriy Reznik wrote: Thank you all for your answers. May I ask some additional ones?Can we be sure that the above statement is a strict rule (particularly if Blass-Debrunner think otherwise)? And even if yes, can we be sure that John follows this (and some others) rule?Barry Hofstetter wrote:Yes, I don't think a hendiadys works well here. If nothing else, the presence of the articles before the nouns suggests separate concepts. You'll note that each of Smyth's example are anarthrous...
So the question I have is how much exegetical significance should we place on such a construction if the author may not have self-consciously intended it as a literary device?
Moises Silva always used to say that if you find an exceedingly subtle idea in an ancient author, it's probably in your head, not his (I paraphrase). Why? Because very subtle points tend to get missed, and authors usually like people to get what they are saying. In this case, the semitism would have be a construct, and this is usually translated in Greek using a genitive with a dependent noun, what I think is usually meant by an "appositive" genitive. I think going back to the Hebrew/Aramaic to explain the Greek syntax here is useless. The majority of John's audience would have been Gentiles who knew Hebrew the way most Americans know Hungarian. The text has to be understood on the basis of the Greek as it stands. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 3rd, 2014, 7:56 amDmitriy Reznik wrote: Also, what do ye think of understanding the probably corresponding Hebrew construct discussed in the beginning of this topic as hendiadys?
Thank you all for your answers. May I ask some additional ones?
Can we be sure that the above statement is a strict rule (particularly if Blass-Debrunner think otherwise)? And even if yes, can we be sure that John follows this (and some others) rule?Barry Hofstetter wrote: Yes, I don't think a hendiadys works well here. If nothing else, the presence of the articles before the nouns suggests separate concepts. You'll note that each of Smyth's example are anarthrous...
Hmm, it seems to me that the text says that "grace and truth" appeared, or came, or began to be through Jesus. Doesn't it mean that " there was no grace or truth in the Torah", if we take them separately? Isn't it hard to see "fuller expression" in "ἐγένετο"?Iver Larsen wrote: It seems to me that John is talking about a new and fuller expression of the grace and truth from God which came with Jesus and goes far beyond what was given through Moses. It does not mean that there was no grace or truth in the Torah, but there is a fuller reality of grace and truth through Jesus.
It seems to me that we can say "true grace" as well as we can say "true love", "true wisdom" etc. Also, what do ye think of understanding the probably corresponding Hebrew construct discussed in the beginning of this topic as hendiadys? I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, just want to thoroughly understand all pros and cons. Thank you very much, Dmitriy Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 2nd, 2014, 10:06 amIver Larsen wrote: So, I think grace and truth are best kept separate rather than trying to make them graceful truth or truthful grace. If there is a true grace, is there also a false grace?
Yes, I don't think a hendiadys works well here. If nothing else, the presence of the articles before the nouns suggests separate concepts. You'll note that each of Smyth's example are anarthrous... Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 2nd, 2014, 6:47 am
I agree! Leonard Jayawardena Statistics: Posted by leonardjayawardena — July 2nd, 2014, 6:09 amIver Larsen wrote: The initial ὅτι probably explains the previous χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (grace instead of grace). The two words grace and truth also pick up on the same two words in verse 14: καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. It seems to me that John is talking about a new and fuller expression of the grace and truth from God which came with Jesus and goes far beyond what was given through Moses. It does not mean that there was no grace or truth in the Torah, but there is a fuller reality of grace and truth through Jesus. So, I think grace and truth are best kept separate rather than trying to make them graceful truth or truthful grace. If there is a true grace, is there also a false grace?
H.W. Smyth's A Greek Grammar for Colleges recognizes hendiadys in classical Greek and has the following short section on it:BTW, maybe somebody could tell if hendiadys existed in non-biblical Greek, i.e. if it is not hebraism?
I agree that in ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο (Johjn 1:17), ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια is a hendiadys and means "true grace." As I understand this verse, this "true grace" is contrasted with ὁ νόμος, which refers not to the contents of the Mosaic code, but to a system of salvation opposed to the system of salvation based on grace. The same contrast is commonly found in the apostle Paul's writings. On some occasions he uses the term “law” alone in the same sense, e.g., Romans 6:14 ( οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν). This system of salvation he elsewhere calls “the works of law,” e.g., Romans 3:20. Statistics: Posted by leonardjayawardena — July 1st, 2014, 11:47 pm3025. Hendiadys (ἓν διὰ δυοῖν one by two) is the use of two words connected by a copulative conjunction to express a single complex idea; especially two substantives instead of one substantive and an adjective or attributive genitive. χρόνῳ καὶ πολιορκίᾳ by length of time and siege = by a long siege D. 19.123, ““ἐν ἁλὶ κύ_μασί τε” in the waves of the sea” E. Hel. 226, ““ἀσπίδων τε καὶ στρατοῦ ῀ ὡπλισμένου στρατοῦ” armed force” S. El. 36.
You must be refrring to Blass, Debrunner here: §442 (16) The co-ordination of two ideas, one of which is dependent on the other (hendiadys), serves in the NT to avoid a series of dependent genitives They do suggest translations like "perseverance in suffering" for James 5:10 and "intelligent answers" in Luke 2:47, but I don't think this is the best or only way of interpreting them. James 5:10 could as well be understood as the unjust suffering the prophets had to endure and their perseverance in spite of those sufferings. Of course, the two ideas are closely connected and overlapping in time, but is one dependent on the other? I usually think of hendiadys as two nouns where one describes the other and therefore one may be translated by an adjective. There is a tendency to look at the sense of καὶ from an English perspective which sees the two nouns as more distinct than they were intended. Two nouns joined by καὶ are often overlapping in sense, reference or time. It may well be more natural and clear in English to say "patience in the face of suffering" (NIV) than "suffering affliction and of patience" (KJV) or "suffering and patience" (NET). In Luke 2:47 I am not sure it is accurate to reduce "his understanding and his answers" to "his intelligent answers", because the previous verse says that Jesus was listening to them and asking questions. I think rather Luke is talking about his insightful questions and his excellent answers to their questions. A Rabbinic dialogue was often in the form of questions and counter-questions in addition to answers. I have similar hesitation for Mk 6:26. The king could not retract for two reasons: He had made an oath, so he might fear God if he went against it. It would be dangerous. He had made it in public so he would fear the reaction of the guests. It would be shameful. Nor would I consider it likely that a hendiadys is intended in John 1:17. ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. There are 3 pairs of lexical contrasts/comparisons: ὁ νόμος --- ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Μωϋσέως -- διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδόθη -- ἐγένετο The initial ὅτι probably explains the previous χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (grace instead of grace). The two words grace and truth also pick up on the same two words in verse 14: καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. It seems to me that John is talking about a new and fuller expression of the grace and truth from God which came with Jesus and goes far beyond what was given through Moses. It does not mean that there was no grace or truth in the Torah, but there is a fuller reality of grace and truth through Jesus. So, I think grace and truth are best kept separate rather than trying to make them graceful truth or truthful grace. If there is a true grace, is there also a false grace? Statistics: Posted by Iver Larsen — July 2nd, 2014, 3:17 amDmitriy Reznik wrote:I found the answer to this in Blass and Debrunner, where there are examples of hendiadys with the article with both nouns: James 5:10:timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I'm wondering about the use of the article with both nouns.Luke 2:47:τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας (of perseverance in suffering)Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9:ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (at his intelligent answers)Also, I found that a famous medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת (lovingkindness and truth) as hendiadys (חסד של אמת, i.e. true lovingkindness)!! (http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-% ... iadys.html) Thank you again, Dmitriy P.S. Maybe somebody would like to add something to our discussion? Thanks.διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους (because of the oath taken before the guests)
I found the answer to this in Blass and Debrunner, where there are examples of hendiadys with the article with both nouns: James 5:10:timothy_p_mcmahon wrote: While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I'm wondering about the use of the article with both nouns.
Luke 2:47:τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας (of perseverance in suffering)
Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9:ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (at his intelligent answers)
Also, I found that a famous medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת (lovingkindness and truth) as hendiadys (חסד של אמת, i.e. true lovingkindness)!! (http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-% ... iadys.html) Thank you again, Dmitriy P.S. Maybe somebody would like to add something to our discussion? Thanks. Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — June 29th, 2014, 9:55 pmδιὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους (because of the oath taken before the guests)
BTW, maybe somebody could tell if hendiadys existed in non-biblical Greek, i.e. if it is not hebraism? Thanks, Dmitriy Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — July 1st, 2014, 8:17 am
Timothy, thank you very much for your answer. Your idea about the phrase being translation of חסד ואמת is very interesting and hard to disagree with. Still, I would like to know if both words having an article is a problem for being hendiadys. Thank you again, Dmitriy Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — June 29th, 2014, 8:06 pmtimothy_p_mcmahon wrote: While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I'm wondering about the use of the article with both nouns. I'm thinking that perhaps John's η χαρις και η αληθεια is a translation of חסד ואמת in such texts as Exodus 34:6. Granted, LXX is pretty consistent on חסד ואמת with ελεος και αληθεια, but might χαρις be an alternative to ελεος for this author? The sense I would derive is not that grace/mercy and truth are in contrast to Torah, but that the grace and truth of God that were revealed through Torah have Christ as their source. Thus, the contrast is not between law and grace/truth but between Christ as source and Moses as intermediary, a contrast between word and Word.
While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I'm wondering about the use of the article with both nouns. I'm thinking that perhaps John's η χαρις και η αληθεια is a translation of חסד ואמת in such texts as Exodus 34:6. Granted, LXX is pretty consistent on חסד ואמת with ελεος και αληθεια, but might χαρις be an alternative to ελεος for this author? The sense I would derive is not that grace/mercy and truth are in contrast to Torah, but that the grace and truth of God that were revealed through Torah have Christ as their source. Thus, the contrast is not between law and grace/truth but between Christ as source and Moses as intermediary, a contrast between word and Word. Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — June 29th, 2014, 5:19 pm
Dear experts, I was asked a question about John 1:17.
The question was why the truth is contrasted with the Law, as if the Law was not true. So when I started thinking about it, I thought that it may be an example of hendiadys, and if it is so, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια could mean "the true grace". Can this suggestion be correct? Thanks, Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — June 29th, 2014, 3:26 pmὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο