John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Dmitriy Reznik
Posts: 21
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 2:12 pm
Location: Cheshire, CT
Contact:

John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Dmitriy Reznik »

Dear experts,

I was asked a question about John 1:17.
ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο
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,
timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 259
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon »

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.
Dmitriy Reznik
Posts: 21
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 2:12 pm
Location: Cheshire, CT
Contact:

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Dmitriy Reznik »

timothy_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.
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
Dmitriy Reznik
Posts: 21
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 2:12 pm
Location: Cheshire, CT
Contact:

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Dmitriy Reznik »

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I'm wondering about the use of the article with both nouns.
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:
τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας (of perseverance in suffering)
Luke 2:47:
ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (at his intelligent answers)
Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9:
διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους (because of the oath taken before the guests)

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.
Dmitriy Reznik
Posts: 21
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 2:12 pm
Location: Cheshire, CT
Contact:

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Dmitriy Reznik »

BTW, maybe somebody could tell if hendiadys existed in non-biblical Greek, i.e. if it is not hebraism?

Thanks,
Dmitriy
leonardjayawardena
Posts: 21
Joined: June 9th, 2014, 12:52 am

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by leonardjayawardena »

BTW, maybe somebody could tell if hendiadys existed in non-biblical Greek, i.e. if it is not hebraism?
H.W. Smyth's A Greek Grammar for Colleges recognizes hendiadys in classical Greek and has the following short section on it:
3025. 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.
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.
Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Iver Larsen »

Dmitriy Reznik wrote:
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I'm wondering about the use of the article with both nouns.
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:
τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας (of perseverance in suffering)
Luke 2:47:
ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (at his intelligent answers)
Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9:
διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους (because of the oath taken before the guests)

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.
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?
leonardjayawardena
Posts: 21
Joined: June 9th, 2014, 12:52 am

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by leonardjayawardena »

Iver 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?
I agree!

Leonard Jayawardena
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

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...
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Dmitriy Reznik
Posts: 21
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 2:12 pm
Location: Cheshire, CT
Contact:

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Dmitriy Reznik »

Thank you all for your answers. May I ask some additional ones?
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...
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?
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.
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: 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?
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
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”