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

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Dmitriy Reznik wrote: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?
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!" :) 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?

Dmitriy Reznik wrote:Also, what do ye think of understanding the probably corresponding Hebrew construct discussed in the beginning of this topic as hendiadys?
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.
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 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
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Dmitriy 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
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.
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 »

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

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Dmitriy Reznik wrote:
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?
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.
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 »

Barry 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.
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...
timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 259
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon »

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."
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

timothy_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."
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.
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 »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: Dimitry, you mention "many scholars" who believe that it is, can you list, oh say, five?
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).
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.”
Orlinsky refers also to Gen 47:29 but translates the same components there as “steadfast loyalty.”
These are only a few quotations from that book. It contains much more examples with exact references, which I omitted
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: John 1:17: is it hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Thanks, that's helpful. Link to the book? Now, I'm not going to argue the Hebrew on B-Greek, 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?
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.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”