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.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...
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?
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.Dmitriy Reznik wrote:Also, what do ye think of understanding the probably corresponding Hebrew construct discussed in the beginning of this topic as hendiadys?