Hendiadys?

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Hendiadys?

Post by R. Perkins » June 1st, 2018, 2:49 am

λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι o [αὐτήν]

I recently heard someone teaching that Matthew 19.7 affirms a delineation between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι. This pastor is teaching (& converting) other pastors the notion that Jesus is addressing those who have "put away" their wives, but not given them a bill of divorce (hence allowing for remarriage for virtually any cause). That is, he is making a strong distinction between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι in Mt. 19.7-9.

Two quick questions:

(1) Can it be said that the noun and verb connected by καὶ constitutes a hendiadys, essentially describing the same event?

(2) Is there a systematic methodology to identifying a hendiadys, or is each hendiadys debatable?

Thank you in advance. I've been wracking my mind over this all evening - and then remembered this forum :idea:!
0 x



Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3489
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by Jonathan Robie » June 1st, 2018, 3:47 pm

R. Perkins wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 2:49 am
λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι o [αὐτήν]

I recently heard someone teaching that Matthew 19.7 affirms a delineation between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι. This pastor is teaching (& converting) other pastors the notion that Jesus is addressing those who have "put away" their wives, but not given them a bill of divorce (hence allowing for remarriage for virtually any cause). That is, he is making a strong distinction between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι in Mt. 19.7-9.
I don't yet understand this line of argument. There is a distinction between the two, as you can see in Matthew 5:31-32. Here's the Mosaic teaching:
Matthew 5:31 wrote:Ἐρρέθη δέ· Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον.
So clearly it would be possible to do one without doing the other or Moses would not have commanded a man to give an apostasion to his wife if he divorces her.

Here's what Jesus said in the next verse:
Matthew 5:31 wrote:ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.
Jesus is not repeating what Moses said, reminding a man to give his wife an apostasion if he divorces her, he is telling him not to divorce her at all παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. I suppose your pastor may be wondering what a man should do if he divorces his wife in a case of adultery - should he give her a divorce certificate or not? Jesus doesn't say, certainly not in this verse.
Two quick questions:

(1) Can it be said that the noun and verb connected by καὶ constitutes a hendiadys, essentially describing the same event?
I don't think so.
(2) Is there a systematic methodology to identifying a hendiadys, or is each hendiadys debatable?
Certainly many are debatable. I don't think this one is.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1333
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm

R. Perkins wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 2:49 am
λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι o [αὐτήν]

I recently heard someone teaching that Matthew 19.7 affirms a delineation between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι. This pastor is teaching (& converting) other pastors the notion that Jesus is addressing those who have "put away" their wives, but not given them a bill of divorce (hence allowing for remarriage for virtually any cause). That is, he is making a strong distinction between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι in Mt. 19.7-9.

Two quick questions:

(1) Can it be said that the noun and verb connected by καὶ constitutes a hendiadys, essentially describing the same event?

(2) Is there a systematic methodology to identifying a hendiadys, or is each hendiadys debatable?

Thank you in advance. I've been wracking my mind over this all evening - and then remembered this forum :idea:!
Ooh, no no no no (fun fact irrelevant side note: non ho nono [say it quickly] means "I don't have a grandfather" in Italian).

Not a hendiadys. What's a hendiadys? Two words, of the same part of speech, using a conjunction (usually καί in Greek), where one functions in place of an adjective or adverb in relationship to the other word. Example:

Isa 4:5 LXX καπνοῦ καὶ φωτὸς "smoke and light" = smokey light, or in English "waves and ocean" = ocean waves. What you do not have for this literary device would be a noun and a verb. I would take the above as an epexegetical infinitive or infinitive of purpose, "a legal certificate to divorce." They are not the same thing.

edit: adding to what I already said, in Greek and Latin they are supposed to be the same grammatical form, so nouns the same number, gender, case and so forth.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by R. Perkins » June 2nd, 2018, 1:53 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 3:47 pm
R. Perkins wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 2:49 am
λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι o [αὐτήν]

I recently heard someone teaching that Matthew 19.7 affirms a delineation between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι. This pastor is teaching (& converting) other pastors the notion that Jesus is addressing those who have "put away" their wives, but not given them a bill of divorce (hence allowing for remarriage for virtually any cause). That is, he is making a strong distinction between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι in Mt. 19.7-9.
I don't yet understand this line of argument. There is a distinction between the two, as you can see in Matthew 5:31-32. Here's the Mosaic teaching:
Matthew 5:31 wrote:Ἐρρέθη δέ· Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον.
So clearly it would be possible to do one without doing the other or Moses would not have commanded a man to give an apostasion to his wife if he divorces her.

Here's what Jesus said in the next verse:
Matthew 5:31 wrote:ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.
Jesus is not repeating what Moses said, reminding a man to give his wife an apostasion if he divorces her, he is telling him not to divorce her at all παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. I suppose your pastor may be wondering what a man should do if he divorces his wife in a case of adultery - should he give her a divorce certificate or not? Jesus doesn't say, certainly not in this verse.
Two quick questions:

(1) Can it be said that the noun and verb connected by καὶ constitutes a hendiadys, essentially describing the same event?
I don't think so.
(2) Is there a systematic methodology to identifying a hendiadys, or is each hendiadys debatable?
Certainly many are debatable. I don't think this one is.
I actually pastor a church myself, but heard another pastor positing this teaching & wanted to inquire about the potential of a hendiadys. I appreciate your input.
0 x

R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by R. Perkins » June 2nd, 2018, 2:01 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 9:07 pm
R. Perkins wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 2:49 am
λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι o [αὐτήν]

I recently heard someone teaching that Matthew 19.7 affirms a delineation between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι. This pastor is teaching (& converting) other pastors the notion that Jesus is addressing those who have "put away" their wives, but not given them a bill of divorce (hence allowing for remarriage for virtually any cause). That is, he is making a strong distinction between ἀποστασίου and ἀπολῦσαι in Mt. 19.7-9.

Two quick questions:

(1) Can it be said that the noun and verb connected by καὶ constitutes a hendiadys, essentially describing the same event?

(2) Is there a systematic methodology to identifying a hendiadys, or is each hendiadys debatable?

Thank you in advance. I've been wracking my mind over this all evening - and then remembered this forum :idea:!
Ooh, no no no no (fun fact irrelevant side note: non ho nono [say it quickly] means "I don't have a grandfather" in Italian).

Not a hendiadys. What's a hendiadys? Two words, of the same part of speech, using a conjunction (usually καί in Greek), where one functions in place of an adjective or adverb in relationship to the other word. Example:

Isa 4:5 LXX καπνοῦ καὶ φωτὸς "smoke and light" = smokey light, or in English "waves and ocean" = ocean waves. What you do not have for this literary device would be a noun and a verb. I would take the above as an epexegetical infinitive or infinitive of purpose, "a legal certificate to divorce." They are not the same thing.

edit: adding to what I already said, in Greek and Latin they are supposed to be the same grammatical form, so nouns the same number, gender, case and so forth.
Gotcha! I was indeed wondering about the N-C-V construction as I typed this out last night. I like the epexegetical infinitive/infinitive of purpose idea.

That does make a lot of sense to me, but, in my elementary understanding I am still suspicious as to whether or not Jesus is describing the same event (?).

Not being stubborn, just wrestling w. the text a bit :oops:.
0 x

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 239
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » June 2nd, 2018, 2:54 am

I'm still not entirely following the logic of the proposed interpretation referenced in the original post.

The significance of the get (βιβλίον ἀποστασίου) is to free the divorced woman for remarriage. For the husband to dismiss his wife without granting her the legal paperwork leaves her in a very difficult situation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agunah
0 x

R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by R. Perkins » June 2nd, 2018, 3:27 am

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 2:54 am
I'm still not entirely following the logic of the proposed interpretation referenced in the original post.

The significance of the get (βιβλίον ἀποστασίου) is to free the divorced woman for remarriage. For the husband to dismiss his wife without granting her the legal paperwork leaves her in a very difficult situation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agunah
The pastor who is teaching this is affirming that Mt. 19.7-9 is referring to someone who has "put away" his (or her) spouse, but has not "divorced" said party by giving a bill of divorce. He is saying that as long as someone grants a certificate of divorce they are free to remarry.

To illustrate further, this same pastor also says that Mal. 2.16 does not say that "God hates divorce," but rather that He hates "putting away" (i.e., separating w.out granting the certificate of divorce). He is laboring long and hard in Deut. 24 to teach that as long as a bill of divorce is granted remarriage is allowed (even w.out any immorality).

Appreciate everyone's input.
0 x

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 411
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » June 2nd, 2018, 5:23 am

These theological discussion have nothing to do with Greek language. We agree it's not hendiadys. Based on Greek one cannot argue for one interpretation or another. It requires cultural and historical knowledge. And commonsensical reading in context.
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1333
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Hendiadys?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 6th, 2018, 1:00 pm

R. Perkins wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 2:01 am
[
Gotcha! I was indeed wondering about the N-C-V construction as I typed this out last night. I like the epexegetical infinitive/infinitive of purpose idea.

That does make a lot of sense to me, but, in my elementary understanding I am still suspicious as to whether or not Jesus is describing the same event (?).

Not being stubborn, just wrestling w. the text a bit :oops:.
Well, one could, I suppose, make the argument (not sure how), but one cannot do so based in the idea that it's a hendiadys. It becomes, as Eeli has pointed out, a matter of hermeneutics and not language analysis.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply