From: Joe Friberg (JoeFriberg@alumni.utexas.net)
Date: Thu Aug 12 1999 - 00:27:57 EDT
NOTE: This message was originally prepared early yesterday (8/10), but
unfortunately my outgoing email was not working (and I did not realize it).
In the interim, several messages have been posted to this thread, and
while there appears to be some overlap between this and other messages, I
am sending the message unedited. --Joe F.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Neil Mendoza [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:39 AM
> Recently I contacted Daniel B. Wallace about Acts 2:23 and if he believed
> it contains an example of Granville Sharp's rule. I had previously
> encounted it as an example of Sharp's rule in one of Kenneth
> Wuest's books,
> but couldn't find it as an example in any Greek grammar. When Wallace's
> grammar came out with the most examples of Sharp's rule I was
> to find Acts 2:23 absent from this section. Anyways, he informed me that
> he disagrees with Wuest and doesn't believe it to be an example
> of Sharp's
> rule because it is impersonal construction.
Wallace (pp. 270-72) discusses the instigation and specifications of
Granville Sharp's rule, which was originally stated to focus narrowly on
the construction 'article + personal substantive description + kai +
personal substantive description' for the specific purpose of butressing
the case from the NT for the deity of Christ (i.e., Ti 2.13, 2 Pt 1.1).
Granville Sharp's focus and interest were narrowly theological, and Wallace
wants to maintain the same delineation.
However, in general, an 'article + coordinated nouns' construction does
indicate a close association of the nouns in some form of hendiadys (see my
email of 7/22/99 for suggested categories of hendiadys). Many grammarians
apparently call this more general principle 'Granville Sharp's rule' (cf.
Greenlee p. 23).
> I also noticed
> elsewhere that
> Stephen Baugh says it is an example of a hendiadys, in which the copula
> substitutes a subordinating clause. I just don't see this when I read
> BOULE KAI PROGNOSEI (counsel and foreknowledge), two nouns in the
> same case
> and person connected by KAI.
I'm not sure what he means here; is he referring to a translation value of
something like 'the appointed plan, which is the foreknowledge of God'??
> Can someone tell me why this is a hendiadys
> and not an example of Granville Sharp's rule?
>From the perspective of hendiadys, Granville Sharp's rule proper a la
Wallace is simply a special case of hendiadys, one category
(*names/titles*) among many.
The current case:
THi hWRISMENHi BOULHi KAI PROGNWSEI TOU QEOU
has all the structural markings of hendiadys: single article before entire
phrase, single genitive following entire phrase. It appears to be a case
of *synonymous* hendiadys, for there is (arguably) an overlap between the
'plan' of God and his 'foreknowledge'. Alternatively, someone might argue
it is an instance of *Cause-Effect* hendiadys, that the 'plan' of God
produces his 'foreknowledge' (anyone care to take this position?). I do
not see any other alternatives presently; the context points to a
singularity of God's intension in the delivery over of Christ.
Joe A. Friberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:35 EDT