From: Richard Neil Mendoza (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 12 1999 - 05:56:01 EDT
On 08/12/99, ""Joe Friberg" <JoeFriberg@alumni.utexas.net>" wrote:
> NOTE: This message was originally prepared early yesterday (8/10), but
unfortunately my outgoing email was not working (and I did not realize
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
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
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).
- Since I was basing my interpretation on memory and I didn't have
Wallace's grammar available to me, I forgot that to qualify for Granville
Sharp's rule int must be a personal attribute or description. Kenneth
Wuest applied looser qualifications for the rule.
> 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'??
- No, it would be a hendiadys in Gk before translation.
> 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.
- Thanks. I think I fell victim to a poor definition of hendiadys. The
Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory defines it as "A
figure of speech in which one idea is expressed by two substantives, as in
'gloom aand despondency' or 'darkness and the shadow of death'." This is a
less restrictive one than the one I previously mentioned.
I think you may be correct. I don't know if it is a representation of a
single idea or a cause-and-effect hendiadys, but I think you make a good
Joe A. Friberg
- Thank you again. You have done the most to answer my question, which did
not focus on Granville Sharp's rule, but also inquired into hendiadys.
Santa Ana, CA
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:35 EDT