Richard Young teaches us that "the basic syntactic function of καὶ is simply to join two coordinate elements together" (187). But καὶ can also be used as a simple additive without specifying any particular relationship between two coordinate elements (see Rev. 7:12). After examining the various uses of καὶ in the Greek Scriptures (NT), it seems that the καὶ in 2 Cor. 5:8 is best understood as a simple additive that connects two contrasting thoughts without specifying the temporal aspect of either event: 2 Cor. 5:8 is an expressed desire as opposed to being a divinely inspired prophecy.
One of the best discussions I've run across on the utilization of καὶ in the NT is Kermit Titrud's "The function of KAI in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2 Peter" found in D.A. Black's _Linguistics and NT Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis_. This article will expose you to the numerous aspects of the Greek conjunction KAI. can also be used as a simple additive without specifying any particular relationship between two coordinate elements (see Rev. 7:12). After looking at the various uses of καὶ in the Greek Scriptures (NT), it seems that the καὶ in 2 Cor. 5:8 is best understood as a simple additive that connects two contrasting thoughts without specifying the temporal aspect of either event. 2 Cor. 5:8 is an expressed desire as opposed to being a prophecy.
http://historeo.com/Resources/Simple_Search_for_hendiadys_and_kai.htm
ReplyDeleteThanks, Duncan. Great hits! I like studying rhetorical devices as well, and hendiadys is one intriguing device, IMO.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Edgar
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteThis device is new to me & how it adds another nuance to KAI. I have been skimming through:-
http://www.biblicalresearchjournal.org/brj-pages_pdf/001ewb_figures_of_speech.pdf
Some interesting information on page 660 "Hendiadys; or, Two for One" but this must be superseded now by some other works?
Is there anything newer for page 663?
"Gen. 2:9 . —“The tree of knowledge of good and evil”: i.e. , of evil enjoyment."
(but a few (such as Gen. 2:9 ) may be open to question; and these are submitted for the judgment and consideration of the reader.)
Any later arguments or discussions?
Duncan,
ReplyDeletePlenty has been written on rhetoric in the Bible, and also rhetorical devices used in the ancient world. Gen 2:9 would most certainly be questioned as an authentic example. There's certainly another way to read that text.
Here are some works dealing with rhetoric:
Aune, David E. The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and
Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
Kennedy, George A. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Lanham, Richard A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
Lausberg, H. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. 2 volumes. Munich: Hueber, 1960.
——. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill, 1998.
Porter, Stanley (editor). Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.C.-
A.D. 400. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997.
Sloane, Thomas O., ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
See also Ben Witherington III, Revelation, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003)
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-should-we-understand-1-peter-414.html
Compare what David Black writes in
ReplyDeleteBlack, David A. _Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A
Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications_. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995.
He has a section on rhetorical devices although his work covers many areas of linguistics.
Thanks yet again Edgar. These books look very interesting. I would like to read the encyclopaedia of rhetoric but the ligustics for students will suit my pocket at the moment and looking at it's reviews, is a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteI did not agree with the genesis interpretation but just wanted to know why someone would argue for it as a possibility?
You're welcome, Duncan. For what it's worth, my comments about Gen 2:9 were meant to be words of assent. Bullinger seemed to look for rhetorical devices throughout scripture. I would not deny that Gen 2:9 is possibly hendiadys, because this device does appear in the Bible. But I (like you) don't think Bullinger was correct about this particular verse.
ReplyDeleteSome have another possibility, using merism, which seems more of an option.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/42707058?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106820047613
But this phenomenon does seem to separate concrete Hebrew from abstract Greek. Before terms such as PANTA.
Is there evidence of merism in the Greek as another aspect of KAI usages?
I'm not sure how understanding "heavens and earth" (Gen 1:1) as synecdochal (an instance of merism) for "the universe as a whole" separates "concrete Hebrew from abstract Greek." Firstly, that distinction has been questioned and critiqued by Barr. Secondly, I don't think the distinction holds up, if we consider the whole of Hebrew and Greek lingual history.
ReplyDeleteBut to address the question above, scholars argue that we do find synecdoche or merism in the Greek NT. For instance, "flesh and blood" is said to be merism. See 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:11-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (for possible merism/synecdoche).
Some view Rev 21:6 as an instance of merism. Darrell Bock contends that Acts 7:49 contains meristic language.
Are you referring to the whole of Hebrew and Greek biblical history? What about early classical Greek literature, what examples of merism can be found?
ReplyDeleteYour last two scriptural examples come from Hebrew origins . aleph tav, Isaiah 66:1.
Yes, I am referring to the whole of Hebrew/Greek lingual history. In other words, Hebrew has been used to communicate abstract ideas and Greek has been used to impart concretions (e.g., the papyri, letters, etc).
ReplyDeleteFormal rhetoric had its start with the Greeks and Romans, which is not to say that rhetorical devices did not exist before that time, only that folks like Aristotle and Cicero and Quintilian systematized rhetoric.
The last two examples may have Hebrew origins, but my point is that they're found in the Greek scriptures. You had asked about examples in Greek, and John Cooper writes that synecdoche (or merism) is found often in the NT.
I don't have time to consult my rhetorical books right now, but see https://books.google.com/books?id=PSE1_sAayO4C&pg=PA163&dq=merism+rhetorical+device+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lPlUVd2SCozXsAX6t4CgCg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=merism%20rhetorical%20device%20greek&f=false
See also https://www.academia.edu/5789556/The_Sermon_on_the_Mount_Translation_and_Notes_on_the_Greek_Text
ReplyDeleteThanks for these links although they do not really answer my point. As can be seen in the sermon on the mount info. hendiadys is common in the Greek but it makes no such claim for merism. I am in agreement that both languages have some concrete and abstract. But the vocabulary of the languages demonstate a significant difference. NT Greek has already had a long association with Hebrew and has already adopted or blended the varying methods.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hellenistes.html
To say that someone has adopted the western customs and language does not exclude the possibility of a good working knowledge of the mother tongue & it,s idiom and order. Just like 3 & 4th gen Hindus living in the UK today who continuously switch between the two & it is quite clear that the framing of sentences is based on the ancestral tongue.
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteWhile the google books link doesn't give you exact passages, it does point out that both ancient Greek and Latin have a love for merism. I can produce specific examples later, but I'm sure that classical Greek contains instances of merism.
The second link briefly discusses merism as well. See page 5 of the paper.
My primary question about Hebrew and Greek concerned the suggestion that Hebrew is mainly concrete and Greek is abstract. Barr argued extensively against this characterization. If we consider Hebrew and Greek as a whole, we might make the same conclusion. IMO, it's not that easy to demonstrate that Greek is all that different from Hebrew in terms of the properties we're considering (concrete versus abstract).
This comes back to culture as always & it's shows some interesting points:-
ReplyDeletehttp://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01172008-144900/unrestricted/Thesis3.pdf
SEE:-
APPENDIX D: SEPTUAGINTWORD STUDY
and this is why ancient classical sources are required for comparison.
Also the culture of the early Torah - pastoralist vs the later books & translations of agrarians.
Even though the Greeks adopted the phonetician script there are very significant differences in culture and thinking but the fine detail of it is beyond us, we can only pick at the edges.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mtGN7feJ1NkC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=hebrew+concrete++barr&source=bl&ots=_HfOO0SC1J&sig=2wrQhnnCxKSX37_piiMFaMsAfDA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uv5ZVcHyKpLQ7QaoyIPQBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20concrete%20%20barr&f=false
ReplyDeleteBarr is just one voice among many & this dispute is far from settled.
The thesis does contain interesting and possibly illuminating material in that appendix, but I would need more information from diverse sources before making a final decision. The suggestion that the LXX translators were not familiar with the land (from experience) is certainly a plausible suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be good to compare classical sources. I did find some references in Lausberg, but it's just a matter of finding time to post that info.
As Paul wrote, the Greeks inclined toward wisdom (philosophy) and the Jews looked for signs. So he indicates (like history tells us) that the cultures were quite different. But my point is that we can find a variety of literature among the Greeks, which consists of material that is not abstract.
The link that you provided from Tal Goldfajn looks like support of Barr's ideas. I don't necessarily agree with him in all respects, but his attack on the caricature of Greek/Hebrew appears to have at least put the lid on the coffin of the caricature, even if the nails still have to be inserted and struck.
Yes I would like to see this confirmed in other sources but my impression is that cross disciplanry studies are few and far between and this combination is currently exceptional (not reductionist enough).
ReplyDeleteMy experience is that many of these kinds of choices currently have no final decisions.
The real question is, how can we possibly get beyond a caricature of Hebrew with such limited data sets for most periods in its history?
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DfSO_7s3K0UC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=synchronic+linguistics+problems&source=bl&ots=n3XfMJcOzm&sig=ZR9vzrl_GmZojy2YhPUvqJbcieU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wEVcVeGbFsvsUtaIgZgJ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=synchronic%20linguistics%20problems&f=false
I would think that we have enough of both Hebrew and Greek samples to test the concrete-abstract hypothesis that we've been discussing. The link that you provided, from what I read, reviews the problem with synchronic analyses, although it may cast doubt on the diachronic approach too. But it seems that Hebrew has the resources to develop and form abstract nouns and convey such ideas just like Greek does.
ReplyDeleteIn which strata?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to ancient Hebrew it's seem that the pictographs are all we really have. Concrete imagery conveying a relatively small vocabulary & a fairly basic grammar.
Comparing it's basic makeup with linear B seems plausible.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xpg1xWbaycUC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=%22the+synchronic,+the+diachronic+and+the+historical%22&source=bl&ots=3HV8eVEH5k&sig=emhldl9Y7tZR-AVxPJP5t82G8DU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cbJdVZjaEMTzUK37gdAN&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=%22the%20synchronic%2C%20the%20diachronic%20and%20the%20historical%3A%20Triangular%22%20&f=false
ReplyDeleteAn interesting Essay.
I actually was referring to how things stand now with the MS tradition of Hebrew and the MS tradition of Greek, and what we know if we consider the last 2000 years of MSS in both languages. However, can't we find non-pictographic script in the 12th-10th century BCE writings and following? Whether you think we're limited to pictographs for Hebrew depends on what you mean by "ancient Hebrew."
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew that Moses would have used. There is evidence I have already left in comments that indicate that this form originates with workmen and traders in Egypt. I can post again if required.
ReplyDeleteSo obviously Deuteronomy is of a later period and style.
Within later books like Isaiah and the twelve I would expect more abstract usages.
The slightly later script is still pictorgrahic in a styalised sence. Like the early to mid development of Chinese.
Adopted root words come from external origin and there appear to show up more in the naming of types of tree, as an example. Things outside of the localised scope.
I believe that your info was saved, because I did find a link in my email box concerning this subject. What evidence would you say most strongly indicates that the form of Hebrew used by Moses was potentially devloped by workers and traders dwelling in Egypt?
ReplyDeleteDo you have particular examples to illustrate that "the slightly later script" remains pictographic, in some way? What instances of naming trees do you have in mind?
Thanks.
Evidence is thin on the ground.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script
http://www.codex99.com/typography/11.html
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-British-Museum-Interpreting-Evidence/dp/0714111554/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Pg 34 & 35.
For stylisation over time. There would come a point when the general user would be disconnected from the symbolic meaning.
Cont.
http://www.ancient.eu/alphabet/
ReplyDeleteCont.
https://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/alphorg.htm
ReplyDeleteCont.
http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=06&Page=3&UserID=0&
ReplyDeleteAn important part of this puzzle is
ReplyDeletehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla
But the analysis of the texts seem to be as delayed as the DSS was.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yTMzJAKowyEC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=proto+sinaitic+script&source=bl&ots=trw4C17dZg&sig=GD16OpeejhdpISpnEPCyczBkuK4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lWlfVfuFI-Hd7gaj24NI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=proto%20sinaitic%20script&f=false
ReplyDeleteSee section on unresolved issues.
This may give some explanation of the period with the largest gap & the subsequent phonecian adoption of the script.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/1177-B-C-Civilization-Collapsed-Turning/dp/0691140898/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396816348&sr=8-1&keywords=eric+cline
Because of personal circumstances, my blog participation will be spotty or inconsistent. But after reading a few of the links you posted, and doing research of my own, I can see how uncertain all of these suggestions are. There are scholars who believe that Hebrew developed from Egypt or previous scripts, but students of ancient Hebrew are not sure.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/hyry8mgXiTk
ReplyDeleteIts a language of trade, therefore the actual origin is not so important IMO.
I like Cline, and will watch the ccomplete video later, but shouldn't we say that Hebrew could be a language of trade? It doesn't seem that we can be dogmatic about this issue, despite all of the speculation by scholars.
ReplyDeleteThis was my opinion prior to reading the respective scholars. Its simplicity and structure are ideal for a no nonsense language of trade. Many of the surrounding texts types seem to be designed to remain unaccessible unless extensive training as a scribe is obtained (intentionally?). I think it would have started out more of a written language than a spoken one but as I said before, IMO. I will always be ready to accept evidence that indicates another option but my current opinion comes from a broad range of pointers.
ReplyDeleteAs an asside where Cline mentions drought in the period see.
http://blog.cifor.org/26559/the-science-is-clear-forest-loss-behind-brazils-drought#.VWN12TVwZpU
&
http://www.eh-resources.org/wood.html
Just came across this mormon perspective on rhetoric:-
ReplyDeletehttp://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1103&index=14