Hendiadys and the Granville-Sharp Rule in the King James Version

 The most famous Granville-Sharp Rule, one of six, states: 

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.

(source)

Some have suggested that the discovery of this rule is significant in two ways: (1) to demonstrate the divinity of Christ, since some of the Granville-Sharp uses are places in which Jesus is referred to as God, and (2) to demonstrate errors in the King James Version translation.

I have no objection to the first usage, and I only want to temper the second use.

My tempering of the second use is based on the rhetorical device known as hendiadys.

Webster's 1913 explains it thus:

Hen`di´a`dys

n. 1. (Gram.) A figure in which the idea is expressed by two nouns connected by and, instead of by a noun and limiting adjective; as, we drink from cups and gold, for golden cups.

The American Heritage Dictionary has a very similar definition:

hen·di·a·dys  (hĕn-dī´ə-dĭs)

n.

A figure of speech in which two words connected by a conjunction are used to express a single notion that would normally be expressed by an adjective and a substantive, such as grace and favor instead of gracious favor.

There are places in the Bible where we see hendiadys used in the source language, and literally provided in the English translation.  For example 

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(see Kuntz's discussion here) 

The sense of the text is not that sorrow and conception are distinct and separately multiplied, but that God will multiply the woman's birth pangs.

What about the New Testament?  This is where the matter becomes more hotly debated.  Partly it is debated because of the absence of classical Greek references to the use of hendiadys: the term itself was apparently coined around A.D. 400.  On the other hand, the New Testament writers were influenced by the writings of the Old Testament in which it is hard to argue that hendiadys was not employed.  Accordingly, it is reasonable to suppose that least some passages of the New Testament employ such usage.

My speculation is that the Granville-Sharp Rule is a reflection of an understanding of the use of hendiadys in Greek. In other words, the reason for the lack of duplication of the article is that the author was employing the rhetorical device of hendiadys.

If that's the case, then the English literal translation of "A and B" provides a rhetorically equivalent translation to the source Greek text, just as it does to the source Hebrew text.  The challenge is that it can be exceedingly hard to distinguish hendiadys in English.  Mark Forsyth characterizes hendiadys as "the most elusive and tricky of all rhetorical tricks. Mostly because you can never be sure whether it's happened." ("Elements of Eloquence," p. 74)  Forsyth is overstating his point, for rhetorical effect no doubt, but the point remains.  In English, it can be very hard to distinguish hendiadys.

Thus, even if "our God and Saviour" is hendiadys and means "our Divine Saviour" or "our Saving God" or the like, it is hard to grasp that sense in English merely from a literal re-creation of the Greek hendiadys (if that is what it is).  Accordingly, there might be reason to provide the reader with a less literal translation and to provide the literal translation and a brief explanation in the margin.

Dispassionately Covering Topics about which We're Passionate

When the government (any branch of it) makes decisions we don't like, it is natural for us to be impassioned in our response. We ought, however, to remember to try to set aside our emotions when we respond. I recently came across this link (link) to a fox news story, whose headline epitomizes the problem I'm describing. The headline is "the feds" have "forced" churches to get "baptism permits." Sounds more like 17th century Europe than 21st century USA. Once you dig into the article, though, you discover that all that is being required is that if churches want to use a river in a park to perform baptisms, they need to get permission in advance.

The story goes on to admit:

“As of today, the park’s policy has been clarified to state that no permit will be required for baptisms within the Riverways,” Supt. William Black wrote in a letter to the congressman. “I can assure you the National Park Service has no intention of limiting the number of baptisms performed within the park.”

The problem with such a headline becomes clear when you see the more disturbing news buried beneath that disclaimer:

In Olympia, Wash., a church was denied a permit to hold a baptism at Heritage Park a few weeks ago. Their request was rejected because the attorney general said the religious sacrament was a violation of the state constitution.

That one is far more disturbing, but the reader by now is disappointed to discover that the headline was just hype.

We could say much the same thing about the coverage of the New Mexico decision that says wedding photographers can't turn down clients simply because the clients are homosexuals. Some of the coverage basically made it sound like the NM state were going to be rounding up wedding photographers and forcing them to take good pictures of homosexuals pretending to marry. In fact, the disappointing decision was far more limited.

Rhetorical Excess - Religious Persecution and Idolatry

Rhetorical flourishes are like any other form of emphasis.  They work well when used occasionally and accurately, and not when used constantly and diffusely.

In her book, The Myth of Persecution, Dr. Moss complains that the religious right in the U.S. is too quick to decry leftist politics as religious persecution.  Claiming that "Christianity is under attack" when Christians suffer any minor harm overshadows the very serious persecution of Christians in places like Africa (the "Voice of the Martyrs" website, which I mention for information only, not endorsement, has many details).

The same thing is true when call everything "idolatry."  An idol is a manufactured likeness or image of something.  It can be a painted likeness, an engraved likeness, a carved likeness, a molten likeness, etc.  Worshiping even the true God using idols is strictly forbidden.  Moreover, through metonymy we refer to the worship of false gods as "idolatry," since they are normally worshiped in this way.

But not every sin is literally "idolatry."  The X-Box game console that your son hasn't stopped playing for the past ten years is not literally an idol.  It's sinful that he hasn't bothered even to try to go get a job, and it's wrong for him to be so obsessed with something so trivial.  The sports team that your brother can't get enough of is not an "idol."  American Idol features living human beings, made in the image of God, not idols.

Not every form of devotion is religious devotion.  While the American Idol contestants are honored in some sense, they are not honored religiously.  Even if someone skips church to go watch football, he is not engaging in a religious observance of football.  

His church skipping is a violation of the 4th commandment (Remember the Sabbath Day) not the 2nd commandment (Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image ...).  The X-Box aficionado is probably violating the eighth commandment through indolence and sloth.  When we call a Muslim an "idolater," we should feel how odd the claim sounds, since Islam is not closely associated with idols.

There is a place for rhetorical flourishes.  The Scriptures actually do this with idolatry in a couple of places.

1 Samuel 15:23For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Samuel is condemning Saul.  Saul tried to eliminate witchcraft and idolatry from the land.  Then Saul turned around and was stubborn and rebelled against God.  So, Samuel drew a comparison between rebellion and witchcraft and between stubbornness and idolatry.

The point here is to emphasize the heinousness of rebellion and stubbornness, by tying them rhetorically to the heinous and well-recognized sins of witchcraft and idolatry.

Colossians 3:4-7 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

Here again, the point of referring to covetousness as "idolatry" is to emphasize its heinousness.  It's not saying that the 10th commandment is the 2nd commandment (or the 1st commandment).  It's saying that covetousness is a serious sin.

These are legitimate rhetorical uses of the term "idolatry."  Yet we can risk watering down the word "idolatry" for using it gratuitously for every sin.  Anything that leads us into sin becomes an "idol" in this rhetorical soup, and thus every sin is "idolatry," the serving of the thing (the "idol") that leads one to sin.

At which point people lose sight of both the very real problem of making images supposedly of God (2nd commandment) and of the very real problem of actually worshiping false gods (1st commandment).  By constantly associating less heinous sins with the more heinous sins, we actually can lose sight of the heinousness of the heinous sins.

Christians in the U.S. are not suffering under Diocletian persecution, even if Christians lack full religious freedom, or even if they are being forced to endure laws that bear decreasing resemblance to the laws given to Old Testament Israel in terms of the ideals of Justice.

While some of Dr. Moss' concerns are probably oversensitive, she makes a good point about the need to avoid rhetorical flourishes.  If we call everything "persecution," what will we call it when we are forced to pay a "Christian tax" in order to be Christians?  What will we call it when our churches are required to meet secretly and in groups of 20 or fewer?

-TurretinFan