@Susan @ScottS It turns out Rosmari Lillas has her 2012 Gothenburg PhD available as PDF online: "Hendiadys in the Hebrew Bible, An Investigation of the Applications of the Term". Germane! Follow links from her staff page.

+ This article from 1922 has a nice title. :) The short answer is (spoiler alert!): Vergil [sic] didn't.

+ Hendiadys in Greek . . .

@Davïd Good links, thanks! I have often myself questioned the validity of hendiadys, as I can see in every case I have looked at the plausibility of two distinct ideas being expressed, though possibly a relation between those ideas that is tighter than normal. Something I may have time to explore further someday.

I'm still on: "Happy are those who study" -Psalm 119:2 (Hanson) -- Who is Hanson? Is that a joke? (Either part of that verse without him/his (for Yahweh) seems.... far-fetched...)

I'm also trying to figure out how it's possible to complete a PhD thesis in 2012 and be a "senior lecturer" in 2016. Either she's brilliant or life works differently over there. Maybe both.

Anyway, looks like good stuff, thanks!

She does give the ref. for Hanson: Hanson, R. S. The Psalms in Modern Speech for Public and Private Use. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. Hopefully it wasn't missing an object there.

@Tau Regarding your comment here; glad you deleted, as that would not have answered anything related to it. I am aware of the authors you speak of, but to my knowledge, regarding the NT, they promote the normal MT view that the autographa were inspired by the original authors and preserved in the MT.

Grisanti's view, carried to NT, would perhaps approach it as the autographa did not get completed in its inspiration until the finalized MT form came about (whether 400 AD, or 1000 AD, or still in process...?). BIG difference on what one takes as the "original" inspired text! So your approach in that comment about examining what some of them felt about OT formation is only reiterating my basis for the question.

The real point is, if editing occurred for the OT, why not allow decades/centuries of editing to happen for the NT final autographa construction? (I do not agree with that, but that in my mind should be the logical path of those who follow such an OT construction.)

Has anyone carried that to such conclusions?

@ScottS It's been one of "those" weeks, and I didn't pick up this question until just now. NT text crit is a specialist area I don't keep up with in any serious way. Have you considered contacting this crew with the question?

But I personally don't see any necessary or logical reason for extrapolating from the texts of the HB/OT to the NT, since origins and transmission are quite different between the two sets of documents. Any text in antiquity will be subject to the dynamics of manual scribal transmission, but writing/dictating a letter -- Who wrote Romans? Tertius! :) -- is quite different from (e.g.) compiling the history of Israel in the Babylonian period.

FWIW. :) Not a lot, I imagine. In any case, the EvTC blog is probably your best shot at getting a well-informed answer to the main site question (IMO).......

@Davïd If I were doing serious research on this, I would perhaps follow that lead. But my question is more a point that occurred to me from this comment: "Belief it was added means the autograph was purposely altered."

That struck me, because if one might hold that the OT autographa were "purposely altered" to become the inspired autographa, then logically why not allow for that with NT texts? And by extension, it seemed one could logically make the case for the MT as the changed but inspired final form that is the autographa. But had anyone done that?

@Davïd I agree that "compiling the history of Israel" is different, but then I would contend that only the "final compiler" was the "inspired" author of the "inspired" text, with no later additions/changes. He may have used sources from before (unless God just revealed it to him, which by my view would be okay, too; but that may not best explain some of the language differences).

@ScottS I wrote a follow-up comment as well, but fell asleep before I sent it. If I am responding correctly to your query, Smith 'established' that at the time of Ezra the OT Autographa was complete-the scribal sources following through to Rabbi Akiva(137AD) were not substantiated(inscripturation-per Grisanti) by a prophet, therefore outside of the canonization window. He includes Moses's death, and the references to 'Dan' in Genesis as inspired, obviously scribal additions to the Autographa.

@ScottS (cont.) The NT poses a different issue because we have numerous texts and fragments dating to 2nd and 3rd century, as well as a 1st century fragment. The dangers here are palpable because "does the Autographa change every time we get an older text"? Wallace's view is that the MT view has it's head in the sand, and must acknowledge their contribution. He also is careful not to fall in the trap of Ehrman, who maintains scribal 'tampering' has invalidated the Autographa.

@ScottS (Finally) I essentially agree w/you about the MT. The 'continuity'and the fact that scribal issues were resolved bears greater 'weight'(IMO) than the constant 're-calibration' required by those who see every change as having merit. Your comment, however, exposes a flaw in our Confessional Statements: If Original Language means the Autographa, then those alterations have invalidated it. My view is that 'canonicity' is a separate issue.

@Tau Can you please clarify (1) which comment of mine you refer to and (2) your final comment with respect to that, as I'm trying to make sure I'm following you. So "If Original Language [original language manuscript?] means the Autographa, then those alterations [to the text?] have invalidated it [the autographa?]."