TheologyThoughts

1. Technically, the phrase fits the usual description nicely. Smyth
defines the term as follows: "The use of two words connected by a
copulative conjunction to express a single complex idea; especially two
substantives..." We certainly have two words joined by a copulative, both
words substantives, so that structurally it could easily be taken as a
hendiadys.

2. There is certainly a precedent in the history of interpretation. Of modern exegetes,
Keener's recent commentary (2003) argues for hendiadys. Keener also notes
that water is used symbolically of the Spirit consistently in John, cf.
7:39. Note also that both nouns are anarthuous, and governed by a single
preposition, which allows the possibility that they are being used as
synonymous terms. Calvin (who, even if you disagree with some of his
theology, was an excellent exegete), translates as aquae spirituales, but
doesn't see the terms as having the identical referent, that water
emphasizes the cleansing of the Spirit, much as "fire" at Matt 3:11 and Luke
3:16. Both Keener and Calvin want to read καὶ (KAI), "and," as epexegetical
(explanatory, = "that is"), a force it may certainly bear. F.F. Bruce
argues similarly, although he too does not use the term hendiadys. All of
the commentators point out that Jesus seems to be "midrashing" Ezekiel
36:26f, which they feel strengthens the identification of the water as the
Spirit or an aspect of the Spirit's work.

3. What makes me hesitate in calling it a hendiadys is:

a) Long practice in translating these things. A hendiadys as a literary
construction normally has a translation which clearly "makes sense" in the
context, usually translating one of the nouns as a modifier in English.
Smyth's first example, CRONWi KAI POLIORKIAi, "by length of time and seige, a
long siege, is very clear. In the context of John, however, "watery spirit"
or "spiritual water" both jar with what Jesus seems to be saying the
context. Admittedly, that is a subjective criterion, but it should not be
dismissed out of hand.

b) Overall Johannine usage. Allow me to put it this way: John is very
literary in this document, but he is not literary using the accepted canons
of Greek literature. He is fond of parallelism (more of a semitic category
than Greek), and the use of deliberate or studied ambiguity, but he rarely
employ's features that fit neatly into the literary figures and devices
employed by classical Greek authors. I simply find it doubtful that John
wrote this saying to himself "aha, a hendiadys would fit nicely here..."

At the same time, I think that the close identification of water and the
Spirit in John is extremely significant, and needs to control our
understanding of the usage here. Speaking of parallelism, it is clear from
the context that being born of water and spirit is parallel to being born
"again/from above" (Grk, ἄνωθεν, ANWQEN). Taken in this light, I think KAI
as epexegetical makes good sense. Therefore I conclude that water
understood as at least an aspect of the Spirit or his work makes good sense.