Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται, οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις. [Romans 4:15]

This is just a question about terminology. In Romans 4.15b:

οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις.

so far as I can see, οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος is an indefinite local clause of place (answering the question 'where is there transgression?', one might say,) and is the dependent clause, and οὗ is a subordinating conjunction, I think. The primary clause seems to be οὐκ ἔστιν παράβασις, with οὐδὲ doubling as the negative, and also serving as a conjunction to join it with the preceding clause. So, what would one call οὐδὲ? It can't be subordinating, because it is introducing the main clause. It doesn't fall into usual definition of a coordinating conjunction, which joins two independent clauses. It's not the adverbial 'not even' - BDAG lists it in their section 2 'also not, neither'.

For another example, which seems to me comparable, what would one call the second καὶ in:

Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸ τοῦ συλλημφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ. [Luke 2.21a]

where again it seems to join the main clause to a preceding dependent clause?

Thanks, Andrew
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by cwconrad »

Andrew Chapman wrote:ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται, οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις. [Romans 4:15]

This is just a question about terminology. In Romans 4.15b:

οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις.

so far as I can see, οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος is an indefinite local clause of place (answering the question 'where is there transgression?', one might say,) and is the dependent clause, and οὗ is a subordinating conjunction, I think. The primary clause seems to be οὐκ ἔστιν παράβασις, with οὐδὲ doubling as the negative, and also serving as a conjunction to join it with the preceding clause. So, what would one call οὐδὲ? It can't be subordinating, because it is introducing the main clause. It doesn't fall into usual definition of a coordinating conjunction, which joins two independent clauses. It's not the adverbial 'not even' - BDAG lists it in their section 2 'also not, neither'.

For another example, which seems to me comparable, what would one call the second καὶ in:

Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸ τοῦ συλλημφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ. [Luke 2.21a]

where again it seems to join the main clause to a preceding dependent clause?
I'd think that if we have to give names to everything (per Genesis 2), then coordinate might do. I'd say that there's an implicit ἐκεῖ in the second clause functioning as a "postcedent" (since we must give names to things) of ὅπου in the first clause.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks, Carl, very much.

Would the same apply to οὐδὲ in a sentence with an explicitly conditional form like:

εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·

ie if we have to call it something might we call it coordinate?

Andrew
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Andrew Chapman wrote:Thanks, Carl, very much.

Would the same apply to οὐδὲ in a sentence with an explicitly conditional form like:

εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·

ie if we have to call it something might we call it coordinate?

Andrew
Well, since we have to call it something... :D I'd call it intensive here, "not even..." There's really nothing for it to coordinate.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by cwconrad »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:Thanks, Carl, very much.

Would the same apply to οὐδὲ in a sentence with an explicitly conditional form like:

εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·

ie if we have to call it something might we call it coordinate?

Andrew
Well, since we have to call it something... :D I'd call it intensive here, "not even..." There's really nothing for it to coordinate.
I'm still hung up on the issue of a "need to name" the construction or usage. But is it "not even"? I'd say it's "also not" -- and I guess that -- if we have to name it -- I'd still prefer "coordinating." As I see it, the conditional construction is, "If not-X, then also not-Y". Or, if you will (since you insist), we could call it a "conjunction of corollary inference." Might as well have a term that's precise and memorable. What this calls to mind from "way back when" is the term, "the imperfect of the newly-discovered fact" ("it was there all along but we never noticed it!" -- and I remember the verb-form in question was ἔην, from Hesiod's Works and Days
Hesiod, WD 10-11 wrote: οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένος, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ γαῖαν
εἰσὶ δύω
But -- at least nobody thought to call it an "anoretic imperfect."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

cwconrad wrote: I'm still hung up on the issue of a "need to name" the construction or usage. But is it "not even"? I'd say it's "also not" -- and I guess that -- if we have to name it -- I'd still prefer "coordinating." As I see it, the conditional construction is, "If not-X, then also not-Y". Or, if you will (since you insist), we could call it a "conjunction of corollary inference." Might as well have a term that's precise and memorable. What this calls to mind from "way back when" is the term, "the imperfect of the newly-discovered fact" ("it was there all along but we never noticed it!" -- and I remember the verb-form in question was ἔην, from Hesiod's Works and Days
Hesiod, WD 10-11 wrote: οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένος, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ γαῖαν
εἰσὶ δύω
But -- at least nobody thought to call it an "anoretic imperfect."
Actually, both the NAS and the ESV agree with me here, and take as intensive, as does the NIV. The Lexham English Bible takes it as you do. So, it's a comfort to know that others think as I do when I find myself in disagreement with Dr. Conrad... :o
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by cwconrad »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
cwconrad wrote: I'm still hung up on the issue of a "need to name" the construction or usage. But is it "not even"? I'd say it's "also not" -- and I guess that -- if we have to name it -- I'd still prefer "coordinating." As I see it, the conditional construction is, "If not-X, then also not-Y". Or, if you will (since you insist), we could call it a "conjunction of corollary inference." Might as well have a term that's precise and memorable. \
Actually, both the NAS and the ESV agree with me here, and take as intensive, as does the NIV. The Lexham English Bible takes it as you do. So, it's a comfort to know that others think as I do when I find myself in disagreement with Dr. Conrad... :o
There's no particular virtue in counting witnesses on matters like this -- as if we ascertain the truth by counting votes, but I too have some versions on my side, e.g. REB ("For if the dead are not raised, it follows that Christ was not raised") and Schlatter ("Denn wenn Tote nicht auferstehen, so ist auch Christus nicht auferstanden.")
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

For what it is worth, BDAG has οὐδὲ in 1 Corinthians 15.13 and 16 as 'also not, not either, neither'.

Andrew
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Andrew Chapman wrote:For what it is worth, BDAG has οὐδὲ in 1 Corinthians 15.13 and 16 as 'also not, not either, neither'.

Andrew
Yes, somewhat humorously (I hope), I was pointing out that folks have taken it both ways. I have always read it as intensive, and I was interested to see that others saw it differently. There is a certain logic to both readings, and I don't think anything specifically in the Greek resolves the ambiguity (or for that matter, greatly effects the meaning of the passage).
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks, Barry, I would be interested to know if you think it is possible in principle to have a form of coordination between a dependent clause and the primary clause - with reference to Romans 4.15 in particular, where I would like to be able to respond to the statement by another that οὐδὲ is not acting as a coordinating conjunction there - just to say whether that is true, untrue or, more likely, arguable either way..

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”