Andrew Chapman wrote:
..., 'but' means something like 'except', and I don't think δέ can carry that sort of concessive sense.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
* Let no one therefore judge you but the Body of Christ
* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (ungrammatical)
I don't think the Greek is grammatical. I don't think this is the way δὲ is used in Greek.
Thanks Andrew and Jonathan,
1) ‘δὲ’ can carry concessive meaning:
Matt 12:31 wrote:
Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. (Nestle GNT 1904)
"So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven--except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. (NLT)
I think in general (most languages), adversative conjunctions ('but' equivalents) can/may be used to construct concessive relationships (although-, despite-, except-type meaning). As fundamentally, a word with contrast meaning is all that is required to make a sentence with a concessive idea. Also:
From 'The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World' by Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca:
Konig notes that not all languages have specific concessive conjunctions or verb forms. Instead, many languages have only the adversative conjunction ‘but’, which can be interpreted as expressing the concessive relation.
It would make sense, then, that even if a language had a concessive conjunction (like Greek and English), that adversative conjunctions ('δὲ', 'but') could still be used to express 'εἰ μή'/'except'-like meanings.
So, I think Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Let no one therefore judge you but the Body of Christ) should actually be grammatically correct.
2)
Andrew Chapman wrote:
I think I might have expected εἰ μή, as in, say,
καὶ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα μηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον, (Mark 6.8)
Jonathan Robie wrote:
...and the role of δὲ is pretty important here...
... and perhaps it's clearer if we simplify the sentence in both Greek and English.
* Let no one therefore judge you but the Body of Christ
* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (ungrammatical)
... If this were intended, I think he could have used εἰ μὴ, e.g.
Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω εἰ μὴ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Even if εἰ μή is stylistically preferable, I think Paul could not use it in the sentence structure that he chose to communicate with (which he used for emphasis) [So, when the sentence was simplified above, it removed the problem]:
(idea A: Let no one judge you regarding food, drink and God's festivals)(idea B: which are a shadow of future things)(idea C: but rather let the Church judge you regarding them)
As far as I know, εἰ μή is not a postpositive word like δὲ and if it was substituted into v17, Paul’s last clause (idea C) would
not be a new clause and, hence, could easily be read as part of the previous relative clause (idea B). The result seems to be much less cogent:
(idea A: Let no one judge you regarding...)(idea B: which are a shadow of future things except the body of Christ).
So, yes, δὲ is really important here. However, I think as an adversative conjunction it contrast the two subjects 'τις' (anyone) and 'τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ' (the Body of Christ (Church)).
Μὴ οὖν
τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων,
τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
3) Also, it may be possible that Paul did want to emphasis contrast rather than concession.
4)
Jonathan Robie wrote:
I may be missing something, but I'm having a hard time reading it the way you read it....
Perhaps the following renditions may more clearly express what, I think, Paul intended to say:
- Therefore, let no one judge you in regard to food, drink, and God's holy days (…),
nevertheless let the Church judge you concerning food, drink, and God's holy days.
- Therefore, let no one judge you in regard to … (…),
rather/but rather let the Church judge you regarding them.
- Therefore, let no one judge you in regard to … (…),
but on the other hand let the Body of Christ judge you regarding these things.
- Therefore, let no one judge you in regard to … (…),
instead let the Body of Christ judge you in regard to .....
- Therefore, let no one judge you in regard to … (…),
except the Church.
5)
Jonathan Robie wrote:
As written in Colossians 2:16-17, I think δὲ contrasts σκιὰ and σῶμα.
ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Saying that δὲ contrasts σκιὰ and σῶμα simply reasserts that Paul intended τοῦ Χριστοῦ to be a predicate (the body is of Christ) and not a possessive phrase (the body of Christ). While, arguing that ‘δὲ’'s semantic range does not include those of ‘εἰ μή’ may address points (1 – to some extent) and (2) in my 2nd previous post, by just reasserting that τοῦ Χριστοῦ should be seen as a predicate fails to address points (the rest of 1), (3) and (4) of my 2nd post.
To rehash:
(post2-1) Paul used σῶμα with τοῦ Χριστοῦ (gen. case) to make a possessive phrase (body of Christ)
every other time in his writing (how much more would he have done it in his lectures?). Christians at the time would have accepted this as a known phrase and I think that Paul would have recognised that to use σῶμα with τοῦ Χριστοῦ (gen. case) as a predicate phrase would invite confusion. So if Paul used σῶμα with τοῦ Χριστοῦ (gen. case), its highly probable that he intended them to mean the possessive phrase (body of Christ) not the predicate phrase (body
is of Christ). This leads to point (post2-4).
(post2-4) If a contrast between shadow (σκιὰ) and body/substance/reality (σῶμα) was intended (although I question if σῶμα should really be used to mean substance/reality, why not ὑπόστασις (substance – as in Heb 11:1)), then we should expect Paul to say ‘τὸ δὲ σῶμα ὁ Χριστὸς’ (but the body/substance/reality is Christ - 'Christ' being in the nominative case as it is used as a compliment of 'body') as some translations have forced it to become in their renditions. (NLT, HCSB)
(post2-3). Paul clearly said in the 2nd clause that the shadow is related to multiple ‘things to come’ (τῶν μελλόντων - plural), if σῶμα referred back to σκιὰ in the 2nd (relative) clause, the new clause would clash grammatically in number with the previous relative clause. As the new clause suggests that the shadow of the holy days point only to Christ (singular object), but Paul clearly intended to say that they point to multiple ‘things to come’ (including Christ).
Additionally, theologically, everything related to eschatology would definite include Jesus the Christ (God) at the centre (or even that He sustains every bit of it). Christ is already implied to be part of the final true reality in the 2nd (relative) clause. Doesn't it seem unnecessary to repeat the idea that ‘(part of) the reality is Christ’ in the next clause(tautology)?
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Will