1 Cor 12.16

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 709
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

1 Cor 12.16

Post by Louis L Sorenson » December 4th, 2011, 11:42 pm

1 Cor 12.16: καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς· ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;

I'm having difficulty understanding the phrase οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. Does anyone have any leads on this phrase? The double negative makes it harder for English oriented students to understand the phrase.

Here are some attestations of the phrase ου παρα τουτο ου-

Novum Testamentum, Epistula Pauli ad Corinthios i
Chapter 12, section 15, line 3

ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς,
Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος·
καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ
τὸ οὖς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος,
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος·
εἰ ὅλον
τὸ σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή;

Go to Context


Apollonius Dyscolus Gramm., De adverbiis
Part 2, volumëfascicle 1,1, page 131, line 10

οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅστις ὀλίγον διστάσειεν,
ὅτι τὸ λείπει ῥῆμά ἐστι· καὶ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐχὶ ῥῆμα γενήσεται, ἐὰν
μονοσχημάτιστον γένηται μετὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀπαρεμφάτου συντάξεως.

Go to Context


Plotinus Phil., Enneades
Ennead 1, chapter 1, section 4, line 17

Τὸ δὲ
»διαπλακεῖσα» οὐ ποιεῖ ὁμοιοπαθῆ τὰ διαπλακέντα, ἀλλ'
ἔστιν ἀπαθὲς εἶναι τὸ διαπλακὲν καὶ ἔστι ψυχὴν δια-
πεφοιτηκυῖαν μήτοι πάσχειν τὰ ἐκείνου πάθη, ὥσπερ καὶ
τὸ φῶς, καὶ μάλιστα, εἰ οὕτω, δι' ὅλου ὡς διαπεπλέχθαι·
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὖν πείσεται τὰ σώματος πάθη, ὅτι δια-
πέπλεκται.

Go to Context


Epiphanius Scr. Eccl., Ancoratus
Chapter 36, section 2, line 3

καὶ ὅτι <ὁ θεὸς> «οὐ κοπιάσει
οὐδ' ἔστιν ἐξεύρεσις τῆς φρονήσεως αὐτοῦ», κεκοπιακὼς δὲ ὁ σωτὴρ
εὑρίσκεται, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας
ἄνωθεν κατελθὼν ὁ Λόγος.

Go to Context


Epiphanius Scr. Eccl., Panarion (= Adversus haereses)
Volume 2, page 485, line 20

καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος δὲ «μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ
ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι» λέγων, σῶμα γινώσκειν τοῦτο ὃ
περικείμεθα συνίστησιν, καὶ πάλιν «εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος Ἰησοῦν
οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ
σώματα ὑμῶν» καὶ πάλιν «ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς· ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ
ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος», καὶ πάλιν
»καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας Ἀβραὰμ τῇ πίστει οὐ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα
νενεκρωμένον».

Go to Context


Epiphanius Scr. Eccl., Panarion (= Adversus haereses)
Volume 3, page 167, line 3

οὐ γὰρ ὅτι ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑπερέχει τῶν ἐπάρχων καὶ στρατηλατῶν, οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ὁμοιοπαθὴς τῶν ἄλλων καὶ σύνδουλος τῆς αὐτῆς κτίσεως,
θνητός τις ὤν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἀρχόμενοι.

Go to Context


Epiphanius Scr. Eccl., Panarion (= Adversus haereses)
Volume 3, page 167, line 5

καὶ οὐχ ὅτι ὁ ἥλιος
ὑπερέχει τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν μέρει, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ
εἰσὶν ὑποτεταγμένα στοιχεῖα καὶ τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς διατάξει δημιουργοῦ τε
καὶ κτιστοῦ, πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὑπείκοντα.

Go to Context


Epiphanius Scr. Eccl., Panarion (= Adversus haereses)
Volume 3, page 167, line 13

καὶ οὐχ
ὅτι ἄγγελοι ὑπερέχουσι τῶν ὁρατῶν καὶ ἐν τάξει τῶν ἄλλων μείζους
πάντων εἰσίν, οἷα δὴ ἀόρατοι κτισθέντες καὶ τὸ πρῶτον γέρας τῆς τοῦ
θεοῦ θεραπείας ἀποκαρπούμενοι ἐν ὕμνοις διηνεκέσι, καὶ ἀθάνατοι κατὰ
χάριν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κτισθέντες καὶ οὐ κατὰ φύσιν, ἀθάνατοι δὲ φύσει ἐξ
αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀθανάτου καὶ ὄντος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ζωὴ καὶ ἀθανασία καταξιωθέντες
γενέσθαι, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ εἰσὶ φόβῳ καὶ τρόμῳ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀπολογίαν
καὶ ἐξέτασιν καὶ κέλευσιν καὶ προσταγὴν τῆς ἁγίας θεότητος δεδου-
λωμένοι.

Go to Context


Athanasius Theol., De sancta trinitate (dialogi 2 and 4) [Sp.]
Volume M28, page 1192, line 24

κἂν μὴ οὖν εἰσάγηται τί τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἀλλ' οὐ
παρὰ τοῦτο οὐσία, καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἀψευδὲς οὐδὲν εἰς-
άγει καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσία· εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἀψευδὲς οὐσία
καὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον οὐσία, ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ ἀψευδὲς
τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ.

Go to Context


Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Eccl., In epistulam i ad Corinthios (homiliae 1-44)
Vol 61, pg 251, ln 61

Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὕστερον τίθησι· τέως δὲ
ἐπ' αὐτὰ τὰ μέλη χωρεῖ, λέγων οὕτως· Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ
ποῦς, ὅτι Οὐκ εἰμὶ χεὶρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος,
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;

Go to Context


Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Eccl., In epistulam i ad Corinthios (homiliae 1-44)
Vol 61, pg 251, ln 63

Καὶ
ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς, ὅτι Οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμὸς, οὐκ εἰμὶ
ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ
σώματος; Εἰ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἠλαττῶσθαι, τὸν δὲ
ὑπερέχειν, οὐκ ἀφίησιν εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, τὸ πᾶν
ἀνῄρηται.

Go to Context


Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Eccl., In epistulam ii ad Corinthios (homiliae 1-30)
Vol 61, pg 455, ln 19

Ἀλλ' οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο οὔτε ἡ κοιλία θεὸς, οὔτε ὁ μαμωνᾶς κύριος,
ἀλλ' ἐκείνων τῶν ὑποκατακλινόντων ἑαυτούς.

Go to Context


Joannes Damascenus Scr. Eccl., Theol., Commentarii in epistulas Pauli [Dub.]
Volume 95, page 669, line 21

Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ ποῦς, ὅτι Οὐκ εἰμὶ χεὶρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ
τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώμα-
τος;

Go to Context


Joannes Damascenus Scr. Eccl., Theol., Commentarii in epistulas Pauli [Dub.]
Volume 95, page 669, line 23

καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς, ὅτι Οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμὸς, οὐκ
εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ
τοῦ σώματος;

Go to Context


Joannes Philoponus Phil., In Aristotelis libros de anima commentaria
Volume 15, page 214, line 26

εἰ δὲ μὴ γεννᾷ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο οὐ ζῷα· οὐδὲ γὰρ πᾶν ζῷον γεννᾷ.

Go to Context


David Phil., Prolegomena philosophiae
Page 4, line 25

δεύτερον δὲ εἰ καὶ δῶμεν αὐτὴν περὶ τὰ μερικὰ καταγίνεσθαι, οὐ
παρὰ τοῦτο οὐ δύναταί τις καταλαβέσθαι, καθὸ τὸ γινῶσκον ἤγουν ἡ ψυχὴ
οὐ συμμεταβάλλεται τῷ γνωστῷ ἤγουν τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ πράγματι· κατὰ γὰρ
τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐδὲ τὸ θεῖον εἴσεταί τι τῶν γινομένων, ἐπειδὴ οὐ
συμμεταβάλλεται τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχει.

Go to Context


Michael Phil., In Aristotelis sophisticos elenchos commentarius (= Pseudo-Alexander 1) (olim sub auctore Alexandro Aphrodisiens
Page 50, line 27

πρὸς τοῦτο ῥητέον· οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο· οὐ γὰρ παρὰ
τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τὴν λέγουσαν τὸ ζῷον οὐ παντὶ λευκῷ συνῆκται τὸ λευκὸν
παντὶ κόρακι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν σὴν τὴν λέγουσαν τὸ λευκὸν παντὶ πτηνῷ·
ἀφαιρεθείσης γὰρ τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἡμῶν τῆς, ὡς λέγεις, αἰτίας γενομένης τοῦ
ἀτόπου πάλιν τὸ ψεῦδος συνάγεται.

Go to Context


Michael Phil., In Aristotelis sophisticos elenchos commentarius (= Pseudo-Alexander 1) (olim sub auctore Alexandro Aphrodisiens
Page 51, line 20

> φαμὲν οὖν πρὸς τοῦτο ὅτι οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο·
οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὸ λέγειν ἡμᾶς τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν ζωὴν ταὐτὸν συνήχθη
τὸ ‘τὸ ζῷον, ᾗ ζῇ, γίνεται’, ἐπεὶ καὶ τούτου μὴ κειμένου οὐδὲν ἧττον διὰ
τῶν λοιπῶν προτάσεων τὸ ἀδύνατον συναχθήσεται· ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον
συνῆκται παρὰ τὸ λέγειν σε <τὴν ζωὴν ἐναντίαν τῷ θανάτῳ ὄντι
φθορᾷ.

Go to Context


Theodoretus Scr. Eccl., Theol., Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli
Volume 82, page 328, line 15

Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ ποῦς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χεὶρ, οὐκ
εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ
σώματος;

Go to Context


Theodoretus Scr. Eccl., Theol., Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli
Volume 82, page 328, line 18

Καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς· Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφ-
θαλμὸς, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;

Go to Context


Catenae (Novum Testamentum), Catena in epistulam i ad Corinthios (typus Vaticanus) (e cod. Paris. gr. 227)
Page 236, line 29

<Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ ποὺς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χεὶρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ
σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος.

Go to Context


Catenae (Novum Testamentum), Catena in epistulam i ad Corinthios (typus Vaticanus) (e cod. Paris. gr. 227)
Page 236, line 31

καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμὸς, οὐκ εἰμὶ
ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώμα-
τος.

Go to Context


Catenae (Novum Testamentum), Catena in epistulam ii ad Corinthios (catena Pseudo-Oecumenii) (e cod. Paris. gr. 223)
Page 363, line 22

>
Εὐωδία τοιγαροῦν ἐσμεν, καὶ εὐωδίαν κηρύσσομεν, κἄν τις ἐκ
τούτου σώζηται διὰ τὴν πίστιν, κἄν τις ἀπόλλυται δι' ἀπι-
στίαν· ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος καὶ τὸ μέλι τοῖς ἀμβλυώττουσι καὶ
τοῖς κακουχουμένοις οὐ κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ὁρᾶται φύσιν, ἀλλ'
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο ἢ σκοτεινὸς ἐκεῖνος ἢ τὸ μέλι πικρὸν, οὕτως καὶ τὸ
κήρυγμα· καὶ ἡμεῖς, κἂν ἀπόλλυνταί τινες τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστι πνευματικὸν μύρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ἔστι
θαυμάσαι, ὅτι τοὺς κακοὺς ἐλέγχει, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ μύρον τοὺς χοί-
ρους πνίγειν λόγος, καὶ τὸ πῦρ τὰς ἀκάνθας ἀναλίσκει.

Go to Context


Catenae (Novum Testamentum), Catena in epistulam ii ad Corinthios (catena Pseudo-Oecumenii) (e cod. Paris. gr. 216)
Page 453, line 21

οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκέτι πνευματικὸν τὸ μύρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
τοὺς κακοὺς ἐλέγχει, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ μύρον τοὺς χοίρους πνίγει, ὡς
λόγος.

Go to Context


Anonymi In Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Phil., In Aristotelis sophisticos elenchos paraphrasis
Section 32, line 3

ἀλλ' οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἧττον συμβαίνει τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ λείποντος),
ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν λέγουσαν πρότασιν τὸ λευκὸν παντὶ πτηνῷ.

Go to Context


Anonymi In Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Phil., In Aristotelis sophisticos elenchos paraphrasis
Section 32, line 13

ἀλλ' οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο, οὐδὲ τοῦτο τοῦ ψεύδους αἴτιον (ἀφαιρεθέντος γὰρ πάλιν τὸ ἄτοπον
ἔσται), ἀλλὰ τὸ τιθέναι τὸν θάνατον φθοράν· οὐ γὰρ ὁ θάνατος φθορὰ
ἀλλὰ διάλυσις καὶ χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος, τοῦτο δὲ οὐ φθορά.

Go to Context


Anonymi In Hermogenem Rhet., Prolegomena in artem rhetoricam
Volume 14, page 345, line 9

οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἡ
γραμματικὴ ἐμπειρία λεχθήσεται, τέχνη γάρ ἐστιν.

Go to Context


Passages found: 27
0 x



Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 709
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Louis L Sorenson » December 5th, 2011, 12:02 am

I see BDAG has
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐ (double neg. as a strengthened affirmative) not for that reason any the less 1 Cor 12:15f.
This helps a little, but the phrase still seem awkward - I could never generate this myself. Perhaps it is the fronting of the phrase οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο

= οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο

it is not for this reason (=because it is not an eye), it is not (part = μέλος) from (of) the body.

Is this a question or a statement?
0 x

George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by George F Somsel » December 5th, 2011, 2:35 am

(g) Repetition of Οὐ. When the second is a single negative, the full force of each is retained. It is seldom that we find two examples of οὐ in the same clause, as in 1 Cor. 12:15 f., οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, ‘It is not therefore not of the body.’ There are instances of οὐ followed by μή where both preserve the full force, Ac. 4:20, οὐ δυνάμεθα—μὴ λαλεῖν. Cf. also οὐ—μή in 1 Cor. 9:6. So also ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. 5:12. The examples are numerous enough when the second οὐ is in a dependent clause. So οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται (Mt. 10:26); πῶς οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι οὐ, κτλ. (16:11); οὐ τολμήσω τι λαλεῖν ὧν οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστός (Ro. 15:18); οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι—οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν (1 Cor. 6:9). In Mt. 24:2 οὐ follows οὐ μή. See also Lu. 8:17. The uses of μὴ οὐ and οὐ μή are treated later. But note οὔ, μή ποτε—ἐκριζώσητε (Mt. 13:29) where οὔ stands alone. The solemn repetition of οὐ—οὐ in 1 Cor. 6:10 is rhetorical.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p 1164, Logos Bible Software, 1919.
0 x
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 448
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » December 5th, 2011, 5:13 am

Louis L Sorenson wrote:Perhaps it is the fronting of the phrase οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο

= οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο

it is not for this reason (=because it is not an eye), it is not (part = μέλος) from (of) the body.
How about "οὐ -- παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος", paraphrased "ουκ εστιν οτι παρα τουτο ουκ εστιν εκ του σωματος"? Which means that it wouldn't be οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο which is fronted, but only παρὰ τοῦτο, and οὐ negates the whole. Fronting παρὰ τοῦτο would be natural because it would be unnatural to say "οὐκ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος παρὰ τοῦτο".
0 x

Jason Hare
Posts: 657
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Jason Hare » December 9th, 2011, 8:57 am

Why not think of it in logical terms and change the οὐ in the beginning into "it is not the case that"? ;)

οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος.
"It is not the case that for this reason it is not part of the body."

It's a negative statement, not a question. It's saying that not being a hand does not rule out that it is part of the body. Not all parts of the body are the same.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1726
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Barry Hofstetter » December 10th, 2011, 8:57 am

I would take this as the comparative use of παρά negated by οὐ, "not less than"
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by David Lim » December 10th, 2011, 9:59 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I would take this as the comparative use of παρά negated by οὐ, "not less than"
I think according to LSJ it is not comparative. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon C.III.7)
Previously I had never seen "παρα" used this way before so here is my guess of what the whole sentence means:
[1 Cor 12] [16] και εαν ειπη το ους οτι ουκ ειμι οφθαλμος ουκ ειμι εκ του σωματος ου παρα τουτο ουκ εστιν εκ του σωματος
[1 Cor 12] [16] and if the ear says, because I am not [an] eye, I am not out of the body, not simply because of this is [it] not out of the body!
[(paraphrased)] and if the ear says "I am not [a member] of the body because I am not [an] eye", [it] [is] not [that] [it] is not [a member] of the body simply because of this!
So I understand the author to be implying: whatever the ear wants to say to justify being separate from the body, nothing that it says will change the fact that it is still a member of the body.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1726
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Barry Hofstetter » December 11th, 2011, 9:21 am

David Lim wrote: I think according to LSJ it is not comparative. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon C.III.7)
Previously I had never seen "παρα" used this way before so here is my guess of what the whole sentence means:
[1 Cor 12] [16] και εαν ειπη το ους οτι ουκ ειμι οφθαλμος ουκ ειμι εκ του σωματος ου παρα τουτο ουκ εστιν εκ του σωματος
[1 Cor 12] [16] and if the ear says, because I am not [an] eye, I am not out of the body, not simply because of this is [it] not out of the body!
[(paraphrased)] and if the ear says "I am not [a member] of the body because I am not [an] eye", [it] [is] not [that] [it] is not [a member] of the body simply because of this!
So I understand the author to be implying: whatever the ear wants to say to justify being separate from the body, nothing that it says will change the fact that it is still a member of the body.
From LSJ:
generally, of Comparison, alongside of, compared with, usu. implying superiority, “δοκέοντες π. ταῦτα οὐδ᾽ ἂν τοὺς σοφωτάτους ἀνθρώπων Αἰγυπτίους οὐδὲν ἐπεξευρεῖν” Hdt.2.160, cf. 7.20, 103; “ἡλίου ἐκλείψεις αἳ πυκνότεραι π. τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πρὶν χρόνου μνημονευόμενα ξυνέβησαν” Th.1.23, cf. 4.6; “τῶν ἁπάντων ἀπερίοπτοί εἰσι π. τὸ νικᾶν” Id.1.41; “π. τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα ὥσπερ θεοὶ ἄνθρωποι βιοτεύουσι” X.Mem.1.4.14; “φαίνεται π. τὸ ἀλγεινὸν ἡδὺ καὶ π. τὸ ἡδὺ ἀλγεινὸν ἡ ἡσυχία” Pl.R.584a, cf. Phdr.236d, La.183c, al.; “εὐδαίμων μᾶλλον π. πάντας” BCH26.332 (Halae); “προετέρει π. πάντας” PSI 4.422.34 (iii B. C.): sts. implying inferiority or defect, ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους a little lower than the angels, LXX Ps. 8.6; μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ ὑστεροῦσι π. τὸν ἥλιον lag one day behind the sun, Gem.8.19; so perh. παρ᾽ αὐτόν, ὑπὲρ αὐτόν (has passed the ball?) short of him, beyond him, Antiph.234; μέγα τοι ἡμέρα παρ᾽ ἡμέραν γιγνομένη γνώμην ἐξ ὀργῆς μεταστῆσαι one day compared with another is important . . , a day's delay makes a difference, Antipho 5.72; τί γὰρ παρ᾽ ἦμαρ ἡμέρα τέρπειν ἔχει προσθεῖσα κἀναθεῖσα τοῦ γε κατθανεῖν; what joy has one day compared with another to offer, since it only brings us nearer to, or farther from, death (which is neither good nor evil)? S.Aj.475; ὃς μὲν κρίνει (prefers) ἡμέραν παρ᾽ ἡμέραν, ὃς δὲ κρίνει (approves) “πᾶσαν ἡμέραν” Ep.Rom.14.5.
I'm not saying that other interpretations are impossible, simply that there is a good reason for understanding it as an implied comparison.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 709
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Louis L Sorenson » December 11th, 2011, 10:49 am

I find it interesting the UBS has it as a question in v. 15, and a statement in v. 16. But the gist I get from ATRobertson is that the phrase οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο - οὐκ ἐστιν are separate negative phrases. Although BDAG takes it as (double neg. as a strengthened affirmative) not for that reason any the less. Do ATR and BDAG say the same thing here?
BDAG
⑤ marker of causality, because of (cp. Pind., O. 2, 65 κενεὰν παρὰ δίαιταν ‘in the interest of’ or ‘for the sake of a scanty livelihood’, the scantiness here contrasting with the immense labor involved; Demosth. 4, 11; 9, 2; PRyl 243, 6; POxy 1420, 7) παρὰ τό w. acc. foll. because (SIG 495, 130; UPZ 7, 13 [163 B.C.] παρὰ τὸ Ἕλληνά με εἶναι.—Mayser II/1, 1926, 331; Gen 29:20; Ex 14:11) 1 Cl 39:5f (Job 4:20f). π. τοῦτο because of this (Kühner-G. I 513, 3; Synes., Ep. 44 p. 185a; 57 p. 192d) ITr 5:2; IRo 5:1 (quot. fr. 1 Cor 4:4, where Paul has ἐν τούτῳ). οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐ (double neg. as a strengthened affirmative) not for that reason any the less 1 Cor 12:15f.
It seems simpler to me just to negate the 2nd clause as in
Joannes Philoponus Phil., In Aristotelis libros de anima commentaria
Volume 15, page 214, line 26

εἰ δὲ μὴ γεννᾷ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο οὐ ζῷα· οὐδὲ γὰρ πᾶν ζῷον γεννᾷ.
and

David Phil., Prolegomena philosophiae
Page 4, line 25
δεύτερον δὲ εἰ καὶ δῶμεν αὐτὴν περὶ τὰ μερικὰ καταγίνεσθαι, οὐ
παρὰ τοῦτο οὐ δύναταί τις καταλαβέσθαι, καθὸ τὸ γινῶσκον ἤγουν ἡ ψυχὴ
οὐ συμμεταβάλλεται τῷ γνωστῷ ἤγουν τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ πράγματι· κατὰ γὰρ
τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐδὲ τὸ θεῖον εἴσεταί τι τῶν γινομένων, ἐπειδὴ οὐ
συμμεταβάλλεται τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχει.
I found some interesting passages regarding the body metaphor. (I wish Livy were in Greek - it would be good source material).

Livy 2.32
2.32]The senate now began to feel apprehensive lest on the disbandment of the army there should be a recurrence of the secret conclaves and conspiracies. Although the Dictator had actually conducted the enrolment, the soldiers had sworn obedience to the consuls. Regarding them as still bound by their oath, the senate ordered the legions to be marched out of the City on the pretext that war had been recommenced by the Aequi. This step brought the revolution to a head. It is said that the first idea was to put the consuls to death that the men might be discharged from their oath; then, on learning that no religious obligation could be dissolved by a crime, they decided, at the instigation of a certain Sicinius, to ignore the consuls and withdraw to the Sacred Mount, which lay on the other side of the Anio, three miles from the City. This is a more generally accepted tradition than the one adopted by Piso that the secession was made to the Aventine. There, without any commander in a regularly entrenched camp, taking nothing with them but the necessaries of life, they quietly maintained themselves for some days, neither receiving nor giving any provocation. A great panic seized the City, mutual distrust led to a state of universal suspense. Those plebeians who had been left by their comrades in the City feared violence from the patricians; the patricians feared the plebeians who still remained in the City, and could not make up their minds whether they would rather have them go or stay. "How long," it was asked, "would the multitude who had seceded remain quiet? What would happen if a foreign war broke out in the meantime?" They felt that all their hopes rested on concord amongst the citizens, and that this must be restored at any cost.

The senate decided, therefore, to send as their spokesman Menenius Agrippa, an eloquent man, and acceptable to the plebs as being himself of plebeian origin. He was admitted into the camp, and it is reported that he simply told them the following fable in primitive and uncouth fashion. "In the days when all the parts of the human body were not as now agreeing together, but each member took its own course and spoke its own speech, the other members, indignant at seeing that everything acquired by their care and labour and ministry went to the belly, whilst it, undisturbed in the middle of them all, did nothing but enjoy the pleasures provided for it, entered into a conspiracy; the hands were not to bring food to the mouth, the mouth was not to accept it when offered, the teeth were not to masticate it. Whilst, in their resentment, they were anxious to coerce the belly by starving it, the members themselves wasted away, and the whole body was reduced to the last stage of exhaustion. Then it became evident that the belly rendered no idle service, and the nourishment it received was no greater than that which it bestowed by returning to all parts of the body this blood by which we live and are strong, equally distributed into the veins, after being matured by the digestion of the food." By using this comparison, and showing how the internal disaffection amongst the parts of the body resembled the animosity of the plebeians against the patricians, he succeeded in winning over his audience.
Plutarch has a version in Cornelius 6
ὧν πλέον οὐδὲν οἰκοῦσι τὴν Ῥώμην ὑπάρχειν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ'
[6.1.10] ἢ τιτρώσκεσθαι καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν ὑπὲρ τῶν πλουσίων
στρατευομένοις. [6.2.1] ταῦτ' ἔδεισεν ἡ βουλή, καὶ τοὺς ἐπιει-
κεῖς μάλιστα καὶ δημοτικοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐξαπέστειλε.
[6.3.1] προηγόρει δὲ Μενήνιος Ἀγρίππας, καὶ πολλὰ μὲν
τοῦ δήμου δεόμενος, πολλὰ δ' ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς παρρη-
σιαζόμενος, τελευτῶντι τῷ λόγῳ περιῆλθεν εἰς σχῆμα
μύθου διαμνημονευόμενον. [6.4.1] ἔφη γὰρ ἀνθρώπου τὰ μέλη
πάντα πρὸς τὴν γαστέρα στασιάσαι καὶ κατηγορεῖν αὐτῆς,
ὡς μόνης ἀργοῦ καὶ ἀσυμβόλου καθεζομένης ἐν τῷ σώματι,
τῶν δ' ἄλλων εἰς τὰς ἐκείνης ὀρέξεις πόνους τε μεγάλους
[6.4.5] καὶ λειτουργίας ὑπομενόντων· τὴν δὲ γαστέρα τῆς εὐη-
θείας αὐτῶν καταγελᾶν, ἀγνοούντων ὅτι τὴν τροφὴν ὑπο-
λαμβάνει μὲν εἰς αὑτὴν ἅπασαν, ἀναπέμπει δ' αὖθις ἐξ
αὑτῆς καὶ διανέμει τοῖς ἄλλοις. [6.5.1] “οὗτος οὖν” ἔφη “καὶ τῆς
συγκλήτου λόγος ἐστὶν ὦ πολῖται πρὸς ὑμᾶς· τὰ γὰρ ἐκεῖ
τυγχάνοντα τῆς προσηκούσης οἰκονομίας βουλεύματα καὶ
πράγματα πᾶσιν ὑμῖν ἐπιφέρει καὶ διανέμει τὸ χρήσιμον
καὶ ὠφέλιμον.”
0 x

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 448
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 12.16

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » December 11th, 2011, 11:09 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I would take this as the comparative use of παρά negated by οὐ, "not less than"
I'm perplexed. What does it mean? How would you paraphrase or explain the whole sentence?

The examples from Epiphanius Scr. Eccl. look interesting. If I understand them even remotely correctly, our ου παρα τουτο is used in logical argumentation and could be paraphrased as "that's not a sufficient reason to claim that..."

I'm not sure if my first proposition (in the earlier post) would be correct. Maybe ου παρα τουτο is more like an idiom, and so much that it must be in the beginning of the clause (or are there counterexamples for the word order?).
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”