Andrew Chapman wrote:The NLT translation is a paraphrase - they have added a relative clause which is not in the original. δέ has its usual force here.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.
I think it is probably wrong to describe δέ as "a 'but' equivalent"; I have the impression that it is generally considered to introduce something new, with or without contrast - see eg Robertson. In any case, you would have to find some actual usage from koine Greek to make a case.
Andrew
Dear Andrew,
I’ve finally found the time to find more NT usage of δέ that’s similar to the one that I think Paul uses here in Col 2:17. Matt 12:31(also found in Mark & Luke) is still one of them and I wanted to discuss it a bit more.
1) Matt 12:31
Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. (Nestle GNT 1904)
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (KJV)
"So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven--except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. (NLT)
I only used the NLT to highlight how the meaning of δέ in this instance, even when translated as 'but', does give the sense of ‘except’ and this meaning has been used in, at least, one Bible translation. I wasn't very sure what you meant by 'δέ has its usual force'. Yes it does, and as you said, it introduces a new idea with contrast (in this instance). However, logically the two sentences produces an ‘except’ meaning by implication due to the quantifying determiner ‘all’. As blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is also a sin, the notion that it shall not be forgiven, would be an exception to the idea that all sins shall be forgiven. Do you not agree with this? I guess a reasonable question at this point is: could εἰ μή have been used instead of δέ either directly substituted or with very minor rephrasing? If yes, then why was it not used here?
To help with this question here’s Mark 6:5 for contrast where εἰ μή is used with a more elaborate clause (many uses of εἰ μή simply end with noun(s) (and with an optional relative clause). This example has verbs in the concessive clause.
καὶ οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ ποιῆσαι οὐδεμίαν δύναμιν, εἰ μὴ ὀλίγοις ἀρρώστοις ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐθεράπευσεν· (SBL)
And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. (KJV)
So it looks like εἰ μή could have been used in Matt 12:31 but perhaps the intended emphasis was contrast rather than concession (‘but’ seems stronger than ‘except’).
Here are some more cases where it looks like εἰ μή could possibly have been used (due to a quantifying determiner (every, all, no, whole, etc.) but wasn’t.
2) 1Cor6:18b
πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. (SBL)
Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. (KJV)
Every sin that a man does is outside the body except he that commit fornication sins against his own body. (Possible rendition)
3 )Matt 6:31-33
μὴ οὖν μεριμνήσητε λέγοντες· Τί φάγωμεν; ἤ· Τί πίωμεν; ἤ· Τί περιβαλώμεθα; (SBL)
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (KJV)
πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος ὅτι χρῄζετε τούτων ἁπάντων. (SBL)
(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. (KJV)
ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν. (SBL)
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (KJV)
Therefore take no thought, except seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (simplified rendition)
4) Mark 12:44
πάντες γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύοντος αὐτοῖς ἔβαλον, αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσεως αὐτῆς πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν ἔβαλεν, ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς. (SBL)
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. (KJV)
For all they did cast in of their abundance, except her, even though she lacked, did cast in all that she had, even all her living. (possible rendition)
5) Luke 7:29-30
(καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας καὶ οἱ τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν, βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου· (SBL)
And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. (KJV)
οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ νομικοὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς, μὴ βαπτισθέντες ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ. ) (SBL)
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (KJV)
And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John, except the Pharisees and lawyers who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of him. (Possible rendition)
6) Philippians 3:13
ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι· ἓν δέ, (SBL)
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, (KJV)
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended except in one thing, (possible rendition)
7)Luke 9:25
τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος κερδήσας τὸν κόσμον ὅλον ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπολέσας ἢ ζημιωθείς; (SBL)
What profit will a person have if he gains the whole world, but destroys himself or is lost? (ISV)
What profit will a person have if he gains the whole world, except having himself destroyed or is lost? (possible rendition)
I guess at this point I had a few questions:
1) Is it possible for εἰ μή to be somehow used in any of the verses mentioned? if not, why not?
E.g. in 3) Matt 6:31-33, I can see that a complex sentence structure was used. εἰ μή might have been usable in the simplified rendition but in the original text, it would be much less cogent if εἰ μή was directly substituted with δέ. The reader might read:
...for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things except seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
δέ as a postpositive signals the end of the previous clause and introduces a new idea but at the same time contrast the new idea with a previous main idea in v31 (take no thought). Is this reasonable?
Additionally, can εἰ μή or ἐὰν μή do something similar and be used here instead of δέ while keeping the same sentence structure intact (this leads to the next question)?
2) Are there any NT instances where εἰ μή was used as part of a complex sentence? e.g. (Idea A)(Tangent Idea B)(εἰ μή/except noun(s) - Idea C)
This relates to post 3, point 2 where it seems that the complex sentence structure of Col 2:16-17 is as follows:
(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)
In such a case, is there evidence that εἰ μή should still be used rather than δέ if an author wanted to create a concessive meaning sentence, not with the previous sentence, but with the sentence that is two or three sentences before itself?
Thanks,
Much appreciated,
Will