1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

[PhillipLebsack]

Section in context:

"καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν, Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
4 ∆ιαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα·
5 καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος·
6 καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσίν,
ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς θεὸς ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.
7 ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον."

I'm trying to follow Steven Runge's example on page 24 of his Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, but I don't understand his explanation of the meaning of Paul using καὶ in verse 5 instead of δὲ...

"Note that verse 5 is added to v. 4 using καί. This indicates that it is part of the same step of Paul’s argument." <-- That I understand. But then he continues...

"He establishes a similar contrast to the one found in v. 4 (variety-same), but the two elements are linked here using καί instead of δέ. There is not a different spirit behind each of the gifts, but the same one."

Doesn't make any sense at all... Was there a typo somewhere or something?

[PhillipLebsack]

Also, on page 21, he says "καί is unmarked for development. There may or may not be one present with καί. The writer has chosen not to indicate one way or the other if καί is used."

Is there a development in the second καί in verse 5?

Any explanation on these issues in general would be greatly appreciated...

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Explaining the entire framework in which Runge's comment is situated is a tall order. I looked at Levinsohn Discourse Features (2nd ed 2000, pp. 112ff) where he talks about thematic development in non-narrative. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying, δὲ is distinguished from καὶ by marking new developments. That does not imply that καὶ never introduces a new development. It certainly does. But καὶ has numerous other uses and is ubiquitous in the New Testament. δὲ in the NT greek primers of yesteryear was explain as an adversative. It has other functions. In narrative it moves the story forward[1]. In non-narrative it marks linear progression in the argument. These are not rules. They are patterns that have been observed.

I noticed that many respectable English translations translate καὶ in verse five as an adversative, exceptions were NASB (1969), ASV. I also noted that none of my standard New Testament reference grammars have anything to say about καὶ in 1 Corinthians 12:5. Plumber ICC simply comments that καὶ is not adversative. Alford treated it in the textual apparatus showing that some late mss cleaned up the text but several church fathers and early translations support the text with καὶ.

[1]An oversimplification, Levinsohn devotes several chapters to this.

[serunge]

Hi Phillip,

Instead of trying to use the terminology in the grammar I'll try to restate what I see going on here in terms of sets. I would view δἐ here introducing a comment on a set, whereas καἰ is adding another member to the same set or potentially adding larger sets together.

Set A
Set A1: 4 Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν,
Comment about Set 1: τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα·

Set A2: 5 καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος· 6 καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσίν,
Comment about Set 2: ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς θεός, ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.

The bolded καἰ at the beginning of v. 5 would be added these two sets (subsets of A) and the associated comments together into a larger unit.

The challenge with trying to describe these things in the grammar is capturing all of the variables involved. As Stirling said, Levinsohn is the place to go for a longer treatment of these matters. I'd encourage you to read his fuller treatment. My work was intended to be an introduction.

Δἐ typically signals a distinct new point (what Levinsohn now prefers to the term "development", i.e. +distinctive instead of +developmental), but it also is used regularly to introduce a sidebar-type comment as in 1 Cor 1:16 where Paul stops to clarify someone else he baptized.

14 εὐχαριστῶ ὅτι οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα εἰ μὴ Κρίσπον καὶ Γάϊον, 15 ἵνα μή τις [εἴπῃ] ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα ἐβαπτίσθητε· 16 ἐβάπτισα δὲ καὶ τὸν Στεφανᾶ οἶκον· λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τινα ἄλλον ἐβάπτισα. (SBLGNT)

How do you describe that? If you say it's not closely connected to what precedes because it is an aside/sidebar this can mislead someone to think it has nothing to do with what precedes. It absolutely does, since it clarifies a detail about his preceding comment. But from another standpoint, it can be said not too closely connected in that it is not advancing Paul's argument, but is more of a digression.

This dual common usage (development and asides) is part of the reason Levinsohn stopped talking about δἐ primarily in terms of marking a development in a line of argument or narrative. Marking it as a distinct element from what precedes accounts for more of the data, but still requires one to determine the level at which it is operating. The same holds true for καἰ, which is operating at two different levels in v. 5a versus 5b. While the one in 5a joins together two parts of Set A, the one in 5b joins two members of the subset A2.

If I had to do it over again I think I would have included more discussion about how nesting and entailment impact the role of connectives. Each still manifests the same prototypical constraint at the different levels, but can look quite different from a translation perspective. Not sure if this will help or hurt, but there you have it.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

If I had to do it over again

Waiting for the second edition...

[PhillipLebsack]

Hi Phillip,

Instead of trying to use the terminology in the grammar I'll try to restate what I see going on here in terms of sets. I would view δἐ here introducing a comment on a set, whereas καἰ is adding another member to the same set or potentially adding larger sets together.

Set A
Set A1: 4 Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν,
Comment about Set 1: τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα·

Set A2: 5 καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος· 6 καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσίν,
Comment about Set 2: ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς θεός, ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.

The bolded καἰ at the beginning of v. 5 would be added these two sets (subsets of A) and the associated comments together into a larger unit.

The challenge with trying to describe these things in the grammar is capturing all of the variables involved. As Stirling said, Levinsohn is the place to go for a longer treatment of these matters. I'd encourage you to read his fuller treatment. My work was intended to be an introduction.

Δἐ typically signals a distinct new point (what Levinsohn now prefers to the term "development", i.e. +distinctive instead of +developmental), but it also is used regularly to introduce a sidebar-type comment as in 1 Cor 1:16 where Paul stops to clarify someone else he baptized.

14 εὐχαριστῶ ὅτι οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα εἰ μὴ Κρίσπον καὶ Γάϊον, 15 ἵνα μή τις [εἴπῃ] ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα ἐβαπτίσθητε· 16 ἐβάπτισα δὲ καὶ τὸν Στεφανᾶ οἶκον· λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τινα ἄλλον ἐβάπτισα. (SBLGNT)

How do you describe that? If you say it's not closely connected to what precedes because it is an aside/sidebar this can mislead someone to think it has nothing to do with what precedes. It absolutely does, since it clarifies a detail about his preceding comment. But from another standpoint, it can be said not too closely connected in that it is not advancing Paul's argument, but is more of a digression.

This dual common usage (development and asides) is part of the reason Levinsohn stopped talking about δἐ primarily in terms of marking a development in a line of argument or narrative. Marking it as a distinct element from what precedes accounts for more of the data, but still requires one to determine the level at which it is operating. The same holds true for καἰ, which is operating at two different levels in v. 5a versus 5b. While the one in 5a joins together two parts of Set A, the one in 5b joins two members of the subset A2.

If I had to do it over again I think I would have included more discussion about how nesting and entailment impact the role of connectives. Each still manifests the same prototypical constraint at the different levels, but can look quite different from a translation perspective. Not sure if this will help or hurt, but there you have it.

Thanks everyone for your responses. And thanks Mr. Runge for personally taking the time to explain further. When I finish your book I'll definitely take a look at the suggested reading you mention. DA is totally knew to me so I need to become familiar with the basics first...

I was just mostly confused about that last point you were making "There is not a different spirit behind each of the gifts, but the same one." It seemed unrelated to what you just said before. I agree with your conclusion there, I just didn't see how it related to "He establishes a similar contrast to the one found in v. 4 (variety-same), but the two elements are linked here using καί instead of δέ."

Looking over it again, I think that maybe you were talking about the first και in that verse instead of the second one. Maybe that explains the confusion I had.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

[ DA is totally knew to me so I need to become familiar with the basics first...

Maybe that explains the confusion I had.

Philip,

Text-linguistics is a moving target. It isn't necessary to bend your mind trying to figure out what these people are doing because in ten years it will be history. When I talk about this stuff it is mostly in the past tense since I no longer employ the framework under discussion. I invested untold hours trying to figure out what S.E. Porter and J. Reed were up to in the 1990s. Wasn't an investment with much yield. On the other hand Robert Longacre and Helma Dik have been helpful. You pick up something useful from reading Levinsohn but there is no point in trying to understand everything. Take whats good and leave the rest and move on.

Better to focus on learning to read greek.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Better to focus on learning to read greek.

The better one learns to understand Greek, the better one understands what Steven and others are doing in DA.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

The principle under discussion illustrated from a stock narrative construction in Thucydides.

Thucydides Hist.,
Book 3, chapter 1, section 1, line 1

Τοῦ δ' ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους Πελοποννήσιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἅμα τῷ σίτῳ ἀκμάζοντι ἐστράτευσαν ἐς τὴν Ἀττικήν·

During the following summer, when the grain was ripening, the Peloponnesians and their allies made in expedition into Attica ... [1]

δ' introduces the next segment of the story. καὶ joins Πελοποννήσιοι with οἱ ξύμμαχοι

You don't need a lot of metalanguage or inverted tree structures to deal with this.

[1] C. F. Smith LCL Harvard 1920

Postscript: Τοῦ ... ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους ... ἅμα τῷ σίτῳ ἀκμάζοντι establishes the temporal setting.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

... but if we keep reading, the very next δὲ introduces text which is analyzed by the editor[1] as parenthetical which means δὲ introduces subordination. On the other hand the next καὶ introduces text that moves the story forward but it doesn't introduce a new scene.

I. Τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους Πελοποννήσιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἅμα τῷ σίτῳ ἀκμάζοντι ἐστράτευσαν ἐς τὴν Ἀττικήν (ἡγεῖτο δὲ αὐτῶν Ἀρχίδαμος ὁ Ζευξιδάμου, Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεύς), καὶ ἐγκαθεζόμενοι ἐδῄουν τὴν γῆν· καὶ προσβολαί, ὥσπερ εἰώθεσαν, ἐγίγνοντο τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἱππέων ὅπῃ παρείκοι, καὶ τὸν πλεῖστον ὅμιλον τῶν ψιλῶν εἶργον τὸ μὴ προεξιόντας τῶν ὅπλων τὰ ἐγγὺς 2τῆς πόλεως κακουργεῖν. ἐμμείναντες δὲ χρόνον οὗ εἶχον τὰ σιτία ἀνεχώρησαν καὶ διελύθησαν κατὰ πόλεις.

I. During the following summer, when the grain was ripening, the Peloponnesians and their allies made an expedition into Attica under the leadership of Archidamus son of Zeuxidamus, king of the Lacedaemonians, and settling in camp proceeded to ravage the land. And sallies were made as usual by the Athenian cavalry wherever opportunity offered, thus preventing the great mass of the enemy’s light-armed troops from going beyond their watch-posts and laying waste the districts near the city. The invaders remained as long as their provisions lasted, then withdrew and dispersed to their several cities.

[1]C. F. Smith LCL Harvard 1920

Real text is often more complex than the rules of any framework can handle.