Variable placement of γάρ in Paul

[David Lim]

In short, if "ουδε" was merely a spelling for "ου δε", then I cannot see why there is no occurrence of a negated verbal clause using "ουδε" that has no immediately preceding negative clause, while there are many such clauses of the form "X δε ... ου V". This suggests that "ουδε" has a specialized meaning and thus perhaps "ου δε" isn't used because it would otherwise be confused with "ουδε".

Then what's the specialized meaning? All you've shown is a specialized context. At any rate, focusing on γάρ doesn't have this complication.

Sorry by "meaning" I had included grammatical requirements. "δε" grammatically merely modifies the clause it "heads" And yes "γαρ" doesn't have this problem, so I guess "δε" is quite off-topic too. Maybe the part of this thread about "ουδε" should be split off?

I don't know about "και δε" but since there isn't a word "καιδε" avoidance of "και δε" cannot be due to the same reason that I propose for "ου δε". I can conjecture that in this case it is just a semantic matter, since "δε" denotes a switch to a different entity (a bit like "however" in English) but adverbial "και" denotes that the entity is the same in some way, and these two don't seem to quite go together. Is it really common in Homer or later?

δέ doesn't always switch to a different entity, and it's OK to use δέ after an entity introduced with καί, for example: Luke 1:76 Καὶ σὺ δέ, 2:35 καὶ σοῦ [δὲ] αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχήν, John 6:51 καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, 8:17 καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ, 15:27 καὶ ὑμεῖς δέ, Acts 3:24 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται, Acts 22:29 καὶ ὁ χιλάρχος δὲ, 1 Tim 3:10 καὶ οὗτοι δέ, 2 Tim 3:12 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ θέλοντες, and 3 John 12 καὶ ἡμεῖς δέ. What we don't see, however, is *καὶ δὲ σύ, etc.

Yes I shouldn't have used the word "entity" as it isn't quite broad enough to cover "idea". But why do you classify these examples as using an adverbial "και"? To me all of them are instances of "και" as a conjunction.

For example John 6:51 syntactically means:

Code: Select all

{
  { εγω } ειμι { ο αρτος ( ο ζων ) ( ο ( εκ του ουρανου ) καταβας ) }
}
{
  εαν { { τις } φαγη ( εκ τουτου του αρτου ) } { ζησεται ( εις τον αιωνα ) }
}
και
{
  { (δε) ο αρτος ( ον εγω δωσω ) }
  εστιν
  { η σαρξ μου ( ην εγω δωσω ( υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης ) ) }
}

As for Homer, the collocation καὶ δέ occurs 20 times.

If it's not too troublesome for you, do you mind giving one or two examples? According to my reasoning above these instances would have "και" functioning adverbially, because it cannot be conjunctive.

Off-topic, I searched Google for "και δε" and found that "δε" is no longer a post-positive in Modern Greek. How did that happen?

I'm not really sure. Jannaris's historical grammar (which is out of copyright and online) seems to indicate that all the postpositive conjunctions died out in the living language (i.e. speech) by the Byzantine era in favor of prepositive conjunctions. Δέ is just one casualty among many.

I see. Thanks a lot!

[Stephen Hughes]

I'm wondering whether this line of questioning is too exacting on the text as it stands, given that it is a scholarly reconstruction based on a scholarly methodology rather than simply unedited textual evidence. There is a possibility in a case like this that there was no discernable difference between the two, and it was so up to a scribes choice that us making a distinction between the two constructions on statistical grounds would be artificial.

I don't have access to a copy of the blue Novum Testamentum Graece where I am staying now. Is there a way that I can look the apparatus criticus for these texts online before I consider whether I have anything I could contribute to this discusison?

[Iver Larsen]

In Romans, Paul writes:

Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ ἦτε [ἐν] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι,

However, in 1 Corinthians, Paul phrases it this way:

Οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν καὶ πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον,

The two statements begin almost the same way, but the position of γάρ changes. Any suggestions why?

Since the verb in the second instance has been moved to the left and therefore has relative greater prominence than the particle γὰρ, I think it means that the content of the verb is relatively more important than the supportive function indicated by γὰρ. If we look at the context of the two verses, then we can see that Rom 11:25 is an important support of what has just been said. Paul wants them to take note of this supporting explanation. In 1 Cor 10:1 there is no close connection to the previous context. Here the content of the verb - that Paul now wants to say something important - is more prominent than the general support indicated by γὰρ. Another way of putting it is to say that in Rom 11:25 the γὰρ supports what was said in the previous sentence, while the γὰρ in 1 Cor 10:1 supports not what was said in the previous sentence, but in the previous many verses in a weaker and more general way. It is so weak that a δὲ seems more appropriate, especially in the beginning of a new paragraph/development. I looked for a variant reading in NA, but did not find any comment. However, the Majority text of Robinson-Pierpont has a δὲ as I would expect, and that may explain the KJV translation "Moreover". RSV has no connecting word here.

In the other places you cite, there is no textual variation with the Majority text, but in all cases the content of the verb is emphasized.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

I don't have access to a copy of the blue Novum Testamentum Graece where I am staying now. Is there a way that I can look the apparatus criticus for these texts online before I consider whether I have anything I could contribute to this discusison?

How about http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/projekte/ntt.shtml? (The link to the tool is somewhat hidden, "You can access it by clicking here.")

[Stephen Hughes]

I don't have access to a copy of the blue Novum Testamentum Graece where I am staying now. Is there a way that I can look the apparatus criticus for these texts online before I consider whether I have anything I could contribute to this discusison?

How about http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/projekte/ntt.shtml? (The link to the tool is somewhat hidden, "You can access it by clicking here.")

I should note that οὐ γάρ is much more common than οὐ Χ γάρ. I count eighty (80) cases of the former and just six of the latter (Mark 13:33, Mark 13:35, Acts 4:20, 1 Cor 10:1, 1 Cor 16:7, Heb 12:20) in the New Testament.

Based on the searches of these six verses that Stephen Carlson mentioned as having the pattern οὐ Χ γάρ, I would say that these six verses were deliberately written in the form οὐ Χ γάρ. My reason for saying that is that there is no scribal or editorial variation apart from corrector 3 in Codex Sinaiticus who replaced γάρ with δέ that has been under some discussion already. This is not one of those cases where there is great variation across the manuscripts, so the evidence is direct and not subject to having been processed by any scholarship.

The evidence for not having scribal or editorial changes in these six verses is collated below if you would like to check what you make of it...(If anyone wanted to further understand the nomenclature in the collation, they could look at the website Eeli Kaikkonen gave the link for)

βλεπετε αγρυπνειτε ⸆ ουκ οιδατε γαρ ποτε ο καιρος εστιν

βλεπετε αγρυπνειτε και προσευχεσθε ουκ οιδατε γαρ ποτε ο καιρος εστιν

βλεπετε αγρυπνειτε και προσευχεσθαι ουκ οιδατε γαρ ποτε ο καιρος εστιν

γρηγορειτε ουν ουκ οιδατε γαρ ποτε ο κυριος της οικιας ερχεται η οψε η μεσονυκτιον η αλεκτοροφωνιας η πρωι

γρηγορειτε ουν ουκ οιδατε γαρ ποτε ο κυριος της οικιας ερχεται ⸆ οψε η μεσονυκτιου η αλεκτοροφωνιας η πρωι

γρηγορειτε ουν ουκ οιδατε γαρ ποτε ο κυριος της οικιας ερχεται η οψε η [C2: μεσονυκτιον / *: μεσανυκτιον] η αλεκτοροφωνιας η πρωι

ου δυναμεθα γαρ ημεις α ειδαμεν και ⸆ ηκουσαμεν μη λαλειν

ου δυνομεθα γαρ ημεις α [*: ειδαμεν / C2a: οιδαμεν / C2b: ειδομεν] και ⸆ ηκουσαμεν μη λαλειν

ου δυναμεθα γαρ ημεις α ειδαμεν και ⸆ ηκουσαμεν [C1: μη / *: ⸆] λαλειν

ου δυναμεθα γαρ ημεις α ιδαμεν και ⸆ ηκουσαμεν μη λαλειν

ου δυν[α]μ̣εθα γαρ – – – –

ου δυναμεθα γαρ ημεις α ειδομεν και ⸆ ηκουσαμεν μη λαλειν

ου δυναμεθα γαρ ημεις α ειδομεν και α ηκουσαμεν μη λαλειν

ου θελω γαρ υμας αγνοειν αδελφοι οτι οι πατερες ημων παντες υπο την νεφελην ησαν και παντες δια της θαλασσης διηλθον

ου θελω γαρ υμας [αγνοειν] – ησαν και παντες δια της θαλασσης διηλθον

ου θελω [*: γαρ / C2: δε] υμας αγνοειν αδελφοι οτι οι πατερες ημων παντες υπο την νεφελην ησαν και παντες δια της θαλασσης διηλθον

ου θελω γαρ υμας αρτι εν παροδω ιδειν ελπιζω γαρ χρονον τινα επιμειναι προς υμας εαν ο κυριος επιτρεψη

ου θελω γαρ αρτι υμας εν [C: παροδω / *: παρδω] ιδειν ελπιζω γαρ χρονον τινα επιμειναι προς υμας εαν ο κυριος επιτρεψη

ου θελω γαρ

ουκ εφερον γαρ το διαστελλομενον καν θηριον θιγη του ορους λιθοβοληθησεται

ουκ εφερον γαρ το διαστελλομενον καν θηριον θιγη του [ορους] λιθοβοληθησεται

[Stephen Carlson]

δέ doesn't always switch to a different entity, and it's OK to use δέ after an entity introduced with καί, for example: Luke 1:76 Καὶ σὺ δέ, 2:35 καὶ σοῦ [δὲ] αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχήν, John 6:51 καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, 8:17 καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ, 15:27 καὶ ὑμεῖς δέ, Acts 3:24 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται, Acts 22:29 καὶ ὁ χιλάρχος δὲ, 1 Tim 3:10 καὶ οὗτοι δέ, 2 Tim 3:12 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ θέλοντες, and 3 John 12 καὶ ἡμεῖς δέ. What we don't see, however, is *καὶ δὲ σύ, etc.

Yes I shouldn't have used the word "entity" as it isn't quite broad enough to cover "idea". But why do you classify these examples as using an adverbial "και"? To me all of them are instances of "και" as a conjunction.

Because δέ is already the conjunction, so καί has another function. If καί is the conjunction, then I don't know how to account for the presence of δέ.

For example John 6:51 syntactically means:

Code: Select all

{
  { εγω } ειμι { ο αρτος ( ο ζων ) ( ο ( εκ του ουρανου ) καταβας ) }
}
{
  εαν { { τις } φαγη ( εκ τουτου του αρτου ) } { ζησεται ( εις τον αιωνα ) }
}
και
{
  { (δε) ο αρτος ( ον εγω δωσω ) }
  εστιν
  { η σαρξ μου ( ην εγω δωσω ( υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης ) ) }
}

I'm having understanding what "syntactically means" or how to read your tree, but I would swap the position of καί and δέ above.

As for Homer, the collocation καὶ δέ occurs 20 times.

If it's not too troublesome for you, do you mind giving one or two examples? According to my reasoning above these instances would have "και" functioning adverbially, because it cannot be conjunctive.

I think that's right. Here's an example:

ὀμνυέτω δέ τοι ὅρκον ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἀναστὰς
μή ποτε τῆς εὐνῆς ἐπιβήμεναι ἠδὲ μιγῆναι·
ἣ θέμις ἐστὶν ἄναξ ἤ τ’ ἀνδρῶν ἤ τε γυναικῶν·
καὶ δὲ σοὶ αὐτῷ θυμὸς ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ἵλαος ἔστω.

Here's a translation:

Moreover let him swear an oath before the Argives
that he has never gone up into the couch of Briseis,
nor been with her after the manner of men and women;
and do you, too, show yourself of a gracious mind;

I see. Thanks a lot!

No problem.

[David Lim]

How about http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/projekte/ntt.shtml? (The link to the tool is somewhat hidden, "You can access it by clicking here.")

My reason for saying that is that there is no scribal or editorial variation apart from corrector 3 in Codex Sinaiticus who replaced γάρ with δέ that has been under some discussion already. This is not one of those cases where there is great variation across the manuscripts, so the evidence is direct and not subject to having been processed by any scholarship.

I would like to mention that the manuscripts listed on that website are not complete and does not include a large number of Byzantine-type manuscripts or even variants. The ones who run the website have told me that they plan to eventually add some of these, but for now it is more representative of the Alexandrian text-type.

δέ doesn't always switch to a different entity, and it's OK to use δέ after an entity introduced with καί, for example: Luke 1:76 Καὶ σὺ δέ, 2:35 καὶ σοῦ [δὲ] αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχήν, John 6:51 καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, 8:17 καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ, 15:27 καὶ ὑμεῖς δέ, Acts 3:24 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται, Acts 22:29 καὶ ὁ χιλάρχος δὲ, 1 Tim 3:10 καὶ οὗτοι δέ, 2 Tim 3:12 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ θέλοντες, and 3 John 12 καὶ ἡμεῖς δέ. What we don't see, however, is *καὶ δὲ σύ, etc.

Yes I shouldn't have used the word "entity" as it isn't quite broad enough to cover "idea". But why do you classify these examples as using an adverbial "και"? To me all of them are instances of "και" as a conjunction.

Because δέ is already the conjunction, so καί has another function. If καί is the conjunction, then I don't know how to account for the presence of δέ.
[...]
I'm having understanding what "syntactically means" or how to read your tree, but I would swap the position of καί and δέ above.

I used "{}" for necessary clauses and "()" for optional clauses. For both kinds of brackets what is inside is at a deeper syntactic level. And the reason my tree has "δε" inside is because I treated the "και" as being in a higher level than "δε" in those instances. I consider "δε" as a particle that does not join two clauses unlike "αλλα". Instead it only modifies the subsequent clause (if we ignore the post-position), marking it out as something different from something previous. So my tree means that "και" joins the preceding and subsequent clauses together in conjunction, and "δε" only adverbially modifies the inner clause "ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω". In other words the verse contains essentially three statements X = "εγω ειμι ο αρτος ..." and Y = "εαν τις φαγη ... ζησεται ..." and Z = "ο αρτος ... εστιν η σαρξ μου ...". X stands by itself. Y and Z are joined conjunctively by the "και". The "δε" modifies only Z, in this case because it is on a different "train of thought"; Y being about what "anyone who eats of this bread" entails, while Z being on "what really this bread is". In my opinion this is the case in about half of the examples you list, including this one, but I can easily see that it can be a subjective matter. Anyway thanks for the example from Homer!

By the way, I just checked Smyth's grammar and he agrees (2835c) with me on the avoidance of "ου δε" to avoid confusion with "ουδε", and specifically mentions that ου V δε" is allowed on the other hand.