serunge wrote: ↑
February 5th, 2018, 3:04 pm
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 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.