[B-Greek] Use of TE solitarium
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Nov 4 01:14:59 EST 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "B-Greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 4. november 2008 00:54
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TE solitarium
>
> On Nov 2, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>
>> In fairness to Levinsohn I want to quote his initial and basic
>> definition of TE from section 6.3,
>> which I agree with:
>> "TE solitarium, in contrast [to KAI], adds distinct propositions
>> that are characterized by SAMENESS,
>> in the sense that they refer to different aspects of the same event,
>> the same occasion, or the same
>> pragmatic unit."
>> The problem is that he ALSO suggests a different function, which in
>> my view is unwarranted and
>> not supported by the examples he quotes to support it.
>
> I find Levinsohn's explanation of SAMENESS vague, so inclusive that it
> is hard picture how it could be put to any meaningful use. Something
> like ATR's "... TE indicates a somewhat closer unity than does KAI."
> A.T.Robertson 1178.
But he tries to explain it further by mentioning different aspects of the same event or the same
occasion.
This is sufficient for analysing all instances of TE, and the "leading to a new development" idea
puts meaning into TE that it does not have. TE looks backward, not forward.
ATR is driving at the same idea. I used different words to explain the same idea. My preferred
description is "overlapping" events. They overlap both in time and in significance.
<skip>
> Another example, this one from Luke 24:20 see Levinsohn:2000 p.109
>
> Luke 24:18-21a
> 18 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἷς ὀνόματι
> Κλεοπᾶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· σὺ μόνος
> παροικεῖς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως
> τὰ γενόμενα ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν ταῖς
> ἡμέραις ταύταις; 19 καὶ εἶπεν
> αὐτοῖς· ποῖα; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· τὰ
> περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ, ὃς
> ἐγένετο ἀνὴρ προφήτης δυνατὸς ἐν
> ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ
> καὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, 20 ὅπως τε
> παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ
> οἱ ἄρχοντες ἡμῶν εἰς κρίμα θανάτου
> καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν. 21 ἡμεῖς δὲ
> ἠλπίζομεν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ μέλλων
> λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ·
>
> Luke 24:18-21a
> 18 APOKRIQEIS DE hEIS ONOMATI KLEOPAS EIPEN PROS AUTON: SU MONOS
> PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS
> hHMERAIS TAUTAIS 19 KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: POIA hOI DE EIPAN AUTWi: TA
> PERI IHSOU TOU NAZARHNOU, hOS EGENETO ANHR PROFHTHS DUNATOS EN ERGWi
> KAI LOGWi ENANTION TOU QEOU KAI PANTOS TOU LAOU, 20 hOPWS TE
> PAREDWKAN AUTON hOI ARCIEREIS KAI hOI ARCONTES hHMWN EIS KRIMA QANATOU
> KAI ESTAURWSAN AUTON. 21 hHMEIS DE HLPIZOMEN hOTI AUTOS ESTIN hO
> MELLWN LUTROUSQAI TON ISRAHL:
>
> Here we have KLEOPAS summarizing TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS hHMERAIS
> TAUTAIS. First he introduces the main character in the drama TA PERI
> IHSOU TOU NAZARHNOU with a breif description of word and deed hOS
> EGENETO ANHR PROFHTHS DUNATOS EN ERGWi KAI LOGWi ENANTION TOU QEOU KAI
> PANTOS TOU LAOU followed by a micro-narative [is it narative?] in
> verse 20 introduced by hOPWS TE.
>
> **a digression** hOPWS TE is a pattern found elsewhere in Koine, e.g.,
> Josephus, Lucian. I have had some difficulty resisting the temptation
> to analyze hOPWS TE as a unit since this pair is found by the hundreds
> in TLG-E. Never the less, I will bow to the grammars which all (those
> on hand) seem to ignore this pairing. **end digression**
Interesting, hOPWS TE (and also how) indicates that one more aspect needs to be added to the
preceding statement before it is complete. It is similar to Hebrew parallelisms where line A and
line B need to be considered together as a semantic or pragmatic unit.
> Keeping in mind that what we have here is a mixed genre, not really a
> narrative but including small segments of narrative material, the
> observation Iver rejects to seems to apply here:
No, it does not.
>
>> TE attaches
>> "an event which is dissimilar to the previous one" (P.O'Rear). It
>> highlights a particularly salient aspect of the unfolding drama, while
>> it also leads into the next stage in the story.
The aspect/event is salient, but not because of the TE, and TE does not lead into the next stage. Of
course, there is a next stage, since the story is not finished.
> The first point "an event which is dissimilar..." is somewhat awkward
> to apply here since what precedes hOPWS TE ... is a summary of Jesus'
> public ministry, not a story. For that reason I am inclined to borrow
> from H.W.Smyth (#2968) "TE alone sometimes in prose links whole
> clauses or sentences which serve to explain, amplify, supplement, or
> to denote a consequence of, what precedes ...". The last part "to
> denote a consequence of" seems particularly appropriate to Lk
> 24:19-20. It was the character of Jesus' public ministry summarized in
> verse 19 which lead to the consequence in verse 20. However, some may
> think that "consequence" is too strong a term to apply to TE in this
> context.
That TE may serve to "explain, amplify or supplement what precedes" is right on target, although
"supplement" might have been enough. I don't see how it could denote consequense, since Greek has
other means of indicating that.
In this text what the writer intends to signify by using TE is the close connection between:
1. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people." (NIV) and
2. "The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified
him" (NIV)
Cleopas is saying: While we believe that Jesus was a great prophet of God, at the same time the
rulers had him killed.
Here there is a clear contrast of opinion between two groups of people, and NLT translates with a
"but". This is fine in an idiomatic translation as long as no one draws the wrong conclusion that TE
means "but". The contrast is not signified by TE, but by the semantic content of the two clauses. TE
only urges the reader to process the two statements together in the mind with the second
supplementing the first. DE indicates a change of some kind and may therefore also signify a
contrast, but DE and TE are very, very different in meaning and must never be confused (even though
they are often confused in mss because the form and sound is so similar)
> The second and third points "highlights a particularly salient aspect"
> and "leads into the next stage" seem so obvious that they don't need
> to be argued. Someone, not doubt, will disagree.
Am I the only one who disagrees?
When something cannot be supported by any argument, it is common to say that it is obvious and does
not need arguments.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list