[B-Greek] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Dec 3 23:07:39 EST 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: "Jonathan Robie" <jwrobie at mindspring.com>; "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 4. december 2008 03:22
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
> 26Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν
> φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν,
> 26 DIA TOUTO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS PAQH ATIMIAS, hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN METHLLACAN THN
> FUSIKHN XRHSIN EIS THN PARA FUSIN
>
> I would render
>
> "For this reason God remanded them to dishonorable passions for even their women exchanged natural
> relations for those contrary to nature."
Both TE and GAR and discourse particles and their function is not always easy. I have a somewhat
different analysis from Steve.
We discussed the TE solitarium recently, and here we have two of them, one in 26b and one in 27a.
In my view TE here has the function it always has, namely to tie the clause in which it occurs more
tightly to part of the previous clause than would otherwise have been the case. I called them
"overlapping events". Underlyingly, we have a common Hebrew style where the writer first gives a
general reference and then adds details about that general reference. Here that general statement
includes
πάθη ἀτιμίας PAQH ATIMIAS dishonorable passions.
TE indicates that the writer still has something to say about this topic and he urges you not to
stop the mental processing of it before you have ALSO read what the TE introduces. In this case the
dishonorable passions are described in more detail as what the women are doing in 26b, and the
second TE describes what the men are doing, again as part of those dishonorable passions. The
concept of dishonorable passions is not complete until you have read everything introduced by TE.
The GAR is an explanatory particle independent from TE. As Steve said, it supports what came before
(this expression is from Relevance Theory jargon, and is not very clear.) It explains further some
element of the preceding clause (It does not go all the way back to v. 25). In this case, the GAR
also connects to PAQH ATIMIAS and it explains further what is meant by this phrase, what these
passions are and why they are dishonorable.
So, in this particular construction the TE and the GAR have somewhat similar functions, but they are
still different particles with each their focus and usage. You could say that TE adds to the
content, and GAR explains the background. The explanation continues in v. 27a, and here there is no
GAR here, because the scope of the first GAR is both 26b and 27. IF there had been another GAR in
27, it would have introduced an explanation to something in v. 26b, and that is not the intention.
It is still the words in 26a that are being explained in v. 27.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list