[B-Greek] ALLA (conj.) = "but" / "not only that but also"?

=) p1234567891 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 21:57:23 EDT 2011


Dear Rick,

Yes I agree that "ALLA" (sorry I forgot to transliterate it in my original
email) functions to indicate contrast (and I believe "but" in English is the
most generic word that can be used to "cover" that function), though I do
not really see a difference between creating a contrast and having an
adversative meaning. I understand what you are saying about 2 Cor 7:11, but
doesn't it still imply "but also"? As for 1 Cor 6:11, it appears to be a
normal use of "ALLA" if it is taken as: "KAI TAUTA TINES HTE { ALLA
APELOUSASQE | ALLA HGIASQHTE | ALL EDIKAIWQHTE } EN TW ONOMATI TOU KURIOU
IHSOU KAI EN TW PNEUMATI TOU QEOU HMWN" = "and these some of you were { but
you were washed | but you were sanctified | but you were justified } in the
name of the lord Jesus and in the spirit of our God". In other words I read
it as three separate statements each with a different middle part. Are there
any clearly non-adversative occurrences of "ALLA" in the NT or LXX? (By the
way a minor issue I have with 2 Cor 7:11 is that no matter what I take
"ALLA" to mean, and whether the list is sequential, the elements themselves
do not make sense to me. If anyone can explain them I would be glad to hear
your interpretation OFF-LIST, but that is the main reason I want to know the
possible import of "ALLA", because the context is not enough for me to
understand it.)

Much thanks,
David Lim


On 2 June 2011 00:07, Rick Brannan <textgeek+bgreek at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David.
>
> The key to understanding function words (like αλλα ALLA) is to
> understand what function they accomplish, not to associate them with
> an English gloss like "but". For my money, the chapter on conjunctions
> in Steve Runge's Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament is the
> best thing one can read to begin to understand the function of these
> words and get away from gloss-substitution.
>
> Grammars list αλλα ALLA as primarily "adversative" but the
> adversative-ness really comes from the context: the vast majority of
> instances of αλλα ALLA happen in a "not this but that" or "this but
> not that" kind of context. It's the negation in the context that makes
> such instances seem adversative.
>
> A description of my understanding of αλλα ALLA can be found here:
> http://www.supakoo.com/rick/papers, look for the one from ETS 2008.
> Basically, I think αλλα ALLA indicates contrast, and it corrects
> and/or replaces a preceding statement and thus causes the succeeding
> item to be prominent. A good example is Mt 5.17, "I did not come to
> destroy the law, but [αλλα ALLA] to fulfill it". Contrast between
> destroy/fulfill and note the correction from 'destroy the law' to
> 'fulfill [the law]'.
>
> In preparation for that paper I did evaluate the instances in 2Co 7.11
> (also see 1Co 6.11). Here's what I thought about it at that time:
>
> ----
> Each successive αλλα ALLA introduces a separate thread of contrast in
> the overall comparison. The entire verse has one verb, κατεργάζομαι
> KATERGAZOMAI, "bring about", which was also used in verse 10. The
> object of the verb is σπουδή SPOUDH, "diligence". The function of each
> αλλα ALLA is to provide contrast between "diligence" (an accusative
> singular noun) with each item introduced by αλλα ALLA, each of which
> are also accusative singular nouns (some masculine, some feminine).
> The initial statement in verse 10 sets the scene; godly grief produces
> repentance while worldly grief produces death. Paul's contention in
> verse 10 is that the Corinthians have experienced godly grief (leading
> to repentance), not worldly grief (leading to death). Verse 11 is his
> evidence of the Corinthians' experience of godly grief.
>
> Paul shows this by contrasting the diligence or earnestness produced
> by godly grief with other effects. Each is a separate contrast,
> relying on the verb of the primary clause (κατεργάζομαι KATERGAZOMAI,
> "bring about"). Diligence is contrasted with eagerness to clear
> oneself, with indignation, with fear, with longing, with zeal, and
> with punishment. Each of these contrasts are important to Paul's
> argument. Recall 2Co 7.8, where Paul notes his letter grieved the
> Corinthians, but only for a little while because their response to the
> godly grief they experienced was repentance. This repentance drove
> them to change their action and clear their names. While some may see
> progress of action in the nouns used in verse 11, such progression is
> rhetorically significant and not a component of the use of αλλα ALLA.
> The rhetorical progression would be there whether αλλα ALLA was used
> or not. The contribution of αλλα ALLA is in highlighting each of these
> actions in contrast to simply being "eager" to bring about the
> clearing of their names. Instead, they proceeded in action to clear
> their names after coming to repentance. This is the
> correction/replacement aspect indicated in each of the αλλα ALLA
> instances. Paul's conclusion, that they have proven themselves
> innocent in this matter, shows they have experienced godly grief,
> repented, corrected themselves, and have been forgiven.
> ---
>
> Hope it helps.
>
> Rick Brannan
> http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog
> http://www.pastoralepistles.com
>
>
> 2011/5/31 =) <p1234567891 at gmail.com>:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > Can I ask what "αλλα" in 2 Cor 7:11, Phlp 1:18, Phlp 3:8 mean? Does it
> mean
> > "furthermore (not only that but also)"?
> > [2 Cor 7:11]
> > "IDOU GAR AUTO TOUTO TO KATA QEON LUPHQHNAI UMAS POSHN KATEIRGASATO UMIN
> > SPOUDHN ALLA APOLOGIAN ALLA AGANAKTHSIN ALLA FOBON ALLA EPIPOQHSIN ALLA
> > ZHLON ALLA EKDIKHSIN PANTI SUNESTHSATE EAUTOUS AGNOUS EINAI EN TW
> PRAGMATI"
> > "ιδου γαρ αυτο τουτο το κατα θεον λυπηθηναι υμας ποσην κατειργασατο
> >
> υμινσπουδηναλλααπολογιαναλλααγανακτησιναλλαφοβοναλλαεπιποθησιναλλαζηλοναλλαεκδικησινπαντισυνεστησατεεαυτουςαγνουςειναιεντωπραγματι
> > "
> > [Phlp 1:18-19]
> > "TI GAR PLHN PANTI TROPW EITE PROFASEI EITE ALHQEIA CRISTOS KATAGGELLETAI
> > KAI EN TOUTW CAIRW ALLA KAI CARHSOMAI OIDA GAR OTI TOUTO MOI APOBHSETAI
> EIS
> > SWTHRIAN DIA THS UMWN DEHSEWS KAI EPICORHGIAS TOU PNEUMATOS IHSOU
> CRISTOU"
> > "τι γαρ πλην παντι τροπω ειτε προφασει ειτε αληθεια χριστος
> > καταγγελλεταικαιεντουτωχαιρωαλλακαιχαρησομαι
> > οιδα γαρ οτι τουτο μοι αποβησεται εις σωτηριαν δια της υμων δεησεως
> > καιεπιχορηγιαςτουπνευματοςιησουχριστου
> > "
> > [Phlp 3:7-8]
> > "ALL ATINA HN MOI KERDH TAUTA HGHMAI DIA TON CRISTON ZHMIAN ALLA MEN OUN
> KAI
> > HGOUMAI PANTA ZHMIAN EINAI DIA TO UPERECON THS CNWSEWS CRISTOU IHSOU TOU
> > KURIOU MOU DI ON TA PANTA EZHMIWQHN KAI HGOUMAI SKUBALA EINAI INA CRISTON
> > KERDHSW"
> > "αλλ ατινα ην μοι κερδη ταυτα ηγημαι δια τον χριστον ζημιαν αλλα μεν
> > ουν
> καιηγουμαιπανταζημιανειναιδιατουπερεχοντηςγνωσεωςχριστουιησουτουκυριουμουδιονταπανταεζημιωθηνκαιηγουμαισκυβαλαειναιιναχριστονκερδησω
> > "
> >
> > I am inclined to think that "αλλα" in Phlp 1:18 and Phlp 3:8 can be read
> as
> > "but", but is there a reason to consider them as not having adversative
> > meaning? Are there any other examples of such usage in the new testament
> or
> > the septuagint apart from 2 Cor 7:11? Or can even 2 Cor 7:11 be
> understood
> > to use "αλλα" for emphasis, such as "but [also] A, but [also] B, ..." or
> "but
> > [what] A, but [what] B, ..." (as some translations seem to imply)?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David
> > ---
> > B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > B-Greek mailing list
> > B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> >
>
>
>
> --
> He who translates a verse verbatim is a liar.
> But he who alters it is a villain and a heretic.
>                           -- Talmud Bavli (Qid. 49a)
>


More information about the B-Greek mailing list