[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com
Wed Dec 3 16:39:17 EST 2008
[] Jude 2 – Again [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) I’m trying to follow the exact shade of meaning of τε γὰρ (TE GAR) om Romans 1:26: αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶνhAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWNCan anyone help me?Jonathan
[] Jude 2 – Again[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Dec 3 16:58:32 EST 2008
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Jonathan,TE is a correlative that is used to create an explicit connection with something that would have been only implicit without it. In this case, TE correlates the hAI QHLEIAI AUTWN of v. 26b with the subject of the following clause, hOI ARSENES. There are two other corroborating factors that further strengthen this connection, the adverbial KAI with hOI ARSENES, and the hOMOIWS at the beginning of v. 27. The adverbial KAI signals that what it modifies correlates to some corresponding element from the preceding context. In this case, it links the subject of v. 27 back to the corresponding one of v. 26b hAI, QHLEIAI AUTWN. The hOMOIWS signals to correlate the manner/action of the preceding clause with the one that follows. This makes a total of three explicit connections between the two clauses. Paul got his point across, like killing a fly with a sledge hammer.As for GAR, Heckert* claims that it signals that the clause that follows strengthens or supports what precedes. In other words, it doe not advance the argument, but essentially fleshes out some aspect of it by adding support. In this case, vv. 26b-27 are adding supporting evidence to the idea from v. 25 that God has given the ones “who exchanged the truth of God for a lie…” over to their degrading passions. GAR introduces support for the point of v. 25.*Jacob K. Heckert. Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles. Dallas: SIL International, 1996.SteveSteven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)Scholar-in-ResidenceLogos Research Systems, Inc.http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge http://www.logos.com/ldgnthttp://www.logos.com/ntdiscoursegrammar—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan RobieSent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:39 PMTo: Subject: [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)I’m trying to follow the exact shade of meaning of τε γὰρ (TE GAR) om Romans 1:26: αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶνhAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWNCan anyone help me?Jonathan— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 3 19:22:19 EST 2008
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) [] 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 FUSINI would render”For this reason God remanded them to dishonorable passions for even their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie at mindspring.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:39:17 PMSubject: [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)I’m trying to follow the exact shade of meaning of τε γὰρ (TE GAR) om Romans 1:26:αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶνhAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWNCan anyone help me?Jonathan— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
[] 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
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) —– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Jonathan Robie” <jwrobie at mindspring.com>; “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 4. december 2008 03:22Subject: Re: [] 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 includesπάθη 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
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com
Thu Dec 4 07:07:49 EST 2008
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Iver Larsen wrote:> 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. Thanks, Steve, George, and Iver – I get it now.I was trying to make sense of τε γὰρ (TE GAR) as a unit, and couldn’t figure out what it meant. Taking each word individually, it makes a lot more sense.It’s always those little words that get me.Jonathan
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com
Thu Dec 4 07:23:47 EST 2008
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) [] New Testament Greek texts? Iver Larsen wrote:> > 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. So in this context, TE could be rendered by an English semicolon?Jonathan
[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)[] New Testament Greek texts?
GlennDean » July 23rd, 2013, 9:47 am
I have a question on the αἵ and the παρὰ in Romans 1:26. Here’s the text:διὰ τοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσινQuestion1: In my UBS Greek NT with Texual Notes, it mentions that “ἡ θῆλυς” means “woman”, from which I take that in the above verse θήλειαι has a definite article, but I don’t see one (unless somehow the αἵ is acting as the definite article (but then wouldn’t the word be αἱ)
Question 2: παρὰ with the object of the preposition in the accusative typically means “alongside of”, but I’ve also read it can be used as a comparison (as in Romans 1:25, where they compare the quantities “the creation” and “the Creator” and they translate παρὰ as “instead of”). But here in 1:26, how is it being used?
Glenn
David Lim » July 23rd, 2013, 11:34 pm
GlennDean wrote:I have a question on the αἵ and the παρὰ in Romans 1:26. Here’s the text:διὰ τοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν
Hmm your text has a strange difficult textual variant, which stumped me until I looked at other variants. 
Here is the usual text:
[Rom 1:25-26] οιτινες μετηλλαξαν την αληθειαν του θεου εν τω ψευδει και εσεβασθησαν και ελατρευσαν τη κτισει παρα τον κτισαντα ος εστιν ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν
GlennDean wrote:Question 2: παρὰ with the object of the preposition in the accusative typically means “alongside of”, but I’ve also read it can be used as a comparison (as in Romans 1:25, where they compare the quantities “the creation” and “the Creator” and they translate παρὰ as “instead of”). But here in 1:26, how is it being used?
I view both usages as essentially the same, denoting a contrasting comparison; “served the creation in contrast to the one who created” and “exchanged the natural use for that which is in contrast to nature”.
GlennDean wrote:You wouldn’t know if the παρὰ φύσιν is an idiom (i.e meaning “unnatural”), or is there a logical way to translate εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν
“την παρα φυσιν” in this context implies “την παρα φυσιν χρησιν”, which can be taken literally as above, so I don’t consider it an idiom.
GlennDean wrote:Question 2: παρὰ with the object of the preposition in the accusative typically means “alongside of”, but I’ve also read it can be used as a comparison (as in Romans 1:25, where they compare the quantities “the creation” and “the Creator” and they translate παρὰ as “instead of”). But here in 1:26, how is it being used?
Prepositions have so many specialized senses that it’s helpful to look in a lexicon to get a sense of its full range. According to BDAG, sense 6, παρά can mean “against” or “contrary”. (This looks like an extension of sense 3 “more than” or “beyond” to me).