A comment from Justin on a recent αλλα post noted:

I ran into a funny αλλα recently.  In 1 Peter 3.16 there is a use that seems to develop the previous verse thought.  If it were to contradict the previous thought it would be a really strange translation.  Check it out and let me know what you think.

Here's the response I emailed back to him:

There's a lot going on in 1Pe 3.13-16 with both δε and αλλα.

One of my contentions/thoughts about αλλα is that yes, it is a marker of contrast, but contrast has a range -- is isn't simply on or off; it is more like a dial than a switch. The range has to do with contextual cues. When the context of αλλα involves a negative then a positive (e.g., "not [that], but [this]") the contrast is high. Contrast is similarly high with positive-negative  context (e.g., "[that], but not [this]").

There are, however, a small portion of αλλα that seemingly involve no negative (at least directly). The two αλλα in 1Pe 3.13-16 fit in this group. So I'd say they're still contrasting, it is just not as blatant because the author isn't using contextual cues (positives/negatives) to amp up the contrast. In vv 15-16, the contrast is much more subtle, having to do with the way the defense is made. A more amped-up way of saying it would be, "Be prepared to make a solid defense, but don't bite the guy's head off". The contrast is in the way the defense is made, it isn't made ... er ... defensively, it is made positively and respectfully but strongly. Peter didn't use the amped-up version, and he did that on purpose because that was what he needed to do to make his point. The spotlight is still on the portion following αλλα (make the defense with gentleness and respect); that is the important bit of the comparison/contrast.

At least, that's what I think right now. I hope to look into each of the non-negative instances (there are over 90 of them) a bit further over the next months.

I've got a lot of work to do before finishing this paper ...

The Symbol of Chalcedon is one of the more important historical and theological documents of the church. If you've never heard of it, you should really read more about it.

But this post isn't about the theological and historical importance of the Symbol of Chalcedon (which dates back to Oct 22, 451 AD/CE). It's about the difference between αλλα and δε.

Creeds, confessions, and other statements of faith, by their very nature, attempt to be precise with their language. Words and phrasing are chosen to convey a particular point in language as unambiguous as possible. So even though the Symbol of Chalcedon dates around 400 years after the New Testament was written, the Greek version is still helpful to us in considering use of conjunctions. The text below conforms to Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (amazon.com), pp. 487-488 as much as possible. I took the Greek from the CCEL version of Schaff's Creeds of Christendom and fixed some typos and rearranged a few words to (upon a quick visual comparison) match the Greek presented in Drobner. The English is that of Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Creeds & Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, (amazon.com) vol 1 p. 181; though note I've rearranged some lines so that the English content is in the order of the Greek content.

I've made statements involving δε blue, and the one statement involving αλλα red. Note the differences between them.

Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν	So, following the saintly fathers,
ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν	the confession of one and the same Son,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν	our Lord Jesus Christ
συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν,	we all with one voice teach
τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι	the same perfect in divinity
καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι,	and perfect in humanity
θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς	the same truly God and truly man
τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος,	of a rational soul and a body;
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα,	consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity,
καὶ ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα,	and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity
κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας·	like us in all respects except for sin;
πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα,	begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity
ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν	and in the last days
τὸν αὐτὸν δἰ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν	the same for us and for our salvation
ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα,	from Mary, the Virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity;
ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, υἱόν, κύριον, μονογενῆ,	one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged
ἐν δύο φύσεσιν,	in two natures
ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιφέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον·	which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation;
οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν,	at no point was the difference taken away through the union,
σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως	but rather the property of both natures is preserved
καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπὸστασιν συντρεχούσης,	and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being;
οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρούμενον,	he is not parted or divided into two persons,
ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ,	but is one and the same only-begotten Son,
θεὸν, λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν·	God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ,
καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ	just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him,
καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσεν	and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us,
καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον.	and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

So, what are the differences, at least in the above context, between αλλα and δε? Well, working on the general assumption (via Heckert (amazon.com)) that δε is a marker of development and αλλα is a marker of contrast, we can note the following:

The first instance of δε: First, this is a μεν .. δε statement, which clues us in even more that these three lines are related in some way. Second, note the chronology: Christ was begotten "before the ages from the Father" and "in the last days for us and our salvation". The creed is speaking to the begotten-ness of Christ's divine nature and human nature. Both go together; there is development and comparison happening here. The μεν .. δε statement is a spectrum speaking as to the whole of the begotten-ness of the natures of Christ. There's no way this could be comparably (and as unambiguously) written using αλλα instead of δε.

The second instance of δε: The context of this instance is confirmatory; both natures of Christ are distinctly preserved and not co-mingled. The gathering of the natures in one person did not cause them to unite into one nature; "the property of both natures is preserved". The two distinct natures are present in one single person as the following και (which is generally 'additive' according to Heckert (amazon.com)) tells us. The δε statement is used to confirm that both natures remain separate; it is the developmental hinge in moving from two separate natures (lines previous to δε) into the και statement that these two natures are contained in one "subsistent being".

The instance of αλλα: This is a somewhat standard "not this, but that" instance of αλλα. The vast majority of New Testament and Apostolic Fathers instances of αλλα are of this kind. But the immediate context is important. The discussion of two natures precedes and has just developed into two natures/one person. The αλλα statement now unambiguously states that this is not two persons, but is one person. This is not development, this is contrasting the negated option with the positive option (in this case a direct false/true comparison) to make the αλλα phrase prominent. Considering the history of the doctrine of the nature(s) and person(s) of Christ until this point, which was all over the board (two natures/two persons, one nature/two persons, one nature/one person, etc.) this statement is clear, forceful and unambiguous. Not one nature, but two. Not two persons, but one. The following summary statement (last four lines of the symbol) are equally strong, noting that two natures/one person is grounded in the prophets (Hebrew Bible), was taught by Jesus (New Testament) and handed down this way from the fathers (tradition).

Now, it could be argued that there isn't much difference between the second δε and the αλλα. It is true, their immediate functions in these contexts are similar. At this point, I'd argue that the δε statement, especially with the και following, is largely developmental. It is the shift from speaking of natures to speaking of persons. The αλλα statement doesn't do that; it is more focused on making clear that Christ is one person, not two, even though he has two natures, not one.

Aren't conjunctions fun? Now, if αλλα and δε are important in contexts like the Symbol of Chalcedon; how important is is to have a general understanding of the discourse function of conjunctions when reading the Greek New Testament?

If you're a child of the 80's like I am, you have all sorts of useless lyrics from TV theme songs stuck in your head. Today, I'm thinking of that 80's TV juggernaut "The Facts of Life" (itself a spinoff from "Diff'rent Strokes"):

You take the good,
You take the bad,
You take them both
and there you have
the Facts of Life ...

That's what I think of when I think of Louw-Nida's description of αλλα, spread across at least five articles. Here's the first unedited draft of the paragraph that reviews LN for my αλλα paper:

Louw-Nida provide a rather conventional view of αλλα, classing it in domains 89 (“Relations”, articles 96 and 125) and 91 (“Discourse Markers”, articles 2 and 11). Thus Louw-Nida break αλλα into four primary senses, providing glosses of “but” (89.125), “and” (89.96), “yet” (91.2) and “certainly” (91.11). The primary entry is 89.125, which describes αλλα as a “marker of emphatic contrast”. The article at 89.96 seems to provide a place to describe the unique instance of 2Co 7.11. The other senses, categorized as discourse markers, cover the use of αλλα in transitions (91.2, somewhat like BDAG’s second and third senses) and as a “marker of contrastive emphasis” (91.11). How “contrastive emphasis” differs from “more emphatic contrast” is not specified. While some heed is paid to the function of αλλα in discourse contexts, this seems more in use of categorization (as “Relations” and “Discourse Markers”) and in use of the term “marker” to describe αλλα.

I didn't even discuss 89.136, which (among other things) has notes on μεν .. αλλα (though I probably should, but the article is just a citation of Ro 14.20 and nothing more, so I'll likely relegate it to a footnote). But the thing that I noticed was how very similar 89.125 and 91.11 are: "contrastive emphasis" vs. "more emphatic contrast"? The difference seems primarily that one (89.125) works at the clause/phrase level (a 'relation'), while the other (91.11) works at a higher discourse level (as a 'discourse marker'). But they do the same things in the same ways. So there is good and bad in here: Good in noting different levels (phrase/clause and paragraph/discourse) on which αλλα functions; bad because it presents this as if these are different senses of αλλα when they aren't.

As I review lexical and grammatical descriptions of αλλα, two things become clear:

First, nobody knows what the heck to do with 2Co 7.11-12. It almost always ends up in a special sense all by itself (though 1Co 6.11 sometimes is included). All sources seem to note a "continuative" sense here, but then can only muster the one example. Seems weird that αλλα would be doing something fundamentally different here than elsewhere.

Second, descriptive terms like "adversative", "contrast" and "emphasis" are common, but these have more to say about the contexts in which αλλα is used and less to say about αλλα itself. And that's fine—I don't know that there is much we really can do to formally define αλλα; but if that's the case we shouldn't pretend that we are defining it by giving seemingly authoritative short glosses that don't really help the average user of lexicons and grammars (though I wonder how often the average user would actually look up and then skim and then actually read or work through an article on a conjunction). This said, we shouldn't describe αλλα as an "adversative particle" or provide morphology like "conjunction, adversative" or "conjunction, contrastive". We should more appropriately say that it occurs in adversative or contrastive contexts. (Hint: maybe when examining 2Co 7.11-12, instead of simply classing it as "continuative" because there is a chain of 6 αλλα in a row, we should look and see if there is any contrast that αλλα could be intensifying here?)

As I think through all of this, I bounce ideas off of my friend and colleague Steve. One thing he mentioned the other day has stuck in my mind (in a good way). He said that it is helpful in situations like these to think of contrast like a dial. Contrast is in the context (particularly with αλλα, where it usually stands between negative and non-negative things); use of particular grammatical phenomena, such as conjunctions, verb tense, etc., can heighten or lessen the degree of contrast in a given context. In other words, thinking specifically about αλλα, the contrast (or "emphasis" or an adversative nature) isn't put into the context by the simple use of αλλα; the use of αλλα can sharpen the degree of contrast in that particular context.

I s'pose that's my beef with the grammatical and lexical descriptions, then. When we describe αλλα as "adversative" or "contrastive" or what-have-you, we seem to be saying that these qualities are in the context simply due to the presence of αλλα, and if it was taken out these qualities would be gone. But the reverse is actually true: αλλα is being used because that contextual quality already exists; the author is using αλλα for specific purposes to tweak the context so that it communicates what he desires.

My friend and colleague Steve keeps on sending me juicy bits of αλλα-riffic goodness as fodder for the paper I'm working on. He's sent me items from the NA27 apparatus where variants include αλλα in some way (which I haven't blogged on yet, though I might sometime). Today he sent me this tidbit from Gospel of Thomas. The source is the Critical Edition of Q (amazon.com), (RBL Review) in the Hermeneia Commentary series.

This is interesting because there are (at least) two sources for this logion: Nag Hammadi II 2 (though in Hermeneia Q, this is a translation/retroversion of the Coptic) and P.Oxy 654. The difference I'm interested in is found in G.Thom. 3.3 (yes, there are several other differences). This is interesting to me because I would class it as a "non-negative" instance; and that is what my paper is supposed to be on. The surrounding content is roughly the same, but one source uses αλλα and the other uses και. There is a difference in the two; it shows what swapping a simple conjunction (here αλλα and και) can do to our understanding of a text.

First, from Nag Hammadi:

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (Greek Translation from Coptic of Nag Hammadi II 2)
(1) Λέγει Ἰησοῦς·
   ἐὰν οἱ ἡγούμενοι ὑμᾶς εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν·
      ἰδοὺ ἡ βασιλεία ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐστιν,
         φθήσεται ὑμᾶς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
   (2) ἐὰν (δʼ) εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν·
      ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐστίν,
         φθήσονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἰχθύες.
   (3) ἀλλὰ ἡ βασιλεία ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν καὶ ἐκτὸς ὑμῶν.

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (Nag Hammadi II 2)
(1) Jesus says:
   If those who lead you say to you:
      Look, the kingdom is in the sky,
         then the birds of the sky will precede you.
   (2) If they say to you:
      It is in the sea,
         then the fish will precede you.
   (3) Rather, the kingdom is within you, and outside of you.

Now, P.Oxy 654:

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (P. Oxy. 654)
(1) λέγει Ἰ[η(σοῦ)ς·
   ἐὰν] οἱ ἕλκοντες <ὑ>μᾶς [εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν·
      ἰδοὺ] ἡ βασιλεία ἐν οὐρα[νῷ,
         ὑμᾶς φθήσεται] τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρ[ανοῦ·
   (2) ἐὰν δʼ εἴπωσιν
      ὅ[τι ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἐστ[ιν,
         εἰσελεύσονται] οἱ ἰχθύες τῆς θαλά[σσης προφθάσαν]τες ὑμᾶς·
   (3) καὶ ἡ βασ[ιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ] ἐντὸς ὑμῶν [ἐσ]τι [κἀκτός.]

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (P. Oxy. 654)
(1) Jesus says:
   [If] those who entice <you> [say to you:
      Look,] the kingdom is in the sky,
         [there will precede you] the birds of the sky.
   (2) [But if they say]:
      It is under the earth,
         [there will enter it] the fish of the sea [ahead of] you.
   (3) And the kingdom [of God] is within you, [and outside.]

What's the difference? Well, the retroversion/translation of Coptic from Nag Hammadi (with αλλα) seems to be a bit cleaner with more symmetry (note unity/parallel structure in vv. 1-2 and absence of same in P.Oxy 654). In Nag Hammadi, the αλλα clause essentially replaces the statements beforehand. The kingdom isn't localized to the sky, it isn't localized to the sea; instead it is everywhere. It's not like the fish and birds are closer to it than you, or that they'll get there before you. The "ones who lead you" are wrong; the kingdom isn't above the earth or below the earth, it is within you and outside of you.

In the Oxyrhynchus version, however, the και doesn't mean that the previous material is corrected/replaced; instead it is just more information on the stack. The kingdom is everywhere; not just in the sky, not just 'under the earth'; it's everywhere. So the "ones who entice you" are somewhat correct, it is true that the kingdom is above the earth and under the earth; but it isn't limited to those locales. Know that the kingdom is both within you and outside of you.

Update (2008-04-25): Wieland Willker (see his Textcritical commentary, you'll find it useful) emailed the following because comments weren't working for him for some reason:

Sometimes KAI functions simply as a punctuation mark.
Perhaps this is the case here:

It is under the earth,
[there will enter it] the fish of the sea [ahead of] you.
PERIOD.
The kingdom [of God] is within you, [and outside.]

Just a thought ...

He's given us a good reminder: when translating, the Greek doesn't always have to have a word or words in the target that represent it, it could be represented by punctuation. And sometimes, (e.g. asyndeton, ellipsis) the target language needs to supply words to fully convey the original. Anyway, here was my response.

Hi Wieland.

Thanks for the note. I understand what you're saying. I'd say that και has a basic function (an additive function seen in both its conjunctive and adverbial forms), and that there is a range or spectrum for that functionality. This is reflected in translation; it can be translated as a simple full-stop in several circumstances. But the presence of και implies some sort of relationship with the clause that precedes, whether translated or not.

I suppose that's my primary point -- that the relationship between clauses is different when one uses και as compared to when one uses αλλα. Obvious, yes, but I think some folks get so focused on putting English to Greek that they forget to stop and understand what's going on in the Greek, particularly with function words like conjunctions and particles. Please note I'm *not* saying you're doing that, just wanted explain some underlying motives/biases I have.

Thanks again for the comment -- I appreciate your work!

Here's some fun stuff from J.D. Denniston's Greek Particles (amazon.com). These are from the introduction so they are necessarily generic.

The different methods of connexion.These are, broadly speaking, four: (a) Additional, (b) Adversative, (c) Confimratory, (d) Inferential. But the divisions are everywhere fluid. (Denniston, Intro, xlvii)

...

(b) Adversatives are of two kinds: eliminative adversatives, used often where on of two contrasted members is negative, the true being substituted for the false (par excellence μεν ουν and normally αλλα), and balancing adversatives, where two truths of divergent tendency are presented (δε, μην, μεντοι, etc.) (Denniston, Intro, xlix, bold mine)

Note that "eliminative" and "balancing" are Denniston's way of saying "strong" and "weak" adversatives, respectively. Then, the money quote (for my purposes):

(7) Abnormalities of reference in connexion. The connexion established is, normally, of course, between consecutive units of speech: words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. There are, however, certain exceptions. In dialogue, owing to the quickness of thrust and parry, or the self-absorption of one of the participants, a speaker sometimes links the opening of his speech to his own preceding words, not to the intervening words of the other person. ... In S.El.1035 (p. 443) αλλʼ ουν looks back to 1017-26: or perhaps it would be truer to say that its point d'appui is the general situation, the whole attitude of Chrysothemis, rather than any particular set of words, an explanation which applies also to E.Alc.713 (και μην, p. 354), and IT 637 (μεντοι, p. 405). (Denniston, Intro, l, bold mine)

The page references are references to further discussion within Denniston. So, p. 443 gives us the context of the citation that Denniston mentions:

1035 ('Well, since you refuse to help me (1017-26), do at least realize what that refusal means'). (Denniston, 443)

So Denniston supports the idea that αλλα can provide a link between discontinuous text; or that the adversative/contrast/whatever you want to call it can be a response to a general idea floating in the ether (the "general situation", as Denniston calls it). Both of which support contentions I previously posted on in The αλλα Funnel.

Reading grammars for more information on αλλα, I came across this paragraph from Funk's Hellenistic Grammar, §611 (Chapter 41, "Function Words/Negatives":

Negatives, conjunctions, sentence connectors, and subordinators may be termed function words (Fries: 87-109) or structure signaling words (Roberts, 1958: 151f., 224ff.). The point of these labels is that such words are nearly lexically empty, i.e. they have little or no dictionary meaning of their own. However, they are grammatically significant in indicating the structure of sentences and parts of sentences (cf. §§001ff.). Some of them are so common as to require acquaintance at the grossest level of the language. This simply means that one must learn how they function early in the process. One may guess at the meaning of lexically full words, or leave them blank when reading (cf. §003), but one must know the grammatical "meaning" of function words to be able to proceed at all. It is the case, of course, that some function words are  more pervasive and significant than others. (Funk 475, bold added)

I think this statement from Funk gets at the problem that most people have when approaching conjunctions. They approach them as "lexically full" words. Words that have a reliable and relatively consistent translation.

But they don't. As Funk writes, they're "lexically empty". They have oodles of grammatical meaning and tons of information to shed on how the text is read, but they have no reliable functional equivalent. If our approach to conjunctions is like:

• δε means "but"
• και means "and" (except for when it means "also")
• ουν means "therefore"
• γαρ means "for"
• αλλα means "but" (but it's a stronger 'but' than δε, of course)
• etc., etc.

Then it's no big surprise that we miss so much when we attempt to stitch our glossed-up English word-swapping into something coherent that truly represents the Greek we're supposedly translating (but more realistically, we're decoding). I say this knowing I'm as guilty (or more guilty) of it as the next person; I'm not innocent here.

What's the way out of the slough of despond? Buck up, Pilgrim, because Funk hints at it in this very paragraph: "This simply means that one must learn how [function words] function early in the process."

So the answer is, "early in the process", to pay attention to how these words work; not so that you know what to put in the blank on next week's vocab/translation test, or so you know what to slide in when you do on-the-fly translation in your next reading class, or so that you know which words to ignore when you're choosing the 'important' words from next week's sermon text, but so that you can understand what the author/writer is communicating. Because that is the goal. Right?

(side note: That last "but" ... it would be an αλλα if that was Greek, not a δε.)

I've recently finished a first-pass examination of every instance of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers. While I report numbers here, the big thing to notice are trends; the specific numbers may change as I re-evaluate things between now and November.

There are no surprises in the 352 instances evaluated.

First, αλλα usually occurs with a negated clause or phrase.

• The negator μη (or something very much like it, such as μηδε) is used 82 times.
• The negator ου and its kin are used 188 times (though note some of these are ου μη).

When I say μη or ου, I'm also including things like μη μονον and ουκ μονον and even ουδεν, μηδεν, μηκετι, ουκετι and stuff like that. Maybe not completely and technically accurate, but I have the details down in a spreadsheet I can use later to disambiguate if need be.

There are 76 'clearly' positive (so, no negator on either side of αλλα); there are six that I've found confusing enough to pass on for now. What could be confusing? Sometimes negators are involved, though it is difficult to determine if the entire context is negative, or if something else is going on. These usually involve use of μηδεν.

Recall, my submitted abstract involved examining the "positive" instances, so these instances will be followed up and re-examined.

As mentioned above, the negator occurs both before and after αλλα.

• Of the 82 instances of the negator μη, there is only one that has the negator after αλλα, though there are four instances (e.g. Ign Tral. 5.1) that have negators on both sides of αλλα.
• Of the 188 instances of ου and its kin, 21 instances occur after αλλα (αλλʼ ουκ is a relatively common formation), and seven instances that have negators on both sides of αλλα.

What have I found most interesting? Well, it has to be how the Shepherd of Hermas uses αλλα without negation. Of course, this is the largest item in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, but 39 of the 76 'positive' instances are found in the Shepherd. There are some pretty cool things going on in those 39 instances that have no analogue in the New Testament; I'm guessing that I'll end up working through a few of them for the paper as examples of how αλλα functions and what that means for evaluating αλλα from the perspective of discourse analysis.

What's my next step? I have similar data tables for the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. I believe my next step will be to re-evaluate the positive instances in the NT (90 clearly positive instances out of 638; but I have 35 more complex/confusing instances to re-evaluate and classify). After this, I'll be able to really start writing. I've already got a high-level outline in my head, it'll be interesting to see how it fleshes out.

When looking into the use of αλλα, one needs to (at least to some degree) consider the difference between αλλα and δε. Grammarians have hopelessly associated the two together. The conjunction δε is usually described as having "adversative" qualities, though it can also be "continuative" or even "transitional". The primary description of αλλα seems to be that it, as an adversative, is "stronger than δε" (though sometimes it is "transitional" too, they say). So αλλα is the "strong adversative" while δε is the "weak adversative". Or something like that.

And that description is somewhat helpful, but it leaves a lot to be desired. All these different functions/descriptions are based, it seems, on context of usage. When looking at the problem from a discourse level, however, these contextual descriptions don't really help, particularly when the basic recommendation for translation is to just use the English "but" for both cases. That may be accurate translation, but it doesn't really help us understand what is going on in the Greek and what function these two conjunctions have.

What are "strong" and "weak" adversatives? It seems the strong adversative is normally a corrective (and normally a negative particle or adverb is involved); the weak is normally a development of argument of some sort. Here's Hermas, Visions 3.1.9, in Holmes' 2nd edition, first in Greek then in English. This excerpt has two instances of αλλα; we're only interested in the second one for purposes of this blog post. <CP ...> marks the "counterpoint", typically the first phrase/clause that αλλα responds to; <P ... > marks the "point", typically the salient bit of the whole comparison.

(9) <CP θέλοντος οὖν μου καθίσαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη οὐκ εἴασέν με,> ἀλλʼ <P ἐννεύει μοι τῇ χειρὶ ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἀριστερὰ μέρη καθίσω>.
διαλογιζομένου μου οὖν καὶ λυπουμένου
   ὅτι οὐκ εἴασέν με εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη καθίσαι, λέγει μοι·
      Λυπῇ, Ἑρμᾶ;
         ὁ εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τόπος ἄλλων ἐστίν,
            τῶν ἤδη εὐαρεστηκότων τῷ θεῷ
            καὶ παθόντων εἵνεκα τοῦ ὀνόματος·
         <CP σοὶ> δὲ <CP πολλὰ λείπει ἵνα μετʼ αὐτῶν καθίσῃς>·
         ἀλλʼ <P ὡς ἐμμένεις τῇ ἁπλότητί σου,
            μεῖνον,
            καὶ καθιῇ μετʼ αὐτῶν,>
               καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν ἐργάσωνται τὰ ἐκείνων ἔργα
                  καὶ ὑπενέγκωσιν ἃ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ὑπήνεγκαν.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (346). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

(9) <CP Then when I wanted to sit down on the right side, she would not let me,> but <P indicated to me with her hand that I should sit on the left side>.
Then as I thought about this and was sad
   because she would not permit me
      to sit on the right side,
   she said to me,
      “Are you sad, Hermas?
         The place on the right side is for others,
            who have already pleased God
            and have suffered for the sake of the Name.
         But [δε] <CP you fall far short of sitting with them.>
         But [αλλα]
            <P persevere in your sincerity,
               as you are now doing,
               and you will sit with them,>
                  as will all who do what they have done
                  and endure what they have endured.”

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (347). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Can you get the sense of the difference between δε and αλλα? Heckert summarizes δε as a "marker of development". In this case, δε is a further development of the preceding statement describing the meaning of the right side. The right side is for others; Hermas has fallen short of the status the others have achieved. The status of the right side and reason for Hermas' exclusion is more clear with the δε statement. This instance of δε would probably normally be classed as a "continuative" or "copulative"; in this instance it represents a further development of the state of those on the right side. In short, those on the right have "already pleased God", Hermas hasn't done this yet, therefore he is not worthy.

After explaining the right side, and why Hermas can't sit there, the good lady offers him some hope. This is the counterpoint, the foil the αλλα statement ends up responding to. Αλλα sits in the middle. Heckert calls αλλα a "marker of contrast". Here, the contrast is between Hermas' falling short of those on the right side, and what Hermas can do to achieve right-side worthiness. In the CP, Hermas can't sit with those on the right side as he is unworthy of them. But in the P, the good lady offers Hermas hope! He can sit with them if he keeps up what he has started.

This gets to what has been cookin' in my thinking concerning the use of αλλα, from the discourse level. I've looked at a lot of instances of αλλα (approaching 1000!) in both the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. When αλλα is used, as Heckert maintains, there is contrast involved. But I also think that when αλλα is used, it is the statement that happens after the αλλα that is being made prominent. That is, in this case, the important bit isn't that Hermas can't sit on the right side. The important bit is that, if he does the right stuff, Hermas will be able to sit on the right side among the honored of God, those who have suffered for the sake of the Name.

In other words, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that αλλα does involve contrast, as Heckert maintains. With αλλα, there always seems to be a pair of things, whether the comparison/contrast is in the same phrase, in the same clause, in the same sentence, in the same paragraph, or whether the αλλα appears to be contrasting previous content at the discourse level or even contrasting an underlying idea floating in the contextual ether. The αλλα makes the contrast explicit and the content following the αλλα is the more salient bit. It is the reason for the contrast, it is the important piece of the puzzle that keeps the discourse going.

At least, that's where I'm at now. These things may change.

The Epistle to the Romans uses μη γενοιτο (usually translated, "May it never be!" or "By no means!") five times. In four of those instances, it stands between a counterpoint and point that has αλλα as hinge (Ro 3.31; 7.7, 13; 11.11; the other instance is Ro 6.15). [On Counterpoints and Points, see this article on the Logos blog and also see this conference paper on negation by Dr. Steve Runge -- RB] Here's a sample, the <<..>> denote the CounterPoint (CP) and Point (P):

Ro 3.31:

<<CP νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως;>> μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ <<νόμον ἱστάνομεν.>> (NA27)

<<CP Do we then overthrow the law by faith?>> By no means! On the contrary, <<P we uphold the law.>> (ESV)

So, Paul answers his own rhetorical question with the obvious answer (μη γενοιτο!), then uses αλλα to fill out the comparison/contrast.

In examining instances of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers, I noticed one instance of the same thing going on in the Epistle of Barnabas:

Ep.Barn 6.3:

εἶτα τί λέγει; Καὶ ὃς ἐλπίσει ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. <<CP ἐπὶ λίθον οὖν ἡμῶν ἡ ἐλπίς;>> μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλʼ <<P ἐπεὶ ἐν ἰσχύϊ τέθεικεν τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος.>> λέγει γάρ· Καὶ ἔθηκέν με ὡς στερεὰν πέτραν. (Holmes 2nd Ed)

Then what does he say? “And whoever sets his hope on him will live forever.” <<CP Does our hope, then, rest on a rock?>> By no means! But <<P he says this because the Lord has established his flesh in strength.>> For he says: “And he established me like a solid rock.” (Holmes 2nd Ed)

The comparison/contrast is less straightforward in Ep.Barn., but you get the contrast, particularly when you look at the end of v. 2, " ... 'Behold, I will set into the foundations of Zion a precious stone, especially chosen, a cornerstone, highly valued.'" That rolls right into v. 3; all of it referring to Is 28.16. The author of Ep.Barn. is saying that this passage in Isaiah doesn't mean that a rock will save us, he points to a different passage of Isaiah (Is 50.7) to explain the rock reference; vv. 4-5 have three more citations doing the same thing. All in accordance with the allegorizing style of the letter. The bottom line is that it isn't a rock that saves us (that's ridiculous!), it is the Lord that saves us.

Anyway, I found it interesting that the Epistle of Barnabas uses, at least in this one instance, rhetoric similar to the Epistle to the Romans. No, I'm not saying that Paul wrote Barnabas (or that Barnabas, influenced by Paul, wrote Barnabas). I'm just noting a little gem I found while sifting through mounds of data.

Though it is traditionally called "Second Clement", implying that the same author is responsible for both First and Second Clement, scholarship has for centuries (as I recall) considered them to come from different sources. Lightfoot, in his one-volume edition from the late 19th century, simply calls it "An Ancient Homily" instead of "Second Clement".

As I've been examining instances of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers, I ran across a peculiar thing.

In First Clement (and in NT, for that matter), when the phrase "not only ... but (also) ... " is used, the phrasing is "ου μονον .. αλλα και" with uniformity (though cf. 2Ti 2.20, Εν μεγαλη δε οικια ουκ εστιν μονον .. αλλα και ..).

In Second Clement, however, the phrasing of "not only ... but (also)" is uniformly "μη μονον .. αλλα και" (or some variant of μη μονον, like 2Cl 9.10, "μη απο στοματος μονον αλλα και .. " or even 2Cl 13.1, "και μη .. μηδε θελομεν μονον .. αλλα και ..").

I'm not one to say that an author always has to use the same turn of phrase in the same way. But the disparity between First and Second Clement in this sort of phrasing seems suspicious.

Update (2008-03-19): Note that μη μονον is used elsewhere in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers: IgnMag 4.1; IgnRom 3.2 (2x); MPoly 1.2 (2x); EpDiog 2.1.

[NB: This post is a bit of a rant, and doesn't really come to an end or conclusion. It's just me thinking by writing, which is one of the most profitable ways I know to work my thoughts out. So, read on. But don't think I'm making conclusions or judgements; my thoughts could completely change. In other words, this is fluid, not static. RWB]

Here are some things about αλλα that I've noticed as I've worked through the 638 NT instances (a few times).

When considering an instance of αλλα, know that most of the time (approx. 85% of the time in the NT), a relationship with a negator of some sort is involved.

Instead of just making the oh-to-common mental note associating αλλα with the English gloss "but" and moving on, look around for the negative to determine what two things are in relationship with each other via αλλα.

Here's what I'm presently calling the "αλλα Funnel":

1: Look for a negator. This will be some form of ου or μη, most likely; or some other word like ουδεις, μηδεις, ουκετι, μηκετι, etc.) Again, around 85% of NT instances of αλλα involve a negator. You need to find it. Note the very small proportion of items that have negators on both sides of the αλλα (3 instances; e.g. 1Co 4.4).

2: First, look up (to the left). Over 75% of αλλα in NT have the negator preceding.

3: Still looking? Okay, look down (to the right). About 10% of αλλα in the NT have a negator following. In this case, the negator is usually ου or ουκ, and it usually follows the αλλα directly.

4: Still looking? Well, there are 15% or so instances of αλλα in the NT that do not seem to involve a negator. This is the minority case, so look again (up and down) to be sure.

5: Still looking? Then stop looking and assume there is no negator. At this point, you need to isolate the two items in relationship with each other through the αλλα. This is usually brain-dead easy; sometimes, though, it is a pain (Gal 4.8-9? 1Co 15.35?). Note that there are some instances where αλλα doesn't seem to be responding to an explicit statement. My working hypothesis at present is that αλλα must be a response (contrast, correction, clarification, expansion, what-have-you) to something; and when nothing is explicit the response must be to something implicit in the context. Examine the context and try to figure it out if the connection isn't readily apparent.

Now you're at the bottom of the funnel. The easy part is done, the hard work begins.

αλλα is typically described as a "strong adversative" and, to define "strong", most grammars say it is "stronger than δε". That isn't too helpful. That's like saying "bold" is stronger than "confident". So read the whole context of the statement (or statements) in question that uses αλλα as a hinge to compare. Read the larger context. What is happening with the two phrases/clauses that αλλα stands between? What is the point of the comparison of those two items? Is it replacement/correction? Is it enhancement or expansion? Don't cop out and just say it means "but"; get your mind out of the word-level jumble and think about the relationship between the phrases/clauses and what the point of the author could be in placing these items in juxtaposition with each other, using αλλα as a guide to that author's intent. He's left clues with αλλα, use (or non-use) of negators, and the items he's comparing.

On Lexicons and αλλα

This could actually be a whole additional post, but it won't be. In short, I've read most lexicon definitions of αλλα, and they are all uniformly unhelpful. They seem to jump from lexicography to syntax quickly, sorting "senses" by differing syntactic contexts that αλλα appears in. Cataloguing of instances by syntactic context does not make a helpful lexicon article.

I'm largely convinced that one of the reasons that αλλα is typically classed as an "adversative" is simply because in most of its instances it stands between two clauses/phrases, one negative and one non-negative. In this case, it is the clauses/phrases that are adversary, not αλλα. Then, if no negator is present, αλλα is said to be, perhaps, correlative or contrastive or continuative something like that.

[[This brings up a side rant: Morphologies of the Greek New Testament that provide senses/classifications to conjunctions (e.g. GRAMCORD, "conjunction, coordinating, adversative") are also relatively unhelpful if you're really interested in what the conjunction is up to. Why do I say this? Get yourself a few different morphologies that do this, and you'll see that everyone has different ideas in this area. Compare GRAMCORD to Friberg's morphology. You'll see that many do seem to be the same on first glance, but that's because most morphologies classify most instances of αλλα the same exact way. GRAMCORD has 97.6% of αλλα classified as "conjunction, coordinating, adversative"; Friberg has more variation with 86.5% as "conjunction, superordinating (hyperordinating)". (Full disclosure: The Logos Morphology has even more variation, but it also has more categories) Am I saying they should all be consistent? No; I don't subscribe to a 'concordant' method of morphological classification. I'm just saying there is a lot of variation so it brings into question the classification schemes themselves.]]

So what does αλλα do? What does it indicate? I'm still working on that.

My hope is to have some flash of insight and arrive at a grand unification theory. But I think a large part of the problem is that traditional methodology seems bound to try to answer the question, "how do I translate it?" (hence all sorts of categories and memorization of short glosses) when, in order to actually understand what the author is communicating, we really should be asking the question, "what does it mean?" or, perhaps, "how does it all go together?".

In the context of examining a discourse to better understand "what does it mean?", we need to examine how different parts of the discourse relate to each other. One way that discourse parts relate to each other is though use of conjunctions. So when the author/writer uses αλλα with two items in juxtaposition to each other, what is that author communicating? Are there semantic or grammatical connections between the two juxtaposed items and the rest of the discourse?

My guess is that that, chances are, αλλα means the same thing no matter what context it appears in. Instead, it's how the juxtaposed items relate to each other through αλλα that variation in understanding arises.

Update (2008-03-16): Responding to a few of the comments, I can only emphasize the word 'rant' in regards to αλλα and morphologies and lexicography/lexicons (not to mention grammars). If you compare the labelling of senses/types of αλλα across morphologies, you'll soon find that opinions differ, particularly as you get outside of the easy-to-understand instances (usually in some sort of negative context) and into the 'long tail' of instances. And that's fine; my rant is more my response to the difficulty of the problem than complete dissatisfaction with existing lexicons/morphologies. I guess my issue with the αλλα article in BDAG (and elsewhere) is that by their structure and breakdown they seem more geared toward telling me what to think about specific instances of αλλα than in sewing all that discussion up at the end and giving some thoughts on αλλα in general. It's more of a catalogue of instances than a discussion of the word.

To respond specifically to Mike about BDAG: I suppose one thing I'd like to see in BDAG is after the separation of discussion of αλλα in particular contexts, some discussion of how even in these differing contexts αλλα is functioning similarly. I realize the first sentence of the definition speaks of this somewhat, but something tying the whole thing in general would be nice.

To respond to Ken about adversative as a label: I don't have such a list, and I don't really have a problem with 'adversative' as a word to describe how αλλα functions. I do think that αλλα can be 'adversative' when no negator is present in either clause/phrase of the structure in question. What gives me pause would be to say of any instance of αλλα that it is an 'adversative αλλα'. No, it's αλλα. The context may be adversative, and αλλα is likely the hinge joining two adversarial or contradictory things; but that doesn't mean that αλλα is adversative. Anyway, that's my own issue with labelling things that I need to get over; not necessarily an issue with morphological classifications.

Did you know that αλλα occurs 557 times in the whole of the LXX (nearly four times the size of the NT); compared to 638 times in the NT? That number includes the alternate MSS text in Joshua, Daniel, etc.

And the LXX books with the most frequent instances of αλλα (instances per 1000 words in book) are books likely composed in Greek, stuff like Wisdom of Solomon (3 αλλα/1000 words) and 4 Maccabees (6.3/1000)? Tobit and Judith are also high (both 2/1000), but so are Malachi (~2/1000) and, believe it or not, Job (~3/1000)!

Comparatively, Holmes' second edition Apostolic Fathers Greek text has 352 instances. That's over half of the number of NT instances, but the corpus size is just over 1/3 of the NT.

That'll make a guy think.

Update (2008-03-12): On the idea of whether αλλα can be an indicator of Aramaic in the gospels, or translation Greek; let's not forget that it could just be a diachronic thing. LXX => early, NT => later, AF => even later. Maybe αλλα usage increased over time, particularly since it is a development from αλλος. (It may therefore be useful to compare use of αλλος/αλλα between LXX/NT/AF to get a better picture; I'll leave this for someone else to dig into).

On the Aramaic question, perhaps the place to start would be with Raymond A. Martin's Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (amazon.com). He thinks that minimal use of certain prepositions may be evidence of a translated text; also και/δε in some contexts, but doesn't say anything about αλλα (from my quick re-skim). Martin presents a lot of evidence, but I don't know that I buy it (call it my "correlation does not prove causation" skepticism).

Anyway, here's the chart of αλλα usage in the NT. I generated this with Logos Bible Software's Graph Bible Search Results feature, which is an option on the right-hand side of all Bible search results menus (Bible Speed Search, which I used for this; Bible Search; and Syntax Search). The numbers on the right of the bars are # of αλλα per 1000 words in a book. So Matthew has 2.0162 αλλα per 1000 words; Mark has 3.9788 per 1000; etc. This sort of distribution leads me to think that use of αλλα is perhaps more stylistic than translational; though the LXX numbers reported (that graph is below the NT graph) are much less frequent. This may say more about the translators and the time they translated in than the translation itself.

And here's the LXX graph:

At least, that was the working title of the abstract I've submitted for the 2008 ETS meeting in Rhode Island this November. But I couldn't bring myself to actually make that the title of the paper. So here's what I've submitted:

We'll see if the abstract is accepted. Either way, I've already started culling through the 638 instances of αλλα in the New Testament (500+ of which appear in a negative pairing, it seems), working through the section on αλλα in Denniston's Greek Particles (amazon.com), reading Heckert on αλλα (amazon.com); I'll probably be braving the lexicon articles (BDAG, LSJ, LouwNida) sometime over the next week; and hitting the grammars (BDF, Moulton-Howard-Turner, Robertson, Porter's Idioms, Moule's Idioms, Wallace; perhaps Young's Intermediate Grammar) as well.

Sounds like fun, huh?

Update (2008-03-11): Responding to some comments: Yes, I do plan on posting the paper, but likely in conjunction with or just after the conference in November. But I'll probably blog some thoughts along the way that may or may not make it into the paper. On other resource (e.g. Thrall); perhaps. There is no shortage of items to look at for background. But the paper isn't a review of how people have described αλλα in the past, so there has to be a limit to the background section of the paper. I just don't know what that is yet (beyond standard lexica and grammars, Denniston, and Heckert)

One of the advantages of working at Logos and sitting next to very smart, very cool people like my friend Steve is that I get to soak up his knowledge as he works on cool projects.

One thing Steve has imparted to me is the importance of conjunctions and particles at the discourse level.

With this in mind, there I was in church on Sunday. We've been going through the gospel of Mark for maybe two years now, getting close to the end. Sunday's lesson was on Mark 16.1-8. Mark 16.5-7 jumped out at me:

5 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν.

6 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς·
     μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε·
               Ἰησοῦν
          ζητεῖτε
               τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν
               τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον·
          ἠγέρθη,
               οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε·
               ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.
     7 ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε
          εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ
               ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶς
                    εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν·
               ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε,
                    καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν.

A few things to notice.

First, the bold text shows some lexical cohesion between the two units. Mark is the only NT author that uses this particular word (cf. Mk 9.15; Mk 14.33). This connects the surprise the ladies had upon entering the tomb with the instructions from the angel to the women.

Second, note vv 6-7 as the quotative frame with the angel speaking. Note the use of μη .. αλλα (in red). One thing Steve has impressed upon me in the past few months is that when one sees an αλλα, one should always look up the context to see if there is a μη. And it happens here. Consider an English translation:

And he said to them:
     Don't be overwhelmed;
          the one you seek—
               Jesus,
               the Nazarene,
               the crucified one—
          he is risen
               he is not here—
               look at the place where they laid him!
     Instead, go
          tell his disciples and Peter
               that he is going before you
                    into Galilee
               just as he told you.

Do you see the contrast? Instead of being overwhelmed/freaked out; the women are instructed to calm down, to go find the disciples (including Peter!) and remind them of what Jesus had already instructed them.

Third, note how Jesus is specified in the text. There is no question as to whom the angel is referring to. Jesus is further qualified as "the Nazarene", and then further qualified as "the crucified one". Then the women are pointed to where they expected him to be, and noting that he is not there. Jesus, who was crucified and dead, whom they expected to be in the tomb, was not where he was supposed to be.

I think the text is focusing on Jesus not being in the tomb, and then further on directing the women to get the message (he is risen!) to the disciples so they can get to Galilee, back to Jesus.