Jesus from Outer Space

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

I am surprised to see how much convoluted is your apology.

What apology? Where did I apologize?

...but I have read that a possible translation of οὐδέ is "not even". You and Ben C. Smith want to deny even the possibility that οὐδέ has to mean 'not even' in the passage we are talking about, and this I call 'fool apology'.

I read it also. But "not even" in the context of 1 Co 2:6 is not possible as a translation according to Thayer.

Can you explain me why this Thayer has more authority than Strong?

Concordance & Lexicon:

The Strong's Concordance often sheds little light on what this meaning is in context. Therefore, claiming the meaning of a specific word in a given context is X on the basis of the Strong's Concordance is not a reliable claim.
...
The gloss definition given by the concordance (or even a definition given by an outdated lexicon) can be helpful here in giving a general understanding of the lemma's meaning, but this should not be used as the sole source to justify the meaning or definition of the word in a specific textual context.
...
Strong's Concordance is an index of occurrences of a lemma in the original language of the Biblical text, it is not a lexicon/dictionary (and thus is not a reliable source for the meaning of a lexeme in a specific context).

I don't know if Thayer's lexicon is right on the matter of οὐδέ in 1 Co 2:6. However the more valued LSJ lexicon does propose "not even" as the translation for adverb οὐδέ.

III. [select] as adv. not even, Lat. ne . . quidem, οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν not even a little, not at all, οὐδὲ τυτθόν, οὐδὲ μίνυνθα Il., attic:—before ἕν (one) it is not elided, οὐδὲ ἕν Ar.
2. [select] οὐδέ is often repeated with other negatives: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ νουθετεῖν ἔξεστί σε Soph.; so, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ Il., etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon

So we would have: However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, not even of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
Again, with "not even", there is nothing preventing these archontes of this age to have the same wisdom as the (human) wisdom of this age. And nothing saying these archontes have a different wisdom than the (human) wisdom of this age.
Just about the similar construct in 1 Co 11:16:

"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor (not even) [οὐδὲ] the churches of God."
Did Paul indicate here that "the churches of God" had "no such custom" but different ones? Absolutely NOT because that would go against his argument with "such custom" being Paul's own only with no back up.

and

What about "not even" instead of "nor"?
...
1 Co 11:16: "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, not even the churches of God."
...
For 1 Co 11:16, "not even" does not change anything from "nor".

"even" in "not even" with these two examples, suggests that higher authorities (the rulers & the churches of God) also agree with the people's wisdom of this age & Paul's "no such custom" (women not covering their hair).

A reminder, again: If Paul wanted to make a distinction between the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of these archontes, he would have written something like:
1 Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, and not even THE ONE of the rulers [archontes] of this age, who are coming to nothing.

Who is more great, according to you, o Bernard: the age, or the beings who rule the age?
if you answer that the rulers are more great than the age ruled by them, then the rulers have to have more power in terms of knowledge/wisdom than the mere age ruled by them.

The rulers are not said to rule the age: they are the rulers during the (present) age. Just like the "wisdom of this age" does not own the age, but prevail during the (present) age.

if you answer that the rulers are powerful in the same measure of the age ruled by them, then I can call you an intellectually dishonest, here, because the answer is completely false.

So if I don't agree with your answer, I am intellectually dishonest? So, in order to be honest, I have to agree with you? That's very twisted reasoning or just trumpist propaganda.

Other errors by Bernard:

No, in Galatians, there is nothing about the stoicheia being portrayed in the act of giving the Law to Judaizers.
I wonder how you can think that.

Galatians 4:9-10 is there to prove that the stoichea dispense wisdom:

But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces ? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!

I don't see where these stoichea (elements) dispense wisdom. You are imagining things again.

About "elements" for a Celts (the Galatians were Celtic tribes coming from Europe):
From https://classroom.synonym.com/pre-chris ... 84980.html
"The pre-Christian Celts had a close affinity with the natural world, seeing spiritual forces in trees, lakes, stones, unusual land formations, weather patterns, seasonal changes, animals and the night sky. Ceremonies and practices to honor natural elements took the form of tree worship, sacrifices of goods to ponds, rivers and lakes, veneration of sacred springs and holy wells, and the formation of stone circles and burial mounds aligned with the annual path of the sun.".

Ask why the Judaizers wanted to observe "special days and months and seasons and years": because they wanted to receive special gifts by the stoichea, as effect of their stoicheiolatry. Among their gifts, being the stoichea also planets, there is surely the prophecy, a particular form of wisdom dispensed by reading the planets (isn't it true, GakuseiDon?).

Sweet dream! where did you read Judaizers observing "special days and months and seasons and years"?
The rest, about gifts, about reading planet, is pure baseless imagination, as everything you wrote about these elements.

Hence, demon rulers can dispense very well wisdom.

And suddenly, the elements are identified as (or like) demon rulers. Enough crap!

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

I don't know if Thayer's lexicon is right on the matter of οὐδέ in 1 Co 2:6. However the more valued LSJ lexicon does propose "not even" as the translation for adverb οὐδέ.

III. [select] as adv. not even, Lat. ne . . quidem, οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν not even a little, not at all, οὐδὲ τυτθόν, οὐδὲ μίνυνθα Il., attic:—before ἕν (one) it is not elided, οὐδὲ ἕν Ar.
2. [select] οὐδέ is often repeated with other negatives: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ νουθετεῖν ἔξεστί σε Soph.; so, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ Il., etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon

So we would have: However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, not even of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

well, now I see that you are departed from Ben's dogmatism about the meaning of the adverb οὐδέ.

Again, with "not even", there is nothing preventing these archontes of this age to have the same wisdom as the (human) wisdom of this age. And nothing saying these archontes have a different wisdom than the (human) wisdom of this age.

here I disagree totally. I have made the graphic before, to show you the difference between what precedes οὐδέ and what follows οὐδέ when οὐδέ means 'not even'.

If I say: Bernard is unable to resolve this problem of math, and not even Albert Einstein can resolve it

...it is banal to observe that the assumption a priori is that Einstein has more chances than Bernard in resolving the problem of math, due to his greater intelligence and/or knowledge.

This property of οὐδέ alone makes my point: the rulers could know more things than the 'age', and therefore only supernatural beings are candidate to the role of who knows more than mere humans.

Just about the similar construct in 1 Co 11:16:

"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor (not even) [οὐδὲ] the churches of God."

Did Paul indicate here that "the churches of God" had "no such custom" but different ones? Absolutely NOT because that would go against his argument with "such custom" being Paul's own only with no back up.

if οὐδέ there is translated with 'not even', then you realize the difference:
the assumption a priori shared by Paul with his readers is that the 'churches of God' have surely less the custom of being contentious than the mere 'anyone'. Please recognize the difference.

With this, I have made my point.

The rulers are not said to rule the age: they are the rulers during the (present) age. Just like the "wisdom of this age" does not own the age, but prevail during the (present) age.

so if Paul had written 'rulers of the nations', then according to you the Romans come from the nations, and not rather rule the nations? Very a strange Bernardian logic.

About "elements" for a Celts (the Galatians were Celtic tribes coming from Europe):
From https://classroom.synonym.com/pre-chris ... 84980.html
"The pre-Christian Celts had a close affinity with the natural world, seeing spiritual forces in trees, lakes, stones, unusual land formations, weather patterns, seasonal changes, animals and the night sky. Ceremonies and practices to honor natural elements took the form of tree worship, sacrifices of goods to ponds, rivers and lakes, veneration of sacred springs and holy wells, and the formation of stone circles and burial mounds aligned with the annual path of the sun>.


Sweet dream! where did you read Judaizers observing "special days and months and seasons and years"?
The rest, about gifts, about reading planet, is pure baseless imagination, as everything you wrote about these elements.

in your same quote about Celts, I read:

seeing spiritual forces in trees, lakes, stones, unusual land formations, weather patterns

which means: when one is able to read special signs and even patterns, then he is going by definition to derive information from said patterns, and that information can be called 'wisdom' in a religious context.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

here I disagree totally. I have made the graphic before, to show you the difference between what precedes οὐδέ and what follows οὐδέ when οὐδέ means 'not even'.

Your graphic is not an universally accepted reference, but your own conception.

well, now I see that you are departed from Ben's dogmatism about the meaning of the adverb οὐδέ.

Maybe not. A second look at:
III. [select] as adv. not even, Lat. ne . . quidem, οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν not even a little, not at all, οὐδὲ τυτθόν, οὐδὲ μίνυνθα Il., attic:—before ἕν (one) it is not elided, οὐδὲ ἕν Ar.
2. [select] οὐδέ is often repeated with other negatives: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ νουθετεῖν ἔξεστί σε Soph.; so, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ Il., etc
It seems that in the second case, the translation as "not even" of the first case does not apply.
I'll be asking Ben about that. Certainly reading the LSJ lexicon and knowing ancient Greek is not my forte.

Just about the similar construct in 1 Co 11:16:
"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor (not even) [οὐδὲ] the churches of God."
Did Paul indicate here that "the churches of God" had "no such custom" but different ones? Absolutely NOT because that would go against his argument with "such custom" being Paul's own only with no back up.

if οὐδέ there is translated with 'not even', then you realize the difference:
the assumption a priori shared by Paul with his readers is that the 'churches of God' have surely less the custom of being contentious than the mere 'anyone'.

You are dead wrong here: according to 1 Co 11:3-15, the "no such custom" is about women having their hair uncovered. Your explanation is just a complicated twisted evasive exercise.

so if Paul had written 'rulers of the nations', then according to you the Romans come from the nations, and not rather rule the nations?

Paul did not say that. He wrote "rulers of this age", which does not have to mean they rule the age. And "this age" being the epoch of Paul, also the one in which these rulers crucified Jesus (1 Co 2:8).

in your same quote about Celts, I read:

seeing spiritual forces in trees, lakes, stones, unusual land formations, weather patterns

which means: when one is able to read special signs and even patterns, then he is going by definition to derive information from said patterns, and that information can be called 'wisdom' in a religious context.

My quote was to define what the elements in Galatians 4 were. You are still trying to justify something else.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Just about the similar construct in 1 Co 11:16:
"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor (not even) [οὐδὲ] the churches of God."
Did Paul indicate here that "the churches of God" had "no such custom" but different ones? Absolutely NOT because that would go against his argument with "such custom" being Paul's own only with no back up.

if οὐδέ there is translated with 'not even', then you realize the difference:
the assumption a priori shared by Paul with his readers is that the 'churches of God' have surely less the custom of being contentious than the mere 'anyone'.

You are dead wrong here: according to 1 Co 11:3-15, the "no such custom" is about women having their hair uncovered. Your explanation is just a complicated twisted evasive exercise.

where is the anomaly? Paul's thought in short: "we have not such custom, not even the churches of God".

Are you saying that the "churches of god" could have the condamned custom in the same measure of Paul's company? Surely not. The assumption a priori is that the "churches of god" have a more rigorous morality than the same Paul's group.

Hence οὐδὲ ("not even") introduces velim nolim a hierarchy between the items separated by οὐδὲ.

Pace Ben C. Smith, the items separated by οὐδὲ are not all equal.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Giuseppe,

here I disagree totally. I have made the graphic before, to show you the difference between what precedes οὐδέ and what follows οὐδέ when οὐδέ means 'not even'.

Your graphic is not an universally accepted reference, but your own conception.

well, now I see that you are departed from Ben's dogmatism about the meaning of the adverb οὐδέ.

Maybe not. A second look at:
III. [select] as adv. not even, Lat. ne . . quidem, οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν not even a little, not at all, οὐδὲ τυτθόν, οὐδὲ μίνυνθα Il., attic:—before ἕν (one) it is not elided, οὐδὲ ἕν Ar.
2. [select] οὐδέ is often repeated with other negatives: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ νουθετεῖν ἔξεστί σε Soph.; so, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ Il., etc
It seems that in the second case, the translation as "not even" of the first case does not apply.
I'll be asking Ben about that. Certainly reading the LSJ lexicon and knowing ancient Greek is not my forte.

You will have to be very complete and exact about what you are asking, since I have not been following along very closely since the last post I made on this topic. From the above it looks like chaos has ensued: something is even being said about my treatment of "the adverb οὐδέ," which is nonsense on its face, since I have not said a thing about οὐδέ as an adverb; I was explicit in referring to οὐδέ as a conjunction (= "and not" = "nor," and to be more exact it is a coordinating conjunction), because that is what it is in 1 Corinthians 2.6; if some other verse has come up in the meantime in which its usage as an adverb is of some importance, then you will have to bring me up to speed.

[Giuseppe]

I was explicit in referring to οὐδέ as a conjunction (= "and not" = "nor," and to be more exact it is a coordinating conjunction), because that is what it is in 1 Corinthians 2.6

"Not even" is not the same thing as "and not". Surely it is not a mere "coordinating conjuction". It is copulative NEGATIVE conjunction:

Copulative conjunctions (also known as additive conjunctions) are coordinating conjunctions used to denote addition. The conjunction indicates that the second word, phrase, clause, or sentence contains an additional fact that is related to the earlier word, phrase, clause, or sentence.


I invite you to correct your claim.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
I got that from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon Middle Liddell Lexicon for οὐδέ2:
III. [select] as adv. not even, Lat. ne . . quidem, οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν not even a little, not at all, οὐδὲ τυτθόν, οὐδὲ μίνυνθα Il., attic:—before ἕν (one) it is not elided, οὐδὲ ἕν Ar.
2. [select] οὐδέ is often repeated with other negatives: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ νουθετεῖν ἔξεστί σε Soph.; so, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ Il., etc

It seems that in the second case, the translation as "not even" of the first case does not apply.

Of course, I am referring to 1 Co 2:6

Am I right or not?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:51 pm
I was explicit in referring to οὐδέ as a conjunction (= "and not" = "nor," and to be more exact it is a coordinating conjunction), because that is what it is in 1 Corinthians 2.6

"Not even" is not the same thing as "and not". Surely it is not a mere "coordinating conjuction". It is copulative NEGATIVE conjunction:

Why are you still hanging to "not even"? Ben is very clear that in 1 Co 2:6, οὐδέ does not mean "not even".

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Why are you still hanging to "not even"? Ben is very clear that in 1 Co 2:6, οὐδέ does not mean "not even".

Ben C. Smith isn't answering to my post above. Try to raise the same question: probably he will answer to you.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
I got that from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon Middle Liddell Lexicon for οὐδέ2:
III. [select] as adv. not even, Lat. ne . . quidem, οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν not even a little, not at all, οὐδὲ τυτθόν, οὐδὲ μίνυνθα Il., attic:—before ἕν (one) it is not elided, οὐδὲ ἕν Ar.
2. [select] οὐδέ is often repeated with other negatives: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ νουθετεῖν ἔξεστί σε Soph.; so, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ Il., etc

It seems that in the second case, the translation as "not even" of the first case does not apply.

Of course, I am referring to 1 Co 2:6

Am I right or not?

This entire Roman numeral III entry, highlighted above, applies to οὐδέ as an adverb; so you are correct: that entry would not apply to 1 Corinthians 2.6.

Sorry, I am not accustomed to using the Middle Liddell. I tried to give the link to the full LSJ upthread:

Greek οὐ means "no," "not," or the negation of something. (LSJ.) Adding δέ to it to make οὐδέ creates a negating conjunction, "and not" or "but not" or the like; now the force of the οὐ can negate each item marked with οὐδέ on the list.

But when I went back to get it just now, it turns out I had linked to just plain οὐ instead. I have edited the link correctly this time, and it should point to οὐδέ now. My apologies for leading you to the wrong entry, although you did find your way to a correct one. In that correct entry, the lines you are looking for are at A.II.2 (= conjunction with a negative preceding). You can see how the LSJ agrees with Thayer in opposing the tight linkage implied by οὔτε to the loose linkage allowed by οὐδέ:

Thayer (correcting Grimm): the connection of clauses made negative by οὔτε is close and internal, so that they are mutually complementary and combine into a unity, whereas clauses negatived by οὐδέ follow one another much more loosely, often almost by accident as it were....

LSJ: but οὐδὲ . . οὐδέ never means neither . . nor (like οὔτε . . οὔτε); where this combination occurs, the first οὐδέ is used without reference to the second....

Can οὐδέ be used of exact antonyms (οὐ light οὐδέ darkness)? Absolutely. That is up to the author. Can οὐδέ be used of close synonyms (οὐ forsake οὐδέ leave)? Absolutely. Again, up to the author. Can οὐδέ be used of things which would otherwise be unrelated (οὐ dogs οὐδέ pencils)? Absolutely. Up to the author. Can οὐδέ be used in some kind of part-to-whole sense by which we might like to translate it as "nor even" or some such (οὐ soldiers οὐδέ entire armies)? Absolutely. All of this is up to the author, because the word οὐδέ, unlike οὔτε, implies nothing about the relationship of one item on the list to another. So, if you or if anybody wants to get some indication of how "the wisdom of this age" or "the wisdom of the rulers of this age" relate to one another, you cannot be using οὐδέ for that indication, because οὐδέ implies only that both items are negated, not that they relate to each other in any prespecified or predetermined way. Since οὐδέ does not help, you are reliant upon other words in the verse or upon the context or upon probabilities of other kinds.