KAI LEGWN--epexegetical KAI?

Mark DelCogliano cassian at dellepro.com
Sun Jan 27 22:31:18 EST 2002


I am working with Mk 1:14-15:

META DE TO PARADOQHVAI TON IWANNHN, ELQEN Ho IHSOUS EIS THN GALILAIAN
KHRUSSWN TO EUAGGELION TOU QEOU KAI LEGWN hOTI PEPLHRWTAI hO KAIROS KAI
HGGIKEN hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU: METANOETE KAI PISTEUETE EN TWi EUAGGELIWi.

The phrase KAI LEGWN appears in 9 NT passages: Mt 3:2, Mt 8:6, Mt 17:15, Mt
26:39, Mk 1:15, Mk 1:40, Jn 7:28, Acts 1:3 and Acts 16:9, all of which
introduce direct discourse except Acts 1:3. In each case Mk employs a hOTI
recitativum while the others do not. (Note: there are around 170 instances
of LEGWN not preceded by KAI in the NT.) Interestingly, in each of these
eight cases (except Jn 7:28) the main verb of the sentence describes an act
of spatial movement that comes to a halt or appearance/being in a place,
which is followed without a conjunction (except in Acts 16:9) by a present
participle of some type of communication, which in turn is followed by KAI
LEGWN:

Mt 3:1 PARAGINETAI-KHRUSSWN KAI LEGWN
Mt 8:5 PROSHLQEN-PARAKALWN KAI LEGWN
Mt 17:14 PROSHLQEN-GONUPETWN KAI LEGWN (GONUPETWN implies kneeling to
petition, see BDAG s.v.)
Mt 26:39 EPESEN-PROSEUCOMENOS KAI LEGWN
Mk 1:14 HLQEN-KHRUSSWN KAI LEGWN
Mk 1:40 ERCETAI-PARAKALWN KAI LEGWN
Jn 7:28 EKPAXEN-DIDASKWN KAI LEGWN (exception)
Acts 16:9 HN hESTWS KAI PARAKALWN KAI LEGWN (addition of KAI)

I would like to consider two aspects of the six Mt-Mk usages, all of which
follow the same pattern.

First, and this is the issue of greater interest to me, could the usage of
KAI be understood as explicative/epexegetical in these cases? In other
words, is KAI LEGWN a sort a marker for the *content* of the KHPUSSWN or the
PARAKALWN? This would seem to be the case because participles such as
KHRUSSWN and LEGWN are not simply coordinate; rather KAI LEGWN is adverbial,
introducing the direct discourse that is the content of the proclaiming or
beseeching or whatever. This usage would not be the equivalent of the
asyndetonic (is that a word?) and adverbial LEGWN, which is nearly a
quotation mark and often redundant. Does this interpretation seem plausible
or likely, or I am being overly-analytical? (Although Jn 7:28 does not
conform to the Mt-Mk pattern, I think the KAI LEGWN is working the same way
since it follows two verbs of communication.)

Secondly, I would like to understand the participles that follow the main
verb as telic. The agents do not 'appear (in), come forward (to) or fall
(down upon)' a certain place *as* they are 'proclaiming, beseeching or
praying', but do so *in order to* 'proclaim, beseech or pray'.

If my attempt at understanding these passages is not misled, I would like to
propose a translation (using Mk 1:14 as an example) such as: "Now after John
was handed over, Jesus came into Galilee in order to proclaim the gospel of
God and this is what he was saying: The time, etc." [I should note that in
the two passages that have KHRUSSWN (Mt 3:1 and Mk 1:4), the context seems
to indicate an ongoing proclamation and LEGWN is rendered according to the
aspectually imperfect nature of the activity. The other cases narrate
one-time events and, in my interpretation of these passages, KAI LEGWN would
have to be translated by something like "and this is what he said:"] I
realize that B-Greek is not a translation list but I am providing
translations in order to better convey my proposed interpretation of the
Greek of these passages.

I haven't been able to find much in the standard grammars (BDF,
Moulton-Howard-Turner, Robertson, Wallace) on the epexegetical infinitive
(or the telic participle for that matter); could anyone direct me to further
reference works and/or articles?

Thanks in advance for your insights,
Mark DelCogliano

P.S. A more detailed study would have to look at the 170 or so usages of
LEGWN without the preceding KAI and see what the differences are. Haven't
had time for that one yet!





More information about the B-Greek mailing list