KAI LEGWN--epexegetical KAI?

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jan 28 02:41:36 EST 2002


on 1/27/02 7:31 PM, Mark DelCogliano wrote:

> 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.
> .

[snip] 


> 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.)
> 
[snip]  
> 
> 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."
> 
 
Ok, I think it is now clear what you are up to. I have a question about your
main proposal. Lets look at the Mk 1:14-15.

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.
 
If the KAI in  KAI LEGWN is "explicative/epexegetical" (terms I don't use)
then would we be justified in concluding that the quotation following hOTI
exhausts the concept of KHRUSSWN TO EUAGGELION TOU QEOU? Or is it just an
example, a semantic subset?

Look at:

LUKE 23:36-37 ENEPAIXAN DE AUTW KAI OI STRATIWTAI PROSERCOMENOI, OXOS
PROSFERONTES AUTW  KAI LEGONTES: EI SU EI O BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN, SWSON
SEAUTON.
 
The content of the quote following  KAI LEGONTES does not appear to be
coextensive with with the content of ENEPAIXAN DE AUTW. I don't think Luke
intended us to view the quoted speech as limiting the scope of ENEPAIXAN DE
AUTW.

On the other hand if by "explicative/epexegetical" you mean nothing more
than just providing an example, a subset of ENEPAIXAN DE AUTW then I guess I
would have no real problem with that.

Good question, made me stop and think.


greetings,

clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062






More information about the B-Greek mailing list