KAI LEGWN--epexegetical KAI?

Mark DelCogliano cassian at dellepro.com
Mon Jan 28 17:28:29 EST 2002


Dear Clay,

I will respond the both your posts.

> Why are you restricting your database to the singular form?

Sheer oversight at the end of day with too much Greek (but is that
possible?). Anyway, thanks for the reminder.

>
> What about KAI LEGONTES? Matt. 9:27 Matt. 19:3 Matt. 21:15 Matt. 27:40
Mark
> 15:29 Luke 2:13 Luke 4:41 Luke 23:37 Acts 14:15 2Pet. 3:4

Thanks for these references. I would say that, with the exception of 2Pet
3:4, all of these are examples of what I was calling an
explicative/epexegetical usages of KAI. And I'm with you on this one, I
don't like the labels either--that's why I tried two, neither of which
seemed to capture what I was saying. More on what to call this later.

I think KAI LEGWN/KAI LEGONTES has to come after a verb of *communication*,
not simply speaking: most of these are obvious but some verbs may imply
communication, like GONUPETWN in Mt 17:14. As for the non-obvious examples
cited above:

Mt 19:3 (PEIRAZONTES) would work since it implies a testing by sophistic
trickery.

Mt 27:40 and Mk 15:29, even though the KAI LEGONTES does not follow a
participle but rather the indicative EBLASFHMOUN, would work too, since the
words quoted provide one of the means by which they derided Jesus, but in
this case I would say that KINOUNTES TAS KEFALAS AUTWN is also part of the
derision.

Lk 23:37 would work too, although (like Mt 27:40 and Mk 15:29) KAI LEGONTES
follows an indicative verb, and there are given two examples of how they
mocked Jesus: OXOS PROSFERONTES AUTWi and the spoken words introduced by KAI
LEGONTES.

> 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.

Yeah, I surely didn't mean to imply that the direct quotation *exhausted*
the content of the KHRUSSWN or whatever verb of communication is at issue;
but rather, that it was a typical expression of the particular kind of
communication, a 'for instance', a summarizing example of the
communication's main thrust. In the example of Mk 1:14-15, the evangelist
seems to be saying that the basic motifs of Jesus' inaugural preaching were
that the time is fulfilled and the the kingdom of God is near, and that as a
consequence of that, all should repent and believe in the gospel. I don't
that Mk meant that that was *all* he said, but the basic thrust of his
message. Thanks for making an important clarification for me.

What to name this sort of usage of KAI? "KAI of typical content"? "Exemplary
KAI"--I'm starting to sound too much like Daniel Wallace! Anyone have a good
label?

All the best,
Mark DelCogliano






More information about the B-Greek mailing list