[B-Greek] 2 Cor 11:16 Function of KAN
Dirk Jongkind
dj214 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 28 05:21:28 EDT 2005
Thanks Randall and Kelton.
I was playing with the thought that KAN functions as an introduction to
an affirmative clause almost in the sense of Randall's translation and I
even had a nice parallel from the Chion of Heraclea novel (probably I AD):
KAI DOKEI OLIGWTERON EXEIN DI AUTHN TA TWN DORUFORWN; EI DE MH GE, KAN
DI PUROS ELQEIN DEHi, OUK OKNHSOMEN
'and I believe that his bodyguard will be more carelessly deployed for
this reason. But even if this is not so, and even if I have to walk
through fire, I will not flinch' (rather free translation taken from
Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, Cambridge, 2003).
The problem with this example is that KAN has a dedicated verb, ELQEIN
DEHi. In my line of thinking such verb (DOXHi) is suppressed in 2 Cor
11:16. I was thinking about this interpretation
'I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, yes, even if
you think me foolish, receive me anyway'
and I would punctuate the Greek a little different:
EI DE MH GE, KAN WS AFRONA, DEXASQE ME,
The advantage is that we could get rid of the idiom 'receive me as a
fool' (which would save a sub-entry in BDAG).
To me the question is still open, and its resolution may have to do with
how KAN is perceived when it follows a phrase such as EI DE MH GE. But I
happily take the point that KAN sometimes adds just a nuance to a clause
and is not a 'structure' word.
Regards,
Dirk Jongkind
bitan buth wrote:
>>2 Cor 11:16
>>
>>
>PALIN LEGW, MH TIS ME DOXHi AFRONA EINAI,
>EI DE MH GE, KAN WS AFRONA DEXASQE ME,
>INA KAGW MIKRON TI KAUCHSWMAI
>NRSV: I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept
>me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little.
>
>Dear list,
>
I came across the verse quoted above tracing down all the occurrences of
EI DE MH in the NT. I am slightly puzzled by KAN (KAI EAN) in the clause
following EI DE MH GE. Most translations seem to ignore it altogether.
Could anyone explain what KAN 'adds' to the sentence, or is it doing
nothing more than strengthening the sense of EI DE MH GE?
>>Regards,
>>Dirk Jongkind
>>
>>
>
>You seem on track. Paul seems to be piling up particles of concession and
>affirmation, so why not include KAN as one more?
>This would explicitly repeat what was in the particle clause,
>"and if indeed in fact, even if as mindless, receive me (anyway)"
>
>ERRWSO
>Randall Buth
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list