[B-Greek] Force of KAI in 1 Cor 11:23?

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Feb 19 01:33:21 EST 2011


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Goodacre" <goodacre at duke.edu>
To: "Stephen Carlson" <stemmatic at gmail.com>
Cc: "Biblical Greek Mailing List" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 18. februar 2011 19:09
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Force of KAI in 1 Cor 11:23?


> Going back to Stephen's original question:
>
>> Curious about the force of the καί KAI, I looked up the entry in BDAG
>> p. 496, s.v. καί, 2f, and saw this explanation: "used w[ith] a
>> relative, it oft[en] gives greater independence to the foll[owing]
>> relative clause," citing 1 Cor 11:23 among other passages.
>>
>> What does BDAG mean by "greater independence"? Unfortunately BDAG does
>> not cite any secondary literature on this point.
>
> It looks like this bit of BDAG survives unchanged from the old BAG (or
> AG as the English speaking audience often unfairly called it).   I
> haven't been able to find much more discussion of the phenomenon.
> Howard Marshall (Gospel of Luke, 447) on Luke 10.30 (οἳ καὶ ἐκδύσαντες
> αὐτὸν . . . hOI kAI EKDUSANTES AUTON) suggests that the idiom is
> "disputed", e.g. "Haenchen . . . regards it as a Koine idiom with no
> particular force".  It's rarely discussed in relation to our texts.
> Having looked at lots of examples, though, I am beginning to see the
> force of the "greater independence" for the following relative clause.
> It's a bit like saying that it is more clearly marked off from the
> previous clause than it would be without the καί (KAI) and it's what I
> have been trying to get at here.  It draws out the implication but
> builds on the previous clause, setting up the key information now to
> come, beginning with ὅτι (hOTI), as also in 15.3.

Yes, it was carried over from BAGD (and maybe earlier editions?) to BDAG. I am 
afraid it is a mistake, because what they are claiming for hO KAI has little if 
anything to do with KAI.

What is relevant, though, is the two different kinds of relative clauses that 
are used in Greek. Stephen Levinsohn explains the situation and gives examples 
in his section 11.2 of "Discourse Features of New Testament Greek". I will skip 
the examples in the following quote:

"Nonrestrictive relative clauses in Greek are traditionally subdivided into 
appositional (as in Acts 9:36) and continuative (Winer 1882:680). Appositional 
relative clauses, as their name suggests, stand in apposition to the noun that 
they modify. Continuative relative clauses, in contrast, typically describe an 
event that involves the referent of the relative pronoun and occurs subsequent 
to the previous event or situation in which the referent featured.
An example of a continuative relative clause is found in Acts 28:23c. ...
Continuative relative clauses are most common in narrative, linking events in 
chronological sequence, though they are found in non-narrative. 
Characteristically, the information preceding the relative pronoun is 
backgrounded vis-à-vis what follows.
This is confirmed by the verbs that are used in the two parts of such sentences. 
The clause preceding the relative pronoun often contains a state or activity 
verb, which tends to correlate with background information in narrative, while 
the clause that follows the relative pronoun contains an achievement or 
accomplishment verb, which tends to correlate with foreground information (see 
sec. 10.2.1).
Luke 19:30 provides an example in which the clause preceding the relative 
pronoun (v. 30a) contains an activity verb, but the continuative relative clause 
(v. 30b) contains an achievement verb. (The parallels in Matt. 21:2 and Mark 
11:2 use KAI to link the clauses, leaving the information they convey unranked 
for prominence.)

It is very common in the Gospels for a participant, prop or concept to be 
introduced in the clause that precedes the relative pronoun. This information 
may be viewed as backgrounded vis-à-vis the statement made about him, her or it 
in the continuative relative clause that follows.
In Luke 6:48, for instance, the ‘man building a house’ is introduced prior to 
the relative pronoun, while the events that he performs are described in the 
clauses that follow it. (The parallel passage in Matt. 7:24 also uses a 
continuative relative clause in this way.)

In Acts, the clause prior to the relative pronoun commonly gives more extensive 
information than just the introduction of the participant, etc. Nevertheless, 
this information still forms the background to the event(s) that are described 
in the continuative relative clause that follows.
Acts 19:24–25 illustrates the presentation of extensive background information 
prior to the relative pronoun.

Further examples of such continuative relative clauses include Acts 11:29–30 
(the effect of using the relative pronoun is to background the intention with 
respect to the realization of that intention) and 17:10 (the effect of using the 
relative pronoun is to background the journey with respect to the event 
performed on arrival at the destination).
The rhetorical effect of using a continuative relative clause in narrative is 
apparently to move the story forward quickly by combining background and 
foreground information in a single sentence. Since the clause prior to the 
relative pronoun commonly introduces participants, such sentences will tend to 
occur at the beginning of episodes, hence the appropriateness of moving as 
quickly as possible to the foreground events of the episode.
In Acts 23:13–14a, for example, the number of plotters is presented, not as a 
separate sentence, but in the same sentence as the next foreground event. This 
sentence is towards the beginning of the episode (see the discussion following 
passage 3 of sec. 11.1.3), so it is appropriate to move quickly to the next 
foreground event.
...
In continuative relative clauses in narrative, the material preceding the 
relative pronoun is often naturally background information. In non-narrative 
discourses such as reasoned argument, however, it may itself have been the 
foreground assertion, which then becomes the “ground” for another foreground 
assertion. For example, Acts 7:44–46 contains a chain of relative clauses. Each 
in turn becomes the ground for a following foreground assertion.
...
Other chains of continuative relative clauses are found in Acts 5:36, Acts 
7:38–39, and 1 Pet. 3:18–22."
End of quote.

So, one could say that a continuative relative clause is more independent of the 
previous clause than an appositional one.

>
> A related issue.  Ivor mentioned Paul's use here of ἀπό (APO) in ἀπὸ
> τοῦ κυρίου (APO TOU KURIOU) as indicating "ultimate source".  I agree
> that that is what Paul is saying here, that the tradition originates
> with Jesus, but I am not clear that we can make the claim based on the
> use of ἀπό (APO), can we?  I've seen the claim from time to time but I
> suspect it makes too strong a demand on ἀπό (APO).  Am I wrong?

I would not say this is based on APO alone, but on our background knowledge. 
What I was trying to say was that I understand the NIV (I received from the 
Lord) as implying that Paul heard it directly from Jesus without any link in 
between. Since that is clearly not the case, APO has to be broader than that and 
can accommodate a less direct "reception" so that APO here refers to the 
ultimate, first and here also authoritative source. LSJ says about APO sense III 
(of origin, cause): "ἀπό APO denotes remote, and ἐκ EK immediate, descent." And 
they give examples of links in between when APO is used.

BDAG says: "③ to indicate origin or source... ⓓ fig., w. verbs of perceiving, to 
indicate source of the perception.

CEV has tried to grapple with it, but I am not sure they were successful. They 
say: "I have already told you what the Lord Jesus did on the night he was 
betrayed. And it came from the Lord himself."

I think NLT96 handled it somewhat better: "For this is what the Lord himself 
said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it."

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list