καί in negative sentences

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Also, your conclusion doesn't follow. How does Bengal's "rendering" make the distinction between ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου and ἀκολουθεῖ μοι?
Sorry, I didn't mean that he mean that he finds a distinction in Luke 14.27, but that he employs a distinction that he found in Matthew 16.24, which reads:

.. εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.

Bengel writes: [Gnomon, Vol 1, Translator J. Bandinel, T & T Clark 1873] ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, to come after Me - This denotes the state and profession, as ἀκολουθείτω (let him follow) does the duty, of a disciple.

Then there's an explanatory note by 'I.B.' (Bandinel?), with part of Bengel's Latin text, which reads:
"Id denotat statum et porfessionem; sequatur, officium." For a person may go after or behind another without following in his steps. In the one case, he appears and professes to walk in his steps; in the other, he really does so: the one implies profession - the other involves practice.


So it looks like he had a view that was consistent between the two passages (made explicit by the editor/translator). I am not particularly trying to defend it, but I was aware that Bengel is highly regarded. Thanks, Stephen, for the correction and the links.
............................
Assuming that the normal way of looking at it is correct, I wonder if an explanation of the καί could be that the saying was known in its positive form so that eg ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι could have become an expression in its own right - so that one might naturally make the whole expression (admittedly not exactly the same) negative, and leave the καί in?

Andrew
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Stephen Carlson wrote:The great Bengel did not write in English of course, so it can't be his actual rendering. An English translation of his remarks is found here: http://books.google.se/books?id=u3cuAAA ... &q&f=false

Since you're a Latinist, you might prefer his remarks in the original Latin here: https://archive.org/stream/dioalbertibe ... 2/mode/2up
Yes, Bengel does appear to say what he is represented as saying, both in Latin and English. I like the note from the translator in the English translation, that the English versions read it as "and not..." Well, indeed, Bengel may be great, but I don't think he's right about this one.

Oh, an my response to Carl Conrad? "Grrrr...."
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Andrew Chapman »

I have been reflecting on why positive connecting particles (eg καὶ) tend to be more conjunctive and less disjunctive than negative ones like οὐδέ. In English, this is even more obvious since we use the disjunctive 'or' in negative sentences. (and ἤ is used similarly sometimes)

It seems to me that the reason is because combinations of events are improbable and therefore interesting to affirm, but seldom interesting to deny. For example, one might say 'in the excitement, Bill was running and jumping and clapping his hands'; but there would be little point in saying 'despite the excitement, Bob was not running and jumping and clapping his hands'; because that adds little information. But one might (just about) say 'despite the excitement, Bob was not running or jumping or even clapping his hands', or something along those lines, communicating that he was a sober sort of chap.

Is this right? Is there theory on this, in linguistics or elsewhere?

Thanks, Andrew
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Andrew, I don't think the way you're going about this is going to be all that helpful. Logical speculation is nowhere near as helpful as finding lots of examples in Greek that illustrate a particular construction and comparing them carefully, or looking at the works of others who have done so.

I suspect this paper may be a useful starting point:

Teaching Them What NOT to Do: The Nuances of Negation in the Greek New Testament
Runge wrote:The primary purpose of this paper is to argue that the use of the negative particles οὐ and μή in
declarative statements has the effect of negating the entire clause, and not just a single element of the
clause. Furthermore, I will argue that what grammarians have described as word negation is in fact
better understood as the pragmatic choice to place emphasis on a single element of the clause. The
entire clause itself remains negated, regardless of the placement of the negative particle within the
clause. The goal is to provide a unified description of the writer’s options regarding negation in
declarative clauses so that exegetes may better understand how to determine what is being
emphasized. In other words, attention will be given to determining how the use of the negators οὐ and
μή in declarative statements can be used to add emphasis to the writer’s message, or some portion of
it.
Perhaps you could read this article and we could discuss it?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks a lot, Jonathan. By way of explanation, I am attempting a response to a thesis of one Philip Payne, published in the Journal of New Testament Studies in 2008, that Paul uses οὐδέ to combine two elements into a single idea. Thus for example, he translates:

ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ. [Romans 9.16] as

‘It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire and effort, but on God’s mercy’.

He admits that 'Grammatically this could convey two separate ideas, namely that mercy does not depend on desire, nor does it depend on effort.' After an unusual exegetical argument, he concludes that 'the single idea "desire combined with effort" in 9.16 fits the context better than "desire or effort" understood as two separate ideas.' He actually says that desire is affirmed (elsewhere); it is only the combination of desire and effort that is denied.

I was just wondering if I might be able to employ a counter-argument that if the author really wants to combine two elements into a single idea, he would tend to use καί, even in a negative sentence. I am not sure yet if there is much truth in that. The Runge paper has one more example of this:

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις. [Matt 15.26]

where the coordinate infinitive phrases combine as the subject of the main clause.

Of interest is:

οὐκ ἔστιν τοῖς Λευίταις μερὶς καὶ κλῆρος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτῶν [Deut 10.9]

οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ μερὶς οὐδὲ κλῆρος μεθ’ ὑμῶν [Deut 12.12]

Both μερὶς καὶ κλῆρος and μερὶς οὐδὲ κλῆρος translate the same nouns joined with a simple vav: חֵ֥לֶק וְ·נַחֲלָ֖ה and in both cases it looks to me from my very limited Hebrew like they follow a simple negative.

I would be interested to know if anybody sees much in the way of difference between the two. Finally, I find the following surprising, since I would expect οὐδέ .. οὐδέ:

καὶ οἰκοδομήσομεν καὶ ὑμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν μερὶς καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ μνημόσυνον ἐν Ιερουσαλημ [2 Esdras 12.20 (Neh 2.20)]
and we will build it, and you have no share and righteousness and record in Ierousalem. [NETS]
and we will build: but ye have no part, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem. [Brenton]

The NETS translators seem to have tried to keep the force of καί by using 'and', which doesn't read very easily in English.

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”