καί in negative sentences

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

καί in negative sentences

Post by Andrew Chapman »

I am interested in the occasional occurrence of καί to coordinate terms in a negative sentence. First, one that's easy to understand:

εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, [Gal 1.16]

'σάρξ καὶ αἵμα' stands for one thing as 'flesh and blood' does in English. But how about these two?

καὶ ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. [Matt 10.38]

καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε ⸀καὶ τί πίητε, καὶ μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε, [Luke 12.29]

Buttmann [1891, p. 368] speaks of 'the usage according to which καί stands after a simple negative .. and connects the following clause so closely with the preceding clause (already negatived) that it is brought with the latter under the influence of the same negative, so that καί then completely takes the place of the οὐδέ (μηδέ) used by the Greeks under such circumstances.' Matt 10.38 is one of his examples.

Presumably, the significance of the use of καί may be that it joins the two connected elements into a single conception - taking up one's cross and following Jesus is conceived of as a single thing - likewise eating and drinking.

Is this classical? - I can't see anything in Smyth. I would be interested in other examples of terms joined by καί so strongly that the καί is retained in a negative sentence. We say 'no bread and butter, thanks', if one is spread on the other, but 'no bread or butter from the shop, thanks', when they are still in their packaging.

Thanks, Andrew
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Andrew, I think you are basically asking what the scope of the negation is, and if there's a rule for whether it extends past a καὶ. If you look at the context and reason based on meaning you will probably interpret these examples correctly.

Let's look at this example (I am eliminating the first καὶ so I don't have to explain which καὶ I am referring to):
ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος.
I think the sense of the sentence is clear here, the person who takes up the cross is the same as the person who follows Jesus, it is the person who does not take up the cross and follow Jesus who is not worthy of him. καὶ tends to strings things together, not to contrast them.

Funk describes a variety of structure signaling devices used with negation starting with section 617, perhaps that will be helpful for you. To signal that a clause does not belong to the negation, the text might use a device like οὐ followed by ἀλλά, e.g.
ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ ἀλλά ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος.
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, Jonathan. I am particularly interested to understand why καί is preferred to οὐδέ/μηδέ in the latter two cases, since they are the conjunctions normally used for continued negation. They can be used without any sense of contrast (Robertson p.1185 etc).

Andrew
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Andrew Chapman wrote:Thanks, Jonathan. I am particularly interested to understand why καί is preferred to οὐδέ/μηδέ in the latter two cases, since they are the conjunctions normally used for continued negation. They can be used without any sense of contrast (Robertson p.1185 etc).
Andrew, if you try to rewrite those sentences using οὐδέ/μηδέ and ask yourself what the resulting sentences mean, I think you will be able to answer your own question.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

An early Modern example

Post by Stephen Hughes »

A seventeenth century text in colloquial Greek has:
[quote="The Lament of Aretousa" from Ο Ερωτόκριτος του Βιντσέντζου Κορνάρου"]Τα λόγια σου Ρωτόκριτε, φαρμάκιν εβαστούσα
κι ουδ' όλπιζα κι ανίμενα τ' αυτιά μου ό,τι σ' ακούσα.
Your words have brought poison, O Erotocritus,
And my ears were neither hoping nor (and) waiting to hear something from you[/quote]
There is a tendency for some speakers of Standard Modern Greek in some arrangements of the song to correct that (second) κι to an ουδ'.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Andrew Chapman wrote:Thanks, Jonathan. I am particularly interested to understand why καί is preferred to οὐδέ/μηδέ in the latter two cases, since they are the conjunctions normally used for continued negation. They can be used without any sense of contrast (Robertson p.1185 etc).

Andrew
The actual answer may be somewhat unsatisfying to you -- "Because that's the way the author felt it best communicated what he wanted to say." As someone pointed out, the sense is clear, even intuitive. I'm tempted to say that it is a stylistic variant that is not that exegetically significant, although the suggestion that it shows a close connection between the two ideas bears some merit.

As for και, someone once said studying και is like studying the ocean. The broad parameters are pretty obvious, but boy can can wind and wave make things complicated!
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 »

Bengel remarks on the καὶ in Luke 14.27:

ὅστις οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής.

and actually renders it as:

“whosoever doth not bear his cross,” and yet comes, and walks after me, as ye do, as though he was wishing to be my disciple.

making a distinction between coming after and following after from Matthew 16.24.

...............
Jonathan, I understand your first reply now, as explaining why you don't read Matt 10.38 in the way Bengel reads Luke 14.27. It actually hadn't occurred to me that it could be read that way. I was taking it for granted that the negation was continued, but wondering why καί was used in preference to οὐδέ.
.........
It's an interesting thought that it could possibly mean - he who follows me but doesn't take up his cross etc. - which could make sense.

One commentator says (of either Matt 10.38 or Luke 14.27, I forget which) that it sounds like it's translated from a Herbew original.

Usually in the LXX, οὐ .. οὐδέ translates lo .. v'lo (not .. and not); but sometimes it translates just vav ('and'), where the scope of the negative extends past the vav. Because I had seen that even then the translators avoided καὶ, I was surprised by the καὶ in Matthew.
Andrew, if you try to rewrite those sentences using οὐδέ/μηδέ and ask yourself what the resulting sentences mean, I think you will be able to answer your own question.
OK:

καὶ ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ ἀκολουθεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος.

Are you saying that you think οὐδέ makes such a distinction between the two terms that this would then mean:

a) he who does not take up his cross is not worthy of me;
and
b) he who does not follow me is not worthy of me.

But I am not sure this is the case. Some think that οὐδέ is like negative καὶ, but additive rather than conjunctive καὶ (this is Levinsohn's view); in which case the above could work:

a) whoever does not take up his cross;
ADD
b) and follow me
THE TWO TOGETHER
c) [this one] is not worthy of me.
............
The other one:

καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε μηδὲ τί πίητε, καὶ μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε,

(not sure of the accent). I think this would be fine, but as I said at the beginning, I reckon that using καὶ probably makes eating and drinking a single conception - with μηδέ I think one tends to consider the one and then the other. Half the manuscripts have ἤ in place of καὶ - I guess the editors reckoned that this was intended as a correction, which suggests to me that others have seen it as irregular.

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

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Andrew Chapman wrote:Bengel remarks on the καὶ in Luke 14.27:

ὅστις οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής.

and actually renders it as:

“whosoever doth not bear his cross,” and yet comes, and walks after me, as ye do, as though he was wishing to be my disciple.

making a distinction between coming after and following after from Matthew 16.24.

Andrew
Is this an actual rendering, or some sort of interpretive paraphrase? Could you provide a link to Bengal, or give us some of the context for this quotation? Because, as it stands, it just makes no sense whatsoever out of the Greek. Furthermore, you would be hard pressed to find any reputable English translation which renders it anything even close to this. Also, your conclusion doesn't follow. How does Bengal's "rendering" make the distinction between ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου and ἀκολουθεῖ μοι?
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.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by cwconrad »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:Bengel remarks on the καὶ in Luke 14.27:

ὅστις οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής.

and actually renders it as:

“whosoever doth not bear his cross,” and yet comes, and walks after me, as ye do, as though he was wishing to be my disciple.

making a distinction between coming after and following after from Matthew 16.24.

Andrew
Is this an actual rendering, or some sort of interpretive paraphrase? Could you provide a link to Bengal, or give us some of the context for this quotation? Because, as it stands, it just makes no sense whatsoever out of the Greek. Furthermore, you would be hard pressed to find any reputable English translation which renders it anything even close to this. Also, your conclusion doesn't follow. How does Bengal's "rendering" make the distinction between ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου and ἀκολουθεῖ μοι?
Careful there, Barry: "Bengal" may be a "tiger"! (Andrew cited Bengel!)
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: καί in negative sentences

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Is this an actual rendering, or some sort of interpretive paraphrase? Could you provide a link to Bengal, or give us some of the context for this quotation? Because, as it stands, it just makes no sense whatsoever out of the Greek. Furthermore, you would be hard pressed to find any reputable English translation which renders it anything even close to this. Also, your conclusion doesn't follow. How does Bengal's "rendering" make the distinction between ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου and ἀκολουθεῖ μοι?
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

Andrew: Since you're a lot more immersed in these various old exegetes, please provide a citation and/or link to them, rather than just last name. Sometimes the exact wording and context will make a difference in interpreting their remarks, and few things are more frustrating than trying to understanding someone's characterization of what an exegete said only to turn out that it was inexact. This is a particular problem on internet forums that preclude input of typographically challenging sources.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”