[b-greek] Re: Col 3.8, KAI hUMEIS

From: Iver Larsen (iver_larsen@sil.org)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 02:53:13 EDT


Thanks, Glenn. You have put a lot of careful thought into your post. Let me
comment on some aspects below.

> Col 3.8
> NUNI DE APOQESQE KAI hUMEIS TA PANTA
>
> Iver wrote,
> >although I do have a different perspective on part of it.
>
> I understand, Iver, why your parsing of the syntax would give you that
> perspective, but I am having trouble seeing how that perspective fits the
> context and the other occurrences of KAI hUMEIS in Paul's writings. (See
> "A3" below) But meanwhile, I concur with your comments leading up to that
> point.
>
>
> >In 3:8 NUNI contrasts "life now" with "life before", both by its lexical
> >content and first position.
>
> Yes, I am with you so far. (Except that the majority of times NUNI occurs
> in Paul's writings, it is at the beginning of the clause, suggesting that
> rather than prominence, this may be the normative position for him)

I looked at the usage of NUNI compared to NUN in Paul, and I take your
point. Rather than saying "both" I should say it has its first position
because of its lexical contrast. NUNI seems to be inherently (lexically)
adversative and emphatic, contrasting a situation now with a situation
before. It corresponds to the English stressed "now" rather than the
unstressed "now". So, it has its front position in Paul, because it is
emphatic, not the other way round. NUN seems to be less contrastive, more
like "at the present time". The context can certainly give NUN a contrastive
sense, and a front position can add emphasis to it.

>
> >hUMEIS indicates the focus [is shifting to]** the Colossians and the
> >contrast to the "sons of disobedience".

I am afraid I do not agree with the addition of "is shifting to". One can
have several such emphatic references without a shift in reference. Already
in v. 7 we have KAI hUMEIS, so the KAI hUMEIS in v. 8 does not indicate a
shift in reference from v. 7. In both verses the focus indicated by hUMEIS
is on YOU, the audience. In v. 7 YOU were in the past part of the "bad
guys", but NOW, YOU are part of the "good guys" and YOU should put away such
behaviour as all the other people who have joined the good guys have done.

> A1) This paragraph alongside the previous paragraph is where I
> lose you -- the two points seem to contradict each other. That is, hUMEIS
indicates a
> shift of focus from "the sons of disobedience" while KAI although
> governing hUMEIS, has no relation to "the sons of disobedience." In each
> of the other 22 passages I cited, the group of people hUMEIS shifts focus
from is the
> same group of people that KAI draws a parallel with.
>
> So then, if it is as you say, that KAI governs hUMEIS, it is true that
> >the comparison must be between the
> >Colossians and other people.

The contradiction apparently comes from your addition. I agree that KAI may
govern not just a word, but a phrase or a whole clause, but then I would
still expect it to be placed before what it governs. In 3:8 KAI is not
placed before the whole clause so cannot govern the whole clause. It can
only govern the subject noun phrase.

> A2) But the only other people being discussed in the context are
> "the sons of disobedience"
>
> But as you say,
>
> >Those other people cannot be the sons of
> >obedience as it was in v. 7,
>
> Because "the sons of disobedience" have *not* put off those
> things. So what other group of people is KAI drawing a relationship with?
>
> >presumably other Christians like Paul, his
> >companions and other believers the Colossians know about.
>
> A3) But there is no mention of these other groups of Christians in the
> context. The closest context of another Christian modeling a
> behavior with
> which this parallel could possibly be made is way back in 2.5, and Paul's
> behavior there is just a vague parallel to the notion of putting off. By
> contrast, in each of the other 22 instances I cited, the KAI hUMEIS
> parallels a group of people in the immediately preceding context.
>
> >That group is called the chosen ones in v. 12.
>
> But in v. 12, it is not another group of people -- it is still "you." (In
> addition, can this use of KAI have a kataphoric reference?)

I am not suggesting that KAI grammatically refers to v. 12 in any way, nor
that it is kataphoric. Our different perspective may be based on different
views on communication theory. According to Relevance Theory, which I have
found most helpful, the writer expects the audience to draw inferences, not
only from the preceding co-text, but from the general context of their own
background knowledge, whatever would be relevant to the issue and at the
same time being something the writer expected the audience to know already
so he did not have to state it in words.

When I referred to the "chosen people" in v. 12 (the good guys) this was a
contrast to "sons of obedience" and it is not equal to the Colossians. All
the other Christians whom the Colossians knew well, (especially the
Ephesians) belong to the chosen ones, too. In Paul's mind the Colossians is
a group parallel to the Ephesians and other congregations. It is part of the
communication background that Paul had established the church in Ephesus and
this was sort of the mother church and reference point for the church in
Colosse. Paul had apparently not established the Colossian church himself,
but he knew it had a close relationship to the Ephesian Church. Therefore, I
find no problem having a comparison to a group that is not explicitly
mentioned in the preceding context of the letter, as long as it would be
understood by the original audience.

> B) The context does in fact suggest that TA PANTA is the constituent
> governed by KAI -- Paul twice before listed things the Colossians
> were to be
> rid of: be dead to the rudiments of the world (2.20); mortify
> your earthly
> members, fornication, uncleanness, etc. (3.5); put off also all these,
> anger, wrath, etc. (3.8)
>
> B1) You have posited often that elements are moved forward in a clause in
> order to raise their prominence. Are there any limitations to what can be
> moved and how far? Specifically, is there a restriction on an
> element being moved in such a way that separates it from what it governs?

Oh yes, lots of limitations. To explain them all would need a small (?)
book.

> B2) So what I am suggesting is that KAI has been moved for
> prominence to a
> place in front of hUMEIS. Is there precedent for such a suggestion? 1Th
> 2:13 seems so.
>
> KAI DIA TOUTO KAI hHMEIS EUCARISTOUMEN TWi QEWi ADIALEIPTWS
>
> This seems like exactly the same structure in the same kind of
> context. You
> have KAI preceding hHMEIS. But what would hHMEIS be being
> compared to? Who
> else in the context is giving thanks? On the other hand, if we
> suppose that
> KAI governs EUXARISTOUMEN, then it makes sense in context -- There is a
> whole series of "we" doing something -- "we were gentle among you" (v 7);
> "we behaved justly among you" (v 10); "we exhorted and comforted you" (v
> 11); "we *also* give thanks to God" (v 13).

There are two KAI's in this verse, and I see both of them governing a
clause, and since the verb is the key element of a clause, you can say it
primarily governs the verbal idea. The structure is different from Col 3:8
where KAI is not placed in front of the clause.
In addition, one needs sometimes to look outside the text to find what a
word is compared to. That brings me back to Relevance Theory. In the
situation in Thessalonica there were other teachers that both they and Paul
knew about. They do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the text in order
to be referred to.

> Any additional points that will help me get down off the horns of this
> dilemma I have hooked myself onto are welcomed :)

Would Relevance theory be of help? It is in intriguing and fairly new theory
of communication, mainly developed by Sperber and Wilson, but taken further
in terms of translation by Dr. Ernst-August Gutt, and other of my SIL
colleagues.

Thanks for a helpful interchange,

Iver Larsen




---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:23 EDT