Jeremiah 23:28 and John 1:1b

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yeah, go for it. I don't think anyone else will agree with you, at least no people actually skilled in the language, but feel free to argue it. You're not the first to make odd claims that are essentially indefensible and you won't be the last.

You mean like a definite θεός at John 1:1c and τον θεον is not the Father at 1:1b?

But the difference is that I have scholarship behind mine.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yeah, go for it. I don't think anyone else will agree with you, at least no people actually skilled in the language, but feel free to argue it. You're not the first to make odd claims that are essentially indefensible and you won't be the last.

Just to clarify, do you consider all the BDAG and Danker examples to be simply parataxis? That just says they are next to each other.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yeah, go for it. I don't think anyone else will agree with you, at least no people actually skilled in the language, but feel free to argue it. You're not the first to make odd claims that are essentially indefensible and you won't be the last.

Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek
59.20 καὶ – connecting sentences (i.e. beginning a sentence), indicating that the new sentence is closely linked to the previous one; for instance in narratives to indicate that one action closely follows upon, or is the direct consequence of, another (and, also, and so, and then); in this use καί is often combined with other particles (e.g. καὶ γάρ, καὶ δή, καὶ μήν; for these combinations, →59.66–71); – for combinations of καί and τε, →59.37.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek
59.20 καὶ – connecting sentences (i.e. beginning a sentence), indicating that the new sentence is closely linked to the previous one; for instance in narratives to indicate that one action closely follows upon, or is the direct consequence of, another (and, also, and so, and then); in this use καί is often combined with other particles (e.g. καὶ γάρ, καὶ δή, καὶ μήν; for these combinations, →59.66–71); – for combinations of καί and τε, →59.37.
CGG really doesn't help you here. John 1:1 is not concerned with sequence of action, but with state of being. That's the major reason this category does not fit here. Looks like you have the electronic version of CGG -- I only have the paper edition at this point. Gotta fix that.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
CGG really doesn't help you here. John 1:1 is not concerned with sequence of action, but with state of being. That's the major reason this category does not fit here. Looks like you have the electronic version of CGG -- I only have the paper edition at this point. Gotta fix that.

Actions are used as an example and not to exclude states. BDAG, Danker and the Linguists don't use the term "actions."
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
CGG really doesn't help you here. John 1:1 is not concerned with sequence of action, but with state of being . That's the major reason this category does not fit here. Looks like you have the electronic version of CGG -- I only have the paper edition at this point. Gotta fix that.

I'm not sure how you are using the expression "state of being" underlined above (John 1:1b for example is simply asserting that the Logos was with God, is that somehow "state of being" of Logos ?)? But even if for the sake of argument we assume that you are correct, the καὶ in each clause has nothing to do with the "state of being" of either Logos or of God. The prologue is a narrative. In narratives καὶ is used to indicate that one action closely follows upon, or is the direct consequence of, another (and, also, and so, and then). How can you possibly deny this ? Roger is correct. Re-visit his caterpillar example.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
If apostle John wanted to make three unrelated and independent claims at John 1:1 he would have had to say it in three sentences and without the καὶ . In other words we would not have John 1:1a, b and c but John 1:1, John 1:2 and John 1:3, like so:

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος. 2 ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 3 Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

Is that what the apostle wrote ? Surely not. So the respective καὶ is separating each clause, yet at the same time tying the clauses together in some sort of single coherent statement.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
If apostle John wanted to make three unrelated and independent claims at John 1:1 he would have had to say it in three sentences and without the καὶ . In other words we would not have John 1:1a, b and c but John 1:1, John 1:2 and John 1:3, like so:

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος. 2 ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 3 Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

Is that what the apostle wrote ? Surely not. So the respective καὶ is separating each clause, yet at the same time tying the clauses together in some sort of single coherent statement.

That is the view of linguists. Runge and Levonsohn see και as what ties paragraphs together in the prologue and asyndeton as starting a new thought.

While traditional grammarians see some conjunctions as pleonistic, discourse analysts see the inclusion as a choice that is always significant.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That is the view of linguists. Runge and Levonsohn see και as what ties paragraphs together in the prologue and asyndeton as starting a new thought.

While traditional grammarians see some conjunctions as pleonistic, discourse analysts see the inclusion as a choice that is always significant.

I find it hard to imagine that apostle John would resort to redundancy in the use of καὶ in the very first verse of his prologue . Does he ever use καὶ in his writings pleonistically ? I haven't see the evidence for that in his most mundane statements, let alone in the prologue.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I find it hard to imagine that apostle John would resort to redundancy in the use of καὶ in the very first verse of his prologue . Does he ever use καὶ in his writings pleonistically ? I haven't see the evidence for that in his most mundane statements, let alone in the prologue.

The book I quoted in the latest revision of my expository rendering of John 1:1-4 quotes Liddell and Scott for the view of scholars of Classical Greek and does not see them as having this view.

He attributes it to traditional Greek scholars and commentators not knowing to do with certain uses of και, that they see them as redundant and sometimes leave them out of their translations and comments.

I wanted to bring out the sense of και as do classicists and linguists.

I think I will add this to my Abstract.
 
Top