1 Corinthians 11:23

1 Cor 11:23 PAREDIDOTO (long) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Dec 11 08:58:55 EST 1999

 

Gal 1:6 Syntax Grammars I have recently been contacted by a “lurker” newly subscribing from “downunder” and posed a knotty complex of problems centering around 1Corinthians 11:23 and particularly the verb PAREDIDOTO there. If he wishesto enter into the discussion on his own, well and good, but the problems tobe dealt with are fundamentally concerning the Greek, its grammar, and therange of possible meanings in this particular context. Let me say a bit,however, about what is at stake in the questions posed to me. Thisgentleman is convinced, on grounds that are fully satisfying to him(although I don’t find them persuasive myself) that the Eucharist/Lord’sSupper was instituted on Easter night by the risen Jesus in the company ofthe disciples; this is not the forum for discussion of this question, butfor information I will note that he builds his case not on the SynopticGospels, which clearly state that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on thenight of his arrest, but upon John’s gospel which reports the risen Jesus’gift of the Spirit to the disciples on Easter night, and upon the text of 1Cor 11:23, where he believes that the dative phrase and relative clause,… EN THi NUKTI hHi PAREDIDOTO … somehow does refer to Easter nightrather than to the night of Jesus’ arrest.Several basic questions are involved here:(1) What is the sense in which PAREDIDOTO is being understood?I have personally always assumed that the verb PARADIDWMI is here (1 Cor11:23) being used in the judicial/forensic sense “give into custody ofarresting officers” (37.12, 37.111). That sense is used programmatically inMark’s gospel of the arrests of John the Baptist and of Jesus but also ofthe anticipated future arrests of the disciples if they are faithful andemulate the destiny of Jesus. But of course there are other senses in whichthe verb is used in the GNT, including “grant, allow” (Louw & Nida 13.142),”risk one’s life (L&N 21.7), “die, give up the spirit” (L&N 23.110),”ripen” (of fruit, L&N 23.200); “pass on traditional instruction” (as inthe first part of 1 Cor 11:23, L&N 33.237); “convey authority/right” (L&N57.77).(2) Is PAREDIDOTO here a deliberate echo of PAREDOQH in Isaiah 53:12 (DIATOUTO AUTOS KLHRONOMHSEI POLLOUS KAI TWN ISCURWN MERIEI SKULA ANQ’ hWNPAREDOQH EIS QANATON hH YUCH AUTOU KAI EN TOIS ANOMOIS ELOGISQH KAI AUTOShAMARTIAS POLLWN ANHNEGKEN KAI DIA TAS hAMARTIAS AUTWN PAREDOQH), asPAREDOQH in Romans 4:25 (hOS PAREDOQH DIA TA PARAPTWMATA hHMWN KAI HGERQHDIA THN DIKAIWSIN hHMWN) seems to be? I don’t think this question can bevery simply answered; moreover, answering it probably involvesargumentation that goes beyond interpretation of individual texts and wouldprobably involve theological and hermeneutical perspectives. My guess isthat it is probable that it IS a deliberate echo and that it is an instanceof which many can be found strewn throughout the gospel passion narratives:OT texts understood and employed in the earliest traditions in theinterpretation of the sequence of events surrounding the death of Jesus.(3) Is PAREDIDOTO to be deemed a “divine passive” in the sense thatPAREDOQH in the other two passages above are viewed as such (by Jeremias,inter alios)? In fact, is there really such a thing as a “divine passive”in NT Greek? I’ve never been convinced to my own satisfaction that there issuch a thing as a “divine passive” in Greek, although there may well be inHebrew or Aramaic (where I readily defer to those who know far better thanI). Dan Wallace (GGBtB, pp. 437-8) makes what seems to me a very sensiblestatement about it, that the NT writers hardly seemed concerned to avoid adivine name, so it’s less likely they’d use the passive specifically forthat purpose; “Such expressions are obviously not due to any reticence onthe part of the author to utter the name of God. It might be better to saythat this phenomenon is due to certain collocations that would render therepetition of the divine name superfluous, even obtrusive. In other words,the ‘divine passive’ is simply a specific type of one of the previouscategories listed above (e.g., obvious from the passage, due to focus onthe subject, otherwise obtrusive, or for rhetorical effect).” I would sayin this instance what I’ve said before: under ordinary circumstances,unless we have some clear indication of an agent or externalinstrumentality, there really isn’t any difference of perspective between’middle’ and ‘passive’ senses of a M/P verb form (whether that’s aMAI/SAI/TAI form or a QH- form): the focus is upon the experience undergoneby the subject rather than upon an external agent or force causing theexperience. I’d say therefore that PAREDOQH and PAREDIDOTO are essentiallyreflexive and have the senses “got (himself) arrested” and “was facingarrest” respectively. There may well be an implicit figure behind thescenes pulling the strings, but without any statement of agent orinstrumentality the focus of the clause is simply upon the experience ofthe subject of the verb. And I think that is really true for the Greek EVENIF the NT usage of PARADIDOSQAI echoes the LXX of Isaiah 53:12 and that LXXphrasing reflects an original Hebrew “divine passive.” And although onemight raise the question whether Judas is the real agent implied inPAREDIDOTO, that is, one ought to say, I think, altogether outside theperspective of the composer of the narrative, whose focus is solely uponwhat Jesus said and experienced, not upon what others say or do.(4) Does the fact that PAREDIDOTO is imperfect rather than aoristnecessarily imply that the action of PARADIDOSQAI, whatever the verb isunderstood to mean in this instance, has not been completed when JesusELABEN ARTON KTL.? I can’t see any other way of understanding it; there’sall the difference in the world between PAREDIDOTO and PAREDOQH, and evenif our liturgies in English are phrased, “on the night on which he wasbetrayed/arrested …” we do understand that “he took bread” BEFORE he wasbetrayed/arrested. But the reason I raise this question bears on theargument presented to me, namely that PAREDIDOTO ought to refer to God’saction of handing over Jesus to sinful men to do with as they pleased FOROUR SINS, an action which our lurker understands (I think) to have beencomplete at the time of an institution of the Eucharist on Easter evening.My own view, however, is that the imperfect tense of PAREDIDOTO in 1 Cor11:23 makes no sense if one assumes that the action described by the verbhas already been completed.I’d welcome comments on the basic questions of interpretation of the Greekof 1 Cor 11:23:(1) What is the meaning of the verb PARADIDOSQAI in this text?(2) Whether PAREDIDOTO is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53:12 (LXX) isprobably a matter on which opinions will differ, and I’m somewhat dubiousthat question can really be resolved or that this is the proper forum evento discuss it;(3) Is there such a thing as a “divine passive” AS SUCH in NT Greek, and ifso, is PAREDIDOTO in 1 Cor 11:23 an instance of it?(4) Could PAREDIDOTO in the imperfect tense be used on Easter night AFTERthe death and resurrection of Jesus? And if so, what does it refer to?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 7633 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991211/45834fa3/attachment.bin

 

Gal 1:6Syntax Grammars

1 Cor 11:23 PAREDIDOTO (long) Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Sat Dec 11 13:54:10 EST 1999

 

1 co 11:23 Syntax Grammars I find it difficult to follow this reasoning. In John’s Gospel account of Jesus giving the Spirit, it mentions nothing about bread and wine. (20:22) “After that,” it speaks of Jesus taking bread and fish (21:13), not bread and wine. One could perhaps build some symbolism on the fish (IXQUS).I agree with you (and L&N) that tradition and the Synoptics favors “was handed over” to the arresting authorities as the sense that PAREDIDOTO 1 Cor 11:23 should be understood. Though that “handing over” resulted in the ultimate action described in Isaiah 53, according to Christian belief, apart from other corroborating textual or traditional evidence, I see no intrinsic or exegetical mandate in the grammar to make PAREDIDOTO apply to a night after Christ’s resurrection.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.org.”Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> I have recently been contacted by a “lurker” newly subscribing from “down under” and posed a knotty complex of problems centering around 1 Corinthians 11:23 and particularly the verb PAREDIDOTO there. If he wishes to enter into the discussion on his own, well and good, but the problems to be dealt with are fundamentally concerning the Greek, its grammar, and the range of possible meanings in this particular context. Let me say a bit, however, about what is at stake in the questions posed to me. This gentleman is convinced, on grounds that are fully satisfying to him (although I don’t find them persuasive myself) that the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper was instituted on Easter night by the risen Jesus in the company of the disciples…..<snipped>

 

1 co 11:23Syntax Grammars

A famous passage in Paul, 1 Cor 11:23 reads:

Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς …

EGO GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA hUMIN, hOTI hO
KURIOS IHSOUS …

It is usually rendered as “For I received from the Lord, which I also
handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus …”

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.

For what it’s worth, Denniston on Particles, pp.294-295, treats KAI
with the relative pronoun as follows:

“In general καί emphasize the fact that the relative clause contains
an addition to the information contained in the main clause: whereas
δή stresses the importance of the antecedent, and γε usually marks the
relative clause as having a limiting force. . . . The emphasis which
καί gives to a relative clause can often be best brought out in
English by the insertion of a new (pronominal) antecedent.”

Applying Denniston’s proposed translations of some Attic examples to 1
Cor 11:23 may mean that the following translation gives the feel of
the construction: “For I received from the Lord (and that is what I
handed on to you) that the Lord Jesus …”

Turning back to BDAG’s notion of “greater independence,” would that
mean that the relative clause with KAI almost becomes a parenthetical?

Stephen Carlson

Stephen C. Carlson
Graduate Program in Religion
Duke University

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

19 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 11:23

  1. Carl Conrad says:

    This is an interesting question. After giving it a bit of thought, I’m
    thinking that the context in which he presents this ‘traditiona” account
    of the last supper — as a basis for scolding the Corinthian believers for
    abusing the ritual — doesn’t figure heavily in this “parenthetical”
    formulation: that is, he wants them to acknowledge that this is not
    something they haven’t known about.

    If that’s right, then the implicit sense of the hO KAI might be
    conveyed as, “This tradition is one that came to ME from the Lord —
    and I DID pass it on to YOU” — i.e. “you have no excuse for
    not knowing it.”

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  2. "Bryant J. Williams III" says:

    Dear Stephen,

    It seems that the hO KAI is referencing back to PARELABON. Thus, “For ‘I’ have
    received from the Lord, which ‘I’ EVEN (KAI) handed over to YOU, that the Lord
    Jesus, …” The KAI then has the force of being almost a independent clause when
    translated as “EVEN.” This corresponds to the Greek quite well. The use of
    “also” seems to be somewhat like an (parenthetical) statement like it is what
    really new or important information.

    It sounds that Paul is really controlling his emotions (compare Galatians 1).
    The abuse of elements and handling of the Lord’s Table by the Corinthians was
    appalling. Paul is definitely reminding them of how they came about knowing
    about the Lord’s Table and how he performed it before them. There was no excuse
    whatsoever for their behaviour and the subsequent consequences EVEN (KAI) to the
    point death.

    Bryant

    —– Original Message —–
    Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:57 AM

  3. Mark Goodacre says:

    One of the difficulties here is the terse nature of Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον
    ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU) which appears
    counter-intuitive given the extreme unlikelihood that Paul was present
    “on the night he was handed over”. I am wondering if ὃ καί (hO KAI)
    actually helps us to unpack some of that terse first clause. If Paul
    is saying “that which I too passed on to you”, then what we are seeing
    is the implicit presence of the “passing on” also in the first clause.
    In other words, the sense is “I received from the Lord (when it was
    passed on to me) what I *also* passed on to you”.

    I think 1 Cor. 15.1,3, which is closely parallel, and deals with the
    same kind of thing — conveying of Jesus tradition to the Corinthians
    — might help us out:

    Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ
    παρελάβετε . . .

    GNWRIZW DE hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN, hO
    KAI PARELABETE . . .

    Παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν . . .

    PAREDWKA GAR hUMIN EN PRWTOIS, hO KAI PARELABON, hOTI CRISTOS APEQANEN . . .

    In each case the ὃ καί (hO KAI) unpacks and emphasizes what is
    implicit in the previous clause, so Paul in 1 Cor. 15.3 also received
    the tradition that he had handed on to the Corinthians and which they
    too had, of course, received. “For I passed on to you as of first
    importance (implicity: and which you received), that which I *also*
    received, that Christ died . . .”

    In other words, it looks to me like Paul uses the KAI to build on what
    is implicit in the previous clause.

    Mark

    Mark Goodacre
    Duke University
    Department of Religion
    Gray Building / Box 90964
    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

    http://www.markgoodacre.org

  4. Carl Conrad says:

    On the other hand …

    (a) The phrasing in 1 Cor 11:23 has the emphatic pronoun EGW in the
    main clause; this is absent in 15:3.

    (b) In chapter 15 again the tradition is cited as a basis upon wich Paul
    constructs his argument “contra Corinthios” about the reality of the
    resurrection, as earlier about what the ritual Eucharist really means.

    (c) Of course Paul cannot claim to have been present with the
    disciples on the night of the betrayal, but he nevertheless claims to
    have received the tradition APO KURIOU. This phrasing reminds me
    of the phrasing of 1 Cor 1:11-12:

    Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν
    ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον· 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ
    παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ
    δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

    [Gal. 1:11 GNWRIZW GAR hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION
    TO EUAGGELISQEN hUP᾿ EMOU hOTI OUK ESTIN KATA ANQRWPON·
    12 OUDE GAR EGW PARA ANQRWPOU PARELABON AUTO
    OUTE EDIDACQHN ALLA DI᾿ APOKALUYEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.]

    Of course, there’s a good deal that has to be read between the lines in
    Gal 1 and some may argue that there’s some special pleading here in
    his claim to have an altogether independent revelation of the gospel
    directly from Jesus Christ — but it does suggest that when he writes,

    EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA
    hUMIN, hOTI hO KURIOS IHSOUS … ,

    he may very well be emphasizing the linkage in this PARADOSIS;
    from the Lord — to Paul — to the Corinthians. I still think that the
    emphatic EGW of 11:23 carries its full weight.

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  5. Mark Goodacre says:

    Thanks, Carl. I agree with most of what you say; brief comments:

    I agree with you about the force of the EGW; cf. Ellingworth and
    Hatton, “The first I in this verse is emphatic in Greek, underlining
    the contrast between the abuses at Corinth and the tradition that Paul
    received” (Handbook, 259).

    Agreed, although there he is very much more “communal” in his approach

    I think that’s a typo for Gal. 1.11-12 but yes, and the real
    similarity here is between 1 Cor. 15.1 (Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ
    εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε . . GNWRIZW DE
    hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN, hO KAI
    PARELABETE . . . ) and Gal. 1.11 .

    I agree, though I do think there has been some movement from Paul’s
    position in 1 Cor., which is much more inclined to cite Jesus
    tradition, and his position in Gal., where he is keen to stress that
    he gets everything by revelation.

    All best
    Mark


    Mark Goodacre
    Duke University
    Department of Religion
    Gray Building / Box 90964
    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

    http://www.markgoodacre.org

  6. "Iver Larsen" says:

    —– Original Message —–
    Cc: “Biblical Greek Mailing List”
    Sent: 17. februar 2011 19:25

    [Mark:]

    [Carl:]

    If we look at KAI from a syntactical point of view it may coordinate two
    elements, whether words, phrases, clauses or sentences. But it can also function
    as an adverb, in which case it modifies the word that follows. So, what we need
    to focus on is not hO KAI, but KAI PAREDWKA. Semantically, KAI indicates some
    kind of addition, whatever the syntax is.
    It may coordinate subjects as in “You and I did A (together)”. Or one can say:
    “You did A, and I, too, did A.” Both of these could have KAGW. The event needs
    to refer to the same idea. This is different from “I did A and I also did B.” It
    is this last construction we have here: I have not only received something, but
    I have also handed it over to you.

    The EGW is emphatic and contrasts the person of Paul with the Corinthians. It
    probably indicates that Paul has higher authority than they have in this matter,
    because he is closer to the source. Yes, Paul was not present at the last
    supper, but not too long after his conversion (3 years), he stayed with Peter
    for 2 weeks (Gal 1:18). Paul did not want to be taught theology by Peter or the
    other apostles. He did not want to be one of their disciples in the usual
    rabbinic fashion, and that is what Gal 1:1 and 11-12 is all about. Paul’s gospel
    was much more radical than that of Peter in terms of a break from traditional
    Judaism, which is clear enough from Acts. Paul already had his ph.d. in Judaism,
    studying under Gamaliel, and he used to be a radical Pharisee (Gal 1:14), but
    all of that changed when he met Jesus. He now considered it rubbish (Phil
    3:2-11) – with a typical Jewish hyperbole.

    When Paul went to stay with Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26ff), he must have asked
    repeatedly: “What did Jesus say on this or that occasion?” He was looking for
    factual, historical information, not for the theology of the apostles. He was
    undoubtedly told about the words of Jesus at the last supper, so he has the
    words from Jesus, but with an eyewitness link in between: Jesus – Peter – Paul.
    The text does not use hUPO, but APO indicating the ultimate source. After
    getting all the historical information he could get out of Peter, he went to see
    James, the oldest brother of Jesus, probably to hear about Jesus as a child or
    before he started his public ministry.

    If we compare 1 Cor 11:23 and 15:3 we see the difference in order:
    11:23 I have received what I have also passed on to you, namely that Jesus took
    bread…
    15:3 I have passed on to you what I have also received, namely that Christ died
    ….

    This order indicates that in 11:23 the receiving is relatively more prominent
    than the passing on, and that is why the second part can be seen as somewhat
    parenthetical in both places. In 15:3 the passing on is more prominent than the
    receiving. The focus in 11:23 is on Paul and his understanding of the Eucharist
    as he has received it from the source. Here he is correcting them. The focus in
    15:3 is on the Corinthians and the topic of resurrection which he has already
    talked to them about. Here he is reinforcing what many Greeks in Corinth found
    difficult to believe (not talking about those in Athens – Acts 17:32).

    There is an interesting array of adverbial KAI’s in 15:1-3:
    τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν
    TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN
    the gospel I evangelized/preached to you

    ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε
    hO KAI PARELABETE
    which you (not only heard) but also received/accepted/took to heart

    ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε
    EN hWi KAI hESTHKATE
    which you (not only took to heart) but also live in/by (now)

    δι᾽ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε
    DI’ hOU KAI SWiZESQE
    (not only do you stand in it but) by means of this gospel you are also now in
    the process of being saved

    The GAR of verse 3 introduces a more detailed explanation of the key historical
    facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus, which Paul already had passed on to
    them, but now wants to remind them of and expand on.

    Iver Larsen

  7. Mark Goodacre says:

    Going back to Stephen’s original question:

    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.

    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?

    Cheers
    Mark


    Mark Goodacre
    Duke University
    Department of Religion
    Gray Building / Box 90964
    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

    http://www.markgoodacre.org

  8. "Iver Larsen" says:

    —– Original Message —–
    Cc: “Biblical Greek Mailing List”
    Sent: 18. februar 2011 19:09

    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.

    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

  9. John Sanders says:

    There are a lot of heavy weights in on this issue, and I hesitate to add my
    puny voice to the lot, but I will do so if you will permit me.

    As Dr. Conrad has written, EGO is emphatic to begin with. But, I would also
    venture that GAR (and any post positive particle or conjunction) gives
    emphasis to the word that precedes it. That does not mean the EGO is doubly
    emphasized, but that it is emphasized by two different means. Likewise, GAR
    will also put an emphasis on the following phrase. There is energy in this
    phrase; it is not a simple inventory of fact. Likewise, the following
    phrase is parallel in structure. KAI does not need to be postpositive, but
    it is here. I would say that it deliberately put emphasis on the relative
    pronoun, hO. Also, since KAI coordinates, I would think that implies the
    following PAREDWKA hUMIN is equally emphasized. Again, this has energy.

    To come to the question posed originally. I would think that parenthetical
    comments are for commentary or clarity-a kind of inventory description. My
    thoughts are that these clauses come from the spleen, not the mind. I would
    be more forceful in saying them, not putting the second as a parenthetical
    to the first.

    My humble thoughts, and I apologize for interrupting the learned.

    John Sanders

    Suzhou, China

  10. Carl Conrad says:

    This is an interesting question. After giving it a bit of thought, I’m
    thinking that the context in which he presents this ‘traditiona” account
    of the last supper — as a basis for scolding the Corinthian believers for
    abusing the ritual — doesn’t figure heavily in this “parenthetical”
    formulation: that is, he wants them to acknowledge that this is not
    something they haven’t known about.

    If that’s right, then the implicit sense of the hO KAI might be
    conveyed as, “This tradition is one that came to ME from the Lord —
    and I DID pass it on to YOU” — i.e. “you have no excuse for
    not knowing it.”

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  11. "Bryant J. Williams III" says:

    Dear Stephen,

    It seems that the hO KAI is referencing back to PARELABON. Thus, “For ‘I’ have
    received from the Lord, which ‘I’ EVEN (KAI) handed over to YOU, that the Lord
    Jesus, …” The KAI then has the force of being almost a independent clause when
    translated as “EVEN.” This corresponds to the Greek quite well. The use of
    “also” seems to be somewhat like an (parenthetical) statement like it is what
    really new or important information.

    It sounds that Paul is really controlling his emotions (compare Galatians 1).
    The abuse of elements and handling of the Lord’s Table by the Corinthians was
    appalling. Paul is definitely reminding them of how they came about knowing
    about the Lord’s Table and how he performed it before them. There was no excuse
    whatsoever for their behaviour and the subsequent consequences EVEN (KAI) to the
    point death.

    Bryant

    —– Original Message —–
    Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:57 AM

  12. Mark Goodacre says:

    One of the difficulties here is the terse nature of Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον
    ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU) which appears
    counter-intuitive given the extreme unlikelihood that Paul was present
    “on the night he was handed over”. I am wondering if ὃ καί (hO KAI)
    actually helps us to unpack some of that terse first clause. If Paul
    is saying “that which I too passed on to you”, then what we are seeing
    is the implicit presence of the “passing on” also in the first clause.
    In other words, the sense is “I received from the Lord (when it was
    passed on to me) what I *also* passed on to you”.

    I think 1 Cor. 15.1,3, which is closely parallel, and deals with the
    same kind of thing — conveying of Jesus tradition to the Corinthians
    — might help us out:

    Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ
    παρελάβετε . . .

    GNWRIZW DE hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN, hO
    KAI PARELABETE . . .

    Παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν . . .

    PAREDWKA GAR hUMIN EN PRWTOIS, hO KAI PARELABON, hOTI CRISTOS APEQANEN . . .

    In each case the ὃ καί (hO KAI) unpacks and emphasizes what is
    implicit in the previous clause, so Paul in 1 Cor. 15.3 also received
    the tradition that he had handed on to the Corinthians and which they
    too had, of course, received. “For I passed on to you as of first
    importance (implicity: and which you received), that which I *also*
    received, that Christ died . . .”

    In other words, it looks to me like Paul uses the KAI to build on what
    is implicit in the previous clause.

    Mark

    Mark Goodacre
    Duke University
    Department of Religion
    Gray Building / Box 90964
    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

    http://www.markgoodacre.org

  13. Carl Conrad says:

    On the other hand …

    (a) The phrasing in 1 Cor 11:23 has the emphatic pronoun EGW in the
    main clause; this is absent in 15:3.

    (b) In chapter 15 again the tradition is cited as a basis upon wich Paul
    constructs his argument “contra Corinthios” about the reality of the
    resurrection, as earlier about what the ritual Eucharist really means.

    (c) Of course Paul cannot claim to have been present with the
    disciples on the night of the betrayal, but he nevertheless claims to
    have received the tradition APO KURIOU. This phrasing reminds me
    of the phrasing of 1 Cor 1:11-12:

    Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν
    ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον· 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ
    παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ
    δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

    [Gal. 1:11 GNWRIZW GAR hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION
    TO EUAGGELISQEN hUP᾿ EMOU hOTI OUK ESTIN KATA ANQRWPON·
    12 OUDE GAR EGW PARA ANQRWPOU PARELABON AUTO
    OUTE EDIDACQHN ALLA DI᾿ APOKALUYEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.]

    Of course, there’s a good deal that has to be read between the lines in
    Gal 1 and some may argue that there’s some special pleading here in
    his claim to have an altogether independent revelation of the gospel
    directly from Jesus Christ — but it does suggest that when he writes,

    EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA
    hUMIN, hOTI hO KURIOS IHSOUS … ,

    he may very well be emphasizing the linkage in this PARADOSIS;
    from the Lord — to Paul — to the Corinthians. I still think that the
    emphatic EGW of 11:23 carries its full weight.

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  14. Mark Goodacre says:

    Thanks, Carl. I agree with most of what you say; brief comments:

    I agree with you about the force of the EGW; cf. Ellingworth and
    Hatton, “The first I in this verse is emphatic in Greek, underlining
    the contrast between the abuses at Corinth and the tradition that Paul
    received” (Handbook, 259).

    Agreed, although there he is very much more “communal” in his approach

    I think that’s a typo for Gal. 1.11-12 but yes, and the real
    similarity here is between 1 Cor. 15.1 (Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ
    εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε . . GNWRIZW DE
    hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN, hO KAI
    PARELABETE . . . ) and Gal. 1.11 .

    I agree, though I do think there has been some movement from Paul’s
    position in 1 Cor., which is much more inclined to cite Jesus
    tradition, and his position in Gal., where he is keen to stress that
    he gets everything by revelation.

    All best
    Mark


    Mark Goodacre
    Duke University
    Department of Religion
    Gray Building / Box 90964
    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

    http://www.markgoodacre.org

  15. "Iver Larsen" says:

    —– Original Message —–
    Cc: “Biblical Greek Mailing List”
    Sent: 17. februar 2011 19:25

    [Mark:]

    [Carl:]

    If we look at KAI from a syntactical point of view it may coordinate two
    elements, whether words, phrases, clauses or sentences. But it can also function
    as an adverb, in which case it modifies the word that follows. So, what we need
    to focus on is not hO KAI, but KAI PAREDWKA. Semantically, KAI indicates some
    kind of addition, whatever the syntax is.
    It may coordinate subjects as in “You and I did A (together)”. Or one can say:
    “You did A, and I, too, did A.” Both of these could have KAGW. The event needs
    to refer to the same idea. This is different from “I did A and I also did B.” It
    is this last construction we have here: I have not only received something, but
    I have also handed it over to you.

    The EGW is emphatic and contrasts the person of Paul with the Corinthians. It
    probably indicates that Paul has higher authority than they have in this matter,
    because he is closer to the source. Yes, Paul was not present at the last
    supper, but not too long after his conversion (3 years), he stayed with Peter
    for 2 weeks (Gal 1:18). Paul did not want to be taught theology by Peter or the
    other apostles. He did not want to be one of their disciples in the usual
    rabbinic fashion, and that is what Gal 1:1 and 11-12 is all about. Paul’s gospel
    was much more radical than that of Peter in terms of a break from traditional
    Judaism, which is clear enough from Acts. Paul already had his ph.d. in Judaism,
    studying under Gamaliel, and he used to be a radical Pharisee (Gal 1:14), but
    all of that changed when he met Jesus. He now considered it rubbish (Phil
    3:2-11) – with a typical Jewish hyperbole.

    When Paul went to stay with Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26ff), he must have asked
    repeatedly: “What did Jesus say on this or that occasion?” He was looking for
    factual, historical information, not for the theology of the apostles. He was
    undoubtedly told about the words of Jesus at the last supper, so he has the
    words from Jesus, but with an eyewitness link in between: Jesus – Peter – Paul.
    The text does not use hUPO, but APO indicating the ultimate source. After
    getting all the historical information he could get out of Peter, he went to see
    James, the oldest brother of Jesus, probably to hear about Jesus as a child or
    before he started his public ministry.

    If we compare 1 Cor 11:23 and 15:3 we see the difference in order:
    11:23 I have received what I have also passed on to you, namely that Jesus took
    bread…
    15:3 I have passed on to you what I have also received, namely that Christ died
    ….

    This order indicates that in 11:23 the receiving is relatively more prominent
    than the passing on, and that is why the second part can be seen as somewhat
    parenthetical in both places. In 15:3 the passing on is more prominent than the
    receiving. The focus in 11:23 is on Paul and his understanding of the Eucharist
    as he has received it from the source. Here he is correcting them. The focus in
    15:3 is on the Corinthians and the topic of resurrection which he has already
    talked to them about. Here he is reinforcing what many Greeks in Corinth found
    difficult to believe (not talking about those in Athens – Acts 17:32).

    There is an interesting array of adverbial KAI’s in 15:1-3:
    τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν
    TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN
    the gospel I evangelized/preached to you

    ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε
    hO KAI PARELABETE
    which you (not only heard) but also received/accepted/took to heart

    ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε
    EN hWi KAI hESTHKATE
    which you (not only took to heart) but also live in/by (now)

    δι᾽ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε
    DI’ hOU KAI SWiZESQE
    (not only do you stand in it but) by means of this gospel you are also now in
    the process of being saved

    The GAR of verse 3 introduces a more detailed explanation of the key historical
    facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus, which Paul already had passed on to
    them, but now wants to remind them of and expand on.

    Iver Larsen

  16. Mark Goodacre says:

    Going back to Stephen’s original question:

    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.

    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?

    Cheers
    Mark


    Mark Goodacre
    Duke University
    Department of Religion
    Gray Building / Box 90964
    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

    http://www.markgoodacre.org

  17. "Iver Larsen" says:

    —– Original Message —–
    Cc: “Biblical Greek Mailing List”
    Sent: 18. februar 2011 19:09

    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.

    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

  18. John Sanders says:

    There are a lot of heavy weights in on this issue, and I hesitate to add my
    puny voice to the lot, but I will do so if you will permit me.

    As Dr. Conrad has written, EGO is emphatic to begin with. But, I would also
    venture that GAR (and any post positive particle or conjunction) gives
    emphasis to the word that precedes it. That does not mean the EGO is doubly
    emphasized, but that it is emphasized by two different means. Likewise, GAR
    will also put an emphasis on the following phrase. There is energy in this
    phrase; it is not a simple inventory of fact. Likewise, the following
    phrase is parallel in structure. KAI does not need to be postpositive, but
    it is here. I would say that it deliberately put emphasis on the relative
    pronoun, hO. Also, since KAI coordinates, I would think that implies the
    following PAREDWKA hUMIN is equally emphasized. Again, this has energy.

    To come to the question posed originally. I would think that parenthetical
    comments are for commentary or clarity-a kind of inventory description. My
    thoughts are that these clauses come from the spleen, not the mind. I would
    be more forceful in saying them, not putting the second as a parenthetical
    to the first.

    My humble thoughts, and I apologize for interrupting the learned.

    John Sanders

    Suzhou, China

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.