A possible parenthetical ?

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi ya,

 

  I am reading Luke and ran across this in Luke 20:19 which reads :

 

Καὶ ἐζήτησαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐπιβαλεῖν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην.

 

  Now the portion I've put in bold, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, looks to me like a parenthetical to me. Yet in the syntax chart it is modelled like this as a simple clause:

 

 

  Any thoughts on why this is so ?

 

  I see that English translations handle it somewhat variably, with KJV treating it is though the reason for their fear was ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην, leading to a translation "Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them." though in this case I would probably have used "but" instead of "and". In the NET bible they pulled the entire clause out and put it at the end "But they were afraid of the people.", removing any trace of its possible parenthetical nature. On the other hand BHGNT on Luke says that the και here begins a parenthetical and they leave it inline bookended with '-'.

 

Thoughts or comments ?

 

  The more I look at it the more I think it hinges on how you read the 'γαρ', and whether you think it subordinates the following clause to the first or second of the preceding clauses.

 

Thx

D
 

[Robert Holmstedt]

I'm not going to comment in this specific example, but I've written an article on parenthesis in Hebrew and the issue is very tricky. Translations and commentaries decide based on intuition rather than any clear criteria. For the syntax database, we need clear *syntactic* criteria, which means for the NT someone would have to research it, as I have done for BH (and even then, interclausal parenthesis is basically impossible to define).

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Thanx for responding Robert. A question came up discussing this with someone else yesterday - is parenthesis really a syntactic feature or does it properly belong somewhere else ? Perhaps in some part of discourse grammar. I don't really know. I'd be interested in your take on that. I'd also be interested in your article on Hebrew parenthesis if there is some where I can look it up - a link or journal reference ?

 

Thx

D

[Robert Holmstedt]

I think some of what we call parenthesis is syntactic, and other types are not. That's part of the problem.

My article is not quite in final form -- I have to finish and submit it to the volume editors month. I'll likely post that version to my blog page at that time.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ah ... ok. Thanx.

 

Thx

D

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Robert: good to hear you are writing about this. I will eagerly wait for your chapter to come out in academia.edu.

 

Daniel: about this specific sentence, it seems to me that you cannot separate any part of Luke 20:19 καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην. The second clause, although as a coordinate and not a subordinate clause, gives the reason for the first. The third is a complement clause, subordinate to the second. Then comes the fullstop and the sentence ends. As there is no closed parenthesis, rather than a parenthesis, at most we would have some interrpution before καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν.

 

As for the interruption, I don't perceive it. Certainly the conjunction doesn't suggest it. Καί suggests that we don't have a sequence of events (as δέ would imply), but rather two eventes that happen at the same time: they would apprehend him, but at the same time the feared the people.

 

For a study of conjunctions and adverbs used in coordinate clauses, I would like to refer to the Discourse Grammar of the GNT by S. Runge. The relevant chapter is available for free.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Marco,

 

  Thanx for responding. I agree that ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην provides a reason. The question I arrived at was "reason for what ? For fearing the crowd or for wanting to lay hands on Jesus ?"  In the end I plumped for the latter which then tends to leave καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν as a parenthetical. So indeed not due to the και certainly. I have Runge but had not thought to look there. I'll take a look and see what that suggests. Thanx for the pointer.

 

Thanx
D

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Oh, yes, I now get what you are suggesting, and I find it intriguing. I will think and read about it. If I am persuaded, I will make the change

[Marco V. Fabbri]

All rIght: I have looked at the bibliography and I will make the change that you suggest.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Marco V. Fabbri

[Λύχνις Δαν]

So far I've checked the Luke volume in the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament series by Culy, Parsons, and Stigall. They support parenthesis here but offer no explanation of their reasoning. I have also read Robertson (accord://read/Robertson_Greek#3655) on parenthesis and anacoluthon. Likewise also BDF section 465. BDF is very short and doesn't add much to Robertson. Robertson notes a number of cases with examples of differences of opinion. I have not been able to find a lengthy treatment of parenthesis in Biblical Greek so far. I've also checked a few translations.

 

As I mentioned above the NET bible translations hoists καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν out and puts it after the other. Thus they would appear to support the notion that the reason for wanting to lay hands on Jesus is that he told a parable about them that did not show them in a good light. But at the same time it disguises the form of the original text. Their notes do not explain their reasoning here either.

 

Of course, arguing from a translation about how the Greek should be read is not appropriate per se, but it at least may indicate how others appear to have read the Greek.

 

That's about as far as I have so far gotten with this.

 

Thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Many thanx Marco

D