Ben C Smith

The kai in Matthew 17.2 (if that is what you are referring to) is not a good parallel.

Which came first in Matthew 17.2, the transfiguration or the shining face? Clearly the transfiguration, since change precedes result. Which came first in Matthew 4.12-13, getting to Galilee or leaving Nazara? On your reading, if Nazara is not in Galilee, then Jesus had to leave Nazara before arriving in Galilee.

Look what this simple observation does to your parallel:

[A] He was transformed before them, and [B] his face shone like the sun....

[B] He withdrew into Galilee;* [A] leaving Nazara he came and lived in Capernaum.

* Omitting the and for clarity.

Ben.

spin

Umm, what does transfiguration mean? How is it manifested? Do you honestly think it is separate from the face shining!?

Clearly we are dealing with the manifestation of the transfiguration, given as explanation for the reader.

Umm, in Genesis 1:1 god created the heavens and the earth. Then according to your logic, he created them again.


spin

Ben C Smith

Change.

By its results.

Of course. It would be irrational to say that the change and the results of that change are the same exact thing. They are distinguishable.

Please be more specific. Which kai in Genesis 1 is parallel to your use of kai in Matthew 4.13?

Ben.

spin

Coy. What is the manifestation of the change? Obviously to the writer the fact that Jesus' face shone.

The shining face is not a result of the transfiguration. It is a manifestation of it. How was Jesus transfigured?

Your separation is arbitrary and unfathomable. The face shining explains the transfiguration. It isn't a result. Given the sentence, "She shot him", "her bullet pierced his head" is an explanation. "He died" is a result.

You can see from the difficulty you're having with this example of an epexegetical kai that your desire for nice clear cut examples of the form to fit your stringent requirements will certainly go unrewarded.

It was not kai that I was interested in here. It is the assumption of the structure of the text that is not correct. You separate off the withdrawal to Galilee from the going to Capernaum by the sea in Zebulun and Naphtali. The whole idea of the creation is contained in the first verse of Genesis. This is followed by a description of the actual creation. The structure often inspires a gap theory analogous to the one you're tacitly implying with Nazara. In fact what follows the first verse of Genesis is an explanation of that verse. (It is connected in Hebrew with the same sort of "and".)


spin

Ben C Smith

Correct. The shining face is the manifestation, or effect, of the change. Therefore the change logically precedes it.

This is why the phrase order makes eminent sense in Matthew 17.2.

So... the shining face is a manifestation of the transfiguration, but not a result of it. A fever is the manifestation of malaria, but not a result of it. A smile is a manifestation of happiness, but not a result of it.

This makes no sense to me.

This is correct. Irrelevant, but correct.

Then your statement was irrelevant. The kai (and the construction it is a part of) was always the issue, from the moment the_cave brought it up.

Ben.

spin

Did you put up that webpage? It's a ridiculous definition.

Try real Webster. Nothing about "manifestation".

What about this or this?

I can appreciate that this is tough for you.

By separating the transfiguration from itself. Makes sense. Hmmm.


That's because your analogy is false. You are trying to say something equivalent to "He smiled, then his mouth moved."


spin

Ben C Smith

Slapped it up in record time, just to support my point of view.

I was using your own words. You said that the shining face was the manifestation, but not the result, of the change. But a manifestation is a result. Fever is a manifestation of malaria, and fever is a result of malaria. This is just good, idiomatic English.

I have mentioned it before, and I say it again: There is not much chance of agreeing on the Greek of our passage if even the English is under such dispute.

Ben.

spin

You're being refractory. You're shooting at my words and not trying to understand the text. My words are attempts to help you get the idea. And obviously your reference to fever is unthought-out. You are serializing a situation that doesn't allow you to.

But irrelevant. You're going on about your objections to the word manifestation and show no sign of what was being said about the text. Please, look at the simple analogy I gave you for how you are trying to mangle the text. The analogy was "He smiled, then his mouth moved." It's obviously wrong, but it's what you're doing.

He's happy. How do you know? His mouth is a gentle smile.

He was transfigured. How do you know? His face shone like the sun.

The English is not under dispute. I should have you arrested for criminal linguistic negligence.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus's shining face must not be an indication of the transfiguration, but rather a result of it? If so, we stop here.

Do you accept that one can describe a particular usage of kai as epexegetical, ie that the items conjoined by it are not discrete, but additive and usually explanatory of the first? If not, we stop here.

If we have the raw starting material, I don't understand why you want to separate the shining of the face from the statement of the transfiguration as though it were a later occurrence. As I understand it, our writer has added the shining of the face to give the reader a tangible notion of what transfiguration was. What is difficult about this?

If we can't agree and you can't explain your position any more clearly, then I'll think I've wasted my effort trying to reason with you. For me, the epexegetical kai in Mt 17:2 is a no-boner.


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes, it is wrong; and I said nothing of the kind. The change precedes the result (the effect, the manifestation). In this case (in this analogy that is completely of your own invention), if anything, the mouth moving precedes the smile, not vice versa.

Exactly. I already said that:

:huh:

His shining face is an indication of the transfiguration. His shining face is also a result of his transfiguration. His shining face is also a manifestation of his transfiguration.

Indication and result are not antonyms. At least, they do not have to be.

Yes, of course. One can do so. The question is whether one should do so in each separate case.

It is not chronologically later; it is logically consequent. As Kant wrote:

The majority of efficient causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects.

In Matthew 4.13, however, the movement is (on the expected reading of this construction) chronologically later. First to Galilee (in verse 12), then away from Nazara (in verse 13). It is your position that these two instances of kai are similar, not mine.

Ben.

ETA: For clarity, let us compare Matthew 4.12-13 (on your reading) with 17.2:

He withdrew into Galilee; that is [kai], he departed from Nazara and went to live in Capernaum.

He was transformed; that is [kai], his face shone.

Forget manifestations, results, causes and effects, and indications for a moment. Forget epexegetical conjunctions.

How are these instances of kai similar? If Nazara lies outside of Galilee (as it does on your reading), then both logically and chronologically the departure from Nazara must precede the arrival in Galilee. But can the shining face precede the transformation? No. Logically (though not necessarily chronologically) the transformation must precede the shining face; at level best, the two are simultaneous. Labelling these by the only order that makes any logical sense, we get:

[B] He withdrew into Galilee; that is [kai], [A] he departed from Nazara and went to live in Capernaum.

[A] He was transformed; that is [kai], [B] his face shone.

The thing is, once the author mentions the arrival in Galilee it is backtracking to now tell us whence Jesus had departed. But there is no backtracking in Matthew 17.2.

Even if you want to give both instances of kai the same label, they are doing different things, and the two are not, can not be, analogous.

Ben.

spin

As it seems you now have a different view regarding the use of the epexegetical kai in 17:2, I've omitted all the sparring over it. (I can post that and my response if you need it. )
(This is your a priori view. It is the expected understanding that comes not from analysis, but tradition. The text itself, explaining Jesus' withdrawal to Galilee, says he moved from Nazara to Capernaum. Others' explanations are not constrained by your requirements.)

:banghead: What has this got to do with the explanatory power of the material governed by kai? Each different clause has different implications. One explanation doesn't have to be constrained by another.

The first instance explains the move into Galilee. The second what being transfigured entails. Your attempts to chronologically straightjacket one because of the other is irrelevant.

You are merely trying to overgeneralize.

You're repeating the previous content with slightly different material and showing that you're shooting at form rather than content. Different things are explained differently. One size does not fit all.

They are doing the same thing in that they are explaining something. They are doing different things due to the necessity of explaining different things. Nothing comes of nothing: speak again.


spin