Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

2Co 5:4 kai, — I am taking the word in the sense of “also,” “in addition.

” The thought
reflected by the diagramming may be somewhat loosely rendered this way: “Another
reason we groan is that we are burdened....” The kai, seems to me to signal the addition
of a further consideration, but not until the end of the clause (in the participle
barou,menoi) does Paul add another of the same kind as something he has already said
(the earlier explanatory participle being evpipoqou,ntej). Everything else in the clause
is simple repetition of what has already been said. This construction would make kai,
and the participle fit together as bookends enclosing the whole unit, which seems entirely
reasonable to me. However, I admit that the versions do not read the verse this way. The
only attractive alternative I can see is that suggested by BDAG: treat kai. ga,r as a unit,
functioning as the introductory conjunction essentially equivalent to a simple ga,r.
2Co 5:6-8 — The adverbial participles in v. 6 seem to be setting up for a verb that Paul
never expresses, the construction having been interrupted by the parenthesis of v. 7. So
the opening de, of v. 8 has nothing explicit with which to coordinate. Thus I have
diagrammed an elliptical main clause for vv. 6-7 to modify and for v. 8 to coordinate
with.
2Co 5:4 kai, — I am taking the word in the sense of “also,” “in addition.” The thought
reflected by the diagramming may be somewhat loosely rendered this way: “Another
reason we groan is that we are burdened....” The kai, seems to me to signal the addition
of a further consideration, but not until the end of the clause (in the participle
barou,menoi) does Paul add another of the same kind as something he has already said
(the earlier explanatory participle being evpipoqou,ntej). Everything else in the clause
is simple repetition of what has already been said. This construction would make kai,
and the participle fit together as bookends enclosing the whole unit, which seems entirely
reasonable to me. However, I admit that the versions do not read the verse this way. The
only attractive alternative I can see is that suggested by BDAG: treat kai. ga,r as a unit,
functioning as the introductory conjunction essentially equivalent to a simple ga,r.
2Co 5:5 wrong clause widget: had SVO rather than S-LV-P.
2Co 5:6-8 — The adverbial participles in v. 6 seem to be setting up for a verb that Paul
never expresses, the construction having been interrupted by the parenthesis of v. 7. So
the opening de, of v. 8 has nothing explicit with which to coordinate. Thus I have
diagrammed an elliptical main clause for vv. 6-7 to modify and for v. 8 to coordinate
with.