From: Ben Crick (ben.crick@argonet.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 19 1998 - 22:43:18 EST
On Mon 19 Jan 98 (22:09:13 +0100), mjoseph@terminal.cz wrote:
[snipped]
> 2) If so, that is, if the relative pronoun really must be here, then
> what is the meaning of KAI here? It seems to me that the resultant
> reading without the KAI, that is, "she had a sister named Mary, who
> (and) was sitting at the feet of the Lord" is just fine. What does
> the KAI add to the sentence?
Dear Mark,
Yes, I saw your original post, but left it for the b-greek pundits to
answer. But, seeing as they did not, here is my $0.02 worth:
The word KAI in this context means "also":
KAI THiDE HN ADELFH KALOUMENH MARIAM, [hH] KAI PARAKAQESQEISA PROS TOU PODAS
TOU KURIOU HKOUEN TON LOGON AUTOU.
And she had a sister called Mary, [who] also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard
his word.
Many of the modern versions omit /KAI/ but retain /hH/. It does not appear
that any great textual/critical crux is involved here, with dire doctrinal
implications.
Knowing the quasi-Hebraistic mould of Luke's Greek, one could translate
"And she had a sister called Mary, and she sat at Jesus' feet, and she
heard his word". This would simulate the WaW-consecutiva construction. It
is likely that an early copyist inserted the relative pronoun hH to smooth
the sentence out; so it is only in some MSS.
CAIREIN
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT