From: mjoseph (mjoseph@terminal.cz)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 14:32:16 EST
Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>I was about to respond, but during the interim my skiing screen saver
>came on, and all the messages were inadvertantly deleted.
Earlier, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>After wrestling with a new computer for two weeks I am back on stage.
Hoping that this isn't interpreted as an overtly theological statement, I
must say to both of you: You need to get a Macintosh!
More from Paul:
>Anyhow, you asked about some discussion on the textual problem regarding
>[hH]. Though the UBS text offers no discussion, Nestle-Aland offers
>this:
>P45, p75, Aleph*, B2, L, and a few other manuscripts omit hH.
Hmm, those are the four I know about, but I didn't know about the two
papyri. I wonder why UBS doesn't discuss this?
>As for the KAI, it might best be rendered "also," the idea being that
>Mary not only had already done her work in preparation for Jesus' coming,
>but was also sitting at His feet. The inclusion of KAI here, then,
>makes Mary look even better than we may have thought. It certainly is
>commendable to be interested in being fed spiritually and in making that
>a priority, but it is even better that she had not neglected her regular
>duties in order to do so.
Several people have suggested "also" for KAI here. I'm afraid I can't
see your suggestion in the context, though. That Mary had already been
working might be inferrable in the context, but certainly isn't obvious.
>If [hH] is omitted, then the translation might be something like, "and
>she had a sister called Mary, and having sat at the feet of the Lord, she
>was listening to His word."
>
>One can see the possible ambiguity here, and why someone might insert the
>relative pronoun to clarify it was Mary who was sitting at the Lord's
>feet.
Before I saw mention of the two papyri, I thought that the omission of
the relative was a minor variant, not worth much. After all, the first
original hand without it, so I thought, dated to the 8th century. Now
I'm not so sure.
Assuming for a moment that the relative pronoun isn't in the text, is it
grammatically possible that Martha is the subject of HN and Mary the
subject of PARAKAQESQEISA and HKOUEN? I would say no, but I'm not a
grammatical expert. The reading without the relative would then be
impossible. I know the principle of the more difficult reading. But if
a reading is impossibly difficult, is it rejected?
Ben Crick added:
> The word KAI in this context means "also":
(snip)
> 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.
Agreed. After all, I have learned better than to ask a theological
question on this list! Actually, a friend who knows no Greek at all saw
the KAI translated as "also" in an interlinear, and wondered whether or
not it might mean that Mary and also Martha were sitting at Jesus' feet.
So, I answered him, that the participle is feminine *singular*, but while
studying it my question about the text and the meaning of KAI came up.
> 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.
That was my first thought, but then it looks like the whole sentence is
talking about Martha.
>It is likely that an early copyist inserted the relative pronoun hH to smooth
> the sentence out; so it is only in some MSS.
So my question really is, if Martha was serving, and Mary listening (as
the context surely implies), would (could) Luke have written the sentence
*without* the relative pronoun? Is that acceptable Greek grammar?
Thanks for the input,
Mark Joseph
_____________________________________________________
I don't despise religion. I'm a mortal man--Euripides
For as the coveted object is, so becomes the coveter
--Kierkegaard
There is no intellectual awkwardness about a God who speaks
--Walter Brueggemann
The road may be hard, but the map is clear--CS Lewis
____________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT