From: Ilvgrammta@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 10:06:18 EST
Carl Conrad writes:
>>As for KAI, I would take it as a simple conjunction used to add a second
subject to the predicate of the original clause (to NAOS AUTHS ESTIN). I
suppose it would be POSSIBLE to punctuate with a comma after ESTIN and
understand TO ARNION as an appositive to KURIOS hO QEOS hO
PANTOKRATWR--with KAI having adverbial force ("even the Lamb"), but to me
personally, that seems far less natural than reading TO ARNION as an
appended second subject linked to the first with the KAI.<<
Could KAI be used adjunctively, in Rev. 21:22? Whether its used adjunctively
or as a simple additive, can one properly conclude that the author of
Revelation is drawing a line of demarcation between hO PANTOKRATWR and TO
ARNION? Now I have no desire to get involved in a full-blown Christological
discussion, nor am I asking you to agree with any implications I may draw
from this verse. My question concerns the grammar. Is it reasonable to
conclude that the writer might be saying that while two persons constitute
the temple of the city, hO PANTOKRATWR and TO ARNION are to be differentiated
in some way?
Regards,
Edgar Foster
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:50 EDT