Rev. 21:22
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 11:56:22 EST 1999
At 10:06 AM -0500 12/20/99, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:
>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?
Yes, in my opinion they are differentiated in some way here; and if by
"adjunctively" you mean that the sense of KAI must be "and also," I'd go
along with that. On the other hand, I don't see any clear implication of
what constitutes the differentiation beyond the reference to TO ARNION as
an additional subject of NAOS AUTHS ESTIN.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list