michaelhaggett at lineone.net
Mon May 28 16:58:58 EDT 2001
Harold R. Holmyard III wrote (28 May)
>HH: You are right. I apologize for claiming that the two KAI situation fit
here in John 17:25, since the next conjunction is a DE. Yet the DE
conjunction, as you observe, seems to be adversative here. I notice that
KAI preceding a participle can also have the sense of "although" according
to LSJ at KAI, B.9. So the KAI with DE situation may be close enough to the
KAI with KAI situation to carry the same sense. Also, the following KAI is
joining the disciples' knowing with that of Jesus' knowing. So their
knowing would partake of the adversative quality of His knowing. You are
right that I meant the "yet" to precede Jesus' knowing.
MH: No apology necessary. And I'm very sorry if my own tone seemed critical
of what you wrote. I didn't mean to disagree THAT strongly :-)
Indeed, I think everything you say here is very sensible.
>HH: Your idea of "yes" seems good, but I do not see the lexicons offering
that idea. In Hebrew the similar "waw" conjunction may sometimes be
translated as "yes." See Waltke and O'Connor's _Biblical Hebrew Syntax_,
652-53, where they discuss the "emphatic waw" translated as "yea." But
"waw" may be a more multi-purpose word than KAI.
MH: I'm not quite sure how to react to the lexicons not offering the idea.
But what Harry Jones wrote would seem to support it:
HWJ>In this instance it would seem to have
to be translated in the "emphatic" because that's the only use
that fits the context best. For example, "indeed, verily, really, in fact,
yea, certainly, etc." ... all of this is pointed out in Dana & Mantey
on pages 249, 250 and 251.
MH: An example that I use in my own course shows a similar instance
in which I think the KAI can only be emphatic:
hOI DE PERISSWS EXEPLPHSONTO LEGONTES PROS hEAUTOUS:
KAI TIS DUNATAI SWQHNAI;
I would suggest that the only way of translating the emphatic force of this
KAI is with something like:
And they were greatly astonished saying to themselves,
"Is anyone AT ALL able to be saved?"
or even better, perhaps,
"Wow! Is ANYONE able to be saved?"
But I don't think "wow" would ever find its way into a lexicon ... except as
a misprint for waw. Although, come to think of it, that does have a certain
poetic symmetry, doesn't it?
I guess I would say that lexicons are by nature selective in the examples
they give, and that they would be very bulky things indeed if they covered
every possible nuance of a word that is so widely used as KAI.
More information about the B-Greek