Luke 1:2

Lk 1:2 KAQA/KAQWS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at
Sun Aug 25 12:32:40 EDT 2002

Less than Greek 101… Lk 1:4 TWN/hWN Introductory note: I feel that the discussions of readings in the text ofLuke’s gospel in Codex Bezae have been gotten off to a bad start by theformatting that I adopted for their presentation. I was supplied with alist of issues by Mme Chabert d’Hyères and initially presented herformulations in French followed by my own endeavor at an Englishtranslation of her formulations. So I’m going to “recommence”: I shallpost, in English only, a formulation of each issue as simply as possible.For those particular issues upon which there has been some discussion Ishall attempt a summary of what’s been stated so far (if I misrepresentwhat anyone has said–I’m not citing verbatim–let the injured partycorrect what I say.In Lk 1:2 is there a substantive or significant difference of meaningbetween KAQA PAREDOSAN hHMIN hOI AP’ ARCHS AUTOPTAI (Codex Bezae D05) andKAQWS PAREDOSAN hHMIN hOI AP’ ARCHS AUTOPTAI (reading adopted in NA27/USB4)?KAQA derives from or represents KAT’ hA. One question is whether KAQA inour passage is to be understood as an adverbial conjunction equivalent toKAQWS or is rather to be understood with hA as the relative pronoun direct object of PAREDOSAN, “according to what/the things which theeye-witnesses have transmitted to us …”(1) Mme Chabert says that in other passages KAQWS is used by Luke, itintroduces a clause with an intransitive verb or a verb with a substantiveas a direct object. If we understand KAQA as KAT(A) hA, then the relativepronoun hA must refer to those matters which the eye-witnesses havetransmitted.(2) Conrad, Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:32:40 -0400: I wrote: “Does anyone reallybelieve that D05’s KAQA in Lk 1:2 bears or is intended to bear a meaningdifferent from the generally accepted KAQWS. Granted that KAQA appears onlyonce in the NA27/UBS4 GNT (Mt 27.10 KAI EDWKAN AUTA EIS TON AGRON TOUKERAMEWS, KAQA SUNETAXEN MOI KURIOS). My own view is that KAQA in D05 ( Codex Bezae) means exactly the same as KAQWS in the chief MSS. I do NOTthink that there’s an implicit direct object in a hA of KAT’ hA but ratherthat KAQA is an adverbial conjunction.” In support of this view I cited thearticle on KAQA in BDAG and article 64.16 of Louw & Nida where KAQA andKAQWS are represented as essentially equivalent adverbial conjunctions.(3) Chuck Tripp, Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:26:37 -0800: noted (a) that LSJ (andThayer too) also represents KAQA and KAQWS as equivalent; but then, (b)checked Biblical usage of KAQA and KAQO. He cites LXX Gen. 7:9, 16, 19:8 asinstances wherein the relative pronoun hA can be understood as a realdirect object (or subject) of the subordinate verb, and LXX Judith 3:3where KAQO may be understood as KAQ’ hO where the relative pronoun issubject of a singular verb . Finally he thinks that KAQA in Mt 27:10 mayjust as well be understood as KAQ’ hA with hA as the real direct object ofthe subordinate verb ENETEILATO.(4) In response to Chuck, I will say that I think his strongest point maylie in the usage of KAQO with a singular verb in Judith 3:3 (XRHSAI KAQO ANARESKHi SOI); on the other hand, I think it’s just as likely or more sothat ARESKHi here is impersonal rather than singular because hO issingular–and I think the same may be true in the comparable text of Gen.19:8 EISIN MOI DUO QUGATERES hAI OUK EGNWSAN ANDRA EXAXW AUTAS PROS hUMASKAI XRHSASQE AUTAIS KAQA AN ARESKNi hUMIN: while we might say that ARESKHithere is singular because hA is a neuter plural subject (and so ordinarilytaking a singular verb), I think it’s just as likely that ARESKHi in bothtexts is impersonal (cf. Lat. PLACETNE TIBI?, Fr. vous-plaît-il?, Ger.stimmt es Ihnen?) and that both KAQA and KAQO are essentially adverbialconjunctions. I would add that what makes this little question the moredifficult to adjudicate is that there’s a real Hellenistic Greekpredilection for creating adverbs with KATA + acc., whether spelled as oneword or as two, e.g. KATA MEROS (“partially”), KAQ’ hOLOU (“generally”),etc. (Cf. LSJ s.v. KATA VIII. Ultimately I guess the question must bewhether we suppose that a hA in KAQA is intended to point to specific itemsincluded in the tradition handed down by the eye-witnesses referred to inLk 1:2 or rather that Luke is referring generally to those traditions. Andthat’s a judgment that may have to be made on considerations other than thegrammar of this particular atomic unit of text.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW:

Less than Greek 101…Lk 1:4 TWN/hWN

People who read this article also liked:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.