Tit 1:1-2

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 25 13:44:54 EST 2000


At 10:25 AM -0800 1/25/00, Brian Swedburg wrote:
>
>
>"Carl W. Conrad" wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, you have to admit asking what we think! And you may well find that
>>we don't all think the same way or with the same results.
>>
>
>Your knowledgable response is always gracious, so, I am glad for the
>critical exchange!

What I really meant to say is that I think there's plenty of room for
argument when it comes to discussion of the prepositions that are used with
more than one case. I must say, however, that I feel considerably less
alone, when Carlton expresses views that seem pretty close to my own on
this particular question.

>
>>For my part, I have always preferred, where it is possible, to understand
>>KATA with the accusative in the sense of "in accordance with" or
>>"following the course of" (like Latin SECUNDUM, which was a preposition
>>deriving from a participial form of SEQUOR, "follow"; I don't mean to
>>suggest that the meaning of Koine KATA with acc. derives from Latin
>>usage, but I think that in the Latin Bible KATA + acc. most regularly is
>>translated by Latin SECUNDUM + acc.). And I think that would work in this
>>passage also:
>>     "in keeping with/in accordance with God's saints' faith and
>>knowledge of the truth (that is) in keeping with reverence ..."
>>
>This is one of the reasons I love this list!  Though BAGD itself proposes
>the function of KATA being purpose, and it fits nicely with my view of the
>letter, I was skeptical of my own translation from the start.
>    I also like the woodeness of some literal translations, yet I still
>don't think I full grasp the intent of the author in using KATA in the
>sense of "in accordance with". Trying to grasp the visual image of the
>preposition, "partnering with" (ie. standing beside) is about as close as
>I can get.  Perhaps part of my problem is that I am not sure how Paul's
>apostleship must accord with the faith, though I can grasp it's
>partnership to or functioning for the purpose of, as I have already
>suggested.(Obviously I have tipped my hat on my identity of the author...)
>    Can you help me grasp this "in accordance with" function?

Let me try again with the image that always looms in my mind for KATA +
acc.: it is movement alongside the course of a river flowing downstream--in
a boat it would be letting the current carry one where the current goes; on
the riverbank it would be going where the course of the river goes, even
when it meanders a bit as they do over territory that is not very level.
SO, in this verse,

>PAULOS DOULOS QEOU APOSTOLOS DE IHSOU XRISTOU KATA PISTIN EKLEKTWN QEOU
>KAI EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS THS KAT  EUSEBEIAN EP ELPIDI ZWHS AIWNIOU...,

I would understand that Paul (or whoever is authoring Titus in the Pauline
tradition) thinks of his/Paul's activity as an apostle as not running in a
direction different from what the "elect of God" believe; that may be about
the right image too, since Paul talks often enough about "running a
course", and in Gal 5:7 he says to the Galatians ETRECETE KALWS: TIS hUMAS
ENEKOYEN THi ALHQEIAi MH PEIQESQAI, where it appears that the Galatians'
prior course of running has been upset so that they no longer heed the
truth; Gal 2:2 is similar; he says that he went to Jerusalem and set before
the leaders of the church there TO EUAGGELION hO KHRUSSW EN TOIS EQNESIN,
... MH PWS EIS KENON TRECW H EDRAMON. I think this means that he wanted to
be sure that the direction of his own running (with the EUAGGELION as his
football?) was parallel with the running of the other apostles. And I think
that's what is meant here in Titus by KATA PISTIN EKLEKTWN QEOU; the second
KATA has the article THS before it showing that KAT' EUSEBEIAN functions
attributively with ALHQEIAS: so that "knowledge of the truth" (the second
object of the first KATA) is qualified as "truth that is not out of
alignment with reverence"--"truth" that goes in the same direction that
"reverence" goes. I think the first KATA is a bit easier, and I would
suggest that the difficulties here arise, to some extent, from the
conglomeration of abstract nouns in such tight proximity that, instead of
being on the ground where the concrete relationships of concrete
perceptibles is not confusing, we are way up in the blue and dealing with
relationships of abstractions to each other, the relationships themselves
being anything but concrete, being surely metaphorical. What does it mean
to say that "truth" is "in accordance with" "reverence"? The only thing I'd
say here for sure is that the sort of truth being talked about could NEVER
be INCONSISTENT with reverence. Does that help any?







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 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5002 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000125/6fe17c9d/attachment.bin 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list