Lk 1:2 KAQA/KAQWS
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 25 12:32:40 EDT 2002
Introductory note: I feel that the discussions of readings in the text of
Luke's gospel in Codex Bezae have been gotten off to a bad start by the
formatting that I adopted for their presentation. I was supplied with a
list of issues by Mme Chabert d'Hyères and initially presented her
formulations in French followed by my own endeavor at an English
translation of her formulations. So I'm going to "recommence": I shall
post, in English only, a formulation of each issue as simply as possible.
For those particular issues upon which there has been some discussion I
shall attempt a summary of what's been stated so far (if I misrepresent
what anyone has said--I'm not citing verbatim--let the injured party
correct what I say.
In Lk 1:2 is there a substantive or significant difference of meaning
between KAQA PAREDOSAN hHMIN hOI AP' ARCHS AUTOPTAI (Codex Bezae D05) and
KAQWS PAREDOSAN hHMIN hOI AP' ARCHS AUTOPTAI (reading adopted in NA27/USB4)?
KAQA derives from or represents KAT' hA. One question is whether KAQA in
our passage is to be understood as an adverbial conjunction equivalent to
KAQWS or is rather to be understood with hA as the relative pronoun acc.
sg. direct object of PAREDOSAN, "according to what/the things which the
eye-witnesses have transmitted to us ..."
(1) Mme Chabert says that in other passages KAQWS is used by Luke, it
introduces a clause with an intransitive verb or a verb with a substantive
as a direct object. If we understand KAQA as KAT(A) hA, then the relative
pronoun hA must refer to those matters which the eye-witnesses have
transmitted.
(2) Conrad, Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:32:40 -0400: I wrote: "Does anyone really
believe that D05's KAQA in Lk 1:2 bears or is intended to bear a meaning
different from the generally accepted KAQWS. Granted that KAQA appears only
once in the NA27/UBS4 GNT (Mt 27.10 KAI EDWKAN AUTA EIS TON AGRON TOU
KERAMEWS, KAQA SUNETAXEN MOI KURIOS). My own view is that KAQA in D05 (i.e.
in Codex Bezae) means exactly the same as KAQWS in the chief MSS. I do NOT
think that there's an implicit direct object in a hA of KAT' hA but rather
that KAQA is an adverbial conjunction." In support of this view I cited the
article on KAQA in BDAG and article 64.16 of Louw & Nida where KAQA and
KAQWS are represented as essentially equivalent adverbial conjunctions.
(3) Chuck Tripp, Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:26:37 -0800: noted (a) that LSJ (and
Thayer 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 as
instances wherein the relative pronoun hA can be understood as a real
direct object (or subject) of the subordinate verb, and LXX Judith 3:3
where KAQO may be understood as KAQ' hO where the relative pronoun is
subject of a singular verb . Finally he thinks that KAQA in Mt 27:10 may
just as well be understood as KAQ' hA with hA as the real direct object of
the subordinate verb ENETEILATO.
(4) In response to Chuck, I will say that I think his strongest point may
lie in the usage of KAQO with a singular verb in Judith 3:3 (XRHSAI KAQO AN
ARESKHi SOI); on the other hand, I think it's just as likely or more so
that ARESKHi here is impersonal rather than singular because hO is
singular--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 hUMAS
KAI XRHSASQE AUTAIS KAQA AN ARESKNi hUMIN: while we might say that ARESKHi
there is singular because hA is a neuter plural subject (and so ordinarily
taking a singular verb), I think it's just as likely that ARESKHi in both
texts is impersonal (cf. Lat. PLACETNE TIBI?, Fr. vous-plaît-il?, Ger.
stimmt es Ihnen?) and that both KAQA and KAQO are essentially adverbial
conjunctions. I would add that what makes this little question the more
difficult to adjudicate is that there's a real Hellenistic Greek
predilection for creating adverbs with KATA + acc., whether spelled as one
word or as two, e.g. KATA MEROS ("partially"), KAQ' hOLOU ("generally"),
etc. (Cf. LSJ s.v. KATA VIII. Ultimately I guess the question must be
whether we suppose that a hA in KAQA is intended to point to specific items
included in the tradition handed down by the eye-witnesses referred to in
Lk 1:2 or rather that Luke is referring generally to those traditions. And
that's a judgment that may have to be made on considerations other than the
grammar of this particular atomic unit of text.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list