[B-Greek] KAQWS & ORATIO OBLIQUA Acts 15:4

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 10 15:48:59 EDT 2006


On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

>
>
> ACTS 15:14 SUMEWN EXHGHSATO KAQWS PRWTON hO QEOS EPESKEYATO LABEIN EX
> EQNWN LAON TWi ONOMATI AUTOU.  15 KAI TOUTWi SUMFWNOUSIN hOI LOGOI
> TWN PROFHTWN KAQWS GEGRAPTAI:
>
> 3JOHN 2 AGAPHTE, PERI PANTWN EUCOMAI SE EUODOUSQAI KAI hUGIAINEIN,
> KAQWS EUODOUTAI SOU hH YUCH.  3 ECARHN GAR LIAN ERCOMENWN ADELFWN KAI
> MARTUROUNTWN SOU THi ALHQEIAi, KAQWS SU EN ALHQEIAi PERIPATEIS.
>
> Aristeae Epist…, Aristeae epistula ad Philocratem
>
> 263 1
> APEKRIQH DE:
> EI THN ISOTHTA THROI, KAI PAR hEKASTON hEAUTON hUPOMIMNHSKOI,
> KAQWS ANQRWPOS WN ANQRWPWN hHGEITAI. KAI hO QEOS TOUS
> hUPERHFANOUS KAQAIREI, TOUS DE EPIEIKEIS KAI TAPEINOUS hUYOI.
>
> R.H. Charles translation:
> 263 he said to the first, 'How can a man keep himself from pride?'
> And he replied, 'If he maintains equality and remembers on all
> occasions that he is a man ruling over men. And God brings the proud
> to nought, and exalts the meek and humble.'
>
> KAQWS in Acts 15:4 introduces indirect discourse (Danker, Culy/
> Parsons)  but glossing it as "how" and then saying that this is a
> rare meaning (Barrett Acts ICC) seems to me to misconstrue the
> evidence. Does it mean "how"?  Danker and Culy/Parsons both
> translated it "how" but do NOT indicated that "how" is the meaning of
> KAQWS. I have no problem with the translation but Barrett identifies
> it as meaning of KAQWS which seems dubious at best.
>
>

OK, perhaps "dubious" is the wrong word. What I am trying to do is  
reconstruct the analytical process by which Louw and Nida came to  
list KAQWS under MANNER 89.86. I suspect that the verb EXHGHSATO in  
SUMEWN EXHGHSATO KAQWS (ACTS 15:14) had some influence. If we gloss  
EXHGHSATO as "explained" then the complement would be introduced by  
"how" in English. However, if we gloss EXHGHSATO as "told" then  
semantic component MANNER becomes optional in the complement and  
KAQWS might be something more like hOTI introducing indirect discourse.

Another question, did the other uses of KAQWS suggest that MANNER  
would be an appropriate category?

I find it intriguing that Danker's 3rd ed. doesn't give a bolded  
gloss for KAQWS when it introduces indirect discourse.

Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list