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

Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Fri Aug 11 05:02:56 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.

Elizabeth Kline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A particle (like hOTI) that introduces indirect discourse is semantically empty. It simply points out the content of 
what was said. But it is possible to be more specific and focus on either time or manner.
Examples:
1. He told me that his uncle had come.
2. He told me when his uncle had come
3. He told me how his uncle had come.

For number 3, Greek would normally use PWS or hOPWS or hWS, but occasionally also KAQWS. Acts 15:14 and John 3 are the 
only examples from the NT of KAQWS in this sense where manner is in focus. There are other connectors like hEWS (how 
long) and POSOS, hOSOS, POSAKIS, POQEN. Even TI can be used in the sense of "how".

Acts 15:14 is translated variously in English versions:
RSV: Simeon has related how God
NCV: Simon has told us how God
REB: Simon has described how it first happened that God
NIV: Simon has described to us how God

An interesting example with several how's is from Acts 9:27:

NIV: But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how - PWS - Saul on his journey had seen the 
Lord and that - hOTI - the Lord had spoken to him, and how - PWS - in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of 
Jesus.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list