Re: Tit 1:1-2

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Tue Jan 25 2000 - 13:44:54 EST

<x-rich>At 10:25 AM -0800 1/25/00, Brian Swedburg wrote:


<italic>"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.


</italic>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.


<excerpt><italic>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 ..."

</italic></excerpt>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

    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,

<italic>KAT </italic> EUSEBEIAN <italic>EP</italic> ELPIDI ZWHS


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
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
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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:55 EDT