quomodo conversatus est

[itaque]

I am translating some text from the Old Latin Bible (not the Vulgate). The following text is version "K" of Acts 1:3-4 (see source, around page 12):

quibus praebuit se vivum post passionem in multis argumentis dierum visus eis dies quadraginta. et docens de regno dei et quomodo conversatus est cum illis. et praecepit eis, ne discederent ab Hierosolymis ...

I am trying to get a grasp of the bolded sentence, which seems to literally read, "And teaching about the Kingdom of God, and how he consorted among them."

The problem is that this is not a complete sentence. So should it be glossed as "And [he was] teaching about the Kingdom of God, and [showing them] how he consorted among them"? Or is there a better way to make sense of this line?

 

[Pacifica]

Docens de regno dei should simply be attached to what directly precedes: prabuit se vivum, ... visus... et docens.

The only way I can make sense of et quomodo conversatus est cum illis is to attach it to sermonem feci, all the way back at the beginning: "I talked about all the things etc. etc. etc. and (I talked about) how he consorted among them."

 

[nomenutentis]

I was of the impression that in Late Latin, quomodo was sometimes used almost like cum to mean something like 'as' or 'when'. Certainly the DMLBS gives a medieval usage "(usu w. correl. adv.) as." And this would make sense given the wealth of variants that read "cum conversaretur". If this is right, then I'd want to read it something like: "and teaching them about the kingdom of god even as he met with them".

 

[Pacifica]

Certainly the DMLBS gives a medieval usage "(usu w. correl. adv.) as."

That refers to the usage (already common in classical Latin) of quomodo to mean "(in the same way/just) as" (often correlated with sic or ita). It doesn't mean "as" in a temporal sense like "while" or "when".

 

[Pacifica]

It's possible that we have an unusual use here, but DMLBS isn't giving an example of that.

The presence of an et both before and after the quomodo clause also doesn't seem to fit that interpretation very well, though, and you'd probably expect the imperfect rather than the perfect if the sense were "while he was with them". Now perhaps a somewhat confused translator just muddled things up a bit.

All in all, I think that interpretation is unlikely, but who knows.

 

[nomenutentis]

This is of course what I get for skimming over a dictionary entry with a reading in mind. >.<

Well I was mostly approaching this from the perspective that presumably this reading is related to the seemingly much more common vetus reading: "et cum conservaretur". Though on the subject of "et" the editor seems to prefer the reading "loquens de regno dei quomodo conversatus sit" for K.

 

[Pacifica]

By the way, I just noticed that this thread was posted by mistake in the "English to Latin Translation" section. I'll move it to "Latin to English".

 

[itaque]

Thank you, everyone. I'm wondering if a passage later in the same text (K) gives further evidence that quomodo is used here in the sense of a temporal "as"/"when"/"while", as nomenutentis suggested. This is Acts 1:10 (starting on page 32 of the cited document):

et quomodo contemplantes erant, cum iret in caelum, ecce, duo viri astabant illis in veste alba, qui dixerunt ad eos ...

It's hard to see what quomodo could mean here, unless we take "et quomodo contemplantes erant" to mean "and while they were looking on."

 

[itaque]

So do you agree that quomodo, according to "K" at least, sometimes means the temporal "as"?

 

[Pacifica]

It looks that way in the last example you posted. I'm less sure about the other, but if one of the ets is a scribal mistake, it could be (though the tense would still be a bit weird).

 

[Pacifica]

While (as nomenutentis said) the fact that some versions say cum conversaretur seems in favor of taking quomodo in a temporal sense in the first passage, there's also a version that says quomodo conversatus sit, which must have been intended as an indirect question (that would correspond to my first interpretation of conversatus est; the subjunctive was sometimes dropped from indirect questions in this period).

Now it's also possible that some scribes modified the text in a way that didn't reflect the original intent.

 

[itaque]

So what I'm gathering is that there is at least two ways to read this:

1. Indirect question attached to sermonem feci. "And [he was] teaching about the Kingdom of God. And [I, the author, spoke about] how he consorted among them."

2. Taking quomodo as a temporal "as". "And [he was] teaching about the Kingdom of God as he also consorted among them."

Have I understood these views correctly? If so, I see how option 2 makes it a bit harder to make sense of the second et.

But then what about the first interpretation that I offered, where docens is applied distributively (rather than reaching all the way back to sermonem feci)? "And [he was] teaching about the Kingdom of God, and [teaching/showing them] how he consorted among them."

 

[Pacifica]

But then what about the first interpretation that I offered, where docens is applied distributively (rather than reaching all the way back to sermonem feci)? "And [he was] teaching about the Kingdom of God, and [teaching/showing them] how he consorted among them."

While grammatically possible, it seems contextually unlikely.

 

[itaque]

Can you explain a bit more about what makes it contextually unlikely?

 

[Pacifica]

Jesus was with them and taught them about his being with them? That just doesn't sound right. Also, the tense: if he was teaching them about how he was with them right then (as he was), you'd expect the imperfect.