quomodo conversatus est

[syntaxianus]

Well, I now believe that my explanation is probably wrong. Itaque's parallel example of quomodo and Pacifica's difficulties are hard to answer. But why put in simul at this point (in one translation) and what about all those occurrences of et? I have a feeling that we may be dealing with a Hebrew original to the Greek, and it may have influenced the translator, but I do not know that language well enough to comment. I do know that Hebrew frequently connects clauses with -ve (kai / et). And there is an intriguing thesis by Jean Carmignac (La naissance des Évangiles synoptiques) that the Greek of the Gospels (and Acts) is "translation Greek," with the original language probably being Hebrew.

 

[Pacifica]

I do know that Hebrew frequently connects clauses with -ve (kai / et).

Yes, but maybe not in a way to create oddities like this (?).

And there is an intriguing thesis by Jean Carmignac (La naissance des Évangiles synoptiques) that the Greek of the Gospels (and Acts) is "translation Greek," with the original language probably being Hebrew.

Even if they aren't translations from Hebrew, they were probably written by native Aramaic speakers (who also probably knew Hebrew, and Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related anyway), so this may have sufficed for some Hebrew/Aramaic influence to creep in.