Question concerning κατα

[Matthew Longhorn]

A question re the preposition κατά
I am reading a book by Mike Aubrey and Rachel Aubrey on prepositions, along with Silvia Luraghi’s book on this

Luraghi notes that the preposition is differentiated from ἀνά in part by κατά not being exhaustive in coverage/distribution. So κατά + accusative with mutiplex landmarks indicates that not every landmark was touched, and similarly with uniplex landmarks - not all of the area is covered.
The Aubreys discussing mutiplex landmarks with the accusative case state “A trajector moves along a trajectory toward each unit of the landmark. The landmark provides the source and endpoint of the trajectory along which the trajector moves.” which leaves the door open for every unit to be touched.

Similarly “Multiplex landmarks may also represent extended or continuous areas on which a trajector moves. Rather than moving from unit of the landmark to the next, the trajector is dispersed over the whole surface region.”

Luraghi (pg 202) on the other hand says “As we have seen in §3.10, aná with the accusative and multiplex landmarks can express a relation in which the trajector exhaustively covers the area occupied by the landmark. I have already remarked that exhaustiveness / vs. lack of exhaustiveness explains the choice of either aná or katá”

Similarly page 191 “Again, the meaning of aná in the above examples must be understood in contrast to the meaning of katá with the accusative: when motion verbs occur, katá denotes mutidirectional path, similar to diá with the accusative (see §3.9), but it indicates that only some points of the landmark are touched randomly. With verbs of rest, katá means that the trajector is scattered over the landmark, without covering its whole surface,”

It is entirely probably that I am misreading or misunderstanding, but my questions are

1: is Luraghi right about this exhaustive vs non-exhaustive usage in Classical Greek
2: if she is correct, did this still apply in Koine?

A further question about on the examples in the Aubrey’s book.
A use of the genitive is given for a landmark trajectory and Matthew 8:32 is given as an example
“καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ὑπάγετε. οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους· καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη [κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ]”. Couldn’t this just as well be a use denoting source with a steep incline envisaged off which they fell?

[Tony Pope]

It is entirely probably that I am misreading or misunderstanding, but my questions are

1: is Luraghi right about this exhaustive vs non-exhaustive usage in Classical Greek
2: if she is correct, did this still apply in Koine?

Whether or not Luraghi is right in her claim about the opposition of ἀνά and κατά in classical Greek, it seems worth noting that in the NT ἀνά is much restricted in its uses. I wonder if that makes any difference about the usage of κατά.

A further question about on the examples in the Aubrey’s book.
A use of the genitive is given for a landmark trajectory and Matthew 8:32 is given as an example
“καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ὑπάγετε. οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους· καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη [κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ]”. Couldn’t this just as well be a use denoting source with a steep incline envisaged off which they fell?

It would be helpful to know what the Aubreys suggest for the function of κατά in Mt 8.32 and parallels. Are they making a distinction between "down from" and "down along"?
Colin Hemer wrote an article* in 1975 regarding Acts 27, in answer to a claim that the Melita (Μελίτη) was not Malta but Mljet in the Adriatic. Among his various arguments he discussed the direction of the wind. The text (27.14) says μετ’ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἔβαλεν κατ’ αὐτῆς ἄνεμος τυφωνικὸς, which he says means "down from" the land mass of Crete, not "against" as had been claimed. But he noted the usage was rare in late Greek and that Mayser (Grammatik der griechischen Papyri, II. ii (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934), p. 428) says it was extinct. Hemer cites an example from Judges 4.14 κατέβη Βαρὰκ κατὰ τὸ ὄρος (but according to Rahlfs' footnote only ms B apparently reads κατά) and one from Aelian V. H. 8.14 (but that one seems unclear). Another one that seems relevant is 2 Macc 6.10 κατὰ τοῦ τείχους ἐκρήμνισαν [they cast (NETS: hurled) them down headlong from the wall].
Hemer claims in both Acts 27.14 and Luke 8.33 (parallel to Matt 8.32) Luke uses κατά in the sense "down (from)", but notes in the Mt/Mk/Lk context it could mean "down into".

* C. J. Hemer, 'Euraquilo and Melita' Journal of Theological Studies 26.1 1975 100-111. The discussion about κατά is on p.104 note 4.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Thanks Tony

It would be helpful to know what the Aubreys suggest for the function of κατά in Mt 8.32 and parallels. Are they making a distinction between "down from" and "down along"?

I should have provided the header to that quote -

The preposition κατά can profile the trajectory along which a trajector moves. The landmark is the constraining path that the trajector follows in a downward trajectory. The landmark is expressed in the genitive or accusative case.

This is in a wider discussion with landmark source and endpoint also discussed previously. They use Acts 27:14 as and example of source, with the wind rushing down from Crete which matches with the Hemer quotes you have given.

I guess I am just trying to work out if there are criteria that help distinguish between the uses and guide in interpretation. The vast amount of times it won’t make a jot of difference, and frankly context will be king. But hey... I like to see if there are deeper principles at play even if it doesn’t mean an exegetical pay off always

[Alex Hopkins]

Tony Pope wrote

Colin Hemer wrote an article* in 1975 regarding Acts 27, in answer to a claim that the Melita (Μελίτη) was not Malta but Mljet in the Adriatic.

*C. J. Hemer, 'Euraquilo and Melita' Journal of Theological Studies 26.1 1975 100-111. The discussion about κατά is on p.104 note 4.

Thanks for the pointer to this article, Tony; it makes very interesting reading.

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia

[MAubrey]

It would be helpful to know what the Aubreys suggest for the function of κατά in Mt 8.32 and parallels. Are they making a distinction between "down from" and "down along"?

What we've done isn't at the same scale of precision as Luraghi's monograph. We'd like to write a monograph that goes alongside this book, but that's still in the proposal state. But for the most part we are treating "down from","down along", and "down to" as the same usage. We haven't yet done all the comparative work with how various prepositions compare and contrast like with ἀνά and κατά. That's still on the to-do list.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Thanks for the response Mike.
Without committing to it, would you say Luraghi’s distinction between κατα and ανα with regards to exhaustiveness still holds in Koine?

[MAubrey]

Thanks for the response Mike.
Without committing to it, would you say Luraghi’s distinction between κατα and ανα with regards to exhaustiveness still holds in Koine?

It doesn't hold for the New Testament, but there are also not many occurrences of ἀνά there are in the NT. But it's clear that κατά distributive can be exhaustive or not exhaustive in the NT when they occur with multiplex landmarks.

So they departed and went throughout the villages (κατὰ τὰς κώμας), proclaiming the good news and healing everywhere (Luke 9:6).
Here these is no no claim of exhaustive contact with the villages.

But Saul was attempting to destroy the church. Entering house after house (κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους), he dragged off both men and women and delivered them to prison (Acts 8:3).
Here there is claim of exhaustiveness.

We didn't have the time for this project to go beyond the NT...again...why we want a full monograph.

As for this bit...

A further question about on the examples in the Aubrey’s book.
A use of the genitive is given for a landmark trajectory and Matthew 8:32 is given as an example
“καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ὑπάγετε. οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους· καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη [κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ]”. Couldn’t this just as well be a use denoting source with a steep incline envisaged off which they fell?

The genitive case appears sporadically with κατά in a variety of places where we'd expect an accusative. So for example, we have some fifty examples of distributive uses of κατά and 5 of them are genitives.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Thanks, I appreciate the input