Galatians 1:6-10

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2590
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Galatians 1:6-10

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 15th, 2013, 3:41 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Curious to know how the γὰρ v10 functions here relative to the information structure. Not sure what to make of it. The γὰρ in verse 11 may contribute.
If you read Spanish, Stephen Levinsohn's analysis of the discourse structure is here: http://www.recursosteologicos.org/Docum ... ursivo.pdf Basically, he says that the γάρ directs the reader to view v.10 as strengthening the maledictions of vv.8-9. Presumably, the idea is that Paul's anathemas are grounded in his following God instead of people.

As for the γάρ in v.11, commentators are all over the map; some view it as explaining v.10, others as skipping v.10 and attaching to v.9, and even some have equated it to οὖν. I don't read γάρ here, preferring the reading δέ.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2590
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Galatians 1:6-10

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 16th, 2013, 3:50 am

Here's a proposed segmentation into intonation units. Owing to limitations of this forum, it is too hard to show how they interrelated by indentation.

Evidence for their identification is coded as follows: introductives, words that tend to introduce cola are in red, postpositive conjunctions are in purple; unemphasized second position elements (clitics, pronouns) are in blue.

Helma Dik, Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus (ASCP 5; Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1995), 35, calls such (indirect) evidence "punctuation after the fact." I have left the editorial punctuation as it appears, so one can compare how they line up.
Gal 1:6-10 wrote: 6a Θαυμάζω
6b ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε
6c ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ
6d εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον,
7a οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο·
7b εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν
7c οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς
7d καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

8a ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς
8b ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
8c εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν
8d παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν,
8e ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

9a ὡς προειρήκαμεν,
9b καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω,
9c εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται
9d παρʼ ὃ παρελάβετε,
9e ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

10a Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω
10b τὸν θεόν;

10c ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν;

10d εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον,
10e Χριστοῦ δοῦλος
10f οὐκ ἂν ἤμην.
Some discourse/syntactic notes and issues:
  • 6a Θαυμάζω: the asyndeton indicates here (esp. after the ἀμήν ending the doxology of v.5) the start of a major section.
  • 6b οὕτως ταχέως: fronted (focal) position shows emphasis.
  • 6b μετατίθεσθε: the present stem indicates that the action is not complete, in that the Galatians as a whole have not turned away, but it is not clear in what sense this turning is incomplete. It could be progressive, that some have turned away but others have not; it could be conative, in that the group as a whole is trying or making arrangements to turn away (as if they have scheduled the mohel), or it could be prospective, in that they are about to turn away. Given the manner adverb ταχέως, I am inclined to support the first option, but this could be discussed.
  • 6c Χριστοῦ: this is omitted in some manuscripts, and it seems that three syntactic options are available for relating this genitive into the participial clause ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ:
    1. Construe Χριστοῦ with χάριτι, so that it reads from the one who called you in/by/with Christ's grace
    2. Construe Χριστοῦ with τοῦ, so that it reads from the Christ who called you with grace
    3. Construe Χριστοῦ as a second object of a trivalent καλέσαντος, so that it reads from the one who called you with grace to be of Christ
  • 7a has already been discussed in this thread above.
  • 8b-c: the variant reading with ὑμῖν before the verb segments differently, so that both 8b and 8c would constitute one colon. As a result, the information structure of this would become the same as that of 9c.
  • 10a: The connective γάρ has already been discussed in this thread above.
  • 10b εἰ ... ἤρεσκον: somebody more interested in Greek conditionals may want to comment this.
  • 10e Χριστοῦ δοῦλος: the segmentation of this into its own colon (indicated by the position of ἄν at the beginning 10f) is evidence that this is strongly emphatic.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 639
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Galatians 1:6-10

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » October 16th, 2013, 3:25 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Curious to know how the γὰρ v10 functions here relative to the information structure. Not sure what to make of it. The γὰρ in verse 11 may contribute.
If you read Spanish, Stephen Levinsohn's analysis of the discourse structure is here: http://www.recursosteologicos.org/Docum ... ursivo.pdf Basically, he says that the γάρ directs the reader to view v.10 as strengthening the maledictions of vv.8-9. Presumably, the idea is that Paul's anathemas are grounded in his following God instead of people.

As for the γάρ in v.11, commentators are all over the map; some view it as explaining v.10, others as skipping v.10 and attaching to v.9, and even some have equated it to οὖν. I don't read γάρ here, preferring the reading δέ.
That commentators are all over the map comes as no surprise. Last week or so I've been reading three of the five volumes JOSEP RIUS-CAMPS and JENNY READ-HEIMERDINGER on Bezae Acts. Similar in some respects to Levinsohn in regard to the treatment of γάρ and δέ. δέ introduces development, it moves the argument forward. γάρ introduces grounds or support for a previous proposition.

Paul's use of γάρ in Galatians 1:10-13 looks like several supporting statements chained together in a sequence, perhaps all supporting one general notion he is promoting; Paul's gospel is not from man. It also seems possible that each γάρ relates to a statement in the immediately preceding clause.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Alan Patterson
Posts: 158
Joined: September 3rd, 2011, 7:21 pm
Location: Emory University

Re: Galatians 1:7

Post by Alan Patterson » October 17th, 2013, 11:27 am

οἱ ταράσσοντες

Hanna, in his Grammatical Aid to the GNT considers this article usage rather curious. He then adds that oi tarassousin is really required.

Any thoughts about this? I am a bit confused.
χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη,
Alan Patterson

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 639
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Galatians 1:7

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » October 17th, 2013, 1:05 pm

Alan Patterson wrote:οἱ ταράσσοντες

Hanna, in his Grammatical Aid to the GNT considers this article usage rather curious. He then adds that oi tarassousin is really required.

Any thoughts about this? I am a bit confused.


Gal. 1:7 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

I don't have access to Hanna. I don't see anything wrong with the syntax of the articular participle. On the articular participle after τινές Turner (Syntax p153) claims it is "Classical" BDF 412.4.

On the other hand, the first clause ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο is grounds for all manner of discussion in the old commentaries (Meyer, Alford, ...). There doesn't appear to be any major textual instability with regard to ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο. If the scribes thought that ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο was an intolerable barbarism you would think we would see some attempts to clean it up. There probably were attempts but none of them are cited in the critical editions I have on hand. Paul habitually murders syntax. Not quite sure why this causes so much concern.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2590
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Galatians 1:7

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 17th, 2013, 2:11 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:On the other hand, the first clause ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο is grounds for all manner of discussion in the old commentaries (Meyer, Alford, ...). There doesn't appear to be any major textual instability with regard to ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο. If the scribes thought that ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο was an intolerable barbarism you would think we would see some attempts to clean it up. There probably were attempts but none of them are cited in the critical editions I have on hand. Paul habitually murders syntax. Not quite sure why this causes so much concern.
From the 92 witnesses of Galatians that I looked at, I have the following variants for this clause:

ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο
  • ἔστιν ] εστην 2147
  • ἄλλο ] αλλον 1982 | αλλω 1874 2464 2892 | -- pesh
Ιn other words, just the usual scribal mistakes.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 383
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

εἰ μή in v. 7 (and later)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » October 17th, 2013, 3:45 pm

Have you read Runge's blog posts
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/01/mean ... E%B7-pt-1/
and
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/01/mean ... E%B7-pt-2/ ?

What exactly εἰ μή means here in v. 7? It would be easy to translate it as something vague like "it's just that there are some...", but translations just distract us from the real question. I find it hard to belive that it introduces an exception to the previous statement, as if Paul would first say that there's no other gospel and then say that there's an exception to that, so that there really is another gospel of the some who are disturbing. This question about εἰ μή will of course be even more important later in 2:16 where it's part of a hotly debated (theological) issue. We'll leave theology aside but I think we can't avoid discussing the semantics there.

cwconrad
Posts: 2107
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: εἰ μή in v. 7 (and later)

Post by cwconrad » October 17th, 2013, 4:46 pm

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Have you read Runge's blog posts
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/01/mean ... E%B7-pt-1/
and
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/01/mean ... E%B7-pt-2/ ?

What exactly εἰ μή means here in v. 7? It would be easy to translate it as something vague like "it's just that there are some...", but translations just distract us from the real question. I find it hard to belive that it introduces an exception to the previous statement, as if Paul would first say that there's no other gospel and then say that there's an exception to that, so that there really is another gospel of the some who are disturbing. This question about εἰ μή will of course be even more important later in 2:16 where it's part of a hotly debated (theological) issue. We'll leave theology aside but I think we can't avoid discussing the semantics there.
BDF §306 (4) seems to be relevant here to the usage of ἄλλο εἰ μή ..
(4) G 1:6f. εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ etc. likewise appears to be used without distinction (cf. Mlt. 79f., 80 n. 1, 246 [126 n.]; and Rob. 747 who insists on a difference here and in 2 C 11:4), but ἄλλο is used pleonastically to a certain extent in order to introduce εἰ μὴ … (cf. nihil aliud nisi) ‘not that there is any other, except that …’. Thus Epict. 1.25.4 τίς κωλύσει χρῆσθαι αὐτοῖς ἄλλος εἰ μὴ σύ, 1.16.20 τί γὰρ ἄλλο … εἰ μή. Soph., El. 739 τότʼ ἄλλος, ἄλλοθʼ ἅτερος, UPZ I 42.32, 33 (162 BC) καὶ ἄλλοι … καὶ ἕτεροι. Homil Clem 18.3 ὅτι δὲ τὸ δίκαιον ἄλλο ἐστὶν καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἕτερον.

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 383
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: εἰ μή in v. 7 (and later)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » October 18th, 2013, 3:17 am

cwconrad wrote: BDF §306 (4) seems to be relevant here to the usage of ἄλλο εἰ μή ..
It took a while for me to understand that this BDF passage is about ἄλλο (I don't have access to the book). The writers seem to think that εἰ μή means exception even here, but it also says that there's no meaningful distinction between ἕτερον and ἄλλο here, contrary to your opinion. Right?

cwconrad
Posts: 2107
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: εἰ μή in v. 7 (and later)

Post by cwconrad » October 18th, 2013, 5:14 am

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
cwconrad wrote: BDF §306 (4) seems to be relevant here to the usage of ἄλλο εἰ μή ..
It took a while for me to understand that this BDF passage is about ἄλλο (I don't have access to the book). The writers seem to think that εἰ μή means exception even here, but it also says that there's no meaningful distinction between ἕτερον and ἄλλο here, contrary to your opinion. Right?
Right. As we say in American English, "It's the same difference."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest