Galatians 1:6

Gal 1:6 Byron Knutson byronk at open.org
Fri Dec 10 04:20:55 EST 1999

Grammars Grammars List members:I am wondering what it is I’m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:…APO TOU KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI CRISTOU….Every English version I consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,KJV:…from him that called you into the grace OF CHRIST…. My questionis – Why don’t they take the phrase KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI as anadjectival phrase modifying APO TOU … CRISTOU meaning essentially -“…from the Christ who has called you…”?Thanks for any insights.Byron KnutsonSalem, Oregon

GrammarsGrammars

Gal 1:6 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 10 10:05:39 EST 1999

ATTIC GREEK “Co-workers with God”? – 1 Cor. 3:9 At 1:20 AM -0800 12/10/99, Byron Knutson wrote:>List members:> >I am wondering what it is I’m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:> >…APO TOU KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI CRISTOU….> >Every English version I consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,>KJV:…from him that called you into the grace OF CHRIST…. My question>is – Why don’t they take the phrase KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI as an>adjectival phrase modifying APO TOU … CRISTOU meaning essentially –>“…from the Christ who has called you…”?Well, it seems a bit more natural to take CRISTOU as genitive dependentupon CARITI. I don’t see anything really wrong with understanding CRISTOUas appositive to the substantival participle TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS, althoughit seems to me that to make KALESANTOS an attributive participle to alarger enclosure, TOU … CRISTOU is less common for Koine Greek.While this doesn’t respond directly to your question, you might note,nevertheless, that there is some question as to whether or not CRISTOUreally belongs in this verse; it is included in square brackets in USB4. Inview of what was said about majority vote in an editorial committeedeciding on what belongs in a recension a couple days ago, I find it not alittle bit amusing that Metzger’s textual commentary on this passageconcludes as follows: ” … a majority of the Committee was unwilling toadopt a reading that is supported by only part of the Western tradition;therefore it was decided to print CRISTOU on the strength of its strongexternal support, but to enclose the word within square brackets out ofdeference to its omission by p46vid and certain Western witnesses.” Thisappears to be one good instance of the Committee’s “having its cake andeating it too.” What has to be remembered about our printed versions of theGNT is that we are generally given information about variants enabling us,in our own wisdom or folly, to substitute our own judgments in place of theCommittee’s judgment.This last paragraph certainly was not meant as an invitation to renew thesquabble over philosophies of textual criticism in this forum. I meant onlyto call attention to a problem affecting the question being raised.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

ATTIC GREEK”Co-workers with God”? – 1 Cor. 3:9

Gal 1:6 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Fri Dec 10 17:56:50 EST 1999

Augustine’s hatred of the Homer Grammars >At 1:20 AM -0800 12/10/99, Byron Knutson wrote:>>List members:>> >>I am wondering what it is I’m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:>> >>…APO TOU KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI CRISTOU….>> >>Every English version I consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,>>KJV:…from him that called you into the grace OF CHRIST…. My question>>is – Why don’t they take the phrase KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI as an>>adjectival phrase modifying APO TOU … CRISTOU meaning essentially –>>“…from the Christ who has called you…”?> >Well, it seems a bit more natural to take CRISTOU as genitive dependent>upon CARITI. I don’t see anything really wrong with understanding CRISTOU>as appositive to the substantival participle TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS, although>it seems to me that to make KALESANTOS an attributive participle to a>larger enclosure, TOU … CRISTOU is less common for Koine Greek.> Omit Carl’s material on TC.I think that we should omit XRISTOU primarily on internal andtranscriptional grounds. Thus I would translate QAUMAZW OTI hOUTWS TACEWSMETATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN CARITI EIS hETERON EUAGGELION as “Iam amazed that you are so readily moved from the one who called you bygrace to another gospel.” The translation of hOUTWS TACEWS as “so readily”does not make it a factor in the length of time from Paul’s first missionthere and the writing of the letter (the North/South question). I take TOUKALESANTOS as refering to Christ and EN CARITI as instrumental. It is much easier for me to explain the addition of the name than toexplain the inclusion.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

Augustine’s hatred of the HomerGrammars

Gal 1:6 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Dec 10 19:12:58 EST 1999

Mt 12:26 – Why a question? Grammars To: Dr. Carlton L. Winbery, Byron Knutson, et al.,CLW: << Thus I would translate QAUMAZW OTI hOUTWS TACEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN CARITI EIS hETERON EUAGGELION as “I am amazed that you are so readily moved from the one who called you by grace to another gospel.” >>FWIW … and perhaps contrary to popular opinion, I would take METATIQESQE as passive, rather than middle, and so translate this passage as: “I am amazed that so quickly you have been turned away from your calling by [Christ’s] grace into a different gospel” (Gal 1:6 MOT).By taking METATIQESQE as a passive (or at least a possible passive), I would then accuse St. Paul of having some pastoral sensibilities. For he seems here to put the bulk of the blame on another. I see the same rhetorical strategy at work when he states “there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7); when he asks “Who has bewitched you?” (Gal 3:1); and also when he says: “I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” (Gal 5:12). In each of these statements the blame has shifted away from the Galatians onto someone else. It is a very pastoral rhetorical strategy at work here I think. (The suggestion of taking METATIQESQE as passage appears in LSJM under METATIQHMI.)Of course, that has nothing to do with the original question.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

Mt 12:26 – Why a question?Grammars

Gal 1:6 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Dec 11 06:20:58 EST 1999

Greek Gal 1:6 At 6:12 PM -0600 12/10/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Dr. Carlton L. Winbery, Byron Knutson, et al.,> >CLW: << Thus I would translate QAUMAZW OTI hOUTWS TACEWS METATIQESQE APO>TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN CARITI EIS hETERON EUAGGELION as “I am amazed that>you are so readily moved from the one who called you by grace to another>gospel.” >>> >FWIW … and perhaps contrary to popular opinion, I would take METATIQESQE>as passive, rather than middle, and so translate this passage as: “I am>amazed that so quickly you have been turned away from your calling by>[Christ’s] grace into a different gospel” (Gal 1:6 MOT).> >By taking METATIQESQE as a passive (or at least a possible passive), I>would then accuse St. Paul of having some pastoral sensibilities. For he>seems here to put the bulk of the blame on another. I see the same>rhetorical strategy at work when he states “there are some who are>confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7); when he>asks “Who has bewitched you?” (Gal 3:1); and also when he says: “I wish>those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” (Gal 5:12). In each of>these statements the blame has shifted away from the Galatians onto someone>else. It is a very pastoral rhetorical strategy at work here I think. (The>suggestion of taking METATIQESQE as passage appears in LSJM under METATIQHMI.)> >Of course, that has nothing to do with the original question.True, and inasmuch as it really concerns the nature of Paul’s manner ofdealing with the congregation in this particular letter, it’s a discussionthat might more profitably be dealt with on the Corpus Paulinum list.On the other hand, the question of taking METATIQESQE as passive (or evenas “passage”?) is of some interest in itself and indeed germane to thisforum. As usual when it comes to a decision between understanding a M/Pform as either middle or passive, my inclination is to take it as middlerather than passive unless there is some clear indication of either anagent or an external instrument effecting the action in question. So Iseize the opportunity to quibble (and it is a quibble, albeit one I’mserious about) in this instance and suggest a reflexive sense that is notat all inconsistent, I think, with the above interpretation of Paul’s”pastoral” strategy: suppose we understand the Greek to mean, “I’msurprised that you are allowing yourselves so quickly to be turned awayfrom the one who called you by grace to another gospel.” (and by the way,isn’t Carlton’s understanding–in his version which is cited at the head ofthis message–closer to a passive than a middle understanding of the voiceof METATIQESQE here?). There’s another minor point too: although Steven hasformulated the tense of METATIQESQE in his version as a present perfect (“… that so quickly you have been turned away …”), it seems to me thatPaul’s choice of a present tense is itself well-suited to a pastoralstance: the shift of commitment is NOT one that has been completed; ratherit is one that he hopes to avert by the intense argumentation he is aboutto set forth in the letter ahead.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

GreekGal 1:6

Gal 1:6 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Dec 11 08:07:50 EST 1999

Gal 1:6 1 Cor 11:23 PAREDIDOTO (long) To: Carl W. Conrad,<< “I’m surprised that you are allowing yourselves so quickly to be turned away from the one who called you by grace to another gospel.” (and by the way, isn’t Carlton’s understanding–in his version which is cited at the head of this message–closer to a passive than a middle understanding of the voice of METATIQESQE here?). … it seems to me that Paul’s choice of a present tense is itself well-suited to a pastoral stance: the shift of commitment is NOT one that has been completed; rather it is one that he hopes to avert by the intense argumentation he is about to set forth in the letter ahead. >>You made two excellent points here which <I say sheepishly> I had overlooked! Thanks!-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

Gal 1:61 Cor 11:23 PAREDIDOTO (long)

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Charles Johnson cpj5117 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 18:22:10 EDT 2009

[] 2 Thess 2:13 [] Galatians 1:6-7 I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιναλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versionsindicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose analternate solution.I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],except there are some who trouble you….” I further struggle with the ideaof placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parentheticalstatement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to θαυμαζωin v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in thisarrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:”I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you bythe grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is sayinghe would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Usingthe naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my ideaa possibility?

[] 2 Thess 2:13[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Donald COBB docobb at orange.fr
Wed Jun 10 01:24:06 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Gal 1:6-7: Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TACEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN CARITI [CRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION, hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU CRISTOU.Hello Charles,Welcome to the wonderful world of Paul’s sometimes tortuous syntax!A few comments quite briefly:First, EI MH can be a simple adversative, translated as “but”. BDAG gives two examples, one being Mt 12:4: πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις; PWS EISHLQEN EIS TON OIKON TOU QEOU KAI TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS EFAGON, hO OUK EXON HN AUTWi FAGEIN OUDE TOIS MET᾽ AUTOU EI MH TOIS hIEREUSIN MONOIS;The last part of this verse should be translated “which was not permitted them to eat of, nor those with him, *but* the priests alone”.The other is a non biblical example: οὐκ ἀφῶ αὐτοὺς καθεσθῆναι εἰς τὴν σκίαν, εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ ἡλίου ἔξω, OUK AFW AUTOUS KAQESQHNAI EIS THN SKIAN, EI MH hUPO hHLIOU EXW: “I will not let them sit in the shade, *but* outside in the sun.”Nothing else in v. 6-7 really lends itself to the idea that Paul “would have been surprised except that…”, and so there’s no reason to go against the usual renderings. As far as charting the verse, your QAUMA shows the limits inherent in trying to fit Paul’s ways of expressing himself into what are, from our point of view, neat grammatical patterns. Paul starts with an expression of surprise QAUMAZW hOTI…, over his readers. Commentators usually take the statement as a “rebuke formula”, not uncommon rhetoric in greco-roman epistolography. Paul’s real intention though, at that point, is especially to underscore that the gospel itself is being perverted, so the seemingly parenthetical comment is the one he then develops in the following sentences. The repetition of EUAGGELION et EUAGGELIZOMAI in v. 7-9 shows where the burden really lies.All in all, that kind of construction is not uncommon in Paul, whose logic often has to be reconstructed from the overall argument he’s developing.Hope that helps.Donald CobbAix-en-Provence, France—– Original Message —– From: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:22 AMSubject: [] Galatians 1:6-7>I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians> 1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.> Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιν> αλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versions> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. > So,> understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose an> alternate solution.> > I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],> except there are some who trouble you….” I further struggle with the > idea> of placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parenthetical> statement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to > θαυμαζω> in v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in > this> arrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:> > “I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you > by> the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),> except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”> > The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is > saying> he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Using> the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my > idea> a possibility?> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 10 02:23:47 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU. I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God. Therefore καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc gen sg part, but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part. In that case, what would be the subject? The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual understanding of the passage, the word is already right there to be brought to mind. Also, εἰ μή might be understood after the manner of the English “unless” which is really very similar to “except.” The sense would then be that he is surprised that they are forsaking the GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ’s favor for another gospel. He is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing them by trying to alter the gospel itself. I’ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this will make some sense. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PMSubject: [] Galatians 1:6-7I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιναλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versionsindicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose analternate solution.I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],except there are some who trouble you….” I further struggle with the ideaof placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parentheticalstatement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to θαυμαζωin v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in thisarrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:”I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you bythe grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is sayinghe would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Usingthe naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my ideaa possibility?— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 10 02:52:45 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Donald COBB wrote:> Welcome to the wonderful world of Paul’s sometimes tortuous syntax!I agree with just about everything Donald said.EI MH follows a negative to introduce an exception/adversative. In the GNT, EI MH can be used like ALLA, see BDF 448.8. Zerwick’s treatment #468-470 is more lucid than BDF.Gal. 1:6 Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.GAL. 1:6 QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TACEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN CARITI [CRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION, 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU CRISTOU.Notice that reading EI MH as in Classical[1] Greek creates a problem in Gal 1:19. Do you see the problem?Gal. 1:19 ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.GAL. 1:19 hETERON DE TWN APOSTOLWN OUK EIDON EI MH IAKWBON TON ADELFON TOU KURIOU.F.F. Bruce (Gal. NIGTC p82 reads EI MH in v.7 as equivalent to PLHN hOTI, see Acts 20:23.Acts 20:23 πλὴν ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον κατὰ πόλιν διαμαρτύρεταί μοι λέγον ὅτι δεσμὰ καὶ θλίψεις με μένουσιν.ACTS 20:23 PLHN hOTI TO PNEUMA TO hAGION KATA POLIN DIAMARTURETAI MOI LEGON hOTI DESMA KAI QLIYEIS ME MENOUSIN.Elizabeth Kline[1] The classical usage of EI MH see Lightfoot, Gal. p76, but compare his comments with Zerwick, BDF and Bruce.

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Donald COBB docobb at orange.fr
Wed Jun 10 03:41:34 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Dear George,Far be it from me to lop off your neck! (or your head, for that matter!)I do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though.EUAGGELION without the article, in a different case and separated from theparticiple, has little to commend to itself as the subject. Especially withhO OUK ESTIN ALLO, Paul’s thought seems to run smoothly: the Galatians haveturned to another gospel which is, in fact “not another ‘Gospel'” at all.How would you take the hO OUK ESTIN ALLO?Paul uses the verbe KALEW three other times in Galatians; in two of thoseoccurences the subject is clearly God. The first comes just a few verseslater, in ch. 1:Gal 1:15: Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶκαλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, hOTE DE EUDOKHSEN [hO QEOS] hO AFORISAS ME EKKOILIAS MHTROS MOU KAI KALESAS DIA THS CARITOS AUTOU.Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡπεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ETRECETE KALWS· TIS hUMAS ENEKOYEN [THi]ALHQEIAi MH PEIQESQAI; hH PEISMONH OUK EK TOU KALOUNTOS hUMAS.In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly QEOS (unless the vl isretained for 1:15), but I would have a hard time convincing myself that itcould be the Gospel (the third occurence is 5:15, passive voice). OutsideGalatians, when Paul uses the verb in the active voice in similar contexts,if the subjet is specified or can be discerned from the context, it’s alwaysQEOS. It’s often in the passive, which should probably be construed as a”passivum divinum”.2 Th 2:14 is an interesting confirmation: εἰς ὃ [καὶ] ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦεὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, EIS hO[KAI] EKALESEN hUMAS DIA TOU EUAGGELIOU hHMWN EIS PERIPOIHSIN DOXHS TOUKURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU.The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.Blessings,Donald CobbAix-en-Provence—– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “B Greek”< at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:23 AMSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> 6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι> [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ> ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.> > QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI> [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN> hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU.> > I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to> supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God. Therefore> καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc gen sg part,> but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part. In that case, what would be> the subject? The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION ! Although one must also> understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in the gen abs as one must> understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual understanding of the passage,> the word is already right there to be brought to mind. Also, εἰ μή might> be understood after the manner of the English “unless” which is really> very similar to “except.” The sense would then be that he is surprised> that they are forsaking the GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ’s favor> for another gospel. He is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing> them by trying to> alter the gospel itself.> > I’ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though> I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this will make> some sense.> george> gfsomsel> > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > ________________________________> From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>> To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PM> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians> 1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.> Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιν> αλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versions> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous.> So,> understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose an> alternate solution.> > I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],> except there are some who trouble you….” I further struggle with the> idea> of placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parenthetical> statement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to> θαυμαζω> in v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in> this> arrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:> > “I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you> by> the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),> except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”> > The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is> saying> he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Using> the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my> idea> a possibility?> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Charles Johnson cpj5117 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 08:54:13 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. I think Iunderstand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was Elizabeth’stidbit that EI MH follows a negative, a requirement that QAUMAZW does notmeet. I’m starting to appreciate being wrong; I always seem to learnsomething from it.Charlie JohnsonOn Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Donald COBB <docobb at orange.fr> wrote:> Dear George,> > Far be it from me to lop off your neck! (or your head, for that matter!)> > I do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though.> EUAGGELION without the article, in a different case and separated from the> participle, has little to commend to itself as the subject. Especially with> hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, Paul’s thought seems to run smoothly: the Galatians have> turned to another gospel which is, in fact “not another ‘Gospel'” at all.> How would you take the hO OUK ESTIN ALLO?> > Paul uses the verbe KALEW three other times in Galatians; in two of those> occurences the subject is clearly God. The first comes just a few verses> later, in ch. 1:> > Gal 1:15: Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ> καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, hOTE DE EUDOKHSEN [hO QEOS] hO AFORISAS ME> EK> KOILIAS MHTROS MOU KAI KALESAS DIA THS CARITOS AUTOU.> > Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡ> πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ETRECETE KALWS· TIS hUMAS ENEKOYEN> [THi]> ALHQEIAi MH PEIQESQAI; hH PEISMONH OUK EK TOU KALOUNTOS hUMAS.> > In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly QEOS (unless the vl is> retained for 1:15), but I would have a hard time convincing myself that it> could be the Gospel (the third occurence is 5:15, passive voice). Outside> Galatians, when Paul uses the verb in the active voice in similar contexts,> if the subjet is specified or can be discerned from the context, it’s> always> QEOS. It’s often in the passive, which should probably be construed as a> “passivum divinum”.> > 2 Th 2:14 is an interesting confirmation: εἰς ὃ [καὶ] ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ> εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, EIS hO> [KAI] EKALESEN hUMAS DIA TOU EUAGGELIOU hHMWN EIS PERIPOIHSIN DOXHS TOU> KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU.> > The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.> > Blessings,> > Donald Cobb> Aix-en-Provence> > —– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “B Greek”> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:23 AM> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > > 6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι>> [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ>> >> ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.>> >> QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI>> [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN>> hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU.>> >> I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to>> supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God. Therefore>> καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc gen sg part,>> but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part. In that case, what would be>> the subject? The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION ! Although one must also>> understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in the gen abs as one must>> understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual understanding of the passage,>> the word is already right there to be brought to mind. Also, εἰ μή might>> be understood after the manner of the English “unless” which is really>> very similar to “except.” The sense would then be that he is surprised>> that they are forsaking the GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ’s favor>> for another gospel. He is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing>> them by trying to>> alter the gospel itself.>> >> I’ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though>> I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this will make>> some sense.>> george>> gfsomsel>> >> >> … search for truth, hear truth,>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>> defend the truth till death.>> >> >> – Jan Hus>> _________>> >> >> >> >> ________________________________>> From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>>> To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PM>> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7>> >> I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians>> 1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.>> Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιν>> αλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versions>> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous.>> So,>> understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose an>> alternate solution.>> >> I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],>> except there are some who trouble you….” I further struggle with the>> idea>> of placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parenthetical>> statement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to>> θαυμαζω>> in v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in>> this>> arrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:>> >> “I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you>> by>> the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),>> except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”>> >> The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is>> saying>> he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Using>> the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my>> idea>> a possibility?>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> > >

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Jun 10 12:21:48 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Charles,I did a series of blog posts a while back to draw out the semantic differences between ALLA and EI MI. Here is the link to the one that describes the distinction:http://www.ntdiscourse.org/tag/point-counterpoint/Hope this helps with your processing of Gal. 1.6-7.Steven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)Scholar-in-ResidenceLogos Research Systems, Inc.http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge http://www.logos.com/ldgnt —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Charles JohnsonSent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:54 AMTo: Donald COBBCc: B GreekSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. I think I understand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was Elizabeth’s tidbit that EI MH follows a negative, a requirement that QAUMAZW does not meet. I’m starting to appreciate being wrong; I always seem to learn something from it.Charlie JohnsonOn Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Donald COBB <docobb at orange.fr> wrote:> Dear George,> > Far be it from me to lop off your neck! (or your head, for that > matter!)> > I do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though.> EUAGGELION without the article, in a different case and separated from > the participle, has little to commend to itself as the subject. > Especially with hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, Paul’s thought seems to run > smoothly: the Galatians have turned to another gospel which is, in fact “not another ‘Gospel'” at all.> How would you take the hO OUK ESTIN ALLO?> > Paul uses the verbe KALEW three other times in Galatians; in two of > those occurences the subject is clearly God. The first comes just a > few verses later, in ch. 1:> > Gal 1:15: Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός > μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, hOTE DE EUDOKHSEN [hO QEOS] hO > AFORISAS ME EK KOILIAS MHTROS MOU KAI KALESAS DIA THS CARITOS AUTOU.> > Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; > 8 ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ETRECETE KALWS· TIS hUMAS > ENEKOYEN [THi] ALHQEIAi MH PEIQESQAI; hH PEISMONH OUK EK TOU KALOUNTOS > hUMAS.> > In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly QEOS (unless the > vl is retained for 1:15), but I would have a hard time convincing > myself that it could be the Gospel (the third occurence is 5:15, > passive voice). Outside Galatians, when Paul uses the verb in the > active voice in similar contexts, if the subjet is specified or can be > discerned from the context, it’s always QEOS. It’s often in the > passive, which should probably be construed as a “passivum divinum”.> > 2 Th 2:14 is an interesting confirmation: εἰς ὃ [καὶ] ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς > διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ > Χριστοῦ, EIS hO [KAI] EKALESEN hUMAS DIA TOU EUAGGELIOU hHMWN EIS > PERIPOIHSIN DOXHS TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU.> > The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.> > Blessings,> > Donald Cobb> Aix-en-Provence> > —– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” > <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “B Greek”> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:23 AM> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > > 6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν > χάριτι>> [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν >> οἱ>> >> ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.>> >> QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN >> XARITI [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH >> TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU.>> >> I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual >> to supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God. >> Therefore καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc >> gen sg part, but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part. In that >> case, what would be the subject? The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION >> ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in >> the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual >> understanding of the passage, the word is already right there to be >> brought to mind. Also, εἰ μή might be understood after the manner of >> the English “unless” which is really very similar to “except.” The >> sense would then be that he is surprised that they are forsaking the >> GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ’s favor for another gospel. He >> is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing them by trying to >> alter the gospel itself.>> >> I’ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation >> though I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this >> will make some sense.>> george>> gfsomsel>> >> >> … search for truth, hear truth,>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the >> truth till death.>> >> >> – Jan Hus>> _________>> >> >> >> >> ________________________________>> From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>>> To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PM>> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7>> >> I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in >> Galatians 1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.>> Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ >> εστιν αλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that >> several versions indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous.>> So,>> understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose an >> alternate solution.>> >> I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another >> [gospel], except there are some who trouble you….” I further >> struggle with the idea of placing a subordinate clause under what >> appears to be a parenthetical statement. Rather, would it be possible >> to connect the ει μη back to θαυμαζω in v. 6? The distinctive force >> of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in this arrangement. The >> paraphrase would be as follows:>> >> “I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called >> you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is >> another), except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”>> >> The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is >> saying he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous >> threat. Using the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his >> amazement. Is my idea a possibility?>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list >> at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list >> at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> > > — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 10 10:53:40 EDT 2009

[] Schola for Greek? [] 2 Cor 5:7 It appears that this was intended for the list when Donald sent his email. For some reason I thought it was offlist. I’ve inserted the transliteration and am forwarding it to the list. The portion set off by / . . . / is to be mentally removed. I have left it solely to indicate that it was originally not sent to the list. [* . . . *] sets of what I have inserted for the sake of clarification.georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ —– Forwarded Message —-From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Donald COBB <docobb at orange.fr>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:12:29 AMSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7It isn’t εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION either with or without the article /[dispensing with translit since this isn’t for the list]/. Let me make explicit what I have in mindΘαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ [*τοῦ εὐαγγελίου*] τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, QAUMAZO hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO [*TOU EUAGGELIOU*] TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI [XRISTOU EIS hETERON EUAGGELION Does that clarify it any? It is ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον APO TOU EUAGGELIOU EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Donald COBB <docobb at orange.fr>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:32:34 AMSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7Dear George,Far be it from me to lop off your neck! (or your head, for that matter!)I do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though. EUAGGELION without the article, in a different case and separated from the participle, has little to commend to itself as the subject. Especially with hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, Paul’s thought seems to run smoothly: the Galatians have turned to another gospel which is, in fact “not another ‘Gospel'” at all. How would you take the hO OUK ESTIN ALLO?Paul uses the verbe KALEW three other times in Galatians; in two of those occurences the subject is clearly God. The first comes just a few verses later, in ch. 1:Gal 1:15: Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, hOTE DE EUDOKHSEN [hO QEOS] hO AFORISAS ME EK KOILIAS MHTROS MOU KAI KALESAS DIA THS CARITOS AUTOU.Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ETRECETE KALWS· TIS hUMAS ENEKOYEN [THi] ALHQEIAi MH PEIQESQAI; hH PEISMONH OUK EK TOU KALOUNTOS hUMAS.In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly QEOS (unless the vl is retained for 1:15), but I would have a hard time convincing myself that it could be the Gospel (the third occurence is 5:15, passive voice). Outside Galatians, when Paul uses the verb in the active voice in similar contexts, if the subjet is specified or can be discerned from the context, it’s always QEOS. It’s often in the passive, which should probably be construed as a “passivum divinum”.2 Th 2:14 is an interesting confirmation: εἰς ὃ [καὶ] ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, EIS hO [KAI] EKALESEN hUMAS DIA TOU EUAGGELIOU hHMWN EIS PERIPOIHSIN DOXHS TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU.The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.Blessings,Donald CobbAix-en-Provence—– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:23 AMSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> 6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.> > QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU.> > I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God. Therefore καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc gen sg part, but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part. In that case, what would be the subject? The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual understanding of the passage, the word is already right there to be brought to mind. Also, εἰ μή might be understood after the manner of the English “unless” which is really very similar to “except.” The sense would then be that he is surprised that they are forsaking the GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ’s favor for another gospel. He is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing them by trying to> alter the gospel itself.> > I’ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this will make some sense.> george> gfsomsel> > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > ________________________________> From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>> To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PM> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians> 1:6-7. I’m looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.> Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιν> αλλο. Leedy’s NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versions> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,> understanding that I’m probably wrong, I thought I would propose an> alternate solution.> > I cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],> except there are some who trouble you….” I further struggle with the idea> of placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parenthetical> statement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to θαυμαζω> in v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as “except” makes good sense in this> arrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:> > “I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by> the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),> except [I know] there are some who trouble you….”> > The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is saying> he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Using> the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my idea> a possibility?> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] Schola for Greek?[] 2 Cor 5:7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Jun 10 12:58:49 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 EI MI … er, is that a version of EIMI (sum) or EIMI (ibo) something like editors writing hO/ TI to distinguish the pronoun from the conjunction ordinarily spelled hOTI?;-)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Steve Runge wrote:> Charles,> > I did a series of blog posts a while back to draw out the semantic > differences between ALLA and EI MI. Here is the link to the one that > describes the distinction:> http://www.ntdiscourse.org/tag/point-counterpoint/> > Hope this helps with your processing of Gal. 1.6-7.

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Jun 10 13:02:15 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Touché Carl, too long out of the saddle posting here. EI MH is what I intended to say, and what the blog post is actually about. I will leave the discussion of verbs and verbal aspect to the really smart folks. —–Original Message—–From: Carl Conrad [mailto:cwconrad2 at mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:59 AMTo: Steve RungeCc: B GreekSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7EI MI … er, is that a version of EIMI (sum) or EIMI (ibo) something like editors writing hO/ TI to distinguish the pronoun from the conjunction ordinarily spelled hOTI?;-)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Steve Runge wrote:> Charles,> > I did a series of blog posts a while back to draw out the semantic > differences between ALLA and EI MI. Here is the link to the one that > describes the distinction:> http://www.ntdiscourse.org/tag/point-counterpoint/> > Hope this helps with your processing of Gal. 1.6-7.

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 10 14:13:45 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 On Jun 10, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Charles Johnson wrote:> Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. I think > I understand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was > Elizabeth’s tidbit that EI MH follows a negative, a requirement that > QAUMAZW does not meet.Small clarification. EI MH is also used in Paul where it does not follow a negative.2Cor. 2:1 Ἔκρινα γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν. 2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ὁ εὐφραίνων με εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ; 3 καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην σχῶ ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔδει με χαίρειν, πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν.2COR. 2:1 EKRINA GAR EMAUTWi TOUTO TO MH PALIN EN LUPHi PROS hUMAS ELQEIN. 2 EI GAR EGW LUPW hUMAS, KAI TIS hO EUFRAINWN ME EI MH hO LUPOUMENOS EX EMOU; 3 KAI EGRAYA TOUTO AUTO, hINA MH ELQWN LUPHN SCW AF᾿ hWN EDEI ME CAIREIN, PEPOIQWS EPI PANTAS hUMAS hOTI hH EMH CARA PANTWN hUMWN ESTIN.Also, EI MH is occasionally used in Attic as a virtual equivelent of ALLA, see G.Cooper 1.65.5.11.B where he cites the following examples:Aristophanes Thes.897 Μὰ τὼ θεώ,898 εἰ μὴ Κρίτυλλά γ’ Ἀντιθέου Γαργηττόθεν.899 Σὺ δ’ εἶ πανοῦργος.897 MA TW QEW,898 EI MH KRITULLA G’ ANTIQEOU GARGHTTOQEN.899 SU D’ EI PANOURGOS.Xeno. Oec. 9:1Καὶ τί δή; ἡ γυνὴ ἐδόκει σοι, ἔφην ἐγώ, ὦ Ἰσχόμαχε, 2 πώς τι ὑπακούειν ὧν σὺ ἐσπούδαζες διδάσκων; Τί δέ, εἰ μὴ 3 ὑπισχνεῖτό γε ἐπιμελήσεσθαι καὶ φανερὰ ἦν ἡδομένη ἰσχυρῶς, 4 ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀμηχανίας εὐπορίαν τινὰ ηὑρηκυῖα, καὶ ἐδεῖτό μουKAI TI DH; hH GUNH EDOKEI SOI, EFHN EGW, W ISCOMACE, 2 PWS TI hUPAKOUEIN hWN SU ESPOUDAZES DIDASKWN; TI DE, EI MH 3 hUPISCNEITO GE EPIMELHSESQAI KAI FANERA HN hHDOMENH ISCURWS, 4 hWSPER EX AMHCANIAS EUPORIAN TINA hHURHKUIA, KAI EDEITO MOUI would be interested in hearing opinions of the citation from Aristophanes Thes. 898. I was not totally convinced it illustrated what Cooper was intending it to illustrate. Following up on citations in reference works sometimes leads to questions like this.Elizabeth Kline

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Jun 10 14:27:02 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.”What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer in most every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended): rhetorical questions. This apparent exception confused me even more than the original problem, since it seemed to break with the expected pattern of negation. Then I realized that even though the rhetorical questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the expected answer to the question is nothing or no one.-BREAK-“To summarize, here is my claim: Although there are several contrastive or adversative particles, the key to distinguishing ἀλλὰ from εἰ μή is the relation of replacement to the original set of items that is replaced/corrected.In the case of εἰ μή, the excepted element that replaces what precedes was a potential member of the negated set. Look back at the example from Mark 6:4-5: a conceptual set of data are established either by use of a negated or an interrogative clause. The negation serves to remove all possible candidates from the data set, essentially wiping the slate clean by negation (e.g. no one can do X=X is not able to be done by anyone). The interrogative asks a question whose answer is expected to be negative (e.g. Who can do this? Cf. Mark 2:7) In both cases, this protasis has the effect of predicating a set of items that is completely removed from consideration. This is where the exceptive/restrictive apodosis comes in. One member from the original set that was negated is presented as an exception.”A diagram follows this excerpt in the blog post that explains graphically what I am talking about. See also sections 4.3 and 4.4 in “Discourse Grammar of the Greek NT” for a longer description. They MEN appear to be synonymous, in reality DE there is a meaningful distinction.Steve—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth KlineSent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:14 AMTo: B GreekCc: Charles JohnsonSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7On Jun 10, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Charles Johnson wrote:> Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. I think I > understand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was > Elizabeth’s tidbit that EI MH follows a negative, a requirement that > QAUMAZW does not meet.Small clarification. EI MH is also used in Paul where it does not follow a negative.2Cor. 2:1 Ἔκρινα γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν. 2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ὁ εὐφραίνων με εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ; 3 καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην σχῶ ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔδει με χαίρειν, πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν.2COR. 2:1 EKRINA GAR EMAUTWi TOUTO TO MH PALIN EN LUPHi PROS hUMAS ELQEIN. 2 EI GAR EGW LUPW hUMAS, KAI TIS hO EUFRAINWN ME EI MH hO LUPOUMENOS EX EMOU; 3 KAI EGRAYA TOUTO AUTO, hINA MH ELQWN LUPHN SCW AF᾿ hWN EDEI ME CAIREIN, PEPOIQWS EPI PANTAS hUMAS hOTI hH EMH CARA PANTWN hUMWN ESTIN.Also, EI MH is occasionally used in Attic as a virtual equivelent of ALLA, see G.Cooper 1.65.5.11.B where he cites the following examples:Aristophanes Thes.897 Μὰ τὼ θεώ,898 εἰ μὴ Κρίτυλλά γ’ ἈντιθέουΓαργηττόθεν.899 Σὺ δ’ εἶ πανοῦργος.897 MA TW QEW,898 EI MH KRITULLA G’ ANTIQEOU GARGHTTOQEN.899 SU D’ EI PANOURGOS.Xeno. Oec. 9:1Καὶ τί δή; ἡ γυνὴ ἐδόκει σοι, ἔφηνἐγώ, ὦ Ἰσχόμαχε, 2 πώς τι ὑπακούεινὧν σὺ ἐσπούδαζες διδάσκων; Τί δέ,εἰ μὴ 3 ὑπισχνεῖτό γε ἐπιμελήσεσθαικαὶ φανερὰ ἦν ἡδομένη ἰσχυρῶς, 4ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀμηχανίας εὐπορίαν τινὰηὑρηκυῖα, καὶ ἐδεῖτό μουKAI TI DH; hH GUNH EDOKEI SOI, EFHN EGW, W ISCOMACE, 2 PWS TI hUPAKOUEIN hWN SU ESPOUDAZES DIDASKWN; TI DE, EI MH 3 hUPISCNEITO GE EPIMELHSESQAI KAI FANERA HN hHDOMENH ISCURWS, 4 hWSPER EX AMHCANIAS EUPORIAN TINA hHURHKUIA, KAI EDEITO MOUI would be interested in hearing opinions of the citation from Aristophanes Thes. 898. I was not totally convinced it illustrated what Cooper was intending it to illustrate. Following up on citations in reference works sometimes leads to questions like this.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] Galatians 1:6-7 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jun 10 14:55:20 EDT 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 —– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Cc: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>Sent: 10. juni 2009 21:27Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited > exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.> > “What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer in most > every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended): rhetorical > questions. This apparent exception confused me even more than the original > problem, since it seemed to break with the expected pattern of negation. Then > I realized that even though the rhetorical questions are technically positive, > they expected a negative answer where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the > expected answer to the question is nothing or no one.> -BREAK-Does the question have to expect a negative answer? Does this apply to the following examples?Rom 11:15: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις εἰ μὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν;EI GAR hH APOBOLH AUTWN KATALLAGH KOSMOU, TIS hH PROSLHMYIS EI MH ZWH EK NEKRWNEph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς;TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHS1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός;TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO CRISTOSIver Larsen

[] Galatians 1:6-7[] Galatians 1:6-7

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Jun 10 16:30:39 EDT 2009

[] FYI: Oxyrhynchus Papyri available at Internet Archive [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH Iver,So far as I have been able to determine, there will be an expectation of a negative answer, no matter how slight that negative is. This does not mean that there will be no instance where a writer does not follow this principle, but I know that I can account for all NT tokens of EI MH. The example from Eph 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What I have outlined is a principle, not a rule. I expect there will be exceptions. 😉 That was for you, Carl.Steve—–Original Message—–From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:55 AMTo: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; B GreekCc: Charles JohnsonSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7—– Original Message —–From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Cc: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>Sent: 10. juni 2009 21:27Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited > exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.> > “What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer > in most every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended): > rhetorical questions. This apparent exception confused me even more > than the original problem, since it seemed to break with the expected > pattern of negation. Then I realized that even though the rhetorical > questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer > where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the expected answer to the question is nothing or no one.> -BREAK-Does the question have to expect a negative answer? Does this apply to the following examples?Rom 11:15: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις εἰ μὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν; EI GAR hH APOBOLH AUTWN KATALLAGH KOSMOU, TIS hH PROSLHMYIS EI MH ZWH EK NEKRWNEph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς; TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHS1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO CRISTOSIver Larsen

[] FYI: Oxyrhynchus Papyri available at Internet Archive[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH
[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jun 11 01:06:03 EDT 2009

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH Hi, Steve,At the moment I don’t have a lot of time to research this interesting question in detail, but I think it would be helpful to approach it from a different angle also.You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and I like that. A certain emphasis seems to be present in all examples of EI MH, maybe akin to the emphasis in OU MH.EI MH x is at times equivalent to “surely x”. The writer may set up a scenario, usually by a question, and then he gives an answer that may be obvious, but surely is seen by the speaker to be correct and emphatic.For instance, in Esther 6:6 we find:εἶπεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Αμαν Τί ποιήσω τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃν ἐγὼ θέλω δοξάσαι; εἶπεν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ Αμαν Τίνα θέλει ὁ βασιλεὺς δοξάσαι εἰ μὴ ἐμέ;EIPEN DE hO BASILEUS TWi AMAN: TI POIHSW TWi ANQRWPWi hON EGW QELW DOXASAI? EIPEN DE EN hEAUTWi AMAN: TINA QELEI hO BASILEUS DOXASAI EI MH EME?The question Haman puts to himself is: Who could the king want to honor? Surely, it must be me! Who else?It seems a stretch to demand that the question is rhetorical and especially that the expected answer is: No one. But I accept that the EI MH appears to narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, I would be more inclined to consider “no one else/nothing else”.Let me move down to the other examples below:—– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30Subject: [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7> > Iver,> > So far as I have been able to determine, there will be an expectation of a > negative answer, no matter how slight that negative is. This does not mean > that there will be no instance where a writer does not follow this principle, > but I know that I can account for all NT tokens of EI MH. The example from Eph > 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What I have outlined is a principle, not a > rule. I expect there will be exceptions. 😉 That was for you, Carl.> > Steve> > —–Original Message—–> From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:55 AM> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; B Greek> Cc: Charles Johnson> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>> To: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; “B Greek”> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Cc: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>> Sent: 10. juni 2009 21:27> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > >> Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited>> exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.>> >> “What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer>> in most every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended):>> rhetorical questions. This apparent exception confused me even more>> than the original problem, since it seemed to break with the expected>> pattern of negation. Then I realized that even though the rhetorical>> questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer>> where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the expected answer to the question >> is nothing or no one.>> -BREAK-> > Does the question have to expect a negative answer? Does this apply to the > following examples?> > Rom 11:15: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις εἰ μὴ ζωὴ > ἐκ νεκρῶν; EI GAR hH APOBOLH AUTWN KATALLAGH KOSMOU, TIS hH PROSLHMYIS EI MH > ZWH EK NEKRWNWhat will there acceptance result in? Surely, life from the dead. (What else than life from death?)> Eph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς > γῆς; TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHSWhat does the “he went up” mean? Surely, it meant that he also had gone down to the lower parts of the earth.> > 1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ > Χριστός; TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO > CRISTOSWho is THE liar? Surely, it is the one who denies that Jesus is (not) the Messiah.1 Cor 7:17: Εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω.EI MH hEKASTWi hWS EMERISEN hO KURIOS, hEKASTON hWS KEKLHKEN hO QEOS, hOUTWS PERIPATEITWSurely, as the Lord has apportioned it to each person, as God has called each on, him/her should live in that way. How else?I agree that when the EI MH clause is connected to another clause that is negative, the basic sense is “except, unless”. The EI MH clause usually follows, in which case “except” works fine in English. When the EI MH clause precedes its counterpart, English prefers “unless” or “if not”, e.g.Jhn 9:33 Unless/If not this man was from God, he could not do anything (like this).There are examples where EI MH is not connected to a negative clause nor to a question, e.g.Act 26:32 Ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος εἰ μὴ ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα.APOLELUSQAI EDUNATO hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOS, EI MH EPEKEKLHTO KAISARAThis man could have been released, if he had not appealed to Caesar.1 Cor 14:5 μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃMEIZWN DE hO PROFHTEUWN H hO LALWN GLWSSAIS, EKTOS EI MH DIERMHNEUHiThe one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues unless he/she explains the meaning.Iver Larsen

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Thu Jun 11 11:22:57 EDT 2009

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH Iver,From my standpoint, it is more helpful to attribute the emphasis and prominence to the decision to take the long way of disclosing something, rather than to attribute it to EI MH. The latter is just a tool. Jump down to your Esther example, it is a great one. —–Original Message—–From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:06 PMTo: Steve Runge; B GreekSubject: Re: [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MHHi, Steve,At the moment I don’t have a lot of time to research this interesting question in detail, but I think it would be helpful to approach it from a different angle also.You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and I like that. A certain emphasis seems to be present in all examples of EI MH, maybe akin to the emphasis in OU MH.EI MH x is at times equivalent to “surely x”. The writer may set up a scenario, usually by a question, and then he gives an answer that may be obvious, but surely is seen by the speaker to be correct and emphatic.For instance, in Esther 6:6 we find:εἶπεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Αμαν Τί ποιήσω τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃν ἐγὼ θέλω δοξάσαι; εἶπεν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ Αμαν Τίνα θέλει ὁ βασιλεὺς δοξάσαι εἰ μὴ ἐμέ;EIPEN DE hO BASILEUS TWi AMAN: TI POIHSW TWi ANQRWPWi hON EGW QELW DOXASAI? EIPEN DE EN hEAUTWi AMAN: TINA QELEI hO BASILEUS DOXASAI EI MH EME?The question Haman puts to himself is: Who could the king want to honor? Surely, it must be me! Who else?It seems a stretch to demand that the question is rhetorical and especially that the expected answer is: No one. But I accept that the EI MH appears to narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, I would be more inclined to consider “no one else/nothing else”.SER: We need to recognize that Haman did NOT need to ask a question. He more simply could have stated, “Surely the king wants to honor me.” This would have communicated the same content without drawing out the main point. By using the rhetorical question, a void or blank is opened up by the interrogative that the reader needs to fill in. The answer to the question is provided in the exceptive clause. I would say rather than wondering about the use of EI MH versus ALLA, the more relevant distinction is EI MH versus direct disclosure. It is this choice to take the longer, more complex way of disclosing something that results in the added emphasis attributed to the answer. Each of the examples below could probably be rephrased to eliminate the exception, avoiding the circumlocution. Doing so also has the effect of softening the rhetorical impact of the statement.I am out of time for the rest of the week for grading, so I hereby bow out of this discussion. Back to lurking.SteveLet me move down to the other examples below:—– Original Message —–From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30Subject: [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7> > Iver,> > So far as I have been able to determine, there will be an expectation of a > negative answer, no matter how slight that negative is. This does not mean > that there will be no instance where a writer does not follow this principle, > but I know that I can account for all NT tokens of EI MH. The example from Eph > 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What I have outlined is a principle, not a > rule. I expect there will be exceptions. 😉 That was for you, Carl.> > Steve> > —–Original Message—–> From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:55 AM> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; B Greek> Cc: Charles Johnson> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>> To: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; “B Greek”> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Cc: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>> Sent: 10. juni 2009 21:27> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > >> Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited>> exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.>> >> “What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer>> in most every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended):>> rhetorical questions. This apparent exception confused me even more>> than the original problem, since it seemed to break with the expected>> pattern of negation. Then I realized that even though the rhetorical>> questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer>> where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the expected answer to the question >> is nothing or no one.>> -BREAK-> > Does the question have to expect a negative answer? Does this apply to the > following examples?> > Rom 11:15: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις εἰ μὴ ζωὴ > ἐκ νεκρῶν; EI GAR hH APOBOLH AUTWN KATALLAGH KOSMOU, TIS hH PROSLHMYIS EI MH > ZWH EK NEKRWNWhat will there acceptance result in? Surely, life from the dead. (What else than life from death?)> Eph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς > γῆς; TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHSWhat does the “he went up” mean? Surely, it meant that he also had gone down to the lower parts of the earth.> > 1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ > Χριστός; TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO > CRISTOSWho is THE liar? Surely, it is the one who denies that Jesus is (not) the Messiah.1 Cor 7:17: Εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω.EI MH hEKASTWi hWS EMERISEN hO KURIOS, hEKASTON hWS KEKLHKEN hO QEOS, hOUTWS PERIPATEITWSurely, as the Lord has apportioned it to each person, as God has called each on, him/her should live in that way. How else?I agree that when the EI MH clause is connected to another clause that is negative, the basic sense is “except, unless”. The EI MH clause usually follows, in which case “except” works fine in English. When the EI MH clause precedes its counterpart, English prefers “unless” or “if not”, e.g.Jhn 9:33 Unless/If not this man was from God, he could not do anything (like this).There are examples where EI MH is not connected to a negative clause nor to a question, e.g.Act 26:32 Ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος εἰ μὴ ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα.APOLELUSQAI EDUNATO hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOS, EI MH EPEKEKLHTO KAISARAThis man could have been released, if he had not appealed to Caesar.1 Cor 14:5 μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃMEIZWN DE hO PROFHTEUWN H hO LALWN GLWSSAIS, EKTOS EI MH DIERMHNEUHiThe one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues unless he/she explains the meaning.Iver Larsen

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jun 13 06:58:11 EDT 2009

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH [] the Top Ten Tesponses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7 See below:—– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>; “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 11. juni 2009 18:22Subject: RE: [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH> Iver,> > From my standpoint, it is more helpful to attribute the emphasis and > prominence to the decision to take the long way of disclosing something, > rather than to attribute it to EI MH. The latter is just a tool. Jump down to > your Esther example, it is a great one.—————-IL: That EI MH has the potential for emphasis is inherent in what it means. It is probably correct that it is not always emphatic, and emphasis is often the result of several factors working together, phonological, lexical, syntactic and situational.> —–Original Message—–> From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:06 PM> To: Steve Runge; B Greek> Subject: Re: [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH> > Hi, Steve,> > At the moment I don’t have a lot of time to research this interesting question > in detail, but I think it would be helpful to approach it from a different > angle also.> > You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and I like that. A certain > emphasis seems to be present in all examples of EI MH, maybe akin to the > emphasis in OU MH.> > EI MH x is at times equivalent to “surely x”. The writer may set up a > scenario, usually by a question, and then he gives an answer that may be > obvious, but surely is seen by the speaker to be correct and emphatic.> > For instance, in Esther 6:6 we find:> > εἶπεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Αμαν Τί ποιήσω τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃν ἐγὼ θέλω δοξάσαι; εἶπεν > δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ Αμαν Τίνα θέλει ὁ βασιλεὺς δοξάσαι εἰ μὴ ἐμέ;> > EIPEN DE hO BASILEUS TWi AMAN: TI POIHSW TWi ANQRWPWi hON EGW QELW DOXASAI?> EIPEN DE EN hEAUTWi AMAN: TINA QELEI hO BASILEUS DOXASAI EI MH EME?> > The question Haman puts to himself is: Who could the king want to honor? > Surely, it must be me! Who else?> It seems a stretch to demand that the question is rhetorical and especially > that the expected answer is: No one. But I accept that the EI MH appears to > narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, I would be more inclined to > consider “no one else/nothing else”.> > > SER: We need to recognize that Haman did NOT need to ask a question. He more > simply could have stated, “Surely the king wants to honor me.” This would have > communicated the same content without drawing out the main point. By using the > rhetorical question, a void or blank is opened up by the interrogative that > the reader needs to fill in. The answer to the question is provided in the > exceptive clause.> I would say rather than wondering about the use of EI MH versus ALLA, the more > relevant distinction is EI MH versus direct disclosure. It is this choice to > take the longer, more complex way of disclosing something that results in the > added emphasis attributed to the answer. Each of the examples below could > probably be rephrased to eliminate the exception, avoiding the circumlocution. > Doing so also has the effect of softening the rhetorical impact of the > statement.——————IL:You did not defend your claim: “Then I realized that even though the rhetorical questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer where εἰ μή was used. In other words, the expected answer to the question is nothing or no one.”The various examples I gave – including Esther 6:6 – shows that this is not necessarily the case. The question Haman puts to himself was: “Who might the king want to honor?” The question is an open question that does not expect the answer “no one”. There would be several possible recipients of such an honour, but the EI MH narrows down the list to one person: me, and only me.I think we are in general agreement about the usage of EI MH, namely that it introduces or chooses a specific instance (person, event or situation) that makes the general statement in the main clause invalid or inapplicable or at least narrows it down. (It can also function on the phrase level in a similar manner, but I won’t deal with that.) In most cases the general statement includes a negative, but that is not always the case, and I don’t think that is the crucial point.When we have a question, the function is somewhat different, and we don’t need to squeeze one set of data to fit the usage with another set of data, although there should be some similarity or commonality. That similarity is, I think, the focus on one particular person or event. A question may have many possible answers, but the author wants to choose one and focus on it in the EI MH clause. Try to look at the eamples below from that perspective.I want to come back to 1 Cor 7:17 below, because it is unsual, and therefore interesting. Please jump down:> > Let me move down to the other examples below:> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30> Subject: [] FW: Galatians 1:6-7> > >> >> Iver,>> >> So far as I have been able to determine, there will be an expectation of a>> negative answer, no matter how slight that negative is. This does not mean>> that there will be no instance where a writer does not follow this principle,>> but I know that I can account for all NT tokens of EI MH. The example from >> Eph>> 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What I have outlined is a principle, not a>> rule. I expect there will be exceptions. 😉 That was for you, Carl.>> >> Steve>> >> —–Original Message—–>> From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:55 AM>> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; B Greek>> Cc: Charles Johnson>> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7>> >> —– Original Message —–>> From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>>> To: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; “B Greek”>> < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Cc: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>>> Sent: 10. juni 2009 21:27>> Subject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7>> >> >>> Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited>>> exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.>>> >>> “What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer>>> in most every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended):>>> rhetorical questions. This apparent exception confused me even more>>> than the original problem, since it seemed to break with the expected>>> pattern of negation. Then I realized that even though the rhetorical>>> questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer>>> where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the expected answer to the question>>> is nothing or no one.>>> -BREAK->> >> Does the question have to expect a negative answer? Does this apply to the>> following examples?>> >> Rom 11:15: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις εἰ μὴ >> ζωὴ>> ἐκ νεκρῶν; EI GAR hH APOBOLH AUTWN KATALLAGH KOSMOU, TIS hH PROSLHMYIS EI MH>> ZWH EK NEKRWN> > What will there acceptance result in? Surely, life from the dead. (What else> than life from death?)> >> Eph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς>> γῆς; TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHS> > What does the “he went up” mean? Surely, it meant that he also had gone down > to> the lower parts of the earth.> >> >> 1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ>> Χριστός; TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO>> CRISTOS> > Who is THE liar? Surely, it is the one who denies that Jesus is (not) the> Messiah.> > 1 Cor 7:17: Εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, > οὕτως> περιπατείτω.> EI MH hEKASTWi hWS EMERISEN hO KURIOS, hEKASTON hWS KEKLHKEN hO QEOS, hOUTWS> PERIPATEITW> > Surely, as the Lord has apportioned it to each person, as God has called each> on, him/her should live in that way. How else?IL: Although it is clear enough that the EI MH with the imperative focuses on one specific demanded action: “live as God has called you to”, there is no general statement nor a question. Quite often EI MH corresponds to “the only one” (e.g. Mark 2:7 (Luke 5:21), John 6:22, 13:10). In the verse above I would say that the general set of possible actions in the background is very large and vague. There are many ways you might choose to live, but Paul is focusing on the only one you should actually put into practice. This practice is further developed and explained in the following verses 18-24.English translations don’t know what to do with EI MH here. NIV and NET chose “nevertheless”, and NRSV has “However that may be”, but this can hardly be correct, because the link is not to the preceding verses. KVJ has “But” which is not correct either. NCV has “But in any case” which is somewhat better, but not quite right. Modern idiomatic versions do not translate it at all, thereby suggesting that the force of it is carried by context. RSV has “Only” which is IMO the best option of those I have looked at, although I am not opposed to not translating it at all.Coming back to Gal 1:7, the general statement is that the false teaching is not another gospel. It is only that (EI MH) some people are troubling you and trying to turn you away from the gospel of Christ.Many English versions render EI MH with “but” in this verse (NIV has “evidently”). Even though “but” is possible, I would prefer “only” or “It is only that”… (Sorry if I betray myself to be a translator rather than a grammarian. My suggestions may not always be the best English renderings since I don’t have that native speaker intuition.)Iver Larsen

[] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH[] the Top Ten Tesponses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply