Galatians 1:6

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

Grammars Grammars List members:ι am wondering what it is ι‘m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:…απο του καλεσαντοσ υμασ εν ξαριτι ξριστου….Every English version ι consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,κψβ:…from him that called you into the grace οφ χριστ…. My questionis – Why don’t they take the phrase καλεσαντοσ υμασ εν ξαριτι as anadjectival phrase modifying απο του … ξριστου meaning essentially -“…from the Christ who has called you…”?Thanks for any insights.Byron KnutsonSalem, Oregon

GrammarsGrammars

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

αττιξ γρεεκ “Co-workers with God”? – 1 Cor. 3:9 At 1:20 αμ -0800 12/10/99, Byron Knutson wrote:>List members:> >ι am wondering what it is ι‘m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:> >…απο του καλεσαντοσ υμασ εν ξαριτι ξριστου….> >Every English version ι consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,>κψβ:…from him that called you into the grace οφ χριστ…. My question>is – Why don’t they take the phrase καλεσαντοσ υμασ εν ξαριτι as an>adjectival phrase modifying απο του … ξριστου meaning essentially –>“…from the Christ who has called you…”?Well, it seems a bit more natural to take ξριστου as genitive dependentupon ξαριτι. ι don’t see anything really wrong with understanding CRISTOUas appositive to the substantival participle του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS, althoughit seems to me that to make καλεσαντοσ an attributive participle to alarger enclosure, του … ξριστου 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, ι 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 ξριστου 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. ι meant onlyto call attention to a problem affecting the question being raised.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

αττιξ γρεεκ“Co-workers with God”? – 1 Cor. 3:9

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

Augustine’s hatred of the Homer Grammars >At 1:20 αμ -0800 12/10/99, Byron Knutson wrote:>>List members:>> >>ι am wondering what it is ι‘m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:>> >>…απο του καλεσαντοσ υμασ εν ξαριτι ξριστου….>> >>Every English version ι consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,>>κψβ:…from him that called you into the grace οφ χριστ…. My question>>is – Why don’t they take the phrase καλεσαντοσ υμασ εν ξαριτι as an>>adjectival phrase modifying απο του … ξριστου meaning essentially –>>“…from the Christ who has called you…”?> >Well, it seems a bit more natural to take ξριστου as genitive dependent>upon ξαριτι. ι don’t see anything really wrong with understanding ξριστου>as appositive to the substantival participle του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS, although>it seems to me that to make καλεσαντοσ an attributive participle to a>larger enclosure, του … ξριστου is less common for Koine Greek.> Omit Carl’s material on τξ.ι think that we should omit χριστου primarily on internal andtranscriptional grounds. Thus ι would translate θαυμαζω οτι hOUTWS ταξεωσμετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν ξαριτι εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον as “Iam amazed that you are so readily moved from the one who called you bygrace to another gospel.” The translation of hOUTWS ταξεωσ 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). ι take τουκαλεσαντοσ as refering to Christ and εν ξαριτι as instrumental. It is much easier for me to explain the addition of the name than toexplain the inclusion.Dr. Carlton λ. 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 εστ 1999

Mt 12:26 – Why a question? Grammars To: Dr. Carlton λ. Winbery, Byron Knutson, et al.,ξλω: << Thus ι would translate θαυμαζω οτι hOUTWS ταξεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν ξαριτι εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον as “ι am amazed that you are so readily moved from the one who called you by grace to another gospel.” >>φωιω … and perhaps contrary to popular opinion, ι would take μετατιθεσθε as passive, rather than middle, and so translate this passage as: “ι am amazed that so quickly you have been turned away from your calling by [Christ’s] grace into a different gospel” (Gal 1:6 μοτ).By taking μετατιθεσθε as a passive (or at least a possible passive), ι would then accuse St. Paul of having some pastoral sensibilities. For he seems here to put the bulk of the blame on another. ι 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: “ι 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 ι think. (The suggestion of taking μετατιθεσθε as passage appears in λσψμ under μετατιθημι.)Of course, that has nothing to do with the original question.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (υσα)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “ι‘m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do ι know?”

Mt 12:26 – Why a question?Grammars

Sat Dec 11 06:20:58 εστ 1999

Greek Gal 1:6 At 6:12 πμ -0600 12/10/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Dr. Carlton λ. Winbery, Byron Knutson, et al.,> >ξλω: << Thus ι would translate θαυμαζω οτι hOUTWS ταξεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο>του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν ξαριτι εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον as “ι am amazed that>you are so readily moved from the one who called you by grace to another>gospel.” >>> >φωιω … and perhaps contrary to popular opinion, ι would take μετατιθεσθε>as passive, rather than middle, and so translate this passage as: “ι am>amazed that so quickly you have been turned away from your calling by>[Christ’s] grace into a different gospel” (Gal 1:6 μοτ).> >By taking μετατιθεσθε as a passive (or at least a possible passive), ι>would then accuse St. Paul of having some pastoral sensibilities. For he>seems here to put the bulk of the blame on another. ι 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: “ι 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 ι think. (The>suggestion of taking μετατιθεσθε as passage appears in λσψμ under μετατιθημι.)> >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 μετατιθεσθε 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 μ/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 ι‘mserious about) in this instance and suggest a reflexive sense that is notat all inconsistent, ι think, with the above interpretation of Paul’s”pastoral” strategy: suppose we understand the Greek to mean, “ι‘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 μετατιθεσθε here?). There’s another minor point too: although Steven hasformulated the tense of μετατιθεσθε 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 νοτ 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 ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

GreekGal 1:6

Sat Dec 11 08:07:50 εστ 1999

Gal 1:6 1 Cor 11:23 παρεδιδοτο (long) To: Carl ω. Conrad,<< “ι‘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 μετατιθεσθε 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 νοτ 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 <ι say sheepishly> ι had overlooked! Thanks!-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (υσα)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “ι‘m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do ι know?”

Gal 1:61 Cor 11:23 παρεδιδοτο (long)

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

[] 2 Thess 2:13 [] Galatians 1:6-7 ι have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians1:6-7. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that several versionsindicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose analternate solution.ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:”ι [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 [ι 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 ξοββ docobb at orange.fr
Wed Jun 10 01:24:06 εδτ 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, θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταξεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν ξαριτι [ξριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον, hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη τινεσ εισιν hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του ξριστου.Hello Charles,Welcome to the wonderful world of Paul’s sometimes tortuous syntax!α few comments quite briefly:First, ει μη can be a simple adversative, translated as “but”. βδαγ 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; πωσ εισηλθεν εισ τον οικον του θεου και τουσ αρτουσ θσ προθεσεωσ εφαγον, hO ουκ εχον ην AUTWi φαγειν ουδε τοισ μετ᾽ αυτου ει μη τοισ hIEREUSIN μονοισ;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, ουκ αφω αυτουσ καθεσθηναι εισ θν σκιαν, ει μη hUPO hHLIOU εχω: “ι 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 θαυμα 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 θαυμαζω 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 ευαγγελιον et ευαγγελιζομαι 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: “β Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:22 AMSubject: [] Galatians 1:6-7>ι have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians> 1:6-7. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that several versions> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. > So,> understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose an> alternate solution.> > ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],> except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:> > “ι [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 [ι 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 φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 10 02:23:47 εδτ 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. θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταχεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν χαριτι [χριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον. 7 hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη τινεσ εισιν hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του χριστου. ι have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to supply the subject here as being [in the αβ tradition] God. Therefore καλέσαντος καλεσαντοσ 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 ευαγγελιον ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου του ευαγγελιου in the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ του θεου 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 γοσπελ ωηιχ ξαλλεδ them into Christ’s favor for another gospel. He is surprised υνλεσσ some persons are disturbing them by trying to alter the gospel itself. ι‘ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though ι 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: β 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. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that several versionsindicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose analternate solution.ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:”ι [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 [ι 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 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 10 02:52:45 εδτ 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:24 πμ, Donald ξοββ wrote:> Welcome to the wonderful world of Paul’s sometimes tortuous syntax!ι agree with just about everything Donald said.ει μη follows a negative to introduce an exception/adversative. In the γντ, ει μη can be used like αλλα, see βδφ 448.8. Zerwick’s treatment #468-470 is more lucid than βδφ.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.γαλ. 1:6 θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταξεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν ξαριτι [ξριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον, 7 hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη τινεσ εισιν hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του ξριστου.Notice that reading ει μη 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.γαλ. 1:19 hETERON δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου.φ.φ. Bruce (Gal. νιγτξ p82 reads ει μη in v.7 as equivalent to πλην 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.αξτσ 20:23 πλην hOTI το πνευμα το hAGION κατα πολιν διαμαρτυρεται μοι λεγον hOTI δεσμα και θλιυεισ με μενουσιν.Elizabeth Kline[1] The classical usage of ει μη see Lightfoot, Gal. p76, but compare his comments with Zerwick, βδφ and Bruce.

Wed Jun 10 03:41:34 εδτ 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!)ι do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though.ευαγγελιον without the article, in a different case and separated from theparticiple, has little to commend to itself as the subject. Especially withhO ουκ εστιν αλλο, 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 ουκ εστιν αλλο?Paul uses the verbe καλεω 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 δε ευδοκησεν [hO θεοσ] hO αφορισασ με εκκοιλιασ μητροσ μου και καλεσασ δια θσ ξαριτοσ αυτου.Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡπεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ετρεξετε καλωσ· τισ hUMAS ενεκουεν [THi]ALHQEIAi μη πειθεσθαι; hH πεισμονη ουκ εκ του καλουντοσ hUMAS.In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly θεοσ (unless the vl isretained for 1:15), but ι 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, εισ hO[και] εκαλεσεν hUMAS δια του ευαγγελιου hHMWN εισ περιποιησιν δοχησ τουκυριου hHMWN ιησου ξριστου.The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.Blessings,Donald CobbAix-en-Provence—– Original Message —– From: “George φ Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “β 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.> > θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταχεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν χαριτι> [χριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον. 7 hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη τινεσ εισιν> hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του χριστου.> > ι have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to> supply the subject here as being [in the αβ tradition] God. Therefore> καλέσαντος καλεσαντοσ 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 ευαγγελιον ! Although one must also> understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου του ευαγγελιου in the gen abs as one must> understand τοῦ θεοῦ του θεου 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 γοσπελ ωηιχ ξαλλεδ them into Christ’s favor> for another gospel. He is surprised υνλεσσ some persons are disturbing> them by trying to> alter the gospel itself.> > ι‘ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though> ι 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: β Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 πμ> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > ι have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians> 1:6-7. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that several versions> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous.> So,> understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose an> alternate solution.> > ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],> except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:> > “ι [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 [ι 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/>

Wed Jun 10 08:54:13 εδτ 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. ι think Iunderstand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was Elizabeth’stidbit that ει μη follows a negative, a requirement that θαυμαζω does notmeet. ι‘m starting to appreciate being wrong; ι always seem to learnsomething from it.Charlie JohnsonOn Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:41 αμ, Donald ξοββ <docobb at orange.fr> wrote:> Dear George,> > Far be it from me to lop off your neck! (or your head, for that matter!)> > ι do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though.> ευαγγελιον without the article, in a different case and separated from the> participle, has little to commend to itself as the subject. Especially with> hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, 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 ουκ εστιν αλλο?> > Paul uses the verbe καλεω 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 δε ευδοκησεν [hO θεοσ] hO αφορισασ με> εκ> κοιλιασ μητροσ μου και καλεσασ δια θσ ξαριτοσ αυτου.> > Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡ> πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ετρεξετε καλωσ· τισ hUMAS ενεκουεν> [THi]> ALHQEIAi μη πειθεσθαι; hH πεισμονη ουκ εκ του καλουντοσ hUMAS.> > In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly θεοσ (unless the vl is> retained for 1:15), but ι 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> θεοσ. 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, εισ hO> [και] εκαλεσεν hUMAS δια του ευαγγελιου hHMWN εισ περιποιησιν δοχησ του> κυριου hHMWN ιησου ξριστου.> > The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.> > Blessings,> > Donald Cobb> Aix-en-Provence> > —– Original Message —– From: “George φ Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “β Greek”> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:23 αμ> 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.>> >> θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταχεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν χαριτι>> [χριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον. 7 hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη τινεσ εισιν>> hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του χριστου.>> >> ι have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to>> supply the subject here as being [in the αβ tradition] God. Therefore>> καλέσαντος καλεσαντοσ 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 ευαγγελιον ! Although one must also>> understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου του ευαγγελιου in the gen abs as one must>> understand τοῦ θεοῦ του θεου 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 γοσπελ ωηιχ ξαλλεδ them into Christ’s favor>> for another gospel. He is surprised υνλεσσ some persons are disturbing>> them by trying to>> alter the gospel itself.>> >> ι‘ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though>> ι 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: β Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 πμ>> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7>> >> ι have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians>> 1:6-7. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that several versions>> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous.>> So,>> understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose an>> alternate solution.>> >> ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],>> except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:>> >> “ι [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 [ι 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 Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Jun 10 12:21:48 εδτ 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Charles,ι did a series of blog posts a while back to draw out the semantic differences between αλλα and ει μι. 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: β GreekSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. ι think ι understand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was Elizabeth’s tidbit that ει μη follows a negative, a requirement that θαυμαζω does not meet. ι‘m starting to appreciate being wrong; ι always seem to learn something from it.Charlie JohnsonOn Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:41 αμ, Donald ξοββ <docobb at orange.fr> wrote:> Dear George,> > Far be it from me to lop off your neck! (or your head, for that > matter!)> > ι do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though.> ευαγγελιον without the article, in a different case and separated from > the participle, has little to commend to itself as the subject. > Especially with hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, 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 ουκ εστιν αλλο?> > Paul uses the verbe καλεω 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 δε ευδοκησεν [hO θεοσ] hO > αφορισασ με εκ κοιλιασ μητροσ μου και καλεσασ δια θσ ξαριτοσ αυτου.> > Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; > 8 ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ετρεξετε καλωσ· τισ hUMAS > ενεκουεν [THi] ALHQEIAi μη πειθεσθαι; hH πεισμονη ουκ εκ του καλουντοσ > hUMAS.> > In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly θεοσ (unless the > vl is retained for 1:15), but ι 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 θεοσ. 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, εισ hO [και] εκαλεσεν hUMAS δια του ευαγγελιου hHMWN εισ > περιποιησιν δοχησ του κυριου hHMWN ιησου ξριστου.> > The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.> > Blessings,> > Donald Cobb> Aix-en-Provence> > —– Original Message —– From: “George φ Somsel” > <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “β Greek”> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:23 αμ> 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.>> >> θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταχεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν >> χαριτι [χριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον. 7 hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη >> τινεσ εισιν hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του χριστου.>> >> ι have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual >> to supply the subject here as being [in the αβ tradition] God. >> Therefore καλέσαντος καλεσαντοσ 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 ευαγγελιον >> ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου του ευαγγελιου in >> the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ του θεου 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 >> γοσπελ ωηιχ ξαλλεδ them into Christ’s favor for another gospel. He >> is surprised υνλεσσ some persons are disturbing them by trying to >> alter the gospel itself.>> >> ι‘ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation >> though ι 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: β Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 πμ>> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7>> >> ι have a question about how certain clauses are connected in >> Galatians 1:6-7. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that >> several versions indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous.>> So,>> understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose an >> alternate solution.>> >> ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another >> [gospel], except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:>> >> “ι [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 [ι 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/

Wed Jun 10 10:53:40 εδτ 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 ι thought it was offlist. ι‘ve inserted the transliteration and am forwarding it to the list. The portion set off by / . . . / is to be mentally removed. ι have left it solely to indicate that it was originally not sent to the list. [* . . . *] sets of what ι 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 φ Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Donald ξοββ <docobb at orange.fr>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:12:29 AMSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7It isn’t εὐαγγέλιον ευαγγελιον either with or without the article /[dispensing with translit since this isn’t for the list]/. Let me make explicit what ι have in mindΘαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ [*τοῦ εὐαγγελίου*] τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, θαυμαζο hOTI hOUTWS ταχεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο [*του ευαγγελιου*] του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν χαριτι [χριστου εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον Does that clarify it any? It is ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον απο του ευαγγελιου εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον. 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 ξοββ <docobb at orange.fr>To: George φ 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!)ι do have a little difficulty following your interpretation, though. ευαγγελιον without the article, in a different case and separated from the participle, has little to commend to itself as the subject. Especially with hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, 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 ουκ εστιν αλλο?Paul uses the verbe καλεω 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 δε ευδοκησεν [hO θεοσ] hO αφορισασ με εκ κοιλιασ μητροσ μου και καλεσασ δια θσ ξαριτοσ αυτου.Gal 5:7: Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ετρεξετε καλωσ· τισ hUMAS ενεκουεν [THi] ALHQEIAi μη πειθεσθαι; hH πεισμονη ουκ εκ του καλουντοσ hUMAS.In neither of these cases is the subject explicitly θεοσ (unless the vl is retained for 1:15), but ι 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 θεοσ. 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, εισ hO [και] εκαλεσεν hUMAS δια του ευαγγελιου hHMWN εισ περιποιησιν δοχησ του κυριου hHMWN ιησου ξριστου.The Gospel in this verse is the means of the calling, not the subjet.Blessings,Donald CobbAix-en-Provence—– Original Message —– From: “George φ Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Charles Johnson” <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; “β 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.> > θαυμαζω hOTI hOUTWS ταχεωσ μετατιθεσθε απο του καλεσαντοσ hUMAS εν χαριτι [χριστου] εισ hETERON ευαγγελιον. 7 hO ουκ εστιν αλλο, ει μη τινεσ εισιν hOI ταρασσοντεσ hUMAS και θελοντεσ μεταστρευαι το ευαγγελιον του χριστου.> > ι have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to supply the subject here as being [in the αβ tradition] God. Therefore καλέσαντος καλεσαντοσ 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 ευαγγελιον ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου του ευαγγελιου in the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ του θεου 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 γοσπελ ωηιχ ξαλλεδ them into Christ’s favor for another gospel. He is surprised υνλεσσ some persons are disturbing them by trying to> alter the gospel itself.> > ι‘ve attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though ι 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: β Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 πμ> Subject: [] Galatians 1:6-7> > ι have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians> 1:6-7. ι‘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 ντ diagrams in Bibleworks agree. ι see that several versions> indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,> understanding that ι‘m probably wrong, ι thought ι would propose an> alternate solution.> > ι cannot make good logical sense out of “which is not another [gospel],> except there are some who trouble you….” ι 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:> > “ι [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 [ι 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 εδτ 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 ει μι … er, is that a version of ειμι (sum) or ειμι (ibo) something like editors writing hO/ τι to distinguish the pronoun from the conjunction ordinarily spelled hOTI?;-)Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:21 πμ, Steve Runge wrote:> Charles,> > ι did a series of blog posts a while back to draw out the semantic > differences between αλλα and ει μι. 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.

Wed Jun 10 13:02:15 εδτ 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 Touché Carl, too long out of the saddle posting here. ει μη is what ι intended to say, and what the blog post is actually about. ι 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: β GreekSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7EI μι … er, is that a version of ειμι (sum) or ειμι (ibo) something like editors writing hO/ τι to distinguish the pronoun from the conjunction ordinarily spelled hOTI?;-)Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:21 πμ, Steve Runge wrote:> Charles,> > ι did a series of blog posts a while back to draw out the semantic > differences between αλλα and ει μι. 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.

Wed Jun 10 14:13:45 εδτ 2009

[] Galatians 1:6-7 [] Galatians 1:6-7 On Jun 10, 2009, at 5:54 αμ, Charles Johnson wrote:> Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. ι think > ι understand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was > Elizabeth’s tidbit that ει μη follows a negative, a requirement that > θαυμαζω does not meet.Small clarification. ει μη 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 εκρινα γαρ EMAUTWi τουτο το μη παλιν εν LUPHi προσ hUMAS ελθειν. 2 ει γαρ εγω λυπω hUMAS, και τισ hO ευφραινων με ει μη hO λυπουμενοσ εχ εμου; 3 και εγραυα τουτο αυτο, hINA μη ελθων λυφν σξω αφ᾿ hWN εδει με ξαιρειν, πεποιθωσ επι παντασ hUMAS hOTI hH εμη ξαρα παντων hUMWN εστιν.Also, ει μη is occasionally used in Attic as a virtual equivelent of αλλα, see γ.Cooper 1.65.5.11.β 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 μα τω θεω,898 ει μη κριτυλλα γ‘ αντιθεου γαργηττοθεν.899 συ δ‘ ει πανουργοσ.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 μουκαι τι δη; hH γυνη εδοκει σοι, εφην εγω, ω ισξομαξε, 2 πωσ τι hUPAKOUEIN hWN συ εσπουδαζεσ διδασκων; τι δε, ει μη 3 hUPISCNEITO γε επιμελησεσθαι και φανερα ην hHDOMENH ισξυρωσ, 4 hWSPER εχ αμηξανιασ ευποριαν τινα hHURHKUIA, και εδειτο μουι would be interested in hearing opinions of the citation from Aristophanes Thes. 898. ι 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

Wed Jun 10 14:27:02 εδτ 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 ι 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.-βρεακ-“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 χ=χ 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.”α diagram follows this excerpt in the blog post that explains graphically what ι am talking about. See also sections 4.3 and 4.4 in “Discourse Grammar of the Greek ντ” for a longer description. They μεν appear to be synonymous, in reality δε 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: β GreekCc: Charles JohnsonSubject: Re: [] Galatians 1:6-7On Jun 10, 2009, at 5:54 αμ, Charles Johnson wrote:> Thanks to Donald, George, and Elizabeth for the interaction. ι think ι > understand the flow of thought better. Particularly helpful was > Elizabeth’s tidbit that ει μη follows a negative, a requirement that > θαυμαζω does not meet.Small clarification. ει μη 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 εκρινα γαρ EMAUTWi τουτο το μη παλιν εν LUPHi προσ hUMAS ελθειν. 2 ει γαρ εγω λυπω hUMAS, και τισ hO ευφραινων με ει μη hO λυπουμενοσ εχ εμου; 3 και εγραυα τουτο αυτο, hINA μη ελθων λυφν σξω αφ᾿ hWN εδει με ξαιρειν, πεποιθωσ επι παντασ hUMAS hOTI hH εμη ξαρα παντων hUMWN εστιν.Also, ει μη is occasionally used in Attic as a virtual equivelent of αλλα, see γ.Cooper 1.65.5.11.β where he cites the following examples:Aristophanes Thes.897 Μὰ τὼ θεώ,898 εἰ μὴ Κρίτυλλά γ’ ἈντιθέουΓαργηττόθεν.899 Σὺ δ’ εἶ πανοῦργος.897 μα τω θεω,898 ει μη κριτυλλα γ‘ αντιθεου γαργηττοθεν.899 συ δ‘ ει πανουργοσ.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 μουκαι τι δη; hH γυνη εδοκει σοι, εφην εγω, ω ισξομαξε, 2 πωσ τι hUPAKOUEIN hWN συ εσπουδαζεσ διδασκων; τι δε, ει μη 3 hUPISCNEITO γε επιμελησεσθαι και φανερα ην hHDOMENH ισξυρωσ, 4 hWSPER εχ αμηξανιασ ευποριαν τινα hHURHKUIA, και εδειτο μουι would be interested in hearing opinions of the citation from Aristophanes Thes. 898. ι 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 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jun 10 14:55:20 εδτ 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>; “β 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 > ι 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.> –βρεακ–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;ει γαρ hH αποβολη αυτων καταλλαγη κοσμου, τισ hH προσλημυισ ει μη ζωη εκ NEKRWNEph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς;το δε ανεβη τι εστιν, ει μη hOTI και κατεβη εισ το κατωτερα μεῥ θσ GHS1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός;τισ εστιν hO υευσθσ ει μη hO αρνουμενοσ hOTI ιησουσ ουκ εστιν hO CRISTOSIver Larsen

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

[] φυι: Oxyrhynchus Papyri available at Internet Archive [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη Iver,So far as ι 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 ι know that ι can account for all ντ tokens of ει μη. The example from Eph 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What ι have outlined is a principle, not a rule. ι 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; β 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>; “β 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 ι 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.> –βρεακ–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; ει γαρ hH αποβολη αυτων καταλλαγη κοσμου, τισ hH προσλημυισ ει μη ζωη εκ NEKRWNEph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς; το δε ανεβη τι εστιν, ει μη hOTI και κατεβη εισ το κατωτερα μεῥ θσ GHS1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; τισ εστιν hO υευσθσ ει μη hO αρνουμενοσ hOTI ιησουσ ουκ εστιν hO CRISTOSIver Larsen

[] φυι: Oxyrhynchus Papyri available at Internet Archive[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη
[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jun 11 01:06:03 εδτ 2009

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη Hi, Steve,At the moment ι don’t have a lot of time to research this interesting question in detail, but ι think it would be helpful to approach it from a different angle also.You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and ι like that. α certain emphasis seems to be present in all examples of ει μη, maybe akin to the emphasis in ου μη.ει μη 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;ειπεν δε hO βασιλευσ TWi αμαν: τι ποιησω TWi ANQRWPWi hON εγω θελω δοχασαι? ειπεν δε εν hEAUTWi αμαν: τινα θελει hO βασιλευσ δοχασαι ει μη εμε?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 ι accept that the ει μη appears to narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, ι 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: “β Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30Subject: [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7> > Iver,> > So far as ι 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 ι know that ι can account for all ντ tokens of ει μη. The example from Eph > 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What ι have outlined is a principle, not a > rule. ι 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 αμ> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; β 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>; “β 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 ι 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.>> –βρεακ–> > 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; ει γαρ hH αποβολη αυτων καταλλαγη κοσμου, τισ hH προσλημυισ ει μη > ζωη εκ νεκρωνWhat 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; το δε ανεβη τι εστιν, ει μη hOTI και κατεβη εισ το κατωτερα μεῥ θσ γησWhat 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; τισ εστιν hO υευσθσ ει μη hO αρνουμενοσ hOTI ιησουσ ουκ εστιν hO > ξριστοσWho is θε 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.ει μη hEKASTWi hWS εμερισεν hO κυριοσ, hEKASTON hWS κεκληκεν hO θεοσ, 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?ι agree that when the ει μη clause is connected to another clause that is negative, the basic sense is “except, unless”. The ει μη clause usually follows, in which case “except” works fine in English. When the ει μη 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 ει μη 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.απολελυσθαι εδυνατο hO ανθρωποσ hOUTOS, ει μη επεκεκλητο 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 διερμηνεύῃμειζων δε hO προφητευων η hO λαλων γλωσσαισ, εκτοσ ει μη DIERMHNEUHiThe one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues unless he/she explains the meaning.Iver Larsen

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Thu Jun 11 11:22:57 εδτ 2009

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη 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 ει μη. 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; β GreekSubject: Re: [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει MHHi, Steve,At the moment ι don’t have a lot of time to research this interesting question in detail, but ι think it would be helpful to approach it from a different angle also.You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and ι like that. α certain emphasis seems to be present in all examples of ει μη, maybe akin to the emphasis in ου μη.ει μη 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;ειπεν δε hO βασιλευσ TWi αμαν: τι ποιησω TWi ANQRWPWi hON εγω θελω δοχασαι? ειπεν δε εν hEAUTWi αμαν: τινα θελει hO βασιλευσ δοχασαι ει μη εμε?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 ι accept that the ει μη appears to narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, ι would be more inclined to consider “no one else/nothing else”.σερ: We need to recognize that Haman did νοτ 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. ι would say rather than wondering about the use of ει μη versus αλλα, the more relevant distinction is ει μη 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.ι am out of time for the rest of the week for grading, so ι 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: “β Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30Subject: [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7> > Iver,> > So far as ι 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 ι know that ι can account for all ντ tokens of ει μη. The example from Eph > 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What ι have outlined is a principle, not a > rule. ι 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 αμ> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; β 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>; “β 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 ι 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.>> –βρεακ–> > 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; ει γαρ hH αποβολη αυτων καταλλαγη κοσμου, τισ hH προσλημυισ ει μη > ζωη εκ νεκρωνWhat 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; το δε ανεβη τι εστιν, ει μη hOTI και κατεβη εισ το κατωτερα μεῥ θσ γησWhat 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; τισ εστιν hO υευσθσ ει μη hO αρνουμενοσ hOTI ιησουσ ουκ εστιν hO > ξριστοσWho is θε 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.ει μη hEKASTWi hWS εμερισεν hO κυριοσ, hEKASTON hWS κεκληκεν hO θεοσ, 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?ι agree that when the ει μη clause is connected to another clause that is negative, the basic sense is “except, unless”. The ει μη clause usually follows, in which case “except” works fine in English. When the ει μη 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 ει μη 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.απολελυσθαι εδυνατο hO ανθρωποσ hOUTOS, ει μη επεκεκλητο 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 διερμηνεύῃμειζων δε hO προφητευων η hO λαλων γλωσσαισ, εκτοσ ει μη DIERMHNEUHiThe one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues unless he/she explains the meaning.Iver Larsen

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη

Sat Jun 13 06:58:11 εδτ 2009

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη [] the Top Ten Tesponses to George σ’s theory that that the subject of καλεσαντοσ in Gal 1:6 is το ευαγγελιον and not hO θεοσ (Was Galatians 1:6-7 See below:—– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>; “β Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 11. juni 2009 18:22Subject: ρε: [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη> 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 ει μη. The latter is just a tool. Jump down to > your Esther example, it is a great one.—————-ιλ: That ει μη 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 πμ> To: Steve Runge; β Greek> Subject: Re: [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη> > Hi, Steve,> > At the moment ι don’t have a lot of time to research this interesting question > in detail, but ι think it would be helpful to approach it from a different > angle also.> > You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and ι like that. α certain > emphasis seems to be present in all examples of ει μη, maybe akin to the > emphasis in ου μη.> > ει μη 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;> > ειπεν δε hO βασιλευσ TWi αμαν: τι ποιησω TWi ANQRWPWi hON εγω θελω δοχασαι?> ειπεν δε εν hEAUTWi αμαν: τινα θελει hO βασιλευσ δοχασαι ει μη εμε?> > 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 ι accept that the ει μη appears to > narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, ι would be more inclined to > consider “no one else/nothing else”.> > > σερ: We need to recognize that Haman did νοτ 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.> ι would say rather than wondering about the use of ει μη versus αλλα, the more > relevant distinction is ει μη 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.——————ιλ:You did not defend your claim: “Then ι 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 ι 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 ει μη narrows down the list to one person: me, and only me.ι think we are in general agreement about the usage of ει μη, 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 ι won’t deal with that.) In most cases the general statement includes a negative, but that is not always the case, and ι 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, ι think, the focus on one particular person or event. α question may have many possible answers, but the author wants to choose one and focus on it in the ει μη clause. Try to look at the eamples below from that perspective.ι 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: “β Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30> Subject: [] φω: Galatians 1:6-7> > >> >> Iver,>> >> So far as ι 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 ι know that ι can account for all ντ tokens of ει μη. The example from >> Eph>> 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What ι have outlined is a principle, not a>> rule. ι 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 αμ>> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; β 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>; “β 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 ι 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.>>> –βρεακ–>> >> 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; ει γαρ hH αποβολη αυτων καταλλαγη κοσμου, τισ hH προσλημυισ ει μη>> ζωη εκ νεκρων> > 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; το δε ανεβη τι εστιν, ει μη hOTI και κατεβη εισ το κατωτερα μεῥ θσ γησ> > 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; τισ εστιν hO υευσθσ ει μη hO αρνουμενοσ hOTI ιησουσ ουκ εστιν hO>> ξριστοσ> > Who is θε 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.> ει μη hEKASTWi hWS εμερισεν hO κυριοσ, hEKASTON hWS κεκληκεν hO θεοσ, hOUTWS> περιπατειτω> > 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?ιλ: Although it is clear enough that the ει μη 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 ει μη corresponds to “the only one” (e.g. Mark 2:7 (Luke 5:21), John 6:22, 13:10). In the verse above ι 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 ει μη here. νιβ and νετ chose “nevertheless”, and νρσβ has “However that may be”, but this can hardly be correct, because the link is not to the preceding verses. κβψ has “But” which is not correct either. νξβ 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. ρσβ has “Only” which is ιμο the best option of those ι have looked at, although ι 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 (ει μη) some people are troubling you and trying to turn you away from the gospel of Christ.Many English versions render ει μη with “but” in this verse (νιβ has “evidently”). Even though “but” is possible, ι would prefer “only” or “It is only that”… (Sorry if ι betray myself to be a translator rather than a grammarian. My suggestions may not always be the best English renderings since ι don’t have that native speaker intuition.)Iver Larsen

[] φω: Galatians 1:6-7 and ει μη[] the Top Ten Tesponses to George σ’s theory that that the subject of καλεσαντοσ in Gal 1:6 is το ευαγγελιον and not hO θεοσ (Was Galatians 1:6-7

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply