To Stephen Carlson and all, I have studied Carlson's wonderful dissertation on the text of Galatians. I stand corrected. The combination of high quality manuscripts (as assessed using by state of the art stemmatics analysis) and the principle of the more difficult reading weigh overwhelmingly in favor of καὶ τὸν πειρασμν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου Best, Gregory Statistics: Posted by Gregory Hartzler-Miller — August 6th, 2016, 4:56 amGregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: I am experimenting with a perhaps novel argument to explain the textual variant in Gal 4:14 -- καὶ τὸν πειρασμν μου [ὑμῶν] ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου. I would like feedback on the argument. Thesis: μου is Paul's wording/intention, and ὑμῶν is a later interpretation of his meaning.
Galatians 4:14
SPIT OUT in Gal 4:14 Dmitriy Reznik dpreznik at usa.net
Thu Sep 2 19:47:39 EDT 1999
"Present-future" Tense (was "Ungrammatical ...") 2 Cor 6:10 Dear friends,Maybe anybody could help me to translate Gal 4:14. KAI TON PEIRASMON UMWN EN TH SARKI MOU OUK EXOUQENHSATE OUDE EXEPTUSATE...I am interested how to understand EKPTUW in this context. Many versions just translate this word metaphorically: for example, as "to reject" (and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe...)But some lexicons insist on literal understanding "to spit out". They say it was a defence against evil spirits to spit having met a sick person. If it is right, I would like to know whether they just used to spit on the ground, or to that sick person's face, or anyhow else. I need to know it in order to choose a proper word for translating into Russian. Maybe anybody knows these things about usage of this Greek word and about this ancient coustom?Thank you Dmitriy Reznik
"Present-future" Tense (was "Ungrammatical ...")2 Cor 6:10
SPIT OUT in Gal 4:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 3 07:20:14 EDT 1999
"Present-future" Tense (was "Ungrammatical ...") Philippians 1:1-2 At 7:47 PM -0500 9/2/99, Dmitriy Reznik wrote:>Dear friends,> >Maybe anybody could help me to translate Gal 4:14.>KAI TON PEIRASMON UMWN EN TH SARKI MOU OUK EXOUQENHSATE OUDE EXEPTUSATE...>I am interested how to understand EKPTUW in this context. Many versions>just translate this word metaphorically: for example, as "to reject" (and>that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or>loathe...)But some lexicons insist on literal understanding "to spit out".>They say it was a defence against evil spirits to spit having met a sick>person. If it is right, I would like to know whether they just used to spit>on the ground, or to that sick person's face, or anyhow else. I need to>know it in order to choose a proper word for translating into Russian.>Maybe anybody knows these things about usage of this Greek word and about>this ancient custom?This might be a matter of the social level at which the language is beingused, but I guess some caution is called for here, inasmuch as what somemight deem as superstition may be deemed as proper and natural ritualbehavior by another. My own guess is that in Gal 4:14 Paul is using thisword figuratively for "reject." It's interesting that this is the onlyinstance of the verb in the GNT. The brief discussion in Louw & Nida onthis:34.37 EKPTUW: (a figurative extension of meaning of EKPTUW 'to spit out,'not occurring in the NT) to reject, with the implication of a measure ofdisdain - 'to reject, to have disdain for.' OUK EXOUQENHSATE OUDEEKEPTUSATE 'you did not despise or reject (me)' Ga 4:14. In a number oflanguages 'to reject' is expressed idiomatically as 'to throw away,' 'topush away,' or 'to turn one's back toward.'One certainly has to be careful about affirming literal rather thanmetaphorical senses to verbs expressive of powerful feelings used in theNT, as for instance SPLAGCNIZOMAI.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/-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2236 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990903/215902fd/attachment.bin
"Present-future" Tense (was "Ungrammatical ...")Philippians 1:1-2
SPIT OUT in Gal 4:14 Mark D. Nanos nanos at gvi.net
Fri Sep 3 11:39:26 EDT 1999
digest: September 02, 1999 digest: September 02, 1999 Dmitriy Reznik wrote:>Maybe anybody could help me to translate Gal 4:14.KAI TON PEIRASMON UMWN EN TH SARKI MOU OUK EXOUQENHSATE OUDE EXEPTUSATE...I am interested how to understand EKPTUW in this context. Many versionsjust translate this word metaphorically: for example, as "to reject" (andthat which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise orloathe...)But some lexicons insist on literal understanding "to spit out".They say it was a defence against evil spirits to spit having met a sickperson. If it is right, I would like to know whether they just used to spiton the ground, or to that sick person's face, or anyhow else. I need toknow it in order to choose a proper word for translating into Russian.Maybe anybody knows these things about usage of this Greek word and aboutthis ancient coustom?Translating OUDE EXEPTUSATE with "spit," that is, "nor did you spit,"would, I think, be sufficient, and preferred to the metaphoricaltranslations, which generally are redundant with the sense expressed bytranslating EXOUQENHSATE.The semantic domain in which to elaborate on what this "not spitting"indicated is another matter, and one that is not yet resolved, being asomewhat recent conversation among intrepreters. I take it to indicate thatthey did not seek to protect themselves by way of spitting, a customaryprotective measure in "evil eye cultures," both ancient and modern, stillpracticed in such cultures as those of the Mediterranean region or ofCeltic descent. This would indicate that they had cause to be concernedthat Paul might represent an evil eye threat to themselves when he firstarrived, but they overcame this suspicion, and decided that he was amessenger of good and not evil, and thus blessed instead of cursed him.See the discussion of Elliott, John H. 1990. "Paul, Galatians, and the EvilEye." Currents in Theology and Mission 17:262-73, now drawn on inWitherington's new commentary, Grace in Galatia, Eerdmans. For a differentview of the meaning of the spitting here see Goddard, A. J., and Cummins,S. A. 1993. "Ill or Ill-Treated? Conflict and Persecution as the Context ofPaul's Original Ministry in Galatia (Galatians 4.12-20). JSNT 52:93-126. Ithink Elliott makes the better case, as the tie in with 3:1 indicates anevil eye (BASKAINW) domain at work in the letter, introduced by Paul by theway, along with the indication that Paul's condition "in the flesh" is whathad been a PEIRASMON to themselves.If it was in this sense that they did not spit, then it is not necessary totranslate upon whom or what the spit was directed, since such an actioncould be toward the gazer (in this case Paul) or gazee (themselves or whomor what they feared the gaze might fall). It might also be helpful to notethat, at least as this is still practiced in Greece among some peopleaccording to the sources with which I am familiar, for example, the soundof spitting is made perhaps in threes (pfth, pfth, pfth), without actuallyexpressing saliva per se. I suspect that some association with FQANOS/envy,which is the engine of such belief systems, is indicated in this expressionof spitting, PFTH, (perhaps naming what is feared, just as the eye amuletsworn are used to protect from the evil eye that is feared).Regards,Mark NanosKansas City
digest: September 02, 1999 digest: September 02, 1999
Gal 4:14 lakr lakr at netcom.com
Tue Aug 11 11:41:27 EDT 1998
Women in the Church Women in the Church > > On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> > >> >(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition> >you did not despise or loathe, but you received me > >as an angel of God> >as Christ Jesus Himself.> >> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as > >Christ'> > I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesus> with more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating to> make the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.> > It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don't> believe it. > > > > Phillip J. Long> Asst. Prof. Bible & Greek> Grace Bible College> Dear 'ers,I read through the first part of Galatians after reading the responsesso far and it strikes me that Ga 4:4 might have some bearing on 4:14 :Ga 4:4But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent [ ECAPESTEILEN ] forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law,It seems, too, that the phrase 'ANNGELON QEOU', in Paul's usage doesrefer not to a human messenger, but to a heavanly one, as thecomentary "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians" byLukyn Williams indicates with the comment on this verse on page 97:''Probably "angel" (not "messenger") as always in St Paul, though the commonness of the word prevents our laying stress on this fact.''Williams goes on to compare this verse to Mal 3:1 and says in referenceto this verse: ''The connexion in St. Pauls mind was probably due to his reminiscence of Mal iii.1. IDOU EGW ECAPOSTELLW TON AGGELON MOU "KAI ... ECAIFNHS HCEI EIS TON NAON EAUTOU KURIOS ON UMEIS ZHTEITE KAI O AGGELOS THS DIAQHKHS ON UMEIS QELETE", where as here, ANNGELOS suggests both it's meanings. St. Paul means that they could not have received him better if he had been an angel, yes, if he had been Christ Himself.''In "Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament" by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, page 246 he says of the phrase : ''---WS XRISTON IHSOUN] a climax added asyndetically in the excitement of feeling, and presenting to a still greater extent than WS AGGEL. QEOU (Heb 1:4; Phil 2:10; Col 1:16) the high reverence and love with which he had been received by them, and that as a divine messenger. Comp. Matt. x.40; John xiii. 20.''It looks like there is an escalation of sorts in this verse, as'an angel of God' (anarthrous), not just any "angel/messenger of God",but as if Paul were the one that God sent forth (cf Ga 4:4).Personally, I am not sure what basis there is in making a distinctionbetween "angel" and "messenger". I always thought it refered to afunction rather than a "species".Sincerely,Larry Kruper
Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church
Gal 4:14 Thomas Biddy web3943 at charweb.org
Tue Aug 11 03:52:34 EDT 1998
Fw: Raymond Brown Making of Canon Hi, 4:14 kai ton {AND} peirasmon {TEMPTATION} mou ton {MY} en {IN} th sarki mou {MY FLESH} ouk {NOT} exouqenhsate (5656) {YE DESPISED} oude {NOR} exeptusate (5656) {REJECTED WITH CONTEMPT;} all {BUT} wj {AS} aggelon {AN ANGEL} qeou {OF GOD} edexasqe (5662) {YE RECEIVED} me {ME,} wj {AS} criston {CHRIST} ihsoun {JESUS.}(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily conditionyou did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of Godas Christ Jesus Himself.I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as Christ'Best,Thomasweb3943 at charweb.org
Fw: Raymond BrownMaking of Canon
Gal 4:14 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 11 10:17:01 EDT 1998
Women in the Church Women in the Church My 2 cents:I'll leave that question to others, but I always like to remind people that"angel" could just as easily be "messenger", especially in this situation."Angels" are a particular type of messenger and it is not always proper touse the special when the general fits so well. At least this is how Iunderstand the word.
Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church
Gal 4:14 Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at jas-net.de
Tue Aug 11 19:14:34 EDT 1998
The meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8 Gal. 4:14 >On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> >> >>(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me>>as an angel of God>>as Christ Jesus Himself.>> >>I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as>>Christ'> >I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesus>with more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating to>make the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.even a little Greek can help. The word angel carries the idea of "messengerof" we see that clearly in revelation in regars to the angles of the 7churches. Paul was considerd God's messenger, and treated well because thedid it us unto the Lord.Other will undoubtedly be more tech than I, but it seems to fit.I hope it helps.MarkChrist pointed out that when we do things to others (esp. of His own) wehave done it unto Him (the Logos--another thread) and the way God has chosento speak to us in these last days (Hebrews)> >It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don't>believe it.-----Original Message-----From: Phillip J. Long <plong at gbcol.edu>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:17 AMSubject: Re: Gal 4:14>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> >> >>(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me>>as an angel of God>>as Christ Jesus Himself.>> >>I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as>>Christ'> >I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesus>with more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating to>make the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.> >It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don't>believe it.> > > >Phillip J. Long>Asst. Prof. Bible & Greek>Grace Bible College> >---> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: $subst('PurgeID')>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst('Email.Unsub')>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
The meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8Gal. 4:14
Gal 4:14 Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Aug 11 09:14:08 EDT 1998
Fw: Raymond Brown Women in the Church On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> >(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me >as an angel of God>as Christ Jesus Himself.> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as >Christ'I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesuswith more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating tomake the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don'tbelieve it. Phillip J. LongAsst. Prof. Bible & GreekGrace Bible College
Fw: Raymond BrownWomen in the Church
Gal 4:14 Thomas Biddy web3943 at charweb.org
Tue Aug 11 07:49:31 EDT 1998
Gal 4:14 Two Troublesome Datives On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >as an angel of God> >as Christ Jesus Himself.> >> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as> >Christ'> > I'm not altogether sure what the intent of the question is, but my> understanding of this text is that Paul begins to describe how he felt when> welcomed by the Galatians (and it should be noted that hWS AGGELON QEOU,> even if translated "as an angel of God" literally means "as a messenger of> God"--which certainly is his self-understanding--couldn't we say that it is> the CONTENT of the word APOSTOLOS?), Hi Carl,That is what I thought:(Heb 3:1 KJV) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;I am not a JW (we go to a United Meth. church) but I wondered about this verse. We are discussing the word 'angel' on another list so I wanted to see how ofen it refers to a human being.> but he then rhetorically corrects> himself Corrects? Did he correct or expand upon it? > by suggesting that his welcome was comparable to a welcome of> Christ Jesus. Perhaps it is beyond proving, but one would like to think> that the same tradition as that recorded in Matthew 25 underlies this> formulation. Certainly the same underlying idea is involved here as was> there.The Mt 25 ref. helps to explain it.Very Best,Thomas
Gal 4:14Two Troublesome Datives
Gal 4:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 11 06:22:37 EDT 1998
Making of Canon Gal 4:14 At 3:52 AM -0400 8/11/98, Thomas Biddy wrote:>Hi,> > 4:14 kai ton {AND} peirasmon {TEMPTATION} mou ton {MY} en {IN} th> sarki mou {MY FLESH} ouk {NOT} exouqenhsate (5656) {YE DESPISED} oude> {NOR} exeptusate (5656) {REJECTED WITH CONTEMPT;} all {BUT} wj {AS}> aggelon {AN ANGEL} qeou {OF GOD} edexasqe (5662) {YE RECEIVED} me> {ME,} wj {AS} criston {CHRIST} ihsoun {JESUS.}> >(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me>as an angel of God>as Christ Jesus Himself.> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as>Christ'I'm not altogether sure what the intent of the question is, but myunderstanding of this text is that Paul begins to describe how he felt whenwelcomed by the Galatians (and it should be noted that hWS AGGELON QEOU,even if translated "as an angel of God" literally means "as a messenger ofGod"--which certainly is his self-understanding--couldn't we say that it isthe CONTENT of the word APOSTOLOS?), but he then rhetorically correctshimself by suggesting that his welcome was comparable to a welcome ofChrist Jesus. Perhaps it is beyond proving, but one would like to thinkthat the same tradition as that recorded in Matthew 25 underlies thisformulation. Certainly the same underlying idea is involved here as wasthere.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Making of CanonGal 4:14
Gal 4:14 Thomas Biddy web3943 at charweb.org
Tue Aug 11 03:52:34 EDT 1998
Fw: Raymond Brown Making of Canon Hi, 4:14 kai ton {AND} peirasmon {TEMPTATION} mou ton {MY} en {IN} th sarki mou {MY FLESH} ouk {NOT} exouqenhsate (5656) {YE DESPISED} oude {NOR} exeptusate (5656) {REJECTED WITH CONTEMPT;} all {BUT} wj {AS} aggelon {AN ANGEL} qeou {OF GOD} edexasqe (5662) {YE RECEIVED} me {ME,} wj {AS} criston {CHRIST} ihsoun {JESUS.}(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily conditionyou did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of Godas Christ Jesus Himself.I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as Christ'Best,Thomasweb3943 at charweb.org
Fw: Raymond BrownMaking of Canon
Gal 4:14 lakr lakr at netcom.com
Tue Aug 11 11:41:27 EDT 1998
Women in the Church Women in the Church > > On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> > >> >(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition> >you did not despise or loathe, but you received me > >as an angel of God> >as Christ Jesus Himself.> >> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as > >Christ'> > I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesus> with more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating to> make the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.> > It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don't> believe it. > > > > Phillip J. Long> Asst. Prof. Bible & Greek> Grace Bible College> Dear 'ers,I read through the first part of Galatians after reading the responsesso far and it strikes me that Ga 4:4 might have some bearing on 4:14 :Ga 4:4But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent [ ECAPESTEILEN ] forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law,It seems, too, that the phrase 'ANNGELON QEOU', in Paul's usage doesrefer not to a human messenger, but to a heavanly one, as thecomentary "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians" byLukyn Williams indicates with the comment on this verse on page 97:''Probably "angel" (not "messenger") as always in St Paul, though the commonness of the word prevents our laying stress on this fact.''Williams goes on to compare this verse to Mal 3:1 and says in referenceto this verse: ''The connexion in St. Pauls mind was probably due to his reminiscence of Mal iii.1. IDOU EGW ECAPOSTELLW TON AGGELON MOU "KAI ... ECAIFNHS HCEI EIS TON NAON EAUTOU KURIOS ON UMEIS ZHTEITE KAI O AGGELOS THS DIAQHKHS ON UMEIS QELETE", where as here, ANNGELOS suggests both it's meanings. St. Paul means that they could not have received him better if he had been an angel, yes, if he had been Christ Himself.''In "Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament" by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, page 246 he says of the phrase : ''---WS XRISTON IHSOUN] a climax added asyndetically in the excitement of feeling, and presenting to a still greater extent than WS AGGEL. QEOU (Heb 1:4; Phil 2:10; Col 1:16) the high reverence and love with which he had been received by them, and that as a divine messenger. Comp. Matt. x.40; John xiii. 20.''It looks like there is an escalation of sorts in this verse, as'an angel of God' (anarthrous), not just any "angel/messenger of God",but as if Paul were the one that God sent forth (cf Ga 4:4).Personally, I am not sure what basis there is in making a distinctionbetween "angel" and "messenger". I always thought it refered to afunction rather than a "species".Sincerely,Larry Kruper
Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church
Gal 4:14 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 11 10:17:01 EDT 1998
Women in the Church Women in the Church My 2 cents:I'll leave that question to others, but I always like to remind people that"angel" could just as easily be "messenger", especially in this situation."Angels" are a particular type of messenger and it is not always proper touse the special when the general fits so well. At least this is how Iunderstand the word.
Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church
Gal 4:14 Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at jas-net.de
Tue Aug 11 19:14:34 EDT 1998
The meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8 Gal. 4:14 >On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> >> >>(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me>>as an angel of God>>as Christ Jesus Himself.>> >>I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as>>Christ'> >I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesus>with more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating to>make the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.even a little Greek can help. The word angel carries the idea of "messengerof" we see that clearly in revelation in regars to the angles of the 7churches. Paul was considerd God's messenger, and treated well because thedid it us unto the Lord.Other will undoubtedly be more tech than I, but it seems to fit.I hope it helps.MarkChrist pointed out that when we do things to others (esp. of His own) wehave done it unto Him (the Logos--another thread) and the way God has chosento speak to us in these last days (Hebrews)> >It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don't>believe it.-----Original Message-----From: Phillip J. Long <plong at gbcol.edu>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:17 AMSubject: Re: Gal 4:14>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> >> >>(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me>>as an angel of God>>as Christ Jesus Himself.>> >>I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as>>Christ'> >I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesus>with more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating to>make the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.> >It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don't>believe it.> > > >Phillip J. Long>Asst. Prof. Bible & Greek>Grace Bible College> >---> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: $subst('PurgeID')>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst('Email.Unsub')>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
The meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8Gal. 4:14
Gal 4:14 Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Aug 11 09:14:08 EDT 1998
Fw: Raymond Brown Women in the Church On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:> >(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me >as an angel of God>as Christ Jesus Himself.> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as >Christ'I took this as hyberbole. Obviously the people would recieve Jesuswith more enthusiasm than they welcomed Paul. He is exagerating tomake the point that the Galatians welcomed him well.It is similar to 1:8. even if an angel preach another gospel, don'tbelieve it. Phillip J. LongAsst. Prof. Bible & GreekGrace Bible College
Fw: Raymond BrownWomen in the Church
Gal 4:14 Thomas Biddy web3943 at charweb.org
Tue Aug 11 07:49:31 EDT 1998
Gal 4:14 Two Troublesome Datives On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >as an angel of God> >as Christ Jesus Himself.> >> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as> >Christ'> > I'm not altogether sure what the intent of the question is, but my> understanding of this text is that Paul begins to describe how he felt when> welcomed by the Galatians (and it should be noted that hWS AGGELON QEOU,> even if translated "as an angel of God" literally means "as a messenger of> God"--which certainly is his self-understanding--couldn't we say that it is> the CONTENT of the word APOSTOLOS?), Hi Carl,That is what I thought:(Heb 3:1 KJV) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;I am not a JW (we go to a United Meth. church) but I wondered about this verse. We are discussing the word 'angel' on another list so I wanted to see how ofen it refers to a human being.> but he then rhetorically corrects> himself Corrects? Did he correct or expand upon it? > by suggesting that his welcome was comparable to a welcome of> Christ Jesus. Perhaps it is beyond proving, but one would like to think> that the same tradition as that recorded in Matthew 25 underlies this> formulation. Certainly the same underlying idea is involved here as was> there.The Mt 25 ref. helps to explain it.Very Best,Thomas
Gal 4:14Two Troublesome Datives
Gal 4:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 11 06:22:37 EDT 1998
Making of Canon Gal 4:14 At 3:52 AM -0400 8/11/98, Thomas Biddy wrote:>Hi,> > 4:14 kai ton {AND} peirasmon {TEMPTATION} mou ton {MY} en {IN} th> sarki mou {MY FLESH} ouk {NOT} exouqenhsate (5656) {YE DESPISED} oude> {NOR} exeptusate (5656) {REJECTED WITH CONTEMPT;} all {BUT} wj {AS}> aggelon {AN ANGEL} qeou {OF GOD} edexasqe (5662) {YE RECEIVED} me> {ME,} wj {AS} criston {CHRIST} ihsoun {JESUS.}> >(Gal 4:14 NASB) and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition>you did not despise or loathe, but you received me>as an angel of God>as Christ Jesus Himself.> >I would like to know if there is any relation with 'as an angel' and 'as>Christ'I'm not altogether sure what the intent of the question is, but myunderstanding of this text is that Paul begins to describe how he felt whenwelcomed by the Galatians (and it should be noted that hWS AGGELON QEOU,even if translated "as an angel of God" literally means "as a messenger ofGod"--which certainly is his self-understanding--couldn't we say that it isthe CONTENT of the word APOSTOLOS?), but he then rhetorically correctshimself by suggesting that his welcome was comparable to a welcome ofChrist Jesus. Perhaps it is beyond proving, but one would like to thinkthat the same tradition as that recorded in Matthew 25 underlies thisformulation. Certainly the same underlying idea is involved here as wasthere.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Making of CanonGal 4:14
Gal. 4:14 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 11 22:40:11 EDT 1998
Gal 4:14 Gal. 4:14 Dear ers,It appears to me that there are at least three possible meanings ofthe clause hWS AGGELON QEOU . . . hWS XRISTON IHSOUN.(1) XRISTON IHSOUN is in apposition to AGGELON QEOU.(2) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN intensifies hWS AGGELON QEOU.(3) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN builds upon hWS AGGELON QEOU.Personally, I tend to opt for (1) or (2). In part, this decision isbased on a similar passage in Zech. 12:8:"he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as [HAYAH] David;and the house of David shall be as God [ELOHIM'], as the angel [MALAK]of the Lord before them."In Zech. 12:8, the prophet stresses the power that the feeble ofJerusalem will possess. God's spokesman describes this in threepowerful ways: "David, God, Angel of the Lord." All three of theseterms delineate the same reality. David, God, and the angel of theLord are juxtapositioned with one another. The verse intensifies, thenconcludes on an weakened epexegetical note. The house of David will belike ELOHIM, in the sense of being powerful. They will enjoy energycomparable to the MALAK of YHWH. The Interpreter's Bible says thatMALAK is used by Zechariah to dilute the comparison made. This agreeswith the fact that Yahweh's angel is shown elsewhere in the book ofZechariah, to be distinct from Yahweh _in se_ (Zech. 1:12, 13).I think Zech. 12:8 may therefore offer insight on Gal. 4:14.Sincerely,Edgar FosterClassics Major_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Gal 4:14Gal. 4:14
Gal. 4:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Aug 12 06:57:36 EDT 1998
Gal. 4:14 Romans 8:28 At 7:40 PM -0700 8/11/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>Dear ers,> >It appears to me that there are at least three possible meanings of>the clause hWS AGGELON QEOU . . . hWS XRISTON IHSOUN.> >(1) XRISTON IHSOUN is in apposition to AGGELON QEOU.> >(2) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN intensifies hWS AGGELON QEOU.> >(3) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN builds upon hWS AGGELON QEOU.> >Personally, I tend to opt for (1) or (2). In part, this decision is>based on a similar passage in Zech. 12:8:> >"he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as [HAYAH] David;>and the house of David shall be as God [ELOHIM'], as the angel [MALAK]>of the Lord before them."For my part, I would say all three of these alternatives are 'more or less'right, inasmuch as hWS AGGELON QEOU is in apposition to ME. But Ipersonally think that the association with Zech 12:8 is very remote and ofquestionable relevance to our passage in Galatians.The relevant portion of the LXX of Zech 12:8 reads thus:KAI ESTAI hO ASQENWN EN AUTOIS EN EKEINHi THi hHMERAi hWS OIKOS DAUID, hODE OIKOS DAUID hWS OIKOS QEOU hWS AGGELOS KURIOU ENWPION AUTWN.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Gal. 4:14Romans 8:28
Gal. 4:14 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Aug 12 17:48:11 EDT 1998
Romans 8:28 Gal. 4:14 Hi Edgar!I would echo Carl's remarks that the Hebrew of Zechariah would havelittle bearing over what Paul says in epistolic Koine Greek. Zechariahemploys a quasi-poetic style of prose which shows climactic parallelism- not necessarily equivalence of all the components. Also, the contextsof Zechariah and Galatians are so vastly different that you cannotlegitimately draw any influence from Zechariah over to Galatians. Notonly are they talking about different subjects (Zech: inhabitants ofJerusalem; Gal: Paul), but the context of those subjects is chasms apart(Zech: political-social- military prowess of Jerusalem against itsenemies; Gal: Paul bringing the gospel to the accepting Galatians). Theconclusion of one passage can't be used to interpret the other in thiscase. Context is the all important canon.Best regards!George Athas-University of Sydney & Moore Theological College-Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au---------------------------------------------------Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm---------------------------------------------------
Romans 8:28Gal. 4:14
Gal. 4:14 lakr lakr at netcom.com
Wed Aug 12 17:59:59 EDT 1998
Gal. 4:14 Romans 8:28 Dear B-GREEK'ers,I thought this thread was over, but since someone else just posted ...does anyone have any examples where hWS is used as a hyperbole,and not just to illustrate the character BAG says in section III of hWS ?Sincerely,Larry Kruper
Gal. 4:14Romans 8:28
Gal. 4:14 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 13 20:01:57 EDT 1998
Sentence Adverbs Gal. 4:14 Hi George! Good to hear from you again.---George Athas wrote:>Hi Edgar!>I would echo Carl's remarks that the Hebrew of Zechariah would havelittle bearing over what Paul says in epistolic Koine Greek.<I respectfully disagree. Paul was an avid scholar of the HebrewScriptures, and he quoted profusely from God's sacred DAVAR. Paulineideas are both heavily influenced and guided by the Hebrew OT. This isevidenced by the Pauline delineation of the exalted "name" given toChrist (Phil. 2:9-11). It is quite possible that Paul had the HebrewSHEM in mind when elaborating on the heavenly glorification of IHSOUSXRISTOS. Furthermore, 1 Thess. 3:13 seems to draw off of Zech. 14:5.There is also the matter of semitic influence in connection with theGreek word hWS (BAGD 897). Dan. 7:14 LXX: hWS hUIOS ANQRWPOU HRXETO >Zechariah employs a quasi-poetic style of prose which shows climacticparallelism- not necessarily equivalence of all the components.<I would concur that the three "components" mentioned in Zech. 12:8 arenot per se equivalent. God (ELOHIM) and His MALAK are clearly notidentical. But all three terms (in Zech. 12:8) do depict the sametruth: the enfeebled of Jerusalem will be empowered! An example ofthis type of parallelism is also found in Job 38:7. There, the"morning stars" and the sons of God manifestly refer to the samecorporate entity (angels). Yet, "morning stars" is a symbol for the"sons of God." Therefore, there is not strict equivalence, but anintensifying effect vis-a'-vis the words of YHWH in Job 38:7. I thinkthat Paul possibly used the same device in his epistles (Phil. 4:6, 7;2 Thess. 2:2). >Also, the contexts of Zechariah and Galatians are so vastly differentthat you cannot legitimately draw any influence from Zechariah over toGalatians.<Here again, the (literary) "contexts" don't have to be similar toinfer that one influences the other. This can be seen by comparing thecontext of Zech. 14:5 with 1 Thess. 3:13. It would also seem that Rev.11:11, 12 contains elements of both Gen. 2 and Ezek. 37. If so, thiswould indicate that literary contexts are not required to be exact, inorder to serve as intratextual evidences. >The conclusion of one passage can't be used to interpret the other inthis case. Context is the all important canon.<I agree that "context" is important, but we must also adequatelydefine context. If by context, you strictly mean--literarycontext--then I do not agree. If by context, you encompass otherfactors, then we can voice unanimous assent. Let me just briefly addthat cotext is also important in determining the meaning of a text.While all may not agree, I therefore see it as quite plausible thatZech. 12:8 possibly influenced Gal. 4.Always a pleasure, George!Edgar FosterClassics Major _________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Sentence AdverbsGal. 4:14
Gal. 4:14 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Thu Aug 13 23:08:54 EDT 1998
Gal. 4:14 Gal. 3:28 Edgar Foster wrote:> I respectfully disagree. Paul was an avid scholar of the Hebrew> Scriptures, and he quoted profusely from God's sacred DAVAR. Pauline> ideas are both heavily influenced and guided by the Hebrew OT. This is> evidenced by the Pauline delineation of the exalted "name" given to> Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). It is quite possible that Paul had the Hebrew> SHEM in mind when elaborating on the heavenly glorification of IHSOUS> XRISTOS.For Philippians, I agree, for Paul is making an almost direct quote wherethe subject in both Philippians and Isaiah is seen to be the same.> Furthermore, 1 Thess. 3:13 seems to draw off of Zech. 14:5.I agree that there is a correspondence here, too. The subjects are thesame.> >Also, the contexts of Zechariah and Galatians are so vastly different> that you cannot legitimately draw any influence from Zechariah over to> Galatians.<> > Here again, the (literary) "contexts" don't have to be similar to> infer that one influences the other. This can be seen by comparing the> context of Zech. 14:5 with 1 Thess. 3:13.The subjects are the same in the Christian mindset: Jesus = YHWH.> It would also seem that Rev.> 11:11, 12 contains elements of both Gen. 2 and Ezek. 37.Revelation is a collage of OT images which is deliberate. It is anapocalypse, so we expect this to happen; it is not aconversational/oratorial epistle.> If so, this> would indicate that literary contexts are not required to be exact, in> order to serve as intratextual evidences.No. Context is all important! Sometimes you can quote something from acompletely different context to serve a particular purpose in another,such as the saying "There is no rest for the wicked". However, that is notwhat Paul is doing at all. The *only* similarity between Paul's words inGalatians and the words of Zechariah are that they are both climacticsimiles. They both employ the same mechanism, but that does not mean thatone is derived from the other. The subjects are just so vastly differentthat if you want to see a dependent connection between them, you actuallyhave to impose it artificially. I'm sure Paul, being of a strict Jewishbackground, knew his Minor Prophets scroll inside out - but I do not thinkthat he is drawing on Zechariah when he writes to the Galatians.> I agree that "context" is important, but we must also adequately> define context. If by context, you strictly mean--literary> context--then I do not agree. If by context, you encompass other> factors, then we can voice unanimous assent. Let me just briefly add> that cotext is also important in determining the meaning of a text.> While all may not agree, I therefore see it as quite plausible that> Zech. 12:8 possibly influenced Gal. 4.I guess we will agree to disagree.> Always a pleasure, George!Ditto, Edgar!Best regards!George Athas-University of Sydney & Moore Theological College-Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au---------------------------------------------------Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm---------------------------------------------------
Gal. 4:14Gal. 3:28
Gal. 4:14 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 11 22:40:11 EDT 1998
Gal 4:14 Gal. 4:14 Dear ers,It appears to me that there are at least three possible meanings ofthe clause hWS AGGELON QEOU . . . hWS XRISTON IHSOUN.(1) XRISTON IHSOUN is in apposition to AGGELON QEOU.(2) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN intensifies hWS AGGELON QEOU.(3) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN builds upon hWS AGGELON QEOU.Personally, I tend to opt for (1) or (2). In part, this decision isbased on a similar passage in Zech. 12:8:"he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as [HAYAH] David;and the house of David shall be as God [ELOHIM'], as the angel [MALAK]of the Lord before them."In Zech. 12:8, the prophet stresses the power that the feeble ofJerusalem will possess. God's spokesman describes this in threepowerful ways: "David, God, Angel of the Lord." All three of theseterms delineate the same reality. David, God, and the angel of theLord are juxtapositioned with one another. The verse intensifies, thenconcludes on an weakened epexegetical note. The house of David will belike ELOHIM, in the sense of being powerful. They will enjoy energycomparable to the MALAK of YHWH. The Interpreter's Bible says thatMALAK is used by Zechariah to dilute the comparison made. This agreeswith the fact that Yahweh's angel is shown elsewhere in the book ofZechariah, to be distinct from Yahweh _in se_ (Zech. 1:12, 13).I think Zech. 12:8 may therefore offer insight on Gal. 4:14.Sincerely,Edgar FosterClassics Major_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Gal 4:14Gal. 4:14
Gal. 4:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Aug 12 06:57:36 EDT 1998
Gal. 4:14 Romans 8:28 At 7:40 PM -0700 8/11/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>Dear ers,> >It appears to me that there are at least three possible meanings of>the clause hWS AGGELON QEOU . . . hWS XRISTON IHSOUN.> >(1) XRISTON IHSOUN is in apposition to AGGELON QEOU.> >(2) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN intensifies hWS AGGELON QEOU.> >(3) hWS XRISTON IHSOUN builds upon hWS AGGELON QEOU.> >Personally, I tend to opt for (1) or (2). In part, this decision is>based on a similar passage in Zech. 12:8:> >"he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as [HAYAH] David;>and the house of David shall be as God [ELOHIM'], as the angel [MALAK]>of the Lord before them."For my part, I would say all three of these alternatives are 'more or less'right, inasmuch as hWS AGGELON QEOU is in apposition to ME. But Ipersonally think that the association with Zech 12:8 is very remote and ofquestionable relevance to our passage in Galatians.The relevant portion of the LXX of Zech 12:8 reads thus:KAI ESTAI hO ASQENWN EN AUTOIS EN EKEINHi THi hHMERAi hWS OIKOS DAUID, hODE OIKOS DAUID hWS OIKOS QEOU hWS AGGELOS KURIOU ENWPION AUTWN.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Gal. 4:14Romans 8:28
Gal. 4:14 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Aug 12 17:48:11 EDT 1998
Romans 8:28 Gal. 4:14 Hi Edgar!I would echo Carl's remarks that the Hebrew of Zechariah would havelittle bearing over what Paul says in epistolic Koine Greek. Zechariahemploys a quasi-poetic style of prose which shows climactic parallelism- not necessarily equivalence of all the components. Also, the contextsof Zechariah and Galatians are so vastly different that you cannotlegitimately draw any influence from Zechariah over to Galatians. Notonly are they talking about different subjects (Zech: inhabitants ofJerusalem; Gal: Paul), but the context of those subjects is chasms apart(Zech: political-social- military prowess of Jerusalem against itsenemies; Gal: Paul bringing the gospel to the accepting Galatians). Theconclusion of one passage can't be used to interpret the other in thiscase. Context is the all important canon.Best regards!George Athas-University of Sydney & Moore Theological College-Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au---------------------------------------------------Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm---------------------------------------------------
Romans 8:28Gal. 4:14
Gal. 4:14 lakr lakr at netcom.com
Wed Aug 12 17:59:59 EDT 1998
Gal. 4:14 Romans 8:28 Dear B-GREEK'ers,I thought this thread was over, but since someone else just posted ...does anyone have any examples where hWS is used as a hyperbole,and not just to illustrate the character BAG says in section III of hWS ?Sincerely,Larry Kruper
Gal. 4:14Romans 8:28
Gal. 4:14 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 13 20:01:57 EDT 1998
Sentence Adverbs Gal. 4:14 Hi George! Good to hear from you again.---George Athas wrote:>Hi Edgar!>I would echo Carl's remarks that the Hebrew of Zechariah would havelittle bearing over what Paul says in epistolic Koine Greek.<I respectfully disagree. Paul was an avid scholar of the HebrewScriptures, and he quoted profusely from God's sacred DAVAR. Paulineideas are both heavily influenced and guided by the Hebrew OT. This isevidenced by the Pauline delineation of the exalted "name" given toChrist (Phil. 2:9-11). It is quite possible that Paul had the HebrewSHEM in mind when elaborating on the heavenly glorification of IHSOUSXRISTOS. Furthermore, 1 Thess. 3:13 seems to draw off of Zech. 14:5.There is also the matter of semitic influence in connection with theGreek word hWS (BAGD 897). Dan. 7:14 LXX: hWS hUIOS ANQRWPOU HRXETO >Zechariah employs a quasi-poetic style of prose which shows climacticparallelism- not necessarily equivalence of all the components.<I would concur that the three "components" mentioned in Zech. 12:8 arenot per se equivalent. God (ELOHIM) and His MALAK are clearly notidentical. But all three terms (in Zech. 12:8) do depict the sametruth: the enfeebled of Jerusalem will be empowered! An example ofthis type of parallelism is also found in Job 38:7. There, the"morning stars" and the sons of God manifestly refer to the samecorporate entity (angels). Yet, "morning stars" is a symbol for the"sons of God." Therefore, there is not strict equivalence, but anintensifying effect vis-a'-vis the words of YHWH in Job 38:7. I thinkthat Paul possibly used the same device in his epistles (Phil. 4:6, 7;2 Thess. 2:2). >Also, the contexts of Zechariah and Galatians are so vastly differentthat you cannot legitimately draw any influence from Zechariah over toGalatians.<Here again, the (literary) "contexts" don't have to be similar toinfer that one influences the other. This can be seen by comparing thecontext of Zech. 14:5 with 1 Thess. 3:13. It would also seem that Rev.11:11, 12 contains elements of both Gen. 2 and Ezek. 37. If so, thiswould indicate that literary contexts are not required to be exact, inorder to serve as intratextual evidences. >The conclusion of one passage can't be used to interpret the other inthis case. Context is the all important canon.<I agree that "context" is important, but we must also adequatelydefine context. If by context, you strictly mean--literarycontext--then I do not agree. If by context, you encompass otherfactors, then we can voice unanimous assent. Let me just briefly addthat cotext is also important in determining the meaning of a text.While all may not agree, I therefore see it as quite plausible thatZech. 12:8 possibly influenced Gal. 4.Always a pleasure, George!Edgar FosterClassics Major _________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Sentence AdverbsGal. 4:14
Gal. 4:14 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Thu Aug 13 23:08:54 EDT 1998
Gal. 4:14 Gal. 3:28 Edgar Foster wrote:> I respectfully disagree. Paul was an avid scholar of the Hebrew> Scriptures, and he quoted profusely from God's sacred DAVAR. Pauline> ideas are both heavily influenced and guided by the Hebrew OT. This is> evidenced by the Pauline delineation of the exalted "name" given to> Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). It is quite possible that Paul had the Hebrew> SHEM in mind when elaborating on the heavenly glorification of IHSOUS> XRISTOS.For Philippians, I agree, for Paul is making an almost direct quote wherethe subject in both Philippians and Isaiah is seen to be the same.> Furthermore, 1 Thess. 3:13 seems to draw off of Zech. 14:5.I agree that there is a correspondence here, too. The subjects are thesame.> >Also, the contexts of Zechariah and Galatians are so vastly different> that you cannot legitimately draw any influence from Zechariah over to> Galatians.<> > Here again, the (literary) "contexts" don't have to be similar to> infer that one influences the other. This can be seen by comparing the> context of Zech. 14:5 with 1 Thess. 3:13.The subjects are the same in the Christian mindset: Jesus = YHWH.> It would also seem that Rev.> 11:11, 12 contains elements of both Gen. 2 and Ezek. 37.Revelation is a collage of OT images which is deliberate. It is anapocalypse, so we expect this to happen; it is not aconversational/oratorial epistle.> If so, this> would indicate that literary contexts are not required to be exact, in> order to serve as intratextual evidences.No. Context is all important! Sometimes you can quote something from acompletely different context to serve a particular purpose in another,such as the saying "There is no rest for the wicked". However, that is notwhat Paul is doing at all. The *only* similarity between Paul's words inGalatians and the words of Zechariah are that they are both climacticsimiles. They both employ the same mechanism, but that does not mean thatone is derived from the other. The subjects are just so vastly differentthat if you want to see a dependent connection between them, you actuallyhave to impose it artificially. I'm sure Paul, being of a strict Jewishbackground, knew his Minor Prophets scroll inside out - but I do not thinkthat he is drawing on Zechariah when he writes to the Galatians.> I agree that "context" is important, but we must also adequately> define context. If by context, you strictly mean--literary> context--then I do not agree. If by context, you encompass other> factors, then we can voice unanimous assent. Let me just briefly add> that cotext is also important in determining the meaning of a text.> While all may not agree, I therefore see it as quite plausible that> Zech. 12:8 possibly influenced Gal. 4.I guess we will agree to disagree.> Always a pleasure, George!Ditto, Edgar!Best regards!George Athas-University of Sydney & Moore Theological College-Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au---------------------------------------------------Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm---------------------------------------------------
Gal. 4:14Gal. 3:28