The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 23 06:55:40 EDT 2002


At 8:38 AM +0200 4/23/02, Iver Larsen wrote:
>> Gal 2:4-5 reads:
>>
>> 4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON
>> KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN [...]
>> 5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU
>>   EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.
>>
>> An English translation takes it as follows:
>>
>> (It is ) because of the false brothers who ...., to whom we did not...
>>
>> But it is not clear what would be referred to by "it". Verse 3 simply
>> says that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would be
>> the reference of this implicit pronoun "it"? From the viewpoint of
>> verse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of
>> circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to say
>> that Titus was not compelled by the three apostles,  whom Paul met
>> privately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to infer
>> the situation which can be the referent of the implicit "it".
>
>It may be helpful to look at the wider context and also consider the
>function of DE in verse 4 and 6 from a discourse perspective.
>
>Paul seems to re-iterate in Gal 2:1-10 what is described in Acts 15. Acts
>15:1 tells us about some people from Judea who came to Antioch and required
>the Gentile believers to be circumcised. These people are referred to in Gal
>2:4 as false believers who sneaked in to destroy the freedom in Christ and
>bring the Gentile believers into Jewish slavery to the Law. Acts 15:2 tells
>about the dispute between Paul (and Barnabas) and these Jews. Gal 2:5 tells
>us that Paul and Barnabas did not bow to their request for circumcision of
>the Gentile believers. Acts 15:2 also tells us that a group of people were
>sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to discuss the crisis with the church
>authorities there. Gal 2:1 tells us that this group consisted of at least of
>Paul, Barnabas and Titus.
>
>When Paul is re-iterating the Acts 15 incident in Gal 2:1-10, he first
>introduced the journey to Jerusalem in v.1, and then in v. 2 the prophetic
>backing for the visit and the purpose of the visit, that his preaching of
>the gospel should not be in vain, which it would be if the false brothers
>succeeded in their quest to have the Gentile believers conform to Jewish
>practice and tradition. V. 3 briefly foreshadows the success of the mission,
>namely that the leaders agreed that circumcision of the Gentile believers
>was not needed. Titus was a proof case in that he was not forced to undergo
>circumcision.
>v. 4-5 is in my analysis a flashback that gives the background for why the
>journey and consultation was needed in the first place. DE is the normal
>Greek connector indicating flashback and background comment, and to
>translate it with English BUT is very misleading. Therefore, I see the
>structure as dependent upon an implicit ESTIN as Moon suggested - (It is)
>because... The implied subject "it" would refer to the whole of v. 1-2, that
>is the journey and the purpose for it. The DIA indicates the reason or
>occasion for the dispute and the journey. It happened as a result of these
>false believers coming to destroy our freedom. V. 5 continues to say that
>Paul did not yield to them during the dispute in Antioch, not even for a
>moment. The dispute in 4-5 did not take place in Jerusalem, but in Antioch.
>(All of this of course relates to the Galatian situation in that the same or
>similar false believers had now arrived in Galatia as they did before in
>Antioch with the same request for circumcision of Gentile believers.)
>
>The DE in v. 6 would then bring us back to the storyline from the flashback.
>It continues the thread from v. 2-3 about the details of the discussion with
>the apostles in Jerusalem. The function of DE from a discourse perspective
>is to introduce change, and that change may be a shift from storyline to
>background and back again.

Quite apart from the business about Acts 15 as a basis for understanding
Gal 2 (about which reams have, I think, been written--and this is not the
proper forum  {I'd suggest Corpus Paulinum} for discussion of the
relationship between the Pauline letters, whether authentic or disputed,
and the chronology and narrative of Acts), I find the notion of an
unexpressed/implicit ESTI at the outset of v. 2 far more intolerable than
assuming an anacoluthon. I think this is stretching a supposed "discourse
function of DE" pretty far. I could understand something like TOUTO DE DIA
TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS ...-- "That is because of ..." I continue to
find it easier to believe that Paul never completed the sentence begun with
DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS, that he got carried away emotionally
by anger at their "espionage", states emphatically that he did not give way
to them and why, and then abruptly halts the sentence as if having
forgotten what he originally intended to say. Otherwise it seems to me that
verses 4-5 are out of their proper place in the text. Moon assumed that
implicit ESTI at the outset and Iver finds it quite satisfactory. I find it
difficult to believe that the Greek works that way, and if there are
serious problems with verses 5-6, I don't think they are solved by this
explanation.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list