[B-Greek] the Top Ten Responses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 12 13:56:55 EDT 2009
But neither of us is David Letterman.
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: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:32:20 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] the Top Ten Responses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7
--- On Wed, 6/10/09, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><5. What does the object of METATIQHMI in the middle,
> the end, the beginning or the active or passive have to do
> with the price of eggs in Outer Mongolia?>
>
>KALESANTOS is the object of METATIQHMAI. If you think
>the subject of KALESANTOS is a thing (gospel) not a person
>(God,) you would do well to see how often METATIQHMAI APO
>plus the gen takes a thing, how often a person. Again, all the
>examples I saw were things. Since your theory is interesting on
>the one hand and utterly devoid of support on the other hand, I
>would think it would be worth it for you to look this up. I agree
>that all things being equal, in "APO X EIS Y," if Y is a thing, and X is unknown,
>we could assume that X is a thing. But it's your crack pot theory.
>You should do the work. Maybe you could get to it after you finish
>all 26 volumes of the Warren Report. :)
>
><4. What's so funny about the way it looks? And what has its appearance to do with whether or not it is correct?>
>
>Just that participles of active, transitive verbs with neuter nouns still stand out because they are relatively rare. When you do see it, they are usually persons
>(DAIMONION, TEKNON, etc. ) But your are right that whether a phrase appears
>funny to me does not carry much weight here. It's just that we don't
>do "Top Nine Lists" on b-greek.
>
>Mark L.
>
________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
>To: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:53:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] the Top Ten Responses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7
>
>
>10. Have you been reading the Greek New Testament
>or smoking it?
>
>9. Γεωργε, ποιον σε επος φυγεν ερκος οδοντων!
> (GEWRGE, POION SE EPOS FUGEN hERKOS
>ODONTWN!) Od. 5:23
>
>8 . Gospels don’t call. In the NT TO EUAGGELION
> is almost never the subject of a verb, and never the subject
> of an active transitive verb. Not that this is conclusive proof
>against your theory, since Paul is quite capable in this state of
> using a rare construction. But Donald Cobb showed without
>much trouble that God is the obvious unexpressed subject of
> KALEW and why.
>
>7. If Ockham’s Razor were a law, you would be serving 25 to life.
>
>6. In fact O QEOS is mentioned in v. 4. Clearly it is picked up as
>the subject in our verse.
>
>5. It’s probably just a coincidence, but it is true that in all
> the examples given by BDAG and LSJ, the object of
>METATIQHMI in the middle are things, not people.
> If you could show that this verb never takes a person
>as its object I would move your theory from absolutely
> impossible to virtually impossible. Have you done a
>word study on METATIQHMAI?
>
>4. “The Calling Gospel?” TO EUAGGELION
> TO KALESON. It just looks funny in both
> English and Greek. Come on, George, TIS
> DUVATAI KALEIN EI MH QEOS MONOS?
>
>3. I would not call your theory nutty, but how DO you
> say “straight jacket” in koine?
>
>2. I think if Paul had meant to say that the Gospel
>calls us he would have simply moved EUAGGELION
> up in the sentence to make it clear. Your interpretation
>is clever to be sure. We all know that the Truth is out
> there. But it is rarely out there that far.
>
>And the number one response to George S’s
> theory that the subject of KALESANTOS in
> Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS:
>
>1. Actually, I’m really glad that George made this
> suggestion. We get these often on B-Greek, usually
> from beginners. They read the Greek with fresh eyes
> and they think they see things that everyone else misses.
> Usually they are wrong. Well, ALWAYS they are wrong,
> but it’s fun to read their suggestions and entertain them
>for a while. Hmm, you think, that’s something I hadn’t
>thought of before. I think we should all encourage each
>other to share these ideas, however crazy they may appear,
> because they are fun, and you never know. But George
> is no beginner. He has earned a certain credibility by over
>the years patiently answering many questions from IDIWTAI,
>not to mention from idiots, like myself. He knows his Greek NT.
> This is the first patently absurd thing he has ever said on the list.
> And when I say “patently absurd” I mean that with all due respect.
> And you know something, I find his idea, as insane as it is, oddly
>compelling. I think Paul COULD conceive of a Gospel as calling us.
> I thank George for putting it out there, and it IS that, way the heck
>out there, but I like it.
>
>Mark L.
>
>--- On Wed, 6/10/09, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:6-7
>>To: "Charles Johnson" <cpj5117 at gmail.com>, "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 12:23 AM
>>
>>
>>6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
>>
>>QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION. 7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU.
>>
>>I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God. Therefore καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc gen sg part, but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part. In that case, what would be the subject? The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION ! Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual understanding of the passage, the word is already right there to be brought to mind. Also, εἰ μή might be understood after the manner of the English "unless" which is really very similar to "except." The sense would then be that he is surprised that they are forsaking the GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ's favor for another gospel. He is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing them by trying to
>>alter the gospel itself.
>>
>>I've attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this will make some sense.
>> george
>>gfsomsel
>>
>>
>>… search for truth, hear truth,
>>learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
>>defend the truth till death.
>>
>>
>>- Jan Hus
>>_________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>
>>To: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PM
>>Subject: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:6-7
>>
>>I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians
>>1:6-7. I'm looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.
>>Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιν
>>αλλο. Leedy's NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versions
>>indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,
>>understanding that I'm probably wrong, I thought I would propose an
>>alternate solution.
>>
>>I cannot make good logical sense out of "which is not another [gospel],
>>except there are some who trouble you...." I further struggle with the idea
>>of placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parenthetical
>>statement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to θαυμαζω
>>in v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as "except" makes good sense in this
>>arrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:
>>
>>"I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by
>>the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),
>>except [I know] there are some who trouble you...."
>>
>>The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is saying
>>he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Using
>>the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my idea
>>a possibility?
>>---
>>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>>B-Greek mailing list
>>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>>B-Greek mailing list
>>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list