[B-Greek] [B-GREEK] GAL 2:2 DOKOUSIN

Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 21:45:54 EST 2010


Hi, there.

Thank you again.  See my comments below interspersed - Oun


On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Oun –
>
> I am not sure if this was directed to me or to Carl or  Iver, so forgive me
> if you meant the question for them. It seems this thread has probably just
> about run its course since your post has not had any responses,  (but maybe
> that was because it was directed to me), which, if so, let me answer your
> question briefly.
>

OJK: The question was addressed to you. As you helped me to clarify
the text, the postings from Carl and Iver (under a different subject)
made me help think further on.

>
> You wrote:
>
>>May I take the expression 'those respected highly to be something of
> importance' 2:6 (TWN DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI) to be a way of Paul's
> obliquely calling hOI DOKOUNTES STULOI?<
>
> I think Paul is contrasting those of verse 6, with those in verse 9 – two
> groups of people within the leadership of Jerusalem – equally "respected" by
> the people. So I would have to say I do not think so, that is, if I
> understand your question as meaning that the two groups are one and the same
> with  TWN DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI being an another way, or indirect way,  of
> saying hOI DOKOUNTES STULOI.
>
>
> But if you are saying Paul is hinting that he views the group negatively in
> verse 6 by the phrase TWN DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI, and that is his way of
> “indirectly” calling James, Cephas, and John the” true” pillars of the
> church, then I would have to say, yes, that could be a possiblity, at least
> from my point of view, but not from the words TWN DOKOUNTWN, but from the
> added phrase EINAI TI. (cf. Gal. 6:3 - EI GAR  DOKEI TIS EINAI TI MHDEN WN
> EAUTON FRENAPATA)
>
>

OJK: What I had in mind is more like your second understanding (though
I don't see this much different from your first one).

> As far as Titus goes, you wrote:
>
>>(v.3) ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, ῞Ελλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη
>> περιτμηθῆναι,
> (v. 4) διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους,
> OUDE TITOS ~~ DIA DE TOUS ~ YEUDODELOFOUS.
>
> Does it imply that a demand was actually made on Titus to become
> circumcised, though not by those respected, but by certain false
> brethren?<
>
>
> Boy,  I have no idea. It would be pure speculation on my part to suggest
> anything.
>
> Just in closing, it seems this passage can be understood in more than one
> way. A lot depends on our "presuppositions." I like a statement somebody
> wrote to me off-list which I think is an excellent statement. This person
> said, “Where I come down on an issue like this is to acknowledge
> alternatives that are at all possible and come down on the side that I deem
> more probable, without imagining that my word is the last word.”
>
>
>
> B.Harris

OJK:  We are sometimes forced to read 'between the lines'.  E.g. for
the particular phrase you had in mind "EMOI ~ OUDEN PROSANEQENTO".

Does it say about about 'suggestions', 'contributing something',
'additional obligations', or 'requirements' (as I read from some
translations and Carl's comment)?

Does 'to me' mean 'to my message' or 'to what I presented at the
meeting'? (It cannot be 'to my gospel', as in WNT.)

With the verses 3 & 4 ALL' OUDE ~ DIA DE ~, I feel that some (i.e.
false brethren) must have put a demand on Titus. If not, why Paul
would mention anything to tell about a hypothetical a matter of
concern which did not actually happen?

What do you think of the sentence I just found in a  small
well-written and enlightening book by E.P Sanders titled "Paul" (OUP
1991 in Past masters series) <Ch. 6. Righteousness by faith and being
in Christ: Galatians>:

(p. 53)... If the Jewish Christians would not fully accept Gentiles
while they were still Gentiles, they would in effect be attempting to
force them to become Jewish, and Paul accused Peter of ding just that
(2:14). We recall that in the first conflict he said that the 'false
brethren' wanted to 'force' Titus to be circumcised. Now Peter is
accused of the same sort of coercion.

Oun Kwon.

P.S. Actually this came across when I happened to start browsing last
few day the yellowed book - a gem - which was one of several bagful
books I picked up just last week at a used-book store some distance
away. At the cost of disheartening my family, since we don't have much
space left in the house over-filled with books and bookcases in every
room. Books are of the only interest to me. Like addiction of shopping
spree (of ladies), I have hard time to refrain myself when it comes to
books.

At $1.99 for a paper back. If my memory is correct, they used to
charge $0.99 a few years ago. Quite a few wonderful books I have
accumulated (at full price) were also found sitting on their shelves
at $3.99 a hardcover - how come anyone let these idle on the shelves
waiting for new owners? It makes my heart ache.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list