Re: Gal. 1:1

From: Thomas Biddy (
Date: Sat Jan 11 1997 - 13:23:15 EST

Does v. 12 illuminate our quest for the double point.

          For I neither received it of man,
          neither was I taught [it],
          but by the revelation of Jesus

Received different from taught?


On 11 Jan 1997, Adrian Popa wrote:

> > Actually, Paul clarifies this himself in the remainder of chapers 1 and 2.
> > But specifically, he means to say that it wasn't human beings who
> > commissioned him (OUK AP' ANQRWPWN) nor was it a human intermediary of
> > (divine) authority (OUDE DI' ANQRWPOU). Rather it was Jesus Christ himself
> > and God the father who raised him from the dead.
> But why did Paul use AP' ANQRWPWN as well as DI' ANQRWPOU, when one would have
> probably been enough? Perhaps Carl is right to understand the former in terms of
> origin and the latter in terms of mediation. Or, as Dan Wallace would say,
> ultimate and intermediate agency. But I have noted that the initial negation is
> counter-balanced only by one positive DIA phrase in reference to Jesus Christ
> and God the Father. Is this because Paul regarded AP' ANQRWPWN and DI' ANQRWPOU
> roughly synonymous? Is it because his second DIA covered by implication both the
> idea of origin and mediatian? Did he deliberately place the four prepositions
> chiastically -- i.e., APO, DIA, DIA, EK -- and thus managed to round off a
> slightly imbalanced sentence? Or (and this is quite likely) am I splitting hair?
> <g>
> Adrian Popa
> Porthcawl, Wales

   o <M This is fun. I must be learning.
  /| ...... /:M\--------------------------------------------,,,,,,
(O)[]XXXXXX[]I:K+}==== Sword of Truth =====================---------->
  \| ^^^^^^ \:W/--------------------------------------------''''''
   o <W

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:01 EDT