Re: Gal. 1:1, 3-Any Significance in One Preposition?

From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan (mauros@iol.ie)
Date: Tue Dec 29 1998 - 14:04:18 EST


At 15:47 28/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear B-Greekers,
>
>Gal. 1:1, 3 reads in part:
>
>ALLA DIA IHSOU XRISTOU KAI QEOU PATROS . . . XARIS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH
>APO QEOU PATROS KAI KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU.
>
>In both verses of this Pauline Epistle, there is one preposition
>governing two substantives. Is this structure very common in the NT?
>If so, is there any significance in this syntactical arrangement?
>
Edgar:
In his 1966 book " Galatians in Greek " (University of Detroit Press )
John Bligh puts a slightly different question to yours about Ga. 1:1, but I
think his answer may be of interest to you.

He starts with the question:
" Are APO and DIA synonomous here?

His answer:
"The question cannot be solved on purely linguistic grounds. In classical
usage, APO would indicate the source from which, and DIA the agent or
instrument through which ( though there are exceptions e.g Aeschylus
_Agamemnon_ , 1486 DIAI DIOS PANAITIOU -- c.f BDF s. 223/2 ) Since the
two prepositions seem to be contrasted with each other, it is natural to
give them their proper sense in the phrase OUK AP' ANQRWPWN OUDE DI'
ANQRWPOU. The snag then is that we should expect to find in the sequel ALLA
DIA IHSOU XRISTOU KAI APO QEOU PATROS. This would give a splendid chiasm:
APO - DIA - DIA - APO. But there is no manuscript support for such a
reading, and it would be very rash indeed to insert a second APO, since St.
Paul may have had a good reason for refraining from inserting one. In v.3
he again has QEOU PATROS and IHSOU XRISTOU governed by one preposition, and
this time it is APO. It seems, therefore, that he sacrificed the chiasm
which he so easily could have made in v.1 because to have inserted a second
APO would have made too great a separation between Christ and the Father --
for Christ was not a human intermediary like Moses ( cf. Ga. 3:19 ) but God
was in Christ ( cf. 2 Co. 6:15; Col. 2:9 ). St. Paul seems to have felt
that with 'God' and ' Jesus Christ' both prepositions were applicable;
hence he uses first DIA and then APO. A very high Christology has dictated
the choice of these prepositions."

Then Bligh finds " a most curious parallel " in Philo _The Migration of
Abraham_, 22.
" where the patriarch Joseph's words TOU GAR QEOU EIMI EGW (LXX Gn. 50:19
) are explained thus:
' he declared that he had not received his commission at the hands of men
but had been appointed by God ( MH PROS ANQRWPWN APESTALQAI , UPO DE TOU
QEOU KECEIROTONHSQAI ). St.Pau may have thought of himself as another
Joseph. He calls himself OIKONOMOS in 1 Co. 4:1.

Hope this is of help.

Regards,
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan
[Bray, Ireland]

"Apply yourself wholly to the text; apply the text wholly to yourself."
- Johann Albrecht Bengel

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:11 EDT