Date: Mon Sep 27 1999 - 22:42:12 EDT
Ward Powers wrote;
>That is, is Paul referring here to a total period of fourteen years (the
>period of 2:1 having the same starting point as 1:18, i.e. concurrent), or
>seventeen years (the period of 2:1 running from the end of the period of
>1:18, i.e. consecutive)?>>
>The Greek is different in 1:18 and 2:1. Is this significant for the point
>In 1:18 Paul says, "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem ...";
>EPEITA META TRIA ETH ANHLQON EIS IEROSOLUMA.
>In 2:1 Paul says, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem
>..."; EPEITA DIA DEKATESSARWN ETWN PALIN ANEBHN EIS IEROSOLUMA.
>1. Gal 1:18 has ANHLQON and 2:1 has ANEBHN. I take it that this difference
>is stylistic, that the words are synonyms, and have no bearing upon the
>2. Both passages commence with EPEITA. Does this of necessity indicate that
>the second period follows on from the first, thus ruling out the
>interpretation that the two periods of time could be concurrent?
>3. The major point: In the second passage, the preposition is DIA plus the
>genitive. Is this an equivalent for META with the accusative, so that once
>again (as in point 1, above) we have two synonyms, the difference being
>purely stylistic? Or alternatively: Does DIA plus the genitive have the
>force of "through" and indicate that the fourteen years of this verse
>travels "through" the earlier period of three years which Paul has just>
>mentioned in the immediate context?
>It is interesting to note that translations seem uniformly to render 2:1 as
>"Then after fourteen years" or "Fourteen years later"; none that I have
>consulted bring out any idea of "through" for the DIA.
DIA with the genitive can be used for time. It can indicate time through
which the action endures (eg. Lk 5:5). It can also indicate time that has
elapsed (egs Mk 2:1, "after some time"). I think that this also applies to
Gal. 2:1 and that it is parallel to META plus the accusative in 1:18.
Concerning EPEITA repeated in each of the paragraphs, this indicates to me
the probability that we are dealing with two periods of time that do not run
concurrently. If true, this creates some problems for the early date of
Galatians, but there are other considerations to be considered there on C-P.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:40 EDT