Gal. 1:15-20 σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι... τὸν ἀδελφὸν

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: Gal. 1:15-20 σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι... τὸν ἀδελφὸν

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: December 13th, 2021, 4:11 am A. εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι,
B. οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους,
C. ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν,
C'. καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.
B'. Ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε· ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον,

A. I did not consult with flesh and blood immediately,
B. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me [immediately] ,
C. but I departed to Arabia [immediately] ,
C’. indeed, I returned back into Damascus [immediately].
B'. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days. But, belonging to the apostles, I discerned [εἶδον] no different one [ἕτερον],

Thesis for B':

ἕτερον is a substantive in the emphatic position which carries forward the highly charged sense of ἕτερον established previously--no apostle "different" in quality in the sense of "ἕτερον in Gal 1:6 where it refers to a gospel of a "different" kind: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον."

ἕτερον is the object of the verb εἶδον which carries the sense of "discerned" just as it does later in Gal 2:14, "But when εἶδον that they are not walking in line according to the truth of the gospel..."

τῶν ἀποστόλων is not a direct object; rather, it is a genitive of belonging with Cephas as the model of what it means to be an apostle who belongs to "the recognized ones". As in Acts 9:27, the count of how many of the apostles Paul met is not specified: "Then Barnabas brought him to the apostles and described how on the road he had seen [εἶδεν] the Lord..."
Re: οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι

The proposed grammaticality will be combined with an argument that "the recognized pillars" are all from the "the twelve". As argued by Karl Georg Wieseler, 1813-1883, I interpret the pillar named "James" to be "the son of Alphaeus" (Cf. 1 Cor 15:5-7, Acts 12:17, 15:13, and 21:18, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10). The pillar James was not "the Lord's brother" (Cf. James τοῦ μικροῦ, Mark 6:3 and 15:40), who was not one of the 12, and who is never named in Luke-Acts (as I read Luke-Acts). And the pillar James was not "son of Zebedee" who was, according to Acts 12:2, martyred prior to the conference of Acts 15. The "James the Just" of Gospel of Hebrews and of Gospel of Thomas was, in my interpretation, the pillar James--the son of Alphaeus.

I think Mark knew Paul's epistle to the Galatians and that Mark not only foreshadowed the early martyrdom of James, son of Zebedee (who did "drink the cup"), but also named the criterion of true greatness whereby James the pillar would be named "first" among "the recognized ones"--he was a leading servant of "all" when he led in extending the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas.

Mark 10

35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus and declared, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.”

36“What do you want Me to do for you?” He inquired.

37They answered, “Grant that one of us may sit at Your right hand and the other at Your left in Your glory.”

38“You do not know what you are asking,” Jesus replied. “Can you drink the cup I will drink, or be baptized with the baptism I will undergo?”

39“We can,” the brothers answered.

41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those recognized (οἱ δοκοῦντες) as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great (μέγας) among you must be your servant (διάκονος), 44and whoever wants to be first (πρῶτος) must be the slave of all (πάντων δοῦλος). 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: Gal. 1:15-20 σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι... τὸν ἀδελφὸν

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Chiastic structure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

A. εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι,
B. οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους,
C. ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν,
C'. καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.
B'. Ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε· ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον,
A'. εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

A. I did not consult with flesh and blood immediately,
B. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me [immediately] ,
C. but I departed to Arabia [immediately] ,
C’. indeed, I returned back into Damascus [immediately].
B'. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days. But, belonging to the apostles, I discerned [εἶδον] no different one [ἕτερον],
A'. except, James the Lord's brother.

In this tight chiasm the movement is from general to specific: C. to C'. is a shift of focus from the region to a city in that region https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... 346#p37346; B. to B. is a movement from Jerusalem apostles in general to a particular apostle, Cephas, who is Paul's host for 14 days and with whom Paul meets other apostles https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... 361#p37361; and A. to A'. is a movement from the general frame of "consult in the sphere of flesh and blood" to a particular consultation with with James--a perishable "brother" of the imperishable "Lord".

To "consult" James implies Paul was subordinate for a time, but to call James "flesh and blood" is to retrospectively strip him of authority (Cf. 1 Cor 15:50 "I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.") As next oldest brother of Jesus, "some from James [the Lord's brother]" (who had influenced Cephas to stop eating with Gentiles according Gal 2:12) may have seen James as heir presumptive in a sort of "Jesus dynasty", one not entirely unlike the kind James Tabor imagines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Dynasty. Paul opposes such a bloodline based Jesus dynasty.

This particular Chiastic structure hypothesis is my own, alone (at least to my knowledge). I found it by doing close reading and using standard exegetical methods. IMHO, once this Chiastic structure and the suggested grammar (see previous posts) is understood, it is hard to unsee it and to suppose that there is no chance that it is drawing out something original to the meaning of the epistle as Paul understood it. I am sure some would disagree. I'm submitting it here for detailed scrutny and discussion as others see fit.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”