No need to be sorry!cwconrad wrote: Sorry, Eeli, I didn't mean for that gloss "but rather" to extend beyond the verses in question, Lk 4:25-27. I don’t think in terms of phrasing that fits all instances, and I certainly wasn’t thinking about that passage in Gal 2:15-16.
Gal 1:19 James an apostolos?
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.
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.
-
Eeli Kaikkonen
- Posts: 626
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Re: Gal 1:19 James an apostolos?
-
Stirling Bartholomew
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm
Re: Gal 1:19 James an apostolos?
More on: εἰ μὴ = ἀλλὰ
The standard grammars talk about this. Zerqwick §470 suggests the confusion might reflect an Aramaic particle with less precision than εἰ μὴ or ἀλλὰ cf. BDF §448.8. The ICC Galatians (Burton 1920) is quoted below.
The standard grammars talk about this. Zerqwick §470 suggests the confusion might reflect an Aramaic particle with less precision than εἰ μὴ or ἀλλὰ cf. BDF §448.8. The ICC Galatians (Burton 1920) is quoted below.
The syntax of Gal 1:19 seems to encourage reading εἰ μὴ in the exceptive manner. However, I suspect that Burton's "as always" is not going to convince everyone.19. ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. “and no other of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord.” On the use of ἕτερον, see detached note, p. 420. It is evidently used here in its closest approximation to ἄλλος, denoting merely numerical non-identity, not qualitative distinction. εἰ μή means here, as always before a noun, “except.” The only question is whether εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον, etc., is an exception to the whole of the preceding statement ἕτερον … οὐκ εἶδον, or only a part of it, οὐκ εἶδον. Either is in accordance with usage (see Th. εἰ, III 8 c β, and such cases as Luke 4:26, Luke 4:27, Romans 11:15, etc.). In this passage, however, the view which would make the exception apply to a part only of the preceding assertion is excluded, since Paul certainly can not mean to say that he saw no one in Jerusalem except Peter and James, or even, according at least to Acts 9:27, no person of importance. The phrase must probably be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the preceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle. The assumption that the term ἀπόστολος is applied to James in a broad and loose sense only (so Sief., e. g.) is without good ground in usage and is especially unjustified in view of the fact that the term ἀποστόλων under which James is by the exceptive phrase included, refers primarily to the Twelve.
C. Stirling Bartholomew