[B-Greek] the Top Ten Tesponses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 11 01:55:53 EDT 2009


Mark,

I thought I should probably touch on some other points you raised (I've attempted to get the numbers to stand out separate from the rest of the text, but I have the distinct feeling the list software will alter that):  

10.  No, I've never gotten so desperate as to shred my GNT to use in place of tobacco.  Besides, although I do have _Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti_ which I carry to 
       church services, my other texts are electronic.  While they're already bits and bytes, they don't light very well.

9.  Well, my front teeth are rather widely spaced -- a family trait.

8.  They don't call, huh?  As I pointed out previously, if you reinterpret everything having to do with the subject, then nothing does anything. 
      I'm not sure how much "without trouble" he showed that God is the unexpressed subject.  His argument, as I recall had to do with the usage of EUAGGELION in proximity to KALEW.
      I find that there is only one instance of EUAGGELION within 10 words of KALEW which is in 2 Thes 2.14.  This is a rather slender basis on which to found a general rule.

7.   Are you sure that my throat wouldn't be slit? 

6.   If it were so absolutely clear then we wouldn't be sitting here discussing the matter.  God may be mentioned in v 4, but it is the will of God which is under consideration, not God 
      himself.  You fail to do justice to the pair ἀπὸ . . . εἰς APO . . . EIS.
 
5.   What does the object of METATIQHMI in the middle, the end, the beginning or the active or passive have to do with the price of eggs in Outer Mongolia?
 
4.   What's so funny about the way it looks?  And what has its appearance to do with whether or not it is correct?
 
3.   My guess offhand would be χιτών κορέων μεγαλυνομένων XITWN KOREWN MEGALUNOMENWN.  Why?  Have you lost yours?
 
2.   Well, it's closer than the word QEOU in v 4
 
1.   Again, I thank you for your kind words.
 

 george
gfsomsel 


… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________ 




________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>; B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:53:54 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] the Top Ten Tesponses to George S’s theory that that the subject of KALESANTOS in Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS (Was Galatians 1:6-7


10.   Have you been reading the Greek New Testament 
or smoking it? 
  
9. Γεωργε, ποιον σε επος φυγεν ερκος οδοντων!  
 (GEWRGE, POION SE    EPOS FUGEN hERKOS 
ODONTWN!) Od. 5:23 
  
8 . Gospels don’t call.  In the NT TO EUAGGELION                                             
 is almost never the subject of a verb, and never the subject 
 of an active transitive verb.  Not that this is conclusive proof 
against your theory, since Paul is quite capable in this state of 
 using a rare construction.  But Donald Cobb showed without 
much trouble that God is the obvious unexpressed subject of 
 KALEW and why.  
   
7. If Ockham’s Razor were a law, you would be serving 25 to life. 
  
6. In fact O QEOS is mentioned in v. 4.  Clearly it is picked up as 
the subject in our verse. 
  
5. It’s probably just a coincidence, but it is true that in all 
 the examples given by BDAG and LSJ, the object of 
METATIQHMI in the middle are things, not people.  
 If you could show that this verb never takes a person 
as its object I would move your theory from absolutely 
 impossible to virtually impossible.  Have you done a 
word study on METATIQHMAI? 
  
4. “The Calling Gospel?”  TO EUAGGELION 
 TO KALESON.  It just looks funny in both 
 English and Greek.  Come on, George, TIS 
 DUVATAI KALEIN EI MH QEOS MONOS? 
  
3. I would not call your theory nutty, but how DO you 
 say “straight jacket” in koine? 
  
2. I think if Paul had meant to say that the Gospel 
calls us he would have simply moved EUAGGELION 
 up in the sentence to make it clear.  Your interpretation 
is clever to be sure.  We all know that the Truth is out 
 there.  But it is rarely out there that far. 
  
And the number one response to George S’s 
 theory that the subject of KALESANTOS in 
 Gal 1:6 is TO EUAGGELION and not hO QEOS: 
  
1. Actually, I’m really glad that George made this 
 suggestion.  We get these often on B-Greek, usually 
 from beginners.  They read the Greek with fresh eyes 
 and they think they see things that everyone else misses. 
  Usually they are wrong.  Well, ALWAYS they are wrong, 
 but it’s fun to read their suggestions and entertain them 
for a while.  Hmm, you think, that’s something I hadn’t 
thought of before.  I think we should all encourage each 
other to share these ideas, however crazy they may appear, 
 because they are fun, and you never know.  But George 
 is no beginner.  He has earned a certain credibility by over 
the years patiently answering many questions from IDIWTAI, 
not to mention from idiots, like myself.  He knows his Greek NT. 
  This is the first patently absurd thing he has ever said on the list. 
  And when I say “patently absurd” I mean that with all due respect.  
 And you know something, I find his idea, as insane as it is, oddly 
compelling.  I think Paul COULD conceive of a Gospel as calling us. 
  I thank George for putting it out there, and it IS that, way the heck 
out there, but I like it. 
  
Mark L.        

--- On Wed, 6/10/09, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:6-7
>To: "Charles Johnson" <cpj5117 at gmail.com>, "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 12:23 AM
>
>
>6Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.  
> 
>QAUMAZW hOTI hOUTWS TAXEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS hUMAS EN XARITI [XRISTOU] EIS hETERON EUAGGELION.  7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO, EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU. 
>
>I have a slightly different take on this from the normal. It is usual to supply the subject here as being [in the AV tradition] God.  Therefore καλέσαντος KALESANTOS is generally construed as a aor masc gen sg part, but it could also be a aor neuter gen sg part.  In that case, what would be the subject?  The neut noun εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION !  Although one must also understand τοῦ εὐαγγελίου TOU EUAGGELIOU in the gen abs as one must understand τοῦ θεοῦ TOU QEOU in the usual understanding of the passage, the word is already right there to be brought to mind.  Also, εἰ μή might be understood after the manner of the English "unless" which is really very similar to "except."   The sense would then be that he is surprised that they are forsaking the GOSPEL WHICH CALLED them into Christ's favor for another gospel.  He is surprised UNLESS some persons are disturbing them by trying to
>alter the gospel itself.  
>
>I've attempted to avoid coming out and giving an actual translation though I realize that it is very close to being one. Hopefully this will make some sense.
> george
>gfsomsel 
>
>
>… search for truth, hear truth, 
>learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
>defend the truth till death.
>
>
>- Jan Hus
>_________ 
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Charles Johnson <cpj5117 at gmail.com>
>To: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:22:10 PM
>Subject: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:6-7
>
>I have a question about how certain clauses are connected in Galatians
>1:6-7. I'm looking particularly at the clause in v.7 beginning with ει μη.
>Many versions seem to render it as a subordinate clause under ο ουκ εστιν
>αλλο. Leedy's NT diagrams in Bibleworks agree. I see that several versions
>indicate that relationship and some others appear to be more ambiguous. So,
>understanding that I'm probably wrong, I thought I would propose an
>alternate solution.
>
>I cannot make good logical sense out of "which is not another [gospel],
>except there are some who trouble you...." I further struggle with the idea
>of placing a subordinate clause under what appears to be a parenthetical
>statement. Rather, would it be possible to connect the ει μη back to θαυμαζω
>in v. 6? The distinctive force of ει μη as "except" makes good sense in this
>arrangement. The paraphrase would be as follows:
>
>"I [would be] amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by
>the grace of Christ for a different gospel (not that there is another),
>except [I know] there are some who trouble you...."
>
>The words in brackets are my amplifications. In other words, Paul is saying
>he would be amazed except that he knows about this dangerous threat. Using
>the naked indicative in the main clause highlights his amazement. Is my idea
>a possibility?
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
>      
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> 



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list