Corpus-Paul

["Kevin Smith" <kgs AT iafrica.com>]

Dear Nathan and other list members,

 

The Greek text of Galatians 1:18-19 reads:

EPEITA META ETH TRIA ANHLQON EIS hIEROSOLUMA hISTORHSAI KHFAN KAI EPEMEINA PROS AUTON hHMERAS DEKAPENTE , hETERON (other) DE (but) TWN (of the) APOSTOLWN (apostles) OUK (not) EIDON (I saw) EI MH (except) IAKWBON (James) TON (the) ADELFON (brother) TOU (of the) KURIOU (Lord).

 

Max Zerwick, *Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, §470 writes,

"ALLA <but (only)> was ti be expected rather than EI MH in Mk 6:5, Lk 4:25-27 (twice), Rom 14:14, Gal  1:7, 2:16, 1 Cor 7:17, Rev 21:27. Moveover, in Gal 1:19 <(apart from Peter> I saw no other apostle EI MH James the brother of the Lord>, the strict sense of EI MH implies that Paul  regards James as an apostle; but his conclusion cannot be drawn with certainty, because EI MH may be used instead of ALLA."

 

Thus the grammar itself does not conclusively prove that Paul regarded James as an apostle since there are two other places in Galatians where Paul used EI MH in the sense of "but." However, in the absense of contextual indicators to the contrary the most natural way to take EI MH is as "except" rather than "but." In Galatians 2:16 the context completely eliminates the possibility of taking EAN MH as "except"; since "except" makes perfect sense in Gal 1:19, it is the better translation, the meaning Paul's readers would most naturally ascribe to EI MH in the absence of contextual clues to the contrary.

 

Regards,

Kevin Smith

Port Elizabeth, SA

kgs AT iafrica.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan McGovern <NM_McGovern AT ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: 26 October 1999 19:09
Subject: [corpus-paul] The Apostolate of James in Galatians

>Dear list members,
>
> I'm exploring the nature of James' rise to power in the early
>church, and I noticed a curious wording that Paul uses in Galatians 1:19:
>
> But I did not see any other of the apostles [other than Kephas, that
> is], only James the brother of the Lord.
>
>The wording here, if taken most literally, would seem to imply that James
>was not, at this time, counted among the apostles.  Unfortunately, I do not
>know enough Greek to be able to analyze the original text myself, so I am
>asking whether it is possible or even necessary to interpret the Greek as
>excluding James from the apostolate at this time in history (Paul's first
>visit to Jerusalem).  Or, is Paul simply emphasizing his independence from
>human authority with hyperbole and then contradicting himself (in the
>literal sense) by adding the full details of the truth (in this case, that
>he actually did meet with another apostle, James)?  There is an amusing
>verse in 1 Corinthians where the latter seems to be the case [1 Cor.
>1:14-16:  "I give thanks that I baptized none of you except Crispus and
>Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.  (I baptized
>the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I
>baptized anyone else.)"  During his dictation of the letter, Paul seems to
>1) proudly boast that he baptized only two people in Corinth, then 2)
>immediately remembers another family that he had baptized there, and
>finally 3) feels compelled, though with annoyance, to note this third set
>of baptisms, and puts off any further attempt to remember any other such
>baptisms.].
>
> In the case of Galatians 1:19, though, does the language force one
>to accept a pre-apostolic James, or can it be interpreted either way?  I
>look forward to any insights!
>
> Nathan McGovern
> Franklin and Marshall College
> nm_mcgovern AT acad.fandm.edu
>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: kgs AT iafrica.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-corpus-paul-96156T AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>