Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Ambiguous irony in Galatians 1 & 2

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: tmcos AT canada.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Ambiguous irony in Galatians 1 & 2
  • Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT)

If I could also add, (not to detract from Fred's
questions), if we can have some coments about how Gal
1&2 relates to the picture of Paul we see in Acts
(particularly Acts 15) as one who was in one accord
with the Jerusalem church. In short, can Gal 1-2 be
reconcilled with Acts' view of Paul according to Luke's
version. Best regards,


Tony Costa , M.A.

University of Toronto


On Sun, 25 May 2003 12:09:21 EDT, Frich107 AT aol.com
wrote:

>
> Most recently my research has led me to look at
> Galatians chapters 1 & 2 in
> quite some detail, with the aim of seeing how Paul
> views other apostles. Paul's
> comments about Peter and James have fascinated me,
> particularly as I have
> looked into the Greek text, which is, in my opinion,
> significantly more ambiguous
> than many translations suggest. In particular I am
> interested in what other
> list members think about two verses.
>
> The first is 1:19 where Paul speaks of meeting James
in
> Jerusalem. I am
> interested in reigniting the debate over whether James
> is included with the
> apostles here, especially in light of the more
> ambiguous reference to him in 1
> Corinthians 15:7, where he appears, in my opinion, to
> be distinguished from the
> other apostles by EPEITA. What do others think? I am
> aware that modern
> commentators on the whole seem to think that this is a
> resolved issue, but in the light
> of recent changes in thought over Romans 16:7 on
> lexical semantical grounds, by
> Burer and Wallace, I think that the time is ripe to
> challenge the established
> view on this.
>
> The second verse is Galatians 2:9, and the issue for
me
> is how one should
> read OI DOKOUNTES STULOI EI NAI. The New Revised
> Standard translation, and many
> commentators seem to believe that this is a straight
> forward acknowledgement of
> James, Peter and John as upstanding leaders in the
> early church. I, however,
> see this as being made purposely ambiguous by Paul. It
> could alternatively be
> read as 'those who are supposed to be pillars' in a
> rather ironic, or
> sarcastic, tone of voice. I appreciate that both are
> perfectly possible readings of
> the Greek, but what do other list members think?
>
> Regards,
> Fred Rich.
>
> Ph.D. Student,
> Department of Biblical Studies,
> University of Sheffield,
> Sheffield,
> South Yorkshire,
> UK.
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page