spin

Most of which are happily categorized under the notion of "titular" and the Jewish use which is in lieu of the name of god is the "non-titular" use of κυριος.

Naturally both are titular.

Arguments from ignorance such as this are never convincing. I guess that the Hebrew name "Ahijah" makes no sense either.

One of course might expect Paul to use the phrase "brothers/sisters in Christ", but how often exactly does he actually do that? Once, Nonce?

Having failed to demonstrate this claim, he will continue to present it as though it were the bible truth, ad nauseam.

Ah, the venerable argument from silence paraded as fact. There is no reason to give ear to this silence.

To LOM's prefab formulaic approach.

The facile claim of independence of sources cannot be demonstrated. For example, Josephus was preserved by christian scribes and was certainly bowdlerized in the process.

spin

D+

tanya

Thanks to all forum participants, for sticking with this very interesting thread--very educational:
Am I reading too much into this English translation? Maybe "none...if not" is as ordinary in Koine Greek, as "none...except for", or, perhaps there is no corresponding method available to express in Greek, "none...except for" --"ouk...ei mei" represents both expressions?

aa5874

I thought you said the thread was educational but now you seem confused. You realize that you have questions not answers!!!

spin

What do you want this to indicate in reasonable English?

tanya

It has been instructive for me, because I know so little. For someone else, perhaps it has been boring, in part because of tedious questions from someone like me....

In most endeavors, the more one learns, the more questions arise.....

Yesterday upon awakening, I had no idea that there could be a distinction between "none...if not", and "none...except for". Maybe there is, maybe not. I am not an expert, in anything. I think there are many people on this forum who are experts, especially in languages, and I anticipate that one or more of them may find this question sufficiently interesting, to put quill to papyrus....

Is that not the purpose of this forum, to address questions, and offer opinions?

Was I wrong to pose the question, in your opinion? In other words, from your perspective, as biblical scholar of distinction, do you find my query as to the distinction between "none...if not" and "none...except for" to be irrelevant, or stupid, or wasting bandwidth?

I am struck by the heroic dimension of effort devoted to elaborating theory and analysis of the single word "brother" in this verse, Galatians 1:19. To me, "ouk.... ei mei" is far more challenging. I am a bit astonished, to be candid, that no one else seems even remotely interested in this portion of the verse.....

I am most impressed with your skills and knowledge, aa5874, and therefore, I urge you to consider this passage from DaoDeJing by LaoZi
#33
zhī rén zhě zhī yě zì zhī zhě míng .... (hint, zhī is the key!)

tanya

I think your translation not wrong.

I am asking whether there is another way of expressing "none...except for" in Greek, and then, if that alternative expression is possibly less confrontational than "none....if not".

I am also asking whether "ouk...ei mei" is the only way to express the thought:
"none...except for".

Cheers!

PhilosopherJay

Hi Tanya,

Thanks for raising this important point. The translation of the phrase "Εἰ μή" is by no means a simple matter. This article notes, "ει μη ("if not") is not just a simple word that can be looked up in a dictionary or lexicon. Rather it is an idiomatic phrase that connects conditional clauses. That is, it is a rather complex piece of grammar, and to thoroughly understand what it is, we need to relate it to similar structures in English."
This article directs us to an article by Charles E. Powell, Ph.D. and John Baima called Εἰ μή Clauses in the NT: Interpretation and Translation

The article suggests that translating it as "except" or "but" can be incorrect, and suggests a "logical transformation" in translation.

Unfortunately, the authors do not seem to follow their own suggestion in the article when it comes to Corinthians 1.19. Here is how they translate it.

In their footnote 18, they explain, why they have abandoned their logical transformation rule:

The reason for their not doing the logical transformation is mainly that "the protasis of the logical transformation is not necessarily false, and may well be true. The protases of the logical equivalents of the clear examples are all false. Thus, it is more likely that this is an exclusively true conditional."

They are assuming that it is not necessarily false that Paul met "James, the brother of the Lord" Let us assume the opposite that meeting James, the brother of the Lord" is impossible." Then according to these rules the correct translation would be:

The meaning is now that Paul met nobody but Peter. This meaning makes sense as Paul is clearly trying to prove that nobody influenced him. By saying that he met Jacob (James), he would not be making his case, but destroying it. By denying he met anybody else, he would be arguing for it.

Jacob, who later became "Israel," was famous as the brother of Esau. Rabbi Judah Zoldan in this article Is not Esau a brother to Jacob?, notes "In Jewish sources, Esau as a nation stood for Rome, later Christianity."

Thus in the original, the writer of Galatians was saying that just as he did not see Jacob, the brother of Esau, he didn't see anybody in Jerusalem. The correct English translation is:

The reader is meant to think, "He obviously did not meet Jacob, the brother of Esau, so he obviously did not meet anybody."
We can well imagine that a non-Jewish Christian scribe in copying the passage thought that he saw a reference to James (Jacob) the brother of Yeshua (Jesus), not Esau. He simply changed "Yeshua" to the equivalent word for him "Lord."

Please note that this hypothesis allows that the original writer is talking about a real physical brother. It also suggests that the change was not deliberately done for any theological reasons. The Christian scribe simply was trying to make sense of what was there. He knew that Jacob (James) was the brother of Yeshua (Jesus) from the gospels, and sincerely thought that the original writer meant him. The transformation of James/Jacob, the brother of Esau into James, the brother of Jesus (Yeshua) and "Jesus" into "Kyrios" probably took no more than a second for the scribe. It has mislead people for some 1900 years.

Later Christian writers, seeing the phrase in Paul, reused it in other places where the name Jacob was used. This is how the reference gets into Josephus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

LegionOnomaMoi

The line has no word "none" in it. Literally, "another/other [of] the apostles I did not see." The following conjunction of two particles ei and me has a sense that can't quite be captured by breaking them down into their component parts. The main idea is "but/except for/ἀλλά. "I did not see any of the other apostles, except for James, the brother of the lord." The second word in the line is de, another particle, this one connecting the current line with the previous one (about spending time with Peter). The thrust is "I spent time with Peter. But that's the only apostle I saw, with one exception." Paul first says he staid 15 days with Peter. He then begins another line of thought, but connects it to the previous line about Peter with de. "I spent time with Peter, however..." Possibly he wants to emphasive that Peter was the only one he was spending this time with, not with the Jerusalem sect in general. But whatever the case he focuses first on how he didn't see other apostles aside from Peter, and then gives us the exception to this which is that he saw James.

tanya

Thank you very much, Jay, for this informative and detailed explanation. Wonderful. The link will be investigated, in due course, upon my next visit to a city with a library....

I tried to imagine a useful English sentence using "none....if not", but failed in my attempt. Your helpful suggestions vis a vis cinema, in many different threads on the forum, served as stimulus in that effort, but I could not recall a helpful illustration....
He was nothing if not a ferocious gun-slinger.
To me, though I cannot quite put my finger on it, "if not" carries a slightly different connotation, from "except for".

Thanks again, Jay. Very helpful....