From: Edgar Foster (questioning1@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Dec 29 1998 - 21:21:22 EST
Dear Maurice,
You made many fine points in your post and I found the material you
cited most valuable. I just wish to address a couple of statements in
your submission.
---"Maurice A. O'Sullivan" wrote:
>Edgar:
>In his 1966 book " Galatians in Greek " (University of Detroit Press
) John Bligh puts a slightly different question to yours about Ga.
1:1, but I
think his answer may be of interest to you.<
>He starts with the question:
>" Are APO and DIA synonomous here?
> His answer:
> "The question cannot be solved on purely linguistic grounds. In
classical usage, APO would indicate the source from which, and DIA the
agent or instrument through which (though there are exceptions e.g
Aeschylus _Agamemnon_ , 1486 DIAI DIOS PANAITIOU -- c.f BDF s. 223/2
) Since the two prepositions seem to be contrasted with each other,
it is natural to
give them their proper sense in the phrase OUK AP' ANQRWPWN OUDE DI'
ANQRWPOU.<
Normally, I would make a marked distinction between APO and DIA. Paul
seems to employ the prepositions carefully.
According to Dana-Mantey, APO seems to place more emphasis on the idea
of separation (ANEBH APO TOU hUDATOS). They write that APO is only
used in the ablative case. While APO seems to approach EK in meaning,
EK evidently focuses more on the notion of "from within" as opposed
to "from the edge of." An example of this is TA DE PANTA EK TOU QEOU
(2 Cor. 5:18). Conversely, DIA is utilized to describe through-hood or
agency. It does not seem to stress the idea of separation as does APO:
IHSOUS XRISTOS DI' hOU TA PANTA KAI hHMEIS DI' AUTOU (1 Cor. 8:6).
>It seems, therefore, that he sacrificed the chiasm
which he so easily could have made in v.1 because to have inserted a
second APO would have made too great a separation between Christ and
the Father -- for Christ was not a human intermediary like Moses ( cf.
Ga. 3:19 ) but God was in Christ ( cf. 2 Co. 6:15; Col. 2:9 ). St.
Paul seems to have felt that with 'God' and ' Jesus Christ' both
prepositions were applicable; hence he uses first DIA and then APO. A
very high Christology has dictated the choice of these prepositions."<
I also wonder if Paul uses DIA in 1:1 to describe the agency of his
apostolic office. In 1:1, there seems less of a need to stress the
idea of separation. As he continues writing in 1:3, however, it is
necessary to emphasize the thought of separation: 'may you have
unmerited favor and peace from (APO) God the Father and Christ Jesus'.
In 1:3, it appears that separation is being highlighted. That could
also be the reason why Paul utilizes APO instead of DIA.
Regards,
Edgar Foster
Classics Major
Lenoir-Rhyne College
Hickory, NC
P.S. I want to make a correction concerning an earlier post. Origen
said that the water and spirit mentioned in the third chapter of John
differ in "notion" and not in "substance." Sorry about that.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:11 EDT