Shasta
Well-known member
The way this scripture appears in some translations does sound like Paul is speaking of two messages, the problem is that the preposition OF does not precede "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" in the text. In fact the Greeks did not have a term that was exactly equivalent to the English proposition "of." They had propositions just not this one. Therefore this has to be interpreted.
Greek is a highly inflected language meaning that every time a person changed the grammatical function of a noun in a given sentence they also changed the spelling and that of its article (if it had one). When noun was used as the subject it had one ending and another if it became the direct object. A noun would also change if it appeared with various prepositions such as in, from, to, by and if the proposition was merely implied.
In this passage "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" have been written in the "genitive" case which is somewhat flexible. The many uses of it can be found on this chart:
http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf
which comes ultimately from Professor Daniel P. Wallace who among other subjects teaches NT Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has also written books on NT Greek
Notice that in his list that most usages are not relevant to this passage. Two, however, might serve as valid translations: the Attributive Genitive and Objective Genitive. Attributive simply means the noun is used it attribute some quality to the other noun. It functions like an adjective. Assuming this to be the correct intent of the author "uncircumcision" and "circumcision" would be used to describe the noun "gospel." It would be defining it is some fundamental way. The Enlish proposition "of" could be used to help convey this meaning. This is the translation favored by MAD proponents.
It is by no means the only one or even the most contextually appropriate. The other possibility is that "uncircumcision" and "circumcision" are used as direct objects (the Objective Genitive) and would be the recipient of an "action." In this instance the the writer would not be saying there were two qualitatively different gospels but that they were directed at populations. Since "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" also meant Gentiles and Jews this could easily be the case. Pauls and Peter's messages were to go to those groups. The English prepositions consistent with this would be "to" or "for"
Many modern translators have favored this translation. Here are examples from various translations of Galatians 2:7
If you wonder what the opinions of a truly great Greek scholar on the language and meaning of this verse is read A. T. Robertson
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/galatians/galatians-2-7.html
When KJV used the"of" they were not trying to imply that there were dual gospels since. They wrote centuries before MAD was a glint in Bullinger's eye. The text they used was not different on this verse than the ones commonly used by modern translation. In addition I think it is highly unlikely that people of the 1600s knew the languages better than are modern scholars.
We can go back even further, before Bullinger, before the reformers back to the first and second centuries to a time when Early Christians still spoke Koine Greek and read the gospels, the Book of Acts and Paul's writings (even this very passage) in the languages in which they were written. None of them ever suggested that there were two gospels, a duplex gospel of any kind. I keep asking about this. It is like hearing rumors of a UFO but when you actually drive to the spot, look around carefully and interview the neighbors nobody knows what you are talking about. No media source affirms that any such thing happened. Now either every memory of the supposed event has been removed from their mind (which suggests conspiracy) or else the event belongs to lore and myth by some person or persons who was not there.
