Part 1 of this series discussed the general issues, Part 2 discussed the information structure (IS) of the main clause and the use of thematic addition in the fronted conditional clause. Here is the verse in question with bold representing marked focus for emphasis sake. The underlining delineates a frame of reference, i.e. an element that has been placed at the beginning of the clause for reasons other than emphasis. In 1:8, the subordinate clause establishes a conditional frame of reference that must be met for the proposition of the main clause to obtain (see here for more on the placement of conditionals).

NA27: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

Now it is time to consider the structuring of the conditional clause itself, here we finally begin considering the significance of the disputed pronoun. Recall from Part 1 the claim that it was not semantically required, though it could function semantically to restrict the audience to whom a competing gospel might be preached. Let’s break down the conditional, bearing in mind its framing function within the larger clause. Here are the variant readings, repeated for convenience sake:

1. NA27: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

Based on the placement (and presence) of the pronoun following the verb, the complex subject that precedes the verb εὐαγγελίζηται is best understood as a topical frame of reference. Mike Aubrey has been working on describing the propensity in Greek to place “clitic pronouns” (essentially independent personal pronouns) immediately after the most salient element in the clause. This means that if something has been fronted to place it in marked focus for emphasis sake, the writer typically fronts clitic pronouns that might be present. Since a writer may front something either to create a frame of reference or to place it in marked focus, observing the placement of clitic pronouns can help disambiguate what the writer intended. In considering the various options, the IS of the clause plays a critical role in evaluating the textual variants. In my view, the subject is the most salient portion of the conditional clause, due to both the information established from the preceding context, and the use of thematic addition to add prominence. This variant reading unlikely, in my view. What about the NA25 reading?

2. NA25: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται ὑμῖν παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

For these same reasons, I support the view of the committee to question the NA25 reading of the post-verbal pronoun. It virtually forces one to read the subject as a topical frame rather than focal. ((Note that clitic movement is not required, but typical. Thus, one could still read the subject as focal with the pronoun following the verb, but it would certainly be the harder reading. This is where we approach the “hall of mirrors,” where speculation of hypotheses can lead to a hopelessly tangled web. One could argue that the NA25 reading was original, and that either the elimination or fronting of the pronoun were scribal efforts to improve or disambiguate the reading. Having said that, the NA25 is the least-preferred reading in light of broader discourse considerations. It need not imply the reading could not have been original. Let’s move on.

3. NA 27 reading with preverbal pronoun: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὑμῖν εὐαγγελίζηται παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

The reading with the preverbal pronoun would unambiguously be read as placing the subject in marked focus for emphasis. The only other (highly unlikely but theoretically possible) reading is taking the subject as a topical frame and the fronted pronoun as focal. Such a reading would only be possible if the preceding context concerned Paul or others preaching the gospel to others besides the Galatians. This would set up a “But if we or someone else did the same kind of thing to you, then..” Theoretical, but impossible in our context. On the view that the NA25 reading were original, this reading would be construes as a correction/improvement. Of the options this is the most unambiguous reading, which may mean it is not original. Now for the final options without the clitic pronoun.

4. NA 25 reading, without any pronoun: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
5. NA27 reading without any pronoun: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται παρʼ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

As I said from the outset, I will only consider the IS and not the issue of the verb tense. The reading without the presence of the pronoun, either before or after the verb, is not unlike that of the Options 1 and 2. Theoretically the subject could either be a topical frame or in marked focus. In the absence of a disambiguating marker like the clitic, one would make the evaluation based on the information status from the preceding context. As above, the favorable reading of the IS is to view the fronted subject as focal. Recall that the thematic addition was not adding the subjects to some previous element, but to themselves as the least likely possibility. One might expect a false prophet or even a wayward teacher to preach a different gospel. But for Paul or an angel? It’s very unlikely to happen.

In conclusion, I think the best reading of the IS in the context is to view the subject as in marked focus within the subordinate clause. In the bigger picture, the fronting of ἀνάθεμα for marked focus is the most salient portion of the sentence. The focal domain of the subordinate clause subject is the conditional clause, not the main clause.

In terms of accounting for the variants, probably beginning with the NA25 as original provides the best account of the variants. To add the clitic pronoun following the verb would represent a counter-reading of what is preferred, constraining most readers to read the fronted subject as a topical frame of reference. More study would be needed to see how many times within the Pauline corpus one finds clitic pronouns persisting in their default position after the verb, even when there is a fronted focal constituent. Perhaps Professor Aubrey has some insight for us on this matter. My guess would be this occurs less than 25%, probably in “no brainer” cases of reading the IS.