32 Wim Hendriks ἀραβίαν. A correct understanding of these verses depends on the mean- ing of εὐθέωσ. This εὐθέωσ says something about the quality of the negative proposition: οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἷματι οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰσ ἱεροσόλυμα. According to Schlier this εὐθέωσ indicates an instantly taken decision by Paul to tell nobody about his revelation.26 This places Schlier halfway between a qualitative understanding and a temporal translation. However, the text says nothing about a decision. To break the deadlock two questions must be solved. Firstly, what does Paul say in Galatians 1:15-17 apart from the adverb εὐθέωσ? Secondly: what does εὐθέωσ add to Paul’s statement? According to the new Nestle- text (N28) Paul writes the following words. 15 ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸσ] ὁ ἀφορίσασ με ἐκ κοιλίασ μητρόσ μου καὶ καλέσασ διὰ τῆσ χάριτοσ αὐτοῦ 16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖσ ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέωσ οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι 17 οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰσ ἱεροσολύμα πρὸσ τοὺσ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλουσ, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰσ ἀραβίαν καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰσ δαμασκόν. Assuming that ὁ θεόσ belongs to the text, God is the grammatical subject of εὐδόκησεν.27 This subject is qualified as follows: who from my birth had set me apart and had called me through his grace. It is this God who got pleased to reveal his son in me. This is followed by a (sub- ordinate) ἵνα-clause: this revelation was given in order that Paul might proclaim him among the gentiles. These statements are set within a tem- poral ὅτε-clause: when God had done so (i.e. all this presupposed). This is followed by the principal sentence: οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰσ ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸσ τοὺσ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλουσ: (after that revelation) I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to 26 H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (KEK, Göttingen 197114(5)), 57: “Das εὐθέωσ weist darauf hin, daß es sich bei seiner Entscheidung um eine solche handelte, die Paulus augenblicklich traf.” 27 P46 B F G 0150 ar b f g o vg syp Iren Epiph alii do not have ὁ θεόσ: it may be a secondary intrusion into the text. In this case ὁ ἀφορίσασ με ἐκ κοιλίασ μητρόσ μου (κτλ) is the subject of εὐδόκησεν. Also elsewhere Paul does not mention ὁ θεόσ explicitly as sub­ject. Schlier, Galater, 53) mentions Gal 1:6; 2:8; 3:5; 5:8; Rom 8:11; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:24. To this could be added John 5:44, where P66 P75 B W a b sa ac2 ly pbo bopt do not have the clarifying θεοῦ. This could be due to the inclination of Jewish authors to be cautious when speaking of God: often not using the Name.