An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis 375 being (56). The first person plural pronouns and verbs in v8 could be examples of “editorial ‘we’” (57). However there is no intrinsic reason to suppose that hJmei'" in v. 8 refers only to Paul. In fact the point that he makes here, by its very nature, has plurality of reference, so it seems perverse to categorize this as editorial “we”. Regarding eujhggeli- savmeqa, there is again no reason not to take the plural at face value, since Paul did travel with co-workers who would have shared responsibility for preaching. The reference here may be to Paul and Barnabas (58). Betz (59) suggests that the reference to a[ggelo" ejx oujranou' reflected actual cases of Paul’s opponents claiming angelic revelation. Alternatively, Witherington (60) suggests a link with the mention of angelic intermediaries for the law in Gal 3,19, or with Paul’s description of the Galatians receiving him like an angel in Gal 4,14. However it is equally possible that Paul was just using hyperbole to stress that the authority of the messenger is derived from an authentic message (61). Burton (62) notes that parav could mean “besides” rather than “contrary to”, implying that Paul’s adversaries were supplementing rather than contradicting the gospel. He rejects this option, given the paucity of other evidence for this usage. There are examples of parav + accusative in the Pauline literature which imply one thing is “beyond” another (e.g. 2 Cor 8,3), or “alternative to” or “besides” something else (e.g. Rom 1,25; 1 Cor 3,11). “Contrary” or “against” are nonetheless required in several instances (e.g. Rom 1,26; 16,17). The context demonstrates that Paul had in mind not a minor deviation from his (56) Significant manuscripts omit the first uJmi'n in v. 8; others place it before, rather than after, eujaggelivzhtai. Retaining uJmi'n, as B. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart 21994) 521, points out, limits the application of the statement. He suggests that it might have been original, being subsequently removed by copyists who thought the statement should be more general. The external evidence, however, favours the shorter text. eujaggelivzhtai is replaced in some texts by eujaggelivshtai or (in some later manuscripts) eujaggelivzetai. The present subjunctive reading has the greatest range of support (ibid.). (57) WALLACE, Grammar, 396. (58) B. WITHERINGTON, Grace in Galatia. A Commentary on St Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Edinburgh 1998) 83. (59) H.D. BETZ, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1979) 53. (60) WITHERINGTON, Grace in Galatia, 83. (61) Cf. R.N. LONGENECKER, Galatians (WBC; Dallas 1990) 17. (62) E. BURTON, Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh 1921) 27.