382 David J. Armitage importance to the way the features of the conditional statements shift. Burton notes the way in which “the element of concession and improbability disappears” in v. 9 (96), and Betz suggests that the differences “show that Paul deals with real situations, not with improbabilities” (97). The contrast between the two clauses stresses both the seriousness, and the real applicability, of Paul’s statement in a way that neither would do on their own. Paul’s point in v. 8 could conceivably have been expressed using a 1st class condition with a present indicative verb understood gnomically, but the use of the third class condition, with its narrower semantic field, is less ambiguous in communicating the hypothetical idea, and sharpens the contrast with v. 9 (98). 5. Semantic relationship of conditional clauses to context Galatians 1,8-9 forms a distinct unit within the paragraph in which it is located. This paragraph starts at Gal 1,6, but it is less clear at what point it finishes. Possible options include after v. 9, after v. 10, or after v. 12. Gal 1,13 onwards comprises an extended narrative in which Paul recounts his dealings with the other apostles, and this serves to illustrate Paul’s point in vv11,12 that his gospel, which was not kata; anqrwpon, was not received para; ajnqrwvpou. [ In v. 6, Paul expresses amazement at the Galatians’ rapid shift in loyalty: they are turning to another gospel. He then explores further the nature of this alternative gospel (v. 7): there are individuals who are troubling the Galatians, and wishing to distort the authentic gospel (99). ajllav is used to link vv. 8-9 to what precedes. Here, the adversative (96) BURTON, Galatians, 30. (97) BETZ, Galatians, 53. (98) W. HENDRIKSEN, A Commentary on Galatians (London 1969) 41, points out how “the truth expressed in the first conditional sentence…greatly strengthens that expressed in the second.” (99) Many English translations (e.g. NRSV) represent v. 7 as suggesting that Paul is denying the existence of an ‘alternative’ gospel, despite the fact that he has just mentioned such an entity in v. 6. Vanhoye’s suggestion (A. VANHOYE S.J., “La définition de l’‘autre évangile’ en Ga 1,6-7”, Bib 83 [2002] 396) in which o} oujk e[stin a[llo is considered to be more closely connected to eij mhv, is to be preferred. He translates v. 7 thus: “qui n’est autre que [ceci:] il y a des gens qui vous troublent et qui veulent subvertir l’évangile du Christ.” On this understanding v. 7 expands on e{teron eujaggevlion, describing the essence of the “different gospel” in v. 6 without somehow denying its existence. An approximate parallel might be drawn with the way in which a[llo oujk and eij mhv work together in John 6,22.