ܡܨܥܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܕܚܕ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܝܢ ܚܕ ܗܘ ܀
Almost every bible translates the Greek of this expression so that the sense is: the mediator does not belong to one (person).
KJV: Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
ESV: Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
NASB: Now a mediator is not for one [party only]; whereas God is [only] one.
Vg: Intercessor aut unius no est, at deus unus est.
TWTY: However, the mediator ... does not exist as ... one ..., but ... God is ...one ... [entity].
The Greek behind this is (P46, B, W&H and R&P agree):
ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν.
ο μεσιτης — the mediator
δε — now/however
ενος — one's/of one, masc/neut genitive
ουκ — not
εστιν — (he/it) is
I wonder, of course, what dchad ܕܚܕ can mean. If the letter to the Galatians was written in Aramaic, the translator into Greek could have been too literal. Can it be a means of expressing oneness as a property to prefix it with d or should it be understood as a genitive of connection?
If we assume a Greek origin, it seems to me that genitive is used so frequently for comparisons and states that it would be dangerous to supply an extra word like in the translations KJV, ESV and NASB above.
Luke 10:41,42 Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many [things], but one [thing] is necessary. — ESV
Μάρθα Μάρθα, μεριμνᾷς καὶ θορυβάζῃ περὶ πολλά, ἑνός δέ ἐστιν χρεία
Here I see no problem with adding "thing" because it is implied by πολλα, but the genitive case did not follow εις into English. Perhaps it shouldn't in Gal 3 either. Could it be because it is a comparison? "The genitive denotes the standard or point of departure from which the comparison is made ..." — Smyth, 1431§. However the examples don't seem to apply here.
If the genitive is just due to it being a comparison, even though no comparing word (eg. greater, smarter, different from) was used, we get:
Now, the mediator isn't single, but God is one.
Which is my suggestion. Any ideas?