οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Matthew 24:22: καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐκολοβώθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ· διὰ δὲ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς κολοβωθήσονται αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι.

Meyer writes:
πᾶσα σάρξ] every flesh, i.e. every mortal man... would not be rescued, i.e. would have perished. Comp. for the position of the negative, Fritzsche, Diss. II. on 2 Cor. p. 24 f. The limitation of πᾶσα σάρξ to the Jews and Christians belonging to town or country who are found in immediate contact with the theatre of war, is justified by the context. The ἐκλεκτοί are included, but it is not these alone who are meant (Hofmann).

Does οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ mean nobody would have been saved, or not all would have been saved?

Tr: If those days had not been shortened, all flesh [Jews and Christians] would not have been saved.
--------------

Luke 1:37: ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα.

Bengel:
Πᾶν ῥῆμα, every word [thing]) As to things contradictory in the very terms, whether such are possible to happen, is not a subject which need be disputed; for they do not constitute a word [in the sense ῥῆμα, verbum, is here used, a true word or thing]: nor does a thing done and undone, i.e. true and false [a word verified and then falsified], constitute a word; for repentance of His deed or promise does not apply to God: Genesis 18:14, μὴ ἀδυνατεῖ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ ῥῆμα; Is any word impossible with God? (Surely not.)

Does οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα mean that nothing will be impossible with God or that not everything will be impossible with God?

With God, every word is not impossible.
--------------------

Acts 10:14 ὁ δὲ Πέτρος εἶπεν, Μηδαμῶς, κύριε, ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον.

Meyer:
ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτ.] for never ate I anything common or unclean (the Talmudic פסול או טמא), i.e. for any profane thing I have always left uneaten.

Does οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον mean that Peter has never eaten anything that is common or unclean, or that he has not eaten everything that is common or unclean?

He never ate anything [i.e. he never ate from everything] common or unclean.
----------------------

Eph 4:29 πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω, ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν.

Meyer:
Πᾶς λόγος … μὴ ἐκπορ.] The negation is not to be separated from the verb. With regard to every evil discourse, it is enjoined that it shall not go forth, etc.

Does πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω mean let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, or do not let all corrupting talk come out of your mouths, implying that a certain amount of corrupting talk is OK as long as you hold something back?

The writer opposes this bad idea: "Let every evil discourse go forth..."
----------------

1 Cor 1:29 ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.

Bengel:
1 Corinthians 1:29. Ὅπως μὴ, that not) The antithesis to, that, 1 Corinthians 1:31.—πᾶσα σὰρξ, all flesh) a suitable appellation; flesh is beautiful and yet frail, Isaiah 40:6.—ἐνώπιον, before) We may not glory before Him, but in Him.

Does μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ mean let no human being boast before God, or do not let all human beings boast before God, implying that some human beings may?

Bengel's effort (All flesh may not boast before God, but in God) is on the right track logically, but is misfocused since his explanation is not situated in the thought of Paul who boasts in weakness.

All flesh may not boast before God, but by grace, some weak flesh may boast in God.

----------

Thoughts?
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

I think you are painting yourself to some corner. I don't know what corner it is because the painting is so complicated, messy and baffling.

I don't think your final conclusions follow from what Meyer says.

You seem to be confusing grammar with formal logic.

You ignore rhetorical generalizations and communicational vagueness.

Sorry, but I just can't accept your flow of thought.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 10:20 am Thoughts?
I'm with Eeli on this one.

I haven't seen you respond to the big picture question:
That's precisely why it is helpful to separate the grammatical issue from the theological issue or from preferred readings and look at the meaning of this construct in the other places where it occurs. We want to know whether οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς means "not all" like it would in English, לֹא ... כֹּל like it would in Hebrew, or something else. Everything I have found so far says it means the same as the Hebrew. Here are the verses I cited, which meaning fits all of them?
Could you start by telling me what your proposed meaning is, then apply it to each of these verses, showing one consistent meaning that works for them all? No Meyer, no Bengal, just look carefully at the sentences and explain, as simply as you can, how your proposed meaning for οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς should be understood for each sentence.

In the choices I gave you, if you pick the first of each pair for some verses and the second of each pair for others, that's an indication that you do not have a single consistent meaning in mind. I think, frankly, that the traditional interpretation is the one that fits here. And when all the resources we can find say the same thing, that usually tells you something.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Jonathan Robie wrote: February 4th, 2022, 7:33 pm In the choices I gave you, if you pick the first of each pair for some verses and the second of each pair for others, that's an indication that you do not have a single consistent meaning in mind.
In some of the examples you gave, context compelled me to use a "not any" translation. Thanks, I needed to consider that. A lot weighs on the decision between "all flesh will not" ("not all flesh") vs. "not any flesh" (Cf. the BLB translation of Gal 2:16, "because by works of the Law not any flesh will be justified").

Is it fair to say the decision between "all flesh" and "any flesh" in Gal 2:16 depends on analysis of pragmatics and discourse?
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 9th, 2022, 12:29 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: February 4th, 2022, 7:33 pm In the choices I gave you, if you pick the first of each pair for some verses and the second of each pair for others, that's an indication that you do not have a single consistent meaning in mind.
In some of the examples you gave, context compelled me to use a "not any" translation. Thanks, I needed to consider that. A lot weighs on the decision between "all flesh will not" ("not all flesh") vs. "not any flesh" (Cf. the BLB translation of Gal 2:16, "because by works of the Law not any flesh will be justified").

Is it fair to say the decision between "all flesh" and "any flesh" in Gal 2:16 depends on analysis of pragmatics and discourse?
Re: Key pragmatics and discourse considerations.

As Paul says in 1 Cor 15:39, "οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ" (not all flesh is the same flesh...)

The discourse is framed by a significant earlier use of the word "all": εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων... As Runge observes, this "all" includes the Gentiles with whom Paul was eating (by extension, the Galatians), and from whom Peter and Barnabas and the other Jews were withdrawing. Paul is addressing human "flesh" of two kinds in his audience--Jews by birth and Gentiles.

εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ [except] διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

In reading ἐὰν μὴ as "except", I agree with Runge who says: "WORKS OF THE LAW + FAITH IN CHRIST = JUSTIFICATION"

καὶ ἡμεῖς [even we] εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου,

"even we" suggests that the "we" (Paul, Barnabus and perhaps also Peter, when he "used to eat with Gentiles") were not practicing "works of the law". Thus Runge summarizes the logic as follows: "FAITH IN CHRIST (WITHOUT WORKS OF THE LAW) = JUSTIFICATION"

Such a renunciation of "works of the law" begs for an explanation. Given that they are Jews by birth, why would they no longer practice works of the law?

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. I think ὅτι/because introduces an explanation for the decision not to practice works of the law: It is because of the mission to "all" (with the accent on Gentle side of "all" in the audience)--"all flesh will not be justified by works of the law." Pragmatically speaking, in Monaghan's interpretation, the issue was Gentile inclusion. It was unrealistic to expect Gentile converts to become Jewish. This fits Paul's MO was to become "all" for the sake of "all".

Is that analysis properly in the domain of "pragmatics and discourse"?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 9th, 2022, 12:29 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: February 4th, 2022, 7:33 pm In the choices I gave you, if you pick the first of each pair for some verses and the second of each pair for others, that's an indication that you do not have a single consistent meaning in mind.
In some of the examples you gave, context compelled me to use a "not any" translation.
Me too. And to me, at least, a "not any" translation works for all of these. I also have a list with 219 instances of οὐ + some form of πᾶς, including many from the Septuagint, but there are a lot of false positives in it because I only have syntax trees for the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament. I can share that with you if it's helpful. Here are a few in Genesis:

GEN 3:1 - Ὁ δὲ ὄφις ἦν φρονιμώτατος πάντων τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὧν ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεός· καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις τῇ γυναικί Τί ὅτι εἶπεν ὁ θεός Οὐ μὴ φάγητε ἀπὸ παντὸς ξύλου τοῦ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ;

GEN 8:21 - οὐ προσθήσω οὖν ἔτι πατάξαι πᾶσαν σάρκα ζῶσαν, καθὼς ἐποίησα.

GEN 9:11 - καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι κατακλυσμὸς ὕδατος τοῦ καταφθεῖραι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.—

GEN 11:6 - καὶ εἶπεν κύριος Ἰδοὺ γένος ἓν καὶ χεῖλος ἓν πάντων, καὶ τοῦτο ἤρξαντο ποιῆσαι, καὶ νῦν οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἐξ αὐτῶν πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐπιθῶνται ποιεῖν.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 9th, 2022, 12:29 pmA lot weighs on the decision between "all flesh will not" ("not all flesh") vs. "not any flesh" (Cf. the BLB translation of Gal 2:16, "because by works of the Law not any flesh will be justified").
I agree. So I would start by systematically looking at this οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς construct in Greek, across the LXX and GNT. At first, I would try to assign all instances the same meaning. If that's not possible, I would look for some clear way to distinguish the meanings. In this case, I think lexicographers seem to agree on the meaning, I would assume they are likely to be correct and make sure I give it more time and thought than they did before assuming they are wrong.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 9th, 2022, 12:29 pmIs it fair to say the decision between "all flesh" and "any flesh" in Gal 2:16 depends on analysis of pragmatics and discourse?
In this case, I think it probably depends on the meaning of οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς. Precisely because that meaning is at issue in this particular text, I would establish that first.

I don't know what school of pragmatics or discourse you have been influenced by or how you go about doing that kind of analysis. I think you should probably establish the meaning of this construct first, then go on to other levels of analysis.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

GEN 9:11 is especially helpful as a parallel to Monaghan's interpretation of Gal 2:16 since it is an οὐκ... πᾶσα σὰρξ ["not all flesh/only some"] scenario. "Not any flesh" might be possible grammatically, but it is not an option in pragmatic terms.

καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς,
καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ,
καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι κατακλυσμὸς ὕδατος τοῦ καταφθεῖραι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.—

And I will establish my covenant with you
and all flesh shall not any more die [οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἔτι]
by the water of the flood [only some flesh],
and there shall no more be a flood of water to destroy πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν
[not all of the earth, only some of it].

I'll keep looking. Thanks for the list.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Again, you are ignoring the textual context (e.g. Gen 6:17), how the ancients expressed things hyperbolically generalizing, and especially how the key word πασ is used. It's not a logical word meaning "every one without any exception", it must always be interpreted contextually. You are forcing a modern mindset to it which insists that the ancient expression should follow our pursuit for scientifically exact logical informative writing where every word follows its dictionary definition.

Pretty clearly in light of Gen 6:17, 9:11 is logically:

It will not happen anymore which happened before that all flesh died.
It will not happen anymore which happened before that a flood destroyed all the earth.

Following your logic, it's God's promise that some flesh will die and a flood destroys some of the earth. But that's not what God promised there. If we follow your English additions, it would be:

I will establish my covenant:
* not all flesh shall die
* not all of the earth shall be destroyed by flood.

That doesn't make sense contextually, historically or culturally.

You are reading (using parenthesis for logical grouping):

((οὐκ πᾶσα) σὰρξ) ἀποθανεῖται

while it's really

οὐκ (ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ)

It says nothing about the possibility of some dying etc., one way or another. It also doesn't say that none will ever die. But you can't use this for arguing for your original hypothesis which makes the same errors.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: February 10th, 2022, 7:39 am You are forcing a modern mindset to it which insists that the ancient expression should follow our pursuit for scientifically exact logical informative writing where every word follows its dictionary definition.
That may be, but that is not my goal. My goal is to understand the mindset of Paul and one of his readers, the author of Hebrews. Paul wrote this:

οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ,
ἀλλὰ ἄλλη μὲν ἀνθρώπων,
ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν,
ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ πτηνῶν,
ἄλλη δὲ ἰχθύων.

From where I sit, "not all flesh is the same flesh" ("all flesh is not the same flesh") makes sense of Paul's logic. The translation "not any flesh is the same flesh" does not make any sense.

What is Paul's logic here?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: February 10th, 2022, 7:39 am You are reading (using parenthesis for logical grouping):

((οὐκ πᾶσα) σὰρξ) ἀποθανεῖται

while it's really

οὐκ (ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ)
That's a really helpful way to frame the question.

Also worth mentioning ... this translates לֹא ... כֹּל, the same Hebrew construct we have been discussing.

וַהֲקִמֹתִ֤י אֶת־בְּרִיתִי֙ אִתְּכֶ֔ם וְלֹֽא־יִכָּרֵ֧ת כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר ע֖וֹד מִמֵּ֣י הַמַּבּ֑וּל וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֥ה ע֛וֹד מַבּ֖וּל לְשַׁחֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 10th, 2022, 9:42 am My goal is to understand the mindset of Paul and one of his readers, the author of Hebrews. Paul wrote this:

οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ,
ἀλλὰ ἄλλη μὲν ἀνθρώπων,
ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν,
ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ πτηνῶν,
ἄλλη δὲ ἰχθύων.

From where I sit, "not all flesh is the same flesh" ("all flesh is not the same flesh") makes sense of Paul's logic. The translation "not any flesh is the same flesh" does not make any sense.

What is Paul's logic here?
Paul's logic is not to be found in English translation, and that's not the right place to do discourse analysis either. Let's try something simpler than discourse analysis - following Eeli's example, where would you put the parentheses in this phrase:

οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ

Try this same exercise for the other sentences you are looking at. Get the precedence right in Greek first, then think about translation.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “Pragmatics and Discourse”