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

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

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

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 31st, 2022, 4:52 am Those who know Latin can tell how it has been translated in Vulgate.
It’s word-for-word.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
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 »

Stephen Carlson wrote: January 31st, 2022, 7:06 am
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 31st, 2022, 4:52 am Those who know Latin can tell how it has been translated in Vulgate.
It’s word-for-word.
Can you tell how the Latin readers would have understood it? Do Latin fathers comment on this?
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 »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 30th, 2022, 8:02 pm cf 1 Cor 1:29 (ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ).

μὴ καυχήσηται negates the idea that "all flesh" will boast before God.
But it does not rule out the possibility of some despised "flesh" appropriately boasting in weakness as Paul himself does (2 Cor 11:30). Paradoxically, God "chose the lowly and despised things of the world".
Neither Thiselton (who usually considers important interpretation possibilities) nor Ciampa & Rosner seem to recognize at all that this could be interpreted as "not all [but maybe some]", although Thiselton translates this unhelpfully "literally". Thiselton interprets it meaning "any kind of people" rather than individualistic, but still as all-exclusive.

Trying different interpretation possibilities for some grammatical, syntactic, lexical etc. phenomenon for all occurrences is good in itself, I think, otherwise we would be stuck to an Aristotelian situation where everyone would repeat old opinions. But this must not be pushed too hard, and to me it looks like you are trying too hard to see everything through that new explanation. So much that the interpretations of passages sound artificial.
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 »

I think I can count Jerome's commentary as ancient support for my interpretation. I came up with this interpretation of Gal 2:16 after consulting Jerome. Later, I sought out a similar argument to my own and found Christopher J. Monaghan's.

Here is what Jerome says at Gal 2:16b (which he had elaborated at more length at 2:16a):

The flesh about which it is said, "All flesh is like grass, and all of its Glory is like the flowers of the field" (Is 40:6 LXX), is not justified by the works of the Law. But the flesh spoken of in the mystery of the resurrection, "All flesh will see God's salvation" (Lk 3:6), is justified through faith in Jesus Christ. According to the more common understanding, it used to be that the only flesh redeemable by the Law were those who lived in Palestine. Now however, all flesh is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, as his churches are being established all over the world."

In his comment on 2:16a, Jerome had written: "...it is not so much works of the Law that are condemned as those who are confident that they can justified by them. The Savior says to his disciples, "Unless [ἐὰν μὴ] your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Tr. Andrew Cain)

As I read Jerome, he was implicitly reading ἐὰν μὴ in the sense of "except" (see Dunn and Dass) and ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ in the sense of "all flesh will not be released by works as instructed by Torah" (Tr. Douglas Campbell, Pauline Dogmatics, p. 678, comes close to my interpretation; however, he translates ἐὰν μὴ as "but").
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 »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:46 am According to the more common understanding, it used to be that the only flesh redeemable by the Law were those who lived in Palestine. Now however, all flesh is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, as his churches are being established all over the world."
This itself needs interpretation. I see Jerome saying that now no flesh is justified etc. and he sees Paul talking about the situation now. The first part of the quotation would talk about the "more common understanding", a common theological opinion, not about the common understanding about Paul's words. Or is there something in the larger context in Jerome's text which proves otherwise?
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: January 30th, 2022, 8:13 pm Siebenthal also says (p. 219) "agreeing with Hebrew usage".
There's a good clue in BDR 302 (or BDF 302, in English). It says that οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς is a synonym for the more common οὐδείς or μηδείς, and that it is is equivalent to the Hebrew לֹא ... כֹּל, e.g:

אֲהָהּ֮ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִה֒ הִנֵּ֣ה ׀ אַתָּ֣ה עָשִׂ֗יתָ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ בְּכֹֽחֲךָ֙ הַגָּד֔וֹל וּבִֽזְרֹעֲךָ֖ הַנְּטוּיָ֑ה לֹֽא־יִפָּלֵ֥א מִמְּךָ֖ כָּל־דָּבָֽר׃
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 »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 31st, 2022, 12:32 pm
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:46 am According to the more common understanding, it used to be that the only flesh redeemable by the Law were those who lived in Palestine. Now however, all flesh is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, as his churches are being established all over the world."
This itself needs interpretation. I see Jerome saying that now no flesh is justified etc. and he sees Paul talking about the situation now.
Yes, I think that when Jerome's Paul is looking forward to the situation of the Gentiles in his Galatian audience, his view was the one expressed in 3.11: ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι Ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται·

Looking back, Jerome's Paul believed that there were some in Jesus' Palestinian audience [some "flesh"] who both practiced works of the law and also lived out "the faithfulness of Christ"--meaning, with a righteousness that exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees. So I think it is very significant that Jerome quotes this passage from Matt. It shows the underlying logic of Jerome's Paul: Some "flesh" was made righteous while practicing works of the law in he past (this included OT saints who foresaw Christ, Jerome says).

Going forward, such a model was not practical for Paul's mission of becoming "all to all"--"All flesh will not be made right by works of the law [only some, in the past, or those who were grandfathered in by the mission to the Jews, but who did not interfere with Paul's Gentile mission]." I think it was ok with Paul for Jewish Christians to practice the whole law (including works of the law) if they were open to "eating with" Gentile Christians who had no intention of doing such "works of the law" (I'm influenced here by Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, and also, the Gospel image of Jesus eating with sinners).
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, to convince me, I think you would have to give a consistent meaning to οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς, looking at all of the passages, not just a few - at least the passages I provided earlier. When I try to do that, I find myself agreeing with the traditional interpretation. And I would also find it helpful to see an analysis of לֹא ... כֹּל and how it is translated in the Septuagint.

I am also curious about οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς in the Hellenistic corpus outside of the New Testament and the Septuagint.
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 1st, 2022, 6:42 pm Gregory, to convince me, I think you would have to give a consistent meaning to οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς, looking at all of the passages, not just a few - at least the passages I provided earlier. When I try to do that, I find myself agreeing with the traditional interpretation. And I would also find it helpful to see an analysis of לֹא ... כֹּל and how it is translated in the Septuagint.

I am also curious about οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς in the Hellenistic corpus outside of the New Testament and the Septuagint.
Jonathan, I doubt I will convince anyone who reads the usage in the grammatical context you are suggesting, especially since it is the currently prevailing contextualization of this usage. Any alternative explanation is up against a heavy burden of proof.

Nevertheless, I press on. To put all my cards on the table, my reason for even doing this close reading of Gal 2:16 has to do with 1) my larger study of flesh phrases of Galatians, 2) my interest in Paul's idea of apostolic "becoming as" his audiences, both Jewish and Gentile (cf. Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου... Eph 2:11). and 3) literary echos in the portrait of the faithfulness of Jesus "in the days of his flesh" in Hebrews.

I find that this passage fits the emerging pattern I am discovering: An alternative to the traditional grammar of a given flesh phrase (i.e. οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ) fits Paul idea of "becoming as" (i.e. τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω), and it finds a literary echo in the portrait of Jesus in Hebrews (i.e. καὶ τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου). That was the frame I brought to my initial reading of Gal 2:16, and the closer I read, the more I am seeing the puzzle pieces fit together logically.

I think this may be an example of Paul's idiolect which was understood by his earliest sympathetic readers including the author of Hebrews. However, his idiolect was easily misunderstood by later readers who did not know Paul personally and who may have found his idea of apostolic "becoming as" difficult to understand.
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 2nd, 2022, 8:23 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: February 1st, 2022, 6:42 pm Gregory, to convince me, I think you would have to give a consistent meaning to οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς, looking at all of the passages, not just a few - at least the passages I provided earlier. When I try to do that, I find myself agreeing with the traditional interpretation. And I would also find it helpful to see an analysis of לֹא ... כֹּל and how it is translated in the Septuagint.

I am also curious about οῦ (μὴ) ... πᾶς in the Hellenistic corpus outside of the New Testament and the Septuagint.
Jonathan, I doubt I will convince anyone who reads the usage in the grammatical context you are suggesting, especially since it is the currently prevailing contextualization of this usage. Any alternative explanation is up against a heavy burden of proof.
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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

Once we have answered that for passages that do not impinge on this particular theological question, we can then take what we have learned and apply it to these two verses:

Rom 3:20 διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας.
Gal 2:16 εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.
I think this may be an example of Paul's idiolect which was understood by his earliest sympathetic readers including the author of Hebrews. However, his idiolect was easily misunderstood by later readers who did not know Paul personally and who may have found his idea of apostolic "becoming as" difficult to understand.
Paul has an idiolect that conveniently has this phrase mean something different precisely in a few theologically loaded contexts? That feels like special pleading to me.

I have a hard time reaching the meaning you propose even for other verses that Paul wrote. That's what makes me skeptical of it here. People who have researched this more broadly, including Septuagint use, seem to agree with each other about the meaning of this construct. Translations seem to translate this construct consistently.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “Pragmatics and Discourse”