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

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 »

I continue to think what I wrote here:
Jonathan Robie wrote: January 30th, 2022, 4:50 pm I don't think you are providing an alternative discourse analysis to Runge's or directly addressing the discourse analysis that Runge provides. I think you are basically asking whether Monaghan is right here:
Re: ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (Gal 2:16b)

"Is Paul saying that no Jew will be saved? By no means! It is for this reason that translating the text as 'not all flesh will be justified by works of the Law' is a better reading avoiding the otherwise inevitable conclusion that translating πᾶσα σὰρξ as 'no flesh' leads to. Might it be that Gal 2:16 could simply be a statement of fact, that is, not all flesh – all humanity, would become Jewish?"
https://repository.divinity.edu.au/2846 ... sitory.pdf
You then outline the logical flow that would result from accepting Monaghan's interpretation.

But maybe that's the best place to start. Is Monaghan's reading a better reading? If so, why?
So let me address Monaghan's paper. I think his entire premise is that translators didn't know what the phrase οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ means. But in his analysis, he seems to assume that translators can't read basic Greek and don't know the difference between a negated statement and one that is not negated:
A cursory view of a number of translations in English and German, and those provided by a number of contemporary commentators reveals that very few exegetes translate the phrase πᾶσα σὰρξ as "all flesh" with many opting for a translation that is inherently negative that include: no one; no flesh; no single person; no mortal man; no man; or in German; niemand or kein Fleisch (see handout).
But that's just plain silly. Translators know that πᾶσα σὰρξ does not mean "no flesh", they also know that οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ contains a negation, so the real question is how this negation shapes the meaning of the clause as a whole.

He doesn't explore why translators choose to translate as they do, but they are obviously taking the οὐ into account and asking what the phrase οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ means as a whole. For instance, here is the UBS Handbook, used by many translators:
For no one is put right with God by doing what the Law requires seems to be a quotation from Psalm 143.2, following the Septuagint. That is, the Septuagint reads “each one who lives” whereas Paul has “all flesh.” Also, the Old Testament verse does not have the phrase “works of Law” but instead has “before you.” No one is literally “no flesh,” with “flesh” equivalent to “human being.”
Let's compare the two quotes:
Galatians 2:16 wrote: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 will use the Septuagint numbering for Psalms here:
Psalm 142.2 wrote:καὶ μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν μετὰ τοῦ δούλου σου, ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν.
Here is the corresponding Hebrew:
Psalm 143.2 wrote:וְאַל־תָּב֣וֹא בְ֭מִשְׁפָּט אֶת־עַבְדֶּ֑ךָ כִּ֤י לֹֽא־יִצְדַּ֖ק לְפָנֶ֣יךָ כָל־חָֽי׃
Whether or not Paul was thinking of this Psalm, the phrases are syntactically similar. Negation should function the same way in ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ and οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν.

This summary statement in Monaghan's conclusion leaps out at me:
It is for this reason that translating the text as "not all flesh will be justified by works of the Law" is a better reading avoiding the otherwise inevitable conclusion that translating πᾶσα σὰρξ as "no flesh" leads to.
I don't think he has come to grips with the reasons translators and exegetes have for the traditional understanding of this phrase, and he is simply wrong if he thinks that translators and exegetes normally believe πᾶσα σὰρξ means "no flesh". That would be a rookie mistake. The real question involves the way that negation works in this phrase, and Monaghan doesn't really address that question, he gives theological and contextual reasons, but does not make a serious argument that this is the way that negation actually works in this Greek clause. He does not lay out very similar Greek clauses from elsewhere and explain how they are to be understood, giving reasons. He does not engage the work of people who have.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “Pragmatics and Discourse”