Galatians 2:16

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Mon May 31 10:47:28 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Christian Dear B-greekers,EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is thecase with Gal 2:16.OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faithin Christ.Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of works of the law as long as through faith in Christ. This rendering deviates from the usual translation:(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.Why (b), not (a)?Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University, Seoul, Korea

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?Christian

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Mon May 31 10:47:28 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Christian Dear B-greekers,EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is thecase with Gal 2:16.OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faithin Christ.Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of works of the law as long as through faith in Christ. This rendering deviates from the usual translation:(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.Why (b), not (a)?Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University, Seoul, Korea

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?Christian

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 31 11:41:10 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 10:47 AM -0400 5/31/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear B-greekers,> >EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is the>case with Gal 2:16.> >OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.> >(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faith>in Christ.> >Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of>works of the law as long as through faith in Christ.> >This rendering deviates from the usual translation:> >(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.> >Why (b), not (a)?This is really more a matter of English idiom than anything else; EAN MHdoes, in fact, mean “except” here also, but it always most literally means”if not.” In English, “but” may mean “except” or “only.” Read it then withDIKAWTAI explictly stated in the protasis,”If a person is not ‘righteoused’ through faith in Christ, (then) a personis (certainly) not ‘righteoused’ as a result of works of law.”This formulation underscores the importance of what is stated in the EAN MHclause: one may fulfill the requirements of the Law, but is not deemed’righteous’ except by virtue of faith in Christ. It is not fulfillment ofthe Law that makes one righteous but rather faith in Christ. In fact, Paulargues in Romans that satisfaction of the requirements of the Law is onlypossible through faith (that, I take it, is the sense of Rom 8:4, where Itake it that PERIPATEIN KATA PNEUMA implicitly includes PISTIS IHSOUCRISTOU).Therefore, I’d say that (a) above is not so much wrong as it is misleadingin English.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

ChristianChristian

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 31 11:41:10 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 10:47 AM -0400 5/31/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear B-greekers,> >EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is the>case with Gal 2:16.> >OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.> >(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faith>in Christ.> >Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of>works of the law as long as through faith in Christ.> >This rendering deviates from the usual translation:> >(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.> >Why (b), not (a)?This is really more a matter of English idiom than anything else; EAN MHdoes, in fact, mean “except” here also, but it always most literally means”if not.” In English, “but” may mean “except” or “only.” Read it then withDIKAWTAI explictly stated in the protasis,”If a person is not ‘righteoused’ through faith in Christ, (then) a personis (certainly) not ‘righteoused’ as a result of works of law.”This formulation underscores the importance of what is stated in the EAN MHclause: one may fulfill the requirements of the Law, but is not deemed’righteous’ except by virtue of faith in Christ. It is not fulfillment ofthe Law that makes one righteous but rather faith in Christ. In fact, Paulargues in Romans that satisfaction of the requirements of the Law is onlypossible through faith (that, I take it, is the sense of Rom 8:4, where Itake it that PERIPATEIN KATA PNEUMA implicitly includes PISTIS IHSOUCRISTOU).Therefore, I’d say that (a) above is not so much wrong as it is misleadingin English.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

ChristianChristian

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Mon May 31 12:38:52 EDT 1999

 

Hippolytus, The Essenes, and the Ressurection Pros >From: “Moon”>EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is the case with >Gal 2:16.>OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.>(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faith in >Christ.>Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of works >of the law as long as through faith in Christ.>This rendering deviates from the usual translation:>(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.>Why (b), not (a)?Moon ~Good question! EAN MH, I suspect, although usually given the gloss “unless” in English, may have more to it in Greek. EI AN MH = ‘if ever not’ ~ Others will know much more than I on this one. Your [a] rendition seems closer than the [b] one to the Greek in my book.It would surely be attested in the Psalms, where the writer lived under the law and through his faith in ‘the Lord’ was made right through Him in the face of his [inner] enemies, thus becoming a righteous man.I have been trying ‘rectified’ as a gloss for DIKAIOUTAI ~ [It even seems to work on the analogy of electricity, where rectification only allows the passage of current to flow one way when it is trying alternately to flow both ways!!] I understand the term as ‘being made right’, and a good English gloss for that is elusive… ‘Justified’ is so wrapped up colloquially in English with excuses for questionable behavior that it has lost its roots from the older and nobler meaning in the KJV.Your term ‘righteoused’ seems to be a good bridge from the older to the current English usage.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Hippolytus, The Essenes, and the RessurectionPros

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Mon May 31 12:38:52 EDT 1999

 

Hippolytus, The Essenes, and the Ressurection Pros >From: “Moon”>EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is the case with >Gal 2:16.>OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.>(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faith in >Christ.>Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of works >of the law as long as through faith in Christ.>This rendering deviates from the usual translation:>(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.>Why (b), not (a)?Moon ~Good question! EAN MH, I suspect, although usually given the gloss “unless” in English, may have more to it in Greek. EI AN MH = ‘if ever not’ ~ Others will know much more than I on this one. Your [a] rendition seems closer than the [b] one to the Greek in my book.It would surely be attested in the Psalms, where the writer lived under the law and through his faith in ‘the Lord’ was made right through Him in the face of his [inner] enemies, thus becoming a righteous man.I have been trying ‘rectified’ as a gloss for DIKAIOUTAI ~ [It even seems to work on the analogy of electricity, where rectification only allows the passage of current to flow one way when it is trying alternately to flow both ways!!] I understand the term as ‘being made right’, and a good English gloss for that is elusive… ‘Justified’ is so wrapped up colloquially in English with excuses for questionable behavior that it has lost its roots from the older and nobler meaning in the KJV.Your term ‘righteoused’ seems to be a good bridge from the older to the current English usage.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Hippolytus, The Essenes, and the RessurectionPros

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Mon May 31 20:07:05 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 Pros On 05/31/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> At 10:47 AM -0400 5/31/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:> >Dear B-greekers,> >> >EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is the> >case with Gal 2:16.> >> >OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> >(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faith> >in Christ.> >Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of> >works of the law as long as through faith in Christ.> >> >This rendering deviates from the usual translation:> >> >(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.> >> >Why (b), not (a)?> > This is really more a matter of English idiom than anything else; EAN MH> does, in fact, mean “except” here also, but it always most literally means> “if not.” In English, “but” may mean “except” or “only.” Read it then with> DIKAWTAI explictly stated in the protasis,> > (c) “If a person is not ‘righteoused’ through faith in Christ, (then) a person> is (certainly) not ‘righteoused’ as a result of works of law.”> Carl, thanks. I see.OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.is the same as (d) OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIKAIOUTAI DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.But for me, both (c) and (d) sound different from the usual translation (b), which is the same as (e) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but he is righteoused by faith in Christ.Logically speaking, (b) is equivalent to (e) If a person is ‘righteoused’ as a result of works of the law, then> a person is ‘righteoused’ through faith in Christ. I seem to be missing something.Moon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University, Seoul, Korea

 

Hebrews 1:8Pros

EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Mon May 31 20:07:05 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 Pros On 05/31/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> At 10:47 AM -0400 5/31/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:> >Dear B-greekers,> >> >EAN MH is usually taken to mean “unless”. I wonder if this is the> >case with Gal 2:16.> >> >OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> >(a) Man is not righteoused out of works of the law unless through faith> >in Christ.> >Rendered this way, it seems to imply that man is righteoused out of> >works of the law as long as through faith in Christ.> >> >This rendering deviates from the usual translation:> >> >(b) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but by faith in Christ.> >> >Why (b), not (a)?> > This is really more a matter of English idiom than anything else; EAN MH> does, in fact, mean “except” here also, but it always most literally means> “if not.” In English, “but” may mean “except” or “only.” Read it then with> DIKAWTAI explictly stated in the protasis,> > (c) “If a person is not ‘righteoused’ through faith in Christ, (then) a person> is (certainly) not ‘righteoused’ as a result of works of law.”> Carl, thanks. I see.OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.is the same as (d) OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIKAIOUTAI DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU.But for me, both (c) and (d) sound different from the usual translation (b), which is the same as (e) Man is not righteoused by works of the law but he is righteoused by faith in Christ.Logically speaking, (b) is equivalent to (e) If a person is ‘righteoused’ as a result of works of the law, then> a person is ‘righteoused’ through faith in Christ. I seem to be missing something.Moon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University, Seoul, Korea

 

Hebrews 1:8Pros

Galatians 2:16 EAN MH Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Mon Apr 1 16:50:09 EST 2002

 

The Right Preposition Galatians 2:16 EAN MH I had written>>> changing EAN MH to ALLA makes the text say something different than>>> what it doesSteven Lo Vullo answered,>Glenn, I wasn’t suggesting substituting ALLA for EAN MH, since I think EAN>MH makes perfect sense as is.I knew you were not, Steven. I was responding to a suggestion by ManolisNikolaou that the writer should have either said ALLA instead of EAN MH orleft out EX ERGWN, and also to the original question of the thread, as towhether EAN MH should be understood as a concessive or as an adversative. My position is that the syntax makes perfect sense as it is written (asopposed to Manolis’ position that the writer somehow clumsily combined twodifferent propositions into one sentence), and secondly that EAN MH cannotbe understood as an adversative, although when you add the information inthe surrounding context, DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU adds up to beingexclusively adverse to EX ERGWN NOMOU. That is to say, the syntax of OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU, EAN MH PISTEWS KHSOU CRISTOUcan be construed only to say that faith in Christ is necessary forjustification, but leaves ambiguous whether or not, given faith in Christ,the works of the law are also necessary. It is only the surrounding contextthat adds the information that works of the law are not only insufficient,but also unnecessary.BTW, Iver, I’m not sure what the difference is between <if not A then not B>and <only if A then B>. Logically, they are equivalent. But how are theydifferent linguistically? >I would like to support what Steven says here, that EAN MH is different(and>maybe stronger) than ALLA and it affirms that righteousness is obtained>exclusively through faith. It appears that EAN MH may have two slightly>different functions in different contexts. One corresponds to “if not Athen>not B” and the other to “only if A then B”. (This is linguistic logicratherthan mathematical logic)My quibble (and it truly is a quibble, since I agree with you on what thebottom line ends up being) is what you are trying to do to the syntax inorder to make it seem to fit the context (I say “seem” because I think thestraightforward parsing fits the context nicely enough). I agreewhole-heartedly that one should not let ones presuppositions about syntaxoverride the clear indications of context, but on the other side, I wouldwarn against letting one’s expectation about how a particular syntacticalunit fits into the context lead him to distort the clear structure of thatunit. I think this kind of distortion happens, Steven, when you proposethatA) The scope of EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU is not OU DIKAIOUTAIANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU but OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOSand when you propose thatB) if we concede that there is an ellipsis that> needs to be filled (and I’m not sure there is), there is more than one way> to understand how and where it should be filled. The following makes more> sense in the context:> 1) OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU> 2) [OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS] EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU (you subsequently clarified that “DIKAIOUTAI must also be understood in theconditional clause (EAN MH [DIKAIOUTAI] DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU).”This insertion of DIKAIOUTAI into the conditional clause was the ellipsis towhich I referred, necessary syntactically for the conditional clause to be aclause. However, the additional insertion of [OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS] whichyou propose is in effect adding an entirely new matrix clause. As it iswritten in 2:16, OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU is the matrix clause. There is no syntactical indication that the second [OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS]has been ellided (my definition of “ellision” is an element which thesyntactical structure indicates has been left out, not simply semanticinformation which might be added from the surrounding context). What youare doing by adding the second matrix clause is in essence the same thingManolis suggested . . . that the writer is saying two different things inthat same clause complex (1 and 2 above) even though there is only oneclause complex.Similarly, if you propose (A) above, then what role does EX ERGWN play inthe clause complex, if it is not there as part of the apodisis?I agree with you, completely, Steven, that “the idea, in context, is . . .stronger than could be expressed by ALLA.” But the pivotal phrase is “incontext.” I do not agree that “[EAN MH] not only rules out DIKAIWSIS byERGWN NOMOU, but emphasizes that DIKAIWSIS is exclusively DIA PISTEWS IHSOUCRISTOU.” I do agree that the EAN MH clause rules out DIKAIWSIS by ERGWN NOMOU, but Ido not agree that it emphasizes that DIKAIWSIS is exclusively DIA PISTEWSIHSOU. The reason it is a stronger expression of this latter truth “thancould be expressed by ALLA” is precisely because it leaves this latterproposition unstated (in suspense, if you will), and adds punch by fillingin that gap later, in hOTI EX ERGWN NOMOU OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX at theend of the verse. I think it is a mistake to try to construe the syntax ofthe MH EAN protasis/apodosis complex *in and of itself* to mean DIA PISTEWSas both a necessary *and sufficient* cause of DIKAIOUTAI.glenn blankPensacola FL

 

The Right PrepositionGalatians 2:16 EAN MH

Galatians 2:16 EAN MH Daniel L. Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Mon Apr 1 18:31:49 EST 2002

 

Galatians 2:16 EAN MH Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class Glenn Blank wrote [snipped]:> BTW, Iver, I’m not sure what the difference is between <if not A then not B>> and <only if A then B>. Logically, they are equivalent. But how are they> different linguistically? There actually is a logical difference between the two propositions, as stated.The first <if not A then not B> will not ever _necessarily_ result in the occurenceof B, since the inverse <if A then B> is not required. That is, under thestrictures of this proposition, even when A is true, B may still be false. On the other hand, the second proposition <only if A then B> will _necessarily_produce B, in any situation where A is true. This second proposition <only if Athen B> includes within itself the first <if not A then not B>, but goes one stepbeyond in its necessary implications. I suppose that one could be very picky, and say that the second proposition musthave another “if” included <if and only if A then B> to necessarily require theproduction of B in A’s fulfillment. But, that is normally the sense of the “onlyif” phrasing, as I understand it.FWIW, Daniel–Daniel L. ChristiansenProfessor, Bible & Theology, Biblical LanguagesMultnomah Bible College and Biblical Seminary(503) 445-5295

 

Galatians 2:16 EAN MHTextbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class

[] Gal 2:16 OU … EAN MH Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 23:19:49 EDT 2005

 

[] POS Origins [] Gal 2:16 OU … EAN MH Gal 2:16 OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS CRISTOU IHSOU Mostly is translated in negative expression as in KJV: *’not justified by works of law, but only through faith’*1. My question one is:If I rearrange it as *’justified not by works of law ‘,* I am making addition effect which is not in Greek?2. My question two is: After changing it into active from passive voice in English, ***’Works of the law do not justify a person, except through faith.’* then render it in positive expression** *’one is justified out-of the works of law through faith’ **or ‘works of law justifies a person through faith’. *Does Gk allow me to do this? I would appreciate if you can enlighten me, Oun KwonP.S.Please note that I myself am not bogged down in ‘faith vs. works’ issue. This much I am convinced that ‘works of law’ in relation to justification is completely at different level or concept from ‘works’ in James which is actually akin to fruits of the Spirit related to sanctification. Even though ‘faith’ and ‘works’ may be said to be complimentary, it is as justification vis-a-vis sanctification, not both being required for justification.

 

[] POS Origins[] Gal 2:16 OU … EAN MH

[] Gal 2:16 OU … EAN MH George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Jul 17 03:55:08 EDT 2005

 

[] Gal 2:16 OU … EAN MH [] Abbreviation On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:19:49 -0400 Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com> writes:> Gal 2:16 OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIA PISTEWS > CRISTOU > IHSOU > Mostly is translated in negative expression as in KJV: > > *’not justified by works of law, but only through faith’*> > 1. My question one is:> > If I rearrange it as *’justified not by works of law ‘,*> I am making addition effect which is not in Greek?> > 2. My question two is: > After changing it into active from passive voice in English, > **> *’Works of the law do not justify a person, except through faith.’* > > then render it in positive expression> ** *’one is justified out-of the works of law through faith’ *> *or ‘works of law justifies a person through faith’. *Does Gk allow > me to do > this?> > I would appreciate if you can enlighten me,> > Oun Kwon____________________EIDOTES [DE] hOTI OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EC ERGWN NOMOU EAN MH DIAPISTEWS IHSOU XRISTOU . . .What we have here is two statements regarding justification rolled intoone.1. OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EC ERGWN NOMOU A man is not justified by works of the Law2. OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS . . . EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU XRISTOU A man is not justified except by trust in Jesus Christ.I’m not sure what you want to accomplish by transmogrifying this into apositive expression. #1 seems to be incapable of being changed. Nomatter how you slice it, it is still negative “the Law does not justify aman.” I suppose one could change #2 to read “A man is only justified bytrust in Jesus Christ”, but then, this isn’t a translation of the passagebut rather a restatement of the data which the passage transmits. I knowWayne Leman will probably object to this,, but, in the common usage (i.e.not the linguists “correct” usage) of the term “paraphrase”, this wouldbe a paraphrase of Paul’s statement.georgegfsomsel___________

 

[] Gal 2:16 OU … EAN MH[] Abbreviation

I have been pretty much convinced that OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX, should be understood as “No one is justified” rather than as “Everyone is not justified (some are).” And that the expression was generally how the idea that “absolutely no one” would be emphatically expressed in Greek idiom.

I was reading in David DeSilva this morning, and found this

“that basis (the basis for the universality of the Gospel message) is not Torah, the observance of which had functioned to keep Jew separate from Gentile for a limited time, for “all flesh shall not be justified by works of law” which only pertains to Israel.”

He seems to understand OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX as meaning “Everyone is not justified,” that Torah had brought about two classes of people. Under Torah and not under Torah.

Leaving theology aside, which is the better way to understand the Greek expression linguistically.

Richard Smith

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

4 thoughts on “Galatians 2:16

  1. Carl Conrad says:

    This is a citation from the LXX; the Greek text follows Hebrew idiom with PAS = Heb. “KOL”. Cf. BDAG s.v. PAS, 1.A.α.
    There’s really no question here: PASA SARX means, taking the negation into account, “nobody.”

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  2. Mark Lightman says:

    Richard asked


    understood as “No one is justified” rather than as “Everyone is not justified
    (some are)…Leaving theology aside, which is the better way to understand the
    Greek expression linguistically.>

    Hi, Richard,

    Leaving politics aside, FDR was a more accomplished President than William Henry
    Harrison. Leaving theology aside, this phrase does not mean “some (but not all)
    are justified by works of the law.”

    Mark L

    FWSFOROS MARKOS

    ________________________________
    href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
    Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 6:14:11 AM

    I have been pretty much convinced that OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX, should be
    understood as “No one is justified” rather than as “Everyone is not justified
    (some are).” And that the expression was generally how the idea that “absolutely
    no one” would be emphatically expressed in Greek idiom.

    I was reading in David DeSilva this morning, and found this

    “that basis (the basis for the universality of the Gospel message) is not Torah,
    the observance of which had functioned to keep Jew separate from Gentile for a
    limited time, for “all flesh shall not be justified by works of law” which only
    pertains to Israel.”

    He seems to understand OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX as meaning “Everyone is not
    justified,” that Torah had brought about two classes of people. Under Torah and
    not under Torah.

    Leaving theology aside, which is the better way to understand the Greek
    expression linguistically.

    Richard Smith

  3. Carl Conrad says:

    This is a citation from the LXX; the Greek text follows Hebrew idiom with PAS = Heb. “KOL”. Cf. BDAG s.v. PAS, 1.A.α.
    There’s really no question here: PASA SARX means, taking the negation into account, “nobody.”

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  4. Mark Lightman says:

    Richard asked


    understood as “No one is justified” rather than as “Everyone is not justified
    (some are)…Leaving theology aside, which is the better way to understand the
    Greek expression linguistically.>

    Hi, Richard,

    Leaving politics aside, FDR was a more accomplished President than William Henry
    Harrison. Leaving theology aside, this phrase does not mean “some (but not all)
    are justified by works of the law.”

    Mark L

    FWSFOROS MARKOS

    ________________________________
    href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
    Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 6:14:11 AM

    I have been pretty much convinced that OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX, should be
    understood as “No one is justified” rather than as “Everyone is not justified
    (some are).” And that the expression was generally how the idea that “absolutely
    no one” would be emphatically expressed in Greek idiom.

    I was reading in David DeSilva this morning, and found this

    “that basis (the basis for the universality of the Gospel message) is not Torah,
    the observance of which had functioned to keep Jew separate from Gentile for a
    limited time, for “all flesh shall not be justified by works of law” which only
    pertains to Israel.”

    He seems to understand OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX as meaning “Everyone is not
    justified,” that Torah had brought about two classes of people. Under Torah and
    not under Torah.

    Leaving theology aside, which is the better way to understand the Greek
    expression linguistically.

    Richard Smith

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.