Galatians 2:15

An Exegetical Examination of the Syntactic Structure of Galatians 2:15

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Examination of the Syntactic Structure of Galatians 2:15 is based on a b-greek discussion from Sat May 29 06:06:11 EDT 1999. The initial inquiry concerns the grammatical structure of Galatians 2:15, specifically whether it constitutes a verbless sentence or features a “dangling subject” (i.e., an anacoluthon) where an introductory subject is interrupted by a participial clause (εἰδότες) and subsequently resumed by καὶ ἡμεῖς in the following verse. The proposed anacoluthic rendering suggests a flow such as: “We Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that …., we also believed in …”

The central exegetical problem revolves around the precise syntactic relationship of the opening phrase, ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, to the subsequent clauses, particularly in light of the participial phrase εἰδότες ὅτι…. The question is whether to supply an implicit copula, thus rendering the initial phrase as a complete statement of identity, or to interpret it as a syntactic anticipation of καὶ ἡμεῖς in verse 16, thereby creating a complex anacoluthic structure that impacts the flow and emphasis of Paul’s argument concerning justification.

Greek text (Nestle 1904):
Galatians 2:15-16
Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, εἰδότες 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, διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no significant textual variants between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT 2010 edition for Galatians 2:15-16 that affect the grammatical or semantic issues under discussion. The wording is identical.

Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) apparatus shows no critical variants for Galatians 2:15-16 that would impact the grammatical debate regarding an implicit copula or an anacoluthon. The stability of the text in this section confirms that the syntactic challenge is interpretative rather than textual.

• φύσει (phusei): KITTEL (TDNT V, 888-912) emphasizes φύσις as denoting “nature” or “natural origin,” often in contrast to human custom or convention. In Galatians 2:15, φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι points to being ethnically Jewish by birth, not by conversion or legalistic effort. BDAG (s.v. φύσις) defines it as “the natural character or state of something, nature.” Here, it denotes belonging to a specific group by birth or origin, emphasizing an inherent status as Jews.
• ἁμαρτωλοί (hamartoloi): KITTEL (TDNT I, 317-331) discusses ἁμαρτία as sin, a deviation from God’s law. ἁμαρτωλός denotes a “sinner,” one who is habitually characterized by sin. Paul uses it here to refer to Gentiles as those outside the Mosaic covenant, naturally considered “sinners” by Jewish standards. BDAG (s.v. ἁμαρτωλός) describes it as “pertaining to being a sinner or living in sin, sinful.” In this context, it contrasts with the perceived righteousness of Jews under the Law, highlighting the perceived moral and spiritual distinction.
• εἰδότες (eidotes): This is the perfect active participle of οἶδα (to know). KITTEL (TDNT V, 10-18) explains οἶδα as signifying knowledge that is a matter of settled conviction or experience, not just intellectual apprehension. It implies a firm, established understanding. BDAG (s.v. οἶδα) gives “to know, have knowledge of” and indicates a state of knowing. Here, it signifies the Jews’ intrinsic awareness or conviction.

Translation Variants

The grammatical structure of Galatians 2:15-16 presents two primary interpretative possibilities, each with distinct grammatical and rhetorical implications:

1. Interpretation with an Implicit Copula:

• Grammatical Analysis: This interpretation, advocated in the discussion by Conrad, posits that the initial phrase Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, is a complete nominal clause with an implied copula (ἐσμέν – *we are*). The omission of the verb “to be” is a common feature in ancient Greek, especially in predicative clauses where the context makes the existence or identity clear. In this reading, ἡμεῖς serves as the subject, and Ἰουδαῖοι and ἁμαρτωλοί are predicate nominatives. The subsequent participial clause εἰδότες then logically modifies this established subject (“We are Jews… *knowing* that…”). The phrase καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν in verse 16 is then understood as a continuation, possibly with an emphatic repetition of ἡμεῖς to stress their action *despite* their Jewish status.

• Rhetorical Analysis: This interpretation presents a clear statement of identity (“We are Jews by nature”) followed by a logical consequence of that identity (“knowing that…”). It establishes a strong contrast with Gentile sinners and lays the groundwork for Paul’s argument about justification by faith even for “Jews by nature,” providing a rhetorically straightforward and impactful progression.

2. Interpretation as an Anacoluthon (Dangling Subject):

• Grammatical Analysis: This perspective, initially raised by Jung, views Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, as an initial, uncompleted subject phrase that is “dangling” or interrupted by the subordinate clause εἰδότες ὅτι… and subsequently resumed by καὶ ἡμεῖς in verse 16. While anacoluthon is a legitimate, though less frequent, grammatical phenomenon in Greek, it involves a sentence beginning with one construction and shifting to another. Here, Ἡμεῖς would be the initial subject, modified by the descriptive phrases, leading into the participial clause, but the main verb for Ἡμεῖς is delayed and then “resumed” by καὶ ἡμεῖς and the verb ἐπιστεύσαμεν in v.16.

• Rhetorical Analysis: This creates a more complex, potentially convoluted, sentence structure. It might serve to emphasize the “we Jews” identity by setting it apart, then inserting the crucial theological premise (εἰδότες ὅτι…), before finally stating the action. While it could reflect Paul’s passionate and often complex argumentation style, it requires the reader to hold the initial subject in abeyance for an extended period, which could make the reading less direct.

In comparison, the interpretation favoring an implicit copula is generally favored by commentators due to its grammatical simplicity and the prevalence of copula omission in Koine Greek. It provides a cleaner, more direct reading that aligns with common Greek syntax. The anacoluthon, while possible, requires a more unusual syntactic maneuver and might be less intuitive for the reader to process without an explicit verb for the initial Ἡμεῖς. The choice between these significantly impacts how the entire passage (Galatians 2:15-21) is understood, particularly the flow of Paul’s argument from Jewish identity to the necessity of faith in Christ for justification.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis, the interpretation favoring an implicit copula is syntactically more conventional and provides a more straightforward reading of Paul’s argument. While an anacoluthon is a conceivable rhetorical device, the common practice of copula omission in Koine Greek offers a more elegant and widely accepted solution. Paul’s rhetorical purpose is to establish the common ground of Jewish identity and knowledge, only to then subvert it by showing that even for “Jews by nature,” justification comes solely through faith in Christ.

1. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

   This translation adopts the implicit copula for Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, making v.15 a complete statement (“We ourselves are Jews by birth”). The phrase “yet, knowing that…” connects this identity to the crucial theological premise, and “even we” emphasizes the surprising conclusion for those of Jewish origin.

2. “As for us, Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, we too have put our faith in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

   This translation also leans towards the implicit copula but uses “As for us” to give a slightly more emphatic and front-loaded sense to the initial statement, without forcing an explicit verb. “We too” reinforces the idea of Jews also needing to believe.

3. “We, who are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, for by works of the law no one will be justified.”

   This rendering attempts to capture a sense of the initial discussion’s proposed anacoluthic feel while still maintaining a cohesive grammatical structure. “We, who are…” functions as an appositive description of the initial “We,” allowing it to lead into the main action of “have believed” without a preceding main verb for the initial descriptive clause itself.