Matt. 13.56: καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν;
KAI hAI ADELFAI AUTOU OUCI PASAI PROS hHMAS EISIN;
This is usually translated “And are not *all* his sisters with us?” However, Richard Bauckham suggests that “Although Matthew refers to ‘all his sisters’, we cannot tell whether there were more than two, since Greek can use ‘all’ for only two” (“The Relatives of Jesus”, Themelios 21.2 (January 1996): 18-21 (18)). I think it would be odd, though, to read this verse as suggesting two sisters only. The usual translation of PAS and the emphasis here suggest to me a rhetorical “all” rather than “both”. Can anyone think of good examples of PAS meaning “both”?
Thanks Mark
I can’t. Moreover, there’s a perfectly good word for “both” that I find used 14x in the GNT, 129x in the LXX: ἀμφότεροι [AMFOTEROI]. Although there are no feminine examples in the GNT, the word is available. I’d think the burden of proof that it refers to only two rests with the person making the claim.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Mark asked
Hi, Mark,
I can’t think of a good one, no, but there is 1 Cor 11:12:
“You see, just as the women is from the man, so the man comes about through the woman. But all things are from God.” τὰ δέ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. TA DE PANTA EK TOU QEOU.
PANTA here probably means all things, maybe all living things, perhaps all natural things, possibly all existence. But it MIGHT mean all (both) genders. It means, at any rate, PRIMARILY that men and women are both equally from God.
Again, this is not a good example, but if you add it to a few good examples, it can be used to strengthen the case.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
I had never read verse as possibly referring to both sexes. Interesting.
Not related to the thread, but to a similarly alternative reading of a verse. I had written a note in my NTG besides 1 Thess 4.4 that TO EIDENAI hEKASTON hUMWN TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI could mean “to know how to take a wife”, with SKEUOS meaning wife. Not sure where I read that alternative so that I made such a notation.
Richard Smith
Τὰ πάντα TA PANTA is generally used to reference the whole of creation, not male and female. β.τὰ πάντα. In the abs. sense of the whole of creation all things, the universe (Pla., Ep. 6, 323d τῶν πάντων θεός; hymn to Selene in EAbel, Orphica [1885] 294, 36 εἰς σὲ τὰ πάντα τελευτᾶ[s. 1dβbeg.]; Herm. Wr. 13, 17 τ. κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα; JosAs 8:2 ζωοποιήσας τὰ πάντα; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 208, Rer. Div. Her. 36, Somn. 1, 241; Just., A I, 67, 2 τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν πάντων; PGM 1, 212 κύριε τῶν πάντων; 4, 3077)
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks for the question. This was new to me. Mark Lightman prompted me to check. BDAG PAS, PASA, PAN 1d subst.–a. PANTES, PASAI all, everyone (even when only two are involved = both; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 27 s105 [Caesar and Pompey]) Something seems amis with the reference (or my reading of it). I cannot find the word at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0231%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D15%3Asection%3D105
Thanks; I’d missed that. I managed to chase the reference down to App. BC 2.4.27:
ἐνισταμένων δὲ πολλῶν ὡς οὐκ ἴσον διὰ τὸ μήπω τὸν χρόνον ἐξήκειν τῷ Πομπηίῳ, σαφέστερον ὁ Κουρίων ἤδη καὶ τραχύτερον ἀπεγύμνου μὴ χρῆναι μηδὲ Καίσαρι πέμπειν διαδόχους, εἰ μὴ καὶ Πομπηίῳ δοῖεν: ὄντων γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐς ἀλλήλους ὑπόπτων οὔπω τῇ πόλει τὴν εἰρήνην ἔσεσθαι βεβαίαν, εἰ μὴ *πάντες* ἰδιωτεύσειαν.
“Many opposed this as unjust, because Pompey’s term had not yet expired. Then Curio came out more openly and decidedly against appointing successors to Cæsar unless Pompey also should lay down his command; for since they were both suspicious of each other, he contended that there could be no lasting peace to the commonwealth unless *both* were reduced to the character of private citizens (Horace White translation).”
It doesn’t provide a good analogy for the alleged possibility of two in Matt. 13.56, though. Here, it is clear that Appian is talking about Pompey and Caesar in context. In Matt. 13.56 there is no previous mention of Mary and Salome (or whoever) to make PASAI plausibly mean “both”.
Cheers Mark
I would agree that it doesn’t. The sense here is that if there is to be a truce, then “everybody” ought to observe the same terms — even if there are only two parties. It’s a way of underscoring the equality of obligations, a rhetorical usage of PANTES. Or so it seems to me.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Thanks Mark,
for tracking that reference down. I agree with you both. Bauckham may have been conceeding a “possibility” to some other scholar, his argument didn’t depend on PASAI = both. BDAG may not aid Bauckham, but it may well support Mark Lightman’s reading of 1 Cor 11:12, which was what grabbed my attention. Professor Conrad’s proposed “rhetorical usage” to *underscore* “equality of obligations”, seems to me to fit that context well. However, that would be another thread.
alastair
I would agree that it doesn’t. The sense here is that if there is to be a truce, then “everybody” ought to observe the same terms — even if there are only two parties. It’s a way of underscoring the equality of obligations, a rhetorical usage of PANTES. Or so it seems to me.
I can’t. Moreover, there’s a perfectly good word for “both” that I find used 14x in the GNT, 129x in the LXX: ἀμφότεροι [AMFOTEROI]. Although there are no feminine examples in the GNT, the word is available. I’d think the burden of proof that it refers to only two rests with the person making the claim.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Mark asked
Hi, Mark,
I can’t think of a good one, no, but there is 1 Cor 11:12:
“You see, just as the women is from the man, so the man comes about through the woman. But all things are from God.” τὰ δέ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. TA DE PANTA EK TOU QEOU.
PANTA here probably means all things, maybe all living things, perhaps all natural things, possibly all existence. But it MIGHT mean all (both) genders. It means, at any rate, PRIMARILY that men and women are both equally from God.
Again, this is not a good example, but if you add it to a few good examples, it can be used to strengthen the case.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
I had never read verse as possibly referring to both sexes. Interesting.
Not related to the thread, but to a similarly alternative reading of a verse. I had written a note in my NTG besides 1 Thess 4.4 that TO EIDENAI hEKASTON hUMWN TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI could mean “to know how to take a wife”, with SKEUOS meaning wife. Not sure where I read that alternative so that I made such a notation.
Richard Smith
Τὰ πάντα TA PANTA is generally used to reference the whole of creation, not male and female. β.τὰ πάντα. In the abs. sense of the whole of creation all things, the universe (Pla., Ep. 6, 323d τῶν πάντων θεός; hymn to Selene in EAbel, Orphica [1885] 294, 36 εἰς σὲ τὰ πάντα τελευτᾶ[s. 1dβbeg.]; Herm. Wr. 13, 17 τ. κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα; JosAs 8:2 ζωοποιήσας τὰ πάντα; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 208, Rer. Div. Her. 36, Somn. 1, 241; Just., A I, 67, 2 τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν πάντων; PGM 1, 212 κύριε τῶν πάντων; 4, 3077)
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks for the question. This was new to me. Mark Lightman prompted me to check. BDAG PAS, PASA, PAN 1d subst.–a. PANTES, PASAI all, everyone (even when only two are involved = both; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 27 s105 [Caesar and Pompey]) Something seems amis with the reference (or my reading of it). I cannot find the word at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0231%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D15%3Asection%3D105
Thanks; I’d missed that. I managed to chase the reference down to App. BC 2.4.27:
ἐνισταμένων δὲ πολλῶν ὡς οὐκ ἴσον διὰ τὸ μήπω τὸν χρόνον ἐξήκειν τῷ Πομπηίῳ, σαφέστερον ὁ Κουρίων ἤδη καὶ τραχύτερον ἀπεγύμνου μὴ χρῆναι μηδὲ Καίσαρι πέμπειν διαδόχους, εἰ μὴ καὶ Πομπηίῳ δοῖεν: ὄντων γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐς ἀλλήλους ὑπόπτων οὔπω τῇ πόλει τὴν εἰρήνην ἔσεσθαι βεβαίαν, εἰ μὴ *πάντες* ἰδιωτεύσειαν.
“Many opposed this as unjust, because Pompey’s term had not yet expired. Then Curio came out more openly and decidedly against appointing successors to Cæsar unless Pompey also should lay down his command; for since they were both suspicious of each other, he contended that there could be no lasting peace to the commonwealth unless *both* were reduced to the character of private citizens (Horace White translation).”
It doesn’t provide a good analogy for the alleged possibility of two in Matt. 13.56, though. Here, it is clear that Appian is talking about Pompey and Caesar in context. In Matt. 13.56 there is no previous mention of Mary and Salome (or whoever) to make PASAI plausibly mean “both”.
Cheers Mark
I would agree that it doesn’t. The sense here is that if there is to be a truce, then “everybody” ought to observe the same terms — even if there are only two parties. It’s a way of underscoring the equality of obligations, a rhetorical usage of PANTES. Or so it seems to me.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Thanks Mark,
for tracking that reference down. I agree with you both. Bauckham may have been conceeding a “possibility” to some other scholar, his argument didn’t depend on PASAI = both. BDAG may not aid Bauckham, but it may well support Mark Lightman’s reading of 1 Cor 11:12, which was what grabbed my attention. Professor Conrad’s proposed “rhetorical usage” to *underscore* “equality of obligations”, seems to me to fit that context well. However, that would be another thread.
alastair
I would agree that it doesn’t. The sense here is that if there is to be a truce, then “everybody” ought to observe the same terms — even if there are only two parties. It’s a way of underscoring the equality of obligations, a rhetorical usage of PANTES. Or so it seems to me.