“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of Matt 13:56: The Semantic Range of πᾶσαι in Reference to Jesus’s Sisters
This exegetical study, prompted by a scholarly discussion concerning Matt 13:56, examines the linguistic and theological implications of the phrase “καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν;” (And are not all his sisters with us?). The initial understanding typically translates πᾶσαι as an inclusive “all,” implying a number greater than two. However, an alternative interpretation, notably proposed by Richard Bauckham (“The Relatives of Jesus,” Themelios 21.2 (January 1996): 18-21 (18)), suggests that Greek πᾶς can refer to “both” when the total number is two, thus leaving open the possibility that Jesus had only two sisters.
The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise semantic scope of the adjective πᾶσαι (feminine plural nominative of πᾶς) within this rhetorical question. The villagers’ query serves to highlight Jesus’s familiar origins, questioning his authority by emphasizing that his entire family, including his sisters, resides among them. The question is whether πᾶσαι here functions as a comprehensive “all” in a general sense, suggesting an unspecified but potentially larger number, or if its usage permits a more restricted interpretation of “both” when referring to a known pair. This distinction has implications for understanding early Christian perspectives on Jesus’s family structure and the number of his siblings.
καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- There are no textual differences in Matt 13:56 between the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBLGNT 2010 edition. The text is consistent across these critical editions.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
The textual tradition for Matthew 13:56 is exceptionally stable. The NA28 critical apparatus indicates no significant variants for this verse that would impact the interpretation of πᾶσαι. The reading presented is universally attested across major manuscript traditions.
Lexically, the term πᾶς (feminine plural nominative: πᾶσαι) is a crucial element. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, 3rd ed.) provides a comprehensive entry for πᾶς, highlighting its primary meaning as “all, every, the whole.” While πᾶς can indeed refer to the totality of a group, even if that group consists of only two members, it does not semantically equate to “both” in the restrictive sense that Greek typically conveys with ἀμφότεροι. Rather, it emphasizes the *completeness* or *totality* of the members, regardless of their precise number. For instance, one might say “all members of the team” even if the team has only two members, signifying that *no one is excluded*. Kittel (TDNT, Vol. V, pp. 886-894) similarly emphasizes the comprehensive and inclusive nature of πᾶς, underscoring its role in denoting “every, all, the whole.” Neither lexicon explicitly supports πᾶς as a direct synonym for “both” in the sense of a specific pair, but rather as “all of them” irrespective of the actual count, thus *not precluding* a total of two. The argument, therefore, is not that πᾶς means “both,” but that its use *permits* the possibility of only two, while still signifying ‘all of them’.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The grammatical structure of Matt 13:56 presents a rhetorical question, indicated by the interrogative particle οὐχὶ, which anticipates an affirmative answer. The construction “οὐχὶ…πᾶσαι…εἰσιν;” functions to elicit agreement from the audience, reinforcing the villagers’ perspective on Jesus’s humble origins and the normalcy of his family. The adjective πᾶσαι modifies ἀδελφαὶ (sisters), indicating the entire group of his sisters.
The primary point of divergence in translation and interpretation rests on whether πᾶσαι inherently implies a number greater than two, or if it can comprehensively refer to a group of precisely two individuals. The common translation “And are not *all* his sisters with us?” typically carries the implication of more than two, emphasizing the familiar, numerous local connections of Jesus’s family. This understanding aligns with the rhetorical force of the question, which aims to diminish Jesus’s perceived uniqueness by highlighting the mundane reality of his complete immediate family being locally present.
Bauckham’s observation, while acknowledging the standard translation, points to a linguistic flexibility where πᾶς, in certain contexts, might apply to a totality of two, rather than necessarily meaning “more than two.” This nuanced interpretation suggests that while the term refers to *all* of his sisters, it does not definitively preclude the possibility that he had only two sisters. This interpretation is more concerned with the *completeness* of the group being referenced (all of them), rather than its specific cardinal number. However, the rhetorical emphasis on “all” within the villagers’ question still leans towards highlighting the extensive, rather than minimal, nature of Jesus’s local family ties, making the interpretation of “both” less likely to be the primary rhetorical intent, even if linguistically possible.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegesis of Matt 13:56 reveals that while the term πᾶσαι inherently signifies “all” or “the whole,” its precise numerical implication when referring to a small group of known individuals, such as sisters, can be debated. While Greek typically uses ἀμφότεροι for “both,” πᾶς can indeed encompass a group of two when emphasizing totality or completeness. However, the rhetorical force of the villagers’ question in Matthew strongly suggests an emphasis on the extensive and familiar nature of Jesus’s family in Nazareth, rather than merely stating a minimal count.
- “And are not all his sisters here with us?” This translation renders πᾶσαι as a comprehensive ‘all’ without numerical restriction, conveying the rhetorical force of the question and implicitly suggesting a number greater than two, consistent with the popular understanding.
- “And surely all of his sisters are with us, aren’t they?” This variant heightens the rhetorical interrogative, reinforcing the villagers’ assumed affirmation regarding the presence of Jesus’s sisters, emphasizing the totality without making an explicit numerical claim.
- “And aren’t all of his sisters—whoever they are—here among us?” This interpretation maintains the sense of ‘all’ while subtly accommodating the possibility that the group might consist of only two, as suggested by some scholars, focusing on the entirety of Jesus’s sisters as a known local presence.
“`
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.