Galatians 2:16

[Studyman]

Putting doctrine aside for a minute. The words in question mean "if not", "unless"

Here is a citation from Strong's:

G3362 ἐάν μή ean me (e-an' mee') cond.
if not, i.e. unless.
[i.e. G1437 and G3361]
KJV: X before, but, except, if, no, (if, + whosoever) not
Root(s): G3361, G1437

Here is the citation on the conditional particle ἐάν.
G1437 ἐάν ean (e-an') cond.
in case that, provided that, etc.
{Often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty}
[from G1487 and G302, a conditional particle]
KJV: before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-)soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, (who-)so(-ever)

And here is the citation on the negative particle μή.


G3361 μή me (mee') prt.
1. (adverb) not.
2. (also) no (nor, neither).
3. (conjunction) lest.
4. (interrogative) whether.
5. (rhetorically) “¿!” (denoting that the following question is rhetorical).
6. (example, with G3756) “¿! Did you not know that was wrong? Of, course you did.” (typically, G3361 sets off the rhetorical question while G3756 negates the verb).
7. (specially, with genitive verb) without (acting or doing).
8. (as Hebraic idiom) may it never (happen).
9. (rarely, inverted double negative, emphatic) by no means.
{as an interrogative implying a negative answer (whereas G3756 expects an affirmative one); Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations}
[a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas G3756 expresses an absolute denial)]

This is an excerpt from the BDAG on the words translated "but, if not, and unless" highlighted in red above.

β. ἐὰν μή if not, unless w. pres. subj. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ ἀξία Mt 10:13; cp. Lk 13:3; J 3:2f, 5, 27. Mostly w. aor. subj. ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ Mt 5:20; 6:15; 12:29; 18:3; 21:21; Mk 3:27; 4:22 (s. KBeyer, Semitische Syntax im NT, ’62, 131); J 4:48; 6:44; 7:51; Ro 10:15; 1 Cor 9:16; 14:6; unless, without ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω Mt 26:42. W. fut. ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν Rv 2:22.

Paul used in in accordance in respect to how the words are understood together. Not that the KJV is the end all but nowhere "in his writings" is it translated in the KJV but, but in Galatians.
Because the word "but" alone ignores the negative particle μή.


Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
1Cor 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1Cor 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1Cor 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

1Cor 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
1Cor 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1Cor 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
1Cor 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Tim 2:5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.


As was shown in the OP a couple translations have it right. Here are some of them, there are probably more.


Gal 2:16 (YLT) having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.'

Gal 2:16 (CTOCNC) knowing that a man is not justified by works of law unless by means of a belief in Jesus Christ, even, we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified for a belief in Christ and not for works of law; because for works of law no flesh can be justified.

Gal 2:16 (MLV) knowing that a man is not justified from the works of the law unless it is through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from our faith in Christ and not from the works of the law: because from the works of the law no flesh will be justified.

The Word of God needs to be as it is not as we want it according to what we think it should be according to doctrine. So if we think there is a contradiction, and we know there can't be then there is an issue in the way we are understanding the text in question. So what is it that we are misinterpreting?

Very well put Him. And to confirm this understanding, here is what is also written.

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Rev. 14: 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Matt. 6: 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


In my understanding, having separated myself from mainstream teaching and studied apart from their influence as much as is possible in this world, our repentance is to be towards God. It is Him that we need to be reconciled to. It is Him that we refused to Honor and Glorify. As Paul and Jesus Teaches, when we "turn to God" or "Yield ourselves servants to obey God" in repentance, He gives us to His Appointed, anointed Priest for cleansing/redemption/justification.

John 17: 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men "which thou gavest me" out of the world: thine they were, "and thou gavest them me" and they have kept thy word.

The Mainstream God of Abraham religions of Jesus Time had rejected God's Righteousness in favor of their own. When the Prophets, by the Spirit of Christ, spoke to them, they refused to listen and repent.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

When God sent His own Son, their Redeemer who promoted the exact same Gospel, they rejected Him as well.

They were not given by God to His Appointed Priest, nor did God give HIS Appointed Priest to them. Because when they knew God, they didn't glorify Him as God.

This "repentance" towards God is essential for Salvation. As God's Appointed Priest points out. Luke 13: 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

The religions of Jesus Time refused to repent and turn to God. Choosing instead to walk in and promote the religious philosophies and doctrines of men.

In modern religions, it is the same. There is no repentance towards God, rather religions who walk in and promote the religious philosophies and doctrines of men.

Matt. 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

These men recognize God's Priest, they have Faith in Him, they give Him credit for everything they do, so according to popular modern religious philosophy, these men are saved, and cannot lose eternal life ever. But what does Jesus actually say?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

No repentance towards God.

So the Pharisees, who rejected God's Commandments Statutes and Judgments by their own religious traditions, were trying to be justified by the "works" of an old Priesthood Covenant.

Modern religions, who also reject God's Commandments Statutes and Judgments by their own religious traditions, are trying to be justified by belief in God's New Priest.

None of these religions consider or understand Paul's words "For we are his (God's) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Your reply is spot on in my view. It's not "But" Faith, rather, "And" Faith, "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

Without Christ, we can do nothing. Without God, we don't have Christ.

 

[Gary K]

Putting doctrine aside for a minute. The words in question mean "if not", "unless"

Here is a citation from Strong's:

G3362 ἐάν μή ean me (e-an' mee') cond.
if not, i.e. unless.
[i.e. G1437 and G3361]
KJV: X before, but, except, if, no, (if, + whosoever) not
Root(s): G3361, G1437

Here is the citation on the conditional particle ἐάν.
G1437 ἐάν ean (e-an') cond.
in case that, provided that, etc.
{Often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty}
[from G1487 and G302, a conditional particle]
KJV: before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-)soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, (who-)so(-ever)

And here is the citation on the negative particle μή.


G3361 μή me (mee') prt.
1. (adverb) not.
2. (also) no (nor, neither).
3. (conjunction) lest.
4. (interrogative) whether.
5. (rhetorically) “¿!” (denoting that the following question is rhetorical).
6. (example, with G3756) “¿! Did you not know that was wrong? Of, course you did.” (typically, G3361 sets off the rhetorical question while G3756 negates the verb).
7. (specially, with genitive verb) without (acting or doing).
8. (as Hebraic idiom) may it never (happen).
9. (rarely, inverted double negative, emphatic) by no means.
{as an interrogative implying a negative answer (whereas G3756 expects an affirmative one); Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations}
[a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas G3756 expresses an absolute denial)]

This is an excerpt from the BDAG on the words translated "but, if not, and unless" highlighted in red above.

β. ἐὰν μή if not, unless w. pres. subj. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ ἀξία Mt 10:13; cp. Lk 13:3; J 3:2f, 5, 27. Mostly w. aor. subj. ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ Mt 5:20; 6:15; 12:29; 18:3; 21:21; Mk 3:27; 4:22 (s. KBeyer, Semitische Syntax im NT, ’62, 131); J 4:48; 6:44; 7:51; Ro 10:15; 1 Cor 9:16; 14:6; unless, without ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω Mt 26:42. W. fut. ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν Rv 2:22.

Paul used in in accordance in respect to how the words are understood together. Not that the KJV is the end all but nowhere "in his writings" is it translated in the KJV but, but in Galatians.
Because the word "but" alone ignores the negative particle μή.


Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
1Cor 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1Cor 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1Cor 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

1Cor 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
1Cor 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1Cor 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
1Cor 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Tim 2:5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.


As was shown in the OP a couple translations have it right. Here are some of them, there are probably more.


Gal 2:16 (YLT) having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.'

Gal 2:16 (CTOCNC) knowing that a man is not justified by works of law unless by means of a belief in Jesus Christ, even, we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified for a belief in Christ and not for works of law; because for works of law no flesh can be justified.

Gal 2:16 (MLV) knowing that a man is not justified from the works of the law unless it is through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from our faith in Christ and not from the works of the law: because from the works of the law no flesh will be justified.

The Word of God needs to be as it is not as we want it according to what we think it should be according to doctrine. So if we think there is a contradiction, and we know there can't be then there is an issue in the way we are understanding the text in question. So what is it that we are misinterpreting?

I completely agree. We need to, must, take scripture as it reads, not read our beliefs into scripture.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Word of God needs to be as it is not as we want it according to what we think it should be according to doctrine. So if we think there is a contradiction, and we know there can't be then there is an issue in the way we are understanding the text in question. So what is it that we are misinterpreting?

As I said I don't disagree with your analysis of the words. We all know there is a measure of interpretation within translation as language can be very dynamic and there are nuanced ways to express the same idea. Translators need to balance what the text is trying to communicate to its audience (or at least their perception of that) versus a strict literal approach so they are responsible for both the words being used and the goal of the text. They also don't translate in a vacuum and compare other scriptures to come to their conclusions. Some translations like the YLT are more literally driven even at the cost of awkward grammar this puts more responsibility on the reader to study the text to better understand the text and the fuller meaning of the words being used in the context. Other translations of course operate at different liberties in terms of a more dynamic equivariant over formal.

But don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to incite doctrinal debate, I'm merely presenting a reason why a translation may choose "but" over "if not", or "unless". Certainly, there is a reason and we may call it bias to a doctrinal position but given the wide favor of "but" over "if not"/"unless" even among more literal translations like the KJV or NASB then perhaps there are other reasons to choose "but" to be responsible to the text. Certainly comparing it with Rom 3:28 the verbiage used is easier to understand, so the position becomes more clear.

Paul is either contradicting himself or has employed different styles to carry the same meaning. perhaps he used a softer approach to the Galatians because the issue was more sensitive perhaps something else is going on. It would seem most translations have chosen "but" over the literal and in terms of consistency with Paul's position on the issue I think the translation is justified. Also, consider Gal 1:6 which uses "ΕΙ ΜΗ" not "ΕΑΝ ΜΗ" and it can also be lit. "if not" yet translations employee different words to cover its meaning not unlike Gal 2:16. I enjoy the word study and on a technical side, you're right but this may be a forest through the trees things here. Translators are driven to faithfully communicate the message they understand Paul to be communicating and they might not agree on all the language but, at least in this case, the message is still the same.

 

[HIM]

Very well put Him. And to confirm this understanding, here is what is also written.

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Rev. 14: 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Matt. 6: 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


In my understanding, having separated myself from mainstream teaching and studied apart from their influence as much as is possible in this world, our repentance is to be towards God. It is Him that we need to be reconciled to. It is Him that we refused to Honor and Glorify. As Paul and Jesus Teaches, when we "turn to God" or "Yield ourselves servants to obey God" in repentance, He gives us to His Appointed, anointed Priest for cleansing/redemption/justification.

John 17: 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men "which thou gavest me" out of the world: thine they were, "and thou gavest them me" and they have kept thy word.

The Mainstream God of Abraham religions of Jesus Time had rejected God's Righteousness in favor of their own. When the Prophets, by the Spirit of Christ, spoke to them, they refused to listen and repent.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

When God sent His own Son, their Redeemer who promoted the exact same Gospel, they rejected Him as well.

They were not given by God to His Appointed Priest, nor did God give HIS Appointed Priest to them. Because when they knew God, they didn't glorify Him as God.

This "repentance" towards God is essential for Salvation. As God's Appointed Priest points out. Luke 13: 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

The religions of Jesus Time refused to repent and turn to God. Choosing instead to walk in and promote the religious philosophies and doctrines of men.

In modern religions, it is the same. There is no repentance towards God, rather religions who walk in and promote the religious philosophies and doctrines of men.

Matt. 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

These men recognize God's Priest, they have Faith in Him, they give Him credit for everything they do, so according to popular modern religious philosophy, these men are saved, and cannot lose eternal life ever. But what does Jesus actually say?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

No repentance towards God.

So the Pharisees, who rejected God's Commandments Statutes and Judgments by their own religious traditions, were trying to be justified by the "works" of an old Priesthood Covenant.

Modern religions, who also reject God's Commandments Statutes and Judgments by their own religious traditions, are trying to be justified by belief in God's New Priest.

None of these religions consider or understand Paul's words "For we are his (God's) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Your reply is spot on in my view. It's not "But" Faith, rather, "And" Faith, "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

Without Christ, we can do nothing. Without God, we don't have Christ

Yes but through Faith. Nice post though Studyman

 

[guevaraj]

It would seem most translations have chosen "but" over the literal and in terms of consistency with Paul's position on the issue I think the translation is justified.

Brother, "Paul's position on the issue" is that we follow Jesus who obeyed the Ten Commandments as our model "Spirit" to follow and not the wrongly understood Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments. The difference Paul speaks of after Jesus than before Jesus is that God is no longer reliant on telling us what to do in the written Ten Commandments in stone that Judaism failed to obey. They failed to obey the instructions written in stone as one may fail to properly replace a window without being shown what to do, relying on a brief manual they fail to fully obey. God, recognizing the failure of the written Ten Commandments on the resulting sons of Hagar in Judaism, now offers instead the superior glory of Jesus showing us what to do through the model "Spirit" of Jesus to follow in God's original desire to have sons of Sarah and not sons of Hagar, made clear in the following passage. My example analogy following of replacing a window will show through our common experience how more complete it is to be shown instead of being told what to do. Now it is about obeying the previous Ten Commandments as Jesus obeyed them in the Eleventh Commandment, which includes the previous Ten Commandments, instead of us being told in stone, now shown through the model "Spirit" of Jesus, which people wrongly think is the Holy Spirit they are to follow when it is Jesus' exemplary life who is the model "Spirit" to follow made clear in the following passage from Paul. Critical to the proper understanding of this passage is that God is Spirit: Jesus being God is Spirit. What is compared is Jesus' example of obedience to the Ten Commandments as more complete than the written Ten Commandments. To understand this comparison I will use the analogy of replacing a broken window. No doubt it is more complete to follow a professional installer's example than partially follow the instructions in a brief manual. The reason the old written law ends in death for Judaism is that they sabotaged God's law to not remove sin that Paul protects against by focusing on sin rather than obeying human law as Judaism did. Judaism obeyed the commandment of not misusing God's name by not pronouncing His name at all. This incomplete obedience skipped the law's purpose to remove sin from our character. They would have learned to use God's name without sinning had they done what God asked instead of replacing what God asked with their own "human effort" to obey that did not remove the sin that doing what God asked would have removed.

We are confident of all this because of our great trust in God through Christ (as the model "Spirit" to follow). It is not that we think we are qualified to do anything on our own (like excusing our disobedience of the Ten Commandments as coming from the Holy Spirit). Our qualification comes from God (sending us Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow). He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow). This is a covenant not of the letter (Ten Commandments), but of the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow and not the Holy Spirit used as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments when Jesus obeyed them). The letter ends in death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin); but the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow) gives life (the removal of sin). The old way (God's "order" by the prophet Moses), with letters etched in stone (Ten Commandments), led to death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin), though it began with such glory (leading to righteousness) that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God (which is His righteousness expressed in the Ten Commandments), even though the brightness was already fading away (Judaism's unwillingness to obey "all" the Ten Commandments). Shouldn’t we expect far greater glory under the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow), now that the Holy (added by the translators) Spirit (not the Holy Spirit but Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow) gives life? If the old way (written letters etched in stone), which brings condemnation (Judaism not fully obeying "all" the Ten Commandments by replacing them with human "law"), was glorious (leading to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow), which makes us right with God (removes sin)! In fact, that first glory (which led to righteousness) was not glorious at all compared with the overwhelming glory (leading to righteousness) of the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow). So if the old way (written letters etched in stone), which has been replaced, was glorious (led to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow), which remains forever! Since this new way (of following the model "Spirit" of Jesus, rather than Judaism's human "law") gives us such confidence, we can be very bold (learning to use God's name properly, which Judaism does not). We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory (of God's righteousness), even though it was destined to fade away (by Judaism's unwillingness to obey all the Ten Commandments). But the people’s minds were hardened (to not obey all the Ten Commandments), and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth (of the failure of replacing God's Commandments with their own human law). And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ (as the model "Spirit" to follow). Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand (they failed to obey all of God's Ten Commandments by substituting them with human "law"). But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" to follow who obeyed the Ten Commandments as our example and Paul is not referring to the Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments), and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (from sin and not from God's Ten Commandments). So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord (in obeying the Ten Commandments). And the Lord—who is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" Paul is telling us to follow and not the Holy Spirit, whose job is to tell us things through prophets and remind us of Jesus as the model "Spirit" to follow)—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image. (2 Corinthians 3:4-18 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[DamianWarS]

Brother, "Paul's position on the issue" is that we follow Jesus who obeyed the Ten Commandments as our model "Spirit" to follow and not the wrongly understood Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments.

as I've said, I'm not inciting debate. The OP is correct in his analysis of the words in question, indeed the words are "if not" or "unless" and I can only speculate as to why the majority of the translations prefer "but". However, to use this phrasing to form a doctrinal position would be irresponsible as Paul uses other language (ex Rom 3:28) that very clearly separates Christ from law leaving this text somewhat ambiguous.

As to how this extends to keeping the 10 commandments I think is going against the wishes of the OP. Perhaps the OP implicitly points to a position by nature of bringing up this topic but has requested to keep it to the text in question rather than wrap a giant debate around it, and you should do likewise.

My thoughts are only there to offer a suggestion as to why the majority of the translations have chosen "but" over the literal, outside of that I'll let the words speak for themselves.

 

[HIM]

Paul is either contradicting himself or has employed different styles to carry the same meaning. perhaps he used a softer approach to the Galatians because the issue was more sensitive perhaps something else is going on. It would seem most translations have chosen "but" over the literal and in terms of consistency with Paul's position on the issue I think the translation is justified. Also, consider Gal 1:6 which uses "ΕΙ ΜΗ" not "ΕΑΝ ΜΗ" and it can also be lit. "if not" yet translations employee different words to cover its meaning not unlike Gal 2:16. I enjoy the word study and on a technical side, you're right but this may be a forest through the trees things here. Translators are driven to faithfully communicate the message they understand Paul to be communicating and they might not agree on all the language but, at least in this case, the message is still the same.

Or and more than likely we are misinterpreting the text in the context of the passage it is given. Remember at the end of the day it is Galatians in which we are speaking not Romans. Galatians 2:16 is part of a passage not an island. And there’s a lot more to Romans also. But I don’t wish to get into that at the moment, you can if you wish.

 

[guevaraj]

Paul uses other language (ex Rom 3:28) that very clearly separates Christ from law

Brother, uninspired "blind guides" are forcing this separation on others through their inaccurate translations in defense of their human tradition of Sunday. The ones who separate Christ from the law are the translators, people who are uninspired "blind guides" and not the inspiration of Paul in the original when Jesus is our model "Spirit" to follow and not the Holy Spirit in defense of Sunday! The substitution of human will for God's will continues to this day, with the human tradition of Sunday in place of the Sabbath that Jesus is against in the second passage following because it "shuts the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces". The fact is that God is against human substitutions like Sunday, which God illustrates in the following passage by Hagar, in place of the Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, which God illustrates in the following passage by Sarah. Judaism's human tradition since Joshua only has the Sabbath correct in Jerusalem and no where else! In the new covenant book of Hebrews, the Sabbath since Joshua is corrected from human tradition in the past to be entered at the correct local time all over the world because Christians are no longer living in Jerusalem near the earthly temple when Jesus is now in the heavenly temple.

Tell me, you who want to live under the law (the "law" of Judaism that does not remove sin), do you know what the law actually says? (The law says what is sin) The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise (the promise to remove sin from our character). But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise. These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them (Judaism is enslaved in sin because they sabotaged God's law to not remove sin). And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery (to sin) to the law (added by the translators, not found in the original). But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman (free from sin), and she is our mother (Sarah). As Isaiah said, “Rejoice, O childless woman (Sarah), you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman (Sarah) now has more children than the woman (Hagar) who lives with her husband!” And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise (the promise to remove sin from our character), just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law (of Judaism that does not remove sin), just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? “Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman (Hagar); we are children of the free woman (Sarah). (Galatians 4:21-31 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

Hagar's son to Abraham came from the human will and not from God's will to give Abraham a son through Hagar. Hagar is not the will of God expressed on Mount Sinai but the "human attempt" to fulfill the will of God expressed on Mount Sinai. Therefore, it is not God's "order" through the prophets that are tied to Hagar, but human "law" found in Judaism that come from sinful "blind guides" to use "law" to accomplish God's will expressed on Mount Sinai, that Jesus says in the following passage: "shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces". It is not God's "order" through the prophets expressed on Mount Sinai that "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces", it is Judaism's human replacement "law" for God's "order" through the prophets that "shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces".

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either. “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are! “Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne. (Matthew 23:13-22 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[DamianWarS]

Or and more than likely we are misinterpreting the text in the context of the passage it is given. Remember at the end of the day it is Galatians in which we are speaking not Romans. Galatians 2:16 is part of a passage not an island. And there’s a lot more to Romans also. But I don’t wish to get into that at the moment, you can if you wish.

"but" is the favored interpretation and overwhelmingly so. languages are not mirrors and words can have several nuances that don't fit into a strict mechanical translation and even based on individual styles. I am hesitant to claim a bias or a misinterpretation because of the overwhelming support and it would take deeper study into the context as to why it's the favored translation. I don't see that sort of due diligence on your end and you seem satisfied with concluding the word means = "X" so 90% of the translations out there are wrong. It's just not a methodology I connect with.

 

[HIM]

"but" is the favored interpretation and overwhelmingly so.

It is wrong though and therefore a grievous lie.

I am hesitant to claim a bias or a misinterpretation because of the overwhelming support and it would take deeper study into the context as to why it's the favored translation. I don't see that sort of due diligence on your end and you seem satisfied with concluding the word means = "X" so 90% of the translations out there are wrong. It's just not a methodology I connect with.

No disrespect intended but you are mistaken in saying anything in respect to our end. What you don't see has only been held back to see what you would offer up to support your argument, other than that can't say what it says because I think it says something different elsewhere. There is a lot in Galatians 2 and surface dwelling does not give it justice. So please show how you think context supports your translation then we will. Or if you wish we will.

 

[DamianWarS]

No disrespect intended but you are mistaken in saying anything in respect to our end. What you don't see has only been held back to see what you would offer up to support your argument, other than that can't say what it says because I think it says something different elsewhere. There is a lot in Galatians 2 and surface dwelling does not give it justice. So please show how you think context supports your translation then we will. Or if you wish we will.

there are two questions needing attention here

1. What does the context support?
2. Why is "but" the preferred translation?

as for #2 there is seems no resonable bias happening as it is so widespread it's the same preference from traditional to modern views. You could claim that there is a historical bias happening, certainly, the KJV is probably defaulting to the Latin reading of the text but then why is pretty much everyone else apparently so passive or dare I say "lazy" in their methodology? This part on your end is left unanswered and needs more attendtion or due diligence before the given concludion of "it's wrong". I'm not interested in debating the doctrinal points and I'm concived on my own terms the meaning of the text, this is more of a challenge to you to take a deeper dive as to why this is the favored view that I don't see happening.

As for the of context of #1 there is the immediate context of Galatians but then there is the context of Paul's letters on a whole that may be considered when deciding on the right word. For example 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:5 all seem to be mirror verses and all written by Paul so we should not see these verses as contradicting each other but instead the same point in different perspectives, which is only to our advantage as we have more information to consider. So we may view these verses synoptically to determine their meaning amd the same goes with Gal. 2:16

We know what the word means literally but we also know in all languages there are casual use of words not intended to be so mechanically understood. Such nuances or personal styles may be determined also by looking at Paul's greater collections.

The commentaries I have quickly looked over seem to quickly say that it should not be understood that Paul contradidtions himself and "but" is used as a way to reconcile what is perseived as Paul's intented meaning synoptically determined over a more mechanical translation in a vacuum.

 

[HIM]

there are two questions needing attention here

1. What does the context support?
As for the of context of #1 there is the immediate context of Galatians but then there is the context of Paul's letters on a whole that may be considered when deciding on the right word. For example 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:5 all seem to be mirror verses and all written by Paul so we should not see these verses as contradicting each other but instead the same point in different perspectives, which is only to our advantage as we have more information to consider. So we may view these verses synoptically to determine their meaning amd the same goes with Gal. 2:16

I was looking at Galatians 6:5 (15) trying to determine what connection you were making. lol I hate when I do that and don't catch it. The post you responded to was edited so much after posting due to typos that I just deleted and reposted it. Yours is fine, I am just sayin.

This here point is crucial before we lay out the context. Do we according to Galatians 2:20 live by the faith of Christ, by faith in Christ or do we live Because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ? FYI if you did not know The clause " I live by (through) the faith of the Son of God," is in the genitive case. Wherein Galatians 3:22 where Paul does say Faith in Christ the grammar is different.




Gal 2:20 (KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (ESV) I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (NET) I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

We know what the word means literally but we also know in all languages there are casual use of words not intended to be so mechanically understood. Such nuances or personal styles may be determined also by looking at Paul's greater collections.

The commentaries I have quickly looked over seem to quickly say that it should not be understood that Paul contradidtions himself and "but" is used as a way to reconcile what is perseived as Paul's intented meaning synoptically determined over a more mechanical translation in a vacuum.

The contradiction would be in How He used the words in question elsewhere not in doctrine.

Paul used it in respect to how the words are understood together without fail. Here are the text again with a little commentary in respect what is being put forth.

But works as does if not here in 10:15 because it does not change the meaning of the word and text.
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

And they also but or except still in unbelief shall be grafted in? No because it changes the meaning of the word and text. As would except.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

But we eat we are worse? No because it changes the meaning of the words and text.
1Cor 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Woe unto to me but I preach the Gospel? No because it changes the meaning of the words and text.
1Cor 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

Same here.
1Cor 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Same here.
1Cor 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Same here
1Cor 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

But works here as does if not because it does not change the meaning of the words and text
1Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

It does not work here because it changes the meaning of the words and text.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But works here as does if not because it does not change the meaning of the words and text.
2Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

But works here also as does if not because it does not change the meaning of the words and text.
2Tim 2:5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

2. Why is "but" the preferred translation?

as for #2 there is seems no resonable bias happening as it is so widespread it's the same preference from traditional to modern views. You could claim that there is a historical bias happening, certainly, the KJV is probably defaulting to the Latin reading of the text but then why is pretty much everyone else apparently so passive or dare I say "lazy" in their methodology? This part on your end is left unanswered and needs more attendtion or due diligence before the given concludion of "it's wrong". I'm not interested in debating the doctrinal points and I'm concived on my own terms the meaning of the text, this is more of

Once again you make a comment about me in respect to making a deeper dive as if we haven't. You speak of not wanting to debate doctrinal points but that is your stance. Thinking what is written elsewhere in respect to doctrine must dictate a change here in what the text actually says.

a challenge to you to take a deeper dive as to why this is the favored view that I don't see happening.

. As if the fact the words together don't explicitly mean but and it was shown. And the other instances which were shown to you where Paul used the phrase, which show that the word "but" only works if the words if not, unless, or except is also.

 

[DamianWarS]

As if the fact the words together don't explicitly mean but and it was shown. And the other instances which were shown to you where Paul used the phrase, which show that the word "but" only works if the words if not, unless, or except is also.

you're getting trapped in a word search vacuum. Since the words in question are auxiliary in nature how they are used in a different context doesn't really help us understand how they are used in this context. This still doesn't answer the question of why is "but" the favored translation and overwhelmingly so among translations? Are you content to simply say it is a failed translation without asking why this word is chosen?

Ellicott's Commentary agrees with the literal as you have put it however offers this insight "But.--The sense of the Greek is not clearly brought out by the Authorised version. A more strict translation would be except, which is made to refer only to the word "justified," and not to the previous negation of works, as the cause of justification. "A man is not justified by works (nor is he justified at all), except by faith in Christ."

so according to Ellicott the point is not works it is faith in Christ. We are not justified by anything at all that we could ever accomplish ourselves, except by faith in Christ. The "works" aspect is not instrumental in the justification nor is it there to suggest a foundation. So the text might as well be saying "We are not justified by our own doings, except by the faith in Christ." In that understanding of course cognitively speaking there needs to be a choice that is responded to which does involve human action but it really is not the point, the point is faith through Christ not a man's action.

The Pulpit Commentary has a lot to say on this. far too much to copy and paste in here but starts with "properly means 'except,' 'save' but St. Paul would have betrayed his own position if he had allowed that "works of the Law" could ever have any part whatever in procuring justification". it goes on to offer different reasons to offer an explanation as to why Paul may have used these words

You are correct on the surface that the translation of the word is wrong. But is there doctrinal fault in the translation? Or more to the point Is there doctrinal fault in "except"? To me, the "but" makes more sense in the context of the verse over the "except". if we are advocates of sola fide then there is only one way to interpret this account if it says "but" or "except" and the Greek used is somewhat immaterial and kind of a forest through the trees issue when we pick at the words since the verses conclusion agrees with a reading/meaning that "but" offers. So I don't see doctrinal bias here but reconciling the verse not even with other Pauline texts but with itself.

A theologian by the name of "James Dunn" offers an alternative view which is essentially that we are only justified by the works of the law by Christ and not by our own works of the law. So the reading of "know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, [except] by faith in Jesus Christ" would be inclusive of Christ's own works of the law but it would exclude man's works of the law since they can never be complete.

I would say chiefly the immediate context offers us the most useful reason as to why "but" is favored over "except" and it is what afforded the translators such liberties since "but" to me is more agreeable with the end of the verse that would seem to be in conflict with the "except" reading "that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.'" (YLT)

 

[AbbaLove]

Apparently some theologians can't agree that the words: Trust, Faith and Believe all have the same meaning to a "justified" Believer whether living from say the time of Abel to present day.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[HIM]

you're getting trapped in a word search vacuum. Since the words in question are auxiliary in nature how they are used in a different context doesn't really help us understand how they are used in this context. This still doesn't answer the question of why is "but" the favored translation and overwhelmingly so among translations? Are you content to simply say it is a failed translation without asking why this word is chosen?

How a word is defined and how Paul used it else where is very telling. It is not a word vacuum as you say. These are just facts that need consider when looking at individual text. We have been prodding you in respect to context. You are now getting around to it but are relying on commentaries it seems. I get it and use them also.
Anyway, here again we post to you the following questions.
As was said This here point is crucial before we lay out the context. Do we according to Galatians 2:20 live by the faith of Christ, by faith in Christ or do we live Because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ? FYI if you did not know The clause " I live by (through) the faith of the Son of God," is in the genitive case. Wherein Galatians 3:22 where Paul does say Faith in Christ the grammar is different.




Gal 2:20 (KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (ESV) I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (NET) I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

A theologian by the name of "James Dunn" offers an alternative view which is essentially that we are only justified by the works of the law by Christ and not by our own works of the law. So the reading of "know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, [except] by faith in Jesus Christ" would be inclusive of Christ's own works of the law but it would exclude man's works of the law since they can never be complete.

James Dunn is on the right trail.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

How a word is defined and how Paul used it else where is very telling. It is not a word vacuum as you say. These are just facts that need consider when looking at individual text. We have been prodding you in respect to context. You are now getting around to it but are relying on commentaries it seems. I get it and use them also.
Anyway, here again we post to you the following questions.
As was said This here point is crucial before we lay out the context. Do we according to Galatians 2:20 live by the faith of Christ, by faith in Christ or do we live Because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ? FYI if you did not know The clause " I live by (through) the faith of the Son of God," is in the genitive case. Wherein Galatians 3:22 where Paul does say Faith in Christ the grammar is different.




Gal 2:20 (KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (ESV) I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (NET) I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


James Dunn is on the right trail.

Good morning HIM!

I love mornings. . Just wanted to say hello.

 

[HIM]

Good morning HIM!

I love mornings. . Just wanted to say hello.

Hello SB! Sorry for the late reply. I am a morning person also. Day and evening for that matter lol.

Praise you God for your love and persistence. May our day test fully in you.

 

[DamianWarS]

How a word is defined and how Paul used it else where is very telling. It is not a word vacuum as you say. These are just facts that need consider when looking at individual text. We have been prodding you in respect to context. You are now getting around to it but are relying on commentaries it seems. I get it and use them also.
Anyway, here again we post to you the following questions.
As was said This here point is crucial before we lay out the context. Do we according to Galatians 2:20 live by the faith of Christ, by faith in Christ or do we live Because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ? FYI if you did not know The clause " I live by (through) the faith of the Son of God," is in the genitive case. Wherein Galatians 3:22 where Paul does say Faith in Christ the grammar is different.




Gal 2:20 (KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (ESV) I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:20 (NET) I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


James Dunn is on the right trail.

without the sources of experts it's just opionn. even without commentaries, the vast amount of translations feel "but" is more responsible to the text, not commenting on this doesn't make this go away. the verse in question's own context fits this reading better. Your thoughts on James Dunn being on the right trail seems to reveal more agenda driven that there is no discussion here, just that which agrees to the OP. I'm not here tell you which is right or wrong, you're right lit. meaning fits "except" but I think it's fairly clear why translations have chosen "but" over "except". Just read the whole verse, and go ahead and use "but" or "except" it doens't change the meaning.

 

[GDL]

Funny how someone who is working deeper in the translations of the Text can be assumed to be countered by the process of "pick your favorite expert." Those experts are also struggling with this verse. And they are choosing the best ways to translate this verse based in part upon how they understand it to relate to other Scriptures. This is part of the problem with translations and I for one like to see things like @HIM is pulling from the Text here. FWIW, if anything, I commend you for bringing out issues like this. We can see from translations that men are still working to figure everything out. Why not be one of them? "Expert" can be very subjective. Every denomination has its "experts".

I agree with what @HIM is identifying re: "ean mē". Most literally it says, "if not". "Unless" is a decent replacement. There are other words to translate as "but" if this were the intended meaning here. The choice of translation can have profound results in what is being said.

The other issue @HIM is identifying is whether the [literal], "faith [of] Jesus Christ" should be translated as "Jesus Christ's faith", or as "faith in Jesus Christ", or some other way. Both are legitimate ways the phrase could be translated, but the grammar that is normally and most simplistically translated as "of" has about 20 ways it could be translated.

As for the scholars, we can add this note from the NET Bible (Please forgive some of the font issues as I'm not doing the work to clean them up), The blue text highlight is mine:

NET Notes (Gal 2:16)​

​

49 tn Grk "yet knowing"; the participle εἰδότες e*idotes) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.​

50 tn Grk "no man," but ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) is used here in a generic sense, referring to both men and women.​

51 sn The law is a reference to the law of Moses.​

52 tn Or "faith in Jesus Christ." A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated "faith in Jesus Christ," an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean "Christ's faith" or "Christ's faithfulness" (cf., e.g., G. Howard, "The 'Faith of Christ'," ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, "Πίστις Χριστοῦ," NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, "The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul," NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, "Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ," SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view. ​

sn On the phrase translated the faithfulness of Christ, ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that "the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful." Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.​

53 tn In Greek this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, but the construction is too long and complex for contemporary English style, so a new sentence was started here in the translation.​

54 tn Or "by faith in Christ." See comment above on "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ."​

55 tn Or "no human being"; Grk "flesh."​

 

[GDL]

I agree with what @HIM is identifying re: "ean mē". Most literally it says, "if not". "Unless" is a decent replacement. There are other words to translate as "but" if this were the intended meaning here. The choice of translation can have profound results in what is being said.

So, pick your favorite and back it up with other Scripture(s). IOW, be a translator:

A man is not justified/declared righteous from (result) works of law:

1. If not/unless through faith in Jesus Christ.
2. if not/unless through Jesus Christ's faith.

Either one of the above may suggest that a man is justified from works of law through faith due to what Jesus Christ accomplished. I would also consider the word "from" which can have the meaning of the results - so resulting from works of law. So, did Jesus Christ do works of law, and as a result men are justified as the result of [His] works of law through faith in Him, or through His faith, or through His faithfulness, or through all of these?

A man is not justified/declared righteous from (result) works of law:

1. but through faith in Jesus Christ.
   1. This contrast ("but") seems to distance us from any connection to law.
      1. But does it really? We still have to consider what Jesus did in relation to law.
2. but through Jesus Christ's faith.
   1. This contrast ("but") also seems to distance us from connection to law, but not as much so. IOW, it can easily be read to point us to what Jesus Christ did in relation to law by His faith, even faithfulness.

My reasoning on the fly here is that "if not/unless" is not only the most literal translation, but also the best one, because what Jesus Christ did for us while having been born and then living in the "under law" era, is in the background of this information. Translating as "but" can tend to distance us from what Jesus did by faith. And I think this is what the translators using "but" are intentionally doing (rightly distancing us from our works of law) while inadvertently distancing us from Jesus' works of law under law. Maybe our justification is a result of works of law - Jesus' works of law. It's also interesting that Jesus is said to have been justified in Spirit (1Tim3:16).

I'm sure others can look at all of this and opine also.

Good topic @HIM. Also, some nice work. Thanks for considering such "scholarly" things.