Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
διά + genitive

BDAG Categories
  • ① marker of extension through an area or object, via, through
    ② marker of extension in time
    ③ marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby someth. is accomplished or effected, by, via, through
    ④ marker of pers. agency, through, by
    ⑤ At times διά w. gen. seems to have causal mng.
LSJ Categories
  • I. of Place or Space
    II. of Time
    III. causal, through, by
    IV. διά τινος ἔχειν, εἶναι, γίγνεσθαι, to express conditions or states...

The problem for me is that it seems you are translating case argument categories into English meanings and straightjacketing understanding of the Greek from those English meanings. In BDAG it will be hidden somewhere in "instrumentality or circumstance" and L&S has it hidden in "causal" (somewhere in subcategory "instrument or means") despite the fact that it isn't causal per se at all. Acts 15:27 has people communicate by word (δια λογου) (ie not through text), which is in no sense supplying cause, even though L&S place it under "causal". The words themselves don't cause anything, not being capable of causality. The common notion of causality requires the causer to be capable of participation in events. L&S's "causal" category doesn't have that requirement as the example from Acts evinces. The thanks Paul gives to God in Rom 1:8 imputes no causality on Jesus—Paul is the cause of the thanks; Jesus is the conduit (and see 1 Cor 1:4 for "thank... for")—, though it uses δια + gen. with Jesus, yet you seem to impute causality on Jesus for the reading of 1 Thes 4:14 I supply, which is your recourse for rejecting my reading. I think you are creating a strawman, perhaps inadvertently, through your continued overzealous application of ad hoc grammatical categories. They are not prescriptive, but a means to chunk the diverse uses of a grammatical item, here δια + gen.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Romans 7.4, works precisely because the death is metaphorical; (the body of) Jesus is in some mystical way the agent, cause, or means of that metaphorical death, in the sense that such a death would not be possible without him.
I supplied Rom 7:4 specifically to show that there was nothing strange about my syntactic analysis of 1 Thes 4:14. I wouldn't want to draw significance out of a sentence which you've already indicated involves mystification and metaphor and leaves you grasping at putting a handle on it.
Ben C. Smith wrote:But, if the death/sleep in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 is literal, then what does this same relationship imply about Jesus' agency or causality with respect to it?
Nothing. There is no imputation of agency or causality. They are not needed to fit the stretchy category. There is no agency or causality in Rom 15:30

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me

The agency is certainly Paul's (if he wrote the chapter) and in no meaningful sense can one say that Jesus and the love of the spirit have causality in the sentence.

I think you need a more flexible approach to descriptive grammar.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

I think we saw in my previous post that there is no necessary notion of causation to be extracted from the use of δια (the notion only appears in this discussion through Ben C. taking descriptive grammar as prescriptive), so we have to deal with the clause "those who have fallen asleep through Jesus" as the more obvious indicator of which people who have fallen asleep who God will bring. Fortunately for us, in 1 Cor 15:18 Paul uses a similar phrase when he talks about the possibility of those who have fallen asleep in Christ (οι κοιμηθεντες εν χριστω) having perished. 1 Cor's οι κοιμηθεντες εν χριστω is a close parallel with 1 Thes 4:14 τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου ("those who have fallen asleep through Jesus") and involves a prepositional phrase limiting those who'd fallen asleep, only those "in Christ" or, as 1 Thes says, "through Jesus". Paul uses the same idea in the two texts: both talk about believers—not all those who have fallen asleep, but those who have done so in faith in Jesus. The unnatural reading of the 1 Thes 4:14, separating the phrase "through Jesus" from "those who have fallen asleep" seems to be predicated on a Jesus led parousia, an exegesis which cannot work if it is actually God who is bringing the faithful dead with him. Yet most translations of the verse separate Jesus from those fallen asleep so as to grammatically relocate him into the main clause so that "the Lord" in the next verse can refer to him.

The connection between those who have fallen asleep and through Jesus was made by John Chrysostom in his 7th Homily on 1 Thessalonians:

"Even so," he says, "them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with Him." Again, "fallen asleep": he nowhere says, the dead. But with respect to Christ, his words are, "He died," because there followed mention of the Resurrection, but here "them that are fallen asleep." How "through Jesus"? Either that they fell asleep through Jesus, or that through Jesus will He bring them. The phrase "that fell asleep through Jesus" means the faithful. Here the heretics say, that he is speaking of the baptized. What place then is there for "even so"? For Jesus did not fall asleep through Baptism. But on what account does he say, "them that are fallen asleep"? So that he is discoursing not of a general Resurrection, but of a partial one. Them that are fallen asleep through Jesus, he says, and thus he speaks in many places. (From here)

The concept, as Chrysostom understands it, is "those who have fallen asleep through Jesus".

If he and I are correct then the Lord who is coming in 1 Thes 4:15-16 is God. In fact v.16 makes it clear that it is the Lord and not his proxy, when it says "the Lord himself"! My reading, "those who have fallen asleep through Jesus", is strengthened by the phrase "the dead in Christ" in this verse. Those who have fallen asleep through Jesus are the "dead in Christ".

Theology shapes biblical translation.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:The problem for me is that it seems you are translating case argument categories into English meanings and straightjacketing understanding of the Greek from those English meanings. In BDAG it will be hidden somewhere in "instrumentality or circumstance" and L&S has it hidden in "causal" (somewhere in subcategory "instrument or means") despite the fact that it isn't causal per se at all. Acts 15:27 has people communicate by word (δια λογου) (ie not through text), which is in no sense supplying cause, even though L&S place it under "causal". The words themselves don't cause anything, not being capable of causality. The common notion of causality requires the causer to be capable of participation in events. L&S's "causal" category doesn't have that requirement as the example from Acts evinces. The thanks Paul gives to God in Rom 1:8 imputes no causality on Jesus—Paul is the cause of the thanks; Jesus is the conduit (and see 1 Cor 1:4 for "thank... for")—, though it uses δια + gen. with Jesus, yet you seem to impute causality on Jesus for the reading of 1 Thes 4:14 I supply, which is your recourse for rejecting my reading. I think you are creating a strawman, perhaps inadvertently, through your continued overzealous application of ad hoc grammatical categories. They are not prescriptive, but a means to chunk the diverse uses of a grammatical item, here δια + gen.
In what sense, then, would Jesus be the conduit for the death of those people in Thessalonica? How does someone die through Jesus in a way that makes the term διὰ preferable to ἐν, in Jesus, in this context?
spin wrote:Fortunately for us, in 1 Cor 15:18 Paul uses a similar phrase when he talks about the possibility of those who have fallen asleep in Christ (οι κοιμηθεντες εν χριστω) having perished. 1 Cor's οι κοιμηθεντες εν χριστω is a close parallel with 1 Thes 4:14 τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου ("those who have fallen asleep through Jesus") and involves a prepositional phrase limiting those who'd fallen asleep, only those "in Christ" or, as 1 Thes says, "through Jesus".
This is exactly the phrase, ἐν Χριστῷ, which I would expect in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 if the prepositional phrase were modifying the participle. Paul uses ἐν Χριστῷ repeatedly in order to designate a state of being; and fortunately he uses it so often in this manner that we can get a firm handle on what he is about, including in these two verses (both of which you have mentioned at various times):

1 Corinthians 15.18: 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ [οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ] have perished.

1 Thessalonians 4.16: 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ [οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ] shall rise first.

1 Thessalonians 4.14 the odd one out, so to speak: the only one of the three to use διὰ instead of ἐν. My reading explains why.
The connection between those who have fallen asleep and through Jesus was made by John Chrysostom in his 7th Homily on 1 Thessalonians:

"Even so," he says, "them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with Him." Again, "fallen asleep": he nowhere says, the dead. But with respect to Christ, his words are, "He died," because there followed mention of the Resurrection, but here "them that are fallen asleep." How "through Jesus"? Either that they fell asleep through Jesus, or that through Jesus will He bring them. The phrase "that fell asleep through Jesus" means the faithful. Here the heretics say, that he is speaking of the baptized. What place then is there for "even so"? For Jesus did not fall asleep through Baptism. But on what account does he say, "them that are fallen asleep"? So that he is discoursing not of a general Resurrection, but of a partial one. Them that are fallen asleep through Jesus, he says, and thus he speaks in many places. (From here)

The concept, as Chrysostom understands it, is "those who have fallen asleep through Jesus".
Thank you for this. Here is the passage in Greek and a quick translation of my own:

Ἐνταῦθα δὲ, «τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ», ἢ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι τῇ πίστει τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κοιμηθέντας, ἢ ὅτι διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, τουτέστι, τοὺς πιστούς. Ἐνταῦθα οἱ αἱρετικοί φασιν ὅτι τοὺς βαπτισθέντας λέγει. Τὸ οὖν «οὕτω», ποῦ ἵσταται; ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐκοιμήθη διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος. Τίνος δὲ ἕνεκέν φησι, «τοὺς κοιμηθέντας»; Ὥστε οὐ περὶ καθολικῆς, ἀλλὰ περὶ μερικῆς ἀναστάσεως διαλέγεται. «Ἄξει τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ», φησί· καὶ πολλαχοῦ οὕτω λέγει.

But here, [with the phrase] "Those who have fallen asleep through Jesus," [Paul is] saying either this, that they have fallen asleep in the faith of Jesus, or that through Jesus he will bring those who have fallen asleep — that is, the faithful. Here the heretics say that he is speaking of the baptized. However, where would [the word] "so" stand? For Jesus did not fall asleep through baptism. But on what account does he say, "those who have fallen asleep?" So as to discourse not concerning a general but rather concerning a partial resurrection. "He will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus," he says; and he speaks thus in many places.

You are correct that Chrysostom appears to opt for your reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.14; one can even tell from the way in which he rewords the verse there at the end of that snippet: ἄξει τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Here he has separated διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ from the verb ἄξει so as to force it to modify the participle, exactly as you read the verse.

However, look at the underlined bit above, which actually reflects my reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.14: Chrysostom thus opines that either option is possible, which suggests that the syntax I am suggesting may not be quite as weird as you think. We can confirm this by reference to Basil of Seleucia, sermon 32 (PG 85, column 360):

Καὶ πάλιν· Ὅτι Ἰησοῦς παθὼν, καὶ ἀπέθανε, καὶ ἀνέστη· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας ἄξει διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

Here Basil has done the exact opposite of Chrysostom in the part where he is opting for your reading (or the exact same thing as Chrysostom in the part where he is admitting that my reading is admissible, too); he has separated διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ from the participle, forcing it to modify the main verb, ἄξει, suggesting that Basil has opted for my reading over and against yours.

The net result here is that, for these two native speakers of ancient Greek, both readings are possible. Basil opts for mine, Chrysostom for yours (while admitting that mine is possible).
If he and I are correct then the Lord who is coming in 1 Thes 4:15-16 is God.
And if I am correct then the Lord who is coming (or who is going to have an advent, παρουσία) is Jesus, just as he is elsewhere in Paul, including thrice elsewhere in this same epistle:

1 Corinthians 15.23: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His advent [παρουσίᾳ].

Philippians 3.20: 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2.19: 19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His advent [παρουσίᾳ]?

1 Thessalonians 3.13: 13 ...so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the advent [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

1 Thessalonians 4.15: 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the advent [παρουσίαν] of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1 Thessalonians 5.23: 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the advent [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, notice how the author of (the probably pseudonymous) 2 Thessalonians seems to interpret our passage in 1 Thessalonians:

1 Thessalonians 4.17: 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with [ἅμα σὺν] them in the clouds to meet [εἰς ἀπάντησιν] the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

2 Thessalonians 2.1: 1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent [παρουσίας] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him [ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν]....

The coming together with the Lord described in 1 Thessalonians seems to be treated as the gathering together with our Lord Jesus Christ in 2 Thessalonians.

I think the only real weakness that my reading was suffering was the somewhat awkward syntax. But Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia show that my reading is certainly possible (as is yours, of course). Plus my reading explains better why Paul uses διὰ instead of ἐν here, since he elsewhere uses ἐν for the notion of dying in a state of faith in Christ; διὰ can be allowed its usual force with no difficulty at all if it modifies the main verb. Plus my reading explains better why the Lord is said to have a παρουσίᾳ here, since elsewhere in Paul it is always and only Jesus who has a παρουσίᾳ or visibly descends from heaven. Plus my reading seems to be the one chosen by the author of 2 Thessalonians. Plus my reading is consistent with there being one God and one Lord for Paul (1 Corinthians 8.6): God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son, who is also Lord. Plus my reading explains why Paul links Son and Lord (1 Corinthians 1.9), links Jesus and Lord (all over the place), and distinguishes Father from Lord (Romans 1.7; 1 Corinthians 1.3; 2 Corinthians 1.2-3; Galatians 1.3; Philippians 1.2; 1 Thessalonians 1.1, 3; Philemon 1.3) and God from Lord (all over the place), but fails in the undisputed passages to unambiguously link Father and Lord or God and Lord.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:In what sense, then [in 1 Thes 4:14], would Jesus be the conduit for the death of those people in Thessalonica? How does someone die through Jesus in a way that makes the term διὰ preferable to ἐν, in Jesus, in this context?
Paul functionally answers this question in 1 Cor 15, eg v.21, "through one man [came] resurrection of the dead". God did the raising, ie the causal event is his, so in what sense is it through Jesus?
Ben C. Smith wrote:This is exactly the phrase [in 1 Cor 15:18], ἐν Χριστῷ, which I would expect in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 if the prepositional phrase were modifying the participle. Paul uses ἐν Χριστῷ repeatedly in order to designate a state of being; and fortunately he uses it so often in this manner that we can get a firm handle on what he is about, including in these two verses (both of which you have mentioned at various times):

1 Corinthians 15.18: 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ [οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ] have perished.
1 Thessalonians 4.16: 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ [οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ] shall rise first.

1 Thessalonians 4.14 the odd one out, so to speak: the only one of the three to use διὰ instead of ἐν. My reading explains why.
No, it does not. The common reading to which you subscribe does not explain why the obvious reading in which appears to govern δια του ιησου should be put aside for a more convoluted reading. Your only attempt so far has been to claim that "through" entails agency or causality or complicity, a claim I hope I've shown is without foundation, a claim which Chrysostom certainly does not support. (That is the importance of his comment. He, a native speaker, simply does not agree with you.) And I have already pointed out that attempting to elevate δια του ιησου to the main clause mangles the syntax: συν αυτω "with him" attached to the verb αξει ("will bring") requires the him to be the agent of the sentence. You didn't take this on board earlier, but the sentence provides the nominative God as the agent of αξει, so the connection between God and him is transparent. (The only caveat I can see is—with the even more problematic notion—if there were an earlier suggestion of God having "apprehended" Jesus and bringing those who have fallen asleep [along] with [Jesus].)
Ben C. Smith wrote:
The connection between those who have fallen asleep and through Jesus was made by John Chrysostom in his 7th Homily on 1 Thessalonians...
..
You are correct that Chrysostom appears to opt for your reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.14; one can even tell from the way in which he rewords the verse there at the end of that snippet: ἄξει τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Here he has separated διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ from the verb ἄξει so as to force it to modify the participle, exactly as you read the verse.

However, look at the underlined bit above, which actually reflects my reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.14: Chrysostom thus opines that either option is possible, which suggests that the syntax I am suggesting may not be quite as weird as you think.
Yes, I quoted all that I thought was relevant. What is noteworthy contra your view is that he does not show any inkling of any problem at all with δια του ιησου attached to those who have fallen asleep, his preferred reading. If you were right perhaps everyone just ignored the imputation of Jesus being causally involved in the saints' deaths. Plainly you are not right.

You have no grounds to prefer your reading and it is the more troublesome. No-one who supports it seems to be able to grasp the confusion necessary to support the reading. God is the nominative of the verb to bring, the one supposed to be carrying out the action of the transitive verb: either God is bringing or he is not. If he is not, then why does Paul say he will? There is no pussyfooting about Jesus being the agent of "bring". Had Paul talked about God "sending" then there would be no problem as God need not move in order to send, but in an active sentence the nominative takes the agency of the verb, leading or carrying or bringing to the deictic point—the "here" of the narrative. The mockery of this text has most translators basically forgetting there is a nominative and injecting Jesus as agent. What couldn't Paul get the verb right? Should we go with the translators instead? Think about it seriously, if Jesus took the agency role, then why is God in the nominative or even in the sentence at all? But the theology is strong, Luke. Use the theology! One can excuse all sorts of things with the right motivation.
Ben C. Smith wrote:We can confirm this by reference to Basil of Seleucia...ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας ἄξει διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

Here Basil has done the exact opposite of Chrysostom...
By actually changing the syntax! Chrysostom doesn't need to do that. However, we are dealing with a period in which the two uses of κυριος have been conflated and the trinitarian view has one, allowing easy confusion between the roles of God and Jesus, yet in this context Chrysostom provides a lectio diffilior. You cannot accuse him of simply toeing the line. His reading requires you to argue against it and not against the current theology. This is not just one reading against another. You need to discount his preferred reading and someone who is happy to change the syntax and provide a tendentious reading cannot help you.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
If he and I are correct then the Lord who is coming in 1 Thes 4:15-16 is God.
And if I am correct then the Lord who is coming (or who is going to have an advent, παρουσία) is Jesus,
We've already seen in 1 Cor 10:20-21 that the Lord and God are used in parallel, pointing to the fact that they are the same entity. Paul cites a HB parallelism in Rom 14:11 (a rewritten Isa 45:23, LXX adding reference to God and Paul's version adding the Lord), pointing to the same conclusion. But then it is hard to find any differently when the Pentateuch is full of references to κυριος ο θεος and I've already pointed out Philo's dealing with these two terms for the same referent. This is Paul's cultural context. You've shown no reason to think Paul uses κυριος #2 and θεος differently from Philo's distinction (see pg 3 of this thread). (Injecting English theological terminus technicus "advent" into a word that for Paul meant "appearance" or, by extension, "arrival" is not very useful.)
Ben C. Smith wrote:just as he is elsewhere in Paul, including thrice elsewhere in this same epistle:

1 Corinthians 15.23: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His advent [παρουσίᾳ].

Philippians 3.20: 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2.19: 19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His advent [παρουσίᾳ]?

1 Thessalonians 3.13: 13 ...so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the advent [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

1 Thessalonians 4.15: 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the advent [παρουσίαν] of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1 Thessalonians 5.23: 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the advent [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you think that Jesus is going to stay home and mind the throne? Of course not. He will be coming and, as Paul's theological focus turns more to Jesus, so will his discourse. All you are doing is lumping references to the Lord together with those to the/our lord Jesus and suggesting they are the same referent, when you can expect he who acts for God to bear reference to he who acts through him.

I think it is simply wrong to use later theological terminology instead of simpler readings of Paul's words. You wouldn't talk about the advent of Titus in 2 Cor 7:6 or of Stefanas et al in pseudo-Pauline 1 Cor 16:17 or of Paul in Php 1:26. You must read Paul in a pre-christian linguistic context: he is our first writer on the subject, so his language reflects that prior to christianity.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Also, notice how the author of (the probably pseudonymous) 2 Thessalonians seems to interpret our passage in 1 Thessalonians:

1 Thessalonians 4.17: 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with [ἅμα σὺν] them in the clouds to meet [εἰς ἀπάντησιν] the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

2 Thessalonians 2.1: 1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent [παρουσίας] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him [ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν]....

The coming together with the Lord described in 1 Thessalonians seems to be treated as the gathering together with our Lord Jesus Christ in 2 Thessalonians.
We may be seeing the evolution of christian theology here, as the Lord and the lord Jesus become more closely overlaid, one on the other. This is entailed in my understanding of the development of the use of κυριος.
Ben C. Smith wrote:I think the only real weakness that my reading was suffering was the somewhat awkward syntax. But Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia show that my reading is certainly possible (as is yours, of course).
I don't find Basil's syntactic rearrangement of much use to you. (I must admit I'd like to see a full context to make a more informed comment, but I can't find the text online.)
Ben C. Smith wrote:Plus my reading explains better why Paul uses διὰ instead of ἐν here, since he elsewhere uses ἐν for the notion of dying in a state of faith in Christ; διὰ can be allowed its usual force with no difficulty at all if it modifies the main verb.
Yet you have no time to deal with "rejoice in God through our lord Jesus" or "give thanks through Jesus" or the like. In these statements Jesus is not the agent, nor the cause of the action. Jesus is—for want of better words—the "conduit" for the thanks to, or rejoicing in, God.

Where you reading seems to me to utterly fail is that it has no regard for the first part of the verse. You give no discourse value for it. Yet for me, it is an integral part of the argument—as I've explained before—, the bridge from the previous verse to the fact that God will bring those who have fallen asleep. It is significant to the believers worried about those fallen asleep that they believe not only that Jesus died, but that God raised him, so, believing, they know that God will bring those who have fallen asleep in that belief in the resurrection, ie they who have fallen asleep through Jesus. So there is no reason to worry. The discourse about God bringing the faithful dead allows the Thessalonians to "comfort one another" (4:18). Paul offers a contrast between those who have no hope and those who have fallen asleep through Jesus, who will rise first.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Plus my reading explains better why the Lord is said to have a παρουσίᾳ here, since elsewhere in Paul it is always and only Jesus who has a παρουσίᾳ or visibly descends from heaven.
I find your reliance on the notion of parousia as a terminus technicus in Paul's writings discouraging, seeming to be full of a later theology and not concerned about how Paul should be using it the way you wish at the beginning of the christian written tradition.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Plus my reading seems to be the one chosen by the author of 2 Thessalonians.
You assume that there is some significance to this assertion: if there is, you've failed to make it.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Plus my reading is consistent with there being one God and one Lord for Paul (1 Corinthians 8.6): God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son, who is also Lord. Plus my reading explains why Paul links Son and Lord (1 Corinthians 1.9), links Jesus and Lord (all over the place), and distinguishes Father from Lord (Romans 1.7; 1 Corinthians 1.3; 2 Corinthians 1.2-3; Galatians 1.3; Philippians 1.2; 1 Thessalonians 1.1, 3; Philemon 1.3) and God from Lord (all over the place), but fails in the undisputed passages to unambiguously link Father and Lord or God and Lord.
I have no problem at all with Jesus being called κυριος #1. You've shown no support for Paul distinguishing between the father and κυριος #2. (It seems that you are still at loss to the precise distinction between κυριος #1 and κυριος #2: when you mention "one lord", it cannot be κυριος #2, which is not qualified in any way.) I've already shown three passages that make a clear link between God and κυριος #2, 1) 1 Thes 4:14-16, which moves from God as the agent of the bringing to the Lord coming; and 2) the parallelism in 1 Cor 10:21-22; and 3) Rom 14:10b-11. This last:

10b For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ” (Isa 45:23)

LXX Isa 45:23 By myself I swear,
righteousness shall surely proceed out of my mouth;
my words shall not be frustrated;
24 that to me every knee shall bend,
and every tongue shall swear by God,

The LXX features "God" (not in the Hebrew), but no κυριος. That has been added by Paul or his source. We have a picture of the day having come with people standing before God's judgment seat. All knees will bend before the Lord, so God and the Lord are the same here, unless there is some musical chairs act going on—said with straight face. And the parallelism in Paul's version again aligns the Lord and God.

I'm sure if I dig here I'll find more examples: I've being going at it rather ad hoc.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Thank you, spin. I am going to let this rest for now with just a few of items of clean-up:
  1. I use "advent" for παρουσία, not for theological purposes, but rather to mentally distinguish that term from ἐπιφάνεια ("appearance"), from ἔρχομαι ("come") and its cognates, and from miscellaneous words like καταντάω and εἰσέρχομαι (which can be translated as "arrive"). I would also translate παρουσία as "presence" in some cases. And you are correct that it is not always about Jesus or the Lord; other people can have "advents" too.
  2. Basil's use of 1 Thessalonians 4.14 can be found at the Internet Archive, toward the top of column 360.
  3. Romans 14.11 piqued my interest at one point, but it is easy on my thesis to see what Paul is doing here, and why he adds "says the Lord" to the passage, given both the setup in Romans 14.9 and his use of the same verse from Isaiah in Philippians 2.10-11. I even thought briefly about using the combination of these verses as an argument for my viewpoint, but decided that it was just as easy to explain on yours.
I've already shown three passages that make a clear link between God and κυριος #2, 1) 1 Thes 4:14-16, which moves from God as the agent of the bringing to the Lord coming; and 2) the parallelism in 1 Cor 10:21-22; and 3) Rom 14:10b-11.
I sincerely appreciate the list, and will consider it all.

I would be very interested in arguments at some point to the effect that 1 Corinthians 6.14 is (part of) an interpolation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:Thank you, spin. I am going to let this rest for now with just a few of items of clean-up:

I use "advent" for παρουσία, not for theological purposes, but...
I have argued on this forum before that language can (and does) control thought, providing constraints on the way words are used. Simple analogy: think of a bookshop that's just gone over to electronic cataloging and it has handy-dandy book categories, which allow easy tracking of books and supplies, but which don't handle mixed genre works and are limited to say 20 characters, making books that don't fit easily begin to fall through the cracks and not get ordered, especially since there are no shelves dedicated for them. I see the way here on the forum thought is channeled and I fear using such laden terminology as "advent" can have an impact on how people think about them. You've seen the problems caused by the use of "church" translating ekklhsia. Would you use "advent" for the appearances I've already cited, that of Titus in 2 Cor 7:6 or of Stefanas et al in pseudo-Pauline 1 Cor 16:17 or of Paul in Php 1:26? It's extremely easy to be manipulated by one's own words. The nice crisp boundaries of "history" and "fiction", nice binary taxonomy for a messy reality.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Basil's use of 1 Thessalonians 4.14 can be found at the Internet Archive, toward the top of column 360.
Thanks for that. I had a quick look and it seems Basil is flitting from one verse to another from one letter to another without much contextualization or analysis, so I doubt there's much analysis needed for the fact that he has changed the syntax.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Romans 14.11 piqued my interest at one point, but it is easy on my thesis to see what Paul is doing here, and why he adds "says the Lord" to the passage, given both the setup in Romans 14.9 and his use of the same verse from Isaiah in Philippians 2.10-11. I even thought briefly about using the combination of these verses as an argument for my viewpoint, but decided that it was just as easy to explain on yours.
I can't see how a parallelism could allow one to come up with a diametrically opposite understanding!
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would be very interested in arguments at some point to the effect that 1 Corinthians 6.14 is (part of) an interpolation.
It actually regards the rhetorical device Paul employs throughout the passage starting with the first verse ending with the topic of the following question in a chain of questions that goes to the end of the chapter. The chain is only broken at 6:14 which separates the question in v.15 from the topic mentioned in v.13 separated by what seems to be a creeping marginal devotional comment linked to the idea of the body but not to the language, so that when Paul's next rhetorical question is put about bodies, it's link back to v.13's "body" is interrupted by stuff about raising "the Lord". It becomes obvious when you see that Paul makes an analysis ending with an idea he wants to continue with by asking a rhetorical question which starts the same way each time, ουκ οιδατε οτι ("Do you not know that..."):

● 1-2 saints/saints,
● 2-3 judge/judge,
● 8-9 wrongdoing/wrongdoers,
● 13-[*][/color]-15a body/[*][/color]/bodies, [*** raised the Lord ***],
● 15b-16 joining with harlots,
● 18-19 body/body as temple.

So, not only is v.14 tangential to the discourse, it also breaks the repeated rhetorical structure Paul uses all the way through the chapter. Despite the vague connection (body - raised) which could allow a post hoc justification, it is simplest to understand that Paul was consistent with his rhetoric and that v.14 is marginal creep.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would be very interested in arguments at some point to the effect that 1 Corinthians 6.14 is (part of) an interpolation.
It actually regards the rhetorical device Paul employs throughout the passage starting with the first verse ending with the topic of the following question in a chain of questions that goes to the end of the chapter. The chain is only broken at 6:14 which separates the question in v.15 from the topic mentioned in v.13 separated by what seems to be a creeping marginal devotional comment linked to the idea of the body but not to the language, so that when Paul's next rhetorical question is put about bodies, it's link back to v.13's "body" is interrupted by stuff about raising "the Lord". It becomes obvious when you see that Paul makes an analysis ending with an idea he wants to continue with by asking a rhetorical question which starts the same way each time, ουκ οιδατε οτι ("Do you not know that..."):

● 1-2 saints/saints,
● 2-3 judge/judge,
● 8-9 wrongdoing/wrongdoers,
● 13-[*][/color]-15a body/[*][/color]/bodies, [*** raised the Lord ***],
● 15b-16 joining with harlots,
● 18-19 body/body as temple.

So, not only is v.14 tangential to the discourse, it also breaks the repeated rhetorical structure Paul uses all the way through the chapter. Despite the vague connection (body - raised) which could allow a post hoc justification, it is simplest to understand that Paul was consistent with his rhetoric and that v.14 is marginal creep.
Thank you.

While I see your point about the chapter as a whole, I may be seeing something different at work in various parts of this chapter, including in verses 12-14:

12a All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable [point/counterpoint].
b All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything [point/counterpoint].

13a Food is for the belly and the belly is for food [food and belly].
b And God will do away with it and them [destruction (of two entities)].

c But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body [not body and sex but body and Lord].
14 And God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power [resurrection (of two entities)].

Verse 14 seems necessary to disconnect the body from fornication in verse 13c; otherwise food/belly would logically have to be followed by sex/body, something Paul wishes to avoid.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:While I see your point about the chapter as a whole, I may be seeing something different at work in various parts of this chapter, including in verses 12-14:

12a All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable [point/counterpoint].
b All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything [point/counterpoint].

13a Food is for the belly and the belly is for food [food and belly].
b And God will do away with it and them [destruction (of two entities)].

c But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body [not body and sex but body and Lord].
14 And God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power [resurrection (of two entities)].

Verse 14 seems necessary to disconnect the body from fornication in verse 13c; otherwise food/belly would logically have to be followed by sex/body, something Paul wishes to avoid.
This is just the sort of eisegesis I did warn about! You are mindreading here ("something Paul wishes to avoid"). Do you not know that mindreading is not the basis of exegesis? Paul is dealing with the abuse of the body here and those who abuse the body will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do you not know that the inheritance of the kingdom of God is Paul's concern when he discusses food and porneia in relation to the body? There is no sign that Paul wants to disconnect the body/food from body/fornication in his argument. In fact that is the trajectory of his discourse from v.9 through to v.20. He makes clear to his Corinthians that the body is for the Lord not for fornication. Do you not know that the fornicator sins against the body itself? Paul's message is that one should glorify God through one's body and one cannot do that through fornication.

His argument is tight and there is no place in it for a handy-dandy nugget of resurrection good news. Yet, what you find is that readers come away with the nugget and forget Paul's discourse. Paul is more interested in dealing with the problem he is talking through than dropping nuggets that readers grab with glee. That is rhetorically self-defeating. And if you look through christian lit it is the nugget of theology that always gets remembered. And I find quite often that those nuggets add nothing to their contexts, pithily reflecting church beliefs rather than elucidating the discourse. They are prime candidates for creeping marginalia.

The basic topic in the chapter is the need for the Corinthians to be proactive in their judgment of their actions, a topic which is taken up again in the analysis of the problems of Paul's communal meal in chapter 11.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:This is just the sort of eisegesis I did warn about! You are mindreading here ("something Paul wishes to avoid"). .... There is no sign that Paul wants to disconnect the body/food from body/fornication in his argument.
Either you misunderstood me or I miswrote. I did not (mean to) say that Paul wished to avoid connecting belly/food with body/fornication. What I meant is that he did not wish to connect the body with fornication in the same way as he has already connected the belly with food. And we do not have to read his mind for that: he tells us this explicitly in verse 13 ("the body is not for fornication," as directly contrasted with "the belly is for food").
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & 1 Cor 6:14.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
spin wrote:This is just the sort of eisegesis I did warn about! You are mindreading here ("something Paul wishes to avoid"). .... There is no sign that Paul wants to disconnect the body/food from body/fornication in his argument.
Either you misunderstood me or I miswrote. I did not (mean to) say that Paul wished to avoid connecting belly/food with body/fornication. What I meant is that he did not wish to connect the body with fornication in the same way as he has already connected the belly with food.
This is transparent in the text. I don't see how it contributes to what you said:

Verse 14 seems necessary to disconnect the body from fornication in verse 13c; otherwise food/belly would logically have to be followed by sex/body, something Paul wishes to avoid.

I guess I just don't understand: food/belly (13a) is followed by sex/body (13c) (and yes, the two statements go in different directions). The existence of v.14 doesn't change the fact that the two are related—at least by proximity. And v.15 takes up the sex/body discourse further. V.14 interrupts that discourse which began in v.13. What exactly do you think Paul wishes to avoid?

13a Food is for the belly and the belly is for food (b And God will do away with it and them).
c But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body

Paul's discourse is quite clear...
Ben C. Smith wrote:And we do not have to read his mind for that: he tells us this explicitly in verse 13 ("the body is not for fornication," as directly contrasted with "the belly is for food").
That doesn't seem to help whatever the argument was you were positing for the need for v.14.

(I'm a little intrigued by Paul here. The belly will be done away with, but not the body!)
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply