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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

I see no use of 2 Corinthians 11:17 before the (late) fourth century.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
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:
Ben C. Smith wrote:The nearest antecedent for "him" in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 is "Jesus", not God.
The syntax does not allow this. The "him" in 4:14 is the nominative in the sentence: God. Jesus is part of a sub-clause. You are crossing clausal boundaries which I tried to illustrate earlier:

ουτως και ο θεος [τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου] αξει συν αυτω
even so [them that are fallen asleep in Jesus] will God bring with him.

What? None of what you are saying makes grammatical sense. Crossing clausal boundaries? The nominative in the sentence? Since when is a pronoun not allowed to dig into previous subclauses and phrases to find its antecedent? Since when does it have to refer to a noun in the nominative case? Whatever language you are thinking of, it is not Greek. Nor is it even English.
Ben C. Smith wrote:And in 1 Thessalonians 3.11-13 it is the Lord Jesus who is doing what Yahweh does in Zechariah 14.5;
You really have to spell out what you understand from 3:11-13. There are two entities: God and Jesus. There is a κυριος #2 reference. And there is a reference to Jesus coming with all the saints, which is clarified for you in 4:14: God will bring all those fallen asleep through Jesus, ie the "saints" (and obviously Jesus as well).
The person doing the coming with all the holy ones in Zechariah is Yahweh; the person doing the coming with all the holy ones in 1 Thessalonians is Jesus. It is very simple.
Why ignore Paul's HB references to the Lord, eg Rom 4:8 & 9:28? They are not coincidental, nor are they ambiguous. Paul definitely uses κυριος #2 for God.
Are you sure you understand my argument? I am not certain how such references cut against the notion that, for Paul, Yahweh = Jesus. If he quotes a passage from the scriptures about Yahweh, then he is, on this thesis, (probably) thinking of Jesus. (Some allowance may have to be made occasionally for the fact that the scriptures he is quoting are not of the same opinion as he is about the Godhead. But I do not know of any cases yet which require such an allowance. Part of the purpose of this thread is to find such cases. But just a simple "Lord" passage quoted by Paul from the scriptures is not such a case, since it would succumb easily to the equation, Yahweh = Jesus.)
You are putting the cart before the horse. I have always argued the two interpolations on their merits.
You misunderstand. I am accepting both of them as interpolations, one of them because I quite agree with you, the other because I am not sure, but will not belabor the point on this thread, simply because I do not think that verse is key for my understanding; it is hardly alone so far as evidence is concerned.
You ask, "Why does the Father not get called Lord at some point, or vice versa?" Given the nature of κυριος #2, it is hard to qualify, given that its purpose seem to include that it needs no qualification. But Paul's literary context would include Deut 32:6.
I agree there are passages in the Hebrew scriptures which identify Yahweh as a Father. This is all covered nicely in Barker's book, but that would take the conversation too far afield.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Finally, your observation about 1 Corinthians 8.6 sabotages your entire point!
This verse spells out the distinction between God and Jesus, showing that Paul was not a binitarian: one god (the Father) and one lord #1 (Jesus).
You had to add the #1 there;
No, I didn't. The fact that κυριος is qualified by εις should make the point, but I added it because most readers will block out the reality of the text through later theology. It is clearly κυριος #1, isn't it?
On your binary scale, sure. But your particular binary scale, in which Lord goes two different ways, is precisely what I am saying does not work for Paul. He says there is one Lord, and that is Jesus. Not two Lords, to wit, both Jesus and his father. You used "one God" to demonstrate that Paul did not have two gods, but the same consideration applied to "one Lord" shows that he did not have two lords, either. I do not think you can have it both ways. It is one of each.
When Paul cites Ps 24:1 in 1 Cor 10:26, "the earth is the Lord's and all its fullness", do you think the subject is any different from 1 Cor 10:22 which talks of provoking the Lord to jealousy?
No, I think they are the same subject in both verses: Jesus = Yahweh.
The relation between the Lord and jealousy is very HB-ish. If both references are to God, then what about 10:22 "the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons"? Would you be helped by verse 20 which talks of "sacrifice to demons and not to God"?
God and Lord are not (necessarily) equated here any more than than Lord and Christ were (necessarily) equated in some of the weaker examples I gave. The same kind of syntactic logic applies.

And yes, Yahweh is called jealous often. So is "the Lord" for Paul. The Lord = Yahweh. That is part of the thesis.
Paul uses κυριος #2 for God outside HB citations. I think chastening is a prerogative of God, so wouldn't you think that 1 Cor 11:32 refers to God? How about 1 Cor 14:21 which cites Isaiah 28:11-12, to which Paul appends "says the Lord": do you have any doubt that Paul intends κυριος #2 and refers to God?
I think that Paul is thinking of Yahweh in 1 Corinthians 14.21 when he mentions the Lord. Again, that is part of the thesis.
God is not bringing all those who have fallen asleep. δια του Ιησου is the limiting factor.
It is true that not all who have fallen asleep are coming, but "through Jesus" is not the limiting factor:

1 Thessalonians 4.13-17: 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 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 shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Paul is already talking about the fortunate dead in verse 13 ("that you may not grieve"). The limiting factor is not anything in the text itself beyond what we find in verse 13; the limiting factor is (at least partially) the information brought back from Thessalonica by Timothy (3.1-10). That is why Paul can jump right into not worrying about the dead (no qualifier) like those without hope. Paul already knows what the Thessalonians are worried about: those who have died or may soon die from among their ranks, and he has no need to specify. Had he felt the need to specify, verse 13 would have been the spot to do so (not verse 14); as it is, all we get is "that you may not grieve," which is specification aplenty given the direct information with which Paul is dealing.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
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:
spin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:The nearest antecedent for "him" in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 is "Jesus", not God.
The syntax does not allow this. The "him" in 4:14 is the nominative in the sentence: God. Jesus is part of a sub-clause. You are crossing clausal boundaries which I tried to illustrate earlier:

ουτως και ο θεος [τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου] αξει συν αυτω
even so [them that are fallen asleep in Jesus] will God bring with him.

What? None of what you are saying makes grammatical sense. Crossing clausal boundaries? The nominative in the sentence? Since when does a pronoun not allowed to dig into previous subclauses and phrases to find its antecedent? Since when does it have to refer to a noun in the nominative case? Whatever language you are thinking of, it is not Greek. Nor is it even English.
This is all very strange. We have a main clause { ο θεος [+acc] αξει συν αυτω } and we have an embedded clause in that accusative slot { τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου }. If that is correct, you want to do this weird thing of lifting a noun in a case slot in the κοιμαω-centered clause and have it also attached to the main clause of the same sentence. Perhaps you can show me an example of an analogous situation in Greek where you can shift a case argument out of an embedded clause. And no, I never claimed the pronoun attached to the verb in the main clause had to refer to a noun in the nominative case. I did suggest that the only noun available in this main clause was the nominative: the accusative is plural (and wouldn't make much sense here) and δια του ιησου is bound to the accusative. (All languages are verb-centered collections of case arguments, some of those cases being marked grammatically, syntactically, prepositionally or, in some languages, postpositionally—though in a few languages the verb may sometimes not exist, as with the verb to be in Semitic languages.)

But I attempted to clarify the problem to you with this analogy:

Think of this: "Bill brought the chocolates manufactured by Lindt with him." The nearest antecedent to "him" is Lindt, but Lindt is in a subclause and not at the same level as "him".

At best you can do in your attempt to put δια του ιησου in the same clause as ο θεος is render συν αυτω ambiguous. That's when you try to apply the nearest antecedent rule of thumb. However, I think you are not parsing the sentence properly.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:And in 1 Thessalonians 3.11-13 it is the Lord Jesus who is doing what Yahweh does in Zechariah 14.5;
spin wrote:You really have to spell out what you understand from 3:11-13. There are two entities: God and Jesus. There is a κυριος #2 reference. And there is a reference to Jesus coming with all the saints, which is clarified for you in 4:14: God will bring all those fallen asleep through Jesus, ie the "saints" (and obviously Jesus as well).
The person doing the coming with all the holy ones in Zechariah is Yahweh; the person doing the coming with all the holy ones in 1 Thessalonians is Jesus. It is very simple.
So you need to separate Yahweh from God....
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Why ignore Paul's HB references to the Lord, eg Rom 4:8 & 9:28? They are not coincidental, nor are they ambiguous. Paul definitely uses κυριος #2 for God.
Are you sure you understand my argument? I am not certain how such references cut against the notion that, for Paul, Yahweh = Jesus. If he quotes a passage from the scriptures about Yahweh, then he is, on this thesis, (probably) thinking of Jesus. (Some allowance may have to be made occasionally for the fact that the scriptures he is quoting are not of the same opinion as he is about the Godhead. But I do not know of any cases yet which require such an allowance. Part of the purpose of this thread is to find such cases. But just a simple "Lord" passage quoted by Paul from the scriptures is not such a case, since it would succumb easily to the equation, Yahweh = Jesus.)
The reference I made in another post to the parallelism { the cup of demons and the cup of the Lord and sacrifice to demons and not to God } was aimed at tying the terms Lord & God together, so that one can't squirm out of the obvious connection.

[...]
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Finally, your observation about 1 Corinthians 8.6 sabotages your entire point!
This verse spells out the distinction between God and Jesus, showing that Paul was not a binitarian: one god (the Father) and one lord #1 (Jesus).
Ben C. Smith wrote:You had to add the #1 there;
No, I didn't. The fact that κυριος is qualified by εις should make the point, but I added it because most readers will block out the reality of the text through later theology. It is clearly κυριος #1, isn't it?
On your binary scale, sure. But your particular binary scale, in which Lord goes two different ways, is precisely what I am saying does not work for Paul. He says there is one Lord, and that is Jesus. Not two Lords, to wit, both Jesus and his father. You used "one God" to demonstrate that Paul did not have two gods, but the same consideration applied to "one Lord" shows that he did not have two lords, either. I do not think you can have it both ways. It is one of each.
You seem to be playing against the notion that κυριος has two distinct usages, one of which is specifically for Yahweh, while the other indicates an honorific power position. Your ploy of talking of "two lords" conflates the two, when LXX Ps 110:1 shows you shouldn't.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
When Paul cites Ps 24:1 in 1 Cor 10:26, "the earth is the Lord's and all its fullness", do you think the subject is any different from 1 Cor 10:22 which talks of provoking the Lord to jealousy?
No, I think they are the same subject in both verses: Jesus = Yahweh.
The wider context shows this to be erroneous, unless Jesus also equals God, which would be interesting.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
The relation between the Lord and jealousy is very HB-ish. If both references are to God, then what about 10:22 "the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons"? Would you be helped by verse 20 which talks of "sacrifice to demons and not to God"?
God and Lord are not (necessarily) equated here any more than than Lord and Christ were (necessarily) equated in some of the weaker examples I gave. The same kind of syntactic logic applies.
The parallelism between God and Lord is rather obvious: demons/God, Yahweh/demons in successive verses.
Ben C. Smith wrote:And yes, Yahweh is called jealous often. So is "the Lord" for Paul. The Lord = Yahweh. That is part of the thesis.
And Yahweh is God according to the parallelism in 1 Cor 10:20-21.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Paul uses κυριος #2 for God outside HB citations. I think chastening is a prerogative of God, so wouldn't you think that 1 Cor 11:32 refers to God? How about 1 Cor 14:21 which cites Isaiah 28:11-12, to which Paul appends "says the Lord": do you have any doubt that Paul intends κυριος #2 and refers to God?
I think that Paul is thinking of Yahweh in 1 Corinthians 14.21 when he mentions the Lord. Again, that is part of the thesis.
You need to demonstrate the thesis rather than have me do the opposite, don't you?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
God is not bringing all those who have fallen asleep. δια του Ιησου is the limiting factor.
It is true that not all who have fallen asleep are coming, but "through Jesus" is not the limiting factor:

1 Thessalonians 4.13-17: 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 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 shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Paul is already talking about the fortunate dead in verse 13 ("that you may not grieve"). The limiting factor is not anything in the text itself beyond what we find in verse 13; the limiting factor is (at least partially) the information brought back from Thessalonica by Timothy (3.1-10). That is why Paul can jump right into not worrying about the dead (no qualifier) like those without hope. Paul already knows what the Thessalonians are worried about: those who have died or may soon die from among their ranks, and he has no need to specify. Had he felt the need to specify, verse 13 would have been the spot to do so (not verse 14); as it is, all we get is "that you may not grieve," which is specification aplenty given the direct information with which Paul is dealing.
Paul does not give a limit in v.13. He merely announces a topic he is dealing with. He then shifts onto the belief in (the death and) resurrection of Jesus, so that, given that belief, God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus with him. The argument concerning those who have fallen asleep is in v.14. Only those who have fallen asleep through Jesus will be brought with God.
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:This is all very strange. We have a main clause { ο θεος [+acc] αξει συν αυτω } and we have an embedded clause in that accusative slot { τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου }. If that is correct....
My position is that this is incorrect. I take the prepositional phrase "through Jesus" with the verb, not with those who have fallen asleep. You have to rearrange things in English to make it come out right, but that is hardly unusual. The RSV does it, for example:

1 Thessalonians 4.14 RSV: For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

(This is not an argument from authority, FYI, as if the RSV must always be right. It is merely trying to convey to you that I take the prepositional phrase with the subsequent verb, not with the previous participle.)

The sentence is awkward no matter how you read it; this has been noted before, and is not a new observation. I happen to find it less awkward to take διά in its normal sense and give the verb ἄξει two modifying clauses (as the RSV implicitly does): διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου and σὺν αὐτῷ, with the pronoun in the second modifying clause referring back to an antecedent in the first modifying clause. There is nothing ungrammatical about this.
But I attempted to clarify the problem to you with this analogy:

Think of this: "Bill brought the chocolates manufactured by Lindt with him." The nearest antecedent to "him" is Lindt, but Lindt is in a subclause and not at the same level as "him".

In this analogy, "by Lindt" is modifying "manufactured" and "with him" is modifying "brought" — you would have a point if we were forced to take διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου and σὺν αὐτῷ with different words, but we are not. They can modify the same word, the verb ἄξει.
So you need to separate Yahweh from God....
Yes. Exactly. That is what I have been saying. I think Paul separates Yahweh from God the Father, as Barker argues.
The reference I made in another post to the parallelism { the cup of demons and the cup of the Lord and sacrifice to demons and not to God } was aimed at tying the terms Lord & God together, so that one can't squirm out of the obvious connection.
Why can the cup of the Lord (Jesus = Yahweh) not be a sacrifice to God (the Father)? Just because of the parallelism?

1 Corinthians 2.16: 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So there is some parallelism for you. Christ = Lord. The only difference is that I admit that this does not have to be construed as proof that Christ = Lord simply because of the parallelism; there are other ways to read it, despite the parallelism. And the same goes for 1 Corinthians 10.20-21, which does not have to be construed as proof that "the Lord" = Christ.
You seem to be playing against the notion that κυριος has two distinct usages, one of which is specifically for Yahweh, while the other indicates an honorific power position.
Yes, that is exactly what I am doing with respect to Paul. Definitely not with respect to the Hebrew scriptures (as they stand), but with respect to Paul. I am questioning the notion that he equated Yahweh with God the Father (the father of Jesus), and questioning the notion that he uses "Lord" in two different ways. He calls Jesus Lord repeatedly; he does not (in texts not doubted as Pauline) similarly equate Lord and Father. He says that there is one Lord, just as there is one God. He uses "Jesus is Lord" as the central confession of faith. I do not think he is using Lord inconsistently, or in two different ways. I think he is consistently telling us, practically screaming through his quill, that when he says Lord he means Jesus (= Yahweh):

1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Romans 10.8-13: 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" — that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "Whoever will call upon [ἐπικαλέσηται] the name of the Lord will be saved" (Joel 2.32 [3.5 LXX]).

1 Corinthians 1.1-2: 1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon [τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις] the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.

Romans 14.7: 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

1 Corinthians 12.3: 3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2.9-11: 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ben C. Smith wrote:No, I think they are the same subject in both verses: Jesus = Yahweh.
The wider context shows this to be erroneous, unless Jesus also equals God, which would be interesting.
There are a couple of spots in which it is possible that Paul is saying that Jesus is God (or at least "a" god), but they are not clear enough to me to force that option.

But when you speak of the wider context, do you mean the wider context in Paul, or do you mean the wider context in the LXX? If the former, then in what way? If the latter, then granted! Yes, I believe that what Paul is doing goes against the grain of the LXX, at least as it stands for us now. If Barker is correct about Paul, then we can both affirm that Paul is probably misinterpreting (whether deliberately or accidentally) or shading what he finds there; perhaps he is doing so in order to simplify things as much as possible for his gentile readers, but my argument does not depend on that. (This part of the exchange is regarding Psalm 24.1 and 1 Corinthians 10.26, incidentally.)
You need to demonstrate the thesis rather than have me do the opposite, don't you?
Actually, I am trying to do both at the same time. Taking "one God" and "one Lord" as seriously as I am trying to do requires a careful search throughout all of the Pauline texts to locate possible exceptions. And you are helping me out by canvasing the likelier candidates in an effort to prove me wrong; that is exactly what this thread is for, and I thank you (sincerely) for your participation.
Paul does not give a limit in v.13. He merely announces a topic he is dealing with. He then shifts onto the belief in (the death and) resurrection of Jesus, so that, given that belief, God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus with him. The argument concerning those who have fallen asleep is in v.14. Only those who have fallen asleep through Jesus will be brought with God.
All I can do is simply disagree again. I will not in any way argue that your reading is impossible, despite making διά come out a bit weird. I will not argue that my reading is light years more likely than yours; I think it is only slightly more likely on its own merits. (Just for fun... according to Colin Nicholl on page 28 of From Hope to Despair, the majority of Anglo-American scholars seem to go with your reading, while the majority of German scholars seem to go with mine.)
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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:
spin wrote:This is all very strange. We have a main clause { ο θεος [+acc] αξει συν αυτω } and we have an embedded clause in that accusative slot { τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου }. If that is correct....
My position is that this is incorrect. I take the prepositional phrase "through Jesus" with the verb, not with those who have fallen asleep. You have to rearrange things in English to make it come out right, but that is hardly unusual. The RSV does it, for example:

1 Thessalonians 4.14 RSV: For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

(This is not an argument from authority, FYI, as if the RSV must always be right. It is merely trying to convey to you that I take the prepositional phrase with the subsequent verb, not with the previous participle.)

The sentence is awkward no matter how you read it; this has been noted before, and is not a new observation. I happen to find it less awkward to take διά in its normal sense and give the verb ἄξει two modifying clauses (as the RSV implicitly does): διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου and σὺν αὐτῷ, with the pronoun in the second modifying clause referring back to an antecedent in the first modifying clause. There is nothing ungrammatical about this.
Actually the sentence is quite transparent if you attach δια του ιησου to the nominalized participle it appears to belong to. Everything is clear. I'm just squeamish when it comes to foreign prepositions, but the use of δια indicates means and is quite plain, as in Rom 7:4a,
So, my brothers, you also died to the Law through the body of Christ

This is a good parallel with the sub-clause in 1 Thes 4:14. "Fallen asleep" has been replaced with "died (to the law)" (obviously, "fallen asleep" is a euphemism for "died") and Jesus is replaced with "the body of Christ" in both cases held together by δια.

But as you would have it δια του ιησου is attached to αξει but awkwardly separated from the nominative by the accusative, ie the proxy from the actor, and still no limit to those fallen asleep. That makes the intent quite clumsy. So, how about a syntactic parallel for your reading, main clause with a stated nominative and the δια-phrase preceding the verb with a post-verbal phrase + pronoun, where that pronoun refers back to the noun governed by δια. What I've proposed is structurally a much simpler reading.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
But I attempted to clarify the problem to you with this analogy:

Think of this: "Bill brought the chocolates manufactured by Lindt with him." The nearest antecedent to "him" is Lindt, but Lindt is in a subclause and not at the same level as "him".

In this analogy, "by Lindt" is modifying "manufactured" and "with him" is modifying "brought" — you would have a point if we were forced to take διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου and σὺν αὐτῷ with different words, but we are not. They can modify the same word, the verb ἄξει.
So you agree that the rule of thumb you proposed is not relevant until you justify your parsing of the verse, which I think is wrong.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
So you need to separate Yahweh from God....
Yes. Exactly. That is what I have been saying. I think Paul separates Yahweh from God the Father, as Barker argues.
I've seen no grounds for the claim, but onward...
Ben C. Smith wrote:
The reference I made in another post to the parallelism { the cup of demons and the cup of the Lord and sacrifice to demons and not to God } was aimed at tying the terms Lord & God together, so that one can't squirm out of the obvious connection.
Why can the cup of the Lord (Jesus = Yahweh) not be a sacrifice to God (the Father)? Just because of the parallelism?
In consecutive verses the parallelism is strong.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
1 Corinthians 2.16: 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So there is some parallelism for you. Christ = Lord.
You forget the force of the contrastive δε, translated here as "but", but indicates a change of focus. This is plainly not a parallelism in any ordinary sense of the notion.
Ben C. Smith wrote:The only difference is that I admit that this does not have to be construed as proof that Christ = Lord simply because of the parallelism; there are other ways to read it, despite the parallelism. And the same goes for 1 Corinthians 10.20-21, which does not have to be construed as proof that "the Lord" = Christ.
You seem to be playing against the notion that κυριος has two distinct usages, one of which is specifically for Yahweh, while the other indicates an honorific power position.
Yes, that is exactly what I am doing with respect to Paul. Definitely not with respect to the Hebrew scriptures (as they stand), but with respect to Paul. I am questioning the notion that he equated Yahweh with God the Father (the father of Jesus), and questioning the notion that he uses "Lord" in two different ways. He calls Jesus Lord repeatedly; he does not (in texts not doubted as Pauline) similarly equate Lord and Father.
He does not certainly use κυριος #2 for Jesus except in those two cases, one of which you accept as an interpolation and the other you are not sure about. He certainly uses κυριος #2 for the figure the HB presents as the god of Israel, referred to both as Yahweh and as elohim. This is the cultural context Paul came from. That's how Philo understood it. Here's De Plantationem XX on κυριος and θεος, the titles upon whom Moses called:

The titles, then, just mentioned exhibit the powers of Him that IS ; the title " Lord " the power in virtue of which He rules, that of " God " the power in virtue of which He bestows benefits.

Barker is going right off the reservation in wedging Yahweh with Jesus against God. The thing I've been trying to put to people is that language change comes gradually and to make linguistic claims, you need the linguistic evidence, yet we have some idea of Paul's literary/linguistic context and the proposal you support at the moment is attempting to separate Paul from that context without a trace of language support.
Ben C. Smith wrote:He says that there is one Lord, just as there is one God. He uses "Jesus is Lord" as the central confession of faith.
That's certainly the modern theological reading of Rom 10:9, but the text only says "confess (the) lord Jesus". This is simple κυριος #1. I think while the mutilation of the text is popular, it is eisegesis, and if my argument regarding the use of κυριος #2 is correct, the reading you support is just wrong.
Ben C. Smith wrote:I do not think he is using Lord inconsistently, or in two different ways. I think he is consistently telling us, practically screaming through his quill, that when he says Lord he means Jesus (= Yahweh):

1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

So Paul completely abandons his cultural heritage in which one used κυριος #2 (as evinced in the LXX) only for God. Do you think the diaspora Jewish readership conflated the two figures in Ps 110:1? Or did they use κυριος #1 and κυριος #2 knowingly? And surely Paul would understand the distinction.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Romans 10.8-13: 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" — that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "Whoever will call upon [ἐπικαλέσηται] the name of the Lord will be saved" [Joel 2.32, 3.5 LXX].

I think the basic reading doesn't match the text. The word of faith that Paul is preaching is stated in v.9: God raised Jesus. That is the word of faith. Confess the lord Jesus and believe in your heart God raised him... The chapter starts with a discussion concerning God and returns in v.9. Paul's cultural heritage features the interplay between the two major references to the deity, so when Paul moves from God to Lord and back again, how is that not demonstrating that cultural heritage? V.9 features κυριος #1 and it qualifies Jesus. κυριος #2 doesn't qualify anything and is seen in v.13. V.17, so faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

The same lord is over all. If that lord were not God, where is God in this picture?? But God is doing the raising. He is the one referred to as the lord over all. And yes, I think the RSV doesn't have a handle on the text.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
1 Corinthians 1.1-2: 1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon [τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις] the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.

Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is interesting in its parallel to Joel. I don't know the significance of it in the sense that as God's proxy on earth, the proxy can be used as a lens for the principal, so quite similar language is to be expected. In pseudo-Pauline Titus 1:1 Paul is described as the servant of God, just as in Gal 1:10 he is described as the servant of Christ. Rom 1:1 talks of the gospel of God and 1:16 of the gospel of Christ.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Romans 14.7: 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord (κυριος #2), or if we die, we die for the Lord (κυριος #2); therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's (κυριος #2). 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living (κυριος #1).

The syntax is clear to me.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
1 Corinthians 12.3: 3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord (κυριος #1)," except by the Holy Spirit.

No-one can say lord Jesus (κυριος #1), except....
Ben C. Smith wrote:Philippians 2.9-11: 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κυριος #1), to the glory of God the Father.[/box]
Ben C. Smith wrote:No, I think they are the same subject in both verses: Jesus = Yahweh.
The wider context shows this to be erroneous, unless Jesus also equals God, which would be interesting.
There are a couple of spots in which it is possible that Paul is saying that Jesus is God (or at least "a" god), but they are not clear enough to me to force that option.
I don't think Jesus equals God in Paul. It was reductio ad absurdum.
Ben C. Smith wrote:But when you speak of the wider context, do you mean the wider context in Paul, or do you mean the wider context in the LXX? If the former, then in what way?
The already given example of the 1 Cor 10:20-21 parallelism equates the Lord and God, as does 11:33-34, how unsearchable are God's judgments... For who has known the mind of the Lord....
Ben C. Smith wrote:If the latter, then granted! Yes, I believe that what Paul is doing goes against the grain of the LXX, at least as it stands for us now.
I think people try very hard to burden Paul excessively with innovations and novelties. It's not enough that he has developed a new cult around the sacrifice of God's representative, organized that cult into regional associations, policed them and staved off interlopers, but he has invented a new vocabulary, disowned numerous aspects of his cultural and linguistic heritage, and written heaps of contradictory screeds. Going against the LXX grain is par for the exaggerated course.
Ben C. Smith wrote:If Barker is correct about Paul, then we can both affirm that Paul is probably misinterpreting (whether deliberately or accidentally) or shading what he finds there; perhaps he is doing so in order to simplify things as much as possible for his gentile readers, but my argument does not depend on that. (This part of the exchange is regarding Psalm 24.1 and 1 Corinthians 10.26, incidentally.)
I don't think she is.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
You need to demonstrate the thesis rather than have me do the opposite, don't you?
Actually, I am trying to do both at the same time. Taking "one God" and "one Lord" as seriously as I am trying to do requires a careful search throughout all of the Pauline texts to locate possible exceptions. And you are helping me out by canvasing the likelier candidates in an effort to prove me wrong; that is exactly what this thread is for, and I thank you (sincerely) for your participation.
But you've lost the plot with one lord. It has nothing to do with the LXX reference to Yahweh.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Paul does not give a limit in v.13. He merely announces a topic he is dealing with. He then shifts onto the belief in (the death and) resurrection of Jesus, so that, given that belief, God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus with him. The argument concerning those who have fallen asleep is in v.14. Only those who have fallen asleep through Jesus will be brought with God.
All I can do is simply disagree again. I will not in any way argue that your reading is impossible, despite making διά come out a bit weird. I will not argue that my reading is light years more likely than yours; I think it is only slightly more likely on its own merits.
I find it interesting that you keep bringing up my statement about the weirdness of prepositional usage. Do you not find the differences across languages in preposition usage weird in any way?
Ben C. Smith wrote:(Just for fun... according to Colin Nicholl on page 28 of From Hope to Despair, the majority of Anglo-American scholars seem to go with your reading, while the majority of German scholars seem to go with mine.)
Peter has robbed me of my favorite smiley, the guy ROTFLHAO.

:goodmorning:
Last edited by spin on Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

I am going to let most of your post go, spin, and let you have the last word on those things, since I believe all cards are on the table. Two things only.

First, you give the impression that you regard Barker's reading as attributing a novelty to Paul, but that is not the case. To discuss this further would require more digging than I am prepared to do at present, but the upshot is that she argues for a particular Jewish theology across 10 chapters before coming to Paul and the rest of the NT, precisely in order to emphasize that Paul's reading is not novel. But, again, that is beyond my scope here.

Second, there is this:
spin wrote:Actually the sentence is quite transparent if you attach δια του ιησου to the nominalized participle it appears to belong to. Everything is clear. I'm just squeamish when it comes to foreign prepositions, but the use of δια indicates means and is quite plain, as in Rom 7:4a,
So, my brothers, you also died to the Law through the body of Christ

This is a good parallel with the sub-clause in 1 Thes 4:14. "Fallen asleep" has been replaced with "died (to the law)" (obviously, "fallen asleep" is a euphemism for "died") and Jesus is replaced with "the body of Christ" in both cases held together by δια.
No need for such detail here. Of course this is a perfect grammatical parallel for this aspect of your reading of διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου. And it makes perfect sense in Romans 7.4 — because the death in 7.4 is metaphorical. Paul makes it plain elsewhere that this metaphorical death does indeed have something directly to do with Jesus. In Romans 6.4 even a metaphorical burial is accomplished by means of (διὰ) baptism. But it is difficult to see how a literal burial might be accomplished by means of baptism, and even more difficult to see how a literal death might be accomplished by means of Jesus, unless we are to suppose that Paul is saying that Jesus literally murdered "those who have fallen asleep" among the Thessalonians.
But as you would have it δια του ιησου is attached to αξει but awkwardly separated from the nominative by the accusative, ie the proxy from the actor, and still no limit to those fallen asleep. That makes the intent quite clumsy. .... What I've proposed is structurally a much simpler reading.
You are absolutely correct that your reading is structurally simple. I have never disputed that. But your reading makes Jesus complicit (somehow) in the (apparently literal) deaths of the Thessalonians; that is the problem which drives us to seek another solution.
So, how about a syntactic parallel for your reading, main clause with a stated nominative and the δια-phrase preceding the verb with a post-verbal phrase + pronoun, where that pronoun refers back to the noun governed by δια.
The specification that the preposition be διά is illogical. Pretty much any preposition will do for an analogy. Also, the stated nominative has nothing to do with the grammar of the rest of the clause. What matters is the verb's relationship to the two prepositional phrases.

Here is a similar structure, with the main verb of an independent clause being flanked by two prepositional phrases, the second of which contains a pronoun which finds its antecedent in the first:

Leviticus 6.12 (6.5 LXX): καὶ πῦρ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καυθήσεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐ σβεσθήσεται.

The fire on the altar (ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον) shall be kept burning from it (ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ).

And here is an even closer structure:

Psalm 35.8 (34.8 LXX): ἐλθέτω αὐτοῖς παγίς ἣν οὐ γινώσκουσιν καὶ ἡ θήρα ἣν ἔκρυψαν συλλαβέτω αὐτούς καὶ ἐν τῇ παγίδι πεσοῦνται ἐν αὐτῇ.

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:But your reading makes Jesus complicit (somehow) in the (apparently literal) deaths of the Thessalonians; that is the problem which drives us to seek another solution.
This is an utterly bizarre analysis and reflects the sort of cross-language problem with prepositions that I worried about. And my crystal ball says that you cannot be serious with the analysis: being complicit implies some contributing factor to the event! The death of the Thessalonians is through Jesus, (belief in) Jesus being the way through which they fall asleep or pass death, just as Jesus supplies the way for Paul to give thanks to God (Rom 1:8), to boast in God (Rom 5:11), and for the blessing of Abraham to come to Gentiles (Gal 3:14). There is no need to "seek another solution", merely to understand the impact of δια του ιησου. Your stated reason to parse the verse more convolutedly is erroneous. The simpler way when understood is usually the more functional way. That's why your justification seems to be a strawman.

As to your attempted analogous examples, they are pretty much garbage Greek due to over-literal translation of the Hebrew source. Both are ridiculous: "in the net let him fall into it" and "the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it" indeed. These don't represent Greek, but the underlying Hebrew.

As to your reducing the criteria to the most superficial surface structures, well, if you remove all the meaningful requirements, you can make any sentence an "analogy". Our requirements include two reasonable candidates for the antecedent to the post-verbal phrase, one being the nominative, the other being another argument (grammatical or prepositional case) of the verb. The Lev 6:12 example has "altar" being attached prepositionally to the nominative, not the verb, oh well. The second absurd clause has no stated nominative at all. It just has the same prepositional argument repeated, the second time with a pronoun for the original noun. Oh dear.

You've shown no reason by logic or by example to prefer the generally tendentious and more complicated parsing of the theologues1 you proffer. Go for the simpler approach that provides clarity to its context: δια του ιησου qualifies who God will bring. That's why the Thessalonians need not grieve: there is hope for all those who believe that God raised Jesus, even those who have died.

___________
1. If one starts with the belief that κυριος #2 in 1 Thes 4:15 equates to Jesus then that likely pollutes one's understanding of the context to make the equation work.
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:But your reading makes Jesus complicit (somehow) in the (apparently literal) deaths of the Thessalonians; that is the problem which drives us to seek another solution.
This is an utterly bizarre analysis and reflects the sort of cross-language problem with prepositions that I worried about. And my crystal ball says that you cannot be serious with the analysis: being complicit implies some contributing factor to the event! The death of the Thessalonians is through Jesus, (belief in) Jesus being the way through which they fall asleep or pass death, just as Jesus supplies the way for Paul to give thanks to God (Rom 1:8), to boast in God (Rom 5:11), and for the blessing of Abraham to come to Gentiles (Gal 3:14). There is no need to "seek another solution", merely to understand the impact of δια του ιησου. Your stated reason to parse the verse more convolutedly is erroneous. The simpler way when understood is usually the more functional way. That's why your justification seems to be a strawman.
Well, this is a true impasse. Your crystal ball is wrong about my level of sincerity, and your explanation seems opaque to me: Jesus is "the way through which" they fall asleep? Yet Jesus is not thereby responsible for it? (I use "responsible" for "complicit" here in order to avoid any extra baggage you may have been reading into my words, which may have been chosen poorly.) Once again I feel the only way to salvage the meaning is to reach for a solecism with regard to the preposition, the usual semantic ranges of which simply make mincemeat of the meaning, as your complicated musings above demonstrate. Jesus can easily be a way to boast, a way to give thanks, and a way to distribute blessings to gentiles. All fine. And, truth be told, he can easily be a way people in Thessalonica are dying, too... except that it is weird that Paul would be saying that. If that is what you think he is saying, have at it.

And of course you would object to examples similar to the proposed structure in our verse: they are just as awkward as 1 Thessalonians 4.14.
As to your reducing the criteria to the most superficial surface structures, well, if you remove all the meaningful requirements, you can make any sentence an "analogy". Our requirements include two reasonable candidates for the antecedent to the post-verbal phrase, one being the nominative, the other being another argument (grammatical or prepositional case) of the verb.
No, that is your requirement. Only your reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.14 requires a second possible antecedent. My reading requires no such thing; on my reading the nominative is completely superfluous; therefore it is not incumbent on me to make sure the sentences I find leave you a way out.
The Lev 6:12 example has "altar" being attached prepositionally to the nominative, not the verb, oh well.
You may be right. The phrase can actually go equally well with either, I think. It is probably not a good example.
The second absurd clause has no stated nominative at all.
Correct. The nominative has nothing to do with my reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.14. That is your thing, not mine.
You've shown no reason by logic or by example to prefer the generally tendentious and more complicated parsing of the theologues you proffer.
I readily grant, and have granted, that my reading of the pronoun and its antecedent is awkward. And it is done because the alternative is to read the preposition in a way that I do not think has any real precedent with the genitive (either that or suppose that Paul thinks these Thessalonians died by means of Jesus, which is still absurd, despite your best efforts). At the same time, reading the sentence with an awkward syntax rather than with a solecistic preposition has the side effect of Jesus being the one visibly descending from heaven at the parousia, just as he is in every single other instance of this motif in Paul.

I think this part of the conversation has probably run its course, too, at this stage. Thank you for the food for thought, spin. You may have the last word.
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 »

I'll leave your attempted analogies...
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:But your reading makes Jesus complicit (somehow) in the (apparently literal) deaths of the Thessalonians; that is the problem which drives us to seek another solution.
spin wrote:This is an utterly bizarre analysis and reflects the sort of cross-language problem with prepositions that I worried about. And my crystal ball says that you cannot be serious with the analysis: being complicit implies some contributing factor to the event! The death of the Thessalonians is through Jesus, (belief in) Jesus being the way through which they fall asleep or pass death, just as Jesus supplies the way for Paul to give thanks to God (Rom 1:8), to boast in God (Rom 5:11), and for the blessing of Abraham to come to Gentiles (Gal 3:14). There is no need to "seek another solution", merely to understand the impact of δια του ιησου. Your stated reason to parse the verse more convolutedly is erroneous. The simpler way when understood is usually the more functional way. That's why your justification seems to be a strawman.
Well, this is a true impasse. Your crystal ball is wrong about my level of sincerity, and your explanation seems opaque to me: Jesus is "the way through which" they fall asleep? Yet Jesus is not thereby responsible for it?
Certainly not. This is just the sort of problem I have been trying to clarify against. Is Jesus responsible for the thanks Paul gives to God (Rom 1:8)? You'll have to forget my use of grammatical "means" as the English metaphor on means seems too strong for you not to include the uncalled for causation in your understanding. The death is in no sense caused by Jesus. The condition in which those in 4:14 died is the belief that God raised Jesus:

For since we [unlike the rest who have no hope] believe that Jesus died and rose again, so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.

The inclusion is what I think the pivotal γαρ alludes back to. This belief in Jesus' death and resurrection is the basis for the knowledge (implied in ουτως) that God will bring those who have died believing it. Hence, they died through Jesus, in the belief that gives them too access to resurrection. Only those who died δια του ιησου will be brought by God. In my reading there is no idea of the cause of, complicity in, or responsibility for, the people's death in the phrase through Jesus.

I think you have completely misunderstood my analysis of 1 Thes 4:14 and done so through my inadvertent triggering of your metaphorization of the purely grammatically-laden term "means" (seen in your use of "complicit" and "responsible"). This misunderstanding allows you to bolster your adherence to the convoluted parsing of the verse. It is only this parsing that allows you to separate God's "bringing" from the Lord's "coming", a coming entailed in God's "bringing": you cannot bring without coming. Without sheering the two here—God from Yahweh—, you cannot maintain support for the thesis you offered in the o.p. (And without uniting the two here my reading of κυριος is difficult.)

I need to know that you are going away from 1 Thes 4:14 not necessarily agreeing with my analysis, but at least understanding it.
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:This is just the sort of problem I have been trying to clarify against. Is Jesus responsible for the thanks Paul gives to God (Rom 1:8)?
In that example it seems to me that, without Jesus, those thanks would not be possible. There is a sense of agency or instrumentality here which would be lacking in 1 Thessalonians 4.14.
You'll have to forget my use of grammatical "means" as the English metaphor on means seems too strong for you not to include the uncalled for causation in your understanding. The death is in no sense caused by Jesus. The condition in which those in 4:14 died is the belief that God raised Jesus:

For since we [unlike the rest who have no hope] believe that Jesus died and rose again, so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.

The inclusion is what I think the pivotal γαρ alludes back to. This belief in Jesus' death and resurrection is the basis for the knowledge (implied in ουτως) that God will bring those who have died believing it. Hence, they died through Jesus, in the belief that gives them too access to resurrection. Only those who died δια του ιησου will be brought by God. In my reading there is no idea of the cause of, complicity in, or responsibility for, the people's death in the phrase through Jesus.

I think you have completely misunderstood my analysis of 1 Thes 4:14 and done so through my inadvertent triggering of your metaphorization of the purely grammatically-laden term "means" (seen in your use of "complicit" and "responsible"). This misunderstanding allows you to bolster your adherence to the convoluted parsing of the verse. It is only this parsing that allows you to separate God's "bringing" from the Lord's "coming", a coming entailed in God's "bringing": you cannot bring without coming. Without sheering the two here—God from Yahweh—, you cannot maintain support for the thesis you offered in the o.p. (And without uniting the two here my reading of κυριος is difficult.)

I need to know that you are going away from 1 Thes 4:14 not necessarily agreeing with my analysis, but at least understanding it.
I am trying. I have been poring for the past couple of days over both (A) raw examples of διά + the genitive in Greek texts, particularly those with biblical connections, and (B) the definitions and examples given in BDAG and LSJ.

Suffice it to say that my search for raw examples has been fruitless; every time I find διά + the genitive used with a verb which describes an action which can happen to a person (death, violence, special consideration, and so on), there is also a clear sense that the object of the preposition is the cause or at least an agent of that action.

As for the lexical information, here are the main categories in the two I have available to me:

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 categories involving time and space (LSJ I and II; BDAG ① and ②) seem irrelevant. Likewise, the last category in LSJ (LSJ IV) involves a particular syntax with linking verbs (ἔχειν, εἶναι, γίγνεσθαι) and nouns which express states (fear, joy, peace), neither of which applies here. But the rest of the options (LSJ III; BDAG ③, ④, and ⑤) all have to do with instrumentality, cause, or agency. Your other Pauline example, 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. 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?

I am not trying to maintain this sense of agency or causality (or responsibility or complicity, or what have you) in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 on principle; I am finding it there (on your reading) because every single other example of διά + the genitive that I can find, if it is not expressing a state (with a linking verb) or a temporal or positional relationship (time or space), seems to imply or involve it. Sure, I can easily remove that sense of agency or cause in our verse, but then I feel I would be arguing for a unique usage, and you seem to be saying that it is not.

So under which lexical category above, if any, would you place your proposed usage of διά + the genitive? Or, failing that, do you have other examples of the same sort of usage from actual texts? Or is there anything else you can give me? For my part, I feel like I am understanding your proposed usage, but it also feels like that proposed usage is a solecism.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply