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.