Carl W. Conrad wrote: > > At 11:05 AM -0500 10/7/97, Jonathan Robie wrote: > >At 10:37 AM 10/7/97 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote: > >>Jonathan Robie wrote: > >>>...but I still don't understand the interpretation "who have > >>>fallen asleep in Jesus" > > > >>I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand here, Jonathan. > > > >I may well be missing something obvious here, but I just don't understand > >how TOUS KOIMHQENTAS DIA TOU IHSOU can be interpreted as "those who have > >fallen asleep in Jesus". What would be the sense of DIA that can lead to > >that interpretation, which is used in these translations? > > > >KJV: For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also > >which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. > > > >NIV: We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God > >will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. > > Aha! Now I see, and now I remember that this is exactly what the KJV says: > "those who have fallen asleep in Jesus." And I really don't see how the > Greek text can possibly yield that meaning, which is why I said that I > think DIA IHSOU must construe rather with AXEI in the other clause. If DIA > IHSOU must construe with TOUS KOIMHQENTAS, perhaps the explanation offered > for this translation is that the fact that the dead are ONLY sleeping is > accounted for by the agency of Jesus. On the other hand, I've read > (somewhere or other) that standard rabbinical doctrine was that ALL the > dead "sleep" until the day of resurrection and judgment--and only AFTER > judgment do those condemned in judgment go to their everlasting doom. I > don't want to get into eschatological doctrine itself here; but the > fundamental question of what DIA IHSOU can mean here does seem to me to > depend on the sense in which DIA IHSOU could possibly modify TOUS > KOIMHQENTAS--and that may just possibly depend on the eschatological > assumptions underlying what Paul is here saying. > > I can only repeat, however, that I really don't see how DIA TOU IHSOU with > KOIMHQENTAS can mean what either KJV or NIV conveys it to mean. I'm not > saying that KJV and NIV are wrong, only that I don't understand how they > can construe the Greek to mean that. > > Carl W. Conrad > Department of Classics/Washington University > One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018 > Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 > cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us > WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Hello Carl;
In this same verse, any thoughts about the somewhat peculiar (to me at
least) usage of JESUS with the definite article. Why only the first
name?
--
__________________________________
Rev. John M. Sweigart
Box 895
Dover, Arkansas 72837
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
__________________________________