#1: hOUTWS KAI hO QEOS {TOUS KOIMHQENTAS DIA TOU IHSOU} AKSEI
SUN AUTWi.
#2: hOUTWS KAI hO QEOS TOUS KOIMHQENTAS {DIA TOU IHSOU AKSEI
SUN AUTWi}.
Carl has indicated his preference for option #2, which the NRSV has adopted;
its advantage is that it gives a clear and non-problematic sense to DIA TOU
IHSOU ("God through Jesus will bring ...").
But #2 results in an awkward and severely imbalanced sentence, with AKSEI
overloaded,
as it were, with two prepositional phrases, and any difference in meaning
between them being difficult to discern.
For these reason, many prefer #1, which results in a nicely-balanced
somewhat parallel construction. But in this case, one has the difficulty of
making sense of the DIA TOU IHSOU phrase. Possibilities--some of which have
already been noted in this thread--include:
a) DIA as indicating attendent circumstances: "those who have died as
Christians" (cf. the NEB)or perhaps "in contact with Jesus" (Moule,
Idiom-Book, 57); in this case the TOUS KOIMHQENTAS DIA TOU IHSOU phrase
would be essentially parallel to hOI NEKROI EN XRISTW in 4:16;
b) DIA as an indication of martyrdom, a view that goes back at least to
Kirsopp Lake (and which Carl sensed but rejects);
c) "with Christ" (Turner, in Grammar of NT Greek, 3:267), i.e., the dead are
with Jesus so that they can appear with him
d) Rigaux (in his comm. on Thess. letters) gives DIA a causal sense: because
of Jesus their death is characterized by hope and is not just mere death.
We seem to have here an exegetical version of a vicious circle:
stylistically #1 is preferable, but the difficulty of making sense of it
drives one to #2, which makes sense, but the stylistic awkwardness is such
that it drives one towards #1 ...
In instances such as this one, I often wonder if the exegetical choice is
not a matter of gut instinct, with the "reasons" (read: rationalizations)
being arranged after the fact to justify a choice made on intuitive or other
grounds?
Mike Holmes
Bethel College