PANTES OU versus OU PANTES in 1 Cor 15:51

Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sat Apr 24 20:27:49 EDT 1999


On 04/24/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
> At 10:56 PM -0500 4/23/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> >Dear Carl,
> >
> >On 04/23/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
> >> At 12:31 AM -0500 4/23/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> >> >Dear B-Greekers,
> >> >
> >> >In 1 Cor 15:51, we read
> >> >PANTES OU KOIMHQHSOMEQA, PANTES DE ALLAGHSOMEQA.
> > "All of us inclusively (i.e. 100% of us) are NOT going to
> >> sleep, but all of us inclusively (i.e. 100% of us) ARE going to undergo
> >> transformation.."
> >
> >Does this rendering imply that no one of us is going to sleep?
> 
> No. Perhaps you'd prefer this: "We shall not sleep--all of us." Certainly
> it could have been written OU PANTES KOIMHQHSOMEQA and perhaps have been
> clearer that way, but I don't think the meaning is changed by the different
> word order so much as that Paul intended to make PANTES the emphatic word
> in both clauses in order to make it all the more forceful in the second
> clause. He wants to emphasize the collective aspect of apocalyptic
> redemption. Perhaps an even more vivid rendering, though I don't know
> whether the Greek could properly be punctuated to yield this: "All of
> us--even though we won't be all sleeping--yet ALL OF US will undergo
> transformation."

Carl, to see if I have understood you, let me ask clarifying 
questions.  But let me first mention three translations:
 
 1) Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be 
changed,     RSV

 2)I'm telling you a mystery. Not all of us will die, but we will
 all be  changed.     GWT  

 3) Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, 
 but we shall all be changed,  ASV     

a) Does your understanding support the ASV translation ( 1)?
b) Is the  RSV translation (1) ambiguous between (2) and (3)?
c) I thought that the context indicates (2) correctly captures
   the meaning of PANTES OU KOIMHQHSOMEQA, PANTES DE ALLAGHSOMEQA.
   Is it grammatically possible to render it as (2)?
d) If Paul wrote  OU PANTES KOIMHQHSOMEQA, wouldn't it clearly mean  
   2)?

Respectfully
Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea



More information about the B-Greek mailing list