From: Iver Larsen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 12:02:47 EST
> Iver, in his first post on 1Thes 5:10 discounted the LXX use of KAQEUDW.
> Nobody challenged him on this at the time, but someone should have. Let's
> just take a look at Dan 12:2 in context.
Thanks, Clay, for the challenge. I am looking for the correct
interpretation, so I need to think through the issue from all perspectives.
I'll answer below where your arguments IMO do not hold water.
> Dan. 12:1-3 Old Greek
> DAN. 12:1 KAI KATA THN WRAN EKEINHN PARELEUSETAI MICAHL O AGGELOS
> O MEGAS O
> ESTHKWS EPI TOUS UIOUS TOU LAOU SOU EKEINH H HMERA QLIYEWS OIA OUK EGENHQH
> AF OU EGENHQHSAN EWS THS HMERAS EKEINHS KAI EN EKEINH TH HMERA UYWQHSETAI
> PAS O LAOS OS AN EUREQH EGGEGRAMMENOS EN TW BIBLIW
> 12:2 KAI POLLOI TWN KAQEUDONTWN EN TW PLATEI THS GHS ANASTHSONTAI
> OI MEN EIS
> ZWHN AIWNION OI DE EIS ONEIDISMON OI DE EIS DIASPORAN KAI AISCUNHN AIWNION
> 12:3 KAI OI SUNIENTES FANOUSIN WS FWSTHRES TOU OURANOU KAI OI KATISCUONTES
> TOUS LOGOUS MOU WSEI TA ASTRA TOU OURANOU EIS TON AIWNA TOU AIWNOS
> Dan. 12:1-3 Theod.
> DAN. 12:1 KAI EN TW KAIRW EKEINW ANASTHSETAI MICAHL O ARCWN O MEGAS O
> ESTHKWS EPI TOUS UIOUS TOU LAOU SOU KAI ESTAI KAIROS QLIYEWS QLIYIS OIA OU
> GEGONEN AF OU GEGENHTAI EQNOS EPI THS GHS EWS TOU KAIROU EKEINOU KAI EN TW
> KAIRW EKEINW SWQHSETAI O LAOS SOU PAS O EUREQEIS GEGRAMMENOS EN TH BIBLW
> DAN. 12:2 KAI POLLOI TWN KAQEUDONTWN EN GHS CWMATI EXEGERQHSONTAI
> OUTOI EIS
> ZWHN AIWNION KAI OUTOI EIS ONEIDISMON KAI EIS AISCUNHN AIWNION
> DAN. 12:3 KAI OI SUNIENTES EKLAMYOUSIN WS H LAMPROTHS TOU STEREWMATOS KAI
> APO TWN DIKAIWN TWN POLLWN WS OI ASTERES EIS TOUS AIWNAS KAI ETI
> Now, having read both the OG and Theod. versions of this is there anyone
> that wants to try and argue that KAQEUDW is NOT being used as a
> metaphor for death in this context?
What I said and will maintain is that it is the full expressions, either TWN
KAQEUDONTWN EN TW PLATEI THS GHS in one version or TWN KAQEUDONTWN EN GHS
CWMATI in the other version that together carry the sense of "being dead".
KAQEUDW on its own does not.
Cutting off one word from an expression and imputing to that one word the
meaning carried by the whole expression, is one of the linguistic errors
that Kittel is famous for and the main error that James Barr criticised him
for. I am not blaming Kittel. He did an enormous job. But the science of
linguistics and especially semantics has advanced greatly since the time of
Kittel. I believe you know that, Clay.
> The expressions:
> Old Gk: TWN KAQEUDONTWN EN TW PLATEI THS GHS
> Theod: TWN KAQEUDONTWN EN GHS
> both use KAQEUDW as a metaphor for death. The metaphor is made
> more obvious by naming GH as the place of KAQEUDW, because only in trench
> living men generally sleep in the earth. But this use of GH does
> not in any manner weaken the status of KAQEUDW as a metaphor for death.
> describing a STATE, so we have a STATE = STATE metaphor. GH is describing
> the place, not the STATE.
This is circular reasoning. You have decided beforehand without evidence
from anywhere that KAQEUDW in and by itself is used as a metaphor for "being
dead". Therefore, you claim that the other part of the expression is added
to make it more obvious.
If you could give any examples in the LXX or the GNT or other Hellenistic
Greek texts where KAQEUDW in and by itself is used as a metaphor for "death"
then you would have an argument. You have even left out the crucial word
CWMATI after GHS which I showed to be the triggering word for the "death"
sense, since it is used with that sense a couple of places in Job. It is
"sleeping in the dust of the earth" that means "be dead", not "sleeping"
KAQEUDW may also have the slightly variant sense of "lying down to sleep" as
in Mark 4:27. This is probably a reflex of the Hebrew Y-SH-N which can mean
several things, like "lie down to sleep, sleep, become old, be idle, be
dead". This word is used in Dan 12:2 where it is translated by KAQEUDW. In
most cases this Hebrew word is translated in the LXX by hUPNOW for literal
sleep, but because of the CONTEXT in Dan 12:2 the LXX chose KAQEUDW since
hUPNOW (literal sleep) is not intended. He probably had his reasons for not
using KOIMAW which is the more common LXX translation for "sleeping in peace
with the fathers", corresponding to the NT KOIMAOMAI. Whether Aramaic has a
bearing on this I don't know.
KAQEUDW is also used to translate the more common word in Hebrew for "lying
down", that is SH-K-B. This word can also be extended to cover death, IF the
context points to that sense. This is the word used in Ps 88:6 where the
addition of "in the grave" signifies the special sense of "death". If the
same word is joined with Hebrew 'iM then it refers to "lie with a woman".
This is just to show that the two corresponding Hebrew words which KAQEUDW
translates in the two LXX passages have a wide range of meaning, too. The
basic sense for both is to lie down, and if the context is right, both words
can acquire the sense "be dead" in those contexts.
> Furthermore the semantic context in which this metaphor is used
> in Dan 12:2 is very closely connected with 1Thes 5:10. The issue is the
> resurrection at the parousia.
Your are ignoring the context of 1 Thes 5:1-11 which talks about a specific
aspect of the parousia which is different from the final judgment referred
to in Dan 12. There are other places in the NT which are close parallels to
Dan 12. 1 Thess 5:10 is not. Those who are interested can look up in a cross
reference Bible and see some of those "parallels" mentioned under Dan
12:1-3, e.g. Matt 24:21 and 25:46; John 5:28-29 and 11:24; Rev 20:25.
> The SLEEP=DEATH metaphor is very well established with use of another word
> KOIMAW. Lots of examples in LXX & GNT. The classic passage on
> this is found in Jn 11:11 and context where Jesus explains the metaphor to
> This KOIMAW metaphor is used several times in 1thes 4:13-15
All of this is correct. And this is what I said. KOIMAOMAI is THE
established metaphor for "dying" in the GNT (KOIMAW in the LXX), even though
it can occasionally be used for "sleep". But then the context needs to
clarify that it is NOT used in the metaphorical sense. Paul ALWAYS uses it
in the sense of "death". The disciples misunderstood Jesus in Jn 11:11,
because they took the literal sense, where the metaphorical sense was
intended. (I don't know the corresponding Hebrew word actually used, since
Jesus did not speak in Greek to his disciples, but it would have been one of
the two mentioned above.)
It is also correct that it is used several times - three to be exact - in 1
> and for that
> reason it can be considered and ACTIVE metaphor in the context of 1Thes
> 5:10. Being an ACTIVE metaphor, the switch to a semi synonym KAQEUDW in
> IThes 5:10 should not give anyone heart burn.
This is all wrong, because it ignores the context. Maybe you jump to wrong
conclusions because you think in English and translate both words into
English "sleep"? I cannot otherwise see why you would make such
linguistically unfounded claims, nor can I see what heart burn has to do
> Iver's argument would, if carried out consistently lead to concordant
> translation. Of course Iver is a good linguist and he wouldn't dream of
> doing a concordant translation.
This makes no sense to me. It has nothing to do with concordant translation.
A concordant translation in itself is not good or bad. If a word has a fixed
sense, then a translation of that word should be concordant. If a word has
multiple senses, a concordant translation is a mistranslation, because it
would ignore the particular sense relevant in each context.
But we are talking about two DIFFERENT words here. You are not telling me
that two different words should be translated the same, because they may
have the same translation into English?
Both KAQEUDW and KOIMAOMAI have two senses, a literal one and an extended
Are you saying that because the literal sense of these two words overlap,
then the extended senses must also overlap?
The traditional claim is that KAQEUDW has a third sense which is equivalent
to the second sense of KOIMAOMAI. I am saying this claim is a mistake
without proper linguistic foundation.
> I think we see here that F.Danker and Louw & Nida have done their homework
> on KAQEUDW in 1Thes 5:10.
Not at all. They continued an error by Kittel or others before him,
precisely because they did not do their linguistic homework.
> Iver and Moon in this thread remind me of a two man rope team half way up
> Willis Wall* (Mt. Rainier). Iver has just free climbed a 40 foot lead,
> anchored below by a Chinaurd R.U.R.P** firmly hammered into
> volcanic pumice.
> Iver's left foot has just slipped . . .
When your argumentation is weak, you can always turn to anecdotes. Usually,
I agree with you, Clay, but on this one you would have to come up with some
better and more carefully reasoned arguments.
Thanks for taking up the challenge, though.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:17 EDT