08-05-2014, 09:11 AM
Yea, that isn't a good translation work there. Janet should have put those interpretive words in brackets. You have to be careful in this regard, as many people who do translations seem to think it is ok to add their own words, where there are none in the source text.
For me, that is a big no no.
Here is how it actually reads in the manuscripts, rendered as it reads in the Peshitta text.
"For, the love of M?shikha compels us that we are to think like this: That One died for every Man; therefore, every Man died, and He died in place of every Man, so that, those who are living wouldn't live for their own souls, but rather, for Him, who, concerning their Persons, died and was raised." 2nd Corinthians 5:14,15
In Janet's version, "in him" is a clear interpretation, and is inserted into the text there, but, isn't in the manuscript text itself.
Though, it is implied in the context, that since M'shikha died in the place of every Man, they all died with, or in him, He being their substitute by proxy, He took our place.... Every Man, meaning all of Mankind.
For me, that is a big no no.
Here is how it actually reads in the manuscripts, rendered as it reads in the Peshitta text.
"For, the love of M?shikha compels us that we are to think like this: That One died for every Man; therefore, every Man died, and He died in place of every Man, so that, those who are living wouldn't live for their own souls, but rather, for Him, who, concerning their Persons, died and was raised." 2nd Corinthians 5:14,15
In Janet's version, "in him" is a clear interpretation, and is inserted into the text there, but, isn't in the manuscript text itself.
Though, it is implied in the context, that since M'shikha died in the place of every Man, they all died with, or in him, He being their substitute by proxy, He took our place.... Every Man, meaning all of Mankind.