1 Cor 11:23 PAREDIDOTO (long)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Dec 11 08:58:55 EST 1999


I have recently been contacted by a "lurker" newly subscribing from "down
under" and posed a knotty complex of problems centering around 1
Corinthians 11:23 and particularly the verb PAREDIDOTO there. If he wishes
to enter into the discussion on his own, well and good, but the problems to
be dealt with are fundamentally concerning the Greek, its grammar, and the
range of possible meanings in this particular context. Let me say a bit,
however, about what is at stake in the questions posed to me. This
gentleman is convinced, on grounds that are fully satisfying to him
(although I don't find them persuasive myself) that the Eucharist/Lord's
Supper was instituted on Easter night by the risen Jesus in the company of
the disciples; this is not the forum for discussion of this question, but
for information I will note that he builds his case not on the Synoptic
Gospels, which clearly state that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the
night of his arrest, but upon John's gospel which reports the risen Jesus'
gift of the Spirit to the disciples on Easter night, and upon the text of 1
Cor 11:23, where he believes that the dative phrase and relative clause,
... EN THi NUKTI hHi PAREDIDOTO ... somehow does refer to Easter night
rather than to the night of Jesus' arrest.

Several basic questions are involved here:

(1) What is the sense in which PAREDIDOTO is being understood?

I have personally always assumed that the verb PARADIDWMI is here (1 Cor
11:23) being used in the judicial/forensic sense "give into custody of
arresting officers" (37.12, 37.111). That sense is used programmatically in
Mark's gospel of the arrests of John the Baptist and of Jesus but also of
the anticipated future arrests of the disciples if they are faithful and
emulate the destiny of Jesus. But of course there are other senses in which
the verb is used in the GNT, including "grant, allow" (Louw & Nida 13.142),
"risk one's life (L&N 21.7), "die, give up the spirit" (L&N 23.110),
"ripen" (of fruit, L&N 23.200); "pass on traditional instruction" (as in
the first part of 1 Cor 11:23, L&N 33.237); "convey authority/right" (L&N
57.77).

(2) Is PAREDIDOTO here a deliberate echo of PAREDOQH in Isaiah 53:12 (DIA
TOUTO AUTOS KLHRONOMHSEI POLLOUS KAI TWN ISCURWN MERIEI SKULA ANQ' hWN
PAREDOQH EIS QANATON hH YUCH AUTOU KAI EN TOIS ANOMOIS ELOGISQH KAI AUTOS
hAMARTIAS POLLWN ANHNEGKEN KAI DIA TAS hAMARTIAS AUTWN PAREDOQH), as
PAREDOQH in Romans 4:25 (hOS PAREDOQH DIA TA PARAPTWMATA hHMWN KAI HGERQH
DIA THN DIKAIWSIN hHMWN) seems to be? I don't think this question can be
very simply answered; moreover, answering it probably involves
argumentation that goes beyond interpretation of individual texts and would
probably involve theological and hermeneutical perspectives. My guess is
that it is probable that it IS a deliberate echo and that it is an instance
of which many can be found strewn throughout the gospel passion narratives:
OT texts understood and employed in the earliest traditions in the
interpretation of the sequence of events surrounding the death of Jesus.

(3) Is PAREDIDOTO to be deemed a "divine passive" in the sense that
PAREDOQH in the other two passages above are viewed as such (by Jeremias,
inter alios)? In fact, is there really such a thing as a "divine passive"
in NT Greek? I've never been convinced to my own satisfaction that there is
such a thing as a "divine passive" in Greek, although there may well be in
Hebrew or Aramaic (where I readily defer to those who know far better than
I). Dan Wallace (GGBtB, pp. 437-8) makes what seems to me a very sensible
statement about it, that the NT writers hardly seemed concerned to avoid a
divine name, so it's less likely they'd use the passive specifically for
that purpose; "Such expressions are obviously not due to any reticence on
the part of the author to utter the name of God. It might be better to say
that this phenomenon is due to certain collocations that would render the
repetition of the divine name superfluous, even obtrusive. In other words,
the 'divine passive' is simply a specific type of one of the previous
categories listed above (e.g., obvious from the passage, due to focus on
the subject, otherwise obtrusive, or for rhetorical effect)." I would say
in this instance what I've said before: under ordinary circumstances,
unless we have some clear indication of an agent or external
instrumentality, there really isn't any difference of perspective between
'middle' and 'passive' senses of a M/P verb form (whether that's a
MAI/SAI/TAI form or a QH- form): the focus is upon the experience undergone
by the subject rather than upon an external agent or force causing the
experience. I'd say therefore that PAREDOQH and PAREDIDOTO are essentially
reflexive and have the senses "got (himself) arrested" and "was facing
arrest" respectively. There may well be an implicit figure behind the
scenes pulling the strings, but without any statement of agent or
instrumentality the focus of the clause is simply upon the experience of
the subject of the verb. And I think that is really true for the Greek EVEN
IF the NT usage of PARADIDOSQAI echoes the LXX of Isaiah 53:12 and that LXX
phrasing reflects an original Hebrew "divine passive." And although one
might raise the question whether Judas is the real agent implied in
PAREDIDOTO, that is, one ought to say, I think, altogether outside the
perspective of the composer of the narrative, whose focus is solely upon
what Jesus said and experienced, not upon what others say or do.

(4) Does the fact that PAREDIDOTO is imperfect rather than aorist
necessarily imply that the action of PARADIDOSQAI, whatever the verb is
understood to mean in this instance, has not been completed when Jesus
ELABEN ARTON KTL.? I can't see any other way of understanding it; there's
all the difference in the world between PAREDIDOTO and PAREDOQH, and even
if our liturgies in English are phrased, "on the night on which he was
betrayed/arrested ..." we do understand that "he took bread" BEFORE he was
betrayed/arrested. But the reason I raise this question bears on the
argument presented to me, namely that PAREDIDOTO ought to refer to God's
action of handing over Jesus to sinful men to do with as they pleased FOR
OUR SINS, an action which our lurker understands (I think) to have been
complete at the time of an institution of the Eucharist on Easter evening.
My own view, however, is that the imperfect tense of PAREDIDOTO in 1 Cor
11:23 makes no sense if one assumes that the action described by the verb
has already been completed.

I'd welcome comments on the basic questions of interpretation of the Greek
of 1 Cor 11:23:
(1) What is the meaning of the verb PARADIDOSQAI in this text?
(2) Whether PAREDIDOTO is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53:12 (LXX) is
probably a matter on which opinions will differ, and I'm somewhat dubious
that question can really be resolved or that this is the proper forum even
to discuss it;
(3) Is there such a thing as a "divine passive" AS SUCH in NT Greek, and if
so, is PAREDIDOTO in 1 Cor 11:23 an instance of it?
(4) Could PAREDIDOTO in the imperfect tense be used on Easter night AFTER
the death and resurrection of Jesus? And if so, what does it refer to?


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 at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7633 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19991211/45834fa3/attachment.bin 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list