[B-Greek] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sun Aug 22 01:21:17 EDT 2004
On Aug 16, 2004, at 5:20 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:
> Since the
>> statement is meant to
>>> *assert* that Christ has indeed been raised from
>> the dead, why an
>>> appositive that *assumes* that? Rather, the idea
>> seems to be, "But now,
>>> Christ has been raised from the dead *as*
>> firstfruits of those who have
>>> fallen asleep."
>
> To me, what you are arguing is the same and your
> translation becomes
>
> But now, Christ has been raised from the dead,
> [Christ] *as* firstfruits of those who have fallen
> asleep."
>
> Either way you've put it in apposition in English.
Thanks for responding, Mitch.
I'm not really striving to determine the best English translation, but
to understand what is going on in the Greek. I'm using English to try
to convey the distinction I think exists in the Greek between simple
apposition and what I see in 1 Cor 15.20. Typically one is taught to
express simple apposition in Greek with the English words "that is" or
with a comma between the two words or with the appositive directly
following the word to which it is in apposition. I was using the
English word "as" to try to distinguish what I think is happening in
the Greek from the idea of simple apposition.
1 Cor 15.20 NUNI DE CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN.
I didn't want to comment any further on this until I had had a chance
to think more carefully about it. But now that I have, I am somewhat
more sure that what we have in 1 Cor 15.20 is not a simple appositional
construction. And it is a construction that I do not remember reading
about in any of the grammars I have studied. Allow me to make a few
points that I think are relevant.
(1) There is a similar, though not exact, example in 1 Cor 15 of what I
am talking about, likewise involving the verb EGEIRW, but this time
with a noun and an adjective rather than with two nouns.
1 Cor 15.52 SALPISEI GAR KAI hOI NEKROI EGERQHSONTAI AFQARTOI KAI
hHMEIS ALLAGHSOMEQA.
What are the possibilities for AFQARTOI? It *could* function simply as
an adjectival modifier of NEKROI. But the idea doesn't seem to be that
the imperishable dead will be raised, as would be the case if we took
AFQARTOI as an adjective modifying NEKROI. Rather, the idea seems to be
that the dead will be raised imperishable, i.e., the imperishability
follows on and is the consequence of being raised. This seems to
correspond to v. 20, where the idea does not seem to be that Christ the
firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep has been raised from the
dead, but that he has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of
those who have fallen asleep, i.e., becoming the firstfruits of those
who have fallen asleep follows on and is the consequence of being
raised from the dead.
(2) This same phenomenon *may* be in play in 1 Cor 15.44. But this
depends on whether the subjects of the verbs are understood to be
implied pronouns or whether SWMA YUCIKON and SWMA PNEUMATIKON are
indeed the subjects of SPEIRETAI and EGEIRETAI. Grammatically it is
possible to take these words as the explicit subjects, but logically it
makes better sense to understand implied pronouns as the subjects. The
idea does not seem to be that a natural body is sown and that a
spiritual body is raised, but that the body is sown *as* a natural body
and it is raised *as* a spiritual body, i.e., a natural body is the
consequence of birth (or of creation as in the case of Adam, v. 45) and
a spiritual body is the consequence of resurrection.
(3) In my first post in this thread I mentioned that this construction
(CRISTOS EGHGERTAI ... APARCH) reminded me somewhat of an
object-complement construction, except that here we have nominatives
with a passive verb. Later on it occurred to me that I should conduct a
search to discover whether active forms of EGEIRW may indeed take the
double accusative object-complement construction. It seems it may. Note
Is 45.13 (LXX):
EGW HGEIRA AUTON META DIKAIOSUNHS BASILEA...
I raised him up with righteousness as king
Though this was the only example I found, I think it is a clear one.
This led me to the following hypothesis: In certain situations, when a
verb that may take the object-complement construction in the active
voice is used in the passive voice, the words that would be in the in
the accusative case in the object-complement construction with the
active verb may be converted to the nominative case to facilitate a
similar semantic force with a passive verb. In the case of 1 Cor 15.20,
the active voice verb with the object-complement construction would be
something like [QEOS] EGHGERKA CRISTON EK NEKRWN APARCHN TWN
KEKOIMHMENWN. In the passive this converts to CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK
NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN. I think we could make the same case for
1 Cor 15.52, since the object-complement construction may involve a
noun-adjective combination.
I'm not sure yet whether this is a valid observation, and I haven't yet
concocted a nifty category for this construction if it is. I'm going to
keep my eyes open as I read to see if there are other examples that may
lend credence to this hypothesis. Perhaps I have stumbled onto
something. Or perhaps I'm just being too rigorous in my analysis.
Comments would be appreciated.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list