[B-Greek] re. I Cor 15,22
George F. Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Wed Jun 16 11:11:03 EDT 2004
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:47:19 -0500 Steven Lo Vullo <slovullo at mac.com>
writes:
> On Jun 13, 2004, at 5:28 PM, George F. Somsel wrote:
>
> > Now, Steve, just because I happen to be a died-in-the-wool
> Calvinist
> > there's no reason to accuse me of being theologically motivated
> [just
> > because I am :-) ].
>
> George, I think you misunderstood me. It was BDAG's use of 1 Cor
> 15.23
> as an example of TAGMA with the sense "group" that I said was
> "possibly" theologically motivated because of certain comments made
> in
> that section. I would NEVER so much as SUSPECT anyone on B-Greek to
> be
> theologically motivated! :-) (P.S. I too share the dreadful and
> hated
> Calvinist label, and I don't think either one of our views is
> necessarily Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic, though Calvin himself
> agrees with ME, speaking of the "order of things." :-))
>
> I think much of what I wrote in my first post covers your objections
>
> here, so I will try not to repeat myself here.
>
> > 1. hEKASTOS EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI "each in his own group"
> >
> > This is "each in HIS OWN" TAGMATI . The implication is that there
> is
> > more than one TAGMA and that one may belong to one or to the other
>
> > TAGMA.
> > Who is it that belongs to these TAGMATA ? PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN
> the
> > "all [who] die" or PANTES ZWiOPOIHUHSONTAI the "all [who] shall be
> made
> > alive." The two ways. It does not refer to Christ.
>
> (1) I think you are being too rigid with respect to the
> chronological
> sense of TAGMA I am proposing. When we say, "each in his own order,"
>
> the idea in the context is "each in his own turn." Christ in his
> turn,
> those in Christ in their turn. Christ first, afterwards those who
> are
> Christ's. Note that in BDAG 2, s.v. TAGMA, the definition is "a
> stage
> in a sequence" and gives the glosses "order, turn." It is not
> TAGMATI
> on its own in our passage that yields this meaning, but TAGMATI in
> relation to the context, and especially what follows. What we have
> here
> is an argument against those who say there is no resurrection (v.
> 12).
> Sure, you don't see anyone rising from the dead NOW, but that is
> because it is not the proper stage in the divine timetable for it.
> The
> chronological sequence requires that Christ rise first, then those
> who
> are his all together at his coming.
>
===========
Steve,
I don't attach any particular chronological sense to TAGMA whatsoever so,
if anyone is being too rigid in regard to a chronological sense, you need
only look in the mirror. (I don't mean this unkindly so please don't take
it as such). What I see is 2 (or one might stretch it to 3) groups. 1.
Those who are Christ's (and Christ as the first fruits) 2. The enemies
of Christ. See comments on your points #2-4.
===========
> (2) I don't want to misrepresent you, so please correct me if I am
> wrong, but it seems to me that you are linking the clause hEKASTOS
> DE
> EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI tightly to what precedes, contra NA27/UBS4,
> which
> have a hard stop at the end of v. 22 and a colon after TAGMATI in v.
>
> 23, indicating that hEKASTOS DE EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI looks ahead to
> and
> is in fact clarified and completed by the following clause. This is
>
> reflected in almost every English translation I know of with an
> English
> colon after TAGMATI, so that the sense is, "But each person [is made
>
> alive] in his own turn: Christ the FIRSTfruits, THEN at his coming
> those who are Christ's." Whether this is what you have in mind or
> not,
> I think that in order for your view to be possible, the NA27/UBS4
> punctuation must be rejected. But then APARCH CRISTOS, EPEITA hOI
> TOU
> CRISTOU EN THi PAROUSIAi AUTOU is left hanging and it is hard to see
>
> how it connects with what precedes and how it fits the context.
>
> (3) Which verb or verbs are we to supply in the first clause of v.
> 23?
> It seems to me that in the context we have three choices: (a) a form
> of
> APOQNHiSKW, (b) a form of ZWOPOIEW, (c) a form of both. Which of
> these
> makes the best sense? A form of APOQNHiSKW alone clearly doesn't
> make
> sense, nor does a form of APOQNHiSKW and a form of ZWOPOIEW
> together.
> But when we supply a form of ZWOPOIEW and follow the NA27/UBS4
> punctuation the result is lucid and coherent: For as in Adam all
> die,
> so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each person [is made
>
> alive] in his own turn: Christ the FIRSTfruits, then at his coming
> those who belong to Christ."
>
> (4) Keeping in mind the sense I am assigning to TAGMA, as well as
> the
> NA27/UBS4 punctuation, it begs the question to assert that PANTES
> ...
> PANTES are the only possible, or even probable, candidates for those
>
> who are associated with one or the other TAGMA, when we have two
> candidates in a clause that is, IMO, indisputably dependent on
> hEKASTOS
> DE EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI and contains two candidates that make much
> more
> sense in the context: CRISTOS and hOI TOU CRISTOU.
>
==============
As you note, I am not following the NA-27 punctuation. Let me lay out my
understanding
I. General statement
A. EPEIDH GAR DI' ANQRWPOU QANATOS
B. KAI DI' ANQRWPOU ANASTASIS NEKRWN
II. Explication
A. hWSPER GAR EN TWi ADAM PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN
B. hOUTWS KAI EN XRISTWi PANTES ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI: hEKASTOS EN DE
TWi IDIWi TAGMATI
1. APARXH XRISTOS
2. EPEITA hOI TOU XRISTOU EN TWi PAROUSIAi AUTOU
3. EITA TO TELOS . . . PANTA GAR hUPETACEN hUPO TOUS PODAS
AUTOU . . .
=============
> (5) To what does hEKASTOS (masc sing nom) refer? If to both PANTES
> [APOQNHiSKOUSIN] and PANTES [ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI] it's hard to make out
>
> the sense. For then we have, "For as in Adam all die, so also in
> Christ
> all shall be made alive. But each person of all who die in Adam and
>
> each person of all who will be made alive in Christ in his own
> group:
> Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to
> Christ."
> Honestly, George, I can't make any sense of this. Each person of all
>
> who die in Adam and each person of all who will be made alive in
> Christ
> WHAT? Where is this clause going? What is it doing? It doesn't even
>
> seem to make grammatical sense when taken as you suggest, especially
>
> when we try to deal with the following dependent clause.
>
> On the other hand, in light of the close connection between the two
>
> clauses of v. 23 and the dependence of the second clause on the
> first,
> it makes perfect sense to see agreement between hEKASTOS and CRISTOS
>
> (both masc sing nom) and treat CRISTOS as appositional to hEKASTOS.
>
> Note the good sense this yields: But each one--Christ the
> FIRSTfruits,
> then at his coming those who belong to Christ--are made alive in
> their
> own turn.
>
============
hEKASTOS refers to the members of TAGMA IDIA (EN IDIWi TAGMATI)
=============
> (6) I don't see anything about "ways" here. I suggest that has to be
>
> read into the text.
>
============
Did I say anything about "ways"? I would need to check the archives, but
I don't recall stating any such thing.
=============
> > 2. APARXH XRISTOS "the first fruit is Christ"
> >
> > Here it is not simply that Christ is the first to rise. He is the
>
> > APARXH
> > -- the first fruits. This was the offering which was made at the
> > beginning of the harvest before the remainder could be used.
>
> George, not only do I not deny this, but it is pretty close to what
> I
> said in my previous post:
>
> "It is predicated here that CRISTOS is APARCH, which most naturally
>
> means "the first one raised" (see BDAG 1.b.alpha., s.v. APARCH) with
>
> the implication of others to follow."
>
> It isn't "simply" that Christ was the first to rise; nevertheless,
> the
> idea of order can't be ignored in this context, dealing as it does
> with
> the precedence of Christ's resurrection to that of believers. When
> this
> is kept in mind, it is easy to see the chronological sequence here
> indicated by APARCH ... EPEITA. Christ is the first to be made alive
>
===========
No, there is a difference in taking APARXH as simply being "first" and
taking it as being "first fruits." The first fruits were the beginning
of the harvest which was offered as a sacrifice before the beginning of
the real harvest. Thus, while it has a temporal significance as well,
its real meaning is that of a dedication to God. One cannot simply
ignore its usage in the literature. It would also be well to remember
that there is always a two-fold designation in the harvest. There is the
wheat, and there are the tares.
=============
> (with the promise of others to follow), then at his coming those who
>
> are in Christ will be made alive. After that (EITA, v. 24) comes TO
>
> TELOS.
>
> > In
> > Revelation we have an example of this. In chapter 7 there are two
>
> > groups
> > set forth -- 144,000 Israelites and an innumerable multitude who
> are
> > holding palm branches in their hands. This is the celebration of
> the
> > feast of booths / first fruits / Pentecost. Then again in 14.1-5
> we
> > again meet with the 144,000 who are there explicitly stated
> (14.4)
> >
> > hOUTOI HGORASQHSAN APO TWN ANQRWPWN APARXH TWi QEWi KAI TWi ARNIWi
> > these were purchased from men [as] first fruits to God and to the
> Lamb
>
> (1) I think APARCH is used here in a somewhat different sense from
> in 1
> Cor 15. As BDAG says (1.b.alpha., s.v. APARCH), "[In] Rv 14:4 the
> emphasis is less on chronological sequence than on quality." In the
>
> same section it says of 1 Cor 15.20, 23, "The orig. mng. is greatly
>
> weakened, so that A. becomes almost = PRWTOS; of Christ A. TWN
> KEKOIMHMENWN the first of those who have fallen asleep 1 Cor 15:20;
> cp.
> vs. 23." While I think this goes too far, IMO truncating the full
> semantical force of APARCH in 1 Cor 15, it nevertheless recognizes
> the
> ordinal nature of APARCH.
>
> (2) I don't think this text from Rev offers any grammatical or
> syntactical evidence that sheds any light on our text in 1 Cor 15.
> ============
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list