[B-Greek] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Mon Sep 6 18:25:49 EDT 2004
Thanks for the reply, Arie.
While I think you make an interesting proposal, there are, in my
opinion, a few weaknesses in the argumentation that should be
addressed.
On Sep 6, 2004, at 4:33 AM, Arie Dirkzwager wrote:
> In my opinion there is more to be said here.
> It is clear that we have a quotation from the Old Testament. But where
> does
> it end?
> In the LXX we have EGENETO hO ANQRWPOS EIS YUCHN ZWSAN. Paul added
> PRWTOS
> and ADAM in order to make his use of the quotation more clear.
>
> Then we have the words about the second Adam hO ESCATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA
> ZWiOPOIOUN.
> A particle is missing at the beginning. So Paul does not take up his
> own
> reasoning again.
I think there are some weighty syntactic contraindications in the
context to the idea that because there is no particle joining the two
clauses in question, the second clause of v. 45 should be taken as a
companion quote to the first clause.
There is a sustained pattern of asyndeton in Paul's contrasts from v.
42 on, both before and after v. 45. Note the following:
v. 42 SPEIRETAI EN FQORAi, EGEIRETAI EN AFQARSIAi
v. 43 SPEIRETAI EN ATIMIAi, EGEIRETAI EN DOXHi
v. 43 SPEIRETAI EN ASQENIAi, EGEIRETAI EN DUNAMEI
v. 44 SPEIRETAI SWMA YUCIKON, EGEIRETAI SWMA PNEUMATIKON
v. 45 EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN ZWSAN, hO ESCATOS ADAM
EIS PNEUMA ZWiOPOIOUN
v.47 hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS EK GHS COIKOS, hO DEUTEROS ANQRWPOS EX OURANOU.
Indeed, it would seem to me odd if Paul DID use DE or ALLA in this
context to join the two contrasting clauses in v. 45. I think some
rather weighty evidence is required to prove that the second clause is
another "quotation" rather than a contrast constructed by Paul himself.
I don't think lack of a particle in this context qualifies as
compelling evidence.
> But where to find these words in the Old Testament?
> The exact words are missing, but for a Jewish theologian it was
> possible to
> quote a whole passage with one word from it. The rest could be adapted
> to
> the reasoning.
> I think the "quoted" word, or better the allusion, is ZWiOPOIOUN. That
> is an
> allusion to the name of Eve in Hebrew "giving life ".
>
> The first place where the name Eve is used is Gn 3: 20. Adam gave this
> name
> to his wife "because she would become the mother of all the living".
> The
> verse however is standing in the story of the fall of man. Nothing
> about
> children of Adam and Eve.
> We have only verse 15 with the promise of the offspring of Eve that
> would
> crush the head of the serpent. I get the impression that the name Eve
> does
> not refer to the immediate children of Adam and Eve but to the fact
> that one
> of the offspring would annihilate the curse of death that came upon men
> after the fall. There would come a ZWiOPOIOS person. And by this way
> Eve
> would give life to mankind.So Paul postulates a new Adam that would
> give life om the base of Gn 3: 15
> and 20. As a YUCH cannot be ZWiOPOIH, he had to use the word PNEUMA -
> like
> he did in his reasoning before.
>
> It is interesting to note that the name Eve was rendered ZWH in Gn 3:
> 20.
I won't comment at length on the above, because I think to do so would
push the thread well outside the bounds of B-Greek. But I will say that
I doubt very much the reader would have likely seen the allusion you
propose or would have thought to put this verse together with Gen 3.15,
20. The link would be so subtle as to be practically invisible. If Paul
meant such an allusion, I propose it was highly intangible and
ineffective. But the most important point for our purposes on B-Greek
is that the lack of a particle in 1 Cor 15.45 doesn't seem to provide
support for this view.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list