At 9:11 AM -0600 2/18/98, Edgar Foster wrote: >>> It is true that >Democritus and later the Epicureans used TO ATOMON as a substantive for an >indivisible unit of material, but it would also be readily used as a >substantive for an indivisible unit of time, "a moment"--and I think that's >what's really going on here.<<<< > >I would agree Carl, that Paul was not positing a materialist theory in 1 Cor. >15. One thing that has often perplexed me about Paul's use of ATOMOS here, >however, has been the fact that TO ATOMON was INCORRECTLY viewed as an >indivisible unit of material by Democritus (et. al). Its hard for me to imagine >an INSPIRED (THEOPNEUSTOS) Bible writer recording incorrect information (that's >from my paradigm). Your comments might clear up my question? Are you saying >that ATOMOS was used in the Classics to denote or describe an indivisible unit >of TIME? If so, can you provide references to these usages? I don't have access >to Perseus or other sources right now. Here's what LSJ has under ATOMOS: 2. of Time: OUC hOION TE EIS ATOMOUS CRONOUS DIAIREISQAI TON CRONON Aristotle, Physics 263b27; KAT' ATOMON CRONON Aristotle, Sens. 447b18; EN ATOMWi "in a moment" Aristotle Physics 236a6; 1 Cor 15:52 EN ATOMWi ORGHS Sm. Is. 54.8. 0000,7777,0000This is quite enough to substantiate the sense of "a moment" in 1 Cor 15:52, I think. 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@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/