Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 30 19:24:15 EST 1999


At 1:17 PM -0800 12/30/99, George Goolde wrote:
>Dear B-Greekers,
>
>I am preparing a student notebook which includes an exegesis of 1 Cor
>15:1-5.  In studying 1 Cor 15:2 I have some exegetically challenging
>questions.  Can you help?

An interesting challenge indeed, George. I offer only some tentative
suggestions that are based on a view that Paul, although he can write with
rhetorical precision and force when he wants to, often writes in spasms and
sequences of afterthoughts. Take this for no more than a tentative
suggestion.

>The text reads:
>
>EUAGGELION DI' hOU KAI SWZESQE TINI LOGW EUHGGELISAMHN UMIN, EI KATEXETE,
>EKTOS EI MH EIKH EPISTEUSATE.

(expanded to include antecedent of hOU and a couple types corrected)
>
>My questions are these:
>
>1.	What is the significance of EI KATEXETE ?

I think this is a sort of parenthetical addition; it is in the present
tense just as is SWZESQE: "you are bringing about your salvation through
it, assuming that you hold fast to it ..."

>2.	Why the verb tense change between KATEXETE and EPISTEUSATE ?

I think this is still a second parenthetical addition, looking back at the
inception of faith on the part of the Corinthians. I'd understand it as
"and of course you bring about your salvation through it, assuming you hold
fast to it, ... unless perchance you really did believe for naught."

>3.	I understand the pleonasm of EKTOS EI MH  but I am surprised that MH
>rather than OU is used with an indicative verb.  Any ideas why?

Two thoughts: (a) it's a counter-factual protasis, which would take a MH
and aorist subjunctive, but would be hard to carry over into English here:
"excluding--unless you really had come to faith in vain ..." or (b) it's a
cross (in very colloquial writing) between a counter-factual condition and
a deep wish that what Paul perceives to be true is not REALLY true:
"excluding--unless--but it's not true, is it, that you believed in vain?"
That might require a different punctuation, but it strikes me as a
possibility in what seems to me a very colloquial sort of sequence.

>4.	Do you take EKTOS EI MH as a negated 1CC ?

Sorry, I'm not used to the terminology. If it's a condition, it seems to me
it must be counter-factual.

>5.	What is the structural relationship between EI KATEXETE and EKTOS EI MH
>EPISTEUSATE

Personally I don't think that there IS a structural relationship between
these two phrases; I think rather that they are successive reactions to the
proposition that Paul is loath to take seriously, that the Corinthians
really do NOT believe in the resurrection of Christ. I think he is
pondering what it must mean if they really DON'T believe in it when it is
an essential element of the gospel. So he says: It's what you're being
saved/getting saved by, after all--assuming you do still hold fast to
it--but is it really possible that you believed for nothing? I just can't
believe it!" (paraphrase of sense I understand here).

>I would appreciate answers to any and all of these questions.  Thanks in
>advance.


This reminds me in some ways of the passage that exercised us back at the
beginning of this month in Colossians 1:21-23, of which I cite the text and
my last comment on the passage:

>The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THi
>DIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWi
>SWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAI
>AMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEI
>TEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOU
>EUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TON
>OURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.


>I said previously that this is certainly different from a tight conditional
>construction with an EAN (GE) + subjunctive protasis, where I would
>understand it to mean "if and only if"--but the EI GE clause seems to be
>attached not so much as a rigid condition upon which the APOKATHLLAXEN
>attaches is dependent for its validity, but with almost colloquial force,
>as if to say, "assuming, of course, that you stick with your basic
>grounding and follow through in spite of the challenges you meet, etc.,
>etc." If people want to hang all the distinctions between pure and impure
>Calvinism and Arminianism on this, that's their business, but I really
>think our author has a more practical pastoral concern for those he's
>writing to--and Paul was always having to fight off those who wanted to
>interpret his conception of salvation in terms of "money already in the
>bank."


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: 4888 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19991230/a0836265/attachment.bin 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list