Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Thu Dec 30 16:17:53 EST 1999
Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Luke 2:2. Time to quit Dear ers,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?The text reads:DI’ OU KAI SWZESQH TINI LOGW EUHGGELISAMHN UMIN, EI KATEXETE, EKTOS EI MH EIKH EPISTEUSATE.My questions are these:1.What is the significance of EI KATEXETE ?2.Why the verb tense change between KATEXETE and EPISTEUSATE ?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?4.Do you take EKTOS EI MH as a negated 1CC ?5.What is the structural relationship between EI KATEXETE and EKTOS EI MH EPISTEUSATEI would appreciate answers to any and all of these questions. Thanks in advance.GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net
Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Luke 2:2. Time to quit
Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 30 19:24:15 EST 1999
Luke 2:2. Time to quit Granville Sharp Paper At 1:17 PM -0800 12/30/99, George Goolde wrote:>Dear ers,> >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 tentativesuggestions that are based on a view that Paul, although he can write withrhetorical precision and force when he wants to, often writes in spasms andsequences of afterthoughts. Take this for no more than a tentativesuggestion.>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 presenttense just as is SWZESQE: “you are bringing about your salvation throughit, 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 theinception 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 holdfast 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 MHand 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 across (in very colloquial writing) between a counter-factual condition anda 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 apossibility 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 meit must be counter-factual.>5.What is the structural relationship between EI KATEXETE and EKTOS EI MH>EPISTEUSATEPersonally I don’t think that there IS a structural relationship betweenthese two phrases; I think rather that they are successive reactions to theproposition that Paul is loath to take seriously, that the Corinthiansreally do NOT believe in the resurrection of Christ. I think he ispondering what it must mean if they really DON’T believe in it when it isan essential element of the gospel. So he says: It’s what you’re beingsaved/getting saved by, after all–assuming you do still hold fast toit–but is it really possible that you believed for nothing? I just can’tbelieve 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 thebeginning of this month in Colossians 1:21-23, of which I cite the text andmy 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. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 4888 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991230/a0836265/attachment.bin
Luke 2:2. Time to quitGranville Sharp Paper
Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Thu Dec 30 23:54:12 EST 1999
Granville Sharp Paper Spiros Zodhiates In a message dated 12/30/1999 6:27:40 PM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< 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 tentativesuggestions that are based on a view that Paul, although he can write withrhetorical precision and force when he wants to, often writes in spasms andsequences of afterthoughts. Take this for no more than a tentativesuggestion.>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 presenttense just as is SWZESQE: “you are bringing about your salvation throughit, 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 theinception 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 holdfast 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 MHand 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 across (in very colloquial writing) between a counter-factual condition anda 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 apossibility 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 meit must be counter-factual.>5. What is the structural relationship between EI KATEXETE and EKTOS EI MH>EPISTEUSATEPersonally I don’t think that there IS a structural relationship betweenthese two phrases; I think rather that they are successive reactions to theproposition that Paul is loath to take seriously, that the Corinthiansreally do NOT believe in the resurrection of Christ. I think he ispondering what it must mean if they really DON’T believe in it when it isan essential element of the gospel. So he says: It’s what you’re beingsaved/getting saved by, after all–assuming you do still hold fast toit–but is it really possible that you believed for nothing? I just can’tbelieve it!” (paraphrase of sense I understand here). >>I’m really going to address questions 3, 4, and 5. First. I don’t think EKTOS EI MH EPISTEUSATE is counterfactual/2nd class condition because this would require a past tense (and usually AN) in the apodosis, and both KATEXETE and SWZESQE are present tense forms. Secondly, I think EKTOS EI MH EPISTEUSATE is qualifying EI KATEXETE (a grounds/inference or equivalence relationship between protasis and apodosis), so there is a structural relationship between the two clauses, even though Paul may be loathe to take them seriously.Charles Powell DTS
Granville Sharp PaperSpiros Zodhiates
Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Dec 31 10:17:15 EST 1999
Spiros Zodhiates Cooper & Index Nominum George Goolde said:>>The text reads: >> EUAGGELION DI’ hOU KAI SWZESQE TINI LOGW EUHGGELISAMHN UMIN, EI KATEXETE,>> EKTOS EI MH EIKH EPISTEUSATE. […]>>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?Carl Conrad said:> 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. I’d like to make an observation.Sometimes I get the impression that ‘colloquial’ means ‘inaccurate’,which, of course, is not necessarily true. Your comment here,Carl, brings that out–not your intended point, I think, but neverthelessit does. We easily tend to think precision requires formalism; thatmathematical rigor is required in order for an author to be precise.However, I was struck by how precise the Greek is here. If yourthoughts are right (particularly in (b)), then the reader sees–evenfeels–the struggle Paul is going through. The text captures theemotive nature and thereby Paul draws the reader along by bringingthe reader into his very soul. I can’t readily see how one woulddo that formally. Ironically, the colloquial nature of the text(even the “pleonasm”) is required in order to precisely convey thefull meaning.I think a student notebook should at least mention this since the student is going to run into many times when the text just doesn’t fit the “nice and neat” rules of formal grammar. The student should focus on the living, almost organic, nature of the Biblical Greek text which “meets me in my jeans and with a shovel in my hand.” This colloquial nature is not to make the Word of God familiar, but seeks to incarnate it where I am.A happy new year to all. — Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.usLandisburg, Pa. There is no ‘do’ in faith, everywhere present within it is ‘done’. And faith should commend itself from within every ‘do’.
Spiros ZodhiatesCooper & Index Nominum
Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Dec 31 14:47:24 EST 1999
2. Re: Semiotics and Word Studies On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:17:53 -0800 George Goolde <goolde at mtnempire.net>writes:> Dear ers,> > 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?> > The text reads:> > DI’ OU KAI SWZESQH TINI LOGW EUHGGELISAMHN UMIN, EI KATEXETE, EKTOS > EI MH EIKH EPISTEUSATE.> > My questions are these:> > 1.What is the significance of EI KATEXETE ?The first class conditional assumes for the sake of argument, that is, onthe assumedcondition KATECETE, it follows SWZESQH. I would take the present tensesas denotingthe continued state of holding fast the gospel. Those who do so arebeing saved.> 2.Why the verb tense change between KATEXETE and EPISTEUSATE Though the aorist tense is normally the least significant of the tenses,as far as tellingus anything definitive, it is rather significant here. It is probablyconstative, looking at theirinitial reception of the preached gospel. It is possible to believe inan aoristic sense andnot be saved, as this passage seems to suggest, along with other passages(if one takesthe parable of the sower and the seed, for example, as teaching that onlythe the ground that brought forth fruit was typical of those who are saved; or considerthe teaching in James 2where it appears possible to believe as the demons believe, yet not besaved, or the teaching of Christ that he who perseveres unto the end shall be saved).> ?> 3.I understand the pleonasm of EKTOS EI MH but I am > surprised that MH rather than OU is used with an indicative verb. Anyideas why?OU is normally used with the indicative, suggesting a negation of fact. The context heredenotes an uncertain condition.> 4.Do you take EKTOS EI MH as a negated 1CC ?I assume you mean first class conditional. Yes, I take it as assumingto be true forthe sake of argument, as clarified above.> 5.What is the structural relationship between EI KATEXETE > and EKTOS EI MH EPISTEUSATEFirst class conditional, assuming for the sake of argument; certainly notsaying suchis in fact the case, as the first class conditional does not demand oreven suggestit.Paul Dixon
2. Re: Semiotics and Word Studies
TINI LOGWi (1 Cor 15:2) Manolis Nikolaou aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 27 19:09:58 EDT 2002
Lifts up or takes away? QEOPNEUSTOS (1 Cor 15:1) GNWRIZW DE hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION hO EUHGGELISAMHNhUMIN, hO KAI PARELABATE, EN hW KAI hESTHKATE,(1 Cor 15:2) DI’ hOU KAI SWZESQE, TINI LOGWi EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EIKATECETE, EKTOS EI MH EIKH EPISTEUSATE.”TINI LOGWi EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI KATECETE” is usually translated as “ifyou hold fast that word which I preached you”. But: could the verbKATECETE take an object in dative? And: even if dative was possible here,wouldn’t something like “TWi LOGWi hON EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI KATECETE”(instead of “TINI LOGWi”) be more expected here? How does TINI function inthis passage, anyway?Regards,Manolis NikolaouGreece
Lifts up or takes away?QEOPNEUSTOS
TINI LOGWi (1 Cor 15:2) Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Apr 29 12:20:18 EDT 2002
The Meaning of LOGIZOMAI The present tense Dear Manolis and ers,On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 “Manolis Nikolaou” <aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com>writes:> (1 Cor 15:1) GNWRIZW DE hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION hO > EUHGGELISAMHN> hUMIN, hO KAI PARELABATE, EN hW KAI hESTHKATE,> (1 Cor 15:2) DI’ hOU KAI SWZESQE, TINI LOGWi EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI> KATECETE, EKTOS EI MH EIKH EPISTEUSATE.> > “TINI LOGWi EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI KATECETE” is usually translated > as “if> you hold fast that word which I preached you”. But: could the verb> KATECETE take an object in dative? And: even if dative was possible > here,> wouldn’t something like “TWi LOGWi hON EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI > KATECETE”> (instead of “TINI LOGWi”) be more expected here? How does TINI > function in> this passage, anyway?Since no one else has responded to this post here’s my take on it, FWIW.> could the verb> KATECETE take an object in dative?No. The object of this verb is an implied pronoun in the neuteraccusative. Its antecedent is TO EUAGGELION.> And: even if dative was possible > here,> wouldn’t something like “TWi LOGWi hON EUHGGELISAMHN > hUMIN EI > KATECETE”> (instead of “TINI LOGWi”) be more expected here?IF THE DATIVE WERE POSSIBLE HERE,in a case like this where the antecedent is in the dative the relativepronoun, which would normally stand in the accusative, is generallyattracted to the case of the antecedent. And so *TWi LOGWi hWiEUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI KATECETE*. Or sometimes the inverse takes placeand the antecedent is attracted to the case of the relative pronoun: *TONLOGON hON EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN EI KATECETE*. BUT the dative is notpossible with KATECW so forget about what I just wrote.> How does TINI function in this passage, anyway?Now we come to the real question. IMHO, TINI functions here like hWiTINIand TINI LOGWi is a dative of manner or perhaps means. So vs would golike this in English:”through which (gospel) you are also being saved, by whatever manner ofspeaking I proclaimed the gospel to you, if you hold on to (it, i.e., thegospel).”Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi — qodeshlayhvh at juno.comNew Haven, CT USANibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith,silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith.
The Meaning of LOGIZOMAIThe present tense