[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Aug 15 17:11:48 EDT 2004
[] reading Homer and period literature [] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Hi all:1 Cor 15.20 NUNI DE CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN.At first blush it would seem that APARCH stands in apposition to CRISTOS. This is in fact how the relationship is described in the helps I have consulted that actually comment on it. However, after further reflection this didn’t seem to fit. Wallace lists four features of simple apposition:”An appositional construction involves (1) two adjacent substantives (2) in the same case, (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause” (p. 48).CRISTOS and APARCH are in the same case and refer to the same person, but are not adjacent (unless I am being too rigid in my understanding of “adjacent”). Also, I’m not exactly sure they have exactly the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.In addition, Wallace says that typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular. This is not the case here.The sense also seems to be somewhat forced when APARCH is taken as appositional: “But now, Christ, firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, has been raised from the dead.” Since the statement is meant to *assert* that Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, why an appositive that *assumes* that? Rather, the idea seems to be, “But now, Christ has been raised from the dead *as* firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” It seems the relationship is something like that of an object-complement construction, except that we have nominatives here. I thought we could perhaps understand an elliptical WN here before APARCH, but I’m not sure what the force or significance of that would be.Of course, it may just be that I’m being too rigid in my understanding of apposition.Does anyone have any comments on this. I would appreciate them.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
[] reading Homer and period literature[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 15 18:20:36 EDT 2004
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 [] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 At 4:11 PM -0500 8/15/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Hi all:> >1 Cor 15.20 NUNI DE CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN.> >At first blush it would seem that APARCH stands in apposition to>CRISTOS. This is in fact how the relationship is described in the helps>I have consulted that actually comment on it. However, after further>reflection this didn’t seem to fit. Wallace lists four features of>simple apposition:> >“An appositional construction involves (1) two adjacent substantives>(2) in the same case, (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4)>and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause” (p.>48).> >CRISTOS and APARCH are in the same case and refer to the same person,>but are not adjacent (unless I am being too rigid in my understanding>of “adjacent”). Also, I’m not exactly sure they have exactly the same>syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.> >In addition, Wallace says that typically the first noun is anarthrous>and the appositional noun is articular. This is not the case here.> >The sense also seems to be somewhat forced when APARCH is taken as>appositional: “But now, Christ, firstfruits of those who have fallen>asleep, has been raised from the dead.” Since the statement is meant to>*assert* that Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, why an>appositive that *assumes* that? Rather, the idea seems to be, “But now,>Christ has been raised from the dead *as* firstfruits of those who have>fallen asleep.” It seems the relationship is something like that of an>object-complement construction, except that we have nominatives here. I>thought we could perhaps understand an elliptical WN here before>APARCH, but I’m not sure what the force or significance of that would>be.> >Of course, it may just be that I’m being too rigid in my understanding>of apposition.> >Does anyone have any comments on this. I would appreciate them.I do think that the definition’s insistence upon the juxtaposition of thetwo nouns in apposition is too rigid; on the other hand, I think you’reright to want to understand the relationship of APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN ina sort of adverbial relationship to CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN, much asone would understand an adjective or participle that qualifies thesubject-predicate combination adverbially, e.g. CRISTOS EGHGERTAI PRWTOS =”Christ has risen first (of all that rise), or CRISTOS EGHGERTAI ARCOMENOSPANTWN TWN EGERQHSOMENWN, or some such. But I’m not quite sure that anappositional phrase in agreement with a subject doesn’t function this waypretty commonly. I’m thinking off the top of my head here, probably adangerous thing to do. It does deserve further investigation.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 16 06:20:24 EDT 2004
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 [] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Since the> statement is meant to> >*assert* that Christ has indeed been raised from> the dead, why an> >appositive that *assumes* that? Rather, the idea> seems to be, “But now,> >Christ has been raised from the dead *as*> firstfruits of those who have> >fallen asleep.” To me, what you are arguing is the same and yourtranslation becomesBut now, Christ has been raised from the dead,[Christ] *as* firstfruits of those who have fallenasleep.” Either way you’ve put it in apposition in English.=====Mitch LarramoreSpring Branch, TexasStudent/Memorial High School_______________________________Do you Yahoo!?Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Aug 22 01:21:17 EDT 2004
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 [] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 On Aug 16, 2004, at 5:20 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:> Since the>> statement is meant to>>> *assert* that Christ has indeed been raised from>> the dead, why an>>> appositive that *assumes* that? Rather, the idea>> seems to be, “But now,>>> Christ has been raised from the dead *as*>> firstfruits of those who have>>> fallen asleep.”> > To me, what you are arguing is the same and your> translation becomes> > But now, Christ has been raised from the dead,> [Christ] *as* firstfruits of those who have fallen> asleep.”> > Either way you’ve put it in apposition in English.Thanks for responding, Mitch.I’m not really striving to determine the best English translation, but to understand what is going on in the Greek. I’m using English to try to convey the distinction I think exists in the Greek between simple apposition and what I see in 1 Cor 15.20. Typically one is taught to express simple apposition in Greek with the English words “that is” or with a comma between the two words or with the appositive directly following the word to which it is in apposition. I was using the English word “as” to try to distinguish what I think is happening in the Greek from the idea of simple apposition.1 Cor 15.20 NUNI DE CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN.I didn’t want to comment any further on this until I had had a chance to think more carefully about it. But now that I have, I am somewhat more sure that what we have in 1 Cor 15.20 is not a simple appositional construction. And it is a construction that I do not remember reading about in any of the grammars I have studied. Allow me to make a few points that I think are relevant.(1) There is a similar, though not exact, example in 1 Cor 15 of what I am talking about, likewise involving the verb EGEIRW, but this time with a noun and an adjective rather than with two nouns.1 Cor 15.52 SALPISEI GAR KAI hOI NEKROI EGERQHSONTAI AFQARTOI KAI hHMEIS ALLAGHSOMEQA.What are the possibilities for AFQARTOI? It *could* function simply as an adjectival modifier of NEKROI. But the idea doesn’t seem to be that the imperishable dead will be raised, as would be the case if we took AFQARTOI as an adjective modifying NEKROI. Rather, the idea seems to be that the dead will be raised imperishable, i.e., the imperishability follows on and is the consequence of being raised. This seems to correspond to v. 20, where the idea does not seem to be that Christ the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep has been raised from the dead, but that he has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, i.e., becoming the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep follows on and is the consequence of being raised from the dead.(2) This same phenomenon *may* be in play in 1 Cor 15.44. But this depends on whether the subjects of the verbs are understood to be implied pronouns or whether SWMA YUCIKON and SWMA PNEUMATIKON are indeed the subjects of SPEIRETAI and EGEIRETAI. Grammatically it is possible to take these words as the explicit subjects, but logically it makes better sense to understand implied pronouns as the subjects. The idea does not seem to be that a natural body is sown and that a spiritual body is raised, but that the body is sown *as* a natural body and it is raised *as* a spiritual body, i.e., a natural body is the consequence of birth (or of creation as in the case of Adam, v. 45) and a spiritual body is the consequence of resurrection.(3) In my first post in this thread I mentioned that this construction (CRISTOS EGHGERTAI … APARCH) reminded me somewhat of an object-complement construction, except that here we have nominatives with a passive verb. Later on it occurred to me that I should conduct a search to discover whether active forms of EGEIRW may indeed take the double accusative object-complement construction. It seems it may. Note Is 45.13 (LXX):EGW HGEIRA AUTON META DIKAIOSUNHS BASILEA…I raised him up with righteousness as kingThough this was the only example I found, I think it is a clear one. This led me to the following hypothesis: In certain situations, when a verb that may take the object-complement construction in the active voice is used in the passive voice, the words that would be in the in the accusative case in the object-complement construction with the active verb may be converted to the nominative case to facilitate a similar semantic force with a passive verb. In the case of 1 Cor 15.20, the active voice verb with the object-complement construction would be something like [QEOS] EGHGERKA CRISTON EK NEKRWN APARCHN TWN KEKOIMHMENWN. In the passive this converts to CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN. I think we could make the same case for 1 Cor 15.52, since the object-complement construction may involve a noun-adjective combination.I’m not sure yet whether this is a valid observation, and I haven’t yet concocted a nifty category for this construction if it is. I’m going to keep my eyes open as I read to see if there are other examples that may lend credence to this hypothesis. Perhaps I have stumbled onto something. Or perhaps I’m just being too rigorous in my analysis. Comments would be appreciated.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Aug 22 02:49:02 EDT 2004
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 [] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 On Aug 22, 2004, at 12:21 AM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> In the case of 1 Cor 15.20, the active voice verb with the > object-complement construction would be something like [QEOS] EGHGERKA > CRISTON EK NEKRWN APARCHN TWN KEKOIMHMENWN.EGHGERKA (first person) should be EGHGERKEN (third person). Sorry for the oversight.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 22 06:49:34 EDT 2004
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20 [] Reading Philo and Papyri [was “reading Homer and periodliterature”] I’m not going to comment at length upon this, but I think that your carefulresearch and your “tentative” conclusion is right; that’s what I’d tried tosuggest in my first response to your inquiry a week ago, that APARCH in 1Cor 15;20 is really to be understood adverbially with the predicate and notsimply as an appositive or substitutionary equivalent to the subject.”Predicate nominative” as a term seems to be reserved for essentiallyequative nouns or adjectives linked by a copula or equivalent type of verb(e.g. KALEITAI) to the subject, but APARCH in 1 Cor 15:20 must clearly beassociated syntactically with the verb, and I really think your analysis isright on target.At 12:21 AM -0500 8/22/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>On Aug 16, 2004, at 5:20 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:> >> Since the>>> statement is meant to>>>> *assert* that Christ has indeed been raised from>>> the dead, why an>>>> appositive that *assumes* that? Rather, the idea>>> seems to be, “But now,>>>> Christ has been raised from the dead *as*>>> firstfruits of those who have>>>> fallen asleep.”>> >> To me, what you are arguing is the same and your>> translation becomes>> >> But now, Christ has been raised from the dead,>> [Christ] *as* firstfruits of those who have fallen>> asleep.”>> >> Either way you’ve put it in apposition in English.> >Thanks for responding, Mitch.> >I’m not really striving to determine the best English translation, but>to understand what is going on in the Greek. I’m using English to try>to convey the distinction I think exists in the Greek between simple>apposition and what I see in 1 Cor 15.20. Typically one is taught to>express simple apposition in Greek with the English words “that is” or>with a comma between the two words or with the appositive directly>following the word to which it is in apposition. I was using the>English word “as” to try to distinguish what I think is happening in>the Greek from the idea of simple apposition.> >1 Cor 15.20 NUNI DE CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN.> >I didn’t want to comment any further on this until I had had a chance>to think more carefully about it. But now that I have, I am somewhat>more sure that what we have in 1 Cor 15.20 is not a simple appositional>construction. And it is a construction that I do not remember reading>about in any of the grammars I have studied. Allow me to make a few>points that I think are relevant.> >(1) There is a similar, though not exact, example in 1 Cor 15 of what I>am talking about, likewise involving the verb EGEIRW, but this time>with a noun and an adjective rather than with two nouns.> >1 Cor 15.52 SALPISEI GAR KAI hOI NEKROI EGERQHSONTAI AFQARTOI KAI>hHMEIS ALLAGHSOMEQA.> >What are the possibilities for AFQARTOI? It *could* function simply as>an adjectival modifier of NEKROI. But the idea doesn’t seem to be that>the imperishable dead will be raised, as would be the case if we took>AFQARTOI as an adjective modifying NEKROI. Rather, the idea seems to be>that the dead will be raised imperishable, i.e., the imperishability>follows on and is the consequence of being raised. This seems to>correspond to v. 20, where the idea does not seem to be that Christ the>firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep has been raised from the>dead, but that he has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of>those who have fallen asleep, i.e., becoming the firstfruits of those>who have fallen asleep follows on and is the consequence of being>raised from the dead.> >(2) This same phenomenon *may* be in play in 1 Cor 15.44. But this>depends on whether the subjects of the verbs are understood to be>implied pronouns or whether SWMA YUCIKON and SWMA PNEUMATIKON are>indeed the subjects of SPEIRETAI and EGEIRETAI. Grammatically it is>possible to take these words as the explicit subjects, but logically it>makes better sense to understand implied pronouns as the subjects. The>idea does not seem to be that a natural body is sown and that a>spiritual body is raised, but that the body is sown *as* a natural body>and it is raised *as* a spiritual body, i.e., a natural body is the>consequence of birth (or of creation as in the case of Adam, v. 45) and>a spiritual body is the consequence of resurrection.> >(3) In my first post in this thread I mentioned that this construction>(CRISTOS EGHGERTAI … APARCH) reminded me somewhat of an>object-complement construction, except that here we have nominatives>with a passive verb. Later on it occurred to me that I should conduct a>search to discover whether active forms of EGEIRW may indeed take the>double accusative object-complement construction. It seems it may. Note>Is 45.13 (LXX):> >EGW HGEIRA AUTON META DIKAIOSUNHS BASILEA…>I raised him up with righteousness as king> >Though this was the only example I found, I think it is a clear one.>This led me to the following hypothesis: In certain situations, when a>verb that may take the object-complement construction in the active>voice is used in the passive voice, the words that would be in the in>the accusative case in the object-complement construction with the>active verb may be converted to the nominative case to facilitate a>similar semantic force with a passive verb. In the case of 1 Cor 15.20,>the active voice verb with the object-complement construction would be>something like [QEOS] EGHGERKA CRISTON EK NEKRWN APARCHN TWN>KEKOIMHMENWN. In the passive this converts to CRISTOS EGHGERTAI EK>NEKRWN APARCH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN. I think we could make the same case for>1 Cor 15.52, since the object-complement construction may involve a>noun-adjective combination.> >I’m not sure yet whether this is a valid observation, and I haven’t yet>concocted a nifty category for this construction if it is. I’m going to>keep my eyes open as I read to see if there are other examples that may>lend credence to this hypothesis. Perhaps I have stumbled onto>something. Or perhaps I’m just being too rigorous in my analysis.>Comments would be appreciated.>============> >Steven Lo Vullo>Madison, WI> >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] APARCH in 1 Cor 15.20[] Reading Philo and Papyri [was “reading Homer and periodliterature”]
heres the Link on resurrection