1 Corinthians 15:45

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Sep 5 18:38:14 EDT 2004

[] About Eph.2:6 [] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Hi all:hOUTWS KAI GEGRAPTAI: EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN ZWSAN, hO ESCATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA ZWiOPOIOUN.hOUTWS may refer to what precedes or what follows. It’s usually not very difficult to decide one way or the other, and at first blush it would seem that in 1 Cor 15.45 it must refer to what follows, since it is used with GEGRAPTAI, which introduces a quote from the OT. BDAG notes that hOUTWS is used in connection with “spoken or written words: what is so introduced follows immediately after hOUTWS GEGRAPTAI” (BDAG 2, s.v. hOUTWS).But in 1.b, s.v. hOUTWS, it says that hOUTWS may refer to what precedes, “Pointing the moral after figures of speech, parables, and examples.” Seeing as the preceding context uses the figure of sowing, it occurred to me that hOUTWS may refer to what precedes, with the quote from Gen 2.7 pointing the moral or offering the explanation of the figure. The idea would be, “All this is clarified/confirmed by the scripture, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul (YUCHN; cf. YUCIKON in v. 44),’ the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (PNEUMA; cf. PNEUMATIKON in v. 44).” Adverbial KAI here would seem to lend some weight to this latter understanding (“also” pointing to and building on what precedes).So, does hOUTWS here refer to what precedes or what follows?============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] About Eph.2:6[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Sep 5 20:12:16 EDT 2004

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 [] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 At 5:38 PM -0500 9/5/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Hi all:> >hOUTWS KAI GEGRAPTAI: EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN ZWSAN,>hO ESCATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA ZWiOPOIOUN.> >hOUTWS may refer to what precedes or what follows. It’s usually not>very difficult to decide one way or the other, and at first blush it>would seem that in 1 Cor 15.45 it must refer to what follows, since it>is used with GEGRAPTAI, which introduces a quote from the OT. BDAG>notes that hOUTWS is used in connection with “spoken or written words:>what is so introduced follows immediately after hOUTWS GEGRAPTAI” (BDAG>2, s.v. hOUTWS).> >But in 1.b, s.v. hOUTWS, it says that hOUTWS may refer to what>precedes, “Pointing the moral after figures of speech, parables, and>examples.” Seeing as the preceding context uses the figure of sowing,>it occurred to me that hOUTWS may refer to what precedes, with the>quote from Gen 2.7 pointing the moral or offering the explanation of>the figure. The idea would be, “All this is clarified/confirmed by the>scripture, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul (YUCHN; cf.>YUCIKON in v. 44),’ the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (PNEUMA;>cf. PNEUMATIKON in v. 44).” Adverbial KAI here would seem to lend some>weight to this latter understanding (“also” pointing to and building on>what precedes).> >So, does hOUTWS here refer to what precedes or what follows?Perhaps BOTH? I think that the KAI is significant: “That’s the wayscripture reads too” — where “that” means “There IS a “psychic” SWMA.”That is to say, the statement EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHNZWSAN is offered as a constatement of the principle set forth in 15:44:SPEIRETAI SWMA YUCIKON, EGEIRETAI SWMA PNEUMATIKON. EI ESTIN SWMA YUCIKON,ESTIN KAI PNEUMATIKON.– 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/

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Mon Sep 6 05:33:36 EDT 2004

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 [] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 In my opinion there is more to be said here.It is clear that we have a quotation from the Old Testament. But where doesit end?In the LXX we have EGENETO hO ANQRWPOS EIS YUCHN ZWSAN. Paul added PRWTOSand 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 PNEUMAZWiOPOIOUN.A particle is missing at the beginning. So Paul does not take up his ownreasoning again. But where to find these words in the Old Testament?The exact words are missing, but for a Jewish theologian it was possible toquote a whole passage with one word from it. The rest could be adapted tothe reasoning.I think the “quoted” word, or better the allusion, is ZWiOPOIOUN. That is anallusion 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 nameto his wife “because she would become the mother of all the living”. Theverse however is standing in the story of the fall of man. Nothing aboutchildren of Adam and Eve.We have only verse 15 with the promise of the offspring of Eve that wouldcrush the head of the serpent. I get the impression that the name Eve doesnot refer to the immediate children of Adam and Eve but to the fact that oneof the offspring would annihilate the curse of death that came upon menafter the fall. There would come a ZWiOPOIOS person. And by this way Evewould give life to mankind.So Paul postulates a new Adam that would give life om the base of Gn 3: 15and 20. As a YUCH cannot be ZWiOPOIH, he had to use the word PNEUMA – likehe did in his reasoning before.It is interesting to note that the name Eve was rendered ZWH in Gn 3: 20.I have to apologize for some lines of interpretation, but I think theabsence of the particle of connection and the extension of the quotationcould not be explained without it.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Sep 6 16:42:46 EDT 2004

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 [] Frustrated Greek Learner!!! On Sep 5, 2004, at 7:12 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> At 5:38 PM -0500 9/5/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>> Hi all:>> >> hOUTWS KAI GEGRAPTAI: EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN ZWSAN,>> hO ESCATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA ZWiOPOIOUN.>> >> hOUTWS may refer to what precedes or what follows. It’s usually not>> very difficult to decide one way or the other, and at first blush it>> would seem that in 1 Cor 15.45 it must refer to what follows, since it>> is used with GEGRAPTAI, which introduces a quote from the OT. BDAG>> notes that hOUTWS is used in connection with “spoken or written words:>> what is so introduced follows immediately after hOUTWS GEGRAPTAI” >> (BDAG>> 2, s.v. hOUTWS).>> >> But in 1.b, s.v. hOUTWS, it says that hOUTWS may refer to what>> precedes, “Pointing the moral after figures of speech, parables, and>> examples.” Seeing as the preceding context uses the figure of sowing,>> it occurred to me that hOUTWS may refer to what precedes, with the>> quote from Gen 2.7 pointing the moral or offering the explanation of>> the figure. The idea would be, “All this is clarified/confirmed by the>> scripture, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul (YUCHN; cf.>> YUCIKON in v. 44),’ the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (PNEUMA;>> cf. PNEUMATIKON in v. 44).” Adverbial KAI here would seem to lend some>> weight to this latter understanding (“also” pointing to and building >> on>> what precedes).>> >> So, does hOUTWS here refer to what precedes or what follows?> > Perhaps BOTH? I think that the KAI is significant: “That’s the way> scripture reads too” — where “that” means “There IS a “psychic” SWMA.”> That is to say, the statement EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN> ZWSAN is offered as a constatement of the principle set forth in 15:44:> SPEIRETAI SWMA YUCIKON, EGEIRETAI SWMA PNEUMATIKON. EI ESTIN SWMA > YUCIKON,> ESTIN KAI PNEUMATIKON.Thanks for your helpful comments, Carl. The KAI seemed significant to me also. And I was toying with a “plenary” use of hOUTWS.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45[] Frustrated Greek Learner!!!

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Sep 6 18:25:49 EDT 2004

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 [] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 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 AFQARSIAiv. 43 SPEIRETAI EN ATIMIAi, EGEIRETAI EN DOXHiv. 43 SPEIRETAI EN ASQENIAi, EGEIRETAI EN DUNAMEIv. 44 SPEIRETAI SWMA YUCIKON, EGEIRETAI SWMA PNEUMATIKONv. 45 EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN ZWSAN, hO ESCATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA ZWiOPOIOUNv.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 . 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 is that the lack of a particle in 1 Cor 15.45 doesn’t seem to provide support for this view.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Tue Sep 7 05:10:57 EDT 2004

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 [] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Steven,Thank you for your thanks.You are right in your last comment: that’s a point we should not discussfurther here.But for the series of asyndeta you quote, I think you missed my point.There is the possibility that an asyndeton covers an opposition. But anasyndeton connects those oppositions tightly. My point was that such a closeconnection cannot cover the border between a quotation from the OT and anargumentation by Paul.In my experience allusions to OT texts *can* be very obscure.If you want to get examples, please let me know. Later this day I think Iwill have more time.ArieDr.A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Steven Lo Vullo” <slovullo at mac.com>Aan: “Arie Dirkzwager” <dirkzwager at pandora.be>CC: ” Mailing List” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: dinsdag 7 september 2004 0:25Onderwerp: Re: [] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45> 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 . 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 > 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> >

[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45[] hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45