Raised from the dead

[Ben C. Smith]

It starts to become interesting when one notes that Paul never uses the verb ανιστημι with "from the dead", but generally uses εγειρω (in Rom 10:7 he uses αναγω = "to bring back"). However, the noun αναστασις ("resurrection") is found in Rom 1:4, 6:5, 1 Cor 15:12, 13, 21, 42, Phil 3:10, 1. It is rather curious that the verb ανιστημι is never used, while the noun appears in rather restricted contexts. Even more curious is that it is similar regard Jn: no ανιστημι, only εγειρω (2:22, 12:1, 9, 17, 20:9, 21:14), but also αναστασις (5:29, 11:24, 25).

Paul does not use the verb with the exact phrase "from the dead", but he (or some interpolator??) does use it in a similar context:

1 Thessalonians 4.14: 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

1 Thessalonians 4.16: 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise again first.

(I do not know what these data mean; I am simply pointing them out.)

[iskander]

Romans 1:4
4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-te ... mans/1.asp

There are two translations to consider, one translates as' resurrection from the dead' ; and the other as 'resurrection of the dead'. The difference is the choice between ' from' and 'of'.

Translated as
the one being confirmed as son of God in power, according to spirit of holiness by a resurrection of the dead
http://apostolicbible.com/


How would you translate Romans 1:4?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's ex nekron, so it has to be "from the dead." (lit. "out of the dead"). I would argue that this is probably not really Pauline, though. It appears to be formulaic and probably pre-Pauline. In Romans he is talking to Christian communities he did not found and appears to be reciting their own formula, not something he devised.

It's interesting that the implied Christology here is that Jesus was made the son of God by being resurrected after his death, which would be very early and very congruent with Ehrman's exaltation theory. In his case. I still think "raised up from the dead" still implies an ascension, not a resuscitation.

[Ben C. Smith]

It's ex nekron, so it has to be "from the dead." (lit. "out of the dead"). I would argue that this is probably not really Pauline, though. It appears to be formulaic and probably pre-Pauline. In Romans he is talking to Christian communities he did not found and appears to be reciting their own formula, not something he devised.

Actually, in Romans 1.4 it is not ἐκ νεκρῶν; it is ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, where ἐκ/ἐξ is probably instrumental.

I mounted an argument once that Romans 1.1b-5a constitutes an interpolation (rather than a pre-Pauline creed): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494. Since the strongest (IMHO) argument against these verses being Pauline comes in verse 4a, I may not have identified the boundaries of the intruding text correctly, but my reconstruction lines up with the gap in codex Boernerianus. My level of certainty regarding the entire enterprise is not exactly sky high, but there are things to consider, I think.

It's interesting that the implied Christology here is that Jesus was made the son of God by being resurrected after his death, which would be very early and very congruent with Ehrman's exaltation theory. In his case. I still think "raised up from the dead" still implies an ascension, not a resuscitation.

You may be right about ἐγείρω versus ἀνίστημι, but, if so, either Paul thinks both happened or Paul is full of previously unidentified interpolations. I do not see the point in separating the verb ἀνίστημι from the noun ἀνάστασις, if both are intended to denote a physical resuscitation from the dead. If only one or the other is meant to be physical for some reason, with the remaining one being celestial or whatnot, I would need to see the linguistic evidence or at least hear the rationale behind the hypothesis.

[iskander]

This bible also translates Romans 1.4 as 'of ',4 who was marked out son of god in power, according to the spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead.
Interlinear Greek - English New Testament Vol 4 Hardback
http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/the_interlin ... 0wodCgALMA

The difference is important and I am trying to understand why expert translators translate the verse as they do.
I also feel that Paul is saying the dead became alive in the Garden of Eden, because this is what the messiah came to do. The messiah came to abolish the power of death.

[DCHindley]

This bible also translates Romans 1.4 as 'of ',4 who was marked out son of god in power, according to the spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead.
Interlinear Greek - English New Testament Vol 4 Hardback
http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/the_interlin ... 0wodCgALMA

The difference is important and I am trying to understand why expert translators translate the verse as they do.
I also feel that Paul is saying the dead became alive in the Garden of Eden, because this is what the messiah came to do. The messiah came to abolish the power of death.

In this case the preposition ἐξ (ex) in ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (ex anastasōs nekrōn), refers to the reason why Jesus Christ (Rom 1.1) was "the (individual) designated Son of God in Power by the Holy Spirit" (τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης), that is, because of his standing (live) again from those who were dead (in the ground). This is more literal than the words employed by various Bible translations, so beware, it will not sound as fancy.

When Ben calls it's function by the term instrumental), which signifies the means by which something has come to be as it is, it was intended I think to bring out the fact that the preposition ἐξ (ex) is only used in the genitive case form, which normally designates "of" or "from" something, where normally instrumentality is expressed by the dative grammatical form of a noun. Dative forms usually designate "in, "to" or "by/by means of" something. This preposition is a way Greek designated the means by which something transforms from one state to some other state, where the transformation is usually expressed with the genitive form (I hope I have not too badly mutilated things there).

DCH

.

[iskander]

This bible also translates Romans 1.4 as 'of ',4 who was marked out son of god in power, according to the spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead.
Interlinear Greek - English New Testament Vol 4 Hardback
http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/the_interlin ... 0wodCgALMA

The difference is important and I am trying to understand why expert translators translate the verse as they do.
I also feel that Paul is saying the dead became alive in the Garden of Eden, because this is what the messiah came to do. The messiah came to abolish the power of death.

In this case the preposition ἐξ (ex) in ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (ex anastasōs nekrōn), refers to the reason why Jesus Christ (Rom 1.1) was "the (individual) designated Son of God in Power by the Holy Spirit" (τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης), that is, because of his standing (live) again from those who were dead (in the ground). This is more literal than the words employed by various Bible translations, so beware, it will not sound as fancy.

When Ben calls it's function by the term instrumental), which signifies the means by which something has come to be as it is, it was intended I think to bring out the fact that the preposition ἐξ (ex) is only used in the genitive case form, which normally designates "of" or "from" something, where normally instrumentality is expressed by the dative grammatical form of a noun. Dative forms usually designate "in, "to" or "by/by means of" something. This preposition is a way Greek designated the means by which something transforms from one state to some other state, where the transformation is usually expressed with the genitive form (I hope I have not too badly mutilated things there).

DCH

.

Thank you so much David.
Verse 4 ... and who was appointed son of god in power in terms of the spirit of holiness as from the resurrection of the dead. This verse reads as a very suitable preface to the book of Romans and as such it is a legitimate editing of the work of Paul. Interpolation is the wrong term to use in this case .

[spin]

Actually, in Romans 1.4 it is not ἐκ νεκρῶν; it is ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, where ἐκ/ἐξ is probably instrumental.

I think you are correct, but the phrase is strange. What I think we'd like is

εξ αναστασεως εκ νεκρων

through the rising from the dead

What we get is just "through the rising of the dead", which, read literally, involves the dead rising.

[Ben C. Smith]

When Ben calls it's function by the term instrumental, which signifies the means by which something has come to be as it is, it was intended I think to bring out the fact that the preposition ἐξ (ex) is only used in the genitive case form, which normally designates "of" or "from" something, where normally instrumentality is expressed by the dative grammatical form of a noun.

Yes, true; the dative is more commonly (and, to my mind, more "naturally") used as instrumental than the genitive. But certain prepositions can, especially in NT Greek, be used instrumentally, and ek/ex is one of them.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's in the singular too. I would expect a collective rising of the dead to use νεκροὺς.