Re: Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2

From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Fri Dec 31 1999 - 14:47:24 EST


On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:17:53 -0800 George Goolde <goolde@mtnempire.net>
writes:
> 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?
>
> 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, on
the assumed
condition KATECETE, it follows SWZESQH. I would take the present tenses
as denoting
the continued state of holding fast the gospel. Those who do so are
being 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 telling
us anything definitive, it is rather significant here. It is probably
constative, looking at their
initial reception of the preached gospel. It is possible to believe in
an aoristic sense and
not be saved, as this passage seems to suggest, along with other passages
(if one takes
the parable of the sower and the seed, for example, as teaching that only
the the ground
that brought forth fruit was typical of those who are saved; or consider
the teaching in James 2
where it appears possible to believe as the demons believe, yet not be
saved, 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. Any
ideas why?

OU is normally used with the indicative, suggesting a negation of fact.
The context here
denotes 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 assuming
to be true for
the sake of argument, as clarified above.

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

First class conditional, assuming for the sake of argument; certainly not
saying such
is in fact the case, as the first class conditional does not demand or
even suggest
it.

Paul Dixon

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:52 EDT