At 9:11 AM -0600 2/18/98, Edgar Foster wrote:
>>> It is true that
>Democritus and later the Epicureans used TO ATOMON as a substantive
for an
>indivisible unit of material, but it would also be readily used as a
>substantive for an indivisible unit of time, "a moment"--and I think
that's
>what's really going on here.<<<<
>
>I would agree Carl, that Paul was not positing a materialist theory in
1 Cor. >15. One thing that has often perplexed me about Paul's use of
ATOMOS here, >however, has been the fact that TO ATOMON was INCORRECTLY
viewed as an >indivisible unit of material by Democritus (et. al). Its
hard for me to imagine >an INSPIRED (THEOPNEUSTOS) Bible writer
recording incorrect information (that's >from my paradigm). Your
comments might clear up my question? Are you saying >that ATOMOS was
used in the Classics to denote or describe an indivisible unit >of
TIME? If so, can you provide references to these usages? I don't have
access >to Perseus or other sources right now.
Here's what LSJ has under ATOMOS:
2. of Time: OUC hOION TE EIS ATOMOUS CRONOUS DIAIREISQAI TON CRONON
Aristotle, Physics 263b27; KAT' ATOMON CRONON Aristotle, Sens. 447b18;
EN ATOMWi "in a moment" Aristotle Physics 236a6; 1 Cor 15:52 EN ATOMWi
ORGHS Sm. Is. 54.8.
0000,7777,0000This is quite enough to
substantiate the sense of "a moment" in 1 Cor 15:52, I think.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/