From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 11 1999 - 08:58:55 EST
<x-rich>I have recently been contacted by a "lurker" newly subscribing from
"down under" and posed a knotty complex of problems centering around 1
Corinthians 11:23 and particularly the verb PAREDIDOTO there. If he
wishes to enter into the discussion on his own, well and good, but the
problems to be dealt with are fundamentally concerning the Greek, its
grammar, and the range of possible meanings in this particular context.
Let me say a bit, however, about what is at stake in the questions
posed to me. This gentleman is convinced, on grounds that are fully
satisfying to him (although I don't find them persuasive myself) that
the Eucharist/Lord's Supper was instituted on Easter night by the risen
Jesus in the company of the disciples; this is not the forum for
discussion of this question, but for information I will note that he
builds his case not on the Synoptic Gospels, which clearly state that
Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the night of his arrest, but upon
John's gospel which reports the risen Jesus' gift of the Spirit to the
disciples on Easter night, and upon the text of 1 Cor 11:23, where he
believes that the dative phrase and relative clause, ... EN THi NUKTI
hHi PAREDIDOTO ...<color><param>0000,7777,0000</param> somehow does
refer to Easter night rather than to the night of Jesus' arrest.
Several basic questions are involved here:
(1) What is the sense in which PAREDIDOTO is being understood?
I have personally always assumed that the verb PARADIDWMI is here (1
Cor 11:23) being used in the judicial/forensic sense "give into custody
of arresting officers" (37.12, 37.111). That sense is used
programmatically in Mark's gospel of the arrests of John the Baptist
and of Jesus but also of the anticipated future arrests of the
disciples if they are faithful and emulate the destiny of Jesus. But of
course there are other senses in which the verb is used in the GNT,
including "grant, allow" (Louw & Nida 13.142), "risk one's life (L&N
21.7), "die, give up the spirit" (L&N 23.110), "ripen" (of fruit, L&N
23.200); "pass on traditional instruction" (as in the first part of 1
Cor 11:23, L&N 33.237); "convey authority/right" (L&N 57.77).
(2) Is PAREDIDOTO here a deliberate echo of PAREDOQH in Isaiah 53:12
(</color>DIA TOUTO AUTOS KLHRONOMHSEI POLLOUS KAI TWN ISCURWN MERIEI
SKULA ANQ' hWN PAREDOQH EIS QANATON hH YUCH AUTOU KAI EN TOIS ANOMOIS
ELOGISQH KAI AUTOS hAMARTIAS POLLWN ANHNEGKEN KAI DIA TAS hAMARTIAS
AUTWN PAREDOQH<color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>), as PAREDOQH in
Romans 4:25 (</color>hOS PAREDOQH DIA TA PARAPTWMATA hHMWN KAI HGERQH
DIA THN DIKAIWSIN hHMWN<color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>) seems to
be? I don't think this question can be very simply answered; moreover,
answering it probably involves argumentation that goes beyond
interpretation of individual texts and would probably involve
theological and hermeneutical perspectives. My guess is that it is
probable that it IS a deliberate echo and that it is an instance of
which many can be found strewn throughout the gospel passion
narratives: OT texts understood and employed in the earliest traditions
in the interpretation of the sequence of events surrounding the death
of Jesus.
(3) Is PAREDIDOTO to be deemed a "divine passive" in the sense that
PAREDOQH in the other two passages above are viewed as such (by
Jeremias, inter alios)? In fact, is there really such a thing as a
"divine passive" in NT Greek? I've never been convinced to my own
satisfaction that there is such a thing as a "divine passive" in Greek,
although there may well be in Hebrew or Aramaic (where I readily defer
to those who know far better than I). Dan Wallace (GGBtB, pp. 437-8)
makes what seems to me a very sensible statement about it, that the NT
writers hardly seemed concerned to avoid a divine name, so it's less
likely they'd use the passive specifically for that purpose; "Such
expressions are obviously not due to any reticence on the part of the
author to utter the name of God. It might be better to say that this
phenomenon is due to certain collocations that would render the
repetition of the divine name superfluous, even obtrusive. In other
words, the 'divine passive' is simply a specific type of one of the
previous categories listed above (e.g., obvious from the passage, due
to focus on the subject, otherwise obtrusive, or for rhetorical
effect)." I would say in this instance what I've said before: under
ordinary circumstances, unless we have some clear indication of an
agent or external instrumentality, there really isn't any difference of
perspective between 'middle' and 'passive' senses of a M/P verb form
(whether that's a MAI/SAI/TAI form or a QH- form): the focus is upon
the experience undergone by the subject rather than upon an external
agent or force causing the experience. I'd say therefore that PAREDOQH
and PAREDIDOTO are essentially reflexive and have the senses "got
(himself) arrested" and "was facing arrest" respectively. There may
well be an implicit figure behind the scenes pulling the strings, but
without any statement of agent or instrumentality the focus of the
clause is simply upon the experience of the subject of the verb. And I
think that is really true for the Greek EVEN IF the NT usage of
PARADIDOSQAI echoes the LXX of Isaiah 53:12 and that LXX phrasing
reflects an original Hebrew "divine passive." And although one might
raise the question whether Judas is the real agent implied in
PAREDIDOTO, that is, one ought to say, I think, altogether outside the
perspective of the composer of the narrative, whose focus is solely
upon what Jesus said and experienced, not upon what others say or do.
(4) Does the fact that PAREDIDOTO is imperfect rather than aorist
necessarily imply that the action of PARADIDOSQAI, whatever the verb is
understood to mean in this instance, has not been completed when Jesus
ELABEN ARTON KTL.? I can't see any other way of understanding it;
there's all the difference in the world between PAREDIDOTO and
PAREDOQH, and even if our liturgies in English are phrased, "on the
night on which he was betrayed/arrested ..." we do understand that "he
took bread" BEFORE he was betrayed/arrested. But the reason I raise
this question bears on the argument presented to me, namely that
PAREDIDOTO ought to refer to God's action of handing over Jesus to
sinful men to do with as they pleased FOR OUR SINS, an action which our
lurker understands (I think) to have been complete at the time of an
institution of the Eucharist on Easter evening. My own view, however,
is that the imperfect tense of PAREDIDOTO in 1 Cor 11:23 makes no sense
if one assumes that the action described by the verb has already been
completed.
I'd welcome comments on the basic questions of interpretation of the
Greek of 1 Cor 11:23:
(1) What is the meaning of the verb PARADIDOSQAI in this text?
(2) Whether PAREDIDOTO is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53:12 (LXX) is
probably a matter on which opinions will differ, and I'm somewhat
dubious that question can really be resolved or that this is the proper
forum even to discuss it;
(3) Is there such a thing as a "divine passive" AS SUCH in NT Greek,
and if so, is PAREDIDOTO in 1 Cor 11:23 an instance of it?
(4) Could PAREDIDOTO in the imperfect tense be used on Easter night
AFTER the death and resurrection of Jesus? And if so, what does it
refer to?
</color>
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
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
</x-rich>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:49 EDT