Greek word study question

[Affinity]

I'm doing a study on the different greek words that are used in the New Testament for the verb that describes rising from the dead.

There are three basic words that I've found, and one that isn't used as much.

Anastasis- which is mainly translated as 'resurrection'

Anistemi-which is mainly translated as the verb 'rise'

Egeiro-which is mainly translated as 'raised'

Now, I've noted the first two of these are somewhat interchangable. In some instances, anastasis is translated as 'rise' for example. My question therefore, is why the authors of the New Testament would occasionally use 'anastasis' to describe rise, while at other times using 'Anistemi'?

 

[Dmckay]

Egeiro is absolutely synonymous with anhistemi. Its only uses are in the LXX in Genesis 41:4,7 Pharoah awoke, in judges 2:16,18 for the Lord raising up Judges, in Daniel 8:18 when Gabriel raised up Daniel, who had fallen unconscious, and a few other similar passages, in other words it isn't actually used for raising from the dead in Scripture.

If you would like to save some time, and don't have access to Kittle, I would suggest that you check Colin Brown's Dictionary of New Testament Theology. His third volume has an excellent recitation of the available uses and citations of the three words in Scripture as well as extant secular writings. It might not contain as much verbage as Kittle's massive tome, but it is rather complet in the things that matter.

 

[justified]

I would also caution you about reading too much into particular words.

 

[dcyates]

I'm doing a study on the different greek words that are used in the New Testament for the verb that describes rising from the dead.

There are three basic words that I've found, and one that isn't used as much.

Anastasis- which is mainly translated as 'resurrection'

Anistemi-which is mainly translated as the verb 'rise'

Egeiro-which is mainly translated as 'raised'

Now, I've noted the first two of these are somewhat interchangable. In some instances, anastasis is translated as 'rise' for example. My question therefore, is why the authors of the New Testament would occasionally use 'anastasis' to describe rise, while at other times using 'Anistemi'?

I think these distinctions are largely due to these terms bearing differing nuances dependant upon the context in which they are used. The Greek term anastasis can refer to 'resurrection' from death, for example, but can also be used to designate an improvement with regard to status, such as 'rising up the corporate ladder'. As well, it can also be used to refer to any change for the better. For instance, if one was feeling poorly but is now feeling better, they can be said to be 'rising up'.
The word anistemi could also be interpreted as 'raise to life', but in another context might also give the idea of 'cause to stand up'. Additionally, it's also used to designate the younger brother's obligation to conceive children on behalf of his deceased older brother (see Mt 22.24//Mk 12.19//Lk 20.28; anistemi sperma [or exanistemi sperma], lit. 'to raise up seed'). Its close cognate, anistamai, could variously mean 'stand up', 'go away', 'appear', 'live again', and even 'rebel against'.
Finally, egeiro, depending on its context can mean 'cause to stand up', 'stand up', 'cause to wake up', 'cause to exist', 'raise to life', 'restore', and 'heal'.

 

[dcyates]

Egeiro is absolutely synonymous with anhistemi. Its only uses are in the LXX in Genesis 41:4,7 Pharoah awoke, in judges 2:16,18 for the Lord raising up Judges, in Daniel 8:18 when Gabriel raised up Daniel, who had fallen unconscious, and a few other similar passages, in other words it isn't actually used for raising from the dead in Scripture.

I honestly mean no offense, Dmckay, but I'm not sure any word is "absolutely synonymous" with another. Nevertheless, the term egeiro--or one of its cognates--is used in Scripture to refer to "raising from the dead." For instance, in Matthew 27.53 we find: "meta ten egersin autou"; which could be translated: 'after his resurrection' or 'after he rose from the dead'. Also, in Matthew 28.6, we find: "ouk estin ode, egerthe"; or 'he is not here; he has been raised'. And in 1 Corinthians 6.14, we find it used twice: "ho de theos kai tov kurion egeiren kai hemas exegerei dia tes dunameos autou"; 'and God raised up the Lord and will raise us up through his power'. This is made most explicit in the NIV: "By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also."

 

[Affinity]

Egeiro is absolutely synonymous with anhistemi. Its only uses are in the LXX in Genesis 41:4,7 Pharoah awoke, in judges 2:16,18 for the Lord raising up Judges, in Daniel 8:18 when Gabriel raised up Daniel, who had fallen unconscious, and a few other similar passages, in other words it isn't actually used for raising from the dead in Scripture.

If you would like to save some time, and don't have access to Kittle, I would suggest that you check Colin Brown's Dictionary of New Testament Theology. His third volume has an excellent recitation of the available uses and citations of the three words in Scripture as well as extant secular writings. It might not contain as much verbage as Kittle's massive tome, but it is rather complet in the things that matter.

Actually, egeiro is used several times in the NT. One example is 1 Cor. 15:52, where the word is translated as 'raised', refering to the dead in Christ.

 

[Affinity]

I think these distinctions are largely due to these terms bearing differing nuances dependant upon the context in which they are used. The Greek term anastasis can refer to 'resurrection' from death, for example, but can also be used to designate an improvement with regard to status, such as 'rising up the corporate ladder'. As well, it can also be used to refer to any change for the better. For instance, if one was feeling poorly but is now feeling better, they can be said to be 'rising up'.
The word anistemi could also be interpreted as 'raise to life', but in another context might also give the idea of 'cause to stand up'. Additionally, it's also used to designate the younger brother's obligation to conceive children on behalf of his deceased older brother (see Mt 22.24//Mk 12.19//Lk 20.28; anistemi sperma [or exanistemi sperma], lit. 'to raise up seed'). Its close cognate, anistamai, could variously mean 'stand up', 'go away', 'appear', 'live again', and even 'rebel against'.
Finally, egeiro, depending on its context can mean 'cause to stand up', 'stand up', 'cause to wake up', 'cause to exist', 'raise to life', 'restore', and 'heal'.

Thanks, this is very informative. The reason I'm asking has to do with the two words protos anastasis, which are apparently only used two times in this combination in the entire NT. Of course you know that this is translated "first resurrection". The context of these words is Christ's second coming.

I've been comparing this account of what is specifically and unquely called "the first ressurection" to the accounts given in 1 Thess. 4:17 and 1 Cor. 15:52. Now I've heard lots of people tell me that these two aren't refering to the first resurrection, but rather to what they call the "rapture", which is apparently derived from the latin vulgates translation in the 1 Thess. passage 'raptura' which in english is translated 'caught up'. I find this quite odd, since both these passages describe, with purposeful intent I might add, a resurrection of the dead believers first. And since the only event described in the NT as "the first resurrection" happens after Christ's return, this, in my opinion, seems to contradict the interpretation that the those two passages describe any other event than the resurrection of believers after Christ's return.

Well now I guess this post is more in line with the overall subject of this section of the forum.

 

[Dmckay]

I honestly mean no offense, Dmckay, but I'm not sure any word is "absolutely synonymous" with another. Nevertheless, the term egeiro--or one of its cognates--is used in Scripture to refer to "raising from the dead." For instance, in Matthew 27.53 we find: "meta ten egersin autou"; which could be translated: 'after his resurrection' or 'after he rose from the dead'. Also, in Matthew 28.6, we find: "ouk estin ode, egerthe"; or 'he is not here; he has been raised'. And in 1 Corinthians 6.14, we find it used twice: "ho de theos kai tov kurion egeiren kai hemas exegerei dia tes dunameos autou"; 'and God raised up the Lord and will raise us up through his power'. This is made most explicit in the NIV: "By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also."

No sweat, I don't take offense easily, I'm a former Army Sergeant. It was a bit late when I posted my response and I have to admit I got a bit sloppy and lazy. I have to admit to you the answer I posted was taken from my Greek Word Studies notebook and a usage list I have been compiling over the years. The absolutely synonymous comment should have been attributed to Colin Brown's comment on the use of both terms in the LXX. Since my Word Sudies notebooks are primarily for my own use I didn't do as good a job as I should when making my notes.

You are also correct about egeiro also being used in the New Testament. My greek term usage list is by no means correct, and I should have remembered that before I posted just the usages in the LXX. One of he things that the uses in the New Testament appear to have in common is that raising or resurrection mentioned is these instances appear to be focusing more on the raising as a reanimation rather than on a change or resurrection involving a new or spiritual body. This difference in the use of words had never occurred to me before. It suggests to me that there is good reason to look into this more than just cursorily.

 

[dcyates]

Thanks, this is very informative. The reason I'm asking has to do with the two words protos anastasis, which are apparently only used two times in this combination in the entire NT. Of course you know that this is translated "first resurrection". The context of these words is Christ's second coming.

I've been comparing this account of what is specifically and unquely called "the first ressurection" to the accounts given in 1 Thess. 4:17 and 1 Cor. 15:52. Now I've heard lots of people tell me that these two aren't refering to the first resurrection, but rather to what they call the "rapture", which is apparently derived from the latin vulgates translation in the 1 Thess. passage 'raptura' which in english is translated 'caught up'. I find this quite odd, since both these passages describe, with purposeful intent I might add, a resurrection of the dead believers first. And since the only event described in the NT as "the first resurrection" happens after Christ's return, this, in my opinion, seems to contradict the interpretation that the those two passages describe any other event than the resurrection of believers after Christ's return.

Well now I guess this post is more in line with the overall subject of this section of the forum.

I think I know what you're alluding to, but if I'm mistaken, by all means set me straight.

In 1 Thess 4.13-18, Paul is writing of both the 'raising to life' of the dead in Christ and of what has been all too commonly thought of as 'the Rapture' (dum dum dum-dum). But the phrase you're referring to, hoi nekroi en Christo anastesontai proton, in verse 16, definitely has to do with the dead in Christ being raised to new life. After all, directly translated it says: "the dead in Christ will rise first." It's hard to get more clear than that. However, in verse 17, where Paul mentions how those who are in Christ and alive at his coming, "together with them (the previously dead that Christ will bring with him) will be caught up (harpazein; or 'snatched', since the nuance it carries is of a rather violent grasping) in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord in the air," while the verb harpazein is often used in conjunction with the idea of death in ancient literature (Lucian paints the picture of a bereaved father utilising conventional language as he cries out to his dead son: "Dearest child, you are gone from me, dead, snatched away before your time, leaving me alone and wretched" [Funerals 13]), it appears that the Jewish apocalyptic writers of the period used this term to refer to those people who will still be alive at the coming of the Day of the Lord. For example, in 4 Ezra we find, "It will be that whoever remains after all that I have foretold to you will be saved and will see my salvation and the end of my world. And they will see the men who were snatched up, who from their birth have not tasted death; and the heart of the earth's inhabitants will be changed and converted to a different spirit" (6.25-26), as well as, "Lay up in your heart the signs that I have shown you, the dreams that you have seen, and the interpretations that you have heard; for you will be snatched up from among men, and henceforth you will live with my son and with those like you, until the times are ended" (14.8-9). Nevertheless, we should not be thinking of this in terms of believers literally rising off the ground and floating up to see Jesus descending till we all meet somewhere at cloud level. Paul is employing symbolic imagery where we do damage to the text if we take it too literally. For instance, the Greek word translated as "a meeting" in the Thessalonian passage, apantesis, bore a technical meaning in the Greco-Roman world in relation to the visits of the emperor or other dignitaries to a given city, where the visitor would be formally met by the citizens, or a deputation of them, who had gone out from the city for this purpose, to ceremonially escort them back into the city. Thus Paul is here pointing to how Christ is the true emperor whose return should be officially recognized by us with no less importance and pomp than would be if an earthly emperor were arriving. Except in this case, rather than merely an imperial visit, Paul informs us that Christ's return will be permanent, for kai houtos pantote sun kurio esometha, "and so (in this manner) we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thess 4.17c).

 

[justified]

Those are some very interesting observations, dycates, but I want to caution you about reading too much attic Greek knowledge into popular level, koine writing.

 

[dcyates]

Those are some very interesting observations, dycates, but I want to caution you about reading too much attic Greek knowledge into popular level, koine writing.

Thanks, justified. But perhaps you know something I'm not aware of. I know of the dangers of drawing too close parallels between the high-falutin' literary Classical Attic Greek and the street-level, everyday, common Koine Greek. I also know that popular exegetical aids like Strong's, Liddell's, and even Kittel (esp. the earlier volumes) are often guilty of just this. But are you implying that the author of 4 Ezra utilised the characteristics of Attic Greek over-against that of Koine? If so, I'm sure you're aware all the extant mss available testifying to 4 Ezra are Latin, but that they in certain instances betray a distinct reliance on an older Greek text, and that even so there remain many other phenomena that strongly point toward a Semitic original, possibly Aramaic, but (in my opinion) more likely Hebrew. That given, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please elaborate further.

 

[justified]

Dycates, I was referring specifically to these quotes:

harpazein; or 'snatched', since the nuance it carries is of a rather violent grasping)

pantesis, bore a technical meaning in the Greco-Roman world in relation to the visits of the emperor or other dignitaries to a given city,

This kind of information can only come from context of the passage.

know of the dangers of drawing too close parallels between the high-falutin' literary Classical Attic Greek and the street-level, everyday, common Koine Greek

I recommend David Aune's The New Testament in its Literary Environment to you. Koine is an interesting animal; it's not correct to call it "every day street Greek" when it is written; but it is certainly more vulgar than earlier Greek, or even the late, "traditional" usage of Greek which existed at the time of the New Testament's composition.

I am aware that 4 Ezra is a Jewish composition that may have had an Aramaic original. I also know that when you only have Latin manuscripts, it's kind of hard to tell. But I don't see anything wrong with your use of 4 Ezra except to say that you must locate those kinds of clues within the context of the passage rather than from some intrinsic semantic quality.

 

[Affinity]

I think I know what you're alluding to, but if I'm mistaken, by all means set me straight.

In 1 Thess 4.13-18, Paul is writing of both the 'raising to life' of the dead in Christ and of what has been all too commonly thought of as 'the Rapture' (dum dum dum-dum). But the phrase you're referring to, hoi nekroi en Christo anastesontai proton, in verse 16, definitely has to do with the dead in Christ being raised to new life. After all, directly translated it says: "the dead in Christ will rise first." It's hard to get more clear than that. However, in verse 17, where Paul mentions how those who are in Christ and alive at his coming, "together with them (the previously dead that Christ will bring with him) will be caught up (harpazein; or 'snatched', since the nuance it carries is of a rather violent grasping) in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord in the air," while the verb harpazein is often used in conjunction with the idea of death in ancient literature (Lucian paints the picture of a bereaved father utilising conventional language as he cries out to his dead son: "Dearest child, you are gone from me, dead, snatched away before your time, leaving me alone and wretched" [Funerals 13]), it appears that the Jewish apocalyptic writers of the period used this term to refer to those people who will still be alive at the coming of the Day of the Lord. For example, in 4 Ezra we find, "It will be that whoever remains after all that I have foretold to you will be saved and will see my salvation and the end of my world. And they will see the men who were snatched up, who from their birth have not tasted death; and the heart of the earth's inhabitants will be changed and converted to a different spirit" (6.25-26), as well as, "Lay up in your heart the signs that I have shown you, the dreams that you have seen, and the interpretations that you have heard; for you will be snatched up from among men, and henceforth you will live with my son and with those like you, until the times are ended" (14.8-9). Nevertheless, we should not be thinking of this in terms of believers literally rising off the ground and floating up to see Jesus descending till we all meet somewhere at cloud level. Paul is employing symbolic imagery where we do damage to the text if we take it too literally. For instance, the Greek word translated as "a meeting" in the Thessalonian passage, apantesis, bore a technical meaning in the Greco-Roman world in relation to the visits of the emperor or other dignitaries to a given city, where the visitor would be formally met by the citizens, or a deputation of them, who had gone out from the city for this purpose, to ceremonially escort them back into the city. Thus Paul is here pointing to how Christ is the true emperor whose return should be officially recognized by us with no less importance and pomp than would be if an earthly emperor were arriving. Except in this case, rather than merely an imperial visit, Paul informs us that Christ's return will be permanent, for kai houtos pantote sun kurio esometha, "and so (in this manner) we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thess 4.17c).

Basically my point is that I view both 1 Thess. 4:17 and 1 Cor. 15:52 as Second Coming passages, and I use the account of the Second Coming in Revelation as support by lining them both up. Therefore, some would say I believe in a "post-tribulation rapture", but I personally don't think of myself as such since I don't find it nessesary to call it the "rapture" in the first place. To me, it's just part of the Second Coming.

 

[dcyates]

Dycates, I was referring specifically to these quotes:

Quoteharpazein; or 'snatched', since the nuance it carries is of a rather violent grasping)

pantesis, bore a technical meaning in the Greco-Roman world in relation to the visits of the emperor or other dignitaries to a given city,

This kind of information can only come from context of the passage.

I know of the dangers of drawing too close parallels between the high-falutin' literary Classical Attic Greek and the street-level, everyday, common Koine Greek

I recommend David Aune's The New Testament in its Literary Environment to you. Koine is an interesting animal; it's not correct to call it "every day street Greek" when it is written; but it is certainly more vulgar than earlier Greek, or even the late, "traditional" usage of Greek which existed at the time of the New Testament's composition.
I am aware that 4 Ezra is a Jewish composition that may have had an Aramaic original. I also know that when you only have Latin manuscripts, it's kind of hard to tell. But I don't see anything wrong with your use of 4 Ezra except to say that you must locate those kinds of clues within the context of the passage rather than from some intrinsic semantic quality.

Ahh, I see now. (At least I hope I do.) Yes, you're quite correct, language can be very tricky, especially when we don't share the same mental background as those whose words we're trying to understand. Too often our interpretation of biblical texs are the equivalent of taking a sentence like: 'So, I was driving to work and not looking forward to getting there because my boss has been really driving me up the wall lately', and surmising that because the word "driving" is used one way in its first instance in this statement, it should be taken to indicate the same idea the second time it appears--especially since they're in such close proximity to one another. We (or at least most of us) know this is not the case simply by virtue of having been brought up in this culture; we know what being 'driven up a wall' implies.

Or perhaps better yet, in most instances the biblical authors wrote so as to be readily understood. Unfortunately, we are not only separated from those authors and their intended audiences by a great deal of time, but also by language and culture. The people of the ancient Near East (ANE) simply did not think or see things the same way we do, who are living both thousands of years and tens of thousands of kilometres away from them, and who speak a different tongue besides. As anybody who has tried to translate one language into another knows, some things just refuse to be adequately carried over, certain ideas or nuances are often irrevocably lost. Furthermore, there exists an entire ‘thought-world’ behind much of what is written that is simply a given amongst the people within that particular culture, but which is all but completely unknown to us. Imagine telling an Eskimo of the High Arctic or a bushman of the Kalahari Desert the story of ‘King Arthur and the Round Table’, with its talk of Camelot and chivalrous knights in shining armour sitting atop their heavy steeds, armed with brightly crested metal shields, broadswords and long lances; vying for the attentions of beautiful, white damsels in floor-length gowns and long, blond tresses; feasting on roasted wild-boar within their high castle walls of stone amid deep, dark forests of tall, stately trees. Could the Eskimo or Kalahari tribesman even begin to imagine what is being talking about? Only a few nights ago I watched a movie (not a particularly good one, however) where a bright, young boy of about ten years of age was kidnapped and carried by his captors to far-flung lands around the world. Knowing his heroic parents would be looking to rescue him and thus in need of signs so as to know where to find him, at each location the boy would construct out of materials at hand small representations of various landmarks to aid them in their search. But one of the kidnappers, catching on to what he was doing, demolished his most recently completed ‘signpost’ by stamping on it with his great, heavy foot, and lifting the young boy by his shirt collar bellows in accusation, “You’ve been leaving breadcrumbs!” While this is an obvious reference to the old German folk-tale of ‘Hansel and Gretel’, most of us will know exactly what is meant without even having to mentally make that literary connection; we just automatically know what it means. But this is only due to most of us having grown up within a society steeped in northern European folk-tales. Someone not belonging to this culture would likely find such a statement rather mystifying. “Breadcrumbs?!? What breadcrumbs?” Well, all this is to say, a great deal of the contents of the Bible constitutes the literary equivalent of ‘King Arthur’ and we’re Eskimos.

All that said, I stand by my analysis of 1 Thess 4.13-18, and its use of the terms harpazein and pantesis. I'm confident the context calls for my interpretation of it.

Finally, thank you for recommending Aune's The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. It's an excellent work. In fact, all eight volumes in that series, the Library of Early Christianity, are each in their own right highly worthwhile.

 

[dcyates]

Basically my point is that I view both 1 Thess. 4:17 and 1 Cor. 15:52 as Second Coming passages, and I use the account of the Second Coming in Revelation as support by lining them both up. Therefore, some would say I believe in a "post-tribulation rapture", but I personally don't think of myself as such since I don't find it nessesary to call it the "rapture" in the first place. To me, it's just part of the Second Coming.

Yes, Affinity, I would agree with you that both these texts are referring to the same event. However, my only area of contention would be with the entire idea of 'the rapture' as it's generally understood today, whether pre-, mid-, post-, toast-, what have you. I think certain people about 150 years ago, reading passages like 1 Thess 4.16-17 and failing to recognize and thus take into account their symbolic values, took them far too literally and hence discovered a whole new branch of eschatology for Christians to fight about.

 

[billwald]

take a look at

http://www.biblicalgreek.org/forum/chat.html

 

[Dmckay]

Egeiro is absolutely synonymous with anhistemi. Its only uses are in the LXX in Genesis 41:4,7 Pharoah awoke, in judges 2:16,18 for the Lord raising up Judges, in Daniel 8:18 when Gabriel raised up Daniel, who had fallen unconscious, and a few other similar passages, in other words it isn't actually used for raising from the dead in Scripture.

If you would like to save some time, and don't have access to Kittle, I would suggest that you check Colin Brown's Dictionary of New Testament Theology. His third volume has an excellent recitation of the available uses and citations of the three words in Scripture as well as extant secular writings. It might not contain as much verbage as Kittle's massive tome, but it is rather complet in the things that matter.

The point I was tryiing to make here and doing it rather badly due to lack of sleep is that Egeiro and Anistemi are mainly terms relating to a change of position, as in standing after lying down, or being unconscious. The occurances of anastasis relate to reanimation or the causing to stand of what was once dead.

 

[Affinity]

Yes, Affinity, I would agree with you that both these texts are referring to the same event. However, my only area of contention would be with the entire idea of 'the rapture' as it's generally understood today, whether pre-, mid-, post-, toast-, what have you. I think certain people about 150 years ago, reading passages like 1 Thess 4.16-17 and failing to recognize and thus take into account their symbolic values, took them far too literally and hence discovered a whole new branch of eschatology for Christians to fight about.

My point exactly.