Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Text Analysis: Roused? Not Resurrected? A Difference There Is

.
Roused, or Is Risen:  
From a sleep, a psychic state, or death? 
Text analysis is a start for ambiguities.
It expands as articles, relevant, arise as though to spin the inquiry itself.
UPDATE ASTERISK, SEE *
.

Resurrection Doctrine Interpretation, Sources, Questions
Facts, and creeds. 
. 
Can Fact Shape Creed, After the Creed Has Sprouted; 

or does Creed-Shaping Shape Fact Ever After
.
A.  Easter Post-Easter Question.  
.
Was Jesus really quickened from the dead; from which he ultimately ascended up physically into heaven, as creeds say; or was he roused from some other state in the sense of being awakened from something, but not death -- and so just rose up from his place in the memorial vault/tomb.  Most agree there was a laying down in a tomb.  Even William Temple 1881-1944, the 98th Archbishop of Canterbury, nearly was barred from ordination in 1906 because he "admitted that his belief in the Virgin Birth and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus was shaky." See http://satucket.com/lectionary/william_temple.htm. This topic goes beyond bodily resurrection, to whether death occurred on the cross.  By 1913, however, once in the institution, he came back into line. Come back from that line, William  Temple.  We have a question.
.
 Skip for now issues of the crufixion significance itself, the crucifix not shown in art until the 5th Century, so the death and form of death were obviously not central to early Christianity at all, see Richard Harris, The Passion in Art, at http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_passion_in_art.html?id=BKM_M7iu4KUC. We are also passing over here issues related to the veracity of the gospel accounts as to other technicalities:  stones blocking entrances to tombs were rarely round, and only then for the wealthiest, see Biblical Archeology Review Sept-Oct 1999, article "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb" by Amos Kloner, including subsection "Fit for a Queen" as to archeological findings, Queen Helena of Adiabene north of Jerusalem, at p. 27.
.
 Finding one set of inaccuracies in accounts leads to concern for others, so the inquiry is worth it.  So was a stone "rolled back" as to Jesus? The Greek word "kulio", says the article, als means simply to move, or dislodge. And one could not sit handily on a round stone or disk. Are we square now? And there was not likely any burial niche in there, so the tomb was probably just a burial cave, even borrowed, as was often the case where the intent was for it to be temporary.  And so on
.
.
After the crucifixion, into the tomb.
.
Even folklore contains the concept that Jesus was not "dead" but in some other state-- see  http://www.tjresearch.info/mary.htm (and "I Saw Three Ships Come Sailing In, including (on board) Jesus Christ and his Ladye")
.
And the great Caravaggio laid out the issue in a painting, now lost by earthquake:
  • Even the great painter of light source intensity and reality, Caravaggio, troubled as he was, voted with the roused, not resurrected. 
  • Fair use quote from the New York Times Book Review 10/2/2011, review of book by Andres Graham-Dixon, WW. Norton: Hard copy has as title, "In His Own Image."
 "In one of the last picture he ever painted, a grim and startling 'Resurrection' altarpiece, Caravaggio showed a scrawney, bedraggled Jesus Christ slipping out of the tomb and maing off alone by night, 'like a criminal escaping from his guards,' in the words of an 18th Century Frenchman. **** "
"In His Own Image."
.
We want to include the direct link to the article entitled "In His Own Image." We expected an online header for "In His Own Image," as our home delivered paper titles the article. And did not find it. See Asterisk update at end, the *.  In His Own Image, title changed to suggest "criminality' by NYT later
.......................................................................
.
RISEN -- FROM WHAT?
.
At the time, what J was roused from, or rose himself from, was not considered at all clear. Early theology showed the ambiguities.
.
 Texts were (and many are, where they have not been amended) ambiguous. There had long been a place for spiritual journeys, visions, in the Near East as elsewhere. In those scenarios, there is often a guide as to the process. What happened with Jesus was a matter of argument, disagreement, and gnostics had little interest in the idea, see http://www.share-international.org/archives/religion/rl_bsgnostic.htm/ 
.
Look at the art, used to teach the masses -- these from Roskilde Cathedral, Roskilde, Denmark.  The established Church had taken over (thanks to Northern Crusades and persistence) so this would be the established view:
.
After a time, Jesus is getting out. Here, with help and a disgruntled force of evil behind, with the horns.

Jesus animate,  tomb soldiers asleep, Roskilde Cathedral, DK

Then Jesus appears to and blesses a woman. A woman?  Weck up to thees! She is chosen, not a he.  Weck up to thees is expressive, not meant to diminish the gravity of the occasion.  Weck up, world. See http://www.epinions.com/review/Gates_of_Fire_by_Steven_Pressfield/content_36435103364
.
.
  • Then Jesus, after having appeared to the woman, appears to Thomas who tests and finds, yes, this is real. The flesh. See the right far side of the photo of the blessing of the woman.  There is Thomas.
And everybody rejoices.  At what?  That the plan worked?  At what? 
.
Dogma would like us to think it is clear, but it is not. Dogma always puts a definitive interpretation on what is really ambiguous, and should remain so.  Go back to the gnostic site:
.
Scroll down there to the section entitled, "Resurrection."  Even the Gospels disagreed, and other writings ultimately omitted from the emerging canon, particularly the Gnostic Gospels, some older than later writings included. See http://www.gnosis.org/library/GMary-King-Intro.html.
.
.............................................................
.
I.  Beginning Delving
.
A. The process is not difficult, in researching texts.  Just open several windows.
/
Online are translation and transliteration sites; and sites for seeing every single use of a word, and its context and meaning at that instancae..
.
A start in vetting is to check language for yourself, as best you can.  Looking at transliterationsand , http://www.scripture4all; translations sites, Strong's Lexicon, http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html in two sites, and comparing Jerome's and other translations available online (Old Testament at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com; and http://www.greeknewtestament.com: our conclusion tentatively is that he "was roused" from some other state, but not death.
.
1.   If it had been "death" that occurred, Mark and earlier writers would have so specified.
.
 The word for roused, or even rise, is used in conjunction with further words to specify "from the dead" when that is meant.  It is only in much later John, the last Gospel writer (none of the Gospel names are real ones, all are noms de plume) that we get the "resurrection" idea. 
.
Did that come at Paul's urging, with his need to institutionalize, and gain Roman converts where that concept would have been familiar to them, from pagan sources? and then somebody, to buttress the point, tacks on to Mark those extra verses after his original text ended: with awkward details to conform to the new idea, added after the Marys and Salome at the tomb's first ending.
.
2.  It is in the later Church-motivated Latin Vulgate, Jerome's translation from the Greek and other sources, that brings us "surrexit" -- but even that is not "resurrection". 

And surrexit is an active verb -- he "went up" from. The Greek at Transliteration, Scripture4all online interlinear Greek, Mark 16:6 is passive -- he was roused. See FN 1 for Jerome and other uses of "rouse".
.
3.  Does this draw to the idea that dogma inform what shall be translated.  See Parallel Greek New Testament, Latin Vulgate, Mark 16:6 .  Find the Greek at Scripture4all, Greek Interlinear Transliteration, Mark 16:6.
.
Was there no resurrection, except as the concept was needed to proselytize for a new religion?  Jesus was not "quickened" from the dead at all, but merely roused from another state? If quickened from the dead were meant, "from the dead" would have been specified. Does it make a difference? Or can faith shrug and move on.
.
What are the various messages.  They conflict.
.
a.  One basic religious-philosophical idea is that the worst that can happen is not the end of it.  The message is to stay around, it will get better.  Eternal hope.
.
b.  Another is the idea is that one's specific adopted and swallowed doctrine is more important than fact - and ambiguity, as the most intolerable fact in the world, must not be tolerated.

.
Christians, atheists, interested scholars, the secular interested, other religion devotees, to your keyboards. What to do with ambiguity in any aspect of religion. Can conservative religions live with ambiguity.  Probably not.  Definitions must be forced.
.
II.  Vetting Roots

A.  The Process of Vetting Text Meanings
.
1.  Greek transliteration: Easter story section, the Marys, Salome, the missing Jesus.
.
This is from Scripture4all, Online Interlinear Greek New Testament, at Mark 16:6.
..
English:  THE YET he-is-sayING to-them NO YE-BE-BeING-OUT-AWED JESUS YE-ARE-SEEKING THE NAZAREAN THE one-HAVING-been-impalED He-WAS-ROUSED  NOT he IS here BE-PERCEIVING THE PLACE THE-?-where THEY Place Him.
.
Greek:  The whole verse: in Greek in the phonetic so we can read it better --  "ho de legei autais mE ekthambeisthe iEsoun zEteite tar nazarEnon ton estaurOmenon EgerthE ouk estin hOde ide Ho topos hopou ethEkan auton"
.
He was roused?  Not "he is risen?"  How can that be! 
.
a.  EgerthE

Only people who are still alive get "roused" -- the word there for "was roused"  is "EgerthE".

.Note at the site that there are little numbers beneath each Greek word -- that is for a Greek Lexicon so you can look each up.  For EgerthE is the little number G1453, for Strong's . Thayer's Lexicon appears to use the same numbering system.  To find word usages, click on the Hebrew or Greek at http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html.
.
First, clear away for now some other distractions.  There are terms that appear in the Crucifixion story that are ambiguous in their own way, but we are not going to focus on them here.  At issue is the likelihood of necrotic death, who the witnesses were, if any, to a "rouse up" and why all the differences in account: 
  • Method of torture.  Given as "estaurOmenon". 
    • We are not concerned here about the ambiguity between impaled/crucified  
    • Impaled is the first, or closest definition, with the more customary "crucified" beneath it. Both are given as meanings for "estaurOmenon.' Is 'crucified', listed underneath the 'impaled', a dogmatic nod to what was eventually adopted as more aesthetic for conversion purposes? Why not stay with impalement. 
    • Impalement. Would there be huge blood loss or less in an impalement, hastening death (impalements could be horizontal or vertical) and not so much blood in a crucifixion so as to prolong the torture? But blood loss was not a factor for the infamousVlad's impaled people who lived for days, we are told.
    • The traditional crucifixion idea may well be a matter of institutional choice, not firm proof. Who knows. Amateurs wallow about. See discussion at Religion's Ambiguities: Execution Method
  • Salome. And we are not concerned here with specifics about Salome, who accompanied the two Marys according to Mark.  But do read thoughts at Salome: in James' Infancy Gospel; see also Salome, Zebel, Sources. The point is how cultural overlays shape what "facts" are allowed.
  • Or why the women, written as being "out-awed" by what they saw, a youth in a white robe, and the stone rolled away, and Jesus gone.
    • This suddenly becomes in later versions that they, like the silly geese women they are, are frightened, afrighted, scared out of their wits. 
    •  Not at all. The text reads as though they are simply awed that it all is coming about as it was supposed to. 
    •  Hey! It worked!  Could they have been in on what was really happening.
    • Can that be so? Out-awed is not terrified.
Back to "rouse".  Only the living can be roused. Wake up! And there was an extensive pharmacopeia available through the secret keepers, and especially perhaps Egypt. Why not a potion.
.
b. Before suggesting conspiracy theories, stay rational.
.
What is the evidence in the words themselves. Review other translations of "EgerthE." Find many other versions of the Bible that are translations, not transliterations, and many show a Greek version, then the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, and other versions.
.
2.  Frequency of definition

"He was roused" as seen in multiple translation comparison.  EgerthE. G1453.

a. To start, find it used in the sense of waking people up, in a non-controversial passage, the same word G1453, used when Jesus "roused" the disciples after his time praying in Gethsamane and they were fast asleep, and it was time to go -- egeiresthe word listed as 1453 at Scripture4all Online Interlinear Greek NT Mark 14:43
.
Then go to this traditional translation comparison site:  Parallel Greek New Testament, online comparative translations, (linked to John Hunt HTML Bible).  I have never studied Greek,  but it is not difficult to trace words without knowing a language.  Online offers the routes.
.
Remember the Greek from the Scripture4all:  it reads for the entire verse, and note particularly the EgerthE root, word root also seen in Mark 14:43,
.
"ho de legei autais mE ekthambeisthe iEsoun zEteite
tar nazarEnon 
ton estaurOmenon  
EgerthE 
ouk estin hOde ide Ho topos hopou ethEkan auton"
  • Greek given at this site shows versions without given dates, and some after 1500. 
  • What were the ones Jerome used?  Have to get dates for the ones that are there. Alexandrian? Note to check.
  • Jerome used his own knowledge of Greek as well as other sources. Is he infallible?  No. He is human, later made a saint. He is a product of his institution, and probably not free or interested in exploring beyond orthodoxy. 
  • There are problems with Jerome's acts and omissions in translating, an earlier one see from the Old Testament where he translated from his own knowledge of Hebrew into Latin, at Jerome and the Role of Eve 
  • But of course he was fluent in many languages, and there appears to be noone else who was asked to do the job of making the Bible into Latin. What he did, stuck. Others are more reverential than we are. Ok. Check even the reverend ones.
 That said, At Greek New Testament http://www.greeknewtestament.com/ , click on  Mark 16 (note it stops at the 16th Verse) and scroll to the 6th verse. 
.
3.   Vet the "roused". EgerthE, as in "estaurOmenon EgerthE ouk estin hOde"
.
a.  Greek transliteration site, Scripture4all, Index, Online Interlinear Greek NT, and click on Mark 16.
.
The Greek letters shown are (we don't have the font) HTOPE with the T missing the upper left side of the crosspart. Like an upside down L facing right.
.
Go directly at Scripture4all, Mark 16:6.  Find
.
"estaurOmenon EgerthE"

b. Parallel Greek translation site,  at Parallel Greek New Testament Mark 16:6
.
Find these translations:  Stephens 1550, and Scrivener 1894, and Byzantine Majority, and Alexandrian, and Hort and Westcott (who?):  
All say
"estarwmenon hgerqh"   (great for scrabble)

Maybe hgerqh is the same as EgerthE but the site does not give the Strong's Lexicon numbers.

4.   Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon G1453 number for "roused"
.
a.  There are two sites with the lexicon:
If you click on the "help" you will find that Thayer's Lexicon self-identifies as doctrinally incorrect.  It is not merely an outgrowth of dogma, "doctrinally correct". We are looking for original meanings regardless of how later institutions shaped them for their own dogma purposes, so this is fine with us.
.
Then, 1453 as in Scripture4all would also be doctrinally incorrect (excellent!), since they stay true to the meaning in the body of the text, the transliterations, and only let doctrine in in the margin to the right where they put a traditional translation column. Is that so?  Good. 
.
b. So:  Look up G1453 at Eliyah's Strong's Lexicon:  Nothing there!  Why won't they let us see?
.
Now do we know?
.
Is that why Strong's at Eliyah (Greekoldtestament.com) does not show 1453? And Thayer's - also a venerable old site -- that we found through Blue Letter Bible, is free to be academic and not ideological.  Thayer's shows 1453 freely.
.
c.  See the site listed just below at Eliyah -- ah, that is the Blue Letter Bible one, and it has it.  Blue Letter Bible Lexicon Strong's G1453
.
To arouse is given as from ἐγείρω 
That does not look like the EgerthE, or is it?  The phonetic at Blue Letter is given as 'egeiro'.

Another ambiguity:  the EYEIPW is not the same as the Scripture4all  HTOPE  (See 3 above).  Looking that up.  Were there multiple sources in the old Greek? Putting a blank in here to show me later where to put an answer, if we find one:

_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Arouse  Arisen  He was aroused  He is risen   He got up   Somebody got him up  

Are you still with us?

.
We welcome ambiguities because we want information, not support for this creed or that. My state of mind would favor a Non-Church of the Creedal-Inspecific Seeker. It also appears as HGERQH at Greek New Testament Mark 16:6
.
On to meanings:  This person in a seminary, see Calvin Seminary writer on "egeiro" says that egerthe is the "aorist passive" for the verb egeiro, to raise. 
.
Raise instead of rouse, ok. 
.
Still, the old hurdle.  There is no reference to what the person is being raised from, as would be needed to mean "from the dead." Nothing about raised "from the dead" for example. Raised from his bed.  He rose.  Still fine.  He rose from his bed. Why does the omission of what he rose from or was roused from, sound so dodgy? See Latin Phrase Translation dot com. (Creed)
.
d.  Back to Blue Letter Bible on Strong's for usage of the word in the Bible itself, the Greek. Find all these definitions, then look to the right for each gospel or other book that supports it.  There is no other way to see if the one we are most interested in, "to arouse from the sleep of death" ever occurs without adding the separate words "from the dead" or some such.
.
1) to arouse, cause to rise
a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life *
c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
2) to raise up, stir up, against one
3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
.
Blue Letter Bible Strong's Lexicon G1453, definitions
..
*  Support for recall the dead to life.
.
Ah.  Little b) up there -- rouse from the sleep of death.
.
Recall the dead to life.  Check that out.  Where does that usage come up?  Scroll down to the examples at BLB Strong's 1453 usage examples. Spot the Mark 1453's for rouse or rise.  Some of us really enjoy this stuff.
  • Mark 2:9, 11, 12.  1453 as "arise"  or "arose"; 
  • Mark 3:3, stand; 
  • Mark 5:41, arise (Talitha)(see Talitha Koum, Aramaic, Talitha, Get Up (and she was already dead); Jesus was not describing her state, however. He simply commanded.
  • Mark 4:27, arise.   
  • Now:  Mark 6:14, the part about it being spread about that John the Baptist had risen from the dead -- #1453 "is risen," and it takes additional separate words to specify "from the dead" -- "from" is 1537; and "the dead" is 3498.  It takes three words to mean risen from the dead. On its own as a word, 1453 does not mean anything about dead.
Carry on:
  • Mark 10:49, 12:26   -- The dead that they rise -- takes words 3498 and 1453
  • Mark 13:8, 13:22, - shall rise.  
  • Mark 14:28 -- am risen. 14:42 - rise up (and then it goes on, to "let us go"), 
  • 16:14 - he was risen. 
Conclusion:  If rising from the dead is intended, the words have to be there. Even the rise up for Talitha means only get up (as in from the bed). There is no definite finding here by anybody, including Jesus, that he rose from the dead.  Not a peep.
.
III.  More delving
.
A.  Track the transliteration of the "rouse" and "rise"  for each gospel:
  • Matthew, Scripture4all, Matthew 28. then to 
  • Mark, Scripture4all Mark 16 
  • Luke, Scripture4all, Luke 24
    .
    Hold John for a moment -- because there, at the last Gospel to be written, when the doctrine (was it Paul who made it the central idea? he wasn't around at the time. What were his sources?) was off and running that required Jesus to be raised from the dead, you will find it -- only in John.
    .
    Then for narrative translations, but unfortunately not anchored to the Greek or the Aramaic or whatever, go to another site for comparative versions of the New Testament, See http://greeknewtestament.com
    .
    Then for a bit of a linguistic jolt.  Everything in our translations is "he is risen" and not "he was roused."  The doctrinally correct version prevails, of course. Doctrine over truth.
    .
    Parallel Greek New Testament Mark 16
B.  Move on to John.

.
When we get to John, it still is ambiguous. See Scripture4all, John 20:9, transliteration.  But look at the usage -- "I have upstepped toward the father" -  not "ascended"
.
  • anababEka -- I-HAVE-UPSTEPPED toward the father, see Scripture4all, John 20:17 (but the margin traditional translation says "ascended" and that indeed is given as a secondary meaning, beneath the  "upstepped"  But ascending, going up, is still going up as from a tomb with a lower entry, etc.  Not as clear as we think. 
  • nekRon anastEni -- of dead ones to rise (as in fulfilling the prophecy)
  • And John always adds the phrase "from the dead"  to the "raise" [Strong's wording number 1453, Greek]when he means that, see Blue Letter Bible Lexicon, Strong's G1453 (Strong's "raise") 
  • Matthew, Mark and Luke make no reference to "the dead" -- leaving the plain meaning of to rouse, to get up, to awaken.  J was not dead, but what?  Experts, to your lexicons. 
  • We have liftoff.  We have ambiguity at the very least. 
John at  Blue Letter Bible, usage of Strong's 1453,

How did John use the word, since we have looked up Mark already. 

Click on John, in that little menu box, and see 13 usages.
  • Raise up the temple, rear up the temple, and when we get to 
  • John 2:22 -- when he was risen (word 1453) from (word 1537) the dead (word 3498)
  • John 5:8 -- rise (1453) take up thy bed and walk (other words, check at Blue Letter Bible Strong's 1453, John
  • John 5:21 -- the father raiseth up (1453) the dead (1498) and quickeneth (2227) them -- There we are.  It takes a concept like "quickeneth" to mean raising from the dead, and nowhere do we find that Jesus was "quickened".  So, he never was dead. Can that be so, after all this doctrine? Methinks the doctriners doth indoctrinate too much.  It simply is not clear.  They would have used "quickened" or earlier versions would have been specific about raised from the dead, and they are not. 
So. To us, the word for "rise" is not used alone when "from the dead" is intended. Even in John. 

CONCLUSION:
.
Q.  What was the state of Jesus of Nazareth between the laying in the tomb on Friday; and the arrival of the followers on Sunday.
.
Was he
a) clinically and in all ways dead, no brain waves, nothing;
b) alive but imperceptibly so on Friday, as in deeply comatose, rendered in an unconscious state by a substance ingested, or the trauma, or in a deep shock;  or
c) not Jesus. There was a decoy, a sacrificial substitution of person, so that someone gave himself to be beaten and crowned with thorns and crucified (all that would change appearance) as though he were Jesus, and that person died and was buried; but the real Jesus was elsewhere, or
d) none of the above.
.
A.  The noncredal believer chooses ..... (reveal!) b).  Comatose.
.
The knowledge of potions was extensive. Egypt had a vast pharmacopeia at the time, and secret knowledge was around and about. Think of ancient uses of the poppy, opium, deep sleep potion and other uses. Ancient roots, and one of its alkaloids is morphine, see  Economic Botany, The Pernicious Poppy
.
This way blood was kept off Pilate's hands after all, etc.  Rome was happy, Jews were happy, etc.
.
Comatose.
.
Boom.  FN 2
..............................................

.
FN 1.  How is "roused" used elsewhere by Jerome, who also translated the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and from the Hebrew. 

That would help us figure out the usage of "surrexit" in Mark, where that has no specification "from the dead." 

Then we have to look at Paul's role in making a "resurrection" central to his new religion.  It does not seem to have been much to the earliest Christians. As for Jews, it would not be that unusual, see FN 2.  It would only be an unusual event for Romans and other non-Jews who did not have resurrection in their vocabulary.  Or was it already familiar through pagan sources, in the cutural state-religion tradition?
.
In the Old Testament, Jerome uses "surrexit" in the form of "consurrexit" in Zachariah 2:13: "sileat omnis caro a facie Domini quia consurrexit de habitaculo sancto suo," or in the Douay Rheims (Roman Catholic), "Let all flesh be silent at the presence of the Lord: for he is risen up out of his holy habitation."
.
 Other translations given there use waked up, is awake, is raised up, and here is the Hebrew: HS KL-BShUr MPhNY YHVH KY N'yVUr MM'yVN QDShV.
.
And the "Paleo Hebrew" said to be before 582 BC:  -    
   
   
.    

 Ok:  What is the "roused" part -- Start another window.

Have to look at a transliteration word for word, try Scripture4all online linear Hebrew Zachariah 2:13
Find "be-quelled   all-of flesh    from-faces-of   Yahweh   that   he-is-roused   from-habitation-of   holiness-of-him"

And the "he-is-roused" is the word "nour" with hebrew letters נעור

Now to Strong's Lexicon with that word
We find the first three letters (not the backwards C there) at Strong's lexicon H5782
making it עור
And look it up at Hebrew Lexicon Concordance 5782
And find that the root of the עור
is a very early form meaning roughly opening the eyes, awaken, arouse, incite, lift up the self, stir up self, and scroll down to all the places where the word is used.

  That is "oor" or "make bare" see how close the forms are -- you don't have to know Hebrew to look things up and appreciate the difficulty scribes had in copying, or translators had in getting it down clearly
עוּר
So, this is "oor" number 5783,  to make bare, expose, and that is different from "nur" or wake up.

Scripture4all does not give the Strong's numbers in Zachariah, but you can do it yourself.

Conclusion:  Jerome's use of "surrexit" for raised up means he just got up, which would not mean "from the dead" unless that were specified, as it is not.  Even for Jahwah, it is specified what he would be raised from if people make a racket -- from his holy habitation.  Have to add the words "from the dead" -- or use a word that means that, as "quicken" if something is made quick from the dead.

...................................................................


Go to the next word, Hebrew 5783: click on the arrow


.........................................................

FN 2.  Doctrinally incorrect searches.  Search in Google for  "there was no resurrection".  Google will not let you search that.  All you get on the first pages is another issuse, what "if" there had been no resurrection, and the like.

So we search on our own.  What to early texts available to amateurs say about a resurrection.  This is Easter night, Sunday, and we want this in time for next year.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  What do they say, that we rely upon?  No resurrection.

It is true that raisings from the dead had been part of the Jewish tradition occasionally, see Resurrection essay, NT Wright 2000.  But those events were described with the added "from the dead" -- and that is not in Matthew, Mark, Luke (another topic is the embellishment to Mark's account after him).  Was there a raising from the dead here?  We think not.

...................................................................

* UPDATE ASTERISK.
.
Hwaet. A new issue interposes in this Biblical-textual-dogma interest. Please consider before delving into the substance of roused or resurrected. Suddenly the NYT is taking an ideological spin on its own article, changing its title as to how a Renaissance artist, Caravaggio, known for his treatment of light, presented the issue of roused or resurrected. This is the great Caravaggio. Of Art Course fame. See what the NYT does to its own article about Caravaggio's subject matter. Is the NYT caving to advertising or conservative pressure?
.
  • First, the Hwaet.
  • This is the old word in Anglo-Saxon tradition, for getting attention from the rowdy group, for what is to come next. Beowulf's teller, hushing the hearers.
  • NYT's change of its own header, an opinion manipulation, is worthy of Beowulfian attention like this.
  • NYT online changes the header.
  • See http://www.nvcc.edu/home/vpoulakis/translation/beowulf1.htm Instead of "In His Own Image" we get the fearsome, fear-inducing, "The Criminal Genius of Caravaggio."