A friend recently sent a question and I thought I’d throw it out to the intelligent readers of CMR for an answer:
“In the English translation of the Creed we say that Christ rose again. There is no such Latin equivalent. Why, then, do we use the word ‘again’ in the Creed? It seems to imply that Christ rose from the dead at some point before Easter.”
Any ideas?
January 5, 2009 at 12:36 am
The specific phrase is “On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures….” The word “again” does not change the meaning of much in my mind as it implies he “got up again” after death. Although I see how it may imply he rose from the dead again rather than got up again. By “got up” I mean the raising one does when one wakes in the morning. I was once on my back without senses, and now I am on my feet, and alert. In English, the death is not mentioned in that sentence, although it might be in the Latin version.
January 5, 2009 at 12:38 am
D Mac and Anonymous Inquirer,
By “again,” the translators intend the original meaning of “again” as “back to the former state” (of living), rather than as “for yet another time.” Below are the four senses of “again” from Merriam-Webster. You will see that the first sense is the one being used, rather than the second one which today predominates among American speakers. Interesting question!
1 : in return : back (swore he would pay him again when he was able — Shakespeare)
2 : another time : once more : anew (I shall not look upon his like again — Shakespeare)
3 : on the other hand (he might go, and again he might not)
4 : in addition : besides (again, there is another matter to consider)
~cmpt
January 5, 2009 at 1:03 am
Christopher Michael has it … standing back up.
My understanding is that the Greek word in the original creed would have been anistemi.
January 5, 2009 at 1:58 am
And the ana- prefix in Greek can often mean “again”. Hmmm…
January 5, 2009 at 2:05 am
This question-and-answer session among men and women of good will and good intellect is part of what makes Creative Minority Report such a great place to be. Thanks, everyone!
— Mack
January 5, 2009 at 2:05 am
Resurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption of life. Again refers to the verb living, Christ lives again after the resurrection.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm for more.
January 5, 2009 at 3:03 am
You are putting too much into the English word ‘again.’ Translation is not algebra. The prefix re- in resurrexit does imply recurrence – but not necessarily a repetition of the same process as its root.
It’s a little bit like objections to Our Lady’s perpetual virginity – “Joseph knew her not UNTIL she gave birth to her first born son…”
And, indeed, the reference to a ‘first-born’ son. To a certain literalist plodding mentality these things imply that (1) he ‘knew’ his wife AFTER she gave birth; and that if Jesus was ‘first’-born, there must have been ‘second-‘ and ‘later-‘born children.
All of which simply shows that language is not … well, algebra.
The ‘again’ in ‘rose again from the dead’ is an attempt to represent that re- in resurrexit, and inded the ana- in the underlying Greek if that is the Greek word used (anestese if it’s aorist – don’t know the Greek for it and won’t spend the time to look it up).
jj
January 5, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I always unserstood it as Christopher Michael explained it, a return to a previous state. To use it in a sentence…
“Jesus was physicially alive again.”
It was a return to the physicialy viable state of existence.
Good find Christopher!
January 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm
What if in the years of translations we’ve dropped a comma or placement of emphasis?
Could the word “again” refer to the Scripture prophesies and not to “rising”?
“On the third day He rose, again in fulfillment of the Scriptures….”
As “born of the Virgin” was a fulfillment of Scripture, followed by another fulfillment of Scripture, “rising from the dead.”
The FatMan
January 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm
It is not a misplaced comma. The issue stems from “Et resurrexit tertia die…”, and again we must reference the Latin because that is the basis for the use in the Mass. “And He rose on the third day…” would be “Et surrexit tertia die…” As was stated by JT Jensen above, the “re” prefix does imply a repetition, and resurrexit is properly translated as “He rose again.”
January 5, 2009 at 8:26 pm
In French we say “le troisième jour est ressuscité des morts”: he resurrected from the dead. “Ressusciter” in French means to be alive again, reanimated.
Elise B.
January 5, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Well, lets keep in the mind that the Creed was probably first formulated in Greek, before the Latin text. Two of Denzinger’s Sources for the Creed, before Tertullian, are Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, both of whom wrote in Greek (pg. 4).
That being said, the two (Greek and Latin) could have been formulate around the same time, especially as this seems to be a rule of faith used in the early Church.
As mentioned above, the Greek term used is anastanta, which means to to make to stand up, raise up.
I’m more inclined to believe that the verb just means to rise up (at least in the Greek), i.e. to awaken from the dead.
January 5, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Terry,
Two issues. What Tertullian and Irenaeus said is of passing interest, but it does not answer the question at hand, which is “Why do we say He rose again?” To answer this we must
1) Consider not so much what the early Church fathers said but what the Council of Nicea said. Note that both Irenaeus and Justin pre-date Nicea and neither carries the authority of an ecumenical council.
2) We are dealing with a translation that comes from the Mass, which for Western Catholics means Latin, not Greek. In saying so, I do not mean to say that the Latin pre-dates the Greek Creed (it most certainly does not) or that the Greek Creed is in error or otherwise deficient in any way.
Indeed, why we say “rose again” has everything in the world to do with what the Latin version of the Creed says. It says “resurrexit” and thus we say “He rose again” which is an accurate translation of the Latin.
Why the Latin has “resurrexit” instead of “surrexit” is a different question altogether.
January 6, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Fr. Z has an entry on his blog for this:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/quaeritur-why-rose-again-in-the-creed/