Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 61:243 (Jul 1904)
Article: “The Two Bodies”
Author: William Dean Goddard

BSac 61:243 (July 1904) p. 563

“The Two Bodies”

William Dean Goddard

Washington, D. C.

In Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1903, appeared an article by Dr. Boardman called “The Two Bodies” which is in its content an exposition of Paul’s thought (1 Cor. 15:35-44) on the resurrection of Christians and the nature of their bodies before and after that event.

I want to take the opportunity which his article offers to set up my little candle and throw its light on a simple phrase in the Creek of that famous passage which seems to have tripped up the idiom of every English translator from Wycliffe down, though happily the German Testament presents us with a modern rendering which is both literal and idiomatic.

In verses 42-44 the Greek impersonal verbs “σπείρεται…. ἐγείρεται” are uniformly translated “it is sown….it is raised” in all the leading English versions. Now, it is a matter of common knowledge that the impersonal verb in a foreign language may be rendered in English in one or another of three ways, according to circumstances: (1) by the third person of the verb taking the expletive “it” as its formal subject, e.g. “it is raining”; (2) the same construction with the expletive “there,” e. g. “in the field there are planted beets, onions, etc”; (3) the principal verb is in the gerund, which stands itself in form as subject of some other verb whose distinctive meaning is unimportant, the construction being purely idiomatic, e. g. “the saying is,” “the saying runs,” the saying goes,” all of which are equivalent to “it is said.” But these expressions are not interchangeable without limit. For example, we never say, “Beside the road it is planted a tree,” but always, “There is planted”; never, “In

BSac 61:243 (July 1904) p. 564

this field it is sown oats with good results,” but either, “there are sown,” etc., or, “The saving of oats in this ground is profitable.” So in verses 42-44 there is no particular “it” to be sown; the only possible antecedent of “it,” regarded as a pronoun, is “resurrection” in the preceding sentence—a parsing which is patently absurd. As soon as our attention is directed to a comparison of the English with the original, we see that the “it “is not a pronoun, but an expletive, and immediately perceive that the English idiom never takes “it” as subject in the impersonal use of the verb “to sow.”

If we wash to be very literal, we may most accurately misrepresent Paul’s σπείρεται ἐν φδ...