Easter grammar question

[Minerva]

Why is it He IS risen rather than He has risen? 

 

 

[gardenmom5]

Because 'is' is present tense. As in, He 'is' here. Now.

[Matryoshka]

Because 'is' is present tense. As in, He 'is' here. Now.

 

Uh, no.  'Has' is also present tense, and is what is used with the past participle to make the perfect tenses, which is what this is.

 

It's because this is from the King James version.  Back then thou = 2nd person familiar.  The grammar has changed.

 

In English back then (English is Germanic, remember), 'to have' was used as the helping verb for the perfect tenses (as now), except when the verb was intransitive (as 'to rise') is, then the helping verb used was 'to be' (as it still is in German today).

 

So also, "I am come" instead of "I have come".

 

At some point English switched over to using 'to have' for the helping verb in the perfect tense for both transitive and intransitive verbs alike.  And dropped thou.

 

It's not a theological point, just old grammar. :)

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Matryoshka

[Daria]

Risen isn't a verb here. If so they could just say "He rose." It's an adjective that is part of an epithet describing Jesus. He IS the Risen Lord. Not just some guy who rose.

[maize]

Uh, no. 'Has' is also present tense, and is what is used with the past participle to make the perfect tenses, which is what this is.

 

It's because this is from the King James version. Back then thou = 2nd person familiar. The grammar has changed.

 

In English back then (English is Germanic, remember), 'to have' was used as the helping verb for the perfect tenses (as now), except when the verb was intransitive (as 'to rise') is, then the helping verb used was 'to be' (as it still is in German today).

 

So also, "I am come" instead of "I have come".

 

At some point English switched over to using 'to have' for the helping verb in the perfect tense for both transitive and intransitive verbs alike. And dropped thou.

 

It's not a theological point, just old grammar. :)

 

This :)

 

Though I think it is every older Bible translation, not just the KJV.

Edited March 27, 2016 by maize

[Minerva]

Thanks! I had never heard this expression before the boards. Come to find out it's fairly standard, and I've been living under a rock. 

 

Happy Easter. 

[Tanaqui]

Daria, you're not right. It's just as Matryoshka said. We hear this sort of usage in other old texts as well. It's not special to Jesus :)

 

Though your explanation, and the other ones attempted upthread are certainly an interesting example of reanalysis. You see this sometimes with other fossilized usages, particularly those found in the Bible. Once I read a statement that "thou" should be used when praying because it's more formal! This would have surprised the translators of the KJV, who naturally thought of it as the other way around.

[fdrinca]

Daria, you're not right. It's just as Matryoshka said. We hear this sort of usage in other old texts as well. It's not special to Jesus :)

 

Though your explanation, and the other ones attempted upthread are certainly an interesting example of reanalysis. You see this sometimes with other fossilized usages, particularly those found in the Bible. Once I read a statement that "thou" should be used when praying because it's more formal! This would have surprised the translators of the KJV, who naturally thought of it as the other way around

 

 

I do wonder if there is a reason why some usages become "fossilized," as you describe. Certainly not all archaic English usage continues in Church language. 

 

How would one have said the phrase "He is risen" in archaic English, intending, as we may today, to imply that Jesus exists in a state of eternal resurrection? God isn't bound by chronos. 

[Tanaqui]

How would one have said the phrase "He is risen" in archaic English, intending, as we may today, to imply that Jesus exists in a state of eternal resurrection? God isn't bound by chronos.

 

I'm pretty sure one wouldn't, not in a few pithy words. Perhaps "He is risen, and does exist in a state of eternal resurrection".

 

Of course, I have no idea how one would convey that exact nuance in Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew/whatever language. Is it really in the original text?

 

I do wonder if there is a reason why some usages become "fossilized," as you describe.

 

Because the KJV is really pretty, and "He is risen" seems to be a ritualistic greeting given out at specific occasions, not something you say all the time for kicks. There are other, non-Biblical fossils in English. "They raised a hue and cry". What the heck is a hue? It's a general hubbub or clamor, while the "cry" is something along the lines of "Stop, thief!" "It puzzled all our kith and kin". Kith is friends, I believe, but don't quote me.

 

Some of those have inspired their own reanalyses and folk etymology. Many people, for example, think your "just deserts" have something to do with "desserts", the sweet stuff. No, deserts there is what one deserves, and no irony at all.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Tanaqui

[bolt.]

I do wonder if there is a reason why some usages become "fossilized," as you describe. Certainly not all archaic English usage continues in Church language.

Because liturgy relies on the repetition of phrases in ways that encourage memorization. Memorized phrases are familiar and 'mean what they mean' without people pausing to wonder why they are phrased that way.

 

Not everyone does liturgy, but enough people have done so, for long enough, that the familiar phrases continue to feel right.

[Guest]

Well, here is another thought.  Maybe this won't come out right, but I'll give it a try.  And upfront, let me say that this is Christian content, which might not be surprising on this thread, but I'm pointing it out because it isn't English Mastery Content or Science Content.  

 

Time is a created thing, and that means that God is outside of time.  God is in the eternal present.  He self-identifies as I AM.  

 

When we remember the Resurrection, we remember it not in a way of thinking about what is in the past, but thinking about it as the core reality of life in God...in the eternal present, outside of the boundaries of time, where God IS eternally.

 

I wish I could find something written about this that explains it better than I do.  But maybe this gives a nub of an idea...  

 

[bolt.]

That's fair theology, as far as theological thought goes -- but it's not an explaination of the phrase. The phrase has a simple explaination that does not rely on deep thoughts about the nature of time and space.

 

(Not that it's wrong as Christian content itself. It's fine. It's just that the idea is unconnected to the grammar -- or has been attached to existing grammar by reason of coincidence, not cause/effect.)

[TXBeth]

I always considered it as a linking verb "is" and a predicate adjective "risen." Just like "This seat is taken." Anyway, when I say it, that's my intent. ;)

Those of you who are saying that's incorrect, do you have a source? I'm interested to read more about this.

[Daria]

That's fair theology, as far as theological thought goes -- but it's not an explaination of the phrase. The phrase has a simple explaination that does not rely on deep thoughts about the nature of time and space.

 

(Not that it's wrong as Christian content itself. It's fine. It's just that the idea is unconnected to the grammar -- or has been attached to existing grammar by reason of coincidence, not cause/effect.)

But if the question that was asked is "Why do people say it?" And the answer is that it's because it resonates with them because of the way the grammar reflects their feelings about Jesus, and Easter and time, then that answer isn't wrong.

 

If the question is "Why did this one specific translation use this phrasing?" Then the answer you and Tanaqui gave might be the only correct one.

[Tanaqui]

Here you go, TxBeth.

 

They cite several quotes from the OED. Most (if not all) of their citations are with the verb "to come" - Lochinvar is come, I am come, and so on. Also, google brought me to this rather old grammar book, which covers the passival as well.

 

I read an interesting post on LanguageLog or LanguageHat or anyway a linguistics blog several years ago about the shift from forming that past with "is" to forming it with "has", and so far I've yet to find it again. But I keep looking.

[Tanaqui]

Okay, some more googling brought me to this guide on Old English. Now, naturally we are not discussing Old English. We're discussing Early Modern English. However, all English ultimately derives from Old English, so this may be relevant. Note that this distinction may not have actually applied by the time of the KJV. It certainly no longer applies today, except possibly in some regional dialects.

 

If any experts on Early Modern English or Old English would like to weigh in, their input would be invaluable.

 

Scroll up a bit, you want to start reading around page 78.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Tanaqui

[TXBeth]

But the OP didn't say anything about the KJV. The question was about a common Easter greeting. Is there any source about the origin of the greeting that shows it was derived from a particular verse with a particular grammar? Because saying "He is risen" is a grammatically correct sentence with a linking verb and predicate adjective. I'm trying to understand the insistence that it is necessarily derived from "He has risen" rather than a statement that means what it says.

[TXBeth]

I'm not sure I'm actually expressing myself clearly. My point is that when I say "He is risen" at Easter, I am not saying the same thing as "He arose," (which is also something I say, but there is a difference in meaning, at least in modern English). I am describing Christ. He is holy, He is eternal, He is risen, He is mighty, He is loving, etc. Now maybe I am using the phrase in a different way than whoever originally coined it, in which case I'd be interested in seeing a source to read more about that.

[Matryoshka]

But the OP didn't say anything about the KJV. The question was about a common Easter greeting. Is there any source about the origin of the greeting that shows it was derived from a particular verse with a particular grammar? Because saying "He is risen" is a grammatically correct sentence with a linking verb and predicate adjective. I'm trying to understand the insistence that it is necessarily derived from "He has risen" rather than a statement that means what it says.

 

"He is risen" is from Matthew 28:6, which in the KJV is translated: He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.  Come see the place where the Lord lay.

 

The same verse in The New Revised Standard Version is: He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said.  Come, see the place where he lay.

 

New International Version: He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

 

 

I myself still have a hard time saying The Lord's Prayer without the thee's and the thou's.  Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me also sounds strange in a modern translation.  The KJV has a very long reach in the English language.

 

On another interesting linguistic note, I find it very interesting that in the older English, where we still distinguished between a formal and more intimate second person address, we address God with the intimate, rather than the formal form.  When we say the prayers with the older speech, it sounds more formal to us, but it is in fact more intimate.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Matryoshka

[TXBeth]

So doing some of my own research I realized that most other languages do use the present perfect tense, which gives more weight to the "He has risen" explanation.

[Guest]

"He is risen" is from Matthew 28:6, which in the KJV is translated: He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay.

 

The same verse in The New Revised Standard Version is: He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.

 

New International Version: He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

 

 

I myself still have a hard time saying The Lord's Prayer without the thee's and the thou's. Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me also sounds strange in a modern translation. The KJV has a very long reach in the English language.

 

On another interesting linguistic note, I find it very interesting that in the older English, where we still distinguished between a formal and more intimate second person address, we address God with the intimate, rather than the formal form. When we say the prayers with the older speech, it sounds more formal to us, but it is in fact more intimate.

HaHa, me, too! When I was a kid, growing up in a Christian school, KJV was the only Bible we used. And we memorized enormous amounts of scripture. There are some passages that are so etched in my brain in the KJV, I have to consciouly reverse them to say them in modern English. The 23rd Psalm is one. So is, "Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee." And see? It did get hidden in there. :D