"AGAIN" in the Apostles' Creed

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamestheOlder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamestheOlder

Guest
Please answer a basic question about the Apostles’ Creed. Ever since I have learned this Creed, I have said in English:

“He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.” (red is my emphasis)

The Latin (Wikipedia) reads:

“descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,”

In my limited Latin education, the Latin would be translated (loosely) into this English:

“He descended to the lower (infernal) regions (home of the dead). On the third day he arose from the dead. He ascended to the heavens…etc.”
Where did we get “again” in the English translation? Not only is it in the “official” Catholic version, but the word “again” appears in the Apostles’ Creed for EVERY Christian community that uses this Creed (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, “Common”) as shown in the Wikipedia references.

Second question: Do you find this word troubling? In my learning, Jesus arose from the dead ONCE. “Again” would indicate (to me) He did it a SECOND time.

Can you steer me to an explanation of this translation, which is evidently adopted by everyone (at least all “catholic” churches)?
 
This is a common English usage: e.g., “He fell down, but got up again.”

If you would like a direct connection to the Latin, it translates the “re” in resurrexit. Note that the Latin text of the creed does not say surrexit, even though it could have. It says resurrexit, and as to the “re,” its “fundamental signification answers to the Engl. again and against.”
 
Thanks for this explanation, which does make sense. Yet I find the use of the word “again” curious from a dogmatic view of the Resurrection, which we belive happened only once.
 
JamestheOlder said:
Thanks for this explanation, which does make sense. Yet I find the use of the word “again” curious from a dogmatic view of the Resurrection, which we belive happened only once.
Click to expand...
But neither the English “again” nor the Latin “re-” particularly implies “for a second time” in this context.

Edit: I suppose it would not hurt here to point out to point out what we have in the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims translation (1 Cor. 15:4), when Paul is discussing the tenets of the Christian faith:
et quia sepultus est et quia resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas

And that he was buried: and that he rose again according to the scriptures:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top