+0
Hi. Do you think the part "he is risen" is incorrect in terms of its grammar? The verses are Matthew 14: 1 and 2 from the King James Bible. If you think it is wrong or archaic, please tell me why that is. I think the sentence "He is gone" is correct to denote his current state of not being at the spot/place he was in before, although I think "He has gone" is also correct. I could be mistaken but I think "He has gone," for one, is more likely to be used in the context of passing of time. (I am not sure I have written correctly to reflect what I wanted to say, though.)



Matthew 14
King James Bible

1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
1 2
Comments  
Hello

A good poiint to raise and this is the best way to answer it i belleive.

Human beings have a sense of time.

God is above time. He is the past, the present and the future

He is everywhere and He is in us.

God is the Truth which is above time. Reality is below the time. What human beings UNDERstand.

I am is the present tense which is continous. Time does not control Him. Time controls Reality.
Is risenis correct in that it is used in the Bible. It can be called archaic, if you like, or even biblical.Emotion: smile The use ofis/are, or to be more precise, their German equivalents, is common in modern German to this day. There remain some remnants of this usage in modern Engish. Is gone is one of them. In German this usage occurs with intransitive verbs only, and go and rise are indeed intransitive.

Because English has very few inflections, is + past participle is commonly used to indicate a state even with transitive verbs: This table is reserved.

CB
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
AnonymousIf you think it is wrong or archaic, please tell me why that is.
It's simply archaic. If we were living during the time that the King James Bible was written, we would know that certain verbs (like rise) take to be, and not to have, as the auxiliary when forming the perfect tenses, and we would know that "is risen" is completely correct. But we are not living during those times, and nowadays all verbs take to have as the auxiliary, so it may seem strange to our modern-day ears.

CJ
CalifJimIf we were living during the time that the King James Bible was written, we would know that certain verbs (like rise) take to be, and not to have, as the auxiliary when forming the perfect tenses, and we would know that "is risen" is completely correct.

That's very interesting CJ, I never knew that. Probably I should! Was there any pattern to which verbs took "to be" and which took "to have"? Does this carry over to modern perceptions of what seems possible? For example, "it is risen" sounds feasible (albeit old-fashioned, of course), yet "he is run here from London" sounds less feasible. Does that mean that "run" was always one of the verbs that took "to have"?
Cool Breeze Because English has very few inflections, is + past participle is commonly used to indicate a state even with transitive verbs: This table is reserved.
Hi, CB.
In AmE, "reserved" is an adjective, so "to be" plus adj. is not controversial.

Also, "to be" plus the past participle of a transitive verb is often found in passive voice structures:

This table is borrowed.
This game is suspended.

Best wishes, - A.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Mr WordyWas there any pattern to which verbs took "to be" and which took "to have"? Does this carry over to modern perceptions of what seems possible?
Yes, there was a pattern to it. I can't say exactly what the pattern was, or if it makes a lot of sense to us modern-day speakers of English, but it's approximately the same verbs that take to be as the auxiliary for the perfect in modern-day German, French, and Italian, generally intransitives that deal with motion or changes of state like go, come, rise, fall, arrive, leave, become, ...

(Spanish went the way of English and also now uses only "have" (haber) as the auxiliary for the perfect.)

I don't know -- how plausible are these? He is come; he is fallen; he is arrived; he is become ... ???

I think some of them still survive in the collective subconscious. (After all, some were used up until the 19th century. I believe I've seen "is become" as late as in the works of Hardy.) Others, not so much!

Emotion: smile

CJ

P.S. I know that French allows "is run" and "have run". The details of when one or the other is used escape me just now. I have no idea whatsoever what English used to do with that verb!
CalifJimI don't know -- how plausible are these? He is come; he is fallen; he is arrived; he is become ... ???

Thanks for your reply CJ. These examples all seem plausible to me. I tend to read "fallen" in the figurative rather than literal sense though.
Mr WordyI tend to read "fallen" in the figurative rather than literal sense though.
So you wouldn't exactly find it idiomatic in today's world to say:

The children squealed with glee because their teacher was fallen in the mud.

would you? Emotion: smile

CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more