6 Qui dicit illis: “Nolite expavescere: Jesum quæritis Nazarenum, crucifixum: surrexit, non est hic, ecce locus ubi posuerunt eum.
Why is surrexit seemingly often translated (Douay–Rheims) (in this context) as “he is risen”? I would expect he has risen since it is perfect tense. But the Luke has the same latin word and same translation. For what it is worth the Greek has ἐγείρω
Verb: Aorist Passive Indicative 3rd Person Singular but I’m too rusty with Greek and so am not sure if that affects the meaning here. The Greek seems to further indicate that this should be he has risen or just he rose, no?
You confused me with ἐγείρω. As used in the sentence it’s ἠγέρθη. He has been woken up. Simple act rather than continuous result would be the normal indication of the Greek tense.
ἠγέρθη just means he got up, whether from sleep or—rather more exceptionally!—from the dead, i.e. he arose, he rose (as in response to the reveille, “Rise and shine!”). I too find it a bit odd that here it’s traditionally been translated as if it were not aorist but perfect: the KJV (translating ἠγέρθη) likewise has “he is risen.” Presumably this reflects theologically driven (mis)interpretation, and maybe the vulgate’s surrexit was similarly understood, whether from the start or over time. Latin of course does not distinguish between aorist and true perfect as Greek does.