When you are I have a discussion regarding ‘physical body’
we have very clear understanding
for example Dr Tabor mentioned
a) physical bodies are replicated by the union of a father and a mother
b) physical bodies do not levitate to heaven
I would also add that
c) physical bodies have a finite lifespan (ie they may be able to be resuscitated
after a minute or 2 but not after 1000s of years in a grave)
Notwithstanding Enoch and Elijah, it appears that the Old Testament authors would not reject the above 3 viewpoints on the nature of physical bodies. Nor any sane and honest people of past 6000 years
if you want to discuss ‘bodies’ that dont conform to the above 3 criteria then I would personally say you are talking about something other than ‘physical bodies’, saying they are ‘glorified physical bodies’ or ”bodies made of pneuma’ does not does any explanative force.
Notwithstanding Enoch and Elijah, it appears that the Old Testament authors would not reject the above 3 viewpoints on the nature of physical bodies. Nor any sane and honest people of past 6000 years
if you want to discuss ‘bodies’ that dont conform to the above 3 criteria then I would personally say you are talking about something other than ‘physical bodies’, saying they are ‘glorified physical bodies’ or ”bodies made of pneuma’ does not does any explanative force.
Well the problem is that the ancients didn’t mean the same things or make the same assumptions about “bodies” that we do. It’s not at all obvious what they meant by “flesh” for example. The traditional dichotomy between “flesh” and “spirit” appears to be an oversimplification.
Agree. One of the main points of Martin’s Corinthian Body is precisely that our culture’s typical Cartesian mind/body duality (nonmatierial/material) is not what was at issue, nor was soul vs. mind, but rather the substance that makes up the resurrected body. My 1st question is not trying to make sense of what a resurrected body could be (by modern or even concurrent Greek philosophical standards). Rather, it’s trying to make sense of how Paul thought it related to the physical body. 1 Cor 15 says a lot here, as Robert says and as Dr Martin wrote the book on.
And with respect to what Paul doesn’t say. No argument from silence is proof (properly defined) of that which is absent. No argument from silence is going to be a slam dunk. Hence the allusion to the string pushing nature of my half-cocked, hasty outline of an argument. But, silence + other arguments can be suggestive, sometimes very persuasive.
The argument for Paul as canny politician, as I understand it, is based on what he says and what he doesn’t say. The second half of that conjunction is an argument from silence, which is conjoined to positive arguments. The argument that Paul used the bathroom is an argument from silence plus the positive supporting arguments of human physiology.
The argument that Paul didn’t hold to a gospels’ view of Empty Tomb accounts is an argument from silence plus buttressing arguments. And an argument for this is not going to fail by dent of the structure of the argument (silence plus something), but on the strength or lack thereof in the buttressing arguments.
I’ll try to take stab at a more full-throated version when I have a little more time over the next few days. Then you guys can gun it down on the merits!
Completely agree, if that were the only shot on goal. One quick question: where do you think the creed which begins in 1 Cor 15:3 completes? The appearance citations, and if so, how deep into the appearance citations? It bears on how much Paul is adding, and also that there’s no Mary mention.
Excellent, thank you. And I wasn’t aware of Harnack’s view of competing traditions. But I’m blissfully unaware of so much…
Given that Paul is intending to appeal to a shared belief in resurrection, why then is he pleading his case for this shared belief so strenuously with all the name dropping? I find it hard to understand, aside from verbal incontinence, why he’s hammering the shared fact of resurrection via so many appearance citations if he’s not trying to reconvince them of the concept. Not necessarily that he should have mentioned a empty tomb here, but he’s seemingly reeling off an awful lot of the resurrection proof in his armory. Similarly, the credal statement itself also seemingly has extraneous data if the argument of everyone is on the same page of Jesus’s resurrection holds. He’s unloading a bazooka when a single mention of “don’t we believe in Jesus’s resurrection” might have sufficed.
I’m perhaps overstepping the underlying strength of the argument, but I’m trying gesticulate at the point quickly.
Great point – that whole “and to me too” portion in 15:8-11.
But between Cephas and himself, Paul feels the need to cite >513 other people. Is that not seemingly perhaps a little overkill if the point of the names is only to serve to connect himself to apostolic credibility? It feels a little like he’s trying to weigh up the instances of appearance to buttress the fact of Jesus’s resurrection.
Robert said
Pay attention to the overall argument of 1 Cor 15. Paul is not arguing for the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, [and no mention of ] empty tomb if he knew of it. Rather Paul is presuming upon the common, shared belief in the resurrection of Jesus as a basis upon which he builds an argument for the future, general resurrection of the dead. This is why I don’t think a strong case can be made that we should expect Paul to mention the discovery of the empty tomb here if he had heard such a narrative.
Thanks for this observation
yet if it was of some (or any import) to describe resurrected corpses as an integral component of the general resurrection [which I think is a part of Dr Ehrman’s upcoming thesis in his Heaven/Hell book] then we might expect Paul in his teaching/ministry about the general resurrection to mention Jesus empty grave.
that he doesn’t mention Jesus empty grave, then might be an indication that he did not believe the general resurrection entailed zombies.
jus a thought
additionally regarding your example which i like
Hngerhman said
. . The argument that Paul used the bathroom is an argument from silence plus the positive supporting arguments of human physiology.
might say likewise the argument that Paul did not expect zombies during the general resurrection [again I think contrary to thesis in Dr Ehrman’s upcoming book] as an argument from silence plus the positive supporting arguments of human physiology.
Robert said
Part of what he is doing in citing earlier appearances of the risen Christ to authoritative witnesses is so that he can link himself to this chain of witnesses, thus justifying his own status as an apostle and authoritative witness to the resurrected Jesus. Reciting burial traditions or even appearances to women at the grave would not necessarily fit the scenario he is inserting himself into. That said, I remain skeptical that Paul had heard something like the empty tomb account in Mark’s gospel.
Agreed. Paul is validating his own place in the tradition. That said it it’s interesting how this credo serves to validate the leadership of the movement. Was the original Resurrection experience really that neat? It was almost certainly messier than that. Note that Mark has the “young man” tell the women at the tomb that Jesus will appear to “the disciples and Peter” so in effect the women become messengers not actual witnesses to Jesus Resurrection. Maybe Mark knows this credo and has inserted the women for his own reasons? But the fact that the women in Mark did not actually see Jesus means the story could be perfectly consistent with this credo.
I m using the term ‘zombie’ to mean any creature
a body once alive, then
put in a grave, then
emerging alive from that grave
Bart may want to specify additionally that it is ‘glorified’ or that it’s biological cells are transformed into ‘pneuma cells’ or something else, but if it fits those 3 lines above I am calling it a ‘zombie’, though if you (or Bart) prefer a different term, that’s ok and I will henceforward defer to using that term you recommend
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)