Hngerhman said
Perhaps topical given recent Forum discussions on burial as well as our most recent guest blogger Dr Tabor.
Two questions:
1) Did Paul’s view on bodily resurrection commit him to the existence of some empty grave?
2) Related but separate, is it likely that Paul believed a version of the empty tomb story similar to what we find in Mark?
we have answers/opinions of Dr Ehrman’s of these questions from 8 years ago see
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I am going to to read that now before commenting again
here is an interesting tidbit to note from that post and comments of 8 years ago
the first reply to Bart’s blog post is from a guy named “Robertus” and that guy strangely has the exact same icon
that our current friend “Robert” has. I wonder it Robert is the glorified version of Robertus and and if the body of the prior guy disintegrated or was transomed (via pneuma) into the new guy
very confusing . . .
Robert said
Hngerhman said
… he might know it, he just doesn’t sufficiently believe it, that’s the upper limit of what I’m gesticulating at. …That’s an interesting twist.
The positive position I’m attempting to stake out does not hinge on heard/know but rather sufficiently holds/believes. There are places on a Venn diagram where these might overlap, but I’m explicitly not trying to fortify the not(heard/know) hill. I’d prefer to die elsewhere.
Sorry if I was previously unclear, because I can see how it might feel even more of a fool’s errand than I’m actually intending to run (still foolishly). Let me know which direction you think it would be most interesting to run.
Hngerhman said
. . . hinge on heard/know [empty tomb] but rather [whether Paul] sufficiently holds/believes [empty tomb]. . .
in the 7.5 year old post above Bart concludes that
Paul has not heard it, but believes it
personally
i doubt Paul has heard it, and
I strongly doubt Paul believes it
of course I could change my mind , and I do my best to track all arguments I have seen by Bart which he seems to think supports his conclusion, but so far I find his arguments lacking.
from Barts post above
——–
Would he [Paul] have said the tomb was empty? Certainly yes. But that would have been out of logical necessity, not because he had heard stories about Mary Magdalene going there on the third day.
——–
and
——-
Ultimately, Paul believed this so deeply because he was, and always had been, a Jewish apocalypticist, who maintained that this world had become corrupt, but God was not going to abandon it (or the bodies he had created); he was going to redeem it (along with the bodies).
——
I personally can’t see the logical necessity; nor do I hold enough expertise to conclude EVEN IF I ACCEPT that Paul was and always had been a Jewish apocalypticist that that would lead him to view Jesus’ tomb as empty
but really, I have no information, or opinion, regarding what Paul had always been
I’d be curious others’ view on this, but my thought is that, silence taken alone, it’s equally indeterminate.
One could try to motivate a case in either direction, and those supporting arguments will turn partially on how far out one grants the textual horizon to be. I.e., if we limit it to only Paul’s undisputed epistles, or the whole of the Pauline corpus, or including Acts, or including the entire NT, or including the entire biblical canon, or…
Would love to hear others’ thoughts.
ok here is one opinion
Paul said “Jesus was died and buried”
1) there is a mountain of evidence, we assume available to Paul, that people who have died and buried remain in their tombs
so since he did not say the tomb is empty, wouldn’t that be evidence that the tomb is filled
On the other hand
2) Paul said “Jesus is alive”, and again we assume that all alive people Paul is familiar do not reside in tombs, and as Paul did not say that this particular alive person happens to be in a tomb, wouldn’t that be evidence that the tomb is empty
[ and look this, question should be a much simpler question than whether, in Paul’s view, Jesus is composed sarx or pneuma or is flesh or physical, normal or abnormal(?) glorified or not, etc]
so yes maybe indeterminate
returning
there is absolutely ZERO evidence available to Paul, as far as we know, of the conjunction of people
dead to buried to alive
so between propositions above, I would say the the argument from silence prefers 1) above 2)
so as I cannot come to a conclusion on something as relatively simple as this, neither can I accept Bart’s contention that Paul of logical necessity would have believed the tomb empty (which isn’t to say the opposite)
tompicard said
Would the argument from silence tend toward Paul believing Jesus’ grave empty or filled ?
A terrific question.
Oh, you expected an answer?
Most scholars seem to think that Paul is repeating a pre-existing credo which he has modified to include his own apostleship. We can never really know what Paul actually thought but given his view of the Resurrection body expressed in 1 Corinthians, it is entirely possible that he didn’t really care about the fate of Jesus’ earthly body. I have suggested elsewhere, to the consternation of some, that the stories of the tomb began, not as a memory of a historical tomb, but as a response to the horror of the actual fate of Jesus’ body. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I think Mark invented the story of the Empty Tomb. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays I think he took a pre=existing tradition and modified to his own use. On Sundays I rest.
second point, relevant or not, you decide
Bart wrote see above or via link above
tompicard wrote
that Bart said
——
Ultimately, Paul believed this so deeply because he was, and always had been, a Jewish apocalypticist, who maintained that this world had become corrupt, but God was not going to abandon it (or the bodies he had created); he was going to redeem it (along with the bodies).——
the issue under discussion in this thread is exactly the parenthetical phrases above,
so tho I am likely agreeing with what Bart wrote
Paul as a Jewish apocalypticist . . maintained that this world had become corrupt, but God was not going to abandon it () ; he was going to redeem it ()
it is the data within the parenthesis that I doubt, that is it appears Bart is speculating on these parenthetical phrases more than proving them.
Agree on the point about the parentheticals – they are what’s at issue, and why some people deny the material conditional 1).
I’m trying to find something a much smaller read than Corinthian Body that gives a synopsis of the textual arguments (to make them explicit rather than only allusions in my summaries) – because CB is long and dense, and I’m not sure I’d do it justice if I tried to do it myself.
OK, for the 1st question (Paul’s resurrection view and whether it commits him to an empty grave) I found this paper – it gets at the heart of the issue of question in by way of 1 Cor 15, and Corinthian Body (and argues against portions of it).
Robert said
I think Bart pretty much considers all Pharisees (including early Paul) to have been apocalyptic on account of their belief in the resurrection of the dead. I’m a little less certain that all Pharisees were apocalyptic because of the presence of this belief in the Maccabean literature, which does not share some other important aspects of apocalypticism.
This is fascinating. Is there a link between the Maccabean literature and pharisaism?
In addition to being a Pelagius moron, I’m also a Maccabean literature neophyte…
i likewise bought the “Corinthian Body” about a year or more ago but haven’t or barely opened it.
which is very unusual for me cause once I buy a book I usually try to read it and even if I can’t stand it I try to finish it
anyway the impression I have had since purchase, and the impression I get by glancing the the linked paper, is that it, Corinthian Body, is going to be both over my head and not really worth it (mental fatigue); at least as far as my interest goes.
Why haven’t it read it?
probably cause I think Jesus and Paul were preachers with something to teach they felt crucial for people to understand; Paul seems to be also making an attempt at being a some kind of grand greek philosopher. Am I really going get the point of what he is ultimately trying to say/teach by treating verses here and there of his letters to various communities as a consistent and coherent philosophical thesis? Isn’t that expecting too much ?
Yeah, CB is hyper-dense. To read it, you reallygotta want it…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)