The Corinthian Body is a scholarly monograph, not an attempt at a popular bestseller. It’s dense with information. If you find it heavy-lifting just read the chapter on ‘The Resurrection Body’. Martin explains the views about the body in the ancient world which are widely misunderstood. There was no dichotomy between the “flesh” and the “spirit”. There were instead different kinds of bodies including spiritual bodies. A human was constituted of sarx (flesh), psyche (soul) and pneuma (spirit). (None of these words really mean what we moderns mean by them.) What Paul seems to have believed is that at the resurrection, the sarx and the psyche would dissolve and the pneuma would be transformed. This was the resurrection body. Now we may wonder how much interest someone with this view would have about the fate of Jesus’ sarx.
Excellent synopsis, Stephen – many thanks, and well better than I could have done.
On the opposing side, Tabor would argue, I think, that Paul didn’t believe in the dissolution nor transformation of the sarx into pneuma, but believed the transition from sarx body to pneumatic body was discontinuous, leaving the sarx behind. He’s very good/smart (if sometimes leaning toward the eye-catching end of things), so that’s why I’m trying to frame up the arguments and texts on the why / why not remains, to stress test for myself the view of CB/Martin.
On the opposing side, Tabor would argue, I think, that Paul didn’t believe in the dissolution nor transformation of the sarx into pneuma, but believed the transition from sarx body to pneumatic body was discontinuous, leaving the sarx behind. He’s very good/smart (if sometimes leaning toward the eye-catching end of things), so that’s why I’m trying to frame up the arguments and texts on the why / why not remains, to stress test for myself the view of CB/Martin
Well Martin is providing the view that currently seems to be the scholarly consensus but of course the consensus has been wrong before. I have to say I’m not sure how Tabor’s view differs. I’m not sure what “discontinuous” means in this context and it seems pretty clear that Paul didn’t think that the sarx is transformed into the pneuma. That does seem to be the view in the later gospels that the sarx in the tomb was transformed into something else. But this doesn’t seem to be Paul’s view which is why I question how much interest he would have had in the fate of Jesus fleshly body. It also implies that a hypothetical “empty tomb” would not have been an issue for Paul.
…an example of belief in the resurrection of the dead in a relatively non-apocalyptic context. Bart believes the Maccabean literature is more apocalyptic than I do. Thus, the fact that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead does not necessarily mean that all of them were apocalyptic…
And of course apocalypticism was not a binary. Those ideas were current and were almost certainly absorbed to different degrees by different constituencies.
Robert said
Hngerhman said
Robert, you are the only one amongst us capable of doing the work in Greek (especially his grammatical subject/verb/object matrices). Curious if you have thoughts, but obviously only at your leisure.
Didn’t read the whole thing, but looking at the most important elements of his (her?) arguments, I think a pretty strong case is presented. Do you know who presented this paper?
Unfortunately I do not know. When I found it, I quickly tried googling the title and then a few sentences to see if anything came up on someone’s page, but I wasn’t successful and didn’t try any harder.
I’d love to hear your view on it, but only when you have time. The Greek linguistic arguments I have to take on faith as presented.
My current skepticism around the conclusiveness of the conclusion rests on the view that, even assuming the grammatical arguments are strong (I am assuming they are, on faith), there’s still enough philosophical/conceptual room in the key terms themselves (body, change, etc.) to allow for a Tabor-like discontinuity thesis to persist in the corners. But that was one read of it, and in English.
Stephen said
Well Martin is providing the view that currently seems to be the scholarly consensus but of course the consensus has been wrong before. I have to say I’m not sure how Tabor’s view differs. I’m not sure what “discontinuous” means in this context and it seems pretty clear that Paul didn’t think that the sarx is transformed into the pneuma. That does seem to be the view in the later gospels that the sarx in the tomb was transformed into something else. But this doesn’t seem to be Paul’s view which is why I question how much interest he would have had in the fate of Jesus fleshly body. It also implies that a hypothetical “empty tomb” would not have been an issue for Paul.
I wish I could fully understand it in the Greek, but based on my read (in English) in CB, Tabor and the linked paper (where Robert is being kind enough to hand-hold me), I for one am not yet entirely clear what Paul thinks happens to the sarx. As I have read linguistic arguments (accepting them on faith), there’s still wriggle room. When I read CB, I found it completely compelling. Then, I must admit, Tabor’s view caught me by surprise when I undertook the mindset to take it seriously (and mentally detached it from the potential cognitive need for him to have it be true for his view of the Talpiot remains to work).
As I understand it, a Tabor-like view relies on something other than the constituent make-up of the body (perhaps its conceptual form?) to be the source or locus of identity, and that the language in Paul would admit of a situation whereby the person (properly picked out) would transfer from sarx (and psyche) to pneuma, and the sarx would be left behind. The linked paper is arguing strenuously against this kind of view, on Pauline grammar, but as I just hand-waved at Robert, it seems there is still enough room in the terms to allow this possibility.
And yes, I totally agree one could take Paul’s silence on an empty grave, and motivate a view that he didn’t care enough to have a well-formed opinion on the grave contents. Which, when I wrote the first question, is why I chose the verb “commit” in what his view would commit him to. Aside from whether he had interest, I’m trying to get to, if we sat him down and talked through it with him, what would fall out of his view – where’s the dang sarx, Paul?
Thanks for coming along on this walk – and welcome to the conceptual quagmire where I currently find myself.
welcome to the conceptual quagmire
Well none of this stuff is easy or obvious. The first hurdle to get past is the realization that the ancients didn’t think the way we think. But even when you get past that hurdle that’s when the fun just really begins.
And yes, I totally agree one could take Paul’s silence on an empty grave, and motivate a view that he didn’t care enough to have a well-formed opinion on the grave contents. Which, when I wrote the first question, is why I chose the verb “commit” in what his view would commit him to. Aside from whether he had interest, I’m trying to get to, if we sat him down and talked through it with him, what would fall out of his view – where’s the dang sarx, Paul?
Let me clarify. I’m not saying that Paul’s silence on the issue of the empty tomb can be interpreted in any way. My point is that if Paul believed that in the resurrection the sarx and the psyche dissolved (or whatever term applies) then he may have thought that questions about Jesus’ sarx were simply beside the point. Why seek the living among the dead? That kind of thing.
I agree to Paul it probably wouldn’t have been primarily concerned with the fate of Jesus’ physical shell, since Paul saw him as an angel who had been incarnated in human form.
But I also think that not caring, he was more than happy to go along with the consensus, which was almost certainly that Jesus was buried and rose from the dead. Which implies an empty grave.
if Paul believed that in the resurrection the sarx and the psyche dissolved (or whatever term applies) then he may have thought that questions about Jesus’ sarx were simply beside the point. Why seek the living among the dead? That kind of thing.
It’s a great point and totally agree. And, if he thought the sarx dissolved (or disappeared, or transformed), then it would imply no remains. Which would then lift me out of my quagmire.
And also, yes sorry for my shorthand above – agree that it’s not Paul’s silence itself suggesting any view (other than he didn’t say things he didn’t say), but rather the silence allows other, supporting arguments to do whatever work.
Robert said
Even the grammatical arguments are not really that difficult to follow, just ignore the Greek and follow his translations. There’s certainly room for philosophical slipperiness and vague meanings to justify some doubt and other conclusions, but I have yet to see a strong counterargument to heavily gird the Tabor-esque interpretation. It does have some influential supporters, but I haven’t seen a strong linguistic argument. It certainly may exist; but this is not an area of specialization for me.
Excellent, thank you. I didn’t want to unwittingly find myself in the analogy of the Pauline genitive discussion, unaware of some nuances in Koine around subject/verb/object agreement. If it is straightforward and works like the English translations, then I feel much more grounded. Appreciate it.
And yes, it’s the precisely that potential vagueness (both linguistic and philosophical) in the terms that is currently keeping me from shutting the door on the discontinuity view. Beyond sketches of spiritual bodies being (a) not sarx and (b) discontinuous with the sarx body, I similarly have not seen a full throttle argument for such a view on linguistic grounds.
My leanings at this point are that it’s probably the dissolution/transformation argument that has more going for it, linguistically (but this might be more due to absence of hearing a full throttle other side, esp since I cannot do the primary linguistic work) and conceptually. But I need to reread this stuff.
As if on cue, Tabor fires another shot:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
His focus on the reclothing metaphor in 2 Cor 5:1-5 is particularly of interest, as a rebuttal to sarx dissolution/transformation. Robert, does the underlying Greek read like the English of the NRSV?
“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling— if indeed, when we have taken it off we will not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.”
2 Corinthians 5:1-5 NRSV
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I appreciate this link from Tabor – it much more convincing, to me. than the links further above from Bart
I recognize that Tabor’s post is quite a bit longer than Barts 5 time weekly posts,
———-
One thing I think Tabor may have wrong is,
immortality on on earth and absence of births inside God’s Kingdom on earth ( speaking now more of Jesus’ view than Paul’s ), if that is a part of Tabor views
I just see these verses in Galatians meaning there should be no partiality in the current Christian community ( which I suppose Paul would believe should carry thru to God’s ultimate Kingdom on earth)
I think that aligns with Jesus preaching & sharing meals (not begging)
Both Paul and Jesus are preachers and use many colorful figures of speech, and hopefully most listeners then and now understand that . I do not take this verse of male/female to mean any literal transformation (using a term Tabor used often in post)
But I am not sure Tabor was implying transformations eliminate the sexes, do you get that impression?
It would be something to ask him
The 2 Cor 5:1-5 reference seems compatible to me with the view that the sarx and psyche dissolve (or whatever) and the pneuma is transformed. Galatians 3:28 is usually seen as a vision of the Kingdom where sex roles and class and ethnic divisions will vanish. Paul seems happy to retain these distinctions in his discussions about his churches’ current practice.
On the dissolution of the male/female distinction (Galatians), I’m coming from a position where I think bodily (pneumatic) resurrection is what Paul expected (putting aside what happens to the sarx). In that frame, just as there will not be a relation of marriage in the kingdom, nor will there be any distinction between Jew and gentile, I am of the (uninformed) opinion that the elimination of the male/female distinction is similarly meant by Paul to be “real”. In that interpretation, there would not be gender roles, but also there would not be reproductive couplings. How certain am I in that opinion? Not very.
2 Cor 1-5
I agree (in several English translations, noting that I cannot access the flavor of the Greek). It’s the slipperiness in the terms at play that allows for both interpretations. What I will say is that it seems very suggestive of the view that Paul does not think identity of the person or body inheres in its composition, but something else. I think that undercuts part of the reasoning of the linked paper a while back, which argued from contrasting pairs and grammar. If identity of ‘body’ doesn’t track the make-up the body, then the sarx left behind vs sarx dissolves/transforms debate is open. I still lean towards transforms, on preponderance of evidence, but I don’t feel super-secure in that position.
I think this deserves a different topic/thread
Hngerhman said
. . In that frame, just as there will not be a relation of marriage in the kingdom,
Bart seems to hold that opinion (I mean he seems to think Jesus and Paul held this opinion),
see recent post
** you do not have permission to see this link **
but I dont believe Jesus did,
whether Paul did or not I don’t know?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)