The point is that Paul mentions what happens to the corpse. Its an important part of the story. If its just an apotheosis it doesn’t matter what happens to the body.
But if you read Paul’s account of the Resurrection Body in 1 Cor you see that he shared some ideas with Middle-Platonism and the Stoics. The body consisted of the sarx, the “flesh”, the psyche, or nous, the “mind”, and the pneuma, the “spirit”. These weren’t three separate substances; the human body was a continuum made of increasingly finer stuff. In the resurrection the sarx and the psyche would melt away and the pneuma would be transformed into the resurrection body. So Paul definitely believed in a bodily resurrection. He simply had a view of the body similar to other intellectuals of his day. I’ve often wondered just how concerned Paul would have been with the fate of Jesus’ fleshly corpse given these views.
On the other hand the idea of an Empty Tomb sprang from a belief in a fleshly resuscitation. It seems awfully alien and arcane to modern sensibilities but there is a difference between the expectation that it was the sarx rather than the pneuma that was transformed. It probably hints at later proto-docetic controversies.
If anyone reading this is truly interested in delving deeper in these matters see
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and/or
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Martin is a well regarded NT scholar but Engberg-Pedersen is a classicist and specialist on Greek philosophy. I would conclude by pointing out that once we realize how thoroughly Hellenized was Second Temple Judaism and abandon a fanciful quest for a “pure” Judaism unsullied by Greek philosophy entire worlds of understanding open up.
Whether the body was raised as it was or raised transformed is not the relevant point here – the point is that Paul didn’t believe the body remained where it was buried. He believed in the empty tomb/memorial/burial-place.
“I would conclude by pointing out that once we realize how thoroughly Hellenized was Second Temple Judaism and abandon a fanciful quest for a “pure” Judaism unsullied by Greek philosophy entire worlds of understanding open up.”
Then we shouldn’t demand that the greek philosophical ideas used for the trinity be necessarily later additions.
Paul didn’t believe the body remained where it was buried. He believed in the empty tomb/memorial/burial-place.
And you base this statement on what? Where does Paul indicate he believed in a fleshly resurrection? It is inconsistent with his views in 1 Cor, which I guess I wasted my time pointing out.
Then we shouldn’t demand that the greek philosophical ideas used for the trinity be necessarily later additions.
A complete non-sequitur. Paul shared views with other educated literate thinkers of his day. The doctrine of the trinity developed over time. I don’t see the association you’re making.
**”And you base this statement on what? Where does Paul indicate he believed in a fleshly resurrection? It is inconsistent with his views in 1 Cor, which I guess I wasted my time pointing out.”**
Based on 1 Cor 15. Paul believes the body is transformed into a new one – he does not believe we leave the old body and enter a new one.
1 Cor 15:42-44 “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable it is raised imperishable it is sown in dishonor it is raised in glory it is sown in weakness it is raised in power it is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body.”
1 Cor 15:37-38 “When you sow you do not plant the body that will be but just a seed perhaps of wheat or of something else But God gives it a body as he has determined and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.” ie the seed that is sown is the earthly body which grows into the heavenly body. The seed is not left behind when the wheat grows. It becomes the wheat.
“We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed … the dead will be raised/awakened imperishable, and we will be changed.” – ie we wont all sleep so wont all need to be re-‘awakened’. But ‘we’ will be “changed”. Not “put in a new body”.
1 Cor 15:20 “But Christ has indeed been awakened from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” – ie christ fell asleep in a perishable body but was reawakened in one transformed to be imperishable. And then was seen by Peter.
1 Cor 15:53 “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.” ie when the perishable has clothed itself in the imperishable it gets up and leaves the memorial/tomb/burial-place.
Based on 1 Cor 15. Paul believes the body is transformed into a new one – he does not believe we leave the old body and enter a new one.
I agree 100%! The problem is what Paul meant by the “body”. Paul shared some ideas common to intellectuals of his day, ideas similar to those of Middle-Platonic and Stoic thought. One of those ideas is that the body exists on a continuum of “stuff”, from the coarser material sarx, usually translated as “flesh”, to the finer material psyche (or nous), usually translated “mind”, to the finest of all, the material pneuma, usually translated as “spirit”.
Note that the flesh, mind and spirit are material. The material body/immaterial spirit binary is not what we’re talking about here. That idea, which we inherit, came later from Neo-Platonism and scholasticism. For Paul, in the resurrection , the pneuma is transformed into the resurrection body. The sarx and the psyche dissolve, being too coarse to make the transition. Consult a Greek lexicon. Note the different words being used for “material” and “spiritual” in 1 Cor 15. The translators of the Bible over the centuries have mostly assumed the later binary, dependent as they were on scholasticism for their interpretation.
Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. He just had a different view of the body than we do. But for heaven’s sake don’t just read my clumsy attempt at an explanation. Read Martin and Engberg-Pedersen.
**””That idea, which we inherit, came later from Neo-Platonism and scholasticism.”**
Really? how much later?
Matthew 27:59 “and having taken the body (soma) Joseph wrapped it in a linen cloth”
Mark 15:43 “he went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body (soma) of Jesus”
Luke 24:3 “having entered however they did not find the body (soma) of Lord Jesus”
John 20:12 “she saw two angels in white seated where the body (soma) of Jesus had been”
How come the concept of ‘body’ (soma) used by these contemporaries of Paul are easily understood by any modern reader? Are they not like Paul highly educated, elite of the elite? Why do we need books on ancient philosophy to understand Paul’s use of ‘soma’ but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s is completely ordinary and easily understood?
How about we realize that Paul had the same ordinary understanding of ‘body’ which any modern reader would agree with and 1 Cor 15 is Paul describing how this body gets transformed to an immortal one at the resurrection. And reach the completely justified conclusion that Paul believed in the empty tomb.
How about we realize…
That we should approach the texts without the baggage of a previously assumed ideological position? That these authors should be interpreted within the intellectual and cultural milieu in which they lived and thought? That these authors don’t all have the same viewpoint? That because of these factors much of this stuff is not easy to understand?
Matthew Mark Luke and John were all part of the intellectual and cultural milieu of Paul. Is there any reason to think Paul had a different understanding of ‘body (soma)’ than his contemporaries Matthew Mark Luke and John?
Well judging by their views of the resurrection I would say, yes. Matthew and Luke regard the resurrection as a resuscitation. Paul does not, as I have explained. I think Robert you are correct that in many ways Mark is a transitional work. I think he still views the resurrection as an apotheosis. I have speculated that he uses the Empty Tomb as an aniconic image of the resurrection. They don’t all have the same view.
“Paul does not, as I have explained.”
But you haven’t explained you have just claimed. You have claimed Paul definitely believed in a bodily resurrection but that he had an ancient view of ‘body’ which can be difficult for modern readers to understand.
But you haven’t explained why you think Paul would have a different understanding of ‘body’ than Matthew Mark Luke and John? Are they not “educated literate thinkers of his day”? Does he have a different understanding of ‘bread’ or ‘wine’ or ‘water’ or ‘fish’? why do you think he would have a different understanding of ‘body’?
All we can do is extrapolate from the text. Paul depicts the resurrection differently than do the evangelists. The “why?” you want is unanswerable. You would need a level of access to the thoughts of these writers that we can never have. Why am I an atheist? I can describe the steps that led me to that conclusion but I can’t give you a “Why?”. If I can’t always determine my own motivations how could I determine the motivations of an author separated from me by millennia and at least two profound revolutions in thinking?
“All we can do is extrapolate from the text. Paul depicts the resurrection differently than do the evangelists.”
Well thats what we’re trying to decide. Paul uses the very same word as the 4 gospel writers to describe the “risen” Jesus. Extrapolating from the text in what way is Paul depicting the resurrection differently?
” If I can’t always determine my own motivations how could I determine the motivations of an author separated from me by millennia and at least two profound revolutions in thinking?”
I’m not asking you to determine Paul’s motivations – I’m asking why you are of the opinion that Paul has a different understanding of “body” than his contemporaries Matthew Mark Luke and John. Do you have any reason for holding that opinion?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)