I recently posted this in a reply to le pede in a great discussion. I thought it worthwhile to post to the board as a new topic.

I have often heard it argued that Paul believed ONLY in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, whereas the Gospel Writers ONLY believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus. Thus, the argument goes, there is a great evolution of Christology from Paul to the Gospels.

This is patently false and rejected, as far as I know, by most New Testament scholars. Here is why:

Paul was talking about a bodily resurrection. It was not as simple as Jesus's body being restored to its original form. That would have been no different than the raising of Lazarus. The resurrection of Jesus involved much more than a resuscitated corpse. No, Paul was excited because it was the raising of a body and its transformation into something new.

The Pharisees were the largest and most influential sect of Judaism during New Testament times. They originated as a separate group shortly after the times of the Maccabees and before 135 BCE were established in Judaism. The proximity to the Maccabee revolt is important because it was at that time that the idea of a bodily resurrection entered into Jewish thought. It was a nationalist revolt against foreign rulers with young men dying as martyrs in defense of their view of the law of God. Because God was just, the Jews at the time began to believe that God would resurrect them.

The Pharisee's theology was founded during this time on the entire Canon of the O.T., including the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. They believed in angels, the immortality of the soul, and, most importantly, the bodily resurrection of the dead. After the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, the Pharisees alone survived and were the forerunners of Orthodox Judaism.

Paul was a Pharisee prior to his conversion and he retained several of his former sect's beliefs when he converted to Cristianity. He believed in angels, the immortality of the soul and, most importantly, the bodily resurrection of the dead. The reason he retained his belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead after his conversion to Christianity is because it had been confirmed to him by the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection. For Paul, Jesus's resurrection was an example of the resurrection to come for all Christians. "And God both raised up the dead and will raise us up by His power." 1 Cor. 6:14. "In 1 Corinthians 6:14 it becomes abundantly clear that resurrection involves a body. Paul is making a point here about present ethics, but ethics includes bodily conduct here and now because the body has a place in the eschatological future of the believer. A purely spiritual resurrection is out of the question, and in any case it is not at all clear that Paul, being an ancient person, would have seen ‘spirit' as nonmaterial. It is far more likely that he saw it simply as a different sort of stuff." Prof. Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest, at 148.

As I said earlier, Paul considered the bodily resurrection of Jesus to be an example of what would happen to all believers. That is, whether already dead or alive when Jesus returns, Jesus will "transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to his glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." Phillipians 3:21. "For the ‘spiritual body' worn by the risen Lord is the prototype for his people, who are to share his resurrection and have their present bodies of humiliation transmuted into the likeness of his body of Glory." F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, at 114.

This is the subject of 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus's resurrection informs us about our own future resurrection. And it clearly involves the transformation of the human body into a new type of body. It is not solely a spiritual event as we conceive of spirits today. Paul uses the Greek word soma in his discussion of the resurrection in this chapter. Soma means the physical body, not the soul. Prof. Robert H. Grundy, The Essentially Physical View of Jesus' Resurrection According to the New Testament, at 5. Also important to this discussion is Paul's linking of the grave to the resurrection. "Paul's juxtaposing Jesus' burial and resurrection, which literally means ‘raising,' entails that his resurrection means the raising of his buried body." Id. at 4.

Paul is clear that it is the body that is raised and transformed. "The body is sown in corruption, IT is raised in incorruption. 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. 15:42-44. Paul does not say that the body dies and only the spirit is raised. He is saying that the body dies, and IT is raised in a transformed state. "The Pauline image stresses the transormation of a living, changing organism." Kyle A. Pasewark, Review of ‘The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity,' The Christian Century.

Despite the contention that there is a difference between Paul's view and the gospels' view, this view is quite compatible with the resurrection Jesus portrayed in the Gospels. The Gospels portray the risen Jesus as having a physical body. He was able to touch and be touched. He ate and drank with the disciples. He was, however, able to do things natural bodies are. He could appear from nowhere and ascended into the sky. His new body retained physical attributes, but had been transformed into something much more. As Dr. Luke T. Johnson describes it, the risen Christ was a "glorified body, completely physical able to be seen and touched, but mysterious and somehow different from an early body."

Even more important Paul makes it clear that he is recounting a tradition of a bodily resurrection which was passed along to him by others. Paul himself discusses how he spent 15 days with Peter, and also saw James while he was in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars believe that Paul utilizes formulated church traditions preexisting his conversion experience. See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the people of God, at 368 ("Paul is able to cite and rely on church tradition about Christ's death and resurrection and his appearances to various persons."). 1 Cor. 15:1-7 reveals that Paul founded the church in Corinth on creeds and tradition he had received from others. "I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received in which you stand, by which also you are saved if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." The introductory phrase, "I delivered to you first of all that which I also received" is a typical Rabbinc saying used to introduce information one has received from others. Scholars also say that Phil. 2:6-11 and Col. 1:15-20 are expressed in creedal form, indicating that they had been passed down to Paul from others.

So, not only did Paul believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (like the Gospels), but he was passing along a tradition already established in the church.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited February 07, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited February 07, 2001).]

Actually, I would still suggest that Paul's resurrection is different from the gospels' concept. I was sure to point out when I used the loaded term "spiritual" that I put in parentheses "pneumatic." Because I agree that the English "spirit" can be misleading--I was just using what the English translations have given. You do not need to prove to me that a "body" (soma) is different than a "soul" (zosa) to Paul, that's an assumption that I work with. My argument was that Paul's resurrection was different that of the gospels.
In response to your point about Jesus' post-resurrection events, Jesus' body could walk on water and have "ghost-like" qualities (they even think Jesus is a ghost!) to the gospels before his resurrection, so I don't think that the supernatural functions of Jesus' body after the resurrection are a conclusive indication that Jesus' body in the gospels is some kind of "spiritual body." Also, why did Jesus have nail prints in his hands? I don't think that Christian theology would suggest that someone who died by impaling would have a hole in his or her new spiritual body, would it?

When our English translations say that Jesus became a "spiritual body," it might not set off a whole lot of lights in our head. But when an ancient person says that the resurrected will be given a pneumatic body that sets of all kinds of alarms in a classicist's head. The word pneuma is a term loaded with meaning, and "what" pneuma is has been written about extensively by classical writers. Pneuma also means breath, so that should give one a clue as to the nature of this substance (which is an ancient concept). Apparently, to the ancients, pneuma was an invisible substance--some have suggested a mixture of air and fire or ether, but none of the ancient descriptions that I have come accross of pneuma can be remotely compared to Jesus' body in the gospels.

Finally, Paul says in 1 Cor 15:45, that the "last Adam has become a life giving spirit (pneuma)..." As a matter of fact, he uses that word throughout 1 Corinthians to describe the resurrected "bodies." And btw, I'm not quite sure about your assertion that soma refers to 'the physical body' only. In I Cor. 15:40, it says, "there are also heavenly bodies (somata epourania)" then he goes into a discussion about the celestial "bodies." And soma can be a reference to the sun, moon, stars (heavenly bodies) according to my lexicon. But I do realize that pneuma to the ancients was in fact a physical entity. But it was nothing like what is described in the gospels.

And we also need to compare the gospels with Paul:
"But they were frightened and thought they were seeing a spirit (pneuma!)....
And he said to them, 'See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit (pneuma!) does not have flesh and bones as you see I have'..." (Lk. 24:36-37).

Here we have what appears to be Jesus denying that he is pneuma, when Paul specifically says he is pneuma (1 Cor 15:45). Another thing that Paul notes is that "flesh (sarx) and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God..." (1 Cor. 15:50). But as you recall, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus says that he has flesh (sarx).

Since I tend to adopt a plain-sense reading of the text, I would conclude that Paul's concept of Jesus' resurrection was pneumatic, whereas this "fleshy" one developed later. This leads me to conclude that there are two different traditions about Jesus' resurrection and that Paul's was the one closest to the original rumors (or fact if you like) of Jesus' resurrection.

Le pede:
My argument was that Paul's resurrection was different that of the gospels.

SecWebLurker: And this argument is, of course, dead from the start. Why? Because the Gospels don't describe a RESURRECTION. They describe resurrection appearances. Paul gives us the closest account of what a resurrection entails, and that can easilly be construed in terms of typical Pharisaic belief in bodily resurrection. The Gospels however, only speak of Jesus' subsequent appearances.

If the appearances to Paul AND his description of the resurrection body were completely immaterial, this would not at all contradict the record of the Gospels. (Furthermore, EVEN IF, on top of that, the appearances recorded in the *Gospels* Spoke of nothing but an immaterial ghost-like Jesus, This STILL would not contradict the empty tomb account or prove that the Resurrection was not a transformation of the body.) As Witherington writes:

"Observe carefully what Paul says about the timing. The resurrection took place on a very specific occasion--on the third day after burial--but the appearances took place on a variety of occasions to various people in various locations. In short, the resurrection is not the same as the appearances of the risen Lord, never mind subjective visions of the risen Lord. Technically, no one saw or claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead, the later apocryphal Gospels notwithstanding. What the disciples saw were the results of this event: (1) an empty tomb and then (2) a risen Lord."[John D. Crossan and William L. Craig, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" (Michigan: Baker Books, 1998) p. 134.]

Le pede: In response to your point about Jesus' post-resurrection events, Jesus' body could walk on water and have "ghost-like" qualities (they even think Jesus is a ghost!) to the gospels before his resurrection, so I don't think that the supernatural functions of Jesus' body after the resurrection are a conclusive indication that Jesus' body in the gospels is some kind of "spiritual body."

SecWebLurker: They don't think Jesus is a ghost because he actually has "ghost-like" qualities, but because he is performing supernatural acts with which they are unfamiliar. These acts though, are on a recognizably different scale after he rises from the dead - He is popping up all over the place, going through doors, ascending to heaven, etc. Anyway, its not necessary to make an argument showing any sort of continuity between the resurrection APPEARANCE to Paul or his description of THE actual resurrection, and the APPEARANCES to the apostles. All that the Christian need maintain is that Jesus' resurrection *itself* was bodily in the sense that, after it occured, there was no corpse lying behind - hence the empty tomb in the Gospel accounts and Paul's description of a bodily resurrection.

Le Pede: Also, why did Jesus have nail prints in his hands? I don't think that Christian theology would suggest that someone who died by impaling would have a hole in his or her new spiritual body, would it?

SecWebLurker: Probably so the disciples would recognize Him, which they obviously had a hard time doing at first. But we don't hear that Jesus had holes in his hands in ALL of the appearance accounts in the Gospels at all. So we need not assume that all of the other Gospel appearance accounts record the same type of appearance.

Le Pede: When our English translations say that Jesus became a "spiritual body," it might not set off a whole lot of lights in our head. But when an ancient person says that the resurrected will be given a pneumatic body that sets of all kinds of alarms in a classicist's head. The word pneuma is a term loaded with meaning, and "what" pneuma is has been written about extensively by classical writers. Pneuma also means breath, so that should give one a clue as to the nature of this substance (which is an ancient concept). Apparently, to the ancients, pneuma was an invisible substance--some have suggested a mixture of air and fire or ether, but none of the ancient descriptions that I have come accross of pneuma can be remotely compared to Jesus' body in the gospels.

SecWebLurker: Again, its not necessary to speculate on what substance Jesus body actually consisted of in each appearance. The Christian maintains that His body is of a substance, not immaterial, and that His prior body, which was mortal and physical, has been transformed into this present glorified immortal existence. But to directly address your comments on "pneuma", as Gundry writes, "a pneumatikon soma [spiritual body]…is a physical body renovated by the Spirit." [Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) p. 165-166.]

And N.T. Wright states, "…when he [Paul] speaks of the future resurrection body as a 'spiritual body,' he does not mean, as has often been suggested, a 'nonphysical' body. To say that is to allow into the argument a Hellenistic worldview that is quite out of place in this most Jewish of chapters. He is contrasting the present body, which is a soma psychikon, with the future body, with the future body, which is a soma pneumatikon. Soma means "body," but what do the two adjectives mean? Here the translations are often quite unhelpful, particularly RSV and NRSV with their misleading rendering of 'physical body' and 'spiritual body.' Since psyche, from which psychikon is derived, is regularly translated 'soul,' we might as well have assumed that Paul thought that the present body too was nonphysical! Since that is clearly out of the question, we are right to take both phrases to refer to an actual physical body, animated by 'soul' on the one hand and 'spirit'--clearly God's spirit--on the other. (We may compare Romans 8:10f., where God's Spirit is the agent in the resurrection of Christians.) The present body, Paul is saying, is "a [physical] body animated by 'soul'"; the future body is "a [transformed physical] body animated by God's Spirit.""[N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus" (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999) p.144.]

The word "spiritual" (pneumatikos) is used here in the same sense as it is used in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15:

"The natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual (pneumatikos) man judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one."

Thus, a natural man is not simply a physical man, which is redundant, but "a man orientated towards human nature, and a spiritual man is not an immaterial man, which is a contradiction in terms but "a man orientated towards the Spirit."

Le Pede: Finally, Paul says in 1 Cor 15:45, that the "last Adam has become a life giving spirit (pneuma)..." As a matter of fact, he uses that word throughout 1 Corinthians to describe the resurrected "bodies."

SecWebLurker: Right, see above.

Le Pede: And btw, I'm not quite sure about your assertion that soma refers to 'the physical body' only.

SecWebLurker:
See Gundry's "Soma in Biblical Theology". He refutes the idea that the 'soma' can be conceived of as a new spiritual substance and concludes that:

"The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with 'flesh' in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives and acts in the world. It becomes the base of operations for sin in the unbeliever, for the Holy Spirit in the believer. Barring prior occurrence of the Parousia, the soma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer. But it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worth and necessity to wholeness of human being, and the reason for its sanctification now."[Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) p. 50.]

"…its ['soma'] use is designed to call attention to the physical object which is the body of the person rather than the whole personality."[Ibid. 80]

James D.G. Dunn concludes his study of Paul's description of the resurrection body:

"To sum up, then, soma expresses for Paul the character of created humankind-that is, as embodied existence."[James D. G. Dunn, "The Theology of Paul the Apostle" (Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998) p.61]

Le Pede: In I Cor. 15:40, it says, "there are also heavenly bodies (somata epourania)" then he goes into a discussion about the celestial "bodies." And soma can be a reference to the sun, moon, stars (heavenly bodies) according to my lexicon.

SecWebLurker: Right, all physical bodies.

Le Pede: But I do realize that pneuma to the ancients was in fact a physical entity. But it was nothing like what is described in the gospels.

SecWebLurker: Maybe because you're unclear on how Paul's using the term. He uses "spiritual body" in the sense of a body animated by the spirit, as stated above.

Le Pede: And we also need to compare the gospels with Paul:
"But they were frightened and thought they were seeing a spirit (pneuma!)....
And he said to them, 'See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit (pneuma!) does not have flesh and bones as you see I have'..." (Lk. 24:36-37).

Here we have what appears to be Jesus denying that he is pneuma, when Paul specifically says he is pneuma (1 Cor 15:45). Another thing that Paul notes is that "flesh (sarx) and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God..." (1 Cor. 15:50). But as you recall, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus says that he has flesh (sarx).

SecWebLurker: See above on your misunderstandings concerning the pneumatikos soma(Paul of course, NEVER says Jesus is a "pneuma"!). And as far as "flesh and blood", its a semetic idiom that denotes the mortal nature of man.

So Craig: "Commentators are agreed that 'flesh and blood' is a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature. It is found in Matt 16.17; Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12; Heb 2.14; see also Sir 14.18 and the references in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, eds., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch (5th ed., 6 vols.; München: C. H. Beck, 1969), 1: 730-1, 753. The Semitic word pair...is first attested in Eccelesiasticus 14.18; 17.31 and occurs frequently in Rabbinic texts, especially Rabbinic parables. Elsewhere Paul also employs the expression 'flesh and blood' to mean simply 'people' or 'mortal creatures' (Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12). Therefore, Paul is not talking about anatomy here; rather he means that mortal human beings cannot enter into God's eternal kingdom: therefore, they must become imperishable (cf. v 53). This imperishability does not connote immateriality or unextendedness; on the contrary Paul's doctrine of the world to come is that our resurrection bodies will be part of, so to speak, a resurrected creation (Rom 8.18-23). The universe will be delivered from sin and decay, not materiality, and our bodies wil1 be part of that universe." [William L. Craig,"The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980.]

Similarly, Blomberg writes:

"…'flesh and blood' was a standard Semitic idiom for 'frail, mortal existence'; if Paul were denying the physical nature of the resurrection body he would more probably have used the common idiom 'flesh and bones'."[Craig L. Blomberg, "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"(England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987) p. 109]

And N.T. Wright:

"The present physicality in all its transience, its decay and its subjection to weakness, sickness, and death, is not to go on and on forever; that is what he means by saying 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' For Paul 'flesh and blood' does not mean 'physicality' per se but the corruptible and decaying present state of our physicality. What is required is what we might call a 'noncorruptible physicality': the dead will be raised 'incorruptible' (v. 52), and we--that is, those who are left alive until the great day--will be changed."[N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus" (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999) p.143.]

See also Kistemaker's New Testament Commentary volume on 1 Corinthians in the discussion of this verse and the footnote on pp 580-1

Le Pede: Since I tend to adopt a plain-sense reading of the text, I would conclude that Paul's concept of Jesus' resurrection was pneumatic, whereas this "fleshy" one developed later. This leads me to conclude that there are two different traditions about Jesus' resurrection and that Paul's was the one closest to the original rumors (or fact if you like) of Jesus' resurrection.

SecWebLurker: I suggest you move past a plain-sense reading and start taking into account the historical context of Pharisaic resurrection belief, idiomatic expressions of the day, and the parallelism Paul himself employs to elucidate the nature of the "soma". As Crossan admits, "For Paul, in any case, bodily resurrection is the only way that Jesus' continued presence can be expressed…"[Crossan, John D., "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography"(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) p. 165.]

SecWebLurker




[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited February 08, 2001).]

Thank you SecWebLurker, you saved me some time. Great work.

Please help me understand why the distinction is important. I understand why two branches of Christianity might debate the dogma behind this debate - but it seem akin to arguing over which species of snake Moses' staff turned into.

Smugg,

It has important theological implications, which, as you note, would generally be a matter of internal church debate.

However, many skeptics believe that the alleged difference demonstrates that the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels evolved theologically to a great extent from what it originally was in the early Christian community.

By demonstrating that the image of Jesus' resurrection was relatively stable over that same time frame, and that, indeed, the earliest Christians DID believe in a bodily, rather than spiritual, resurrection, demonstrates that the Gospels preserved the earliest Christian view on such matters.

I also think it is important because Paul's belief in the physical resurrection confirms his Pharisee background and places him thorougly in Jewish thought.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited February 08, 2001).]

FYI - Lesser spotted cobra (a little known fact).

Boro Nut

Layman: Thank you SecWebLurker, you saved me some time. Great work.

SecWebLurker: No problem.

smugg: Please help me understand why the distinction is important. I understand why two branches of Christianity might debate the dogma behind this debate - but it seem akin to arguing over which species of snake Moses' staff turned into.

SecWebLurker: In addition to what Layman said, some skeptics, AND even some theologians, prefer to speak of Paul's "spiritual resurrection" because they think it is easier to pass off as a subjective visionary/hallucinatory experience. However, they aren't really on good ground here either as, firstly, the accounts of Paul's conversion clearly involve extra-mental phenomena, and secondly, as Raymond Brown notes:

"Since in Paul's understanding Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time, a purely internal vision seems to be ruled out."[Raymond E. Brown, "An Introduction to the New Testament" (New York: Doubleday, 1997)p. 535]

SecWebLurker

I think that the people that respond to my posts do not completely understand my argument. I don't understand why there is all of this proof that Paul's resurrected Jesus had a body. My dispute is not over whether or not Paul's Jesus had a body (something physical), but over whether or not the body was "fleshy" or "pneumatic." And yes, SecWebLurker, Paul does say that "the last Adam" has become a life-giving "pneuma," whereas Luke's Jesus denies the fact that he is pneuma. Firstly, assuming that William Craig is right about his theory that flesh and blood, can be a metaphor for mortality (and that is a gracious assumption), doesn't change the fact that "flesh and blood" are a part of the metaphor for human existence.

Additionally, we have to take Paul's usage of "flesh and blood," not based on what the words "flesh and blood" can mean in a philosophical sense, but what he means in the context of 1 Corinthians 15. And I hope it is clear to everyone that 1 Corinthians 15:35 to the end involves a description of the physical body of the resurrection in direct response to the question of "in what body will they come?" (1 Cor 15:35). Paul specifically contrasts a pneumatic body with the idea of "flesh and blood." Actually SecWebLurker quoted someone that I think I agree with. Robert Gundry seems to be arguing that pneuma was actually a part of the physical world and a part of human existence! And this is true. From all of the ancient writings I have consulted, the ancients did think that pneuma was a part of the human composition. Paul's usage of "pneuma" (a physical substance, which ancients believed was a part of human makeup) makes it even more clear that Paul is discussing the physical nature of the resurrected body; and so the use of "flesh and blood" is a reference to the substance of the resurrected body, not "human nature" or some other theological concept.

So I do understand the nature of a pneumatic body. A pneumatic body, is a body made of pneuma with the "flesh and blood" being shed. Paul argues that the new resurrected body will be changed into a body of pneuma. And the definition of what pneuma is, is described throughout antiquity. No, the new resurrected body is not just "animated" by the pneuma, but is compsed of pneuma. The gospel writers give a different picture--that Jesus' resurrected body is made of flesh and bones and Luke makes a point of saying that it is NOT "pneuma."

Lastly, it is important to note that using Paul's alleged Phariseical beliefs has a fatal flaw. He was a Pharisee, yet changed the entire theology to create a different religion. It isn't too hard to think that he made some alterations in the Phariseical tradition of the resurrection (btw, Pharisees disagreed on the physical nature of the resurrected bodies).

There is (if anyone didn't know it yet) an interesting debate transcript of this very topic, right here on infidels.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er_horner.html