EarlDoherty

I used the phrase “tortured exegesis” in regard to spin’s analysis of 1 Cor. 15. It was fully justified. Here is his latest:

(DCH, I will be as concise as I can and hope that none of it is chaff. However, I will sometimes say the same thing in a couple of different ways, to ensure that I am understood.)

No, no, no. This is egregiously wrong.

Verse 45 talks of two separate individuals. Adam and Christ. One is defined as physical. The other is defined as spiritual. The term “physical” is applied to Adam. The term “spiritual” is applied to Christ.

When in verse 46, Paul speaks of the spiritual not as coming first, but “the physical comes first, then the spiritual,” he is saying that Adam came first, then Christ came second. As I pointed out, the NEB’s “Observe…” makes it clear that it is referring back to verse 45, that the terms “physical” and “spiritual” therein refer respectively back to Adam and Christ. He is in no way saying that a physical Christ came first and then a spiritual Christ.

Besides, why would Paul appeal to the two figures Adam and Christ to illustrate a process that Christ himself underwent? If Christ was a human before he became a spirit, then those two states of Christ himself, the former being an historical one and verifiable, would have been sufficient to make his point about what happens at resurrection. (This, of course, is what I've kept saying all along.)

Verses 47-49 maintain the same separation between the two individuals, the two bodies, Adam and Christ, showing that verse 46 is also referring to the two individuals, not two states of Christ.

Why would Paul in v.46 be bothering to say that the physical came first and the spiritual second if he were referring to the two states of an allegedly incarnated Christ? Of course the physical would have come first, then the spiritual. And it would make nonsense of the first part of verse 46, “Observe that the spiritual does not come first…” Of course the spiritual does not come first. Who would maintain that, in the sense of Christ’s present spiritual state came before his incarnated physical state?

Nor can the “spiritual” in this verse refer to the pre-existent Christ, before his incarnation. It would be illogical for Paul to deny this, which he would be doing right in that verse.

So let’s go over what spin has said:

It is not “something” that is before the spiritual, it is someone. Adam. Paul is giving a sequence of two different “men”, the physical man and the spiritual man. This sequence idea is found back in 15:20-3 and in Romans 5:12f, one entity followed by another entity, the archetypal sinner followed by the redeemer of those sinners. That’s basic Pauline theology. Where would ‘the physical Jesus followed by the spiritual Christ’ idea fit into such a pattern?

No, it is not. Verse 44a, as I constantly reiterate, is part of 34-44a which is speaking of the process of the death and rising of those who doubt the feasibility of resurrection. It does not include Christ, who had no such doubt. To include Christ simply because he was, you claim, a human being on earth who was resurrected, is to read an arbitrary implication of him into the passage and beg the question.

Spin is still clinging to the erroneous understanding of 45b, that Christ “became” something, from some previous state. If it were so, there would be no logical parallel between 45a and 45b.

Yes, for Paul’s purposes in arguing for resurrection, he needs both categories, the physical and the spiritual. But he offers those categories in terms of two separate entities, Adam and Christ. He doesn’t require that one of them was previously the other. If he did, then all he needed was Christ, who was both, in the proper sequence.

Verse 44b simply itemizes those two separate categories, the physical body and the spiritual body: “If there is such a thing as an animal body, there is also a spiritual body.” I may say, for breakfast there is such a thing as ham and there is such a thing as eggs, and my ideal breakfast has to include both, and I may prefer to eat the ham before the eggs. But that isn’t saying that before the eggs were eggs they were ham.

Not the slightest hint of that in 1 Cor 15. According to Paul’s scheme of things, humans like the Corinthians are sown as physical bodies and raised as spiritual bodies, bodies like—respectively—Adam and Christ. Anything else is 19 centuries of tortured exegesis.

(Darn, 5200 words)

Earl Doherty

DCHindley

No insult. Just an honest offer, made after a positive criticism about how your observations could use a bit of fine tuning and pruning. On specific issues, I can probably identify why professional academics might not find your take on evidence convincing. You really can make your version of the hypothesis more palatable to academics by using interpretations of evidence that are generally accepted and not quite as over reaching as they seem to be (sublunar realms and all), then weaving them together into a reasonable explanation for the development of high christology.

It wasn't pulled from thin air, invented on the fly by a mad genius because folks needed something to believe in besides the emperor Tiberius. There were historical events in different parts of the empire that convereged to create it. This is where you should look next. What was or were the historical catalysts that caused it to precipitate from the soup of myths that circulated in those days. See, easy ...

Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Remember, water off the duck's back ...

DCH

GakuseiDon

Stephan, can you outline what the Marcionites held with regard to Jesus that was something like what Earl is suggesting, and also when that belief was held (e.g. First Century, Second Century)? Earl isn't suggesting a phantom that walked among men, which is what I understood (perhaps incorrectly) to what the Marcionites held.

judge

Delete...why bother

Iskander

Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor 15:47 , “Christ, the heavenly man”


http://christianbookshelf.org/calvin...15_35-50.htm#1

maryhelena

David, that is probably one of the best points made in this ‘debate’. The historical situation, on the ground so to speak, has to be considered. This whole “Paul” scenario did not just fall out of thin air - however much he might try his fancy tricks re visions...

Below is a quote from George Wells in regard to Earl’s theory. While one might find fault with Wells re specifics of his own theory - his attempt to incorporate some history, some flesh and blood reality, into his theory, is something that needs to be done if a mythicist position is ever going to go mainstream. And interestingly, in the quote, Wells concedes that Earl’s position could well have some relevance. So, maybe it’s a case of these two theories finding some common denominator and, hey presto, mythicism might just have a new lease on life....


So, basically, if one wants a theory re a heavenly, a spiritual, an intellectual, 'crucifixion' - then one also must have a corresponding earthly, flesh and blood, crucifixion.....First the earthly - and then the heavenly. First Adam and last Adam.....A dualism....(and no, none of this does anything for a historicist's position re JC....ie that gospel figure remains a literary, mythological construct)

maryhelena

Loved it - "fighting over the shadow of an ass" -

spin

I think there is value in much of this thread. Deep sixing it would be a disservice to this forum.

stephan huller

It's Celsus, the guy who wrote for Ed Sullivan years ago.

spin

After hammering home the progress from one state to the other, in v.45 the text is actually continuing its discussion of the two states/bodies, by giving the first person to have had each.

This progress has already been shown. He doesn't need to repeat it after the third time.

He doesn't state that it is christ: it is implied. He is actually appealing to the notion of "Adam", the initial exemplar of the body, now two Adams, the first and the last, of the physical and the spiritual. The readers know Adam, but they haven't grasped the notion of resurrection for no-one has come back to tell the tale, so the text points to christ as the first raised to the spiritual body, a new Adam.

I have pointed out that v.45 does not exclude Adam from the second body, as it does not exclude christ from the first body. We should take the text's insistent relation between the two bodies as still relevant to the exemplars of each. Verse 46 tells us you don't have one without the other.

Not two states of christ, but two states of anyone, christ and Adam included.

Verse 46 refers to the progress mentioned in 42b-44a. It goes one way. And it rules out the notion of a spiritual christ before his crucifixion.

Verse 46 picks up the terms "physical" and "spiritual" from v.44, where they refer to the body, ie "something", not "someone". The discussion Paul is engaged in is "How are the dead raised? What kind of body do they come?"

The text mentions the archetypes of the two bodies. It is the body that is important here. That is the topic.

It has just been explained in 42b-44 and 46. 1. physical body, 2. spiritual body. The text makes it clear and simple. Two bodies linked by death and resurrection.

Repeating things enough doesn't make them right. It makes them familiar and comfortable. This is one argument by Paul. There is no artificial break in the text, despite some translators' actions. I have already pointed to a facsimile of the text in Codex Sinaiticus, that shows no break whatsoever. The text doesn't allow such a break. 44a and 44b share substantial language, language picked up in v.46. The separation between 35-44a and 44b-49 is not to be found in the text. It is artificial.

We have the one discourse which develops, building on what comes before. 44b reiterates the fact that there are two bodies then indicates they are linked. Verse 46 tells us that they are also ordered: the physical comes before the spiritual.

Christ was not the audience.

My claim is based on Pauline statements. He was a man. He was born. He was under the law. He was a suitable sacrifice for those under the law.

The parallel is based on the first to have had a physical body and a physical body.

Yup. They are the first in each category.

Christ wasn't the first physical body. It is the firstness of christ to become a spiritual body that is important. There are no other spiritual body as yet. And Paul is reassuring his audience that as christ has made it, so will everyone. As through the first Adam came human life, through the second will come spiritual life.

Paul repeated the notion of christ being raised several times in 1 Cor 15. He states that what is sown a physical body will be raised a spiritual body. Christ was raised and became a spiritual body. The implication that he was previously a physical body is inevitable.

The text doesn't say that the only ones raised are the Corinthians.

Paul has indicated that christ was human. If he weren't then Paul's notion of christ's sacrifice would be meaningless and the story of his resurrection would be inconsequential.