Solo

Paul's Corinthians passage on resurrection, though interpolated (1 Cor 15:3-11), nonetheless preserves his own view of resurrection which is at odds with the latter gospel view of Jesus "physicality" after his death. Paul specifically rejected the view, which probably originated from the group around Jesus, and Jesus himself, that "resurrection" (as a state of continuous bliss) was obtainable in this life (e.g. Lk 17:20-21, Mk 12:18-27).

Paul says in 1 Cr 15:50 that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable". He believs that the dead will rise in a mystical (imperishable) body, which, it appears from the context of his writing, is the blissful OBE, or nirvanic state, which he experiences during his seizures, and which he speculates will acquire permanence post-mortem.

Jiri

douglas

Well done.

I have a soft spot in my heart for people like Dr. Tabor who go out on a limb - take a risk in order to push the boundaries of what we believe to be true - only to be almost universally castigated by religious pseudo-intellectuals like Witherington. Tabor is pratically begging for a scholarly review of this information and appears totally open to the idea that he may be wrong. It has got to be almost career-suicide for him to take this position, but he has no choice but to follow the facts as he seems them.

By the way, did you notice in Tabor's blog where he mentioned that he's already gotten several death threats? This stuff is seriously inflammatory, and it doesn't take much to light a paranoid fundies already simmering fuse.

Diogenes the Cynic

Good piece. I was especially amused at Witherington's attempts to cite the Gospels as some kind of documentary evidence.

I also share the concern that the publicity from this show will provide evangelical religionists with a handy taget -- a "Piltdown man" which they can use as a tool for any other archaeological finds which might undermine the historicity of Biblical claims.

Malachi151

Well, I think that it is career suicide, for more reasons than one. It would be one thing if he "took a side", but he didn't do that, instead he interpreted the texts in a way that that was very favorable to the texts, giving them much more legitimacy than they are due, thus discrediting himself among critical scholars, and at the same time he's taking a position that is in opposition to the traditional view, thus he pleases no one here and treads on everyone's feet, and indeed simply makes academically unforgivably mistakes.

However, its absolutely absurd for any of this to rise to death threats and this only shows the true face of religion.

lee_merrill

I was especially amused at how the Gospel of Philip is talking about Philip's sister. Not to mention the problem with Hippolytus not talking about Mary Magdelene, nor even using the same name, while the professor from Carolina was insisting he was.

And the consensus of modern scholarship is that Luke was a pious forgery? only this is not the consensus of modern scholarship, the more we learn about history of that time, the more correspondences we find with the account.

And the gospels being the same, I will go out on a limb (since this is commendable!) and call scholars who hold this view singularly unperceptive.

Malachi151

Umm... noooo.... The obvious consensus on Luke, because the intro to Luke says so, is that Luke is not an eyewitness account.

Likewise, the core of Luke is Mark, and Mark is also acknowledged not to be an eyewitness account, and was never considered an eyewitness account.

No doubt "Luke" believed everything he wrote, the problem is that the beliefs of someone in 90 to 120 CE bare little reflection on reality in 30 CE, especially at this time and place, or do you want to start defending the writings of all the other people from this time and place, who talk about emperors ascending to heaven, armies riding in the clouds, and various other events?

lee_merrill

And the 3rd century Gospel of Philip is solid evidence?!

How, pray tell, may we make such decisions? The Philip gospel is reliable, the Luke gospel is not, it seems we got this turned on its head.

From here: "A single manuscript of the Gospel of Philip, in Coptic, was found in the Nag Hammadi library..."

Now really...

atheilicious

Chris, uh, I don't think you read carefully enough what BruceWane actually said...

Malachi151

I think most here agree that the Gospel of Phillip is also not good evidence. Neither source is solid evidence, but most here, including me, would agree that the Gospel of Luke should generally be seen as more reliable than even later traditions, however that would have to be discussed on a case by case issue, and I don't view any of these writings as very reliable at all.

lee_merrill

You might want to notify Dr. Tabor, then. They certainly were giving the impression that this book was, well, gospel, in the area of identifying Mary Magdelene. Why, then, with such shoddy scholarship, would you commend him as a bold and noble free-thinker?