Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 03-23-2004, 11:41 PM

Whether first century Christians could have used resurrection language to refer to something spiritual has been a subject of debate for some time (and recently brought up by luvluv). Here are some of the online articles that address the issue:

Richard Carrier: Could the Original Gospel Have Been of a Spiritual Rather Than a Physical Resurrection?

David Friedman: Does 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 Teach a Physical or a Spiritual Resurrection?

Richard Carrier: Craig's Empty Tomb and Habermas on the Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus

Bill Craig: The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

Tektonics: Is a Resurrection Body Physical?

Chris Price: Paul's Belief in a Bodily Resurrection

So... what's your opinion?

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 03-24-2004, 01:18 AM

Is this a binary choice? I have not read (or reread) all of the links yet, but I was reading this from NT Wright from a link on the Wright thread:

Wrignt: The Historical Options

Quote:

We could say, as historically minded readers of these texts, that Matthew, Luke and John (Mark's eight-verse ending does not, of course bring the risen Jesus on stage) have acquired, from Paul and the other early Christians, a particular theology of resurrected humanity: of human bodies being neither abandoned to rot, nor yet resuscitated into the identical sort of condition they were in before, but somehow transformed, so that they are puzzlingly the same and yet different. This 'transphysicality' would represent a theological view of new humanity for which Jewish belief in resurrection had in some ways prepared the ground, but which goes beyond anything we find in non-Christian Jewish texts of the period. As it stands, it is without historical precedent.

As I recall from Paul, Paul believes that the resurrected body will be of a different substance from the gross flesh and bones. Can this different substance be identified as physical? Perhaps it is ectoplasm, as some stories of the resurrected Jesus have him walking through walls. Maybe it is a Platonic form in a higher sphere. Why should we assume that it is physical?

It seems that we are imposing our own scientific materialist view of matter back on the first century (unless those texts were really written by second century gnostics, of course) and we think that things are either physical or not, in which case they may be imaginary or halluciations.

I assume that we are only concerned here with what the early Jews and Christians meant by resurrection. If we do accept our modern worldview, we know that resurrections don't ordinarily happen.

the fonz · 03-24-2004, 09:34 AM

To quote Richard Carrier from an e-mail conversation he and I had.

Quote:

I am composing a definitive chapter on my theory of resurrection for a book by Prometheus Press, so I am much embroiled in this issue at present. Note that in my refinement of the theory I think it is a red herring to hinge the issue on physicality--I am fairly sure now the earliest Christians did believe Jesus got a *new* physical body after death, just not one made of flesh and blood (or any earthly material). This seems to be agreed by most scholars now. The question, then, is simply whether this new body is something entirely new, or whether it is the "transformed" state of the old body, i.e. whether this belief entails an empty tomb or is compatible with a rotting body being left behind. I think a good case can be made for the latter, but this requires a lot of evidence to be marshaled and organized, and that is what I am up to now.

When the book comes out, I will announce this, and the new nuances of my theory, on every page of my Resurrection essay.

...I now think it is a mistake to draw so narrow a dichotomy. A "spiritual" body can still be "physical" in some sense (i.e. have location, occupy a volume, and be capable of touching stuff, etc...think Casper the Ghost: no body, yet he could knock things over, open doors, be seen, make facial expressions, etc.). So it only creates confusion to draw the line as if between physical and nonphysical. That's the wrong line. I know that now, but didn't when I wrote "Why I Don't..." so I still leave some confusion in there. That will be corrected when the Prometheus book comes out.

The correct line is between "same body in the grave walking out of it again" (and flying up into heaven and, somehow, continuing to live there), which was indeed the Pharisaic view, and "old body continuing to rot in grave while soul is given a new, different body in heaven," which was, apparently, the Essene and Zoroastrian view. In the latter case, no empty tomb is required, nor would anything like the Doubting Thomas episode occur: the new body is in heaven, not on earth, and made of heavenly material (like Aristotle's ether), not earthly material (flesh and blood). See my quotation of Plutarch on the same thing happening to Osiris in my review of Doherty.

At the same time, some Jews did believe there was no body at all in the resurrection, just a soul that ascends to heaven (while the souls of those not saved simply vanish). This is unmistakably what Philo taught (a contemporary of Paul). So it is *possible* Paul shared the Philonic view (as was my assumption when I wrote "Why I Don't..."), in which case the soul undergoes "anastasis" to heaven, while the body stays behind to rot. But I no longer think that is what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 15. Rather, he is saying the body stays behind to rot, and the soul ascends to heaven, but is then given a new body up there, made of totally different stuff (like Osiris).

Vinnie · 03-24-2004, 10:10 AM

Don't forget Bernard Muller:

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html

His treatment of Pau land bodily Rez starts with the gray text blocks. Or you could just click (in IE) edit --> find --> type in resurrection.

I am somewhat on the fence on this issue as of late.

I think two important points may be:

1. Was Paul actually a Pharisee?
2. Did Pharisee axiomatically entail bodily rez?

My understanding is Tom Wright would be in the affirmative on both counts.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller · 03-24-2004, 10:35 AM

References from my pages:
Original Jewish Revelation
Resurrections in the 1st century: search on > resurrection <

Here is my analysis and, above all, sequencing, on the matter of resurrection in the NT:

A) Paul was leaning towards a spiritual resurrection, through a spiritual body. The old body (of which Paul could not wait to get rid off) would be transfigured into a new one (the old one swallowed by immortality). Paul had many opportunities to describe the new heavenly body but never do it (but at one point, says it will ressemble the heavenly man, the resurrected Jesus, a "spirit"). One thing he stressed is immortality will cover, envelop it. One more thing for certain: Humans, dead or alive then, will not go to the Kingdom in heaven in a "flesh and blood" form.
However, he never closed the door to a resurrected physical body, because, I assume, some of his Christians wished for one up there (eternal life as a soul is not fun!!!).

I also think, at the same time, Jewish Christians and apocalyptic Jews, who had the Kingdom on earth, were thinking about bodily, even "flesh & blood" resurrection during "the day of the Lord/LORD". I read that through the original Jewish Revelation and GMatthew ("all the saints marching to Jerusalem"). This kind of massive resurrections is well referenced in the OT, but only for "the day of the LORD".

Josephus, as a pharisee, said he, and the other Pharisees, and (some) Essenes, believed in spiritual resurrection of the soul (right after death) and also reincarnation. Philo of Alexandria was very specific about ethereal bodies in heaven and spiritual resurrection of the souls, with an abode for them in heaven (right after death). And I suspect Paul was very much influenced by Philo for the location of the Kingdom to come (against Jewish tradition) and the nature of the resurrected bodies.
The author of 'Hebrews' had Christ, right after the sacrifice, at the right hand of God in some platonic heaven.

I will not comment on a particular passage of 1 Corinthians 15, because I am sure it is a later Christian interpolation. Even here, it is not specified how the resurrected Christ allegedly reappears to the many, from Peter to Paul (in the body or just as vision/dream/revelation/ghost/light).
Look here for why I consider 1Cor15:3-11 an interpolation. search on > addition d <

B) Later (70-71), because of the influence of Jewish Christians, and because Christians wanted reassurance Jesus truly resurrected, "Mark" involved the empty tomb, with the body disappearance and the angel's explanation. Earlier he had Moses, obviously in a human body, identified by Peter

, even if there was no description anywhere on how Moses (and Elijah) looked. And Peter thinks all (transfigured Jesus, resurrected Moses and raptured Elijah) will need protection against the weather (Mk9:5). But he was proven wrong next, because the resurrected dead will be like (unsexed) angels (Mk12:25). But what about angels? "Mark" answered that indirectly: how could a young man survive in a cold night with hardly no clothes on him, if he were not a bodily angel? (Mk14:51-52).
I think "Mark" used subtilities to make points towards bodily resurrections, generally, and regarding the one of Jesus.

C) Around 85, "Luke" started tentatively the bodily resurrection of Jesus mostly to disprove the whole fuss about Jesus' rez was about him reappearing as just a ghost.
Earlier, '1Clement' (around 80 in my analysis) tried to convince the Corinthians about future resurrections: he used day and night, but also (at the bottom of his bag!) the legend of the Phenix bird. One more evidence in favor of bodily resurrection!!!

Because Paul, in his epistles, linked many times the past resurrection of Jesus with the future ones of dead Christians, then it became understood both would be physical.
And the Kingdom is set on earth in GMatthew and Revelation (originally all Jewish), contrary to Paul's assumptions, creating even more confusion.
At the same time, the gospelers had Jesus, while on earth, resurrecting dead or deadish humans. The one of Jairus' girl in GMark appears to be a failed attempt at revival (because the parents and disciples are ordered to hide/be_silent_about the alleged "resurrection").
The later gospelers went much farther than that:
In Gluke, the widow's son is resurrected in public, witnessed by a crowd! The same in GJohn, for the one of Lazarus!
In GMatthew, resurrecting bodies are part of the power of the 12 when they preach on their own.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie · 03-24-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Josephus, as a pharisee, said he, and the other Pharisees, and (some) Essenes, believed in spiritual resurrection of the soul (right after death) and also reincarnation. Philo of Alexandria was very specific about ethereal bodies in heaven and spiritual resurrection of the souls, with an abode for them in heaven (right after death).

Time out. I am firmly convinced Josephus lied about being a Pharisee here. See Volume Three of Meier's marginal Jew series, pp. 301-305.

Josephus apparently, practices some new type of math.

This of course makes me wonder if Paul was "actually" a Pharisee. Or did he just say he was and that was picked up by Acts?

Vinnie

Gregg · 03-24-2004, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
It seems that we are imposing our own scientific materialist view of matter back on the first century (unless those texts were really written by second century gnostics, of course) and we think that things are either physical or not, in which case they may be imaginary or halluciations.

I agree. This seems to me to be one of the main stumbling blocks people have to taking the mythicist case seriously. There doesn't seem to be any allowance for mystical thinking, in which Jesus can take on a body of "flesh" and "blood" without being a historical person. This is perplexing, given the ample evidence we have of the capacity of the religious mind to accept all sorts of magical concepts. There's also no allowance for the fact that a first-century person would not draw the sharp line between the spiritual and physical that we do. Maybe for the Jews and Greek neo-Platonists, the Supreme God was too holy and untouchable to have contact with matter, but clearly he could send agents that were capable of interacting in certain ways with the lower realms and with the physical world.

luvluv · 03-24-2004, 11:09 AM

Exactly what reason is there to doubt that Paul was a Pharisee? This is a new one on me.

Bernard Muller · 03-24-2004, 11:37 AM

Vinnie wrote:

Quote:

This of course makes me wonder if Paul was "actually" a Pharisee. Or did he just say he was and that was picked up by Acts?

Actually it says that in Philippians 3:5

"3 For *we* are the circumcision, who worship by [the] Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh.
4 Though *I* have [my] trust even in flesh; if any other think to trust in flesh, *I* rather:
5 as to circumcision, [I received it] the eighth day; of [the] race of Israel, of [the] tribe of Benjamin, Hebrew of Hebrews; as to [the] law, a Pharisee" Darby

As for Josephus, he may not have become a Pharisee as early as he says in his auto-biography. But in 'Antiquities', he certainly likes Pharisees and their beliefs, including immortality of the soul. Written earlier, in Wars, Josephus also is sympathetic to Pharisees (even if he is hysterical regarding urban Essenes), and says they believed in immortality of the souls (with punishment and reward in Hades).

And in these days and age, you can always find a scholar who would support one of your point. Mind you, on many others, the same scholar might be dead against you. Why I mean, because of the many opinions, theories & interpretations out there, having a scholar agreeing with one of your point does not mean anything; more so I am sure other scholars, as well accredited, wrote against it.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby · 03-24-2004, 12:18 PM

An important resource here is Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body. The first chapter concerns ancient conceptions of the spirit. For ancient Greco-Romans, he argues, the spiritual may well be composed of matter (hyle), usually conceived as being very light or fine particles, contrary to our modern notions represented by Descartes. To those who held to a life after death, it was proverbial that the spirit rose to the heavens while the body rejoined the earth.

best,
Peter Kirby

03-23-2004, 11:41 PM	#1
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Resurrection: Physical vs Spiritual Whether first century Christians could have used resurrection language to refer to something spiritual has been a subject of debate for some time (and recently brought up by luvluv). Here are some of the online articles that address the issue: Richard Carrier: Could the Original Gospel Have Been of a Spiritual Rather Than a Physical Resurrection? David Friedman: Does 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 Teach a Physical or a Spiritual Resurrection? Richard Carrier: Craig's Empty Tomb and Habermas on the Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus Bill Craig: The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Tektonics: Is a Resurrection Body Physical? Chris Price: Paul's Belief in a Bodily Resurrection So... what's your opinion? best, Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2004, 10:10 AM	#4
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Don't forget Bernard Muller: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html His treatment of Pau land bodily Rez starts with the gray text blocks. Or you could just click (in IE) edit --> find --> type in resurrection. I am somewhat on the fence on this issue as of late. I think two important points may be: 1. Was Paul actually a Pharisee? 2. Did Pharisee axiomatically entail bodily rez? My understanding is Tom Wright would be in the affirmative on both counts. Vinnie

03-24-2004, 10:35 AM	#5
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	References from my pages: Original Jewish Revelation Resurrections in the 1st century: search on > resurrection < Here is my analysis and, above all, sequencing, on the matter of resurrection in the NT: A) Paul was leaning towards a spiritual resurrection, through a spiritual body. The old body (of which Paul could not wait to get rid off) would be transfigured into a new one (the old one swallowed by immortality). Paul had many opportunities to describe the new heavenly body but never do it (but at one point, says it will ressemble the heavenly man, the resurrected Jesus, a "spirit"). One thing he stressed is immortality will cover, envelop it. One more thing for certain: Humans, dead or alive then, will not go to the Kingdom in heaven in a "flesh and blood" form. However, he never closed the door to a resurrected physical body, because, I assume, some of his Christians wished for one up there (eternal life as a soul is not fun!!!). I also think, at the same time, Jewish Christians and apocalyptic Jews, who had the Kingdom on earth, were thinking about bodily, even "flesh & blood" resurrection during "the day of the Lord/LORD". I read that through the original Jewish Revelation and GMatthew ("all the saints marching to Jerusalem"). This kind of massive resurrections is well referenced in the OT, but only for "the day of the LORD". Josephus, as a pharisee, said he, and the other Pharisees, and (some) Essenes, believed in spiritual resurrection of the soul (right after death) and also reincarnation. Philo of Alexandria was very specific about ethereal bodies in heaven and spiritual resurrection of the souls, with an abode for them in heaven (right after death). And I suspect Paul was very much influenced by Philo for the location of the Kingdom to come (against Jewish tradition) and the nature of the resurrected bodies. The author of 'Hebrews' had Christ, right after the sacrifice, at the right hand of God in some platonic heaven. I will not comment on a particular passage of 1 Corinthians 15, because I am sure it is a later Christian interpolation. Even here, it is not specified how the resurrected Christ allegedly reappears to the many, from Peter to Paul (in the body or just as vision/dream/revelation/ghost/light). Look here for why I consider 1Cor15:3-11 an interpolation. search on > addition d < B) Later (70-71), because of the influence of Jewish Christians, and because Christians wanted reassurance Jesus truly resurrected, "Mark" involved the empty tomb, with the body disappearance and the angel's explanation. Earlier he had Moses, obviously in a human body, identified by Peter , even if there was no description anywhere on how Moses (and Elijah) looked. And Peter thinks all (transfigured Jesus, resurrected Moses and raptured Elijah) will need protection against the weather (Mk9:5). But he was proven wrong next, because the resurrected dead will be like (unsexed) angels (Mk12:25). But what about angels? "Mark" answered that indirectly: how could a young man survive in a cold night with hardly no clothes on him, if he were not a bodily angel? (Mk14:51-52). I think "Mark" used subtilities to make points towards bodily resurrections, generally, and regarding the one of Jesus. C) Around 85, "Luke" started tentatively the bodily resurrection of Jesus mostly to disprove the whole fuss about Jesus' rez was about him reappearing as just a ghost. Earlier, '1Clement' (around 80 in my analysis) tried to convince the Corinthians about future resurrections: he used day and night, but also (at the bottom of his bag!) the legend of the Phenix bird. One more evidence in favor of bodily resurrection!!! Because Paul, in his epistles, linked many times the past resurrection of Jesus with the future ones of dead Christians, then it became understood both would be physical. And the Kingdom is set on earth in GMatthew and Revelation (originally all Jewish), contrary to Paul's assumptions, creating even more confusion. At the same time, the gospelers had Jesus, while on earth, resurrecting dead or deadish humans. The one of Jairus' girl in GMark appears to be a failed attempt at revival (because the parents and disciples are ordered to hide/be_silent_about the alleged "resurrection"). The later gospelers went much farther than that: In Gluke, the widow's son is resurrected in public, witnessed by a crowd! The same in GJohn, for the one of Lazarus! In GMatthew, resurrecting bodies are part of the power of the 12 when they preach on their own. Best regards, Bernard

03-24-2004, 11:09 AM	#8
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Exactly what reason is there to doubt that Paul was a Pharisee? This is a new one on me.

03-24-2004, 12:18 PM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	An important resource here is Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body. The first chapter concerns ancient conceptions of the spirit. For ancient Greco-Romans, he argues, the spiritual may well be composed of matter (hyle), usually conceived as being very light or fine particles, contrary to our modern notions represented by Descartes. To those who held to a life after death, it was proverbial that the spirit rose to the heavens while the body rejoined the earth. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.