DCHindley

I was referring to the historical conditions that caused gentile followers of Jesus to redefine what he was to them.

The facts and events and beliefs that they used to redefine his relevance to them will be found in the world view of the time and place where the redefinition was taking place.

In my mind, if one is to accept that the NT books took form in the late 1st and early 2nd century CE (which I do), the event that could produce the powerful emotions needed to force such a radical redefinition, was the Jewish rebellion. Josephus gives very graphic accounts of the strife that broke out between Jews and gentiles all through Palestine and southern Syria, and the strain placed on anyone identified by each side as sympathetic to the other (converts, mixed marriages, "god fearers"). People were slaughtered left and right. I am sure not a few families were torn apart by this kind of intense stratification.

Modern analogues might be:

The conflict between Serbians and Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia Herzegovina between April 1992 and December 1995. As part of Yugoslavia, Muslims and Serbs got along, at least on the surface, partly because of Marshal Tito's influence. Once the country split along ethnic lines (Serbs, Croats & Bosnian Muslims) the Serbs tried to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of "Greater Serbia" and militias (mostly Serbian) started using snipers and strong arm tactics. The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide. In one case, about 7,000-8,000 Muslim men were rounded up in Srebrenica, hauled off in busses for "relocation", and then executed by firing squad in pits, Nazi style.

The 1990-1994 Rwandan civil war in which Tutsis, who were forced from power by the Hutu in the 1960s, tried to wrest back political power. The conflict stratified the population so much that in 1994 Hutu extremists assassinated the moderate president and began a mass genocide of over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, with the fear factor so high that many regular Hutus feared reprisals if they did not participate in the killings

.

Gotta go pick up my son from Sunday School (my wife is Catholic).

DCH

maryhelena

And without a historical gospel Jesus? Would it not be that the situation on the ground could well be otherwise than the common and garden suppositions?
And no historical gospel Jesus? David, then it's an altogether different ball game re early christian history.I don't think dating the manuscripts has much to do with historical realities. It's Jewish history that is relevant not whatever date someone puts their interpretation of that history in writing - and there are no originals anyway...only copies of copies...

The Jewish rebellion that led to 70 ce? Important, of course. As is the 37 bc siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great and the terrible end of the last Hasmonean King/High Priest of the Jews. What with Herod interfering with appointing high priests - it could well be that Jewish interests were already turning away from the Jerusalem temple to Alexandria....

Oh, my - poor you...(one-time Irish Catholic myself - so can feel for you....:sadyes

spin

Here's where Paul describes the chronological order of salvation (1 Cor 15:20-23 ESV):

[T2]20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.[/T2]
The only person in Paul's system who has been raised thus far is christ. No-one else has been raised and none will be until the parousia, the coming.

The contrast between Adam and christ has been made here (v.21-22), a contrast that re-emerges in v.45. And in v.45 Adam, the first Adam, has to bear the already mentioned stigma of giving everyone death. The new Adam, the last Adam, gives everyone life. Christ is important for his sinlessness, death and resurrection, providing Paul with his way out for believers. Adam is important for supplying the need for that way out. Jesus through his salvific act has overcome the death Adam brought upon all and opened the door to salvation for all. It would be inappropriate to hold Jesus up as an archetype for both the physical body and the spiritual body. Adam serves perfectly well for the former. Would Jesus bear the "man of dust" rhetoric that follows?

maryhelena

spin, as far as I can see there are two basic options re Paul and his speculations. 1. Write him off as a nut case - and his speculations of interest only as an exercise in how irrational first century thinking re human nature actually was. 2. Try and use the 21st century scientific understanding of human nature as a tool by which one can endeavour to fathom out what in heck Paul was trying to convey.

The first item in Paul’s speculation to go is ‘Adam’ - there being no such historical figure. No first ‘Adam’ means there is no analogy to be made re his second ‘Adam’. Thus, Paul’s analogy falls flat on it’s face. Paul has no evidence that his second Adam figure, his Christ figure, actually was raised from the dead. Consequently, all one can rationally extract from Paul’s speculation is that he has a dualistic concept of human nature - a physical and a spiritual concept. Matter and Mind. Not two separate Adams - only one human man that is dualistic in his human nature. First the physical ‘Adam’ and then the spiritual ‘Adam’. The first ‘Adam’, the physical Adam is subject to death - as is our physical body. The second ‘Adam’, the spiritual Adam, the human intellect, our capacity for spirituality, is the life giving spirit. No, not giving life via physical resurrection of a dead body, but giving life to a living Adam, a living body. Intellectual life. Humans are not just like animal in nature they are also spiritual, intellectual beings. Indeed, for many years of human evolution, evolution was primarily a feature of our physical bodies. Somewhere along the line evolution jumped ship, so to speak, and set of an evolutionary rampage within the human mind. Within the human mind, the second Adam, our intellect, can engage in life and death, in ‘resurrection’, in life, death and rebirth of ideas. (as in the natural cycles of nature - so within the human intellect).

spin, let’s not short-change ‘Paul’. I may knock all the literal readings of Paul as being pure nonsense - but I’ll stand by ‘Paul’ as being someone who was perhaps ahead of his time - someone who did not have the 21st century scientific knowledge upon which to draw in order to give a more logical context for his philosophical speculating.

gurugeorge

Wait, wait. I'm lost, I don't understand how what you've said above is relevant to the quote from Doherty you posted before it:-

Could you please explain?

On a general note, it's been great fun reading through the debate between spin and Earl, having just come back from a holiday. It does get a bit heated at times, but I wouldn't want any of it to be deleted, there's a lot of food for thought here, and a genuine conundrum. Sometimes I find myself swayed by spin, sometimes by Earl. And I must admit, though it would go with my own hobbyhorse take on mythicism better if spin were right, I'm leaning towards Earl.

spin

The following post concerns a specific argument regarding my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:45 as it fits into its context. My view might be summed up with this diagram:

[T2]{c:bg=silver}-|{c:bg=silver}Physical body|{c:bg=silver}{c:bg=silver}Spiritual body||
{c:bg=#FFCCEE}Adam|{c:bg=#FFCCEE}"The first man Adam became a living being..."|{c:bg=#FFCCEE}(resurrected Adam)||
{c:bg=#AACCFF}Jesus|{c:bg=#AACCFF}(pre-resurrected Jesus)|{c:bg=#AACCFF}"...the last Adam a life-giving spirit."[/T2]
First, v.45 again,

[T2]Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam, [became] a life-giving spirit.[/T2]
The word "became" is not repeated in the Greek, merely implied. Earl argues that the significance and implications of the verb in its role in the clause must be the same otherwise the ellipsis doesn't work. He argues this in an effort to claim that, as there was no existence for Adam before his becoming a living being, there was none for christ before becoming a life-giving spirit, ie christ was originally a life-giving spirit.

However, there is no reason to expect the use of the one verb to be totally same in all of its manifestations for a speaker to consider it the same verb. In fact, in practice Earl's strictness is shown not to be correct. The example I gave regarding "know", even when used with ellipsis, shows that what is the same apparent meaning to us requires separate verbs in another language.

Further, the verb "become" deals with the arrival at a state (linguistically, an "inchoative" verb), not what came before the arrival. Looking before such a change is inconsequential to the statement about becoming.

But the bible does say that Adam was formed "from the dust of the ground", so he was--in the bible literal sense--formed from something prior, just as christ was formed from something prior. However, there is no need for the prior source to be generally the same. A few examples with ellipsis:

1. I bought a kitten which gave me an idea for a book. The kitten became a cat and my idea a book.
2. I came across a duck last week. The duck became dinner and its feathers a pillow.
3. I was just a gleam in my father's eye when my oldest brother started wearing dresses. That gleam became a man and my brother a woman.

There is no reason for Earl to claim "As you yourself point out, a verb that is understood must have the same meaning as the verb it is understanding. Since Adam had no nature before he was created, the implication has to be that the second Adam came into being as a life-giving spirit, not that he had some other nature before he was a life-giving spirit." Having the same meaning is a relative idea.

maryhelena

[T2] 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 (New International Version, ©2011)

45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.[/T2]

Man's Dualistic Nature	Physical body	Spiritual 'body'
-	"The first man Adam became a living being..."	"...the last Adam a life-giving spirit."
-	“The first man was of the dust of the earth,”	“...the second man from heaven.”
-	“And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man,”	“...so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”
-	Matter, flesh and blood. Death	Mind, intellect, spirituality. Life, death and rebirth, the dying and rising god mythology, intellectual evolution.
-	Law	Freedom

EarlDoherty

I have to thank spin for his link to the 1 Cor. 15:45 translations. There were some there I had not surveyed before. Actually, I think the variety there serves me very well, and it certainly discredits spin’s claim that we must interpret the verse the way he would prefer, namely, containing or implying the thought that Christ, the second Adam, went from a physical body to a spiritual one (the “became” idea, from one to the other, allegedly understood in 45b even if it is not there in 45a).

If that idea is so obvious to spin, why is it not so obvious to all the translators? And it doesn’t matter if a majority use the “became” verb, or even if they would understand it the way spin wants to. There are a sufficient number of translations which do not do so, to call such a meaning into question as the “obvious” one. Consider these, with my comments:

New Living Translation:
The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." But the last Adam--that is, Christ--is a life-giving Spirit.

King James Bible:
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
[Here the “was made” clearly means “created as”, agreeing with Jean Hering, although spin would say that 45b’s understood “was made” could be altogether different from the meaning in 45a. I’ll look at that shortly.]

Bible in Basic English:
And so it is said, The first man Adam was a living soul. The last Adam is a life-giving spirit.
[Hmmm…even “basic English” doesn’t see the same “basic meaning” as the one spin is constantly pushing.]

Douay-Rheims:
The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.
[Here, too, the implication of the language is of “created as”, since Adam was not ‘made into’ in the sense of a transformation from some previous state. Made out of the dust of the earth is not a previous state, it is constituent material. Spin once again would like to read into the Christ reference an entirely different meaning into the understood ‘made into’. I’ll note here that, even were this linguistically permissible, it is virtually beside the point; the point is, there is nothing in the text which would support taking that liberty.]

Webster’s Bible Translation:
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a vivifying spirit.
[Again, the natural understanding of “was made” is “was made as.” Spin wants the 45a to be understood as “was made as” but 45b to be understood as “was made into,” in this case from a previous incarnated state. Could the verse be understood with those two different meanings in the two “was made’s” without ringing grammatical alarm bells and the immediate arrest of the speaker? No doubt. But this would not be the natural tendency, which would instead tend to understand them both as “was made as” meanings. In other words, to impose a different meaning on the understood verb would require clarification, as well as corroboration from the surrounding context; or some previous spelling out of the situation to make clear that there was a different meaning intended for the understood verb. Spin, of course, tries to supply the latter from many verses earlier, but as I have been at pains to point out, such a spelling out is missing in 15:20f (or anywhere else); spin thinks to overcome that by reading a human resurrection for Christ into it, and then conveniently importing that reading into the later 15:45.

And lest spin jump on this, let me clarify. When a verb is understood, it is generally understood to have the same meaning as its antecedent. This is just the natural tendency of how our minds work. If you want to have or include a different meaning, you have to give the reader or listener some indication of that different meaning, otherwise, they won’t get it. They especially won’t get it if your context doesn’t include it either. (But that doesn’t allow reading one’s preferred meaning into the context.) Spin offered us this analogy: “I know him and [know] how his theory resolves the problem.” Yes, we have a range of meaning for the English verb “know”, illustrated by what in a different language we might say “I am acquainted with him and know how his theory resolves the problem.” But that does not change the fact that in reading or hearing this statement, we conjure up the same basic understanding for each part of the sentence, namely, “I am familiar with…” If the difference in meaning were of the same dramatic extent as in spin’s rendition of verse 45 (which his analogy is not), no such difference would be understood by the reader without considerable prompting or sufficient clarity from the surrounding context.]

Weymouth New Testament:
In the same way also it is written, "The first man Adam became a living animal"; the last Adam is a life-giving Spirit.
[Interesting. This translation doesn’t even attempt an understanding in 45b which is in any way a parallel to 45a.]

Young’s Literal Translation:
so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit,
[Not sure I understand that one. But it, too, doesn’t attempt anything resembling an understood verb from the previous one.]

In any case, I think none of these translations would support spin’s contention that Paul has to have meant in 45b that Christ became a living spirit following his resurrection from a death as a human being. And the ones I quote number 7 out of 17. It is clear that translators as a whole have no consensus understanding of this verse, even though it would be in their interest to understand it in spin’s direction.

More on spin's link below.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I don’t know whether spin realized or not, but “Barnes’ Notes on the Bible” which follow the various translations I discussed in my previous posting are extremely illuminating for this debate. Let’s follow along in some of its paragraphs. Perhaps my arguments will become clearer in the context of an outside commentary.

The last Adam - The second Adam, or the "second man," 1 Corinthians 15:47. That Christ is here intended is apparent, and has been usually admitted by commentators. Christ here seems to be called Adam because he stands in contradistinction from the first Adam; or because, as we derive our animal and dying nature from the one, so we derive our immortal and undying bodies from the other. From the one we derive an animal or vital existence; from the other we derive our immortal existence, and resurrection from the grave.

As I’ve said before, Christ is used as a prototype for what humans will be after resurrection. No thought about what Christ was before his resurrection.

The one stands at the head of all those who have an existence represented by the words, "a living soul;" the other of all those who shall have a spiritual body in heaven.

Again, the absolute separation between Adam and Christ as representing the two sides of the coin which humans have been and will be. No thought about Christ having been on both sides of the coin himself. Which would have been sufficient for Paul’s purposes to prove physical to spiritual resurrection, with Adam redundant on that score.

He is called "the last Adam;" meaning that there shall be no other after him who shall affect the destiny of man in the same way, or who shall stand at the head of the race in a manner similar to what had been done by him and the first father of the human family. They sustain special relations to the race; and in this respect they were "the first" and "the last" in the special economy.

It is not all that clear what Barnes has in mind by Christ standing “at the head of the race in a manner similar to what had been done by him,” but such language would in no way entail (even if the commentator has it in mind) that Christ stood at the head of the race in a human form himself. A Christ in heaven who undergoes actions that are designed to confer salvation on the human race, to serve as their champion and redeemer in the “paradigmatic parallel” sense, could certainly be presented in language like this. A Christ in heaven can enjoy “special relations to the race” without ever having been on earth. They were “first” and “last” as the physical man, and as the heavenly man.

A quickening spirit - (εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν eis pneuma zōopoioun). A vivifying spirit; a spirit giving or imparting life. Not a being having mere vital functions, or an animated nature, but a being who has the power of imparting life.

In other words, an entirely heavenly being, with not a glance at his previous state when he did have “mere vital functions”.

This is not a quotation from any part of the Scriptures, but seems to be used by Paul either as affirming what was true on his own apostolic authority, or as conveying the substance of what was revealed respecting the Messiah in the Old Testament. There may be also reference to what the Saviour himself taught, that he was the source of life; that he had the power of imparting life, and that he gave life to all whom he pleased: see the note at John 1:4; note at John 5:26, "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." 1 Corinthians 15:21, "for as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."

An admission (“there may be”) that no actual reference to the Gospel life is to be found here, which does not, of course, prevent the commentator from reading such a thing into Paul’s words. Just as spin often tries to do.

The word "spirit," here applied to Christ, is in contradistinction from "a living being," as applied to Adam, and seems to be used in the sense of spirit of life, as raising the bodies of his people from the dead, and imparting life to them.

Another rigid separation between Christ and Adam, with no sense that Christ was once a “living being” exactly like Adam. (Yes, of course the commentator does assume such a thing as lying in the background. My point is, that in offering his analysis of what the text actually says and what he can derive from it, he is unable to introduce the idea of Christ as a human being because there is nothing there which would fit that assumed background.)

…And the idea here is, that Christ had such a spiritual existence, such power as a spirit, that he was the source of all life to his people. The word "spirit" is applied to his exalted spiritual nature, in distinction from his human nature…

And where in this passage is his human nature referred to? The commentator sets it “in distinction” from his human nature, but no such distinction is made in the text.

The apostle does not here affirm that he had not a human nature, or a vital existence as a man; but that his main characteristic in contradistinction from Adam was, that he was endowed with an elevated spiritual nature, which was capable of imparting vital existence to the dead.

Neither does the apostle affirm that he did have a human nature (the “likeness” of one is not the same thing), and he certainly never affirmed any “vital existence as a man”. In fact, it was thoroughly ignored. Nor was his “elevated spiritual nature” the “main” characteristic in contradistinction from Adam. In this passage, it was the only one; not even the idea of “elevated” (over a previous human state) is present. In the other two Adam passages, no human nature is introduced either. Other than, of course, spin’s “common understanding” of the word “man.”

It’s the same old story. Either scholarship reads into the text what it wants to see there, or else it dismisses any significance in its absence. Like Barrett, whom I quoted before: “It is not part of Paul’s argument here to say that the heavenly man has already come in the form of earthly man.” It certainly isn’t, since that would screw everything up. But introducing him by a specially constructed backdoor where he can be carried in behind Paul's back is part of almost two millennia of tortured exegesis.

spin

I don't think any reader would have problems if someone said the day after the resurrection,

εγενετο ο πρωτος ανθρωπος αδαμ εις ψυχην ζωσαν και εν της αναστασει εις πνευμα ζωοποιουν
the first man Adam became a living being and at the resurrection a life-giving spirit

This is straightforward.

While we are here, there is a grammatical issue that needs to be resolved. In 45a the preposition εις attaches to the verb εγενετο. It supplies the "destination" of the "becoming", ie the result. In 45b the only verb for it to attach to is the elided verb εγενετο. Look at the mustard seed in Lk 13:19 which "became a great tree" (εγενετο εις δενδρον μεγα) and examples in the LXX (see 1 Chr 11:6 where Zeruiah became a chief; and Ezek 17:6). Grammatically the preposition needs to attach somehow. The logical link is to εγενετο. It's strongly implied by the grammar, how the translator renders it into English will be up to them, but you won't be able to understand the Greek any other way. But I suppose Earl can parse the Greek sentence some other way. What other verb can one "spirit" into 45b to govern the preposition?