The Easter Story

[Mike Richards]

MM,

I found that a very interesting read. Did you come up with that all on your own or was it derived from something else? I don't have a good answer to your questions at the end of the OP. I imagine that I could ("ad hoc", as Rob Bowman taught me...) come up with a story that includes most of the elements of all the different accounts, but I'm not sure it would convince anyone. It might be entertaining though...

What does all this mean to you--what conclusions do you draw from it?

[mercyngrace]

A quick point -

I do realize the verses from Romans are about spiritual quickening. I was just suggesting the possibility that Paul used the imagery of spiritual resurrection because he already believed in physical resurrection. No facts to back that up - it's just a thought.

Okay, other things that jump out at me -

The Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul. If the soul is immortal, then resurrection has to refer to the body. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Resurrection.shtml

I don't think Paul is a NOP (new order Pharisee ) because he clarifies in Philippians 3:5 that as touching the law, he is a Pharisee. He seems to be saying that his beliefs are so aligned.

Moreover, except for the timing of Jesus' resurrection, Paul sounds like a Pharisee when he discusses the resurrection, eschatology, the mission to the Jews, and belief in his belief in angels (something else the Essenes denied). This belief in the resurrection was distinct in the first century.

In Greco-Roman thought generally, the body was thought to be the prison of the soul. Evil matter is temporal and the spirit is eternal. In Gnostic religious systems, moreover, the believer required special revelation knowledge to ascend through the dangerous celestial spheres to escape from the material universe. The god of spirits--sought by Gnostics--was not interested in the revival of dead bodies. According to their religious system, the material universe was composed of evil matter, which is contrasted to the spiritual realm. Greeks longed to be free from the confines of the body. While they did believe in the survival of the human soul after death, the notion that the body would be reunited with the soul in a physical resuscitation was foreign to their conceptual world.

The Jewish people, however, believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm.

Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.

Although--as discussed above--there were Jewish groups who disagreed with the Pharisees, such as the Sadducees, the basis for their disagreement was very different than that with the Greeks. The Sadducees denied that there was any life after death whatsoever for humans. The disagreement between the two sects was sharp. Pharisaic belief in the resurrection was paramount and nonnegotiable. They went so far as to teach: "The one who says the resurrection of the dead is not taught in the Torah, has no place in the world to come." (m. Sanh. 10:1).

By aligning himself with a Pharisaic background, Paul provides us with an important insight into the meaning he attaches to the term: resurrection. That is, it is a physical resurrection of the body.

I'd be interested in your response to this paper as it addresses several of the issues you raise in the OP. You can read it here:

http://www.christianorigins.com/resbody.html

[volgadon]

He died a real death, then physically resurrected and ascended into heaven.

I find it interesting that you provided no citation for this claim, which is central to your thesis. The omission strikes me as odd.

Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places, but all that I found so far regarding Asclepius's death is that Zeus struck him with a lightning bolt. Several sources then claim that he was turned into a star. The only thing which seems to come close to your claim is that many saw Asclepius, though it doesn't seem clear to me if this was a resurrected, physical Asclepius or not.

[Mortal Man]

Perhaps, but it is indicative of the quality of your OP.

The quality of my OP doesn't depend on Paul's beliefs prior to his conversion. It's possible that he believed in a physical resurrection but then changed his mind after his vision of a purely spiritual Jesus.

Think about it. How could he spend 15 days with Peter and not hear anything about the wounds in Jesus' side, hands and feet? This was supposedly the seminal event which finally convinced the apostles of Jesus' divinity and Peter never mentions it? That would be like me telling you all about 9/11 but never mentioning airplanes or the World Trade Center. Forty years later, Mark hasn't heard a word about the wounds. As far as he's concerned, none of the apostles even knew about the empty tomb and the whole thing's a big secret. Matthew's women don't see the wounds even though they hold his feet. It's up to Gentile Luke to invent some wound to prove he's not just a phantom.

Paul would have been mortified by the "flesh and blood" wounds. They run counter to eveything he taught; i.e., they show that the "seed" was not planted and the body was not "raised in incorruption." They are "decay" and "perishability" and would have prevented him from ascending to "inherit the kingdom of God".

[volgadon]

The quality of my OP doesn't depend on Paul's beliefs prior to his conversion. It's possible that he believed in a physical resurrection but then changed his mind after his vision of a purely spiritual Jesus.

You are right, it doesn't depend on Paul's belief prior to his conversion. I was talking about your use and intterpretation of sources, but then again, I'm sure you realised that.

Think about it. How could he spend 15 days with Peter and not hear anything about the wounds in Jesus' side, hands and feet? This was supposedly the seminal event which finally convinced the apostles of Jesus' divinity and Peter never mentions it?

Did Paul have to mention it? Would his rhetoric have been served any better by mentioning it?

That would be like me telling you all about 9/11 but never mentioning airplanes or the World Trade Center.

Not quite. More akin to mentioning 9/11 without mentioning some of the phone calls made from the planes, or if you really want to continue your melodrama, without mentioning flight 93.

Forty years later, Mark hasn't heard a word about the wounds. As far as he's concerned, none of the apostles even knew about the empty tomb and the whole thing's a big secret. Matthew's women don't see the wounds even though they hold his feet. It's up to Gentile Luke to invent some wound to prove he's not just a phantom.

The whole thing is a big secret? Where do you read that.

Paul would have been mortified by the "flesh and blood" wounds. They run counter to eveything he taught; i.e., they show that the "seed" was not planted and the body was not "raised in incorruption." They are "decay" and "perishability" and would have prevented him from ascending to "inherit the kingdom of God".

How do they run counter? Corruption means a state where an items rots away until it ceases to exist in that state. It does not mean totally unmarred by any blemish whatsoever.

[WalkerW]

You are right, it doesn't depend on Paul's belief prior to his conversion. I was talking about your use and intterpretation of sources, but then again, I'm sure you realised that.

Did Paul have to mention it? Would his rhetoric have been served any better by mentioning it?

Not quite. More akin to mentioning 9/11 without mentioning some of the phone calls made from the planes, or if you really want to continue your melodrama, without mentioning flight 93.

The whole thing is a big secret? Where do you read that.

How do they run counter? Corruption means a state where an items rots away until it ceases to exist in that state. It does not mean totally unmarred by any blemish whatsoever.

I'm with you. I'm not really following why "wounds" are in need of mention.

This is the difference in the healthy skepticism of Ehrman and the extreme skepticism of Carrier.

I have my own hang-ups with some of Craig's arguments elsewhere, but I find his Resurrection work admirable.

[David Bokovoy]

Physical resurrection seems to have been all the rage before the first century.

And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.

I'm not convinced that this OT passage teaches physical resurrection:

Skin Worms

[LeSellers]

I'm not convinced that this OT passage

26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

citation added for clarity

teaches physical resurrection

It is a passage that, in and of itself, destroys the inerrancy dogma of Protestantism.

Inerrancy means the Bible (their only scripture) does not cause the reader to wander away from true doctrine. Yet Job's statement is so badly worded in Hebrew that no one knows what it was he meant.

(Literal Version) 26 and after my skin has been struck off from my flesh, yet this, I shall see God,

(ASV) 26 And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God;

(Bassic Bible in English) 26 And without my flesh I will see God;

(Bishops) 26 And though after my skinne the [wormes] destroy this body, yet shall I see God in my fleshe:

(Contemporary English Version) 26 My flesh may be destroyed, yet from this body I will see God.

(Darby) 26 And if after my skin this shall be destroyed, yet from out of my flesh shall I see +God;

(Brenton) 26 and to raise up upon the earth my skin that endures these sufferings: for these things have been accomplished to me of the Lord;

(God News Bible) 26 Even after my skin is eaten by disease, while still in this body I will see God.

(INR) 26 E quando, dopo la mia pelle, sarà distrutto questo corpo, senza la mia carne, vedrò Dio.

(IRL) 26 E quando, dopo la mia pelle, sarà distrutto questo corpo, senza la mia carne, vedrò Iddio.

(Jewish Publication Society) 26 And when after my skin this is destroyed, then without my flesh shall I see God;

(RV) 26 And after my skin hath been thus destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God:

You get the idea.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

I'm not convinced that this OT passage teaches physical resurrection:

Skin Worms

Interesting, thanks!

[WalkerW]

From the NET commentary on Job 19:26:

The Hebrew phrase is “and from my flesh.” This could mean “without my flesh,” i.e., separated from my flesh, or “from my flesh,” i.e., in or with my flesh. The former view is taken by those who think Job’s vindication will come in this life, and who find the idea of a resurrection unlikely to be in Job’s mind. The latter view is taken by those who interpret the preceding line as meaning death and the next verse underscoring that it will be his eye that will see. This would indicate that Job’s faith rises to an unparalleled level at this point.

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man,

I’m going to try to respond to your opening post a little at a time in as much detail as time permits. I hope you find this helpful, at least. All block quotations are from your opening post.

A good way to evaluate the historicity of a story is to check whether its constituent events match the chronological order in which they were first reported.

This is a good idea only if the first “report” claims to be a chronologically precise narrative, and even then several possibilities will have to be considered: that the event is historical and the first report accurate; that the event is historical but the first report contains some inaccuracies; and that the event is not historical. On the other hand, one must not assume that references or narratives to a particular event purport to provide a strictly chronological account.

Jesus’ crucifixion is followed by two decades of silence in the historical record.

If what you mean is that some two decades passed between Jesus’ crucifixion and the earliest Christian writings, I agree. I would want to clarify, however, that it is not the case that we have two decades of textual materials (a “historical record”) relevant to the origin of the Christian movement during which there is no reference to the resurrection of Jesus. This isn’t the case. Jesus was crucified in AD 33 (or 30, but I think the evidence for 33 is much stronger). Our earliest documents that might have any relevance to the subject were written around AD 50, plus or minus a few years (1 and 2 Thessalonians; Galatians; and probably James). I would date Galatians in 49, 1-2 Thessalonians in 50-51, and James possibly as early as 45 or as late as 61. James does not refer explicitly to the resurrection of Jesus, though it does speak of “the Lord Jesus Christ” as an object of religious devotion (1:1; 2:1) and of his future coming (5:7). Galatians speaks of Jesus’ resurrection in the salutation (1:1), and 1 Thessalonians also speaks of Jesus being raised from the dead (1:10). In short, our earliest “record” of any potential relevance, the earliest datable NT writings, refer to the resurrection of Jesus, about 16 years after the fact.

However, clues regarding the earliest apostolic teachings during this silent period can be found in the epistles of Paul. One important clue is the pre-Pauline creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:[1]

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Paul “received” this “died... buried... raised... appeared” creed from Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother” at Jerusalem three years after his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus (Galatians 1:18-19). Hence, these beliefs date to about 7 years after the crucifixion and constitute the views of at least two key eyewitnesses to the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Your chronology here seems to assume that Paul’s vision of Jesus took place about four years after Jesus’ crucifixion. I think the gap between the two events was much shorter, probably two years or less. Also, since Jews often counted time inclusively, “three years later” (Gal. 1:18) probably means sometime in the third year after his conversion. This means that Paul’s meeting with Peter and James was roughly (as we would reckon it) three to five years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

Since this material that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 had achieved a “creedal” form by the time he received it from Peter and James, as you correctly point out, this means that the belief that Christ had died, been buried, been raised, and appeared to his apostles originated very close indeed to the time of the crucifixion. Allowing for a reasonable amount of time for the belief to become articulated in a formal creedal statement, the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is good evidence that the belief in Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances was held by Jesus’ original post-crucifixion followers. In other words, there was no period of time after Jesus’ crucifixion in which his followers were out proclaiming their belief in him but not proclaiming belief in his resurrection. Belief in Jesus’ resurrection was part of the “Jesus movement” from the very beginning.

Paul spent 15 days with Peter gathering the essential facts of the eyewitness accounts; thus, Paul’s teachings, as recorded in his epistles, should closely resemble the views of the original apostles.

So what were these earliest views?

Regarding Jesus’ burial, Paul taught that the Jewish authorities (i.e., the ones who had him executed) took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb.

Acts 13:28 And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed.

29 When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.

This is what the Gospels (including Luke, the author of Acts in which Paul is quoted here) also report, since they say that it was Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin that had handed Jesus over to Pilate for execution, who buried Jesus in his own tomb.

This is consistent with Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-6, which relates that the Sanhedrin had established two burial sites for the temporary placing of corpses of Jews executed as criminals. The corpses were later removed and reburied honorably by family members.

Your link here refers to a blog article by James Tabor (the lone biblical scholar who supported the “Jesus family tomb” fiasco) in which Tabor contends that Joseph of Arimathea did not bury Jesus’ body in Joseph’s own tomb but in a temporary burial site. According to Tabor, the notion that Joseph owned the tomb is a later accretion invented by Matthew and contradicted by John. While only Matthew states explicitly that Joseph owned the tomb, this is already implicit in Mark (whom Tabor assumes, probably correctly, was the first of the four Gospels to be written). According to Mark, “Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus” (Mark 15:43). There is no reason why Joseph would need to “take courage” if he was simply going to Pilate as a representative of the Sanhedrin to make an official request on its behalf for permission to bury the body. Joseph needed to muster up some courage to make this request precisely because he was not acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Sanhedrin. That being the case, Mark’s account implies that Joseph, acting on his own, placed Jesus’ body in a tomb over which Joseph personally had control—and the obvious conclusion then is that Joseph himself owned the tomb. Mark confirms that Joseph was acting on his own by reporting that Pilate “granted the corpse to Joseph” (v. 45).

Luke and John also indicate that Joseph was acting on his own and not on behalf of the Sanhedrin. According to Luke, Joseph “had not consented to their decision and action” (Luke 23:51), and John states that Joseph “was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews” (John 19:38). Tabor thinks John indicates that the tomb was meant only as a temporary burial spot when he states, “So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there” (19:42). Tabor asserts, “Obviously it makes no sense at all to think Joseph of Arimathea would have just happened [sic] to have his own family tomb nearby.” Why it is “obvious” that “this makes no sense at all” Tabor does not explain, and I cannot see any reason for such a claim. Why wouldn’t a member of the Sanhedrin (and therefore a rather wealthy man) purchase a tomb near Jerusalem for himself and his family members?

It is true, as Tabor points out, that many Jews would re-bury the bones of a departed family member after they had dried out. Whether the family of Jesus (i.e., his mother and brothers) would ever have wished to re-bury the bones of Jesus elsewhere after they had dried out is unknown and calls for speculation. However, as even Tabor acknowledges, the practice was to perform such reburial about a year after the person’s death. Furthermore, the bones would typically be buried in the same tomb but deposited in an ossuary, a limestone box designed for that purpose and kept in the tomb. Therefore, we have no reason to think (as Tabor has tried to argue) that the body of Jesus was reburied at a different location, unbeknownst to Jesus’ closest followers and family members, the very next evening. The evidence is decidedly against such a desperately speculative scenario.

Tabor claims that Matthew invented the detail of the tomb belonging to Joseph as a “theological addition to show a fulfillment of prophecy, namely, Isaiah 53:9, where the suffering servant is buried in the tomb of a rich man.” This explanation is also speculative because Matthew does not cite Isaiah 53:9, despite the fact that he does indeed often cite OT texts as “fulfilled” in Jesus. Tabor’s suggestion might have some possible merit if we knew that Matthew had invented the whole story of the burial in Joseph’s tomb, but in fact we know this isn’t the case. Since the accounts in the other three Gospels imply that Joseph owned the tomb, the argument for Matthew inventing this detail is rather flimsy.

More later as time permits.

[Pahoran]

Mortal,

I have read your ingenious OP with great interest. Given that you take an approach to documentary sources that is functionally indistinguishable from the approach Mr Bowman takes with early LDS sources, I shall be reading his responses with even greater interest. But for you, MM, I have just one question:

If Paul really thought of the spirit as living on in disembodied immortality, as you suppose, then in what way could Jesus be said to have been "raised from the dead" that would not immediately apply to everyone else who had ever lived?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man,

My piecemeal response to your opening post continues. This will be a very short post responding to just one point.

Regarding the resurrection, Paul taught that Jesus was the first person to be raised from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,

You don’t spell out the problem here (unless I missed it), but I’m guessing you make this point because you think it is contradicted in the Gospel accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead prior to his own death and resurrection (e.g., the Nain widow’s son in Luke and Lazarus in John). But Paul is here speaking of the future (eschatological) resurrection of the dead that was inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection. The term “first fruits” in this context is a metaphor meaning that Christ’s resurrection is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection of redeemed humanity to immortal life. Paul’s idea here is in no way contradicted by the Gospel accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead to resume their mortal lives.

[Mortal Man]

I found that a very interesting read.

Thanks.

Did you come up with that all on your own or was it derived from something else?

It's mostly a summary of existing theories, which I tried to put together into an easily digestible form. As for original material, many of my own thoughts are scattered throughout.

What does all this mean to you--what conclusions do you draw from it?

I summed up my conclusions in the last sentence before the References.

[mfbukowski]

Where's the popcorn?

It's personal testimony or nothing.

[Mike Richards]

I summed up my conclusions in the last sentence before the References.

I saw your response and thought, "Oh. I wonder how I missed that." I laughed out loud when I saw what you were referring to:

Some tales get taller with each telling, like the one about the fish that got away

The image was a nice touch.

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man,

My response to your opening post continues.

He preached that the resurrection applied only to our spirits, not to our physical bodies.

This is a major element in your version of “the Easter story.” If you are mistaken on this point, most of your argument against the historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus crumbles. And you are mistaken on this point, though you are not alone.

15:35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”

36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;

37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

In Paul’s view, we permanently dispose of our physical bodies at death and are raised again as purely spiritual beings; just as a seed planted in the Earth grows into a new plant.

The question that Paul is answering is the skeptical objection, “with what kind of body do they come?” (v. 35). In response, Paul does not deny that the dead will be raised with some “kind of body.” Paul argues that the resurrection body will be different from the mortal body in the same way that a full-grown grain plant is different from the seed from which it springs (vv. 36-38). The analogy implies a qualitative but not quantitative difference; or, to put it another way, the resurrection body will be different in nature but not distinct in number. Just as a seed is “not the body which is to be” but eventually develops or transforms into that body, so our mortal bodies which are going to die are not “the body which is to be” but will be transformed into that body. “That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies” (v. 36). Note that Paul states that what is sown does come to life, though it does so after dying. In other words, that which is sown—here a metaphor for the mortal body—will come to life. To take Paul as meaning that the mortal body is not resurrected, then, is a mistake.

15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;

43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Paul first articulates four contrasts between the resurrection body and the mortal body:

“sown in corruption, raised in incorruption;

sown in dishonor, raised in glory;

sown in weakness, raised in power;

sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body” (vv. 42b-44a, literal translation)

The word “sown” is used here as a metaphor for death (cf. v. 36, discussed above). Our present human nature, and in particular our natural bodies, are characterized by corruption, dishonor, and weakness, and it is in that condition that they die. That is, the first term in each pair of terms is descriptive of the mortal body even in life, not only when we die. The second term in each pair of terms characterizes the resurrection body in its new, permanent condition as a “spiritual body.” So the resurrected person will have a body; he does not go in the resurrection from embodied to disembodied existence. The question is what these contrasts convey about the differences between the body before death and the body after the resurrection.

The first three pairs of contrasting terms, leading up to the final pair (“natural” versus “spiritual” body), contrast the mortal body in the deleterious effects of mankind’s fallen condition in sin with the reversal of those effects. Thus, the mortal body is decaying, shameful, and weak, while the resurrection body will be incorruptible, glorious, and powerful (vv. 42-43). These three sets of contrasts prepare the reader to understand that the fourth contrast has the same significance. “Natural” (psychikos) does not mean material or physical as opposed to immaterial or nonphysical; rather, it means carnal, sensual, connoting that which is captive to and limited by corrupt, fallen human nature (e.g., James 3:15; Jude 19). Likewise, “spiritual” (pneumatikos) in Pauline usage does not mean incorporeal or immaterial; rather, it means supernaturally empowered or enlivened by the Spirit (e.g., Gal. 6:1, where mature believers are described as “spiritual”). The manna and water provided to the Israelites in the wilderness were “spiritual” (1 Cor. 10:3-4) because God provided them supernaturally, but they were still physical provisions. Paul uses the two pair of terms together earlier in the same epistle to contrast two kinds of human beings—the “natural” or immature believers and the “spiritual” or mature believers (1 Cor. 2:14-15). In that passage it is explicit and undeniable that the “spiritual” ones are still mortal, physical human beings. Understanding Paul’s language properly, then, and in context, we can see that 1 Corinthians 15:44 is not contrasting material and immaterial bodies, but rather mortal, corrupt bodies with immortal, gloriously perfected bodies.

It is easy to read 1 Corinthians 15:45 as saying that Adam was a man while Christ was a spirit, but this is actually a misreading. What Paul says is that the first man Adam became a “soul” (psyche) while “the last Adam” (Christ) was (or became) a life-giving “spirit” (pneuma). Both the first man and Christ are called Adam (the Hebrew word for “man”), and the contrast is not between them as man and spirit or even as flesh and spirit, but rather as soul and spirit. The terms “soul” and “spirit” are the nouns related to the terms “natural” and “spiritual” that Paul has just used in verse 44. In referring to the risen Christ as “spirit,” then, Paul is therefore not denying that Christ has a physical body, just as Paul is not denying that Adam had a spiritual aspect to his being. He is, rather, contrasting Adam’s merely natural state—which fell to its lowest potential of ignominious corruption because of sin—with Christ’s glorious, supernatural risen state.

Furthermore, it is impossible for flesh-and-blood bodies to inherit the kingdom of God.

15:50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

By now, having followed Paul’s argument in verses 35-49, we ought to understand how Paul is speaking. He does not mean that biological people cannot inherit God’s kingdom, but that merely biological, merely “flesh and blood,” mortal people, cannot inherit eternal life in God’s kingdom. The problem with flesh and blood people is not that they are material but, as he says in the rest of the sentence, that they are “perishable” or corruptible (the same word as in v. 42). The solution is not to become incorporeal or immaterial beings but to have the effects of sin reversed, being redeemed from corruption. Hence Paul concludes, “For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality” (v. 53). Our perishable or corruptible, mortal bodies are not to be discarded or abandoned to the dust, but they will be redeemed; they will put on incorruption and immortality.

Paul’s view of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, then, is not in conflict with the understanding of resurrection reflected in the Gospel accounts—let alone in Paul’s other writings. He too held that Christ was raised from the dead in the same body that had died and been buried. He too held that Christ’s resurrection body was still that of a human. And he also held that Christ’s resurrection body was glorious, supernatural, immortal, and capable of life in Heaven as well as life on Earth.

It is true, as you say:

In none of his writings does Paul mention the empty tomb, showing of wounds, eating of fish or any other bodily act of the resurrected Jesus.

However, this is an argument from silence. Paul’s “silence” regarding these matters can be easily explained as reflecting the fact that Paul wrote epistles, not historical narratives about Jesus. Had Paul narrated an account of Jesus’ resurrection and appearances with a lot of detail about those occurrences but nothing suggesting corporeality you might have an argument. As it stands, however, this is not a sound argument.

For more on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, may I suggest my own book, Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 72-78, Anthony Thiselton’s commentary on 1 Corinthians, and N. T. Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God.

[Calm]

Matthew's women don't see the wounds even though they hold his feet. It's up to Gentile Luke to invent some wound to prove he's not just a phantom.

How does holding his feet not prove he's not just a phantom in and of itself?

[Mortal Man]

The Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul. If the soul is immortal, then resurrection has to refer to the body. http://www.myjewishl...urrection.shtml

Yes, I'm not disputing that.

I don't think Paul is a NOP (new order Pharisee ) because he clarifies in Philippians 3:5 that as touching the law, he is a Pharisee. He seems to be saying that his beliefs are so aligned.

I guess we could argue whether "touching the law" includes the resurrection or if this implies "[only] touching the law"; i.e., excludes beliefs outside the law, like resurrection. However, as far as the OP is concerned, I don't think his pre-conversion beliefs really matter, since his post-conversion beliefs were certainly not aligned with the Pharisees.

I'd be interested in your response to this paper as it addresses several of the issues you raise in the OP. You can read it here:

http://www.christian...om/resbody.html

Yes, I read that in doing research for the OP. I think that many of his points will be discussed as this thread develops, so here I'll just point out that his commentary on the body of Christ

The second metaphorical usage is in reference to the Christian Church as the Body of Christ.

1Co 12:12-31 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body.... And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

Paul's understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ has shaped much Christian theology. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that although the term is used metaphorical, it is strongly related to the physical body. The parts of the church are compared to part so human anatomy--the eye, the foot, the ear. The meaning is unequivocally physical. See also Eph 4:11-12 (And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.).

misses the influence of the Corinthian Asclepium on Paul's theology (see note [2]). (And I'd like to give thanks here to Chris Smith for sending me The Temple of Asclepius paper.)

[Mortal Man]

I find it interesting that you provided no citation for this claim, which is central to your thesis. The omission strikes me as odd.

Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places, but all that I found so far regarding Asclepius's death is that Zeus struck him with a lightning bolt. Several sources then claim that he was turned into a star. The only thing which seems to come close to your claim is that many saw Asclepius, though it doesn't seem clear to me if this was a resurrected, physical Asclepius or not.

For the ancients, turning into a star was essentially equivalent to ascending to heaven. For example, Luke's "multitude of the heavenly host" refers to the army of good angels who fought in the War in Heaven under the leadership of Archangel Michael and/or "Yahweh of hosts". In his birth narrative, Luke appeals to beliefs passed down from ancient Canaanite religion, deriving from Assyro-Babylonian mythology, regarding the motion of the sun, moon and stars (Deuteronomy 4:19; Judges 5:20).

[Mortal Man]

Did Paul have to mention it? Would his rhetoric have been served any better by mentioning it?

What was the crowning event that enabled Peter et al. to stand as witnesses to the resurrected Christ?

The whole thing is a big secret? Where do you read that.

"...and they said nothing to any one;"

How do they run counter? Corruption means a state where an items rots away until it ceases to exist in that state. It does not mean totally unmarred by any blemish whatsoever.

How do you reconcile

"you do not sow the body which is to be"

and

"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

with

"Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side"?

[Mortal Man]

I'm with you. I'm not really following why "wounds" are in need of mention.

If Paul had known about the wounds, he wouldn't have taught what he did.

This is the difference in the healthy skepticism of Ehrman and the extreme skepticism of Carrier.

I don't buy all of Carrier's arguments. I only went with the one's I agreed with.

[mercyngrace]

Yes, I'm not disputing that.

I must've misunderstood. I understood you to be saying that Paul was referring to a spiritual resurrection only. I'm saying those references would be irrelevant if the bulk of his correspondents already accepted a belief in the immortality of the soul. And as Pahoran asked, why refer to Christ as the firstfruits of the resurrection if souls don't die?

I guess we could argue whether "touching the law" includes the resurrection or if this implies "[only] touching the law"; i.e., excludes beliefs outside the law, like resurrection. However, as far as the OP is concerned, I don't think his pre-conversion beliefs really matter, since his post-conversion beliefs were certainly not aligned with the Pharisees.

The reason I disagree about relevance is because, as Volgadon pointed out, why would Paul focus so much on something that was already commonly accepted - that being the immortality of the soul/spirit?

I still don't see how to disregard Paul saying that we are "changed" if we rise with the same immortal souls that inhabited mortal bodies. And how does God quicken what is already alive? What I'm seeing is seeming contradiction but I believe it can be reconciled.

Yes, I read that in doing research for the OP. I think that many of his points will be discussed as this thread develops, so here I'll just point out that his commentary on the body of Christ misses the influence of the Corinthian Asclepium on Paul's theology (see note [2]). (And I'd like to give thanks here to Chris Smith for sending me The Temple of Asclepius paper.)

Great. Another paper for me to read tonight... I hope the points do get addressed. It's an interesting position you've taken and I'm enjoying the different opinions I've come across in trying to address the OP. (Even if I'm still offon a tangent and haven't gotten to the main thrust of your OP.)

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man,

I’m going to try to respond to your opening post a little at a time in as much detail as time permits. I hope you find this helpful, at least. All block quotations are from your opening post.

Hi Rob, thanks for responding.

This is a good idea only if the first “report” claims to be a chronologically precise narrative, and even then several possibilities will have to be considered: that the event is historical and the first report accurate; that the event is historical but the first report contains some inaccuracies; and that the event is not historical. On the other hand, one must not assume that references or narratives to a particular event purport to provide a strictly chronological account.

I'm just looking to see if the core elements match up. If major new elements are suddenly introduced, long after the fact, which take the story in new directions, then there is a problem.

If what you mean is that some two decades passed between Jesus’ crucifixion and the earliest Christian writings, I agree. I would want to clarify, however, that it is not the case that we have two decades of textual materials (a “historical record”) relevant to the origin of the Christian movement during which there is no reference to the resurrection of Jesus. This isn’t the case. Jesus was crucified in AD 33 (or 30, but I think the evidence for 33 is much stronger). Our earliest documents that might have any relevance to the subject were written around AD 50, plus or minus a few years (1 and 2 Thessalonians; Galatians; and probably James). I would date Galatians in 49, 1-2 Thessalonians in 50-51, and James possibly as early as 45 or as late as 61. James does not refer explicitly to the resurrection of Jesus, though it does speak of “the Lord Jesus Christ” as an object of religious devotion (1:1; 2:1) and of his future coming (5:7). Galatians speaks of Jesus’ resurrection in the salutation (1:1), and 1 Thessalonians also speaks of Jesus being raised from the dead (1:10). In short, our earliest “record” of any potential relevance, the earliest datable NT writings, refer to the resurrection of Jesus, about 16 years after the fact.

Your chronology here seems to assume that Paul’s vision of Jesus took place about four years after Jesus’ crucifixion. I think the gap between the two events was much shorter, probably two years or less. Also, since Jews often counted time inclusively, “three years later” (Gal. 1:18) probably means sometime in the third year after his conversion. This means that Paul’s meeting with Peter and James was roughly (as we would reckon it) three to five years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

My dates are all approximate.

Since this material that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 had achieved a “creedal” form by the time he received it from Peter and James, as you correctly point out, this means that the belief that Christ had died, been buried, been raised, and appeared to his apostles originated very close indeed to the time of the crucifixion. Allowing for a reasonable amount of time for the belief to become articulated in a formal creedal statement, the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is good evidence that the belief in Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances was held by Jesus’ original post-crucifixion followers. In other words, there was no period of time after Jesus’ crucifixion in which his followers were out proclaiming their belief in him but not proclaiming belief in his resurrection. Belief in Jesus’ resurrection was part of the “Jesus movement” from the very beginning.

This seems a bit optimistic but I'll go along with it.

This is what the Gospels (including Luke, the author of Acts in which Paul is quoted here) also report, since they say that it was Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin that had handed Jesus over to Pilate for execution, who buried Jesus in his own tomb.

Your link here refers to a blog article by James Tabor (the lone biblical scholar who supported the “Jesus family tomb” fiasco) in which Tabor contends that Joseph of Arimathea did not bury Jesus’ body in Joseph’s own tomb but in a temporary burial site. According to Tabor, the notion that Joseph owned the tomb is a later accretion invented by Matthew and contradicted by John. While only Matthew states explicitly that Joseph owned the tomb, this is already implicit in Mark (whom Tabor assumes, probably correctly, was the first of the four Gospels to be written). According to Mark, “Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus” (Mark 15:43). There is no reason why Joseph would need to “take courage” if he was simply going to Pilate as a representative of the Sanhedrin to make an official request on its behalf for permission to bury the body. Joseph needed to muster up some courage to make this request precisely because he was not acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Sanhedrin. That being the case, Mark’s account implies that Joseph, acting on his own, placed Jesus’ body in a tomb over which Joseph personally had control—and the obvious conclusion then is that Joseph himself owned the tomb. Mark confirms that Joseph was acting on his own by reporting that Pilate “granted the corpse to Joseph” (v. 45).

Luke and John also indicate that Joseph was acting on his own and not on behalf of the Sanhedrin. According to Luke, Joseph “had not consented to their decision and action” (Luke 23:51), and John states that Joseph “was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews” (John 19:38). Tabor thinks John indicates that the tomb was meant only as a temporary burial spot when he states, “So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there” (19:42). Tabor asserts, “Obviously it makes no sense at all to think Joseph of Arimathea would have just happened [sic] to have his own family tomb nearby.” Why it is “obvious” that “this makes no sense at all” Tabor does not explain, and I cannot see any reason for such a claim. Why wouldn’t a member of the Sanhedrin (and therefore a rather wealthy man) purchase a tomb near Jerusalem for himself and his family members?

It is true, as Tabor points out, that many Jews would re-bury the bones of a departed family member after they had dried out. Whether the family of Jesus (i.e., his mother and brothers) would ever have wished to re-bury the bones of Jesus elsewhere after they had dried out is unknown and calls for speculation. However, as even Tabor acknowledges, the practice was to perform such reburial about a year after the person’s death. Furthermore, the bones would typically be buried in the same tomb but deposited in an ossuary, a limestone box designed for that purpose and kept in the tomb. Therefore, we have no reason to think (as Tabor has tried to argue) that the body of Jesus was reburied at a different location, unbeknownst to Jesus’ closest followers and family members, the very next evening. The evidence is decidedly against such a desperately speculative scenario.

Tabor claims that Matthew invented the detail of the tomb belonging to Joseph as a “theological addition to show a fulfillment of prophecy, namely, Isaiah 53:9, where the suffering servant is buried in the tomb of a rich man.” This explanation is also speculative because Matthew does not cite Isaiah 53:9, despite the fact that he does indeed often cite OT texts as “fulfilled” in Jesus. Tabor’s suggestion might have some possible merit if we knew that Matthew had invented the whole story of the burial in Joseph’s tomb, but in fact we know this isn’t the case. Since the accounts in the other three Gospels imply that Joseph owned the tomb, the argument for Matthew inventing this detail is rather flimsy.

I don't have any major problems with this.

[Mortal Man]

Mortal,

I have read your ingenious OP with great interest.

Thanks Pahoran. Are you sure it isn't "nutty"?

Given that you take an approach to documentary sources that is functionally indistinguishable from the approach Mr Bowman takes with early LDS sources, I shall be reading his responses with even greater interest.

Yes, I'll be interested to see why the changing number of personages the woman/women saw is of no importance; whereas, the changing number of personages JS saw is essential.

But for you, MM, I have just one question:

If Paul really thought of the spirit as living on in disembodied immortality, as you suppose, then in what way could Jesus be said to have been "raised from the dead" that would not immediately apply to everyone else who had ever lived?

Maybe his view of Man's Soul was similar to that of Jehovah's Witnesses.