Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant
  • Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:11:54 -0700

Meta's response to Rabbi:

Jerry Sumney's contribution concerning Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body, is
welcomed IMO, departing as it does from "mainstream" opinions of analysis of
strong/weak, and cultural beliefs concerning body/soul or spirit. I think
possibly the very capable Martin is imputing recent brain studies and
cognitive research, as well as a good portion of David Hume (no-self), into
his interpretation of Paul, which fits today's context more I think than
ancient. Of course he may be right, but I still hold to the gnostic concept
of dualism, as I consider Paul a kind of proto-gnostic (as indeed
Valentinus). I think Plato clearly taught separation between the soul as a
"form" from the body, but not a dualism as Descartes, in that for Plato, the
body as an "unreal" representation of the form, thus very similar to Eastern
thought.

Paul speaks of union with Christ, maybe influenced by Ezekiel and Daniel
(also Jubilees and 1 Enoch), or Merkabah mysticism (which seems to have had
a following at the time), but I think his pneumatology is best explained as
a non-physical cosmic union of pneumatikos. Gal. 2:20 "it is Christ who
lives in me." Phil. 3:11 being conformed: summorphizomenos has that word
morphe, which could be the Platonic sense: is it unity of "being"? Paul is
not clear, and perhaps he was not decisive in his own mind. But he does
have in mind transformation of morphe (metamorphousthe: change of morphe,
Rom. 12:2): is this an ontological statement? Metamorphosis is a Greek
concept. Christ will transform (metaschematisei) the body (soma) into
conformity (summorphon) with the body of glory (somati ten doxes), Phil.
3:21. Also 2 Cor. 3:18 and Rom. 8:29, indicating a process rather than
something instantaneous. Is it just figurative, or is it ontological?

Sanders calls the union "participatory" and Tabor a new cosmic family,
immortal Sons of God with Christ the agent (expaining Rom 8), concluding
with glorification the completion of transformation, but he doesn't state an
ontological status. Something was going on in Paul's mind: was it just
metaphor, as "sharing" with Christ in a continuing process ("one degree to
another")? Probably, but what at the end of parousia?--that appears for
Paul to be ontological, IMO. Wouldn't you say that for Paul there is
clearly a distinction between the two "bodies"? I don't think he was
interested in ontology.

YOU: The redemption of creation itself clearly refers to what *we* would
call the world - otherwise creation would be groaning for its own
*obliteration*, rather than its redemption.
ME: I don't think so. The "world" for Paul as ancients conceived, was the
"cosmos" consisting of the heavens and the earth, the heavens being
something of a spiritual nature. Yes for the Jews, the world was "groaning"
to say the very least!

I didn't say Jesus' body floats on the clouds, permanently or temporarily:
this is not my belief. Referring to "movement" I think is your eisegesis:
like where did you get that?

Richard Godwin.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page