Corpus-Paul

[Ronald Troxel <rltroxel AT facstaff.wisc.edu>]

Chris
>You are certainly correct in detecting such an implication. I am not a
>greek scholar so I hope that you or others will enlighten me on Pauls
>distinction between different types of flesh you cite in the second part of
>your reply.
[snip]

Ron
Part of Paul's diatribe, in his defense of resurrection, raises the
question of how the dead are raised and what type of body they "possess"
(v. 35).  Paul's argument is that it is foolish to try to compare it with a
normal physical body, for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God" (v. 50).  To make his case, he points to the distinctions between
acknowledged types of flesh (human, animal, birds & fish), following which
he contrasts "heavenly bodies and earthly bodies" (v. 41).  On that basis,
he argues that resurrection yields a "spiritual body" surpassing the lost
"physical body" (v. 44).  Accordingly, for Paul, resurrection is not the
recovery of one's physical body, but the loss of a physical body in favor
of a spiritual one.

This accords with the fact that Paul's citation of tradition about the
resurrection at the head of chapter 15 is of "appearances," without an
emphasis on the physical nature of the appearances found in texts such as
Luke 24:39. Even there, however, Jesus' beckon to touch him is followed by
a command to observe his stigmata, which contains echoes of post-mortem
appearances by heroes in the Greco-Roman tradition.  (Those parallels have
been nicely summarized by Gregory Riley in the first chapter of his book,
*Resurrection Reconsidered:  Thomas and John in Controversy* (Fortress,
1995).)

[snip]
>The spirit-people found the idea of a crucified savior repugnant
>preferring to think in terms of the "Lord of Glory". For Paul, only a being
>of flesh and blood could demonstrate the possibility of a restored
>humanity, which is why he consistently insisted that Jesus died in a
>particularly horrible way.

I agree that Paul stresses "Christ crucified" to counteract a highly
realized eschatology (raising the question of how well Paul would have
taken to John's community!).  It does not seem to me, however, that his aim
in 1 Cor is not to "demonstrate the possibility of a restored humanity,"
but to shake them from a form of faith in which they could fancy themselves
already exalted, pity the likes of Paul, and ignore the harmful effects of
their elitist attitudes.

Paul introduces his treatment of resurrection not to bring them to an
affirmation of the existence of flesh and blood even in the post-mortem
state, but to answer the denial of resurrection in the community.  It is
tempting to see this denial as an intensification of their realized
eschatology:  rejecting a crude conception of resurrection (N.B. "How are
the dead raised?  What kind of body do they have?" v. 35), they assert the
*assumption* of their bodies, which is why Paul must insist, "flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (v. 50).

Where did they get this notion?  Probably from Paul himself, who proclaimed
the parousia (about which he had run into trouble in Thessalonica, as
well).  Thus in recounting that theme in vv. 51ff., he stresses that even
the parousia will bring about a change of body.

IMHO this is Paul's logic in 1 Cor 15.  I welcome rejoinders.

Ron

Ronald L. Troxel, Ph.D.
Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies
1340 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Dr.
Madison, WI 53706