Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's conversion & Gal. 1:16

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ronald Troxel <rltroxel AT facstaff.wisc.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's conversion & Gal. 1:16
  • Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:13:14 -0600


John
>In my opinion, little can be made of the EN EMOI in Gal 1:16 to advance the
>argument of J. Hurd that Paul refers only to a "subjective experience" and
>that he "disavows any flesh and blood resurrection body". 'To me' is a
>perfectly appropriate English translation given that EN with the dative EMOI
>may be used as little more than an emphasized version of EMOI on its own.

Ron
I agree that EN EMOI cannot be stretched to cover a subjective experience,
since it is not language that Paul uses elsewhere for "second sight." And
yet, to argue that EN with EMOI is "little more than an *emphasized*
version of EMOI on its own" muddles the issue (what *sort* of emphasis
would this be?). For examples of EN + dative as indirect object, see BGD
p. 261 (4.a).

John
>Of course, this does not settle the question of the nature of
>the Christ's resurrection (in Paul's thought) either way.
>On that point, I would have thought it fairly clear that Paul understood
>Christ's resurrection as involving a level of 'physicality'. By this, I mean
>that Paul saw a continuity between the body that was crucified and that
>which was raised by God. Is this in disupute by J. Hurd?

Ron
If I may butt in, it certainly is by me (see my post of 4/2). One problem
is that Paul never talks about the resurrected "body" of the Christ. All
we have to go on is his discussion of resurrection in his dispute with the
Corinthians (15), where he distinguishes between the sWma YuCikon and the
sWma pneumatikon, the former being perishable, the latter imperishable.
This dovetails with his assertion of v. 50 that "flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the
imperishable."

It seems to me the unavoidable conclusion is that Paul conceived of the
resurrected state as non-physical. And if the issue at stake here is a
denial of the resurrection of the Christ, then Paul's assertions about the
character of resurrected Christians would certainly transfer to the Christ
himself.

Ron

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page