Corpus-Paul

["John Dickson" <jdickson AT bigpond.com>]

Since we have raised this point several times already, let me make some comments and ask some questions.

First, Paul does not appear to me to conflate Christ's resurrection and his appearances in/to others, as if the former consisted in the latter. Is this not clear from 1 Cor 15:4b? Christ was raised at a point in time (TH hHMERA TH TRITH) and subsequently 'appeared' to others. Furthermore, the fact that 'resurrection' rather than 'appearance' language predominates in Paul's discussions of this theme weakens the possibility that Paul thought Christ to be raised only in the sense that he appears/lives to/in Christians, as has been suggested in a previous post.

Secondly, when Paul says that the one who was crucified and then buried was also EGHGERTAI (1 Cor 15:4b), what else can this mean other than that the dead and buried body of Jesus came back to life? We may find this notion philosophically repulsive or historically repugnant, but we are discussing here what Paul thought, not what actually happened. Does this not seem to be the obvious meaning of this text?

Thirdly, there can be little doubt that Paul's language of and belief in the resurrected Christ derived from Palestinian Christian tradition (Rom 1:2-4). What conception of resurrection from the dead are we to imagine such a tradition taught? A non-physical 'resurrection' seems extremely unlikely. Thus, is it the opinion of those who think Paul teaches only a non-physical resurrection of Christ that he has inherited the language of the tradition but filled it with new meaning? This would not be amazing in itself (I am sure he has done it to a number of his terms) but it would require good evidence. Where is this evidence?

Fourthly, such evidence is not as easily found in 1 Cor 15 as has been suggested by some, since Paul continues to describe the post-resurrection entity (of believers and, in light of v.20, of Christ himself) as SWMA. That one is YUCIKON and the other is PNEUMATIKON does not change this. It would be simplistic to read into the use of the PNEUMA cognate an existence that is 'spirit-alone' (as opposed to corporeal). That Paul can call breathing people PNEUMATIKOS (1 Cor 12:1; 14:37) prior to death (let alone resurrection) should cause us to hesitate giving the term too much (English) force in chapter 15.

Fifthly, I would be interested in the opinion of others as to whether the desire of some sections of scholarship to read into Paul a non-physical resurrection for Jesus is, in fact, symptomatic of an attempt to domesticate Paul into our modern philosophical and historical outlook. Since we find the notion of bodily resurrection hard to swallow we reinterpret Paul as saying the resurrection of Jesus is fundamentally a subjective phenomenon that believers may experience.

Looking forward to the comments of others.

John Dickson

Macquarie University
Ancient History Department
College of Humanities
Sydney, Australia