Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Christ's resurrection 'body'

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: Christ's resurrection 'body'
  • Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:35:55 -0600


John
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.

Ron
My point in noting language about "appearance" was not to assert that Paul held to a "merely" spiritual resurrection, but to recall that reports of Jesus' post-mortem appearances have been commonly considered among the earliest layers of the resurrection traditions, and those are consistent with a non-physical post-mortem state of the sort found in Greek and Hellenistic literature. Paul's more frequent use of resurrection language is indisputable.

John
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?

Ron
That *egHgertai* can mean nothing "other than that the dead and buried body of Jesus came back to life" is disputable. Certainly Paul considered resurrection existence concrete. 2 Cor 5.2-4 demonstrates that for Paul a disembodied post-mortem state was unthinkable. Nevertheless, there also he contrasts present corporeal existence (*{h}H epigeios {h}HmWn oikia tou skHvnou* [v. 1; = *sWmata epigeia* in 1 Cor 15.40]) and a new form of existence he calls *to oiktHrion {h}HmWn to ex ouranou* (v. 2; = *sWmata epouravnia* in 1 Cor 15.40), the purpose of which is *{h}ina katapoQH{i} to QnHton {h}upo tHs zWHs* (v. 4), paralleling his description of resurrection in 1 Cor 15.42: *{h}outWs kai {h}H anastasis tWn nekrWn. speiretai en PQora, egeiretai en aPQarsia*. Here also the resurrection of the body is the adoption of a different sort of existence, not simply the restoration of life to a corpse.

John
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.

Ron
I agree with your objection that *sWma pneumatikon* does not designate a "spirit-only" existence; again, 2 Cor 5.4 makes that understanding impossible. (In fact, I never spoke of "spirit-only" existence, but of a "spiritual body.") However, if you are attempting to establish the physicality ("flesh and blood" character) of the post-mortem body by his application of *pneumatikoi* to "breathing people," that raises linguistic difficulties. E.g. referring to a certain people as (morally) good in one context does not legitimate interpreting the statement, "it's a good day," as a moral judgment. Context is (virtually) everything. In this case, we have to understand *sWma pneumatikon* in its (Pauline) contrast with *sWma YuCikon*, which, judging from Paul's argument (as in 2 Cor 5), *sWma pneumatikon* designates non-physical existence. (By the way, in 2 Cor 5 Paul summarizes continued earthly existence thus: *ejndHmountes en tW{I} sWmati ekdHmoumen apo tou kuriou* [v. 6]!)
When I opine that Paul did not believe in a *physical* resurrection, that is not the same as saying he rejected a somatic post-mortem existence. It is simply that post-mortem somatic existence for Paul is not physical ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"). Fundamental to Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15 is that a change occurs in somatic existence via resurrection (not to mention via ascent at the parousia, v. 53), for that is his answer to his imagined interlocutor's question, *pWs egeirontai {h}oi nekroi; poiW{I} de sWmati erContai* (v. 35). His belabored argument is that resurrection life is not the resuscitation of a corpse, but a new mode of existence that cannot be compared to earthly existence. That is why he asserts that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

John
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?

Ron
As for Palestinian origins for this formulation of resurrection, I refer you to 2 Baruch 51-52, which posits altered physical characteristics for post-mortem existence. [For Palestinian provenance see Charlesworth's article in ABD, I.] Recall, also, that Daniel 12:3 asserts that the wise will "shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever." Read against the background of Hellenistic ideas of astral post-mortem existence, this suggests a concept of resurrection as a mode of existence superior to (not equal to) the pre-mortem state.

John
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.

Ron
Why not ask those of us advancing this interpretation rather than marginalizing us by speaking as if we weren't here? My answer is that I find this perspective no more to my (modern) liking than belief in resuscitation of a corpse.

Ron Troxel

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