Corpus-Paul

["Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D." <smcginn AT jcu.edu>]

Licia Kuenning wrote:

> While we're on the subject of words--do we have a similar problem with 
> "physical"?
> Is "physical" perhaps an
> anachronism in this context (do we have a modern concept of "physical" that 
> didn't
> exist in Paul's time?).
> The two kinds of body Paul speaks of are a body "of soul" and a body "of 
> spirit"
> (whatever those mean).

Thanks, Licia, for raising this.  I think it is helpful to remember that Paul 
is
strongly influenced by Stoicism (as seen in his ethics, e.g.) and that the 
Stoic view
is that there exists "spiritual matter."  In fact, for the Stoics, God was a 
highly
refined, spiritual _substance_.  Paul's discussion of the resurrection (in 
esp. 1 Cor
15) affirms both the "spiritual" and the "bodily" reality of resurrection.  
The
debates in prior posts about spirit v. body, as also the debate over 
subjective v.
objective, are too stark.  It seems to me that Paul wants to say both/and 
rather than
either/or.  So, in my view, Paul believes Jesus was raised "in the body" but 
this is
the SWMA PNEUMATIKON, as opposed to the SWMA YUCIKON which indeed died on the 
cross.
We, on the other hand, are heirs to Plato who divorces spirit from matter, so 
our
notion of "physical" is that it must be alien to the "spiritual" and v-v.

My 2 cents.

Sheila McGinn