by peacefulpete 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
This docetism (appearance of humaness tho spirit) exists in other passages dispite the later attempts to turn early resurrection stories into physical incarnations, by incorporating tales with touching by and eating in front of witneses.
pete, what is your evidence that the earliest resurrection stories were not physical, but instead docetic?
I'm going to try to live up to the name I've chosen and decline the bait Hooberus. Greenpalm, harmonizations are an essential part of being a believer. Therefore as a believer you naturally seek a way to harmonize these texts. Power to you. However, by backing up to see the different versions of this story we begin to surmize motives and personal agendas of the authors and editors. Write out the story lines as they appear in Matt, Luke and John individually (Mark has not heard of these remarkable events) and see that there are great diffferences. In one Mary is told to report to the disciples to go to Galilee. In another Jesus tells here this. In one there are two in another one angel. The angel opens the grave in her sight in one, yet not in the other. John interjects the whole Peter and an unnamed disciple episode and has Mary reappear at the scene without explaining her return (a second visit separating dialogue). In one she comes to prepare the body, in another it was already done by Joseph of A. Closer examination reveals even more if we allow the texts to speak without filling in harmonizations from our own mind.
Hooberus
Yah, I'd have to say it'll be hard to argue for a docetic view using just the canon gospels. That's to be expected, since the orthodoxy that ended up controlling the Church, decided which gospels to include or exclude in the canon. The Orthodox stance was/is a corporeal ressurection -----> ergo the chosen 4 gospels.
But what do you make of Paul's explanation of resurrection at 1 Cor 15:35-49? Doesn't that very early understanding about the ressurection argue against the raising up of a corporeal body? Doesn't it include Jesus' resurrection?
Midget....Yes, it is a good point, Paul was talking of a body transformed to a different form and glory, which derives from the original body like a plant from a seed. 2 Baruch 50:2-54:21 also described the resurrection of the righteous as having changed into "the splendor of angels," and Matthew 22:30 also states that "in the resurrection" the dead who rise "will be like the angels in heaven". So what kind of body does Paul mean by soma pneumatikon "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44)? It is tempting to regard Paul as quasi-docetic, considering his division between earthly and heavenly bodies, but I would prefer to check the literature to see how critics analyze Paul's language.
PP....I reread Helms and I agree that he does make a plausible case for dependence on Tobit. Quite a few verbal parallels in the passage. I'm still reserved about reading docetism into Jesus' comment to Mary.
"But what do you make of Paul's explanation of resurrection at 1 Cor 15:35-49? Doesn't that very early understanding about the ressurection argue against the raising up of a corporeal body? Doesn't it include Jesus' resurrection?"
To Paul "Christ Jesus" is not "just a man", and his resurrection is not just of one "spiritual body" among others. He is rather the spirit in the spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:45, "Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit -- which is incompatible with an "individual bodily resurrection"; cf. also 1 Peter 3:8, "He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit"). In deutero-Pauline literature (Colossians, Ephesians) this will develop into the doctrine of the Church as Christ's body. It's amazing to me that those who admit that "firstborn of the creation" means a transcendantal status in relation with every creature do not realize that "first-born of the dead" means exactly the same thing in relation to the resurrected dead.
I personally think docetism is ubiquitous in Pauline literature: "by sending his own Son in the likeness (homoiôma) of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3); "who, though he was in the form (morphè) of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form (morphè) of a slave, being born in human likeness (homoiôma). And being found in human form (morphè), he humbled himself ..." (Philippians 2:5ff). As in Paul "Christ Jesus", the heavenly "Son of God" who came in the human realm, is not identical to God (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28), the correspondence between "form of God" and "form of man" naturally means that he is not identical to man either. I would suggest that "the man Christ Jesus" in 1 Timothy 2:5 is intended to "correct" this docetic implication (although it still can be felt in the confession of 3:16: "He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit").
"I reread Helms and I agree that he does make a plausible case for dependence on Tobit. Quite a few verbal parallels in the passage. I'm still reserved about reading docetism into Jesus' comment to Mary."
Any tenative explanation is better than none.
Narkissos....Very nice post, and here is an interesting article that also goes into this (plus refers to the latent docetism in the resurrection appearances in the gospels, affixed with corporeal counter-stories):
Narkissos
Thank you very much for those compelling scriptural references. I've always been intrigued by Paul's interesting fusion of pagan and Jewish beliefs.
Leo
Thanks for that link. For me, it was a stimulating mixture of old and new information. It was my first exposure to portions of the apocryphal Acts of John. I love gnostic themes. That from a professed agnostic.
But what do you make of Paul's explanation of resurrection at 1 Cor 15:35-49? Doesn't that very early understanding about the ressurection argue against the raising up of a corporeal body? Doesn't it include Jesus' resurrection?
35: But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36: Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
Paul does not stop at the end of the phrase "that which thou sowest is not quickened" (and thus deny that the same dead body will live again), but instead he goes on to add the qualifying phrase "except it die." This indicates that if "it die" that later on what is sown will be "quickened" (made alive).
37: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
A farmer does not sow a mature wheat plant (what bare seed eventually is to become), but wheat seed. However there is a continuity, the same wheat seed that is sown (after it seems to die in the ground) comes to life as a wheat plant. In the same way the glorified resurrected body (the body that "shall be")is not what is sown, but the corruptible body is. However just as the seed that is sown comes to life and becomes a mature plant, so does the dead body. It comes to life and becomes glorified in the resurrection.
38: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
A wheat seed when it comes to life has the body of a wheat plant, just as each kind of seed has its own body (ie: a sunflower seed becomes a sunflower plant). There is continuity between the seed and the completed body it is given.
42: So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
The "it" that is sown is the "it" that is raised. What is sown is the body, thus the "it" that is raised must also be the body.
43: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
The "it" that is sown is the "it" that is raised. What is sown is the body, thus the "it" that is raised must also be the body.
44: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. *
Paul says that it is raised "a spiritual body." He does not write that it is raised "a spirit body."
Paul earlier in the same book contrasts "the natural man" with he that is "spiritual." The greek words translated "natural" and "spiritual" in Chapter 2 are the same greek words in Chapter 15.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corinthians Chapter 2:13-15
The word "spiritual" in Chapter 2 does not seem to mean "spirit" (as in spirit creature), but instead seems to mean one led by and empowered by the spirit of God. This same meaning can be appplied to 1 Corinthians 15:44.
*Re: the NWT translation: "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." The translation "physical" is not used by by most versions (the KJV uses the word "natural"). This same word is used by Paul in Chapter 2 of the same book (1 Corinthians). Which word "physical" or "natural" seems to fit the context of verse 2:14 ? The word "natural" seems to fit the context of verse 2:14 much better than the word "physical.":
