# 1 Corinthians 15 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819 "2011-05-22T21:46:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/41 "2011-05-24T00:36:45Z")
We already mentioned the Yohanan find. The current site of the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher indeed rests on a a site that Constantine’s mother claimed to have been revealed to her by visions. However, there is no actual evidence connectining the site to Jesus, and no evidence of any Christian veneration of a tomb in the 1st Century. 2nd century traditions are meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/42 "2011-05-24T00:38:56Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > In 1968, an ossuary (or bone box) was found in a tomb north of Jerusalem, inscribed with the name Johanan. It contained the remains of a man who had been crucified. Among the bones, there was a heel bone with an iron nail through it. The leg bones had both been broken - one was a clean fracture, but the other was smashed into pieces. This ossuary is a remarkable archaeological confirmation of the accuracy of the Bible’s account of how Jesus was crucified. > [http://www.facingthechallenge.org/crucified.php](http://www.facingthechallenge.org/crucified.php) > > After the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed in 136 AD the Romans built a temple to Venus at the site Christians at the time believed to be the burial place of Jesus. > > After Emperor Constantine ended persecution of Christians the temple was destroyed, and a church was built. That church has been damaged and rebuilt several times. It is currently the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Archaeological excavations have indicated that during the first century AD the area where the church stands was used as a burial place. It’s my understanding that there are two “burial” places or Jesus (my memory is hazy regarding this though). Neither has a lot of credible evidence to support it. The suggestion is that they were created because Constantines mother (wife? I can’t remember, so take this with a grain of salt) was visiting the land. SHe also got the “nail” for the Spear of Destiny and some wood from the cross. As to the bone box of the crucified person, that suggests that it’s possible that Jesus’ body could have been given for a proper burial - but I see no reason to think it was actually probable. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/43 "2011-05-24T00:41:11Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Mark was written 40 years later, but it seems unlikely that Mark made up the crucifixion story himself - there was some sort of oral history preceding it. We do not know when the Gospels were written. A theory that seems plausible to me is that Luke and Acts were written by St. Luke, a physician, and a traveling companion to St. Paul, and that he used as source material Mark, and a more primitive gospel scholars call Q. I have read the Bible from cover to cover in several English translations. Acts appears to have been written when St. Paul was still alive. He is experiencing a comfortable house arrest. The reader has been assured that he has not violated Jewish or Roman laws. Writing three hundred years later Eusebius said that St. Paul was executed before the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD began. If Acts was written when St. Paul was still alive, it was written before 66 AD, Luke was written earlier, and Mark was written earlier still. I differ from the scholarly consensus in giving an early date for Mark, Luke, and Acts. However, there is a consensus that St. Luke, who traveled with St. Paul, wrote Luke and Acts. He would not have had the incentive to wait for decades before writing those books. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/44 "2011-05-24T00:49:20Z")
It was very improbable, but I didn’t say it was impossible. Even the assertion that Hadrian built the Temple of Venus on top of a site reputed to have been the tomb of Jesus is without real foundation. That was a claim made by Constantine’s court historian, Eusebius and lacks any actual corroboration contemporaneous with Hadrian. It’s true that there are a couple of competing sites for the Holy Sepulcher site, mist notably the [Garden Tomb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Tomb). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/45 "2011-05-24T00:55:51Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > We do not know when the Gospels were written. A theory that seems plausible to me is that Luke and Acts were written by St. Luke, a physician, and a traveling companion to St. Paul, and that he used as source material Mark, and a more primitive gospel scholars call Q. The character of Luke the physician is 2nd century folklore without either internal or external corroboration. It’s true that the author used Mark and Q as sources, though. > [@](#): > > I have read the Bible from cover to cover in several English translations. Acts appears to have been written when St. Paul was still alive. No, Luke was written sometimes in the 90’s, long after Paul was dead. The fact that he uses Mark puts it around 80 (Mark has to be post 70), but Luke also shows knowledge of Josephus, which puts him much later. The most conservative dating for Luke-Acts is 80 CE, but they’re more like 90-100. Writing three hundred years later Eusebius said that St. Pau > [@](#): > > I differ from the scholarly consensus in giving an early date for Mark, Luke, and Acts. However, there is a consensus that St. Luke, who traveled with St. Paul, wrote Luke and Acts. He would not have had the incentive to wait for decades before writing those books. There is no consensus that the author of Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and Mark’s post 70 dating is pretty much bulletproof. It sounds like you read a lot of apologist writing on this subject, but not much genuine scholarship. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/46 "2011-05-25T14:25:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I would recommend [this article by N. T. Wright](http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm), which is a quick summary of a lengthy book he wrote on the topic. He acknowledges a spread of Jewish beliefs concerning life after death but the key point is the following: I’ve been doing some reading and I ran across [the following](http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html), I thought you might be interested: > [@](#): > > **Q: Is it true that even N.T. Wright “comes close to conceding” your interpretation (n. 2, pp. 197-98) and even allowed “that God keeps a vast warehouse of new ‘bodies’ waiting for us in heaven, like some freakish android farm” (n. 165, p. 211)?** > > A: Yes. Wright wrote the following: > > - Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003: p. 367)\* > > Wright thus admits that Moule’s understanding of what Paul could mean (which corresponds to mine) is no doubt right, and then fully allows that 1 Corinthians 15 can indeed be interpreted that way, though he does not assert it should be. Hence Wright concludes that even if that’s what Paul meant, our “new body” would still be “more than the present one.” That is absolutely clear and unambiguous: Wright is saying point blank that this interpretation is acceptable even if not certain, and that even 1 Corinthians 15 can mean ‘exchange’. All Wright wants to add is that even if we accept this, Paul is still saying the new body will be substantially better than the one we have now, which is exactly my view. Thus, Wright clearly comes as close to conceding my argument as he can without actually endorsing it. > > That Wright appears to assert entirely contradictory things elsewhere in his book (e.g. Wright, p. 358) only demonstrates that his book was not coherently written and lacked a competent editor. For there is no other way to interpret his words on p. 367 than as accepting Moule’s (and my) argument as potentially correct. On the very next page he confirms this attitude when he says (emphasis added) that Paul “_looks forward to eventual bodily resurrection, to a new body which will have left behind the decay and corruption of the present one, and which will function in relation to present life like a new and larger suit of clothes to be put on over the existing ones_” (Wright, p. 368). A new body, leaving the present one behind. Wright does not challenge or criticize this conclusion, but practically affirms it. > > In fact, not only does Wright grant this as a live possibility (Wright, p. 367) and even arrive at almost the same conclusion himself (Wright, p. 368), he actually adds his own speculations as to how this ‘exchange’ of bodies would take place: > > ``` > *Did Paul, perhaps, believe that Jesus' new body, his incorruptible Easter body, had been all along waiting 'in the heavens' for him to 'put on over the top of' his present one?...[Either way] Paul probably believed that, at Easter, Jesus' 'mortal body' was 'swallowed up by life', a new bodily life in continuity but thus also discontinuity (immortality instead of mortality) with the previous one. (Wright, p. 371)* > > ``` > > And then: > > ``` > *The creator will therefore make a new world, and new bodies, proper to the new age. From one point of view the new world, and the new bodies, are the redeemed, remade versions of the old ones; that is the emphasis of Romans 8. From another point of view the new world, and the new bodies, are 'stored up in heaven'...[though that may only mean] that they are safe in the mind, plan, and intention of the creator God. (Wright, pp. 372-73)* > > ``` > > Wright repeatedly waffles between the idea of an entirely new body and a new “outer body” enclosing our old “inner body” (a view that makes little sense–on whether “putting on a new garment over an old one” would allow retention of the old body, see the relevant question below). But he clearly agrees that the resurrection body is a new body newly created by God, and not just the old body refurbished. He even hints (twice) that Paul may have imagined these new bodies as already ‘stored up in heaven’, waiting for us, which would make Paul’s view almost identical to that of the modern day Heaven’s Gate cult, whose members also imagined their new bodies as already waiting for them “in heaven” and their old bodies as mere “containers” to be left behind. Wright allows that maybe this only meant the idea of these new bodies was ‘stored up’ in God’s mind, which is how I would interpret 2 Corinthians 5, but the difference is not that great. Wright still allows that it could be an entirely new body, and not a mere restoration and improvement of the old one. > > Despite all that, since Wright waffles even here, and appears to contradict himself elsewhere, I only allowed that he “comes close” to conceding my view. I don’t assume he agrees with me. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/47 "2011-05-25T14:33:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It was very improbable, but I didn’t say it was impossible. True. I’ve found that ‘very improbable’ somehow translates to ‘probable’ to certain Christian apologetists. I was listening to Craig’s debate with Luderman (his second) and it struck me as completely odd that Craig would expect the disbelievers of the first century christians to put a lot of effort in discrediting this small blooming faith. It’s as though Craig expects the early disbelievers to be CSI agents who had an unwavering determination to stomp out any new faith. Why assume that? It makes no sense. With what I’m learning there were multiple Jewish sects. Apparently there was one that worshipped Herod as a messiah (according to one thing I read - I haven’t verified it yet, so take with a grain of salt). Why focus on Christians? Paul also seems increasingly bizarre to me if you assume he was talking about Jesus being resurrected physically. Then again, I am right in the middle of Carrier’s essay on a spiritual resurrection, so that is coloring my interpretations. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/48 "2011-05-25T14:39:35Z")
The “why didn’t the Romans (or Jews) show the body?” meme is a pretty common apologetic which rests on a multiplicity of unfounded assumptions. I don’t know why Craig bothers to try it in debates with real scholars. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/49 "2011-05-25T14:51:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The “why didn’t the Romans (or Jews) show the body?” meme is a pretty common apologetic which rests on a multiplicity of unfounded assumptions. I don’t know why Craig bothers to try it in debates with real scholars. I think it’s because his audience isn’t typically composed of scholars. I think that the average person would think ‘hey, that’s a good point, why didn’t they just trot out the body’? Craig’s opponent would have to respond on multiple fronts, taking up A LOT of time. The opponent would have to: 1. Ask why anyone care to do this. 2. Point out that there’s no reason to believe that the disciples ‘spread the faith’ instantly after Jesus’ death. 3. That the gospels don’t necessarily correspond to history (this would be a lengthy endeavor). 4. Question the assumptions: A. That Jesus had a tomb B. That the disciples knew where the tomb was That’s just off the top of my head. During the Ludeman debate, Ludeman said something to the effect of by the time they started preaching it (40 days after the event) the body would have been decomposed. Craig responds that if there was a body (decomposed or not) in the tomb this would have been sufficient to dispell the resurrection claim. This strikes me as misguided though: 1. Why wouldn’t the Christians just deny that it was Jesus? After all, they had _seen_ Jesus, obviously this decaying body in the tomb was a ‘plant’ by the very same Jews who crucified him to begin with. It’s not like we have any first century skeptic’s accounts on the event. At best I suppose you could appeal to Matthew, which was decades after the fact. 2. Assumes the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection. 3. Assumes that even if there was a body that it would have remained in the tomb. Wasn’t the tomb ‘on loan’, so-to-speak from Joe of A? I swear that I have it in my head that it was because they needed to get Jesus in the tomb before a specific time. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/50 "2011-05-25T14:57:22Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > 1. Why wouldn’t the Christians just deny that it was Jesus? After all, they had _seen_ Jesus, obviously this decaying body in the tomb was a ‘plant’ by the very same Jews who crucified him to begin with. We actually have an example of something similar to this - [Sabbatai Zevi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi#Disillusion): > [@](#): > > Sabbatai’s conversion was devastating for his followers. Muslims and Christians criticized his followers after the event. In spite of Sabbatai’s apostasy, many of his adherents still tenaciously clung to him, **claiming that his conversion was a part of the Messianic scheme**. False prophets such as Ghazzati and Primo, who were interested in maintaining the movement, encouraged such belief. In many communities, the Seventeenth of Tammuz and the Ninth of Av were still observed as feast-days in spite of bans and excommunications by the rabbis. Nothing dissuaded these people that Sabbatai was not the messiah. It’s not hard to envision the early Christians in a similar spot. A body is produced, it’s decaying - unrecognizable, _it’s presence goes against their experiences_ (Jesus visions and the like), it **couldn’t** be their Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/51 "2011-05-25T15:16:45Z")
Another assumption is that anyone would have recorded such an event as an attempt to display a body even if it had happened. Why would anybody write that down, and then keep copying it for generation after generation? I think the main premises that have to be supported, though, are that the disciples ever claimed a physical resurrection, and that there was ever a tomb. Neither of those claims are found in the earliest layers of Christian literature. ETA of course, the presumption that anyone would have _cared_ what the disciples were saying is also pretty tenuous. Most people even in Jerusalem would have had no idea who they were or who Jesus was, and cared even less. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/52 "2011-05-25T15:23:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Another assumption is that anyone would have recorded such an event as an attempt to display a body even if it had happened. Why would anybody write that down, and then keep copying it for generation after generation? That’s true. I don’t think we have any writings from critics of Christianity for several hundred years, do we? I **think** we have a lot of Celsus work through a response to Celsus - we don’t actually have his work. That’s\* after \*Christianity was gaining ground ( **decades** a **century** (?) after the fact). > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think the main premises that have to be supported, though, are that the disciples ever claimed a physical resurrection, and that there was ever a tomb. Neither of those claims are found in the earliest layers of Christian literature. I agree. The Markian account, IMO, can’t be trusted. The other gospels are based on that and what does that say about them? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/53 "2011-05-27T07:24:46Z")
Dio, what do you think of the spiritual body hypothesis? I’m reading Carrier’s essay and I find it quite compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/54 "2011-05-27T13:36:06Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > The Markian account, IMO, can’t be trusted. The other gospels are based on that and what does that say about them? Out of curiosity, why do you dismiss the Markian account, generally agreed to be the earliest? I mean up to 16:8, which includes the women finding the empty tomb. The post-resurrection appearances in Mark were added later of course. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/55 "2011-05-27T13:47:34Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Out of curiosity, why do you dismiss the Markian account, generally agreed to be the earliest? I mean up to 16:8, which includes the women finding the empty tomb. The post-resurrection appearances in Mark were added later of course. I don’t think that Mark was written as history. I do think it was the earliest and I think the other Gospels depend on Mark (which is problematic). Mark doesn’t claim to be an eye witness. I’m also starting to agree with the idea that the earliest Christianity was not what was preached in Mark. The only reason to trust Mark seems to be because of it’s popularity - IMO. It seems a lot of gospels had their source in Mark. I have heard theories that attempt to show Mark as derived of mythical elements - but all I’ll say is that I’m sympathetic to them, since I am not an expert in history, myth, and I have not done extensive reading on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/56 "2011-05-27T14:36:25Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Out of curiosity, why do you dismiss the Markian account, generally agreed to be the earliest? I mean up to 16:8, which includes the women finding the empty tomb. The post-resurrection appearances in Mark were added later of course. BTW - If you accept that 16:8 is the end and you accept that Mark is writing history, how did the story of the empty tomb get out? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/57 "2011-05-27T16:12:17Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Dio, what do you think of the spiritual body hypothesis? I’m reading Carrier’s essay and I find it quite compelling. Firts I should say that I don’t think we can necessarily infer much about Paul’s personal beliefs from surrounding Jewish beliefs because Paul was idiosyncratic and iconoclastic in just about every way. He was obviously informed by very personal experiences, liberally interpreted scripture and was adamant that he was not taught his Gospel, but got it directly from Jesus. Personally, I think that he believed the physical body was destroyed (“sowed in corruption”) and reborn as entirely new bodies. His language is rife with allusions to harvest rituals and terminology, and his metaphor for the bodies being “sown,” the decaying and becoming raised again as “firstfruits” are direct references to pagan agricultural metaphors. Paul’s own reputed hometown of Tarsus had an annual ritual where it burned the local god (a local hybrid of Herakles, and the Cilician harvest god, Sanadan) on a giant pyre to symbolize the destruction of the vegetation by the sun, followed by a descension of Herakles into Hades, and a resurrection in the spring. There are inscriptions from ancient Tarsus calling Herakles a _theos soteros_ - “savior god,” and this Tarsean ritual was similar to other sowing (“dying”) and resurrection metaphors found in other Pagan agricultural mythology (Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz - the latter two are closely related, and are also related to the Cilician Sandan - all are basically variations on the theme of vegetation being destroyed by scorching ANE summers and reborn in the spring). Because of these allusions in Paul’s language, and because of his Tarsean/Cilician background (which I think gets overlooked and underrated in attempts to analyze Paul’s language and psychology, and that trying to simply him to “Jewish” is overlooking a huge part ofhis formative environment), shows that Paul believed in a pagan-style, total destruction of the physical body, and the creation of a whole new, purely spirtual body. He says explicitly that the physical, earthly body is destroyed (_soma psuchikos/soma epigeion_), and replaced with a body that he calls “heavenly” (_epouranios_) and “spiritual” (_pneumatikos_). I think Paul believed in a spirtual resurrection, not a physical one, which is not to say that I think the crucifixion itself was not a physical event. I think the first experiences of a resurrected Jesus were visionary experiences later literalized as physical. I think Wright’s equivocating about the physical body being wrapped in a spiritual body is _ad hoc_ nonsense, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/58 "2011-05-27T16:43:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Firts I should say that I don’t think we can necessarily infer much about Paul’s personal beliefs from surrounding Jewish beliefs because Paul was idiosyncratic and iconoclastic in just about every way. He was obviously informed by very personal experiences, liberally interpreted scripture and was adamant that he was not taught his Gospel, but got it directly from Jesus. I think I would agree with you with regard to general Jewish belief. I do think that, if the spiritual body idea of Carrier is correct, then we can gleam some understanding out of other Jews at the time. For instance, Carrier quotes Philo as a Jew who had such an idea. I think I might have quoted a few instances in this thread. I agree with the general thrust that you are getting at here though. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Personally, I think that he believed the physical body was destroyed (“sowed in corruption”) and reborn as entirely new bodies. His language is rife with allusions to harvest rituals and terminology, and his metaphor for the bodies being “sown,” the decaying and becoming raised again as “firstfruits” are direct references to pagan agricultural metaphors. I think this is Carrier’s idea. I think it actually accords rather nicely with Genesis, actually. Again, Carrier pointed out that God made our ‘corruptible’ bodies from dirt and ‘breathed’ into these bodies. Paul says at several points that flesh cannot get into heaven. He also makes allusions, as you say, towards new bodies. Frankly speaking, I’m kind of digging on the idea, it sheds new light onto Christian belief and it’s actually appealing to me in a mystical type way. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Paul’s own reputed hometown of Tarsus had an annual ritual where it burned the local god (a local hybrid of Herakles, and the Cilician harvest god, Sanadan) on a giant pyre to symbolize the destruction of the vegetation by the sun, followed by a descension of Herakles into Hades, and a resurrection in the spring. There are inscriptions from ancient Tarsus calling Herakles a theos soteros - “savior god,” and this Tarsean ritual was similar to other sowing (“dying”) and resurrection metaphors found in other Pagan agricultural mythology (Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz - the latter two are closely related, and are also related to the Cilician Sandan - all are basically variations on the theme of vegetation being destroyed by scorching ANE summers and reborn in the spring). I’m not quite up to speed on Pagan beliefs. I’m researching this, but it’s going slowly. On a board which shall not be named, I listed a website and asked about it’s authenticity. From what I can gather it’s fairly decent. It accords with what you’ve said here (from what I can tell). I did want to pick your brain a bit though, speaking of a historical Paul (the reference to the home town), what’s your opinion of the radical belief (of Dr. Price) that he didn’t exist or was “Simon Magus” (sp?). > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because of these allusions in Paul’s language, and because of his Tarsean/Cilician background (which I think gets overlooked and underrated in attempts to analyze Paul’s language and psychology, and that trying to simply him to “Jewish” is overlooking a huge part ofhis formative environment), shows that Paul believed in a pagan-style, total destruction of the physical body, and the creation of a whole new, purely spirtual body. He says explicitly that the physical, earthly body is destroyed (soma psuchikos/soma epigeion), and replaced with a body that he calls “heavenly” (epouranios) and “spiritual” (pneumatikos). Yes, I would agree with this. I believe this is what Carrier’s essay supports. It seems very reasonable to me. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think Paul believed in a spirtual resurrection, not a physical one, which is not to say that I think the crucifixion itself was not a physical event. I think the first experiences of a resurrected Jesus were visionary experiences later literalized as physical. I pretty much agree here. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think Wright’s equivocating about the physical body being wrapped in a spiritual body is ad hoc nonsense, by the way. I think that 2,000 years of dogma is hard to resist… 😃 Since, in another post, my mistrust in the Gospels was brought up, I thought I’d share something. I’m pretty sure you are aware of this (or could correct me), but some of the other participants in this thread may not be and it may germinate some good discussion. That said, I might be participating in a debate on another website about contradictions in the bible and the contradiction that I’m going to bring up is the contradiction between Luke and Matthew regarding the genealogies. Generally I think that Matthew and Luke were written at different times for different audiences and I am not convinced that the authors were aware of each other. They both relied on Mark and felt compelled to include various details, including a link to the davidic ancestry line so as to match up with Jewish Messianic expectations. Since they weren’t aware of each other and they were essentially putting in names they _thought_ should be there, their lists do not match. Apologists generally say one of two things regarding this: 1. The discrepancy is because Luke’s genealogy refers to Mary’s line. I think this is hogwash and is not supported by any evidence what-so-ever. There is no evidence (biblical or otherwise) that the Jews during the period practiced this or understood this. In fact, [this site](http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=38&year=carr) says: > [@](#): > > “We should contrast the rabbinic position to the view of the earlier Biblical and post-Biblical period. Patrilineal descent was the primary way of determining the status of children in this period. The Biblical traditions and their early rabbinic commentaries take it for granted that the paternal line was decisive in the tracing of descent, tribal identity, or priestly status. A glance at the Biblical genealogies makes this clear. In inter-tribal marriage paternal descent was likewise decisive (Nu. 1.2, l’mishpehotam l’veit avotam); the line of the father was recognized while the line of the mother was not (mishpahat av keruyah mishpahah, mishpahat em enah keruyah mishpahah, B. B. 109b; Yeb. 54b; Yad Hil. Nahalot 1.6, etc.).” What’s interesting to me is that no one gave a fig about Mary until the Gospel of James and then that was written to settle the question of why Mary was special. According to my research the first time that this contradiction was noticed or addressed was by Africanus (whom Eusibues -sp?- quotes), which according to [here](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.vii.html): > [@](#): > > “Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, “There is neither reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all.” I found a paper by [scholars](http://biu.academia.edu/YigalLevin/Papers/176674/Jesus_Son_of_God_and_Son_of_David_The_Adoption_of_Jesus_into_the_Davidic_Line) who did try to explain the discrepancy - their solution was that the author was writing at a different time, when Roman influence would have been felt. The Romans had the “adoption” requirements that would work in this situation. So the author simply assumed that the Jews during the time would have used Roman rules (which from a Jewish perspective would be absurd). I find this an intriguing, yet utterly damning, idea. 1. Apologists will appeal to Jewish adoption - which the paper I quoted makes quite clear is an utterly non-jewish idea. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/59 "2011-05-27T17:27:35Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I did want to pick your brain a bit though, speaking of a historical Paul (the reference to the home town), what’s your opinion of the radical belief (of Dr. Price) that he didn’t exist or was “Simon Magus” (sp?). I think that Paul can said to at least have been historically by tautologically defining him as the author of the authentic Pauline corpus if nothing else. I haven’t read Price’s Simon Magus theory, but I don’t see a _prima facie_ reason to doubt the existence of Paul as essentially how he portrays himself in his letters. > [@](#): > > Since, in another post, my mistrust in the Gospels was brought up, I thought I’d share something. I’m pretty sure you are aware of this (or could correct me), but some of the other participants in this thread may not be and it may germinate some good discussion. > > That said, I might be participating in a debate on another website about contradictions in the bible and the contradiction that I’m going to bring up is the contradiction between Luke and Matthew regarding the genealogies. > > Generally I think that Matthew and Luke were written at different times for different audiences and I am not convinced that the authors were aware of each other. They both relied on Mark and felt compelled to include various details, including a link to the davidic ancestry line so as to match up with Jewish Messianic expectations. Since they weren’t aware of each other and they were essentially putting in names they _thought_ should be there, their lists do not match. > > Apologists generally say one of two things regarding this: > > 1. The discrepancy is because Luke’s genealogy refers to Mary’s line. I think this is hogwash and is not supported by any evidence what-so-ever. There is no evidence (biblical or otherwise) that the Jews during the period practiced this or understood this. In fact, [this site](http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=38&year=carr) says: > > What’s interesting to me is that no one gave a fig about Mary until the Gospel of James and then that was written to settle the question of why Mary was special. > > According to my research the first time that this contradiction was noticed or addressed was by Africanus (whom Eusibues -sp?- quotes), which according to [here](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.vii.html): > > I found a paper by [scholars](http://biu.academia.edu/YigalLevin/Papers/176674/Jesus_Son_of_God_and_Son_of_David_The_Adoption_of_Jesus_into_the_Davidic_Line) who did try to explain the discrepancy - their solution was that the author was writing at a different time, when Roman influence would have been felt. The Romans had the “adoption” requirements that would work in this situation. So the author simply assumed that the Jews during the time would have used Roman rules (which from a Jewish perspective would be absurd). > > I find this an intriguing, yet utterly damning, idea. > > 1. Apologists will appeal to Jewish adoption - which the paper I quoted makes quite clear is an utterly non-jewish idea. I agree with all of this. The genealogies simply contradict eachj other, and there’s no way around it. Obviously, they both have to be fictional anway, since there were no genealogies of any kind going back to David and Solomon, much less Adam. And the Davidic bloodline can’t be passed on through adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819/60 "2011-05-27T18:59:16Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > BTW - If you accept that 16:8 is the end and you accept that Mark is writing history, how did the story of the empty tomb get out? I had a long answer written and then I realized I had misinterpreted your question. You’re saying that if the women who were witnesses of the empty tomb went away scared and didn’t tell anyone (16:8), how did the story get out – right? The fact that Mark tells the story of the empty tomb shows that it got out somehow, but he doesn’t explain how. Some have theorized that the original ending of the gospel has been lost - since it ends so abruptly and with no explanation as to how people found out about the empty tomb. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think Wright’s equivocating about the physical body being wrapped in a spiritual body is _ad hoc_ nonsense, by the way. I don’t know if this is a fair characterization of Wright’s view, but I haven’t read his book on the resurrection yet. I think the summary of Paul’s understanding (the physical body is destroyed and replaced with a “spiritual” body) is accurate, but the question is what do we mean by a spiritual body? We tend to think of spiritual bodies as incorporeal or ghost-like, but there is no reason to believe that Paul thought of it this way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-corinthians-15/582819.md?page=4)