Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I've responded to this portion of Rhinestone's argument here if anyone happens to be interested.

"Paul's understanding of resurrection is like that of Daniel 12. Most English translations of Dan 12:2 are misleading. For example, the RSV refers to "those who sleep in the diet of the earth." This translation is supported by the versions, but not by the MT. The Hebrew phrase is best translated "those who sleep in the land of dust." This expression is not an allusion to bodies in graves. "The land of dust" is a description of Sheol or Hades (cf. Job 17:16), where the shades of the dead are confined. Those who "awake" are not reunited with their physical bodies but "shine like the brightness of the firmament," "like stars" (v. 3). In other words, they are given celestial bodies, like those of the heavenly beings. That Paul's understanding of resurrection was similar to that expressed in Daniel 12 is supported by Paul's comparison of resurrected bodies to the sun, moon, and stars in 1 Cor 15:40-41. Both Daniel 12 and 1 Cor 15 express the notion of astral immortality. Neither the book of Daniel nor Paul shows any interest in what happens to the physical body. Presumably it decays and has no importance for the resurrected person. This interpretation of Daniel 12 is supported by the description of personal afterlife for the righteous in the book of Jubilees: "And their bones shall rest in the earth, and their spirits shall have much joy" (Jub. 23:22). It is important to note that both Daniel 12 and the book of Jubilees are of Palestinian provenance." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context, pgs. 125-126 https://books.google.com/books?id=xa...page&q&f=false

So it's Juice against John J. Collins, Adela Yarbro Collins, George Nickelsburg, Outi Lehtipuu, and many others - https://www.google.com/webhp?client=...2+land+of+dust

I don't know about you guys but I'll stick with the people who teach at Yale and have studied this stuff their entire lives.

So there you have it. If this is the case then we shouldn't even expect a physical resurrection, let alone an empty tomb.

[Meh Gerbil]

Can anyone provide a valid reason for thinking the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were different without appealing to the later accounts or are we done here?

Out of curiosity why do you think any of the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 didn't involve a physical body?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Out of curiosity why do you think any of the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 didn't involve a physical body?

Paul had a vision and makes no distinction between his vision and the other appearances. He uses the same word - ophthe, "appeared, was seen" in each case. Throughout all of Paul's letters he gives no hint of the resurrected Jesus being experienced in a way more physical than a vision/revelation. Therefore, apologists can't claim that the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical" than some sort of spiritual experience.

[Meh Gerbil]

Paul had a vision and makes no distinction between his vision and the other appearances. He uses the same word - ophthe, "appeared, was seen by" in each case. Throughout all of Paul's letters he gives no hint of the resurrected Jesus being experienced in a way more physical than a vision/revelation. Therefore, apologists can't claim that the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical" than some sort of spiritual experience.

I understand that you're equating all of the appearances.
What I don't understand is why 'appeared, was seen by' is interpreted by you as 'non-physical appearance'.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I understand that you're equating all of the appearances.
What I don't understand is why 'appeared, was seen by' is interpreted by you as 'non-physical appearance'.

Paul uses the aorist passive form of ὤφθη which we know from the LXX was used commonly for describing visionary seeing or "seeing" a divine being. There are 6 main ways this word was used in the LXX:

http://imgur.com/Z5DOsHB
Source pages 44-45. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bit...pdf?sequence=1

[Meh Gerbil]

Paul uses the aorist passive form of ὤφθη which we know from the LXX was used commonly for describing visionary seeing or "seeing" a divine being. There are 6 main ways this word was used in the LXX:

http://imgur.com/Z5DOsHB
Source pages 44-45. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bit...pdf?sequence=1

Also, we can infer from Paul putting his own vision in the list without distinction, that these were not physical encounters with a resuscitated corpse like the later gospels describe.

Of the six possible uses in your source document the first possible use is "an anthropomorphic figure that appeared materially."
Do you have a reason for picking one of the other options over option #1?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Of the six possible uses in your source document the first possible use is "an anthropomorphic figure that appeared materially."
Do you have a reason for picking one of the other options over option #1?

Yes, Paul never indicates that Jesus was "physically" seen or indicates that the word ὤφθη should be used in a more "physical" way! He only says he had spiritual encounters - Gal. 1:12-16, 2 Cor 12:1 and equates the appearances in the list. He does not give a reason to think the appearances to the others were different. According to the later author in Acts, Paul's vision only involved a bright light and a disembodied voice. Do you accept that account as accurate or reject it?

[Meh Gerbil]

Yes, Paul never indicates that Jesus was "physically" seen or indicates that the word ὤφθη should be used in a more "physical" way! He only says he had spiritual encounters - Gal. 1:12-16, 2 Cor 12:1 and equates the appearances in the list.

#1: Galatians 1:12-16 - Paul is establishing his credentials, the passage says nothing about the nature of the revelation.
#2: 2 Corinthians 12:1 - Paul claims here that he doesn't know if his experience involved his body or not but it doesn't seem to say anything about the physicality of what he saw.

I'm not sure how passages where Paul is vague about the experience translate into a definite position about the physicality of Christ's appearances.
It seems to be an argument made from ignorance.

He does not give a reason to think the appearances to the others were different.

You haven't yet established that Paul saw anything other than the resurrected body of Jesus Christ.

According to the later author in Acts, Paul's vision only involved a bright light and a disembodied voice. Do you accept that account as accurate or reject it?

So texts that come later are now valid sources which can be used to better understand earlier accounts?

Here is the problem that you have:
If we allow Acts to clarify Paul's encounter then we need to allow the Gospels to clarify the encounters had by the other people Paul cites in 1 Cor 15:5-7.
If we don't allow Acts to clarify you're caught with an unconvincing case where you've assumed Paul's encounter was less than physical, an assumption made for no apparent reason.

There are several other problems with your case:
1: A bright light/flash (Acts) isn't incompatible with a physical appearance. Often there are pyrotechnics before a rock star takes to the stage. Is the rock star a 'ghost'?
2: A 'voice' is a physical thing and it is most natural to assume it came from a voice box.
3: Your left in a world of visions of things that don't exist. Even with T.V. I can see President Obama even though he isn't physically in the room but it would be crazy to make the case that he doesn't have a physical body just because I had a 'vision'.

I find your case without merit.

[Juice]

"Paul's understanding of resurrection is like that of Daniel 12. Most English translations of Dan 12:2 are misleading. For example, the RSV refers to "those who sleep in the diet of the earth." This translation is supported by the versions, but not by the MT. The Hebrew phrase is best translated "those who sleep in the land of dust." This expression is not an allusion to bodies in graves. "The land of dust" is a description of Sheol or Hades (cf. Job 17:16), where the shades of the dead are confined. Those who "awake" are not reunited with their physical bodies but "shine like the brightness of the firmament," "like stars" (v. 3). In other words, they are given celestial bodies, like those of the heavenly beings. That Paul's understanding of resurrection was similar to that expressed in Daniel 12 is supported by Paul's comparison of resurrected bodies to the sun, moon, and stars in 1 Cor 15:40-41. Both Daniel 12 and 1 Cor 15 express the notion of astral immortality. Neither the book of Daniel nor Paul shows any interest in what happens to the physical body. Presumably it decays and has no importance for the resurrected person. This interpretation of Daniel 12 is supported by the description of personal afterlife for the righteous in the book of Jubilees: "And their bones shall rest in the earth, and their spirits shall have much joy" (Jub. 23:22). It is important to note that both Daniel 12 and the book of Jubilees are of Palestinian provenance." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context, pgs. 125-126 https://books.google.com/books?id=xa...page&q&f=false

So it's Juice against John J. Collins, Adela Yarbro Collins, George Nickelsburg, Outi Lehtipuu, and many others - https://www.google.com/webhp?client=...2+land+of+dust

I don't know about you guys but I'll stick with the people who teach at Yale and have studied this stuff their entire lives.

So there you have it. If this is the case then we shouldn't even expect a physical resurrection, let alone an empty tomb.

against a small handful of scholars. The NASBNickelsburg and Lehtipuu

[One Bad Pig]

Don't have much time now, but:

Actually, the fact that they've only found ONE buried crucified person could be evidence of the extreme rarity of the occurrence! In other words, it was the exception to the rule. Ouch. That backfired didn't it?

Given that no one argues Jesus' case was the norm, no. I've gotten you to admit there were exceptions, so that's a win.

A "Joseph of Arimathea" literally "best disciple town" just pops up out of nowhere and offers to bury Jesus (even though, according to Mark, he was part of the council that just condemned him to death), goes out of his way to buy a "new" linen cloth (even though it was illegal to do so on a festival day), all the while conveniently fulfilling Isaiah 53:9 only to fall into obscurity and never be heard from again. Matthew omits the part about Joseph being a member of the council and turns him into a "disciple" of Jesus. Luke says "he had not consented to their plan and action." The already empty "rock hewn" tomb (not too shabby for the criminal messianic pretender Jesus) becomes a "new" tomb that Joseph himself had "hewed out of the rock" where "no one had ever been laid." John has Nicodemus bring 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes! Wow! What an increasingly honorable burial yet improbable story!

How was that?

About as accurate as Gary's fantasies.

So the location was still unknown then or is there evidence that Christians knew about it?

Wait, there's evidence of Christian veneration of Jesus' tomb prior to 326 CE? Where?

I already went over that with Gary, using evidence from the article he brought up. Pay attention.

What language was the NT written in again? Oh yeah, GREEK! Also, Paul was influenced by Stoic philosophy. Christianity started as a Jewish movement but as the Jews mostly rejected it, it then became largely gentile. Paul preaches to the gentiles and Mark, the earliest gospel, was most likely written in Rome for a gentile audience as is evidenced by his explanation of Jewish customs in Mk. 7:3-4 and Mk. 15:42 where he says that Preparation Day is "the day before the Sabbath." A Jewish audience would have no need of these clarifications. Sorry, I lost track. What were you saying about Christianity not being influenced by Hellenism again?

None of that shows the dependence of Christian beliefs on Greek philosophy. Whatever you were aiming for, you missed. Badly.

The only slight exception to this is your assertion about Paul, who merely used some Stoic language.

Source: Marcia Colish

Seeking to place

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Larry Hurtado

Engberg-Pedersen

© Copyright Original Source

(As an amusing side note, I see that, in Stoic philosophy, "spirit" is refined "material". Oops. So is spirit material, destroying your non-material Resurrection schtick, or was Paul not a Stoic? Let me know which way you decide to jump.)

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm afraid this actually works against your case.
You've turned the passage into some weird thing where the dominant thought is the physicality of the revelation.
The passage isn't intending to answer the question, "Did Jesus physically appear?"

[Adrift]

Given that no one argues Jesus' case was the norm, no. I've gotten you to admit there were exceptions, so that's a win.

More than that, not only does Rhinestone ignore the rest of Magness' context when he asserts that she believed Jesus' burial violated Jewish procedures, but he apparently didn't read much further than his quote-mine.

Source: The Burial of Jesus: What Did Jesus� Tomb Look Like? by Jodi Magness

The most dramatic evidence that this young man was crucified was the nail which penetrated his heel bones. But for this nail, we might never have discovered that the young man had died in this way. The nail was preserved only because it hit a hard knot when it was pounded into the olive wood upright of the cross. The olive wood knot was so hard that, as the blows on the nail became heavier, the end of the nail bent and curled. We found a bit of the olive wood (between 1 and 2 cm) on the tip of the nail. This wood had probably been forced out of the knot where the curled nail hooked into it. When it came time for the dead victim to be removed from the cross, the executioners could not pull out this nail, bent as it was within the cross. The only way to remove the body was to take an ax or hatchet and amputate the feet.

© Copyright Original Source

[RhinestoneCowboy]

#1: Galatians 1:12-16 - Paul is establishing his credentials, the passage says nothing about the nature of the revelation.
#2: 2 Corinthians 12:1 - Paul claims here that he doesn't know if his experience involved his body or not but it doesn't seem to say anything about the physicality of what he saw.

I'm not sure how passages where Paul is vague about the experience translate into a definite position about the physicality of Christ's appearances.
It seems to be an argument made from ignorance.

Paul himself admits to having "visions" which should give us a clue at what type of experiences he was having. How exactly do those passages support a "physical" appearance? A "revelation" makes more sense as a subjective internal experience. He even says "God revealed His Son IN ME."

You haven't yet established that Paul saw anything other than the resurrected body of Jesus Christ.

Was the appearance to Paul a "heavenly vision" or not?

So texts that come later are now valid sources which can be used to better understand earlier accounts?

I asked you a question. If you accept the Acts account that the appearance to Paul was a vision then you can't claim the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more physical. Can't have it both ways.

Here is the problem that you have:
If we allow Acts to clarify Paul's encounter then we need to allow the Gospels to clarify the encounters had by the other people Paul cites in 1 Cor 15:5-7.

Were the gospels written by Peter and James? Nope. Each account must be assessed independently for historicity. The only firsthand account we have is from Paul who puts his own vision in parallel with the other appearances. No distinction is made, therefore you can't make one either.

If we don't allow Acts to clarify you're caught with an unconvincing case where you've assumed Paul's encounter was less than physical, an assumption made for no apparent reason.

Paul's own words show that this was a spiritual appearance, not a physical encounter. You can't claim it was more physical without appealing to secondhand or worse sources.

There are several other problems with your case:
1: A bright light/flash (Acts) isn't incompatible with a physical appearance. Often there are pyrotechnics before a rock star takes to the stage. Is the rock star a 'ghost'?
2: A 'voice' is a physical thing and it is most natural to assume it came from a voice box.
3: Your left in a world of visions of things that don't exist. Even with T.V. I can see President Obama even though he isn't physically in the room but it would be crazy to make the case that he doesn't have a physical body just because I had a 'vision'.

I find your case without merit.

Since you're happy with accepting the Acts account of the vision to Paul, you can't claim that the other "appearances" involved anything more than a bright light and a voice. That's hardly the same thing as physically touching a resurrected body that eats fish and floats to heaven.

I'm afraid this actually works against your case.
You've turned the passage into some weird thing where the dominant thought is the physicality of the revelation.
The passage isn't intending to answer the question, "Did Jesus physically appear?"

Where does Paul indicate a distinction between the appearances and what reason can you give for thinking the appearances were physical without appealing to the gospel accounts?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

against a small handful of scholars. The NASB alone had a team of more than 20 translators working on it.

According to the number of commentators, this is a mainstream view. https://www.google.com/webhp?client=...2+land+of+dust

Go ahead and stick with your English translation if that makes you happy. I'll go by what the Hebrew meant in its original context.

She argues for the same view I've been presenting here throughout her whole book. In any case, her section on the resurrection sources clearly shows that the views in Second Temple Judaism were diverse. It's peer reviewed and published by Oxford for Christ's sake.

By the way, Nickelsburg and Lehtipuu

I was referring to Adela Yarbro Collins, the author of the quote.

[Kbertsche]

I'm afraid this actually works against your case.
You've turned the passage into some weird thing where the dominant thought is the physicality of the revelation.
The passage isn't intending to answer the question, "Did Jesus physically appear?"

FYI, here's the pertinent paragraph from the abridged version of TDNT, also known as the "Little Kittel". Note that the authors were from the liberal end of the theological spectrum, so were not completely orthodox in their perspectives. Yet I see nothing here that rules out a physical appearance of Jesus to Paul, and their comments suggest that Paul himself did not view this as a non-physical vision.