Blogging Plans for 2011

I plan to go a whole different route this year where it concerns my blogging. I want to particularly focus in on the historical aspect of biblical studies, especially where it concerns the textual reliability of the Bible, the historical Jesus, Paul, and other similar subjects. I am also going to keep pressing the resurrection issue as well as the topic of the Kingdom of God (a pending, upcoming paper will be electronically published). I've created a reading list for myself that I will share with you guys below (in order by author).

Richard Bauckham:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony

The Jewish World around the New Testament

Darrell Bock:

Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels 

Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods

Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study

James D. G. Dunn

Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1)

Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making, vol. 2)

Craig Evans:

Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels

Gary Habermas

The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

Craig S. Keener

The Historical Jesus of the Gospels: Jesus in Historical Context

Robert E. Van Voorst

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus)

N. T. Wright:

New Testament and the People of God

Jesus and the Victory of God

Resurrection of the Son of God  (already 400 pages in)

The above list isn't meant to be comprehensive, but these are some of the ones I plan on reading over the next year or so (see a fuller list, here). If anyone has a book to recommend that is along the lines of the topic(s) above, leave a comment with the suggestion! 

I also plan on fully transitioning to my WordPress blog. This is because it has a lot more features than does blogger. You can upload files (doc, docx, pdf, etc.) on WordPress--something you can't do on blogger, also it has working footnotes (!), and other little features that blogger doesn't. 

So, I think this might be the end of the road for this blog... 

Jesus & History

Ben Witherington III is one of my favorite New Testament scholars. I think the man is brilliant. Below is a video interview where he discusses Jesus and history. Interesting bit, I think.

The Chreia

[NOTE: This is a revised and expanded entry from my other earlier post entitled, "The Chreia," which has now been deleted. Hope this is helpful for those interested in the historical Jesus studies.]

The Chreia as a Literary Form

There were Greek rhetoricians long before Aristotle (4^th century B.C.E.) and they continued at least until the 11^th century. These ones were those that trained and schooled lawyers and other public orators. From about the time of Theon (1-2 C.E.) to the time of Doxapatres (11^th century), these rhetoricians used a literary form called a chreia.

A chreia is defined as “a reminiscence that is succinct, about a character, whom it credits. Why is a chreia a reminiscence? Because if it were extended, many times it would be narrative or something else. Why is about a character? Because many times without a character reference a succinct reminiscence is a maxim or something else. Why is it called a chreia? Because of its usefulness.”[1]

Thus the requirements for a literary form to be a chreia are as follows:

1. It was always concise
2. The speaker is identified
3. The statement or action is always given
4. The content is various (that is, it can be about ethics, philosophy, education, etc.)

This literary form was employed for a shortcut in memory. It was an easy and accessible way for recording accounts and memorizing them. But how reliable are they? Do their literary forms change over time?

Theon writing from about 1-2 C.E. (latest would be 2^nd century C.E.) wrote and recorded some chreias. The later commentator, Doxapatres, from the 11^th century, reproduced some 18 chreias that Theon had penned [these weren't originally his, but he had copied them from other sources] about a millennium earlier. How much did they differ? How similar were they? Bellow I will reproduce some of the chreias.

Chreias in Transmission

# 1

Theon (c. 1-100): When Olympias found out that her son, Alexander, declared himself [the son] of Zeus, she said, “Will this one not stop accusing me to Hera?”
Doxapatres (c 1000-1100): When Olympias, the mother of Alexander, heard that her son said he was [the son] of Zeus, she said, “Will the young man not stop slandering me to Hera?”

# 2

Theon: When Pythagoras, the philosopher, had been asked how long the life of man was, he went up on the roof and peek over briefly.
Doxapatres: When Pythagoras had been asked how long the life of man would be, he appeared briefly and then hid.

# 3

Theon: A certain Lacedemonian, when someone asked him where the Lacedemonians held the boundaries of the land, pointed to his spear.
Doxapatres: When the Lacedemonian had been asked where the boundaries of Sparta were, after he extended his spear and pointed, he said, “There.”

# 4

Theon: When Alexander, the king of Macedon, stood over Diogenes, while he was sleeping, he said, “it is not good for a counselor to sleep all night long,” and Diogenes answered, “to whom the people turn and who has so many cares!”
Doxapatres: When Alexander stood over Diogenes, sleeping, he said, “it is not good for a counselor to sleep all night long.”

# 5

Theon: Plato, the philosopher, said branches of virtue grew with sweat and labor.
Doxapatres: Plato used to say the branches of virtue grew with sweat and labor.

# 6

Theon: Isocrates, the rhetor, used to say his well-developed disciples were children of the gods.
Doxapatres: Isocrates said his well-developed disciples were children of the gods.

Evaluation of Data

Above I reproduced 6 of the 18 chreias found among Doxapatres-Theon transmission. The differences are not very much. Further, none of the differences affect the essence of the message. We are likely to see more variation from newspapers in the 21^st century than we do with these chreia. We should also keep in mind that these reflect a transmission process of about a millennium (1,000 years!).

Chreias among the Christians

Below I will present the chrea where it concerns Polycarp’s account of John, the apostle.

Eusebius, DE 3.39, 6, on the authority of Polycarp, (c. 156 CE):  “Once the apostle John entred a bath house in order to wash himself, but when he learned that Cerinthus was inside, he left the place, fled through the door, and would not remain under the same roof with him, but urged each one with him, saying, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath house collapse, since Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!’”

DE 4.6, (c. 320 CE): “John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to wash himself in Ephesus, after he saw Cerinthus inside, ran out of the bath house without washing, but called out, ‘Let us feel, lest even the bath house collapse, since Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is inside!’”

Theodoret of Cyr. Eccl. Hist. 2.3 (c. 447 CE): “This one, as they say, saw the divine John, the evangelist, washing himself, for it happened because of ill health that he used the bath house. ‘Let us flee,’ he said, ‘from here, least because of Cerinthus, the bath house fall in and we share [the destruction].’”

De recept. Haer. 28 c-29A (c. 600 CE): “They said that also Saint Polycarp said that when washing himself in a bath house, the evangelist John, having learned that also Cerinthus was washing himself, left the place and fled, warning those with him, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath house collapse, since Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is inside.’”

De haer. Libell. 4 (c. 1000): “When it was necessary, the apostle John used a bath house, but when he found out as he was about to enter that Cerinthus was inside, he jumped up and left through the door as quickly as possible, not considering it right to be with him under the same roof. He explained also to those with him saying, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath house collapse on us, since Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is inside.’”

Evaluation

Though the wording differs in some instances, and some phrases and words are added, it is, in essence, the same chrea with the same basic message: John entered a bath house but fled when he saw Cerinthus. This chrea went under 900 years of transmission and we can still deduce the essential message that it was meant to convey.

Chreias in the New Testament

And a certain scribe came up and said to him: “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you are about to go.” But Jesus said to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have roosts, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay down his head.” (Matthew 8:19-20)

Then another of the disciples said to him: “Lord, permit me first to leave and bury my father.” Jesus said to him: “Keep following me, and let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:21-22)

And still another said: “I will follow you, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those in my household.” Jesus said to him: “No man that has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well fitted for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:61-62)

Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. In response he said to them: “Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” (Matthew 24:1-3)

Sayings of Jesus in Chreia Form

The sayings of Jesus that are represented in chreia form can be considered to be extremely reliable, as we have seen from the transmission of the chreias between Theon & Doxapatres. The chreias in the New Testament, however, didn’t go through a 1000 year transmission.

Most critical scholars date Matthew to about 80 CE. If this is so, the chreias were transmitted for a mere 50 years[2]. If a 1000 year transmission span of chreias can be considered fairly reliable, as the data suggests, then how much more reliable would the chreias in the Gospels be that were transmitted for no more than 50 years[3]?

Considering all the above, I should note here that the sayings found within the chreias aren’t supposed to be Jesus’ words verbatim. The chreia is supposed to capture the essence or gist of the message. In other words, we can have confidence that the chreias in the Gospels accurately and reliably preserve Jesus’ teaching not necessarily his words verbatim.

---

[1] Papiri Greci e Latine 1, no. 85.

[2] If Jesus’ ministry started in 29 CE.

[3] If some chreias were recorded in the year 30, it is possible that the authors of the Gospels had access to these original documents themselves. It is always equally possible that the chreias are the authors’ own. Whichever position one adopts, the reliability of the chreia is nearly 100%. 

John 6:62 (A Socinian Response)

A week or so ago, I had posted an entry dealing with Socinianism and John 6:62. Recently, a poster directed me to the following website and its comments on John 6:62.

The first thing they say is:

1. This verse is referring to the resurrection of Christ. This fact is clear from studying the context. Because the translators have chosen to translate anabaino as “ascend,” people believe it refers to Christ’s ascension from earth as recorded in Acts 1:9, but Acts 1:9 does not use this word. Anabaino simply means “to go up.” It is used of “going up” to a higher elevation as in climbing a mountain (Matt. 5:1; 14:23, et al.), of Jesus “coming up” from under the water at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10), of plants that “grow up” out of the ground (Matt. 13:7; Mark 4:7, 8 and 32), or of even just “going up,” i.e., “climbing,” a tree (Luke 19:4). Christ was simply asking if they would be offended if they saw him “come up” out of the ground, i.e., be resurrected, and be where he was before, i.e., alive and on the earth.

 While it is true that the resurrection was very much in view here, to limit it to this would an error. John 6 is a very entertaining dialog and we shouldn't miss out on the small details found within it.

Most truly I say to YOU, Moses did not give YOU the bread from heaven, but my Father does give YOU the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Therefore they said to him: “Lord, always give us this bread.” Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. He that comes to me will not get hungry at all, and he that exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all. But I have said to YOU, YOU have even seen me and yet do not believe. Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and the one that comes to me I will by no means drive away; because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:32-38)

Jesus says that "the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven." The "bread of God" is therefore a person; indeed, Jesus himself says "I am the bread of life." Clear identification, there's no mistake about it. Later on in the dialog he says that he has "come down from heaven." Admittedly, this can simply mean that he has come from God, but I don't think this is so (see below).

Therefore the Jews began to murmur at him because he said: “I am the bread that came down from heaven”; and they began saying: “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it that now he says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?(John 6:41-42)

The Jews asked "is this not Jesus the son of Joseph...how is it that now he says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Clearly, the Jews didn't believe that "come down from heaven" meant that he was sent forth by God in an inspired or prophetic sense. They understood Jesus literally. They were wondering, 'How can a man come down from heaven when we know he was born from Mary?' 

Jesus replies: 

“Stop murmuring among yourselves. No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him; and I will resurrect him in the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me. Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father. Most truly I say to YOU, He that believes has everlasting life. “I am the bread of life. YOUR forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:43-51)

Once more, these 'came down from heaven' sayings can simply mean that he was commissioned by God in a special sense but I don't think this is so. Jesus' statement of nobody seeing the Father "except he who is from God" implies that he had seen the Father. This can't be just in some spiritual sense for prophets of old could claim the same thing, but see John 1:18. So we have (1) Jesus claiming to have come from heaven and (2) to have seen God. 

Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me.This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when YOUR forefathers ate and yet died. He that feeds on this bread will live forever.” These things he said as he was teaching in public assembly at Capernaum. Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble YOU? What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before? (John 6:57-62)

While Socinians could appeal to verse 57 to suggest that 'coming down from heaven' simply means that Jehovah or the "Father" has "sent" Jesus "forth," they must still contend with Jesus' statement of seeing the Father and with verse 62. 

Verse 62 suggests that Jesus had been with the Father "before" he 'came down from heaven,' so that now, he has to 'ascend' to where he came from. If we view this entire dialog in light of verse 62, then not only do the 'coming from heaven' verses mean that Jehovah 'sent forth' Jesus in a special prophetic sense, but that he literally 'came down from heaven' so that he was no longer where he was "before." 

I think John 6 and especially John 8:58 are clear references to Jesus' pre-human existence.

Two or More Witnesses

(Matthew 18:16) . . .But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.

The context is obviously a legal one, but I think this is a good rule of thumb to go by. Everybody wants to believe that what they believe is true. I'm not talking about theology and interpretation, but about the historicity of one's beliefs. Christians, all Christians, have many suppositions that they carry along with their beliefs. For instance, the major one being inspiration and inerrancy. The Bible doesn't claim any of these for itself in the modern sense. 

True, there are statements such as Matthew 5:17-18 and 2 Timothy 3:16. However, none of these prove the Christian supposition. Paul, for instance, says that "all Scripture is inspired" and beneficial. In context, he is clearly referring to the 22 (24) books in the Old Testament, but because of different counting we have 39. So at best, Paul believed these 39 books to be inspired. He's certainly not talking about the 27 which would later compose the New Testament canon. But even with these 39 "inspired" books, Paul says that they only see things "hazily," that is, not in its full splendor. Thus, even for an "inspired" book, it is still, in some sense, insufficient.

Moreover, I will argue, that there are different sorts of "inspiration." For instance, if the Apocalypse of John is inspired, then this is a revelation from God. Still, other books such as Ephesians (if or if not we accept as genuine Pauline) would be "inspired" in a different sense. This epistle wouldn't be a revelation from God as the Apocalypse would be. This epistle can be considered to be influenced or simply approved by God. Thus, in this sense, it is "inspired." 

So inspiration is a tricky and complex subject. However, if we get away from this supposition of inspiration, what parts of the Bible and of other extra-biblical literature can we verify as historical? How much of the Gospels can we say with a fair amount of certainty actually happened?  

This is actually a fairly complex issue. It is complex because we are dealing with "sources" not really documents. The general scholarly consensus holds to the theory of "Q." That is to say, that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q" as a source. Where Matthew and Luke have unique material not found in "Q" or in Mark, then they used sources named "M" and "L." 

And in Historical Jesus studies, you have to have at least 2 independently attested events for it to have probably happened. If it appears in 3 or more, it almost certainly happened. 

So for instance: An event occurring in Mark, Matthew and Luke wouldn't equal 3 sources. It would only be 1 source since Matthew and Luke copied Mark. However, if this same event occurred in John, then you do have 2 sources (Mark & John). 

The methodology, in my opinion, is good. That is, events occurring in 2 or more witnesses should be given the most priority and we should probably base our beliefs on that which is most certain. 

However, I do disagree with the two source theory. I don't think "Q" existed nor do I think Matthew and Luke used Mark. Of course, I am now disagreeing with about 99% of scholarship. But I think there is good evidence for the independence of Matthew and Luke from Mark. I think oral tradition, eyewitness testimony, chreias, and a few other methods explain the similarities and differences in the Gospels. There is no need for the assumption of literary dependence, that is, literary dependence that assumes Matthew and Luke used Mark. I think it is plausible they did use similar sources, but not each other.

I will get into all this at a future date, but I will, in my next entry, get into a few accounts that I think are nearly 100% certain they happened. 

Bible-Translation.net

Over at http://bible-translation.net/, the Bible discussion group will be studying D. C. Parker's  An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. So for those that want to join, right now would be a good time. You can either purchase the book or join the Yahoo Discussion Group and get the PDF version for free. 


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bible-Translation/

Anyone who wants to join, can.

A problem that one may encounter, however, is that this is book number 7. So it may be at first difficult to know what certain terms mean and get down the basics.

Here's the book list: http://bible-translation.net/book_list_bible_translation_discussion

Scriptural Issue with Socinianism

(John 6:60-62) . . .Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble YOU? What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

The phrase "ascending to where he was before" suggests that he personally existed "before" he "became flesh." (John 1:14) How else can this be interpreted? 

Both Physical and Spiritual

Is it possible that Christ was indeed raised physically from the grave but that in his ascension he dematerialized and became non-fleshly? In this case, Jesus' statement in Luke about not being a spirit is true. We have no need to try to explain that away. And Paul's statement of Christ being a "spirit" is also true. We have no reason to not take Paul's words at face value. Both statements would be true with respect to the time at which they were said. Believers, then, would have the same sort of body Christ had during the 40 days while he was on earth (Acts 1:3) when they "inherit the earth." (Matt 5:5)

Revisiting John 20:24-25

But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”

While it appears clear that Thomas was expecting to see Jesus bodily, there are other things that are less clear. Proponents of a bodily resurrection believe that Jesus' body is now "glorified" and "immortal." But my question is, if Jesus' body was "glorified" and "immortalized" why was it still damaged when he appeared to Thomas? Given Paul's agricultural analogy in 1 Corinthians 15 of the seed and that which is sown, isn't that which is sown different from that which comes out? 

Psalm 100:2-3

From the Message Bible:

Bring a gift of laughter, sing yourselves into his presence. Know this: GOD is God, and God, GOD.

What a horrible and silly translation. "GOD is God, and God, GOD"

This is what happens when the Divine Name, Jehovah (YeHoWaH), is removed from its proper place. 

How Do We Define Greek Words?

I had this archived and thought I would share it here on my blog:

QUOTE

Because we have so much Classical and Koine Greek literature, we have enough occurrences of the common Greek words to see them used in context, and from those many contexts see what they mean.

However, rare words are a little more difficult. If a word doesn’t occur that much, how can we determine what it means?

Part of the answer here is context. If you read a rare word that does not occur with enough frequency to give us a clear understanding of its range of meanings, we have to see if context is sufficiently clear to define the word.

In Classical Greek, scholars use the word’s etymology — the meaning of its parts. Words are made up of morphemes, which are the smallest unit of meaning in a word. For example, in English the suffix “ism” has a specific meaning that separates “baptize” from “baptism.” The same is true in Greek. The problem comes in Koine Greek, because words had sufficiently evolved so that the word’s etymology no longer has any necessary bearing on the meaning of the word, regardless of how many times you have heard a speaker use etymology to illustrate the word. See Don Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies.

But even with all this information, there are some words that defy precise definition. The most famous is in the Lord’s Prayer: “give us this day our επιουσιον bread” (Matt 6:11). Jesus uses an unbelievably strange word that does not occur anywhere else in all Greek literature except for discussions of the Lord’s Prayer. Why he did this, I do not know; I want to ask him that some day. But guesses at the definition include “daily,” “the coming day,” and “for existence” (see footnote on the NET Bible), the later explaining the NLT’s translation, “Give us today the food we need.” END OF QUOTE

It appears to be:

• Usage in other Greek literature
• Context
• And, in some cases, etymology

Thomas' Expectations & Paul's Unique Statements

John 20:24-25 from New World Translation:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”

The apostle Thomas, as a good (but faith-lacking) Jew, expected a bodily resurrection from which he expected to see the "print of the nails" "in [Jesus'] hands" and be able to "stick [his] finger into" Jesus' side. Thomas probably expected the corpse of the dead to be raised from his reading of Isaiah 26:19:

“Your dead ones will live. A corpse of mine—they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully, YOU residents in the dust! For your dew is as the dew of mallows, and the earth itself will let even those impotent in death drop [in birth].

Since Thomas probably knew that it was the "corpse" that would "rise up," he expected to see Jesus' body raised. Whether his expectations were right or wrong is another matter that I won't get into. However, many have pointed out, and Witnesses are not alone in this, that Jesus could have materialized a body so that Thomas would "stop being unbelieving but become believing." (John 20:27) But even here, Jesus would have ran the risk of unintentionally leading Thomas to a conclusion that was, well, wrong. 

2 Corinthians 12:1-3 from New World Translation:

I have to boast. It is not beneficial; but I shall pass on to supernatural visions and revelations of [the] Lord. I know a man in union with Christ who, fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught away as such to the third heaven. Yes, I know such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know, God knows— 

Paul, speaking of himself in the third person, says that he was "caught away as such to the third heaven." The remarkable aspect of this, for our purposes, is the statement of "whether in the body I do not know." This statement implies, even suggests, that it was not at all beyond Jewish understanding for a man, that is, for a human to be "in the body" and be "caught away" to the "third heaven." In other words, a man in heaven was not an unthinkable idea; though it certainly is a difficult one. So if Jesus was raised bodily, which I am neither arguing for nor arguing against, it is not at all unthinkable to Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:44 from New World Translation:

It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. [NWT Footnote with respect to "physical": Or, “soulical.” Gr., psy‧khi‧kon′; Lat., a‧ni‧ma′le.]

If we understand "physical body" to mean a "soulical body" or an "animal body," then this appears to be paralleled to 1 Corinthians 15:50 where "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." This would mean that "physical body"="flesh and blood." Paul does not leave us clueless with respect to what "flesh and blood" means:

(1 Corinthians 15:50) However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 

The above verse is color-coded in corresponding or parallel thoughts. That is, "flesh and blood"="corruption" and "God's kingdom"="incorruption." If this is correct, then, the "soulical" or "physical" body is "corruption." Being consistent and following the same train-of-thought, it would follow that "spiritual body" is "incorruption."  This would appear, once more, to be speaking of functionality as opposed to ontology. 

However, perhaps just as equally, the opposite of all the above could be argued. "Flesh and blood" means physical humans and thus a "physical body." And a "spiritual body" would be in contrast to a "physical body"; that is, it would be non-physical. Once more, this would probably be the most literal meaning of the text.

One difficulty with the latter view, however, is that the same Greek word for "spiritual" is used elsewhere in Paul and does not denote non-physicality. 

1 Corinthians 2:13

These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by [the] spirit, as we combine spiritual [matters] with spiritual [words].

Many other versions instead of having "spiritual [words]" have "spiritual people." The reason for this is that the last "spiritual" is an adjective which implies a noun. The New World Translation understood "spiritual" to be modifying something other than humans. Both are legitimate. However, even here "spiritual [matters]" does not necessarily imply non-physicality and "spiritual people" doesn't mean that they are not human.

1 Corinthians 3:1

And so, brothers, I was not able to speak to YOU as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to babes in Christ. . .

Here, "spiritual men" does not mean that these "men" are not human or physical but Paul is describing the status of being "spiritual" opposed to being "fleshly." 

A conclusion that we could draw, then, is that "spiritual body" does not necessitate non-physicality based on the use of "spiritual" elsewhere in Paul; though, of course, it can mean non-physicality as well!

The reason there are so many different beliefs across all denominations, as BeDuhn said in the interview, is because of ambiguities in the text. We are not first century Jews nor first century Gentiles and therefore cannot know with 100% certainty what Paul meant. We can't ask him personally, "Hey, Paul, what did you mean by 'spiritual body'?" The best we can do, if we assume the Scriptures are harmonious, is try to harmonize all the relevant passages and see what makes the best sense in light of its first century Jewish and Graeco-Roman context.

Jesus' Body

Luke 24:36-39 from the New World Translation:

While they were speaking of these things he himself stood in their midst [[and said to them: “May YOU have peace.”]] But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld a spirit. So he said to them: “Why are YOU troubled, and why is it doubts come up in YOUR hearts? See my hands and my feet that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have.”

Witnesses have traditionally understood this passage to mean Jesus was demonstrating to his disciples that they were not beholding a vision or apparition, since humans cannot see spirits. (see Reasoning from the Scriptures, [New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989], pp. 334-335.) While this may be true, I think it does not answer the question of why Jesus implied he had “flesh and bones.” On this point, Witnesses have traditionally understood that Jesus had materialized a body—much like angels had (apparently) done so in ancient times.

However, Jesus’ statement of “see my hands and my feet that it is I myself, feel me and see” implies at the very least that his body was very real; indeed, tangible even. If Jesus was in fact raised a spirit, could he truly have said “see…that it is I myself”? In a sense yes and in another, no. If he was raised a spirit, and that was actually Jesus and not a vision or demon, then it was obviously him. Thus he could say “it is I myself.” In another sense, though, it was not him if it was a spirit since his disciples hadn’t known him as such. He was no longer the Jewish born man to be Messiah.

1 Corinthians 15:45 from New World Translation:

It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit…

If we understand that Jesus materialized a body in Luke 24 and was indeed raised as a spirit, then it would appear that 1 Corinthians 15:45 lends support to that understanding. But even here there are questions. Is Paul referring to the substance of the resurrected Jesus? It appears that Paul is contrasting Adam as “a living soul” with Jesus as “a life-giving spirit.” The question, then, would appear to be whether Paul is comparing substance, that is, ontology or whether he is comparing function. I think both positions have some validity to them.

There appears to be a contrast to Adam’s function and Jesus’. Adam “became a living soul.” That is, he was given life. However, Christ didn’t becoming a living soul but “a life-giving spirit.” So there appears to be a contrast between the receiver of life and the giver of life. In this sense, then, Jesus would be a “spirit” in regards to his function not ontology. This view appears to be supported by other statements in the Bible. Consider Luke 1:35:

In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

The point here is simple: “holy spirit” is synonymous in this context with the “power of the Most High.” That is, “spirit”=”power.” If we bring this view  of "spirit" into 1 Corinthians 15:45, then Jesus the “life-giving spirit” would mean Jesus is the “life-giving power [i.e., a source of life].” Jesus would be the one who dispenses life. We all know the saying of John where Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6) 1 Corinthians, then, would simply be reiterating what Jesus had said in John (or what John had Jesus saying in light of Paul). This is not to say, though, that Jesus is the ultimate source of life—But, he would be a source of life. The ultimate source of life would be Jehovah, of course; the one who allows Jesus to have life and the one who allows Jesus to be a source of life. (John 6:57)

On the other hand, the opposite view can be advanced. It could be that Paul is saying Adam became a soul, that is, a physical human being. While Jesus instead became a non-physical “spirit.” This would be the most literal reading of the words, I feel. 


Whether one view is more correct than the other is another matter. 

Romans 8:11

NWT:If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in YOU, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make YOUR mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in YOU.

Darby:But if the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ from among the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit which dwells in you.


ESV:If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.


ISV:And if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, then the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive by his Spirit who lives in you.


I am curious to get  your guys' perspective on this passage as it relates to the "also" and its implications, as well to the making of "mortal bodies alive." 

BeDuhn

Just finished the text-interview with Professor BeDuhn. You can read the interview here: http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/interview-with-jason-beduhn/

2006 NWT

Many have noticed (and if you hadn't, now you will) that the 2006 edition of the NWT removed the brackets from its translation. The reason why is  as follows (from a letter dated October 14, 2010):

Originally. brackets were included to indicate when an English term could not be linked directly to a corresponding word in the original Hebrew or Greek text, and it was decided that supplementary words had to be included to make the meaning clear in English. However, using supplementary words is a normal procedure when translating text from one language to another because often there is no exact equivalent for some words or expressions. To overcome this problem, translators sometimes need to use two or more words to convey the sense of the original-language word or to make the sentence construction clear in English. Or they may have to add a word to convey an implicit idea that the original-language reader would have understood, even though no specific word appeared in the text. Thus, the added word(s) are necessary because the English text would be incomplete or incorrect without them. Of course, in doing so, translators should not add or remove any information nor distort the meaning when transferring the message from the original language to the target language.

It seems that in the past, some English readers had the impression that the bracketed words indicated where the translators added information, when in fact the words are necessary for good and accurate translation. Therefore, since all the words in brackets are needed to complete the thought exactly as was expressed in the original languages so that the English reader would understand what the original-language reader understood, it was decided to remove brackets from the 2006 printing. (It has always been our standard procedure that when the New World Translation is quoted in our literature. the brackets are never reproduced.) Please note, however, that double brackets have been retained to suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text. - See Luke 23:34 and the Reference Bible footnote.

Most other English Bible translations add words more freely than the New World Translation but do not include brackets to indicate which words had been added in their translations. Readers who desire an understanding of the exact correspondence of the terms found in the English New World Translation with the original-language terms can consult the footnotes in the Reference Bible, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or compare the New World Translation with a Hebrew interlinear Bible.

Philo as Originator of Immortal Soul

Phaedrus, 250c:

That was the ultimate vision, and we saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in the thing we are carrying around now, which we call a body, locked in it like an oyster in its shell.

Cratylus, 400c:

Thus some people say that the body (sōma) is the tomb (sēma) of the soul, on the grounds that it is entombed in its present life, while others say that it is correctly called ‘a sign’ (sēma) because the soul signifies whatever it wants to signify by means of the body. I think it is most likely the followers of Orpheus who gave the body its name, with the idea that the soul is being punished for something, and that the body is an enclosure or prison in which the soul is securely kept (sōzetai) –as the name ‘sōma’ itself suggests–until the penalty is paid; for, on this view, not even a single letter or the word needs to be changed.

 Gorgias, 293a:

and we really, it may be, are dead; in fact I once heard sages say that we are now dead, and the body is our tomb, and the part of the soul in which we have desires is liable to be over-persuaded and to vacillate to and fro, and so some smart fellow, a Sicilian, I daresay, or Italian, made a fable in which—by a play of words—he named this part, as being so impressionable and persuadable, a jar, and the thoughtless he called uninitiate:

Note also the definition Plato gives to death, which many Christian groups nowadays have adopted:

Phaedo, 64c:

Let us then,” said he, “speak with one another, paying no further attention to them. Do we think there is such a thing as death?” “Certainly,” replied Simmias. “We believe, do we not, that death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that the state of being dead is the state in which the body is separated from the soul and exists alone by itself and the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself? Is death anything other than this?” “No, it is this,” said he. “Now, my friend, see if you agree with me; 

[NOTE: Title may be somewhat misleading given that other philosophers like Pindar and Pythagoras had already  alluded to an immortal soul. But it was Philo who popularized and who brought it into its classic expression that we know now.]

DEBATE: Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I will offer some comments on the debate in my next blog entry.

Luke 13:10-17

(Luke 13:10-17) Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And, look! a woman with a spirit of weakness for eighteen years, and she was bent double and was unable to raise herself up at all. When he saw her, Jesus addressed her and said to her: “Woman, you are released from your weakness.” And he laid his hands on her; and instantly she straightened up, and began to glorify God. But in response the presiding officer of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus did the cure on the sabbath, began to say to the crowd: “There are six days on which work ought to be done; on them, therefore, come and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.” However, the Lord answered him and said: “Hypocrites, does not each one of YOU on the sabbath untie his bull or his ass from the stall and lead it away to give it drink? Was it not due, then, for this woman who is a daughter of Abraham, and whom Satan held bound, look! eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?” Well, when he said these things, all his opposers began to feel shame; but all the crowd began to rejoice at all the glorious things done by him.

The Christian Scriptures are filled with many gems that are often overlooked or neglected due to the fact that we work with translations. As the saying usually goes, "something is always lost in translation." This saying proves to true here.

When Jesus tells the woman that she is "released from" her "weakness," the Greek word that Luke uses for Jesus' saying is ἀπολέλυσαι, which can mean "set free," "released," untied in the sense of being "released" and so on. (See BDAG for more definitions) This action of Jesus lead the Jews to claim that he broke the Sabbath. How does Jesus respond? 

He responds by calling them "hypocrites"! On what basis does Jesus call them that? Jesus continues by saying that "each one of" them 'unties' their "bull" or "ass from the stall and lead[s] it away to give it [a] drink." What is Jesus' point? 

The point is this: Jesus did a work by untying the woman from demons. The Jews also did work by untying their "bull" or "ass from the stall" to lead it to a drink of water on the Sabbath. This was Jesus' way of saying 'you do work on the Sabbath, too, who are you to criticize me'? Note, too, that the Jews don't challenge Jesus, at least according to Luke; instead, they walked away and "began to feel shame" because Jesus exposed their 'hypocrisy.' While Jesus untied people from demons, the Jews untied their animals--which both acts amounted to work on the Sabbath. The Jews were quick to call out Jesus but weren't quick to call out themselves; they were truly "hypocrites."

Rant

Don't you hate it when you're reading a work and the author directs you to another publication only to find out that the publication is an article in scholarly journal that you have to pay anywhere from 5 to 20 dollars to read? I know I do.

The Watchtower Society publishes over 2 dozen articles monthly free of charge (see their main journal the Watchtower and its companion Awake!). Both in print and electronically. Whether you disagree or agree with their positions is another matter. However, no one can deny that it is remarkable that while other institutions/organizations publish articles/journals as well (not to mention, for a price), the Society does it free of charge.

I was researching the burial customs as presented in the Hebrew Scriptures and in archaeological findings for an upcoming blog entry, but only to find out that the article I need is worth $9 just to read (in electronic format, not in print). Not happening! It's not even like it's a full book, it's simply an article.

Anyhow, if anyone is even semi-interested in the topic see Insight in the Scriptures Volume 1, (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), page 377, "Burials, Burial Places" for a brief overview. See also Dr. Craig Evans in "Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus."