The resurrection of the dead as a historical event

[spin]

Secret Alias wrote:
Sanctioned texts within the Roman Empire.

Rubbish. You have this penchant for changing the subject at the drop of a comma.

Hardly a change of subject. Ok you're old. I get it. Time to close your eyes soon so you crave order and stability. So now for your benefit we have to pretend that it's a 'conspiracy theory' to suggest that what the Church Fathers themselves say about the origins of the gospel (viz. it was first written in another language OTHER than Greek) while believing that the same Church Fathers faithfully preserved the original rescension of the New Testament material is 'serious-minded' and sober. The Church Fathers report the earliest gospel was written in another language other than Greek and that they faithfully preserved the gospel in Greek. It's a mixed bag. You chose to disregard one comment and embrace the other, I embrace the other and reject the latter. But YOU make it seem as if everything is cut and dry whereas I accept (and embrace) the limitations of my theories. I have a lot of old people in my life so I can deal with this sort of intellectual myopia but I just want to bring it to your attention.

Is there anything in this waffle that needs a response? You seem to be off with the fairies. Why do you persist in trying to change the subject?

[spin]

And I love the way you think that your retarded holding up of the surviving Greek fragments and manuscripts ISN'T a mountainman argument while any hint of manipulation of the surviving material and 'locking in' that corrupted material IS mountainman-like. Every fucking thing you say is developed from old-thinking about the canon. 'Paul wrote the letters first and then the gospel was produced later.' Ugh! If you just said 'maybe ...' or 'I think ...' this drivel is true, I'd be like 'ok we can have a discussion.' But you pretend these things are established facts rather than just a reflection of a tradition which said 'Paul wrote the letters and then the gospel was produced later.' What? When you go to a magic show do you think the card REALLY disappears because the magician said a magic word? But in the case of a Church Father attempting to impose his beliefs about the history of the Church, the texts reflecting what he believes CAN ONLY BE because the texts existed a priori to his beliefs. I try to stay out of these discussions but as I said, I have a lot of old people in my life. Can't take it out on them, but you, that's another story.

FWIW my mother (a) can never remember that there is a 3 hour time difference between her and me and (b) wonders why I can't talk on the phone for more than an hour 9 - 5. 'Oh I forgot you have to work and that you're not retired like me!' It's like engaging with you at the forum.

I think I'm just going to put you back on ignore, though I know you have this penchant of putting everyone off a topic by flooding it with nonsense. It would be better if you just mumbled on in your thread "Previous Studies of Marcion Are Worthless" with your Irenaeus conspiracy theory and the fact that you alone are able to deal with Marcion. You can make all the spurious assertions you like there and continue to reinvent linguistic analysis so that it reaffirms your desires.

[Clive]

If you are living in a society with minimal scientific understanding, and what there is may be mistaken, for example about the purpose of the brain, but are well able to understand differences between someone alive and dead, or still birth and a baby drawing its first breath, and note breathing seems related, it is easy to conclude something has gone out of someone when they die - a spirit.

From this it is then easy to extrapolate, given time. - a Holy Spirit.

Why not reverse the process? Life, death, life?

Could be continually circling or go to eternal life.

Why don't we look at the evolution and co evolution of just so stories about 42?

[Secret Alias]

spin,

I won't put you on ignore because your so predictable - 'Paul wrote before the gospels' yawn tell that to the Marcionites etc. Please put me on ignore so that you can continue to exist within your outdated ideas without interruption.

[FransJVermeiren]

When you attempt an analysis of this type you must check how the terminology is used elsewhere before positing alternative meanings. Look at Mk 9:9,10, 12:25, Lk 20:35, 24:46, Jn 20:9, 1 Peter 1:3. Is there any doubt in these examples what ανιστημι εκ νεκρων means? Can you find any clear examples where it does not mean bringing back from being dead?

Your remark is pertinent, spin.

Below I discuss 1 Peter, and I hope to show that αναστασις εκ νεκρων has nothing to do with being dead and returning to life again. The concrete mentions are αναστασεως ’Ιησου Χριστου εκ νεκρων in 1:3 and εγειραντα αυτον [Jesus] εκ νεκρων in 1:21.

The traditional understanding of Jesus’ extraordinary fate is the sequence of suffering (torture and execution) → death → becoming alive again. His resurrection εκ νεκρων is then interpreted as his becoming alive again after a short stay among the dead of the underworld.

Although Jesus’ death is mentioned in 3:18 (‘put to death in the flesh’), there is no elaboration at all of the suffering / death / becoming alive again sequence. On the contrary, Jesus’ suffering is elaborated extensively (my underlining).

• 1:11: They [the prophets] inquired what person or time was indicated by the spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings (παθηματα) of Christ and the subsequent glory.

• 2:20b-24: But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered (επαθεν) for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps. He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered (πασχων), he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds (τῷ μωλωπι) you have been healed.

• 3:18: For Christ also suffered (επαθεν) for sins once for all …

• 4:1: Since therefore Christ suffered (παθοντος) in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, …

• 4:12: But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings (παθημασιν), that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

• 5:1: a witness of the sufferings (παθηματων) of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.

We see that the ‘suffering’ theme is present in every chapter of this letter. It is elaborated in different ways:
a. Jesus’ suffering is followed by (his) glory
b. Jesus’ suffering is the example that helps the believers to endure their own suffering
c. Jesus suffered and trusted God.
d. Jesus’ wounds realize the healing of the believers.

If Jesus’ glory is his αναστασις, why then is the spectacular middle part of the sequence, Jesus’ death (which realizes the supernatural exceptionality of the event), absent in all these verses? I believe it is absent because 1 Peter describes the historical sequence of Jesus’ extreme suffering followed by the glory of his survival, a case of historical exceptionality.

So εκ νεκρων has nothing to do with Jesus having been dead together with other dead people. The νεκροι were others who died at the same time when Jesus survived spectacularly. All this is perfectly explainable as part of the events at the end of the siege of Jerusalem.

A similar and maybe even more convincing analysis can be made of the epistle of Barnabas, where Jesus’ suffering and wounds are also prominent, and αναστασις εκ νεκρων is also mentioned.

[Ben C. Smith]

• 3:18: For Christ also suffered (επαθεν) for sins once for all …

....

If Jesus’ glory is his αναστασις, why then is the spectacular middle part of the sequence, Jesus’ death (which realizes the supernatural exceptionality of the event), absent in all these verses?

1 Peter 3.18 in its entirety:

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death [θανατωθεὶς] in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit....

The participle is masculine, singular, and nominative, agreeing with "Christ" (not with "us" or with "God").

Also, "tree" in 2.24 is, in context, a synonym for "cross" (as in Acts 5.20; 10.39; 13.29; Galatians 3.13), and the cross is typically an instrument of death, not just of torture.

[spin]

When you attempt an analysis of this type you must check how the terminology is used elsewhere before positing alternative meanings. Look at Mk 9:9,10, 12:25, Lk 20:35, 24:46, Jn 20:9, 1 Peter 1:3. Is there any doubt in these examples what ανιστημι εκ νεκρων means? Can you find any clear examples where it does not mean bringing back from being dead?

Your remark is pertinent, spin.

If you think that is true, why don't you deal with the content in my remark? Can you retranslate any of the examples I cite specifically on "raise from the dead", where the phrases cited in their context are not literal? Have you got a plain example of ανιστημι εκ νεκρων anywhere else which doesn't mean "raise from the dead"? Dealing with such things would be a pertinent response.

[FransJVermeiren]

1 Peter 3.18 in its entirety:

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death [θανατωθεὶς] in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit....

I am well aware of 3:18, as I have shown above.
You give the whole verse, but unfortunately you don’t tell the whole story, although it is quite elucidating.

Nestle-Aland 27th edition gives this Greek text for the first part of 3:18: ὁτι και Χριστος ἁπαξ ἁμαρτιων επαθεν, which is quite surprisingly translated as ‘For Christ also died for sins once for all’, while επαθεν means ‘suffered’.

Moreover, in its critical apparatus Nestle-Aland makes clear that they changed their mind, and in my opinion wisely so. Until the 25th edition they had απεθανεν (‘died’) in the text and they considered επαθεν to be a textual variant, but now it is vice versa. With this in mind, maybe it is not a surprise that exactly in this verse, where επαθεν (‘suffered’) may have been forged into απεθανεν (‘died’) in the first part, we find Jesus’ death in the second one. Jesus' death is a false note in a letter totally devoted to suffering: 13 times πασχω (to suffer), 4 times παθημα (suffering) and once μωλωψ (wound). The whole ideation of this letter is about suffering, not about death.

The participle is masculine, singular, and nominative, agreeing with "Christ" (not with "us" or with "God").

That ‘having been put to death’ refers to Christ is clear, but it doesn’t mean anything except that the forger knew the Greek syntax.

Also, "tree" in 2.24 is, in context, a synonym for "cross" (as in Acts 5.20; 10.39; 13.29; Galatians 3.13), and the cross is typically an instrument of death, not just of torture.

Of course the cross was meant as an instrument of death, but on a rare occasion the victim survived. This is what I call a historical exception, and this historical event was important enough to trigger the mythological beginning of Christianity. See Josephus, Life, 420-421.

[Ben C. Smith]

1 Peter 3.18 in its entirety:

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death [θανατωθεὶς] in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit....

I am well aware of 3:18, as I have shown above.

Well, you mentioned the rest of the verse, but did not explain it. That was puzzling to me. Thank you for clarifying it now.

I do think it interesting that some early writings (such as 1 Peter, but there are others) seem to focus on the suffering more than on the death. But words cannot express how much I disagree with your overall answer to the question. Approaches differ, I suppose.

[FransJVermeiren]

I do think it interesting that some early writings (such as 1 Peter, but there are others) seem to focus on the suffering more than on the death. But words cannot express how much I disagree with your overall answer to the question. Approaches differ, I suppose.

Yes, Ben, approaches differ, but it’s not my intention to offend anyone.

Of the other early Christian writings which emphasize Jesus’ suffering, I believe the Epistle of Barnabas in particular is interesting. But in this text not only suffering (παθειν) is important. Below I will also discuss the noun ζωἠ and the verb ζωοποιεω because when combined with παθειν (and with αναστασις εκ νεκρων) they provide a clear picture of the core of Christian origins.

First of all, in Barnabas the suffering theme is elaborated in detail without any connection with ‘death’ and/or ‘resurrection’. I only quote the most important verses:
• V:2: ‘He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, by his stripes we were healed.’
• V:13: ‘And he was willing to suffer thus, for it is necessary that he should suffer on a tree, for the Prophet says of him, “Spare my soul from the sword”, and, “Nail my flesh, for the synagogues of the wicked have risen against me.” ’
• VI:7: ‘Since therefore he was destined to be manifest in the flesh his Passion was foretold.’
• VII:2: ‘If then the Son of God, though he was the Lord and was destined to judge the living and the dead suffered in order that his wounding might make us alive, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer except for our sakes.’


Let us also take a look at the two occasions when ζωἠ is used in the first chapter:
• Verse 4: ὅτι μεγαλη πιστις και αγαπη ἐγκατοικει ἐν ὑμιν ἐπ’ ἐλπιδι ζωης αυτου: ‘because great faith and love dwell in you in the hope of his life.’
• Verse 6: Τρια ουν δογματα ἐστιν κυριου· ζωης ἐλπις …: There are then three doctrines of the Lord: the hope of life …

These ‘life’ translations are not really convincing. Is Jesus’ mere physical existence meant? How could this be a source of hope? Or Jesus’ exemplary conduct? As far as I can see, Jesus' exemplary behavior is not a theme of this text.
I believe there is a better option, for which I address myself to Josephus. At the end of his Life he describes crucifixion of three rebels, one of whom survives (Life 421): ‘Two of them died in the physicians’ hands; the third survived.’ (ὁ δε τριτος ἔζησεν).
If ‘to live’ would be the only possible translation of the verb ζω (and, as ancient Greek words are quite elastic, this is not to be expected) one would expect ‘the third lived’ at the end of the sentence above. But from the context it is clear that ‘survived’ is the correct translation here. I believe we can look at the verb ζω and the substantive ζωη in the same way, which means that, depending on the context, ‘survival’ is a possible translation of ζωἠ. This yields the following translations of these two verses:
• Verse 4: ‘because great faith and love dwell in you in the hope of his survival (=in the hope aroused by his survival).’
• Verse 6: ‘There are then three doctrines of the Lord: the hope of survival (= the hope aroused by (Jesus’) survival …’
So in the first chapter of this writing maybe the hope which stems from Jesus’ spectacular survival (at the moment when so many others died) is emphasized. In verse 6 Jesus’ survival is even considered the very first element of Christian doctrine. As ‘survival’ is the historical equivalent of the mythological ‘resurrection’, the core of Christian beliefs, this sounds quite convincing.


Then there is the use of the verb ζωοποιεω in VI:17 and later on in XII:5 (I leave aside the other mentions of this verb):
• VI:17: πρωτον το παιδον μελιτι, ειτα γαλακτι ζωοποιειται: ‘A child first survives (or stays alive) on honey, and afterwards on milk’.
• Now we use this ‘survive’ translation in verse XII:5, which interestingly combines the ‘suffering’ and ‘survival’ themes: ‘Again Moses makes a representation of Jesus, showing that he must suffer (παθειν), and shall himself survive (ζωοποιησει) though they will believe that he has been put to death, by the sign given when Israel was falling…’

I believe this verse is of utmost importance. It says that:
• Jesus suffered (from torture and execution on the cross).
• The Romans thought they had put him to death.
• Jesus survived unexpectedly.
• This happened when Israel was falling, so at the end of the war (August 70 CE).
• A sign – of hope, of God’s intervention – was given at the moment when Israel fell in ruins, and this sign was a counterweight to near-total annihilation.
• There is a parallel between Moses’s unexpected survival of an attempt of infanticide and Jesus’ unexpected survival of his execution.

This is nothing but my chronological theory in a nutshell. Loeb translates ζωοποιησει as ‘shall himself give life’, but in my opinion this translation makes the whole sentence meaningless.
Verse XII:5 completes as follows: ‘…(for the Lord made every serpent bite them, and they were perishing, for the fall took place in Eve through the serpent) in order to convince them that they will be delivered over to the affliction of death because of their transgression’. Knowing that the serpent was the standard of the Roman cohorts, this second part of the verse fully supports the first. The tone of the Epistle of Barnabas is very anti-Jewish and this explains the last part of this verse: the author says that so many Jews died during the war because of their wickedness.

It goes without saying that την εκ νεκρων αναστασιν in V:6 has nothing to do with resurrection after three days of physical death, but that here also Jesus’ survival and recovery from the midst of so many deadly war victims is meant. Once more, it’s all about the war.