The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

[mlinssen]

And of course I will argue that all those wild and crooked branches all were planted onto the same tree:

15 said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father

As usual, Thomas holds the basic form, isn't trying to explain it or put it to a certain use. He is pointing to the real You here, unknown to all - but that is besides the point, everyone just tried to make sense of the riddling "(not) begotten of woman", and that is exactly what we encounter in the NT; every single struggle in the NT can be pointed back to Thomas having the concept in a very basic and simple and concise form

mlinssen: Thanks for sharing this chain of interpretation. I had not considered this combination of texts before.

Clearly, you have poured a lot of life energy into your translation of Thomas 15:

"said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father"

Yes indeed, I have translated the entire Coptic text, word-by-word, fully normalised. Still doing the finishing touch!

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how Thomas 15 might interact with these two texts:

Gal 6:8
Because the one sowing in his own flesh will reap perishability from the flesh; but the one sowing in the spirit will reap life in the Age from the spirit. (Tr. DB Hart and me)

Heb 12:9
Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh who were disciplinarians, and we respected them; shall we not be far more subordinate to the Father of the spirits and live? (Tr. DB Hart)

Fine translation to Gal 6:8, I think. It reminds me of the first part of Thomas logion 29, among others:

29 said IS if have the(F) Flesh come-to-be because-of Spirit a(n) wonder is(F) (the flesh(F)) if Spirit However because-of the Body a(n) wonder of wonder is/are(M) (the body(M)) Rather myself come marvel-at of this : How/Why? did this(F) great reign-of(F) rich-man did she/r dwell in this(F) reign-of(F) poor

I added the (stuff between braces) to make clear that Thomas deviously uses the gender of the auxiliary verb on both occasions, although the second one is male, defaulting to either one of both the male (Body) and neuter noun (Spirit - provided that it was neuter at that time, and not still considered feminine as some people like to argue)

Thomas has more logia like these, comparing flesh, body, soul, spirit. I haven't gotten to scrutinizing them, I should quit the forum stuff LOL, I have a book to finish this year

Hebrews? I get really tired of all the Paul bullshit, he's so full of crap. He really is THE evangelist, the pre-sales, the guy that just talks in all directions left and right and up and down and when you listen longer than 5 minutes you end up all confused and caught in his web of worthless words and you'll feel - perturbed.
Sorry. Can't make anything of that at all

[gryan]

Thomas has more logia like these, comparing flesh, body, soul, spirit. I haven't gotten to scrutinizing them, I should quit the forum stuff LOL, I have a book to finish this year

Me too. LOL

[mlinssen]

Thomas has more logia like these, comparing flesh, body, soul, spirit. I haven't gotten to scrutinizing them, I should quit the forum stuff LOL, I have a book to finish this year

Me too. LOL

I'm having a bad few weeks of "back to the drawing board" but at least this will be the last of those. I have 10 more months and will get back on schedule. I like the forum for fooling around but it doesn't bring me any closer to Thomas, alas

[Stuart]

Thesis: Originally, when these texts were read by those who, as we say, "got it," life after "co-crucifixion"--transformed existence in the "now" and "in the flesh"--provided the phenomenological (intersubjective) basis for the narrative of resurrection in a body of "flesh and bones" (originally understood as real manifestation of the divine life, in the "now" and "in the flesh," but not a literal, objective resuscitation of a dead body).

This soon forgotten understanding of the original texts of the NT (cited above) was the origin of the words of the Apostle's creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh (σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν).

Thoughts?

I think this makes some sense. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the original meaning was that the Spirit of Jesus was resurrected in the flesh of the devotee, correct?

I'd have to study Marcion's version of Paul's letters to know if this is what Paul may have originally intended. It seems that Paul was originally talking about a real resurrection of bodies. I've always read Paul's talk of resurrection in light of Ezekiel 37.

The attestedMarcionite text of Luke 24:38-39

Epiphanius: (Greek)

Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστὲ; ἵδετε τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

[38] Why are you troubled?
[39] You see my hands and feet, because a spirit does not have bones as you see I have.

Tertullian: (Latin)

Quid turbati estis? inquit, et quid cogitationes subeunt in corda vestra?
Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum, quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere.

(Greek equivalent, allowing a bit for translation paraphrase)
καὶ εἶπεν, Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστὲ, καὶ διὰ τί διαλογισμοὶ [ἀναβαίνουσιν] ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν;
ἵδετε τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμὶ αὐτός· ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

[38] Why are you troubled? He says, and why do doubts come into your hearts?
[39] You see my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have.

Epiphanius looks possibly earlier, or he simply left out the phrases "why have doubts arisen in your heart" and "that it is I myself". Alternately Tertullian has cheated a bit throwing in some of the Catholic text to make his point.

But whatever the case, both are missing "handle me and know" (ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε,) "flesh" (σάρκα καὶ) from verse 24:39.

ψηλαφάω appears only 4 times in the NT. Besides Luke 24:39, it also occurs in 1 John 1:1 in the same context, supporting a physical Jesus. Acts 27:17 uses it contextually different, but in the same sense, for feeling a god, and so suggests it may be a Lukan word. The other case is in Hebrews and quite different, although there is quite a lot of overlap with Lukan favorite words in that book (why some scholars suggest the same author). The point being to handle and touch and the flesh mentions serve the same purpose as Thomas in John 20:23-29, to verify a physical resurrection, as opposed to a spiritual (anti-docetic, but specifically to the resurrection). It should be noted that in Dialogue Adamantius 5.2 the Catholic champion does exactly that, referencing the Catholic text of Luke 24:39 along with John 20:27.

I suspect the fish eating scene is also not present, as Tertullian does tear Marcion to pieces with it, meaning it was not in his source. he just mentioned Luke 21:41-44 in passing, just saying that it would show Jesus had teeth. This element strikes me as too good a target to pass up. It was also passed up on by Epiphanius and not mentioned in Adamantius.

Resurrection of the flesh is a creed meant to distinguish between Christian sects. It appears to have derived sometime after the Marcionite split. Note, Apelleans apparently could subscribe to it, as they held Christ took on a corporal body borrowing elements from the various heavens as he descended, which he returned upon his ascent, something that happens after the resurrection and his short visitation. It makes one suspect this was written very specifically to separate out Marcionites (among others) who held a purely spiritual resurrection.

[gryan]

Thesis: Originally, when these texts were read by those who, as we say, "got it," life after "co-crucifixion"--transformed existence in the "now" and "in the flesh"--provided the phenomenological (intersubjective) basis for the narrative of resurrection in a body of "flesh and bones" (originally understood as real manifestation of the divine life, in the "now" and "in the flesh," but not a literal, objective resuscitation of a dead body).

This soon forgotten understanding of the original texts of the NT (cited above) was the origin of the words of the Apostle's creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh (σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν).

I think this makes some sense. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the original meaning was that the Spirit of Jesus was resurrected in the flesh of the devotee, correct?

I'd have to study Marcion's version of Paul's letters to know if this is what Paul may have originally intended. It seems that Paul was originally talking about a real resurrection of bodies. I've always read Paul's talk of resurrection in light of Ezekiel 37.

The attestedMarcionite text of Luke 24:38-39

Epiphanius: (Greek)

Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστὲ; ἵδετε τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

[38] Why are you troubled?
[39] You see my hands and feet, because a spirit does not have bones as you see I have.

Tertullian: (Latin)

Quid turbati estis? inquit, et quid cogitationes subeunt in corda vestra?
Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum, quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere.

(Greek equivalent, allowing a bit for translation paraphrase)
καὶ εἶπεν, Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστὲ, καὶ διὰ τί διαλογισμοὶ [ἀναβαίνουσιν] ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν;
ἵδετε τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμὶ αὐτός· ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

[38] Why are you troubled? He says, and why do doubts come into your hearts?
[39] You see my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have.

Epiphanius looks possibly earlier, or he simply left out the phrases "why have doubts arisen in your heart" and "that it is I myself". Alternately Tertullian has cheated a bit throwing in some of the Catholic text to make his point.

But whatever the case, both are missing "handle me and know" (ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε,) "flesh" (σάρκα καὶ) from verse 24:39.

If "flesh" was absent from the hypothetical oldest form of the text, my interpretation of the story is taken away with it.

Nevertheless, I find myself pondering the shorter reading:

Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστὲ; ἵδετε τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

[38] Why are you troubled?
[39] You see my hands and feet, because a spirit does not have bones as you see I have.

This could work in a participatory understanding of the resurrection stories, which amounts to participatory incarnation.

Each reader looks at their own "hands and feet" and then at their neighbor's, and each says--With the risen Christ--"a spirit does not have bones as you see I have."

It is such a participatory incarnation that I think Paul speaks of when he says:

Now we have this treasure in jars of clay
to show that this surpassingly great power is from God and not from us:

We are hard pressed on all sides, but not crushed;
perplexed, but not in despair;
persecuted, but not forsaken;
struck down, but not destroyed.

We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus,
so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
For we who are alive are always consigned to death for Jesus’ sake,
so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our mortal flesh. (2 Cor 4:7-11)

Thus, the participant becomes the visible "hands and feet" of Jesus in the world.

So also, for Irenaeus Recapitulation theory of atonement, "the ultimate goal of Christ's work of solidarity with humankind is to make humankind divine. Of Jesus he says, he 'became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself'."

Thoughts?

[Stuart]

Tertullian follows up the passage with this observation (AM 4.43.7)

Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him----I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text.

gryan,

Your reading from 2 Corinthians 4:7-11 to explain the passage in Marcionite terms could very well have been the sort of thing Marcionite preachers did to explain away the text.

The unwillingness to expunge material was not simply Marcionite, it was also Catholic. Tertullian's observation could have been made about Catholic scribes and editorial redactors. The preference was to preserve the text received, and only add material if it could not be easily explained as written in your own sect's hermeneutics. Only in rare cases was the old text cut away.

Marcion (speaking the Marcionite author of the sect's Gospel) did expunge the opening material from the prototype he built his gospel upon, as he could not have John baptizing Jesus, which went against his most fundamental sectarian teachings. But he left unmistakable references in Luke 7:18-28 betraying what he did, when seen in context of his leaving Luke 20:1-8 intact from his source.

This is how the Catholics also edited the Marcionite texts. If they could be explained within the confines of Catholic opinion, then they were untouched. Those that were not too incompatible had material added around them to give the correct reading or to put it in a narrow context where it might be accepted.


FYI, Tertullian also confirms by repetition a bit later the presence of "that it is I myself" (ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμὶ αὐτός) in verse 24:39. It was probably there in the copy he saw. Either Epiphanius' source paraphrased here or the particular copy of the gospel manuscript he was reading from was defective (no surviving manuscript has this omission). I don't think it would change the reading one way or the other.

[gryan]

Tertullian follows up the passage with this observation (AM 4.43.7)

Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him----I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text.

Your reading from 2 Corinthians 4:7-11 to explain the passage in Marcionite terms could very well have been the sort of thing Marcionite preachers did to explain away the text.

Re: My argument for a participatory reading of GLuke's resurrection story in light of Paul in 2 Cor., to which I will add one more participatory text, this one attested in Marcion's Galatians:

GLuke
See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. ~Touch me and see~, for a spirit doesn’t have ~flesh and~ bones, as you see that I have.”

2 Cor
11 For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus [Marcion: Christ] may be revealed in our mortal flesh.

Gal 6:17
...I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus [Marcion: Christ] branded on my body.

Stuart: I'm finding that Marcion's motivations, as understood by Turtillian, are complicated to understand. My working hypothesis is that the more ancient/more authentic interpretations of the resurrection appearance stories would tend to be less literalistic/less supernaturalistic and more participatory. Do you have additional evidence that a Marcionite would tend to "explain away" such a participatory reading? If so, I'd like to consider it.

[davidmartin]

wild idea. could 'bones' have a certain insider meaning going back to Hebrew?
the Hebrew word i find interesting. 'bone of my bones' and the alternative meaning of 'the same/very same' (yes for the word 'bone', strange - but that's what Luke is saying, it's the same person, the 'bone' person)
So perhaps some Aramaic/eastern origin riffing on hands/feet/bone could give some insight into the perhaps participatory meaning, or maybe even reveal a hymnic/poetic pattern in that language.
So.. Marcion knew about this (or knew it was original) and kept it. Someone with good Hebrew knowledge might be able to screw this idea up and throw in the rubbish bin or maybe there is something there... but y'know... i'm suspicious cause i've seen the word 'bone' in Hebrew pop up in a few places with special meaning that escape my memory right now.