Jason Pratt responds to Steven Carr

Since there isn't much connection between Steven's various complaints,
I'll be taking them somewhat out of order.


Presumably , Jason is now going to rewrite what Paul says by adding
words not found in the Greek. He is now going to say that Paul wrote 'it is sown a natural body. It
is raised a spiritual body'. But there is no 'it' in the Greek."

The sentence Steven refers to is 1 Cor 15:44a, and reads in the Greek
(with no significant textual variation in the critical apparatus):
"spleiretai so_ma psuchikon egeiretai so_ma pneumatikon."
(I've put an underscore to differentiate the omega from the omicron.)

I am supposing that Steven is aware that in koine Gree, the subjects of
verbs (especially as pronouns) frequently don't exist in sentences, and
are implied by the suffix of the verb. If he wasn't aware of that when he
made his complaint, then his attempt at a point is utterly negated (since
that would be the first answer.)

Having said that, I suppose the sentence could be translated "A soulish
body is sown, a spiritual body is raised." I would have no objection,
though the grammar still may not parse out as well as "It is sown...it
is raised." (I'm slightly iffy about whether the form of 'soma' can match
grammatically with 'spleiretai' as subject to verb.)

In any case, if Steven would render the sentence "A soulish body is
sown, a spiritual body is raised" (with the noun as the subject of the verb
instead of serving as a predicate nominative object); then how does he intend
to translate the previous phrases which this sentence serves as a parallel
summary to? It is simply impossible to cogently render "spleiretai en
phthera egeiretai en aphtharsia" with the 'sown' and 'raised' verbs
meaning anything other than "It is sown; it is raised": the nouns, here and
afterward, clearly belong to the preposition "en" (English 'in').

More shortly: even if the meaning of v.44a can be read with 'body' as
the subject, it provides no positive support for Steven's contention; and
doing so would conflict with a series of immediately preceding phrases where
the exact same verb forms have to be meaning an equivalent to English 'it
is verbed'--and where complaints about "adding words to Paul" become
totally spurious.

Steven certainly seems to be admitting that if 44a is to be read (in
parallel with the meaning as the previous phrases have to be read) 'it
is sown...it is raised', then the case for Paul not meaning the same body
is in ruins. But I find it to be more interesting, that Steven is hanging
so totally on Paul not meaning the body itself was raised--why not simply
accuse Paul of lying about the body? That would synch a whole lot
better with the clearest meaning of what is written; and it isn't like Steven
has any reluctance to make such accusations in other cases.


"What Paul does say is 'You do not plant the body that will be'."


I could be facetious and point out that there is no "you", "do", "that"
or "will" as words in the phrase Steven has quoted, with the conclusion
that Steven is simply adding in whatever words he wants to get the meaning
he wants--but I suspect that no opponent (Steven included) would consider
that to be a respectable objection for even a single moment. At least,
they'd be entirely correct to dismiss such an objection is being spurious,
possibly even as being merely contentious.

Besides, I'm isn't like I'm desperate to save my position. {g}

As it happens, I don't even consider the quote to be a threat to the
position traditionally understood here. Paul makes it as clear as he
possibly can, later in the chapter, that what is sown will be _changed_
into the new body: indeed, that sooner or later this is going to happen
even to bodies which _haven't_ been sown. And, he makes _exactly_ the
same point where Steven just quoted (1 Cor 36b-37): "What you are sowing is
not being brought to life if it should not be dying. And what you are
sowing, you are not sowing the body that shall be coming to be, but an
unclothed kernel, such as of wheat or something like that."

Put into a bit straighter English: 'What is being sowed is what will be
brought to life, but first it has to die. And when it is sowed, it
isn't yet what it will become, but is only an unclothed seed.'

Now, we can make fun of Paul's 1st-century Palestinian notion of
herbology, if we like--namely, that the seed will be clothed in the plant that
will be coming. But that's the analogy he's working from, and that's how he
ends out as well: "For this corruptible must be _putting on_ incorruption,
and this mortal be _putting on_ immortality. And whenever this [happens,
repeating the phrases], then shall come to pass the word which is
written [etc.]" (1 Cor 15:53-54)

The same body that is dying, then, and being buried, is being brought
to life again in the resurrection, clothed in an immortality which will
swallow up the death. In order for the "flesh and blood" to enjoy the
allotment, it has to be _clothed_, as "this corruptible must be putting
on incorruption".

The body is being changed into something it wasn't before. The plant
doesn't leave the seed behind (whether or not exactly as it was when it
was planted) and go off to do its own thing: the seed _becomes_ the plant.


"Paul would have known, that a seed is discarded. The whole point
of separating the wheat from the chaff is to keep one and discard the
other."

Paul would have known that the chaff-and-wheat is an entirely different
metaphor, which has nothing in the least to do with a seed being buried
in the ground and creating a new plant.

Come to think of it, Paul would also have known that the whole point to
separating the seed from the chaff (in its own proper metaphorical use)
is not to discard the seed. (It's hard to believe Steven was paying
attention here: what was supposed to be the point of keeping the chaff, again, in
relation to 1 Cor 15???) In fact, he would have known that the seed is
not discarded in the metaphor he _was_ using, either. The seed _becomes_
the plant.


Beyond all this (which could be detailed rather further): as I
mentioned in a previous letter (on which there may be some reply by now), the
advocates of the notion that Paul was not talking about a dead body being
transformed into something new and raised, still have to account in their theory
for two rather difficult things (even aside from a close contextual reading
of the passage). If Paul is so comfortable with this notion, and is trying
to teach it--then what exactly is it he is so sharply admonishing the
Corinthians about? (The standard attempts to defend this hypothesis
leave Paul in the peculiar position of defending _and_ attacking basically
the same thing in the same chapter! Something other than the standard
defense is required, at least.) And second, if this notion was such an easy
option for Jewish Christians (much moreso Gentile ones) to take, then why
_didn't_ they in fact take it?--for the missing body is a key feature of all four of
the earliest story-accounts which mention a Resurrection at all.

There are simply too many problems, at too many levels, for me to
accept this as being a live option of interpretation.


I suspect that the reason these problems are elided past, by
con-apologists, is because they've been told so often that Paul's
testimony on the subject constitutes definitive proof of the Res (or at least of
a missing body), that any stick looks good enough to beat that idea with.
(I have an even stronger suspicion that much the same is true about how
pro-apologists frequently use the reference to the 500 witnesses; I
cringe every time I hear or read the typical use of it. That's a lot of
cringing... {g}) If it is any consolation, that is _NOT_ what I am
trying to argue here. I think the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn,
without overreaching the position, is:

Paul was teaching the Resurrection and transformation of dead and
buried bodies, specifically Christ's and anyone who dies in Christ; a teaching
he claims to have received as being authoritative and of first importance,
and which he claims to have already taught the Corinthians (who at the time
accepted what he was passing along, though now he's hearing they're
believing something different, which he's opposing)--a teaching he says
the previous apostles and leaders in the church are teaching.

The first (and possibly only) extension to this claim, from 1 Cor, that
I myself would make, is a connection to the situation (and person) Paul
is writing against in the whole first six chapters of the same letter.


"None of the early Christian creeds found in Paul have a
resurrected Jesus walking the earth or having a flesh and bones body."

Perhaps not; but neither do any of the creeds found in Paul have a
resurrected Jesus either walking the earth or appearing spiritually
having left his flesh and bones body behind--do they?

"If they had believed in a resurrected Jesus walking the earth, or
having a flesh and bones body, they would have said so."

Ditto. If it counts against me, it counts against Steven, too.

"The creeds summarised what they believed."

'was buried, was raised.' Can hardly be more summary than that. Paul
can unpack and expand on it; without requiring the kind of convolution of
thought involved in going from the basic meaning of that, to 'was raised
but what was raised was not what was buried; that stayed etouffed {g}
in the ground unchanged'.



Moving on:

"We have not one word from Jews saying this unbelievable story that
the Roman guard agreed to say that they were sleeping on duty (so
consigning them to the death sentence)."

Not that I expected Steven to pay attention to subtleties (and given
how briefly I mentioned it, he has some excuse for that this time); but I
didn't reference the part where the guard _agreed to say_ this.

I _do_, in fact, have a pretty good understanding of religious (and
anti-religious) polemic--a better understanding than Steven does of the
use of chaff and metaphor {g}--which is exactly why I conclude that the
core of the GosMatt polemic makes no plausible sense unless two antithetical
traditions were agreeing a body was missing. (The recent Pilate example
on the SecWeb, though colorful, is not really a good parallel; but I would
have to go into a lot of detail before that could become apparent, so I
don't blame Stephen for drawing it.)

Since it would take a while to go through the various options with an
eye toward assessing their historical plausibility, I'll save that for a
subsequent letter. (It isn't something to be briefly waved off, any
more than it can be briefly presented--a close analysis of options and
implications took me something like four chapters to go through.)


And, of course, Paul is clear in Galatians 6 that observance of the
law (not resurrection) is what was at dispute between Christians and Jews.


Um. I have no idea what this was supposed to do with anything in Part 1
of my letter. Did Paul write ("with what size letters, with my own hand")
that the disputes between Christian and Jew had nothing to do with the Res?
Not in any text of Galatians, or textual variant, _I_ know about. (Talk
about adding words to Paul...)

I suspect this was supposed to be a comment to Part 2 of my letter, and
Steven simply missed his aim. In which case, is he trying to say that
if Jews and Christians (assuming Paul is talking about a dispute with
non-Christian Jews) are disputing about observance of the law, then
they can't be, or couldn't have previously been, or couldn't subsequently be
disputing, about whether someone stole the body? (If so, I think I'll
simply reply that it's good thing I don't have to rely on logic like
that for _my_ side of such debates... But he's welcome to clarify himself if
he wishes.)


It _is_ rather interesting that no (extant canonical) text preserves
something like the GosMatt polemic. (I can bring that up myself
directly--better than vague references to Galations 6, yes?) It's a
fact which does have to be taken into the account, sooner or later; and I
think it's a pretty important fact. But it still leaves the oddity of the
polemic exactly where it is.


OK, I give up, why didn't they just fake showing a body?

It's quite an intriguing question, once one arrives at it. And I didn't
bring it up just for kicks. I think it has an important place in the
overall picture. But it isn't something that should be used simply in
abstraction from the overall picture. (Though I'm sure it'll be used
that way by the uncautious. I have an idea of where it fits in, but I'd
rather think about it for a while.)


I may start running abridged or summarized drafts of book chapters by
Victor for possible posting. That may be the best way to cover the
initial issues of what can be learned from the existence of the GosMatt polemic.
(There are subsequent issues related to it, too; but I think those
should wait until other pieces are considered in the interim.)

Jason