Δευτέρα, 6 Μαρτίου 2017

On Paul's Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O'Connell Debate (2)

O'Connell's First Rebuttal (2008)


Response to "What Paul Said"

Carrier here throws out a number of passages which he thinks make better sense if Paul accepted a two-body theory of resurrection (hereafter 2BT). But it can be clearly demonstrated that all of these passages are either better explained on a one-body theory (hereafter 1BT), or at least that they are too ambiguous to determine one way or other. And provided that there are other passages which are best explained on 1BT (such as the ones I discuss in my opening statement), the ambiguous passages should be presumed to affirm 1BT as well, since we must assume that an author does not contradict himself unless we have definite evidence for it.
Let's start with 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8. Since this passage has its interpretive difficulties (Wright calls it "dense" and Margaret Thrall tells us it has "occasioned extensive debate"),[1] I'll first lay out the general thrust of the passage[2]: Paul is not discouraged by the sufferings he has faced, for he knows that even though he is subjected to hardship now, yet he has an eternal reward (2 Corinthians 4:16-18). Paul knows that though his present body may die, he can look forward to receiving the resurrection body (5:1). It is the resurrection body which he longs for now (5:2-3). Ideally, he does not want to ever experience a bodiless state in heaven, but wants to go straight from the preresurrection body to the resurrection body (5:4).The resurrection body (5:5) has been prepared by God. In a way, the present bodily state is better than the nonbodily state in heaven because we do at least have a body (5:6-7). On the other hand, the bodiless state is better because we are present with the Lord (5:8).
Now, getting to one of the disputed aspects of this passage, what do we find here that supports either 1BT or 2BT?
Paul's use of "ependyomai" (5:2; 5:5) clearly supports 1BT. The word means to "put one garment on over another."[3] Paul says that we do not want to be unclothed (i.e. die and lose the body), but rather want to "put one garment on over another." This is of course reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 15:54, where Paul says that the mortal corruptible preresurrection body must "put on" the incorruptible immortal resurrection body. And 2 Corinthians 5:3, like 1 Corinthians 15:54, makes sense only on 1BT. For if, as 2BT requires, Paul thinks his present garment (the preresurrection body) is going to disintegrate while his soul escapes this garment, then he is not putting one garment on over another. Instead, he is taking one garment off in order to put another on.
What in this passage might support 2BT?
First, Paul seems to say that the resurrection body is already in heaven, even as we presently occupy our earthly bodies (5:1). But Paul's language may be no more than an expression of his assurance that God has guaranteed us a resurrection body (cf. Matthew 5:20, where Jesus tells us to store up treasures in heaven, but does not mean we should literally put gold coins up there). In fact, the whole passage is filled with figurative language: Our present body is a "tent," mortality will be "swallowed up," a disembodied state is "nakedness," etc. Thus, it is entirely plausible that Paul's words concerning the location of the resurrection body are figurative.
Second, Carrier argues that by calling our bodies clay vessels (which are made by hands) in 4:7 and then saying that our resurrection bodies are not made by hands (5:2), Paul is drawing a contrast between the two, and since clay vessels are destroyed after use, therefore our bodies will be destroyed rather than resurrected. But in comparing our preresurrection bodies to clay vessels, Paul's point is only that our bodies, like clay vessels, are fragile (the whole context of 4:7-11 concerns the fragility of our present existence). That our bodies are like clay vessels with respect to their fragility does not mean that they are like clay vessels in all other respects (e.g. the two may not be alike with respect to their ultimate fate). That would be analogous to claiming that because Jesus tells the disciples to be like the Devil with respect to cleverness (Matthew 10:6), he wants them to be like the Devil in all other respects. If Paul had said our bodies will not be reconstituted, just as a broken clay vessel will not, we would have a clear affirmation of 2BT. But Paul does not say that.
I may also add that I find C. F. Moule's suggestion that Paul changed his mind on the question of 1BT/2BT in between the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians preposterous.[4] If Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians a doctrine completely opposite from the one he had taught them just a year earlier, he surely would have made his new teaching much more explicit.
As for Carrier's other passages:
  1. 1 Corinthians 15:35-38 is no "plain statement" of 2BT. In these very verses, Paul uses the seed-plant analogy to illustrate what he is trying to say. As I demonstrated in my opening statement, Paul's use of this analogy is strong evidence for 1BT.
  2. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is entirely ambiguous on this question. It says nothing relevant to our topic one way or the other.
  3. The word "allasso" (1 Corinthians 15) and the word "metaschematizo" (Philippians 3:20) can mean either "change" (i.e. transform) or "exchange." Their meaning is dependent on the context, and so Paul's use of these words cannot, in and of itself, be used as evidence for 2BT. Only if one already has other evidence that Paul holds to 2BT, can either of these words be used to support 2BT. Further, we can note that while 2 Baruch 49-51 would provide a parallel to the idea that humans will be changed (transformed) at the resurrection, there are no Jewish sources which affirm an exchange.
  4. Colossians 3:5 is another ambiguous passage. It affirms only that we have an earthly body; it says nothing about whether that body will be resurrected or replaced.
  5. 1 Corinthians 5:5 proscribes excommunication for a man practicing incest. He is to be delivered "to Satan" (i.e. expelled from the Christian community into the Gentile world which Satan has in his grip) for the "destruction of his flesh" (i.e. he will suffer affliction once he is thrust into Satan's world), so that "his spirit will be saved on the day of the Lord" (i.e. the affliction he will suffer will cause a spiritual transformation so that he will repent of his evil ways and be saved). The passage is not concerned with resurrection.
  6. Paul's references to our "inner man" can plausibly be understood as references to our inner person, our spirit. There is nothing to suggest that Paul's inner man is an unseen body.
  7. Paul's view of the eschatological age as a new Genesis (1 Corinthians 15:35-50) is of no help to 2BT. Romans 8 makes clear that Paul's hope is for a renewed creation, not a brand new one. Paul writes that creation eagerly awaits the eschatological times (8:21) and that once the eschatological times arrive, creation will be delivered from its bondage to corruption. If Paul expects a destruction of the present creation, he would not speak of creation being "delivered," and would not tell us that creation is looking forward to these times (it would not look forward to its own destruction). The texts Carrier cites as affirming destruction and recreation (Psalms 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12), themselves ambiguous, are both non-Pauline.

Response to "What Others Said"

Carrier's basic argument here is that the Church Fathers and the rabbinic writers, both of whom believe in 1BT, sound a lot like each other when they talk about resurrection, and a lot different from Paul. By contrast, heretical writers who teach 2BT sound more like Paul. Therefore Paul probably agrees with the doctrine of the heretical Christians rather than that of the Fathers and rabbis.
In his second paragraph, Carrier offers three reasons to think that Paul affirms something different from the Fathers and the rabbis: (1) the Fathers and rabbis use some analogies and metaphors, and concern themselves with some questions, that Paul does not; (2) they talk about the continuity between the two bodies, but Paul talks about the discontinuity; and (3) unlike them, Paul does not affirm a resurrection of the flesh.
Regarding (1), we should expect the Fathers and rabbis to use some metaphors, and address some issues, which Paul does not, simply because they wrote much more than Paul did on the subject. Some of the Fathers devoted whole treatises to the resurrection.[5] So it is hardly justifiable to argue that because Paul does not address everything they did, Paul must disagree with them. Regarding (2), the reason Paul does not emphasize the continuity between the two bodies is obviously because the Corinthians are not having any difficulty understanding that the two bodies are in certain respects continuous. From the manner in which Paul answers the question, it is clear that the Corinthians' problem is with understanding how the resurrected body is in any way different. Thus, Paul focuses on the issue of discontinuity because that is what the Corinthians are concerned with. Further, the Fathers do sometimes discuss the differences between the two bodies: Clement of Rome uses the seed-plant analogy, and Tertullian speaks of the "transformation" of the resurrection body in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 15.[6] In fact, any Church Father who discussed 1 Corinthians 15 (and plenty of them did) would necessarily have discussed the discontinuity between the bodies. Also, 2 Baruch 49-51 discusses at some length how the body will be transformed at the resurrection. As for (3), Paul's failure to mention a resurrection of the flesh at most suggests that he thinks the flesh will be transformed at the resurrection so that it is no longer flesh (if it even suggests that), and a transformation of the flesh is still 1BT.
What about the supposed agreement between Paul and the heretics? Carrier's only example of a heretic who sounds similar to Paul is Origen, and Carrier only cites one point from Origen that supposedly sounds similar to Paul. This is Origen's statement that the resurrection body grows inside our body and eventually sloughs off the old body like a placenta. However, this does not sound like anything Paul says unless we assume that the seed/plant analogy is an illustration of 2BH. But I showed in my opening statement that this analogy clearly supports 1BT.

Response to "Paul vs. the Gospels"

Carrier provides two arguments here: (1) Paul's failure to mention the empty tomb implies that he was unaware of an empty tomb, probably because there was no empty tomb; and (2) Gospel accounts of the empty tomb are unreliable because (a) the Gospels are unreliable in general due to problems such as their uncertain date and authorship, and (b) Gospel accounts of the empty tomb contradict each other on fundamental matters.
Regarding (1), Paul did not write his letters to give a comprehensive account of Christian belief. Thus, Paul's failure to mention an empty tomb does not imply that he was unaware of one. Paul simply does not talk about Jesus' life very much. Keep in mind that Paul nowhere mentions three aspects of Jesus' ministry which are virtually universally acknowledged as historical: First, that Jesus performed miracles[7]; second, that he proclaimed the kingdom of God[8]; and third, that he spoke of "the Son of Man."[9] Moreover, if we did not have 1 Corinthians, we would have no reference from Paul to any resurrection appearance except his own, and scholars who take Carrier's approach would then presumably argue that Paul was unaware of any other resurrection appearances. So this argument from silence seems most tenuous.
As for (2), this is really not an offensive argument for Carrier's thesis, but merely a defensive argument, since all it does is keep the Gospels from being brought in as contrary evidence. But in presenting my case, I did not rely on the Gospels at all; I appealed only to Paul's epistles. Thus, I could concede for the sake of argument that the Gospels are not reliable. Nevertheless, I will now give three arguments in defense of the historicity of the empty tomb.
First, the Gospels state that women discovered the tomb empty. Given the low social status of women in first-century Judaism, it is unlikely that the early Christians would invent a story making women the discoverers of the tomb.[10] Second, the empty tomb is multiply attested by all four Gospels. Third, if Jesus' tomb remained occupied, then given the popular interest shown in the bones of martyrs during this period, Jesus' tomb ought to have been venerated.[11] The absence of tomb veneration is best explained by the hypothesis that the tomb was empty.
As for apparent contradictions among the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb's discovery (such as precisely which women went to the tomb), even if they could not be harmonized, they strike me as incidental rather than fundamental. But contradictions on minor details do not require that the basic fact be dismissed. There are various contradictions among surviving accounts of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game, but that does not mean we should conclude that the game never happened.[12]

Response to "The Gospels vs. Acts"

Carrier's argument here is that Acts' record of the history of the Church is incompatible with Jesus' tomb being empty, and thus either Acts is worthless as history, or the tomb was not empty. Carrier argues that if the tomb was empty, the Christians would have been investigated by the Romans for grave robbery, and for helping a criminal to escape crucifixion. Again, since I did not appeal to Acts as support for 1BT, I could simply concede for the sake of argument that Acts is worthless as history. But supposing it is not, I do not think Carrier has shown that Acts' account is incompatible with an empty tomb.
With respect to grave robbery, if there was an empty tomb, then we can be quite sure that the Jewish leaders (and the Romans if they were interested) would have suspected that some Christians had stolen the body (as Matthew 28:11-15 records). But the mere fact that the Christians were accused of stealing the body is not so significant that the author of Acts would be certain to make mention of it. Plenty of accusations were hurled against the Christians. In the Gospels, Jesus is charged with being a drunkard, insane, and in league with the Devil. If the charge that Christians were grave robbers represented just one more unsubstantiated accusation, there is no reason to think it would have been so important to Luke that he could not have omitted it. Only if some of the Christians were actually tried for grave robbery or desecrating tombs would Luke have an event of some significance.
But now, suppose the Jews or Romans were convinced that the Christians had stolen the body, and that they wanted to try the culprits for grave robbery. Who were they going to try? They could not simply try all the Christians, for they would have to try the individuals who were actually suspected of grave robbery. But who? Acts 2:41 tells us there were 3,000 converts to Christianity on the day of Pentecost. This is generally thought to be exaggerated, but the early material of 1 Corinthians 15:6 affirms that there were over 500 Christians very early on.[13] How were the Romans supposed to determine exactly which Christians took the body? Besides, Jesus' execution occurred at Passover, when there would have been hundreds of thousands of pilgrims in Jerusalem.[14] By the time Peter and the others started to proclaim Jesus' resurrection 50 days later at Pentecost, the culprits could have been anywhere.
As for the witnesses to the resurrection appearances being investigated for running around with an escaped felon, and the Romans starting a massive manhunt to find Jesus and kill him again, this scenario only would have occurred if the Romans had completely misunderstood what the Christian proclamation was all about. The Christians were not claiming that they had temporarily housed a resuscitated Jesus who was now on the loose somewhere. Rather, they were claiming that Jesus had been supernaturally resurrected, after which he spent most of his time in heaven while making occasional appearances to his followers. The Romans surely would have either understood the resurrection appearances as analogous to religious visions (which were not at all unusual in the ancient world)[15], or they would have figured that the witnesses to the appearances were simply lying (which is apparently just what the Jewish leaders were saying per Matthew 28:11-15).
Further, we could just as well reason: (a) Jesus was crucified as a pretender to the throne; (b) his followers were continuing to proclaim the message of a pretender to the throne (whether they were claiming there was an empty tomb or not); (c) the Romans would have been upset with such a proclamation; and thus (d) the Romans would have persecuted Jesus' followers. Yet clearly they did not (prior to Nero). Common sense would seem to dictate that the Romans should have persecuted the Christians regardless of whether there was an empty tomb, but they didn't, and there is no reason to think an empty tomb would have made any difference.[16]
Carrier also makes one other argument: he suggests that Acts' failure to mention an empty tomb implies that there was none. But Luke, like Paul, is not trying to be comprehensive. He has already affirmed his belief in an empty tomb (Luke 24), and there is no reason why he should be compelled to mention it again in Acts.


Notes

[1] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 366; Margaret E. Thrall, The International Critical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), p. 357.
[2] For an exegesis that I generally agree with, see e.g. William Lane Craig, "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" in R. T. France and David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives (vol. 1) (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980): 47-74, available to registered users here: <http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5215>, and Jan Lambrecht, Second Corinthians (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999).
[3] See the New American Bible (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1992) footnote on 2 Corinthians 5:2-5, p. 271.
[4] C. F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12(2): 106-123 (January 1966).
[5] Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection; Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh.
[6] Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 42.
[7] On Jesus' miracles, see Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), pp. 139-158.
[8] On "the kingdom of God," see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (vol. 2) (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 509-1038.
[9] On the title "The Son of Man," see Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 233-261.
[10] See e.g. b. Sot. 19a.
[11] See James Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 837-838.
[12] See Bryan Burwell, At the Buzzer! Havlichek Steals, Erving Soars, Magic Deals, Michael Scores: The Greatest Moments in NBA History (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 126-127.
[13] On the reliability of this material, see William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1989), pp. 3-62.
[14] According to E.P. Sanders there were generally 300,000 to 500,000 people in Jerusalem for Passover (Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE-66 CE [London: SCM, 1992], p. 128).
[15] See Violet MacDermot, The Cult of the Seer in the Ancient Middle East (Berkley: University of California Press, 1971).
[16] On the question of why Jesus was crucified but not his followers, see the articles in the June 2007 issue of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
==============

Carrier's First Rebuttal (2008)


A Weaker Case Cannot Defeat a Stronger


O'Connell makes five arguments. None establish his case. I will treat each in turn, then reiterate my conclusion.

1. Vocabulary Argument

O'Connell: Whenever the word "resurrection" (anastasis) occurs in Jewish sources within and around the first century A.D., it always denotes a "one-body" notion of resurrection.
This has not been demonstrated. Not even N. T. Wright ever says this. To the contrary, N. T. Wright would agree that two-body resurrection is a possible application of the word.[1] Many uses of the word anastasis are ambiguous (being unclear what kind of resurrection is meant), there are too few such references (especially from the first century) to declare its use was so restricted, and the word was too broad and generic in its meaning to have so limiting a restriction on its use (to the contrary, it clearly meant all kinds of things).[2] Therefore O'Connell cannot claim "all" ancient uses of this word were of a one-body resurrection. In fact, that begs the question, since I demonstrated Paul uses this word of two-body resurrection (as does Origen), which makes these counterexamples to O'Connell's false generalization. I further demonstrated that "resurrection" (even if indicated with other words) was described as two-body by other ancient authors, including Josephus, a first-century Jew.[3]
Ironically, O'Connell's two clear examples of one-body resurrection (from the Sibylline Oracles and 2 Baruch) are perfect examples of what Paul conspicuously never says, even though these passages manage to say it in just a simple line or two. The very fact that Paul says something entirely different is sufficient reason to conclude he meant something entirely different.

2. Clothing Argument

O'Connell: [T]hat Paul thinks the corruptible, preresurrection body will simply rot away while the spirit which previously inhabited that body moves into a new body, is incompatible with Paul's use of "put on."
It is not. Since in the relevant passage (1 Corinthians 15:42) Paul is speaking of the eschaton (the end of the world) when everything corruptible will be destroyed, he is not thinking of the old body staying behind and rotting away, but immediately disintegrating, and thus being "swallowed up" (1 Corinthians 15:54), i.e. completely consumed. This would not have happened to Jesus, however, as the world had not burned away yet. His body thus remained behind (until it, too, is burned up in the eschaton). Either way, Paul is adamant that the old body will be destroyed, not restored or raised in any way (e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:1 and 1 Corinthians 5:5).
I've demonstrated that Paul's garment analogy most likely refers to exchanging garments, not putting one on over another and continuing with both. That's why in 2 Corinthians 5:3-4 he says at the resurrection we will "get out of" what we presently wear when we "put on" our new body (and the same exchange is described with his building metaphor in 2 Corinthians 5:1, 6-8).[4] O'Connell's view would sound illogical to Paul, since if flesh cannot inherent incorruptibility (1 Corinthians 15:50), then it cannot inherent it by putting on a cloak of incorruptibility. There would then also be two bodies, one of flesh and one of higher material, walking around together one on top of the other. That is certainly not what Paul is proposing. Not only does he say we "get out of" our old bodies, he never says our old body "gets into" another, much less stays there.[5]
The word "body" is not even in the text of 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 (or 1 Corinthians 15:50), where O'Connell needs it to be. Hence he must conjecture it there, but his only basis for this is 1 Corinthians 15:42, which is a whole ten verses away from 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 and thus hardly the most likely source of Paul's intended subject. So which is the more likely interpretation of what Paul is saying on the total evidence? I argue it is exchange, not layering. Accordingly, I conclude (with Jean Héring) that the grammatical subject in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 is more likely our present condition in the abstract, not our bodies.[6] Hence he means we take off our old bodies (or allow them to be consumed in the eschaton) and "put on" our new ones (much like in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44).[7]
But I agree with how O'Connell describes my position when he says "what is corruptible (the preresurrection body) just disintegrates while our soul" (or the equivalent[8]) "puts on incorruption." O'Connell is describing a two-body resurrection: the old body "just disintegrates" while we jump into a new "incorruptible" body—at the eschaton. But since Jesus wasn't raised at the eschaton, there is no reason to expect his body to have disintegrated. Paul would not have to believe it did, and he never says it did.

3. Argument from Romans 8:23

O'Connell: In Romans 8:23, Paul speaks of the "redemption" (apolytrosis) of our bodies.... [But] if our body simply rots in the grave while the soul passes into a new body, then there is no redemption of our bodies. Hence, a two-body view of resurrection cannot make any sense of Paul's affirmation that our bodies will be redeemed.
Yes, it can. As O'Connell says, "the word apolytrosis connotes the idea that the thing being redeemed" was "previously in a state of bondage, but is now being freed." But the question remains: which body is being "freed" from its bondage? I agree with O'Connell that it is the resurrection body that is being freed. But that is not our current body. Our resurrection body is to be freed from its bondage within the mortal body, as Paul implies repeatedly elsewhere. Our "outer man," which Paul says is going to its destruction, currently "burdens" our "inner man," which Paul says is eternal. Thus, Paul's resurrection consists of "freeing" our inner body from the burden of our outer body, just as a new birth must be freed from the placenta that surrounds it (from Origen's analogy), or as a new plant must be freed from the chaff of its shell (from Paul's analogy).[9]
Notably, Paul does not say in Romans 8:23 that our mortal bodies will be redeemed. Thus how we interpret what he means here must follow what he says elsewhere, and what he says elsewhere is fairly conclusive when taken as a whole: one body is destroyed, a new one replaces it; and that new body is grown or vouchsafed within us even now.

4. Argument from Romans 8:11

O'Connell: In Romans 8:11 Paul states that the Holy Spirit will give life to our mortal bodies. If Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead when he refers to the body being given life, then he clearly has in mind a one-body view of resurrection, since only our preresurrection bodies are mortal.
But if Paul is not talking about the resurrection of the dead when he refers to the body being given life here, then O'Connell's conclusion does not follow. Paul conspicuously does not say God will raise our mortal bodies in 8:11. In fact, our resurrection is not mentioned there at all. Thus, O'Connell must conjecture that Paul means resurrection. But there is no reason to prefer his conjecture to mine.
The verses immediately preceding and following (Romans 8:9-10 and 8:12-13) all refer to life and death as metaphorical or spiritual 'states of being' here and now, in our present life. The context is not obviously our resurrection (which is never named or mentioned). If Paul can say our body is dead now (Romans 8:10) and the spirit "in" us now "is life" (Romans 8:10), then when he says God will give us "life" when that spirit is "in" us (Romans 8:11), the obvious implication is that he is talking about the spirit (and thus life) that is in us now.
Contrary to O'Connell, Romans 8:11 says nothing of a future "transformation" of our bodies. It says only that our present bodies will be made alive when the spirit resides within us. Paul says elsewhere that our mortal bodies (our flesh and blood) cannot inherit eternal life. So it would not make much sense to say that God will make our mortal bodies alive if that is impossible (and notably, again, Paul does not here say God will make our mortal bodies eternally alive, or indestructible, or any of the other things he says our resurrection bodies will be). The whole point of describing our bodies as "mortal" (thnêta, literally "dying," from thnêskô) is to indicate that they are doomed to die. If they were not, in what sense would they be mortal? You can't have a mortal immortal body. Yet Paul does not say here that God will change our mortal bodies into immortal ones. He never mentions immortality here at all.
Clearly, there are two ways to interpret what Paul means here. And though I think I've shown my interpretation is the more plausible, I've at least proven that either is equally plausible. Therefore, since Paul is too vague here to extract definite conclusions about his resurrection belief, we must decide between alternative interpretations in light of what Paul says elsewhere. But as I've explained in my opening statement, what Paul says elsewhere is otherwise clear and thus argues against O'Connell's interpretation of Romans 8:11. For you cannot use one vague passage to refute an entire collection of clear passages. The interpretive direction must go the other way.[10]

5. Seed-Sowing Argument

O'Connell: While it is true that the kernel's dropping off of the shell makes the analogy inexact for one-body resurrection, the fact that the kernel grows into the plant makes the analogy difficult for two-body resurrection.
Since I demonstrate that Paul imagines our future bodies already growing inside us (our "inner man" as mentioned above), there is no difficulty. To the contrary, the analogy then matches my theory exactly. Paul may be vague as to whether he is literal or figurative about that (whether there is an actual spiritual body germinating inside us as we live, or whether there is only the hope of one vouchsafed within us by God, as N. T. Wright suggests with his bizarre idea of a celestial body farm[11]), but either way it amounts to the same thing. The analogy then works either to describe the literal fact, or the figurative fact. Either way, the fact represented is a two-body resurrection.[12]
To rebut this, O'Connell attempts to find a contradiction in usage between Paul and other authors. But none of his examples are sufficient to carry his point:

                                   John

  1. John 12:24 allegedly preserves a saying of Jesus, but O'Connell is confusing the author of John (most likely an early second-century writer, or several) with Jesus (a pre-Pauline oral teacher). Many scholars conclude the Gospel "according to" John has been edited, expanded, interpolated, and rearranged, and thus the current text does not necessarily represent the original author's meaning or intentions.[13] It thus can't be expected to maintain thorough consistency. So not much can be inferred if John's explicit theology conflicts with the implied theology of the people he quotes; i.e. just because "John" believed in a one-body resurrection does not mean Jesus did (or whoever originated or transmitted the saying in John 12:24).
  2. John 12:24 is cryptic. It is not placed in any clear context, and what it refers to cannot be positively identified. That it is about our resurrection therefore cannot be established. Since it says a lone wheat grain that dies bears plenty of fruit, the subject does not appear to be our resurrection, but something else, such as the death (or resurrection) of Jesus causing the flowering of the Church. That seems more likely (it would be the implied context of the preceding verse: John 12:23), and is certainly no less likely. Yet on that interpretation, Jesus is (metaphorically) the discarded shell and the Church the new second body that germinates from it. This would confirm my reading of Paul's different application of the same analogy.
  3. A cryptic verse of undetermined meaning from an uncertain source, and of indefinite consistency with other material that came from a completely different source, cannot be used to refute a clear verse of obvious meaning from a known author that has a confirmed consistency with other things said by that same author. Weak evidence never trumps strong.

                                   Clement of Rome

  1. Though 1 Clement 26:3 affirms the risen body will be made from the flesh of the mortal body, this comes immediately after 1 Clement 25, where our resurrection is likened to that of the Phoenix, which Clement describes without qualification as the bird destroying its old body, then rising from its ashes, but leaving the bones behind, which it then carries home (for burial). This is still a two-body resurrection analogy: a new body is fashioned from the flesh of the old, yet there is still a corpse (a skeleton) remaining in the grave.[14]
  2. Clement's idea is not entirely Pauline: e.g. for Clement the new body is of flesh, which Paul explicitly denied, and Clement says nothing about the different properties and compositions of the two bodies that are central distinctions for Paul. Since Clement's scheme is notably different, we cannot conclude that Paul would have agreed with anything else Clement said, as we already know Paul would have disagreed with at least some of it.
  3. 1 Clement 24 does not use the analogy "in almost the exact same words as Paul." To the contrary, it uses notably different concepts and phraseology, indicating Clement does not have the same knowledge or ideas as Paul. Clement says the "dry" seeds cast onto the ground "are dissolved" (dialuetai) "and then" out of their dissolution (ek tês dialuseôs) the "mighty power of the Lord's plan" raises them up, and "from one, many grow and bear forth fruit." This is all very different from Paul, who does not mention one seed producing many other seeds in a subsequent stage of fruit-bearing (an idea that makes little sense as a theory of resurrection but sounds a lot like a confusion from another statement, like that of Jesus, noted from John above, that from one death would come many saved). Moreover, Paul says exactly the opposite of what Clement does here: Clement says God raises the actual seeds cast on the ground (auta, "the seeds themselves" or "the same seeds"), whereas Paul explicitly denies this and says the risen germ is not the one buried. Paul also doesn't say the buried seed is "dissolved" (completely destroyed) and then magically restored, he says the buried seed dies, and a new one rises (thus he is distinguishing two components: the seed that dies, which would correspond to the shell, and the seed that rises, which would correspond to the germ inside). By contrast, Clement imagines the entire buried seed is dissolved and then reassembled (which suggests he doesn't know the basic facts of agriculture, and certainly has no idea of there being two components to a seed).

                                   The Talmud

  1. I've specifically pointed out how the Talmud (in that very passage, b.Sanhedrin 90b) uses the seed analogy in a completely different way from Paul: the Rabbis use it to theorize about actual clothing, whereas Paul uses it to theorize about our bodies. Paul understands our bodies to be the clothing, and advances a radically different idea of resurrection than the Talmud defends, a point I conclusively prove elsewhere.[15] Since the Rabbi he quotes is not talking about our bodies, but our clothes, O'Connell's conclusion doesn't follow.
  2. In fact, this crucial difference confirms my theory: Rabbi Meir is conceding that we change clothes, and he uses what happens to seeds to confirm this. Thus Rabbi Meir agrees with Paul that seeds change clothes. Since Paul applies this to the body itself, the same exact analogy entails that we change bodies (just as Rabbi Meir concludes we change clothes). The dead are buried in drab clothes, and rise in splendid clothes; wheat grains are buried in drab shells and rise in splendid shoots. There is no contradiction here with my interpretation of Paul.

Conclusion

The terminology and conceptology of ancient resurrection belief was not as narrow as O'Connell claims. He does not offer sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise. There were first-century Jews who held a two-body resurrection doctrine, as well as Christians after Paul. Paul's garment analogy does not imply retention of the corpse, since it's equally compatible with changing garments, and the evidence makes more sense that way. Romans 8:23 is equally compatible with one-body and two-body resurrection, and thus does not argue against either. Romans 8:11 is not clearly about resurrection, and since it has other interpretations, of which O'Connell's is neither definite nor the most likely, it cannot bear the weight of refuting the copious and clear evidence I adduce in other passages from Paul. Finally, there is no valid basis for rejecting my interpretation of Paul's seed analogy, especially since Paul backs it up with a "changing houses" analogy.
It's not possible to defeat stronger arguments with weaker. Compare my case (summarized in my opening statement) with O'Connell's: my evidence is far clearer and more numerous. I adduce many explicit statements from Paul (§1 and §2); O'Connell can only adduce a scant few passages that are inherently vague. I confirm with numerous examples that in what he says (and doesn't say) Paul clearly differs from one-body proponents, and that he differs in exactly those respects that are best explained if Paul held a two-body view (§3); O'Connell presents no valid evidence to the contrary. My theory also better explains the peculiar contents of Acts, and Paul's ignorance of the many relevant claims in the Gospels (§4 and §5).
So far, the preponderance of evidence clearly falls on my side, and heavily.


Notes

[1] See references in note 3 in my opening statement.
[2] See "The Word Anastasis" in Richard Carrier, Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? (Secular Web: 2006), Chapter 19 ("Responses to Critics"), as well as n. 253 on p. 218 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005), edited by Bob Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder: 105-231.
[3] See references in note 4 of my opening statement.
[4] For a complete demonstration of this point, see The Empty Tomb pp. 139-42 and the following note.
[5] Besides the summary in my opening statement and the preceding note, I demonstrate these points in The Empty Tomb pp. 137-39, 212-213n180. See also references in note 7 of my opening statement.
[6] On this point see my more detailed discussion in The Empty Tomb pp. 138-39 with p. 212n175. Also see my FAQ response on transformation.
[7] See The Empty Tomb pp. 127-28, with associated FAQ response.
[8] For what I mean by this, see The Empty Tomb pp. 133, 142-147, with associated FAQ response.
[9] I demonstrate this inner-and-outer man conception in The Empty Tomb pp. 144-145. The placenta-and-shell analogies I discuss and reference in my opening statement (§2 and §3). For my complete analysis of Romans 8:23, see The Empty Tomb p. 150, and the following note.
[10] For a demonstration of everything just summarized here, see The Empty Tomb pp. 149-150, and associated FAQ response 1 and FAQ response 2.
[11] See The Empty Tomb p. 211n165, with associated FAQ response.
[12] For my complete discussion, see The Empty Tomb pp. 146-147, with associated FAQ response.
[13] See discussion of the Gospel of John in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1997) and the The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 9 (1995). See also Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman (2006), C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (1978), and pp. 119-23 of Helmut Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," The Harvard Theological Review 73(1/2): 105-130 (January-April 1980).
[14] See my discussion in The Empty Tomb p. 126.
[15] See The Empty Tomb pp. 114-118.
=================

Carrier's Second Rebuttal (2008)


Possibly is Not Probably


O'Connell's general mode of argument is to propose possible alternative explanations for everything. But possibility is not probability. And some of his arguments (like those repeating his seed-plant analysis) I already refuted in my first rebuttal, so I will only address here what's new.

1. On Over What?

O'Connell: Paul's use of "ependyomai" (5:2; 5:5) clearly supports 1BT. The word means to "put one garment on over another."
When ependuomai is used to mean "put one garment over another," the other garment is usually named as the indirect object of the verb.[1] So we should expect Paul to say "put on over our earthly body" or something like that. But he doesn't. He never says what we put the new body over. But he does say if we don't put the new body on, then we'll be naked, which implies it's our naked selves that don the new body, not our old body wearing an extra one. Origen interprets 2 Corinthians 5 in exactly this way.[2] And Paul uses a domicile analogy here: he speaks of losing our current "tent" or "house" and getting another, using such terms five times in just four verses (instead of words for "garment"). You don't don one house on top of another. A house goes on top of a person.
Hence ependuomai does not always mean "put one garment on over another garment" but can mean simply "put on over" (even over a naked body).[3] So the question is: Over what? The body that's destroyed? How can you put something on over something that no longer exists? Paul is not talking about what happens when our earthly body merely dies, but when it's completely destroyed (kata-luthê). And he repeats, in parallel[4], getting out of our first garment before getting into the other (emphases added):
In this [body] we groan, [because we] long to put on [our new body] from heaven, if indeed we will not be found naked when we get out of [our old body]. For we groan because we are in [this body] and are weighed down [by it], because of which it's not that we want to get out of [our old body], but [that we want] to put on [our new body], so what is mortal may be completely swallowed up by life. (2 Corinthians 5:2-4)
Paul clearly says bearing this body (our earthly body) is a burden and for this reason he expects to get out of it, although he emphasizes that he does not desire to be naked, but to be clothed anew. You can't make a burdensome body unburdensome by donning an additional cloak over it (as I've already explained). Surely we must get rid of the burdensome body in order to get rid of its burden. But Paul is hopeful he will not thus become naked, but will don a new, better body. This is reinforced by all the other evidence in Paul, and by his peculiar choice of vocabulary here: for he uses the term skênos to refer to "this" body that "burdens" us, and he uses it without explanation or qualification, as if his readers understand, which can only imply a deliberate allusion to popular Orphic notions corresponding to 2BT, as I've argued elsewhere.[5]
So we either put a new body "over" our naked selves, or don a new body at the same time our old one dissolves (when our current "mortal existence" is "swallowed up," since 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 parallels 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, despite O'Connell's assumption that the word "body" is in the latter, which I've already shown is unwarranted).[6] Either way, Paul is talking about losing the earthly body (he says it's dissolved) and gaining a new body (the one "made without hands" waiting for us in heaven, literally or figuratively—Paul's use of figurative language doesn't argue against me).[7]

2. Clay Vessels

O'Connell: Paul's point is only that our bodies, like clay vessels, are fragile (the whole context of [2 Corinthians] 4:7-11 concerns the fragility of our present existence).... If Paul had said our bodies will not be reconstituted ... we would have a clear affirmation of 2BT. But Paul does not say that.
But this context includes 2 Corinthians 5:1 (for which chapter 4 is a preamble). Saying our current bodies will indeed be destroyed, and implying we will "get out of" them to don new bodies God has specially prepared for us, practically is saying our old bodies will not be reconstituted, as Paul already explicitly said in his previous letter.[8] What Paul doesn't say is that our bodies will be reconstituted, yet he should have, if that's what he believed. Everything he says instead implies exchange.
I cannot believe it's a coincidence that Paul chose to oddly describe our new bodies as "not made with hands" (what bodies ever are?) right after the section describing our current bodies with the peculiar term used for ritual clay vessels known to be "made with hands" and then necessarily destroyed. Paul even says our old bodies will be "destroyed" right before saying our new bodies are "not made with hands." The obvious explanation for why Paul chose such an odd thing to say of our future bodies, and why he specifically juxtaposes an allusion to ritual clay vessels with the destruction of our earthly bodies, is that Paul is playing on the fact that our current bodies must be destroyed to make way for new and better ones. Again, all the other evidence converges on this same conclusion (unlike C. F. Moule, I find Paul's two letters perfectly consistent on this point).

3. Varia

(1) O'Connell argues Paul didn't imagine the world would be remade at the eschaton. I doubt that, as Paul repeatedly remarks on how present things will no longer exist, and denying this would put Paul at odds with the rest of the New Testament.[9] I think it more likely Paul did imagine the destruction of the world as its welcome liberation. For Paul says the very elements themselves are the origin of the world's bondage.[10] And since "corruption cannot inherit incorruptibility" (1 Corinthians 15:50), when Paul says "even the creation itself shall be freed from the bondage of corruption" (Romans 8:21), clearly something must change: the current structure of the world must pass away (1 Corinthians 7:31). Paul's repeated use of a "new genesis" theme throughout his discussion of the resurrection corroborates this.[11] But regardless of what Paul thought would happen to the rest of the world, he clearly believed our current bodies would be "destroyed" (he says exactly that) and these would not be the bodies we rise up to new life in (he says, again, exactly that).
(2) O'Connell didn't rebut how I used 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 or 1 Corinthians 5:5. I'm arguing a collective case: when all the relevant passages are read together (like 2 Corinthians 5:1), what we see is a pattern of thought, one that, when joined with Paul's peculiar silences, leaves us with the more probable conclusion that Paul believed a 2BT. For example, Colossians 3:5 doesn't just affirm we have an earthly body (why would that need affirming?). By strangely referring to our bodies as "our parts on earth," Paul is identifying our corrupt body parts as the ones we have on earth, which implies an intentional distinction from other body parts, which are not on earth. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 Paul tells us where those are (or will be): in heaven (even specifically distinguishing these bodies from our "earthly" ones). And in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul explains why these two bodies have to be different. The total force of all the evidence trends in this direction, not O'Connell's.[12]
(3) O'Connell claims allassô can mean "change" as in "transformation," rather than "exchange," but he adduces no evidence of this, and ignores my cited evidence to the contrary that allassô rarely means transmutation. And Paul appears to be alluding to a passage in the Septuagint that specifically describes the eschatological event as an exchange, not a transmutation.[13] Why else would Paul adopt this unusual word here? I argue Hebrews 1:10-12 shows what Paul must have been thinking—it doesn't matter that Paul didn't write Hebrews, its author still shares the same background. Since Paul uses this same unusual word, in exactly the same form, in exactly the same context of exchanging garments at the end of the world, it's hard to imagine there was no intended connection.
(4) Contrary to O'Connell's claim that "there are no Jewish sources which affirm an exchange," I've already cited Josephus as a clear case of exactly that. Josephus says, for example, that the soul of a good man will "cross over" (metabainein) into "a different body" (eis heteron sôma). There are hints some other Jews held similar views.[14] And though O'Connell claims "there is nothing to suggest that Paul's inner man is an unseen body," the transition from 2 Corinthians 4:14-18 to 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 does exactly that. All the evidence collectively suggests a strong link in Paul's mind between the outer man and the destructible body we shed, and between the inner man and the new indestructible body we shall assume.[15]

4. The Comparative Argument

O'Connell's rebuttal to my comparative argument is inadequate.
(1) Paul wrote explicitly on his theory of resurrection twice, in 24 verses of over 300 words, and used several analogies, metaphors, and scriptural references—but none any 1BT proponent would use. I don't argue Paul should use "everything" other 1BT proponents did, but at least something comparable. It's improbable he would never say anything comparable.
(2) The Corinthians would be worried about continuity.[16] There's no reason to believe otherwise. All who wrote on resurrection mention this problem and respond to it. All 1BT proponents also argued the body must be the same, not that it merely was. Paul never says this. Whereas for them it's necessary, for him it's not. And it's so easy to say the same body rises that dies, or we'll don a new body over the old, or our body will be reassembled, yet Paul conspicuously avoids ever saying this. Instead he says exactly the opposite in 1 Corinthians 15:36-37.
(3) If Paul believed the flesh would be "changed" into a new material, why never say this? Why use analogies, allusions, and descriptions implying exchange instead? Why does he talk about our bodies being dissolved, but never about them being reconstituted? What's more probable?
It's very peculiar that Paul never once uses any of the obvious 1BT analogies or metaphors or proof-texts (despite this being very easily done and ideal for his stated purpose), and never once says anything clearly supporting or asserting 1BT, but often the opposite. That this is all just an accident is highly improbable. Since Paul sounds more like Origen (in more ways than one), Paul probably thought more like Origen.[17]

5. Paul Never Cites Evidence Available to the Gospels

"Paul's failure to mention an empty tomb does not imply that he was unaware of one," but it does support that conclusion (especially when he omits it even from 1 Corinthians 15:4-8). But what's more conspicuously absent is all the evidence later Christians adduce in defense of their view of resurrection: actual descriptions of Christ's risen body and its nature (showing wounds, eating and drinking, being handled, not glowing but looking ordinary, etc.). In essence, in Paul we lack testimony "proving" the resurrected Christ to be of the same body he had in life, for which an empty tomb would also be necessary. Also missing is anything Jesus said, for instance: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you behold me having" (Luke 24:39).[18] That Paul mentions none of this, unlike later Christian authors, suggests none of it existed in Paul's time.

6. Was There an Empty Tomb?

O'Connell's defense of an empty tomb is wrong on the facts. The social status of women would have no effect on their inclusion in a fabricated empty tomb report, and Christians had specific reasons to include them there.[19] So it's not an unlikely feature of the story. The Gospels are mutually dependent and therefore not 'four independent sources.' They all ultimately derive their empty tomb from Mark and embellish it.[20] And besides, multiply attested fiction is still fiction. That the labors of Hercules are multiply attested does not make them true. As for contradictions, contrary to O'Connell, these are so extreme in the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb that we can have no faith in them.[21] And we have no evidence either way whether the tomb was venerated (the site was lost or buried before any relevant texts would inform us).[22] So O'Connell can't assert it wasn't venerated—nor that it was any more likely to have been if occupied than if empty. On either account, it would be equally venerable as the site of the greatest and most important miracle in history, so if an empty tomb could be ignored, so could a needless body.

7. The Silence of Acts

O'Connell says "I do not think Carrier has shown that Acts' account is incompatible with an empty tomb." But it doesn't matter whether a story can be made "compatible" with a theory. What matters is whether such compatibility is at all probable. And in the case of Acts, if it records any history of the earliest Church, its silences are highly improbable on the theory that the tomb was actually empty.
(1) In Acts the Christians are routinely hauled into court and tried, and the Jews are constantly looking for excuses to imprison or kill them—and try everything they can think of to get the Romans to help. Yet not even once do they ever think of laying the crime of graverobbing or abetting an escaped felon on any Christians, nor do any Jews or Romans in these trials ever seem aware of either crime.[23] Roman judges even repeatedly say the Christians have done nothing wrong. How could that be? Not only would the trials and accusations recorded in Acts be different, the history of the Church itself would have been different, if either of these crimes were suspected—and they would have been, had there been an empty tomb.
(2) Who would the Jews or Romans try? The Church leaders of course. They would first interrogate them to ferret out all their accomplices (and to determine if Jesus was still alive), much like Pliny.[24] This would surely happen, and would be more important than any other event in Acts, especially as it would provide powerful evidence for the Gospel. Therefore, that it didn't happen makes no sense—unless there was no crime, hence no empty tomb. The Jews would probably fabricate witnesses to suit their needs as well (as they supposedly did for Jesus). Since these crimes would guarantee execution by the Romans, and considerable disgrace and discredit to the Christian mission, prosecuting them would be the first thing attempted to shut down the Church. Even if we think a judge would acquit, the means, motive, and opportunity were still sufficient to argue in court. So that none of this ever happened (and Acts attests it didn't happen) is inexplicable unless there was no empty tomb.
(3) The Romans wouldn't believe the Christian claim that it was all a supernatural act of God. Hence it doesn't matter what the Romans understood the Christian teaching to be, what matters is what the Romans would conclude the actual facts were. The body is missing. People then said they met Jesus, spoke with him, ate with him, and housed him. So what explanation is left? Either theft of the body, or aiding and abetting an escaped felon, either of which the Christians were exaggerating into a claim of miracle. That's what the Romans would investigate. It's implausible to imagine they wouldn't. So that they didn't has only one credible explanation: there was no empty tomb.
(4) O'Connell's argument that the Romans should have prosecuted the Christians anyway makes no sense. The Jews did prosecute them (even before Roman judges), and surely leveraging available crimes to win Roman assistance is exactly what the Jews would have done. That they didn't entails they couldn't, which entails there were no crimes to leverage. And if the body of Jesus was still in its tomb, there would be no crime for the Romans to prosecute. As O'Connell himself says, Christians would then simply be dismissed as hallucinating religious nuts (Acts 26:24), guilty, at worst, of violating Jewish laws, which Roman officials rightly said wasn't a Roman matter (Acts 18:14-15, 23:26-29). O'Connell suggests the Romans would prosecute the promotion of a pretender to the throne. But not when the pretender was dead. Many gods of the time were worshipped as Lords and Kings without incurring Roman wrath, and though venerating a recently deceased man like this could make some in Rome nervous, there was no actual law against it. Pliny the Younger, for example, was in the unusual circumstance of governing a province that at the time outlawed illegal assembly, but in the period covered by Acts, the Jews actually had the legal right of assembly. Since the Romans in Acts still see the Christians as a Jewish sect, they saw the matter as a purely internal dispute.[25] This would not have been the case if an actual body had been missing.

Conclusion

O'Connell has not adequately rebutted my arguments and evidence (from either my opening statement or my first rebuttal). He ignores the fact that my conclusions arrive from examining all the evidence together, whereas he tries to reinterpret each passage in isolation from the others. I argue for probability based on the total trends of the evidence; he argues for mere gainsaying possibilities. And he has not challenged any of my facts, only my conclusions. But those challenges consist merely of his own contrary interpretations. Considering all the evidence as a whole, I conclude his interpretations are less probable than mine.


Notes

[1] See, for example, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 5.37 (and more indirectly 3.159).
[2] See Origen, Against Celsus 7.37 and note 12 in my opening statement.
[3] For example, of the naked Philotera in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.19.120.2. Similarly, using a nominal cognate: John 21:7.
[4] See 2 Corinthians 5:1 and n. 180 (pp. 212-13) in Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005), edited by Bob Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder: 105-231. Also see the current edition of The Greek Text of the New Testament (4th revised edition, 1983), p. 619.
[5] See pp. 142-147 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005). For the other evidence corroborating all this, see §2 of my first rebuttal, and §1 and §2 of my opening statement.
[6] As argued in §2 of my first rebuttal.
[7] My agreement with O'Connell on the possibility of figurative language here is already described in §5 of my first rebuttal.
[8] In 1 Corinthians 15:35-38. See §1 of my opening statement.
[9] See n. 160 on p. 211 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005), and related FAQ response.
[10] Galatians 4:3, 4:9; Colossians 2:8, 2:20 (cf. Romans 7:18).
[11] See note 10 in my opening statement, and related Empty Tomb FAQ response.
[12] Throughout pp. 110-147 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[13] Psalms 102:25-27. See §2 of my opening statement and p. 136 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[14] See note 4 of my opening statement and pp. 112-113 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[15] See pp. 139-42, pp. 144-45, p. 150 (and n. 179 on p. 212) of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[16] See pp. 120-126 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[17] That Paul and Origin sound alike in more ways than one see, again, note 2 above.
[18] For many examples, see pp. 156-158 (with n. 263 on p. 219) and p. 124 (with nn. 103 and 104 on pp. 206-207) of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[19] See Chapter 11 ("Did No One Trust Women?") of Richard Carrier, Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? (2006).
[20] See pp. 155-65 (that Mark invented the story) and pp. 165-166, 188-97 with p. 155, n. 256 on p. 218, and n. 284 on p. 221 (that the others derived the idea from Mark) of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005).
[21] In addition to the material already cited in note 20 above, see pp. 358-364 of Richard Carrier, "The Plausibility of Theft" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005), and especially the associated FAQ response.
[22] See p. 179 of Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005). See also "The Argument from Silence" in Richard Carrier, "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity" (2002) for the logic of valid arguments from silence. On the fate of the Jerusalem graveyards, see Aelia Capitolina (Wikipedia) in conjunction with Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.26.
[23] See Acts 4, Acts 5, Acts 6-7, Acts 18:12-17, Acts 23, Acts 24, Acts 25, Acts 26, etc.
[24] See Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97.
[25] On the special legal rights of Jews at the time, see pp. 373-75 of Richard Carrier, "The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005). On the special law against illegal assembly in Asia Minor, see Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.34, and in general note 7 in Chapter 18 ("How Successful Was Christianity?") of Richard Carrier, Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? (2006).
================

 

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου