by booker-t 55 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Kenneson,
Thanks for this interesting link. So Triple A was not alone in thinking that a "spiritual body" has no blood (unnecessary) but bones (necessary?). I had never heard that before but it appears to be pretty commonplace in Evangelical apologetics -- funny as it seems to me.
I had never heard that before but it appears to be pretty commonplace in Evangelical apologetics
Yes I have heard that before too, his blood was poured out and his body made alive by the spirit, dont know how authodox this veiw is and whether it represents the teachings of evangelicals, or whether its the view of just a few.
Don't forget too the anti-docetic reference to "flesh and blood" by Ignatius of Antioch (early second century AD) in his depiction of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances who clearly interprets "flesh and blood" as proof of Jesus' corporeal body:
"For I know and believe that he was in the flesh (en sarki) even after the resurrection, and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: 'Take hold of me, handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon (daimonion asómaton).' And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood (té sarki autou kai to haimati)" (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 3:1-2).
The obvious contradiction with Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is likely the reason why the Latin and Coptic versions replace "flesh and blood" with "flesh and spirit". This account (likely drawn from oral tradition), by the way, is closely parallel to but independent of the narrative in Luke 24:37-39, especially concerning Peter's role and Jesus' explicit reference to himself as not being a "disembodied demon". Ignatius however appears to be dependent on Ebionite tradition here because this reference to a daimonion asómaton "disembodied demon" is found in the Teaching of Peter (probably the Preaching of Peter, the Kerygma Petrou):
"The term asómaton, that is, incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter, in which the Savior seems to say to His disciples, "I am not an incorporeal demon," I have to reply, in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the word asómaton there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase "incorporeal demon" to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it must be understood to mean that he had not such a body as demons have, which is naturally fine, and thin as if formed of air (and for this reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that he had a solid and palpable body" (Origen, De Principiis praef. 8).
Jerome (De Viris Illustribus, 16; In Isaiam, 18 prol.) also claimed that the same phrase is found in the Gospel According to the Hebrews, which is also an Ebionite or Jewish-Christian work. This is significant because the Ebionites specifically had an adoptionist christology. The parallel with Luke 24:37-39 is also interesting because it functions in the text as an anti-docetic device mitigating the quasi-docetic resurrection appearance in the preceding verses. Luke 24:30-31 is especially quasi-docetic because of the use of the adjective aphantos "invisible" + the verb egeneto "became". This verb implies that Jesus did not merely leave the room unseen (such as while the disciples were distracted) but became invisible, or unseen, as a change of state. The adjective is a hapax legomenon in the NT and has a well-established usage in Greek writings, referring to the supernatural vanishings of gods, demigods, and so forth -- especially with the verb "become". Thus we read in Diodorus Siculus: "And Dionysos led Ariadne away by night to the mountain which is know as Drios; and first of all the god (ho theos) vanished (éphanisthé), and later Ariadne also became invisible (aphantos egenéthé)" (Bibliotheca Historica 5.41.4-52.1; cf. 3.60.3, 4.82.6). Cf. also Euripedes, Hercules 873, and Apollonius of Rhodes: "Thus they spoke and with the voice vanished (aphantoi) at once where they stood" (Argonautica 4.1330). In Christian writings, the expression when it occurs is used typically of spiritual beings like demons:
"And the apostle said: They also shall now be abolished, with their works. And suddenly (aiphnidiós) the demons (hoi daimones) vanished away (aphantoi gegonasin): but the women lay cast upon the earth as if were dead, and without speech" (Acts of Thomas 77:13).
"So looking up he saw the roof as it were opened, and a ray of light descending to him. The demons (daimones) suddenly vanished (exaiphnés aphantoi gegonasin), the pain of his body straightway ceased, and the building was again whole" (Athanasius, Vita Antonii, 26.860).
Note also the occurence of "suddenly" in these texts to emphasize the notion of a sudden disapperance. Luke 24:31 does not highlight the time aspect but makes clear that Jesus "became invisible" while "they recognized him" (epegnósan auton), while their "eyes were opened fully" (diénoikhthésan hoi ophthalmoi ). Verses 37-39 therefore help mitigate the docetic impression given by APHANTOS + BECOME which refers to the sudden vanishings of gods, demons, and other spirit beings in Hellenistic literature.
BTW, the account in Ignatius is also related to the post-resurrection epiphany related in the Epistula Apostolorum (mid-second century AD):
"Then the Lord said to Mary and her sisters: 'Let us go to them.' And he came and found us within, and called out to us; but we thought it was a phantom and did not believe that it was the Lord. Then said he to us: 'Come, do not fear. I am your master, even he, O Peter, whom you thrice denied; and who you now deny again?' And we came to him, doubting in our hearts whether it were he. Then said he to us: 'Why do you still doubt, and not believe? I am he that spoke about my flesh and death and resurrection. But that you may know that I am he, Peter put your finger into the print of the nails in my hands, and you also, Thomas, put your finger into the wound of the spear in my side, and you Andrew, look on my feet and see whether they press into the earth; for it is written by the prophet: "A phantom of a devil makes no footprint on the earth" ' " (Epistula Apostolorum, 11).
This harmonizing account is interesting because the provenance of the Epistula Apostolorum is most likely Asia Minor which is the same region to which Ignatius wrote Smyrnaeans.
Leolaia,
Besides settling the issue of "flesh and blood", this really raises a big question as to the relation of the Ignatian and Pauline corpus (is there an English plural?). Ignatius' ignorance of it is really perplexing, isn't it?
I've been learning so much from these postings!
This may be a useless thought, so don't spare me. Does the doctrine of the Transubstantiation figure in here? Maybe thats Ignatius' and the early church fathers' take on Paul's teachings on Jesus' resurrection and the anti-docetic one? If I'm not mistaken, the doctrine is that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is actually the meal and at the same time Christ is also His divine form. Maybe that's one way they sought to somehow bring together both the docetic and anti-docetic views on Christ's resurrection? A way to take Paul's tradition and build up from it? Or have I surpassed even CT Russel for mixed up ideas?
Midget....I think you're on the right track. "Flesh and blood" is a common expression in Ignatius and it usually alludes either to the Passion or the Eucharist. Thus, in the same epistle to the Smyrnaeans, he greets his brothers in the "name of Jesus Christ, in his flesh and blood, in both his Passion and resurrection, both fleshly and spiritual" (12:2). The Eucharistic allusions to Jesus' "flesh and blood" veer rather close to transubstantiationary conceptions (e.g. sacramental realism), though they are also spiritualized somewhat as "faith" and "love":
"I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love" (Ignatius, Romans 7:3).
"Be eager, then, to celebrate one Eucharist; for one is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one the cup of union through his blood" (Ignatius, Philadelphians 4:1).
"Take up gentleness and renew yourselves in faith-- which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love -- which is the blood of Jesus Christ" (Ignatius, Trallians 8:1).
"Those who hold erroneous opinions [e.g. docetists] about the grace of Jesus Christ ... remain aloof from the Eucharist and prayers because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christwhich suffered for our sins, which the Father raised by his goodness" (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 7:1).
Ignatius
also mentions "faith and love" as a formula some 16 times in his letters, and similarly "flesh and blood" is symbolic or spiritualized in several cases (cf. Trallians 8:1; Romans 7:3; Philadelphians 5:1). So I wonder if Ignatius is continuing Paul's more spiritual concept of the "body of Christ" and the "Spirit of Christ" through his description of love and faith as Eucharistic sacraments while also simultaneously embracing a literal fleshly concept of the sacraments and non-docetic interpretation of "flesh and blood"?Narkissos
....From what I recall, Ignatius is influenced by Paul in a number of respects and does allude to 1 Corinthians (cf. Ignatius, Ephesians 16:1, 18:1; Romans 5:1; Philadelphians 3:3) but departs from Pauline theology in a number of other respects. Antioch, or Syria in general, was a real hotbed of different factions of Christianity (cf. Pauline Christians, Matthean Jewish-Christians/Petrine Ebionites, proto-Johannine gnostics, Thomasan itenerent quasi-gnostics (likely in eastern Syria), etc.), and it is well-known that Ignatius has a special relationship with Matthean logia and motifs underlying the Didache (on the one hand), and the motifs and concepts of the Johannine community on the other. So while Ignatius clearly viewed Paul as a towering figure (cf. Ephesians 12:2), he may have been more influenced by the Syrian proto-gnostic community that produced John, 1 John, and the Odes of Solomon than Paul's own theology (cf. Ephesians 16:1, 18:1; Romans 5:1, 9:2; Philadelphians 3:3, which have close links to John). Cf. John 6:54-55: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life ... for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink". Ignatius also revels in gnostic mythology in Ephesians 19. But perhaps he mitigates gnostic docetism by drawing on Ebionite or general Jewish-Christian traditions (as suggested also by the use of Matthean logia, and Jewish-Christian credal formulae such as "seed of David" or "descended from David"). It is somewhat attractive to think that the "dual nature" concept originated in attempts such as that of Ignatius of harmonizing adoptionist Jewish-Christian concepts with thoroughgoing Hellenistic proto-gnostic "Heavenly Man" concepts. Antioch would have been one logical place for such a harmonization to take place.
Leolaia,
Ign. Eph. 16:1 Do not err, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ign. Eph. 18:1 Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. "Where is the wise man? where the disputer?" Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent?
Ign. Rom. 5:1f: From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse. But I am the more instructed by their injuries [to act as a disciple of Christ]; yet am I not thereby justified.
Ign. Rom: 9:2f: From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse. But I am the more instructed by their injuries [to act as a disciple of Christ]; "yet am I not thereby justified."
Ign. Phil. 3:3: Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
What strikes me when I read those Ignatian passages which are generally given as allusions to Pauline literature is that they do not present themselves as such. They appear as the author's own expressions, once even autobiographical data. From which we might conclude that either (1) they are actually borrowing to the Pauline epistles and then they are a complete forgery, or (2) the Ignatian and Pauline corpus(es) are developing in parallel out of common material and with some reciprocal influence.
Cf. Michael Conley's provocative essay on http://www.thecosmiccontext.de/christianity/apostolic_trio.html
I've been watching this thread with a little interest, for a few days, but sometimes I don't like to jump in too early
Whether John 2:19-22 is in interpolation or not, it appears that the early Christians took Jesus body to be a temple of God.
I don't think the "blood / flesh / bone" workaround is too satisfying, myself, though I hear it bandied around.
I also find no scriptural support for the idea that his body was somehow "dissolved" and the atoms dispersed. Nor do I find references that the Eucharist was essential for salvation, though there's a clear command to partake.
I do read indications of some kind of Pauline "transformation", and I see Johannine references to him appearing through locked doors but then inviting people to feed and touch him and even to examine his wounds. I also read visions of him appearing as a "lamb slain".
My "opinion" is that he lives and is seated at the right hand of power, as may you and I.
Just as I can enjoy a good meal without needing to understand how the digestive tract works, so too with the mechanics of the afterlife.
LT
If I understand you properly, you lean more towards Paul's idea of Jesus' angelification? In any case, I find that view appealing, and wonder why some people back then felt the necessity for a corporeal resurrection? Was it just because they were keeping in line with the idea of resurrection back then (rejoining the soul to an actual body)? Or was it also an element they needed to keep somehow if they were to fuse the jewish ideas of sacrifices for sins with the pagan mysteries (consuming the actual body of their god)?
Nark
Has the dating of Paul's earliest works been recently in question by several scholars? Why I ask is that I'm currently reading a book by Alvar Ellegard, who also is arguing for a 2nd century dating of the Gospels and Paul's writings (he's not suggesting any collusions though). I found that link you posted interesting (to this runt's predisposition to conspiracies anyway ). I'm just wondering if its now becoming an arguable view for later dating.
