Paul and the Resurrection
I recently had a discussion with a skeptic who argues that Paul believed in a non-physical resurrection. The argument is popular in online skeptical circles, despite its implausibility. Non-physical appearances of Jesus could still be supernatural, but the intent of the argument seems to be to lessen the difficulty in explaining the claims of the earliest Christians. If the gospel reports of an empty tomb and the physicality of Jesus' resurrection appearances can be dismissed as later developments, then the earliest resurrection claims become less difficult to explain on naturalistic grounds.
The popularity of this argument is an indication of the desperation of skeptics. The argument isn't just highly speculative, but also is contradicted by multiple lines of evidence that many of these skeptics don't seem to be aware of or don't even attempt to address.
I want to recommend some resources on this subject. In the past, I've recommended some of Christopher Price's material, such as his article on Jesus in Josephus and his article on the book of Acts. I also want to recommend his article on Paul's view of the resurrection. And J.P. Holding has a good article on early Christian and non-Christian views on the subject.
Paul tells us that the resurrection was one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). He explains that he and the other early leaders of the church were in agreement on the subject (1 Corinthians 15:11). You have to wonder, then, how an alleged early belief in a non-physical resurrection would have left no explicit trace in the apostolic documents and would be replaced by a physical view of resurrection in documents written while Paul was still alive or shortly after his death (Luke, John, etc.), and all of this occurred without the early enemies of Christianity raising an objection on the basis of that change in belief.
Mark was a companion of Paul (Acts 15:38, 2 Timothy 4:11, Philemon 24). He referred to the resurrection as physical (Mark 16:6). Apparently, he misunderstood Paul.
Luke was a companion of Paul (Acts 16:10, Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24). He refers to the resurrection as physical (Luke 24:39-43), he refers to Jesus' appearance to Paul as physical (Acts 9:3-7), and he refers to Paul's affirmation of the physical view (Acts 23:6). Luke must have misunderstood all of these things.
Matthew was a fellow worker with Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5) who held the same view of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). He refers to the event as physical (Matthew 28:9). There must have been a miscommunication between Paul and Matthew, or maybe Matthew had a change of mind.
Peter was a fellow worker with Paul (Galatians 2:9-10) who held the same view of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). He refers to the event as physical (Acts 2:29). Peter must have misunderstood what Paul was saying all of those times he spoke with him, heard him speak, or communicated with other people who had been influenced by Paul. Or maybe Peter changed his mind.
John was a fellow worker with Paul (Galatians 2:9-10) who held the same view of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). He refers to the event as physical (John 20:2). There must have been a miscommunication between Paul and John, or maybe John changed his position.
Clement of Rome apparently was a disciple of Paul (Philippians 4:3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:3; Origen, Commentary on John, 6:36), he was part of a church that had been in contact with Paul, and he was in contact with other people who had been in communion with Paul (the Corinthians). He refers to the resurrection as physical when writing to the Corinthians (First Clement, 26, 50). It seems that Clement, the Roman church, and the Corinthian church all misunderstood Paul. And they all misunderstood in the same way.
Ignatius was bishop of a church (Antioch) that had been in contact with Paul (Galatians 2:11), and he was in contact with other churches that had been in contact with Paul (Ephesus, Rome). He, too, refers to a physical resurrection (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 3), so he, too, must have misunderstood Paul.
Papias was a contemporary of the apostles and their associates, and he seems to have been a disciple of the apostle John (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:33:4). Papias believed in a physical resurrection (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 18). He must have misunderstood Paul, too.
Polycarp didn't know Paul, but was a disciple of other apostles (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:4), spoke highly of Paul, and was in contact with Pauline churches, such as the churches in Antioch and Philippi. He refers to the resurrection as physical (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14). He apparently misunderstood Paul.
These early sources who were in contact with Paul and his associates, as well as others who could be mentioned, must have been mistaken on a lot of other issues also. When they refer to the unity of the apostles' teachings and the continuity between Paul's view of the resurrection and theirs, they must not have realized that a change from a non-physical resurrection to a physical resurrection had occurred, or they must have been lying about it.
The other possibility would be that the people arguing for a non-physical view of the resurrection in Paul are wrong. Maybe they're the ones who are misunderstanding Paul, or maybe they're the ones who are being dishonest.
The popularity of this argument is an indication of the desperation of skeptics. The argument isn't just highly speculative, but also is contradicted by multiple lines of evidence that many of these skeptics don't seem to be aware of or don't even attempt to address.
I want to recommend some resources on this subject. In the past, I've recommended some of Christopher Price's material, such as his article on Jesus in Josephus and his article on the book of Acts. I also want to recommend his article on Paul's view of the resurrection. And J.P. Holding has a good article on early Christian and non-Christian views on the subject.
Paul tells us that the resurrection was one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). He explains that he and the other early leaders of the church were in agreement on the subject (1 Corinthians 15:11). You have to wonder, then, how an alleged early belief in a non-physical resurrection would have left no explicit trace in the apostolic documents and would be replaced by a physical view of resurrection in documents written while Paul was still alive or shortly after his death (Luke, John, etc.), and all of this occurred without the early enemies of Christianity raising an objection on the basis of that change in belief.
Mark was a companion of Paul (Acts 15:38, 2 Timothy 4:11, Philemon 24). He referred to the resurrection as physical (Mark 16:6). Apparently, he misunderstood Paul.
Luke was a companion of Paul (Acts 16:10, Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24). He refers to the resurrection as physical (Luke 24:39-43), he refers to Jesus' appearance to Paul as physical (Acts 9:3-7), and he refers to Paul's affirmation of the physical view (Acts 23:6). Luke must have misunderstood all of these things.
Matthew was a fellow worker with Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5) who held the same view of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). He refers to the event as physical (Matthew 28:9). There must have been a miscommunication between Paul and Matthew, or maybe Matthew had a change of mind.
Peter was a fellow worker with Paul (Galatians 2:9-10) who held the same view of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). He refers to the event as physical (Acts 2:29). Peter must have misunderstood what Paul was saying all of those times he spoke with him, heard him speak, or communicated with other people who had been influenced by Paul. Or maybe Peter changed his mind.
John was a fellow worker with Paul (Galatians 2:9-10) who held the same view of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). He refers to the event as physical (John 20:2). There must have been a miscommunication between Paul and John, or maybe John changed his position.
Clement of Rome apparently was a disciple of Paul (Philippians 4:3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:3; Origen, Commentary on John, 6:36), he was part of a church that had been in contact with Paul, and he was in contact with other people who had been in communion with Paul (the Corinthians). He refers to the resurrection as physical when writing to the Corinthians (First Clement, 26, 50). It seems that Clement, the Roman church, and the Corinthian church all misunderstood Paul. And they all misunderstood in the same way.
Ignatius was bishop of a church (Antioch) that had been in contact with Paul (Galatians 2:11), and he was in contact with other churches that had been in contact with Paul (Ephesus, Rome). He, too, refers to a physical resurrection (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 3), so he, too, must have misunderstood Paul.
Papias was a contemporary of the apostles and their associates, and he seems to have been a disciple of the apostle John (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:33:4). Papias believed in a physical resurrection (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 18). He must have misunderstood Paul, too.
Polycarp didn't know Paul, but was a disciple of other apostles (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:4), spoke highly of Paul, and was in contact with Pauline churches, such as the churches in Antioch and Philippi. He refers to the resurrection as physical (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14). He apparently misunderstood Paul.
These early sources who were in contact with Paul and his associates, as well as others who could be mentioned, must have been mistaken on a lot of other issues also. When they refer to the unity of the apostles' teachings and the continuity between Paul's view of the resurrection and theirs, they must not have realized that a change from a non-physical resurrection to a physical resurrection had occurred, or they must have been lying about it.
The other possibility would be that the people arguing for a non-physical view of the resurrection in Paul are wrong. Maybe they're the ones who are misunderstanding Paul, or maybe they're the ones who are being dishonest.
posted by Jason Engwer at 6:02 PM
<< Home