A Theory Without a Ghost of a Chance

Resurrection of Christ by Noël Coypel, 1700, 

using a hovering depiction of Jesus

The "no Body" theory says that Jesus' resurrection  was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit. This view is much prized by a certain segment of theological liberalism. Some liberals can't bring themselves to buck naturalism (I on the other hand am a  liberal of a different sort). This view was Championed by Hans Grass's classic Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte. [1] The answer, of course, is that Paul's belief was the same as the Jewish belief of the day, that Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel at the end of times. This was to be a bodily resurrection. Paul sees Jesus as the "first fruits" or the hearld of this mass resurrection in the end. But why would he speak of a bodily resurrection for us (which clearly he does, as we see in the quotation at the top from 1 Cor. 15) and not for Jesus himself? The argument is that

We know from many sources that the Jews saw resurrection as bodily,The body coning back to life. Dr. Rene' Lopez tells us: "Jewish leaders also recited daily a common liturgical temple prayer (which perhaps the Sadducees were exempt from repeating). It mentions bodily resurrection as coming from God who gives 'life to the dead....Your holy ones. That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an et[ernal] council; from a perverse spirit to Your understanding (1QHa 19:15)" [2] from Talmud and the Mishnah:

Minim asked Rabban Gamaliel, “How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be he, will resurrect the dead?” He said to them, “It is proved from the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings.” But they did not accept his proofs. “From the Torah: for it is written, ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, you shall sleep with your fathers and rise up’ (Deu. 31:16).” They said to him, “But perhaps the sense of the passage is, ‘And the people will rise up’ (Deu. 31:16)?” “From the Prophets: as it is written, ‘Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you that live in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead’ (Isa. 26:19).”…[3]

It seems clear the early church thought in these terms as they already spread the word of the empty tomb before Paul even began to write. There are non canonical gospels that are as old as canonical:

Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports.Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the non canonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed.[4]

Moreover, In some such gospels there are traces of an older inexpedient tradition:However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition."[5] The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus.[6]  Jurgen Denkerargues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[7] Koester writes,

"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. [8]

Thus we have a major overwhelming reason to assume Paul believed in Bodily Resurrection  because that was what the early church had preached and were preaching about the time Paul  was just starting to write, and it was the traditional view to which Jews held.

The major arguments for the no body view are as follows:

1) Paul never mentions the empty tomb.

2) None of the "Catholic" Epistles mention the empty tomb.

3)Paul makes certain references to Jesus "The first man Adam became a living being" [physical being], the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (Romans 5v. 45). His phrase, "life-giving spirit" (pneuma zoopoioun), is equivalent to his "spiritual body," and is related to his use of the same verb, "to make alive" in verse 23.

From that point one simply reads everything Paul says as though it implies this view.

The argument is mainly an argument from silence. The real power of the assertion is found in the silence of Paul and his failure to mention the empty tomb. But of course it is an assertion and an interpretation based upon nothing more than silence and circular reasoning. Having decided to read all of Paul's words in this way everything becomes confirmation of the view.  It's similar to the way Jesus mythers look at things. Even when Paul clearly states that Christ had a flesh and blood linage (Romans 1:3) than even that is simply interpreted away; the response is that the Greek "kata" (according to as in "according to the flesh) means "in the appearance of flesh" not that he really had a fleshly linage. But this reading into the passage a subtle and subjective aspect which has no basis in the rest of the text other than Paul's silence.

It is not clear why Paul never mentions the tomb, it could be because he wasn't an eye witness to the empty tomb. Or it may be there was no reason at the point of his epistles since the peope to whom he wrote were already converted, But it is equally unclear why he has to mention it. After all, none of his epistles were written to people who where contesting the resurrection. The story of the empty tomb would have been known to everyone as a basic tenet of the faith, there was no real reason to mention it. Moreover, some of his statements about the resurrection imply the story of the tomb, but this will be seen later. It might also be added that they didn't look at the witness of the tomb in the way that we do. It is a modern invention to think in terms of eye witness proofs and evidence. The early church did not look to the empty tomb as a proof that Jesus was Messiah, but as a statement about the greatness of God and the hope and future that the faith in Christ offered. Thus, since the issue didn't come up he doesn't mention it. But he certainly speaks of resurrection, and it will be seen that for Paul resurrection meant the body is raised to life again.

This is nothing more than what we should expect since it was a basic tenet of Jewish teaching that Messiah would come and raise all of Israel bodily; the dead of Israel would rise to life again. This is what the Jews believed and we have no good reason for assuming that Paul didn't mean that. Moreover, new evidence from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) illustrates this fact:

This reference is a link between the early church, the community of John the Baptist, and the community of Qumran, or at least the Qumran-like movement which saw itself as the faithful remnant of Israel awaiting liberation by the Messiah. This Messianich movement was the cultural background out of which Jesus and his followers arose (see the Messiah pages).[9] In Pauline theology Christ was "first fruits frim the dead."(1 Cor 15:23) That is, since the Messiah held the "keys of life" and would raise all the fallen of Israel to bodily life once more, that the Messiah was the fist to undergo this sort of transformation. Alfred Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah clearly demonstrates that this is the case.[10] No specific prophesy said that Messiah himself would rise from the dead (with the excepted possibility of Is 53 which is hotly disputed). But in so rising, they understood that Messiah was the fist and that his followers would partake of that transformation by sharing it with him. This link connects the the early church to that prior eschatological expectation of the Messianic movement. 

It makes no sense that anyone would be impressed by Jesus becoming a ghost. That's basically what the no body position argues.  Simply that Jesus lived on as a ghost  with no body that's how he "rose" big deal. If there is life after death we all become ghosts who who cares? 

Paul believed in a complete transformation of all creation at the return of Christ. He saw the Christian's lot as shared with that of Christ. "If we share in his death we shall also share in his resurrection." (Romans 6). The resurrection of the dead, for Paul, was a culmination of a process through which "all of nature groans for liberation." The transforming power of God would change all those in Christ, "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in the twinkling of eye, at the last trump..." The fleshly body would be transformed into a "resurrection body," spirit, "glorified," but a body and tangible and made of a substance none the less. For Paul the atonement was participatory, we share in Christ's death through baptism (Rom 6) and thus, we also share in his resurrection, new life, and future, through baptism and through the regenerative act that comes from it. Merely sharing is not the link to glorification, since we also share in his death, but it leads to the shared glorified nature of the resurrection body, which all shall obtain at Christ's return. Rom. 8:29 we share in his image,(eikon, form in 2 cor 3:18, and sharing the image in Rom 8:29)"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed (metamorphoumetha) into his image (eikona) from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.."

It certainly is something not all have to look forward to, But if there is life after death as a spirit doen't we have that?

James Taber who is a no body advocate:

"Although the meaning and context of this verse is difficult, I do not think one finds here, or in the following section of 2 Cor. 5:1-10, any shift from the idea that transformation/glorification is completed only at the return of Jesus from heaven."

"Even though he uses the present tense in 2 Cor. 3:18, coupled with the phrase "from one degree of glory to another," (apo doxes eis doxan), the thought is the same as Rom. 8:29. It is his use of eikon ("image") which I find striking. Phil. 3:21 shows that he has in mind a transformation of what he calls the soma ("body"). He elaborates his idea of a transformed body in 1 Cor. 15, which I discuss below. This connection of eikon with doxa[right that's why the site is called "Doxa"] occurs elsewhere. In 2 Cor. 4:4 he speaks of the god of this age who has blinded the eyes of unbelievers so that they can not see the "light of the gospel of the glory (tes doxes) of Christ, who is in the image (eikon) of God." In verse 6 he says that God’s illumination of the hearts of these believers brings about the "light of the knowledge of the glory (tes doxes) of God in the face of Christ." Paul’s message is a gospel of the glory of Christ, i.e., a gnosis of the glory of God seen in Christ, who is the eikon of God. Such language is not mere rodomontade. We are dealing here with the heart of Paul’s system of thought, the belief that Christ bears the image and glory of God, and that believers in Christ have already begun to share the glory of Christ, being transformed into his image, and will share it completely in the End."

"This is the climax toward which his presentation in Romans (beginning in 1:16) moves. He then proceeds to explain how this glory is to be revealed and what it will involve: 'For the creation expectantly longs for the revealing of the Sons of God; since it was subjected to futility, not through its own desire but by the will of the one who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to corruption obtaining the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Because we know that the whole creation has been groaning in birth pangs until now; but not only the creation but we too, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we groan inside waiting for our sonship, that is, the redemption of our bodies. For we were saved in this very hope. Now hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see we wait for it patiently.' (Rom. 8:19-25) Just as in Phil. 3:21, which I have already quoted, Paul has in mind here the transformation of the body, i.e., its release from decay and glorification at the return of Christ from heaven. The use of the word huiothesia (translated "sonship"--v 23) to refer to this event is significant. Several manuscripts (chiefly Western) omit the word, probably because it appears to contradict 8:15:"[11]

Thus, in this context we find the major argument of the non body group the transformation power of becoming a spirit and shedding the body and

Tabor (Ibid)

"Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being" [physical being], the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (v. 45). His phrase, "life-giving spirit" (pneuma zoopoioun), is equivalent to his "spiritual body," and is related to his use of the same verb, "to make alive" in verse 23."

So the major positive evidence for the no Body view falls due to poor interpretation. The no body theorists are merely reading in the assumptions they want to see there. But Taber ignores the meaning of the phrase "to be made alive," The transforming power is there in either senerio, but the disembodied ghost is not made alive,

Now to complete the argument, let's look at what has been said. It was the Jewish concept that resurrection would come to all Israel and that this would be a resurrection of the Body. The early church came to understand Jesus, the Messiah, as the first fruits of that resurrection, the prototype in whose new life the rest would participate and share. Clearly Paul believed that we would all be raised in Christ to transformed spiritual bodies that would be solid and corporal. This is clearly seen in his discussion of different kinds of flesh. In 1 Cor 15 he's trying to convince those who don't believe that we will have a resurrection from the dead. Now did they not believe in life after death? Certainly the odds are that they did believe in some form of after life, so they must have doubted bodily resurrection and that is what Paul defends. He uses the resurrection of Christ to argue for the resurrection of all, that's how we can see that our resurrections are merely following the patter of Jesus' resurrection. That he is arguing for bodily resurrection is obvious. In this context he compares types of bodies, of flesh.. 1 Cor 39-42:

"for not all flesh is alike, for there is one kind for men and another kind for animals, another for birds, another for fish.There are clestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies...so it is with the resurrection of the dead, what is sowen is perishable, what is raised is imperishable."

Why would he make such an argument if Jesus merely shed the body and as a ghost drifted on to be with God in the afterlife? That's not standing up again  that;s not being made alive again. What do different types of Flesh have to do with it if flesh becomes spirit? That statement implies a new body

Since Paul believed that we would have physical resurrection bodies (although glorified) he must have believed that Jesus had a resurrection body also because we are merely partaking of Christ's resurrection. And if his body was transformed and risen from death, than his tomb would be empty. It follows therefore that Paul must have accepted the empty tomb, he just never had an occasion to speak of it in writing.

1) Our resurrection will share in the likeness of Jesus' Resurrection:

Ro 6:5 -

For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection,

2) Resurrection for Paul meant that the body is brought back to life and transformed into a new form of body, a glorified body with some sort of spiritual overtones, but still a risen solid body.

1Co 15:42 - Show Context So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable {body,} it is raised an imperishable {body;}

What goes into the ground comes out of the ground it;s not abandoned,

"So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"(1 cor 25:42)

3)Since for Paul resurrection means a body, and since our resurrection is merely following the pattern of Jesus' resurrection, it stands to reason that he must have understood Jesus to have physically risen from the dead.

Corinthians 15: 50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, 

but we will all be changed—

52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,

and this mortal body must put on immortality.

54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

I see in this a change in the body that dies,it cones to life again and has a new spiritual dimension not that it is discorded, Baht would be imagery of shucking a husk not putting on importation.  The Greek used for raised means"stand up again"[12] that implies body coming back not the spirit moving on to an immaterial existnece,

One final issue that needs discussing is the assertions made by Tabor and other ghost-theory advocates that Mark being the first Gospel written must surely reflect accurately the early church's view, They stop short at vs 8 (chap. 16) and assume everything else is added on. Thus their Mark has no  resurrection.

There are,however, older versions than Mark. Mark was the first of the four canonical but not necessarily the first ever, I've already shown there was a pre Mark redaction that means it existed before Mark. Moreover, there's good evidence against their move of cutting off the testimony at v8 of the last chapter:

Most all other manuscripts and early versions (translations into other languages) include vs. 9-20. Even earlier evidence is found among the Early Patristic Fathers (the church leaders which followed immediately after the Apostles’ deaths), substantiating that these twelve verses were not only known two hundred years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but that there was support for their inclusion (since they each quoted authoritatively from the “disputed” passage (cf. Justin Martyr, Apology 1.45, ca. A.D.145; Tatian, Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170; and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.6 ca. A.D. 180).[13]

Thus Mark does include the resurrection with empty tomb, empty tomb (demonstrated to be part of the Pre Mark redaction as well) means bodily resurrection.

Sources

[1] Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte.  Gottengen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962.

[2]  Rene' Lopez, The Resurrection a Historical Fact Part Three," The Shiloh Excavations, (Aug 18,2011)

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2011/08/18/The-Physical-Resurrection-a-Historical-Fact-Part-Three.aspx

Lopez recived his Doctorate from DTS

[3] Ibid

[4] Charles W. Hendrick, quoted in Bible Review, (June 2002), 20-31; 46-47

[5] Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte,Geschichte der Urchristlichen Literatur

einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter

 (1975) 646
Translation:
Philip Vielhauer, History of The original Christian Literature: Introduction to thev New Testment, the Apocrypha, and the Apostolic Fathers. (cited by Koester)
[6] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218

[7] Danker in Ibid.

[8] Koester, Ibid, 220


[9] J.L. Hinman, "Messiah:First Century Jewish Expectations," Doxa. 2004

https://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Messiah1.html

The crux of my point is embodied in this quote by Cornfeld:

The Diversity of First century Judaism:"The Essenic movment and heterodox Judaism spread throughout the entire Jewish world. Reflecting the power of the 'splinded isolation' that gave rise to the Hasiedan movement.... Pharisaic Judaism and Christinity represent different offshoots of old Testament religion. The one emphasized the Law of Moses but in terms of oral tradition and adaptability of ancient revelation to contemporary conditions. The other places stress on prophecy and fullfillment of promises in terms of the Messianic fulfillment....It is clear that the Essenes were closer to the Jewish-Christian in terms of Messianic expectation and eschatological fulfillment, although they were at different points on the time table. Thus the people of Qumran awaited royal and preistly Messiahs, while in the New Testament the term "Messiah" is clearly of the Dividic King."
--Gallayah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, p. 265.

[10] Alfred Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Hendrickson Pub; Updated edition (July 1, 1993)

[11] James Taber (Ibid) http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/paul.html

[12] Lopez, op cit

[13] Names F, Willams, "Why Does Mark's Gospel Omit the Insurrection and The Virgin Birth?" Probe for Answers (Dec.28,2002)
https://probe.org/why-does-marks-gospel-omit-the-resurrection-and-the-virgin-birth/

James F. Williams is the founder and past president of Probe Ministries International. He holds degrees from Southern Methodist University (B.A.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.). He also has pursued inter-disciplinary doctoral studies (a.b.d.) in the humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Hey he;s a UTD man he must be great,