Feast upon the Word - User contributions [en]

Talk:1 Cor 15:41-45

2006-11-08T23:29:06Z

TrailerTrash: /* ''Psychikos'' = mind, soul, or what? (v. 44) */

==''Psychikos'' = mind, soul, or what? (v. 44)==
Joe, I'm curious why you seem so convinced that ''psychoikos'' here should be translated "mind"? The TWOT's entry on ''rwh'' (2131) suggests (see the last parenthetical comment) that ''pneuma'' / ''rwh'' is "the principle of man's rational and immortal life, and possesses reason, will and conscience" whereas ''psyche'' / ''npsh'' is "the seat of [man's] emotions and desires. Also, if "mind" were really meant, wouldn't [http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1162923082-4535.html ''dianoia''] be more appropriate? Of course I realize the TWOT may be off, it seems to make a bit of an unfounded claim, I'm just asking b/c of TrailerTrash's post on [[1 Cor 15:46]]. Of course this makes me also wonder about how to read [[D&C 88:15]] where ''soul'' is the spirit and body together. My leaning is to read ''pneuma'' as referring to the higher faculties and ''psyche'' as the baser faculties of man (''npsh'' is also translated "creatures" referring to non-human animals in the creation...). [Though I'm addressing this to Joe, of course I welcome discussion/comments by anyone.] --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 18:18, 7 Nov 2006 (UTC)

:I chose to use "mind" over "soul" because of the apparent equivalence "spirit" and "soul" seem to have in so much discourse. Perhaps it doesn't avoid the problem because there are those who equate "spirit" and "mind" anyway. The Greek ''psyche'' (and the Hebrew ''npsh'' with it) means something like one's "being," perhaps even one's "being-in-the-world." If one's flesh is, taken in and of itself, one with the flesh of the earth, simply part of the matter unorganized, then there are two forces for a Greek or a Hebrew that suggest the something more that humans have: "spirit" and "soul." If the "spirit" is one's breath (one's speech, one's word), then the "soul" is one's situatedness in the world, one's worldliness. I think "soul" is an interesting "concept" in the OT, because there it quite clearly suggests that one should be understood as a "soul" rather than as a "self." When Paul discusses, however, the ''psychikos'' and the ''pneumatikos'', he is discussing the one who lives according to the world (I'm thinking Heidegger here again) and the one who lives according to the Spirit, which outstrips the world, inverts the world, even shatters the world. Cf. [[D&C 1:16]]: "whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish." Walking in the idolatrous way is to live according to the image of the world, to live worldishly, to live according to ''psyche''. This can summon all the meanings of the word "mind" when it is categorized as it is in modernity: the self's mind provides the logic that will crumble when the "image of this world passes away" (in Paul somewhere).

:I shouldn't mention this, but I suppose that to some extent I translate it as mind because I like Julia Kristeva's conception of intertextuality. That Paul uses ''psychikos'' suggests psychology, the study of the mind, as it is done now (and of course, in Kristeva's work explicitly). So, I think you should understand by ''psyche'' the mind, the body (not flesh, but body), the soul, etc. I hope that is clearer. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 22:31, 7 Nov 2006 (UTC)

TT adds: I think that we face a few problems for translating these terms. The first is that our modern definitions for "soul," "mind," "body," "flesh," and "spirit" are all very different from the ancient definitions. This is further complicated by the fact that these terms don't have stable meanings in antiquity either. Indeed, in 1 Cor Paul is engaged in a dispute about the meaning of the term "psychikos." Paul is attempting to develop an antithesis between "psychikos" and "pneumatikos" in both 15:44-46 and 2:14-3:1. It appears that Paul is arguing against the Corinthians who characterized themselves as "psychikoi". In 15:44-46, Paul argues that Adam was a psychikos, so this is actually the current condition of humanity, a condition that he associates with the flesh and dust (3:1; 15:48). Paul is associating the soul with the lower realms, and the "spirit" with the upper realms and the future body (15:44). This is in contrast to popular Platonism that saw the soul as originating in the divine realm. Thus, Paul's anthropology is more eschatological than protological (as Philo and other religious Platonists might have argued).
A few other notes: the attempt to overlay Hebrew words onto the Greek runs into similar problems about translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor the Greek are stable terms, it is difficult to correlate them. Additionally, Paul's framework for talking about the body is really more in a conversation with Hellenistic conceptions of the self, inflected by his readings of Gen 2:7. Additionally, I'm not sure that a Kristevan intertextually illuminates anything here. If anything, it alerts us to the dangers of importing our own concepts onto ancient terms. The kind of intertextuality we do should be aware of the historical situatedness of language.--[[User:TrailerTrash|TrailerTrash]] 03:19, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, both of you, this helps in understanding what Paul perhaps has in mind here. Regarding [[D&C 88:15]], I realize I was sort of overlooking the possibility that the term "soul" there may not really have a direct bearing on what Paul is writing precisely b/c the KJV does not use the term soul. In fact, b/c of the KJV, does this mean we should read ''psychikos'' into "natural" in [[Mosiah 3:19]], [[D&C 67:12]], etc.?
:Also, I'm not too familiar with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Kristeva Kristeva], has she written any biblical commentary? I'm guessing she's been cited a fair bit by post-modern commentators? I agree that understanding ancient concepts and language is important, but I think it is also interesting to think about how we understand and relate to such concepts today. If we are ''presently'' situated and trying to understand a historical text, then tracing a linguistic history to the text seems one interesting way to illuminate the text's meaning. I guess I don't believe that a "past meaning" is truly recoverable (and if it were wouldn't it be irrelevent?), so making explicit conceptual comparisons and contrasts to the past seems the only honest way to proceed, even if this only "alerts us to the dangers of importing our own concepts onto ancient terms".... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 14:02, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Two clarifications, perhaps. TT, if I'm reading you right, we pretty much agree on how to interpret Paul here. We certainly both agree that Paul is trying to think the ''psyche'' as the lower and the ''pneuma'' as the higher. Moreover, it is precisely because the terms (as terms) are unstable that I loosely define ''psyche'' as "being" or even "being-in-the-world." Whether one wants to call that very broad (unstable?) concept "soul" or "mind" or even "creature," what all of these terms seem to drive at in the end is one's interrelatedness in a world-complex (I use world here, not earth, for a reason).

About Kristeva. I'm not convinced there are any accidents in the development of language. I don't think one can ultimately separate psychology from Paul's discussion of ''psyche''. That is not to say at all that we are to import our own concepts onto ancient terms. It is to say that while psyche means something different from ''psyche'', the two are clearly related, and that interrelation, carefully attended to, can help a student of the scriptures now to situate the modern in relation to the ancient, and the ancient in relation to the modern. In other words, precisely because our current concepts are historically situated, we have to recognize the role of 1 Cor 15 in the historical situation: Paul is very much part of the history of our thinking the psyche. Taken this way, Paul's discussion of the ''soma psychikos'' can be read as a player in the situating of all current psychological study/discussion. I have to agree with Robert that I don't believe a past meaning is truly recoverable (I'm not sure it would be irrelevant, however, if it were recoverable). But this just means that we have to be profoundly aware of the dialectical play of our own historical situatedness and the historical situatedness of the ancient text we are considering. I'm not at all convinced that we can take an ancient text as a thing in itself, an absolute object of study.

All of that said, I think that one must pay careful attention to the word ''psyche'' in Paul and its correlation with ''kosmos'', "world." Or in the New Testament generally. The "fashion of this world passeth away," and so the ''psyche'' is to be replaced in the resurrection with the ''pneuma''.

While we're hashing out these issues... TT, I'm interested in your reading of [[1 Cor 15:46|verse 46]]. The commentary you edited had paid careful attention to the question of "first" and "afterward," but your edit effectively eliminated that question. I like all you added, but I wonder whether some of the importance of those terms hasn't been lost? How do you read that question of "priority" or "temporality" or whatever you may read into it? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 15:12, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

: Joe, a few brief thoughts about your points. You're right that we do agree that Paul is making a separation between ''psyche'' and ''pneuma'', but I am disagreeing with the terms that you are picking to translate the term psyche. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by the terms that you have used, but I think that they psychologize (mind), existialize (being-in-the-world) or mistake (creature) Paul's concerns in such a way to distort them. I think that they move too quickly to arguments about modes of existence when Paul is really talking about actual substances. To begin with, let me explain again what I think Paul is up to and then I can show why I don't think these terms accurately capture the issue. Paul here is making an argument about the hierarchy of substances. He is ranking spirit higher than soul. Many Platonists would have ranked soul higher, arguing that its origins are in the divine realm. Philo is an example of this. To repeat, this argument is about the relative "weight" of "soul" and "spirit" and their distance from God. This is sort of a chain of being kind of discussion. "Mind" doesn't get at this because implies a Cartesian world where there is a mind/body split. This simply isn't what Paul is worried about. Furthermore, "mind" connotes a cognitive aspect to psyche which is too limiting for its function in Platonism, and completely different from Paul's reading of Genesis. As for "being-in-the-world", this Hiedeggarian/Bultmanian reading may be nice theologically, but I really don't see it in this passage. Paul doesn't see the soul as the seat for the production of reality or existence in the sense that Dasein connotes. I think that "creature" also fails because for Paul psyche isn't the whole being, it is one part along with flesh and spirit. For me, all of these terms obscure more than they help to understand that Paul is engaged in an argument about kinds of substances, not just modes of existence (as your "according to the mind/according to the spirit" implies). As in ancient philosophy generally, different substances were connected to different modes of existence, but this connection gets lost in these other translations, in my view.

: As for Kristeva, I am not entirely sure what your point is. Without getting lost in a tangent of different types of "intertextuality" and their various uses for doing historical work, suffice it to say that I think that Kristeva is less useful for thinking about history than she is for thinking about modern literature. Let me also say that I am attempting to create a greater distance between our world and our language and that of Paul. My argument about historical situatedness was about exposing the gap between the first and the twenty-first centuries, so I am not clear how you can argue that your position also emphasizes historical specificity (if I'm understanding you correctly). I see you as trying to close up that gap here in a way that makes me uncomfortable. It tames Paul where I think he is strange and I think that we should keep him strange. Specifically, while 'psychology' is obviously related to 'psyche' I don't see any connection between the concerns of contemporary psychology and the concerns of Paul. Inasmuch as pscyhology sees the psyche as something which develops and sees the psyche as the locus for the formation of the subject (Freud/Lacan), or its concerns for the structures of the mind, or its concerns for mental health, I can't see where Paul would have anything to do with any of this. Contemporary psychology is not worried about whether the origins of the psyche are in the earth or the divine realms. But this is Paul's concern. Regardless of whether or not the past is fully recoverable, I feel confident is saying that modern psychology and ancient psychology are asking completely different questions.

: As for my reading of 46, I'm afraid I don't recall exactly what I had edited out and so I am not sure that I understand the impact of the question. I remember that what I eliminated was that Paul was engaged in an exegesis of Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two separate creation accounts. I don't think that this is what Paul is doing at all (even though the Rabbis and Philo both do it). Rather, I think that Paul is just reading Gen 2:7 to argue that the first body of creation is psychical and the last body of the new creation/resurrection is spiritual. --[[User:TrailerTrash|TrailerTrash]] 23:29, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Talk:1 Cor 15:26-30

2006-11-08T13:54:40Z

TrailerTrash: /* Stendahl article */

==Stendahl article==
TrailerTrash, were you just wondering if it's appropriate to link to the article, or were you asking something about the article, or something else? I'm not sure if there are copyright issues we need to worry about, but I figure since there are several ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' aritcles on the web and no one's complaining, why not. As to Stendahl's claim that "most contemporary critical exegetes" read this as Paul implicitly approving of baptism for the dead, I don't have a very good sense, but I have a couple of books on 1 Corinthians in my office that I'll try to look this up in later. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 11:47, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I was just asking if it was available online somewhere and if it was okay b/c of copyright issues. I guess I could have googled it. I was suprised that for an LDS commentary no one had written on 1 Cor 15:29 yet. I know that Stendahl is one of the best treatments of this text. Stendahl is one of the most famous NT scholars of the last 50 years. He was the Lutheran Bishop of Sweden and Dean of Harvard Divinity School, as well as being faculty at the Divinity School since the 1950's. You can trust him! --[[User:TrailerTrash|TrailerTrash]] 13:52, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Talk:1 Cor 15:26-30

2006-11-08T13:52:45Z

TrailerTrash: /* Stendahl article */

==Stendahl article==
TrailerTrash, were you just wondering if it's appropriate to link to the article, or were you asking something about the article, or something else? I'm not sure if there are copyright issues we need to worry about, but I figure since there are several ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' aritcles on the web and no one's complaining, why not. As to Stendahl's claim that "most contemporary critical exegetes" read this as Paul implicitly approving of baptism for the dead, I don't have a very good sense, but I have a couple of books on 1 Corinthians in my office that I'll try to look this up in later. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 11:47, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Stendahl is one of the most famous NT scholars of the last 50 years. He was the Lutheran Bishop of Sweden and Dean of Harvard Divinity School, as well as being faculty at the Divinity School since the 1950's. You can trust him! --[[User:TrailerTrash|TrailerTrash]] 13:52, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Talk:1 Cor 15:26-30

2006-11-08T13:52:04Z

TrailerTrash: /* Stendahl article */

==Stendahl article==
TrailerTrash, were you just wondering if it's appropriate to link to the article, or were you asking something about the article, or something else? I'm not sure if there are copyright issues we need to worry about, but I figure since there are several ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' aritcles on the web and no one's complaining, why not. As to Stendahl's claim that "most contemporary critical exegetes" read this as Paul implicitly approving of baptism for the dead, I don't have a very good sense, but I have a couple of books on 1 Corinthians in my office that I'll try to look this up in later. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 11:47, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Stendahl is one of the most famous NT scholars of the last 50 years. He was the Lutheran Bishop of Sweden and Dean of Harvard Divinity School, as well as being faculty at the Divinity School since the 1950's. You can trust him!
----

1 Cor 15:26-30

2006-11-08T03:26:59Z

TrailerTrash: /* Questions */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:21-25|Previous (1 Cor 15:21-25)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:31-35|Next (1 Cor 15:31-35)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* Is it possible to use Krister Stendahl's article from the EoM on baptism for the dead?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:21-25|Previous (1 Cor 15:21-25)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:31-35|Next (1 Cor 15:31-35)]]
|}

1 Cor 15:6-10

2006-11-08T03:25:11Z

TrailerTrash: /* Exegesis */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:1-5|Previous (1 Cor 15:1-5)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:11-15|Next (1 Cor 15:11-15)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* The phrase "born out of due time" in verse 8 comes from the Greek word ektroma, which refers to either a miscarriage or a premature birth. This is the only place in the New Testament where this word is used.
* Adelphoi, the Greek word translated as "brethren" in verse 6, means both "brothers" and "brothers and sisters."

== Exegesis ==
* Paul in this chapter makes clear that Jesus' resurrection is an essential doctrine. Beginning in verse 5, he emphasizes that the Resurrection is a historical, actual event: Jesus appeared to Peter and the disciples (verse 5), then more than 500 people at one time (verse 6, an event not otherwise recorded in scriptures), James and the apostles (verse 7), and ultimately Paul (verse 8). He notes in verse 6 that most of those who saw the resurrected Jesus are still alive, possibly because he is encouraging anyone skeptical about the resurrection to talk to one of the witnesses. Without the resurrection, Paul says later (verse 14), there is no meaningful substance to the Christian faith.
* Paul's reference in verse 8 to seeing the resurrected Jesus "as of one born out of due time" (or, more literally, as to a child prematurely born or miscarried) probably refers to the nature of Paul's conversion experience. Not only was it sudden and unexpected (as a premature birth or miscarriage would be), but at the time it would have appeared to any objective observer that Paul wasn't a person who was ready to see Jesus.

===Verse 7===
In conjunction with verse 5, this passage indicates that the "twelve" and the "apostles" are two different groups. As the earliest Christian author, Paul provides an interesting insight into this division. Luke in Acts is the first to limit the "apostles" to "the twelve".

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:1-5|Previous (1 Cor 15:1-5)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:11-15|Next (1 Cor 15:11-15)]]
|}

1 Cor 15:6-10

2006-11-08T03:22:29Z

TrailerTrash: /* Lexical notes */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:1-5|Previous (1 Cor 15:1-5)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:11-15|Next (1 Cor 15:11-15)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* The phrase "born out of due time" in verse 8 comes from the Greek word ektroma, which refers to either a miscarriage or a premature birth. This is the only place in the New Testament where this word is used.
* Adelphoi, the Greek word translated as "brethren" in verse 6, means both "brothers" and "brothers and sisters."

== Exegesis ==
* Paul in this chapter makes clear that Jesus' resurrection is an essential doctrine. Beginning in verse 5, he emphasizes that the Resurrection is a historical, actual event: Jesus appeared to Peter and the disciples (verse 5), then more than 500 people at one time (verse 6, an event not otherwise recorded in scriptures), James and the apostles (verse 7), and ultimately Paul (verse 8). He notes in verse 6 that most of those who saw the resurrected Jesus are still alive, possibly because he is encouraging anyone skeptical about the resurrection to talk to one of the witnesses. Without the resurrection, Paul says later (verse 14), there is no meaningful substance to the Christian faith.
* Paul's reference in verse 8 to seeing the resurrected Jesus "as of one born out of due time" (or, more literally, as to a child prematurely born or miscarried) probably refers to the nature of Paul's conversion experience. Not only was it sudden and unexpected (as a premature birth or miscarriage would be), but at the time it would have appeared to any objective observer that Paul wasn't a person who was ready to see Jesus.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:1-5|Previous (1 Cor 15:1-5)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:11-15|Next (1 Cor 15:11-15)]]
|}

Talk:1 Cor 15:41-45

2006-11-08T03:19:13Z

TrailerTrash: /* ''Psychikos'' = mind, soul, or what? (v. 44) */

Talk:1 Cor 15:41-45

2006-11-08T03:18:27Z

TrailerTrash: /* ''Psychikos'' = mind, soul, or what? (v. 44) */

Help:Formatting

2006-11-07T05:04:00Z

TrailerTrash: /* General guidance */

This page gives guidelines for formatting commentary pages.

==General guidance==
* ''Encyclopedic commentary.'' This site represents a unique genre. It is probably most closely related to an encyclopedic commentary book, but of course it is web-based and composed by multiple authors as a constant work-in-progress. Because of these features, the formatting and writing style of this wiki project are unique, and should not be expected to follow guidelines for normal book or article writing.
* ''Easy referencing.'' Because of the multiple-author, encyclopedic and work-in-progress nature of this site, a primary goal of the site is to make for easy reference. This means the site will have much more structure than normal book or article writing—perhaps better conceived as an elaborate outline of different views and insights rather than a book.
* ''Greek Fonts.'' When discussing lexical difficulties for the NT or LXX, a Polytonic Greek Unicode font may be used, but the Greek word should also be transliterated and defined the first time it is used for the benefit of non-specialists. For information about using Polytonic Greek fonts and other Unicode solutions, see here[http://ntgateway.com/greek/fonts.htm].

==Structure of commentary pages==
===Subheadings===
* ''Indicating verses.'' Since pages on this site refer to several verses, virtually all comments should have a subheading indicating which verse or verses they refer to, for easy reference.
* ''Wiki markup.'' Level 3 subheadings are created using 3 equals signs on either side of the heading (for example, "===Verses 2-4===").

===Bullets and signposting===
* ''Single paragraph bullets.'' Single paragraph comments are best written using a bullet prefix (indicated using a "*" prefix on the edit page).
* ''Italicized signpost.'' An italicized signpost should be used with bullets to indicate (in no more than a handful of words) the content of the paragraph. The italicized signpost generally should not include quotation marks even when quoting a phrase from the particular verse. When commentary consists of multiple paragraphs, a level 3 subheading should be used without any bullets (usually following the format "===Verses XX-YY: Description of commentary===").
* ''Capitalization.'' The first letter of headings, subheadings, and signposts should be capitalized, while subsequent words should not generally be capitalized.

==Other issues==
* ''Scripture outlines.'' Scripture outlines should be put either on a user subpage or on the main commentary page of the first verse being outlined. If an entire book or chapter is being outlined, the outline should be placed on the page for that book or chapter (e.g. [[To the Hebrews]]). Punctuation should not be used for following outline elements, unless complete sentences are used (parallel structure should be the goal, so that if one level of the outline has a complete sentence, othere elements of that level should have complete sentences also).
* ''References.'' References to books or other off-line material should normally be placed in the Related Links section with at least the title, author, relevant page numbers, and the ISBN of the work given (notice that typing in the ISBN will automatically create a link).
* ''Abbreviations.'' The word "verse" should normally be written out in normal text, although the abbreviations "v." (singular) and "vv." (plural) can be used in parenthetical comments.
* ''Spacing.'' Two spaces should generally be used between sentences and signposts. One space is usually sufficient after a colon. Two line extra breaks should be used at the end of level 2 subheadings, otherwise, one extra line break is generally sufficient.

==Examples==
* ''Structure.'' [[User:RobertC/sandbox12|This page]] provides an example of how a commentary page should generally be structured.
* ''Examplary commentary page.'' [[Gen 1:1]] gives an example of how formatting and structure guidelines should be used in practice.

==Related links==
* [[Help:Commentary pages|Commentary pages]] help

Help:Formatting

2006-11-07T04:57:35Z

TrailerTrash: /* General guidance */

This page gives guidelines for formatting commentary pages.

==General guidance==
* ''Encyclopedic commentary.'' This site represents a unique genre. It is probably most closely related to an encyclopedic commentary book, but of course it is web-based and composed by multiple authors as a constant work-in-progress. Because of these features, the formatting and writing style of this wiki project are unique, and should not be expected to follow guidelines for normal book or article writing.
* ''Easy referencing.'' Because of the multiple-author, encyclopedic and work-in-progress nature of this site, a primary goal of the site is to make for easy reference. This means the site will have much more structure than normal book or article writing—perhaps better conceived as an elaborate outline of different views and insights rather than a book.
* ''Greek Fonts.'' When discussing lexical difficulties for the NT or LXX, a Unicode Greek font may be used, but the Greek word should also be transliterated the first time it is used for the benefit of non-specialists. For information about using Unicode Greek fonts, see here[http://ntgateway.com/greek/fonts.htm].

==Structure of commentary pages==
===Subheadings===
* ''Indicating verses.'' Since pages on this site refer to several verses, virtually all comments should have a subheading indicating which verse or verses they refer to, for easy reference.
* ''Wiki markup.'' Level 3 subheadings are created using 3 equals signs on either side of the heading (for example, "===Verses 2-4===").

===Bullets and signposting===
* ''Single paragraph bullets.'' Single paragraph comments are best written using a bullet prefix (indicated using a "*" prefix on the edit page).
* ''Italicized signpost.'' An italicized signpost should be used with bullets to indicate (in no more than a handful of words) the content of the paragraph. The italicized signpost generally should not include quotation marks even when quoting a phrase from the particular verse. When commentary consists of multiple paragraphs, a level 3 subheading should be used without any bullets (usually following the format "===Verses XX-YY: Description of commentary===").
* ''Capitalization.'' The first letter of headings, subheadings, and signposts should be capitalized, while subsequent words should not generally be capitalized.

==Other issues==
* ''Scripture outlines.'' Scripture outlines should be put either on a user subpage or on the main commentary page of the first verse being outlined. If an entire book or chapter is being outlined, the outline should be placed on the page for that book or chapter (e.g. [[To the Hebrews]]). Punctuation should not be used for following outline elements, unless complete sentences are used (parallel structure should be the goal, so that if one level of the outline has a complete sentence, othere elements of that level should have complete sentences also).
* ''References.'' References to books or other off-line material should normally be placed in the Related Links section with at least the title, author, relevant page numbers, and the ISBN of the work given (notice that typing in the ISBN will automatically create a link).
* ''Abbreviations.'' The word "verse" should normally be written out in normal text, although the abbreviations "v." (singular) and "vv." (plural) can be used in parenthetical comments.
* ''Spacing.'' Two spaces should generally be used between sentences and signposts. One space is usually sufficient after a colon. Two line extra breaks should be used at the end of level 2 subheadings, otherwise, one extra line break is generally sufficient.

==Examples==
* ''Structure.'' [[User:RobertC/sandbox12|This page]] provides an example of how a commentary page should generally be structured.
* ''Examplary commentary page.'' [[Gen 1:1]] gives an example of how formatting and structure guidelines should be used in practice.

==Related links==
* [[Help:Commentary pages|Commentary pages]] help

Talk:1 Ne 1:1-4

2006-11-06T21:43:32Z

TrailerTrash: /* Therefore */

==General==
* I posted some [[User:RobertC/Journal_2005#August| personal reflections]] on 1 Ne 1:1, but I don't have the time (or energy) to put them into a neutral tone and add them to the commentary page. Of course anyone else is welcome to do so. I find it easier to write in a personal tone to get my thoughts flowing and organized in my own head--maybe with practice I'll get better at helping w/ the exegesis sections. For now, I just put a link to Elder Maxwell's talk.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 04:38, 30 Aug 2005 (CEST)

* See the [[User:BYU_Club/Fall_2005/Notes|BYU club notes]] for some rough but interesting thoughts and questions on [[1 Ne 1]]. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 19:40, 2 Sep 2005 (CEST)

==Verse 1 questions==

I believe that the learning of Nephi's father means not only the language, but many things: philosophy, trades, religion, general education, etc... Nephi's father was a prophet of God, and Nephi knew that, so the goodness of his parents shows the great respect that he had for them, and that he knew that the things he was taught by them were true. --[[User:Travis Justin Kamper|Travis Justin Kamper]] 30 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Joe, Thanks for the interesting question. I edited it a bit. In doing so I think I may have changed the meaning slightly. Feel free to re-edit to improve. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 08:30, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)

==Verse 1 exegesis==
===Chiasmus in Verse 1===
I am admittedly confused. Since when do "and," "yea," and "nevertheless" count as chiastic elements? This seems like a bit of a stretch.

===Therefore===
Joe, I find your posts very interesting and am only sorry I haven't gotten to reading them carefully before. I'll probably be posting several questions here for you over the next few days.

First, let me play devil's advocate a bit with your analysis of "therefore I make a record". I think a more traditional reading is to interpret the dependent clauses as simply a justification for why Nephi is making the record. Presumably, not everyone went around keeping a diary on gold plates, so a word of explanation is warranted. Nephi is doing so because he has special knowledge about the goodness and mysteries of God which are valuable to share. However, if this is the case, we are left wondering why Nephi didn't just say "because God told me to". Also, this reading implies that the ''yea'' of verse 2 is simply used as sort of a punctuation (ancient Hebrew didn't have punctuation, I don't know about reformed Egyptian!), without the implications you suggest.

Generally, I really like your comments on this and tend to agree. I'll probably slip in the point of the above paragraph to deemphasize the father's wealth as the only alternate motivation for the ''therefore'', unless anyone objects.

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 14:43, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Note, Robert, that there are two "therefore's" in Nephi's first verse. I have two separate comments about them. In my first exegetical comment, on the fourfold structure of Nephi's first verse, I give my interpretation of the second "therefore." In my third exegetical comment on the first verse, I comment on the first "therefore." I may need to re-word my commentary to make sure this is very clear. I don't think that Nephi's final "therefore" in verse 1 suggests that he is writing his record because of his father's wealth. Rather, as is clear in my first comment, I think he is writing his record as a fleshing out of the fourfold endowment experience his life embodies. I do think, however, that his first "therefore" implies that his having been taught in his father's learning is tied specifically to his learning.

I will look right now at how I might adjust my commentary so that this is clearer.

--[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 18:39, 21 Mar 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the clarification, it was probably just my fault for misreading. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 16:12, 22 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try a different approach to the grammar and structure of this verse, in part to play devil's advocate to Joe Spencer's take, in part as an exercise to familiarize myself better with this passage, but also in part b/c I think it actually might have merit. [[User:RobertC/1 Ne 1:1|Here's the link]] to where I'll be working through these ideas. If I feel like I'm making any progress, I start trying to incorporate my thoughts onto the main commentary page. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 04:17, 28 Mar 2006 (UTC)

===Book of Dead connection===
One question I had in looking at this again relates to the following comment.

:A connection (however distant) to the Book of the Dead would certainly explain the autobiographical "I, Nephi" with which the verse (and the whole Book of Mormon) begins.
Why would this connection explain the autobiographical "I, Nephi" beginning? Can you elaborate. I don't follow. Thanks, --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 15:22, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I will add some commentary in a moment here that ought to clear this up for future readers, but for your more direct information: while there was a (barely) canonical Book of the Dead, each copy was personalized with the name of the individual to whom it belonged. The most famous copy of the Book of the Dead, for example, is the papyrus of Ani. It is so titled because there is constant reference to Ani in the text, though any other copy of the Book of the Dead has some other name inserted. The Book of the Dead was a universal form that was de-universalized when it was written, precisely because it was tied to a specific, historical individual.
--[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 18:32, 21 Mar 2006 (UTC)

===Four-fold structure===
I think this is an interesting observation, I've never heard it or thought of it before. I know Avraham Gileadi makes a bit point of these kind of over-arching structures in his analysis of Isaiah. I don't think there are a lot of other scholars who view Isaiah this way (typically preferring a deutero-author), but I think his views are respected among scholars and, if this is an intentional structure in Isaiah, it seems to stengthen your case since Nephi quoted so extensively from Isaiah. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 19:28, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

==Verse 3 questions==
Here are some thoughts on the question on verse 3:
* Nephi knew that the truthfulness of the BOM would be tryed in the future

* Nephi is stating that he made the record and is taking credit for his work, stating his believes, wether they are found to be true or false in the future. He is accepting responsability with is even more important when Joseph Smith translated the book to English. This is more proof that it is not Josephs Book.

--[[User:Travis Justin Kamper|Travis Justin Kamper]] 30 Aug 2005 (CEST)

==Verse 3 exegesis==
===According to my knowledge===
I think this phrase in verse 3 supports some of the points that Joe Spencer has recently made. Reynolds and Sjodahl make the argument, in ''Commentary on the Book of Mormon'' (pp. 4-6), that Nephi, having been "taught somewhat" by his father, is very familiar with the Torah, knowing "the divine origin of the heavens and the arth, through the acts of creation; the beginning of the human race, the "fall" and its consequences and the promise of redemption" (Reynolds & Sjodahl, p. 5). I think the four themes of birth/creation, fall/estrangement, redemption/atonement, and salvation/peace are common themes in the scripture that Nephi was familiar with. Recent bible scholarship seems to be uncovering more and more evidence of literary structures related to these themes (I've found a few available on the internet, but nothing that quite seems appropriate to link to here—but I'll keep working on finding some good sources). Examples from the current Sunday school schedule include the story of Joseph where there are obviously parallel themes: birth, separation, forgiveness, and reunion, and the story of Moses— Jim F. [http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3006 has listed] similar themes regarding the story of Moses and Israel that also relate to Jesus's life and the story of mankind in general (in his lettering B-F and F'-B' seem to relate to Fall and Redemption respectively). With what seems to be more and more evidence regarding over-arching literary structures in the Bible, I think Nephi's phrase, "according to my knowledge", takes on additional meaning that supports Joe's points. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 18:06, 22 Mar 2006 (UTC)

==Verse 4 questions==
As pertaining to the last question in this section, what makes us think that Nephi sees Zedekiah as a legitimate king?[[User:Rob Fergus|Rob Fergus]] 21:31, 4 Aug 2005 (CEST)

== Random Questions--April 8th ==

Hi Joe (and all)

First of all, I am really feeling like I am getting a lot out of reading through this tonight. So thanks for all the work. I really appreciate it.

Also, I made a few changes. (Of course, feel free to change back, re-revise if you think I made things worse.) it I considered more but for some of them I wanted to first ask your thoughts on a few items.
* ''likely Hebrew words'' I feel like I'd like to give the reader more of an idea why we think we are in a position to suggest likely Hebrew words for the Book of Mormon. Maybe this is a topic that deserves a sub-page of its own. On a related note, to me (and possibly other readers) exactly what the phrase "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" means is unclear. We might wonder why likely Egyptian words aren't suggested instead. This isn't my main point though. Even if we assume that the likely words behind the translation are similar to what we know of Hebrew, I think we should explain something about what the process is for arriving at the likely Hebrew word. Again maybe this should be a sub-page.
* "Both of these implications suggest that Nephi's brief autobiography in verse 1 should be read with incredible care." --I think I am missing the connection between the previous sentences and this one. Not that I disagree with the conclusion, I just am not seeing the tie in.
* I don't understand the following: "autobiographical sketch would then because a parallel set of parallelisms, mediated by the central nevertheless." Is it possible that there is a word missing somewhere?
* ''goodly as wealthy''. I found it interesting to read the verse interpretting goodly to mean mainly wealthy especially in its relation to the phrase "therefore I was taught somewhat..." It works well. However, I think we may want to add the alternative (and I think more common) interpretation that in connecting his parents goodliness to himself being "taught somewhat in all the learning of my father" Nephi is drawing on (and therefore re-inforcing) the idea that to teach one's children what one knows is virtuous. Thoughts?

Thanks again, --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:01, 9 Apr 2006 (UTC)

== Random answers? ==

* ''likely Hebrew words'' I have the same misgivings--perhaps stronger ones that Matthew has expressed. I think it would be more fruitful, in fact, to read into the Egyptian ''and'' the Hebrew than to do what I am here doing. I am, unfortunately, only just learning Egyptian (and what a task!). The more I have written on these first verses, the more I find myself retreating into English etymologies, rather than Hebrew connections. Perhaps I should focus on that anyway. Some brief references to possible Hebrew (and Egyptian?) words might be worked into the exegesis, in the course of writing commentary. However, I think I will remove the lexical comments that present conjecture on Hebrew originals. The more I read (not meaning in the scriptures), the more I am convinced that the English of the Book of Mormon is the starting point of study, though translation into Hebrew, Egyptian, Greek, and, for that matter, German, French, etc., should always be kept close at hand (how would, for example, a good German translation of the Book of Mormon relate to Luther's Bible?). Sometime here soon I will rework those linguistic difficulties.
* I tried to make the connection more explicit in that paragraph. I should hope that helps.
* Oops, "because" should be "become." I changed that.
* ''goodly as wealthy''. This is a very good question. I must admit that I am, to some extent at least, trying to counter the "virtuous" reading of "goodly." However, Joseph Smith's usage of the term in his journal suggests that he understood it that way. I think both meanings should be felt in the verse (as the Hebrew ''twb'' would suggest). Anyone who wants to try to work an emphasis into the already existing comment is free to do so as far as I am concerned. As occasion arises, I will try to do so if it has not been done previously.

Thanks for your careful reading! --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 17:24, 15 Apr 2006 (UTC)

==Nephi's autobiography==
:I'm sure I'm being dense but I don't understand the following. Could someone explain to me the meaning here?
::If, on the one hand, Nephi understands his experiences to justify his writing project, and if, on the other hand, the commandment to write is somehow bound up with Nephi's experiences, then Nephi's brief autobiography in verse 1--what is essentially his reading of those very experiences--should be read with incredible care.
:thanks, --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:26, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

::Whether this was Joe's original intent or not, I think a good point to make is that if Nephi is giving an apologetic for his writing based on his life experiences (rather than God's commandment to write), then I think this strengthens argument that there's an over-arching structure to the Nephi's writing. That is, rather than explaining here that God commanded him to write, perhaps Nephi wants instead to call our attention to the events of his life. If this was Joe's original intent, I have a couple ideas on how to improve the phraseology. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 15:11, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

== Best after 1 year ==

In case you haven't heard [[1 Ne 1:1-5]] won the most votes for the [[Site:Best after 1 year|best page for Feast's one year anniversary]]. If you are interested in this page please see the related discussion on [[Site talk:Best after 1 year]] --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 00:20, 29 Apr 2006 (UTC)

== Joe's working notes (how awful) ==

I'm finding that my work on these verses is getting difficult enough that I need to keep some notes for myself on this discussion page in order to keep some of my plans, projections, etc., straight. No one need regard these, but if anyone has, of course, any thoughts, they would be gladly heard and discussed.

Possible next moves:

* I certainly have to think the theme of living-toward-death here... too Heideggerian?
* that might finish of the second ''having''?

==Second having==
Joe, I'm not sure I understand your point about visual escapability. I'll think about this more when I have more time, but let me make a couple quick points (which are related to each other) while I'm thinking about this now:

(1) I think it's worth separately considering the afflictions Nephi experienced directly and the afflictions Nephi only observeed (afflictions ''others'' experienced directly and Nephi experienced indirectly). If we experience afflictions directly, the effort to flee such afflictions by "closing our eyes" to them seems significantly greater than the simpler task of closing our eyes to the afflictions of others. I think this is the connotation of "stick one's head in the sand"—it's easier to ignore problems affecting others than to ignore problems that directly affect us.

(2) I think the Nephi's ''seeing'' of afflictions could be emphasizing the voluntary nature of his suffering (perhaps this notion is what's confusing me in reading your notion of false escape). If we stick our head in the sand, we can ignore others' suffering. In this sense, couldn't Nephi's ''seeing'' afflictions suggest a type of voluntary empathy he has with others' suffering? A less empathetic person might be blind to such afflictions.

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:Robert, your comment ''opened my eyes''. Thanks for ''suffering'' my commentary. I have twenty-nine minutes before my battery dies. I'll see what I can do. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

==Concerning the current edits==
Matthew, thanks for your work on this page. It has forced me to return to what I wrote when I first came to the site and to realize how much I've figured out about the spirit and meaning of the wiki. Your edits have my wholehearted support. Thanks for making my work far more presentable, and for dislodging what might otherwise be solely my project there. Any and all that want to help work out a clearer, less wordy text here, please feel free to work at it. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:07, 11 Sep 2006 (UTC)
: Hey Joe, thanks. my pleasure. I find it tough work to edit. Feel free to re-edit. I'm not trying to have the last word. And thanks for all your great commentary here and all over the place. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:27, 12 Sep 2006 (UTC)

User:TrailerTrash

2006-11-06T19:55:13Z

TrailerTrash:

I like scriptures and stuff.

1 Cor 15:11-15

2006-11-06T19:53:02Z

TrailerTrash: /* Exegesis */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:6-10|Previous (1 Cor 15:6-10)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:16-20|Next (1 Cor 15:16-20)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''
===Verse 12===
Paul attempts to defend his teachings concerning the future resurrection of the dead on the basis of Christ’s resurrection. The primary problem in this text is understanding the position of the opponents. Though the text itself offers a quotation from the opponents, “there is no resurrection of the dead,” it is difficult to understand exactly what is meant by this. We have seen Paul quote other slogans of the opponents in this letter (6:12, 13; 8:1, 4) followed by a defense or explanation of his own position. However, these other quotations don’t contribute to our understanding of the text. There are a number of different possibilities that have been suggested.
Perhaps the most prominent position that has been proposed has been that the Corinthians believe in a “realized resurrection,” that they have already been resurrected, perhaps at baptism. This view sees the Corinthian opponents as “Gnostics” or “proto-gnostics”. This reading is frequently supported by 4:8, which mentions that the Corinthians see themselves as partakers “already” in certain aspects of salvation. In this reading, the Corinthians reject a future resurrection, or a resurrection of the dead, in favor or a resurrection of the living.
A second approach has argued that the Corinthians don’t deny a future resurrection, only that they deny a ''bodily'' resurrection. In this view, the dispute with the Corinthians centers more on the latter half of chapter 15 in the discussions of the nature of the resurrected body (15:35ff). He focuses on the question that is proposed, “with what kind of body do they come” (15:35).

===Verse 17===
One of the difficulties that the text presents is how Paul justifies the argument from Christ’s resurrection to a general resurrection. Paul takes Christ as primary evidence of the possibility of the resurrection. Paul seems to assume that the Corinthians don’t deny Christ’s resurrection, only a more general resurrection. Christ’s resurrection is seen as a miraculous, exceptional event, exactly the way that it has been presented to them, but it doesn’t follow that this is necessarily the fate of all believers. In this reading, the denial of the resurrection in 15:12 and the first question in 15:35, “How are the dead raised?” represent more closely the skeptical position of the Corinthians. We may have another clue in verse 19 that indicates that the Corinthians might have believed that we hope in Christ for our benefit in this life "only". In this view, the question about “what kind of body” can be seen in a larger skeptical view about the possibility of the resurrection and life after death, rather than a debate over its nature per se.
Paul’s claim about Christ’s resurrection seems to rely upon the fact that the Corinthians believe in Christ’s resurrection. His opening rehearsal (15:1-11) of these resurrection accounts is meant more to set up the argument in 12-19 than to prove that Christ was resurrected. In fact, he says that they have accepted Christ’s resurrection in 15:1 (Gr: parelabete) and 11 (Gr: epistevsate). He even suggests that they believe in the salvation from their sins through Christ’s resurrection (17). It may not be possible to discern the precise position of the Corinthians, but this doesn’t preclude a study of the competing notions of the body and afterlife that Paul sees are at stake.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:6-10|Previous (1 Cor 15:6-10)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:16-20|Next (1 Cor 15:16-20)]]
|}

1 Cor 15:46-50

2006-11-06T03:16:18Z

TrailerTrash: /* Verse 46 */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:41-45|Previous (1 Cor 15:41-45)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:51-55|Next (1 Cor 15:51-55)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
The word for "natural" here is more accurately translated as "psychic," or perhaps "soulish" (Gk: ψυχικος). The same term is used in 1 Cor 2:14. The term may refer to how some of the members of the Corinthian community characterized themselves.

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 46===
Paul makes very clear here, following the commentary at [[1 Cor 15:45|verse 45]], that he understands Gen as his primary text. Since Adam became a "living soul" (Gen 2:7) after the "breath" (Greek: πνεη) or "spirit" was given to him, it shows that the first Adam was actually made of earth and then he was given spirit. Paul reads this episode allegorically (verse 47). He argues that the "soulish" ("natural") human is actually the body that we inhabit now. Paul suggests that the soul is no greater than the dust of the earth and that instead we should seek the spiritual. Paul is entering into ancient debates about the anthropology of the body as composed of flesh, soul, and spirit.

If Paul is indeed making this argument, it should be noted that he explicitly offers a counter to prevailing interpretation at the time. The Rabbinical writings, and Philo more explicitly and earlier, make reference to the apparently double creation story of Gen 1-2. The prevailing interpretation is that Adam was creation in Gen 1 as nearly a god, only afterwards to be recreated in the flesh in Gen 2. The idea seems to be that the Fall was a separable event from the creation, and that, as such, the hope of a Messiah was the only hope for overcoming such a horrible event. This reading makes the plan of history a three-fold plan (creation, fall, and atonement--whatever atonement means according to the Rabbis), whereas Paul suggests here rather a two-fold plan (creation/fall and atonement, the old creation and the new creation). In any event, Paul's interpretation is quite fruitful. Paul doesn't read the double-creation story, just Gen 2.

===Verse 50===
This text seems problematic for understanding the resurrection of the flesh. This problem may be averted if Paul here is speaking of realms rather than substances. Those who exist within the realm of the flesh may not enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. Gal 5). Additionally, some LDS writers have discussed the nature of the resurrected body as being made of "flesh and bone" rather than "flesh and blood", picking up on Luke 24:39. It is suggested that Paul is working with the same distinction.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:41-45|Previous (1 Cor 15:41-45)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:51-55|Next (1 Cor 15:51-55)]]
|}

1 Cor 15:46-50

2006-11-06T03:14:23Z

TrailerTrash: /* Lexical notes */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:41-45|Previous (1 Cor 15:41-45)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:51-55|Next (1 Cor 15:51-55)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
The word for "natural" here is more accurately translated as "psychic," or perhaps "soulish" (Gk: ψυχικος). The same term is used in 1 Cor 2:14. The term may refer to how some of the members of the Corinthian community characterized themselves.

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 46===
Paul makes very clear here, following the commentary at [[1 Cor 15:45|verse 45]], that he understands Gen as his primary text. Since Adam became a "living soul" (Gen 2:7) after the "breath" (Greek: πνεη) or "spirit" was given to him, it shows that the first Adam was actually made of earth and then he was given spirit. Paul reads this allegorically (verse 47).

If Paul is indeed making this argument, it should be noted that he explicitly offers a counter to prevailing interpretation at the time. The Rabbinical writings, and Philo more explicitly and earlier, make reference to the apparently double creation story of Gen 1-2. The prevailing interpretation is that Adam was creation in Gen 1 as nearly a god, only afterwards to be recreated in the flesh in Gen 2. The idea seems to be that the Fall was a separable event from the creation, and that, as such, the hope of a Messiah was the only hope for overcoming such a horrible event. This reading makes the plan of history a three-fold plan (creation, fall, and atonement--whatever atonement means according to the Rabbis), whereas Paul suggests here rather a two-fold plan (creation/fall and atonement, the old creation and the new creation). In any event, Paul's interpretation is quite fruitful. Paul doesn't read the double-creation story, just Gen 2.

===Verse 50===
This text seems problematic for understanding the resurrection of the flesh. This problem may be averted if Paul here is speaking of realms rather than substances. Those who exist within the realm of the flesh may not enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. Gal 5). Additionally, some LDS writers have discussed the nature of the resurrected body as being made of "flesh and bone" rather than "flesh and blood", picking up on Luke 24:39. It is suggested that Paul is working with the same distinction.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:41-45|Previous (1 Cor 15:41-45)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:51-55|Next (1 Cor 15:51-55)]]
|}

1 Cor 15:46-50

2006-11-06T03:08:50Z

TrailerTrash: /* Verse 46 */

[[The New Testament]] > [[1 Corinthians]] > [[1 Corinthians 15|Chapter 15]]
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:41-45|Previous (1 Cor 15:41-45)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:51-55|Next (1 Cor 15:51-55)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 46===
Paul makes very clear here, following the commentary at [[1 Cor 15:45|verse 45]], that he understands Gen as his primary text. Since Adam became a "living soul" (Gen 2:7) after the "breath" (Greek: πνεη) or "spirit" was given to him, it shows that the first Adam was actually made of earth and then he was given spirit. Paul reads this allegorically (verse 47).

If Paul is indeed making this argument, it should be noted that he explicitly offers a counter to prevailing interpretation at the time. The Rabbinical writings, and Philo more explicitly and earlier, make reference to the apparently double creation story of Gen 1-2. The prevailing interpretation is that Adam was creation in Gen 1 as nearly a god, only afterwards to be recreated in the flesh in Gen 2. The idea seems to be that the Fall was a separable event from the creation, and that, as such, the hope of a Messiah was the only hope for overcoming such a horrible event. This reading makes the plan of history a three-fold plan (creation, fall, and atonement--whatever atonement means according to the Rabbis), whereas Paul suggests here rather a two-fold plan (creation/fall and atonement, the old creation and the new creation). In any event, Paul's interpretation is quite fruitful. Paul doesn't read the double-creation story, just Gen 2.

===Verse 50===
This text seems problematic for understanding the resurrection of the flesh. This problem may be averted if Paul here is speaking of realms rather than substances. Those who exist within the realm of the flesh may not enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. Gal 5). Additionally, some LDS writers have discussed the nature of the resurrected body as being made of "flesh and bone" rather than "flesh and blood", picking up on Luke 24:39. It is suggested that Paul is working with the same distinction.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Cor 15:41-45|Previous (1 Cor 15:41-45)]] ||             || [[1 Cor 15:51-55|Next (1 Cor 15:51-55)]]
|}

1 Cor 15:46-50

2006-11-06T03:03:35Z

TrailerTrash: /* Verse 46 */