(1) Yes, it is. They are violating Axiom 5 of historical method (Proving History, ch. 2): confusing what’s possible, with what’s probable.

(2) Yes, I hope to. It’s not very high priority, because the debate speaks for itself well enough. But I’d like to posts some thoughts on it if I can find the time.

Hmm okay. But… I mean, that’s not really an argument against what Barnett or Harrison are saying…

P.S. are you going to make a blog about your recent debate with Bass? I’m just watching it, and its really frustrating. Bass seems to be a nice guy, but little bit too overconfident.

That’s all legerdemain to avoid just accepting what Paul wrote as it is. When someone is desperate to make Paul mean what they want him to have meant, they then deploy these interpretive tricks to do that. That’s Christian apologetics in a nutshell.

Again, I have couple of questions about your text in Empty tomb. My question is about 2Cor. 4:16-5:8.

Paul Barnett[1] notes that the verse 4:14 shows that Paul talks about resurrection. He notes also[2], that the phrase “we have” is not clear by its meaning, because it can mean multiple things. He says that pauls reference to a body that “is” is not necessary a reference to that that there is a body, but to a certainty that we will have a “new body”. Naturally the glorified body is a “new body” when compared to the old one. Like if you fix a old car to a brand new condition. The car is then kind of a “new”.

Also, Murray J. Harrison notes[3] that “in heaven” (en tois ouranois) very likely means “heavenly” (ouranios). He notes that these two words are almost inseparable. They could be used both in the same way. For example, Matt. 6:9 (Pater hemoon ho en tois ouranois) and 6:14, 26, 32 (ho pateer hymoon ho ouranios). They are almost synonyms. For this reason this separation of “heavenly” body and “earthly” body (that we will get in resurrection/at the coming of Jesus) is a target of underlining in Paul’s letters.

It is also funny to notice that “the house that is not build by human hands” is also a reference to God’s dwelling place, because in other places there is noted that God doesn’t live in the place made by hands (Acts 17:24, cf. 7:48; 1Kings 8:27-30)[4]. This could imply that how Paul saw the new bodies and their uniqueness; he says in other place that we will become like bodies of glorified Jesus (Phil. 3:20-21).

Barnett also notices that “house coming from God” is reference to a new Jerusalem [5]. So it is possible that Paul referred to coming events using a language that would be apt to use in coming times. Therefore, it could be essential to refer the body as if it belongs to a new era.

Paul doesn’t necessary talk that he believes that Christians have a new body in heaven where they would move when they die (or get resurrected). I don’t think that part is so clear that we could make this kind of a statement. How would you comment?

Final point I would like to make is that if we compare Paul to Judaism, he is not too peculiar if we forget how the belief in Christ affected his eschatology. In the case of the dead people his writings are little bit confusing, because the old body is rotting of decomposed, so then whatever kind of change to that kind of a body would fit to consept of a “new body”. Only skeleton remains (or less), but when God creates that body back to life again, it would be still a new body after all.

[1] The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 257.
[2] 257n13.
[3] The Second Epistle To the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. TNIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, 373.
[4] Barnett, 257n14
[5] ibid. 258n14

It’s all bollocks. Even Justin Bass admits as much (though not as colorfully). He “believes” the legends, but he admits that no historical criteria establish them as reliable.

I might eventually blog on the James, Peter, and Paul cases, the only ones Bass thinks there is any reliable evidence for. All the others are centuries late and full of patent nonsense.

I wouldn’t have time to read it or review it, unfortunately. But if any historian does, do feel free to link to such a review in any blog post I write about any topic in history again.

I expect to. And yes.

But I am very busy at the moment. I’m planning several major tours and a big geographical move. Which I will announce soon.

Thanks. Yes, I’m aware. I may write on it soon. But I appreciate the link. I might not have known of it.

I answer both questions in OHJ, Ch. 11.10.

Paul says Jesus is “the firstborn of many brethren,” and explains that baptism makes each of us a son of God, and that is why Jesus is our brother. Thus it isn’t an inference I make; it is explicitly stated by Paul. (See OHJ Ch. 4, Element 12.)

In actual fact, that “idiosyncratic” use is throughout Paul’s letters; he just abbreviates most of the time, as was done commonly in the mystery cults, who likewise used fictive kinship vocabulary. It was common, not unusual.

I definitely had planned to. But it fell off my radar. I may yet still. It will become relevant again when I publish my next two books (on ancient science), one of which will be out by end of this year.

On History before 1950, see my old blog post, which I reproduced in HHBC.

On the Decline and Fall of Rome, there is no single book I know of that is adequate. It’s hard, because there was no single event or time when that happened. The third century is far more important than people think, for example (all the triggers that killed the empire were pulled then; they just didn’t kill their target for several more centuries, as it slowly bled out from the wounds; the Christians simply didn’t bandage the wounds when they came into power, but made them worse). And the course of events played out differently in the West than in the East. And so on.

I cite some bibliography in NIF, p. 447, n. 32, and TCD, p. 419, n. 57 (and to an extent also n. 56, as it relates to what Christians replaced it with that kept it dead).

Also relevant are those whole chapters (in TCD and NIF) and my chapters in CNG on Democracy and the Dark Ages (the latter with important bibliography).