Behold, I tell you a mystery.

Xeno.of.athens said:

but the bodies of the elect (of whom St. Paul here speaks) should be changed to a happy state of immortality. This opinion, if it deserve not to be censured, is at least against the common persuasion of the faithful, who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand; why it is against common persuasion of the faithful?

There may be some elect who are still alive in the end days, who will have been kept from the hour of trial. Of all the apostles John was the only one who had a natural death; I believe the rest were all martyred. Now most/many of the elect will have died, but there may be the few rare ones who have come to the very end and will be changed into a spirit-state. I don't see how this is against faith. The physical body would technically die, even if ones consciousness is never severed during the physical to spiritual metamorphosis.

Xeno.of.athens said:

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.

We shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed.[3] This is the reading of the Latin Vulgate, and of some Greek manuscripts, and the sense is, that all both good and bad shall rise, but only the elect to the happy change or a glorified body.

The reading in most Greek copies at present is, we shall not all sleep, (i.e. die) be we shall be all changed: so also read St. John Chrysostom: and St. Jerome found it in many manuscripts from which divers, especially of the Greek interpreters, thought that such as should be found living at the day of judgment should not die, but the bodies of the elect (of whom St. Paul here speaks) should be changed to a happy state of immortality. This opinion, if it deserve not to be censured, is at least against the common persuasion of the faithful, who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment.

Some expound the Greek only to signify, that all shall not sleep, i.e. shall not remain for any time in the grave, as others who die are accustomed to do. (Witham)

Click to expand...

Do you hold the Vulgate and those Greek manuscripts to be more accurate?

But there is no immediate nor contextual implication, either way it is rendered there, that the "we" referred to is speaking about anyone but the redeemed.

Benjamin Müller said:

I'm not sure I understand; why it is against common persuasion of the faithful?

There may be some elect who are still alive in the end days, who will have been kept from the hour of trial. Of all the apostles John was the only one who had a natural death; I believe the rest were all martyred. Now most/many of the elect will have died, but there may be the few rare ones who have come to the very end and will be changed into a spirit-state. I don't see how this is against faith. The physical body would technically die, even if ones consciousness is never severed during the physical to spiritual metamorphosis.

Click to expand...

None is changed into a "spirit-state", the body rises incorruptible and immortal. It (the physical body) is sown a soulish body and it (the same physical body) is raised a spiritual body. That's what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15.

What seems to be meant by "against the common persuasion of the faithful" is answered by this line which immediately follows: "who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment" That is, the "common persuasion of the faithful" is the assumption that it is certain that all shall die before they come to judgment; but contrarywise, Paul seems to suggest that some will come before the Judgment, through the power of the resurrection, without experiencing a bodily death.

Of course, the Scripture--and indeed the holy Creeds of the Church--explicitly state that Christ returns in glory to judge "the living and the dead".

The point really seems to be that there is a common assumption among Christians which is faulty. It's similar to how so many Christians have, in the past couple centuries (at least in the West) have nearly completely forgotten that there will be a resurrection of the body, but instead imagine that death means the cessation of the body, and it is only the spirit/soul of a person which lives forever in some blissful state called heaven forever. Yet Scripture, and the teaching which has been received from the beginning, clearly teach that there will be a resurrection of the body.

There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous, and to the righteous shall be the transformation of the body, from soulish to spiritual (not physical to spiritual, but rather "spiritual" here refers to the power of the Holy Spirit giving life to the body, see Romans 8:11), from corruptible to incorruptible, from mortal to immortal, from dishonor to honor. So Paul also says in Philippians 3:21 that when Christ returns He will change our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body.

The body rises and is transformed, that is the Christian hope of bodily resurrection. And, Paul says earlier in 1 Corinthians 15, if the dead do not rise then Christ is not risen; but if Christ is risen He is the first fruits of those who have died, and at His return in glory and judgment shall also we who have hope in Christ be raised like Him.

If the body does not rise, then Christ remains dead in the grave, and our entire religion is meaningless, Paul puts it explicitly, that if Christ is not risen "our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied above all people".

If Christ is risen, then there will be a resurrection of the dead.
If Christ is not risen, then we are a pitiable lot with a worthless religion.

-CryptoLutheran

Xeno.of.athens said:

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be c"hanged.

Click to expand...

The Greek reads: "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

Some will not sleep (die) because they will be alive at the Second Coming, but they will still be changed into their new bodies just as those who rise in the resurrection will be changed.

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.

We shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed.[3] This is the reading of the Latin Vulgate, and of some Greek manuscripts, and the sense is, that all both good and bad shall rise, but only the elect to the happy change or a glorified body.

The reading in most Greek copies at present is, we shall not all sleep, (i.e. die) be we shall be all changed: so also read St. John Chrysostom: and St. Jerome found it in many manuscripts from which divers, especially of the Greek interpreters, thought that such as should be found living at the day of judgment should not die, but the bodies of the elect (of whom St. Paul here speaks) should be changed to a happy state of immortality. This opinion, if it deserve not to be censured, is at least against the common persuasion of the faithful, who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment.

Some expound the Greek only to signify, that all shall not sleep, i.e. shall not remain for any time in the grave, as others who die are accustomed to do. (Witham)

Click to expand...

So you hold to the idea that every saint and every elect will die prior to the return of Christ? I'm not sure that I understand your train of thought.

Xeno.of.athens said:

This is the erroneous teaching that the author of the comment in the second quote from the OP complains about whe he writes:
"This opinion, if it deserve not to be censured, is at least against the common persuasion of the faithful, who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment.

Click to expand...

"Interesting" that he does not believe Scripture.

The Greek reads: "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

Some will not sleep (die) because they will be alive at the Second Coming, but they will still be changed into their new bodies just as those who rise in the resurrection will be changed.

Would he by chance be Eastern Orthodox?

I think a few things are getting missed in this discussion, Xeno in the OP references a variant reading of 1 Corinthians 15:51, which in the Vulgate is translated as "Ecce mysterium vobis dico: omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur.", "Behold I speak a mystery, we will all be raised, but we will not all be changed."

That would indicate that the Greek text which Jerome was familiar had a different reading than what we are familiar with. So, for example, in Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum Omne, which is a foundational critical work to the Textus Receptus tradition, we find the more familiar reading; and we see Erasmus' own Latin translation in agreement where he has (I'm looking at an online scan of the 2nd Edition of the NTO, and it is a bit hard for me to make out completely, so apologies): "Ecce mysteriu vobis dico: Non omnes quide dormiemus, omnes tn[?] immutabimur", which I am admittedly no transcribing completely accurately but sufficiently enough to show that he uses "non omnes quide dormiemus" ("we shall not all sleep") and "omne ... immutabimur" ("we shall be changed").

All available Greek variants from various critical works seem to agree with the Byzantine texts Erasmus was working with.

I do not think Xeno in the OP is suggesting the more well known reading is in error, only offering a commentary over the textual discrepency. It seems fair to assume that Jerome was simply working with an alternative reading, though I am not educated enough to be certain or to make a proper educated guess beyond that assumption.

The commentator mentioned (Witham) is saying that the Greek reading "we shall not all die, but shall all be changed" is not an opinion to be censured (because it disagrees with the received text of the Vulgate?) but that it would be contrary to the common sentiment among those Christians who have been under the impression that all would die prior to the Judgment (as opposed to the reading we are more famliar with today, and which is attested to among the Eastern fathers such as Chrysostom; that there would be those alive at Judgment).

The two readings offer distinct views, but are not fundamentally contradictory. The Vulgate's (and the Vulgate's Greek source presumably) would be speaking on the idea that there would be a universal resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, but only the resurrection of the righteous involves the glorious transformation of the body; whereas the more familiar reading is saying that some will be alive at the resurrection and thus not die prior to experiencing the resurrection's power. These are not mutually exclusive positions, which is why, arguably, Witham does not regard any censuring necessary; but does see it as contrary to a popular sentiment. The popular sentiment would, then arguably, be what needs to change.

I would add, such a popular sentiment would need to be changed, certainly, because if nothing else, Paul is clear in 1 Thessalonians 4 that the power of the resurrection will be on both the dead and those alive at Christ's coming.

Both are technically true:

It is true that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, but only the righteous will be transformed; it is also true that not all will die before the Lord's coming in Judgment, but all [of the righteous] will be transformed.

As I see it, the only truly interesting enigma is what Jerome's source text was for the Vulgate, as it would appear that the general consensus of the Greek manuscripts, both Byzantine and Alexandrian (and, of course, aware that these broad categories are oversimplifications), of the "not all sleep, but all be changed" reading. But there are outlier variants that exist, some Western text-types can be interesting from what I understand (these, though, are generally reflective of the pre-Vulgate Old Latin translations, which would perhaps raise more questions than provide answers if reflective of a Western text). But as I said, I'm hardly educated enough to offer a meaningful hypothesis, so I am largely just engaging in idle speculation. The question remains: How did this reading enter into the Vulgate?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I think a few things are getting missed in this discussion, Xeno in the OP references a variant reading of 1 Corinthians 15:51, which in the Vulgate is translated as "Ecce mysterium vobis dico: omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur.", "Behold I speak a mystery, we will all be raised, but we will not all be changed."

That would indicate that the Greek text which Jerome was familiar had a different reading than what we are familiar with. So, for example, in Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum Omne, which is a foundational critical work to the Textus Receptus tradition, we find the more familiar reading; and we see Erasmus' own Latin translation in agreement where he has (I'm looking at an online scan of the 2nd Edition of the NTO, and it is a bit hard for me to make out completely, so apologies): "Ecce mysteriu vobis dico: Non omnes quide dormiemus, omnes tn[?] immutabimur", which I am admittedly no transcribing completely accurately but sufficiently enough to show that he uses "non omnes quide dormiemus" ("we shall not all sleep") and "omne ... immutabimur" ("we shall be changed").

All available Greek variants from various critical works seem to agree with the Byzantine texts Erasmus was working with.

I do not think Xeno in the OP is suggesting the more well known reading is in error, only offering a commentary over the textual discrepency. It seems fair to assume that Jerome was simply working with an alternative reading, though I am not educated enough to be certain or to make a proper educated guess beyond that assumption.

The commentator mentioned (Witham) is saying that the Greek reading "we shall not all die, but shall all be changed" is not an opinion to be censured (because it disagrees with the received text of the Vulgate?) but that it would be contrary to the common sentiment among those Christians who have been under the impression that all would die prior to the Judgment (as opposed to the reading we are more famliar with today, and which is attested to among the Eastern fathers such as Chrysostom; that there would be those alive at Judgment).

Click to expand...

The two readings offer distinct views, but are not fundamentally contradictory. The Vulgate's (and the Vulgate's Greek source presumably) would be speaking on the idea that there would be a universal resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked,

Click to expand...

So you're saying the "all will be raised" of the Vulgate is in the context of the wicked and righteous dead, and not in the context of all mankind?

Because that is where the difference lies.

but only the resurrection of the righteous involves the glorious transformation of the body; whereas the more familiar reading is saying that some will be alive at the resurrection and thus not die prior to experiencing the resurrection's power. These are not mutually exclusive positions, which is why, arguably, Witham does not regard any censuring necessary; but does see it as contrary to a popular sentiment. The popular sentiment would, then arguably, be what needs to change.

Click to expand...

I would add, such a popular sentiment would need to be changed, certainly, because if nothing else, Paul is clear in 1 Thessalonians 4 that the power of the resurrection will be on both the dead and those alive at Christ's coming.

Both are technically true:

It is true that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, but only the righteous will be transformed; it is also true that not all will die before the Lord's coming in Judgment, but all [of the righteous] will be transformed.

As I see it, the only truly interesting enigma is what Jerome's source text was for the Vulgate, as it would appear that the general consensus of the Greek manuscripts, both Byzantine and Alexandrian (and, of course, aware that these broad categories are oversimplifications), of the "not all sleep, but all be changed" reading. But there are outlier variants that exist, some Western text-types can be interesting from what I understand (these, though, are generally reflective of the pre-Vulgate Old Latin translations, which would perhaps raise more questions than provide answers if reflective of a Western text). But as I said, I'm hardly educated enough to offer a meaningful hypothesis, so I am largely just engaging in idle speculation.

Click to expand...

The question remains: How did this reading enter into the Vulgate?

Click to expand...

Only heaven knows, and they're not tellin. . .