Brethren and Fathers,
I have been studying The Ethical Discourses of St Symeon the New Theologian (published by SVS press and translated by Alexander Golitzin).
Am a bit uncomfortable with how Symeon describes the resurrected body. For example, he says:
"Christ both died and was laid dead in the tomb. But, when He had risen incorruptable from the dead, He also raised up His body as wholly divine, spiritual, and
immaterial."
Liberal biblical scholars would have a hey day with this, especially those of the Jesus Seminar. To them, following the likes of Bultmann, Christ's 'resurrection' was not something physcial, but something wholly spiritualized (they don't mean the Holy Spirit, as we do). They don't believe a human body rose at all. Instead they believe that the early Christians referred to an 'immaterial' resurrection, not a bodily one. In other words, the "spirit of Jesus" somehow "went to Heaven."
This view has been recently destroyed by the very orthodox Anglican bishop, N.T. Wright in his recently published The Resurrection of the Son of God.
I contacted the translator of the Symeon work, Fr. Golitzin. He said that the Greek word Symeon uses for immaterial was 'aulos' which is basically a negation of hulos, meaning material or stuff.
I suspect that Symeon is orthodox, of course. However, talking about Christ's resurrected body as immaterial sounds a little docetic for my tastes.
Any help from those who understand late ecclesiatical uses of Greek and how it might shed light on Symeon's description of the resurrected body?
My blog:
Ecclesia Anglicana [
anglicana.blogspot.com]
