FINNEY, Mark T. (2016), Resurrection, Hell and The Afterlife. Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism and Early Christianity

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:13 17 January 2017
Resurrection, Hell and the Afterlife

This book begins by arguing that early Greek reflection on the afterlife and
immortality insisted on the importance of the physical body whereas a wealth
of Jewish texts from the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism and early
(Pauline) Christianity understood post-mortem existence to be that of the
soul alone. Changes begin to appear in the later New Testament where the
importance of the afterlife of the physical body became essential, and such
thoughts continued into the period of the early Church where the significance
of the physical body in post-mortem existence became a point of theological
orthodoxy. This book will assert that the influx of Greco-Romans into the
early Church changed the direction of Christian thought towards one which
included the body. At the same time, the ideological and polemical thrust of
an eternal tortuous afterlife for the wicked became essential.
Mark T. Finney is Lecturer in Religion in the Department of History at the

University of Sheffield. His recent publications include Honour and Conflict in
the Ancient World (T&T Clark 2012). His research interests include: concepts
of afterlife in Jewish and Christian traditions and conflict and violence in the
Abrahamic faiths.
BibleWorld
Series Editors: Philip R. Davies and James G. Crossley,

University of Sheffield
BibleWorld shares the fruits of modern (and postmodern) biblical scholar-

ship not only among practitioners and students, but also with anyone inter-
ested in what academic study of the Bible means in the twenty-first century.
It explores our ever-increasing knowledge and understanding of the social
world that produced the biblical texts, but also analyses aspects of the Bible’s
role in this history of our civilization and the many perspectives—not just
religious and theological, but also cultural, political and aesthetic—which
drive modern biblical scholarship.
Resurrection, Hell and the
Afterlife
Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism
and Early Christianity
Mark T. Finney
First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
The right of Mark T. Finney to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Finney, Mark T., author.
Title: Resurrection, hell, and the afterlife : body and soul in antiquity,
Judaism, and early Christianity / by Mark T. Finney.
Description: 1 [edition]. | New York : Routledge, 2016. | Series:
BibleWorld | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015041565 (print) | LCCN 2015042811 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781138647657 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315626888 ()
Subjects: LCSH: Future life. | Future life—Judaism. | Future life—
Christianity.
Classification: LCC BL535 .F56 2016 (print) | LCC BL535 (ebook) |
DDC 202/.3093—dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015041565
ISBN: 978-1-138-64765-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-62688-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
Abbreviations vii
Introduction 1
1 Afterlife in Antiquity: Post-Mortem Existence in its

Greco-Roman Context 6
2 Biblical Beginnings: Death and Afterlife in the Hebrew Bible 25
3 The Priority of the Soul: Constructions of Afterlife in Second

Temple Judaism 49
4 Life after Death in Additional Jewish Literature: The Dead

Sea Scrolls and Later Rabbinic Thought 78
5 New Testament Beginnings: Afterlife in the Thought of the

Apostle Paul 100
6 The Priority of the Body: Post-Mortem Existence in the Later

New Testament 123
7 The Rise of Gehenna: Afterlife in Early Christianity 144
8 What the . . .? Developments of Hell in its Jewish and

Christian Contexts 158
Conclusion 177
Ancient Sources Index 185

Author Index 201
This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations
Abbreviations are taken from Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds) (1996)

Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
and from Alexander, P.H. et al (eds) (1999) The SBL Handbook of Style
for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Peabody:
Hendrickson.
Authors and works omitted from both the OCD and the SBL Handbook
are notated in full. Other works include:
Brenton, L.C.L. (1851) The Septuagint with Apocrypha. Peabody:

Hendrickson.
Danby, H. (1933) The Mishnah. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Elliot, J.K. (ed.) (1993) The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clar-
endon Press.
Grimm-Thayer (1879) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
London: Forgotten Books.
Louw, J.P. & (1988) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Nida, E.A. (eds) based on Semantic Domains. New York: American Bible
Society.
UBS (1971) United Bible Societies A Concise Greek-English
Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft.
TDNTW Verbrugge, V.D. (ed.) (2000). The NIV Theological
Dictionary of New Testament Words. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Ancient texts are taken from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise
indicated and with the following additions:
Herodotus Rawlinson, G. (1996) Histories. Ware: Wordsworth

Classics.
viii Abbreviations
Homer Hammond, M. (1987) Iliad. London: Penguin.
Lattimore, R. (1951) Iliad. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lattimore, R. (1975) Odyssey. New York: HarperCollins.
Shewring, W. (1980) Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Justin Martyr Falls, T. (1948) Dialogue with Trypho. Washington: The

Catholic University of America Press.
Juvenal Rudd, N. (1992) The Satires. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Livy De Sélincourt, A. (1960) The Early History of Rome.
London: Penguin.
Tacitus Grant, M. (1989) Annals. London: Penguin.
English translations of the Bible are taken from the NRSV unless otherwise
indicated.
Introduction
My preliminary thoughts on this topic emerged during research on the

apostle Paul and particularly on his various statements in 1 Corinthians 15.
There—the longest chapter in the Pauline corpus—the apostle engages with
a number of Corinthian interlocutors over what appears to be sharply dif-
fering opinions of the afterlife. The apostle insists that his prior teaching is
of “first importance” (15.3), that Christ died and was buried, that he was
raised and appeared to many people–including key figures of the nascent
Christ-movement, and finally, that he appeared to Paul himself. Yet, the apos-
tle is perplexed as to why, when Christ was preached as raised from the dead,
some of the Corinthians now assert that there is no resurrection of the dead.
Indeed, Paul affirms that if this is the case, then his ministry among them has
been in vain and the faith of the Corinthians is actually worthless.
The narrative of 1 Corinthians 15 proceeds to questions surrounding the
manner of the resurrection and the kind of body that will be involved, and
this is answered by an extensive Pauline discourse on the very fabric of the
resurrection. Here, the apostle turns the discussion to speak of seeds, grain,
and wheat, and then the flesh of men, beasts, birds, and fish. He moves
on to articulate the resurrection in terms of heavenly and earthly bodies,
of the glory of the sun, moon, and stars, all of which are somehow linked
to the resurrection of the dead (v. 42). His central argument begins here,
and in a series of balanced antitheses, employs the language of perishable/
imperishable, dishonour/glory, and weakness/power, before arriving at his
point of focus, that the natural body is buried and from it is raised a spir-
itual body. The Adam/Christ typology makes this explicit: the first man,
Adam, came from the earth; the last man, Christ, is from heaven, a life-giving
spirit. Paul sees this as paradigmatic for Christ-believers in that those who
have borne the image of the earthly will also bear the image of the heav-
enly (v. 49). How much of this was understood, or if understood actually
accepted by Paul’s Corinthian conversation partners is uncertain; he himself
concludes the discourse by describing it in terms of a “mystery” (v. 51).
If an attempt to explicate 1 Corinthians 15 was the starting point for
this project, then the direction was quite clear: to ascertain firstly, the
framework of afterlife belief from Paul’s Greco-Roman interlocutors at
2 Introduction
Corinth, and secondly, to probe the same framework of belief held by the
apostle through exploring those texts which must have been most cen-
tral and influential to him: the Hebrew Bible and the subsequent wealth
of writings from the period of Second Temple Judaism. Once this was
accomplished attention could then turn back to Paul himself and other
writings of the New Testament, as well as a brief but hopefully concise
analysis of some of the key relevant texts of the early church. In doing
so, this would help to plot the direction of post-Biblical thought on the
afterlife which is still very influential in the modern period. In what fol-
lows, terms such as soul, spirit, or shade, within both Greco-Roman and
Jewish-Christian contexts, will refer to that aspect of post-mortem ‘exis-
tence’ which is non-physical.
Like many, my own initial perceptions on Greco-Roman and Jewish con-
structs of the afterlife may have been typical of most. The Greeks and Romans
placed emphasis on the notion of the immortal soul which, on death, finally
escaped the malevolent bonds of the physical body and ascended to be fixed
eternally in the heavens. In sharp contrast, Jewish literature saw the impor-
tance of the physical body and held to an anthropology, including an escha-
tological anthropology, of holding the body and soul firmly together. Even
contemporary modules taught at university level on Biblical anthropology
will typically lay emphasis on the importance within the Biblical tradition
of both body and soul and extend such importance to post-mortem exis-
tence. Hence, Jewish constructs of the afterlife are generally taught within a
framework which insists on the presence of both body and soul. However,
the argument will be made here that both of these hypotheses are in need
of re-evaluation for, in some senses, the reverse is true: the Greeks placed
emphasis on the afterlife, for the resurrected hero, of an immortal physical
body, while texts from the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism focus
their attention on the afterlife of the soul alone. Such an assertion immedi-
ately then raises questions and implications for readings of the afterlife in
Paul, the later New Testament, and the early church.
This proposal will inform the framework for this book. Chapter 1 will
begin with an analysis of the Greco-Roman context of afterlife with par-
ticular interest, as the title of this work makes clear, on the body and soul
in antiquity. Within the traditions of the ancient Greeks, and despite the
musings of Homer on the ‘shades’ of the underworld, modern perspec-
tives of Greek constructs of the afterlife typically stem rather from Platonic
thought which asserted belief in an eternal soul and an afterlife existence in
some form of astral immortality. Hence, it is commonly believed that Greek
post-mortem thought largely neglected the body. Yet, analysis of the central
texts prior to Plato, together with a re-evaluation of the on-going influence
of these by the time of the first century CE, will begin to overturn many of
these assumptions and will assert the enduring importance in Greek thought
of the afterlife of the physical body. The Greek belief in the necessity of
an immortalized physical post-mortem existence, found in many key and
Introduction 3
influential Greek myths, remained influential well into the early Christian
period. The recent work of Dag Øistein Endsjø will also inform this chapter.
Chapter 2 will move on to an analysis of the Hebrew Bible and the key
passages there, but will also include examination of some of the relevant
texts from the apocrypha. While many note the emphasis in the Hebrew
Bible on the afterlife of the post-mortem soul alone, it is also insisted upon
that ancient Israelite thought did make room for afterlife scenarios which
included the resurrection of the earthly physical body. For such scholars,
special attention is given to the late texts of Isaiah 26, Daniel 12, and Eze-
kiel 37. These are frequently cited as the key Hebrew Bible passages which
are unambiguous in their proclamation of a physically resurrected body.
But as will be shown, such texts are open to multivalent readings and many
traditional interpretations appear to be unsafe, while alternative ones may
be more reasonable. The broader social context of these chapters is vital
and will play an important part in the reading and evaluation of these texts.
Chapter 3 will proceed to an analysis of the literature of Second Temple
Judaism and, as will be shown there, this is the point at which, for the first
time in Jewish literature, there is a differentiation of the souls of the righ-
teous and wicked after death. Those of the righteous proceed to a place of
blessing while those of the wicked head to a place of torment. At the same
time, it will be argued that, for the majority of these texts, there is little or no
role in the existence of a post-mortem physical body. Even for those passages
which purportedly assert the presence of some kind of ‘physical’ existence
at a final eschatological reordering, there are also points of ambiguity and
possibilities of alternative readings. Some of the central texts which pur-
port to speak of the afterlife of the resurrected earthly body—for example,
2 Maccabees, Josephus, and 2 Baruch—will be given special attention.
Chapter 4 will remain within a broad framework of Jewish literature and
will discuss the scrolls of the Dead Sea community and the later rabbinic
literature. The community which produced the scrolls may have been some-
what sectarian in nature but their influence may not have been insignificant,
especially around Jerusalem, and the scrolls themselves offer a vital window
on Second Temple Jewish thought. The rabbinic literature is included to
offer trajectories beyond Paul and the later New Testament, and will help to
frame the broader Jewish and rabbinic context within which Paul and those
later writers perhaps found themselves.
Chapter 5 presents an investigation of the key texts of the Pauline corpus,
with particular attention given to 1 Corinthians 15. It will also include var-
ious analyses of the apostle himself from a number of social-scientific per-
spectives. Some of this chapter may be controversial, but it is written in the
spirit of a simple desire not only to understand Pauline thought more clearly,
but also to understand the personal conflicts and tensions which appear to
have accompanied or indeed beset his ministry. In addition, of course, it is
done in order to understand more perceptibly his relationship with the Cor-
inthians and his conversation partners in 1 Corinthians 15. Having done so,
4 Introduction
reflection on what his writings can tell us about his thoughts on the afterlife
will hopefully become clearer. This chapter will also include similar delib-
eration on the ‘pillars’ of the early Christ-movement, for Paul’s relationship
with them informs a broader understanding of the apostle himself and his
life and work. The chapter will argue that Paul is consistent within Second
Temple Judaism of positing the afterlife as concerned essentially with the
soul and not the body.
Chapter 6 will move from the Pauline corpus to the writings of the
later New Testament, where it will be argued that these—especially the
Gospels—present a very different picture on the post-mortem nature of
Christ in their emphasis on the importance of the physical body. The role
of Luke will be highlighted as having a key role in this regard and of set-
ting a precedent within the early church for a model of Christ’s resurrec-
tion which insisted upon, in some form, his physical earthly body (replete
with the scars related to his crucifixion). As such, Luke stands somewhat
in tension with Pauline thought. This chapter will also outline the vital role
that Gentile conversion and entry into the early Christ-movement played
in the transformation of constructs of the afterlife. Here, neophyte Greeks
and Romans, for whom both body and soul played an essential part in the
resurrection and immortalization of the hero—for Luke, of course, this is
Christ—brought a new perspective on the afterlife. It will be further argued
that it was this Greco-Roman construct of afterlife, outlined in Chapter 1,
which re-directed the emphasis of the importance of the soul alone, found
in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and the apostle Paul, into one
more attuned to earlier Greek traditions on the importance of a resurrected
physical body. Hence, it is the writing of Luke which is the pivotal turning
point in afterlife constructs for the early church and which have persisted
into the modern period.
Analysis of the literature of the Church Fathers is found in Chapter 7,
where it will be argued that these illustrate an increasing determination to
insist upon the post-mortem form of Christ’s soul and body. Indeed, this
becomes a point of theological orthodoxy to the extent that alternative views,
including those denying the resurrection of the body and insisting on the
resurrection of the soul alone, are castigated to the point of being declared
heretical. This chapter will also detail some of the literary and theological
‘battles’ which persisted through the first few centuries CE before the emer-
gence of a theological orthodoxy which insisted upon Christ’s post-mortem
form being both body and soul. This has now been the orthodox Christian
view for some sixteen-hundred years.
Chapter 8 will take a slightly different perspective to what has gone before
and focus specifically upon the category of ‘hell’ in Christian literature, from
the period of the Old Testament up to the Medieval era. Obviously, in many
senses, it overlaps what has gone before but it is a vital topic, one only briefly
touched on here, which has pastoral as well as theological implications. The
chapter will outline the ideological emergence of a tortuous afterlife from
Introduction 5
its beginnings in Second Temple Judaism to its dominance in the medieval
period. In this latter period, a singular truth bound together almost everyone
alive in late medieval Europe: unconditional and total belief in Christianity,
and with it, concepts of heaven and an eternal torment in hell.
It is hoped that new and fresh readings of many texts related to the
afterlife will emerge in what follows and that the apologetic or polemical
thrust of what has emerged as theologically orthodox, either in the nature
of post-mortem existence or the category of ‘hell’ will be clear. As notions

of afterlife and an eternal tortuous hell are, in some senses, ideological con-
structs, what follows will have pastoral implication which will be evaluated
in the conclusion.
1 Afterlife in Antiquity
Post-Mortem Existence in its
Greco-Roman Context
Average life expectancy in the ancient Greco-Roman world was very low.
Statistics from tombstones show that death occurred around the age of
twenty-three years for men and twenty years for women; just forty percent
reached that age and only fifty percent of children survived to their tenth
birthday (Horsley 1983; Wiedermann 1989: 15). General illness was the pri-
mary cause of this (Bolt 1998: 59). So, the average ancient Greek or Roman
died young and ill, and death was a ubiquitous feature of Greco-Roman
life. Walter Burkert notes that such a social environment led to considered
reflection on the afterlife in all periods of antiquity and that there are three
significant stages in the development of the afterlife amongst the ancient
Greeks: the archaic period, the age of Homer, and the later Hellenistic period
influenced by Plato (Bernstein 1993; Burkert 1985).1
Firstly, in archaic Greek thought, the dead were considered to exist as
wispy, smoke-like shadows either in their tombs or under their homes and
were a force to be reckoned with for the living: positive if kept content, but
destructive otherwise.2 As such they had to be placated with offerings of
food and drink for, on the one hand, they were thought to be able to take
vengeance on others, and yet on the other, they had the ability to heal the
sick or even resurrect the dead.3 The ancestor cult was particularly import-
ant in this regard, for a dead ancestor buried under a home remained part of
the extended family and could protect both home and family, or one buried
in a field was thought to have the power to guard that field during its fallow
year (Hallote 2001: 29–35). The reason for their influence was their liminal
‘power’ as they existed, in some senses, between the worlds of the dead and
the living. Yet, in archaic Greek thought the yuxh/4 (psyche), the soul or ‘life’
of a person, was also considered a form of material substance and may have
been thought of in a comparable way to air or aether, but which was still in
some way ‘material.’ As Gregory Riley notes, “No concept of immateriality
yet existed in Greece, even the gods had bodies and could, for example,
engage in sexual relations with humans or be wounded in battle” (Riley
1995: 28, citing Hom. Il. 5.330–62; and see Renehan 1979).
The second stage in the development of thoughts on the afterlife is that
dominated by Homer who remained of supreme influence well into the
Afterlife in Antiquity 7
Roman period. His significance in later Greco-Roman life and culture is
adequately summed up by Moses Finley (1977: 15):
No other poet, no other literary figure in all history for that matter,
occupied a place in the life of his people such as Homer’s. He was their
pre-eminent symbol of nationhood, the unimpeachable authority on
their earliest history, and a decisive figure in the creation of their pan-
theon, as well as their most beloved and most widely quoted poet. Plato
(Republic 606E) tells us that there were Greeks who firmly believed
that Homer ‘educated Hellas and that he deserves to be taken up as an
instructor in the management and culture of human affairs, and that a
man ought to regulate the whole of his life by following this poet.’5
For Homer, the departed soul leaves the body sometimes from a mortal
wound or more often simply by being breathed out of the mouth near death,
whereupon it departs for the miserable and shadowy world of Hades. Here, it
exists as an ‘image’ (ei1dwlon) and Hades is the destination for the souls of all
people (almost without exception), and from which there is no return. Here,
souls simply “flit about like shadows” (Od. 10.495). That said, in Homeric
thought, and comparable with earlier reflection, it is the ‘material’ attributes
of the soul that are of some import, for the yuxh/ was an image of the person
to the extent that it moved and spoke like the living being (Bremmer 1983:
73). It was also the life force of the body, for on the departure of the yuxh/ the
physical body died. Some key relevant Homeric texts include the statement
of Achilles to his friends, “The soul of a man does not return again, neither
by being carried off nor seized, after it has crossed the barrier of his teeth”
(Il. 9.408–409); or when Achilles speaks to Priam after the death of his son
Hector, “for there is nothing to be gained from grief for your son; you will
never bring him back” (Il. 24.550).6 On Hector’s own death, Homer con-
firms that his yuxh/ had departed to Hades: “Even as he thus spake the end of
death enfolded him and his soul fleeting from his limbs was gone to Hades,
bewailing her fate, leaving manliness and youth” (Il. 22.362).7
In Hades, life of a sort persists, and memory too, much to the chagrin
of the departed.8 In the Odyssey, Odysseus is permitted to descend into
Hades to speak with Achilles and attempts to encourage the departed hero:
“Formerly, in your lifetime, we Argives used to honour you equally with
the gods, and now that you are here you exercise great power over the
dead. Do not grieve about it, Achilles, now that you are dead.” The reply of
Achilles is illuminating: “Do not make light of death to me, noble Odysseus.
I would rather be on earth a serf to a landless man, with small enough living
for himself, than act as king over all these dead men who have perished”
(Od. 11.484–91).9 The Greeks may have at times employed the concept
of the dead rising up, but for the vast majority this was only a rhetorical
absurdity—the dead remained in Hades.10 Only for a very select few was
there a place of peace and blessing after death in such places as the Elysium
fields or the Isles of the Blessed. The Greek king Menelaus was said to dwell
in Elysium (Od. 4.565), and the heroes of Thebes and Troy dwelt on the Isles
of the Blessed (Hesiod, Opera et Dies 166). And yet, there are some elements
of ambiguity in Homeric thought, for while Odysseus can meet the shade
(ei1dwlon) of Hercules on his journey to the underworld, the ‘real’ Hercules
is at the same time feasting with the immortal gods (Od. 11.601–27).11
Within a Homeric perspective the transition of the yuxh/ to Hades takes
place only after the proper funerary rites have taken place and the soul
remains in a liminal state before this is completed, often near the body (Brem-
mer 1983: 123).12 Patroclus, for example, begs Achilles to perform the burial
ritual for him so that he can cross the boundary river into the underworld:
You sleep, Achilleus; you have forgotten me; but you were not careless
of me when I lived, but only in death. Bury me quickly as may be, let
me pass through the gates of Hades. The souls, the images of dead men,
hold me at a distance, and will not let me cross the river and mingle
among them, but I wander as I am by Hades’ house of the wide gates.
And I call upon you in sorrow, give me your hand; no longer shall
I come back from death, once you give me the rite of burning. [Achilles]
with his own arms reached for him but could not take him, but the spirit
went underground like vapour, with a thin cry. [Achilles laments] Oh,
Wonder! Even in the house of Hades there is left something, a soul and
an image, but there is no real heart of life in it.
(Il. 23.65–107)
On the death of Achilles, the bones of the two friends would share a com-
mon grave and the soul of Achilles, too, would descend into the dismal and
murky darkness of Hades (Il. 23.83). On Odysseus’ descent to the under-
world, the first person to speak with him is his friend Elpenor, whose body
was still unburied at the time, due to which he still belonged to the special
category of the abnormal dead (Od. 11.38–41). Elpenor urges Odysseus to
bury his body for failure to do so could bode ill for Odysseus: “Leave me not
behind thee unwept and unburied as thou goest thence, and turn not away
from me, lest haply I bring the wrath of the gods upon thee” (Il. 11.71–74).
Yet, within the broader literature of the period there is another post-mortem
scenario for a very select few: those superlative Greek heroes who became
immortalized like the Olympians, and what is assumed in such cases is that
the yuxh/ never actually left the body (Collins 1997: 92). As Stephen Bedard
notes, this elevation to immortal life among the gods after his/her death, “was
an important theme in Greek literature,” and although the original earthly
physical body need not itself be relocated to heaven, if not, the newly apothe-
osized individual dwelt in some form of a god-like body (2008: 181).13 Vigdis
Songe-Møller articulates this well:
The Greeks were familiar with the conception that eternal existence
includes bodily existence. Or perhaps rather: that there are bodies which
live forever [. . .] namely the bodies belonging to gods and to very spe-
cial humans, whom the gods decided to give the status of immortals.
A transformation of mortals into immortals actually required a bodily
transformation, a transformation from a mortal human body to an
immortal divine body.
(2009: 114, italics his)
He goes on to note that the philosophical or anthropological dualism

between body and soul found in later Platonic thought is absent from ear-
lier Greek mythological thinking, and rather, the only dualism that exists is
the distinction of two kinds of bodies: human and divine. Likewise, Stanley
Porter argues that the Greeks had a “significant tradition of bodily res-
urrection that has been neglected in discussion of the resurrection in the
New Testament [. . .] there is a strong tradition of contemplation of the
soul’s destiny in the afterlife, along with examples of bodily resurrection”
(1999: 53, 68).
THE INFLUENCE OF PLATO
Burkert’s third and final stage in Greek thought on the afterlife is the period
dominated by Plato which includes a progression towards astral immortality
and a generally more positive experience of life after death for most. The
changes in Greek reflection, towards a framework of thought that moderns
are more familiar with, begin in the writings of Pythagoras (Davies 1999:
135),14 Pindar,15 Orphism,16 Socrates, and culminate in the work of Plato,
in which the soul was considered to be both immaterial and in some senses
the true vehicle for human identity (Riley 1995: 32).17 Platonic philosophy
considered the soul to originate in the heavenly realm and to be trapped or
imprisoned in an earthly body where the two were in tension to the point of
being enemies. Plato writes:
When the soul and the body are joined together, nature directs the one to
serve and be ruled, and the other to rule and be master. The divine is by
nature fitted to rule and lead, and the mortal to obey and serve [. . .] the
soul is most like the divine and immortal and intellectual and uniform
and indissoluble and ever unchanging, and the body, on the contrary,
most like the human and mortal and multiform and unintellectual and
dissoluble and ever changing.
(Phaedo 79e-80b)
Plato argues that if the soul is left alone to inquire of its own accord
(through the pursuit of wisdom or philosophy), then on death it departs to
the realm of the pure, the everlasting and the immortal, but when it makes
use of the body for inquiry (through the senses), it wanders about “confused
and dizzy like a drunken man” (Phaedo 79c-d). Hence, on death, the good
soul departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, because it never
willingly associated with the body in life, but avoided it and so proceeds
to another place, like itself, noble, pure and invisible; i.e., to the realm of
the gods (Phaedo 80c-e).18 Yet, if the soul is defiled and impure, because it
cared for and loved the body and was fascinated by its desires and pleasures
so that it thought nothing was true except the corporeal, after death such
a soul is weighed down and dragged back into the visible world where it
flits around tombs. (From the perspective of the living, this is why shadowy
shapes of souls can been seen around graveyards.)19 These are the souls
of the wicked, compelled to flutter about such places as a punishment for
their former evil way of life. And they do so until through the desire of the
corporeal which clings to them they are again imprisoned in a body which
corresponds to their former life. So, the glutton, violent, and drunkard pass
into the bodies of asses and other beasts, and those choosing injustice, tyr-
anny, and robbery pass into the bodies of wolves, hawks, and kites.20 Plato
asserts that those who truly love wisdom refrain from all bodily desires and
resist them firmly. The alternative is that the soul, fastened and welded to
the body, regards reality through the body and wallows in utter ignorance
and the lusts of the flesh. It can never depart in purity to the other world,
but must always be contaminated by it, sinking quickly into another body
and growing into it. So, it has no part in the communion with the divine
(Phaedo 81b-84b).
In the work Gorgias, Plato provides a different perspective on the after-
life. The soul is judged, and proceeds one of two ways: the righteous
depart to the Isles of the Blessed, while the wicked soul departs to Tarta-
rus where it endures fitting punishment. Here, the wicked soul is given a
mark to show whether it is deemed curable or not, and hence for some,
such punishments are remedial, but for others who are incurable through
extreme wrong, they suffer fearful torment in an infernal dungeon (Gorg.
526b-d). Plato also notes that the soul retains the scars of its former
existence (Gorg. 524–25)–a theme which is found on vases of the period,
where the dead are regularly shown with their wounds, sometimes still
bandaged (Bremmer 1983: 83). Elsewhere, according to Plato’s Myth of
Er, recounted at the end of his Republic, on death all souls proceed to
the underworld where they are rewarded or punished according to pre-
vious behaviour while on earth. Following judgement, the soul of the
righteous gradually ascends to the heavenly realm to join the company
of the gods, while that of the wicked is punished for a thousand years
and then enters the body of an animal in its next reincarnation (Bedard
2008: 174–89; Dunderberg 2013: 250; Wright 2000: 114). In general
then, Platonic thought on the afterlife is somewhat mixed. This is noted
by Francis Glasson:
In the Gorgias, all souls are judged in the underworld, the evil remain
there for punishment; the righteous go to the isles of the blessed. In the
Phaedo, the pure dwell on the upper parts of the earth. The Republic
(book 10) gives the fullest account [. . . for] when the righteous are ready
for their next incarnation they are described as descending pure ‘from
heaven.’ Similarly in the Phaedrus a heavenly place is spoken of. If we
examine Plato’s dialogues in order of writing, we observe a continual
upward movement as far as his conceptions of the souls of the righteous
are concerned; they spend the intermediate periods in the Isles of the
blessed—then in later accounts on the upper parts of the earth—and in

the latest of all in heaven. The evil are throughout thought of as spend-
ing these periods below.
(1961: 35–36)21
THE ROMAN PERIOD
In the Roman period, reflection on the afterlife was largely a continuation of

that of the Greeks, but it also illustrates the increasing influence of Platonic
thought as well as the rising influence of some of the newer philosophies
(including various agnostic thoughts). Interestingly, there was also a sharp
critique of Platonic philosophy. One of the major works of the period is
Virgil’s Aeneid (written c. 29–19 BCE), which followed that of Homer’s
Odyssey in narrating the hero’s descent into the underworld in order to
speak with numerous lost relatives, friends, and various others.22 Here, like
Homer, the dead bear the stigmata of their previous lives. Hector’s ghost, for
instance, shows the horrendous disfiguration of his encounter with Achilles,
and Ovid too recounts the tale of Eurydice, the wife of Orpheus, who is
seen limping around Hades due to the snake bite to the ankle which killed
her.23 The wicked dead are also whipped to make atonement for their sins
(Aen. 6.467–58). So, the underworld of Hades remains the dwelling place
for most, even for many of the fallen heroes.
At the same time, the influence of Platonic thought is regularly observed.
Cicero, for example, held to ideas of the immortal soul from both Pythago-
ras and Plato, and notes:
As long as we remain within these bodily frames of ours, we are under-

going a heavy labour imposed upon us by fate. For our human souls
have come into our bodies from heaven: they have been sent down
from their lofty abode and plunged, so to speak, into the earth, which
is alien to their divine and eternal nature. As I believe, the reason why
the immortal gods implanted souls in human beings was to provide
the earth with guardians who should reflect their contemplation of the
divine order in the orderly discipline of their own lives.24
Cicero’s Dream of Scipio argues that the Romans of his day (first century
BCE), imagined that those who lived a noble life would be rewarded with an
eternal home in the heavens (Wright 2000: 114). Yet, not all agreed. Seneca
sees only two possible proposals for post-mortem existence: annihilation,
or the disembodied existence of the Stoic Logos that lies at the heart of life.
He proposes that no-one should wish to return to a bodily life since it is the
source of all ills:
Behold, this clogging burden of a body to which nature has chained me!
“I shall die,” you say. You mean to say, “I shall cease to run the risk of
sickness; I shall cease to run the risk of imprisonment; I shall cease to
run the risk of death.” [. . .] Death either annihilates us or strips us bare.
If we are then released, what remains is the better part after the burden
has been removed. If we are annihilated, nothing remains; good and bad
alike are removed.
(Ep. 24.18)25
However, the thoughts of both were ridiculed by other philosophers. Lucian

of Samosata mocked general Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods and death
and in Epicurean thought there was an outright repudiation of the concept
of individual post-mortem survival. “Death” wrote the epicurean Lucretius
in the first century BCE, “is nothing to us and no concern of ours, since the
nature of the mind is now held to be mortal.” He dismissed the Platonic
concept of the immortal soul, insisting that it was impossible to separate the
body from the “soul” or “vita spirit.”26
Yet, one must also recognize in the period that there were also tales of the
dead being brought back to bodily life, and such ideas will play an important
part in the rest of this chapter and the overall thesis. P.G. Bolt writes:
Pliny was aware of such reports but explained them as premature diag-
noses of death (Hist. Nat. 7.51–52). He also knew of cases of persons
appearing after burial. Mythology provided several examples of resus-
citation and the eschatological myths of Plato (Respubica 10.614B) and
Plutarch (De Sera Numinis Vindicta 563FF.) each had characters who
underwent “resurrections” that enabled them to speak of their other
worldly journeys.
(1998: 72)
Such accounts, which draw on traditions which are pre-Plato, remained

influential and appear to have been not an insignificant part of Roman
reflection on the afterlife (albeit that there were multivalent readings of
various afterlife scenarios). Romulus, for example, apparently ascended to
heaven and was deified, the evidence for which is the assertion by the senator
Julius Proculus that the physically glorified Romulus had appeared to him
(Ovid, Metam. 14.805–51; Fast. 2.481–509). Yet, Livy writes of varying
accounts that Romulus disappeared in a storm and was later declared a
god, or in others that he was killed by senators (Hist. 1.16). Hercules, too,
was said to have died and burned on a funeral pyre and afterwards taken to
heaven and glorified (Bullfinch 1959: 122–23). But other tales narrate that
after donning an enchanted robe he died and his soul ascended to heaven
(Rouse 1957: 70). Aeneas also, having disappeared following a battle, was
said to have joined the gods (Habermas 1989: 168). Finally, Asclepius was
apparently killed by Zeus but was brought back to life and placed among
the stars, or in other tales, joined the gods (Bullfinch 1959: 106; Rouse 1957:
87). This is also the case with tales of the heroes who return from the dead
(cf. the apotheoses of Romulus, Julius Caesar, and Augustus).
RESURRECTION AND THE ROLE OF THE BODY

IN GRECO-ROMAN THOUGHT
What remains of this chapter will detail the recent work of Dag Øistein
Endsjø (2008, 2009) whose studies on the afterlife within a Greco-Roman
context have highlighted some interesting perspectives on the broader liter-
ature of the period, particularly with relevance to the body.27 He notes that
in early Greek reflection, the celebration of the body was a key aspect of
Greek culture and is well documented through healing cults, athletics, and
general religious activity (Endsjø, 2009: 22, 24). Death for the Greeks, in all
periods, was construed as the soul’s separation from the body and is evident
in Homer, Plato, and elsewhere.28 Endsjø notes, as highlighted above, that
the disembodied soul seen in Homer was never identified with the whole
person but only one’s shadow (ei1dwlon), and that the “eternal existence of
the soul without the body was nothing to look forward to” (2009: 26).29
Further, as noted, the condition of the body at death would foreshadow the
state of one’s bodiless existence in Hades.30 However, of vital importance for
Endsjø is that immortality was the “continuous union of body and soul [. . .]
a fundamentally physical state [. . .] a continued physical existence” (2009:
39, italics his). The immortal gods, for instance, had physical bodies, to the
extent that they could be physically wounded. Yet, this flesh was not only
incorruptible but apparently impossible to annihilate.31
Endsjø also argues that in Greek thought the mortal children of the
gods were not novel, and that the notion of an immortalized body was not
unknown to the Greeks. Hence, a son of the gods may walk the earth, die
(and so in some sense disappear from the mortal world), and then be made
immortal in the body. An example of this is observed following the death
of Achilles when his mother (the goddess Thetis) snatched his body from
the funeral pyre and took it to the ends of the earth.32 Here, Achilles was
brought back to life and achieved immortal life in the body. Importantly,
Endsjø notes:
The oldest version of this story was found in the Aethiopis, the lost work
of the eighth-century BCE epic poet Arctinus, of which today we only
have a late antique summary (Proclus, Chrest. 2). One must be aware
that this version does not harmonize with Homer, where Odysseus met
the dead and disembodied soul of Achilles in Hades (Od. 11.465–540).
There were, however, few who followed Homer’s version of Achilles’
eternal fate, in spite of his usually absolute authority [. . .] Important
classical authors like Simonides, Pindar and Euripides all repeated Arct-
inus’s tale of how Achilles was translated to the end of the earth to live
an eternal life there.

(2008: 42333)
In this sense the disappearance of a body may imply that such a person had
become an immortal god (2008: 425). Endsjø notes that “Everyone who
achieved immortality was at the same time transferred away from the ordi-
nary geographic realm of mortals” (2009: 78).
The concept of immortal flesh is a vital point. Certainly, there are numer-
ous tales in Greek literature describing how it was possible to return to
mortal life after death, but such people were brought back to mortal life,
either returning to their previous existence or dying again soon after being
resurrected; they were not permanently altered after being raised, nor did
they gain physical immortality (Endsjø 2009: 49–51). What particularly
interests Endsjø are those Greek myths where some were resurrected and
immortalized to be with the gods forever, and what is important in these
instances is that it is specifically the body which is immortalized, allowing
such mortals to exist in an “eternal union of body and soul” (2009: 57).
Examples of mortals dying and being resurrected to immortal bodily life
include Asclepius, Hercules, Memnon, Alcmeme, Melicertes, Castor, Mene-
laus, Dionysus, Rhesus, Hector, and others (2008: 424–25). Alexander the
Great and even Nero, in popular belief, were in some senses, thought to
have been ‘resurrected.’ Some of these examples may repay closer examina-
tion. Asclepius, for instance, was originally mortal, the offspring of Apollo
and a mortal woman (the identity of whom varies),34 and who was such a
proficient healer that he began to upset the numerical balance between the
number of mortals and gods. After apparently bringing Hippolytus back
from the dead for a fee of gold and thus demonstrating that death could be
reversed, Hades, the god of the underworld, complained to his brother Zeus,
who struck and killed Asclepius with a thunderbolt of lightning.35 Asclepius
then ascended to heaven and was immortalized to become a god, henceforth
having an incorruptible body of flesh and bones. Understandably, he was
then a very popular deity of the classical and Hellenistic periods with the
numbers of pilgrims visiting his shrine outnumbering those of any other
place in antiquity (Endsjø 2009: 57).
In the case of Heracles, as noted above, Homer writes that while his
ei1dwlon is in Hades, he himself is feasting among the immortal gods (Od.
11.601). In Sophocles, we find Heracles throwing himself on a funeral pyre
after being poisoned by a cloak containing the venom of the hydra, and
Pseudo-Apollodorus tells us that when he was about to die on the pyre, “a
cloud passed under Hercules and with a peal of thunder wafted him up to
heaven [. . .] therefore he obtained immortality” (Bibliotheca 2.7.7). For
the writer Euripides, the mother of Heracles was consoled by the fact that
“your son has taken his place in heaven, old woman,” for he had “departed
from the earth” and now “dwells in heaven,” living “in the company of the
gods.”36 Many other writers of antiquity assert both that he was born a man
and yet that he was resurrected and turned into a god.37 A number of vase
paintings of antiquity provide further artistic detail of the immortalization
of Heracles. Some depict the hero mounting a chariot led by a goddess.
Others depict Athena taking Heracles to dwell with the gods, while still oth-
ers show him as a “deified mortal in the company of other gods.”38 Endsjø
writes:
The late fifth-century B.C. Cadmus Painter gives us one of the most
detailed depictions of this deification. Here we see the funeral pyre still
burning with nothing among the firewood but the empty armor of Her-
acles. Heracles himself, his body of flesh and bones, is instead being
translated away in the chariot of Athena. The empty armor along with
the unscathed Heracles together with Athena emphasize that no part of
the body of Heracles is to be found in the fire, that he is really departing
for Olympus with both body and soul.
(2009: 59)
The tale is similar to that of Achilles, son of the mortal Peleus and the god-
dess Thetis, whose body was snatched away from the funeral pyre by Thetis
and carried away to the ends of the earth (variously, Leuce, the Elysian
Plain, or the Islands of the Blessed). Ancient writers asserted that Achilles
now lived forever, by which they mean that his dead body was resurrected
and physically immortalized. A further parallel is seen in the tale of Mem-
non, son of the mortal Trojan prince Tithomus and Eos, the goddess of
dawn. Slain outside the gates of Troy by Achilles, Eos beseeched Zeus who
then bestowed immortality on her son (Aethiopis in Proclus Chrestomathia
4.2.188–90). Vase reliefs depict Eos carrying the body of Memnon over the
seas to some remote place (perhaps Leuce or Elysium).39 The necessity of
the physical body in both myths is thus of crucial importance in such sce-
narios.40 Pausanias noted that he could enumerate other humans born at
the time of the wars at Thebes and Troy, “who are worshipped among the
Greeks as gods [. . .] in those days humans were changed to gods, who still
have honors paid to them” (Descr. 1.34.2; 8.2.4). Plutarch said the same:
Dionysus and Heracles were among “those deities who were born in a mor-
tal state and later changed into an immortal state [. . .] who through their
virtues were enabled to cast off mortality and suffering” (Pel. 16.5).
For Endsjø, “The idea that the soul could be immortal independently of
the body appears to have been completely unknown to most ancient Greeks”
(2009: 105). Rather, the dominant traditional thought was that immortality
always equated to a continuity of the psychosomatic unity of body and soul.
Such perspectives are rarely considered in Biblical scholarship (and thus
how this may reflect on Biblical purviews of the afterlife), and yet are not
unknown amongst classicists. Jan Bremmer, for example, notes that the idea
of an ‘independent’ immortal soul was a “relative latecomer” in the ancient
world (2002: 1). For Werner Jaeger, it was “a later product of the Greek
mind” (1958: 98) and for Simon Tugwell, something “which the Greeks
themselves regarded as foreign or at least esoteric” (1990: 14). Endsjø writes:
[Without] the body, the soul was quite simply dead. That most souls
were considered to have some form of eternal existence did not change
this. The soul was dead no matter where it was found and no matter
what degree of consciousness it was considered to have [. . .] Although
the idea of the immortal soul came to play a significant part in Greek
philosophy, one must realize just how much this idea was in contradic-
tion with traditional Greek beliefs. The very notion of immortality was
originally inseparably tied to the continued existence of the flesh [. . .]
disembodied souls that existed forever were generally considered dead
souls.
He cites Herodotus who regarded the notion of the soul’s immortality as

absurd and “intrinsically un-Greek,” claiming (incorrectly) that “the Egyp-
tians were the first to teach that the human soul is immortal, and at the
death of the body it enters into some other living thing then coming to birth”
(2008: 430; Hdt. 2.123). For Herodotus, such thoughts derived from the
Orphics whom he regarded as Egyptian or Pythagorean, and whom he con-
sidered to be not really Greek at all (Hdt. 2.81). In the second century CE,
Pausanias maintained that the doctrine derived from Chaldean and Indian
sages, arguing that these were the first to defend the notion that the soul is
immortal and that this had been followed by “some of the Greeks, and not
least Plato” (Descr. 4.32.4, italics mine). In the third century CE the philos-
opher Philostratus, who adhered to the doctrine of the soul’s immortality,
considered that it had reached the Greeks through the Egyptians and Indians
(Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 8.7.4). In this sense, those who advocated the immor-
tality of the soul “had to counter incredulity” (so, Endsjø 2009: 106 citing,
for example, Pl. Resp. 608d).
Interestingly, the origins of the concept of an immortal soul appear to
have been linked to that of a continued physical existence, even if this was
undertaken by the soul in a body which was not the original (in the sense of
metempsychosis or reincarnation, evidenced, for example, in Plato).41 Once
this connection was made, ideas of the soul’s inherent immortality indepen-
dent of the body began to be made. At the same time, the physical body grad-
ually came to be seen negatively, as something of which the immortal soul
was striving to be free. In the writings of the Orphics, for example: “the body
is an enclosure or prison in which the soul is incarcerated until [a] penalty is
paid” (Pl. Crat. 400c). For Socrates, the body is “a tomb” (Gorg. 493a), and
Plato argued that the soul is imprisoned by the body, and that enlightened
souls could look forward to the time of a bodiless existence (Phaedo 81d;
Phaedr. 250c). In this respect, Greek reflection on a soul which could achieve
divine nature by itself was “contrary to everything traditional Greek religion
had ever taught” and largely remained a minority perspective: “These new
ideas never penetrated to the masses. Pythagoras, Plato and the Orphics all
remained marginal figures” (Endsjø 2009: 109, citing Phaedo 82b-c). This
minority reflection also generated other changes, for the Olympians were
now considered to be bereft of bodies and the Isles of the Blessed, originally
reserved for those few who became physically immortal, became the home
for the soul alone (with other souls heading for Tartarus). Endsjø writes:
Although these more novel ideas moved the Greeks in the direction of
seeing the bodiless existence of the soul more positively, the convic-
tion that immortality must include the eternal union of soul and body
remained strong. That the soul existed forever in Hades did still not
mean it was immortal. That the disembodied soul according to some
could go to places like Elysium or the Isles of the Blessed was similarly
not necessarily connected with the immortality of the soul. While some
believed in the primacy of the soul, the majority apparently still consid-
ered the immortality of the disembodied soul a foreign import.
(2009: 114)
In terms of Platonic thought, as noted above, Endsjø recognizes that Plato

construes the soul as being held prisoner by the body (citing Crat. 400C;
Phaedo 81d-e, 82d-83d), and held to a metaphysic on the soul that became
influential in antiquity. Yet, Plato was neither widely read nor understood.
Plutarch, for example, wrote:
Plato wrote a book on the One Ideal Constitution, but because of its
forbidding character he could not persuade anyone to adopt it; but Alex-
ander [the Great] established more than seventy cities among savage
tribes, and sowed all Asia with Grecian magistracies, and thus overcame
its uncivilized and brutish manner of living. Although few of us read
Plato’s Laws, yet hundreds of thousands have made use of Alexander’s
laws, and continue to use them.
(Mor. 328e)
Such thoughts persisted even down to the third century CE, with Origen noting:
Few have been benefited (if they have indeed been benefited at all) by the
beautiful and polished style of Plato, and those who have written like
him; while, on the contrary, many have received advantage from those
who wrote and taught in a simple and practical manner, and with a view
to the wants of the multitude [. . .] It is easy, indeed, to observe that Plato
is found only in the hands of those who profess to be literary men.
(C. Cels. 6.2)
Hence, for centuries before and after the Common Era, the dominance of
Plato was not as assured as moderns like, or hope, to believe. Henry Chad-
wick observed that “Platonic metaphysics were the peculiar study of the
few, of an intellectual aristocracy” (1953: xi), and C.K. Barrett notes that
“Platonic ideas were probably unknown and without direct influence upon
a majority of the Greeks in the Hellenistic world” (1979: 95). In this sense,
Endsjø argues that both pre-Platonic Greek traditions and later traditions
which rejected Plato saw immortality to have been inseparably tied to an
incorruptible body:
Immortality was originally never used to describe the everlasting fate

of the soul. With their eternal bodiless existence the Homeric souls in
Hades were always defined as dead . . . the Greeks equated immortality
only with a continuous physical existence [. . .] The eternal existence
of the bodiless soul was not the same as immortality nor did it mean
an eternal life of the soul. It equalled an everlasting existence as a dead
soul. Originally, immortality and eternal life always meant an endless
existence of both body and soul. As immortality originally implied a
continued physical existence, the ‘immortal gods’ [. . .] were also con-
sidered to have physical bodies.
(2008: 428)
In summary, Greek reflection on the afterlife demonstrates distinct changes

from the Homeric period onwards. Within Homeric literature there were a
number of options for post-mortem existence: for the majority, eternity was
spent as a disembodied yet conscious soul in Hades (or possibly elsewhere
for some of the heroes); for those unfortunate enough to have no proper
funerary rites, the discontented soul existed in a liminal state (perhaps
flitting around graveyards); and for the very few, one could be physically
immortalized and transformed into a deity. Later Greek reflection added
supplementary options: the disembodied soul may find rest at the end of
the world (originally reserved for those who were immortalized, body and
soul); or the soul would be eternally reincarnated into a new body; or the
immortal soul would find rest in the heavens in what later became known
as astral immortality.42 Yet, as Endsjø notes, “the ancient notion of immortal
flesh still held strong attraction, and despite the frustration of pagan phi-
losophers like Plutarch and Christian apologists like Athenagoras over the
continued superstition of ‘the masses,’ these basic beliefs were still strong
when Christianity made its entrance” (2009: 120). Plutarch is of particular
interest as he held to the Platonic idea of the immortality of the soul and
appears to exhibit increasing frustration as to how the masses continued to
hold on to the principle that resurrection and subsequent immortalization
involved the flesh. Insisting that one “must not against nature send the bod-
ies of good people with their souls to heaven” and asserting that a fleshless
post-mortem existence was the ideal, he rejected all of the popular tales of
physical resurrection and immortalization. For him, only the soul has any
hope of reaching the divine sphere, “when it is most completely separated

and set free from the body, and becomes altogether pure, fleshless and unde-
filed.” Nevertheless, Plutarch also noted that the masses cared nothing for
such a philosophy (Plut. Rom. 27.8; 28.7–8).
During the early Christian period, the average Greek reflecting upon the
nature of Christ may well have located him within a conventional Greek
tradition: he walked the earth as a son of a god; he was originally mortal
(evidenced by the fact that he died on a cross); and the Christian tradition
itself that he was resurrected was evidence that he was made immortal by
the gods. Endsjø writes:
That Jesus died, was resurrected and became immortal, after which he
disappeared from the ordinary world, was in complete agreement with
a pattern we find repeatedly in the more general Greek tradition [. . .]
The Christian dogma that Christ had gained bodily incorruptibility
and immortality could therefore be seen by the Greek contemporaries
not only as a repetition of what many mythical and historical men and
women had already gone through, but also as a fate that was definitely
preferable to a future existence only involving the soul.
(2008: 423, 431)
In this sense, bodily continuity within this tradition was important, and
became central to Christian thought: Christ’s body was not left to rot and
decompose on either the cross, a common grave, or in a tomb; rather, the
immortalization of the body happened quickly, soon after death. The disap-
pearance of the body from the tomb is consistent within a Greek tradition
of the body being made incorruptible and transferred somewhere else for
a time. In the case of Christ, this bodily disappearance lasted for just a
short time before the risen Christ returned to earth on the third day with
an immortalized body. Within Greek reflection this is also consistent with
the fact that the legs of Christ were not broken, for his immortalized body
would have to suffer such an ailment forever. Yet, the fact of bodily continu-
ity before and after immortalization is evidenced by the wounds in his flesh
and the stigmata which would persist always. Hence, for Endsjø: “What
happened to Christ could seem not only strangely familiar but even plausible
to a Hellenistic audience” (2009: 63). From this perspective, one then fully
understands Justin Martyr when he writes: “[when we say] that he, Jesus
Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended
into heaven, we propose nothing new from what you believe about those
you consider sons of Zeus” (1 Apol. 21.1, italics mine).
Some of the above reflections will be important later in this work when
we begin to examine the post-resurrection scenarios of Christ from the per-
spectives of Paul, the Gospel writers, and later Christian traditions.
NOTES
1. Bernstein (1993), details the afterlife in Babylonia and ancient Egypt (pp. 1–18)
and, extensively, in Greek and Roman thought (pp. 21–129).
2. On the cult of the dead, see Yamuachi (1998) who notes that the dead were
sometimes buried underneath their own houses in a special section called the
“wing of the house” where they would be provided with food and drink and
where fresh water would be poured into a pipe that led down into the tomb
(p. 30).
3. The pouring of libations into a grave was an important feature in antiquity.
The Babylonians named the nether world “the field of thirst” (cf. Isa 5.13–14)
and see Tromp (1969: 192).
4. Cf. LSJ sv II: the departed soul, spirit, ghost.
5. The statistical evidence researched by Finley lends support to his claim and
is worth quoting in full (1977: 21), “The papyri of Egypt also make it abun-
dantly clear that, in the struggle for literary survival, Homer was without a
rival. Of all the scraps and fragments of literary works found in Egypt that had
been published by 1963, there are a total of 1,596 books by or about authors
whose names are identifiable. This figure represents individual copies, not sep-
arate titles. Of the 1,596, nearly one-half were copies of the Iliad or Odyssey,
or commentaries upon them. The Iliad outnumbered the Odyssey by about
three to one. The next most ‘popular’ author was the orator Demosthenes,
with 83 papyri (again including commentaries), followed by Euripides with
77, and Hesiod with 72. Plato is represented by but 42 papyri, Aristotle by 8.
These are figures of book copying among the Greeks in Egypt after Alexander
to be sure, but all the evidence indicated that they may be taken as fairly typical
of the Greek world generally. If a Greek owned any books—that is, papyrus
rolls—he was almost as likely to own the Iliad and Odyssey as anything from
the rest of Greek literature.” See also Marrou (1977: 162–63), who writes,
“The gigantic figure of Homer loomed on the horizon from primary-school
days. “Homer was not a man but a god” was one of the first sentences that
children copied down in their handwriting lessons.”
6. Cf. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1360, “I know no way to bring the dead back to
life by mere words;” Sophocles, Electra 137, “But never by weeping nor by
prayer will you resurrect your father from the pool of Hades which receives
all men.”
7. For a detailed analysis of the Homeric concept of the soul, see Bremmer (1983).
8. See further, Ferguson (1993: 228–34).
9. Cf. Il. 23.65–76, 99–107; 24.549–551; 24.756; Od. 24.5ff.
10. Hdt. 3.62; likewise see, Arist. De an. 1.406b.3–5; Ar. Eccl. 1073f.; Aesch. Ag.
565–9, 1019–24, 1360f.; Eum. 647f. (“Once a man has died, and the dust
has soaked up his blood, there is no resurrection”); Soph. El. 137ff.; Eur. Hel.
1285–7. Even in myth the dead were rarely allowed to rise—Apollo’s attempt
to bring a child back from the dead resulted in punishment of both by Zeus
(Pind. Pyth. 3.1–60).
11. More broadly on Homer’s Odyssey see Bernstein (1993: 23–33).
12. The soul of Patroclus is pictured close to his dead body on Greek vases of the
end of the sixth century BCE.
13. Here, Bedard cites Cotter (2001: 131). This theme also appears in the Roman
traditions, including the apotheosis of Romulus, Julius Caesar and Augustus
Caesar (see Cotter 2001: 133–46).
14. Bolt (1998: 69) notes that for Pythagoras the soul is released from the body at
death, with good souls flying to the upper realms and others being purged and/
or reincarnated, or simply hovering around the bodily realms (see, Diogenes
Laertius 8.31; Plato Phaedo 108A-C; Resp. 517B; 114B-C; Plutarch, De Sea
Numinis Vindicta 564Aff.).
15. Ol. 2.56–80; Frag. Dirg. 131 (96); and see Burkert (1985: 298f). (with notes).
16. The key texts remain Burkert (1985: ch. 6, 1987); Glasson (1961: 29–33);
Graf & Johnston (2013); and Guthrie (1950: 323–30); see also, Koester (1982:
176–83); Riley (1995: 30).
17. There were also other perspectives in the period; Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE)
spoke of the soul as perishing along with the body, so death, in a sense became
nothingness. Cf. Epicurus (342–271 BCE), Ad Menoeceum 124; Plutarch
Moralia 1103D, 1105A; Diogenes Laertius 10.139.
18. On Plato and the notion of astral immortality, see Bedard (2008: 181).
19. See, Plato, Phaedrus 81 C, D.
20. Phaedo 81E; Phaedrus 248–249; 265b-266a; and see Dunderberg (2013:
247–67). Perkins (1984: 38), notes that Plato’s use of anabiosis (come to life
again) in Phaedo 71c, refers to the soul’s entry into a new body.
21. He goes on to note that after Plato’s time the underworld is largely dismissed
altogether, yet recognizes that the old view of the righteous descending beneath
the ground after death still persisted. In Virgil both Tartarus and Elysium are
underground realms (Aeneid 6).
22. Riley (1995: 56), notes that Virgil employs the term corpora (bodies) in
Aeneid 6, “to describe the souls; the prevailing philosophic outlook of the
time held that the soul was a kind of finely particled material ‘body.’ ”
23. Aeneid 2.272–73, 277–79; cf. Aeneas description of his comrade Deiphobus,
whose body had been mutilated by Menelaus and the Greeks, “A mass of
wounds, most horribly mangled about the face, the face and both the hands,
head mutilated with ears torn off, and the nose lopped—a barbarous disfig-
urement” (Aeneid 6.494–508; cf. v. 340–62); cf. Ovid, Metam. 10.48–49.
24. On Old Age 21, cited in Davies 1999: 135.
25. Cf. Ep. 36.10–11.
26. See Davies (1999: 132–35). Davis writes (129), “The late Republic and early
Empire were rather diffident about post-mortem survival, let alone post-mortem
flourishing.”
27. Segal (2004: 205) provides an excellent bibliography on the Greco-Roman
context of afterlife.
28. Od. 11.541; 10.521, 536; 11.29, 49; Gorg. 524b; cf. Phaedo 64c.
29. Also, Clarke (1999: 157, 115); Rohde (1966: 5).
30. Endsjø (2009: 31–2) provides abundant texts demonstrating how the state
of the body before death affects the shape of the soul in Hades. Similarly,
Vermeule (1979: 49) points out that the form of the disembodied soul would
forever reflect how the body was at the time of passing or at the time of the
obsequies. See also, Bremmer (1983: 83).
31. Note the statement by Apollo in Iliad 5.441–42, “never the same is the race of
gods, who are immortal, and men who walk on the earth.” See further, Endsjø
(2009: 39–40); Neil (2006).
32. Variously, Leuce, the Isles of the Blessed or to the Elysian Fields.
33. Citing Simonides, Scholiast to Apollonius of Rhodes, Argon. 4.811–14; Pindar,
Ol. 2.68–80; Pindar, Nem. 4.49–50; Euripides, Iph. Taur. 421–38; Euripides,
Andr. 1259–62.
34. Ps-Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.3.
35. Theoph. Ant. Autol. 1.13; Just. Mart. 1 Apol. 21.1; Origen, C. Cels. 3.22.
36. Soph. Trach. 1255–78; Eurip. Heraclid. 9–12, 871–72, 910–14.
37. Theocritus, 24.83–84; Plutarch, Pelopidas 16.5; Pseudo-Lucian, Charidemus
6; Origen, C. Cels. 3.22; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autol. 1.13.
38. Endsjø (2009: 59) (and see there for the details of various vase paintings).
39. See the sixth-century BCE Attic Amphora by the Painter of the Vatican
Mourner (Vatican Museum 350, ABV 140.1); a cup by Douris, c. 500 BCE
(Louvre G 115, ARV 434.74); and see details of other vases in Endsjø (2009:
227, n. 59).
40. Aethiopis in Procl. Chrest, 4.2.198–200; Eurip. Andr. 1259–62; IT. 435–38;
Pind. Nem. 4.49–50; Ol. 2.68–80; see Endsjø (2009: 55 (and notes)).
41. Phaedo 113a; Phaedr. 249b; Resp. 620a-d; Ti. 90e-92b. Further on metempsy-
chosis see Porter (1999: 70–71).
42. In 421 BCE, Aristophanes referred to a belief “that when we die we turn into
stars in the sky” (Ar. Pax. 832–33).
SOURCES CITED
BARRETT, C.K. (1979) Immortality and Resurrection. In DUTHIE, C.S. (ed.), Res-
urrection and Immortality. London: Bagster.
BEDARD, S.J. (2008) Hellenistic Influence on the Idea of Resurrection in Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature. Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism. 5,
pp. 174–89.
BERNSTEIN, A.E. (1993) The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the
Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
BOLT, P.G. (1998) Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World. In LON-
GENECKER, R.N. (ed.), Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
BREMMER, J. (1983) The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
BREMMER, J. (2002) The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife. London & New York:
Routledge.
BULLFINCH, T. (1959) Mythology. New York: Dell Publishing Company, Inc.
BURKERT, W. (1985) Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Oxford: Blackwell.
BURKERT, W. (1987) Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
CHADWICK, H. (1953) Origen, Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
CLARKE, M. (1999) Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and
Myths. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
COLLINS, A.Y. (1997) Apotheosis and Resurrection. In PEDER BORGEN, P. &
GIVERSEN, S. (eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Peabody:
Hendrickson.
COTTER, W. (2001) Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection
Appearances in Matthew. In AUNE, D. (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew in Current
Study. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
DAVIES, J. (1999) Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London:
Routledge.
DUNDERBERG, I. (2013) Moral Progress in Early Christian Stories of the Soul.
New Testament Studies. 59 (2), pp. 247–67.
ENDSJØ, D.Ø. (2008) Immortal Bodies, before Christ: Bodily Continuity in Ancient
Greece and 1 Corinthians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 30 (4),
pp. 417–36.
ENDSJØ, D.Ø. (2009) Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity.
New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
FERGUSON, E. (1993) Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
FINLEY, M. (1977) The World of Odysseus. London: Chatto and Windus.
GLASSON, T.F. (1961) Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology. London: SPCK.

GRAF, F. & JOHNSTON, S.I. (2013) Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the
Bacchic Gold Tablets. London: Routledge.
GUTHRIE, W.K.C. (1950) The Greeks and their Gods. London: Methuen & Co.
HABERMAS, G.R. (1989) Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions. Reli-
gious Studies. 25 (2), pp. 167–77.
HALLOTE, R.S. (2001) Death, Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World. Chicago:
Ivan R. Dee.
HORSLEY, G.H.R. (1983) New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review
of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri. Vol. 3, text 11. Sydney: MacQuarie Univer-
sity, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre.
JAEGER, W. (1958) The Greek Ideas of Immortality. In STENDAHL, K. (ed.),
Immortality and Resurrection. New York: MacMillan.
KOESTER, K. (1982) Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 1, History, Culture
and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. Hermeneia: Foundations and Facets. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press.
MARROU, H.I. (1977) A History of Education in Antiquity. London: Sheed and
Ward.
NEIL, T. (2006) The Wounded Hero: Non-Fatal Injury in Homer’s Iliad. Berne: Peter
Lang.
PERKINS, P. (1984) Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflec-
tion. London: Chapman.
PORTER, S.E. (1999) Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament. In STAN-
LEY, E., PORTER, S.E., HAYES, M.A. & TOMBS, D. (eds), Resurrection. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press.
RENEHAN, R. (1979) The Meaning of SWMA in Homer: A Study in methodology.
California Studies in Classical Antiquity. 12, pp. 269–82.
RILEY, G.J. (1995) Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
ROHDE, E. (1966) Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the
Greeks. New York: Harper and Row.
ROUSE, W.H.D. (1957) Gods, Heroes and Men of Ancient Greece. New York: New
American Library.
SEGAL, A. (2004) Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the
West. New York: Doubleday.
SONGE-MØLLER, V. (2009) With What Kind of Body Will They Come? Meta-
morphosis and the Concept of Change: From Platonic Thinking to Paul’s Notion
of the Resurrection of the Dead. In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J. (eds), Metamor-
phoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity.
Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Vol. 1. Berlin &
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
TROMP, N.J. (1969) Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the
Old Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
TUGWELL, S. (1990) Human Immortality and the Redemption of Death. London:
Darton, Longman & Todd.
VERMEULE, E. (1979) Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley &
London: University of California Press.
WIEDERMANN, T.E.J. (1989) Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. London:
Routledge.
WRIGHT, J.E. (2000) The Early History of Heaven. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
YAMUACHI, E. (1998) Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East. In
LONGENECKER, R.N. (ed.), Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Mes-
sage of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2 Biblical Beginnings
Death and Afterlife in the Hebrew Bible1
Early Israelite thought on death appears to assume that it marked, for all
people, the end of worth-while existence.2 From a physical perspective,
death led both to the destruction of the flesh, e.g., by decomposition, fire, or
being ravaged,3 together with the dissipation of the blood, by draining away,
drying up, or by less delicate means.4 The bones, being more resilient, might
remain for some time.5 Typically, texts in the Hebrew Bible reiterate that the
body is formed from dust (rp(; LXX, xou=v)6 and will return to dust.7 And
as the body returns to dust, in the words of Job, hope and youthful vigour
are dragged down also (17.16; 20.11; cf. 21.26). Similar expressions are
found in the Apocrypha. Sirach notes that “the Lord created human beings
out of earth, and makes them return to it again (17.1), while the Wisdom
of Solomon declares simply, “When it is extinguished, the body will turn to
ashes” (2.3).
From a non-physical perspective, however, things look very different. The
soul (yuxh/), or sometimes spirit (pneu=ma), is considered the essence of man.8
This is articulated in Genesis 2 where the divine breath breathed into the
body brings life; its removal brings death.9 For the Psalmist, “when you take
away their breath [pneu=ma], they die and return to their dust. When you send
forth your spirit [pneu=ma], they are created” (104.29–30).10 So, too, Tobit
laments, “my spirit is taken from me so that I may be released from the face
of the earth and become dust” (3.6). Interestingly, as the decomposing flesh
can be said to return to the dust, the same is also said of the soul, although
the meaning of ‘dust’ is quite distinct and is contiguous with the underworld
realm of Sheol (lw)#$; LXX a3|dhj), also known as the Pit (rwb; la&kkov)11
and synonymous with ‘death’ (qa&natov),12 and with the ‘grave’13 or the
‘places of the dead’ (such as the ‘earth,’ or Abaddon).14
Job for instance employs ‘dust’ and ‘Sheol’ in literary parallelism when
he asks, “Will [my hope] go down to the bars of Sheol? Shall we descend
together into the dust?” (17.16), where his hope is related to his spirit in v.1.
The Psalmist, too, notes that his enemy may “trample my life to the ground,
and lay my soul in the dust” (7.5), or that his “soul has sunk down into the
dust” where he laments, “What profit is there in my death, if I go down to
the Pit? Will the dust praise you?” (30.9; 44.25; cf. 119. 25). Elsewhere, the
author of 4 Ezra writes: “The earth shall give up those who are asleep in
it, and the dust those who rest there in silence; and the chambers shall give
up the souls that have been committed to them” (7.32; cf. Isa 29.4). Signifi-
cantly, S.G.F. Brandon notes that in Mesopotamian thought the underworld
was called the “House of Dust” (1967: 51; see also, Tromp 1969). Hence,
death brings not only the physical decomposition of the body into the dust
of the earth, but the descent of the soul into the ‘dust’ of the underworld.
So, the soul survives the death of the body and departs to Sheol, “an
undesirable abode of wretched shades” (Barrett 1979: 70), where it knows
nothing and sees nothing.15 In Hebrew thought, this was an extensive under-
ground area: dark, gloomy, barren and burnt,16 to be found in the deepest
extremities of creation.17 Elsewhere the imagery may be of a watery terri-
tory, alluding to the anti-cosmic chaos of the early verses of Genesis (Tromp
1969: 132). It was also a place of no return, a vast prison with its own gates,
bars, and guards.18 However, in Hebrew thought, Sheol was not a place of
punishment for the wicked; it was the place where the souls of all the dead
reside and from which none return.19 Here, all hope is gone (Ps 143:3; cf.
Wis 13.10), and God has no more dealings with the departed, who are for-
gotten forever (Ps 88:10 ff.; Eccl 2:16).
THE SOUL IN SHEOL
In Sheol, souls exist as shades, rephaim, in a dark world,20 and although exis-
tence there is only sketchily drawn in the Hebrew Bible, it is a place of general
silence and inactivity, e.g., Ps 94.17: “If the Lord had not been my help, my
soul would soon have lived in the land of silence.”21 Ezekiel 32 presents an
extensive list of the Gentile nations killed in battle and who have descended to
Sheol: “They have come down, they lie still, the uncircumcised, killed by the
sword” (32.21). Elsewhere, Isaiah makes a taunt against the king of Babylon:
Sheol is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to
greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations. All of them will speak and say to you:
“You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us! Your
pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the sound of our harps; maggots
are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering.
(14.9–11)
Here, Isaiah distinguishes between the soul which has descended into Sheol
and the body which lies decomposing on the earth. The imagery of worms
and maggots in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint is related to the flesh, never
to the soul.22 Isaiah goes on to note that the living “stare at you, they ponder
your fate” (14.16), for the king does not lie in state in a fine tomb, but is
killed in battle, pierced by the sword and covered with the slain. The king’s
Biblical Beginnings 27
body is trampled underfoot and will not receive a proper burial, while his
soul and that of his army will descend to Sheol (14.18–20).23 These verses
will be important in the exegetical discussion of Isaiah 26.19 below.
So, although the souls in Sheol have some kind of ‘existence,’ and could
even be ‘conscious’ enough to speak, e.g., Samuel to Saul (1 Sam 28), they
are certainly considered the dead.24 This is affirmed in a number of texts.
Deuteronomy 18.11 speaks of “a medium, or a spiritist, or one who enquires
of the dead (e0perwtw~n tou\v nekrou/v).”25 For Isaiah too, “The dead do not
live; shades do not rise because you have punished and destroyed them, and
wiped out all memory of them (oi9 de\ nekroi\ zwh\n ou0 mh\ i1dwsin ou0de\ i0atroi\
ou0 mh\ a)nasth/swsin dia_ tou=to e0ph/gagev kai\ a)pw&lesav kai\ h]rav pa~n a!rsen
au0tw~n), where, again, the dead are the nekroi/ (Isa 26.14; cf. 8.19). In a
text to which we will return (Isa 26.19), Isaiah also notes, “The dead will
rise, those in the grave will be raised” (a)nasth/sontai oi9 nekroi/ kai\ e0gerqh/
sontai oi9 e0n toi=v mnhmei/ov). Hence, the common term for the yuxh/ in Sheol
is nekro&v (Ps 88.10). Similar sentiments are found in a wide range of texts
from the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha, e.g., Pss, Prov, Job, Isa, Dan, Hos,
Sir, Bar.26
The Hebrew Bible and Septuagint repeatedly stress the notion of going
down into Sheol, as a place under the earth,27 and what goes down, is the
soul alone.28 Here, all hope is gone (Ps 143:3; cf. Wis 13.10), and God has no
more dealings with the departed, who are forgotten forever (Ps 88:10ff.; Eccl
2:16). As noted, the dead are shut in by gates and bars and on the rare occa-
sion that a soul is said to leave Sheol, it is said to rise up. So, Saul’s enquiry
of the Witch of Endor was that the spirit or soul of Samuel be brought up out
of Sheol (a)na&gw, v. 11; a)nabai/nw, vv. 13, 15).29 The Psalmist praises God
that he has extended his life, in metaphorical terms related to ‘delivery’ from
Sheol: “You have brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive,
that I would not go down to the pit (ku/rie a)nh/gagev e0c a#|dou th\n yuxh/n mou
e1swsa&v me a)po_ tw~n katabaino&ntwn ei0v la&kkon, 30.3 [29.4, LXX]), and
elsewhere asks, “Do you work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise up
to praise you?” (mh\ toi=v nekroi=v poih/seiv qauma&sia h2 i0atroi\ a)nasth/sousin
kai\ e0comologh/sontai/ soi, 88.10 [87.11, LXX]).30 Interestingly, the early
Church, in recognizing the assertion of the Hebrew Bible that everyone,
righteous and wicked, goes to Sheol,31 taught that the Old Testament saints
existed in an ‘upper’ level of Sheol from which Christ would later deliver
them (Lunde 1992: 309).
In the Apocrypha, Sirach has much to say on Sheol and the state of the
dead. The author asks: “Who will sing praises to the Most High in Hades, in
place of the living who gives thanks? From the dead, as from one who does
not exist, thanksgiving has ceased” (a)po_ nekrou= w(v mhde\ o!ntov a)po&lluta).
So, those in a3d| hv are the nekroi/ as opposed to the zw~ntev, and the answer to
the question is, of course, no-one (17.27–28). In Sirach 51.6, we see the col-
location of a number of terms discussed above: “My soul (yuxh/) drew near
to death, and my life was on the brink of Hades below (a|d3 ou ka/tw).” Sirach
38.23 speaks of the departure of the spirit at death, i.e., the end of life: “When
the dead is at rest, let his remembrance rest too, and be comforted for him
when his spirit has departed” (e0n e0co/dw| pneu/matov au0tou~). Especially note-
worthy is Sirach 48.5, which speaks of the nekro&v being raised from Sheol:
“You raised a nekro/v from death and from Hades,” where the Greek expres-
sion is similar to that found of Jesus in the New Testament (Rom 6.4, 9, o e( g 0 ei/
rav nekro_n e0k qana&tou kai\ e0c a#d| ou). The common verbs employed to describe
the raising of the yuxh/, i.e., the nekro/v from Sheol are, as seen above, a)nagw,
a)nabainw, e0geirw, and a)ni/sthmi.
Interestingly, there is ambiguity within the Hebrew Bible on whether a dead
corpse is unclean and polluting. There are texts which explicitly maintain that
touching a corpse leads to uncleanness for seven days with clear stipulations
on how purity is then re-established (Num 19.11–22). The defiled Israelite, for
instance, is put out of the camp for a time (Num 5.2–4; 31.19–20). The priestly
elite are only allowed to defile themselves following the death of a close rel-
ative (Lev 21.1–3), but even this is forbidden to the High Priest (Lev 21.11).
Conversely, other texts suggest that bodies could be interred in the home after
death (1 Sam 25.1; 1 Kgs 2.34),32 and according to Ezekiel, departed kings
were buried close to the temple until the exile (Ezek 43.7; see Hallote 2001;
Tromp 1969: 207). The differing traditions may point to attempts by later
redactors to combat an interest in the cult of the dead with stark prohibitions
on contact with dead bodies (Hallote 2001: 54–68; Johnston 2002: 43–45).
Hence, the sphere of death, as demarcated ‘unclean,’ either socially or legally,
may not have been an ancient concept for the early Israelite community.
Most writers of the Hebrew Bible appear to deliberately avoid any dis-
cussion of the afterlife (Segal 2004: 123–24), but some do reflect upon it
and the apparent injustice of death for the righteous, for it was assumed
that both the righteous and the wicked were destined for this same place of
misery and desolation.33 Such was the anticipated horror of Sheol that, in
the words of Qohelet, “a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Eccl 9.4),
that is, the poorest living wretch was considered better even than the king
who abides in Sheol. However, some claim that there are a small number of
texts in the Hebrew Bible which appear to progress from this position and
show evidence for the possible concept of some form of new physical life
after death.34 These include 1 Sam 2:6–8,35 Isa 26.19, Dan 12.2–3 and the
rich metaphorical picture of Ezek 37:1–14. These will be addressed in turn.
1 SAMUEL
Hans Cavallin, for instance, sees in 1 Sam 2:6–8, a clear expression of life
after death, citing the translation of the NEB:
Yahweh kills and he gives life, he sends down to Sheol, he can bring the
dead up again.
(1974: 23)
The LXX is, ku/riov qanatoi= kai\ zwogonei= kata&gei ei0v a#|dou kai\ a)na&gei. It
appears that translating a)na&gei (literally, “he raises up”), as he can bring
the dead up again imposes upon the verb a particular concept of ‘resurrec-
tion,’ implying, for Cavallin, a “personal life beyond death [. . .] the belief
in the resurrection of the dead,” which the verb in this context does not pre-
sume. Cavallin is specific neither on what ‘the dead’ constitutes, nor what he
defines as ‘resurrection.’ In light of the above texts, the understanding of the
clause, if it is speaking of ‘resurrection’ at all, would be that what is raised

up is the yuxh/. Cavallin sees a parallel in Deut 32.39: “I kill and make alive;
I wound and heal,” but, again, does not specify what is made “alive.” His
attempt to draw further parallels with the miraculous resurrections reported
by the Elijah and Elisha traditions (1 Kgs 17.17–24; 2 Kgs 4.31–37; 13.21)
are insecure as these are not resurrections to eternal life, only a return to a
temporal life on earth (1974: 23).
As noted above, the verb a0nagw employed here, is also used in 1 Sam
28.3–25 where Saul entreats the Witch of Endor: “Consult a spirit for me,
and bring up [a)na/gw] for me the one whom I name to you.” Here we have
the language of ‘raising up’ within the context of Sheol, without the need
for notions of a physical resurrection. The spirit of Samuel is ‘brought up’
from the depths of Sheol to speak with Saul and then presumably returns.36
Two key texts when examining the resurrection narratives of the Hebrew
Bible are Isa 26.19 and Dan 12.1–3.37
ISAIAH 26
The Isaianic text is:
a)nasth/sontai oi9 nekroi/ Kytm wyxy

kai\ e0gerqh/sontai oi9 e0n toi=v Nwmwqy ytlbn
mnhmei/oiv
kai\ eu0franqh/sontai oi9 e0n th=| gh=| rp (ynk# wnnrw wcyqh
h9 ga_r dro&sov h9 para_ sou~ i1ama au0toi=v Kl+ trw) l+ yk
e0stin
h9 de\ gh= tw~n a)sebw~n pesei=ta lypt My)pr Cr)w
The NRSV translates the MT:
Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise;

O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a radiant dew,
and the earth will give birth to those long dead.
This translation is employed by N.T. Wright who claims: “The original

Hebrew refers literally to bodily resurrection [. . . which] is intended to denote
actual concrete events.”38 Yet, the sense of the Hebrew is uncertain and has
led to differing translations, each with different nuances of the form, or not,
of any supposed ‘resurrection.’ The LXX, for example, can be translated:
The dead will rise, those in the graves will be raised/roused;

those in the land will rejoice,
for your dew is healing for them,
and the land of the ungodly will fall.39
As noted above, the nekroi/ (the dead), are those who currently abide in Sheol/
the grave, i.e., the souls of both righteous and wicked. The likely sense here
is that these are raised or roused (e0gei/rw) to see what will occur, in the sense
of Isa 14.9–11, cited above, where those in Sheol are roused (sunegei/rw) in
order to greet the newcomer to the underworld.
The final clause is of interest. lpn has many shades of meaning (see BDB;
Motyer 1993: 218, n. 1), but in Isaiah it is used almost exclusively to denote
either the action of (spatial) falling, in the sense of physical buildings, e.g.,
bricks, walls, or towers, men in battle, or (metaphorically) of cities, nations,
or of God’s word.40 In Isaiah it is never used of ‘giving birth;’ yet, strangely
it is employed as such in the translations of, for example, the NRSV, NASU,
NIV, and NKJV.41 Such translations appear simply to be derived from the
metaphor of giving birth (MT, dly) in 26.18, itself, an obscure verse. The
context of the section here is that despite God’s blessing of enlarged terri-
torial borders (v. 15), there is a chastening upon the land due to idolatry
(vv. 13–14). The righteous lament that despite their supplication (writhing
as in labour, vv. 16–17), it came to nothing and they gave birth only to wind
(v. 18). Salvation/deliverance/victories were not achieved and the (wicked)
inhabitants of the land have not fallen (v. 18).42 The LXX is more optimistic
in claiming that the wicked who dwell in the land will fall (a)lla_ pesou=ntai
oi9 e0noikou=ntev e0pi\ th=v gh=v). Such a reading then makes sense of the met-
aphor of v. 19. The (righteous) ‘dead,’ those in their graves, will ‘rise’ and
those in the land will rejoice, for the land of the ungodly will certainly fall!
The NRSV translation of v.18d (“and no one is born to inhabit the world”)
like many others, makes little sense in the context.
There are additional points of exegetical interest in 26.19. If an attempt
is made to translate My)pr (rephaim, the shades dwelling in Sheol)
non-metaphorically, then the sense of this clause is problematic; how and
in what way can those in the land (of Sheol) be said to ‘fall’? The LXX
clarifies the ambiguity by translating My)pr as the a)sebei=v, the ungodly.
The construction e0n th=| gh= (occurring nearly 250 times in the LXX), almost
exclusively takes the sense of ‘in the land.’ In Isaiah it also refers to ‘on’ or
‘over the earth.’ Hence the LXX explains the inherent difficulty of the MT:
the metaphorical ‘dead’ in the land, i.e., the Israelites, will be raised, rejoic-
ing in the radiant and healing dew of Yahweh. The metaphorical rephaim in
the land, the ungodly, will fall. This allows both Hebrew and Greek clauses
to retain a sense of logic within the passage and allows the verbs to retain
their natural meaning. Such a reading also coheres with the wider context of
Isa 26.7–21 which discusses the antipathetical nature of Yahweh’s blessing
of the righteous and judgement of the wicked in the land, often using the
language of life, death, soul, spirit, and shades (vv. 8–10, 14). Indeed, it is of
interest that vv. 16–19 stand out within the chapter as a largely metaphorical
section, employing vivid language to express what has just been described
in non-metaphorical terms in verses 1–15. And that the author has switched
into dramatic metaphor also mitigates the inherent contradiction between

vv. 14 and 19 (where, in v. 14, the dead do not live or rise).43
The tensions and ambiguities of the Hebrew are noted by various com-
mentators who often struggle to align the verse with a non-metaphorical
meaning. Joseph Blenkinsopp, for example, in the Anchor Bible commentary
on Isaiah (2000), translates the final clause of verse 19 as “[the] earth will
bring forth the shades of the dead.” Yet, he notes elsewhere that “Sheol [is]
the land of no return, of oblivion” (2000: 370). He claims that it is “fairly
obvious” that the verse has suffered in transmission and posits that the
idea of individual resurrection is not clearly attested before the persecution
launched by Antiochus IV (Dan 12.2; 2000: 371). However, he does suggest
that the assurance that your dead will live (v. 19) but that their dead will not
(v. 14) points towards the idea of the people returning from the dead to be
intended metaphorically.
In a recent linguistic analysis of these verses, Philip Schmitz asserts: “The
passage envisions a political revival of the battered Judahite realm meta-
phorically [. . .] The moribund nation, like the deceased at the end of days,
will be reconstituted (v. 19a), at first insensate and life-less (v. 19b), but then
revivified, active and joyful (v. 19c)” (2003: 148).44 He goes on to note that
verse 19c, “expresses the dawning awareness of the revivified dead (repre-
senting the nation),” and also observes the conceptual parallels with Ezek
37.1–14.45 Cavallin’s attempt to read the third clause of v. 19 as denoting
the dead ‘under’ the earth has no warrant in either the MT or the LXX.46
The recent discussion and translation of the text by Roger Aus coheres
with the conceptual sense discussed above:
The dead shall rise

And those in the tombs shall be raised
And those in the earth shall rejoice
For the dew from You is healing for them.
But the land of the ungodly will fall/die.47
In his analysis of the passage, John J. Collins, like Schmitz, notes the parallels
with Ezekiel 37 and asserts the language of metaphor, in that both passages
speak of the “restoration of the people of Israel” (2000: 119). He also claims
that Isa 26.19 is informed by 26.15 which speaks of the enlargement of the
borders of Israel, a divine act following the punishment of Israel in v. 14.48
There is also the question of the dating of this passage, with Craig A. Evans
noting that the section of Isaiah 24–27 probably represents “relatively late
material” and that 26.19 “could be an even later gloss” (1999: 93). In sum-
mary, the passage is to be understood metaphorically: the oppressed people
of Judah, the ‘dead’ in the land, will be re-invigorated by the dew of Yahweh
in order to dwell safely in the land, at which time they will ‘arise’ from their
metaphorical graves to see the demise of their enemies. As such, a reading
into these verses of physical bodily resurrection by Wright and others is
insecure and to be rejected.
DANIEL 12
The Isaianic text is often seen as a precursor to Dan 12.1–3,49 which, for
many, is the crux interpretum; the first explicit reference to resurrection in
the Hebrew Bible:
At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people,
shall arise [a)nasth/setai] . . . at that time your people shall be delivered
[+lm;50 swzw; u9yow], everyone who is found written in the book.51
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake [Cyq;
e0cegei/rw], some to everlasting life,52 and some to shame and everlasting
contempt [diaspora_n kai\ ai0sxu/nhn ai0w&nion]. Those who are wise shall
shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righ-
teousness, like the stars forever and ever.53
Cavallin states confidently that this is “the formulation of the only univer-
sally accepted statement of an eschatological resurrection from the dead
within the Hebrew Bible [. . .] Hardly anyone doubts that this passage does
describe a real resurrection of the dead (1974: 26). George Brooke argues
that it is the “only explicit non-metaphorical reference to bodily resurrection
in the Hebrew Bible” (2006: 16–17), and for N.T. Wright, this is the corner-
stone of his resurrection framework, noting that there is little doubt that this
refers to concrete bodily resurrection.54
Yet, as argued above (pp. 2–3), what exists in the dust is the soul. John J.
Collins notes that it is not apparent that the Danielic text “implies a resur-
rected body of flesh and blood, or bones in the manner of Ezekiel. The ‘land
of dust’ (rp (tmd)) from which the dead are raised in Daniel is probably
Sheol rather than the grave” (2009: 292). Dag Endsjø concurs, noting that
Daniel’s statement that the dead will be resurrected after sleeping ‘in the
dust’ is nevertheless not proof of a bodily resurrection: “The prophecy of
Daniel could just as well mean that only the souls, not the bodies, would
awake from an unconscious existence as dead” (2008: 124). Similarly, Adela
Yabro Collins argues that Daniel 12.2 is best translated not as “those who
sleep in the dust of the earth,” but “those who sleep in a land of dust,” a tra-
ditional reference to Sheol, the land of the dead (1993: 113). Such a reading
excludes the bodies from any resurrection scenario as only souls lingered in
Sheol. Indeed, she maintains that what happened to the dead bodies could
actually have been irrelevant to the writer of Daniel.55
This then coheres with the reference in 12.3 towards ancient understand-
ings of astral immortality, in which it was believed that on death the soul
ascended into the heavens to reside eternally as a star in the night sky (see the
Greco-Roman context in Chapter 1). Collins claims that Daniel expresses a
“notion of resurrection in terms of astral immortality,” not physical immor-

tality in the ordinary sense (1993: 113) and Segal agrees, maintaining that
this “can only mean to the Jews that they shall become angels, something that
did not exclude astral immortality. For stars had been identified as angelic
creatures from earliest times.”56 This seems at the same time to rule out any
possible future of the flesh, as angels were usually considered fleshless.57
So, too, the text is also problematic in that it is only the many [polloi/],
not all, who shall awake.58 The author gives no criteria for who stays
and who goes. Alexander DiLella claims that the many are the Jews (as
opposed to non-Jews), and those receiving everlasting life are “the stalwart
men, women, and children who suffered martyrdom rather than obey the
wicked decrees of Antiochus IV” (1978: 307; so, too, Nickelsburg 1992:
686). Wright concurs, maintaining that the righteous are those raised after
suffering martyrdom (with De Boer 1988: 49). Yet, neither DiLella nor
Wright comments upon the apparent tripartite afterlife scenario that this
understanding of Daniel must drive them too: some do not awake at all (for
DiLella, the non-Jew), some awake to everlasting life, and some awake to
everlasting contempt. This is noted by John Goldingay who writes: “The
threefold division suggested by the metaphor must not be pressed to yield a
coherent total doctrine of the afterlife” (1989: 308).
At the same time, neither DiLella nor Wright, nor the text itself, concede the
presence of righteous Gentiles, despite the references of such in Dan 4.34–37
and 6.25–27. To read into the text a resurrection of the physical body (so,
Wright) is to retroject back into it a particular view of what ‘resurrection’ must
mean from the New Testament and beyond. And in this regard, it must be of
profound interest that neither Isa 26 nor Dan 12.2 is employed by any New
Testament writer as explication or proof texts of the resurrection of Christ.
Nor is this tripartite afterlife scenario like anything envisaged elsewhere.59
For both Cavallin and Wright, alternative explanations of Dan 12.2 are
excluded, e.g., that of Walter Brueggemann, who claims that since ‘dust’ is
associated with kingship as its negative counterpart, what is really meant
is not departure from the grave but the enthronement of Israel among the
nations, a great reversal of history (1972, esp. pp. 11–12). Others see ‘resur-
rection of the dead’ here, and in the text in Isaiah, to be figurative for national
restoration.60 Goldingay asserts that one must avoid treating Dan 12.2 “as a
piece of theological ‘teaching’: it is a vision or a flight of the imagination, not
a fully developed belief in resurrection [. . . and] should not necessarily be
taken as an attempt at literal prediction” (1989: 306–307). He sees the text
as “promising revival of the nation after the Antiochene persecution” (1989:
307). Likewise, George Nickelsburg writes: “the literal understanding of this
language is not a priori certain, for such imagery occurs in pre-exilic and
exilic literature not as a description of a resurrection of people who were
literally dead, but as a picture of the restoration of Israel” (1972: 17–18).
So, Wright’s cornerstone begins to crumble, and Cavallin surprisingly
concedes, after his initial confidence in the text: “So, the meaning of Dan
12.2 is not at all clear, and there is no consent among the scholars as to its
interpretation in detail” and that Dan 12.4 (“at the end”), “shows the resur-
rection to be one of those events which accompany the change of the ages in
Jewish apocalyptic” (1974: 26–27). Nickelsburg asserts that the construct of
resurrection outlined in Daniel answers a profound need within the Jewish
community in which the book arose, for the persecution under Antiochus
Epiphanes saw the righteous Jew put to death for refusing to disobey the
Torah, while the Hellenizing apostate Jew was saved from death by denying
the Torah. Nickelsburg notes: “Clearly this confounded the standard Israel-
ite canons of justice and retribution. Resurrection to life, on the one hand,
and to punishment, on the other, was an answer to this problem [. . .] Res-
urrection is asserted in Daniel because it is an answer to a problem that was
of serious and existential concern to the readers of this book” (2006: 32).
Nickelsburg is correct in this general assessment, although his reflection
upon the afterlife scenario of those who do not achieve everlasting life needs
to be nuanced. The text does not state that there will be any form of ‘punish-
ment’ at all. Afterlife scenarios of eternal retribution of the soul of the wicked
will later become explicit in other Second Temple Jewish texts. Rather, here,
those whose names are not found in the book will simply awaken to shame
and everlasting contempt (twprxl Nw)rdl Mlw(; diaspora_n kai\ ai0sxu/nhn
ai0w&nion) in that their souls will remain in Sheol, which stands in contradis-
tinction to the souls of the righteous which are granted everlasting life in
some form of astral immortality. Elsewhere in Daniel hprx has the sense of
‘scorn’ or ‘disgrace’ (Dan 9.16; 11.18).61
To be sure, Daniel does not conceive of a general resurrection for all,
only for those whose unjust treatment in this life presents a moral problem
for the writer. In this sense, Daniel belongs within the same broad category
of other texts written in the Maccabean period and beyond, many of which
are examined in the following chapter, which draw similar conclusions to
a perceived ‘existential’ threat to Judaism and seek to ameliorate this by
proposing a blessed afterlife for the righteous. As such, and like many of the
narratives of 1–4 Maccabees, as well as most of the Old Testament pseude-
pigrapha, one must remember that these texts are steeped in the literary and
historical imagination of their authors. In respect to Daniel, for example, can
one progress from the myths of Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream, the Fiery Furnace,
Belshazzar’s Feast, the lion’s den, and Daniel’s vivid apocalyptic dream, to
then assert the literal fact of a supposed resurrection narrative from a con-
cluding text? Such an approach is surely insecure.62
EZEKIEL 37
Finally, in the Hebrew Bible, there is the rich metaphorical picture of Ezekiel
37.63 The context draws from Ezekiel’s long lament in chapter 36 of national
idolatry and the hope of renewal. Chapter 36 is itself pre-empted by the
idolatry noted in 33.23–33 and by the failure of Israel’s leaders outlined in
chapter 34. Ezekiel speaks of the defilement of the land (36.16–18), the sub-
sequent outpouring of divine wrath and expulsion of the people (36.19–21),

and the hope of a future return and cleansing (36.22–25). The narrative
also holds the promise of a new covenant, outlined more thoroughly in Jer-
emiah 37 (cf. Ezek 36.26–32). As part of this restoration, the nation would
be re-built, to be “like the garden of Eden” (36.33–36). The purpose of
Ezekiel 37 is to provide a dramatic descriptive account, using two striking
metaphors of what has gone before and the hope of what will be: the valley
of the dry bones, i.e., the re-constitution of the ‘dead’ (vv. 1–14), and the
moulding together of two sticks, representing Judah and Israel, to become
one (vv. 15–23).64 The narrative concludes by asserting the re-appointment
of David as prince and shepherd and the establishment of an everlasting
covenant of peace (vv. 24–28).65
It is the metaphor of the valley of dry bones which has become central
to many theses on physical resurrection. The narrative is typically related
to the time of exile (Eichrodt 1970: 512; Zimmerli 1983: 258, 265). Yet, at
the outset, one must remember that it is a metaphor, a vivid picture whose
purpose is to articulate a future hope of national restoration:
Then he [Yahweh] said to me, “Mortal, these bones are the whole house
of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are
cut off completely.’ Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the
Lord God: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your
graves, I my people; and I will bring you back to the land of Israel. And
you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and bring
you up from your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you,
and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil; then you shall
know that I, the Lord, have spoken and will act,” says the Lord.
(37.11–14, italics mine)
The metaphor works because within the conceptual framework of the author
and implied readers, national restoration was not only impossible but incon-
ceivable, and the only illustrative metaphor to adequately express such
impossibility was to speak of the re-enfleshment of bones. The exposure of
dead bodies in this context aligns with other Biblical texts and Near Eastern
sources which depict such action as a response to broken covenants.66 Here,
the only possible hope, for Ezekiel, must be a dramatic divine act, and the
only metaphorical equivalence in the author’s mind for the possibility of
national restoration is to be brought up from the grave (vv. 12–13). Whether
the language and conceptual framework of Ezekiel 37 may inform a reading
of supposed literal physical resurrection in Isa 26, Dan 12 and elsewhere is
largely ignored amongst scholarly discussion of resurrection in the Hebrew
Bible.67 Yet, for Ezekiel it is perfectly clear: resurrection language means
national restoration.68 Walther Zimmerli writes:
In contrast to all those later interpretations of Ezek 37 it must now

once more be finally and unambiguously stated that Ezek 37:1–14, with
the two different images of the revival of unburied dead bones and of
the opening of graves and the leading out of those buried there to new
life, expresses the event of the restoration and the regathering of the
politically defeated all-Israel. There is no thought of a resurrection of
individuals from the dead.
(1983: 264)
Block, too, asserts: “The primary concern of this vision is obviously the
revival of the nation of Israel [. . .] What Ezekiel sees in the bones is a graphic
portrayal of the effects of the covenant curse on his people” (1998: 383,
385). Likewise, Martinus C. de Boer notes that “The idea of resurrection
seems to be purely metaphorical, symbolizing the miracle of national revival
by God after the annihilation of His people by foreign power” (1988: 44).
As noted above with the two previous texts, allusions to Ezekiel’s vision are
rare in the New Testament.69 For Cavallin, while the passage “is a parable
about the future restoration of the people of Israel in its chosen land” it is
also clear that such the text would lend itself to later concepts of the resur-
rection of the dead (1974: 107).
Strangely, on these and other texts from the Hebrew Bible, N.T. Wright
maintains: “It would be wrong to give the impression that the early Israel-
ites were particularly gloomy about all this” (2003: 90). He suggests that
behind such texts is an affirmation of “the goodness and vital importance
of the present created order, which is to be renewed by Yahweh, not aban-
doned” (2003: 86). But the natural reading of the texts—and there are many
of them—appear to say precisely the opposite. The authors are gloomy
because they clearly recognize that at certain times there is great injustice in
the present created order and they are perplexed as to the precise workings
of Yahweh in it all. Equally, as noted, many of the texts are explicit in
their fear that there is no hope for any kind of post-mortem existence. On
the later Israelite hope of Yahweh’s faithfulness extending to life beyond the
grave, Wright confirms: “It is impossible now to tell when this idea first
made its appearance,” and that this belief, “does indeed appear to be a
late arrival in its explicit form” (2003: 103). Even of some later passages
which appear to offer divine deliverance from Sheol, Wright has to concede
that “The problem with these passages is to know whether this refers to
a deliverance that lies beyond Sheol” (p. 103, italics his), and that “The
main hope [. . .] seems to be that of rescue from violent death, rather than
a deliverance the other side of the grave” (p. 104). Finally, Wright admits
that the Hebrew Bible “mostly denies or at least ignores the possibility of a
future life” (2003: 129).
SUMMARY
To summarize. The ancient Israelites were no great soldier class, no fearsome

battle-hardened warriors, no great empire builders. They were nomadic, and
later sedentary farmers and herders who attempted to secure an existence
in Canaan alongside other disparate groups. There were clashes to be sure;
some they won, others they lost. And along with such groups, they were
tossed and turned by the vicissitudes of regional politics and the clashes
between the mighty empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and finally
that of the Greeks.70 Often, of course, this meant persecution, sometimes
destruction, and occasionally enforced exile. What the Israelites were, how-
ever, were imaginative story-tellers. Combined with a move from henothe-
ism to some form of Yahweh-alone monotheism by the time of the Persian
period, their stories and myths provided a vivid framework for explaining
the working of their tribal god through a series of crises and of explicat-
ing a future hope. Repeated subjugation, persecution, and suffering from
other tribes within the land or the vast empires without, was repeatedly
seen as the result of disloyalty, idolatry, and national sin and so construed
as divine punishment. Nevertheless, the myths told stories of future national
restitution of future glory and honour, when the Israelites would occupy as
much of the Promised Land as they desired, when they would flourish and
live in peace, and when nations would come streaming to Jerusalem to pay
them tribute. Yet, at the time of Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others,
national restoration was both practically impossible and, without a supreme
divine act by the national god, conceptually inconceivable. In this way, the
most suitable metaphor for such hope was the use of another conceptually
inconceivable category: the language of ‘resurrection.’
The crises of the Maccabean period generated further ideological reflec-
tion upon concepts of an afterlife which, to the lament of the Hebrew Bible,
saw no distinction between the righteous and the wicked.71 As Cavallin
notes: “Resurrection emerges during a period of intense Hellenization under
Antiochus IV” (1974: 15–17, 23–24). How could the righteous heroic Jew,
put to death for refusal to compromise Torah, comport with those who were
all too willing to Hellenize and forsake the traditions of Israel?72 The texts
of this period (of which Daniel is a part), demonstrate a conceptual shift to
take cognisance of these righteous martyrs and, henceforth, for the apocry-
phal and pseudepigraphal literature, the souls of the righteous would head
in a very different direction to those of the wicked. Some trajectories from
the Hebrew Bible did remain: on death the soul/spirit was released from the
body to Hades, a place in the lowest regions of the earth, the place of the dead,73
where it remained forever.74 Yet, beginning in the writings of the Apocrapha,
profound differences also begin to emerge.
In the words of Sirach: “It is easy for the Lord on the day of death to
reward individuals according to their conduct” (11.26), and for 2 Esdras,
the souls of the righteous cry out continually prompting the divine call:
“I will avenge them, says the Lord” (7.80–99). For Tobit too, the spirit is
released to an eternal home (in a positive sense, 3.6). This is made explicit
in the Wisdom of Solomon: “The souls of the righteous are in the hand
of God [. . .] they are at peace [. . .] their hope is full of immortality [. . .]
they will govern nations and rule over peoples [. . .] the Lord will reign
over them forever [. . .] they will stand with confidence [and] will receive
a glorious crown (3.1, 7; 5.1, 15). For the wicked, however, their spirits
will wonder about in torments (2 Esdras 7.80–99). For them: “there will
be no resurrection to life [a)na&stasiv ei0v zwh\n]”!75 Sentiments such as
this exhibit a conceptual framework which is alien to the Hebrew Bible
and which will be further developed within the pseudepigraphal and
apocalyptic writings.
Hence, for the Hebrew Bible, those texts written about or by those who
claim to be near Sheol, or in Sheol, or needing deliverance from Sheol, con-
cern those who are simply near death, or suffering persecution or harm,
or—often in the case of the Psalmist—poignantly reflective of difficult cir-
cumstances, or, in the case of Ezekiel, longing for national restoration.76 As
Richard Bauckham notes:
Ancient Israel shared the conviction of the Mesopotamian peoples that

‘he who goes down to Sheol does not come up’ [. . .] No exceptions
were known. There is no Old Testament instance of a true descent to
and return from the underworld by a living human, though Samuel is
called up as a shade [. . .] The picture of descent and return is more
poetic fancy. To be in the region of death means to be in death’s power.77
Overall, the conceptual framework of resurrection occurs only on the fringes

of ancient Israelite and Jewish thought, and the discussion above perhaps
places a question mark over the anthropological understanding of the
Hebrew Bible and the extent to which ancient Israelites and Jews affirmed
the unity of body and soul. Isaiah says nothing of the body being resurrected,
neither does Daniel. The only clear instance of any form of ‘rising up’ is
that of Samuel, whose soul rose to converse with Saul. Surely, the ancients
recognized that the physical body decomposed to nothingness. Gerd Lüde-
mann argues that the “stereotypical assumption that resurrection in a Jewish
context was always bodily is in need of considerable qualification” (2012:
546, noting Collins 1993: 398). The challenge of Lüdemann will be taken
up further in the following chapter.78
Excursus on the Thesis of Philip S. Johnston (2002)
The monograph of Johnston is the most detailed and systematic treatment
of Sheol currently available. Yet, it appears that his confessional stance
has unduly influenced his overall thesis.79 He seeks to argue that while, on
the one hand, Sheol is certainly the destiny for the wicked, on the other,
the Hebrew Bible is ambiguous enough to suggest that it may not also be the
place for the righteous. His statistical analyses of the 66 references to Sheol
in the Hebrew Bible are placed under a number of specific categories (‘cos-
mological extremity,’ ‘avoidance,’ ‘place of confinement’ etc.), for which he
provides a chart of his conclusions (p. 80). His category of Sheol as ‘destiny,’
suggests that there are only seven references to the righteous going to Sheol,
yet 25 for the ungodly,80 a conclusion which leads him to assert: “Schol-
ars often portray Sheol as the destiny of all, without qualification. But the
analysis above shows that it is portrayed predominantly as the fate of the
wicked.”81
Yet, the format of his analysis and chart skews the statistical evidence. If
one asks a simple question of the 66 references, namely, who in the text is
going to Sheol, the conclusion would be that in 25 texts the reference is to
the wicked yet in 22 it is to the righteous (assuming that the psalmists, Job,
and others, would naturally consider themselves to be ‘righteous’). Texts
referring to the righteous include David (2 Sam 22.6), the (righteous) king,
Hezekiah (Isa 38.10, 18) as well as Job (17.13, 16), and the psalmist(s)
(Pss 16.10; 18.6; 88.4; 139.8). Johnston also has to grapple with numerous
texts which are unambiguous in their assertion that Sheol is the destiny for
all (e.g., Job 3.11–19; 14.10–14a; Pss 49.7–11; 89.46–48; 90.10–12; Eccl
9.7–10; Isa 14; Ezek 32). On some of these he offers rather brief and uncon-
vincing analyses to suggest that what appears to be their obvious sense has
been misconstrued.82
So, too, he does not allow the narrative of Saul and the Witch of Endor
to inform his overall thesis, commenting upon it only within the context of
conversing with the dead and necromancy. Yet, here, we have the natural
death of one of the profound figures of Israelite history (certainly, one of
the ‘righteous’), whose soul now dwells in Sheol, and who is brought up
by the Witch to converse with Saul.83 Within the context of who resides in
Sheol, this is one of the clearest and most pertinent narratives of afterlife
in the Hebrew Bible, yet is largely ignored by Johnston. If the death and
afterlife of Samuel is in any way paradigmatic of ancient Israelite thought,
then his thesis is largely undermined. There is also the significant question of
where do the righteous go, if not to Sheol? Surely, if ancient Israelite thought
believed that the righteous go to a place of blessing, wherever that may be,
there would be evidence for this somewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Its lack
speaks volumes.84
The same statistical analysis is true of rwb, and tx#$, which are typically
translated ‘pit,’ and which stand as synonyms for lw)#$ (explicitly so in
Ps 30.4; Prov 1.12; Isa. 14.15; Ezek 31.16 and elsewhere; Johnston 2002:
83–85). The psalmist (hence, the righteous) often speaks of descending to the
pit (Pss 28.1; 88.5–7; 143.7), and the murdered innocent is said to descend
there also (Prov 1.12). For Ezekiel, all creation is handed over to death
“along with all mortals, with those who go down to the Pit” (31.14), and
Job’s lament is that he, too, will end up there (17.14; 33). Psalm 48.7–9 sim-
ply assumes that everyone will go there. Johnston’s argument that the pit is
for the wicked alone and that Job’s lament is due to extreme circumstances
is unconvincing (2002: 84).
It appears that Johnston wants to envisage a growing yet subtle belief in
resurrection, especially in the Psalms, Proverbs, Job 19 and the Enoch and Eli-
jah traditions, but has to confess that evidence is scant and ambiguous (2002:
216–17). On Ezekiel 37, he also has to admit that while it may be a “dazzling
parable of return from exile [. . .] it says nothing about personal resurrection,
even if it was later interpreted in that way.”85 While I would agree with John-
ston that Daniel 12 is a text which speaks unmistakably and unambiguously
of some form of personal resurrection, there are various issues to be resolved
(noted above), and I would place the text firmly within the Maccabean period.
Interestingly, Johnston himself claims that the context and focus of the Dan-
ielic text may be “of just one generation” (2002: 26). Hence, on many levels
I would reject Johnston’s basic thesis, especially given the utter silence of the
Hebrew Bible that the afterlife of the righteous may be somewhere other than
Sheol.86 The sharp distinction and demarcation of differing afterlife scenarios
of the righteous and wicked, which are hinted at in Daniel, only clearly emerge
in Second Temple Jewish texts, to which we now turn.
NOTES
1. On the following section see esp. Schürer 2.539–546 (and bibliog. 2.539, n. 90)
Bauckham (1998a); Cavallin (1974); De Boer (1988); Longenecker (1998);
Meier (2000); Segal (1997); Wedderburn (1987); Wright (2003).
2. Here, I am in some disagreement with the thesis of Johnston (2002) (for which
see the excursus at the end of this chapter).
3. Gen 40.19; Lev 26.29; 2 Macc 9.9; 4 Macc 9.17; Ps 26.2; Prov 5.11; Job
33.21; 34.15; Lam 3.4; Jer 7.33; Isa 34.3.
4. Gen 4.10; Zeph 1.17; Ezek 32.5–6; 1 Macc 7.17; 4 Macc 10.8; Isa 49.26
(where the blood is, hopefully metaphorically, drunk).
5. Ezek 37, of course, details the procedure in reverse.
6. E.g., Gen 2.7; Ps 103.14; Eccl 3.20.
7. Pss 22.29; 30.9; 104.29; Eccl 3.20; 12.7; 4 Kgdms 13.7; 1 Macc 2.63. Cf. Ps
22.15, the “dust of death.” The NRSV rendition of Ps 7.6 (“. . . then let the
enemy pursue me and overtake me, trample my life to the ground, and lay
my soul in the dust”), is misleading. Doca& may have a wide semantic range,
but is never translated “soul” (LSJ, BAGD sv); better is “glory” (so, NASU),
or “honour” (so, NKJV). See Brueggemann (1972). Moore (1927: 2.287) sees
such ideas as “common notions . . . which are found among various peoples on
comparable planes of civilization.” On ‘dust’ see also, Tromp (1969: 85–91).
8. For Sirach (51.6), “My soul drew near to death, and my life was on the brink of
Hades below” (where, in Hebrew parallelism, ‘soul’ is contiguous with ‘life’).
9. Moore (1927: 2.287) “Death is the departure from the body of the life, or, as
we say, souls, concretely imagined as the vital breath (Gen 2.7) or as the blood,
or in the blood (Lev 17.14).” Cf. Lev 17.11; Gen 9.4.
10. Such texts stand in opposition to Joel B. Green’s assumption that, “. . . there
is general agreement that, in the Hebrew Bible, human beings are depicted
as body and soul—that is, humans do not possess a body and soul, but are
human only as body and soul” (1998: 154). Green cites no primary literature
to support such a statement.

11. Job 33.18–30; Pss 16.10; 30.3, 9; 49.9–14; 88.4–5; Ezek 31.16; and Yamuachi
(1998: 43–45).
12. Nearly 30 times throughout the LXX (e.g., Job 17.13–14; Pss 6.6; 17.5–6;
88.5–10; 89.48; Prov 7.27; Isa 28.15, 18; Hos 13.14; Dan 3.88; Sir 51.6; Wis
1.12–16; 16.13; Pss. Sol. 16.2; Rev. 6.8; 20.13).
13. Job 10.19–22; 17.1–7; Ps 88.5–6, 11; Ezek 32.23.
14. 1 En. 51.3; 4 Ezra 7.32; Ps-Philo 3.10; 2 Bar. 42.8; 50.2. On Abaddon see Job
26.6; 28.22; 31.12; Ps 88.11; Prov 15.11; 27.20. The most thorough treatment
of Sheol is Johnston (2002).
15. Eccl 9.5; Ps 88.3–7, 10–12; Isa 26.14; see also Gen 3.5; Ps 6.5; 16.10; 30.9;
115.17; Isa 38.10f., 18f.; 2 Sam 14.14; Job 3.13f., 17–19.
16. Gen 37.35; 42.38; 44.29, 31; 1 Sam 2.6; 1 Kgs 2.6, 9; Tob 3.10; 4.19; 13.2; Ps
54.16; 63.2; 87.5 [LXX]/88.4; 143.6; Odes 3.6; Prov 2.18; 5.5; 7.27; 15.24;
Job 7.9; 17.16; 21.13; Wis 16.13; Isa 14.11, 15; 38.18; 57.9; Bar 3.19; Ezek
31.15–17; 32.27; Pss. Sol. 15.10. Num 16.30, 33 notes a descent alive into
Sheol, which, in the context, is considered extraordinary. See Tromp (1969:
91, 145–47).
17. Ps 95.4; 139.8; Isa 7.11; 44.23; Amos 9.2; Prov 25.3; Sirach 24.5.
18. Isa 38.10; Job 38.17; Pss 9.14; 107.18; Eccl 9.10. See Bauckham (1992: 14–5);
Martin-Achard (1992: 680–84); Moore (1927: 2.289). Sheol is imagined as a
monster with gaping jaws that greedily swallows men down and is never sated
(Isa 5.14; Hab 2.5; Prov 27.20; 30.15f.).
19. 2 Sam 12.23; 2 Macc 6.23; 12.43; Job 7.8; 10.22; 14.12; 16.22; Prov 2.19; Jer
51.39; 1 En. 102.5; 103.7; Sib. Or. 1.81–84; Ps.-Phoc. 112–113; 2 Bar. 23.4;
T. Ab. resc. A 8.9; 19.7. Tromp (1969: ch. 5).
20. See 1 Sam 28; Ps 88.10; Prov 2.18; 5.5; 7.27; 9.18; Isa 14.9; 26.14, 19; Lon-
genecker (1998: 8).
21. Cf. Ps 115.17, “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into
silence.”
22. E.g., Job 7.5; 21.26; 25.6; Prov 12.4; Isa 66.24; Judith 16.17; and 2 Macc 9.9.
Job 17.14 distinguishes Sheol (the Pit) from the worm within a context of the
total end of both the body and soul. Sirach also appears to link the decompo-
sition of the physical body by worms when he notes, “the punishment of the
ungodly is fire and worms . . . For when one is dead he inherits maggots and
vermin . . . Decay and worms will take possession of him” (7.17; 10.11; 19.3).
Tromp (1969: 191) claims that Isa 66.24, “illustrates the new significance of
Sheol: it has become Hell, the instrument of God’s wrath, where the wicked
are punished for their sins.” Yet, uncharacteristically, Tromp fails to distinguish
afterlife scenarios of the body and soul. Isa 66.24 clearly refers to the decom-
position of the body, while it is the soul that is held, not punished, in Sheol.
23. Compare the similar scenarios for the nations in Ezek 32.17–34; 1 Macc
2.62–63.
24. As noted in the previous chapter, for Homer too, souls in Hades are always
defined as dead. See Endsjø (2008: 428).
25. Nekro/v is also used of the dead physical body as in Gen 23.6, 9.
26. Ps 17.6 (the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me);
Pss 48.14; 54.15; 88.48; 116.3; Prov 2.18; 5.5; 7.27; 9.18; Job 33.22; 38.17;
Sir 14.12; Hos 13.14 (Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall
I redeem them from Death?); Isa 14.19; 28.15–18; 38.18; Bar 2.17 (open your
eyes, O Lord, and see, for the dead who are in Hades, whose spirit has been
taken from their bodies, will not ascribe glory or justice to the Lord); Dan
3.88.
27. Gen 37.35; 42.38; 44.29, 31; 1 Sam 2.6; 1 Kings 2.6, 9; Tobit 3.10; 4.19; 13.2;
Ps 54.16; 87.5 [LXX]/88.4; Ode 3.6; Prov 2.18; 5.5; 7.27; 15.24; Job 7.9;
17.16; 21.13; Wis 16.13; Isa 14.11, 15; 38.18; 57.9; Bar 3.19; Ezek 31.15–17;
32.27; Ps Sol 15.10. Num 16.30, 33 notes a descent alive into Sheol, which, in
the context, is considered extraordinary. See Tromp (1969: 91, 145–47).
28. Pss 29.4; 48.15–16; 85.13; 88.49; 93.17; 116.3–7; Job 33.22; Wis 16.13–14;
PsSol 16.2; Isa 14.9; Bar 2.17; Sir 51.6.
29. Cf. Ps 30.3 [29.4 LXX]; 88.10 [87.11 LXX]; Isa 26.19).
30. Moore (1927: 2.289), “From Sheol there is no exit; compare the Babylonian
Aralu, the Land Without Return.”
31. Gen 37.35; Isa 38.10; Ps 30.3, 9; Num 16.30, 33.
32. Theoretically, ‘house’ could stand for ‘grave,’ but archaeological evidence has
established the practice of interring in the home.
33. Eccl 3.16–21; 9.2–3, 9–10; 12.7; Job 7.9–10; 14.7–22; 30.23; Ps 6.5; 90.3,
10–12; Prov 5.11; Isa 26.14.
34. Yet, see Bauckham (1998a: 80–1), who writes that the dead, in Hebrew thought,
“. . . were cut off from God, the source of all life. It is this view, which is not
peculiar to Israel but was common to many ancient peoples that most of the
Hebrew Scriptures take for granted.” He concludes that, “evidence for a belief
in life after death in the Old Testament is, at best, minimal” (p. 81). See also,
Longenecker (1998: 10–1).
35. The dating of the work is typically placed at the time of the Babylonian exile or
later. On this later Israelite hope see also, Deut 32.39; Ps 16.10; 49.15; 73.24;
TDNTW 118–119.
36. Josephus refers to the soul, spirit, or shade of Samuel, Ant. 6.329–34, 340–50.
37. A third text often cited is Job 19.26, although, as many English translations
note, the text is uncertain. Cox (2009) in the recent online New English Trans-
lation of the Septuagint translates the Greek as, “May my skin, which patiently
endures these things, rise up; for these things have been accomplished on me
by the Lord—.” Moore (1927: 2.291) writes of this verse, “The expectation of
a resurrection of the flesh in the common English version, and more uncom-
promisingly in the Latin Bible, is read into the text, not in it” (italics, his).
38. 2003: 116–17. On the notion of dew see Sawyer (1973). The later Rabbis
took the reference to God’s dew as reviving the souls of the righteous, see Aus
(2005: 191) citing Pesiq. Rab.20.4.
39. My translation. Brenton (1851) translates the final clause of the LXX, “the
land of the ungodly shall perish.” Silva (2009) has a translation almost iden-
tical to mine, “The dead shall rise, and those who are in the tombs shall be
raised, and those who are in the earth shall rejoice; for the dew from you
is healing to them, but the land of the impious shall fall.” Evans (1999: 93)
translates the final clause, “but the land of the impious shall fall.” See Barrett
(1979); Cavallin (1974); De Boer (1988: 42–7); Segal (1997). Cavallin sees
here a resurrection to judgement (1974: 107). De Boer’s translation of the final
line (“and on the land of the shades You will let it [dew] fall.”), is a strained
translation and makes little sense in the context. See Pearson (1999: 33) who
translates the MT, “on the land of the shades you will cause it to fall,” and the
LXX, “but the land of the unholy/ungodly/profane ones will fall.” The Baby-
lonian Talmud (b. Sanh 90b) translates the verse as,
Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust:
for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out its dead.
40. E.g., Jerusalem, Judah, Lebanon, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, or the earth.
41. The RSV translates the clause, “on the land of the shades thou wilt let it fall.”
The LB omits the clause altogether.
42. Cf. Motyer’s translation of 18d: ‘The inhabitants of the world have not fallen’
(1993: 218).
43. Cf. Davies (1985: 116), who writes that the verse is “a poetical text which can
hardly be taken as a literal description of resurrection.”
44. Those who see here a metaphorical national ‘resurrection’ include Johnson
(1988); Kissane (1960); Wade (1929); Wilderberger (1972).
45. “In the process of resurrection as explained to Ezekiel in a vision (37.1–3),
the bodies of the dead are first reconstituted . . . then spirit (Hebrew xwr)
is infused in them, and they live again (v. 6). After Ezekiel's first prophetic
utterance (v. 7), the dry bones reassemble and become enfleshed; the newly
reconstituted corpses are not yet alive, however, because “spirit [xwr] is not
in them” (v. 8). A second divine commissioning (v. 9) and a second prophetic
utterance (v. 10) are necessary to revive and revitalize the corpses. Oral tradi-
tion (b. Sanh. 92b) completes the parallel: the dead revived by Ezekiel’s inter-
vention chanted a song of praise to God as soon as they came to life” (148).
46. See also, Motyer (1993: 212), “resurrection from the dust of the earth.”
47. Aus (2005: 190) recognizes a similar translation as mine. He notes the overlap
here with 2 Bar. 73.1–2 (for the righteous, health will descend as dew).
48. Here, Collins rejects those who maintain that the passage reflects a belief in
actual resurrection, e.g., Hasel (1980); Nickelsburg (1972: 18); Puech (1993):
66–73.
49. DiLella claims that Dan 12.2 is an “inspired midrash” on the Isaiah text (1978:
307).
50. BDB, “Slip away; escape; be delivered.” See the striking parallels (thematic and
linguistic) with Isa 49.24–25 and also Ps 89.48.
51. The ‘Book of Life,’ cf. Exod 32.32–33; Ps 69.28.
52. Wedderburn claims that this is most likely physical life (1987: 169); although
see Cavallin (1974: 28, n. 1).
53. On this text, see esp. Cavallin (1974: 26–7); Collins (1977: 191–218); Davies
(1985: 109–20); Nickelsburg (1972); Wright (2003: 109–15). Davies notes
(1985: 113), “The description in these verses is extremely sketchy . . . a series
of brief statements which hardly amount to a coherent description.”
54. 2003: 109, 110, 116. Also in agreement is Schmidt (2000: 96). See also,
Doukhan (2012).
55. Such a reading is thus contra that of Davies (2000: 195), who claims that Dan
12 speaks of resurrection of bodies, not reviving of spirits.
56. Segal (2004: 265) referring to Judg 5.20 and Job 38.7.
57. See Ps 48.15; Wis 3.4 (God created man to be immortal . . . the hope of the
soul alone is full of immortality). Endsjø (2009:125); Lona (1993).
58. On the ‘many,’ Davies (1985: 116–7), who notes, “A universal resurrection
is probably not envisaged, not even a universal Jewish resurrection.” Also,
DiLella (1978: 307–08); Goldingay (1989: 281, 308).
59. The Rabbinic tripartite schema of t. Sanh 13.3, RH 16b-17a is quite different.
There the house of Shammai notes that there are the righteous destined for
eternal life; the wicked destined for “reproach, for everlasting abhorrence;”
but also those who are refined. These descend to Sheol but are then raised and
healed. The school drew upon Zech 13.9 and 1 Sam 2.6 for this assumption.
See further, Cavallin (1974: 173–75); Montefiore and Lowe (1938: 600–03).
60. See sources cited in Cavallin (1974: 28).
61. Physical injury can certainly lead to shame and contempt (e.g., 1 Sam 11.2;
Job 16.10; Jer 29.18; 44.12; Ezek 5.15), but the opposite is never true in the
Hebrew Bible: that being put to shame means undergoing some form of injury.
62. This appears to be Wright’s approach, who claims that Dan 10–12 “provide a
different lens” through which to view earlier events (2003: 115).

63. On the imagery of Ezek 37 see De Boer (1988: 44), “The idea of resurrection
seems to be purely metaphorical, symbolizing the miracle of national revival
by God after the annihilation of His people by foreign powers.” On additional,
albeit more ambiguous texts from the Hebrew Bible see Johnston (2002).
64. Cf. also the parallels between 37.14 and 36.27–28 noted by Allen (1990: 187);
and see Block (1998).
65. Goldingay notes that the chapter is “characteristically prophetic” (1989: 307).
66. Cf. Deut 28.25–26; 2 Sam 21; Jer 34.17–20; Block (1998: 377–78).
67. Overlooked in commentaries such as Allen (1990) and Eichrodt (1970). The
Church Fathers saw in Ezekiel’s imagery the final resurrection of the dead (see
Zimmerli 1983: 264).
68. Cf. Eichrodt: “the reader may have been thinking that this is a presentation
of the belief in the resurrection of the dead. This, however, is not the case . . .”
(1970: 509).
69. Rev 11.11 possibly echoes Ezek 37.5, and 1 Thess 4.8 may be based on Ezek
37.14. Cf. Block (1998: 389–90).
70. In this context Moore (1927: 2.331) notes, “. . . under the empires that suc-
ceeded one another in the dominion of their world, the Jews were made keenly
aware of the impotence of little Judaea and its scattered sons over against the
gigantic power of those vast empires.”
71. On the importance of the Maccabean struggle see, Bauckham (1998a: 83).
72. Cf., Mal 3.14–15, “It is vain to serve god. What is the good of our keeping his
charge or of walking as in mourning before the Lord of hosts? Henceforth we
deem the arrogant blessed; evildoers not only prosper but when they put God
to the test they escape.”
73. Tobit 3.6, 10; 5.12; 13.2; Wis 1.14.
74. Wis 12.1; Sirach 38.16–23; Bar 2.17; 2 Esdras 2.45; 4 Macc 17.2; 18.23.
75. Cf., 2 Macc 7.14.
76. See Tromp (1969: 129), who writes, “the psalmists often claim to be in Sheol
when, in our view, they are still alive; and to be delivered from the abode of
the dead, while to our way of thinking they have not been there at all.”
77. Bauckham (1998: 16); Pss 6; 7; 13; 30; 33.18–22; 86; 88.
78. See further, Perkins (1984: 37), who writes, “Many popular treatments of res-
urrection often presume that it reflects a “Jewish” view of the unity of the
human person over against a Greek dualism of soul and body . . . [But] the
so-called unitary person reflects a metaphoric stage of language and conscious-
ness over against the development of philosophical conceptualization. Further
studies of textual and archaeological evidence have shown that there is no
peculiarly Jewish view of the person in the period under discussion.”
79. For further critiques of Johnston see Hays (2011: 143–44); Lewis (2002: 189).
80. Some of which one may argue are questionable (e.g., Isa 5.14; 14.11, 15;
28.15).
81. Johnston (2002: 81). Cf. further: “Sheol is used almost exclusively reserved for
those under divine judgment, whether the wicked, the afflicted righteous, or all
sinners. It seldom occurs of all humanity, and only in contexts which portray
human sinfulness and life’s absurdity. Thus Sheol is not used indiscriminately
to describe human destiny at death” (83).
82. See, for example, his studies on Ps 89.48–49 (pp. 82–83) and Eccl 9.7–10
(p. 83).
83. The natural, peaceful death of Samuel is pertinent in this context as Johnston
(2002: 81) claims that the righteous may comment upon or descend unnatu-
rally to Sheol if death occurs, “in the context of trial or divine judgement, or
unhappy and untimely death.”
84. Cf. Segal’s comment (2004: 135) that “there are not any notions of hell and
heaven that we can identify in the Hebrew Bible.”
85. 2002: 223. He notes that its visionary nature is confirmed by similar introduc-
tory language in Ezekiel’s other visions, cf. 1.3; 3.14; 8.1–3; 11.1.Some rabbis
took the event as literal and debated the later history of those ‘resurrected’, cf.
Block (1998: 388).
86. The worry for some appears to be that the admission of a consistent afterlife
scenario in Sheol for both righteous and wicked places the Hebrew Bible in
tension with the general thrust of the New Testament, especially the various
sayings placed upon the lips of Jesus in the Gospels. However, there is also
tension between the Hebrew Bible and New Testament over the very nature
of Sheol: a place of containment in the Hebrew Bible, yet a place of eternal
torment in the New Testament. On this, see Finney (2013).
SOURCES CITED
ALLEN, C. (1990) Ezekiel: 20–48. Dallas: Word Books.

AUS, R. (2005) The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, and the Death, Burial,
and Translation of Moses in Judaic Tradition. Lanham: University Press of America.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1992) Hades, Hell. In FREEDMAN, D. (ed.), Anchor Bible Dic-
tionary. Vol. 3. New Haven: Yale University Press.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1998) The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian
Apocalypse. Leiden: Brill.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1998a) Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.
In LONGENECKER, R.N. (ed.), Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection
Message of the New Testament. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans.
BLENKINSOPP, J. (2000) Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.
BLOCK, D.I. (1998) The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
BRANDON, S.G.F. (1967) The Judgement of the Dead: An Historical and Com-
parative Study of the Idea of a Post-Mortem Judgement in the Major Religions.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
BRENTON, L.C.L. (1851) The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson.
BROOKE, G. (2006) The Structure of 1QHA XII 5-XIII 4 and the Meaning of Res-
urrection. In MARTÍNEZ, F.G., STEUDEL, A. & TIGCHELAAR, E. (eds), From
4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Émile Puech.
Leiden: Brill.
BRUEGGEMANN, W. (1972) From Dust to Kingship. Zeitschrift für alttestamentli-
che Wissenschaft. 84, pp. 1–18.
CAVALLIN, H.C.C. (1974) Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection
of the Dead in I Cor 15. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
COLLINS, J.J. (1977) The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Missoula:
Scholar’s Press.
COLLINS, J.J. (1993) Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
COLLINS, J.J. (2000) The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature. In AVERY-PECK,
A.J. & NEUSNER, J. (eds), Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After-
Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaism of Antiquity. Hand-
book of Oriental Studies 4; Leiden: Brill.

COLLINS, J.J. (2009) The Angelic Life. In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J. (eds), Meta-
morphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christi-
anity. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Vol. 1;
Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
COX, C. (2009) New English Translation of the Septuagint: Iob. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; [Online] Available from: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
DAVIES, P.R. (1985) Daniel. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
DAVIES, P.R. (2000) Death, Resurrection and Life after Death in the Qumran Scrolls.
In AVERY-PECK, A.J. & NEUSNER, J. (eds), Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4:
Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaism of
Antiquity. Handbook of Oriental Studies 4. Leiden: Brill.
DE BOER, M.C. (1988) The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corin-
thians 15 and Romans 5. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
DILELLA, A. (1978) The Book of Daniel. New York: Doubleday.
DOUKHAN, J.B. (2012) From Dust to Stars: The Vision of Resurrection(s) in Daniel
12,1–3 and its Resonance in the Book of Daniel. In VAN OYEN, G. & SHEP-
HERD, T. (eds), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue. Leu-
ven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
EICHRODT, W. (1970) Ezekiel. London: SCM.
Greece and 1 Corinthians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 30 (4),
pp. 417–36.
New York: Pagrave Macmillan.
EVANS, C.A. (1999) Did Jesus Predict his Death and Resurrection? In PORTER,
S.E., HAYES, M.A. & TOMBS, D. (eds), Resurrection. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press.
FINNEY, M.T. (2013) Afterlives of the Afterlife: The Development of Hell in its
Jewish and Christian Contexts. In EXUM, J.C. & CLINES, D.J.A. (eds), Biblical
Reception 2. Sheffield: Phoenix Press.
GOLDINGAY, J.E. (1989), Daniel. WBC 30. Dallas: Word Books.
GREEN, J.B. (1998) Bodies—That is, Human Lives: A Re-Examination of Human
Nature in the Bible. In BROWN, W.S., MURPHY, N. & MALONY, H.N. (eds),
Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human
Nature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
HALLOTE, R.S. (2001) Death, Burial and Afterlife in the Biblical World: How the
Israelites and their Neighbors Treated the Dead. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
HASEL, G.F. (1980) Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic.
Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 92, pp. 267–84.
HAYS, C.B. (2011) Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
JOHNSON, D.G. (1988) From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of
Isaiah 24–27. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
JOHNSTON, P.S. (2002) Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
KISSANE, E.J. (1960) The Book of Isaiah. 2 Vols. Dublin: Brown and Nolan.
LEWIS, T.J. (2002) How Far Can Texts Take Us? Evaluating Textual Sources for
Reconstructing Ancient Israelite Beliefs about the Dead. In GITTLEN, B.M. (ed.),
Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
LONA, H.E. (1993) Über die Auferstehung des Fleisches: Studien zur frühchristli-
chen Eshatologie. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
LONGENECKER, R.N. (1998) Introduction. In LONGENECKER, R.N. (ed.), Life

in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids Cambridge: Eerdmans.
LÜDEMANN, G. (2012) The Resurrection of Jesus: Fifteen Years Later. In VAN
OYEN, G. & SHEPHERD, T. (eds), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions
in Dialogue. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
LUNDE, J. (1992) Heaven and Hell. In GREEN, J.B., MCKNIGHT, S. & MAR-
SHALL, I.H. (eds), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Leicester: IVP.
MARTIN-ACHARD, R. (1992) Resurrection: Old Testament. In FREEDMAN, D.
(ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. New York: Doubleday.
MEIER, J.P. (2000) The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead: An Incident from
the Ministry of the Historical Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
22 (77), pp. 3–24.
MONTEFIORE, C.G. & LOWE, H. (1938) A Rabbinic Anthology. London: Mac-
Millan and Co., Ltd.
MOORE, G.F. (1927) Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of
the Tannaim. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
MOTYER, A. (1993) The Prophecy of Isaiah. Leicester: IVP.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (1972) Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Inter-
testamental Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (1992) Resurrection: Early Judaism and Christianity. In
FREEDMAN, D. (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. New York: Doubleday.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (2006) Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in
Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity: Expanded Edition. HTS 56.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
PEARSON, B.W.R. (1999) ‘Resurrection and the Judgment of the Titans: h9 gh= tw~n
a)sebw~n in LXX Isaiah 26.19. In PORTER, S.E., HAYES, M.A. & TOMBS, D.
(eds), Resurrection. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
PERKINS, P. (1984) Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary
Reflection. London: Chapman.
PUECH, É. (1993) La croyance des esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrec-
tion, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancient. 2 Vols.; ÉBib,
NS, 21. Paris: Gabala.
SAWYER, J.F.A. (1973) Hebrew Words for Resurrection. Vetus Testamentum. 23 (2),
pp. 218–34.
SCHMIDT, B.B. (2000) Memory as Immortal: Countering the Dreaded ‘Death after
Death’ in Ancient Israelite Society. In AVERY-PECK, A.J. & NEUSNER, J. (eds),
Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the
World-to-Come in the Judaism of Antiquity. Handbook of Oriental Studies 4.
Leiden: Brill.
SCHMITZ, P. (2003) The Grammar of Resurrection in Isaiah 26:19a-c. Journal of
Biblical Literature. 122 (1), pp. 145–49.
SCHÜRER, E. (1979–87) The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ.
4 Vols., Rev. edn. London: T&T Clark.
SEGAL, A. (1997) Life After Death: The Social Sources. In DAVIS, S., KENDALL,
D. & O’COLLINS, G. (eds), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium
on the Resurrection of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SEGAL, A. (2004) Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the
West. New York: Doubleday.
SILVA, M. (2009) New English Translation of the Septuagint: Esias. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; [Online] Available from: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
WADE, G.W. (1929), The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. London: Methuen.
WEDDERBURN, A. (1987) Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology
against its Graeco-Roman Background. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
WILDERBERGER, H. (1972), Jesaja. BKAT Vol. 10. Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirch-
ener Verlag.
WRIGHT, N.T. (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: SPCK.
YAMUACHI, E. (1998) Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East. In
LONGENECKER, R.N. (ed.), Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Mes-
sage of the New Testament. Grand Rapids Cambridge: Eerdmans.
ZIMMERLI, W. (1983) Ezekiel 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
3 The Priority of the Soul
Constructions of Afterlife
in Second Temple Judaism
The aim of this chapter is to present an examination of the relevant texts on

the afterlife from the period of Second Temple Judaism, the importance of
which cannot be overstated, for it is here that, for many scholars, the Jewish
concept of the resurrection of the body finally becomes unmistakably clear.1
However, this chapter will argue against such a proposition and suggest,
rather, that the majority of Second Temple Judaism texts are actually consis-
tent in presenting various afterlife scenarios for the soul and not the body.
AFTERLIFE IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM
It will be fruitful to identify various aspects of the afterlife from a range of

Second Temple Jewish sources, and this will be made under a number of key
themes. Firstly, in terms of death, and the advent of death, the Wisdom of
Solomon (2nd–1st BCE) notes that God neither ‘made’ death nor does he
delight in the death of the living, for, “It is through both the ungodly by their
words and deeds that death was summoned and through the devil’s envy
that death entered the world” (Wis 1.12–16; 2.1, 5, 24). The dominion of
Hades is said to lie beneath the earth, and, according to the author there is
no return from death (Wis 2.1, 5; Collins 1981: 186; De Boer 1988: 59–60).
Secondly, as is well documented within ancient Judaism, the physical flesh
was considered corrupt and evil while the soul was virtuous and noble.
Many texts denigrate the flesh while maintaining the goodness of the soul
which is construed to be ‘borrowed’ from God. Again, the Wisdom of Sol-
omon asserts that the soul is created in the image of God’s own nature and
is incorruptible. It is weighed down and imprisoned in the body, in which
the earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind (cf. 2 Cor 5).2 Josephus, too,
affirms that the bodies of all men are created out of corruptible matter and
so are mortal, but the soul is a portion of divinity that inhabits the body
(War 3.372);3 as such, the soul “suffers when being implanted in bodies”
(C. Ap. 2.203). He notes that the Essenes held to a similar doctrine ascribing
to them the thought that, “bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they
are made of is not permanent; but the soul is united to the body as a prison,
into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when
they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they are released as from a long
bondage” (War 2.154–55; 7.337–55).
The death of the body, the point at which “the mortal goes to the earth”
according to the Wisdom of Solomon, means that the soul can return to its
source (Wis 15.8).4 At this point, asserts Josephus, “People who depart from
this life repay what God had lent them, when the giver wants to claim it back
again” (War 3.374). In a long soliloquy placed on the lips of Eleazar, leader
of the Sicarii, at their last stand on Masada, Josephus writes of the soul’s
divine nature, and of its immortality:
death gives liberty to the soul and permits it to depart to its own pure
abode, there to be free from all calamity; but [being] imprisoned in a
mortal body and tainted with all its miseries [. . .] ill befits that which is
divine [. . .] it is not until, freed from the weight that drags it down to
earth and clings about it, the soul is restored to its proper sphere [. . .]
remaining, like God himself [. . .] abundant in a wealth of immortality.
(War 7.343–48)5
In a similar way, the author of 2 Baruch asks the ‘Mighty One:’ “In which
shape will the living live in your day? Or how will remain their splendor
which will be after that? Will they, perhaps, take again this present form, and
will they put on the chained members which are in evil and by which evils are
accomplished? Or will you perhaps change these things which have been in
the world, as also the world itself?” (2 Bar. 49.2–3).6 The writer’s hope is obvi-
ously for change—that the splendour of the soul will remain and that there
will be no physical aspect to post-mortem existence. So, too, in the Ascension
of Isaiah, the author describes a glorious vision of the seventh heaven at the
end times, glorious because all there, including Enoch, are “stripped of (their)
robes of the flesh; and I saw them in their robes of above, and they were like
the angels who stand there in great glory” (9.7–8). The same sentiments are
found in 2 Enoch, too, when the author (supposedly the patriarch Enoch)
notes: “The Lord said to Michael, ‘Take Enoch and extract (him) from his
earthly clothing [. . .] and put (him) into the clothes of glory [. . .] And I gazed
at myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones” (2 En. 22.8, 10).7
The above quotes by Josephus point to the third key theme, which is the
concept of the immortality of the soul and the place of its departure after
death. Josephus repeatedly notes that the soul is immortal and is a portion
of the divine inhabiting the body. The souls of the righteous are said to
attain immortality and an everlasting sense of bliss (War 1.650; 3.372), a
doctrine held by both Essenes and Pharisees (Ant. 18.14, 18). The writer of
Pseudo-Phocylides tells the same: “For the spirit is a loan of God to mortals;
our soul is immortal and lives ageless forever” (103–15).8
But, following the death of the body, where do souls go? Second Temple
Jewish texts note that they depart to certain ‘abodes,’ although the precise
The Priority of the Soul 51
locations of these differ amongst the various texts. As the soul is spoken of as
belonging to, and being borrowed from God, on its release from the body, it
is naturally said to return to God and in many texts there is a strong empha-
sis on the security of the righteous soul after death (4 Ezra 7.75–101).9 The
Wisdom of Solomon declares that such souls are in the hand of God, and
no torment will ever touch them, they are at peace (3.1); and for 1 Enoch:
“You, souls of the righteous [. . .] Be not sad that your souls have gone down
into Sheol in sorrow” for there is the promise of restoration (102.4–6).10 The
author of Pseudo-Philo even quotes God himself, to confirm the same: “At
the end of the lot of each one of you will be life eternal, for you and your
seed, and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the time allotted
the world be complete” (22.13).11 4 Ezra speaks of souls (of the righteous
at least), being stored in Hades, in what the author calls ‘chambers.’ Here,
they are guarded by angels, and rejoice that they have now escaped what is
mortal and are to be made like the stars (4 Ezra 4.35, 41; 7.95–96).12 So, all
souls are said to return to God until the day of judgement.
If 1 Enoch (above) notes that the soul of the righteous goes down into
Sheol, other texts speak of the righteous soul rising up into heaven. The
doctrine of the Essenes (articulated by Josephus), affirms that when they
are set free from the bonds of the flesh they then rejoice and mount upward
(War 2.155). In the Apocalypse of Moses the soul of Adam is taken up to
heaven (13.3–6; 37ff., and see further below). The same is said of Abraham
in the Testament of Abraham, a text which is illuminating: “And they buried
[Abraham] in the promised land [. . .] while the angels escorted his precious
soul and ascended into heaven singing [. . .] and when Abraham had wor-
shipped13 [. . .] God spoke: ‘Take my friend Abraham into Paradise where
there are the tents of my righteous ones and the mansions of my holy ones
[. . .] where there is endless life’ ” (20.9–11).14 In similar terms, the Testament
of Job recounts Job’s death:
Job fell ill [. . .] after three days he saw those who had come for his soul.
Gleaming chariots came for his soul [. . .] the one who sat on the chariot
got off and greeted Job [. . .] And taking the soul he flew up, embracing
it, and mounted the chariot and set off for the east. But his body, pre-
pared for burial, was borne to the tomb [. . .] After three days they laid
him in the tomb in a beautiful sleep.
(52.1–53.5)15
For the wicked however, 4 Ezra notes that “bad spirits shall not enter into
habitations, but shall wander about in torments” (7.95), and Josephus writes
that the wicked are to be detained in an everlasting prison where their souls
are subject to eternal punishment (War 2.163; Ant. 18.14). 2 Baruch even
confirms that “After the appointed day, the wicked will be changed into
startling visions and horrible shapes; and they will waste away even more.
Then they will go away to be tormented” (51.1–6, and see further below).
In this respect there is a sharp level of discontinuity between Second Tem-
ple Jewish texts and the Hebrew Bible. Certainly, the concept of an (immor-
tal) soul descending into Sheol is consistent, yet there is a marked difference
in what follows. While the Hebrew Bible (excepting Daniel 12) asserts that
the souls of both wicked and righteous remain eternally as shades in Sheol,
Second Temple texts distinguish between the wicked souls which do remain
there (and are eternally tormented), and the righteous souls which are taken
to a better place.16 Further, some texts omit entirely the descent into Sheol,
and assert that the righteous soul ascends immediately into a heavenly par-
adise (although whether such a purview is simply temporal compression,
that is, omitting mention of the intermediate stage of a descent into Sheol,
or actually rejecting it altogether, is difficult to ascertain). As noted in the
summary to the previous chapter, these changes are likely to be a result of
reflection on the afterlife through the Maccabean period.
THE PRIORITY OF THE SOUL IN DISCUSSION

ON THE AFTERLIFE
The fourth key theme is a discussion of the end times, and this is where most
variety purportedly exists in Second Temple Jewish texts. At this point, as the
Wisdom of Solomon succinctly explains, “God examines souls” (3.13), and
the author of 1 Enoch writes:
In those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she has received
and hell will give back all that which it owes. And he [the Elect One]
shall choose the righteous and the holy ones from among (the risen
dead), for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived.
[They shall] wear garments of glory.
(1 En. 51.1–2)17
1 Enoch is replete with similar sentiments and what is emphasized through-

out the composite text is that the authors are thinking of afterlife scenar-
ios for the soul or spirit, not the body. Chapter 22, for example, provides
explicit details of the abode of the dead reiterating that it is for the souls or
spirits of the dead (twelve times in 14 verses), which are gathered until the
day of judgement. Enoch sees here the spirit of Abel and is informed that
the souls of the righteous are separated from those of the wicked (which will
suffer eternal retribution).18 In his detailed analysis of 1 Enoch 22, George
Nickelsburg reminds the reader that the disembodied shades of all the dead
being taken to the gloomy regions of Sheol was a “widespread idea in the
Hebrew Bible,” and, in dating this section to the third century BCE, notes
the “influence of Greek rather than ancient Near Eastern ideas” (2001: 300–
309). He recognizes here the emphasis of the afterlife of the soul alone. The
text is prefaced in 1 Enoch 21 by the first appearance of eternal punishment
by fire in Second Temple Jewish texts: “a great fire that was burning and
flaming [. . .] pouring out great pillars of fire,” whose extent nor magnitude
could be seen nor estimated. This is the place of eternal destruction for the
fallen angels who are detained forever. (The precedent here is likely to be the
worm of fire of Isa. 66 although it is not suggested there that the dead are in
any way ‘alive’ to experience such eternal torment.)19
Likewise in 1 Enoch 102–103, the emphasis is also on the afterlife of the
soul. Enoch delights that:
you souls of the righteous, fear not; and be hopeful, you souls that
died in righteousness! Be not sad because your souls have gone down
into Sheol in sorrow [. . .] For all good things, and joy and honor are
prepared for and written down for the souls of those who died in righ-
teousness [. . .] The spirits of those who died in righteousness shall live
and rejoice; their spirits shall not perish.
(102.4–103.3)20
Yet, for the souls of the wicked, Enoch issues a stark warning: “they shall
experience evil and great tribulation—in darkness, nets, and burning flame.
Your souls shall enter into the great judgement” (103.5–8; and more gen-
erally, 1 En. 38–40). As Nickelsburg argues: “Nowhere do these chapters
indicate that their authors anticipated a resurrection of the body and hence
that they constructed the human being as a totality of body and soul. It is
the soul [. . .] that receives reward and punishment [. . .] For this author
eschatological blessing and curse will be granted to the soul or spirit and
not the body” (2001: 519, 523). Stuckenbruck concurs, noting: “Here, then,
the human is not spoken of as a single being that consists of both body and
soul; rather, the soul (and not the body) is made responsible for actions and
hence receives rewards or punishments. It is therefore difficult to envision
how the writer could have believed in a “resurrection of the body” (2007:
497). So, too, on these chapters, J.J. Collins writes:
The Epistle of Enoch predicts resurrection at the end of history; else-

where however it asserts future vindication of the righteous in terms
that do not suggest the bodily resurrection but the transformation of
the spirit after death (103–104). The reward of the righteous is to share
the eternal, spiritual life of the angels in heaven. This is not the Greek
idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the
body. Rather it is the resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol
to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest
in the earth.
(2000: 124)
Collins correctly recognizes that the text of 1 Enoch exhibits the social ten-
sions and ‘cultural trauma’ of the period (cf. 1 En. 104.7–8), the response to
which is the manifest hope for some kind of afterlife and of grand visions of
life beyond death (see also, Nickelsburg 1977).
Similar sentiments are found in a range of other Second Temple Jewish
texts. The author of Jubilees envisages a separation of body and soul in the
last days:
There will be no Satan and no evil (one) who will destroy,

Because all of their days will be days of blessing and healing

And then the Lord will heal his servants,
And they will rise up and see great peace.
And they will drive out their enemies.
And their bones will rest in the earth,
And their spirits will increase in joy.
(23.29–30)21
In similar fashion the author of the Psalms of Solomon writes:
[The sinner] adds sin upon sin in his life;

He falls—and he will not rise [a)nasth/setai]
The destruction of the sinner is forever,
But those who fear the lord shall rise up [a)nasth/sontai] to eternal life
And their life shall be in the Lord’s light, and it shall never end.
(Pss. Sol. 3.10–12; and also 2.16; 14.2)
Although the righteous are said to rise to eternal life, at this point the text
provides no detail on the form or nature of that rising. Fortunately, however,
the wider context repeatedly notes that the sinner will be taken away to
Hades and to ruin, the righteous to paradise: “For the life of the righteous
(goes on) forever, but sinners shall be taken away to destruction, and no
memory of them will ever be found” (13.11; 14.3, 9–10). And what heads
for Hades for the sinner or to paradise for the righteous, is the soul:
For a moment my soul was poured out to death;

(I was) near the gates of Hades with the sinner
Thus my soul was drawn away from the Lord god of Israel,
Unless the Lord had come to my aid with his everlasting mercy.
(Pss. Sol. 16.2–3; cf. 16.12; 17.1)
The Psalm here has parallels, in part, with those of the Hebrew Bible, but
with the additional distinction of positing differing afterlife abodes for the
souls of the righteous and the wicked. In this way, there is continuity with
the apocryphal texts such as the Wisdom of Solomon noted above which
confirms: “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God and no torment
will ever touch them [. . .] their hope is full of immortality” (3.1, 4), but that
“the ungodly will be punished [. . .] when God examines souls” (3.10, 13).
In the first-century CE, Josephus writes that the Essenes held the same
doctrine: “For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its
constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperish-
able” (War 2.154; cf. Ant. 18.18).22 Philo notes the same of the Therapeutae
(Contempl. 13); indeed, Philo would probably reject the concept of a resur-
rection of the body himself, for although he does not mention it specifically,
he does state that a ‘corpse’ cannot come into the sight of God (Fug. 10–11;
cf. 55–59).23 Other texts which affirm the resurrection of the soul alone
are the Testament of Asher (6.5–6), the Testament of Dan (5.11–12), and
Pseudo-Philo (3.10; 19.12).24 At the end of the first-century CE, the author
of 2 Baruch appears to claim the same:
And it will happen after these things when the time of the appearance
of the Anointed One has been fulfilled and he returns with glory, that
then all who sleep in hope of him will rise. And it will happen at that
time that those treasuries will be opened in which the number of the
souls of the righteous were kept, and they will go out and the multitudes
of the souls will appear together, in one assemblage, of one mind. And
the souls of the wicked will know that their torment has come and that
perditions have arrived.
(30.1–5, and note 49.2–3 above)
In dramatic apocalyptic imagery, a number of texts describe in detail the

conflagration of the end times. The author of 4 Ezra, for example, writes:
The Messiah will rule 400 yrs, then, along with all who draw human
breath, will die. The world will turn back to primeval silence for seven
days, as it was at the beginnings; so that no one shall be left. After this
the world shall be roused, “and that which is corruptible shall perish.
And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it; and the chambers
shall give up the souls which have been committed to them. And the
Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgement [. . .] Then the
pit of torment shall appear, and opposite it shall be the place of rest;
and the furnace of Hell shall be disclosed, and opposite it the Paradise
of delight.
(7.28–36)
Here, it is the soul which survives the end time conflagration and is led into
judgement. Although this appears clear enough, some claim that the text
is ambiguous on the point of whether it describes a spiritual or physical
afterlife, yet within the wider context of 4 Ezra the work is consistent in
speaking of a spiritual afterlife. For example, the author writes: “Did not the
souls of the righteous in their chambers ask about these matters [of when
the end would come], saying, How long are we to remain here? In Hades
the chambers of the soul are like the womb [. . .] these places hasten to give
back those things that were committed to them from the beginning” (4.35,
41); and later, “on death, the spirit leaves the body and returns to God [. . .]
good spirits are gathered into chambers and guarded by angels, the righteous
souls rejoice that they have now escaped what is mortal, they are to be made
like the stars” (7.78, 95–96).25
Pseudo-Philo also envisages a new or re-creation:
When the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled [. . .] I will
bring the dead to life and raise up those sleeping from the earth [. . .]
so that I may render to each according to his works. And the world will
cease and death will be abolished [. . .] And there will be another earth
and another heaven, an everlasting dwelling place.
(3.10)26
The bringing of the dead to life and the raising up of those sleeping in the
earth is best construed as the spiritual dimensions of an afterlife. Pseudo-Philo
speaks elsewhere that only the soul will be stored in peace, awaiting the end
days (23.13; 32.13; 62.9). In light of the above passages, the most likely
sense is that they speak of the raising up and eternal life for the soul. How-
ever, other post-Biblical Jewish texts are ambiguous. The Testament of Judah
notes that at the end times Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be resurrected to
life, but says nothing of their form (T. Jud. 25.1), the Testament of Benjamin
does likewise commenting upon the deaths of Enoch, Seth, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob (10.6–8), and in Pseudo-Philo, too (above), the bringing of the
dead to life and the raising up of those sleeping in the earth is best under-
stood as the spiritual dimensions of an afterlife.
A third view in this section is those Second Temple texts which, for some,
make reference to a new physical body.27 Yet, these are fewer than tradi-
tionally assumed and, I would suggest, are miscategorised, belonging, in
fact, to the category above (i.e., speaking of the resurrection of the immor-
tal righteous soul, not the physical body). These texts include sections of 1
Enoch, the Testament of Job, Pseudo-Phocylides, the Sibylline Oracles, the
Apocalypse of Adam and Eve, and most commonly, 2 Maccabees, Josephus,
and 2 Baruch.28 These will be dealt with in turn.
1 Enoch
Much has been said of 1 Enoch thus far which is clearly a composite text
drawn from a number of authors and periods.29 However, the majority of it
can be dated to the second and first centuries BCE and, as such, it is of great
interest for analyzing the various authorial musings on the afterlife. Claudia
Setzer claims that there are apparently “Fairly explicit claims of bodily res-
urrection [. . .] in texts like 1 Enoch 51,” and claims the same for 1 Enoch
91 (2004: 18).30 However, 1 Enoch 51 simply notes: “In those days the
earth will give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will return all
the deposits which she had received” (51.1), which is more ambiguous than
Setzer allows. Certainly, the latter clause appears to be consistent within
Second Temple Judaism as a reference to the soul which has been received by
Sheol and ‘stored’ for a later day, but debate remains over the first clause and
how to take the two together. This could simply be an example of Hebrew
parallelism, or of the soul taking on ‘bodily’ form.31 Her second text (91.10)
is even more ambiguous: “then the righteous one will arise from his sleep
and the wise one [or wisdom] will arise.” The language employed here is
similar to both the Testament of Job (above) and Pseudo-Phocylides (below)
and need not refer to a physical resurrection at all.32
Setzer goes on to suggest that: “Ambiguity prevails in works that never-
theless imply resurrection such as ‘The Book of the Watchers’ ” (1 En. 1–36),
by which Setzer means resurrection of the body (2004: 18). Yet, the clearest
texts on the afterlife in this section (9.3, 10; 22.3, 8–14) are unambiguous
in speaking of the afterlife of the soul alone. Indeed, as noted, 1 Enoch 22
contains twelve references to the soul/spirit of the departed, by which the
author means the spirit(s) of the dead (22.5), which left the body (22.7) after
it died and was buried (22.10). This is entirely consistent with 1 Enoch 103
which claims: “For all good things are prepared for the souls of those who
died in righteousness [. . .] Their spirits shall live and rejoice [. . .] their spirits
shall not perish” (103.3–4). Hence, the general emphases of the numerous
sections of 1 Enoch, and of the work as a whole, locate an afterlife experi-
ence in terms of the soul and not the body.
Like Setzer, Puech also reads physical resurrection into 1 Enoch. Yet,
his cited texts (90.33; 91.10//92.3–4; 100.5; 102.4–5; 103.3–7; 104.2–5)
demonstrate nothing of the sort. Some of these speak of the righteous arising
from sleep, but as noted above, in a number of works this is a reference to
the soul (e.g., Pseudo-Phocylides, Pseudo-Philo, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra). In some
of the other texts (such as 102.4–5 and 103.3–7), the emphasis is specifically
upon the afterlife of the soul; e.g., 103.3, “For all good things and joy and
honour are prepared for and written down for the souls of those who died
in righteousness.” Nevertheless, despite the fact that Puech struggles to find
explicit references to physical resurrection, he can still apparently affirm:
“the resurrection of a glorified body must be implied—and not the existence
of the spirit or soul, as some have supposed” (1994: 249).
The single verse in 1 Enoch 1–36 from which a persistent claim is made
for evidence of a physical afterlife is 25.6. Here, Enoch enquires of the arch-
angel Michael about a beautiful fragrant tree which is to be given to the
righteous and the pious. Michael responds in poetical form:
Then they [the righteous] shall be glad and rejoice in gladness

And they shall enter into the holy (place);
Its fragrance shall (penetrate) their bones,
Long life will they live on earth,
Such as your fathers lived in their days.
This follows the rich poetical picture-language of 25.1–5 which describes
the descent of the “Holy and Great Lord of Glory, the Eternal King” to the
earth where he takes his throne upon the summit of a great mountain in
order to bring judgement, vengeance, and the conclusion of all things. The
scene is obviously of the end times, following judgement, when the righteous
will live on earth. The connotation of “bones” in this text has assured some
of a context of physical resurrection, yet this is only one interpretation.33
R.K. Harrison contends that in Semitic usage, “bones” may denote the seat
of one’s sensations, and in certain texts simply refers to the “self.”34 Nickels-
burg notes: “The precise connotation of “bones” here is uncertain,” and that
it may simply have been used in place of “their souls” to “avoid the duplica-
tion of synonyms” (2001: 315). To be sure, if this was a reference to physical
resurrection then it stands in tension with the extensive afterlife catalogue of
ch. 22 with its clear emphasis upon the soul/spirit, and precisely how much
weight can be placed upon a single phrase in a poetical text is uncertain. If
one seeks to find consistency in the text, it is best construed either as a ref-
erence to the ‘self,’ or, within an eschatological context, seen within a frame-
work of an afterlife experience of the soul to be followed at the eschaton
by the soul entering some kind of ‘physical entity’ (so, Josephus; see below).
Testament of Job
The Testament of Job (1st BCE–1st CE) is frequently asserted to speak of
the resurrection of the physical body, yet the text is more elusive than tra-
ditionally supposed. Following the collapse of Job’s house which killed his
children, his wife Setis pleads that the ruins be searched for their bones so
that they might be preserved as a memorial. But Job forbids it, declaring:
“Do not trouble yourself in vain. For you will not find my children, since
they were taken up into heaven by the Creator their King [. . .] Look up with
your eyes to the east and see my children crowned with the splendour of the
heavenly one” (39.11–12; 40.3).35
Any assumptions that this text speaks of a bodily resurrection must stand
in tension with the later and more detailed account of Job’s own death in vv.
52.1–53.5 (cited above, but repeated here for reference), in which his soul
ascends to heaven and his body buried on earth, “Job fell ill [. . .] after three
days he saw the gleaming chariots which had come for his soul [. . .] the one
who sat in the great chariot got off and greeted Job [. . .] and taking the soul
he flew up, embracing it, and mounted the chariot and set off for the east.
But his body, prepared for burial, was borne to the tomb” (52.1, 7–11).
There is no ambiguity here. Job’s soul is removed to ‘the east’ (i.e., the
place where his glorified children are seen), and his dead body is taken to a
tomb. With regard to the children, the text appears to compress the tempo-
ral trajectories seen in other works in which death is followed by the taking
of the soul to another undisclosed place, and a final end-time glorification of
the soul. Hence, from the author’s perspective (on the lips of Job), if what
was “taken up to heaven” and glorified is the soul, i.e., that part of a per-
son which defines ‘existence,’ then, naturally, Job’s children (or what consti-
tutes the children—their souls) would not be ‘found.’ So, one could assume
that the author is placing onto the lips of Job a simple ‘spiritual’ assessment
of the tragedy (see Allison 2005: 243–44; Nickelsburg 2000: 155). If we
assume that the text is internally consistent, then the clarity of the later text
must inform the ambiguity of the former. If we make no such assumption,
then one may concur with R.P. Spittler who, noting the inconsistency, sug-
gests that the earlier verses may “betray a Christian hand somewhere in the
editorial history of TJob” (1983: 859, n. e).
Pseudo-Phocylides
Pseudo-Phocylides (30 BCE–40 CE), is another example of a text frequently
taken to speak of physical resurrection.36 The author writes: “for we hope
that the remains of the departed will soon come to the light (again), out of the
earth; and afterward they will become gods” (103–104).37 For Van der Horst,
the text shows the “idea of bodily resurrection [which is . . .] typically Jewish
[and . . .] foreshadowed in the OT (Isa 26.19; Dan 12.2) but fully developed
only in post-Biblical Judaism” (1985: 578).38 Yet, the remnant (lei/yan, sin-
gular) of what has perished (a)poixome/nwn), coming out of the earth towards
the light (kai\ ta&xa d’ e0k gai/hv e0lpi/zomen e0v fa&ov e0lqei=n), is a reference to the
soul/spirit and this is clearly identified in what follows:
And afterwards they become gods.39 For the souls remain unharmed in
the deceased. For the spirit is a loan from God to mortals, and his image.
For we have a body out of earth, and when afterwards we are resolved
again into earth we are but dust; but the air has received our spirit [. . .]
All alike are corpses, but god rules over the souls [which are] immortal
and live ageless forever.
(104–15)
Consistent with other texts notes above, on death, the body returns to the
earth, while the soul emerges out of the earth towards the light. Collins,
like most, appears to misrepresent the text when he suggests: “This passage
seems to be a confused combination of ideas of immortality of the soul and
resurrection of the body [and . . .] predicts resurrection in very physical
terms” (2002: 369–70). Yet, the text shows no confusion and is consistent
with many others seen thus far in depicting the demise of the body and the
afterlife of the soul alone.
Sibylline Oracles
The fourth text, from Book 4 of the Sibylline Oracles, presents us with a dra-
matic visualization of the aftermath of a great end-time conflagration (see
Collins 1985, 2000). Unusually, within the literature, the text speaks of the
total destruction of the whole earth and the entirety of humankind by fire
which is described as divine judgement for sin. After the fire is quenched, the
author asserts: “God himself will again fashion the bones and ashes of men
and he will raise up mortals again as they were before” (4.181–82).40 The
ambiguity of the text is evident in a number of points: do these verses speak
of a re-creation of mankind similar to that of Ezekiel 37, or is it an entirely
new creation; and does the raising up of mortals “as they were before,”
imply any continuity with what existed before the conflagration, or does the
author assert that this is an entirely new creation in some senses parallel to
what existed before?
The text appears to confirm the latter—this is a wholly new creation,
similar but discontinuous to what went before.
The whole world will hear a bellowing noise and mighty sound. He will
burn the whole earth, and will destroy the whole race of men and all
cities and rivers at once, and the sea. He will destroy everything by fire,
and it will be smoking dust. But when everything is already dusty ashes,
and God puts to sleep the unspeakable fire . . . he will raise up mortals
again as they were before. And then there will be a judgement over
which God himself will preside, judging the world again.
(4.175–84)
In this vision, God’s original creation suffered an all-encompassing destruc-

tion due to the fact that the whole of the created order was found to be
wicked (4.152–78), but in this newly created world, God finds that there
are some who are righteous. These will live on earth in a state of blessing
while sinners will go to Tartarus and Gehenna (4.185–86).41 The picture
is less like that of Ezekiel 37 and more like the destruction of the world in
the flood of Genesis 6 (although unlike the Biblical account, in this narra-
tive there are none found righteous amongst the original creation and hence
the destruction of the entire created order). Hence, to see here in the Sibylline
Oracles an example of physical resurrection is to misunderstand the text (as
Collins 2002: 369; Setzer 2004: 15).
Life of Adam and Eve

The fifth text often purported to speak of physical resurrection is the Greek
text of the Life of Adam and Eve (1st–early 2nd CE).42 In writing of God
speaking to Seth (lamenting his dead father, Adam), the author writes: “At
the end of times, all [righteous] flesh from Adam up to that great day shall
be raised [. . .] to them shall be given every joy of Paradise (13.3–6). Cavallin
rightly notes that the use of ‘all flesh’ (pa~sa sa_rc) could simply be a ref-
erence to “mankind” (1974: 73), and this is the exclusive sense throughout
the LXX where it is found nearly ninety times (e.g., Gen 6.12; Ps 64.3; Zech
2.17; Isa 40.5; Sir 44.18), none of which refer to actual physical flesh. Fur-
ther, the author goes on to specify that what is raised is Adam’s soul:
But you, Seth, go to your father Adam, for the span of his life is completed.
Six days from now his soul shall leave the body43 [and later . . .] go again
to your father, since the measure of his life is fulfilled, that is, in three days.
And as his soul departs, you are sure to witness its fearful upward journey.
(13.6)
Describing in detail the death and burial of Adam and Eve, the writer notes
that, lying ill, Adam had “one more day before going out of the body,” at
which point he would “give back [the] spirit into the hands of the one who
has given it” (31.1, 4). As Eve prayed for her husband, an angel appeared,
declaring, “Behold, Adam your husband has gone out of his body. Rise and
see his spirit borne up to meet its maker” (32.4). So, Adam’s soul is taken
up to heaven/paradise to await the “great and fearful day” (38.5), while his
body is prepared for burial. The text provides an extensive narrative of the
burial of Adam’s body (chs 38–43), which is anointed and laid in the earthly
paradise of Eden. What follows is of interest, for God’s announcement to
the buried body (“I told you that you are dust and to dust you shall return,”
41.2), is followed by a promise of resurrection. This is consistent with what
comes both before and after this passage in the assertion that what is raised
up at the last day is the soul alone. Thus, resurrection (a)na&stasin), on the
“last day” means, for the author, “the migration from the earth of a righ-
teous soul” (41.3; 43.3, italics mine), and attempts to see in the work a res-
urrection after death involving the physical body are misguided.
2 Maccabees
Out of the seven texts under discussion, 2 Maccabees 7.9–11 is one of three
texts (alongside the works of Josephus and 2 Baruch) which are most com-
monly asserted to speak of a physical resurrection.44 In 2 Maccabees, the
author details Antiochus Epiphanes’ graphic torture of seven Jewish brothers
and their mother for their refusal to eat pork, and it is the verbal responses
of the second and third brothers which have drawn particular attention:
And when [the second brother] was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed
wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe
will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for
his laws.” After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was
demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth
his hands, and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws
I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again”.
(7.9–11)45
There are a number of intriguing questions to be asked. Why does the third
son only “hope” to get the hands and tongue back; why no certainty?46
The ambiguity may well stem from an intriguing and developing concept
in antiquity on the continuity, or not, of the physical body and, after death,
of the soul. In Biblical Judaism the soul is seen to be anthropomorphic, i.e.,
taking the form of the body. As Samuel ascends from Sheol, he is clearly
recognizable both to the Witch of Endor and to Saul—there is no doubt that
the ascending spirit is that of the dead prophet. So, too, the identification
of the resurrected souls of the patriarchs would be clearly made.47 This is
equally true of Greek and Roman literature. In his descent into Hades, Odys-
seus clearly identifies all of the souls of his comrades, including those slain
in battle. Of interest is his recognition of the soul of his friend Elpenor who
describes how his fall from the roof of Circe’s palace left his neck “wrenched
away from the spine,” a physical injury which, it seems, had no correlative
influence on the shape of the soul (Od. 11.51–65).
Yet, interestingly, by the time of Virgil’s Aeneid (c. 29–19 BCE), the
wounds or dismemberment of the physical body do now show such a correl-
ative effect on the soul. On his journey to the underworld, Aeneas describes
the disfigured shade of his comrade Deiphobus whose earthly body had been
mutilated by Menelaus and the Greeks:
A mass of wounds, most horribly mangled about the face—

The face and both the hands, head mutilated with ears
Torn off, and the nose lopped—a barbarous disfigurement.
(6.494–508; cf. 340–62)
2 Maccabees (dated late second-century BCE) stands between these different

traditions. So, does a mutilated physical body have a corresponding effect on
the soul? The author of 2 Maccabees can only place onto the lips of the third
brother the hope that the ‘hands’ and ‘tongue’ would be returned, and in this
sense the text need not be making any reference to a bodily resurrection and
the return of limbs in any physical sense.48 As such, the Maccabean literature
simply displays a measure of Hellenistic influence wherein the form of one’s
existence in Sheol reflects the form of the body at death (as noted in Chap-
ter 1 and see Bremmer 1983: 83; Endsjø 2009: 31–32; Vermeule 1979: 49).
Such reflection is seen in the New Testament period when the resurrected
Christ still has the wounds of his crucifixion (John 20.27) and where he can
assert statements such as, “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is
better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into
hell” (Mark 9.43 and //s).49 There is also the intriguing text in the Apocalypse
of Zephaniah which, while asserting the afterlife of the soul alone, describes
it in terms which have certain ‘physical’ aspects such as hands, feet, hair, and
‘bodies’ (Ap. Zeph. 10).50
Other questions to be asked in this regard concern the “everlasting
renewal of life” (2 Macc 7.9). Is the author thinking of physical attributes
of a resurrected physical body or characteristics of the soul? Within the
framework of Second Temple Jewish texts noted above, one would construe
these as references to the latter. What is received from God, and has an
immortal existence is the soul. The fourth son, when he nears death (7.14),
claims: “One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish
the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be
no resurrection to life! [a)nasth/sesqai u9p’ au0tou~ soi\ me\n ga_r a)na&stasiv ei0v
zwh\n ou0k e1stai].” The resurrection to life presumed by the wealth of texts
above is that of the soul. And, if doubt remains, the mother of the martyred
boys clarifies exactly what receiving back life (zwh/) will entail, it is the
return of the spirit (pneu~ma51), highlighted in 7.23.52 Finally, the reflection of
4 Maccabees on the incident points towards the final outcome:
But the sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered
together into the chorus of the fathers, and have received pure and
immortal souls from God.53
Here, there is no concept that what is returned includes the physical body;
it is the soul alone (Endsjø 2009: 132; cf. Jub. 23.31). Hence, the various
ambiguities with 7.9–11 are most satisfactorily explained by envisioning a
resurrection of the soul and to assert that the work maintains a resurrection
of the physical body is very doubtful.54
Josephus
Our penultimate analysis is of the writings of Josephus, in which there appears
to be a scholarly consensus that his works offer a clear indication of resurrection
involving a physical body (Grabbe 2000; Porter 1999; Sievers 1998).55 Yet, in
Antiquities, he simply notes the Pharisaic view that the soul survives death and
that “there are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have
led lives of virtue or vice.” The latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison,
“while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life” (Ant. 18.14).56
In Against Apion, the righteous who willingly meet death through adherence
to the law are “granted a renewed existence and in the revolution of the ages
[peritroph=v] the gift of a better life” (2.218). These scenarios are identical to
many texts noted above and indicate no concept of a physical resurrection.
The Jewish War does, however, present us with number of relevant per-
spectives. In the narration of Eleazor’s Masada speech on the immortality of
the soul we see a framework of thought made in similar terms to that seen
in many other Second Temple texts above:
For it is death which gives liberty to the soul and permits it to depart to
its own pure abode, there to be free from all calamity; but so long as it is
imprisoned in a mortal body and tainted with its miseries, it is, in sober
truth, dead [. . .] But it is not until, freed from the weight that drags
it down to earth and clings about it, the soul is restored to its proper
sphere, that it enjoys a blessed energy.
(7.340–57)
Sadly, Josephus provides us with no further detail on this “pure abode.”
More usefully, he writes of the Essene perspective on the afterlife in which
he goes on to recognize the overlap with that of Hellenistic reflection on the
final abode of the soul:
For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible [. . .] but
that the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest
ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of

the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but
when they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liber-
ated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft. Sharing the
belief of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for the virtuous souls
there is reserved [a blessed] place abode beyond the ocean [. . .] while
they relegate base souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon, big with
never-ending punishments.
(2.154–57)
Here, he specifically notes that the resting place for the virtuous soul is akin
to the Isles of the Blessed, while the wicked souls depart to a place similar to
the Greek concept of Hades.
What is of greater interest for our purposes here is when Josephus writes
of Pharisaic thought, that “the soul of the good alone passes into another
body” [metabai/nein de\ ei0v e3teron sw~ma th\n tw~n a)gaqw~n mo&nhn] (2.163),
and later, that righteous souls are “allotted the most holy place in heaven,
whence, in the revolution of the ages, they return to find in chaste bodies
a new habitation” [e1nqen e0k peritroph=v ai0wn& wn a(gnoi=v pa&lin a)ntenoiki/
zontai sw&masin] (3.374).57 It is important to note that nowhere in Josephus’
concept of ‘another body’ or ‘a new habitation’ is this body said to be the
original body now resurrected, nor does it appear to stand in any continu-
ity with the original body (e9terov points towards a different type of ‘other’
body).58 In other words, this is an entirely new and different body/habitation
and whatever Josephus means by this, it is not resurrection of the original
body. Rather, this appears to be some form of metempsychosis or even rein-
carnation.59 It is important to note, too, that Josephus provides no further
explication of what he means by this new and chaste body.
2 Baruch
Our final text is that of 2 Baruch, typically dated to the late first-century CE,
or, more probably, early second century.60 It is frequently assumed to speak
of a physical resurrection, especially the text 48.49–51.5:61
I ask you, O Mighty One [. . .] in which shape will the living live in your
day? [. . .] will they perhaps take again this present form, and will they
put on the chained members which are in evil and by which evils are
accomplished? [. . .] Or will you perhaps change these things? And he
answered and said to me: For the earth will surely give back the dead at
that time [. . .] those who have proved to be righteous will be changed
[. . .] their splendour will then be glorified by transformations [. . .] into
the splendour of angels [. . .] and be equal to the stars. And I answered
and said: concerning the righteous ones [. . .] Prepare your souls for that
which is kept for you, and make ready your souls for the reward which
is preserved for you.
Yet, as has already been noted of 2 Baruch above, after death the soul is held
in a treasury to be restored at a later time (21.23), after which, “all who sleep
in hope of him will rise. And it will happen at that time that those treasuries
will be opened in which the number of the souls of the righteous were kept,
and they will go out and the multitudes of the souls will appear together.”62
The souls held within the treasuries are also known as the dead who sleep
in the earth (21.23–24; 23.4–5; 50.2), a place elsewhere in 2 Baruch called
the ‘dust’ (42.8). The treasuries also hold a store of the good works of the
righteous (14.12). At that time is further elucidated in 50.2 as the point at
which the earth gives back the dead. It had received them in order to keep
them, ‘not changing anything in their form.’ The argument here is that this
is a reference, not to the physical body, which even the ancients realized
underwent a process of decomposition, but to the soul. Perhaps 50.2 read
out of context could be taken to suggest the resurrection of a physical body,
but read within the wider purview of the work as a whole (certainly chap-
ters 20–52), the passage more readily refers to the afterlife of the soul.
Without doubt, the summary statement of chapters 49–52, which occurs
in 52.7, is perfectly clear in that the entire section is making a reference to
the soul. As Richard Bauckham notes: “In this context ‘souls’ need mean no
more than the dead in Sheol, the shades. It need not imply the distinction of
body and soul in death and resurrection as the reunion of the two” (1998:
281, italics his). And Stanley Porter asserts:
there is little here regarding a bodily resurrection. Even 2 Baruch 50.2

[. . .] does not ‘appeal to the notion of resurrection as resuscitation of
the corpse’, but asserts a raising in the exact form, not necessarily to
be read as ‘concerned with the material identity of the body’.63 Note
further, however, that both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are now dated by most
scholars to around AD 100, certainly post AD 70, making it difficult
to know what bearing they may have on reflecting or establishing the
pre-Christian milieu regarding resurrection.
(1999: 65)
Once released from the treasury, the righteous soul then undergoes trans-
formation into the glorified splendour of angels (51.1–5), while the wicked
soul is transformed into horrible shapes and taken away to be tormented
(51.5–6). That this section of 2 Baruch speaks of the afterlife of the soul
comports with 49.1–3 where the author looks forward to the soul’s release
from its evil chained members (that is, the body). At this point in the res-
urrection scenario the righteous souls are glorified and are made manifest
to the living. Typically, there is no overlap between the present order and
that of the end-time, but (as has been seen elsewhere), the text demonstrates
temporal compression: the death of the wicked is omitted and the narrative
moves directly to a scenario of the judgement of the souls of the wicked and
their sending to a place of torment. Here, it is as if the author cannot resist
articulating a grand display of divine one-upmanship when the wicked,
whilst still alive will recognize the error of their ways!64
Motifs in 2 Baruch are also found in 4 Ezra: the dead sleep in the earth
(2 Bar. 11.4; 4 Ezra 4.43); the souls of the righteous are preserved in ‘cham-
bers’ (2 Bar. 21.23; 42.7–8; 4 Ezra 4.35); and Sheol later gives these up
(2 Bar. 3.10; 33.3; 4 Ezra 4.43; see Collins 2000; Harrington 2000; Stem-
berger 1972). Some also see in 4 Ezra a bodily resurrection, particularly in
7.32, “And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it; and the cham-
bers shall give up the souls which have been committed to them” (e.g., Collins
2000: 130–31). Yet, this is simply Hebrew parallelism and the text over-
whelmingly asserts the afterlife of the soul alone: “the soul is separated from
the body” (7.100), “rejoicing that they have escaped what is mortal” (7.96):
after death, as soon as every one of us yields up his soul, we shall be

kept in rest [. . .] a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the boy to return
again to him who gave it [the righteous . . .] shall be separated from
their mortal body [and see . . .] the perplexity in which the souls of the
ungodly wander, and the punishment that waits them.
(4 Ezra 7.94, 100)
The general resurrection comes at the end of history, although in both texts
there is the caveat that they are late first-century CE and may well have
undergone some form of Christian redaction.
The fifth and final key theme is the oft-repeated notion in Second Tem-
ple Judaism that resurrected souls will become like angels.65 For 1 Enoch,
the glorification of the righteous is, in some way, comparable to angels or
to stars (51.2–5, 10–12; cf. 104.2): “the righteous and the holy ones from
among (the risen dead), will all become angels in heaven [. . .] The righ-
teous will shine like the lights of heaven” (1 En. 51.1–2; cf. 104.2). This is,
as in many other post-Biblical texts, a reference to the soul—such similes
are never used of the body. For Philo, Abraham left the mortal realm to be
“added to the people of God [. . .] having received immortality, and having
become equal to the angels [. . .] for the angels are incorporeal and happy
souls” (Sacr. 1.5). In the Ascension of Isaiah, the writer describes the seventh
heaven where he saw “Enoch and all who were with him in their robes of the
above, and they were like the angels who stand there in great glory” (9.7–8).
Elsewhere, there is the claim that the resurrected soul will become as a star
or a heavenly body. Daniel 12.3 asserts that the wise will shine eternally like
stars, which, for Collins is a “notion of resurrection in terms of astral immor-
tality,” and not physical immortality (1998: 113). Segal concurs, insisting that
this “can only mean to the Jews that they shall become angels, something that
did not exclude astral immortality, for stars had been identified as angelic
creatures from earliest times” (2004: 265, referring to Judg 5.20 and Job
38.7). Josephus, too, notes that “souls released from the flesh by the sword
on the battlefield are [. . .] placed among the stars” (War 6.47).66 Certainly,
as angels were normally considered to be bodiless, this appears to negate any
possibility of a future fleshly existence and so the sense here would imply the
resurrection of the soul alone (Endsjø 2009: 125).
Philo writes that the stars are embodied, intelligent souls, describing the
(resurrected) patriarchs as stars or constellations and noting that the rewards
of the righteous soul are immortality and being inscribed “in the records
of God, sharing the eternal life of the sun and moon and the whole uni-
verse” (Opif. 144).67 So, too, 4 Ezra claims: “the righteous souls rejoice that
they have now escaped what is mortal, they are to be made like the stars”
(7.97).68 In an extensive section on the post-resurrection form of the soul,
2 Baruch provides a detailed account:
After the appointed day, the glory of those who have proved to be
righteous will be changed—their splendour will be glorified by trans-
formations, and the shape of their face will be changed. These will be
changed into the splendour of angels; they will be like the angels and be
equal to the stars.
(51.1–6)
Endsjø notes of this text: “Again, a change to be equal to the stars is unlikely
to include the flesh as angels were normally considered fleshless beings”
(2009: 126).69 Finally, as noted above, Pseudo-Phocylides (103–15) asserts
that the resurrected souls actually become gods (o0pi/sw de\ qeoi\ tele/qontai)
(102; and see Nickelsburg 2000: 155; Perkins 1984: 51).
Philo and Pseudo-Philo

It may be fruitful at this point, before summarizing and reaching some gen-
eral conclusion on the above, to draw out of the analysis the thoughts of
Philo, as he stands as one of the most well-known, influential, and articulate
writers of the period. His works are also voluminous and extend to a wide
variety of topics.70
Philo’s writings on the body, soul, and afterlife are consistent within Sec-
ond Temple Judaism. The body is mortal, “a composition of earthy sub-
stance [. . .] created by the Creator taking a lump of clay, and fashioning the
human form out of it” (Opif. 69–77). On death, it is “dissolved into earth”
(Migr. Ab. 2–3, 9, 14–17). The soul, however, is a “faithful copy of the divine
image” (Mut. 223), or a “fragment of the Divinity” (Leg. All. 3.161), which
proceeds from the Father and is breathed into the body (Opif. 69–77; Somn.
1.34; Perkins 1984: 54). From the perspective of the soul, the body is a pol-
luted prison house and like an evil tomb, chest, or coffin.71 In stark imagery,
Philo notes: “those souls which bear the heavy burden of the flesh, being
weighed down and oppressed by it [. . .] being dragged downwards, have
their necks forcibly pressed to the ground” (Gig. 28–31). For the righteous,
however, the death of the body means that the “soul would live according
to its proper life, being released from the evil and dead body to which it is
bound” (Leg. All. 1.105–108; 2.77). Divine souls then ascend to the heavens
where they pervade the universe as stars (Gig. 6–16).72
What is less clear in Philo’s thought, is what happens to the soul of the
wicked as he typically employs metaphorical or pictorial imagery (Grabbe
2000: 168–69; Perkins 1984: 53). On the one hand, and exposing Hellenis-
tic influence, Philo considers such souls to “be drawn downwards [. . .] to
the depths of Tartarus” (Quaes Exod. 2.40), but elsewhere he also refers to
punishment in Hades (Quis. Heres. 45; Congr. 47). Here, God “banishes
the unjust and godless souls from himself to the furthest bounds, and dis-
perses them to the place of pleasures and lusts and injustices” (Cong. 57).
Yet, Philo appears to see ‘Hades’ and ‘Tartarus’ not as literal places but as
metaphorical conditions. The righteous use wisdom to attain virtue and so
allow their souls to break free of bodily encumbrances and soar upwards to
the heavenly realm; the souls of the wicked experience no such escape and
remain imprisoned in some form of eternal death (Post. 39).
Philo has no concept of physical resurrection (Goodenough 1946; Sand-
mel 1979: 109–10). According to Harry Wolfson: “all the references to res-
urrection found in the traditional literature of his time were understood
by him as being only a figurative way of referring to immortality” (1948:
1.404). In this way, and a point which gives further reflection on ‘resurrec-
tion’ texts discussed earlier, Philo interprets key Biblical passages such as Isa
26.19, Dan 12.2, and 2 Macc 7 as references to the immortality of the soul
(Wolfson 1948: 1.402–406; followed by Riley 1995: 41). Also of relevance
is Philo’s reflection on the resurrection of Moses:
when he was about to depart from hence to heaven, to take up his

abode there, and leaving this mortal life to become immortal, having
been summoned by the Father, who resolved his twofold nature of soul
and body into one single unity, transforming his whole being into mind,
pure as the sunlight.
(Mos. 2.288)
The phrase “[resolved] into one single unity” (ei0v mona&dov a)nestoixei/ou
fu&sin), is often translated, “into the nature of a single body,”73 missing the
point that this is now a new single entity, with an absence of any notion
of sw~ma.74 Elsewhere, Philo speaks of Moses’ death as “the migration of
a perfect soul to the living God” (Sacr. 10). As such, Philo is in agreement
with such texts as the Testament of Job or the Apocalypse of Adam and Eve
which construe the death of these major figures in similar terms: the body
dies and is buried, the soul, or a transformed soul for Philo, ascends to the
heavenly realm.75
How widespread Philo’s particular understanding of afterlife was, is diffi-
cult to ascertain, but as Lester Grabbe notes, it need not be confined to Philo
nor Alexandrian Jews, but may have been prevalent amongst the Hellenized
diaspora. Certainly, Philo’s understanding is little different to the broader
framework of concept of afterlife within Second Temple Jewish texts noted
above (Grabbe 2000: 165).
Pseudo-Philo may demonstrate an interim stage on concepts of the after-
life, on its way to a more Christianized understanding.76 Certainly, the text
aligns with other Second Temple Jewish passages in articulating the priority
of the soul. For the righteous, God proclaims: “I will command the rain and
the dew, and they will be abundant for you during your lifetime. But also
at the end the lot of each one of you will be eternal, for you and your seed,
and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the time allotted the
world be complete” (23.12–13). Yet, for the wicked of the Mosaic wilder-
ness generation, not only will the body be destroyed, but the soul will be held
in chambers (in a similar way to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch): “I will send the angel
of my wrath upon them [the wicked] to afflict their bodies with fire in the
wilderness [. . .] for their souls I will shut up in the chambers of darkness”
(15.5; cf. 16.3).77 Elsewhere, the writer notes that “the soul is separated from
the body” (44.10), and places upon the lips of Jonathan (to David): “Even if
death separates us, I know that our souls will know each other” (62.9). On
his imminent death, Samson cries out: “Go forth, my soul, and do not be sad;
die, my body, and do not weep about yourself” (43.7).
Elsewhere, however, the language of the afterlife is similar to that found
in the New Testament: “But when the years appointed for the world have
been fulfilled, then [. . .] I will bring the dead to life and raise up those who
are sleeping from the earth. And hell will pay back its debt, and the place
of perdition will return its deposit so that I may render to each according
to his works” (3.10).78 There is even the language of fiery worms and inex-
tinguishable fire (63.4; 44.9), together with the idea of recompense for sin:
“the place of fire where the deeds of those doing wickedness against me will
be expiated” (23.6).
Summary
Out of the wealth of Second Temple Jewish literature discussed above, there
are no texts up to and beyond the first Jewish war which speak unambigu-
ously of the resurrection of the physical body. Rather, there is an emphasis
on the demise of the body (in the sense of its decomposition), together with
an assertion of an afterlife experience of the soul or spirit alone. As noted
above, of the eight texts commonly espoused to articulate a physical resur-
rection, these have been misread or misunderstood or are open to alternative
interpretations. Josephus says nothing of a physical resurrection, there is a
flight of fancy in 2 Maccabees, and 2 Baruch is a late work (certainly, later
than most of the New Testament). What is most clear is the overwhelming
emphasis upon the afterlife of the soul/spirit. Indeed, Josephus argues that
the concept of an immortal soul was actually a Jewish doctrine (C. Ap.
1.162, 165; Endsjø 2009: 130).
Stanley Porter concludes his analysis and assessment of afterlife by noting:
“there was a fairly large stream of Jewish tradition that did not entertain a
bodily resurrection, but rather a continued spiritual existence” (1999: 53).
I would go further and assert that this stream was not simply “fairly large”
but the dominant motif of Second Temple Judaism.79 Hence, the oft-repeated
idea that Jews believed in the resurrection of the body and Greeks the immor-
tality of the soul appears not only incorrect, but erroneous to the point that
actually the opposite is true: Greek reflection (as seen in Chapter 1) required
the presence of a physical body, whereas Jews of the Second Temple Period
emphasized the afterlife of the soul (see, in part, Collins 2000: 129). This
central difference may stem from a reflection upon the actual nature of the
‘divine.’ For the Greeks, the gods had physical attributes to the extent that
they could have sex with humans, or be hurt or wounded; for the Jews, how-
ever, this was anathema: God was spirit.80 This summary also has implica-
tions for a broader understanding of Jewish anthropology in that perhaps for
too long this topic has been read or understood in the shadow of New Tes-
tament, or early Church, reflection on human constitution and the afterlife.
However, before we proceed into the period of the early Christ-movement,
we shall remain within the framework of Judaism with an analysis of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish trajectories into the later rabbinic period.
NOTES
1. See esp. Cavallin (1974); Lichtenberger (1993); Martin-Achard (1985); Nick-

elsburg (2006); Puech (1993); Stemberger (1972).
2. Wis 2.23–3.4; 9.15; 15.8; 16.14. In this sense, there are overlaps with Platonic
thought; cf. Wis 8.19–20, “a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good,
I entered an undefiled body.” See Collins (1981: 188); Green (1998: 161) cf.
Nickelsburg (1972: 87–8, 179).
3. On Josephus see, Grabbe (2000); Sievers (1998).
4. Cf. Josephus’ reflection on Elijah bringing a young boy back to life: “he prayed
God to send the breath into the child again and give him life” (Ant.8.326).
5. War 7.343–48.
6. And see further below. On the text, see Perkins (1984: 50); Bauckham (1998a:
92). 2 Baruch is an early second CE Jewish text which appears to exhibit a
number of Christian interpolations.
7. See Bedard (2012: 457–58). Indeed, 2 Enoch notes, “all souls are prepared for
eternity, before the composition of the earth” (23.5, italics mine).
8. On Pseudo-Phocylides see, Cavallin (1974: 151–55); Christ (1975); Puech
(1993, 1.158–62); Nickelsburg (2000: 155); Van der Horst (1978: 185–95);
Wilson (2005).
9. For 1 Enoch, “All of the souls of the dead are gathered until the day of judge-
ment” (22.3).
10. On 1 Enoch, see Nickelsburg (2001); Nickelsburg and Vanderkam (2004,
2012); Segal (2004: 356–63); Stuckenbruck (2007).
11. See, Harrington (2002).
12. And see wider, 4 Ezra 7.75–101. On 4 Ezra see Stemberger (1972); Collins
(2000); Nickelsburg (1972: 136).

13. Hence, like other writers, the soul has a degree of ‘consciousness.’
14. On the Test. Abraham, Collins (2000); Sanders (1983).
15. On the T. Job see Endsjø (2009: 137); Gruen (2009); Spittler (1983).
16. See, Bauckham (1998a: 83); Glasson (1961: 13); Nickelsburg (1972: 18).
17. Cf. chs. 22; 62.13–16; 103.3–4; 104.2. On these verses Nickelsburg and
Vanderkam note (2012: 184), “Earth is where the body is buried. Sheol is the
place to which the spirit or soul descends.”
18. On 1 Enoch 22 (and its importance) see Wacker (1982); see also Cavallin
(1974: 42, 48); De Boer (1988: 52–4); Nickelsburg (1972: 123, 136, 179).
19. So, Collins (2000: 123). He also writes, “Although the Jews borrowed from
surrounding culture, the idea of a fiery Hell appears to be a Jewish invention”
(2000: 127).
20. On this section, see esp. Nickelsburg (2001: 511–30); Stuckenbruck (2007:
482–561).
21. The footnote by Wintermute (1985: 102) on this text notes, “This vs. is subject
to two quite different interpretations. It could be understood as a description
of spirits which remain conscious and aware of post-mortem events while their
bones rest in peace. It could also be understood as an example of poetic hyper-
bole, describing those who die with assurance that justice has been done. They
are portrayed as joyous dead who lie in the earth contented with God’s certain
vindication of the righteous.” Cavallin sees here the concept of the immortality
of the soul, an early testimony of a totally spiritual concept of life after death in
a Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic milieu (1974: 37–38). Wright notes that ‘they
will rise up’ is the only occurrence in the relevant literature of something that
looks like resurrection language being used to denote something other than
new bodily existence (2003: 144).
22. On Josephus and the Essenes, see Klawans (2012).
23. See also, Opif. 77; Mos. 2.228.
24. On Philo, see Grabbe (2000); Perkins (1984: 53–55); Segal (2004: 368–75).
See further, Bauckham (1998: 55); Harrington (1985); Nickelsburg (1972:
136–40). In Pseudo-Philo, the judgement between soul and flesh in 3.10 “may
simply refer to the higher and lower aspects of the whole person” (so, Har-
rington 1985: 307).
25. See wider, 7.75–101, and also, Bauckham (1998: 55); Harrington (2002:
21–34); Nickelsburg (1972: 136–40).
26. Cf. 19.12. Judgement between soul and flesh in 3.10 “may simply refer to the
higher and lower aspects of the whole person” (so, Harrington 1985: 307).
27. See, for example, Charlesworth (2006b: 153); Stemberger (1972), who notes
that “the belief in the resurrection of the dead is found significantly” in these
works (by which he means a physical resurrection).
28. Here the discussion is contra Stemberger (1972: 115–6), who argues that the
afterlife in (Palestinian) Jewish texts of this period always has a bodily form.
29. See Charles (1913: 170–2); Isaac (1983: 5–89 (esp. 6–7)); Milik (1971); Segal
(2004: 356–63). The most thorough treatments of 1 Enoch are, Nickelsburg
(2001); Nickelsburg and Vanderkam (2012); and Stuckenbruck (2007).
30. Setzer (2004: 18).
31. On the debate see Bauckham (1998: 275–79); Nickelsburg and Vanderkam
(2012: 183–84). The date for this chapter is offered as 40 BCE-mid first-century
CE by Nickelsburg and Vanderkam (2012: 58).
32. On the text see Stuckenbruck (2007: 180–81; 227–29).
33. See Nickelsburg (1992: 685), “Reference to the “bones” of the righteous (25.6)
indicates a resurrection to some kind of bodily life.”
34. Harrison (1962); cf. Job 4.14; 20.11; 30.17; 30.30; Ps. 6.2; 32.3; 35.10; 51.8;
Jer. 20.9; Sir 28.17. On bones as part of one’s character/personality, Prov
17.22; 25.15.
35. See further, Green (1998: 162); Nickelsburg (2000: 168–70).
36. On the text see Van der Horst (1978: 185–95); Puech (1993, 1.158–62); Christ
(1975: 140–49).
37. Translation by Van der Horst (1985: 577–78). See also, Perkins (1984: 51).
38. Cavallin (1974: 152) also sees this as a reference to bodily resurrection.
39. As seen below, the resurrected soul is typically spoken of in angelic terms, and
angels are often called gods in Jewish texts (so, Van der Horst 1985: 578, n. g).
40. See wider, 4.179–92. Grant (1948: 122) sees this as a ‘resurrection of the flesh.’
See also, Collins (2000: 136). The dating of this book of the Sibylline Oracles
is uncertain. Collins (1985: 381–89) notes that Book 4 is itself a composite
oracle updated by a Jew in the late first-century CE. The final version is likely
to have been completed around 80 CE. Elsewhere, Collins notes that there is
much Christian redaction to many of the books (323).
41. Interestingly, the description of the life of the righteous after judgement is
spoken of in terms of spirit (v. 189); there is no mention of a body.
42. See, Anderson, Stone, and Tromp (2000); De Jonge (1997); Dochhorn (2005);
Tromp (2005). Johnson (1985: 252) dates the work “toward the end of the
first Christian century.”
43. 43.2 [Vita].
44. On 2 Macc 7 see Collins (2000: 129); De Boer (1988: 49–50); Porter (1999:
59–60); Nickelsburg (1972: 93–110; 1992); Nickelsburg (2000: 148–52).
45. Cf. also 2 Macc 14.38–46. Both texts are examples of literary imagination,
14.38–46 clearly so, as the act of self-mutilation and speech to the crowd
comes after “his blood [being] completely drained from him.”
46. In this sense, Collins assertion that the brothers of 2 Macc 7, “have full confi-
dence that their limbs will be restored in the resurrection” could appear to be
an overstatement (2002: 366).
47. E.g., Ascen. Isa. 9.7–8 (“And there [in the seventh heaven] I saw the holy
Abel and all the righteous. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him,
stripped of their robes of the flesh.”); T. Benj. 10.6 (“. . . you will see Enoch
and Seth and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob being raised up at the right hand
in great joy”); Perkins (1984: 43–4); De Boer (1988: 67).
48. Such sentiments would also include 2 Macc 14.46. In Moore’s analysis of the
later rabbinic literature (1927: 380–81), he notes that the dead “would rise
with the defects and deformities they had in life, the lame, lame; the blind,
blind [Eccles. R. on 1, 4]. After they thus appeared just as they had been, God
would heal them of all their infirmities (Deut. 32.39).”
49. And see wider, Mark 9.43–48 (and //s). Also, Gosp. Peter 10; Epistle of Barn-
abas 5.6; Polycarp 7.1; 3 Corinthians 3.6, 16, 24–25; Endsjø (2009: 179).
50. The emphasis on the afterlife of the soul runs throughout the short apocalypse.
See Perkins (1984: 38).
51. Pneu=ma can sometimes be taken as ‘life,’ but in 2 Maccabees ‘life’ is usually
translated from zaw& (e.g., 7.9), or yuxh/ (7.12). Yet ‘spirit’ cannot be a synonym
for ‘life’ as 2 Maccabees frequently conjoins the two, as “life and spirit” (7.22,
23; 14.46). Here, I would suggest that ‘spirit’ means the breath of God, that is,
the soul.
52. In 14.46 God is lord of life and spirit [to_n despo&zonta th=v zwh=v kai\ tou= pneu/
matov].
53. 4 Macc 18.23 (italics mine). In this respect, the texts of 2 Maccabees and 4
Maccabees can be seen in continuity. Wright, however, because he sees the text
of 2 Maccabees to be speaking exclusively in physical terms, and noting the
obvious tension between the texts, must posit a sharp discontinuity between 2
and 4 Maccabees (2003: 143). In this regard, see also, Nickelsburg (1992).
54. If 4 Maccabees is to be internally consistent, the numerous other texts within
the work which speak of resurrection or eternal life but give no specific details
(e.g., 7.3; 9.22; 13.17; 14.5–6; 17.12, 18–19), must also be seen through the
lens of 18.23 (cf. also 13.15). See Nickelsburg (1972: 110).
55. Although see the caveat in Elledge (2011: 411) concerning the apologetic fea-
tures of Josephus which suggests caution when utilizing his writings as evi-
dence for particular Jewish beliefs.
56. Josephus may well have been a Pharisee; he certainly claims that he “governed
his life by the rule of the Pharisees” (Life 11–12). However, Mason (1989)
doubts such claims.
57. See Porter (1999: 55), who notes that the imagery is much more like that of
traditional Greek belief in the afterlife.
58. Sievers (1998: 21) notes that Josephus never employs the verb e0gei/rw as mean-
ing ‘to raise (from the dead).’ He does use the term a)nabio&w (‘come to life
again’) in his description of Pharisaic beliefs in an afterlife (Ant. 18.14); see
also, Segal (2004: 381).
59. On metempsychosis see Grabbe (2000: 165, 174–76); Porter (1999: 70); Segal
(1997: 108–09).
60. So, Klijn (1983: 617). On 2 Baruch in general, see Bauckham (1998: 283–
84, 1998a: 92); Cavallin (1974: 87–8); De Boer (1988: 80–2); Lied (2009:
316–19); Nickelsburg (1972: 84–7).
61. E.g., Collins (2000: 130–31); Evans (1970: 16); Perkins (1984: 50); Har-
rington (2002: 29).
62. 30.1–2 (a key text, and one which informs 48.49–51.5). Cf. 21.23–24.
63. 1998: 283.
64. This concept of eschatological judgement and voyeurism is not unknown, see 1
En. 27; 4 Ezra 7.75–101; the Similitudes of Enoch; the Apoc. Pet.; and the Ap.
John; Bauckham (1992); Stratton (2010: 66–71). This display of one-upmanship
is also noted amongst later Rabbinic literature, cf. Montefiore and Lowe (1938:
601); Stemberger (1972).
65. See further, Cavallin, Life, 203–05; Collins (2000: 124); Chilton (2003: 339);
De Boer (1988: 52); Park (2000: 157–59); Perkins (1984: 38, 50); Segal (1995,
1997: 98); Sim (1996: 142–45).
66. See, Sievers (1998: 27).
67. Cf. Somn. 1.135–145; Gig. 7; QE 2.114; Mos. 2.108.
68. Cf. L. A. B. 33.5, “Then your likeness shall be seen as the stars of the heaven.”
69. Cf. 2 Bar. 30.2; 50.2; 51.5; cf. Lied (2009:189);
70. On Philo, see Grabbe (2000: 163–85); Perkins (1984); Segal (2004: 368–75);
Vermes (2008: 46–47).
71. Leg All. 1.105–108; On the Migration of Abraham 2–3, 9, 14–17; Spec Leg
1.345; 4.188.
72. On the emphasis in Philo of the superiority of the soul to the body see Riley
(1995: 41–2).
73. Such as Yonge (1993), and used as part of the Bibleworks software.
74. Indeed, the verb a)nastoixeio&w typically denotes the resolving of matter (espe-
cially the body) into its constituent elements (LSJ sv).
75. In this case, one would disagree with Aus (2005: 11) when he questions
whether Philo may have conceived of Moses’ tomb as empty and concludes
that he probably did. Perkins (1984: 53) notes that Philo speaks of the souls
as being composed of the very same material as the stars.
76. On Pseudo-Philo see, Aus (2005); De Boer (1988); Harrington (1985; 2002).
77. On the overlap of Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch see Harrington (2002:
21–34).
78. In a similar way, the author writes of the corrupt, “. . . behold, I command
the earth, and it will swallow up body and soul together. And their dwelling
place will be in darkness and the place of destruction; and they will not die
but melt away until I remember the world and renew the earth. And then they
will die and not live, and their life will be taken away from the number of all
men. And hell will no longer spit them back, and their judgement will not be
remembered . . . And the earth will swallow them up and I will do no more”
(16.3 and cf. 51.5).
79. As such, and further to my critique of Johnston (2002) in the previous chapter,
I would reject his statement, “In Israel there was no clear distinction between
body and soul” (2002: 236).
80. Although there are frequent anthropomorphic concepts of God having eyes,
ears, hands, arms etc.
SOURCES CITED
ALLISON, D.C. (2005) Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its
Interpreters. London & New York: T&T Clark.
ANDERSON, G.A., STONE, M.E. & TROMP, J. (eds) (2000), Literature on Adam &
Eve: Collected Essays. Leiden: Brill.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1992) Hades, Hell. In FREEDMAN, D. (ed.), Anchor Bible Dic-
tionary. Vol. 3. New Haven: Yale University Press.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1998) The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian
Apocalypse. Leiden: Brill.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1998a) Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.
Message of the New Testament. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans.
BEDARD, S.J. (2012) A Nation of Heroes: From Apotheosis to Resurrection. In VAN
BREMMER, J.N. (1983) The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
of the Dead in I Cor 15. ConBNT 7. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
CHARLES, R.H. (1913) The Book of Enoch. In CHARLES, R.H. (ed.), Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (2006a) Where does the Concept of Resurrection Appear
and How Do We Know That? In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), Resurrection:
The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. New York: T&T Clark.
CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (2006b) Resurrection: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New
Testament. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), Resurrection: The Origin and
Future of a Biblical Doctrine. New York: T&T Clark.
CHILTON, B. (2003) One Afterlife of Nickelsburg’s “Resurrection, Immortality, and
Eternal Life.” In NEUSNER J., & AVERY-PECK, A.J. (eds), George W. E. Nickels-
burg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning. Leiden: Brill.
CHRIST, F. (1975) Das Leben nach dem Tode bei Pseudo-Phokylides. Theologische
Zeitschrift. 31, pp. 140–9.
COLLINS, J.J. (1981) The Roots of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish
Wisdom. Harvard Theological Review. 71, pp. 177–92.

COLLINS, J.J. (1985) Sibylline Oracles. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday.
COLLINS, J.J. (1998) The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish
Matrix of Christianity. 2nd edn. New York: Crossroad.
COLLINS, J.J. (2000) The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature. In AVERY-PECK,
book of Oriental Studies 4. Leiden: Brill.
COLLINS, J.J. (2002) Death and Afterlife. In BARTON, J. (ed.), The Biblical World.
Vol. 2. London: Routledge.
thians 15 and Romans 5. JSNTSS 22. Sheffield: Continuum International.
DE JONGE, M. (1997) The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
DOCHHORN, J. (2005) Die Apokalypse Des Mose: Text, Ubersetzung, Kommentar.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
ELLEDGE, C.D. (2011) Future Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism: Social
Dynamics, Contested Evidence. Currents in Biblical Research. 9 (3), pp. 394–421.
EVANS, C.F. (1970) Resurrection and the New Testament. London: SCM.
GOODENOUGH, E.R. (1946) Philo on Immortality. Harvard Theological Review.
39, pp. 85–108.
GRABBE, L.L. (2000) Eschatology in Philo and Josephus. In AVERY-PECK, A.J. &
NEUSNER, J. (eds), Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After-Death,
Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaism of Antiquity. Handbook of
Oriental Studies 4. Leiden: Brill.
GRANT, R.M. (1948) The Resurrection of the Body. Journal of Religion. 28 (2),
pp. 120–30.
GREEN, J.B. (1998) Bodies—That is, Human Lives: A Re-Examination of Human
Nature in the Bible. In BROWN, W.S., MURPHY, N., & MALONY, H.N. (eds),
Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human
Nature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
GRUEN, W.C. III (2009) Seeking a Context for the Testament of Job. Journal for the
Study of the Pseudepigrapha. 18 (3), pp. 163–79.
HARRINGTON, D.J. (1985) Pseudo-Philo. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), The
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday.
HARRINGTON, D.J. (2002) Afterlife Expectations in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and
2 Baruch, and Their Implications for the New Testament. In BIERINGER, R.,
KOPERSKI, V., & LATAIRE, B. (eds), Resurrection in the New Testament: Fest-
schrift J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Peeters.
HARRISON, R.K. (1962) Bones. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. 1, p. 453.
ISAAC, E. (1983) 1(Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H.
(ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday.
JOHNSON, M.D. (1985) Life of Adam and Eve. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.),
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday.
JOHNSTON, P.S. (2002) Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament.
KLAWANS, J. (2012) Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
KLIJN, A.F.J. (1983) 2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H.

LICHTENBERGER, H. (1993) La résurrection dans la litérature intertestamentaire
et la théologie rabbinique. Concilium. 249, pp. 35–44.
LIED, L.I. (2009) Recognizing the Righteous Remnant: Resurrection, Recognition
and Eschatological Reversals in 2 Baruch 47–52. In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J.
(eds), Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early
Christianity. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages
Vol. 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
MARTIN-ACHARD, R. (1985) Résurrection dans l’Ancien Testament et le Judaïsme.
Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplément. 10, pp. 438–87.
MASON, S. (1989) Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Reexamination of Life 10–12. Jour-
nal of Jewish Studies. 40, pp. 30–45.
MILIK, J.T. (1971) Problèmes de la Littérature Hénochique àla Lumière des Frag-
ments Araméens de Qumrân. Harvard Theological Review. 64, pp. 333–78.
NICKELSBURG, G.W. (1977) Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 1–11. Journal of
Biblical Literature. 96, pp. 383–405.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. & VANDERKAM, J.C. (2004) 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary
on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. & VANDERKAM, J.C. (2012) 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia
Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
testamental Judaism. HTS 26. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (1992) Resurrection: Early Judaism and Christianity. In
FREEDMAN, D. (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. New York: Doubleday.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (2000) Judgement, Life-After Death, and Resurrection
in the Apocrypha and the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha. In AVERY-PECK,
book of Oriental Studies 4. Leiden: Brill.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (2001) 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch,
Chapters 1–36, 81–108. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
testamental Judaism and Early Christianity: Expanded Edition. HTS 56. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
PARK, J.S. (2000) Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
PORTER, S.E. (1999) Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament. In POR-
TER, S.E., HAYES, M.A. & TOMBS, D. (eds), Resurrection. JSNTSS 186. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press.
PUECH, É. (1993) La croyance des esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrec-
tion, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancient. 2 Vols.; ÉBib,
NS, 21. Paris: Gabala.
SANDERS, E.P. (1983) Testament of Abraham. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.),
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday.
SANDMEL, S. (1979) Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York and Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (1995) Paul and the Beginnings of Jewish Mysticism. In COLLINS,
J.J. & FISHBANE, M. (eds), Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (1997) Life After Death: The Social Sources. In DAVIS, S., KENDALL,
on the Resurrection of Jesus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (2004) Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of
the West. New York: Doubleday.
SETZER, C. (2004) Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christian-
ity: Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition. Leiden: Brill.
SIEVERS, J. (1998) Josephus on the Afterlife. In MASON, S. (ed.), Understanding
Josephus. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
SIM, D.C. (1996) Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
SPITTLER, R.P. (1983) Testament of Job. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), The Old
STEMBERGER, G. (1972) Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropolgie
und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
(ca. 170 v. Chr.-100 n. Chr). Anchor Bible 56. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
STRATTON, K.B. (2010) The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence
in Fantasies of the End Times. In BOUSTAN, R.S., JASSEN, A.P. & ROETZEL,
C.J. (eds), Violence, Scripture, and Textual practice in Early Judaism and Christi-
anity. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
STUCKENBRUCK, L. (2007) 1 Enoch: Chapters 91–108. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
TROMP, J. (2005) The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. Pseude-
pigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece. Leiden: Brill.
VAN DER HORST, P.W. (1978) The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides: With Introduc-
tion and Commentary. Leiden: Brill.
VAN DER HORST, P.W. (1985) Pseudo-Phocylides. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H.
VERMES, G. (2008) The Resurrection. London: Penguin.
VERMEULE, E. (1979) Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley &
London: University of California Press.
WACKER, T. (1982) Weltordnung und Gericht: Studien zu 1 Henoch 22. Würzburg:
Echter Verlag.
WILSON, W.T. (2005) The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
WINTERMUTE, O.S. (1985) Jubilees. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), The Old
WOLFSON, H.A. (1948) Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. 2 Vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
YONGE, C.D. (1993) The Works of Philo. Peabody: Hendrickson.
4 Life after Death in Additional
Jewish Literature
The Dead Sea Scrolls and
Later Rabbinic Thought
As part of this survey we do, of course, have to examine the Qumran scrolls
of the Dead Sea community. Identifying the Qumran community with the
Essenes is still widely favoured, although a significant number of scholars
would now associate them with the Sadducees (of some kind).1 Analysis of
the Scrolls has led to multivalent scholarly views on their concept of afterlife,
with some asserting that they held a belief in physical resurrection while
others, the immortality of the soul alone.2 Before beginning with the Scrolls
directly, recourse will firstly be taken to Josephus who makes some succinct
remarks on the community in two of his works. Although some would want
to dismiss the perspective of Josephus on the Essenes, he is our closest and
most informed writer outside of the community, and even implies that he
was part of the group for a time (Life 10–11).3 In the Jewish War he provides
an account of various aspects of Essene life, and turns to their involvement
in the first Jewish War:
The war with the Romans tried their souls (yuxa_v) through and through
by every variety of test. Racked and twisted, burnt and broken, and
made to pass through every instrument of torture, in order to induce
them to blaspheme their lawgiver or to eat some forbidden thing, they
refused to yield to either demand, not ever once did they cringe to their
persecutors or shed a tear. Smiling in their agonies and mildly deriding
their tormentors, they cheerfully resigned their souls (yuxa_v), confident
that they would receive them back again.
(War 2.152–53)
Although souls in the opening sentence could be taken as a descriptive

category for the person as a whole, that in the last sentence cannot. Here,
it is that part of the righteous Jew, dying for the sake of Torah and nation,
which will exist beyond death. As such, Josephus predicates to the com-
munity a framework of thought on the afterlife which stands in direct
continuity with many of the Second Temple Jewish texts noted in the pre-
vious chapter. His description of persecution, torture, and death is made
Life after Death in Additional Jewish Literature 79
in language reminiscent, if not almost identical, to that of 2 Maccabees 7.
What is also clear is that Josephus’ account of their doctrine of the afterlife
is unambiguous in that what is received back after death is the soul alone.
He goes on:
For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constitu-
ent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable.
Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it

were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down
by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the
bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they
rejoice and are borne aloft. Sharing the belief of the sons of Greece,
they maintain that for virtuous souls there is reserved an abode beyond
the ocean, a place which is not oppressed by rain or snow or heat but
is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from
the ocean; while they relegate base souls to a murky and tempestuous
dungeon, big with never-ending punishments.
(War 2.154–55)
Although Josephus may employ prosaic language in his comparison of

Essene thought with Hellenistic (and Roman) philosophy, his summary of
Essene perspectives on the afterlife is entirely consistent with those described
previously. The body is considered malevolent but yet temporary, holding
the soul in some sort of ‘bondage’ until its demise. Conversely, the soul is
indestructible and everlasting. Consequently, for Josephus, the Qumran doc-
trine of the afterlife is congruent with the framework of thought outlined
in other post-Biblical Jewish texts; that is, the body will return to dust, and
for the immortal soul there are distinct and opposing afterlife abodes for
the righteous and the wicked. Such a framework is entirely consistent and
in continuity with that of Second Temple Jewish texts seen thus far. And if
we can posit that the first of these texts provide a further window upon 2
Maccabees 7, then this adds to the argument that what is being described
there revolves around questions of the soul after death and not necessarily
the body.4
In his work Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus makes a simple remark on
the community:
The doctrine of the Essenes is [that] they regard the soul as immortal and
believe that they ought to strive especially to draw near to righteousness.
(Ant. 18.18)
Once again, such sentiments cohere with what we have seen thus far within
both Essene and other Jewish texts. The soul is immortal and after death
there will be rewards for the righteous soul and punishment for the wicked.5
80 Life after Death in Additional Jewish Literature
AFTERLIFE IN THE SCROLLS
When we turn to the Scrolls themselves, we note that the texts are entirely
consistent with the outline provided by Josephus and with what has been seen
elsewhere in Second Temple Judaism. Firstly, the body is made of clay/dust
and is a source of pollution and wickedness, which, in the end, will return to
dust (1QH 9.20f.; 20.24; 22.10).6 As for the soul, the Scrolls declare:
I thank you O Lord for you have placed my soul in the bundle of the
living, and have hedged me about against all the snares of the Pit [. . .]
you will save my soul since my steps proceed from you.
(1QH 2.17f.)
I thank you O Lord, for you have redeemed my soul from the Pit, and
from the Hell of Abaddon. You have raised me up to an everlasting
height.
(1QH 3.20f.)
[I am] as a sailor in a ship amid furious seas [. . .] the deeps resound to
my groaning and my soul has journeyed to the gates of death.
(1QH 6.24)
Thou hast saved my life from the Pit [. . .] Thou hast preserved the soul
of the poor one in the den of lions.
(1QH 13.6, 19)7
Without doubt, Essene depictions of afterlife scenarios delineate, in language

similar to the Hebrew Bible, the priority of the soul. There is also the same
sharp distinction between the destination of the righteous and wicked soul:
All who walk in the spirit [of truth, shall receive] healing, great peace
in a long life, and fruitfulness, together with every everlasting blessing
and eternal joy in life without end . . . All who walk in this spirit [of
falsehood, shall receive] a multitude of plagues by the hand of all the
destroying angels, everlasting damnation by the avenging wrath of the
fury of God, eternal torment and endless disgrace together with shame-
ful extinction in the fire of the dark regions.
(1QS 4.6b-14)8
Congruent with other works found in the Hebrew Bible or Second Temple
Judaism, there are a number of texts which employ the language of physical
resurrection, but which do so in metaphorical terms. The resurrection frag-
ment (4Q521), is a good example:
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been
[. . .] For he will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good
news to the poor [. . .] He will lead the uprooted [. . .] and enrich the
hungry.9
Some see in the clause, revive the dead, the assumption of actual physical
resurrection (so, Frey 2010: 532; Vermes 1998: 391). Yet, the healing of the
wounded, the bringing of good news to the poor, the leading of the uprooted,
and the enriching of the hungry are all aspects of divine action which are
this-worldly. So, why the writer would insert into the passage a short clause
relating to an apparent physical afterlife makes little sense. It could refer to
the typology of resuscitation found in the Elijah and Elisha traditions, but
most likely the passage is best construed as entirely consistent with those
texts from the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Isa 26 and Ezek 37) which speak of the
revival of the dead in metaphorical terms; that is, as noted above, resurrec-
tion language being a way of expressing individual or national restoration.
In this way the two opening clauses—the healing of the wounded and the
reviving of the dead—are best seen as mutually interpretative. Indeed, Puech
appears to see them as a singular overlapping motif: “He will cure the mor-
tally wounded and raise the dead” (1994: 245).
Other texts purported to speak of a physical resurrection would include:
Bodies gnawed by worms may be raised from the dust to thy counsel
of thy truth.
(1QH 19.10–14)
Hoist a banner, O you who lie in the dust!

O bodies gnawed by worms, raise up an ensign.
(1QH 14.34)10
N.T. Wright, noting that: “It is not clear from the context whether these
passages are to be taken metaphorically,” still goes on to suggest that what
we have here is a, “prediction of the dust-dwellers rising to newly embod-
ied life” (2003: 187–88). Yet, de Boer notes that the text could simply be
referring to the “living in their earthly weakness and not to the (physically)
dead” (1988: 71),11 and Vermes, that the poet’s language “may just be alle-
gorical” (1998: 88). The text aligns with others elsewhere such as Second
Ezekiel (4Q385–91) wherein the community understood Ezekiel 37 as a
metaphor of restoration (so, Vermes 1998: 88). In the text 4Q385–91, the
writer, remarking upon the righteous of Israel, asks of Yahweh when their
piety will be rewarded. The passage then offers a paraphrase of Ezekiel 37,
in which the ‘Son of man’ is commanded to prophesy to the bones, sinews,
and four winds of heaven, and concludes:
And a great crowd of men shall stand and they will bless the Lord of
hosts wh[o revived them.] And I said, ‘Lord, when will these things come
to pass?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘[and . . .] a tree will bend and stand
up [. . .]’.
(4Q385, fr. 2.2–9; Vermes 1998: 571)
In a critical examination of this text, Albert Hogeterp (2008: 65) notes that
“the expectation here does not apply to resurrection, but to the gathering
together of the people and the divine act of returning a remnant (4Q386 1
ii 3).” Astonishingly, however, Wright claims of the text: “Here there seems
to be no question: Ezekiel 37 is being seen, not simply as a metaphor for
the return from exile, but as a prophecy of actual resurrection” (2003: 188).
This is unlikely. There is no evidence within the Qumran text that the writer
is thinking of a literal physical resurrection and, in employing the metaphor

of Ezekiel 37, Wright needs to show demonstrably more evidence that the
Qumran writer is not, likewise, employing the rich symbolism metaphor-
ically. Indeed, as the writer goes on to note: “Are not the days hastening
on so that the children of Israel can inherit [their land?],” which would
appear to place the text within the specific context of national restoration
(so, Martínez and Tigchelaar 1998: 769). Like Ezekiel, the poet employs the
metaphor to look forward to a time when the nation (or the Essene commu-
nity), will emerge from a time of trial (as a tree being bent over), to be blessed
and restored. To assert here a literal physical resurrection is unwarranted. In
some sense, Wright misreads or misunderstands the text in an identical way
to that of the third century theologian Hippolytus (Ref. 9), who asserts a
literal resurrection of the flesh. Hippolytus’ reading of the Scrolls is naturally
preferred by Wright above that of Josephus (2003: 185).
Similarly, George Brooke, citing Wright, asserts that 4Q385 points
unambiguously to physical resurrection, declaring that: “There can be no
doubt that those who collected the scrolls together in the eleven caves at or
near Qumran knew about bodily resurrection” (2006: 16). Yet, as is appar-
ent, what they believed about bodily resurrection is uncertain. Brooke also
employs the work of Devorah Dimant who suggests that the 4Q385 text
presents: “the future reward for the righteous in the form of resurrection.
Thus Pseudo-Ezekiel constitutes the most ancient witness to such an exe-
gesis of Ezek 37.1–14, later popular with Jewish and Christian authors”
(2001: 17). Yet, while the wider context of 4Q385 is unclear, it appears
to be little different to Ezekiel 37 in that it is a metaphor of national res-
toration. Certainly, on the imagery of the tree in the concluding verse of
4Q385 (“a tree will bend and stand up”), Dimant goes to preposterous
lengths to suggest that this is a clear reference to (physical) resurrection.
Clutching at straws (or at least, ‘trees’ in the Hebrew Bible), she cites what
she claims are a number of relevant key texts to bolster her argument: Deut
20.19 (the prohibition on cutting down trees while besieging a city); Isa
65.22 (“like the days of a tree, shall my people be”); and Ezek 37.16–20
(the joining together of the metaphorical ‘sticks’ which represent Judah
and Israel).
The text from Deuteronomy is utterly meaningless in the context for
which she wants it to speak, while the two prophetic texts not only have
no reference to any form of resurrection, they rather speak into the context
of national restoration, which is the topic of Ezek 37.1–14 itself. Thus, her
claim that the clause, “may then stand as a symbol for death and resurrec-
tion” (cited in Brooke 2006: 17) is to be roundly rejected. Intriguingly, none
of the passages that conjoin the subject of tree(s) with notions of afterlife
are cited by Dimant, perhaps as these speak against her thesis (such as Ezek
31.16–18; Sir 14.18; 4 Macc 18.16). Indeed, the author of 4 Maccabees,
citing Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones, does so in terms of the immortal soul
and not the body (18.23).
Brooke employs Dimant’s reasoning uncritically, and suggests that the

“standing erect” (her words) of 4Q385 is also linked to 4Q521 where the
expression, taken from Ps 146.8 (“The Lord lifts up those who are bowed
low”), indicates that the Qumran text has “an explicit reference to the res-
urrection of the dead” (Brooke 2006: 18). Once again, the Biblical text
employed makes no reference to afterlife, nor resurrection, and surprisingly,
even Brooke himself appears to recognize the paucity of evidence in the
Qumran documents on physical resurrection when he is forced to conclude:
“The Qumran sectarians must have known about the belief, even if it was
not a major part of their creed” (2006: 18). Like Wright and Dimant, Brooke
seeks to assert evidence for physical resurrection when it is either absent
or when there are other more reasonable alternatives.12 His repeated state-
ments such as: “Altogether there can be no doubt that there is ample explicit
attestation in the non-sectarian compositions found in the Qumran caves of
a belief in bodily resurrection” are unwarranted (2006: 18; and cf. p. 33).
Finally we could also cite 1QS 11.53–61:
As for me,
if I stumble, the mercies of God
shall be my eternal salvation.
If I stagger because of the sin of flesh,
my justification shall be by the righteousness of God
which endures forever.
When my distress is unleashed
He will deliver my soul from the Pit
and will direct my steps to the way.13
Once again, the emphasis is upon the deliverance of the righteous soul and,
once again, there is no mention of the resurrection of a physical body. In this
sense, one could disagree with the estimation of Philip Davies who claims:
“It is not certain whether the writers of the Qumran scrolls believed in the
possibility of human existence without a body [. . .] The belief that the
righteous would enjoy an eternal reward included the expectation that this
would be enjoyed in a renewed body” (2000: 207, 210). His assertion that
this is “in line with the positions taken in literature influencing the Qumran
texts, especially 1 Enoch and Daniel” is somewhat curious as, in the same
work, Davies has already stated that 1 Enoch demonstrates a non-physical
afterlife (2000: 189, 207).
In a similar way, Puech also seems determined to find physical resurrec-
tion within the scrolls. He cites 4QTestQah and 4QVis Amr as testifying to
physical resurrection in the traditions of Isa 26 and Dan 12, but neither of
the Qumran texts employs the language of resurrection and on the above
readings of Isaiah and Daniel outlined in Chapter 2, neither do these texts
necessarily speak of physical resurrection (Puech 194: 247). Interestingly,
the only point at which the 4QVis Amr text employs the language of rising
(“when you rise”) is in close collocation with “soul”14 (although the text is
fragmented and uncertain at this point). Likewise, Puech has to be cautious
with 4QPseudo-Dan (for Puech it only “implies a resurrection”) since the
text itself is very ambiguous: “[. . . th]ey shall arise [. . .] the holy ones and
return [. . .] iniquity.”15 At the same time he cites 4Q504 1–2 as a relevant
text: “All those who are written in the book of life [will stand before you or
stand up/revive and stay] to serve you and give thanks to your holy Name,”
where, staggeringly, the bracketed clause is simply his own assumed inser-
tion (1994: 248; cf. Martínez 1996: 416).
Puech’s analysis of the War Scroll maintains the same dubious assertions.
His readings of cols. XIII–XIV emphasize that, despite the fact “there is
no mention of resurrection” and “it is not possible to find any direct allu-
sion to resurrection,” for Puech, the author has “accepted Daniel’s belief in
[. . .] the resurrection,” by which he presumably means physical resurrection.
And yet the author of XIV (11) clearly emphasises the afterlife of the soul:
“Thou hast preserved the soul of Thy redeemed.” Similarly, Puech asserts
that 4Q181 (Pesher of Periods) “knows Dan 12.1–3 and the resurrection to
eternal life,” but whereas the text clearly knows of eternal life, there is no
mention of “resurrection” (Martínez 1996: 212; Puech 1994: 252; Vermes
1998: 229).
In summarizing Qumran thought, one may note the analyses of de Boer,
Nickelsburg, Collins, and Porter, all of whom claim that the scrolls contain
not a single passage that can be interpreted with absolute certainty as a
reference to resurrection.16 And, as Bruce Chilton observes, an analysis of
the scrolls demonstrates an emphasis on the immortality of the soul and
not bodily resurrection (2003: 317). Hence, critical reflection on those
key texts within the Dead Sea Scrolls which afford more clarity on the
afterlife, places these texts, and the community behind them, firmly within
the framework of thought on the afterlife found in other Second Temple
Jewish texts noted in the previous chapter. In this sense, and contra Puech,
the observations of Josephus on the community appear to be consistent
with the scrolls themselves and certainly, contra both Puech and Wright,
the thoughts of Josephus are to be preferred above those of Hippolytus.17
Indeed, Jonathan Klawans’ recent analysis of Hippolytus on the Essenes,
within the context of resurrection, concludes that Hippolytus’ consistently
added references to physical resurrection into his accounts of the Pharisees
and Essenes (2012: 227).
SADDUCEES
Finally, of course, within the wider period of the Scrolls, there is also the
presence of the Sadducees. Unfortunately, information on them and their
doctrine is sparse, with much coming from Josephus and the New Testa-
ment. Josephus claimed that they denied the immortality of the soul and
that they postulated that this disappeared with the body.18 Mark 12.18 (and
parallels) asserts that they rejected the notion of resurrection, although the
text provides few details and simply follows an hypothesized reductio ad
absurdum, by which Mark seeks to prove a point about the superiority of
Jesus’ teaching. There are additional minor references in Acts 23.6–8 which
highlight a sharp exchange between the Pharisees and Sadducees at a meet-
ing of the Jerusalem Jewish Council. Whether one can accurately ascertain
their beliefs through the work of others is a moot point (especially as both
Josephus and the evangelists may not be unbiased in such reports), and, cer-
tainly, if Philip Davies and others are correct in identifying the Essenes with
the Sadducees in some form (note 1. above), then this would place a very
different perspective on our understanding of Sadducean thought.
A traditional perspective would assert that, in holding to the Pentateuch
as their sole collection of sacred texts, they maintained a conscious denial
either of any form of afterlife or of the resurrection of the dead. From the
Pentateuch, they would have believed in angels (as celestial beings), and the
‘spirit,’ in the sense of God’s spirit as the breath of life (Gen 6.17; 45.27
and elsewhere), although their denial of this in the exchange of Acts 23.7–8
is then problematic (see Daube 1990: 493–97; Wright 2003: 131–40). But
the Sadducees would have denied that such language could be applied to
post-mortem men or women. In a Pharisaic critique of such a position, the
Mishnah asserts:
All Israelites have a share in the world to come . . . And these are they
that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no
resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law, and [he that says] that
the Law is not from Heaven, and an Epicurean.
(mSanh. 10.1)19
The textual history of the clause, prescribed in the Law, is of interest, for
it is omitted from certain texts and was probably not part of the origi-
nal manuscript (see Cavallin 1974: 175–77; Montefiore and Lowe 1938:
600; Urbach 1975: 652, 991–92). Its presence does, of course, sharpen the
debate between Sadducees and Pharisees at their point of disagreement: the
divine nature of the whole of Torah, and not simply the Pentateuch. Cer-
tainly, the Sadducees are correct to claim that there is no concept of either
afterlife or resurrection in the Pentateuch.20 If one considers that the Sad-
ducees were the more conservative traditionalists (so, Cavallin 1974: 194;
Wright 2003: 135), then their position opens up an interesting window on
the eschatological thoughts of post-Biblical Judaism before 70 CE, for one
could argue that thoughts of any form of afterlife or resurrection were, in
the words of Wright, “a recent innovation” (2003: 135).21
In summary up to the conclusion of this section, if we include the Scrolls
alongside the wealth of Second Temple Jewish literature outlined above,
there are no texts up to and beyond the first Jewish war which speak unam-
biguously of the resurrection of the physical body.22
RABBINIC LITERATURE
Following the aftermath of the first Jewish War and the emergence of a dom-
inant form of Pharisaic Judaism after Jamnia, the later rabbinic literature
demonstrates a wide variety of thought on the afterlife, together with certain
curious nuances on post-mortem existence.23 Certainly, with the demise of
the Sadducees, and with the friction and disputes which existed between
the two groups now alleviated (particularly on the issue of the resurrec-
tion24), Pharisaic Judaism was able to assert its own framework of thought
on the afterlife. Yet, this appears to have been largely un-systematized and
the rabbis show differing emphases of a number of afterlife scenarios. There
is little, for example, in the Mishnah. Sanhedrin 10.1 (noted above) is cited
frequently, although this text tells us nothing of the precise details of our
investigation into what it describes as the ‘world to come.’ There is a little
more clarity in m. Sanh. 10.3, where:
The generation of the Flood have no share in the world to come, nor
shall they stand in the judgement, for it is written, My spirit shall not
judge with man forever; [thus they have] neither judgement nor spirit.
Here, a share in post-mortem existence, or lack of it for the Flood gener-

ation, is articulated in terms of the spirit (although its precise meaning is
obscure). There is a further ambiguous text in Sotah 9.15: “saintliness leads
to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead.
And the resurrection of the dead shall come through Elijah.”25 The clearest
text is found in Yebamoth, which is consistent with the weight of Second
Temple Jewish texts seen above on the emphasis of the soul and its departure
from the body on death:
“Evidence [of a man’s death] may be given only after his soul is gone
forth . . .”.
(m. Yeb. 16.3; cf. m. Ber. 5.2)
When we turn to the later rabbinic literature, even amidst the variety of
thought in the Talmuds, Tosefta and Targums, we still see much evidence of
that described in the earlier post-Biblical texts: a stress on the survival of the
soul (alone) after death, and a clear understanding that the souls of the righ-
teous and wicked depart to very different abodes. Rabbinic reflection upon
Isa 26 in Pesiq. R. 20.4, for example, explained the descent of God’s dew to
quicken and revive the souls of the righteous, and in b. Sabb. 88b it is where
God “brought down the dew with which He will resurrect the dead, and He
revived them [the souls]” (see Aus 2005: 191). In these texts it is clear that
the rabbis saw the resurrection of the dead in terms of the revival of the soul.
In a baraitha in Shab. 152b, attributed to R. Eliezer, who quotes 1 Sam 25.29
(a passage of some importance in rabbinic literature in support for belief in
life after death), post-mortem existence is considered only in the respect of
the survival of the soul:
It was taught, R. Eliezer said: The souls of the righteous are hidden
under the Throne of Glory, as it is said, yet the soul of my lord shall be
bound up in the bundle of life (1 Sam. 25: 29a). But those of the wicked
continue to be imprisoned, while one angel stands at one end of the
world and a second stands at the other end and they sling their souls to
each other, for it is said, and the soul of your enemies, them shall he sling
out as from the hollow of a sling (1 Sam. 25: 29b).26
Cavallin notes of this text: “After-life is considered only in the respect of

a continued existence of the souls, whether righteous or wicked [. . .] the
use of 1 Sm 25.29 speaks for the assumption that the application of this
text to the fate of the souls after death is likely to be quite early” (1974:
182). In the Tg. Jon., the text of 1 Sam 25.29 is cited again: “And may my
lord’s soul be deposited in the treasury of eternal life before the LORD,
your God, but the soul of your enemies may He let it fly as people do with
stones of a sling” (Cavallin 1974: 187). A further example is found in Lev.
R., Mezora’ 18.1:
R. Phinehas and R. Hiliah in the name of R. Simeon said: When does the
spirit return to God who gave it? (Eccl. 12.7). When the dust return to
the earth as it was, but it is also said, ‘The souls of thine enemies He will
sling out’ (1 Sam 25.29) [. . .] God says to man, ‘Behold, I am pure, and
my dwelling-place is pure, and my ministers are pure, and the soul which
I have given you is pure. If you return it to me in the same condition, all
is well; but if not, I will tear it in pieces before you.’27
As we have seen, such texts cohere with the framework of thought elsewhere:
the physical body decomposes and returns to dust, the soul of the righteous
goes to a place of blessing, the soul of the wicked to a place of potential
punishment. This is also clear in b. Shab. 152b where, “Our Rabbis taught:
‘And the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return to God who
gave it’ [. . .] R. Mari said: [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust, for it is
written, ‘and the dust return to the earth as it was’.”28 The departure of the
righteous soul is also explicated in Genesis Rabba 62.2, where such souls are
allowed a glimpse of the blessings awaiting them in the age to come:
All the reward intended for the righteous is ready for them in the age
to come; and while they are still in this world, the Holy One, blessed be
He!, lets them see the reward that he has prepared to give them in the
age to come. And their souls are satisfied; and they fall asleep.29
The same sentiments are found in b. Sanh. 90b:
For ye maintain that resurrection is not a Biblical doctrine, but it is writ-

ten, [Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken
his commandment], that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall
be upon him [. . .] This is disputed by Tannaim: That soul shall utterly
be cut off: he shall be cut off in this world and in the next.
The tractate Sanhedrin in the Tosefta, proceeds to further explicate m. Sanh.

10 noted above in providing a rabbinic discussion on afterlife existence
employing the metaphor of the root and branches of a tree (and which of
these, if either, would survive judgement). In a wide-ranging discussion on
whether the root and/or branches would remain, and which are used meta-
phorically to designate either the children (as branches) of the wicked (the
root), or a meritorious deed (as branches) of the wicked (the root), the trac-
tate also gives another explanation of the metaphor: the root means the soul
and the branch means the body. Hence, once again, for some rabbis at least,
the distinction of soul and body and the question of which of these would
have any afterlife experience, was a pertinent matter for discussion. As for the
differing afterlife abodes for the righteous and wicked, the Tosefta tractate
claims that the wicked are said to return to Sheol (t. Sanh. 12.11–13.2).30
Interestingly, it appears that even for the Rabbis themselves, there is uncer-
tainty on their own future hope: “When Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai fell ill
[he said] there are two ways before me, one leading to Paradise and the other
to Gehinnom, and I do not know by which I shall be taken” (b. Ber. 28b).
Conversely, there are texts in which the resurrection of the body is con-
ceived in a very literal way. The Tosefta Sanhedrin tractate mentioned above
has a comment upon the wicked of the flood generation, claiming: “The
Almighty says, ‘I will not suffer their souls to return to its case,’ ” implying
it seems, that, for the righteous, perhaps the soul would return to its body
(t. Sanh. 13.6).31 A central prayer of the rabbinic period (although of uncer-
tain date) was the morning benediction (Ber 60b), which makes a similar
point on the afterlife of the righteous:
When he wakes he says: ‘My God, the soul which Thou hast placed in
me is pure. Thou hast fashioned it in me, Thou didst breathe it into me,
and Thou preservest it within me and Thou wilt one day take it from me
and restore it to me in the time to come. So long as the soul is within me
I give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, my God, and the God of my fathers,
Sovereign of all worlds, Lord of all souls. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who
restorest souls to dead corpses.’32
Likewise, the Targum Jonathan takes a very literal approach to Isa 26.19:
It is thou that bringest the dead to life, thou raisest up the bones of their
dead bodies; all that were cast to the dust shall live and sing praises
before thee; for thy dew is a dew of light unto them that observe thy law,
but the wicked to whom thou gavest might, but who have transgressed
thy Memra, shalt thou deliver unto Gehinnom.33
Elsewhere, Leviticus Rabbah (Wayikra 4.5) discusses the relation of body and
soul using two amusing metaphors. In the first of these—the judgement of a
blind and a lame man following their theft of figs—the explication of the met-
aphor is that the two are equally culpable: “[God] brings the soul and casts
it into the body, and judges the two together.” In the second metaphor—the
judgement of two daughters, one the daughter of a priest and the other of a
layman—the respective judgements of the body and soul are now distinct:
So it will be in the world to come with the body and the soul when they
come to judgement. God will let the body alone, and condemn the soul.
Then the soul will say, ‘We have sinned together, why dost thou leave
the body alone, and condemn me?’ God answers, ‘The body belongs
to the lower sphere, to the place where they sin; but you belong to the
upper sphere, where they do not sin; therefore I leave the body alone
and condemn you.
(cited in Montefiore and Lowe 1938: 312–13)
In both, the texts suggest that the physical body has some form of afterlife
existence, but gives little further detail.
A point of some debate amongst the rabbis appears to have been that over
the question of an afterlife existence of those who died outside Palestine. For
R. Eleazar:
The dead outside the Land will not be resurrected; for it is said in Scrip-
ture, And I will set glory in the land of the living, [implying] the dead
of the land in which I have my desire will be resurrected, but the dead
[of the land] in which I have no desire will not be resurrected. R. Abba
b. Memel objected: Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise; does
not [the expression] ‘Thy dead shall live’ refer to the dead of the Land
of Israel, and ‘My dead bodies shall arise’ to the dead outside the Land.
(b. Ket. 111a)34
The debate continued:
R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: A time will come when the just will break
through [the soil] and rise up in Jerusalem, for it is said in Scripture,
And they will blossom out of the city like grass of the earth, and by
‘city’ only Jerusalem can be meant for it is said in Scripture, ‘For I will
defend this city’.
(b. Ket. 111b)
Others, however, circumvented the problem in more ingenious ways:
R. Simai said, The Holy One, blessed be He, will burrow the earth before
them, and their bodies will roll through the excavation like bottles, and
when they arrive at the land of Israel, their souls will be reunited to
them.35
There was also the pertinent question (placed upon the lips of Queen Cleo-
patra), of how the dead would be clothed:
Queen Cleopatra asked R. Meir, ‘I know that the dead will revive, for it
is written, And they [the righteous] shall [in the distant future] blossom
forth out of the city [Jerusalem] like the grass of the earth. But when
they arise, shall they arise nude or in their garments?’—He replied, ‘Thou
mayest deduce by an a fortiori argument [the answer] from a wheat
grain: if a grain of wheat, which is buried naked, sprouteth forth in
many robes, how much more so the righteous, who are buried in their
raiment!’
(b. Sanh. 90b)36
Yet, what is also of interest is a tradition that the righteous body would not
even decompose, “Tanna debe Eliyyahu [states]: The righteous, whom the
Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect, will not revert to dust [. . .] just as
the Holy One endures forever, so shall they endure forever” (b. Sanh. 92a).
An extensive treatment of the afterlife is found in the tractate b. Sanh.
90–92, which, in itself, also demonstrates a variety of thought. There is then,
what appears to be an emphasis on the afterlife existence of the soul:
That [wicked] soul shall utterly be cut off; he shall be cut off in this world
and in the next: this is R. Akiba’s view. R. Ishmael said: But the verse has
previously stated, he reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off
are there then three worlds? But [interpret thus]: and [that soul] shall be
cut off—in this world he is to be cut off—in the next; whilst as for [the
repetition], that is because the Torah employs human phraseology.
(b. Sanh. 90b)
Yet, there is also a discussion on what appears to be an indication of physical
resurrection (although not clarified). This stems from a pertinent question
asked from an (unknown) ruler: “An emperor said to Rabban Gamaliel: ‘Ye
maintain that the dead will revive; but they turn to dust, and can dust come
to life?’ ” The question is answered positively using an a fortiori argument
from the work of a potter. There is also evidence of a clear disagreement over
what appears to be a talk of physical resurrection:
A sectarian [min] said to Gebiha b. Pesisa, ‘Woe to you, ye wicked, who

maintain that the dead will revive; if even the living die, shall the dead
live!’ He replied, ‘Woe to you, ye wicked, who maintain that the dead
will not revive: if what was not, [now] lives,—surely what has lived, will
live again!’
So, critics of such a view are called ‘wicked’ sectarians!37 This is also clear in
b. Baba Bathra 16B, where, “R. Johanan said: That wicked [Esau] commit-
ted five sins on that day [. . . one of which is] he denied the resurrection of
the dead. [We know that] he denied the resurrection of the dead because he
said, Behold, I am on the way to die” (italics, mine).
Elsewhere, there is a clearer view of post-mortem resurrection:
Raba opposed [two verses]: It is written, I kill, and I make alive; whilst
it is also written, I wound, and I heal!—The Holy One, blessed be He,
said, What I slay, I resurrect [i.e., in the same state], and then, what
I wound, I heal [after their revival]. Our Rabbis taught: I kill, and
I make alive. I might interpret, I kill one person and give life to another,
as the world goes on: therefore the Writ states, I wound, and I heal.
Just as the wounding and healing [obviously] refer to the same person,
so putting to death and bringing to life refer to the same person. This
refutes those who maintain that resurrection is not intimated in the
Torah.
(b. Sanh. 91b)
In addition, there is also a discussion and disagreement over Ezekiel 37, and
to what extent it is literal as opposed to a simple metaphor or parable:
But should we not deduce [the reverse] from the dead whom Ezekiel
resurrected?—He accepts the view that in the truth [the story of the
resurrection of the dry bones] was [but] a parable. R. Eliezer the son
of R. Jose the Galilean said: The dead whom Ezekiel revived went up
to Palestine, married wives and begat sons and daughters. R. Judah b.
Bathyra rose up and said: I am one of their descendants, and these are
the tefillin which my grandfather left me [as an heirloom] from them.
(b. Sanh. 92b)
Various benedictions are relevant to our discussion as many were engraved
in the Jewish mind, at least from the period of the reconstruction after
70 CE:
Thou art mighty forever YHWH, thou quickenest the dead, thou art
mighty to save [. . .] and keepest faith to that sleep in the dust [. . .] who
killest and quickenest and causest salvation to spring forth. And faithful
art thou to quicken the dead.38
We also find a similar perspective in the Shemoneh Esrei (or Amidah), per-
haps the most important prayer of the synagogue.39 The second blessing is
called Gevurot (“mighty deeds”):
You, O Lord are mighty forever, You are the Reviver of the dead, You
are greatly able to save. You sustain the living in loving kindness, You
revive the dead with great compassion, You support the falling, heal the
sick, set free the bound and keep faith with those who sleep in the dust.
Who is like You, O Master of mighty deeds? Who compares to You, a
king who puts to death and restores to life, and brings forth salvation?
And You are faithful to revive the dead. Blessed are You, O Lord, who
revives the dead.
HILLEL AND SHAMMAI
Finally, there are, of course, the writings of the great rabbis, Hillel and Sham-
mai, and the schools that followed in their names. Both espoused an afterlife
hope in which the resurrection of the body was conceived in a very literal
way. The Shammaites were perhaps the more extreme literalists in that their
interpretation of Ezek 37:1–14 explained the metaphor as a description of
the future general resurrection. Hence, for Shammai, resurrected life is a
life in an earthly body, which is identical with that having died (the bones
of Ezek 37:1–14 represent identity and continuity). For Hillel, however,
although he was in agreement on the fact of a new eschatological body, it
would be an entirely new body (from Job 10.10–12;40 cf. Cavallin 1974:
173). So, the school of Shammai maintained that there would be some kind
of relationship between the material remains of the dead and their resur-
rected bodies, while the Hillelites argued that there would not, maintaining
that the resurrection would be a new creation of the body, ex nihilo (the new
‘embryo’ of GnR 14.5, LevR 14.9).41
In summarizing rabbinic thought, the detailed and extensive arguments of
b. Sanh. 90–92, over a number of issues, can only be satisfactorily explained
by the fact of disagreements over the nature of the resurrection. There
appears to be a general consensus on the continuity of the soul, but less so on
the physical body. In reference to the rabbinic literature, Wright overstates
his case considerably when he asserts: “Nobody doubted that Daniel 12
spoke of bodily resurrection; by the first century some at least were reading
Ezekiel in that way, though with metaphorical overtones of return from exile
still audible as well” (2003: 197). Although Dan 12 is cited in b. Sanh. 92a,
it does not stress a physical resurrection, and, as noted, there is a debate in
b. Sanh. 92b over the Ezekiel text. How early the various rabbinic thoughts
on the afterlife may have been developed after Jamnia is difficult to assess;
there are, as yet, simply no clear methodological criteria by which we can

safely retroject rabbinic comments and debates on questions of the afterlife
back into the first century or earlier.
The rabbinic commentaries citing Hillel and Shammai, for example, may
tell us more about the debates of the Talmudic period than those of the first
century BCE and beyond, where the arguments of both rabbis on the resur-
rection of a physical body would be unique in their time (1st BCE–1st CE)
compared to the weight of Second Temple Jewish texts noted above. It is of
interest, too, that no post-Biblical text up to the first century CE mentions
either Hillel or Shammai even when discussing the afterlife. Indeed, apart
from a single reference to Hillel in 3 Enoch, the two rabbis are absent not
only from the works of the Old Testament pseudepigrapha,42 but, aston-
ishingly, also from the entirety of the works of Philo and Josephus. Even in
the Mishnah, which has an extensive catalogue of the debates and disagree-
ments of the two rabbis, even over certain consequences involving dead
bodies (Ohol 2.3; 7.3; 18.1; Mikw 1.4), there is no mention of their differ-
ences over the resurrection! Emil Schürer’s comments on the two rabbis are
perhaps pertinent in this context when he notes that “the accounts provided
by the later sources bear almost throughout the stamp of legend” (1979:
2.364), and, in general on the rabbinic literature, the comments of Monte-
fiore and Lowe are also very significant:
according to one doctrine, when you die, you sleep till you ‘rise’ again at
the general resurrection and for the last Judgment. According to another
doctrine, when you die, you may, if you are righteous or repentant (and
more especially if you are an Israelite), straightway enjoy in happy bless-
edness the life of the blessed world to come, and if you are wicked and
an idolater and an enemy of Israel, you may, when you die, go straight-
way to hell. How long you will remain in hell is another matter; it may
be for a shorter or a longer period, or again it may be for ever. Or, again,
at the end of a period in hell you may be annihilated. Or, again, you may
be annihilated at your earthly death. Passages which imply or express
all these various bizarre conceptions and confusions abound, and there
is no one accepted theory or conception.
(1938: 581)
In concluding their study of rabbinic thought on the afterlife, Montefiore

and Lowe note: “It may be pointed out that there is a good deal of confusion
in the rabbinic literature about ‘the world to come’ [. . .] One never seems to
get to the bottom of the oddity of the Rabbis” (1938: 581, 600).43 Indeed,
the great rabbinic scholar G.F. Moore concurs, noting that, “Any attempt to
systematize the Jewish notions of the hereafter imposes upon them an order
and consistency which does not exist in them” (1927: 2.389).
CONCLUSION
In sum, and as a preface to our study of the New Testament, Second Temple
Jewish texts and the Scrolls allow us valuable insights into post-mortem exis-
tence, particularly in areas which are developments away from those of the
Hebrew Bible. In continuity with the Hebrew Bible, the body is made from
dust and after death returns to dust; the soul, however, is seen as immor-
tal. In discontinuity with the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish texts
delineate perspectives whereby the souls of the righteous and wicked go to
different places. Those of the righteous go to be with God, and so achieve a
sense of bliss and peace; those of the wicked are sent to an everlasting prison
where they are subject to eternal punishment. In many texts, the souls of the
righteous become like angels or stars in the heavens. Apart from one late text
in Josephus, there is no unambiguous concept of a physical bodily afterlife.
The reconstitution of a physical body is only undertaken in the last days as
part of God’s re-creation or reconstitution of the physical world. This is not
to say that one can presume to see the perspective of Josephus developing
automatically from his Jewish background (that would have to be argued);
it could be argued that such notions stemmed from his Greco-Roman milieu.
As for the Sadducees, these stand in some continuity with the sacred text
of the Pentateuch, whereas the Jewish authors of Second Temple Jewish
texts stand in discontinuity with the Hebrew Bible, most likely following
reflection on the afterlife following the Maccabean wars. The later rabbinic
writings as a whole are rather obscure or multivalent: while some offer an
unambiguous framework of an afterlife which involves a physical body, oth-
ers disclose diverging views and debate, and many texts have an emphasis on
a conception of an afterlife conceived more in terms of the soul.
NOTES
1. On the debate see Davies (2000: 189, 210); Segal (2004). Also, in general, on
this chapter, see Elledge (2011) and Popović (2009).
2. On the former, Schubert (1960); on the latter, Carmignac (1958); and see Lau-
rin (1958); Le Moyne (1972: 167–68).
3. Also on the Essenes see Philo, Prob. 75–91; Hypothetica 11.1–18. On those
who dismiss the evidence of Josephus, see e.g., Puech (1994: 254, n. 44), who
writes, “The presentation of Flavius Josephus does not give us a correct picture
of the Essenes’ belief, and at least on this point he cannot be trusted.” Puech
provides no evidence for this statement and, as will be shown by the end of this
section, Josephus articulates Essene belief perhaps better than Puech wants to
allow.
4. In a calamitous category error, Wright, noting the overlap between this text
and 2 Maccabees 7, ignores the Jewish attitude towards the body and insists
on an ‘anthropology’ which, “consists primarily of the body, which will be
deprived of its animating soul for a while but will then receive it back again.
My guess—it can only be that—is that Josephus was here echoing, whether
consciously or otherwise, the language either of 2 Maccabees or of similar
martyrological texts now lost to us” (2003: 183). To do so, of course, Wright
has to actually ignore the Essene understanding of the body outlined by Jose-
phus above.
5. In the context of this paper, the text makes perfect sense, whatever the transla-
tion of proso/don (see the debate in Feldman’s Loeb translation, p. 15 n. e). The
huge concern for Wright is that this text may be a way of referring “to a blissful
disembodied immortality” (2003: 184, italics mine), i.e., the resurrection of the
soul alone, which Wright does not want to envisage. Ironically, in asserting the
need for some sort of continuity between present and future life, Wright notes
that one obvious way is described in the Wisdom of Solomon—the language
of the soul!
6. See Martínez (1996: 355–61); Vermes (1998: 292–300). In the long passage
remarking upon the body and its demise after death (1QH 20.24–23.15), one
may have expected that any notion of physical resurrection would have been
found here. Although some of the texts are uncertain, the only two points in
this section which speak of some form of eternal life are in passages which also
speak of the spirit (1QH 21.28–29; 23 frag. 2.10).
7. Strangely, despite the fact this section of 1QH 13 is abundant with terminology
of the afterlife of the soul and has no mention of the body, Brooke (2006: 28)
maintains that the “speaker begins by asserting a physical position that is res-
onant with the language of bodily resurrection.” In doing so, Brooke appears
to be misconstruing the point of the text.
8. See Davies (2000: 199).
9. On this fragment see Puech (1994); Wold (2012). Wright (2003: 186) cites the
passage by following the translation of Vermes, yet at the clause “revive the dead”
switches to, and italicizes, the translation of Martínez, viz., “[He] will make the
dead live . . .” The two translations give quite a different sense to the clause.
10. Cf. Isa 66.24. On bodies and worms Chapter 2 above.
11. De Boer (1988: 72) also cites Kuhn (1966: 104–05) who argued for the pres-
ence of anthropological dualism in the Scrolls and spoke of the separation of
the spirit-self from the flesh and its elevation to the heavenly realm from the
sphere of dust and therefore mortality and death. In this sense, the text could
be read to signify a qualitative change in one’s earthly existence, indicated by
the motif of cleansing from sin. De Boer asks whether we are then to under-
stand the deliverance from Sheol, etc., in a metaphorical sense only, to signify
cleansing from sin? Or does the text imply that physical demise was no longer
of any concern because the community already in some way ‘had’ eternal life
(cf. 1QH 2.17–20)? This text, like 1QH 6.24 and 11.13, is reminiscent of Bib-
lical Psalms (e.g., Pss 16, 49, 71).
12. Cf. Porter (1999: 67) who suggests, “4Q521 has language reflective of Isa
35.5–6 and 61.1–2. There is a sense here of restoration of previous existence,
rather than transportation to an idyllic realm.”
13. See Barrett (1987: 230).
14. 4QAmrane Frag. 3, see Martínez (1996: 274) and Frag. 5 in Martínez and
Tigchelaar (1998: 1093).
15. 4Q245 Frag. 2. Martínez (1996: 289).
16. Collins (1992: 134); De Boer (1988: 71); Nickelsburg (1972) (cited in Porter
1999: 66); and note Davies’ comments after his analysis of the Community
Rule, Damascus Document and War Scroll, “there is no statement of a doc-
trine of resurrection and no consensus about the precise nature of the final
state of the righteous” (2000: 210).
17. With reference to n. 3 above, Puech, in wanting, like Wright, to assert a belief
in physical resurrection on behalf of the Essenes has to dismiss the writings of
Josephus.
18. Jos. War 2.165; Ant. 18.16–17; Mark 12:18–23 & pars.; Acts 4:2; 23:8;
Wright (2003: 131–140).
19. Further on the Pharisees and Sadducees in rabbinic literature, see Setzer (2004:
33–36).
20. Curiously, the later rabbis did assert resurrection from the Pentateuch (b. Sanh.
11), and Hades is present in the Pentateuch (Gen 37.35; 42.38; 44.29, 31), but
only as a synonym for death.
21. Wright claims that Sirach is a spiritual ancestor of the Sadducees and that
they “would certainly have approved of Sirach’s attitude to death and what
might lie beyond . . .” (2003: 136). Yet, whilst Sirach gives little specific detail
on the afterlife, the writer asserts that for everyone, the flesh returns to dust
(17.1), and the spirit departs (to Sheol?; 38.21–23; 41.4). As such, the writer
stands in continuity with the Hebrew Bible and against both the Sadducees
(for whom there is no post-mortem existence) and later post-Biblical Jewish
writers (who envisage an eternal existence for the soul and judgement after
death). Bauckham (1998: 82) writes that Sirach, “is probably the last Judean
writer of the Second Temple period of whom it can be confidently stated that
he did not expect eternal life and judgment after death.” Cf. TDNTW 121;
Moore (1927: 2.317). In this sense, Wright is incorrect: the Sadducees would
have been opposed to Sirach’s concept of an afterlife. For Sirach, there were
only two principal ways in which a person could ‘outlast’ death (in an ‘earthly’
sense). The first was through children, who represent their parents after death
(11:28; 30.4–5; 46:12), and the other was by means of a good reputation
(39:9; 41.11–13; 44:8).
22. One other Jewish text sometimes cited is the Apocryphon of Ezekiel (see Muel-
ler & Robinson 1983). Extant fragments of the text are found only in quota-
tions by the Fathers (notably the fourth-century writings of bishop Epiphanius,
Haer. 64.70.5–17), and in fragments of the Chester Beatty Papyrus 185. A sim-
ilar story is found in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 91a-b). Mueller and
Robinson note that dating and provenance are uncertain. That the fragments
of the work are preserved predominantly in later Christian sources and that the
text espouses the immortality and judgement of the body (which is suggested
nowhere else in post-Biblical Jewish literature, not even in Josephus), would
certainly point to later editing by a Christian or Jewish-Christian redactor.
23. See the brief overviews in Cavallin (1974: 171–92); Segal (1997: 113–125);
Wright (2003: 190–200).
24. As noted above. For a variety of other disputes see m. Makk 1.6; m. Par. 3.3,
7; m. Nid 4.2; m. Yad 4.6–8.
25. The sending of Elijah, noted in Mal 4.5, is to enable the reconciliation of
parent and child and so to turn away the curses of Yahweh upon the land.
See further, Moore (1927: 2.272); Wright (2003: 193). Cf. also b. AZ. 20b:
“Study leads to precision, precision leads to zeal, zeal leads to cleanliness,
cleanliness leads to restraint, restraint leads to purity, purity leads to holiness,
holiness leads to meekness, meekness leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to
saintliness, saintliness leads to the [possession of] the holy spirit, the holy spirit
leads to eternal life.” The footnote to this text claims that “The phrase may
also mean that the possessor of the Holy Spirit is endowed with the power
of restoring life to the dead” (Epstein 1961: 106 n9).
26. Cavallin (1974: 182) citing a baraitha in Shab 152b. See Park (2000: 151). Park’s
analysis of Jewish epitaphs on gravestones leads him to conclude that such bless-
ings on inscriptions, “envision God’s careful concern and protection for the soul
of the deceased.” On the ‘bundle of life,’ Park notes, “It is difficult, however, to
determine whether it is a description of a final blissful existence, or refers specif-
ically to an intermediate state between death and resurrection” (153).
27. Cf. Montefiore and Lowe (1938: 312); and also, b. Shab.152b, “The Rabbis
say: As the spirit was given to thee pure, so return it pure.”
28. Interestingly, b. Shab 152b-153a claims that the physical body survives for
a full year before decomposing, “A certain Sadducee said to R.Abbahu: You
maintain that the souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory:
then how did the bone [practising] necromancer bring up Samuel by means of
his necromancy?—There it was within twelve months [of death], he replied.
For it was taught: For full [twelve months] the body is in existence and the soul
ascends and descends; after twelve months the body ceases to exist [153a] and
the soul ascends but descends nevermore.”
29. Targum and Midrash [online]. Available from: http://virtualreligion.net/iho/
targum.html#banquet [accessed May 7th 2014].
30. See, Montefiore and Lowe (1938: 604); and Internet Sacred Text Archive
[online]. Available from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tsa/tsa37.htm
[accessed March 7th 2014]
31. The Mishnah elucidates a debate between R. Akiba and R. Eleazar on the
future of the wilderness generation, particularly the men of Korah. Akiba
claims that they will have no future in the world to come, although Eleazar
(citing 1 Sam 2.6), claims that they will (m. Sanh. 10.3). The debate is contin-
ued in t. Sanh. 13.9b, although now citing a different proof text to 1 Sam.
32. Cavallin (1974: 178). Cf. b. AbodZara 5a, “The Son of David will only come
when all the souls destined to [inhabit earthly] bodies will be exhausted.”
33. Cavallin (1974: 188) (citing the ET by Stenning 1949).
34. Although R. Memel appears to link the reference to miscarriages.
35. j. Ket 12.#3, f. 35b, line 13; b. Ket. 111a (Abbaye), cited in Montefiore and
Lowe (1938: 600).
36. Cf. also b. Ket. 111b, ‘R. Hiyya b. Joseph further stated: The just in the time to
come will rise [apparelled] in their own clothes. [This is deduced] a minori ad
majus from a grain of wheat. If a grain of wheat that is buried naked sprouts
up with many coverings how much more so the just who are buried in their
shrouds.’ Note also, the parallels between these texts and 1 Cor 15.
37. See also, Gen. R., Bereshit 14.7 (noted in Montefiore & Lowe 1938: 591),
where someone who denies the resurrection is called the heretic.
38. J. Ber 4.6 (7); b. Ber 28b-29a; Meg 17b; Cavallin (1974: 178).
39. The basic form of the prayer may have been composed c. fifth century BCE,
originally consisting of eighteen blessings divided into three sections.
40. Job 10.9–12, “Remember that you fashioned me like clay; and will you turn
me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like
cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones
and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has
preserved my spirit.”
41. Gen. Rab. 14.5; Lev. Rab. 14.9. Despite the debate, the rabbinic emphasis
upon some kind of physical post-mortem existence is clear, m. Sanh. 10.1;
m. Sot. 9.15; b. Sanh. 90a-92b; Cavallin (1974: 171ff.); Montefiore & Lowe
(1938: 601f.); Wright (2003: 190–200).
42. The index of Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols, 1983,
1985), cites Hillel only once (3 Enoch) and Shammai not at all.
43. They also note, “The appalling self-delusion which could glibly talk of a God
of love and yet believe in an eternal hell was, I think, sooner and more prevail-
ingly lost in Judaism than in Christianity” (581). See also Urbach (1975: 651).
SOURCES CITED
BARRETT, C.K. (1987) New Testament Background: Selected Documents. Rev. edn.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1998) Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.
Message of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
BROOKE, G. (2006) The Structure of 1QHA XII 5-XIII 4 and the Meaning of Res-
urrection. In MARTÍNEZ, F.G., STEUDEL, A. & TIGCHELAAR, E. (eds), From
4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Émile Puech.
Leiden: Brill.
CARMIGNAC, J. (1958) Le retour du Docteur de Justice à la fin des jours? Revue
de Qumran. 1, 235–48.
of the Dead in I Cor 15. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Eternal Life.” In NEUSNER, J. & AVERY-PECK, A.J. (eds), George W. E. Nickels-
COLLINS, J.J. (1992) The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish
Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad)
DAUBE, D. (1990) On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels. Journal of Biblical Literature.
109 (3), pp. 493–97.
DAVIES, P.R. (2000) Death, Resurrection and Life after Death in the Qumran Scrolls.
In AVERY-PECK, A.J. & NEUSNER, J. (eds), Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4:
Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaism of
Antiquity. Handbook of Oriental Studies 4. Leiden: Brill.
DIMANT, D. (ed.) (2001) Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-
Prophetic Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
EPSTEIN, I. (ed.) (1961) The Babylonian Talmud. London: The Soncino Press.
FREY, J. (2010) Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testa-
ment. In LIM, T.H. & COLLINS, J.J. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HOGETERP, A. (2008) Resurrection and Biblical Tradition: Pseudo-Ezekiel Reconsid-
ered. Biblical Studies on the Web. 89, pp. 59–69. Available from: http://www.bsw.
org/biblica/vol-89–2008/resurrection-and-biblical-tradition-pseudo-ezekiel-reconsi
dered/33/ [Accessed June 2nd, 2015].
KLAWANS, J. (2012) Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. Oxford:
KUHN, H.-W. (1966) Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu
den Gemeindegliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und
Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
LAURIN, R.B. (1958) The Question of Immortality in the Qumran “Hodayot.” Jour-
nal of Semitic Studies. 3, pp. 344–55.
LE MOYNE, J. (1972) Les Sadducéens. Paris: Gabalda.
MARTÍNEZ, F.G. (1996) The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Qumran Texts in English.
Translated by W.G.E. WATSON. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
MARTÍNEZ, F.G. & TIGCHELAAR, E. (eds) (1997, 1998), The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill.
MUELLER, J.R. & ROBINSON, S.E. (1983) Apocryphon of Ezekiel. In
CHARLESWORTH, J. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 Vols. New
York: Doubleday.
testamental Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PARK, J.S. (2000) Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
POPOVIĆ, M. (2009) Bones, Bodies and Resurrection in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In
NICKLAS, T., REITERER, F.V. & VERHEYDEN, J. (eds), The Human Body in
Death and Resurrection. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Berlin: Wal-
ter de Gruyter.
PORTER, S. (1999) ‘Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament.’ In PORTER,
S.E., HAYES, M.A. & TOMBS, D. (eds), Resurrection. JSNTSS 186. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
PUECH, É. (1994) Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology at Qumran and in
the New Testament. In ULRICH, E. & VANDERKAM, J. (eds), The Community
of the Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
SCHUBERT, K. (1960) Das Problem der Auferstehungshoffnung in den Qumran-
texten und in der frührabbinischen Literature. Weiner Zeitschrift für die Kunde
desMorgenlandes. 56, pp. 154–67.
4 Vols., Rev. edn. London: T&T Clark.
SEGAL, A.F. (1997) Life After Death: The Social Sources. In DAVIES, S.T., KEND-
ALL, D. & O’COLLINS, G. (eds), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Sympo-
sium on the Resurrection of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (2004) Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion.
New York: Doubleday.
ity: Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition. Leiden: Brill.
STENNING, J.F. (1949) The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon.
URBACH, E. (1975) The Sages: The World and Wisdom of the Rabbis of the Talmud.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
VERMES, G. (1998) The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Complete Edition.
London: Penguin Books.
WOLD, B. (2012) Agency and Raising the Dead in 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and 4Q521ii.
Archaeology in the Biblical World. 103, pp. 1–19.
5 New Testament Beginnings
Afterlife in the Thought
of the Apostle Paul
In 1974, Hans Cavallin wrote,
Paul . . . could not possibly have accepted or even understood any other
idea of life after death than that which included the whole man, body
and soul, i.e., the resurrection of the body, simply because they were
Jews. This resurrection faith, based on Hebrew anthropology, will then
be stated as the NT doctrine, and the genuine Christian approach to the
question of after-life, as opposed to the Greek idea of the immortality
of the soul.
Many cite Cavallin as authoritative. Yet, as we have seen thus far, life after
death for the Hebrew Bible and for the vast majority of texts from the period
of Second Temple Judaism clearly laid an emphasis on the post-mortem sur-
vival of the soul and not the body. In this sense, as noted in the conclusion
to Chapter 2, perhaps Hebrew anthropology needs to be re-thought. At the
same time, the Greek concept of life after death, as we have seen in Chap-
ter 1, did assert the need for a physical body. These two strands will be held
in mind as we approach the earliest formulation of the afterlife in the New
Testament in the writings of the apostle Paul.
To preface our analysis of Paul’s understanding and construction of the
afterlife we take a slight detour to delve into particular perspectives upon
the character of the apostle himself, for, perhaps controversially for some,
the assertion will be made that Paul was of only average intelligence and
fomented confusion over many aspects of early Christian praxis. Hopefully,
less controversially, it needs to be remembered that Paul had an imminent
eschatological expectation and was prone to visionary experiences.1
In answering the charge of ‘How can it be asserted that Paul is of only
average intelligence?’; simply, it is because he tells us so himself:
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently

persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced
New Testament Beginnings 101
in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was
far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.
(Gal 1.13–14)2
His advancement (prosko&ptw) in Judaism was only beyond many of his

contemporaries (u9pe\r pollou\v sunglikiw&tav). Paul does not say all or
most, which he undoubtedly would have done had that been the case for
that would have strengthened his rhetorical argument. So, where would
this leave him amongst his contemporaries? Certainly, not top of his class.
If he was in the highest fifty percent, this would have allowed use of most.
Most likely, we can only assert that Paul was an average middling student.
An additional point is his claim that it was the fact of being “far more zeal-
ous” (perissote/rwv zhlwth\v u9pa&rxwn) than his contemporaries which
was a (or the?) significant factor accentuating his advancement in Judaism.
Yet, this was an ‘advancement’ simply towards being an average student.
So, it wasn’t intelligence, understanding, purity, piety, or such things, it
was zeal.
The book of Acts, naturally, presents a different perspective. Paul did
advance in Judaism to the extent that he had the authority to give the
approval for the death of Stephen;3 he had the authority to enter the homes
of Christ-believers in Jerusalem and “dragging off both men and women, he
committed them to prison;” and he was given authority by the High Priest
to travel to Damascus in search of other Christ-followers and bring them
bound to Jerusalem. Surely the pinnacle of any ‘advancement’ in Judaism
was to be given authority by none other than the High Priest himself and to
be the defender and gate-keeper of Judaism against those who would seek
to undermine it? Unfortunately, we hear nothing of this from Paul and so
cannot verify the veracity of such claims, although we must, of course, recog-
nize the Lukan tendenz towards accentuating the life of Paul (Luke’s ‘hero’),
which influences the structure and content of his literary work. We could
though conflate the witnesses of Paul and Acts to suggest that it was perhaps
the apostle’s zealousness which may have fomented an attitude leading to
violence against those who apparently stood against Judaism.4 In modern
religious parlance one could summarize these texts to suggest that Paul was,
in his days before becoming a Christ-follower, a religious fundamentalist of
only average intelligence with a propensity to conflict and violence (cf. 1 Tim
1.13; Lüdemann 1995: 118–19).
Elsewhere, Paul has to admit that he is unskilled in speech, and so a poor
communicator, as well as concur with his Corinthian critics that “his bodily
presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor 10.10; 11.6; see also
Furnish 1984: 468, 478–79, 490–91; Martin 1986: 242–43, 311–13; Tol-
mie 2012). It is also clear that some in Corinth see him as a fool which,
in part, he appears to concur with.5 He also has to defend himself against
charges of financial mismanagement over a collection of funds, as well as
vacillating in his travel arrangements.6 Further, that Paul evinces lack of clar-
ity of thought which leads to confusion for others is clear in a remarkable
passage in 1 Corinthians:
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I [did]

not at all [mean] with the immoral people of this world, or with the
covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to
go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with
any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with
such a one.
(1 Cor 5.9–11, NASU)
Here, Paul refers to a letter prior to 1 Corinthians. The social setting is that it
appears the Corinthians had written or sent an oral report to Paul asking his
advice on this issue, and he writes to inform the community of how to struc-
ture interpersonal relations now that they are believers.7 Yet, how is it that
Paul’s injunctions in this lost former letter are apparently so ambiguous and
confusing that the Corinthian community take them to indicate the exact
opposite of what the apostle actually means: that the disassociation with the
sexually immoral is a reference to those outside the Christ-movement, not
as Paul now insists to those within (6:9).8 Did they then have to ask, again,
for clarification on this, or did Paul hear that there was confusion within
the community? In either case, it is the apostle’s inability to make himself
clearly understood which is at fault. (Although one could perhaps argue that
the source of confusion was the original request from the Corinthians but,
as will be shown, there are many issues elsewhere where Paul apparently
sows the seeds of confusion.) So, while Paul asserts the necessity of on-going
relations with those outside the Christ-movement (6.10), he has failed both
during his time in Corinth and through his previous letter to explicate its
exact form. Confusion at Corinth stems perhaps from Paul’s own inade-
quacies as an educator. Certainly, the social and ethical boundaries of the
Christ-movement may have been clear in Paul’s own mind, but these were
obviously not articulated clearly enough to his converts.
There are also additional problems within the Corinthian community. If
Paul had been the founder and guiding mentor of the community for some
long time, then why, between the time of his departure and the writing of
1 Corinthians, had social relations deteriorated so badly? And why were
individuals, or some (or even many) in the community, now engaged in activ-
ities which the apostle could condemn only in the severest of terms: e.g., that
someone should be handed over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5); that certain conduct
was ai0sxro&v, or could ‘destroy’ a fellow believer, or may be construed as
participating with daimo&nia (11:6; 8:11; 10:20–21); that the community was
setting its heart on ‘evil’ (10:6); and bringing itself under judgement, sick-
ness, and death (11:30)? There are also signs that Paul’s relationship with
the (majority of) the community had broken down and yet he feels, in this
context, that it is suitable to warn of impending punishment until the Cor-
inthians are ‘obedient’ (2 Cor 10.6; 12.20). It is a catalogue of extraordinary
concerns.
And neither does the enigma of 1 Corinthians end there. When one bears
in mind that Paul’s initial tenure at Corinth was some eighteen months
(a figure which is widely accepted and which fits well into what is known of
Pauline chronology), and one notices the disparate nature of the problems
of 1 Corinthians, one wonders why such issues arose only after Paul’s depar-
ture (Alexander 1993: 115–23; Jewett 1979; Thiselton 2000: 29–32). It is
difficult to imagine that question of propriety in worship and the Eucharist,
head-coverings, idol food, the use of tongues and prophecy, and, following
misunderstanding in Thessalonica, the nature of the resurrection, would not
have arisen during this long period. One has to ask the difficult question
of why this is so, and why was Paul’s ministry at Corinth apparently so
inadequate? If many neophyte believers entered the Christ-community after
Paul’s departure and were insufficiently re-socialized into Paul’s radical con-
cept of life in Christ, one has to deliberate over the ideological or doctrinal
shape of the community at Paul’s departure. It certainly appears that there
was enough confusion in the minds of those he left behind on the issue of
on-going relations with those outside the Christ-movement to seek further
advice from Paul (1 Cor 6:9–11). But, even here, one has to wonder why?
Over a period of eighteen months did the question never arise, or did Paul
never think it useful, to explicate on-going social relations between believer
and non-believer and to demarcate some of the clear social boundaries out-
lined in 1 Corinthians? Are Paul’s inadequacies as an educator and his fail-
ure to explicate precisely what the ‘gospel’ is, and how it should ‘work,’ the
reasons why the Corinthians turn so easily to other ‘versions’ of Christian
theology and praxis?9
But 1 Corinthians is not unique in this regard. There is confusion in Thes-
salonica over the parousia and nature of the resurrection body; problems in
Galatia over the role of Torah within the Christ-movement; further problems
are evident in 2 Corinthians over the adequacy of Paul’s ministry; problems,
too, in Philippi over competitors and Judaizers, as well as evidence of dis-
sention and conflict within the Christ-movement there (Phil 4:2–3). Overall,
a litany of problems perhaps stemming from an inadequate theological and
social reflection upon the dramatic and far-reaching implications of a radical
message. Too often, it seems, Paul’s directives appear to be reactive rather
than proactive. There is also the question of whether Paul is functioning
too much as an independent missionary with not enough recourse to the
apostles and other witnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry who constituted the
earliest Christ-followers. Certainly, a natural reading of Galatians 1.15–24
would suggest that Paul was something of a loner, and although receptive to
having a travelling partner, the apostle took the lead in terms of establish-
ing communities of Christ-believers and inculcating theological and ethical
praxis. He also appears, for some reason, not to want to build upon anoth-
er’s foundation (Rom 15.20), despite the obvious paradigm of Jesus building
upon the work of John the Baptist.
For modern commentators, Paul also appears to have lost the critical
debate at Antioch, so, somehow, there was perhaps concern by some in Jeru-
salem that Paul was unpredictable or unstable; perhaps a veritable ‘loose
cannon’ (see Nanos 2002)? Indeed, Paul’s argument outlined in Galatians
may have been symptomatic of his lack of clarity wherein his climatic state-
ment on circumcision and the law in 5.3 (“Once again I testify to every man
who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law”), is
rhetorically charged and not wholly true. Certainly, it cannot have been true
of Abraham whom Paul frequently cites. If the Jerusalem pillars or others
had heard or read such injunctions, then it is easy to see how Paul’s ministry
was something of a concern for those within the early Christ-movement and
certainly for those without (cf. Acts 21.20–24).
As is well known, and noted above, the relationship between Paul’s letters
and the book of Acts is also problematic.10 In the letters why do we hear
nothing of key figures and events: the proconsul Sergius Paulus on Cyprus;
the riot in Ephesus; Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and the plot to kill him; his tri-
als and defence before the governors Felix and Festus and King Agrippa; his
arrival and time in Rome; or the many miracles and conversions along the
way?11 It is quite a remarkable list, all missing from Paul’s hand. This is espe-
cially curious when his letters do assert and catalogue his hardships during
his missionary travels, accentuating his apostolic credentials within a dying-
in-Christ motif.12 Would not a reminder to his readers that he has defended
the gospel, standing before kings, governors, and others, and suffered for
doing so, not accentuate his claims? And while the book of Acts certainly
highlights times of testing for Paul, there is nothing of famine, nakedness,
danger of the sword, a fivefold Jewish lashing, a threefold beating by rods,
a threefold shipwrecking, or danger of bandits, etc.
So, does Paul accentuate (or even exaggerate) his hardship catalogue for
his readers in order to compare himself either with Hellenistic moralists
who saw them as tests of character and models of endurance, or with Jew-
ish apocalyptic traditions of eschatological hardship and woe (see Glancy
2004)? And could this be the reason why his various communities scattered
around the Mediterranean appear unsure of Paul, and disregard him, in
favour of others, whatever their ‘apostolic’ credentials.13 What is also of
interest is that Paul frequently conjoins comments about pain and suffering
with religious ecstatic experiences (2 Cor 3–4 with 4.7–12; 6.3–10; Rom
8.19–22 with 35–36); and any attempt to understand Paul must also be
cognizant of the fact that he stands within the traditions of early Jewish mys-
ticism as an apocalyptic visionary, prone to what can be best described as an
altered state of consciousness (ASC).14 This is especially true of the narrative
of Paul’s vision of his heavenly journey in 2 Cor 12 which is integrated into
the most extensive peristasis catalogue of the Pauline corpus (11.21b-12.10).
Here, his mystical heavenly ascent amidst wondrous sounds and visions ulti-
mately culminated in his thorn in the flesh.15 And this may also illuminate
a curious incident in Acts 16 where Paul, following his leading by the ‘spirit
of Jesus’ and his vision of a man of Macedonia (Acts 16.7–10), apparently
allows himself to be severely flogged and imprisoned rather than ameliorat-
ing such punishment by declaring himself to be a Roman citizen (cf. 22.29).
Certainly, Paul’s rapture highlights his tendency towards altered states of
consciousness. The plurality of visions and revelations in 1 Cor 12.1 and the
abundance of revelations in 12.7 (RSV) indicate multiple experiences outside
of that narrated here.16 Paul may well have been a practitioner of particular
rituals and of an ascetic lifestyle which helped induce such visions (e.g., 1 Cor
9.24–27; Acts 22.17).17 Indeed, Paul actually adumbrates a high level of apos-
tolic authority from the ability to experience transcendent visions, and it is
unsurprising that the narrative of 12.1–6 is located within the larger discourse
of 11.16–12.10 which has the singular focus of the reasons for Paul’s oppor-
tunities to boast. From an analysis of 12.1–6, C.R.A. Morray-Jones claims
that such experiences were, “a central feature of Paul’s experience and self-un-
derstanding. Since this is so, there are no grounds for the assumption that his
visions were purely spontaneous, involuntary events; it is quite probable that
they were induced by the use of mystical techniques” (1993: 283).18 Interest-
ingly, Coleen Shantz, in her analysis of the link between peristasis catalogues
and authority, notes, “Frequently, ecstatic religious behaviour is interpreted as
a means to manipulate the larger social group within which it is practised—it
is decoded as a means to gain power, resources, or other privilege” (2008:
194).19 One of the seminal works on Paul and ASCs is that of Alan Segal
(1990), who argues that the very basis of Paul’s theology stems from his con-
version experience and his mystical ascension(s), and that his visionary expe-
rience of the risen Christ informs his understanding of the future resurrection
experience (1990: 69; 2004: 417). Building upon Segal’s thesis, C.D. Elledge
goes on to assert that, “Paul’s own mystical-apocalyptic state of consciousness
already inwardly anticipated and participated in the ultimate transformation
of the body into the spiritual image of the risen Christ” (2011: 401).
Yet, within the early Christ-movement, ASCs are not peculiar to Paul.
They are also predicated of Peter, James, and John during the supernatural
transfiguration of Jesus outlined in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (an
incident which Paul appears to be unaware of), and Peter is also said to
experience visions while in a trance in Acts 10–11, and a vision of an angel
in Acts 12.9. Ananias and Paul have experiences of visions before the divine
healing of Paul in Damascus, and Paul has a further vision of the lord in
Acts 18.8. Hence, it would appear that the significant ‘pillars’ of the nascent
Christ-movement, Paul included, all exhibit similar characteristics of having
experiences of altered states of consciousness and of visions.20 Following
Shantz, one could wonder if the tension between Paul and others related to
competition over ASCs and the accruement of prestige, authority, and power.
In an earlier analysis, William Walker notes that disputes over appearance
traditions and authority within the nascent Christ-movement were similar to
disputes over ancient Israelite theophany traditions in the legitimizations of
places of worship. In a similar way, these christophany traditions were used
to legitimate particular individuals and groups (1969: 162).
AFTERLIFE IN PAUL
So how does the above, and particularly with respect to previous chapters,
comport with Paul’s understanding of the afterlife? Certainly, a natural cor-
ollary of the above would be that we have to tread carefully, remembering
that Paul may not articulate himself very well, nor understand precisely the
concerns of his conversation-partners (nor may he articulate the thoughts or
concerns of such partners in an adequate way).21
As Paul claims that he is a Pharisee (Phil 3.5), a comparison of Pauline
thought with that of Josephus is certainly fruitful. Whether Josephus was
actually a Pharisee or not is a moot point (Mason 1989), but even if not,
he asserts that he has studied first-century CE Pharisaism, had, for a time,
lived his life by the rules of Pharisaism, and he provides us with an over-
view of their thoughts on the afterlife (Life 10–12, 21; War 2.162–64; Ant.
18.12–17; and see Endsjø 2009: 146). Still, care needs to be taken as to
whether he presents an accurate reflection of their views and the degree to
which he stylizes them with a view to his audience.22
As noted above, for Josephus, Pharisaic thought envisions that the soul
survives death and that the soul of the righteous is allotted a temporary
resting place in heaven (Ant. 18.14; War 3.374). At the end of the ages this
then enters a new habitation: a new and different chaste body (War 2.163).
If Paul held to the same doctrine we could posit that, in his Christ-believing
state, he construed Jesus’ death being followed by the raising of his soul
into heaven, like the souls of some of the Hebrew patriarchs noted in Chap-
ter 3.23 The stark difference between Paul and Josephus, and the driving
impetus for Paul following his revelatory experience, is his claim that the
transformed and glorified Christ has returned from heaven to reveal himself
in a dramatic christophany (and by which Paul declares him to be Israel’s
messiah).24 This is why the apostle can repeatedly depict the transformed
Jesus in terms of the first-fruits (Rom 8.23; 1 Cor 15.20, 23), and the Spirit
as a pledge or guarantee of what is to come for the righteous (2 Cor 1.22,
55; Eph 1.14). It is an image of the splendour awaiting believers.
In 1 Corinthians 15, describing this revelatory christophany Paul uses the
term w!fqh (the aorist passive of o(ra&w), which almost exclusively denotes
‘exceptional supernatural apparitions.’25 And he uses the same verb of all the
other encounters of the risen Christ in the chapter,
v.5 he appeared (w!fqh) to Cephas, then to the twelve.

v.6 After that he appeared (w!fqh) to more than five hundred . . .
v.7 then he appeared (w!fqh) to James, then to all the apostles;
v.8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared (w!fqh) to me also.
The verb is found in a wide range of ancient literature: the LXX (including the
Apocrypha);26 Philo;27 the Apostolic Fathers;28 and numerous Greco-Roman
texts.29 In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of
supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances;30 the
presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration;31 tongues of fire;32

Paul’s vision of a man from Macedonia;33 supernatural appearances of the
heavenly Ark of the Covenant, a great red dragon, and a woman clothed
with the sun;34 and appearances of God or the risen Christ.35 Josephus, like-
wise, uses the verb in describing supernatural events: the dramatic appear-
ance of the goddess Isis; the supernatural opening of huge Temple doors;36
supernatural events that take place before large numbers of people, such as
the miraculous appearance of chariots and troops in armour running around
in the clouds over Israel,37 and a huge star resembling a sword which stood
over Jerusalem.38 The appearance to five-hundred mentioned in 1 Corinthi-
ans 15.6 would fall into this same category (and employs the same verb).
Hence, we could assert that Paul knows only of the resurrected Christ as
christophany and that he asserts that all other experiences are likewise!39
Yet, was Paul’s revelatory vision that of the glorified soul of Christ or is this
a proleptic example of Josephus’ end of the ages being for Paul the here and
now? That is, did Paul think that the christophany included Josephus’ new
and different chaste body?40 And does this form the origin of Paul’s immi-
nent eschatology? Paul’s writings demonstrate that he is struggling to make
sense of it all.41
Further, the tradition history of this list of visions in 1 Cor 15 is uncer-
tain and problematic in numerous ways; certainly, the dating is in doubt
for its origins may go back two decades before its use here. Neither can
we ascertain how much of the list Paul received and the extent to which he
made additions. Without doubt the original list did not include reference
to Paul himself (v. 8), and may have well have ended at v. 4. The note of an
appearance to the five-hundred may well be a later addition since the line
breaks the formal structure. Robert Price asks why this significant piece of
information is wholly absent from the Gospel traditions and suggests that it
is a later apocryphal legend analogous to stories prevalent in the New Tes-
tament Apocrypha (e.g., the Acts of Pilate). Indeed, he argues that the entire
section could be a scribal interpolation; a later hand feeling that he could
“strengthen the argument of the chapter as a whole by prefacing it with a
list of ‘evidences for the resurrection’ ” (2005: 91).
Before looking further at the key text of 1 Corinthian 15.35–58, there
is the question of the afterlife narrative of 1 Thessalonians, probably Paul’s
earliest extant letter. Here we see that following Paul’s visit and teaching,
the Thessalonians are confused about the nature of the afterlife, and it
would appear to be Paul’s lack of specific detail that lay at the root of the
problem. From 1 Thessalonians 4 it is clear that his earliest instruction did
not include details on the general resurrection of believers nor the nature of
post-mortem existence.42 The Thessalonian believers appear to be still fully
immersed in their cultural milieu whereby they perceive the salvific effects
of their new-found faith to be beneficial only for the living, and to this end
they are grieving for departed friends “. . . as others do who have no hope”
(1 Thess 4:13). Paul chides their ignorance (4:13), but it is born out of the
lacuna of his own teaching. Certainly, there is doubt as to the precise nature
of post-mortem existence and perhaps some believed, as in some aspects of
first-century Greco-Roman thought, that there would simply be no such
existence (see Eriksson 1998: 238). Indeed, if Paul had spoken of the neces-
sity to wait for ‘enlightenment’ from a divine emissary from heaven (1:10;
4.16a), then for some, their new faith may have seemed little different to
other Oriental cults which pervaded the Roman Empire.
Paul’s opening comment in 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 is of interest, “But
we do not want you to be uninformed . . . about those who have died.”
Does this mean that during his time with the Thessalonians, Paul had nei-
ther spoken nor taught about issues of death and the afterlife? If so, given
his emphasis on Jesus’ own death and afterlife elsewhere in the corpus, this
would be quite unusual. Conversely, if Paul had spoken of such issues, then
he did not articulate himself well enough. He goes on to explicate a picture
of the end times in 1 Thess 4.16–17:
For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call
and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the
dead in Christ43 will rise first (a)nasth/sontai). Then we who are alive,
who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet
the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.
The use of a)nasth/sontai here, and in 4.14, instead of the Pauline e0gerqh/sontai,
likely reflects a pre-Pauline tradition (so, Bruce 1982: 111; Wanamaker 1990:
174; cf. 1 Thess 1.10). Indeed, Paul’s general statement on the resurrection here
and elsewhere has also been considered as deriving from pre-Pauline formulaic
statements, especially in the phrase “[God] raised/raises from the dead” (e.g., 1
Thess 1.10; Rom 4.17; 2 Cor 1.9), and parallels are frequently cited with the
second of the Jewish Eighteen Benedictions which derive from the first century
BCE (see Lüdemann 2012: 538; Schürer 1979: 2.460):
You live forever and raise the dead . . . you provide for the living and
make the dead alive . . . Blessed are you, Lord, who make the dead alive.44
Yet, Paul adds further confusion in his assertion that believers will be
“snatched away” to be with the Lord (1 Thess 4.17), a verb typically used in
the period to describe those carried off by the Greco-Roman gods and made
physically immortal.45
It is unclear how this picture ties in with Paul’s revelatory christophany,
or what Paul means by the rising of the dead in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 6.14;
2 Cor 4.14; Rom 6.5). Most probably, this is the rising of the soul as in the
Apocalypse of Adam and Eve, Testament of Job, and Pseudo-Phocylides.
There is further confusion about the living caught up in the clouds. If
Paul means by this the ascent of physical bodies, it would be a unique
picture within Second Temple Judaism (and within the New Testament),
in which case, one wonders about the tradition history of such a concept.
Bruce (1982: 102) suggests that this transformation of the living into a new
existence is further clarified by 1 Corinthians 15.50–52 which, of course,
would mean that the transformation is out of the ‘flesh and blood’ of the
natural body (and see further below).46 Certainly, one way to reconcile
Paul’s statement in 1 Thess 4 (that the dead are raised), with that of 1 Cor
15.52 (the dead are transformed), is to posit stages in the development of
the apostle’s thought concerning the nature of the afterlife (so, Moss and
Baden 2012: 201).
1 CORINTHIANS 15
As noted in Chapter 1, the recent analysis of physical resurrection within

a Greco-Roman context by Dag Endsjø, suggests that Platonic metaphysics
were the peculiar study of the few, of an intellectual aristocracy (Chadwick
1980: xi), and that Greek traditions pre-Plato saw immortality to have been
inseparably tied to an incorruptible body. He argues that the Corinthians
would have been brought up with stories of those who had died and were
subsequently resurrected:
The mythical corpus of which the Corinthians would have been aware
often speaks of people who died and were resurrected. The notion of an
immortalized body was not unknown to the Greeks . . . The idea that the
soul was immortal independently of the body appears to be originally
unknown to the Greeks. Whenever someone in the Greek tradition was
physically resurrected from the dead, we always find absolute bodily
continuity.
(Endsjø 2008: 419, 429, 433)
As we saw in Chapter 1, Endsjø goes on to note that Greeks equated immor-

tality only with a continuous physical existence and that the eternal exis-
tence of bodiless souls was not the same as ‘immortality’ nor did it mean
an eternal life of the soul. It simply equalled an everlasting existence as a
dead soul. Endsjø concludes that for the Greeks, originally, immortality and
eternal life always meant an endless existence of both body and soul (2008:
428). At the same time, from Chapters 3–4, we noted the emphasis within
Second Temple Jewish texts on the afterlife of the soul alone and in our
prolegomena to this chapter, that Paul construes his revelatory experience
of the risen Christ as a glorified spiritual entity.
Returning to 1 Corinthians 15, much of what we see there now makes
sense: Paul and the majority of the Greeks and Romans in the Corinthian
community have differing conceptual frameworks of the afterlife and,
although employing similar terminology, are largely talking past each other.
And that this is the case despite Paul’s long tenure in Corinth further points
to an inherent problem in his teaching itself, perhaps together with con-

fusion amongst neophyte Christ-believers over certain Gospel traditions
(Nickelsburg 2006: 246–47).47 Such a view also ameliorates the apparent
inconsistency in Paul’s argument whereby he appears to maintain that the
Corinthians denied some form of ‘resurrection’ yet elsewhere concedes that
they acknowledge it (vv. 2, 11, and the argument of vv. 13–19). So, while
Paul explains that he handed on (paradi/dwmi) to the Corinthians the mes-
sage that Christ died and was raised (1 Cor 15.1–3), he provides no pre-
cise detail of this tradition, and, as it stands, such a simplistic and minimal
statement is likely to have been received by the Corinthians as pointing to
the physical immortalization and deification of Christ similar to the many
renowned heroes of Greco-Roman tradition. Yet, these same traditions do
not include a general resurrection of the shades from Sheol which Paul, from
the perspective of the Corinthians, also appears to be asserting in 15.12–19;
that is, the physical immortalization and deification of Christ is simply the
first-fruits of a general resurrection of all believers (15.20–28).48
For the Corinthians this is simply confusing and how this may work
too obtuse and enigmatic: were they all to be physically immortalized and
deified? And from their perspective, Paul’s apparent aversion to language of
the body in this section perhaps problematizes the issue further. As Tuckett
observes,
There is virtually nothing in the primitive kerygma cited by Paul, or in

Paul’s exposition of this in 1 Cor 15.1–11, explicitly about Jesus’ bodily
resurrection. The verb “he was raised” occurs only once (in v. 4) and nei-
ther the word sw~ma nor any cognate word is used at all in the passage.
(1996: 255)49
In this sense, this section of 1 Corinthians 15 has little to do with a Corin-

thian objection to the materialistic notion of a bodily resurrection over
against a belief in the immortal soul, as many scholars propose.50
As we proceed to 15.35ff., Paul presents further clarification of the dis-
pute when he allows his initial rhetorical question in the text (“How can
some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”) to be developed
by an imaginary interlocutor, “How are the dead raised? With what kind
of body do they come?”51 Together, such statements appear to come to the
central context of the problem—the issue of the body involved in such res-
urrection. Behind the Corinthian interlocutor’s question, “with what kind of
body do [the dead] come?” may be a simple question related to the nature
of the resurrection body within the context of traditional Greek mythology;
that is, whether this new body will be like that of the gods (e.g., strong,
beautiful etc.; so Songe-Møller 2009: 113, 115). Further, that the masses
would receive physical immortalization (perhaps with deification also), is
undoubtedly a surprise for the Corinthians, for such concepts were tradi-
tionally for the heroes alone.
The puzzlement is answered only by Paul’s sharp retort, a!frwn, “Fool!”

He continues in v. 36 to assert that the afterlife is prefaced by the death
and burial of the physical body; yet, that he is struggling to articulate the
transition of life to afterlife is evident in the twisting changing similes that
follow: that of seed gives way to flesh, then to heavenly bodies, finally to
glory (vv. 37–41), before returning to his point of origin, the resurrection
of the dead in v. 42. The point of the seed metaphor is to emphasize dis-
continuity in the sharp transition of form between its sowing (a form of
death) and later emergence from the soil: God provides a new form (sw~ma)
in place of the original. So, too, he asserts that there can be distinctions and
differences between types of ‘flesh’ and types of ‘body.’52 Read from a per-
spective of Greco-Roman thought on the afterlife outlined in Chapter 1,
this section is perfectly understandable as the physical immortalization
and deification of Christ: the physical earthly body of Christ has died and
been buried (15.37) after which it is immortalized (by God), suitable for
a glorified heavenly existence (15.38, 40). What follows is also entirely
understandable from the Corinthians’ conceptual understanding of after-
life (vv. 42–43):
It is sown perishable, raised imperishable

Sown in dishonour, raised in glory
Sown in weakness, raised in power.
Yet, for the Corinthians, confusion arises from his concluding antithesis, ‘It
is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body’ (v. 44), and is further
problematized when Paul proceeds to provide an account of Adam, all of
which is perfectly aligned with Second Temple Jewish texts on emphasizing
the afterlife of the soul (vv. 45–49):
The first man, Adam, became a living being. The last Adam [became] a
life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then
the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is
from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is
the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne
the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
The crux of the confusion between the two parties is on the concept of
a ‘spiritual body (sw~ma pneumatiko&n),’ for Paul employs the term sw~ma
without actually defining what is meant. The Corinthians hear this as phys-
ical immortalization, whilst Paul does not.
Certainly, to use the same noun for both the flesh-and-blood earthly
matter and the new post-mortem life may be considered, at the very least,
unfortunate, especially as he will go on to say explicitly that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God (15.50).53 Paul, it seems, is attempting
to describe some new type of form capable of housing the spirit. It is lan-
guage which is Paul’s stumbling block: how best to describe this new nature
which will house the glorified soul/spirit. If Paul’s revelatory experience of
Christ was in any way anthropomorphic then the use of sw~ma may be one
of Paul’s options; that is, it is some form of somatic entity which houses
the soul/spirit, although such terminology will, as here, cause confusion. As
he notes in 15.49, “Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will
also bear the image of the heavenly.” Although one can follow his argument
in 1 Corinthians 15, his use of sw~ma in this context is problematic for his
Corinthian community.54
Finally, in 15.50, we arrive at the point to which Paul was, perhaps unsuc-
cessfully driving, “What I am saying brothers and sisters is this: flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” Yet, from a Greco-Roman perspective the route here has
been tortuous and unconvincing: is there going to be physical immortaliza-
tion or not? It appears ‘yes,’ in 15.38, 40, 44; but ‘no,’ in 15.50. And what
follows (15.52–53) exacerbates the confusion, as this is entirely what would
be expected from a Greco-Roman tradition:
the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this
perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on
immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable,
and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the
saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory”.
(italics mine)
Hence, it is Paul’s sw~ma language which sows the seeds of misunderstand-

ing. For Hans Conzelmann, soma here means not ‘body’ but the new life as
a new creation (1975: 281), and Christian Wolff, too, sees it as an entirely
new entity (1996: 404–405).55 C.H. Dodd remarks, “By ‘body’ Paul does
not mean anything material, but the organic principle which makes a man
a self-identical individual, persisting through all changes in the ‘substance’
through which he realizes himself, whether material or non-material” (1932:
125). Yet, one must doubt that the Corinthians would have understood or
followed the subtleties of Paul’s argument in this way. Further, according
to the book of Acts, what he experienced as dramatic revelation, as noted
above, was the new post-mortem existence of Christ in a form of christo-
phanic glory similar to that noted, on occasion, in the Hebrew Bible of Yah-
weh of which no author uses the term ‘body.’56 So, what he appears to mean
in terms of post-mortem existence was actually a new entity for which he
(confusingly) uses the term ‘body’ with all its encumbrances of natural flesh
and blood. Elsewhere, of course, Paul can describe the antithesis of spirit
and flesh in such a way as to hope for the deliverance of the flesh in a way
which actually excludes the possibility of a resurrection of the flesh: in 1 Cor
6.13, God will destroy both food and the stomach (Bynum 1995: 4; Grant
1948: 124), and note the antitheses of Romans 7–8. Yet, here he is happy to
employ the language of sw~ma.57

1 Cor 15.51–53 confirms the above thoughts on the resurrection scenario
of 1 Thess 4.16–17,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the

trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we
will be changed.
Those alive at the parousia (the Last Trumpet), including the apostle, will
be changed: the perishable, mortal body will be transformed into an immor-
tal, imperishable form—a transformation that will mean the certain end of
perishable, fleshly body. But this transformative death does not constitute a
defeat, it is a transformation into victory for the new ‘form’ that is to come
(15.54–55). Whether this was understood, or accepted, by the Corinthians is
unclear. Elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, flesh (sa&rc) has negative connota-
tions which are frequently connected with sin (Rom 7.18, 25; 8:8; Hällström
1988: 10); as such, the incarnation of Christ was made only in the likeness
of sinful flesh (Rom 8.3; 1.3; Col 2.11; Endsjø 2009: 141–42). In Philippians
too, Paul asserts that God, “will transform the body of our humble state into
conformity with the body of His glory” (3.21), and in Colossians, that he
will “remove the body of the flesh” (2.11).
C.D. Elledge, commenting on Paul’s phrase “spiritual bodies” has recently
noted, “This problematic term is laced with both brilliance and mischief. It
stands as a brilliant balance of both continuity and discontinuity in the por-
trayal of the future life . . . One senses, however, that Paul’s paradoxical clever-
ness probably confused the Corinthians even more than they already had been”
(2006: 44). That Paul has caused confusion is clear; whether it is through “bril-
liance and mischief” is to be doubted. Rather, it presents the apostle struggling
to understand and articulate the precise nature of afterlife experience. Indeed,
one may posit that Paul caused confusion both to the Thessalonians and the
Corinthians due to ambiguity and terminological inaccuracy. It is unsurprising,
then, that he has to clarify his thoughts, yet again, in 2 Corinthians.
It is here, finally, in 2 Corinthians 5, where we find perhaps his clearest
yet nuanced expression on the afterlife, and unsurprisingly he replaces his
earlier sw~ma-language for a series of building metaphors:
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down,
we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in
the heavens. For indeed in this [house] we groan, longing to be clothed
with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will
not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being
burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so
that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared
us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
(2 Cor 5.1–5)58
At the end of the age, when there is a new or re-creation, the righteous
will be transformed and will have some kind of new existence which Paul
describes as a dwelling from heaven, a house/building from God eternal
in the heavens. This stands in correlation with Josephus’ chaste body/new
habitation which could be descriptors of the new afterlife form of Christ
that Paul has experienced; in effect, an anthropomorphic entity capable of
housing the spirit. Caroline Bynum notes of this section, “2 Cor 5.1–10 may
be read as implying that we discard the body when we exchange our earthly
clothing or tabernacle for habitation in heaven. Whatever it is that survives
in paradise, it is not (according to this interpretation) either accompanied
or reclothed by anything physical or material” (1995: 4).59 As such, Paul
stands in direct continuity with the Second Temple Jewish texts examined
above which place the afterlife experience firmly within the realm of the
soul. Where he differs, of course, is in his belief that the soul of Christ has
been granted an early (and the first) experience of being housed in this new
glorified entity.
Elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, Paul speaks of the outer versus the inner
nature (1.9; 4.14, 16), and notes, “Therefore from now on we recognize no
one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according
to the flesh, yet now we know [Him in this way] no longer” (5.16, NASU).
He concludes, “We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent
from the body and to be at home with the Lord. For we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed
for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or
bad” (5: 8, 10), by which he assumes that being before the judgement seat
is not now in the body. A similar sentiment is found in Philippians, where
the apostle notes, “But I am hard-pressed from both [directions], having the
desire to depart and be with Christ, for [that] is very much better; yet to
remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake” (1.23–24).
CONCLUSION
Along with the weight of Second Temple Jewish texts discussed above (and
especially in Josephus), Paul construes Jesus’ death as followed by his soul
being raised from the dead and taken up to heaven. What Paul understands
by this is never made explicit. It could mean that Jesus’ soul descended first
to Sheol (and hence, perhaps pointing to the later traditions of the descent
of Christ’s spirit to the underworld, 1 Pet 3.18; 4.6; cf. Eph 4.9–10), before
being raised to the heavenly realm, or it could imply continuity with other
Second Temple Jewish texts which suggest an immediate ascent to heaven.
In either of these scenarios, the now glorified and resplendent Christ returns
from heaven to reveal himself in successive christophanies. Whereas, for
Josephus, the soul will ‘at the end of the ages’ enter a new habitation, for
Paul, his revelatory experience is a depiction of the first-fruits; an image

of the splendor awaiting believers. At the end of the age, when there is a
new or re-creation, the righteous will be transformed and will have some
kind of new existence which Paul describes (in 1 Corinthians 15) as a spir-
itual ‘body’ or, later (2 Corinthians 5), as a dwelling from heaven, a house/
building from God.
It is of interest and relevance that neither of the two major Jewish writers
of Paul’s day, Josephus and Philo, construes the immediate afterlife in terms
of the physical body. In some sense, Josephus’ chaste body/new habitation
can be seen to stand in correlation with the newly transformed form of Christ
of which Paul had his revelatory experience. And for Philo, his account of
the afterlife of Moses agrees considerably with the perspective of Paul,
when he [Moses] was about to depart from hence to heaven, to take

up his abode there, and leaving this mortal life to become immortal,
having been summoned by the Father, who now changed him, having
previously been a double being, composed of soul and body, into the
nature of a single body, transforming him wholly and entirely into a
most sun-like mind.
(Mos. 2.288)60
In this sense, Paul’s emphasis on the raising up of some form of ‘spiritual’

entity is a concept close to that found in Enoch and Daniel and in the sense
that the physical body is only of secondary importance (if that); Paul appears
to have little interest in what happened to Jesus’ post-crucifixion body and
may have been unconcerned if his remains had been found. This would
simply have been the bare seed that was sown: the husk is sloughed off
when what is within emerges above the soil (see Collins 2002: 373). Indeed,
perhaps the seed metaphor actually derives from the knowledge that Jesus’
physical body was ‘sown’ in the earth. Further, the ambiguity found in Paul
is perhaps best summed up by Peter Carnley when he notes,
It is clear that Paul is struggling imaginatively to explain the nature of

the resurrection body. This suggests that, whatever his Damascus Road
experience was, it was sufficiently ambiguous and unclear as not to be
of real help in explaining the detailed nature of the body of the res-
urrection. The evidence thus leads us back to the view that his initial
experiential encounter with the raised Christ was in the nature of some
kind of “heavenly vision.” The fact that the nature of the body of the
resurrection seems to have been open to speculation indicates that this
was indeed a speculative matter that was brought up rather than settled
by the encounter with the raised Jesus on the Damascus road.
(1987: 233)
If this reading of afterlife in Paul is placed in direct continuity with the anal-
ysis of Second Temple Judaism made above, then all of this makes perfect
sense: a simplistic purview of the resurrection of the newly immortalized
physical flesh-and-blood Christ is rejected by Paul and in its place stands a
nuanced concept of Christ’s soul now housed within a new glorious entity.
Yet, while standing in continuity with post-Biblical Judaism, such a reading
also places Paul in tension with other Biblical traditions which assert a res-
urrection of Jesus’ earthly physical body (particularly the Gospels of Luke
and John).61 An examination of these texts within the context of issues high-
lighted here will follow, yet it is important to note that for perhaps too long
the Pauline texts on the afterlife have been read through the lens of later tra-
ditions. In allowing the Pauline texts to speak for themselves this may mean,
of course, allowing certain tensions to remain, or of holding less-lightly to
later texts and Christian traditions which may influence or even distort our
reading of Paul. In short, as James Dunn argued for the Fourth Gospel some
years ago, in his essay, ‘Let John be John’ (1983), one could say the same of
Paul concerning his understanding of the afterlife: Let Paul be Paul!
NOTES
1. On imminent eschatology, 1 Cor 7.26, 29–31; 1 Thess 4.13–18. On visionary

experiences, 1 Cor 15.6; 2 Cor 12; Gal 1.12, 16.
2. See Bruce 1982: 90–91; Longenecker 1990: 29–30; Moo 2013: 99–102.
3. Suneudoke&w appears to have the sense of an active, rather than just a passive
approval (Acts 8.1; 22.20; Rom 1.32; 1 Cor 7.12–13; cf. Luke 11.48). See
Haenchen (1971: 293).
4. Acts 7.54–8.1; 9.1–2. One could ask, therefore, if Saul/Paul, even as a young
man, was one of those who became furious and gnashed his teeth at Stephen,
as well as covering his ears and yelling at the top of his voice.
5. 2 Cor 11.16, 19; 12.6, 11. The adjective a!frwn employed here, is the same as
the noun form used against his Corinthian interlocutors in 1 Cor 15.36 on the
issue of the resurrection.
6. On the collection, 2 Cor 8.20 (and wider, 8–9); on his travel plans, 2 Cor
1.15–22.
7. The Corinthians appear to have had a penchant for writing to the apostle seek-
ing advice on a wide range of issues (as 1 Corinthians makes abundantly clear).
8. This is brought out in a number of translations of 5.11: NRSV, “But actually,
I wrote to you . . .”; RSV, “But rather I wrote to you . . .”. Although, for Paul,
those outside are nevertheless, sexually immoral too (6:10), as well as idola-
ters, swindlers, and idolaters (6:10); harsh language indeed, even though he
wouldn’t want to judge them (6:12)!
9. Cf. 2 Cor 11.4, “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than
the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you
received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it
readily enough.”
10. Commentaries on Acts typically have introductory sections on the issue. Two
very useful older studies are Haenchen (1968) and Mattill (1978). The prob-
lems in reconciling 1 Thessalonians and Acts 17 are particularly acute.
11. On the historical reliability of Paul’s trials before Felix and Festus see Haenchen
(1971: 651–66). One could argue that Luke simply wants to get Paul to Rome,
and does so in the most imaginative way possible (and note Haenchen’s lan-
guage of Luke’s “colourful story,” p. 659).
12. E.g., Rom 8.35; 1 Cor 4.9–13; 2 Cor 1.8–11; 4.7–12; 6.3–10; 11.23–29;
12.10; Gal 4.12–16; Phil 1.12–26; 3.7–11; 4.10–13; 1 Thess 2.1–6. See Kruse
(1994: 18–20) and the literature cited there.
13. Cf. 1 Cor 1.12; 3.5–6; 16.12; 2 Cor 11; Gal 1.6–9; 2.11–13; 3.1; Phil 1.15–18;
3.2–11.
14. See Collins & Fishbane (1995); DeConick (2006); Elledge (2011); Flannery,
Shantz & Werline (2008); Klauck (2000, 2000a) Morray-Jones (1993: 177–
217, 265–92); Segal (1997, 2004, 2008).
15. On other ecstatic experiences, see Gal 1.11–17; 1 Cor 9.1; 15.3–8; also, Rom
8; 2 Cor 3–5; and Shantz (2008: 195–96).
16. Paul’s use of o)ptasi/a indicates supernatural visions and is used elsewhere in
the NT in this context (see Louw & Nida sv). It, or cognates, are used in a sim-
ilar context in a range of broader literature (cf., Suetonius, Claud. 1; Vesp. 7;
Josephus, C. Ap. 1.289; 2.54; Tacitus, Ann. 11.21). On the practise of rapture
and ascent in the ancient world see Himmelfarb (1995). On Paul as a mystic
see Segal (2004: 399–400).
17. Also, Rom 8.26; 1 Cor 14.13–18; Eph 6.18–19; Acts of Paul 5, 23; and see
Peerbolte (2008: 170); and Glancy (2004), who highlights the significance of
the link between trauma and ecstatic experiences.
18. And note the comment by Peerbolte that, “Paul’s description places him among
apocalypticists who practised ecstasy in a manner that later became very pop-
ular in circles of merkabah mysticism” (2008: 170).
19. Citing Lewis’ landmark study of spirit possession and its instrumental argu-
ments (2003).
20. See especially, De Jonge (2002) who argues that early Christianity was “born
from visionary experiences” (35). For the notion that christophanies served to
legitimate the authority of those to whom the appearances were said to have
occurred see p. 42, fn. 21 and the literature cited there, and Goulder (2000: 93–5).
21. See Wedderburn (1981: 229). Tuckett (1996: 247–48), reminds us that we only
have Paul’s side of the argument and wonders whether Paul really understood
the Corinthian position or, indeed, whether he deliberately misrepresents them.
He correctly notes that if Paul had misunderstood the Corinthians, then there
is virtually no control at all in attempting to reconstruct the Corinthian posi-
tion (252).
22. Alan Segal makes the pertinent point, “Josephus on the pharisaic doctrine
of afterlife: Josephus described the Pharisees as envisioning another, different
kind of body for imperishable souls. He meant that the Pharisees saw the
earthly body as corruptible and that the righteous would receive a new, incor-
ruptible body. This is exactly what Paul says in 1 Cor 15” (2004: 381).
23. This could possibly take place via Sheol (as later New Testament and early
Christian literature attest, Acts 2.31; Eph 4.9; 1 Pet 3.18–20; 4.6; Apostles
Creed).
24. For Acts, of course, this experience occurs on the road towards Damascus
(Acts 9, 22, 26).
25. BAGD, 577–78; Grimm-Thayer, 451–52. See Evans (1970: 64–5); De Jonge
(2002: 43–5); Lüdemann (1994: 48–50); Scott (2008: 97–8). Scott notes that
for the first forty years of Christianity the verbs w!fqh in 1 Corinthians and
a)poka&luyiv in Galatians are basically the only ways the NT announce Jesus’
appearances, and that these in no way entail that the disciples visually sighted
a physical or supernatural body (97).
26. Tobit 12.22; 2 Macc 2.8; 3.25; Bar 3.38.
27. Det. 1.159; Mut. 1.1, 15; Abr. 1.77 (the appearance of God to Abraham).
28. Herm. Vis. 3.10.3; 3.11.2 (the appearance of a vision: a woman sitting in a
chair); 3.10.7 (the supernatural appearance of a young man).
29. See, BAGD, 577–78; Grimm-Thayer, 451–52.
30. Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35;
31. Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31.
32. Acts 2.3.
33. Acts 16.9.
34. Rev 11.19; 12.1, 3.
35. Luke 24.34; Acts 7.2; Acts 13.31; Heb 9.28; 1 Tim 3.16, and the various
accounts of Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ by Luke. The only clear
non-supernatural use of the verb in the NT is in Acts 7.26 where Luke narrates
the appearance of Moses to two fighting Israelites (Exod 2.13).
36. War 6.293; C. Ap. 1.289.
37. War 6.296–98.
38. War 6.290. Other examples of supernatural events before large groups include
a great light which appeared at the Feast of Unleavened Bread at the ninth
hour of the night, shining so brightly it appeared to be daylight, and lasted
30 minutes (War 6.290); in the midst of the court of the temple a cow brought
for sacrifice gave birth to a lamb (War 6.292); and the appearance of horsemen
and “two young men . . . remarkably strong, gloriously beautiful and splen-
didly dressed” who attacked Heliodorus for stealing the Temple funds (2 Macc
3.22–28).
39. Paul notes in Galatians 1–2 that he met Peter, James, John, and many other
members of the Jerusalem community, so, presumably, in employing w!fqh
for all of these appearances, he is making a clear and informed assertion of
the nature of the revelation of the risen Christ. Collins notes of the verb that
such language, as a transcendent “manifestation of the divine, did not imply
physical sight” (1999: 535; cf. Thiselton 2000: 1198–200).
40. As an aside, no-one has yet linked this idea to the question of why the disciples
failed to recognize Jesus during successive post-mortem appearances (Matt
28.17; Luke 24.13ff.; 24.37–39; John 20.14; 21.4).
41. See Engberg-Pedersen (2009: 132), who notes the same struggle. Lüdemann
asserts that this definitely not a physical appearance (1994: 33, 50–54).
42. On 1 Thessalonians, Wright (2003: 213–19).
43. There is a textual variant with this phrase. The majority have oi9 nekroi\ e0n
Xristw~|; F G* have oi9 nekroi\ oi9 e0n Xristw~|.
44. See Lüdemann (2012: 538); Schürer (1979: 2.460).
45. Endsjø (2009: 152); and cf. 1 Cor 15.51–52. Paul’s use of a)rpa&zw typically
has connotations of the supernatural, 2 Cor 12.2, 4; as it does elsewhere, Matt
13.19; John 10.28–29; Acts 8.39; Jude 23; Rev 12.5.
46. Elsewhere in the genuine Pauline literature the verb is used at Rom 15.12 and
1 Cor 10.7, neither of which refers to resurrection. It is only found at Eph 5.14
where it is a citation of Isa 26.19.
47. On the general structure of 1 Cor 15, see Usami (1976: 473–79).
48. As Endsjø notes, the Corinthians readily accepted that Christ had been raised
from the dead, but it was the concept of a future mass resurrection that was
inconceivable (2009: 148).
49. On sw~ma see Thrall (2002).
50. See Tuckett (1996: 253), and the long list of scholars noted there who support
such a claim.
51. Sider (1975: 429) maintains, with the support of linguistic data that a better
translation would be, “Is it possible that the dead are raised?”
52. Paul is here employing sw~ma within recognized ancient categories of plant life
or heavenly forms. BADG sv; LSJ sv.

53. The same tension is noted by Barclay (1996: 17), who writes, “There are real
difficulties in grasping Paul’s meaning here: he insists that ‘flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ (15.50), but retains the term ‘body’ in the
phrase ‘spiritual body’ (15.44). Interpretation depends on the sense of the term
soma which normally has physical connotations but could be used in this con-
text in a weaker sense.” For a survey of texts see Perkins (1984). On this verse,
see also, Jeremias (1955), but also the critique of Jeremias in Usami (1976:
489ff.) and Sider (1975).
54. And, it seems, for modern translators, for it is interesting that both the NASU
and NRSV translations insert the English ‘body’ even when absent in the
Greek: the NASU at 15.42 (It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imper-
ishable body); and the NRSV at 15.53–54 (For this perishable body must put
on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this
perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immor-
tality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled . . .).
55. Conversely, Thiselton (2000: 1269), wanting to hold onto the sw~ma language,
employs the phrase, “super-earthly bodies.” Interestingly, Hays claims that
Paul consciously extends the normal meaning of body because the context
makes quite clear how this extended meaning is to be understood (1997: 271).
Hays fails to appreciate that it was not understood by the Corinthians!
56. Although theophanies in the Hebrew Bible can be described in anthropo-
morphic terms (Gen 32.28–30), they are normally described in terms of the
supra-natural (Exod 13.21–22; 24.9–11; Judg 13.21–22; Isa 6.1).
57. See esp. Rom 7.24; 8.11.
58. Paul will employ sw~ma in vv. 6 and 8, but here the sense is unambiguously a this
worldly flesh-and-blood body. On Paul’s metaphors here see Roetzel (1992).
59. Cf. Thrall (2002: 291), who writing of the “inner man” of 2 Cor 4.16–17
notes, “The inner man could be the “self” that passes from the body of flesh to
the body of resurrection.”
60. Cf. 2 Enoch 22.8–10; 1 Cor 15.51.
61. Cf., Grant (1948: 125), “The earliest Christianity understood resurrection in
the spirit. Only as controversy develops does it become fleshly. 1 Cor 15.3
shows no suggestion of a fleshly resurrection (confirmed in 15.45; cf. 2 Cor
3.17; Rom 8.9–11). Mark’s conception of resurrection cannot have been very
different from the transfiguration.” And see Mark 9.6 with 16.8.
SOURCES CITED
ALEXANDER, L.C.A. (1993) Chronology of Paul. In MARTIN, R.P., REID, D.G., &

HAWTHORNE, G.F. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Leicester: IVP.
BARCLAY, J.M.G. (1996) The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Schol-
arship. In D’COSTA, G. (ed.), Resurrection Reconsidered. Oxford: Oneworld.
BRUCE, F.F. (1982) 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Waco: Word Books.
BYNUM, C.W. (1995) The Resurrection of the body in Western Christianity, 200–
1336. New York: Columbia University Press.
CARNLEY, P. (1987) The Structure of Resurrection Belief. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
of the Dead in I Cor 15. ConBNT 7. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
CHADWICK, H. (1980) Introduction. In Origen, Contra Celsum: Translated with an
Introduction and Notes by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
COLLINS, J.J. & FISHBANE, M. (eds) (1995), Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly
Journeys. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
COLLINS, R.F. (1999) First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press.
CONZELMANN, H. (1975) 1 Corinthians: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press.
DE JONGE, H.J. (2002) Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Chris-
tianity. In BIERINGER, R., KOPERSKI, V. & LATAIRE, B. (eds), Resurrection in
the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Peeters.
DECONICK, A.D. (2006) What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism? In
DECONICK, A.D. (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian
Mysticism. SBLSS, 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
DODD, C.H. (1932) Romans. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
DUNN, J.D.G. (1983) Let John be John: A Gospel for its Time. In STUHLMACHER,
P. (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
ELLEDGE, C.D. (2006) Resurrection of the Dead: Exploring Our Earliest Evidence
Today. In CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.), Resurrection: The Origin and Future of
a Biblical Doctrine. New York: T&T Clark.
Greece and 1 Corinthians. JSNT. 30 (4), pp. 417–36.
ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, T. (2009) Complete and Incomplete Transformation in
Paul—a Philosophical Reading of Paul on Body and Spirit. In SEIM, T.K. &
ØKLAND, J. (eds), Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative
Practices in Early Christianity. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to
the Middle Ages Vol. 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
ERIKSSON, A. (1998) Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1
Corinthians. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
FLANNERY, F., SHANTZ, C. & WERLINE, R.A. (eds), (2008) Experientia: Volume
1. Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity.
SBLSS 40. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
FURNISH, V.P. (1984) II Corinthians. AB. New York: Doubleday.
GLANCY, J. (2004) Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11.23–25). Journal of Bib-
lical Literature. 123, pp. 99–135.
GOULDER, M. (2000) The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions. In COPAN,
P. & TACELLI R.K. (eds), Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact of Figment?: A Debate
Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
pp. 120–30.
HAENCHEN, E. (1968) The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of
Early Christianity. In KECK, L.E. & MARTYN, J.L. (eds), Studies in Luke-Acts.
London: SPCK.
HAENCHEN, E. (1971) The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
HÄLLSTRÖM, G.A. (1988) Carnis Resurrection: The Interpretation of a Credal
Formula. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
HAYS, R.B. (1997) First Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox Press.
HIMMELFARB, M. (1995) The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean

World. In COLLINS, J.J. & FISHBANE, M. (eds), Death, Ecstasy, and Other
Worldly Journeys. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
JEREMIAS, J. (1955) “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor
15.50). New Testament Studies. 2, pp. 151–59.
JEWETT, R. (1979) A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress.
KLAUCK, H.-J. (2000) Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark.
KLAUCK, H.-J. (2000a) The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to
Graeco-Roman Religions. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
KRUSE, C.G. (1994) Afflictions, Trials, Hardships. In HAWTHORNE, G.F., MAR-
TIN, R.P. & REID, D.G. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Leicester: IVP.
LEWIS, I.M. (2003) Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession.
3rd edn. London: Routledge.
LONGENECKER, R.N. (1990) Galatians. WBC. Dallas: Word Books.
LÜDEMANN, G. (1994) The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology.
London: SCM.
LÜDEMANN, G. (1995) What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to
the Resurrection. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
LÜDEMANN, G. (2012) The Resurrection of Jesus Fifteen Years Later. In VAN
MARTIN, R.P. (1986) 2 Corinthians. WBC. Dallas: Word Books.
MASON, S. (1989) Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Re-examination of Life 10–12. Jour-
nal of Jewish Studies. 40, pp. 30–45.
MATTILL, A.J. (1978) The Value of Acts as a Source for the Study of Paul. In TAL-
BERT, C.H. (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
MOO, D.J. (2013) Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker.
MORRAY-JONES, C.R.A. (1993) Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1–12): The Jewish
Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources and Part
2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and Its Significance. Harvard Theological Review. 86,
pp. 177–217 & 265–92.
MOSS, C.R. & BADEN, J.S. (2012) 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 in Rabbinic Perspec-
tive. New Testament Studies. 58 (2), pp. 199–212.
NANOS, M.D. (ed.) (2002) The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetor-
ical and Historical Interpretation. Peabody: Hendrickson.
bridge: Harvard University Press.
PEERBOLTE, B.J.L. (2008) Paul’s Rapture: 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 and the Language
of the Mystics. In FLANNERY, F., SHANTZ, C. & WERLINE, R.A. (eds), Expe-
rientia: Volume 1. Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early
Christianity. SBLSS 40). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
PRICE, R.M. (2005) Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15.3–11 as a Post-Pauline
Interpolation. In PRICE, R.M. & LOWDER, J.J. (eds), The Empty Tomb: Jesus
Beyond the Grave. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
ROETZEL, C. (1992) “As Dying and Behold we Live:” Death and Resurrection in
Paul’s Theology. Interpretation. 46 (1), pp. 5–18.
4 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
SCOTT, B.B.S. (ed.) (2008) The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook. Santa Rosa,
CA: Polebridge Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (1990) Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the
Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (1997) Life After Death: The Social Sources. In DAVIS, S., KENDALL,
on the Resurrection of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SEGAL, A.F. (2004) Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion.
New York: Doubleday.
SEGAL, A.F. (2008) The Afterlife as Mirror of the Self. In FLANNERY, F., SHANTZ,
C. & WERLINE, R.A. (eds), Experientia: Volume 1. Inquiry into Religious Expe-
rience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. SBLSS 40. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
SHANTZ, C. (2008) The Confluence of Trauma and Transcendence in the Pauline
Corpus. In FLANNERY, F., SHANTZ, C. & WERLINE, R.A. (eds), Experientia:
Volume 1. Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christi-
anity. SBLSS 40. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
SIDER, R.J. (1975) The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthi-
ans XV.35–54. New Testament Studies. 21, pp. 428–39.
SONGE-MØLLER, V. (2009) “With What Kind of Body Will They Come?” Meta-
morphosis and the Concept of Change: From Platonic Thinking to Paul’s Notion
of the Resurrection of the Dead. In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J. (eds), Metamor-
phoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity.
Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Vol. 1. Berlin &
New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
THISELTON, A.C. (2000) The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans.
THRALL, M.E. (2002) The Present Life and the Life of the Resurrection. In
BIERINGER, R., KOPERSKI, V. & LATAIRE, B. (eds), Resurrection in the New
Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Peeters.
TOLMIE, F. (2012) Violence in the Letter to the Galatians. In DE VILLIERS, P.G.R. &
VAN HENTEN, J.W. (eds), Coping with Violence in the New Testament. Leiden:
Brill.
TUCKETT, C. (1996) The Corinthians who say “There is no Resurrection of the
Dead” (1 Cor 15,12). In BIERINGER, R. (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence.
Betl, 125. Leuven: Peeters.
USAMI, K., (1976) “How are the Dead Raised?” (1 Cor 15, 35–58). Biblica. 57,
pp. 468–93.
WALKER, W.O. Jr. (1969) ‘Postcrucifixion Appearances and Christian Origins.’
Journal of Biblical Literature. 88 (2), pp. 157–65.
WANAMAKER, C.A. (1990) The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on
the Greek Text. Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
WEDDERBURN, A.J.M. (1981) The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1
Corinthians 15. NovT. 23 (3), pp. 229–41.
WOLFF, C. (1996) Der erste Brief der Paulus an die Korinther. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlag.
6 The Priority of the Body
Post-Mortem Existence in
the Later New Testament
It will be useful to summarize the salient points from the previous chapter
before proceeding to an analysis of the Gospels and the later traditions of
the New Testament. As part of his polemic against the Corinthians, and to
add weight to his assertion of apostolic authority, Paul insists that he is one
of many indisputable witnesses to the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15.3–8). His
personal revelation of ‘seeing the lord,’ was of a newly constituted ‘spiritual’
entity (15.44), now housed in a ‘dwelling from heaven’ (2 Cor 5.1–4), and
distinct from the flesh and blood earthly body. Only in this new form is it
capable of inheriting the kingdom of God (15.50; see Riley 1995: 8). Paul’s
revelatory christophany, standing in continuity with other post-resurrection
appearances, leaves the physical body of Christ to one side, which, hence,
does not feature in any of Paul’s statements on the afterlife. Yet, his assump-
tion that the body of Christ is left to decay also offers consolation to those
departed Christ-believers whose own bodies would be clearly recognized
to be decomposing in their own tombs or elsewhere. Consequently, there is
hope for believers in the continuity and parallel model of the Christ-event:
the transformation and glorification of Christ’s soul is the proleptic event of
their own glory to come (see Pannenberg 1996: 68).
AFTERLIFE IN THE GOSPELS
As we turn to a critical analysis of various aspects of the gospel passion and

resurrection narratives, there is the curious conundrum that Paul does not
appear to have heard of salient features of the Easter stories. This is articu-
lated well by Roy Hoover:
[Paul] tells us that he spent two weeks as Simon Peter’s houseguest in

Jerusalem just three years after his conversion and calling (Gal 1.18),
probably less than five years after Jesus’ death. If the amazing stories
about an angel or two loitering in or near Jesus’ re-opened and empty
tomb early on that Sunday morning were literally true, Peter would
surely have known about them. Paul in 1 Cor 15 makes no mention of
having received the Easter stories the gospel authors tell. Nowhere in
any of his letters does Paul ever mention an empty tomb story. It seems
reasonable to infer from this that Peter did not report [such stories]
because Peter had never heard those stories either.
(2008: 82)
The absence of many of the gospel traditions from the letters of Paul (espe-
cially that of 1 Cor 15) is striking, and a comparison of Paul’s account

with the gospel passion narratives is also problematic on a number of other
grounds. I put aside questions related to the empty tomb tradition and to
the raising on the third day (1 Cor 15.4), which goes against Jesus’ repeated
injunctions in Matthew that the only sign granted to this generation would
be the sign of Jonah (1.17 LXX; 2.1 HB), that the Son of Man would be in
the grave three days and, specifically, three nights (Matt 12.39–40; cf. 16.4).1
This itself stands against other Gospel traditions (in Mark 16.2; John 20.1;
and elsewhere in Matthew) that Jesus was in the tomb only two nights.2
Paul’s understanding that the resurrected Christ appeared to Peter (1 Cor
15.5) also stands in tension with the Gospels. Mark has no separate resur-
rection account to Peter, although the scribal insertion of the longer ending
to Mark has the risen Jesus appear to the eleven as they later sat at table (cf.
Mark 16.14). Matthew, too, has no separate resurrection to Peter, who sees
him in Galilee with the eleven (Matt 28.16ff.). Luke 24.34 notes that the
risen lord had appeared to Peter, but provides no details. Finally, John also
has no separate resurrection account to Peter, who sees Jesus only alongside
the other disciples on two different occasions (John 20.19; 21.15–22).
There is also the conundrum of the twelve in 1 Cor 15.5, for all three
Synoptics stress that Jesus appeared to the eleven (Mark 16.14; Matt 28.16;
Luke 24.9, 33). The Western reading has ‘eleven’ in place of ‘twelve’ and,
since Judas was no longer present, the Church Fathers speculated that the
twelve must have included Matthias (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom, Eusebius,
Theophylact, Photius). Although, curiously, Metzger regards this as simply
a “pedantic” preoccupation with numbers, it raises a number of important
issues. Paul uses the term twelve only here, normally preferring the term
apostles, which may confirm a pre-Pauline tradition;3 and the choosing of
Matthias to replace Judas occurs only after the ascension according to Acts.
If the twelve here does include Matthias and follows the ascension, there
is then a further question over the appearances to the five-hundred, James,
and the apostles, in that these may have been similar to the appearance
to Paul (i.e., a christophany). As William Alston notes, “If all the appear-
ances were like Paul’s Damascus Road experience [. . .] then the Gospel
stories of encounters with a risen Jesus who possesses a visible and tangible
quasi-human body are seriously misleading” (1997: 160).
Other additional points of interest would be that Paul has no mention
of any women in his resurrection framework, whereas Mark tells us that
the risen Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene (16.9); Matthew has the
The Priority of the Body 125
appearance to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28.9); and John, like
Mark, has an appearance to Mary alone (20.14). Finally, the Judas tradi-
tion is, of course, different in Matthew (where Judas returns the money and
hangs himself, 27.1–10), and Luke (where he buys a field with the money,
Acts 1.18ff.).
In comparing Paul’s resurrection accounts—which appear to have no
interest in detailing the restoration of Jesus’ corpse—with that of Mark, we
see an interesting overlap, for Mark, too, provides no account of the resur-
rected body. What we find in Mark is Jesus’ statement that those who rise
from the dead are like the angels in heaven (Mark 12.25), together with a
cryptic saying that those (patriarchs) who do rise from the dead are not ‘the
dead’ but are ‘the living’ (12.26–27). Hence, for Mark, the patriarchs are
alive; but in what sense? Surely, their bodies were seen to die and be buried,
with the assumption that they would then decay (Gen 25.8; 35.29; 49.33–
50.14). So, what then does this make of the need for any kind of physically
resurrected body if the patriarchs are alive with God without it (Evans 1970:
32)? Hence, Mark’s framework of resurrection belief could well parallel that
of Paul in that what is raised to be with God is the soul alone, especially as
the Markan text notes the figure of Abraham in the context of the afterlife
(12.26; and cf. the Testament of Abraham noted in Chapter 3 in which the
body of Abraham is buried and his soul ascends to heaven).
Elsewhere, Mark has the disciples questioning among themselves, “what
this rising from the dead could mean” (9.9), a passage which both Matthew
and Luke omit.4 And there is the cryptic tale that the miraculous power of
Jesus’ early ministry is associated with John the Baptist and his having been
raised from the dead (Mark 6.14, 16). This cannot be associated with the
Baptist’s literal physical resurrection as the traditions concur that he was
beheaded and buried (Mark 6.14–27; Matt 14.1–12; Luke 9.7–9), and Herod
surely knew or had reports that this was a different physical ‘person.’5 Hence,
the concern of Herod Antipas who worries that John the Baptist has risen
from the dead, is best explained by belief in some form of metempsychosis
or that the ‘power’ of the Baptist had passed over to Jesus (Mark 6.14, 16).
So, what did the Markan Jesus appear to believe in terms of resurrection?
The disciples at many points in Mark’s narrative appear to be confused or
unsure about the very nature of the resurrection, although the text is written
from the later standpoint of belief that, “He has been raised” (Mark 16.6).
Yet, what this means for Mark is also unclear. In Jesus’ debate with the
Sadducees on the nature of the resurrection, the Markan Jesus asserts that
those who “rise from the dead [. . .] are like angels in heaven” (12.25), the
proof text for which is Exodus 3.6 in which, as noted, the patriarchs are
asserted to be resurrected and alive with God (Mark 12.26). In this sense,
Jesus articulates the manner of the resurrection (a comparison to angels) and
the fact of the resurrection (an appeal to Exod 3.6) very differently to the
early Christians, who will later assert both by simply pointing to the risen
Christ (Meier 2000: 14).6
More generally in Mark, the narrative typically highlights the disciples’
confusion over the language of resurrection, and particularly over key state-
ments by Jesus (Mark 8.31–32; 9.9–10, 31–32; 16.6; cf. 16.14). So, if the
disciples demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of what ‘rising from
the dead’ actually entailed, does this mean that the language and framework
of resurrection actually played no prominent part in Jesus’ teaching? Per-
haps we could concur with Geza Vermes, when he writes:
The cross and resurrection were unexpected for the apostles. One must
conclude that the prediction by Jesus of his death and resurrection and
his reference to Biblical prophecies about his suffering and glorifica-
tion are unauthentic. They appear to represent the tracing back to Jesus
of some of the weapons of the apologetical-polemical arsenal of the
Jewish-Christian church.
(2008: 68, and likewise, p. 106)7
Indeed, what needs to be remembered in this context is that a significant

number of extant Gospel narratives of the eyewitness claims of resurrec-
tion appearances do not themselves come from actual eyewitnesses. Rather,
they derive from the later believing community and, potentially, through the
hands of later theological narrators (so, Lüdemann 2012: 540).
When we arrive at Mark’s passion narrative proper, there are numerous
peculiarities. If the author is correct that, ignoring the command of the angel
to go tell the disciples, the women at the tomb instead said nothing to anyone
(16.7–8), then there is a problem in how the disciples learned of the resurrection
(as noted by Lüdemann 1995: 26). The shorter and longer endings of Mark
ameliorate this by contradicting 16.8 and asserting that Mary Magdalene did
indeed tell Peter and the disciples. Matthew does likewise (28.8). The Markan
narrative may well be drawing upon aspects of 1 Cor 15.5 that a number in
the early Jesus movement saw the risen Christ, and formulated an imaginative
myth of origins of these first sightings. As Crossan notes, why are there no traces
of the passion in early texts such as the Q document, the Gospel of Thomas,
or the Epistle of Barnabas? His conclusion is that the passion narrative was
“most likely created by Mark himself” (1995: 26–27; cf. 123, 209). This per-
haps explains the unusual ending of Mark at 16.8 and the variant traditions that
follow. Did the empty tomb story not exist prior to Mark, and was the assertion
of the silence of the women meant to ameliorate the thorny questions of why the
tradition was unknown (Collins 1997: 89; Kirby 2005: 240)?
Matthew takes Mark’s passion narrative and incorporates subtle editorial
features which smooth out some of Mark’s rough edges and attempt to add
a notion of persuasiveness to Mark’s inconsistencies. That said, it is very
surprising that Matthew adds so little to Mark’s narrative. The comparison
of the two is well summed up by C.F. Evans:
[Matthew’s] passion narrative is a writing out of Mark’s almost word

for word, and his few additions are either legendary and apologetic, as
in the suicide of Judas, the dream of Pilate’s wife and Pilate’s washing
of his hands, and the setting of the guard at the tomb, or they interpret
the events by a crudely literal version of the supernatural, as in the state-
ment that at the moment of the death of Jesus there was an earthquake,
tombs were opened and many bodies of the saintly dead were raised.
(1970: 82)8
Evans (1970: 85) goes on to ask why Matthew or the Matthean community
did not possess a passion narrative or distinct (separate) traditions of its
own and he notes the distinctive apologetic tradents that witness to later
Jewish-Christian tensions and controversies. This is seen, for example, in
the theft of Jesus’ body and the fact that Matthew has the Roman guards
report the incident at the tomb not to Pilate but to the Jewish authorities,
from whom they receive a bribe and the promise of adequate protection
(something very unlikely in its historical setting).9
Other Matthean additions would include Jesus’ appearance to the
eleven disciples in Galilee and the curious statement in 28.17 that some of
the disciples “doubted” that this was Jesus. From a later perspective, this
begins to address the uncertainties of some second and third generation
Christ-believers who are immersed in intra-communal conflict within the
broader Christ-community (e.g., seen in 1 John) or even within the Mat-
thean community itself (see Stanton 1992). More significantly for our pur-
poses here, we see in Matthew the beginnings of a physically resurrected
Jesus to the extent that the women at the tomb are able to grasp Jesus’ feet
(28.9). Here, Mark’s angelophany is turned into not just a christophany, but
a revelatory experience of a physically resurrected body (see Funk 2008:
16). The ‘physicality’ of Jesus’ resurrection body will, of course, be later
enhanced both in Luke’s Gospel and that of John. Yet, for Matthew, even
here, his narrative framework begins to break down in the inconsistency of
his resurrection narrative: the stone covering the tomb is not absent as in
Mark but is rolled back by an angel from heaven to reveal the tomb as empty
and the body of Jesus missing. So how, in Matthew’s mind, has a physically
resurrected Jesus emerged? It is clear at this point that Matthew is furnishing
later christological belief and doing so in response to a Jewish polemic still
current at the time of writing that Jesus’ body was stolen by the disciples
(28.11–15; cf. 27.62–66). Yet, in editing the Markan account, it is unclear to
what extent additional reliable historical information can be gleaned from
Matthew’s final two chapters (see Evans 1970: 85).
Whether Matthew made a distinctly conscious attempt to assert and
establish a physical resurrected body from the somewhat minor detail of
28.9 is uncertain. The Matthean text seems, rather, to want to ameliorate
the problems of Mark’s ending in which the women flee the tomb in terror
and amazement and said nothing to anyone (Mark 16.8). Matthew, while
retaining the fear of the women, adds the detail of their “great joy” and
asserts that they ran to tell the disciples (Matt 28.8). What follows (28.9) is
a curious pericope, for it immediately stands in tension with the preceding
verses and the proclamation of the angel to the women that, “He [Jesus] is
not here [. . .] he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there, you will see him”
(28:7). The sudden appearance of Jesus, the women taking hold of his feet,
and Jesus’ command for them to go to Galilee (already asserted by the angel)
read like a later editorial insertion. The entire incident and speech contained
in vv. 9–10 is therefore extraneous:
ANGEL (vv. 5–7): “Do not be afraid, go quickly and tell his disciples [. . .] he
is going ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see him.”
JESUS (vv. 9–10): “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee;
there they will see me.”
Certainly, the omission of vv. 9–10 allows the ending of v. 8 to connect

smoothly to v. 11 ([v.8] “So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy
and ran to tell his disciples [. . .] [v.11] While they were going . . .”). There
are also various textual uncertainties surrounding 28.9 which are outlined
in the textual apparatus of UBS 3, UBS 4, and NA 27 (and see Metzger
1994: 60).
An additional textual difficulty noted in comparing Matthew and Mark
is Matthew’s addition to Mark 16.7, “But go, tell his disciples and Peter
that he is going before you to Galilee.” The Markan text is enhanced by
Matthew: “Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from
the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee” (Matt 28.7). The
textual insertion a)po tw~n nekrw~n is weak (rated C in the UBS 3rd edi-
tion, although, strangely given no mention in the 4th revised edition), and
is absent from many early versions.10 These numerous textual ambiguities
in Matthew may well lead one to argue that, like Mark, Matthew appears
largely unconcerned about detailing the explicit nature of Jesus having been
resurrected with a physical body. If so, then it is actually Luke who has the
first unambiguous and detailed exposition of a physically resurrected body
and, certainly, it is the Lukan resurrection narrative which has exercised the
greater influence on Christian tradition (Evans 1970: 95).
LUKE-ACTS
Yet, what is intriguing about Luke’s narrative is the initial emphasis upon the
afterlife of the soul or spirit. Jesus’ physical death on the cross is preceded
by the declaration that he passes his pneuma over to the Father, with the cry,
“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23.46). Like many of
the Second Temple texts outlined above, this makes perfect sense: the soul
departs to be with God in heaven, the physical body is buried on earth.
Interestingly, the righteous criminal hanging on the cross to Jesus’ side is
promised the same experience, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in
Paradise” (para&deisov, 23.43); that is, the souls of both would be together
in heaven.11 The same scenario is also assumed in the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus in Luke 16, where, like the souls of Adam, Job, and Abraham
seen in the Second Temple Jewish texts of Chapter 3, following the death of
Lazarus he was “carried away by the angels to be with Abraham” (16.22).
So, too, in the speech of Stephen in Acts, he prays, “Lord Jesus, receive my
pneuma (Acts 7.59; see Eckstein 2002). The text here is of additional interest
with respect to Stephen’s vision of heaven and of the pneuma of Jesus stand-
ing at the right hand of God (7.55–56), for one could assume that within
a Lukan perspective, if Jesus were to return to earth, such a christophany
would be similar to Paul’s revelatory experience. Yet, Luke has the return
of Jesus in a definitive physical form; a veritable flesh-and-bone physical
god striding the earth (Hoover 2008: 85). So, in Luke, perhaps we see the
conflation of two separate traditions: the stress on the afterlife of the soul/
spirit prevalent in Second Temple Judaism standing alongside Greco-Roman
afterlife traditions of a deified Christ with an immortalized physical body
(which, of course, for the author also serves to counteract the rising influ-
ence of nascent Docetism).
Elsewhere, Luke appears quite content to stress the physicality of super-
natural emanations from heaven; e.g., that at Jesus’ baptism, “the heaven
was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a
dove” (Luke 3.21–22). This emphasis on the physicality of Jesus’ resurrected
body is also “designed to counter suggestions that the disciples saw merely
a spirit or a ghost (Luke 24.40).”12 Certainly, Luke’s narrative is written at
a time of conflicting theories and opinions between later Christ-believers,
some of whom claimed that the resurrection was spiritual instead of bodily,
and that stories of him eating had some kind of theological agenda (such
beliefs are replete amongst Gnostic sources where there is criticism and con-
demnation for those who defend physical resurrection). Hence, Luke (and
John), are likely to reflect a secondary stage of the resurrection tradition.13
As Lüdemann notes:
The bodily form of Jesus in Luke probably comes from a discussion in

the wider community about the nature of the corporeality of the risen
Christ (John 21; 1 John; 1 Cor 15). Luke attempts to solve the problem.
For these reasons it should have become clear that there is no relation-
ship to the real testimony to the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus. The historical
yield is virtually nil. This also applies to the whole of Luke 24.36–53.
(1995: 46)
Apostolic witness to this physical body is also important for Luke. Neither
Mark nor Matthew have Peter visiting the tomb, yet Luke not only details
this visit (Luke 24.1214), but also implies that Peter is the first witness to
the resurrected Jesus (and that this took place in Jerusalem, 24.34). This, of
course, contradicts the angelic assertions to the women in both Mark and
Matthew that Jesus would appear in Galilee (so, Mark 16.7, “But go, tell his
disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will
see him, just as he told you;” and Matt 28.7, “he is going ahead of you to
Galilee; there you will see him”).
Almost half of Luke’s final chapter on the resurrection is taken up by
the narrative of the Emmaus Road which admirably reflects Luke’s artistic
skilfulness.15 It at once serves to confirm Jesus as a “mighty prophet;” that
he has been unjustly put to death; and that he is a profound expositor of the
Hebrew Bible. It also underscores the centrality of the context of the Eucha-
rist in which is fully experienced the risen Christ (Lüdemann 1995: 41).16
C.F. Evans writes:
The Emmaus Road narrative [. . .] succeeded in doing what no other

resurrection story was able to do; it has presented in the form of a nar-
rative the whole later creedal formula ‘died for our sins according to the
scriptures, and was buried, and was raised the third day according to
the scriptures and appeared’; and it has traced back to Jesus himself, as
something normal and to be expected, both the Christian doctrine of a
suffering and exalted Messiah at which the church eventually arrived,
and also the scriptural research which, on the evidence of the NT as a
whole and of the speeches in Acts in particular, was to lie behind the
church’s interpretation of its gospel.
(1970: 94)
The narrative reflects a later period in apostolic history when the ‘blindness’
of the outsider who is unable, or unwilling, to accept Jesus as messiah is a
painful reality for the early Christ-movement. The two disciples are ‘kept’
from recognizing Jesus; their eyes were only opened in the central act of the
breaking of bread, at which point they were only then fully able to recognize
him (24.16, 31). The subsequent vanishing is a typically Lukan theme.17 In
the following narrative, the reappearance of Jesus is of interest in that the
disciples think that they are seeing, not a ‘ghost’ (so, NRSV), but a spirit,
pneu=ma (so, NASU, NIV, NKJV; 24.37, 39). The pivotal Lukan point here
is in Jesus’ assertion that his return, recognizable as spirit, is also physical:
“ ‘See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit
does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’ And when He had said
this, He showed them His hands and His feet” (24.39–40, NASU). Inter-
estingly, of course, the disciples clearly recognize the resurrected Christ as
spirit, but have to be convinced, with many proofs, that he is also physical!
The appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Luke 24.36–42 is the clearest
narrative thus far in the Gospel traditions of the attempt to combat forms
of nascent Docetism and to assert the unambiguous nature of a physically
resurrected Jesus. Here, Luke may be attempting to harmonize the range of
(earlier) traditions which emerge in the passion narratives, for while certain
Gospel narratives refer to the physical aspects of Jesus’ resurrection body
(Matt 28:9; Luke 24:39;18 John 20:27), the majority are ambiguous and
vague. Jesus is unrecognizable by Mary Magdalene, even after she beholds
him (John 20:14), and he remains unknown to his followers both on the
Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13ff.), and by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:4–12).
There are occasions when Jesus appears miraculously (Luke 24:36; John
20:19, 26), or vanishes (Luke 24:31); he also appears ‘in another form’ to
two disciples (Mark 16:12), and appears as a spirit (pneu=ma) to a larger
group (Luke 24:36–37).19 Elsewhere, the disciples disbelieve (Matt 28.17;
Luke 24.38–41; John 20.24–29). In addition, the Markan tradition of Jesus’

own statement on resurrection proclaims that, “when the dead rise [. . .]
they will be like the angels in heaven,”20 and the Lukan tradition of Paul’s
own revelatory experience expounds little in the way of the nature of the
risen Christ other than that the vision came in the form of a brilliant light
(Acts 9.3–6; 22.6–11; 26.12–16). There would, then, appear to be no fixed
tradition as to the exact nature of the resurrected afterlife of Christ.21 There
is also a later tradition in 1 Peter with a clear emphasis on the soul/spirit,
3.18–19: “[Christ] having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive
in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits
[now] in prison.” Hence, in Luke 24.36–42, the author is perhaps attempt-
ing to answer all of what must have been many queries and questions by
the second and third generation Christ-movement in a way which is both
coherent and recognizably consistent in relation to disparate traditions (see
Nickelsburg 2006: 246).
When we turn to the book of Acts, Luke retains the distinct emphasis of
Jesus’ physicality, asserting repeatedly that this physical man who walked
the earth prior to the passion is in perfect continuity with the man who has
now been resurrected. This is observed in Acts 2.22–36 in which Luke states
of Jesus, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption’
(2.31). Interestingly, the text draws upon Ps 16.10, ‘For you do not give
me up to Hades, nor let your faithful one see corruption,’ with the striking
change, of course, that Luke inserts the language of ‘flesh’ (sa&rc) which is
absent from the Psalm. That this is done deliberately is clear in that Luke
cites the same verse from Psalm 16 again in Acts 13.35, where he does so
verbatim, and so which excludes the language of flesh. The assertion of
the resurrected Jesus as ‘man’ is also found in Acts 10.39–41, 13.30–37,
and 17.31. In stressing Jesus’ post-resurrection physicality, it appears that
in both the Gospel and Acts, Luke wants to distance the resurrected Jesus
as far as possible from the category of heavenly vision or of a non-physical
resurrected being. Yet, as noted, there are tensions within Luke’s overall
narrative between what appears to be an older tradition based on Second
Temple Jewish texts on the afterlife of the soul and Luke’s insistence in other
narratives of the stress on Jesus’ physicality.
That said, Luke is certainly content with detailing successive christopha-
nies from heaven but only once his assertions of a physically resurrected
Jesus have been made perfectly clear. However, such christophanies appear
to be only for the leading figures of the early Christ-movement and perhaps
serve to legitimate their authority (De Jonge 2002: 41–42). As Walker notes,
“The author [Luke] wants to insist as vigorously as possible, no doubt for
theological and apologetic reasons, that Jesus actually was raised from the
dead and that he was seen by a particular group of people who were divinely
appointed as witnesses to the resurrection” (1969: 159).22 Some authors
posit that Luke is actually restraining the emphasis by Paul of what appears
to be a non-physical divine revelation of Christ; e.g., the emphasis in Acts
that during Paul’s christophany he was blinded (a feature of the first two
narratives in Acts which detail Paul’s divine revelation, Acts 9.8–9; 22.11;
see Endsjø 2009: 176–77). Elsewhere, of course, there are further tensions
between Luke and Paul in that, for Paul, the new entity of Christ is raised
in glory, is indestructible, and is not of flesh and blood, whereas for Luke
the risen Christ is unquestionably flesh and blood and retains the scars of
the crucifixion (Luke 24.39). Christ’s eating of fish in Luke also contradicts
Paul’s assertion that the resurrected ‘body’ will have no stomach and no need
of food (1 Cor 6.13; Carrier 2005: 135; Walker 1969).
The on-going importance for the early Christ-movement to counter nascent
Docetism (and at the time of the late first-century CE, proto-Gnosticism
also), is carried on into the resurrection narrative of the Fourth Gospel. The
conviction that Jesus existed as some kind of divine being inhabiting an illu-
sory ‘body’ which had no real flesh nor blood needed to be countered with
some urgency (cf. 1 John 1.1; 4.1f; 2 John 7).23 The Thomas story of the
Fourth Gospel is a perfect example of the literary imagination of an author
(or authors) writing into a situation of theological and social need in that
divergent opinions were fomenting unrest and division in the early commu-
nity (e.g., 1–3 John; Jude; so, Allison 2005: 247; Lüdemann 1995: 71). This
is certainly true of John 21, which is clearly a later editorial insertion or
redaction and has an overriding theological concern to prove Jesus’ physi-
cality (so, Allison 2005: 255). For Francis Fiorenza, the chapter “intertwines
several significant motifs of discipleship, faith, and community in relation
to Jesus’ resurrection” (1997: 224). The key Johannine text is, of course,
that of the doubting Thomas narrative which has a similar, although more
urgent function, like the Emmaus Road and following Lukan narrative, in
highlighting both the insider/outsider perspectives and laying stress on the
physicality of Jesus’ resurrection. For the Johannine redactors, the doubting
outsider, like Thomas, “will not believe” (John 20.25), unless there is unam-
biguous proof that Jesus has been physically resurrected. The memorable
literary account of the granting of that proof to Thomas allows the redac-
tor(s) to stress to the outsider/unbeliever, “Do not doubt but believe [. . .]
Blessed are those who have [. . .] come to believe” (20.27, 29; Nickelsburg
2006: 246).24
Outside of the Gospel passion narratives, there is an emphasis on the
resurrected form being like that of angels; e.g., Matt 22.30–31 (“For in
the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
angels in heaven”), and Luke 20.35–36 (“but those who are considered
worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither
marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because
they are like angels”).25 The Gospels also detail a range of resuscitations or
near-death experiences, two of which are of interest and relevance here. The
raising of Jairus’ daughter employs the verb e0gei/rw (Mt 9.18; Mark 5.22;
Luke 8.41), the same verb employed by Paul of Jesus being raised in 1 Cor
15. Mark 5.42 and Luke 8.54 also employ a)ni/sthmi (raised; cf. a)na/stasiv
resurrection), which Paul uses of Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Thess 4.14, and of

the resurrection of believers in 1 Thess 4.16. Interestingly, in Luke 8.55 the
author makes the significant point that it is the young girl’s spirit (pneum~a)
that is returned to her, meaning that post-mortem existence was predicated
primarily of the spirit and not the body.
The second key Johannine narrative is that of the raising of Lazarus in
John 11. The author notes that Lazarus was raised from the dead, (h1geiren
e0k nekrw~n, 12.1), the same phrase used of Christ’s resurrection in 1 Cor
15.15, 20, 35. In rabbinic literature, the soul was said to hover around the
body for three days, during which time resuscitation was possible.26 In both
of these instances, N.T. Wright claims that Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter
were “genuinely dead,” but then qualifies this to suggest that these may have
been near-death experiences. For Wright, Lazarus’ body had not begun to
decay (despite Martha’s fear of a bad smell from bodily decomposition in
11.39); that is, he was truly dead but kept from bodily corruption. Here,
despite the linguistic parallels of the resurrection of Jesus, Wright wants to
maintain Jesus’ apparent bodily resurrection as a unique event (2004: 507).
THE LATER NEW TESTAMENT
Finally in this chapter, mention could be made of later New Testament texts
which make passing comment on the nature of the afterlife. For 1 Peter, the
outcome of one’s faith, for the believer, is the salvation of the soul (1 Pet
1.9), which stands in continuity with the life of Christ, who was “put to
death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and
made a proclamation to the spirits in prison” (3.18–19). Here, Christ stands
as a model for the believer under duress: “Therefore, those also who suffer
according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in
doing what is right” (4.19, NASU). A summary of the author’s thought on
the afterlife could be taken from 4.6: “For the gospel has for this purpose
been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in
the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to [the will of] God.”
In the book of Revelation too, the seer, “saw under the altar the souls of
those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony
they had given” (Rev 6.9), and following the final victory, again, he saw
“the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and
for the word of God” (20.4).27 Clearly, from the perspective of this author,
those suffering martyrdom for their faith saw their physical bodies perish
and yet their souls translocated to the heaven to await the end-times (the
sense of waiting under the altar may refer to a place of some privilege).
Jonathan Knight writes of this verse: “The reference to ‘souls’ (6.9) suggests
an anthropology in which the death of the human person allows the soul to
ascend to heaven;” and he notes the rabbinic parallel of b. Sab. 152b, where
“the souls of the righteous are kept under the throne of glory” (1999: 69; cf.
Sweet 1990: 141–42). For the authors of both 1 Peter and Revelation, the
afterlife is unambiguously one of the soul/spirit.
The book of Hebrews is also of great interest, despite the fact that it
hardly mentions the afterlife, as it is typically dated to the period before the
First Jewish War.28 Hebrews 9.27 notes that “inasmuch as it is appointed
for men to die once and after this [comes] judgment,” and so stands in
direct continuity with other Second Temple Jewish texts. In 11.35, the writer
appears to make some kind of passing reference to 2 Maccabees: “Women
received [back] their dead by resurrection [a)na&stasiv]; and others were
tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better res-
urrection.” N.T. Wright asserts here:
The text uses the word resurrection in the two senses of resuscitation of
the very recently dead and resurrection to new bodily life at some stage
in the future. Both are clearly bodily; the reason for distinguishing them
and calling the latter one ‘better’ is presumably because the writer is
aware that in 2 Maccabees the mother was looking not for a short-term
resuscitation but a new creation, part of the great new work, ushering
in the age of cosmic justice that the creator god would one day perform.
(2003: 458–59)
Yet, as we have seen above, such a reading is unsafe. Asserting that ‘resurrec-
tion of the dead’ must mean a physical resurrection needs to be argued, not
simply assumed. And in relation to the explication of 2 Maccabees argued
earlier, insisting on a bodily resurrection from this text is insecure.
Wright goes on to note that the anticipated ‘heavenly country’ of 11.14–16,
is identified in Hebrews 12 as the heavenly Jerusalem. But does this then
suggest a spiritual entity for those ‘spirits made perfect of the righteous’
(12.23)? Perhaps aware of this, he quickly asserts: “The spirits of the righ-
teous are presumably the saints and martyrs of old awaiting their new bodies
in the new creation [. . .] this future hope, for the world that will last, a world
more solid is reaffirmed in the final chapter” (2003: 459). Yet, the lasting city
of 13.14 refers back to the heavenly Jerusalem of 11.16 & 12.22, and the
future hope, according to 6.19 is held onto as an anchor of the soul, where
the righteous after judgement are made perfect and are enrolled in heaven
as spirits (12.23).29
The verbs of raising found in Hebrews are identical with those used in
the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism: e0geirw (11.19), and a)nagw
(13.20), and the work also incorporates the concept of ‘bringing up’ the
dead (13.20). In Heb 5.7, we have the picture of Jesus’ earthly ministry
being “in the days of his flesh.” His subsequent entry into “the holy place”
is made by passing “through the veil, that is, His flesh” (10.20), in order to
enter the presence of the “Father of spirits” (tw~| patri\ tw~n pneuma&twn,
12.9). So, the “eternal hope,” which also stands as a model for the believer,
exists as an ‘anchor of the soul’ (6.19). Here, the writer appears to sharply
distinguish the earthly physical fleshly Jesus from the heavenly spiritual
abode of the soul.
Hence, one could read key passages in Hebrews as wholly consistent
within the framework of Second Temple Jewish texts if we appreciate that
these point towards a spiritual concept of the afterlife. It is the soul/spirit
which remains after the death of the body, is judged, and departs to a heav-
enly existence (for the righteous) or to punishment (for the wicked). Attempts
to read into Hebrews ideas of a physical resurrection are unsafe and impose
upon the text readings from elsewhere such as Josephus, or, particularly, the
bodily resurrection accounts of Jesus in Luke and John.
CONCLUSION
Following the earliest writings of the New Testament—the primary Pau-

line corpus and the Gospel of Mark—the general tenor of much of the rest
of the New Testament on the post-resurrection state of Christ appears to
follow a trajectory away from that of Paul and towards an emphasis on
the physicality of Christ’s resurrection appearances. Nevertheless, there are
tensions within these later texts when they overlap with earlier motifs which
adhere to a model of the divine exaltation of Christ’s soul. These are seen,
for example, in the visionary experiences of Stephen and others outlined by
Luke, who can, at the same time, hold to a very clear emphasis on Jesus’
post-resurrection physical body. Perhaps such reflection, beginning from the
70s CE, was precipitated by the trauma and devastation caused during the
war with Rome which Josephus informs us led to the deaths of over one
million Jews, including the crucifixion of thousands of Jews outside the gates
of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the mass suicide of embattled Jews at Masada in
73 CE.30 Within a context of such horror, deliberation was surely made on
the post-mortem state of the body. Further consideration could also have
been made upon traditions of the Hebrew Bible with regard to the afterlife
‘state’ of various well-known figures (Enoch and Elijah obviously come to
mind, as well as the text of Ezekiel 37; see Chilton 2003: 333). The peculiar
story of the resurrection and vindication of the saints in that intriguing peri-
cope in Matthew 27.51–53 is also of relevance and likely points to an early
pre-Matthean tradition reflecting the physical restoration of the righteous.
Did the author really believe that the many bodies (polla_ sw&mata) of the
saints (a#gioi) were preserved uncorrupted or were re-constituted in order
to appear to many people in the city? Or that such bodies were raised and
yet suspended, in some sort of macabre Shakespearian grave scene, between
Jesus’ death and resurrection before finally departing the graveyard for the
city of Jerusalem? Or is it simply part of a fervent imagination attempting to
deal with the trauma, and what was likely to be a high level of apocalyptic
tumult, at the time of the Christ’s passion and the few decades beyond?31
Changes within the passion narratives themselves also give pause for
thought. Joseph of Arimathea in Mark’s account of Jesus’ burial is sim-

ply a respected member of the council who lays Jesus in a tomb, but
becomes for Matthew a disciple of Jesus who lays him in his own new tomb
(Mark15.43–46; Matt 27.57–60).32 Mark’s young man at the empty tomb
dressed in a white robe becomes for Matthew a glorious angel descending
amidst an earthquake (Mark 16.5; Matt 28.2–4). Matthew adds the guards
who play a not insubstantial part of his narrative (Matt 27.62–66; 28. 4,
11–15). And while the women depart quickly in Mark, Matthew has a brief
physical appearance by Jesus and then a more extended one later in Galilee
(Mark 16.8; Matt 28.9–10, 16–20). For Luke, Joseph of Arimathea becomes
a good and righteous man looking for the Kingdom of God; Matthew’s single
angel becomes two (in dazzling apparel); and there are extended appearances
of Jesus both on the Emmaus Road and then his dramatic appearance to the
disciples in Jerusalem and his leading of them from the city towards Beth-
any (Luke 24.4; 13–53). The embellishments continue in the Fourth Gospel:
Joseph of Arimathea becomes a secret disciple who, alongside Nicodemus,
embalms Jesus’ body with an exceptional amount of myrrh and aloes;33
Luke’s two dazzlingly attired men become two angels; and Luke’s two
extended appearances to the disciples become three, including the doubting
Thomas story and, in Galilee, the re-assertion of Peter as the authoritative
figure of the early community. As Richard Carrier notes of these develop-
ments: “There can be no doubt that we are looking at extensive legendary
embellishment upon what began as a mundane story” (2005: 165).34 This
also becomes clear in texts of the later New Testament where it appears that
myths, fables, and endless genealogies are present within the nascent com-
munity.35 Goulder (2000: 99) is probably correct when he writes:
So it becomes important to stress the reality, the physical nature of

the resurrection. This is done in steps. At first, in the 60s we have the
empty-tomb story (which requires burial in a tomb), which we first find
in Mark. Then in Luke we have stories about Jesus’ eating and drinking
and asking to be touched. Finally these physical aspects are made mem-
orable by the stories of Thomas and Mary Magdalene.
(“Do not hold on to me” in John (20.17)
Many of these early stories revolve around the visionary experiences of key
authoritative figures in the early Christ-movement. When Mark’s young man
dressed in white becomes, for Matthew, an angel of the lord, it is narrated
that “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow
(leuko_n w(v xiw&n)” (28.3). The only close parallel in the Septuagint of the
phrase is found in Daniel 7.9 (w(sei_ xiw_n leuko/n), which is a description of
Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of Days in the heavenly throne room where
it is employed of the brilliance of his clothing. Elsewhere, there are three
occurrences in the Septuagint of the phrase “[white] as snow:” Exodus 4.6,
Numbers 12.10, and 2 Kings 5.27, each of which is used within the context
of some form of supernatural event.36 A comparable description of the heav-

enly Christ is made in the book or Revelation: “His head and his hair were
white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire” (Rev
1.14). This is, of course, John’s vision of Christ in the centre of the heavenly
throne room (see Morris 1987: 54). In Luke, Peter’s vision of the resurrected
Christ, o!ntwv h0ge/rqh o (ku/riov kai\ w!fqh Si/mwni, is made in language remi-
niscent to that of Paul’s own revelatory visions.37 The following narrative in
Luke’s Gospel and that of the Fourth Gospel too, on the extended presence
of the risen Christ, has him accompanied only by the inner core of the dis-
ciples. Likewise, the threefold narratives of the presence of the risen Jesus
in chapters 20–21 of the Fourth Gospel is made only amongst the closest
disciples.
Peter, of course, along with James and John, had the revelatory experience
of the transfiguration (Mark 9.2ff. par.), which also employs the concept of
the brilliant whiteness of certain garments. He also has a visionary experi-
ence at the home of Simon the Tanner which is described in Acts 10.10 and
11.5 as a trance (e1kstasiv), an altered state of consciousness most likely
brought about by deprivation of food (Acts 10.9–10). Paul, too, has an expe-
rience of being caught up into paradise wherein he received the “surpassing
greatness of revelations” (2 Cor 12.4, 7, NASU).38 Jesus, also, is described
numerous times within the New Testament as having visionary experiences.
Mark notes that during Jesus’ baptism “he saw the heavens torn apart and
the Spirit descending like a dove on him,” an event that was also accompa-
nied by an auditory experience (Mark 1.10–11, “And a voice came from
heaven”). The narratives of the tempting of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke
are extended visionary experiences, most likely altered states of conscious-
ness brought about by a fast of forty days (Matt 4.1–11; Luke 4.1–12; both
Matthew and Luke highlight that after the fast Jesus was “famished”). Luke
appears to relate this ASC to the consequent dramatic empowerment by the
Spirit (Luke 4.14).
In the sense of searching for the primary category in which the risen
Christ was experienced, it appears that supernatural vision is the key. Cer-
tainly, Paul’s experience of “seeing the lord” derives from his heavenly rev-
elation as vision (1 Cor 15.8; see Chilton 2000: 224). The progressively
physical nature and experience of the risen Christ take this initial visionary
experience into a new direction and the narratives of the empty tomb and
subsequent outworking of this in the Gospels is a later tradition. Whether the
appearances to Peter and Paul are due to the former’s “severe guilt complex”
and the latter’s “smouldering Christ complex,” and whether the subsequent
appearances are part of a mass psychosis or mass hysteria, (so, Lüdemann) is
uncertain. All one can say with certainty is that the key figures of Peter and
Paul (perhaps James and John also) held to ‘vision’ as the primary vehicle of
revelation by Christ to themselves and the nascent community (Lüdemann
1995: 129–30). Further, that it is these figures, each with a propensity to
ASCs and visions, who were the founding fathers of the initial community
and an essential part of its early development (and played a determining role
in the theological shaping of this community), is not to be underestimated.
As such, the assumption of a physically resurrected Christ is unnecessary
for these initial revelations, and what perhaps is of greater interest are the
doctrinal battles within the context of emergent heresies which gives rise to
the ‘whys’ and ‘wherefores’ of the subsequent development of the ‘physical’
Christ (De Jonge 2002: 35, 41–42).39 Other categories which come to mind
are God’s predisposition towards and the upholding of the suffering righ-
teous as well as the connection of visions to the notion of divine ‘sending’
and mission; cf. the sending of Moses and Gideon in the context of supernat-
ural revelation (Exod 3.1–12; Judg 6.11–14). The assertion of a physically
resurrected Christ did, of course, arouse considerable resistance from early
Christians (although not pagans).40 In this context, one could ask the vital
question of whether the story of the empty tomb was new with Mark and
whether the women at the tomb, apparently ignoring the command to go
and tell the disciples, is an apologetic foil meant to explain why the empty
tomb tradition was not known before Mark. And certainly, the notion that
ideas of ‘resurrection’ could be adequately expressed in terms of an empty
tomb is certainly shaped by Greco-Roman traditions of the translation and
apotheosis of exceptional human beings (so, Collins 1997: 88–89). As we
have seen, concepts of the empty tomb and ‘missing’ body were essential in
the Greco-Roman mind for the physical immortalization of the hero.41 And
this would appear to be a crucial reason behind the move from the primitive
Pauline kerygma of Christ’s resurrection as one of the soul alone towards
one of his full physicality: the significant rise of Greco-Roman gentiles enter-
ing the early Christ-movement and the general rejection of the gospel by
first-century Jews.
In this sense, the Gospel by Luke (arguably a Greek42) is key and makes
perfect sense within a context of Greco-Roman resurrection narratives:
Christ died (Luke 23.46), following which the women at the tomb find
that his body has disappeared (24.3), and learn that it has been taken else-
where (24.5, 7, it has been raised); following which it then returns to earth
physically immortalized like the gods, where Christ is able to vanish from
sight (24.31) and miraculously re-appear (24.36). At this point, he is able
to provide unambiguous proof of his newly immortalized physical body
(24.39–43), before finally returning to the heavens (24.51).43 For Luke, like
Matthew, it is vital to assert to his Hellenistic audience that Jesus’ body had
been taken elsewhere and not left decomposing in the tomb, otherwise the
assertion of deification and physical immortality would have been impos-
sible to defend (so, Endsjø 2009: 167). This is highlighted again by Luke
in Acts when Peter asserts that Jesus’ “flesh did not see corruption” (Acts
2.25–28).
Hence, we may argue that Luke is making a concerted effort to establish
a framework of resurrection belief more aligned to Greco-Roman thought.
Certainly, the parallels are striking. And beginning with Luke, one could
argue that this is why early Christianity began to abandon the Second Tem-
ple Jewish emphasis on the afterlife of the soul alone for an afterlife frame-
work which held the body as a central component. This was more attuned to
Hellenistic thought, and, significantly, well before the end of the first century
CE it was Greco-Roman gentiles who were now dominant within the early
church. So, too, the fact that this physically resurrected Christ was also pro-
claimed as the model for a similar resurrection of all believers was perhaps
a welcome surprise: thoughts of an eternity in Sheol were now superseded
by anticipation of a glorious afterlife like the Greco-Roman heroes of old.
Yet, as Paul’s travel partner, Luke cannot have been unaware of Paul’s own
reflection on the afterlife of the soul alone and hence perhaps we see in
Luke-Acts the author’s attempt to reconcile two disparate traditions.44 Such
thoughts also prompt further reflection on Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15, for
if such nascent traditions were already available in the 50s CE, then the con-
text of the misunderstanding between Paul and his Hellenist interlocutors in
Corinth is all too easy to understand. These propositions will be elaborated
further in the conclusion.
NOTES
1. Luke 11.29–32 mentions the only sign given as that of Jonah but does not note
the three days and three nights.
2. Matt 27.63; Mark 8.31; 9.31; 10.34; John 2.19–21. In Luke it is not stated but
implied in his passion chronology (cf. 24.1)
3. See the textual analysis by Thiselton (2000: 1186) and see Metzger (1994:
500). The “eleven” is introduced in D*, F, G, Vulg, and some Syriac and Latin
vss (with Eusebius and Jerome).
4. Barclay (1996: 18) notes that it is unwise to be dogmatic about what he, or
other early Christians, understood to be the physical effects of resurrection. See
Evans (1970); Nicklesburg (1972); Harvey (1994).
5. There is an intriguing question as to whether the ‘body’ of John the Baptist that
was buried by the disciples (Mark 6.29; Matt 14.12) included the head of the
Baptist which was presented to Herod’s daughter and then given to Herodias,
his wife.
6. Meier also argues that the double occurrence of a)na&stasiv, in 12.18, 23,
elsewhere unknown in Mark, may be a “fingerprint of the pre-Markan author
left on the dispute story” (2000: 5).
7. C.f. Evans (1970: 67): “At the heart of the resurrection tradition appeared a
vacuum.”
8. On Matthew’s redaction of Mark’s passion narrative see also Senior (1976).
9. For a useful comparison of the passion narratives of Mark and Matthew see
Senior (1976).
10. Metzger (1994: 60) notes that the omission may have been due to an “over-
sight in transcription.”
11. Para&deisov occurs only here and two other places in the New Testament
(2 Cor 12.4; Rev 2.7). In 2 Cor it is located in the third heaven (12.2).
12. Pace Barclay (1996: 19), who also asks, “If these aspects of the stories are
apologetic or literary accretions, one is entitled to ask how much else is merely
legendary.”
13. So Lüdemann (2000: 54). See also, Alsup (1975), who argues that Luke’s con-
cern for bodily proofs are redactional and intended to serve the interests of the
“early catholic” period of the church (68–9, 75); and Lüdemann (1995: 34),
“[Luke] has an interest in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, in order to refute
claims which disparaged the Christians and their faith.”
14. Although there is some textual uncertainty with this verse.
15. Alsup (1975: 193–94) argues that it was not a Lukan creation but was a com-
posite taken from his special source and may be the oldest of the resurrection
stories. See also, Gillman (2002).
16. Tensions in the story within Luke’s wider narrative include the disjuncture
between 24.24 (“Some of those who were with us went to the tomb . . .”), with
the earlier assertion that it was Peter alone who ran to the tomb (24.12).
17. Especially related to angels, cf. Luke 1.38; 2.15; 9.33; Acts 10.7; 12.10.
18. Here, Luke articulates Jesus’ resurrection as one of the “flesh.” Cf. Acts 2:31.
19. Translated ‘spirit’ in NASU, ASV, NKJV, but as ‘ghost’ in NRSV, NIV.
20. Mark 12:25; see Meier (2000: 7), “. . . it is most likely that the dispute story in
Mark 12:18–27, minus perhaps a few short phrases, circulated in the pre-Markan
tradition of the first Christian generation.” See also Garrison (1997: 88–9) on
Mark 9:1.
21. On the relationship of these various pericopes see Brown (1970: 1019–51,
1089–92); Hubbard (1974: 101–36).
22. See also Nickelsburg (2006: 246–47).
23. For an overview of such tradition and the Gnostic sources see Robinson (1982:
5–37).
24. Sheehan (2008) provides a useful overview of the progressive stages of the
Easter narratives. See also Lowder (2005: 165–66).
25. The Lukan text employs i0sa&ggelov a New Testament hapax meaning ‘like
or equal to an angel’ (so, UBS sv (71); Liddell & Scott sv (383); BAGD sv
(380). Cf. Philo Sac. 1.5 i1soj a)gge/loij gegonw&v, ‘having become equal to the
angels.’
26. Semitica 8; Genesis Rabbah 100.64a; Leviticus Rabbah 18.1 (on Lev 15.1);
Eccl Rab 12.6; StrBill 2.544–45; Beasley-Murray (1981: 189–90); Carson
(1991: 411).
27. On death and afterlife in Revelation, see Collins (2002: 374).
28. C. 65 CE, so, Hewett (1960: 39); before 70 CE, so, Bruce (1964: xlii–xliv); ~
64-before 70 CE, so, Ellingworth (1993: 29–33); 65–70 CE, so, Lindars
(1991: 21).
29. Lane notes that these are “those who have died but who now inhabit the heav-
enly city that is the goal of the pilgrimage of godly men and women under both
covenants” (1991: 470).
30. Josephus notes that of the one million one hundred thousand who perished,
the majority were Jews (War 6.120). On mass crucifixions, War 5.449–451;
on Masada, War 7.304–406.
31. See Chilton (2003: 333), who also notes the possible influence of Ezekiel 37.
32. On the legendary developments of the figure of Joseph of Arimathea see Gun-
dry (2000: 105–106, 131–33); and more recently, Lyons (2014).
33. Beasley-Murray (1981: 359); Carson (1991: 629–30). Nicodemus appears
only at John 3.1, 4, 9; 7.50; 19.39. On the general legendary developments of
the figure of Joseph of Arimathea see Gundry (2000: 105–06, 131–33).
34. So too, Collins (1997: 88–100), who writes, “Matt 28 and Luke 24 may be
redactional expansions of Mark 16.1–8. There is no evidence that these have
independent traditions about the empty tomb” (90). See also, Sheehan (2008:
97–9); and Allison (2005: 308–11), who provides an extensive list of legendary
stories about empty tombs or disappearing bodies in antiquity. See also Chil-
ton (2003: 309–34), who details a useful comparison of the visions and angels
at the tomb (331) and the Galilee versus Jerusalem traditions (333–34).
35. See, 1 Tim 1.4; 4.7; 2 Tim 4.4; Titus 1.14; 3.9; 2 Pet 1.16. on the redactional
expansions of Mark by Matthew and Luke see also Collins (1997: 90).
36. Other uses “as snow” can also refer to the cleansing of sin, Ps 50; Isa 1.18.
Lightening is often associated with divine appearances, so Carter (2000: 545).
See also the parallels in Dan 7.9–10; 10.7–9.
37. Like Paul, Luke frequently employs w!fqh for supernatural experiences: Luke
1.11; 22.43; 24.34; Acts 2.3; 7.30; 9.17; 16.9.
38. On the assumption that the man of 2 Cor 12.2 is Paul himself, Martin (1986:
398–99); Furnish (1984: 524–25). See also, Goulder (2000: 93–4).
39. De Jonge asks the central question, “Were visionary experiences really the
basis and cause of faith in Jesus’ resurrection, and thus the impulse behind the
emergence of Christianity?” (p. 35).
40. See Riley (1995: 58–9) and the texts cited there: 1 Clement 24–26; Ign., Smyr.
2–3; 2 Clem. 9; Barn. 5; Irenaeus, Haer.; Acts of Paul. Riley notes here that
Athenagoras, De Res. argues for the doctrine against Greek philosophical
objections within and without the church.
41. Endsjø (2009) notes that this was a powerful topos in the Hellenistic world
(161), and cites the contemporary Greek text of Chariton’s romantic novel
Callirhoe where a similar thing happens (162).
42. On the debate, see Keener (2012: 403–05) and secondary literature there.
43. As noted by Endsjø (2009: 175), “The ability of the resurrected Jesus to pass
through walls and vanish is paralleled in ancient texts.” And see the many such
texts cited there.
44. Endsjø conjectures that this may be the reason for Luke’s assertion in Acts that
Paul’s revelatory experience on the road to Damascus discredit him as a reliable
witness of the resurrected Christ: he was blinded by the light (2009: 176).
SOURCES CITED
ALLISON, D.C. (2005) Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its
Interpreters. London & New York, T&T Clark.
ALSTON, W.P. (1997) Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection. In DAVIS, S., KEND-
ALL, D. & O’COLLINS, G. (eds), The Resurrection. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
ALSUP, J. (1975) The post-resurrection appearance stories of the gospel tradition: a
history-of-tradition analysis with text-synopsis. London: SPCK.
BARCLAY, J.M.G. (1996) The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Schol-
arship’ in D’COSTA, G. (ed.), Resurrection Reconsidered. Oxford: Oneworld.
BEASLEY-MURRAY, G. (1981) John. Dallas: Word Books.
BROWN, R. (1970) The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi). Anchor Bible 29a.
Garden City: Doubleday.
BRUCE, F.F. (1964) The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
CARRIER, R.C. (2005) The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty
Tomb. In PRICE, R.M. & LOWDER, J.J. (eds), The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond
the Grave. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
CARSON, D. (1991) The Gospel According to John. Leicester: IVP.
CARTER, W. (2000) Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious
Reading. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
CHILTON, B. (2000) Resurrection in the Gospels. In AVERY-PECK, A.J. & NEUS-

NER, J. (eds), Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After-Death, Res-
urrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaism of Antiquity. Handbook of
Eternal Life.” In NEUSNER, J. & AVERY-PECK, A.J. (eds), George W. E. Nickels-
COLLINS, A.Y. (1997) Apotheosis and Resurrection. In BORGEN, P. & GIVERSEN,
S. (eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Peabody: Hendrickson.
CROSSAN, J.D. (1995) Who Killed Jesus? San Francisco: Harper Collins.
DE JONGE, H.J. (2002) Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Chris-
tianity. In BIERINGER, R. KOPERSKI, V. & LATAIRE, B. (eds), Resurrection in
the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Peeters.
ECKSTEIN, H.-J. (2002) Bodily Resurrection in Luke. In PETERS, T., RUSSELL,
R.J. & WELKER, M. (eds), Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
ELLINGWORTH, P. (1993) The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the
Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
ENDSJØ, D. Ø (2009) Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity.
FIORENZA, F.S. (1997) The Resurrection of Jesus and Roman Catholic Fundamen-
tal Theology. In DAVIS, S., KENDALL, D. & O’COLLINS, G. (eds), The Resur-
rection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FUNK, R.W. (2008) The Resurrection of Jesus: Reports and Stories. In SCOTT, B.B.
(ed.), The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.
FURNISH, V.P. (1984) II Corinthians. Anchor Bible 32A. New York: Doubleday.
GARRISON, R. (1997), Greco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature. Lon-
don: T&T Clark.
GILLMAN, J. (2002) The Emmaus Story in Luke-Acts Revisited. In BIERINGER,
R., KOPERSKI, V. & LATAIRE, B. (eds)m Resurrection in the New Testament:
Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Peeters.
GOULDER, M. (2000) The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions. In COPAN,
P. & TACELLI, R.K. (eds), Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact of Figment?: A Debate
Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
GUNDRY, R.H. (2000) Trimming the Debate. In COPAN, P. & TACELLI, R.K. (eds),
Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact of Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig &
Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
HARVEY, A.E. (1994) “They discussed among themselves what this ‘rising from the
dead’ could mean” (Mark 9:10). In BARTON, S. & STANTON, G. (eds), Resur-
rection. Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden. London: SPCK.
HEWETT, T. (1960) Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. London: IVP.
HOOVER, R.W. (2008) Was Jesus’ Resurrection an Historical Event? In SCOTT, B.B.
(ed.), The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.
HUBBARD, B.J. (1974) The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commis-
sioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28.16–20. Missoula: SBL.
KEENER, C.S. (2012) Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker.
KIRBY, P. (2005) The Case Against the Empty Tomb. In PRICE, R.M. & LOWDER,
J.J. (eds), The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
KNIGHT, J. (1999) Revelation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
LANE, W. (1991) Hebrews 9–13. WBC. Dallas: Word Books.
LINDARS, B. (1991) The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
LOWDER, J.J. (2005) Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story. In PRICE,
R.M. & LOWDER, J.J. (eds), The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus.
LÜDEMANN, G. (1995) What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to
the Resurrection. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
LÜDEMANN, G. (2000) First Rebuttal. In COPAN, P. & TACELLI, R.K. (eds),
Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact of Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig &
Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
LÜDEMANN, G. (2012) The Resurrection of Jesus Fifteen Years Later. In VAN
LYONS, J. (2014) Joseph of Arimathea: A Study in Reception History. Oxford:
MARTIN, R.P. (1986) 2 Corinthians. Dallas: Word Books.
MEIER, J.P. (2000) The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead: An Incident from
the Ministry of the Historical Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
77, pp. 3–24.
METZGER, B.M. (1994) Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd
edn. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
MORRIS, L. (1987) Revelation. Leicester: IVP.
NICKLESBURG, G.W.E. (1972) Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Inter-
testamental Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
PANNENBERG, W. (1996) History and the Reality of the Resurrection. In D’COSTA,
G. (ed.), Resurrection Reconsidered. Oxford: Oneworld.
RILEY, G.R. (1995) Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy.
ROBINSON, J.M. (1982) Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed).
Journal of Biblical Literature. 101, pp. 5–37.
SENIOR, D. (1976) The Death of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Holy Ones (Mt
27:51–53). Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 38, pp. 312–29.
SHEEHAN, T. (2008) The Resurrection, an Obstacle to Faith? In SCOTT, B.B. (ed.),
The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.
STANTON, G. (1992) A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. London:
T&T Clark.
SWEET, J. (1990) Revelation. London: SCM.
THISELTON, A.C. (2000) The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on
the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
VERMES, G. (2008) The Resurrection. London: Penguin.
WALKER, W.O. Jr. (1969) Postcrucifixion Appearances and Christian Origins. Jour-
nal of Biblical Literature. 88 (2), pp. 157–65.
WRIGHT, N.T. (2004) An Incompleat (but Grateful) Response to the Review by
Markus Bockmuehl of The Resurrection of the Son of God. Journal for the Study
of the New Testament. 26 (4), pp. 505–10.
7 The Rise of Gehenna
Afterlife in Early Christianity
INTRODUCTION
As our chronological purview of Christian writing on the afterlife begins to

move from the later New Testament period into that of the early church (sec-
ond-fourth centuries CE), there are a number of developments which play
an important part of our analysis: the increasing influence within the early
church of trends towards a deprecation of the flesh (a significant aspect of
the growing and prominent movements such as Gnosticism and Docetism);
and the sharp growth in the numbers of Gentiles entering the early Chris-
tian community.1 The deprecation of the flesh was a vital facet of various
tendencies towards asceticism in the period where exhortations to purify the
flesh—often in the form of sexual continence, see, for example, the Acts of
Paul and Thecla—were commonplace.2 The Gnostics, of course, sought the
exclusion of the body altogether (so, Evans 1970: 10).
In some senses the rise of Docetism made a doctrinal emphasis on the
risen flesh of Jesus somewhat inevitable, as can be seen, for example, when a
docetic (or docetically-inspired) text such as the Gospel of Peter is answered
and rebutted by the Church Father Ignatius in his defence of the fleshly res-
urrected Christ (see further below). Indeed, the resurrection of the physical
Christ in the Gospels of Luke and John can be read as deliberate anti-docetic
polemic and, as noted in the previous chapter, in some ways a shift away
from Paul. But whether this was a deliberate rebuttal of Paul or simply a
response to the exigencies of a critical period in taking a determined anti-
docetic stand is difficult to establish. An emphasis on the resurrection of the
flesh also provided a powerful doctrinal argument for Christians against
various Gnostic systems, which typically held Docetism in common (see
Davis 1972; Riley 1995: 107). Nevertheless, although Docetism was very
pronounced in the second century, the doctrine of the resurrection of the
flesh, even amongst such influential theologians as Clement of Alexandria
and Origen, had yet to be firmly established as an essential aspect of the rule
of faith. Gregory Riley makes an important point on this change:
This point needs emphasis: “immortality of the soul” explained the res-
urrection of Christ for many Christians for centuries, and did so based
The Rise of Gehenna 145
on the same traditions and texts as those used by the “orthodox” who
advocated resurrection of the flesh [. . .] If so, then the spiritual risen
Jesus was far more substantial than one would assume from modern
secondary literature.
(1995: 9)3
IGNATIUS AND THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
As we proceed chronologically through the Church Fathers, we begin to

see the change that Riley speaks of. In his struggle with Docetism, Ignatius
(35/50–98/117), the bishop of Antioch in the late first or early second cen-
tury, lays emphasis on the resurrection of the physical fleshly Christ (Davis
1972: 448–55; Riley 1995: 116; Setzer 2004: 71). In the letter To the Smyr-
naeans 2–3, he writes:
he truly raised himself—not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered

in appearance only (it is they who exist in appearance only!). Indeed,
their fate will be determined by what they think: they will become dis-
embodied and demonic. For I know and believe that he was in the flesh
even after the resurrection and when he came to Peter and those with
him, he said to them: “Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am
not a disembodied demon.” And immediately they touched him and
believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood [. . .] And after
his resurrection he ate and drank with them like one who is composed
of flesh, although spiritually he was united with the Father.4
Ignatius’ polemical attack on the Docetists recalls aspects of that found in

the Johannine literature (which may have a similar provenance), and which
castigates them as unbelievers whose end, interestingly, will be a disembod-
ied state. The appearances to the apostles of the physically resurrected Jesus
may draw upon the passion narratives of Luke and John. The presence of
false teaching in various communities has obviously led to tensions and divi-
sions (Trall. 9–11; Phil. 2–4), and elsewhere Ignatius also attacks certain
‘Judaizers’ (Phil. 6.1; Magn. 8.1; 9.1; 10.3).
In other places amongst the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there are
scattered references to the resurrection of the physical Christ. The Martyr-
dom of Polycarp (c. 156 CE) notes that the resurrection to eternal life is
“both of soul and of body in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit” (14.2);
and there is an oblique reference in 1 Clement 26 (c. 95–97 CE) when the
author asserts, “the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrec-
tion of those who have served him in holiness [as . . .] Job says: ‘And you will
raise this flesh of mine, which has endured all these things.’ ”5 Around the
same time, the author of 2 Clement (c. 95–140) misunderstands the Pauline
distinction between body and flesh and insists, “as Paul does not, upon the
resurrection of the flesh” (so Barrett 1979: 98; cf., 2 Clem. 9). The author
asserts categorically: “For just as you were called in the flesh, so you will
come in the flesh [. . .] Let none of you say that this flesh [. . .] does not rise
again” (9.1, 3). These early texts demonstrate a determination to combat
both Docetism and various forms of Gnosticism in a sustained apologetic
manner by asserting the physicality of Christ’s resurrection. Yet, the social
context of 2 Clement and other texts (e.g., Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippi-
ans 7), suggests that ideas of the resurrection of the body or the flesh were
certainly not shared by all Christians. For Claudia Setzer, Polycarp (2.1) in
particular “seems to be reacting to more than just a passing threat. Not only
is someone promoting this ‘false teaching’ but it may even be the majority
view at Philippi, since he calls it ‘that which deceives many’ ” (2004: 72;
and see Riley 1995: 60). By the end of the second century however, the
church’s catechetical instruction insisted upon the resurrection of the flesh
as a point of orthodoxy. Key figures in this regard were Justin Martyr
(c. 100–165), Irenaeus (c. 130–202), Minucius Felix (150–270), and Ter-
tullian (160–225).6
JUSTIN AND IRENAEUS
In his Apologies and dialogue with the Jewish philosopher Trypho, Justin
attempts to define orthodoxy around the resurrection of the flesh, which
also at the same times helps to deter forms of extreme asceticism and liber-
tinism (see Stanton 1994). For him, the true Christian is now the one who
affirms this essential doctrine and, interestingly, he argues that those who
insist on the afterlife of the soul alone are heterodox and are not to be con-
sidered Christians:
For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the
doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who
are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture
to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their
souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are
Christians.
(Dial. 80)
This appears to be the first appearance of the term ‘resurrection of the flesh,’
and here it is given its fullest and most explicit formulation (see, Setzer 2004:
75; Stuhlmacher 1993: 54). For Justin, the physical body received back in
the resurrection is fully complete; i.e., it possesses all of the original organs,
and any defects are repaired.7 Yet, it must also be the case that different
understandings of an afterlife experience, one including the body, another
asserting the afterlife of the soul alone, ran side by side in various Christian
communities. The latter view, in continuity with Second Temple Jewish texts
noted earlier, obviously asserted that there was no resurrection of the body
and that the soul passed straight to heaven (so, Setzer 2005: 156). This is
likely to be the reason why Justin launches such a sharp polemic against
those who disagree with his formulation to the extent that the heterodox
will suffer eternally by fire: “we know from Isaiah that the members of those
who have transgressed shall be consumed by the worm and unquenchable
fire, remaining immortal; so that they become a spectacle to all flesh” (Dial.
130.2).8 There is a similar exposition in Justin’s First Apology. On Christ’s

parousia, he will “raise the bodies of all men who have lived and shall clothe
those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked,
endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils”
(Apol. 1.52).9 The model for the re-constitution of the body is Ezekiel’s val-
ley of dry bones and that for the punishment of the wicked is, as Dial. 130
makes clear, the worm and fire of Isaiah 66.10
When we turn to Irenaeus, we see a similar, although more complex
framework of thought (on Irenaeus see esp. Evans 1970). Some of the ortho-
dox, argues Irenaeus, are ignorant and have been led astray by heretics who
reject the salvation of the flesh and believe that the soul alone passes into the
heavens to return to the Father. As such, these heretics reject a resurrection
affecting the whole person (universam reprobant resurrectionem). Irenaeus
argues that if this were the case, then the soul of Christ must have departed,
leaving his body on the earth; yet, this cannot be the case, for Christ must
have risen physically from the dead in order to show his body to the disciples
along with the nail marks still in his hands. Christ must thus have ascended
physically into heaven. For the believer, however, they shall go away into the
“invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resur-
rection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their
entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the
presence of God” (Haer. 5.31).
Interestingly, this is similar to the framework of thought that we have
seen in Second Temple Judaism and have argued for in Paul. On death, the
soul of the believer departs to some other place, to be kept safe until the end
times, when it receives a physical bodily form and enters into the presence of
God. Irenaeus appears to imply that this is the original earthly body or is in
continuity with it.11 However, the risen Jesus is different and unique for he
alone ascended body and soul. Irenaeus is led to argue in this way in order
to be consistent and to hold firmly to the resurrection narrative of Luke. So,
Irenaeus attempts to hold together two traditions: he affirms a framework
of thought found in Second Temple Judaism and Paul, and yet also affirms
the physically resurrected Christ observed in Luke. The only way that he
can do so is to posit a different and unique resurrection scenario for Jesus:
he alone was resurrected body and soul while other believers will receive a
body only at the eschaton.
Irenaeus devotes much time and space to combating a variety of second-century
heretics (e.g., Valentinus, Marcion, and others), whom, he suggests, are able to
“[craft] elaborate exegesis” and he does this by “showing that Paul, after all,
does not refute the resurrection of the flesh.”12 He subjects the Pauline text of
1 Corinthians 15 to an extended exegetical analysis, arguing that the body is
essential in the plan of God, for if only the soul is raised then the resurrection is
only partial in nature (see Setzer 2004: 132–50). For Irenaeus, the text of 1 Cor
15.50 (“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”), is the favourite
expression of the heretics who make “perverse and crooked interpretation”
of it (Haer. 5.9, 13). In short, he moves towards an anthropology that holds

the body and soul side-by-side: the soul is an essential part of the body and
not simply an element that is released as the body dies (so, Bremmer 2001: 50
[citing, Haer. 1.6.1], and see Van Eijk 1971: 517–29).
In general, the texts of this period demonstrate multivalent understand-
ings of the afterlife: the Martyrdom of Polycarp stresses the resurrection
of both body and soul after death; for Ignatius, the unbeliever will have
a disembodied existence; and, for Justin, the wicked will have their same
bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting
punishment. Other texts such as1 Clem. 26, 2 Clem. 9, or Trall. 9 could
either refer to a resurrected body following death or the reward of the
flesh at the eschaton. Irenaeus, on the other hand, stands in continuity
with Second Temple Jewish texts except for the uniqueness of Christ’s
resurrection. Elsewhere, Athenagoras (c. 133–90), in his work On the Res-
urrection argues vigorously that the resurrection must include the body as
God’s judgement will fall upon both body and soul together after the two
are re-united.13 His treatise is written for those Christians who disbelieve
or doubt such a concept, and who, from his perspective, appear to be the
intelligentsia (Res. 1, 3). Conversely, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215)
conceived the afterlife in terms of the immortality of the soul which goes
to its reward or punishment immediately after death (so, Collins 2002:
357–77).
MINUCIUS FELIX AND TERTULLIAN
Marcus Minucius Felix was one of the earliest of the Latin apologists for
Christianity, now exclusively known through his work Octavius, a dialogue on
Christianity between the pagan Caecilius Natalis (perhaps a foil for a typical
‘heretic’ of Minucius’ day), and the Christian Octavius Januarius. Minucius
Felix stands between the two disputants and details their respective argu-
ments. Caecilius notes that the Christians look forward to the future confla-
gration of the whole world, the resurrection of the body, and to the blessed
eternity of the righteous; but that the wicked will be consigned to an eternity
of “extreme punishment.” For Caecilius, such a proposition is nothing more
than “old women’s fables [. . .] lies [and . . .] a double evil and a twofold
madness” (Oct. 11), and confirms his opinion that the Christians are, for the
most part, “untrained and illiterate” (Oct. 5). In whatever way death comes,
he argues, it means the end of the body, and he asks of Octavius:
Yet I should be glad to be informed whether or not you rise again with
bodies; and if so, with what bodies—whether with the same or with
renewed bodies? Without a body? Then, as far as I know, there will
neither be mind, nor soul, nor life. With the same body? But this has
already been previously destroyed. With another body? Then it is a new

man who is born, not the former one restored.
(Oct. 11)
Octavius argues that it is a “vulgar error” not to believe that the world
would be destroyed and that even the Greek philosophers Pythagoras and
Plato have delivered the doctrine of the resurrection: “for they will have
it, that the bodies being dissolved, the souls alone both abide forever, and
very often pass into other new bodies” (Oct. 34). Yet, Octavius also argues
that as humans were first of all formed by God, so they can be re-formed
and restored: “Every body, whether it is dried up into dust, or is dissolved
into moisture, or is compressed into ashes, or is attenuated into smoke, is
withdrawn from us, but it is reserved for God in the custody of the ele-
ments.” Because of this, he argues, “tortures most unjustly inflicted for the
confession of Christ’s name are spectacles worthy of God; a comparison
instituted between some of the bravest of the heathens and the holy mar-
tyrs” (Oct. 37). We see here, as Caroline Bynum has argued, that as well as
the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh being formed through polemical
debate with various Gnostic or docetic groups, it was also formulated within
the context of early Christian martyrdom:
We now know that the question of the nature of the resurrected body
continued to come up in important ways for hundreds of years and did
not always entail the same issues [. . .] Many of these early Christians
had a specific death in mind—that of the martyr. We should not find it
surprising that early exhortations to martyrdom stress God’s promise of
a body both transformed and “the same,” both impassible and identical
with the flesh of earth.
(Bynum 1995: 43, 45)
Hence, for Caecilius, Christians are of low status and uneducated and their
concept of bodily resurrection is not only nonsense and ignorant of classi-
cal ideas, but demonstrates an absence of reason (Oct. 5.3–4; 8.3–4; 11.8;
12.7). Furthermore, they are anti-social, showing no respect for the values of
their cultural milieu, but are arrogant in the sense that they denigrate life in
this world and believe that they alone will be saved from the conflagration
at the eschaton (Oct. 11.3; 12.6; and see Setzer 2005: 169–72).
In the writings of Tertullian (160–225), we see the continuity of the think-
ing of both Irenaeus and Justin.14 Like Irenaeus, he presents an extended
analysis of 1 Corinthians 15 (most likely dependent upon that of Irenaeus),
arguing that it is impossible that Paul could have meant the exclusion of
flesh and blood from the kingdom of God when Jesus, as both fully man
and God, is sitting at the Father’s right hand.15 Hence, for Tertullian: “The
flesh is already risen in Christ” (Res. 2). At the same time, certain Gospel
pericopes detailing the resurrection of the dead performed by the earthly

Jesus—particularly the raising of Lazarus in John 11—is proof of a resur-
rection of body and soul (Res. 38, 53). And like both Justin and Irenaeus,
he appears to be “under pressure of his opponents, who, denying the res-
urrection of the flesh, believed solely in a spiritual resurrection” (Van Eijk
1971: 522).16 Tertullian thus offers a similarly astute apologetical defence
of orthodoxy against the likes of Marcion, Basilides, Valentinus, and other
heresies (Res. 2).17 He admits that “a great many” Christians claim that
resurrection means the departing and ascent of the soul from the body, a
point made earlier by Polycarp when he asserted that there were “many”
who denied the physical resurrection of Christ (for him, heretics, whom he
describes as the “first-born of Satan”);”18 but Tertullian insists that resurrec-
tion must mean that of body and soul in order that the whole person can be
either rewarded or punished (Res. 17; and see Bynum 1995: 35). Elsewhere,
he argues against those who see the ‘resurrection’ as the post-baptismal state
for believers and the knowledge of special truth (Res. 2, 19, 63), or that
‘Resurrection of the Dead’ means the moral change of a new life (Res. 19).
In summary, during the second century CE, the resurrection of the body
became a major point of controversy among Christians and between Chris-
tians and their pagan critics, and yet by the time of Irenaeus and Tertul-
lian this had changed in that the resurrection of the flesh was set forth as
“authoritative Christian teaching,” and had become the orthodox view (so,
Bynum 1995: 21; Grant 1948: 128–30; Justin Dial. 80 above). As Grant
notes:
In that period no distinction was yet made between the resurrection of

the flesh, of the body, and of the dead. Yet the phrase “resurrection of
the flesh” is not scriptural and it may have been an attempt to conform
to biblical usage which caused the substitution of “resurrection of the
dead” in creeds and baptismal confessions after the middle of the fourth
century.
(1948: 130)
The main argument in favour of this change was that the soul was perceived
as unable to suffer any form of punishment alone, and so the body was
required to make this effective. It was held that the ‘justice’ of God was
only upheld in doing so (Tert. Res. 17; Athenagoras, Res. 21.4).19 A vital
stepping stone in the concept of the physically resurrected Christ, found
frequently in the period, is the passion narrative of the Gospel of Luke, a
key text for the Church Fathers from the time of Irenaeus onwards. Luke
provided the “conceptual framework” of resurrection and helped inform
the writers of the second century of a framework of orthodoxy (Morgan
1994: 13).
ORIGEN AND BEYOND
When we move into the third century, the major work is that of Origen
(c. 185–254 CE; see Carrier 2005; Decock 2012). From the second century
onwards, the topic of the resurrection, and more specifically the nature of
the resurrection ‘body,’ became not only a central issue in the internal strug-
gles within Christianity, but also between Christians and both Gnostics and
pagans.20 The internal debate is clear when Origen’s interlocutor, Celsus,
notes that some Christians do not hold the doctrine, and, as can be seen
from the following quote, pagans also began to employ the doctrine of the
resurrection as an argument with which to critique Christianity:
For what sort of human soul is that which would still long for a body that
had been subject to corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of yours is not
shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be exceedingly
vile, and loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body is that which,
after being completely corrupted, can return to its original nature, and to
that self-same first condition out of which it fell into dissolution?
(C. Cels. 5.14)
Celsus criticizes this Christian “doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which
has been preached in the Churches, and which is more clearly understood by
the more intelligent believer” (C. Cels. 5.18). Yet, Origen retorts that “Neither
we nor the sacred scriptures say that ‘those who died long ago rise from the
earth and shall live in the same flesh’ without that flesh having undergone a
change for the better” (C. Cels. 5.18; cf. 2.19.12). As such, Origen follows
Paul and his argument in 1 Corinthians 15, in that what is raised is neither the
same ‘flesh’ nor ‘body,’ but some form of transformed ‘body’ (C. Cels. 5.18;
8.49; 2.19.12).21 However, as Jan Bremmer notes: “During these debates, the
‘resurrection of the dead’ became even more sharply formulated as the ‘res-
urrection of the flesh’ thus leaving no doubt whatsoever about what kind of
resurrection the Christians meant” (2002: 51), and, for this reason, it appears
that the early church found the writings of Origen so unorthodox that he
drew accusations of heresy and his works were infrequently copied and may
even have been suppressed (Grant 1948: 192, 204). For C.F. Evans (1970: 11):
Exposition in the third and fourth CE took the form of either bitter
opposition to Origen for spiritualizing the doctrine away to the point
of Neo-Platonism (so, Methodius, Adamantius, Eustathius, Epiphanius,
Jerome), or a partial or whole-hearted use of Origen (so, Cyril of Jeru-
salem, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa). Revealing, is the line of Synesius of
Cyrene, who, when pressed to be bishop, agreed on condition that he
was allowed to retain his Neo-Platonist convictions and to interpret the
resurrection of the flesh allegorically (Ep. 105).22
The pagan criticism of Christ’s apparent resurrection noted by Celsus cen-

tres on the parallels with Greco-Roman mythology; that a father of the gods
allows one of his offspring to die, only to raise them back to life. So, too,
Celsus asks the awkward question that if Christ actually possessed divine
miraculous power, why did he not appear also to outsiders and opponents,
and especially the people as a whole:
While he was alive he did not help himself, but after death he rose again
and showed the marks of his punishment and how his hands had been
pierced. But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps
some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who
either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking
had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion—an experience which
has happened to thousands—or, which is more likely, wanted to impress
the others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story
to provide a chance for other beggars.
(C. Cels. 2.55)23
Celsus’ questions are difficult for Origen to answer for a number of reasons:
he cannot offer unambiguous historical proof of the resurrection (C. Cels.
1.42); he is aware of allegations that the texts of the Gospels have been
tampered with (2.27); and he is also aware that they contain discrepan-
cies (5.55–56; so, Stanton 1994: 83). Further, Celsus asserts that Christians
are uneducated and of low-status and that their claim of bodily resurrec-
tion is a manifestation of their lack of reason (C. Cels. 7.28, 32, 42–45;
8.49). Finally, bodily resurrection offends reason: the soul is entrapped and
weighed down by the body and the thought of its return is ridiculous and
distasteful (C. Cels. 2.55; 4.60–61; 5.14; 8.53). In some senses then, Origen
mitigates the pagan distaste for bodily/fleshly resurrection with his ‘sort-
of-bodily continuity;’ bodies which will, “become like the bodies of angels,
ethereal and of a shining light. They will be without age or sex” (so, Bynum
1995: 67).24
Other relevant third-century texts would include the Acts of Perpetua and
Felicitas (c. 203 CE), in which one Saturus had a vision whereupon both he
and Perpetua put off the flesh and are carried to the east by four angels. There,
they are taken to a garden and to the throne of God, at which point Perpetua
declares that she is happier now than when she was in the flesh (see Bremmer
2001: 58–59; Droge 1995: 155–69). In the Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus
and Agathonike found in Eusebius’ Church History, the author notes that,
on death, all three gave up the soul to heaven: “Papylus gave up his soul [. . .]
and Carpus did the same [. . .] as did Agathonike” (4.15.37–48).25 Christian
martyrs in particular were said to ascend to heaven immediately on death
(e.g., Martyrdom of Polycarp 14.2; Passio Scill. 15; Passio Fructuosi 5), and
the Shepherd of Hermas (3.2.1; 140 CE) notes that although all Christians
on death gain immediate entry to heaven, the martyrs sit at Christ’s right
hand while the others are placed on the left (Bremmer 2001: 58).
The controversy over the nature of Christ’s resurrected form lasted into
the fifth century at least, and, for Gregory Riley: “That the ancients could
easily interpret the very resurrection texts themselves in non-physical terms
is missed by some modern interpreters. The counterargument of the Church
took the form of a virtual justification of the flesh” (Riley 1995: 63). Jerome
(347–420), in the early fifth century, was writing against “the foul cisterns
of the heretics,” those “noxious vipers and deadly pests,” who question
whether the resurrection body is the same as the earthly. Here, the ‘heretic’
employs the writing of Paul in 1 Corinthians, in that “the [resurrected] bod-
ies that we shall have in heaven will be subtle and spiritual according to the
words of the apostle: ‘it is sown a natural body: it is raised a spiritual body’ ”
(Ep. 108.23).26 Jerome rejects the seed metaphor of 1 Corinthians 15 as it
expressed too much change between earth and heaven (Contra Joannem chs
23–26), and he goes on to employ the resurrection narratives of Luke and
John to argue that the bodily resurrection of Christ was “real and not merely
apparent:”
the Lord Himself said, “reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands;
and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless
but believing,” and in another place, “behold my hands and my feet that
it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as
ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands
and his feet.” You hear Him speak of bones and flesh, of feet and hands;
and yet you want to palm off on me the bubbles and airy nothings of
which the stoics rave!
(Ep. 108.24)
Augustine partly agrees with Jerome, and disagrees with those who rejected
the resurrection of the flesh, castigating them as heretics. For him, resurrec-
tion of the flesh, or the body, complements the immortality of the soul—
together, they are the “new and specific Christian hope” (so, Van Eijk 1971:
529).27 Augustine differed from Jerome only in advocating greater change
between Christ’s earthly and heavenly body, although together they viewed
resurrection as the restoration of the original bodily material. Like Jerome,
Augustine rejected Paul’s seed metaphor of 1 Corinthians 15 for a metaphor
of reassembled vessels or buildings (so, drawing upon 2 Corinthians 5; see
Bynum 1995: 94–95). Other relevant texts which demonstrate the on-going
discussion of the resurrection of the body include Methodius, Basil, and
Gregory of Nyssa: all exponents of the resurrected body (see Bynum 1995:
59–82). Conversely, for the Christian apologist Arnobius, the body is a “dis-
gusting vessel of urine” and “bag of shit,”28 and for Ambrose, the body was
a wretched prison for the soul, which aches to escape from pain (De excess
Satyri bk. 2, ch. 20).29 Even by the end of the sixth-century, the debate con-
tinued. Eustratios, who flourished in the 590s, critiqued the view that the
souls of the departed sleep until the resurrection and argued that the soul
lives actively in the afterlife.30 Gregory the Great (c. 540–604), too, was
aware of some who still doubted or rejected the resurrection of the flesh (see
Bynum 1995: 60).
SUMMARY
In summary, the period following the writing of the New Testament up to

the sixth century CE, was one of multivalent and contrasting ideas concern-
ing the resurrection of the physical body. Even among orthodox Christians, it
appears that the doctrine generated puzzlement and confusion, and certainly
amongst the pagan critics of Christianity fomented incredulity and opposi-
tion. The context for many Biblical scholars who write on the resurrection
is in the desire to see consistency within the New Testament; yet, as we have
seen, Paul, on the one hand, and the later New Testament writers (particu-
larly Luke, and followed by John), on the other, are approaching the nature
of post-mortem existence from very different directions. Paul is aligned with
Second Temple Jewish texts which lay an overwhelming emphasis on the
afterlife of the soul alone; but Luke and John, some decades later, and with a
now radically re-formed and largely Gentile dominated Christ-movement, are
more attuned to Greco-Roman traditions, which emphasized the importance
of the physical body in the process of immortalization and deification.31 In
the tumult of the fight against various ‘heresies’ which engulfed the Church of
the second-century church and beyond, the Church Fathers polemicized this
even further to make the doctrine of the physically resurrected Christ a point
of theological orthodoxy. So, for instance, the phrase ‘resurrection of the dead’
(still retained in the Nicene Creed) was superseded by ‘resurrection of the flesh’
to combat Gnostics and others who appealed to 1 Corinthians 15. Epiphanius
argued in a similar way against the Valentinians who saw themselves as being
faithful to apostle’s teaching (Panarion 31.7.6). However, between the time of
Polycarp and Tertullian, those asserting the Pauline position were clearly the
majority (Polycarp, Ad. Phil. 7; Tertullian, Res. 2.2; 17; 53.12).
NOTES
1. Discussion of the effects of rising numbers of Gentiles will be left to the con-
clusion of this chapter.
2. On texts relating to the deprecation of the flesh, see Grant (1948: 188).
3. See also, Bedard (2012: 453), who writes, “It is common to make the gen-
eralization that a disembodied spiritual afterlife is a Greek concept and that
a bodily resurrection is a Jewish concept . . . [this] ignores the fact that the
concepts of a disembodied spirit and a bodily resurrection were competing and
co-existent even within Jewish traditions.”
4. Cf. 12.2, [I greet all of you] in the name of Jesus Christ and in his flesh and
blood, his suffering and resurrection (which was both physical and spiritual),
in unity with God and with you.” See also Smyrn. 5.2, where he notes that blas-
phemy is not confessing that Christ was clothed in flesh: “Anyone who does not
acknowledge this thereby denies him completely and is clothed in a corpse.”
5. Some also cite The Epistle of Barnabas 5.6, although this is more likely to refer
to the fleshly earthly ministry of Christ.
6. See, Grant (1948; 188–208); Lehtipuu (2009); Setzer (2004); Van Eijk (1971:
517–29).
7. 1 Apology chs. 18–21, 51–52, 66; Dialogue with Trypho chs. 80–81, 107.
8. Cf. Apol. 1.8, “And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and
Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the
same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the
same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting
punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.”
9. Cf. Apol. 1.18: “we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they
be dead and cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is
impossible.”
10. Apol. 1.52, “And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are
to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as
follows: ‘Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;’ and
then shall they repent, when it profits them not.”
11. See the general thrust of Against Heresies 5.1–15 (esp. chs 7, 9).
12. Lehtipuu (2009: 148), citing, Irenaeus Haer. 5.9–14; Tertullian Res. 48–50.
13. On the Resurrection 3, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21–22. On Athenagoras see, Barnard
(1976, 1984); Evans (1970: 7–8); Grant (1954: 121–29); Marcovich (1979:
375–82); Setzer (2005: 165–69).
14. On Tertullian, Grant (1948: 188–208); Lehtipuu (2009: 147–68); Setzer
(2004: 133–43). Relevant texts are, De Resurrectione Carnis 2, 15–19, 22, 38,
48, 53, 63
15. Res. 48.
16. See also, Res. 2.2; 18; 19.2–7; 22; 38.3; 53.
17. On Marcion see Paget (2012); Vinzent (2011). On Valentinus see Thomassen
(2009).
18. Res. 2.2; 17; 53.12; Polycarp, Ad. Phil. 7. See, Riley (1995: 60).
19. Riley maintains that it is against these Christian proponents of physical resur-
rection that the Book of Thomas is written (1995: 163).
20. Likewise, the debate over the resurrection of the flesh is also found in the
Gospel of Philip. See, Collins (2002: 357–77); Lehtipuu (2009).
21. See Grant (1948).
22. Cf. Van Eijk (1971: 523).
23. Translation by Chadwick (1965: 109). See also, Alsup (1975); Lapide (1983:
42); Setzer (2005: 155–75).
24. She also notes that Origen seems “to sacrifice integrity of bodily structure for
the sake of transformation” (68).
25. The tradition of Eusebius has their martyrdom c. 155–65, so at the same time
as Polycarp and Justin Martyr; another tradition has their deaths c. 261 during
the persecutions of Decius.
26. See also, Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 25. On Jerome, see Grant
(1948); Bynum (1995: 86–9).
27. On Augustine see, Bovon (2010: 389–40); Chilton (2000: 235–36); Grant
(1948: 207–08); McDannell & Lang (2001: 54–8).
28. Origen, C. Cels. 5.24; Arnobius, Adversus nations ed. A. Reifferscheid, CSEL
4, bk 2 ch. 37, pp. 77–8.
29. On the theme of the body as prison (also trap and tomb) of the soul see
Courcelle (1975: 2.345–414).
30. On the Condition of Souls after they have departed from the body [De stau
animarum post mortem, CPG 7522]; see, Bovon (2010: 358).

31. See the piercing questions asked by Richard C. Carrier on the disjuncture
between Paul and the Church Fathers in (2005: 114, 123).
SOURCES CITED
ALSUP, J. (1975) The post-resurrection appearance stories of the gospel tradition: a

history-of-tradition analysis with text-synopsis. London: SPCK.
BARNARD, L.W. (1976) Athenagoras: De Resurrectione: The Background and The-
ology of a Second century treatise on the Resurrection. Studia Theologica. 30,
pp. 1–42.
BARNARD, L.W. (1984) The Authenticity of Athenagoras’ De Resurrectione. Studia
patristica. 15, pp. 39–49.
BEDARD, S.J. (2012) A Nation of Heroes: From Apotheosis to Resurrection. In VAN
BOVON, F. (2010) The Soul’s Comeback: Immortality and Resurrection in Early
Christianity. Harvard Theological Review. 103 (4), pp. 387–406.
BREMMER, J.N. (2001) The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife. London: Routledge.
BYNUM, C.W. (1995) The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–
1336. New York: Columbia University Press.
CARRIER, R.C. (2005) The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty
Tomb. In PRICE, R.M. & LOWDER, J.J. (eds), The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond
the Grave. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
CHADWICK, H. (1965) Origen Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
CHILTON, B. (2000) Resurrection in the Gospels. In AVERY-PECK, A.J. & NEUS-
NER, J. (eds), Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After-Death, Res-
urrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaism of Antiquity. Handbook of
COURCELLE, P. (1975) Connais-toi toi-même: De Sacrate à saint Bernard. Vol. 2.
Paris: Études augustiniennes.
DAVIS, J.G. (1972) Factors Leading to the Emergence of Belief in the Resurrection
of the Flesh. Journal of Theological Studies. 23, pp. 448–55.
DECOCK, P.B. (2012) The Resurrection According to Origen of Alexandria. In VAN
DROGE, A.J. (1995) The Crown of Immortality: Toward a Redescription of Chris-
tian Martyrdom. In COLLINS, J. & FISHBANE, M. (eds), Death, Ecstasy, and
Other Worldly Journeys. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
pp. 120–30 and 28 (3), pp. 188–208.
GRANT, R.M. (1954) Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras. Harvard Theological
Review. 47, pp. 121–29.
LAPIDE, P. (1983) The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Translated by
LINSS, W.C. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
LEHTIPUU, O. (2009) “Flesh and Blood Cannot inherit the Kingdom of God:” The
Transformation of the Flesh in the Early Christian Debates Concerning Resurrec-
tion. In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J. (eds), Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body

and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity. Ekstasis: Religious Experience
from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Vol. 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
MARCOVICH, M. (1979) On the Text of Athenagoras. De Resurrectione. Vigiliae
Christianae: A Review of Early Christian Life and Language. 33, pp. 375–82.
MCDANNELL, C. & LANG, B. (2001) Heaven: A History. New Haven: Yale.
MORGAN, R. (1994) Flesh is Precious: The Significance of Luke 24: 36–43. In
BARTON, S. & STANTON, G. (eds), Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie
Houlden. London: SPCK.
PAGET, J.C. (2012) Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent
Book. Journal of the Study of the New Testament. 35 (1), pp. 74–102.
ity: Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition. Boston & Leiden: Brill.
SETZER, C. (2005) Pagans, Jews and Christians debate the resurrection. In BAK-
HOS, C. (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context. Leiden: Brill.
STANTON, G. (1994) Early Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus. In BARTON,
S. & STANTON, G. (eds), Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden.
London: SPCK.
STUHLMACHER, P. (1993) The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the
Dead. Ex Auditu. 9, pp. 45–56.
THOMASSEN, E. (2009) Valentinian Ideas about Salvation as Transformation.
In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J. (eds), Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and
Transformative Practices in Early Christianity. Ekstasis: Religious Experience
from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Vol. 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
VAN EIJK, A.H.C. (1971) Only that Can Rise which Has Previously Fallen: The
History of a Formula. Journal of Theological Studies. 22, pp. 517–29.
VINZENT, M. (2011) Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of
the New Testament. Farnham: Ashgate.
8 What the . . .?
Developments of Hell in its Jewish
and Christian Contexts1
To conclude our investigation of afterlife in antiquity it will be of interest

and relevance to plot the development of the category of ‘hell’ in the sense of
an afterlife environment of (perpetual) torture and retribution. This begins
to take on a dominant role within the Gospels and, thereafter, amongst the
writings of the Church Fathers. It is further accentuated within the medieval
period and beyond. Although its doctrinal or theological authority within
contemporary western Christendom has largely waned, within non-western
contemporary Christianity it has a high level of enduring influence. In antiq-
uity, as Christianity spread eastward in the post-apostolic age—as had Juda-
ism before it—and especially in the development of Byzantine culture, the
early Medieval doctrine of hell as a place of eternal punishment for the
wicked also had a powerful influence on Islam, for the Quran is replete with
vivid descriptions of hell as a place of perpetual suffering.
AFTERLIFE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND SECOND

TEMPLE JUDAISM2
Hell, as a place of eternal suffering and punishment, does not exist in the
Hebrew Bible. As noted in Chapter 2, early Israelite thought on death simply
assumed that it marked for all people the end of worth-while existence. The
underworld realm was Sheol or the Pit, synonymous with ‘death’ and the
‘grave,’ or the ‘places of the dead;’ it was a place for the soul/shade and is
reflected upon simply as an undesirable abode and a place of no return. Yet,
Sheol was not a place of punishment for the wicked, it was simply the place
where the souls of all the dead go.3 As we move into the period of Second
Temple Judaism, the reception history of the ‘afterlife’ texts of the Hebrew
Bible within the Maccabean period show an interesting development. There
is continuity in that, on death, the soul/spirit heads to Sheol, a place in the
lowest regions of the earth where it remained for a while or forever.4 Yet,
there is also sharp discontinuity. One of the earliest and clearest expressions
of this change is found in Dan 12.1–3 where the various crises of the period
generated ideological reflection upon an afterlife which, to the lament of
What the . . .? 159
the Hebrew Bible, saw no distinction between the righteous and the wicked.
How could the righteous heroic Jew, put to death for refusal to compromise
Torah, comport with those who were all too willing to Hellenize and forsake
the traditions of Israel?5 The texts of this period, of which Daniel is a part,
demonstrate a conceptual shift to take cognisance of the deaths of these
righteous martyrs, and, henceforth, for the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal
literature, the souls of the righteous would head in a very different direction
to those of the wicked.

In the Apocrypha, we find the author of Sirach noting that “it is easy for
the Lord on the day of death to reward individuals according to their con-
duct” (11.26), and for Tobit, the (righteous) spirit is released to an eternal
home (in a positive sense, 3.6). The texts that make up 1 Enoch (second
century BCE) are perhaps the earliest within Second Temple Judaism which
provide an expression of the concept of explicit divisions within Sheol for
the righteous and the wicked.6 Here, Sheol is conceived as a place of pun-
ishment and suffering in a number of ways: unbelievers will be “thrown
into the judgment of fire, and perish in wrath and in the force of the eternal
judgment” (91.9b; cf. v. 14); or sinners will burn in torment “in blazing
flames worse than fire” (100.9; 108.5, 14);7 or the destruction of the wicked
will come at the hands of the righteous (98.10–13).8 Further references to
the fires of hell are found in 1 En. 54.1–2; 63.1, 5–8; 56.8; and the idea of
eternal torment in 1 En. 22 and 10.6–13 (see further Räisänen 2012a).
This theme continues amongst other Second Temple Jewish texts. For the
author of the Apocalypse of Abraham, God has enkindled “a fiery Gehenna”
(15.6) in which will be burned those who humiliated and mocked his people
and ruled over them; he has prepared the wicked to be “food for the fire
of Hades” and “the contents of a wormy belly” (31.3). Henceforth, “they
shall putrefy in the belly of the crafty worm Azazel and be burned by the
fire of Azazel’s tongue” (31.5). According to the Psalms of Solomon, “the
destruction of the sinner is forever and he will not be remembered [. . .]
Their lawless actions shall pursue them below into Hades” (3.11–12; 15.10;
cf. 13.11), which may imply continuous suffering (see 2.34). So, too, in 14.9
the inheritance of sinners is “Hades, and darkness and destruction.” The
book of Judith employs the fire and worms of Isaiah 66 in the sense of end-
less torment (16.17), while in Pseudo-Philo, there is a “place of fire” in the
underworld (23.6; cf. 16.3). In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah hideous angels
cast the souls of the wicked into eternal punishment (4.7), and Zephaniah
sees the abode of Hades as a “sea of flame like a slime which casts forth
much flame and whose waves burn sulfur and bitumen” (6.2). Similarly,
for the sectarian community at Qumran, God will destroy the idolaters and
wicked from the earth (1QpHab 13; 1 QS 5.13), where there will be torment
followed by annihilation (1QS 4.12–14). Here, the wicked will be punished
by destroying angels and will experience eternal torment and damnation in
“sorrowful mourning and in bitter misery and in calamities of darkness until
they are destroyed without remnant or survivor.”
160 What the . . .?
Conversely, 1 Enoch maintains that the souls of the righteous shall live in
peace all their days: “Be not sad that your souls have gone down into Sheol
in sorrow,” for there is the promise of restoration (102.4f.). This is further
accentuated in the Wisdom of Solomon (first century BCE): “The souls of
the righteous are in the hand of God [. . .] they are at peace [. . .] their hope is
full of immortality [. . .] they will govern nations and rule over peoples [. . .]
the Lord will reign over them forever [. . .] they will stand with confidence
[and] will receive a glorious crown” (Wis 3.1, 7; 5.1, 15). For the wicked
however, their spirits will wander about in torments and, for them, “there
will be no resurrection to life” (4 Ezra 7.80–99; cf. 2 Macc 7.14). Elsewhere,
Pseudo-Philo (first century CE), even quotes God himself to confirm the
same: “At the end of the lot of each one of you will be life eternal, for you
and your seed, and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the
time allotted the world be complete” (22.13). Hence, all souls are held in
Hades until the day of judgement, and the souls of the righteous are kept
in what are called ‘chambers,’ where they are guarded by angels, and where
they rejoice that they have now escaped what is mortal.
As we have seen, from the perspective of Josephus, once the righteous
soul is released from the treasury it then undergoes a transformation into
the glorified splendour of angels. For the wicked, however, things are very
different. Josephus notes that they are to be detained in an everlasting prison
where their souls are subject to eternal punishment (War 2.163; Ant. 18.14).
2 Baruch confirms the same: “After the appointed day, the wicked will be
changed into startling visions and horrible shapes; and they will waste away
even more. Then they will go away to be tormented” (cf. 51.1–6). That this
section of 2 Baruch speaks of the afterlife of the soul and not the body com-
ports with 49.1–3 where the author looks forward to the soul’s release from
its evil chained members, i.e., the body.
For some authors, the souls of the righteous will be given garments of
glory where the righteous will shine like the lights of heaven (1 En. 51.1–2),9
and others concur with Josephus in that resurrected souls will become like
angels (see Cavallin 1974: 203–205; Sim 1996: 142–45). For Philo, Abraham
left the mortal realm to be “added to the people of God [. . .] having received
immortality, and having become equal to the angels [. . .] for the angels are
incorporeal and happy souls” (Sacr. 1.5). In the Ascension of Isaiah, too, the
writer describes the seventh heaven, where he saw Enoch and all who were
with him “in their robes of the above, and they were like the angels who
stand there in great glory” (9.7–8). As for 1 Enoch: “the righteous and the
holy ones from among (the risen dead), will all become angels in heaven [. . .]
The righteous will shine like the lights of heaven” (1 En. 51.1–2; cf. 104.2).
In summary, the reception of the Hebrew Bible’s concept of afterlife
within Second Temple Jewish texts demonstrates both continuity and yet
discontinuity. There is continuity in the sense that the afterlife experience
is for the soul alone, not the body. The body, as many comparative texts of
the ancient Near East recognize, simply decomposes (see Brandon 1967;
What the . . .? 161
Tromp 1969). The dramatic change within Second Temple Judaism rests in
the demarcation of righteous and wicked souls after death and their final
place of abode. The righteous soul departs to a place of blessing, the wicked
to a place of torment. This sharp disjuncture emerges within a context of
ideological reflection within the Maccabean crisis and is made for a number
of polemical or apologetic reasons.
HELL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
So how does this comport with the concept of a tortuous afterlife in the New
Testament? Within the earliest writings of the New Testament, which are the
genuine letters of the apostle Paul, there is no Hades, no Gehenna, no ‘pit,’
and no ‘hell.’ There will certainly be a day of wrath when vengeance will be
inflicted on the unbelieving, but there is no concept of an eternal suffering
in the fires of hell.10 In this sense, Paul simply assumes that sinners and
unbelievers will have a different fate to believers; i.e., only the dead in Christ
are raised (1 Thess 4.16; 1 Cor 15.23). Although the apostle is unspecific,
it would appear that deceased non-believers are not resurrected at all (per-
haps being annihilated after judgement). As argued above, in the Corinthian
correspondence (esp. 1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 4–5) we find Paul in continuity with
Second Temple Jewish texts in that he envisions an afterlife comprised of the
soul, although he can confusingly employ body language. As noted there, at
this point he does not mean an existence of flesh-and-blood (1 Cor 15.50),
but some kind of anthropomorphic entity capable of housing the spirit. His
revelatory experience was of the new post-mortem existence of Christ in the
form of christophanic glory similar to theophanies noted of Yahweh in the
Hebrew Bible, of which no author uses the term ‘body.’11 What Paul appears
to mean in terms of the glorified Christ is actually a new entity stripped of
its natural flesh and blood.
Along with the weight of Second Temple Jewish texts discussed above,
and particularly the writings of Josephus, Paul most likely construes Jesus’
death being followed by his soul raised from Sheol (i.e., from the dead);
and, as Josephus, being taken up to heaven. From there the now glorified
Christ returns from the heavens to reveal himself in successive christopha-
nies. Whereas for Josephus, the soul will “at the end of the ages” enter a new
habitation, for Paul, his revelatory encounter with the risen Christ functions
as some kind of proleptic experience, a depiction of the first-fruits and an
image of the splendour awaiting believers. At the end of the age, when there
is a new or re-creation, the righteous will be transformed into some new
existence which Paul describes (in 1 Cor 15) as a resurrection ‘body’ or, later
(2 Cor 5), as a dwelling from heaven, a house/building from God eternal in
the heavens. So, the ‘chaste body/new habitation’ of Josephus can be seen
to stand in correlation to the new heavenly ‘form’ that Paul experienced—
within the perspective of Luke, in any case—on the Damascus road.
162 What the . . .?
In sum, the reception of the afterlife scenarios of the Hebrew Bible
within the Pauline corpus, like those of other Second Temple Jewish texts,
demonstrate both continuity and discontinuity. Paul is in continuity with
an emphasis on the afterlife of the soul/spirit and not a resurrected physical
earthly body (and so is consistent with other Second Temple texts), and yet
he stands in discontinuity with the Hebrew Bible in his affirmation of a
day of wrath and distinctions of afterlife scenarios for the souls of the righ-
teous as opposed to the wicked. He stands in continuity with other Second

Temple Jewish texts when they speak of a positive afterlife for the soul of
the righteous and when they speak of eternal punishment for the wicked
(2 Thess 1.9).12
It is only in the Synoptic Gospels (and James 3.6) that, for the first time in
the Biblical literature, we see the construct of what is normally understood
as Hell (the translation of the Greek, Gehenna).13 In Mark 9.43 it is placed
on the lips of Jesus: “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better
to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell.” It is repeated
in 9.45,
If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter
life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell.
and in 9.47,
If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be
cast into hell.
In this section of the Markan text there are numerous textual variants: in
particular, the identical statements of vv. 44 and 46 (“where their worm does
not die and the fire is not quenched”), are omitted by a large number of sig-
nificant manuscripts and should not be read (so, Lane 1974: 346; Metzger
1994: 86–87). At Mark 9.45 the textual apparatus of the UBS4 details the
textual variants found alongside the Greek phrase ei0v th\n ge/ennan (into hell)
which is also found at 9.43. These include:
ei0v ge/ennan (lacking the definite article)

ei0v th\n ge/ennan, to_u puro=v (into the hell of fire)
ei0v to_ pu=r to_ a!sbeston (into the unquenchable fire)
ei0v th\n ge/ennan, ei0v to_ pu=r to_ a!sbeston (into hell, into the unquenchable
fire)
A likely scenario for these textual changes would be that the original text
was simply: “it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, with two feet
to be thrown into hell,” which would then parallel vv. 43 & 47. Yet, such a
reading gives no sense of either the type of punishment to be administered
What the . . .? 163
in hell, or the temporal longevity of that punishment. In these instances, the
various textual variants, through scribal additions, can be seen to deter-
mine and accentuate the nature of Gehenna: it is now the “fire of hell” or
the “unquenchable fire,” where “their worm does not die, and the fire is
not quenched” (v. 44). These various additions assert unambiguously that
Gehenna will be a place of eternal punishment (so, Raisanen 2012a: 369).
Furthermore, Mark 9.49 is found in three major textual forms: “For
everyone will be salted with fire;” “For every sacrifice will be salted with
fire;” and “For everyone will be salted with fire and every sacrifice will be
salted with fire.” The various additional minor textual variants with these
phrases are even more diverse and are not found in the Synoptic parallels of
Matthew or Luke (see, Lane 1974: 346–47; Metzger 1994: 87). Especially
interesting is that Matthew, who employs ge/enan more extensively than
Mark or Luke, omits Mark’s ei0v th\n ge/enan in his parallel of Mark 9.43. It
would thus appear that the various scribal additions to Mark appeared in
the later textual history of the Gospel with the sole purpose of accentuating
the horror of Gehenna.
In a similar way, the extensive use of Gehenna in Matthew may be for
apologetic or polemical reasons where he follows the (original) Markan tra-
dition, yet extends and intensifies it as part of a sustained anti-Jewish polemic
(see Stanton 1992). This is certainly clear in Matt 23.15, 33 (and possibly
5.22 and 10.28) where he employs Gehenna in the context of a sharp attack
on the Pharisees. Indeed, throughout his Gospel, Matthew repeatedly under-
mines the authority of the Pharisees and criticizes their behaviour:
• 5:11–12. God’s favour rests with a faithful minority ‘persecuted for

righteousness sake’ who are contrasted (5:20) with the unrighteous
Pharisees.
• ch. 6 highlights the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes.
• 8.5–13, the faith of the centurion and the messianic banquet at which
the Jews are rejected.
• The parable of the vineyard (21:33–46). The Kingdom of God will be
taken away and handed over to other tenants/nation (Gk, ethnos). The
Pharisees realize that he is referring to them. Both of these points are
Matthean additions or alterations to Mark.
• ch. 23 contains the most sustained polemic. The sustained denunciation
of the Pharisees; attribution to them of the death of prophets, wise men,
and scribes.
• Matthew’s use of ‘Jews’ indicates an ideological break (28:15). This is
also evident in Matthew’s use of “their” synagogues (4:23; 9:35; 10:17;
12:9; 13:54). In the last two texts, Matthew has added these to his
Markan source (and cf. “your” synagogues in 23:35).
Elsewhere in Matthew there are those who will be thrown into “outer dark-
ness” or into the “furnace of fire” where there will be “weeping and gnashing
164 What the . . .?
of teeth.” Six of the seven New Testament occurrences of this phrase appear
in Matthew.14 These are found in the pericopes of the banquets of Matt 8.12
and 22.13 where the unwelcome guests are cast out; in 13.42 (the Parable
of the Tares) and 13.50 (the Parable of the Dragnet), where punishment is
made against the wicked and those who commit lawlessness; and finally,
in 24.15 (the Parable of the Faithful Servant) and 25.50 (the Parable of the
Talents), where punishment is served on the hypocrites and worthless slaves.
In the latter, the final scene of judgement has the slave cast into the eternal
fire (25.31–46).
Matthew 7.13 also claims that the narrow gate and difficult road for the
few is contrasted with the wide gate and the easy road for the many which
leads to destruction (a)pw&leia). In 10.28, Matthew has a dramatic use of
Gehenna when he asserts: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable
to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body
in hell.” The Lukan parallel to this text is of interest for while Luke 12.5 omits
the language of the soul, he does, like Matthew, have a single dramatic use
of Gehenna: “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He
has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!” That said,
the parallel to various Matthean texts in Luke 13.28, has the evildoers being
cast out and who then suffer “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” and Luke also
has a vivid description of a rich man being tormented in Hades and suffering
agony in the flames. Here it appears that the soul of the poor man is carried
away by angels to the bosom of Abraham (as Job in T. Job or Adam in Apoc.
Moses), while the body of the rich man is buried and his soul descends to the
underworld. Interestingly, the torment begins immediately on death.15
Elsewhere in the Gospels, Gehenna is used consistently to refer to a place
of punishment prepared for the wicked. These include: the devil and his
angels (Matt 25.41; Luke 8.31); the hypocrites and disobedient;16 and those
who reject Jesus, or God, or the prophets.17 For the Synoptic writers, Gehenna
may be pre-existent (Matt 25.41, where it has been ‘prepared’ beforehand),
and its punishment is eternal (Matt 25.41, 46). It stands as both the place of
judgement for the soul of the wicked immediately after death (Luke 12.5),
and for the judgement of the wicked in a reunited body-and-soul after resur-
rection and judgement (Matt 10.28).18 Predictably, its location is understood
by Jesus to be in the depths of the earth (Matt 11.23; Luke 10.15), and, as
noted, there is an emphasis that individuals sent here will be in the body.19
Finally, it seems that Jesus taught that hell would involve an eternal, con-
scious punishment, with such images as the “undying worm,” the “fire that is
not put out,” and the emotive picture of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”20
Räisänen remarks that “Several of Jesus’ hell sayings bear an embarrassing
harshness towards members of the in-group (Mark 9.43–47; Matt 5.29–30);
such threats are warning exhortations to the in-group, sometimes in drastic
hyperbolic language” (2012: 376).21
So, the language of the afterlife placed upon the lips of Jesus in the Gos-
pels vis-à-vis the demarcation of the righteous and the wicked stands in
What the . . .? 165
continuity with Second Temple Judaism but not with the Hebrew Bible. Yet,
such language also stands in discontinuity with Second Temple Judaism in
its assertion that postmortem judgement will be made in a bodily form. As
we have seen, this is part of a trend towards the end of the first century CE
and beyond where discussion took place over the punishment of the wicked
and the necessity of the presence of the body. As it was thought that the
immortal soul could feel no pain, a physical aspect to post-mortem existence
was necessary in order for suitable punishment to take place.22

Hence, the textual history of the Gospel of Mark, and subsequent addi-
tions and changes in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, demonstrates the
editorial activity of various later scribes in order to accentuate the horrors
of the afterlife for the wicked. As noted, this may be part of a polemical
or apologetic move during the late first and early second centuries as the
Christ-movement came into increasing conflict with both Judaism and
Roman imperialism (particularly with regard to the Roman Imperial Cult23),
and even from intra-Christian conflict(s) concerning various schismatic
groups.24
AFTERLIFE IN THE LATER NEW TESTAMENT AND

POST-APOSTOLIC LITERATURE25
Descriptions of the afterlife in the later New Testament and post-apostolic

literature continue the trend established in the Gospels. Hell is now a place
of eternal punishment for the wicked described in language which becomes
increasingly horrific.26
For Jude and 2 Peter, the end of the wicked is “destruction” (2 Pet 1.12;
2.1, 3; 3.16), where the destruction of Sodom is an example of fiery judge-
ment (Jude 7; 2 Pet 2:6–10; cf. Matt 10:15; 1 Clem. 11.1–2). God will rescue
the righteous from the fire as he did Lot, whereupon he will then destroy
both heaven and earth in a fiery conflagration (2 Pet 3.7–12). The author of
the pseudonymous text of 2 Thessalonians describes the parousia of Christ
being revealed in flaming fire, “inflicting vengeance” on the unbeliever and
the disobedient: “These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction”
which means the separation “from the presence of the Lord” (1.7–9). The
explicit sense here is of an eternal retributive punishment. The later New
Testament also offers a picture of Christ descending into Hell during the
time between his death and resurrection to preach to the spirits in prison
(1 Pet 3.19; 4.6; Eph 4.9–10), a doctrine which was firmly established by the
second century in the works of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and the apocryphal
Gospel of Nicodemus.27
The most sustained and graphic picture of the horrors of the afterlife in
the later New Testament is found in the book of Revelation. Here, the final
abode for both the wicked angels and the unrighteous is the “lake of fire,”
where, “The smoke of their torment goes up forever” (14.11; cf. 19.20;
166 What the . . .?
20.10–15). Räisänen notes that as the smoke goes up in the presence of
the lamb, “it seems that he is pleased with the spectacle” (2012: 370). The
fire or burning sulphur is common in a range of extra-Biblical apocalyptic
literature where it is equivalent to Gehenna.28 Certainly, the beast and
false prophet, followed by the devil, death, and Hades, join the wicked
in being cast into this fiery lake (20.10, 14–15, 20; 21.8). The book of
Revelation also employs the language of the Abyss, a bottomless pit, from
which the beast emerges to make war on the saints (9.1–2; 11.7; 14.18;
17.8; 20.1–3, 7).29 Interestingly, Rev 20.13–15 also notes the significance
of the resurrection and final judgement which takes place at the eschaton,
but one which, for some, is followed by punishment. Like Matthew, the
emphasis on the punishment of the unbeliever in Revelation may also be
for an anti-Jewish or anti-Roman polemic (Rev 2.9–10, 14, 20; 3.9; Friesen
2001; Pagels 2012).
The picture of Hell in the later New Testament is continued into the
post-apostolic age with the language of “unquenchable fire” in Ignatius
(35/50–98/115),30 “burning hell” and “eternal destruction” in the Shepherd
of Hermas (95/100),31 and, in Polycarp (69–155 CE), the fire of coming
judgement and eternal punishment reserved for the ungodly—an eternal fire
which is never extinguished.32 The author of 2 Clement (17.5–7), quoting
Isaiah 66, notes that the righteous will see how the apostates are “punished
with grievous torments in unquenchable fire [. . .] their worm does not die
[. . .] and they are a spectacle to all flesh.”33 Justin Martyr (100–165 CE),
too, employs the language of the “fires of hell” for apologetic purposes in
that if Christians believe wickedness leads to the eternal fires of hell, they
are highly motivated to live as good citizens (Justin Apol. 1.12, 17). Inter-
estingly, he also makes a polemic against the Imperial Cult and asserts that
eternal punishment awaits those not offering worship to God (1.17). In the
writings of Justin Martyr, “eternal fire” was certainly intended to intimate
everlasting suffering (Apol. 1.8, 52.).
Between the late second and mid-third centuries CE, the descriptive lan-
guage of Hell becomes more acute. For Hippolytus (212 CE):
the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable

and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which
does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts
forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest;
no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment;
no appeal of interceding friends will profit them.
(Against the Greeks 3)
In the thought of Minucius Felix (226 CE): “clever fire burns the limbs and
restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thun-
derbolts strike bodies but do not consume them.” They would prefer to be
What the . . .? 167
annihilated rather than be restored for punishment.34 Equally, for Cyprian
of Carthage (252):
An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by

living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in
which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along
with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies
[. . .] The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repen-
tance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they
believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life.
(Demet.24)
Finally, for Clement of Alexandria (d. 217) and Origen (d. 254), the pun-
ishments of hell are conceived of as pedagogical and remedial, and so are
temporary. For both, ideas of eternal suffering are incompatible with God’s
nature and hell is similar to what would later be established as purgatory,
where punishment is restorative and is followed by eternal life in God’s pres-
ence. For Origen, in particular, God does not have the human characteristic
of revenge for that would imply repaying evil for evil; instead, a fiery hell is
some kind of metaphor.35
Two key texts of the second and third centuries are the Apocalypse of
Peter and the Apocalypse of Paul (Latin, visio pauli) both of which provide
extensive accounts and vivid descriptions of eternal torment in the fires of
hell (see, Bernstein 1993: 282–305; Czachesz 2009: 208–209; Nicklas 2012:
461–74). In the Apocalypse of Peter, blasphemers hang by the tongue sus-
pended over fire; female adulterers hang by the hair and male adulterers by
the head or feet, both over fire. Murderers are smitten by worms, snakes,
or beasts; and those who persecuted the righteous are cast into a dark place
where they are beaten by evil spirits, and their inwards eaten by restless
worms. The author continues:
And near those there were again women and men gnawing their own lips,
and being punished and receiving a red-hot iron in their eyes: and these
were they who blasphemed and slandered the way of righteousness [. . .]
And over against these again other men and women gnawing their tongues
and having flaming fire in their mouths: and these were the false witnesses
[. . .] And in a certain other place there were pebbles sharper than swords
or any spit, red-hot, and women and men in tattered and filthy raiment
rolled about on them in punishment: and these were the rich who trusted
in their riches and had no pity for orphans and widows, and despised the
commandment of God [. . .] And in another great lake, full of pitch and
blood and mire bubbling up, there stood men and women up to their
knees: and these were the usurers and those who take interest on interest.
(Ap. Peter 20–33)
168 What the . . .?
The author of the Apocalypse of Paul narrates the terrors of hell in an even
more horrific way and includes details of the punishment of those omit-
ted by the Apocalypse of Peter (Ap. Paul 31–44). As in the Apocalypse of
Peter, terrible punishments are inflicted upon the wicked (sorcerers, adul-
terers, and the like), but the Apocalypse of Paul also includes gruesome
punishment on a list of others: wayward church ministers (priests, bishops,
deacons, and readers); those who profited from usury or who mocked the
word of God; those who broke a fast before the appointed time; or women
who attended church wearing make-up. Interestingly, however, the severest
punishments are reserved for those who either deny that Christ came in
the flesh—or was borne by the Virgin Mary—and for those who deny that
Christ was resurrected in the physical flesh (Ap. Paul 41–42). The vivid
imagery of these apocalypses fuelled the literature and art of the medieval
period.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HELL IN THE MIDDLE AGES
The conceptions of hell described by the writers of the second and third-century
church continued to be embellished into the Middle Ages. Roman Catholic
thinkers in the period developed a series of levels in hell, all with no Biblical
basis:
• Infernus, the place of torment for the unrighteous damned and the
demons. This is, in popular imagination, the place most often associ-
ated with the concept of hell.
• Purgatory, where the saved souls go to be purged of the temporal effects
of their sins.
• Limbus Infantium (Limbo of the Infants), a place of perfect, natural,
subjective happiness for those who died before Baptism but who have
not committed personal sins, and so do not warrant punishment.
• Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Patriarchs), a place for the righteous
who lived before Christ came to earth. It is this part of hell that, for
some New Testament texts, Christ descended into. In Catholic theology
it no longer exists.
A key feature of the period was the concept of Purgatory which began to
take a defining influence in the latter half of the twelfth century (see esp.
Jacques Le Goff 1984).36 Le Goff outlines its beginnings:
When, in the fourth century, the greatest Fathers of the Church con-
ceived of the idea (shared with minor differences by Ambrose, Jerome,
and Augustine) that certain sinners might be saved, most probably by
being subjected to a trial of some sort, a new belief was born, a belief
that gradually matured until in the twelfth century it became the belief
What the . . .? 169
in Purgatory. Until the end of the twelfth century the noun purgatorium
did not exist: the Purgatory had not yet been born.
(1984: 3)
For the Church Fathers, the foundations of this belief were key texts of
Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament. These included: 2 Macc
12.41–46 (prayer and atonement offered for the dead so that they may be
delivered from their sin); Matt 12.31–32 (sin can be redeemed in the next
world); 1 Cor 15.29–30 (prayers on behalf of the dead); and 1 Cor 3.11–15
(a man’s work may be burned but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire).
Le Goff notes that the latter text “played a crucial role in the development
of Purgatory in the Middle Ages [. . .] The idea of Purgatory as fire preceded
its idea as a place” (1984: 43). The concept of Purgatory became part of
Catholic doctrine between the middle of the fifteenth and the beginning of
the seventeenth century when it was affirmed at the Council of Florence in
1439 and then at the Council of Trent in 1562.
The artistic and literary representations of purgatory and hell in the late
Medieval and early Renaissance periods enhanced and gave suitable expres-
sion to a theology of the afterlife within Catholicism (see Hughes 1968).
Three of the key works of the period are the Hortus Deliciarum, Dante’s
Divine Comedy, and the later Renaissance fresco, the Last Judgement, by
Michelangelo.37 As a preface to a discussion of the influence of any form of
art in the late Medieval to high Renaissance periods, it must be remembered
that a singular truth bound together almost everyone alive in late medieval
Europe: unconditional and total belief in Christianity and with it concepts
of heaven and an eternal torment in hell. As Robert Hughes notes: “the
prospect of Heaven and Hell was, for more than fifteen hundred years, the
chief religious obsession for most of the population of Europe” (1968: 7).
The Hortus Deliciarum (Garden of Delights) provided visual expression to
the latter. Compiled by the Abbess Herrad of Landsberg between 1167 and
1185, it is an illuminated manuscript designed as a pedagogical tool for
young nuns at Hohenburg Abbey in Alsace. It was one of the most cele-
brated illuminated manuscripts of the period for it stood as a compendium
of twelfth-century knowledge, containing poems, music, and 336 illustra-
tions, the most well-known of which is a depiction of hell (folio 155).38
The image is strikingly graphic with a jagged border, black background
(unique in the period), and accented by red tongues of fire and rivers of
flame that divide the four registers of the scene into distinct levels of hell.
The demons are a bluish-grey colour which serves to highlight them from
the black and red of their surroundings (see Griffiths 2007; Spencer 1927).
The sinners represented in the image suffer a variety of torments: some are
strung up and tortured in various ways; others are force-fed coins; while still
others are boiled in large cauldrons (these are clearly identified as Jews and
knights). In the deepest register, the lowest level of hell, Satan (chained at the
neck, Rev 20.1–3) is seated upon a throne of beasts with a human antichrist
170 What the . . .?
Figure 8.1 Depiction of hell. Folio 155 from the Hortus Deliciarum.
in his lap. In this level stands a fully clothed clergyman (in colour), being led
towards Satan by a devil.
Herrad’s concept of hell developed into the refined literary visions that we
read of in Chaucer as well as in the works of the poet Dante (1265–1321).
Indeed, from the period, the primary images of hell we have today come from
What the . . .? 171
Dante’s Divine Comedy in which the reader is taken through three realms
of the afterlife: Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. The poet expounds literary
places for every type of person, allowing him to editorialize about people’s
actions in the world of his day. In the process, he creates vivid scenes of all
three realms. Le Goff notes of Dante: “The concept of Purgatory benefited
from an extraordinary stroke of luck: the poetic genius of Dante (b. 1265)
carved out for it an enduring place in human memory. Dante’s work makes a
vast symphony out of the fragmentary themes; the noblest representation of

Purgatory every conceived” (1984: 334; and on Dante’s work, pp. 334–55).
These, then, became the basis for virtually all of the artistic depictions of hell
in the Middle Ages and our modern conceptions of afterlife with demons,
eternal torment, and fire. All of it originates from Dante’s artistic imagina-
tion; none derives from the Biblical texts.39
In Michelangelo’s The Last Judgement40 (1536–41), the well-known
fresco spanning the entire altar wall of the Sistine Chapel, the artist pro-
vides a fitting summary of reflection upon death, resurrection, and the
afterlife in the period of the High Renaissance. Christ, centred, with Mary
on his right, is surrounded by the saints, while a group of angels (centred
below him) announce, with trumpets and open books, the judgement of all
people. From the viewer’s perspective scenes on the bottom left show the
righteous leaving their graves and, some with the help of angels, rising to
join the elect with Christ. Other righteous souls return to physical bodies
and some, shrouded in burial cloths or as ghostly skeletons, sit between the
forces of heaven and hell.
In contrast, scenes of hell on the bottom right show Michelangelo’s influ-
ence of Dante’s Divine Comedy, with Charon, the ferryman of the under-
world, beating and casting the wicked from his boat, who are then dragged
down by demons into the depths of hell (for fuller details see Mancinelli
2000). Another figure from Dante is Minos, the mythological king of Hell,
seen as the most prominent figure in the bottom right, and painted in the
likeness of one of Michelangelo’s fiercest critics, the Pope’s master of cere-
monies Biagio da Cesena. It is said that when Cesena complained to the Pope
of the image, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so
the portrait would have to remain.
The commissioning of the work was done by Pope Clement VII (1523–34),
the second of the Medici popes and the ruling family of Florence, who many
believe abused their power and in some senses were thought to have ‘bought’
the papacy. The first Medici pope, Leo X (1513–21) is best remembered
for granting indulgences for those who donated to the reconstruction of
St Peter’s Basilica, a papal offer which was critically challenged as part of
Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517. The turmoil of the Reformation during
Clement’s papacy saw Protestant armies, fuelled by religious hatred of the
Catholic Church, sacking Rome in 1527 and engaging in a spree of killing,
burning, and looting. It was in this context that Clement commissioned the
Last Judgement in order to reassure Catholics of papal authority and of the
172 What the . . .?
Figure 8.2 The Last Judgement by Michelangelo.
Roman Catholic Church as the only faith which could assure eternal salva-
tion.41 Those considered to be outside the Church, indicated vividly in the
fresco, were doomed to an eternity in hell.
CONCLUSION
The reception history of the Hebrew Bible’s concept of the afterlife can be
seen to have been multivalent. Within Second Temple Judaism an emphasis
upon the afterlife of the soul remains, yet this is transformed for various
apologetic and polemical reasons into scenarios in which the righteous soul
departs to a place of blessing and the wicked soul to place of torment. The
What the . . .? 173
rising influence of Hellenism within the period, and particularly the conflict
under Antiochus Epiphanes and the ensuing struggles of the Maccabees,
fomented a conceptual change wherein the faithful Jew would be rewarded
and the apostate Jew condemned. In the period of the New Testament, the
earliest writings of the apostle Paul demonstrate continuity with Second
Temple Jewish texts but which, along with post-Biblical Judaism in general,
place him in tension with the Hebrew Bible.
Significant changes begin with the Gospels and later New Testament for
not only is there development away from an emphasis on an afterlife for
the soul alone—toward an afterlife which comprised of the body and soul
together—but the concept of Gehenna, the underworld place of torment
and fire takes precedence. This was begun within the Maccabean period
but accentuated in the later New Testament, which begins a trend continu-
ing into the post-apostolic age with further emphasis upon the horrors of
hell. These changes derived from apologetic or polemical impetus as the
early Christ-movement attempted to define and defend itself both against
first-century Judaism and Greco-Roman paganism. The Church Fathers, in
particular, employed the fear of hell for ideological purposes in asserting
ethical priorities in the early church. Finally, further literary emphasis in the
late medieval period was compounded by visual modes of expression. In
the case of the Hortus Deliciarum this was done for pedagogical purposes,
and for the Last Judgement for apologetic reasons within the religious and
socio-political turmoil of the early Reformation.
Overall, the development of Sheol/Hell can be construed as an ideological
construct stemming from notions of religious authority: it was the Jewish
religious hierarchy in Second Temple Judaism who demarcated the righteous
from the wicked and asserted the victory and blessing of the faithful righ-
teous Jew in the face of encroaching Hellenism; it was the religious leaders
of the early Christ-movement or the post-apostolic ecclesiastical church who
held the keys to heaven and hell and who, similarly, were able to differenti-
ate the wicked from the righteous; and within a medieval framework which
believed fundamentally in the truth of Christianity, it was the Papal office
alone which held the keys to heaven and the certainty of a blessed afterlife.
NOTES
1. Some of this chapter is taken from my work, Finney (2013). In general see also,
Bernstein (1993); Räisänen (2012, 2012a); Van Rensburg & Van Eck (2008).
2. On the following section see Bauckham (1992, 1998); Cavallin (1974); De
Boer (1988); Longenecker (1998); Lunde (1992); Schürer (1979: 2.539–546
(and bibliog. 2.539, n. 90)); Wedderburn (1987); Wright (2003).
3. 2 Macc 6.23; 1 En. 102.5; 103.7; Sib. Or. 1.81–84; Ps.-Phoc. 112–113; 2 Bar.
23.4; T. Ab. resc. A 8.9; 19.7.
4. Wis 1.14; 12.1; Tob 3.6, 10; 5.12; 13.2; Sir 38.16–23; Bar 2.17; 4 Ezra 2.45;
4 Macc 17.2; 18.23.
5. Barrett (1987: 306) writes of the literature of the Maccabees, “In these circum-
stances, martyrdoms took place, perhaps for the first time in religious history.”
174 What the . . .?
6. Glasson (1961: 12), suggests that such an idea came from the Greeks.
7. Cf. 102.1; 103.7–8.
8. Cf. 94.6–10; 96.6; 98.14; 99.1, 9, 11.
9. Cf. ch. 22; 62.13–16; 103.3–4; 104.2.
10. On the day of wrath: Rom 2.5, 8; 3.5; 5.9; 9.22; on the destruction of unbe-
lievers: ‘destruction’ (where Paul employs a)pw&leia; forms of a)po&llumi), Rom
2.12; 9.22; 1 Cor 1.18; 2 Cor 2.15; 4.3; 1 Thess 5.3; Phil 1.28; 3.19. Cf. 2
Thess 1.7–8, ‘when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and
on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.’

11. Although theophanies in the Hebrew Bible can be described in anthropo-
morphic terms (Gen 32.28–30), they are normally described in terms of the
supra-natural (Exod 13.21–22; 24.9–11; Judg 13.21–22; Isa 6.1).
12. A later pseudepigraphal text does assert that the wicked “will pay the penalty
of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord” (italics, mine). As
such, the text stands in continuity with other texts of the later New Testament
(see below).
13. Statistics of the use of ‘Gehenna’ in the four Gospels is Matt (7); Mark (3);
Luke (1); John (0).
14. Matt 8.12; 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30. Luke has the phrase at 13.28.
15. Räisänen (2012: 370), notes that there is no need to see this as an interim state.
16. Matt 5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 25:30; 18:8–9 // Mark 9:43–47; Matt 24:45–
51//Luke 12:41–46; 23:15, 33; John 15:6; 5:28–30.
17. Matt 11:20–24// Luke 10:12–15; cf. also Matt 8:8–12// Luke 7:6–9 with
13:28–29; Matt 22:1–14; 25:41–46; Matt 23:31–33; Luke 16:29–31.
18. Interestingly, while Luke 16.23, 26 and Rev 20.13f. note that all of the dead
will be in Hades, 1 Pet 3.19 has only the spirits of the wicked there.
19. Cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; 18:8–9; Mark 9:43–47 (unquenchable fire); cf. also
Luke 12:4–5.
20. Matt 25:46; Mark 9:48; cf. Isa 66:24; Matt 8:12// Luke 13:28; Matt 13:42,
50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; cf. Sib. Or. 2:305; Mark 9:48; Matt 25:41. How-
ever, the use of the verb destroy (a)po&llumi; Matt 10:28), and the frequent
image of “burning” has been understood by some to imply annihilation (e.g.,
Matt 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; John 15:6; cf. 4 Ezra 7:61; 1 En. 10:13–14; 38:3–6;
90:26–7; 91:9; 108:3).
21. Räisänen (2012: 376).
22. Riley (1995: 161); Athenagoras, Res. 21.4.
23. A topic of increasing recent interest, see Friesen (2001); Kraybill (2010).
24. E.g., the “Jews” of the Fourth Gospel and secessionist group of 1 and 2 John.
25. See especially, Shogren (2000).
26. On the history of the development of the character of Satan in the period, see
Pagels (1991, 1994).
27. Goppelt (1993: 260–63). On the harrowing of hell, see esp., Bernstein (1993:
272–82).
28. Perhaps paralleled with the Acherusian lake of fire found in Greek sources.
29. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (6:15, 1st CE) connects the abyss to Hades.
30. Ignatius, Eph. 16.1–2; see also, 2 Clem. 5.4, “fear him who, after you are dead,
has power to cast soul and body into the flames of hell.”
31. Hermas, Vis. 3.7.2; Hermas, Sim. 6.2.4
32. Mart. Pol. 11.2 ; 2.3. See, Bernstein (1993); Czachesz (2009: 207–30); Nicklas
(2012: 461–74).
33. The third CE Gospel of Philip (66.27–67.1), also employs Isa 66 in a similar
context and in a similar way.
34. Octavius 34:12–5:3.
35. Further on Origen’s concept of hell, see Bernstein (1993: 305–13).
What the . . .? 175
36. On the influence of the Apocalypse of Paul see Le Goff (1984: 35–7).
37. On the visual imagery of hell in art see especially, Camporesi (1991); Hughes
(1968).
38. The image is in the public domain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hortus_
Deliciarum_-_Hell.jpg (accessed May 15, 2015). Contemporaneous with the
work was Torcello’s Last Judgement which also features knights and priests
(here, being harried into hell by angels), and Satan seated on a throne with the
antichrist in his lap. Others would include Giotto’s, The Last Judgement and
Taddio di Bartolo’s Hell (c. 1320).
39. The most extensive illustrations made of Dante’s text are those by Gustave
Doré between 1832–83; see Dore (1976, 1976a). Contemporaneous with Dan-
te’s work was Nardo di Cione’s fresco, The Inferno (Sta Maria Novell, Flor-
ence, 1354–57), which, as Le Goff notes, is the only major fresco of Hell which
minutely followed Dante’s programme in the Divine Comedy (1984: 159).
40. The image is in the public domain, http://maitaly.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/
michelangelo-sistine-chapel-the-last-judgement/ (accessed May 15, 2015).
41. A clear and unambiguous depiction of the white-haired and bearded St Peter
stands on Christ’s left, looking over to the saviour and holding out the keys (to
heaven and earth) in his left hand.
SOURCES CITED
BARRETT, C.K. (1987) New Testament Background: Selected Documents. Rev. edn.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
BAUCKHAM, R. (1992) Hades, Hell. In FREEDMAN, D. (ed.), Anchor Bible Dic-
tionary. Vol. 3. New York: Doubleday, pp. 14–15.
BAUCKHAM, R. (1998) The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian
Apocalypses. Leiden, Boston & Köln: Brill.
BERNSTEIN, A.E. (1993) The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the
Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
BRANDON, S.G.F. (1967) The Judgement of the Dead: An Historical and Com-
parative Study of the Idea of a Post-Mortem Judgement in the Major Religions.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
CAMPORESI, P. (1991) The Fear of Hell: Images of Damnation and Salvation in
Early Modern Europe. Trans. Lucinda Byatt. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press.
of the Dead in 1 Cor 15. ConBNT 7. Lund: Gleerup.
CZACHESZ, I. (2009) Metamorphosis and Mind: Cognitive Explorations of the
Grotesque in Early Christian Literature. In SEIM, T.K. & ØKLAND, J. (eds),
Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Chris-
tianity. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Vol. 1.
Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
DORÉ, G. (1976) The Doré Illustrations for Dante’s Divine Comedy: 136 Plates by
Gustave Doré. New York: Dover Publications.
DORÉ, G. (1976a) Dante Inferno Illustrated by Gustave Doré. New York: Padding-
ton Press.
FINNEY, M.T. (2013) Afterlives of the Afterlife: The Development of Hell in its
Jewish and Christian Contexts. In EXUM, J.C. & CLINES, D.J.A. (eds), Biblical
Reception 2 (2013). Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
FRIESEN, S.J. (2001) Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revela-
tion in the Ruins. New York: Oxford University Press.
176 What the . . .?
GOPPELT, L. (1993) A Commentary on 1 Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
GRIFFITHS, F. (2007) The Garden of Delights: Reform and Renaissance for Women
in the Twelfth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
HUGHES, R. (1968) Heaven and Hell in Western Art. New York: Stein and Day.
KRAYBILL, J.N. (2010) Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics and Devotion
in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.
LANE, W.L. (1974) The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
LE GOFF, J. (1984) The Birth of Purgatory. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

LONGENECKER, R.N. (1998) Introduction. In LONGENECKER, R.N. (ed.), Life
in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans.
LUNDE, J. (1992) Heaven and Hell. In GREEN, J.B., MCKNIGHT, S. & MAR-
SHALL, I.H. (eds), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Leicester: IVP.
MANCINELLI, F. (2000) The Sistine Chapel. Città del Vaticano: Ufficio Vendita
Pubblicazioni e Riproduzioni.
METZGER, B.M. (1994) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
Stuttgart: German Bible Society.
NICKLAS, T. (2012) Resurrection—Judgement—Punishment: Apocalypse of Peter
4. In VAN OYEN, G. & SHEPHERD, T. (eds), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical
Traditions in Dialogue. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
PAGELS, E. (1991) The Social History of Satan: A Preliminary Sketch. Harvard
Theological Review. 84 (2), pp. 105–28.
PAGELS, E. (1994) The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament
Gospels. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 62 (1), pp. 17–58.
PAGELS, E. (2012) Revelations: Visions, Prophecy and Politics in the Book of Reve-
lation. New York: Viking Books.
RÄISÄNEN, H. (2012) Resurrection for Punishment? The Fate of the Unrighteous
in Early Christianity and in “New Testament” Theology. In VAN OYEN, G. &
SHEPHERD, T. (eds), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue.
Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
RÄISÄNEN, H. (2012a) Jesus and Hell. In HOLMÉN, T. (ed.), Jesus in Continuum.
WUNT, 289. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
RILEY, G.R. (1995) Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy.
4 Vols. Rev. edn. London: T&T Clark.
SHOGREN, G.S. (2000) Hell, Abyss, Eternal Punishment. In MARTIN, R.P. &
DAVIDS, P.H. (eds), Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments.
SIM, D.C. (1996) Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
SPENCER, T. (1927) Chaucer’s Hell: A Study in Mediaeval Convention. Speculum.
2 (2) pp. 177–200.
STANTON, G.N. (1992) A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark.
VAN RENSBURG, H.J. & VAN ECK, E. (2008) Hell revisited: A socio-critical
enquiry into the roots and relevance of hell for the church today. Harvard Theo-
logical Studies. 64 (3), pp. 1499–525.
WEDDERBURN, A.J.M. (1987) Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline The-
ology against its Graeco-Roman Background. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Conclusion
In Chapter 1 we saw that there were distinct changes in Greek reflection on

the afterlife from the Homeric period onwards. For Homer, the afterlife for
the vast majority was an eternity spent as a disembodied yet conscious soul
in Hades; while for the very few, there was physical immortalization and
transformation into a deity. Although later Greek thought would include
additional options such as the soul being reincarnated into a new body or
ideas of astral immortality, the notion of immortal flesh held strong attrac-
tion and was still current during the emergence of nascent Christianity. In
this sense, reflection upon Christ from a Greco-Roman perspective would
have located him within an established Greek tradition: he existed on earth
as a son of a god; he was originally mortal (evidenced by the fact that he died
on a cross); and the Christian tradition that after death he was resurrected
and left the ordinary world was clear evidence that he was made immortal
by the gods. These were all in agreement with a pattern seen repeatedly
in Greek thought and which included, of course, the Christian dogma of
the late first century and beyond, that Christ had gained bodily incorrupt-
ibility. Here, the assertion of bodily continuity was imperative and became
an essential aspect of Christian thought: Christ’s body was not left to rot
and decompose on either the cross, a common grave, or in a tomb; rather,
the immortalization of the body happened quickly, soon after death. The
disappearance of the body from the tomb is also consistent within a Greek
tradition of the body being made incorruptible and re-located somewhere
else for a time.
Within a Greek tradition, the nature of Christ’s death is also marked by
the fact that the legs were not broken, for this would have meant that he
would have to suffer such an ailment forever within his immortalized body.
Yet, the fact of bodily continuity before and after immortalization is evi-
denced by the wound in his side and the stigmata which would persist for all
time. Hence, what happened to Christ was entirely plausible to a Hellenistic
audience, a point noted by Justin Martyr when he writes: “[when we say]
that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and
ascended into heaven, we propose nothing new from what you believe about
those you consider sons of Zeus” (1 Apol. 21.1, italics mine).
178 Conclusion
When we turned to the Hebrew Bible in Chapter 2, we found quite a dif-
ferent perspective on the afterlife, for it was argued there that the afterlife,
for all, both righteous and wicked, was simply the descent of the soul into
Sheol. There were no exceptions. In this sense, the ancient Israelites shared
the perspective of other ancient Mesopotamian cultures that there was no
return from Sheol by a living person (although in the Hebrew Bible, the soul
or shade of the prophet Samuel is called up out of the underworld to con-
verse with Saul). Hence, those texts of the Hebrew Bible written about or by
those who claim to be near Sheol, or in Sheol, or needing deliverance from
Sheol, concern those who are simply near death, or suffering persecution or
harm, or—often in the case of the Psalmist—poignantly reflective of difficult
circumstances. In the case of the prophet Ezekiel, it is made in a context of
longing for national restoration. The myths of descent and return are simply
poetic fancy. To be in the region of death meant to be in death’s power.
Yet, the stories and myths of the ancient Israelites provided a vivid frame-
work for explaining the working of their tribal god through a series of cri-
ses and of explicating a future hope. These told stories of future national
restitution of future glory and honour, when the Israelites would occupy as
much as the Promised Land as they desired, when they would flourish and
live in peace, and when nations would come streaming to Jerusalem to pay
them tribute. Yet, at the time of Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others,
national restoration was both practically impossible and, without a supreme
divine act by the national god, conceptually inconceivable. In this way, the
most suitable metaphor for such hope was the use of another conceptually
inconceivable category: the language of ‘resurrection.’
The crises of the Maccabean period generated further ideological reflec-
tion upon concepts of an afterlife which, to the lament of the Hebrew Bible,
saw no distinction between the righteous and the wicked. How could the
righteous heroic Jew, put to death for refusal to compromise Torah, comport
with those who were all too willing to Hellenize and forsake the traditions of
Israel? The texts of this period (including the book of Daniel), demonstrate
a conceptual shift to take cognisance of these righteous martyrs and, hence-
forth, for the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature, the soul of the righ-
teous would head in a very different direction to that of the wicked. Some
trajectories from the Hebrew Bible did remain: on death the soul/spirit was
released from the body to Hades, a place in the lowest regions of the earth,
the place of the dead, where it remained forever. Yet, beginning in the writ-
ings of the apocrypha, profound differences also begin to emerge: the soul
of the righteous is rewarded with a place of blessing and peace whereas the
souls of the wicked wander about in torment. Such sentiments, alien to the
Hebrew Bible, would be further developed within the pseudepigraphal and
apocalyptic literature.
The analysis of Second Temple Jewish literature in Chapter 3 found that
there were no texts up to and beyond the First Jewish War which speak
unambiguously of the resurrection of the physical body. Rather, there was
Conclusion 179
an emphasis on the demise of the body (in the sense of its decomposition),
together with an assertion of an afterlife experience of the soul or spirit
alone. It was argued there that many of those texts commonly espoused to
articulate a physical resurrection have been misread or misunderstood or
are open to alternative interpretations. In the three texts employed most
frequently to argue for the resurrection of the physical body, Josephus says
nothing of a physical resurrection, there is a flight of fancy in 2 Maccabees,
and 2 Baruch is a late work (certainly, later than most of the New Testa-
ment). What is most clear is the overwhelming emphasis upon the afterlife
of the soul/spirit. Indeed, Josephus argues that the concept of an immortal
soul was actually a Jewish doctrine (C. Ap. 1.162, 165).
From the fact that such a substantial amount of Jewish tradition did not
entertain a bodily resurrection, but, rather, asserted a continued spiritual
existence, it was argued in Chapter 3 that this was the dominant motif of
reflection on the afterlife in Second Temple Judaism. Hence, the oft-repeated
idea that Jews believed in the resurrection of the body and Greeks the immor-
tality of the soul appears not only incorrect, but erroneous to the point that
actually the opposite is true: Greek tradition required the presence of a phys-
ical body while Jews of the Second Temple Period emphasized the afterlife of
the soul. This central difference between the two may stem from reflection
upon the actual nature of the ‘divine.’ For the Greeks, the gods had phys-
ical attributes to the extent that they could have sex with humans, or be
hurt or wounded; for the Jews however this was anathema: God was spirit.
This summary also has implications for a broader understanding of Jewish
anthropology in that perhaps for too long this topic has been read or under-
stood in the shadow of the New Testament’s, or early church’s, reflection on
human constitution and the afterlife.
The same was seen to be true within the writings of the Dead Sea commu-
nity and, in part, that also of rabbinic literature. As a preface to a study of
the New Testament, it was argued that Second Temple Jewish texts and the
Scrolls allow us valuable insights into post-mortem existence, particularly
in areas which are developments away from those of the Hebrew Bible. In
continuity with the Hebrew Bible, these texts assert that the body is made
from dust and after death returns to dust; the soul is seen as immortal. In dis-
continuity with the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish texts delineate per-
spectives whereby the souls of the righteous and wicked go to very different
places. Those of the righteous go to be with God, and so achieve a sense of
bliss and peace; those of the wicked are sent to an everlasting prison where
they are subject to eternal punishment. In many texts, the souls of the righ-
teous become like angels or stars in the heavens and apart from one late text
(Josephus), there is no unambiguous concept of a physical bodily afterlife
(although precisely what this is remains unclear). Here, the reconstitution of
a physical body is undertaken in the last days as part of God’s re-creation or
reconstitution of the physical world. This is not to say that one can presume
to see the perspective of Josephus developing automatically from his Jewish
180 Conclusion
background (that would have to be argued); it could be asserted that such
notions stemmed from his Greco-Roman milieu. The Jewish authors of the
post-Biblical texts stand in discontinuity with the Hebrew Bible most likely
following reflection on the afterlife following the Maccabean wars. In the
later rabbinic writings, while for some rabbinic texts, there is an unambig-
uous framework of an afterlife which involves a physical body, elsewhere
there are diverging views and debate, and many texts have an emphasis on a
conception of an afterlife conceived of more in terms of the soul.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AND BEYOND
The analysis of the New Testament began with the writings of the apostle
Paul where it was argued that Paul construes Jesus’ death being followed by
the raising of his soul and its ascension into heaven. What Paul understands
by this is never made explicit. It could mean that Jesus’ soul descended first
to Sheol (and hence, perhaps pointing to the later traditions of the descent
of Christ’s spirit to the underworld, 1 Pet 3.18; 4.6; cf. Eph 4.9–10), before
being raised to the heavenly realm, or it could imply continuity with other
Second Temple Jewish texts which suggest an immediate ascent to heaven.
In either of these scenarios, this is followed by the transformed and glorified
Christ returning from heaven to reveal himself in successive christophanies.
Whereas, for Josephus, the soul will ‘at the end of the ages’ enter a new hab-
itation, for Paul, his revelatory experience is a depiction of the first-fruits, an
image of the splendor awaiting believers. At the end of the age, when there is
a new or re-creation, the righteous will be transformed and will have some
kind of new existence which Paul describes (in 1 Cor 15) as a spiritual ‘body’
or, later (2 Cor 5), as a dwelling from heaven, a house/building from God.
Further, it is of interest and relevance that neither of the two major Jewish
writers of Paul’s day, Josephus and Philo, construed the immediate afterlife
in terms of the physical body. In some sense, Josephus’ chaste body/new
habitation can be seen to stand in correlation with the newly transformed
form of Christ similar to that of Paul’s revelatory experience. And for Philo,
his account of the afterlife of Moses agrees considerably with the perspective
of Paul in that the double nature of Moses’ body and soul is transformed
into a single entity. In that the physical body is only of secondary impor-
tance (if that) to Paul, he appears to have little interest in what happened to
Jesus’ post-crucifixion body and may have been unconcerned if his physical
remains had been found. This would simply have been the bare seed that
was sown; the husk that was sloughed off allowing what is within to emerge
from the soil. Indeed, perhaps the seed metaphor actually derived from the
knowledge that Jesus’ physical body was ‘sown’ in the earth. Certainly, such
a perspective agrees with much of the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple
Jewish texts in that on death the body decomposes into the dust of the earth
while the soul departs elsewhere; for the Hebrew Bible to Sheol, for Second
Conclusion 181
Temple Judaism to be with God (for the righteous) or an unpleasant place
(for the wicked), or to the heavens as stars.
If this reading of afterlife in Paul is placed in direct continuity with the
analysis of Second-Temple Judaism made above, then all of this makes per-
fect sense: a simplistic purview of the resurrection of the newly immortalized
physical flesh-and-blood Christ is rejected by Paul and in its place stands a
nuanced concept of Christ’s soul now housed within a new glorious frame.
Yet, while standing in continuity with post-Biblical Judaism, such a reading

also places Paul in tension with other Biblical traditions which assert a res-
urrection of Jesus’ earthly physical body (particularly the Gospels of Luke
and John).
As argued in Chapter 6, following the earliest writings of the New Tes-
tament (the primary Pauline corpus and the Gospel of Mark), the general
tenor of the much of rest of the New Testament on the post-resurrection
state of Christ appears to follow a trajectory away from that of Paul and
towards an emphasis on the physicality of Christ’s post-mortem existence.
Nevertheless, there are tensions within these later texts when they over-
lap with earlier motifs which adhere to a model of the divine exaltation of
Christ’s soul. These are seen, for example, in the visionary experiences of
Stephen and others outlined by Luke, who can, at the same, time hold to a
very clear emphasis on Jesus’ post-resurrection physical body.
As was also argued in Chapter 6, in searching for the primary category in
which the risen and glorified Christ was experienced, it appears that super-
natural vision is the key. Certainly, Paul’s experience of “seeing the lord”
derives from his heavenly revelation as vision (1 Cor 15.8). The progres-
sively physical nature and experience of the risen Christ take this initial
visionary experience into a new direction and the narratives of the empty
tomb and subsequent outworking of this in the Gospels is a later tradition.
One can say with certainty that the key figures of Peter and Paul (perhaps
James and John also) held to ‘vision’ as the primary vehicle of revelation of
Christ to both themselves and the nascent Christ-movement. Further, that
it is these figures, each with a propensity to altered states of consciousness
and visions, who were the founding fathers of the initial community and an
essential part of its early development—and who played a determining role
in the theological shaping of this community—is not to be underestimated.
As such, the assumption of a physically resurrected Christ is unnecessary
for these initial revelations, and what perhaps is of greater interest are the
doctrinal battles in the emergence of ‘unorthodox’ theologies which gives
rise to the ‘whys’ and ‘wherefores’ of the subsequent development of the
‘physical’ Christ. The assertion of such physicality did, of course, arouse
considerable resistance from early Christians (although not pagans). In this
context, one could also ask the vital question of whether the story of the
empty tomb was new with Mark and whether the women at the tomb,
apparently ignoring the command to go and tell the disciples, is an apolo-
getic foil meant to explain why the empty tomb tradition was not known
182 Conclusion
before Mark. And certainly, the notion that ideas of ‘resurrection’ could
be adequately expressed in terms of an empty tomb is certainly shaped by
Greco-Roman traditions of the translation and apotheosis of exceptional
human beings. As noted, concepts of an empty tomb and ‘missing’ body
were essential in the Greco-Roman tradition for pointing towards the phys-
ical immortalization of the hero; and this would appear to be a significant
reason for the move from the primitive Pauline kerygma of Christ’s resur-
rection as one of the soul alone, towards one of his full physicality: the rise
of Greco-Roman gentiles entering the early Christ-movement (perhaps also
alongside the general rejection of the gospel by first-century Jews).
In this way, the Gospel by Luke is pivotal, and makes perfect sense within
a context of Greco-Roman resurrection narratives: Christ died (Luke 23.46),
following which the women at the tomb find that his body has disappeared
(24.3), and learn that it has been taken elsewhere (24.5, 7, it has been raised);
and which then returns to earth physically immortalized like the gods, and
whereby Christ is able to vanish from sight (24.31) and miraculously re-appear
(24.36). At this point he is able to provide unambiguous proof of his newly
immortalized physical body (24.39–43), before finally returning to the heavens
(24.51). For Luke, like Matthew, it is vital to assert to his Hellenistic audience
that Jesus’ body had been taken elsewhere and not left decomposing in the
tomb; otherwise the assertion of deification and physical immortality would
have been impossible to defend. This is highlighted again by Luke in Acts when
Peter asserts that Jesus’ flesh, “did not see corruption” (Acts 2.25–28).
Hence, we may argue that Luke is making a concerted effort to establish
a framework of resurrection belief more aligned to Greco-Roman thought.
And beginning with Luke, one could argue that this is why early Christian-
ity began to abandon the Second Temple Jewish emphasis on the afterlife
of the soul alone and assert an afterlife which held the body as a central
component. Simply put, this was more attuned to Hellenistic thought, and
significantly, well before the end of the first century CE it was Greco-Roman
gentiles who were now dominant within the early church. So, too, the fact
that this physically resurrected Christ was also proclaimed as the model
for a similar resurrection of all believers was perhaps a welcome surprise:
thoughts of an eternity in Sheol were now superseded by anticipation of a
glorious afterlife like the Greco-Roman heroes of old. Yet, as Paul’s travel
partner, Luke cannot have been unaware of Paul’s own reflection on the
afterlife of the soul, and we see in Luke-Acts the author’s attempt to recon-
cile two disparate traditions. Such thoughts also prompt further reflection
on Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15, for if such nascent thoughts were
already mooted within the Christ-movement by the 50s CE, then the con-
text of the misunderstanding between Paul and his Hellenist interlocutors in
Corinth is all too easy to understand.
The period following the writing of the New Testament up to the sixth
century CE, was one of multivalent and contrasting ideas concerning the
resurrection of the physical body. Even among orthodox Christians it
appears that the doctrine generated puzzlement and confusion, and certainly
Conclusion 183
amongst the pagan critics of Christianity fomented incredulity and opposi-
tion. The context for many Biblical scholars is in the desire to see consis-
tency within the New Testament over the nature of the resurrection; yet, as
we have seen, Paul, on the one hand, and the later New Testament writers
(particularly Luke and John), on the other, are approaching the nature of
post-mortem existence from very different perspectives. Paul is aligned with
Second Temple Jewish texts which lay an overwhelming emphasis on the
afterlife of the soul, but Luke and John, some decades later, and with a now
radically re-formed and largely gentile dominated Christ-movement, are
more attuned to Greco-Roman traditions which emphasized the importance
of the physical body in the process of immortalization and deification. In
the tumult of the fight against various ‘heresies’ which engulfed the church
of the second-century and beyond, the Church Fathers polemicized this even
further to make the doctrine of the physically resurrected Christ a point of
theological orthodoxy.
As noted, the key to the emergence of this theological orthodoxy and
to the dramatic success of Christianity within the Roman world is the
intertwining of both of these contexts around the influx of gentiles into
the early Christian community. If Paul’s experience of the resurrected
Christ left uncertainty and ambiguity (so, 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthi-
ans), then this was counteracted with the assured afterlife framework of
Greek tradition imposed onto Christ: the hero, part-born of a god, living
a dramatic and inspiring life on earth, being put to death, and then being
raised immortal and eternal to dwell forever in the heavenly realm. For the
Hellenist there was no doubt over this scenario for it is perfectly consis-
tent within Greek tradition. For Paul, however, his revelatory experience
appears to have fomented confusion as to how Christ’s soul had been glo-
rified before the eschaton, and from this perspective, the reason and impor-
tance of an imminent eschatology within his writings becomes clear. That
is, within the context of his Jewish understanding of God, the resurrection
of Christ can only make sense within the ‘here and now’ of the eschaton;
the end must be happening now. But how and in what way? Paul’s uncer-
tainty is counteracted by gentile confidence that what happened to Christ
is perfectly understandable, and it is the gentile framework of afterlife exis-
tence imposed onto the Christ-event which begins to guide and even drive
understandings of his resurrection. Christ’s afterlife form is not, as Paul,
a (sw~ma) pneumatiko&n (whatever Paul may mean by that), nor a dwelling
from heaven (2 Cor), but, as in Luke and John, it is the raising and return
of the hero, now physically immortalized and who will dwell eternally in
the heavens. The success of gentile Christianity in the Greco-Roman world
was because it was driven by a Christology which placed the resurrection
of the flesh and a physical afterlife experience at the very core of its beliefs.
Yet, as it did so this also had a darker side. Unlike the Greek reasoning
behind the importance of the physical body and the immortalized flesh as
a vital part of a holistic eternal afterlife, Christianity saw the resurrection
of the flesh as an essential aspect of the post-mortem punishment of the
184 Conclusion
wicked. The soul was impassible; the body not. Here, the early church trans-
formed the Jewish Gehenna into the Christian hell; a place of unspeakable
and unending tortuous horror. And what began in the later New Testament
for apologetic or polemical reasons (even placed upon the lips of Christ),
continued into the post-apostolic and early medieval periods with disturb-
ing social consequences. The Church Fathers and later church leaders in
particular, employed the fear of hell in a variety of ways and for a variety of
ideological purposes: for it helped them in asserting ethical priorities; or in

asserting their theological ‘domination’ over Christendom; or in demonizing
opponents of all persuasions; or in putting to death those who were in theo-
logical disagreement. If the Papal office alone held the keys to heaven and
a blessed afterlife, then the door was firmly shut for those of even slightly
differing theological persuasions.
As noted in Chapter 8, the Christian construction of an afterlife denoted
by the torture and horror of an eternal fiery pit persists into the modern
period, with modern concerns and worries now labeled hadephobia and with
the Internet full of discussion-boards and threads prompted by those with
deep anxiety and fear over thoughts of a tortuous afterlife.1 A traditional
Christian reading of such a framework is defended and indeed insisted upon
by those who undertake fundamentalist literal readings of the Biblical texts
and yet the study here has hopefully demonstrated the ideological impetus
behind such discourse. Perhaps the time is right for a (socio-theological)
review of the social construction of hell together with a salient reminder that
these texts are polemically and apologetically driven, and that understand-
ing the social context(s) of their writing is vital. Being cognizant of divergent
traditions in the Biblical canon and related literature and of the dramatic
ideological transformation of the afterlife from Sheol as the destination for
all in the Hebrew Bible to hell as the eternal tortuous destination for the
wicked in the Church Fathers, and hence, raising some serious questions
over what we actually know about the afterlife as opposed to the ‘authority’
of established dogma of church traditions could help alleviate the anxiety
of such hadephobes. This may also be a cause of suitable pastoral reflection
by those who can all too easily employ ‘hell’ as a tool with which to assert
authority and to instill fear into non-believers, and even believers, of many
religious traditions. At the very least, profound reflection and debate upon
this ideological transformation together with how and why the picture of
the afterlife placed upon the lips of Jesus in the Gospels places him in tension
with the Hebrew Bible is worthy of very serious discussion.
NOTE
1. See, for example, http://www.christianforums.com/t7605491/; http://recovering

fundamentalists.com/fear-of-hell.html; http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/
7197-fear-of-hell/.
Ancient Sources Index
HEBREW BIBLE 16.33 41, 42

19.11–22 28
Genesis 31.19–20 28
2.7 40, 41
3.5 41 Deuteronomy
4.10 40 20.19 82
6.12 60 28.25–26 44
6.17 85 32.39 29, 42, 72
9.4 41
23.6 42 Judges
23.9 42 5.20 43, 67
25.8 125 6.11–14 138
32.28–30 47, 174 13.21–22 119, 174
35.29 125
37.35 41, 42, 96 1 Samuel
40.19 40 2.6 41, 42, 44, 97
42.38 41, 42, 96 2.6–8 28
44.29 41, 42, 96 11.2 44
44.31 41, 96 25.1 28
45.27 85 25.29 87
49.33–50.14 125 28 27, 41
28.3–25 29
Exodus
2.13 118 2 Samuel
3.1–12 138 12.23 41
3.6 125 14.14 41
13.21–22 119, 174 21 44
24.9–11 119, 174 22.6 39
32.32–33 43
1 Kings
Leviticus
2.6 42
15.1 140
2.9 42
17.11 41
17.14 41
21.1–3 28 2 Kings
21.11 28 5.27 137
26.29 40
Job
Numbers 3.11–19 39
5.2–4 28 3.13 41
16.30 41, 42 3.17–19 41
186 Ancient Sources Index
4.14 72 22.9 40
7.5 41 22.15 40
7.8 41 22.29 40
7.9 41, 42 26.2 40
7.9–10 42 28.1 40
7.17 41 29.4 42
10.9–12 97 30 44
10.10–12 92 30.3 27, 41, 42
10.11 41 30.4 40
10.19–20 41 30.9 40, 41, 42

10.22 41 32.3 72
14.7–22 42 33.18–22 44
14.10–14 39 35.10 72
14.12 41 48.7–9 40
16.10 44 48.14 42
16.22 41 48.15 42, 43
17.1–7 41 49 95
17.13 39 49.7–11 39
17.13–14 41 49.9–14 41
17.16 25, 39, 41, 42 49.15 42
19 40 50 141
19.3 41 51.8 72
19.26 42 54.15 42
20.11 25, 72 54.16 41, 42
21.13 41, 42 63.2 41
21.26 25, 41 64.3 60
25.6 41 69.28 43
26.6 41 71 95
28.22 41 73.24 42
30.17 72 85.13 42
30.23 42 86.88 44
30.30 72 87.5 41, 42
31.12 41 88.3–7 41
33.18–30 41 88.4 39, 41
33.21 40 88.5–6 41
33.22 42 88.5–7 40
34.15 40 88.5–10 41
38.7 43, 67 88.10 26, 27, 41, 42
38.17 41, 42 88.10–12 41
88.11 41
Psalms 88.48 42
6 44 88.49 42
6.2 72 89.46–48 39
6.5 41, 42 89.48 41, 43, 45
6.6 41 90.3 42
7 44 90.10–12 39, 42
7.6 40 93.17 42
9.14 41 94.17 26
13 44 95.4 41
16 95, 131 103.14 40
16.10 39, 41, 42, 131 104.29 40
17.5–6 41 107.18 41
17.6 42 115.17 41
18.6 39 116.3 42
116.3–7 42 26.19 27, 28, 29, 31, 41, 42,
139.8 39, 41 59, 68, 89, 118
143.3 126, 27 28.15 41, 42
143.6 41 28.18 41
143.7 40 29.4 26
146.8 83 33.5–6 95
34.3 40
Proverbs 38.10 39, 41, 42
1.12 40 38.18 39, 41, 42
2.18 41, 42 40.5 61

2.19 41 44.23 41
5.5 41, 42 49.24–25 43
5.11 40, 42 49.26 40
7.27 41, 42 57.9 41, 42
9.18 41, 42 61.1–2 95
12.4 41 65.22 82
15.11 41 66 53, 147, 159, 166, 174
15.24 41, 42 66.24 41, 95, 174
17.22 72
25.3 41 Jeremiah
25.15 72 7.33 40
27.20 41 20.19 72
30.15 41 29.18 44
34.17–20 44
Ecclesiastes 37 35
2.16 26, 27 51.39 41
3.16–21 42
3.20 40 Lamentations
9.2–3 42 3.4 40
9.4 28
9.5 41 Ezekiel
9.7–10 39, 41, 45 5.15 44
9.9–10 42 31.15–17 41, 42
12.7 40, 42, 87 31.16 40, 41, 83
32 39
Isaiah 32.5–6 40
1.18 141 32.17–34 41
5.13–14 20 32.23 41
5.14 41, 44 32.27 41
6.1 119, 174 36.26–32 35
7.11 41 37 40, 44, 60, 81, 82, 135,
8.19 27 140
14 39 37.5 44
14.9–11 26, 30, 41, 42 37.1–14 28, 31, 36, 43, 44, 82,
14.11 41, 42, 44 91, 92
14.15 40, 41, 44 37.16–20 82
14.16 26 43.7 28
14.19 42
24–27 32 Daniel
26 3, 33, 36, 81, 84, 87 3.88 41, 42
26.7–21 31 4.34–37 33
26.8–10 31 5.11–12 55
26.14 27, 31, 41, 42 6.25–27 33
26.15 31, 44 7.9–10 137, 141
9.16 34 3.7 38, 160
10–12 44 3.10 54
10.7–9 141 3.13 52, 54
11.18 34 5.1 38, 160
12 3, 36, 40, 43, 84, 93 5.15 38, 160
12.1–3 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 8.19–20 70
43, 59, 67, 68, 84, 158 9.15 70
12.4 34 12.1 44, 173
13.10 26, 27
Hosea 15.8 50, 70

13.14 41, 42 16.13 41, 42
16.13–14 42
Amos 16.14 70
9.2 41
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Jonah 7.17 41
1.17 124 10.11 41
11.26 38, 159
Zephaniah 11.28 96
1.17 40 17.1 25, 96
17.27–28 27
Zechariah 19.3 41
2.17 60 24.5 41
13.9 44 30.4–5 96
38.16–23 44
Malachi 38.21–23 96
3.14–15 44 38.23 28
4.5 96 39.9 96
41.4 96
41.11–13 96
44.8 96
APOCRYPHA 46.12 96
48.5 28
Tobit 51.6 27, 41
3.6 25, 38, 44, 159
3.10 42, 44 1 Maccabees
4.19 42 2.62–63 41
5.12 44 2.63 40
12.22 118 7.17 40
13.2 42, 44
2 Maccabees
Judith 2.8 118
16.17 41, 159 3.22–28 118
3.25 118
Wisdom of Solomon 6.23 41, 173
1.12–16 41, 49 7 46, 68, 72, 79, 95
1.14 44, 173 7.9 62, 72
2.1 49 7.9–11 61
2.3 25 7.12 72
2.5 49 7.14 44, 160
2.23–3.4 70 7.22 73
2.24 49 7.23 73
3.1 38, 51, 54, 160 9.9 40, 41
3.4 43, 54 12.41–46 169
12.43 41 90.26–27 174
14.38–46 72 90.33 57
14.46 72, 73 91 56
91.9 174
2 Esdras 91.10 57
2.45 44 92.3–4 57
7.80–99 38 100.5 57
102–103 53
4 Maccabees 102.4–6 51, 57, 160
7.3 73 102.5 41, 173

9.17 40 103 57
9.22 73 103.3–4 57
10.8 40 103.3–7 57
13.15 73 103.7 41, 173
13.17 73 104.2 66, 160
14.5–6 73 104.2–5 57
17.2 44, 173 104.7–8 53
17.12 73 108.3 174
17.18–19 73
18.16 83 2 Enoch
18.23 44, 73, 83, 173 22.8 50
22.8–10 119
22.10 50
23.5 70
SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH
TEXTS 2 Baruch
3.10 66
1 Enoch 11.4 66
1–36 57 14.12 65
9.3 57 21.23 65, 66
9.10 57 21.23–24 65
10.6–13 159 23.4 41, 173
10.13–14 174 23.4–5 65
21 52 30.1–5 55
22 52, 57, 58, 71, 159 30.2 73
22.1–5 58 33.3 66
22.3 57, 71 42.7–8 66
22.5 57 42.8 41, 65
22.7 57 44.10 69
22.8–14 57 48.49–51.5 64–65
22.10 57 49.1–3 66, 160
25.6 57–8 49.2–3 50, 55
27 73 50.2 41, 65, 73
38–40 53 51.1–6 51, 65, 67, 160
38.3–6 174 51.5 73
51 56 51.5–6 66
51.1–2 52, 57, 66, 160 52.7 65
51.2–5 66 73.1–2 43
51.3 41
51.10–12 66 4 Ezra
54.1–2 52, 159 2.45 173
56.8 159 4.35 51, 56, 66
63.1 159 4.41 51, 56
63.5–8 159 4.43 66
7.28–36 55 2.155 51
7.32 26, 41, 66 2.162–64 106
7.61 174 2.163 51, 64, 106, 160
7.75–101 51, 73 2.165 96
7.78 56 3.343–48 50
7.80–99 160 3.372 49, 50
7.94 66 3.374 50, 64, 106
7.95–96 51, 56 5.449–51 140
7.97 67 6.47 67
7.100 66 6.120 140

6.290 118
Apocalypse of Moses 6.292 118
13.3–6 51 6.293 118
13.37 51 6.296–98 118
7.304–406 140
Apocalypse of Zephaniah 7.337–55 50
4.7 159 7.340–57 63
6.2 159 7.343 70
6.15 174 7.343–48 50, 70
10 62
Jubilees
Ascension of Isaiah 23.31 63
9.7–8 50, 66, 160
Life of Adam and Eve
Josephus 13.3–6 60, 61
Antiquities 31.1 61
6.329–34 42 31.4 61
6.340–50 42 32.4 61
8.326 70 38–43 61
18.12–17 106 38.5 61
18.14 50, 51, 63, 73, 106, 41.2 61
160 41.3 61
18.16–17 96 43.3 61
18.18 50, 55, 79
Philo
Contra Apion Congr.
1.162 70, 179 47 68
1.165 70, 179 57 68
1.289 117, 118
2.54 117 Contempl.
2.203 49 13 55
2.218 63
Fug. 55
Life
10–11 78 Gig.
10–12 106 6–16 68
11–12 73 28–31 68
21 106
Hypoth.
War 11.1–18 94
1.650 50
2.152–53 78 Leg. All.
2.154 55 1.105–108 68
2.154–55 50, 79 2.77 68
2.154–57 64 3.161 68
Migr. Ab. 104–15 59
2–3 68 112–13 41, 173
9 68
14–17 68 Psalms of Solomon
2.16 54
Mos. 2.32 159
2.288 68 3.10–12 54
3.11–12 159
13.11 54, 159
Mut.
223 68 14.2 54
14.3 54
14.9 159
Opif. 14.9–10 54
69–77 67, 68 15.10 159
144 67 16.2–3 54
16.12 54
Quaes Exod. 17.1 54
2.40 68
Sibylline Oracles
Quis. Heres. 1.81–84 41, 173
45 68 2.305 174
4.152–78 60
Post. 4.175–84 60
39 68 4.181–82 60
4.185–86 60
Prob.
75–91 94 Testament of Abraham
20.9–11 51
Sacr. Testament of Asher
1.5 66, 140 6.5–6 55
10 69
Testament of Benjamin
Somn. 10.6 72
134 68 10.6–8 56
Ps-Philo Testament of Dan
3.10 41, 55, 56, 69, 71 5.11–12 55
15.5 69
16.3 69, 159 Testament of Job
19.12 55 39.11–12 58
22.13 51, 56, 160 40.3 58
23.6 69, 159 52.1 58
23.12–13 69 52.1–53.5 51, 58
32.13 56 52.7–11 58
43.7 69
44.9 69 Testament of Judah
44.10 69 25.1 56
62.9 56, 69
63.4 69
Pseudo-Phocylides DEAD SEA SCROLLS

102 67
103–104 59 1QH
103–15 50, 67 2.17 80, 95
3.20 80 17.3 118
6.24 80, 95 18.8–9 174
9.20 80 22.1–14 174
11.13 95 22.13 164, 174
13 95 22.30–31 132
13.6 80 22.57–60 136
13.19 80 23.15 163
14.34 81 23.31–33 174
19.10–14 81 23.33 163
20.24 80 24.15 164

21.28–29 95 24.45–51 174
22.10 80 24.51 174
23.2 95 25.30 174
25.31–46 164, 174
4Q181 84 25.41 174
4Q245 96 25.50 164
4Q385–91 81, 83 27.51–53 135
4Q386 81 27.57–60 136
4Q504 84 27.62–66 136, 139
4Q521 80–1, 83, 95 28 141
4QTestQah 84 28.2–4 136
4QVis Amr 84, 95 28.7 128, 130
4QPs-Dan 84 28.8 126, 127
28.9 127, 130
1QS 28.9–10 125, 136
4.6–14 80 28.11–15 136
4.12–14 159 28.16 124
11.53–61 83 28.16–20 136
28.17 118, 131
Mark
NEW TESTAMENT 1.10–11 137
5.22 133
Matthew 5.42 133
4.1–11 137 6.14 125
5.22 174 6.14–27 125
5.29–30 164, 174 6.16 125
7.13 164 6.29 139
7.19 174 8.31–32 126, 139
8.8–12 174 9.1 140
8.12 164, 174 9.2 137
10.15 165 9.4 118
10.28 164, 174 9.6 119
11.20–24 174 9.9 125
11.23 164 9.9–10 126
12.31–32 169 9.31–32 126, 139
12.39–40 124 9.43 62, 162, 163
13.19 118 9.43–48 72, 164, 174
13.40 174 9.45 162
13.42 164, 174 9.48 174
13.50 164, 174 9.49 163
14.1–12 125, 139 10.34 139
16–20 136 12.18 85
16.4 124 12.18–23 96, 140
12.25 125, 140 24.33 124
12.26 125 24.34 118, 124, 129, 141
16.1–8 141 24.36–53 129, 130, 131, 182
16.2 124 24.37–39 118, 130, 132
16.5 136 24.38–41 131
16.6 125, 126 24.39–43 182
16.7 128, 129 24.40 129
16.8 119, 126, 127, 136 24.51 182
16.9 124
16.12 131 John

16.14 124, 126 2.19–21 139
3.1 141
Luke 3.4 141
1.11 118, 141 3.9 141
1.38 140 5.28–30 174
2.15 140 7.50 141
3.21–22 129 10.28–29 118
4.1–12 137 11 133, 150
4.14 137 15.6 174
7.6–9 174 19.39 141
8.31 164 20.1 124
8.41 133 20.14 118, 131
8.54 133 20.17 136
8.55 133 20.19 124, 131
9.7–9 125 20.24–29 131
9.31 118 20.25 132
9.33 140 20.26 131
10.12–15 174 20.27 62, 130
10.15 164 21 129, 132
11.29–32 139 21.4 118
11.48 116 21.4–12 131
12.4–5 174 21.15–22 124
12.5 164
12.41–46 174 Acts
13.28 164, 174 1.18 125
16 129 2.3 118, 141
16.23 174 2.22–36 131
16.26 174 2.25–28 139, 182
16.29–31 174 2.31 117, 140
20.35–36 132 4.2 96
22.43 118, 141 7.2 118
23.15 174 7.26 118
23.46 128, 138, 182 7.30 118, 141
24 141 7.35 118
24.1 139 7.54–8.1 116
24.3 182 7.59 129
24.4 136 8.1 116
24.5 182 8.39 118
24.7 182 9 118
24.9 124 9.1–2 116
24.12 129 9.3–6 131
24.13 118, 131 9.8–9 132
24.13–53 136 9.17 141
24.31 131, 182 10–11 105
10.7 140 1 Corinthians
10.9–10 137 1.12 117
10.10 137 1.18 174
10.39–41 131 3.5–6 117
11.5 137 3.11–15 169
12.9 105 4.9–13 117
12.10 140 5.5 102
13.30–37 131 5.9–11 102
13.31 118 6.9–11 103
13.35 131 6.13 113, 132

16 105 6.14 109
16.7–10 105 7.12–13 116
16.9 118, 141 7.26 116
17 117 7.29–31 116
17.31 131 8.11 102
18.8 105 9.1 117
21.20–24 104 9.24–27 105
22 118 10.6 102
22.6–11 131 10.7 118
22.11 132 10.20–21 102
22.17 105 11.6 102
22.20 116 11.30 102
23.6–8 85, 96 14.13–18 117
26 118 15 97, 107, 110, 117, 118,
26.12–16 131 123, 124, 129, 133,
139, 161, 180
Romans 15.1–3 110, 119
1.3 113 15.1–11 110
1.32 116 15.3–8 117, 123
2.5 174 15.4 124
2.8 174 15.5 124, 126
2.12 174 15.6 116
3.5 174 15.8 137, 181
4.17 108 15.12–19 110
5.9 174 15.15 133
6.4 28 15.20 106, 133
6.5 109 15.20–28 110
6.9 28 15.23 106, 161
7–8 113, 117 15.29–30 169
7.18 113 15.35 133
7.24 119 15.36 116
7.25 113 15.44 123
8.3 113 15.45 119
8.8 113 15.50 123, 148, 161
8.9–11 119 15.51–53 113, 118, 119
8.11 119 15.52 109
8.19–22 104 15.54–55 113
8.23 106 16.12 117
8.26 117
8.35–36 104, 117 2 Corinthians
9.22 174 1.8–11 117
15.12 118 1.9 108, 114
15.20 104 1.15–22 116
1.22 106 5.14 118
2.15 174 6.18–19 117
3–4 104
3–5 117 Philippians
3.17 119 1.12–26 117
4–5 161 1.15–18 117
4.3 174 1.23–24 114
4.7–12 104, 117 1.28 174
4.14 109, 114 3.2–11 117
4.16–17 114, 119 3.5 106

5 49, 161, 180 3.7–11 117
5.1–5 114, 123 3.19 174
5.1–10 114 3.21 113
5.5 106 4.2–3 103
5.8 114 4.10–13 117
5.10 114
5.16 114 Colossians
6.3–10 104, 117 2.11 113
8.20 116
10.6 103 1 Thessalonians
10.10 101 1.10 108
11 117 2.1–6 117
11.4 117 4 108, 109
11.6 101 4.8 44
11.16 116 4.13 108
11.19 116 4.13–18 108, 116
11.21b–12.10 104 4.14 108, 133
11.23–29 117 4.16 108, 133, 161
12 104, 116 4.16–17 108, 113
12.2 118, 140, 141 5.3 174
12.4 118, 137, 140
12.6 116 2 Thessalonians
12.7 137 1.7–8 174
12.10 117 1.9 162
12.11 116
12.20 103 1 Timothy
1.4 141
Galatians 1.13 101
1–2 118 3.16 118
1.6–9 117 4.7 141
1.11–17 117
1.12 116 2 Timothy
1.13–14 101 4.4 141
1.15–24 103
1.16 116 Titus
1.18 123 1.14 141
4.12–16 117 3.9 141
5.3 104
Hebrews
Ephesians 5.7 135
1.14 106 6.19 134, 135
4.9 117 9.27 134
4.9–10 115, 165, 180 9.28 118
10.20 135 12.3 118
11.14–16 134 12.5 118
11.19 134 14.11 165
11.35 134 14.18 166
12 134 17.8 166
12.9 135 19.20 165
12.22 134 20.1–3 166, 169
12.23 134 20.4 133
13.14 134 20.7 166
13.20 135 20.10 166

20.10–15 166
James 20.13 41, 174
3.6 162 20.13–15 166
20.14–15 166
1 Peter 20.20 166
1.9 133 21.8 166
3.18 115, 180
3.18–20 117
3.19 165, 174 LITERATURE FROM THE
4.6 115, 117, 165, 180 EARLY CHURCH
2 Peter
1.12 165 1 Clement
1.16 141 11.1–2 165
2.1 165 26 145, 148
2.3 165
2 Clement
2.6–10 165
9 145, 148
3.7–12 165
9.1 146
3.16 165
9.3 146
17.5–7 166
1 John
1.1 132 Ambrose
4.1 132 De excess Sat.
2.20 154
2 John
7 132 Apocalypse of Paul
31–44 168
Jude 41–42 168
7 165
23 118 Apocalypse of Peter
20–33 167
Revelation
1.14 137 Athenagoras
2.7 140 Res.
2.9–10 166 1 148
2.14 166 3 148
2.20 166 21 150
3.9 166
6.8 41 Cyprian of Carthage
6.9 133, 134 Demet.
9.1–2 166 24 167
11.7 166
11.11 44 Eusebius
11.19 118 Church History
12.1 118 4.15 153
Hippolytus 11 148, 149, 150
Against the Greeks 12 150
3 166 17 150
34 149, 175
Ignatius 37 149
Eph. 16.1–2 175
Origen
Magn. C. Cels.
8.1 145 1.42 152
9.1 145 2.19 151

10.3 145 2.27 152
2.55 152
Phil. 2–4 145 4.60–61 152
5.14 151, 152
Smyrn. 2–3 145 5.18 151
5.24 156
Trall. 9–11 145, 148 5.55–56 152
6.2 18
Irenaeus 7.28 152
Haer. 7.32 152
5.1–15 155 7.42–45 152
5.7 155 8.49 151, 152
5.9 148, 155 8.52 152
5.13 148
5.31 147 Polycarp
Phil. 7 146
Jerome
Ep. Shepherd of Hermas
108.23 153 3.2.1 153
108.24 153 3.7.2 175
6.2.4 175
Justin
Dial. Synesius of Cyrene
80 146, 150 Ep. 105 152
80–81 155
107 155 Tertullian
130.2 147 Res.
2 150, 155
1 Apol. 17 150, 155
1.8 155, 166 19 150
1.12 166 38 150
1.17 166 48 155
1.18–21 155, 20 53 150, 155
1.51 155 63 150
1.52 147, 155, 166
Martyrdom of Polycarp
2.3 175 GREEK AND LATIN
11.2 175 LITERATURE
14.2 145, 153
Aeschylus
Minucius Felix Agamemnon
Octavius 565–9 21
5 149, 150 1019–24 21
8 150 1360 21
Eum. Ovid
647 21 Metam.
10.48–49 21
Aristophanes 14.805–51 13
Eccl.
1073 21 Fast.
2.481–509 13
Cicero
On Old Age Pausanius
21 21 Descr.
1.34.2 15
Euripides 4.32.4 16
Hel. 8.2.4 15
1285–7 21
Philostratus
Herodotus Vit. Apoll.
2.81 16 8.7.4 16
2.123 16
3.62 21 Pindar
Pyth.
Hesiod 3.1–60 21
Opera et Dies
166 8 Plato
Crat.
Homer 400c 17
Iliad
5.330–32 6 Gorgias
5.441–42 21 524–25 10, 22
9.408–409 7 526b–d 10
11.71–74 8 493a 17
22.362 7
23.65–107 8, 21 Phaedo
23.83 8 64c 21
23.99–107 21 79c–d 9
24.549–51 21 79e–80b 9
24.550 7 80c–e 10
24.756 21 81b–84b 10
81d 17
Odyssey 81d–e 17
4.565 8 81e 21
10.495 7 82b–c 17
10.521 21 82d–83d 17
10.536 21 108a–c 21
11.29 21
11.38–41 8 Phaedr.
11.49 21 81c–d 21
11.484–91 7 248–49 21
11.541 21 250c 17
11.601–27 8, 14 265b–266a 21
24.5 21
Resp.
Livy 114b–c 21
Hist. 517b 21
1.16 13 608d 16
Plutarch Mikw.1.4 93
Mor.
328e 17 Nid. 4.2 96
1103d 21
1105a 21 Par. 3.3 96
Pel. Sanh
16.5 15 10.1 85, 86
10.3 86
Rom.
27.8 19 Sotah 9.15 86
28.7–8 19
Yad. 4.6–8 96
Proclus
Chrest. Yeb. 16.3 86
2 14
4.2.188–90 15 Talmuds
bAZ. 20b 96
Pseudo-Apollodorus
Bibliotheca bBaba Bathra 90
2.7.7 15
3.10.3 22 bBer. 28b 88, 97
bKet. 111 89, 90

Seneca
Ep. bSabb 88b 87
24.18 12
bSanh
Sophocles 11 95
Electra 90–92 90–92
137 21 90b 88, 90
91a–b 96
Virgil 91b 91
Aeneid 92a 90, 93
2.272–73 21 92b 91, 93
2.277–79 21
6 21 bShabb 152b 87, 97
6.340–62 21
6.467–58 11 Other Rabbinic Works
6.494–508 21 t.Ber. 60b 88
t.Sanh.
12.11–13.2 88
RABBINIC LITERATURE 13.6 88
13.9b 97
Mishnah
Ber. 5.2 86 Tg. Jon. 87, 89
Ohol. GenR 88, 92, 97, 145, 147

2.3 93
7.3 93 LevR 87, 89, 92, 97
Makk. 1.6 96 EcclR 12.6 140

This page intentionally left blank

Author Index
Allen, C. 44, 45 Chadwick, H. 18, 22, 109, 120, 155, 156

Allison, D.C. 59, 74, 132, 141 Charles, R.H. 71, 74
Alston, W. 124, 141 Charlesworth, J.H. 71, 74, 75, 76, 77,
Alsup, J. 140, 141, 155, 156 99, 120
Anderson, G.A. 72, 74 Chilton, B. 73, 75, 84, 98, 135, 137,
Aus, R. 31, 42, 43, 45, 74, 87, 98 140, 141, 142, 156
Christ, F. 71, 75
Barclay, J.M.G. 119, 139, 140, 141 Clarke, M. 21, 22
Barrett, C.K. 18, 22, 26, 42, 45, 95, 98, Collins, A.Y. 8, 22, 32, 33, 126, 138,
145, 156, 173, 174 141, 142
Bauckham, R.J. 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, Collins, J.J. 31, 32, 38, 43, 46, 49, 53,
65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 96, 98, 59, 60, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73,
173, 175 77, 84, 96, 98, 115, 117, 120,
Bedard, S. 10, 21, 22, 70, 74, 155, 156 121, 140, 142, 148, 155, 156
Bernstein, A.E. 6, 20, 21, 22, 167, 173, Collins, R.F. 118, 120
174, 175 Conzelmann, H. 112, 120
Blenkinsopp, J. 31, 45 Cotter, W. 21, 22
Block, D.I. 36, 44, 45 Courcelle, P. 156
Bolt, P.G. 6, 12, 21, 22 Cox, C. 42
Bovon, F. 156 Crossan, J.D. 126, 142
Brandon, S.G.F. 26, 45, 160, 174
Bremmer, J. 7, 8, 10, 16, 20, 21, 22, 62, Daube, D. 85, 96
74, 148, 151, 152, 153, 156 Davies, J. 9, 21, 22
Brenton, L.C.L. vii, 42, 45 Davies, P.R. 43, 46, 83, 85, 94, 95, 96, 98
Brooke, G. 32, 45, 82, 83, 95, 98 De Boer, M.C. 33, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46,
Brown, R. 140, 142 49, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 84,
Brown, W.S. 46, 75 95, 96, 98, 173, 175
Bruce, F.F. 101. 108, 109, 120, 140, 142 Decock, P.B. 151, 156
Brueggemann, W. 33, 40, 45 De Jonge, H.J. 72, 75, 117, 118, 120,
Burkert, W. 6, 20, 21, 22 132, 138, 141, 142
Bynum, C. 113, 114, 120, 149, 150, DiLella, A. 33, 43, 46
152, 153, 154, 156 Dimant, D. 82, 83, 98
Dochhorn, J. 72, 75
Carmignac, J. 94, 98 Dodd, C.H. 112, 120
Carnley, P. 115, 120 Doukhan, J.B. 43, 46
Carrier, R. 132, 136, 142, 151, 156 Dunderberg, I. 10, 21, 23
Cavallin, H.C.C. 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, Dunn, J.D.G. 116, 120
37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 60, 70,
71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 87, 92, 96, Eckstein, H-J. 129, 142
97, 98, 100, 120, 160, 173, 175 Eichrodt, W. 35, 44, 46
202 Author Index
Elledge, C.D. 73, 75, 94, 98, 105, 113, Koester, K. 21, 23
117, 120 Kuhn, H.-W. 95, 98
Endsjø, D.Ø. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 21, 22, 23, 32, 41, 43, 46, Lang, B. 156, 157
62, 63, 67, 70, 71, 72, 75, 106, Laurin, R.B. 94, 99
109, 113, 118, 119, 120, 132, Le Goff, J. 168, 169, 171, 175, 176
139, 141, 142 Lehtipuu, O. 155, 157
Evans, C.A. 31, 42, 46 Le Moyne, J. 94, 99
Evans, C.F. 73, 75, 118, 120, 125, 126, Lewis, T.J. 44, 47, 117, 121
127, 128, 130, 139, 142, 144, Lichtenberger, H. 70, 76

147, 151, 155, 157 Lied, L.I. 73, 76
Lona, H.E. 43, 47
Ferguson, E. 20, 23 Longenecker, R.N. 22, 24, 40, 41, 42,
Finley, M. 7, 20, 23 45, 47, 48, 74, 98, 101, 121,
Finney, M.T. 45, 46, 173, 175 173, 176
Fiorenza, F.S. 132, 142 Lowder, J.J. 122, 140, 142, 143, 156
Frey, J. 81, 98 Lowe, H. 44, 47, 73, 76, 85, 89, 93,
Funk, R.W. 127, 142 97, 99
Lüdemann, G. 38, 47, 101, 108, 118,
Gillman, J. 140, 142 120, 121, 126, 129, 130, 132,
Glancy, J. 104, 117, 120 138, 140, 142, 143
Glasson, T.F. 10, 21, 71, 75, 120, 174,
176 Marrou, H.I. 20, 23
Goldingay, J. 33, 43, 44, 46 Martin-Achard, R. 41, 47, 70, 76
Goulder, M. 117, 120, 136, 141, 142 Martínez, F.G. 82, 84, 95, 96, 98, 99
Grabbe, L. 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75 Mason, S. 73, 76, 77, 106, 121
Graf, F. 21, 23 Mattill, A.J. 117, 121
Grant, R.M. 72, 75, 113, 119, 121, 150, McDannell, C. 157
152, 155, 156, 157 Meier, J.P. 40, 47, 125, 139, 140, 143
Green, J.B. 41, 46, 47, 70, 72, 75, 176 Metzger, B.M. 124, 128, 139, 140, 143,
Guthrie, D. 21, 23 162, 163, 176
Milik, J.T. 71, 76
Haenchen, E. 116, 117, 121 Montefiore, C.G. 44, 47, 73, 76, 85, 89,
Harrington, D.J. 66, 71, 73, 74, 75 93, 97, 99
Harrison, R.K. 58, 72, 75 Moore, G.F. 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 76, 94,
Hasel, G.F. 43, 45 96, 99
Hays, C.B. 44, 46 Morray-Jones, C.R.A. 105, 117, 121
Hays, R.B. 119, 121 Motyer, A. 30, 43, 47
Himmelfarb, M. 117, 121 Mueller, J.R. 96, 99
Hogeterp, A. 82, 98
Hoover, R. 122, 129, 142 Neil, T. 21, 23
Hubbard, B.J. 140, 143 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 33, 34, 43, 47, 52,
Hughes, R. 169, 175, 176 53, 54, 58, 59, 67, 70, 71, 72,
73, 75, 76, 84, 96, 98, 99, 110,
Jaeger, W. 16, 23 121, 131, 132, 140, 142, 143
Johnson, D.G. 43, 46, 72, 76
Johnston, P.S. 21, 23, 28, 39, 40, 41, 44, Paget, J.C. 155, 157
45, 47, 74, 76 Pannenberg, W. 123, 143
Park, J.S. 73, 76, 97, 99
Kirby, P. 126, 143 Pearson, B.W.R. 42, 47
Kissane, E.J. 43, 47 Peerbolte, B.J.L. 117, 121
Klawans, J. 71, 76, 84, 98 Perkins, P. 21, 23, 44, 47, 67, 68, 70,
Klijn, A.F.J. 73, 76 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 119, 121
Knight, J. 134, 143 Popović, M. 94, 99
Author Index 203
Porter, S. 9, 22, 23, 46, 47, 63, 65, 70, Thomassen, E. 155, 157
72, 73, 76, 84, 95, 96, 99 Tigchelaar, E. 45, 82, 95, 98, 99
Price, R.M. 107, 122, 142, 143, 156 Tromp, J. 20, 23, 26, 28, 40, 41, 44, 48,
Puech, É. 43, 45, 47, 57, 70, 71, 72, 77, 161, 176
81, 84, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99 Tromp, N.J. 42, 72, 74, 77
Tuckett, C. 110, 117, 119, 122
Räisänen, H. 159, 163, 164, 166, 173, Tugwell, S. 16, 23
174, 176
Riley, G.J. 6, 9, 21, 23, 68, 73, 77, 123, Urbach, E. 85, 98, 99
141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 153,

155, 157, 174, 176 Van der Horst, P.W. 59, 71, 72, 77
Robinson, J.M. 140, 143 Vanderkam, J.C. 71, 72, 76
Robinson, S.E. 96, 99 Van Eijk, A.H.C. 148, 150, 153, 155,
Rohde, E. 21, 23 157
Vermes, G. 73, 77, 81, 84, 95, 99, 126,
Sawyer, J.F.A. 42, 47 143
Schmidt, B.B. 43, 47 Vermeule, E. 21, 24, 62, 77
Schmitz, P. 31, 47 Vinzent, M. 155, 157
Schubert, K. 94, 99
Schürer, E. 40, 47, 99, 108, 118, 122,
173, 176 Wacker, T. 71, 77
Segal, A. 21, 23, 28, 33, 40, 42, 43, 48, Wade, G.W. 43, 48
67, 71, 73, 77, 94, 96, 99, 105, Walker, W.O. 105, 122, 132, 143
117, 122 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 40, 43, 48, 117,
Senior, D. 139, 140, 143 122, 173, 176
Setzer, C. 56, 57, 60, 72, 77, 96, 99, 145, Wilderberger, H. 43, 48
146, 147, 148, 149, 155, 157 Wilson, W.T. 71, 77
Shantz, C. 105, 117, 120, 121, 122 Wintermute, O.S. 71, 77
Sheehan, T. 140, 141, 143 Wold, B. 95, 99
Sievers, J. 63, 70, 73, 77 Wolff, C. 112, 122
Silva, M. 42, 48 Wolfson, H.A. 68, 77
Sim, D.C. 73, 77, 160, 176 Wright, J.E. 10, 12, 24
Songe-Møller, V. 8, 23, 111, 122 Wright, N.T. 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43,
Spittler, R.P. 59, 71, 77 48, 71, 73, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84,
Stanton, G. 127, 142, 143, 146, 152, 85, 86, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 118,
157, 163, 176 122, 133, 134, 143, 173, 176
Stemberger, G. 66, 70, 71, 73, 77
Stenning, J.F. 97, 99 Yamuachi, E. 20, 24, 41, 48
Stone, M.E. 72, 74 Yonge, C.D. 74, 77
Stratton, K.B. 73, 77
Stuckenbruck, L. 53, 71, 72, 77 Zimmerli, W. 35, 36, 44, 48

FINNEY, Mark T. (2016), Resurrection, Hell and The Afterlife. Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism and Early Christianity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINNEY, Mark T. (2016), Resurrection, Hell and The Afterlife. Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism and Early Christianity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINNEY, Mark T. (2016), Resurrection, Hell and The Afterlife. Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism and Early Christianity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main topics discussed in the document?

What are the main topics discussed in the document?

What is the overall argument of the book?

What is the overall argument of the book?

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:13 17 January 2017

Resurrection, Hell and the Afterlife

Mark T. Finney is Lecturer in Religion in the Department of History at the

Series Editors: Philip R. Davies and James G. Crossley,

BibleWorld shares the fruits of modern (and postmodern) biblical scholar-

been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the

1 Afterlife in Antiquity: Post-Mortem Existence in its

2 Biblical Beginnings: Death and Afterlife in the Hebrew Bible 25

3 The Priority of the Soul: Constructions of Afterlife in Second

4 Life after Death in Additional Jewish Literature: The Dead

5 New Testament Beginnings: Afterlife in the Thought of the

6 The Priority of the Body: Post-Mortem Existence in the Later

7 The Rise of Gehenna: Afterlife in Early Christianity 144

8 What the . . .? Developments of Hell in its Jewish and

Ancient Sources Index 185

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations are taken from Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds) (1996)

Brenton, L.C.L. (1851) The Septuagint with Apocrypha. Peabody:

Herodotus Rawlinson, G. (1996) Histories. Ware: Wordsworth

Justin Martyr Falls, T. (1948) Dialogue with Trypho. Washington: The

My preliminary thoughts on this topic emerged during research on the

of post-mortem existence or the category of ‘hell’ will be clear. As notions

He goes on to note that the philosophical or anthropological dualism

THE INFLUENCE OF PLATO

blessed—then in later accounts on the upper parts of the earth—and in

THE ROMAN PERIOD

In the Roman period, reflection on the afterlife was largely a continuation of

As long as we remain within these bodily frames of ours, we are under-

However, the thoughts of both were ridiculed by other philosophers. Lucian

Such accounts, which draw on traditions which are pre-Plato, remained

RESURRECTION AND THE ROLE OF THE BODY

an eternal life there.

He cites Herodotus who regarded the notion of the soul’s immortality as

In terms of Platonic thought, as noted above, Endsjø recognizes that Plato

Immortality was originally never used to describe the everlasting fate

In summary, Greek reflection on the afterlife demonstrates distinct changes

hope of reaching the divine sphere, “when it is most completely separated

GLASSON, T.F. (1961) Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology. London: SPCK.

THE SOUL IN SHEOL

clause, if it is speaking of ‘resurrection’ at all, would be that what is raised

The Isaianic text is:

a)nasth/sontai oi9 nekroi/ Kytm wyxy

The NRSV translates the MT:

Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise;

This translation is employed by N.T. Wright who claims: “The original

The dead will rise, those in the graves will be raised/roused;

into dramatic metaphor also mitigates the inherent contradiction between

The dead shall rise

insecure and to be rejected.

“notion of resurrection in terms of astral immortality,” not physical immor-

sequent outpouring of divine wrath and expulsion of the people (36.19–21),

In contrast to all those later interpretations of Ezek 37 it must now

To summarize. The ancient Israelites were no great soldier class, no fearsome

Ancient Israel shared the conviction of the Mesopotamian peoples that

Overall, the conceptual framework of resurrection occurs only on the fringes