Already Immortal?

I want to explore something a little more that I’ve explored here before, related to the “denial of resurrection” in Corinth: To get you up to speed, I guess I’m wondering whether perhaps the problem was tripartite:

1. Some in Corinth were confident in their own present “spiritual” immortality (as many Christians are today – assuming that we are essentially an immortal soul)
2. They were dismissive of the plight of those who had died – assuming that ”the dead” were at a real disadvantage
3. They looked down on Paul’s gospel of present cruciformity

Paul responds by insisting that the life of the believer consists in living an ongoing death (i.e. the pattern of the cross), and looking ahead, with those who have died, to Christ’s future appearing, when the dead will be raised, and will finally share in Christ’s immortality.

Anyway, the further development is that I’ve been looking more into the question of whether point 1 above is reasonable: Is it reasonable to think that people thought of themselves as already having entered a sort of spiritual immortality.  I had already noticed that the Epicureans thought that way – presently imperishable and immortal…

Epicurus: Letter to Menoeceus, 123

Firstly, think of God as an imperishable and blessed being.

125

Therefore death, the most fearsome of evils, is nothing to us, seeing as when we exist, death is not present; and when death is present, we do not exist.  So death is nothing to those who are living or to those who have died, seeing as for the one, it is nothing, and for the other, they are nothing.

135

But you [the follower of Epicurus' ways] will live as a god among humans.  For a person living amidst immortal goods is nothing like a mortal being.

Plutarch: Against Epicurean Happiness, 1091b-c

What great pleasure belongs to these people [the Epicureans], and what blessing they enjoy, rejoicing about their lack of suffering and grief and pain!  Therefore, is it not fitting, on account of these things, also to think and to speak as they do speak, calling themselves imperishable and equal to gods…!

And it has now struck me that Philo seems to envisage something similar – the possibility of entering imperishability/immortality in the present, in some sort of spiritual sense:

Philo: The Worse Attacks the Better, 48-49

For the soul from which the love of virtue and love of God have been removed has died to the life of virtue….  So then, the wise person, who seems to die to mortal life, lives the immortal life.  But the worthless person, who lives in wickedness, dies to happiness.

Philo: On Dreams, 2.253

Whoever, then, has the strength to leave behind war and fate, creation and mortality, and cross over to the uncreated, to the immortal, to free will, and to peace, might rightly be said to be the dwelling-place and city of God.

Perhaps some in Corinth were acting as though something similar had been inaugurated for themselves – having become Christians, they had passed from “creation and mortality” to “the uncreated, to the immortal, to free will” – and thus were in a position to look down on those who had died: “There is no resurrection of the dead”.

Why do we believe in the resurrection of the dead?

Has it ever bothered you that some of the beliefs that are crucial to Christianity developed in the “intertestamental” period among certain sects of Judaism, and then were assumed by New Testament writers before being codified in the creeds of the church?  The most obvious example is the “resurrection of the dead” – by which I mean general resurrection.  The Old Testament doesn’t explicitly insist on this.  But, one could argue, oppression in the time of the Maccabees resulted in a yearning for God’s redemption of the impossibly lost lives of his faithful people.  Gradually, ideas of a future general resurrection developed, and by the time of the New Testament, this view was a firm belief of the influential Pharisees.  After it was claimed that Jesus himself rose from the dead, the belief in a future general resurrection became gospel.

But is that the best way to think of it?

As I think about it, I reckon that we believe in the resurrection of the dead because of our doctrine of God.  And we develop our doctrine of God from his revelation as a God who makes and keeps covenant.  In other words, who is God?  God IS “the one who gives life to the dead”.

• Jesus makes this point to the Sadducees, insisting that if God is “the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob”, then there must be future resurrection – because they are presently dead
• Paul makes this point in Romans 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 1, insisting that the God we believe in is the “God who gives life to the dead” – it is this God who made and kept impossible promises to dead Abraham
• Paul uses the same sort of logic in Romans 9-11, where his doctrine of God (as one who keeps covenant) drives him to expect that God must somehow bring about the salvation of “all” Israel, despite the fact that this is apparently impossible

So did ideas of resurrection develop greatly in the “intertestamental” period?  Yes; but I would say that this development – often occurring in the heat of oppression – represented a right extrapolation from a doctrine of God that was steeped in the formative narratives of Israel.

The Resurrection of the Dead: International Conference

There will be an international conference on the topic of “the resurrection of the dead” at the Catholic University of Louvain, just after Easter 2010: April 7-9.  Looks like quite a few interesting speakers, including Yarbro Collins and John J Collins.  The call for papers is now open, so check it out here.

“Scholarly debate over the significance of Biblical traditions concerning resurrection from the dead has been lively. The current conference allows for a continuation of research and discussion on the topic. Presentations will include both invited guests (main papers) and paper proposals in response to the Call for Papers. Presentations will be made in English or in French. “

“He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” …really?

For I handed on to you, as of foremost importance, that which I also received: That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day [tē hēmera tē tritē] according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at once, of whom most remain alive to this day, but some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all of the apostles.  And last of all, as to one who had been miscarried, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:3-8)

He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures

Paul’s scriptures nowhere explicitly indicate that the Christ will die and be raised on the third day.  However, there is certainly an established pattern whereby Israel, or its faithful representatives, undergo suffering and persecution and possible death before being vindicated by God.  Many “Psalms of Lament” follow this pattern (such as Psalm 22 and Psalm 30), as well as Isaiah 53, narratives within Daniel and its additions (Sussana and Bel and the Dragon), and the book of Esther.

It may be that “the third day” was an idiom that indicated the expected end of a certain sequence.  So Hosea 6:2 expresses that Israel will be “raised up” on the “third day”, after suffering for a while.  Luke has Jesus using the same idiom to speak about the necessity of reaching Jerusalem: “I am casting out demons and conducting healings today and tomorrow; and on the third day I will reach the goal.”  The “Gabriel Revelation” also seems to utilise the number 3 in relation to days, perhaps confirming its use as an idiom in first century Judaism:

Line 19: Holiness for Israel!  In three days [lšlšt ymyn] you will know

Line 54: …three days… [šlšt ymyn]

Line 80: In three days [lšlvšt ymyn]… I, Gabriel

The context and meaning of these lines is hard to determine.  It seems that the phrase “three days” is important in the 87 line Hebrew inscription; but beyond this, not much is certain.  In none of the above instances, however, are three literal days envisaged.

So in what sense did Paul believe that “the scriptures” were being fulfilled with the resurrection of Jesus on the third day?  In the sense that the scriptures envisaged the necessary vindication of the righteous representative of Israel.  That’s my take on it anyway.

Between death & resurrection: the problem of 2 Corinthians 5

As I’ve just said in my previous post, I’m convinced that most of the Pauline Corpus can be read in a way that envisages the believer’s death as the termination of their experience, before Christ appears and resurrects them, clothing them with the immortality that comes with a resurrection body.  But what about 2 Corinthians 5?  I’ve just had another look at it, and I am beginning to wonder whether this text might be able to be read in a way that also fits the scenario above.  Here are some points that have raised this question for me:

• Verses 1-5 sound very much like the logic of 1 Corinthians 15 – looking ahead to being clothed with immortality
• In v.4, Paul emphasises that we do not wish to be “unclothed” – which I take to mean bodiless.  Rather we wish to be further clothed – which I take to mean a resurrection body.  Being “at home in the body” then, may mean being at home in THIS present body, as opposed to the “heavenly” body that is still to come
• In v.9, Paul strikingly says, “So whether we are in our home or out of our home, we make it our aim to please God” – which seems to imply that it is possible to be out of the bodily “home” in this present life.  Indeed, Paul describes such an experience in 12:2-4, where he mentions a possible out-of-body interaction with God

Perhaps what this section is getting at is that we would rather be “with the Lord” – an experience which can only presently be thought of as extra-bodily, given that the Lord is not accessible to our earthly sight.  Thus, we seek to please him in the present - whether in our bodies, or, a la 12:2-4, out of our bodies; and we look ahead to being further clothed at the resurrection.

Poor Blogging Attendance – and what happens when we die?

Unfortunately I haven’t been doing much in the way of posting or interacting with other bloggers recently.  I have several excuses, which I shall list in alphabetical order:

1. Annual Review: Yesterday I had to submit materials for an annual review for my PhD – about 20,000 words all up, including a chapter, PhD overview, bibliography, that sorta thing…
2. Conference Papers: In early July I’ll be presenting a paper at the Rome SBL and the Tyndale Conference on different aspects of Paul/1 Corinthians, so I’ve been doing preparatory work on those papers
3. Epicureans & Stoics: I’ve been trying to properly come to grips with these philosophical schools, taking time out to read primary literature and a little secondary literature
4. Uncertainty about soul/body/immortality/resurrection in Paul: I’d like to post about what happens between death & future resurrection.  If I only had to draw from 1 Corinthians, I’d say that Paul expects that when believers die, they are utterly dead, because they are mortal.  And when Christ appears, he will raise the dead bodies and clothe them with his immortality – thus there is nothing to be experienced in between death and resurrection.  I think almost everything else in Paul can be made to fit with this way of seeing things – EXCEPT the one spanner in the works that is 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, where Paul says he would prefer to be “away from the body and at home with the Lord”, implying that he holds to that Platonic-sounding belief that the body is a prison for the soul, which awaits release….

Did Christians in Corinth deny the resurrection because of a preference for the immortality of the soul?

It is important to consider which views of the plight of the dead may have been influential in Roman Corinth – particularly for those who had yearnings for Roman respectability.  One obvious parallel is Josephus, who, it seems, consciously attempted to present Jewish conceptions of the afterlife in a way that would make sense and appeal to his Greek-reading Roman readership.

It is worth noting that, although Josephus generally highlighted a dualism between body and soul (with the soul being immortal)[1], he apparently did not consider the idea of future inhabitation of new bodies to be inaccessible to his readership.

Josephus’ presentation of the views of the Pharisees in this regard (two posts ago) are evocative of the reception of both Pythagoras and Socrates, in allowing for the return of the soul to an earthly body.  Elledge cites Poseidonius’ summary of Pythagorean teachings:

For the teaching of Pythagoras is strong among them…, that the souls of men are immortal… and after an ordained number of years they come to life again…, as the soul enters into a different body.[2]

Similarly, Socrates is presented by Plato as holding that “the living come to life again from among the dead, a concept that Elledge identifies as “an ancient tradition of palingenesis“[3] – or reincarnation.

Josephus himself puts forward the view that virtuous souls will return to human bodies:

Do you not know, then, that (as for) those who exit from life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the obligation received from God, when the one who has given (it) chooses to receive (it), theirs is eternal fame, their houses and families are secured, their souls remain pure and obedient, having been allotted (by God) the holiest region of heaven, from which as the revolution of the ages they return again to inhabit undefiled bodies.[4]

This reminds of similar wording in the Wisdom of Solomon:

I was a good child, receiving a good soul [psuchēs… agathēs], or rather, being good, I came into an undefiled body [sōma amianton].[5]

It seems that the idea of a soul entering a body was not necessarily objectionable in a “Jewish Hellenistic” context, so long as it was a body fit to receive a pure soul.  Such a possibility also appears to be the case in Seneca’s (notably, first century Roman) Stoicism.  Elledge points to Seneca’s conception of future bodily restoration following a cosmic conflagration: In the future,

when the time shall come in which the world extinguishes itself in order to be renewed, these things will destroy themselves by their own powers, and stars will clash with stars and whatever now shines forth from the (current) order (of the world) will burn, as all matter blazes in a single fire – us too.  When it will seem good to God to set these things in motion once again, as all things are falling, we who are blessed souls and who have been allotted eternal things shall be turned again to our former elements as a small appendage to this vast ruin.[6]

It should not be immediately assumed, then, that philosophically-inclined inhabitants of first-century Roman Corinth would have found the idea of the future enlivening of “our former elements” utterly inaccessible.  Bruce Winter is too sweeping when he claims:

[R]esurrection would have been a complete enigma to the first-century Gentile who believed in the immortality of the soul and the cessation of the body’s senses at death.[7]

It may be that alongside a denial of “the resurrection of the dead” in Corinth was a belief in the immortality of the soul, but this is by no means the only possibility.  It may be that the Corinthians considered themselves to have entered immortality already.  Indeed, one conception of “immortality” in the first century was that of a present divine quality of existence.  Epicurus insists that this quality will be borne by those who practise his ways:

But you [the follower of Epicurus' ways] will live as a god [theos] among humans [en anthrōpois].  For a person living amidst immortal [athanatois] goods is nothing like a mortal [thnētō] being.[8]

The fact that Plutarch refers to Epicureans as those who call themselves immortal/imperishable indicates that such a concept of qualitative immortality was alive in the first century:

What great pleasure [hēdonēs] belongs to these people [the Epicureans], and what blessing they enjoy, rejoicing about their lack of suffering and grief and pain!  Therefore, is it not fitting, on account of these things, also to think and to speak as they do speak, calling themselves immortal [or 'imperishable': aphthartous] and equal to gods [isotheous]…![9]

Indeed, the Epicurean “rejoicing” in personal immortality went hand-in-hand with their lack of hope for the dead….

Anyway, given that this whole little series is getting the silence treatment (apart from Steph, to whom I am grateful for a most-pleasing comment!), I will wrap up my thoughts here…  To sum up: Ummm… oh my brain’s fried – go read the whole lot again and make your own summary

 

---

[1] Elledge draws attention to this: “The majority of Josephus’ comments on immortality present a dualistic anthropology.  This anthropology preserves the immortality of the soul by accentuating the mortality of the physical body.”  Elledge (2006) 128; emphasis original

[2] Cited in Elledge (2006) 104

[3] Elledge (2006) 107; emphasis original

[4] War 3.372-76 (not my own translation, for once!)

[5] 8:19-20

[6] Cited in Elledge (2006) 112; emphasis mine.

[7] Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001) 104.

[8] Letter to Menoeceus, 135

[9] Against Epicurean Happiness, 1091b-c

Did Greeks believe in the immortality of the soul?

Although Plato certainly held to the immortality of the soul (as opposed to the body), it seems noteworthy that the two main Greek philosophical schools of the time of Paul - the Epicureans and the Stoics (whom Paul had addressed in Athens) – both believed in the mortality of the soul. 

The Epicureans appear to have believed, following Epicurus himself, that the soul was extinguished with the death of the body.  This is because the soul itself was corporeal, being intermixed with the bodily parts in such a way that post-mortal survival was impossible.  On the corporeality of the soul, Epicurus writes:

So those who say that the soul [psuchēn] is incorporeal [asōmaton] are speaking vainly.[1]

Lucretius, writing in Rome in the first century BCE, similarly argues:

Therefore the soul [animi] is necessarily of a corporeal [corpoream] nature, as it labours under the impact of corporeal spears.[2]

Intermixed with our members and entire body is the power of the soul and of the spirit.[3]

Epicurus consequently reasons about death:

Therefore death [thanatos], the most fearsome of evils, is nothing to us, seeing as when we exist, death is not present; and when death is present, we do not exist.  So death is nothing to those who are living or to those who have died, seeing as for the one, it is nothing, and for the other, they are nothing.[4]

And again, Lucretius concurs:

Death, therefore, is nothing to us – of no concern at all, if we understand that the soul [animi] has a mortal nature.[5]

Stoicism similarly appears to have held to the non-eternality of the soul, although this did not necessarily mean immediate extinguishment upon the death of the body.  Like the Epicureans, they held that the soul could not be usefully thought of as independently incorporeal, given that it was inextricably linked to sensation and activity – characteristics of the corporeal.  Sextus Empiricus reports:

For according to them [the Stoics] the incorporeal [asōmaton] is not such that it can either act or suffer.[6]

Plutarch reports:

And the proof he [the Stoic Chrysippus] uses that the soul [psuchēn] is generated [gegonenai] – and generated after the body – is mainly that the manner and character of the children bears a resemblance to their parents.[7]

Eusebius elucidates a Stoic conception of the afterlife:

They [Stoics] say that the soul [psuchēn] is both generated [genētēn] and mortal [phthartēn].  But it is not immediately destroyed upon being separated from the body.  Rather it remains for some time by itself – that of the diligent remains until the dissolution of all things by fire; and that of the foolish remains only for a limited time.  About the endurance of the soul they say this: That we ourselves remain as souls which have been separated from the body and have been changed into the lesser substance of the soul; whereas the souls of irrational beings are destroyed along with their bodies.[8]

It would certainly be too simplistic, then, to claim that a “Greek” notion of the afterlife in the first century generally involved the liberation of the incorporeal soul into utopian immortality.  It is consequentially unhelpful to say that the resurrection-denial in Corinth simply involved a clash of “Jewish” and “Greek” views about the afterlife – particularly when you throw in the fact that Corinth was a Roman colony.

---

[1] Letter to Herodotus, 67

[2] 3.175-6

[3] 3.275

[4] Letter to Menoeceus, 125

[5] 3.830

[6] Against the Professors, 8.263

[7] On Stoic Self-Contradictions 1053d

[8] Evangelical Preparation, 15.20.6

Did early Judaism believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead?

It seems to me that we could say this: Early Judaism did not involve a common orthodoxy concerning the bodily resurrection of the dead.  Alongside beliefs in bodily resurrection (exhibited in 2 Maccabees, for example), was a range of beliefs about the immortality of the soul and the nature of the afterlife.

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides evidence a Jewish belief in immortality of the soul:

For souls [psuchai] remain unharmed in those who have perished.  For the spirit [pneuma] is God’s loan to mortals [thnētoisi], and his image.  For we have a body from the earth; and then after we are released to earth again, we are dust [konis].  But the air receives the spirit.[1]

The soul [psuchē] is immortal [athanatos] and ageless, living forever.[2]

Likewise, the Wisdom of Solomon envisages the afterlife as involving immortal souls:

They [that is, the immortal souls of the once-persecuted righteous] will judge the nations [krinousin ethnē], and rule over peoples [kratēsousi laōn], and the Lord will rule [basileusei] over them for eternity.[3]

I was a good child, receiving a good soul [psuchēs… agathēs], or rather, being good, I came into an undefiled body [sōma amianton].[4]

The Epistle of Enoch looks ahead to the blessed survival of good souls after death:

I swear to you: I understand this mystery [mustērion]…. That goodness and joy and honour have been prepared and written down for the souls of those who have died [apothanontōn] while godly [eusebōn].[5]

Similarly, Josephus appears to hold to the immortality of the soul, as opposed to the temporality of the body:

For [in the act of sex] the soul [psuchēs] is divided, departing to another place; for it suffers [kakopathei] when being implanted in bodies [sōmasi] and similarly at death when it is divided from them.  Therefore purifications for all of these things are commanded.[6]

According to Josephus, even the Pharisees, like the Essenes, held to a Greek-like idea of an immortal soul for all people.  Unlike the Essenes, they held that good souls would also receive new bodies:

For this is their doctrine [that is, the Essenes]: That bodies [sōmata] are mortal [phtharta], and their material is not permanent; but that souls [psuchas] are immortal [athanatous] and endure forever; and that they come out of thin air, so that they are bound to their bodies as to a prison, drawn in by a certain natural [phusikē] enticement; but being released from their fleshly bonds [tōn kata sarka desmōn], as set free from a long slavery, they then rejoice and rise upwards.  And this is similar to the opinions of the Greeks who hold that good souls have a dwelling beyond the ocean.[7]

[The Pharisees say that] every soul [psuchēn] is immortal [aphtharton], but that only those of good people are removed into another body [sōma]; while those of the simple are subjected to everlasting punishment.[8]

The Psalms of Solomon, arguably representative of Pharisaic thought, only once refer to resurrection, and there the reference is not unambiguously to a bodily experience:

The destruction [apōleia] of the sinner is forever [eis ton aiōna] and such a person will not be remembered when God visits the righteous.  This is the fate of sinners forever; but those who fear the Lord will be raised [anastēsontai] to eternal life [zōēn aiōnion].  And their life will be in the light of the Lord, and it will not go out.[9]

In contrast, Paul appears to hold that even those who belong to Christ lack immortality until they experience bodily resurrection.  The reason seems to be that Paul’s conception of the future/afterlife has become utterly Christocentric: Until Christ’s cosmic vindication is completed with his appearance and judgement of death, it is inconceivable that those who belong to Christ will pre-empt the sharing of his immortal exaltation.  Rather, they must follow in his footsteps and, at his appearing, share his bodily glory:

But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ.  (1 Cor 15:23)

And just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, so also we will bear the image of the one of heaven.  (1 Cor 15:49)

For this mortality must be clothed with immortality (1 Cor 15:53)

---

[1] Sentences, 105-108

[2] Sentences, 115

[3] Wisdom of Solomon 3:8

[4] Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20

[5] 1 Enoch 103:1-3

[6] Against Apion, II, 203

[7] Jewish War: BJ II, 154-155.

[8] Jewish War: BJ II, 164.

[9] PsSol 3:11-12.

The Gabriel Revelation and Jewish Expectations

I’m doing a lot of thinking about pre-Christian Jewish considerations of afterlife/immortality/resurrection at the moment.  There was clearly a variety of  beliefs about post-mortal vindication in early Judasim, and I’ve reluctantly decided to look into the so-called “Gabriel Revelation” to see if that adds anything. 

I’ve always wondered: Why did Jesus and Paul think that the Scriptures predicted a resurrection on the third day???  I just don’t think that the hints in Hosea etc are sufficient – I think there must have been some sort of traditional development that employed the idea of vindication/judgement/climax after “three days”… and perhaps the Gabriel Revelation provides some evidence that this sort of motif was in use just prior to Jesus – which would be a pleasingly enlightening find!

But oh dear… Israel Knohl really seems to draw some silly conclusions from this possibility in this Time article:

This, in turn,[that is, the possibility that Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born] undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up? But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a “dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism,” he says. “But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus.” If so, he goes on, “this should shake our basic view of Christianity. … What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

Since when is the novelty of a three-day resurrection “one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection”?  On the contrary – I would say that the intended credibility of the early Christian message depended on previously existing Jewish traditions of expected vindication.  But despite his misdirected apologetic approach, I have decided to buy Knohl’s book, just on the off-chance the text of the Gabriel Revelation itself helps illuminate the world of the 1st century BCE just a little more… we will see…