5 Ac. 23:7–9. On the passage see recently Kilgallen 1986; Schwankl 1987, 332–8; Daube 1990; Viviano and Taylor 1992. See too below, 454.
6 BDAG 55 suggests ‘all’ as a possible meaning of amphotera, the word in question; but since the NT evidence offered consists of the present passage and the strange passage in 19:16, with very few classical parallels, it is better to take it as meaning ‘both’ if possible. LSJ cite only Ac. 19:16 and a single papyrus as evidence of the meaning ‘all’, whereas not only is the meaning ‘both’ normal, frequent and widespread, but compounds from the word always have a sense of duality (e.g. amphoterakis, ‘in both ways’, or amphoterekes, ‘two-edged’). Stemberger’s suggestion (in Wissman, Stemberger, Hoffman et al. 1979, 441) that angels/spirits must be taken as a hendiadys, so that ‘both’ means resurrection on the one hand and angels/spirits on the other, is very hard to square with the ‘neither … nor’ of the text, and the ‘spirit or angel’ of v. 9.
7 Though that is the view of the C4 AD Epiphanius, Panarion 14—presumably dependent on the present passage.
8 cf. e.g. Lk. 24:37–9; and see below, chs. 8 and 9, on Lk. and Ac.
9 Lk. 24:37–9. The view I am opposing is that taken by e.g. Viviano and Taylor 1992.
10 In this I follow Daube 1990, who is supported by Fletcher-Louis 1997, 57–61. Fletcher-Louis is wrong, however, to suggest that Daube’s position was anticipated by Stroumsa 1981; Stroumsa, agreeing that the angel and spirit are something different from the resurrection, interprets them as the Pharisaic beliefs in a special angel and spirit associated with messianic expectation.
11 Daube 1990, 493: ‘the span between death and resurrection, which, in widespread belief, a good person spends in the realm or mode of an angel or spirit’.
12 It is of course also possible, amid the variegated speculations of the times, that they would also deny what is asserted in e.g. 2 Bar. 51.10, that the righteous will be ‘like angels’. Here, though, as in Mk. 12:25 and par., it is not stated that the righteous become angels, merely that they are like them; cf. 421f. below.
13 Daube 1990, 495 speaks of the Pharisees wondering whether Paul had been converted ‘not by Jesus resurrected but by Jesus on leave as, or represented by, an angel or spirit’.
15 War 2.165. Josephus’ picture of the Sadducees here is not far removed from his sketch of the Epicureans in Ant. 10.278 (see below on mSanh 10.1); similarly, he aligns the Pharisees with the Stoics, and the Essenes with the Pythagoreans, in an attempt to make the Jewish sects seem to his audience like hellenistic philosophical schools.
17 bSanh. 90b. The Gamaliel in question is presumably the Gamaliel of Ac. 5:34; the debate in question is therefore roughly contemporary with Jesus and Paul. (The fact that the source may have stylized it does not mean it is not thoroughly credible in exactly that period.)
18 mSanh. 10.1. ‘Epicurean’ may be an abusive way of referring to the Sadducees as licentious, an accusation which probably combines memories of the Sadducees’ wealthy lifestyle and their known denial of any future life in which retribution could be made (cf. mAb. 1.7). On this passage see Urbach 1987 [1975, 1979], 652, and the notes (991f.) on mBer. 5.2; mSot. 9.15. The Sadducees are not named in this passage, but there is no question that it is they who are in mind; the absence of the label enables the text to refer to anyone who might revive such a point of view.
19 mBer. 9.5. Some MSS read ‘Sadducees’ instead of ‘heretics’ (so Danby note in loc., citing JQR 6, 1915, 314); this is certainly the intended meaning. Cf. Le Moyne 1972, 97–9. The Sadducees thus unwittingly precipitated a liturgical change which remains a feature of many prayers, Christian as well as Jewish, to the present day.
21 Sir. 17:27f. Cf. Riley 1995, 11.
23 Sir. 41:4. On the scribal additions to and reinterpretations of Sir., and their possible relevance for our present question see Puech 1990 (on 48:11); 1993, 74–6; Gilbert 1999, 275–81.
25 Sir. 11:28—echoing, of course, the well-known maxim of Solon (cf. Hdt. 1.32.7).
27 Segal 1997 eventually sees this point (113) in relation to the rabbis, having apparently missed it (106f.) in relation to the Sadducees.
28 cf. NTPG 172, 176–81, 190–97.
29 So Martin-Achard 1960, 226, following the C19 scholar F. Schwally.
30 So e.g. Stemberger in Wissman, Stemberger, Hoffman et al. 1979, 442, stressing that the conservatism of the Sadducees and the priests in general was religious in nature.
31 The ‘pie in the sky’ jibe originated with the American labour leader and songwriter Joe Hill (Joel Hägglund, 1879–1915), in a bitterly satirical song called ‘Preacher and the Slave,’: ‘You will eat, bye and bye,/ in that glorious land above the sky,/ Work and pray, live on hay,/ You’ll get pie in the sky when you die’ (from his ‘Songs of the Workers’ (1911)).
33 I leave to one side the interesting, but for our purposes irrelevant, position of the Samaritans, some or all of whom seem to have denied the resurrection: cf. Isser 1999, 580–88. For a funerary inscription from Mount Scopus which seems to deny the resurrection cf. Cross 1983; Williams 1999, 75–93.
37 Bar. 2:17. In context this is part of a prayer, not just for the individual to be spared death, but for Israel, already in exile, to be spared the full ‘death’ of remaining in exile for ever. Baruch thus prays for the same end as Ezek. 37, but, instead of seeing Israel already ‘dead’ and needing resurrection, sees the nation as almost dead and, like the Psalmist in Ps. 16 (above, 104), prays to be spared this fate, even at the eleventh hour.
38 For a brief account of the period cf. NTPG ch. 6.
39 We cannot here go into more detail on the multiple problems caused by the regular LXX translation of nephesh as psyche, for instance in Ps. 16 [LXX 15]:10, ‘you will not leave my nephesh/psyche in Sheol’, where the Hebrew seems to designate the whole life, while the Greek, read within post-Platonic hellenistic culture, would push the reader in the direction of a body/soul dualism.
40 Ps.-Phoc. 105–15 (tr. van der Horst in Charlesworth 1985, 578). The work is hard to date but probably from the first centuries BC or AD.
41 Ps.-Phoc. 102–04. See the next section below.
42 T. Abr. [rec. A] 20.14 (tr. Sanders in Charlesworth 1983, 895). Cf. NTPG 331 n. . On the use of ‘Abraham’s bosom’ in Lk. 16:22f. see below, 438.
45 bBer. 28b.
47 For a summary see e.g. Dihle in TDNT 9.633–5.
48 See Williams 1999, 90f.
49 4 Macc. 10:4 (not all MSS contain this verse). On the apparent parallel with Mt. 10:28/Lk. 12:4f. see below, 431.
50 4 Macc. 13:13–17.
51 4 Macc. 3:18; 6:7; 10:19f.
52 4 Macc. 7:19; 16:25; cf. 9:22; 14:5; 16:13; 17:12. On the apparent parallel between ‘live to God’ here and Jesus’ words in Lk. 20:38 see below, 252, 425; and cp. Rom. 6:10; 14:8f.; Gal. 2:19. Grappe 2001, 60–71 makes ‘live to God’ a main aspect of one part of his discussion.
53 4 Macc. 18:23f.
54 Barr 1992, 54 is right to see 4 Macc. as offering solace for the persecuted, but (in view not least of 2 Macc.) surely wrong to imply that the teaching of the immortality of the soul functioned in this way on a wider basis. For a ‘translation’ of resurrection to disembodied immortality in a pagan description of Jewish belief cf. Tac. Hist. 5.5. Hengel 1989 [1961], 270 shows that Tacitus connects this belief with martyrdom.
55 Jub. 23.30f. (tr. Wintermute in Charlesworth 1985, 102).
56 The translation in Sparks 1984, 77 (that of Charles, rev. Rabin) has ‘they shall be exalted and prosper greatly’, an apparent allusion to Isa. 52:13.
57 On Philo see the recent surveys, with thorough bibliographies, by Borgen 1984; Morris 1987; Dillon 1996 [1977], 139–83; Barclay 1996b, 158–80; Mondésert 1999.
58 Observances: Migr. 89–93. Expectations (return to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the eschatological age): Praem. 165; cf. Mos. 2.44. On Philo’s awareness of treading a fine line between pure philosophical contemplation and his own necessary political work see particularly Goodenough 1967 [1938].
59 Quaes. Gen. 3.11 (see Dillon 1996 [1977], 177). For the possibility that Philo, like (probably) Wis. and 4 Macc., saw the soul as potentially immortal, becoming so only through the pursuit of wisdom see e.g. Quaes. Gen. 1.16; Op. 154; Conf. 149.
60 Prison: Ebr. 26 (101); Leg. 3.14 (42); Migr. 2 (9). Spirit or soul from God: Deter. 22 (80); Opif. 46 (134f.); Spec. 1.295; 4.24 (123). Tomb: Migr. 3 (16). Body as sema: Leg. 1.33 (108).
61 Heres 45, 78; Somn. 1.151, 2.133. See Dillon 1996 [1977], 178.
62 cf. Abr. 44 (258); Leg. 1.33 (108) (quoted in Morris 1987, 888 n. 83).
63 Equal to angels: Sac. 5; soul departing: Heres 276; soul leaving body: Heres 68–70; mother city (metropolis): Quaes. Gen. 3.11.
64 cf. esp. Chadwick 1966.
65 Singer 1962, 46f. (my summary and translation). This text follows the Palestinian recension of the Talmud; the Babylonian version is somewhat longer. mBer. 4.1–5.5 gives regulations about the saying of this prayer; 5.2 specifies the prayer about resurrection. The Talmud (bBer. 33a) comments that the resurrection is mentioned in connection with the coming of rain because rainfall means life to the world just as the resurrection does. See too 4Q521 fr. 7 and 5, 2.6 (below, 186f.).
66 cf. bBer. 60b. Full details in S-B 4.1.208–49. We may assume that in the first century this prayer would have been controversial, and may well have been confined to the (admittedly quite wide) circles influenced by Pharisaic teaching. In other words, we should not imagine that the Sadducees might have had to say it, through clenched teeth, during the Temple liturgy.
67 See Williams 1999,91.
68 Brief introductions to the study of the LXX, indicating the complexity of the problems in this area, can be found in Schürer 3.474–93 (Goodman); Peters 1992. There is a whole research project waiting to be undertaken on the question of resurrection in the LXX.
69 iatroi (‘doctors’) here, as in Ps. 88:10 [LXX 87:11], appears to be the result of the LXX translators assuming that rephaim (‘shades’) was derived from rapha’ (‘heal’). On this point see Johnston 2002, 129f.
71 On this cf. e.g. Grappe 2001, 51.
72 Hos. 14:5–7 (LXX 6–8).
73 One of the rare instances of the noun anastasis comes into this category (Lam. 3:63); cf. Ps. 138 (139):2, where egersis simply means ‘my getting up’ as opposed to ‘my lying down’.
74 The third is Dan. 11:20, where despite the eschatological context an ‘ordinary’ meaning seems to be intended.
75 See Cavallin 1974, 104, citing Volz.
76 LXX 2 Kgds. 7:12; cf. too 2 Chron. 7:18.
77 Jer. 23:4, 5; cf. 37 (30 LXX):9.
78 Ezek. 34:23 cf. v. 29.
79 Cf. NTPG 323f.; a certain amount of repetition of the material presented there is inevitable in what follows. Kellermann 1979, 81 and elsewhere tried to argue for a view of ‘resurrection’ in 2 Macc. as ‘going to a heavenly life’, which seems to me a complete misreading of the texts (though followed by Schwankl 1987, 250–57); ‘heaven’ is never mentioned as the place where the resurrections will take place. It is remarkable that Perkins 1984, 44 can claim that the only explicit reference to resurrection in 2 Macc. is at 7:11: see below. On Jason of Cyrene (the supposed original author of the (now edited) material in 2 Macc.) and the setting of his beliefs cf. Hengel 1974, 1.95–7.
82 2 Macc. 7:14; note the variation from Dan. 12:2, where the wicked are also raised in order to be judged.
86 The translation ‘drunk’ presumes, with most editors, an original text of pepokasin for the LXX peptokasin.
87 Davies 1999, 122.
90 1 Cor. 15:29; see below, 338f.
91 Porter 1999a, 59f. attempts, unsuccessfully in my view, to minimize the force of 2 Macc.
93 On apocalyptic see NTPG ch. 10; recently, Rowland 1999.
94 Trs. are taken either from Knibb (in Sparks 1984) or Isaac (in Charlesworth 1983).
95 1 En. 1.8 (Knibb).
96 cf. e.g. 1 En. 22.1–14. Unfortunately the image in this passage, of the storehouses where the souls of the dead are kept until the day of judgment, focuses almost exclusively on the wicked rather than the righteous, so we cannot tell what fate the writer envisages for the latter. However, it is clear that the future life is regarded as having two stages: the time of waiting and the time of final judgment. Schürer 2.541 (Cave) takes the passage to refer to resurrection, though suggesting that this ‘does not accord with the bulk of chs. 1–36’.
97 1 En. 25.4–7 (Isaac).
98 1 En. 39.5, 7 (Isaac).
99 1 En. 51.1f., 4f. (Knibb; alternative tr., Isaac). This is the only passage in 1 En. recognized by Schwankl 1987 as certainly speaking of resurrection (188f.); he supposes it to be an addition by a final redactor. Ironically it is one of the rare passages in the literature we are surveying which speaks of people actually becoming angels.
100 So Nickelsburg 1972, 77.
101 1 En. 62.13–15 (Isaac). Cf. too 62.3. We cannot here go into the question of the meaning of ‘son of man’ in this and similar passages.
102 1 En. 91.10 (Knibb).
103 e.g. 1 En. 96.1–3.
104 1 En. 102.4f.
105 1 En. 103.4 (Isaac). Schürer 2.541 (Cave) quotes this passage as possible evidence of belief in ultimate disembodied immortality rather than resurrection (see too e.g. Barr 1992, 52); but, though this book more than most can surely admit of inconsistencies, the surrounding chapters do seem to teach bodily resurrection, and the passage should almost certainly be read this way.
106 1 En. 104.1–4 (Isaac).
107 1 En. 108.11–15 (Knibb).
108 Ps.-Phoc. 102–15; see above, 141. This is urged by Puech 1993, 158–62; cf. Gilbert 1999, 287–90, reminding us, wisely, that ‘le poète peut se contenter d’allusions!’ (290).
110 T. Mos. 10.8–10. (The work used to be known as the Assumption of Moses, through identification with another work of that name, now almost certainly lost.)
111 So Nickelsburg 1972, 28f.
112 Other-worldly: e.g. Laperrousaz 1970; Rowley 1963. Biblical metaphor: Priest 1977, 1983. We should not, of course, press these texts for an overall ‘consistent’ pattern; Test. Abr., for instance, which speaks simply of immortality, also draws on Dan. 12.
113 This traditional title for the book is misleading; it is a variant on the Life of Adam and Eve. See Schürer 3.757 (Vermes, Goodman); Johnson in Charlesworth 1985, 259n. The book’s date is unknown, but a time between 100 BC and AD 100 is probable.
114 Ap. Ad. Ev. 13.3f. Tr. Johnson in Charlesworth 1985.
115 Ap. Ad. Ev. 41.2f.
116 Ap. Ad. Ev. 43.2f.; cf. too 13.1–6. The parallel conclusion of the Life of Adam and Eve has Michael command Seth not to mourn longer than six days, ‘because the seventh day is a sign of the resurrection, the rest of the coming age, and on the seventh day the LORD rested from all his works’ (51).
117 Tr. Collins in Charlesworth 1983, 389. Collins 1974 is prepared to date the fourth book to around 300 BC.
118 T. Lev. 18.3f. Tr. Kee in Charlesworth 1983, 794.
120 T. Zeb. 10.1–3.
121 T. Benj. 10.6–9.
122 On the book and its varied nomenclature cf. Metzger in Charlesworth 1983, 516–23 (including (516) a useful chart of books named after Ezra). Parts of the book, notably chs. 1–2 and 15–16, are later Christian additions, so the ref. to resurrection in e.g. 2:16 can be discounted from the present survey. Cf. Harrington 2002.
123 4 Ezra 4:35, 42.
124 cf. 4 Ezra 5:41f.
125 4 Ezra 7:28–32. The echoes of Dan. 12:2 should again be noted.
126 4 Ezra 7:36f.
127 4 Ezra 7:97.
128 4 Ezra 7:95.
129 4 Ezra 7:53f.
130 2 Bar. 30.1f. (tr. Klijn in Charlesworth 1983, 631). See again Harrington 2002.
131 2 Bar. 50.2–4.
132 2 Bar. 51.8–12.
133 See e.g. Carnley 1987, 231, quoting Kirsopp Lake.
134 See below on Phil. 3:20f.; 1 Cor. 15:35–58; and the summary at the end of ch. 10.
135 Ps. Sol. 3:11f.; tr. R. B. Wright in Charlesworth 1985, 655. There is no warrant for saying (Perkins 1984, 52) that this ‘could refer simply to the soul’. This passage will be important in discussing Wis. 3:1–8 (below, 162–75).
136 e.g. Ps. Sol. 13:11; 14:10; cf. Cavallin 1974, 57–60. Cf. too Day 1996, 240.
137 For the dating of Wis. see e.g. Winston 1979, 20–25, urging a date under Gaius (i.e. AD 37–41). Others are more cautious (e.g. Collins 1998, 179), but still place the book somewhere between the mid-first century BC and the mid-first century AD. Behind most modern understandings of Wis. there stands the seminal work of Larcher (1969, 1983).
138 e.g. Rom. 1:18–32 with Wis. 13:1–19; 14:8–31; Rom. 2:4 with Wis. 12:10; Rom. 9:14–23 with Wis. 12:12–22; Rom. 9:20f. with Wis. 15:7; Rom. 13:1–7 with Wis. 6:3. On all this see Wright, Romans, ad loc.
139 e.g. Reese 1970, 109f.; Schürer 3.572 (Vermes); Collins 1998, 183–6; Gillman 1997, 108–12; Grabbe 1997, 52; VanderKam 2001, 125. Grabbe 53 sees that ‘immortality’ and ‘resurrection’ are not in fact antithetical, but does not develop this or see what this insight does to the reading of ch. 3 in particular. Boismard 1999 [1995], 77 is at least shameless about his a priori assumptions: ‘We think this hypothesis [of resurrection in Wis.] is excluded for the following reason: according to Platonic theory, a resurrection of the body was unthinkable.’ He then, tellingly, has to claim that 5:16b–23 and 3:7–9 are interpolations, ‘erratic fragment[s] inserted into the text of Wisdom at a later date’, and from a different hand (78f.). This kind of surgery tells its own story. Horbury 2001 suggests that the book offers a ‘doctrine of immortality’ as the confirmation of God’s righteousness (650), teaching a ‘spiritual rather than carnal’ revival of the righteous in 3:7, even though he sees (651, 656) that in other ways the thought of the book is close to that of 2 Macc., and that ‘immortality’ and ‘resurrection’ can easily coexist, as in 1 Cor. 15:53f. and Ps.-Phoc. 102–15.
140 Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 4.86; Puech 1993, 92–8, 306. Other supporters of this position are listed in Pfeiffer 1949, 339; Beauchamp 1964; Larcher 1969, 321–7; Cavallin 1974, 133 n. 4; to which should now be added, e.g. Gilbert 1999, 282–7. It is simply not true, as Collins 1978, 188 n. 39 asserts, that Larcher (or any of the others here) proposed that Wis. teaches resurrection ‘because of an unsubstantiated assumption that such was standard Jewish belief’; actual arguments have been repeatedly offered. It is, on the contrary, all too frequent that scholars have denied the possibility of resurrection in this text because of an unsubstantiated assumption that any mention of an immortal soul means Platonism.
141 cf. e.g. Gaventa 1987, 139. On this point see esp. JVG 210–14; and Wright, ‘Jesus’.
142 On the logic of ‘resurrection’ language, and the place of ‘immortality’ within it, see above, 92.
144 Cohen 1987, 92 rightly speaks of immortality as a ‘close ally’ of bodily resurrection. Barr 1992, 105 is right to say that immortality is invoked in support of resurrection; though this obviously does not apply to e.g. 4 Macc.
145 cf. e.g. Dt. 33:3; Philo Abr. 258; Quaes. Gen. 1.85f.; 3.11; 1.16; Her. 280; Fug. 97; Sifre Num. 139, quoting 1 Sam. 25:29, as do many Jewish tombstones of the period (see Winston 1979, 125). See too below on Wis. 5:16.
146 e.g. Winston 1979, 78; Collins 1998, 182, following Kolarcik 1991 (see below). Nickelsburg 1972, 48–92 (see esp. 48 n. 1) divides the material into distinct segments, which ensure that the overall narrative sequence is never considered. It is particularly remarkable that he considers the section 2:21–3:9 as among the ‘editorial comments that do not advance the action’ in the story of the persecuted and vindicated righteous man.
147 Wis. 2:20. The connection of this ‘visitation’ (episkope) with that in 3:7 is completely obscured in most translations.
148 This does not mean that death is seen as somehow less than real (as suggested by e.g. Collins 1978, 186, 191; Barr 1992, 129f.). For Wis., bodily death is real and matters, just as bodily life is real, and matters, too. The point being made is that, despite bodily death, Israel’s god has a surprise gift up his sleeve: a blissful temporary rest, with the hope of final—and, as I shall argue below, bodily—immortality, i.e. resurrection.
149 See e.g. Gilbert 1999, 309, following Larcher; Grabbe 1997, 50. As we saw above (134), Josephus likens the Sadducees to Epicureans.
150 For political tension in Alexandria see again Goodenough 1967 [1938].
151 Wis. 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5; 18:13; cf. also 14:3. This is another narrative link that most scholars seem to ignore.
153 e.g. Kellermann 1979, 102–04, who, despite the theme of his whole book, only actually discusses Wis. 3:1–6.
155 Many texts and translations insert a paragraph break between vv. 9 and 10. This would not affect the present argument; though it does seem to me that v. 10 goes naturally with what precedes, completing the judgment scene. 3:11–4:15 then offers an extended meditation on the lives of the wicked, before 4:16 takes up the story once more.
156 So, rightly, e.g. Nickelsburg 1972, 89; Cavallin 1974, 127f., though neither of them discerns what this second stage consists of. The correct conclusion is drawn by Larcher 1969, 322f., citing F. Focke: the present state of passive peace (vv. 1–4) ‘n’est pas encore la béatitude définitive’. Boismard 1999 [1995], viii recognizes the two-stage sequence, but says that ‘the souls of the righteous are led to God after sojourning in Hades for a period of time’. How being ‘in the hand of God’ can (a) be equated with Hades and (b) designate a location from which one is ‘led to God’ is, I confess, baffling.
157 Against e.g. Kolarcik 1991, 82–5. Kolarcik manages to avoid discussing the meaning of v. 8, and (42) runs together vv. 7a and 9b to make it look as if the writer is simply saying that, in this blessed immortal state, the righteous ‘will shine forth as sparks flashing in stubble, and they will remain with God in love’. The writer is not merely contrasting ‘appearance’ (vv. 2–3a) with ‘reality’ (vv. 7–9), but present with future.
158 cf. Wis. 16:17–29; 19:6–12, 18–21. This point is rightly emphasized by Beauchamp 1964.
159 Segal 1997, 103.
160 Segal, ibid.
161 e.g. Plato Phaedo 106e, 114c, 115d; 1 En. 102.6f.
162 The same word, holokautoma, is used of Isaac in 4 Macc. 18:11.
163 ‘Soul at peace’ was a frequent inscription on Jewish tombstones of the period; see Winston 1979, 126f. for details.
164 See Wis. 4:1; 8:13, 17; 15:3; and cf. Philo Quaes. Gen. 1.16; Op. 154; Conf. 149. There are perhaps some potential parallels here between the role of Wisdom in the present book and that of faith, or even of Christ, in the NT, not least in Paul (I am grateful to Dr Andrew Goddard for raising this point).
165 So, rightly, e.g. Puech 1993, 97; against e.g. Kolarcik 1991, 42, 84f.
166 So Cavallin 1974, 127f.; Grappe 2001, 65.
168 e.g. Gen. 50:24f.; Ex. 3:16; 4:31; Num. 16:29; Isa. 10:3; 23:17; 29:6; Sir. 16:18; 23:24. Of particular interest is Jer. 6:15, and esp. 10:15f., where the phrase is identical to the one in our present passage.
170 Despite many writers, e.g. Reese 1970, 79; Martin 1995, 274 n. 57; Grabbe 1997, 56, following Dupont-Sommer 1949. On ‘astral immortality’ see above (57–60; 110–12).
171 e.g. 1 En. 38.4; 39.7; 62.13–16; 104.2; 108.12–14. See too 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Bar. 51.10.
172 Plut. Brut. 15; cf. 2.694f. Other refs. in LSJ s.v.
173 See Reese 1970, 79, with other refs. Cf. too Joel 2:5; Nah. 1:10. In the Obad. passage the Jews are the fire and the Edomites the stubble.
174 On ‘apocalyptic’ (a slippery word, but still perhaps just useful here) see NTPG 280–99, including discussion of Daniel. See too JVG frequently, esp. 95–7, 207–14, and (on the relation between ‘wisdom’ and ‘apocalyptic’) 311–16.
175 e.g. Ex. 15:18, very similar in wording to Wis. 3:8b (all the more significant in view of the major Exodus-motif in the final section of the book); Ps. 10:16; 29:10; 146:10; Jer. 10:10; Lam. 5:19; and esp. Dan. 4:34; 6:26. Each of these passages could be explored in more detail, and the point would emerge all the more clearly.
176 Against e.g. Kolarcik 1991, 42.
177 See esp. e.g. Nickelsburg 1972, 61–6 (on Isa.); 62–86 (on Dan.); Cavallin 1974, 127, with other refs. in 133 n. 8; also e.g. Winston 1979, 146 on the parallels with, and influence of, Isa.
178 See Puech 1993, 96f.
179 Cavallin 1974, 129 agrees that for the righteous man to be ‘standing’, and to be visible, does seem to demand that he has a body, but denies that this language can be ‘forced to prove’ that the author believed in bodily resurrection. By itself maybe not; in the context of chs. 1–5 as a whole, it may well do.
180 Wis. 5:5; cf. 2:13, 16, 18. The final appearance of this theme in 18:13, echoing Ex. 4:22f., 12:31, indicates that ‘god’s children’ here means ‘Israel’, not ‘angels’, as is sometimes suggested (e.g. Cavallin 1974, 129, 134 n. 17; Winston 1979, 147).
182 See Grabbe 1997, 55.
183 Winston 1979, 25f., following Larcher. Cf. de Boer 1988, 59, pointing out that the book’s anthropology is in any case not consistently articulated.
184 For a possible Platonic parallel cf. Phaedo 66b, 81c; for other comparative material cf. Winston 1979, 207, to which add Hor. Sat. 2.2.77–9. On 2 Cor. 4–5 see ch. 7, below.
185 Cf. Dt. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6.
187 cf. Wis. 16:17–29; 19:6–12, 18–21.
188 The possibility of a coded attack on imperial Rome, more specifically the celebrated pax Romana, is increased by Wis. 14:22, where the pagans, who ‘live in great strife due to ignorance’, ‘call such great evils peace’. This reminds us of the wry comment Tacitus puts into the mouth of the Briton Calgacus: ‘They make a wilderness, and call it “peace” ’ (Agr. 30.6). See NTPG 154.
189 On Paul see e.g. Horsley 1997; 2000. On Wis. see the remarks of Winston 1979, 24 n. 35. Collins 1998, 179 is right to say that the book cannot be read as a ‘veiled historical commentary’, in other words that we cannot mirror-read a precise situation from it. The possibility of a strong political intention remains open. See again the parallel with Philo drawn out by Goodenough 1967 [1938].
191 Cavallin 1974, 128 suggests that ‘the two types of eschatology are apparently only juxtaposed without very much reflection on the tension between them’, citing also Larcher 1969, 316ff. With respect, we suggest that the lack of reflection is more properly predicated of the scholarly tradition (that of mainstream biblical scholarship for many years) in which such a suggestion could be made. To be fair, the remaining puzzles of 8:19f. and 9:15 have as it were thrown dust in the eyes of those reading 3:1–10; but there is no inconsistency in chs. 1–5. Nickelsburg 1972, 87–90 seems to me to make unduly heavy weather of the whole question.
192 Cavallin’s summary (1974, 132f.), though correct to say that resurrection is not mentioned, seems to me tendentious, and to avoid the whole thrust of the narrative involved. The text of Wis. 3:7–9 is scarcely represented adequately by his statement that ‘after death the righteous will be glorified and transformed into the glory of angels, enjoying a life in close fellowship with God and sharing his rule’ (133); that sounds as though the righteous have simply (in the later, slipshod way of putting it), ‘gone to heaven’, which is hardly consonant with their ruling over nations and peoples in the kingdom of god. Cavallin’s own statement (133) that the writer is working with ‘traditional Jewish apocalyptic ideas about a final universal judgment’ is a pointer in the right direction, but the implications have not been followed through.
193 See Barr 1992, 54–6.
194 We here follow the line of NTPG 324–7, noting some more works that have come to hand since that was written: e.g. Mason 1991, 156–70, 297–308; Puech 1993, 213–15. On Josephus’ interesting and relevant understanding of the ‘ascension’ of Elijah, Elisha and Moses see Tabor 1989.
195 War 3.316–39. Josephus gives the exact date: the new moon of Panemus in the thirteenth year of Nero’s reign, i.e. 20 July, AD 67 (3.339).
196 War 3.355–60.
197 War 3.371. Translations of Josephus are my own except where noted.
198 War 3.374f.
199 Ap. 2.217f.
200 Against the suggestion of e.g. Harvey 1982, 150f., followed by Carnley 1987, 53; and cf. e.g. Barr 1992, 133 n. 32. Harvey complains that scholars have ‘shouted down’ the Pythagorean implications of Josephus’ language in their eagerness to find orthodox rabbinic doctrine here, albeit reinterpreted to be intelligible to Greek readers. The problem with this is (a) that there is plenty of evidence, in Josephus and elsewhere, that he and others did ‘translate’ Jewish ideas into Greek ones (e.g. his description of Jewish parties as philosophical schools), and (b) that Josephus elsewhere speaks more explicitly of resurrection itself. See too Sanders 1992, 301, warning against pressing Josephus’ language too hard.
201 For an incidential mention of his belief in the soul’s immortality cf. Ant. 17.354.
202 Why he does not follow Cicero’s distinctions (De Nat. Deor.), and include the Academics instead of the Pythagoreans, is not clear, at least not to me.
203 War 2.162. As is often pointed out, ‘fate’ here is a term with which pagan readers would be familiar, though Jewish thinkers might more naturally have referred to ‘providence’.
204 War 2.163. Segal 1997, 108 rightly comments that this does not mean metempsychosis or reincarnation, but the gift of a different kind of body: ‘like Paul, [Josephus] sees a new incorruptible flesh’. This, Segal suggests, may be close to the beliefs found in 1 En.
205 War 2.165.
206 e.g. Thackeray in Loeb edn. 386 n.; Schürer 2.543 n. 103 (Cave).
207 This undermines the suggestion of Porter 1999a, 54–7, that Josephus indicates that ‘traditional Greek thought of the afterlife is the dominant motif,’ even among the Pharisees.
208 Ant. 18.14.
209 Loeb 13 n., against Thackeray. Mason 1991, 156–70 argues that resurrection is a peculiar, Jewish, non-dualistic form of ‘reincarnation’, and in a sense this is of course correct. But the distinctions between ‘resurrection’ and ‘reincarnation’ are as important as the similarities, and the regular and popular meaning of the latter idea, in both the ancient and the modern world, tends to focus on those differences (a cyclic view of personal and cosmic history, the undesirability of the soul’s being embodied, and so on), making it unhelpful, in my view, to elide the two beliefs.
210 This is the strong point of Mason’s argument (see previous note).
211 So Feldman, loc. cit.
212 For the incident cf. NTPG 172.
213 War 1.650. The young men repeat this lesson when Herod asks them why they did the deed (1.653).
214 Ant. 17.152–4. Here, too, the culprits repeat their lessons under interrogation (17.158f).
215 On these movements see NTPC 170–81, 185–203.
216 War 7.343–8 (tr. Thackeray). The opening lines quoted here are reminiscent of a fragment from Euripides (Frag. 634, ed. Dindorf): see Thackeray’s note in Loeb 3.605. The final line is an echo of Soph. Track. 235 (Thackeray 603).
218 War 7.349f., and the note in NTPG 327 n. .
219 Smith 1999, 560.
220 So, rightly, Segal 1997, 109.
221 On the Essenes see the sketch in NTPG 203–09; the relevant literature of the last decade is of course enormous. I assume, with most scholars, that the scrolls found at Qumran broadly at least represent Essene teaching. Nothing in my overall argument hinges on the still-disputed questions of dating, the development of the sect’s ideas, etc. The present section was completed before the important article of Lichtenberger 2001 came to hand.
222 We may leave out of consideration Philo’s account of the ‘Therapeutae’ (De Vita Contempl. 13), where he says that the sect, in their longing for the immortal and blessed life, regard themselves as having already ended their mortal lives, and therefore abandon their property to their kinsfolk. Philo’s account of the Essenes (Quod Omn. 75–91) omits any mention of their beliefs about a future life.
223 See now the major treatment of Puech 1993, 703–69. Puech is carefully criticized by Bremmer 2002, 43–7.
224 War 2.154–8 (tr. Thackeray).
225 Life 9–11.
226 War 2.153 (tr. Thackeray). This passage sometimes goes unnoticed in secondary discussions where one might have thought it important, e.g. Nickelsburg 1972, 167–9.
228 See too War 2.151 (a few sentences earlier than the passage just quoted), where Josephus says, somewhat puzzlingly, that the Essenes prefer death, if it arrives with honour, to immortality. ‘Immortality’ here seems to mean ‘continuing life’. On both passages see Puech 1993, 709, who raises the question whether they point to a more mainstream view of resurrection, without concluding that they necessarily do so.
229 Ant. 18.18.
230 See Feldman’s full note in the Loeb edn. ad loc. Nickelsburg 1972, 169 fails to discuss this phrase, leaving the impression that an affirmation of the soul’s immortality settles other issues.
231 e.g. Plato Laws 8.847a.
232 Feldman in Loeb 9, 15n, quoting Strugnell 1958. Puech 1993, 707 says that the idea of drawing near to righteousness and that of the reward for it are inseparable, which seems to me dubious.
233 Hippol. Ref. 9.27.1–3. As with Josephus’ description in War Book 2, this is prefixed (9.26.3b–4) by a statement of the Essenes’ fearless attitude to death, though without including at that point any suggestion of their future hope.
234 Or perhaps, as some have argued (Smith 1958), Josephus and Hippolytus are drawing on a common source or sources. Guesses as to what these two very different writers are likely to have done may not get us very far. Hippolytus might not have wanted to alter a heretical source to make it look more orthodox, but this could simply mean that he got the material in its present form from a source. See Black 1964 [1954]; Nickelsburg 1972, 167f.
235 Nickelsburg 1972, 168.
236 1 Cor. 15:52. On Tertullian see 510–13, below. See too the criticisms of Nickelsburg in Puech 1993, 716–18.
237 Puech 1993, 760–62, after a long, careful discussion; pace Bremmer 2002, 45f.
238 Puech 1993.
239 In addition to the evidence from the burial places of Khirbet Qumran and Ain el-Ghuweir; see Puech 1993, 693–702; Lichtenberger 2001, 88–90.
240 4Q521 frag. 2 col. 2.1–13; frags. 7 and 5 col. 2.1–7. Tr. Vermes 391f.; GM 1045–7 (conflated and slightly adapted). Italics added for purposes of subsequent reference (see below).
241 On the synoptic passages cf. JVG 494–7; 530–33. For other bibliography see GM 1044f. Collins 1995, 117–22 argues that the Messiah in question is prophetic, rather than either priestly or royal, and that his action in raising the dead belongs with the stories about, and speculations concerning, Elijah and others.
243 1QH 14.29f. (earlier edns., 6.29f.). Sanders 1992, 302 sees this as clear evidence of resurrection hope (though curiously not mentioning the subsequent passages below).
244 1QH 14.34f. (earlier edns., 6.34f); tr. Vermes 274; cf. GM 176f.
245 1QH 19.10–14 (earlier edns. 11.10–14); tr. Vermes 288; cf. GM 188f.
246 See 1QH 14[4].14–18. Vermes 1997, 88 appears to sit on the fence on this question; in the light of our earlier discussions, it will not do to suggest that where we find mention of post-mortem immortality this rules out ultimate resurrection.
247 4Q246 2.1f. (Vermes 577; GM 494f.). The text is clearly rooted in Daniel.
248 1QH 19[11].3.
249 Against e.g. Collins 1995, 133 (suggesting that the only clear refs. are 4Q521 and 4Q385). For earlier debates about the interpretation of these passages see e.g. Nickelsburg 1972 150f.
250 4Q385 frag. 2.2–9 (GM 768f.); see too 4Q386 frag. 1.1–10 (GM 774f); 4Q388 frag. 8.4–7 (GM 778f.).
251 Puech 1993, 792.
252 1QS 4.23; CD 3.20; 1QH 4.15 (earlier edns., 17.15); 4Q171 3.1f. (where the text speaks of all the ‘inheritance’ of Adam).
253 See Harrington in Charlesworth 1985, 297–303 (and cp. Harrington 2002); Nickelsburg 1984, 107–10. The author gets his title because the work was transmitted together with the genuine works of the Alexandrian philosopher. The work is sometimes abbreviated as LAB for its Latin title, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.
254 LAB 23.13. 28.10 speaks of the righteous being in ‘repose’, or ‘sleeping with their fathers’; 51.5 speaks of the just ‘going to sleep’ and so being freed.
255 LAB 3.10. For YHWH’s future ‘remembering the world’ cf. 48.1.
256 LAB 19.12f.
257 cf. e.g. LAB 25.7.
258 On Pharisees and rabbis see NTPG 181–203; Cavallin 1974, 171–92; Puech 1993, 213–42; Segal 1997, 113–25. With most writers of today I assume a reasonably high degree of continuity across the AD 70 watershed.
259 See the remark of Rabbi Nehunya ben ha-Kanah quoted in mAb. 3.5 (discussed in NTPG 199).
260 Many relevant passages are conveniently noted in SB 3.473–83.
261 For the NT evidence cf. esp. Ac. 23:6–9, discussed above, 191, and below, 454; and the writings of Paul, discussed in Part II below. For Josephus see above, 175–81.
262 Segal 1997, 123.
263 de Sola 1963, 184. The Hebrew for ‘to revive the dead’ is lehahyoth methim; the phrase ‘who revivest the dead’ is mehayyeh hammethim. On the dating of the second benediction of the Amidah see Cavallin 1973, 177f.
264 cf. Gen. 2:7, and the sequence of thought in Ps. 104:29f. (though the word there is ruach). Cp. Cavallin 1973, 178.
265 mBer. 5.2; bBer. 33a. Cf. mTaan. 1.1f., where rain is to be prayed for only at the appropriate times of the year.
266 mAb. 1.3. For Antigonus, and the location of Soko see Schürer 2.360 (Doubles).
267 See Aboth de R. Nathan 5, in recensions A and B.
268 mSanh. 10.1. The italicized prooftext is from Isa. 60:21. ‘Epicurean’ refers, not to the pagan philosophy of that name, but to one who behaves licentiously and thinks sceptically. The Talmud wryly comments (bSanh. 90a) that God always rewards measure for measure.
269 For the details see Urbach 1987, 991 n. 11.
270 Urbach 1987, 653.
271 mSanh. 10.3. Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) taught in the late C1 AD. Insistence on future judgment was a characteristic of a much earlier teacher, Nittai the Arbelite (C1/2 BC) (mAb. 1.7).
272 mSot. 9.15. For the textual point cf. Urbach 1987, 992 n. 11.
273 For a similar sequence cf. 2 Pet. 1:5–7.
274 For Elijah bringing resurrection cf. also Cant. R. on Song 1:1. Other refs. in Moore 1927–30, 2.272.
275 It is thus puzzling when Barr (1992, 45) describes the rabbinic view as ‘a rather vague and fluid combination of resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul’. True, by the time of Maimonides and Spinoza all sorts of things had had time to get vague and fluid; but with the rabbis we are on the solid ground of (a) an ultimate bodily resurrection and hence (b) an intermediate state which ensures continuity between the present and the ultimate future.
276 Daube 1956, 303–08.
277 bSem. 49a. In mMo. Kat. 1.5 the gathering together of one’s parents’ bones is permitted on the days in the middle of a festival week, since (the Mishnah explains) doing this is an occasion of rejoicing, not of mourning—which can only mean that the bones are being collected and stored in anticipation of the resurrection. Further details in Meyers 1970, 1971; Figueras 1974; 1983; Rahmani 1981–2. Figueras’s work is full of fascinating details about the decoration of ossuaries, which though important would take us too far afield at present.
278 See Park 2000, 170–72; with Meyers 1970; Puech 1993, 190f., 220.
279 cf. bKetub. 111a; bBer. 18b; jKetub. 12.3; Gen. Rab. 96.5; Pesiq. Rab. 1.6. I owe these references to Park 2000, 172 (see further, behind him, Meyers 1970; Fischer 1978; van der Horst 1992; and Puech 1993).
280 cf. e.g. jKil. 32c; jKet. 35b; Targ. Cant. 8:5; cf. Moore 2. 380 n.; Cavallin 1974, 192 n. 15.
281 Tos. Sanh. 13.3; bRosh ha-Sh. 16b–17a; see Moore 1927–30, 2.318, 390f. The hammaites, not surprisingly, envisaged a kind of purgatory for such people; the Hillelites reckoned that YHWH would tip the scales in favour of mercy at that point. An interesting sideline on this discussion is provided by the tale of Yohanan ben Zakkai on his deathbed, unsure as to whether he is bound for Paradise or Gehenna (bBer. 28b; Aboth de R. Nathan 25).
282 Many of the rabbinic texts relevant to this enquiry are collected in SB 1.885–97.
283 Both works reached their final form no earlier than around AD 400, though probably incorporating older material. Lev. R. shows signs of dependence on Gen. R. See Strack and Stemberger 1991 [1982], 300–08; 313–17. On the Hillel/Shammai schools and debates cf. NTPG 164, 183f., 194–201.
284 See 147–50 above on LXX; and Cavallin 1974, 107. Another tradition envisages an almond-shaped bone, the tip of the coccyx, being able to resist all attempts to crush, break, burn or otherwise dispose of it, and so being available as the starting-point for the yet-to-be-formed resurrection body: Gen. R. 28.3; Lev. R. 18 (thereby providing an ingenious exegesis of Eccles. 12:5, ‘the almond tree blossoms’).
285 Cavallin 1974, 173.
286 bSanh. 90b–91a.
287 ibid.
288 ibid. 91a.
289 bSanh. 90b; cf. too Pirqe de R. Eliezer 33.245; Gen. R. 95.1.
290 Eccles. R. 1.4.
291 On this question cf. Moore 1927–30, 2.381–4; Cavallin 1974, 179f.; Segal 1997, 121–3.
292 On the potential confusion between the two Gamaliels, and the possibility that this story concerns the one claimed as his teacher by Paul in Acts (22:3) see Cavallin 1974, 185; Neusner 1971, 1.341f.
293 bSanh. 90b.
294 cf. bYeb. 97a; bBer. 31b.
295 bSanh. 90b. Other teachers in the same passage say that Gamaliel quoted Deut. 4:4 (‘those of you who held fast to YHWH your God are all alive today’). Ex. 6:4 is also quoted to the same effect.
296 bSanh. 90b; the saying is ascribed to Johanan (mid-second century). The argument is reminiscent of Heb. 7:9, where Levi pays tithes to Melchizedek before he (or even his grandfather Isaac) has been conceived.
298 Fuller surveys in Cavallin 1974, 186–92; Puech 1993, 223–42.
299 TgJ. II on Deut. 32:39; TgJon. on 1 Sam. 2:6; TgJon. on Isa. 26:19 (the passage above all used by Gamaliel II in bSanh. 90b).
300 TgJon. on 1 Sam. 25:29; see too Cavallin 1974, 191 n. 2. For the funerary inscriptions which quote this text cf. Park 2000, 150–54.
301 Tg. Jon. on Isa. 27:12f.; cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16. Cf. too Ps. Sol. 11:1f.; Apoc. Abr. 31.1; 4 Ezra 6:23.
302 cf. Gen. 22:4; 42:18; Ex. 15:22; 19:16; 2:16; 2 Kgs. 20:5; Jon. 2:1, 11; Esther 4:16; 5:1; Gen. R. 56.1; 91.7; Est. R. 9.2; Midr. Pss. 22.5. Cf. McArthur 1971.
304 See Urbach 1987, 660; cf. too 628. I confess to complete puzzlement about Finkelstein’s claim (1962 [1938], 158f.) that as the Pharisees became more sophisticated they accepted the Greek philosophical doctrine of immortal souls, which rendered belief in bodily resurrection superfluous and unnecessary. Since Finkelstein gives no evidence for this claim, we must regard it as, at most, an attempt (like that of Josephus in the first century!) to make the Pharisees more palatable to a certain type of modem audience. As we have seen all along, belief in future resurrection entails some kind of post-mortem continuity, for which the word ‘soul’ can sometimes be used, but this does not of itself mean that the ontological basis of present or future human existence has been radically altered.
305 This is particularly so in the case of Carnley 1987. Even Wedderburn (1999) seems content not to draw upon his massive history-of-religions learning for this particular topic. Indeed, the main purpose which the Pharisaic background seems to serve for him (e.g. 117, 119, 144, 147) is to enable him to say, in effect, ‘Well, you would expect an ex-Pharisee like Paul to think like that, wouldn’t you?’, and to add (120f.) that if resurrection meant anything like what it means in 2 Maccabees, one would be better off without it. When he says, two-thirds of the way through the book (147), that ‘for the first century … “resurrection” usually meant that something was raised up to life again and that something was a body,’ we are left wondering, not only what the word ‘usually’ is doing, but also why this point was not made clear, and allowed to influence the discussion, a good deal sooner.
306 It is extraordinary, in view of the last fifty pages or so, to find Porter 1999a, 67f. declaring that ‘there is only a faint hint of the concept of a bodily resurrection to be found’ in this period.
307 This is the heart of the problem with the language of e.g. Carnley 1997, 38 about ‘the heavenly existence of the raised Christ’. Phrases like that are bound to be heard (and were presumably intended to be heard) as implying that to say ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ is a special way of saying ‘Jesus went to heaven when he died’. This is based on e.g. Carnley 1987, 74f., 246.
308 See my remarks on literal/metaphorical and concrete/abstract in Wright ‘In Grateful Dialogue’ 261f.
309 Mk. 6:14–16 and pars.; cf. 412 below.
310 Harvey 1994, 74 (italics original).
311 Avis 1993b, 6. See, correctly, Brown 1973, 70: the NT refs. to Jesus’ resurrection cannot be ambiguous as to whether they mean bodily resurrection, because ‘there was no other kind of resurrection’.
312 Johnson 1995, 134, 136.
313 Against e.g. Lohfink 1980.
316 Except in the sense that the resurrection would occur in the Messiah’s time, or through his work; e.g. Test. 12 Patr. (above, 159). This calls into question Barr’s suggestion (1992, 109) about people expecting a religious leader to come alive again after death.
Chapter Five: Resurrection in Paul (Outside the Corinthian Correspondence)
1 Against Carnley 1987, 7f., who seems in the introduction to his book to be already abandoning a historical understanding of the key terms; also Johnson 1995, 136. Johnson, like Carnley, repeatedly downgrades the real historical question (‘the effort to reduce the resurrection experience to just another historical event’ (139); ‘not simply a resuscitation of Jesus’ body but his entry into God’s own life’ (142), etc.).
2 Evans 1970, 40.
3 See particularly Wright, Climax; Romans; and the fourth projected volume in the present series. I assume the many standard commentaries on the individual letters.
4 On development hypotheses see recently Longenecker 1998.
5 Examples from one or two recent symposia: Avis 1993b, 6; Badham 1993, 30–33. Cf. too e.g. Wedderburn 1999, 111, 118f., arguing in a similar direction to that of Robinson 1982; Borg 1999, 123. On 1 Cor. 15:42–9 see 347–56 below. An older, still useful, work on the meaning of the resurrection for Paul is Stanley 1961.
6 See Ac. 17:1–8.
7 1 Thess. 1:10. Note that in quotations from and summaries of Paul’s thinking I use the capital ‘G’ for God, reflecting his own point of view.
9 On the central question cf., in addition to the commentaries, Plevnik 1984.
10 See too Phil. 3:20f., on which see below, 223–33.
11 See also Jn. 11:11–13; Ac. 7:60.
12 This was a major topic of controversy among the C16 reformers. See e.g. Tavard 2000 on the question in Calvin; Juhász 2002, on the controversy between Tyndale and Joye.
13 For psyche cf. 1 Thess. 5:23. Paul’s other uses will be discussed below (340–56).
14 Had Paul supposed this state to be unconscious, I do not think he would have written 2 Cor. 5:8 or Phil. 1:23, on which see below, 226, 367, 369.
15 1 Cor. 7:5–13; Phil 2:27—not to mention the personal agonies of 2 Cor.
16 There are no doubt other allusions as well, e.g. to Jacob’s ladder (Gen. 28:10–17; cf. Jn. 1:51).
17 e.g. Phil. 2:12.
18 On the counter-imperial overtones of the whole passage see Wright, ‘Caesar’.
19 1 Thess. 4:1–12; note the emphasis on sanctification in 5:23.
22 See esp. e.g. 1 Cor 15:17: ‘if the Messiah is not raised … you are still in your sins’. In other words, without the resurrection the great deliverance has not yet occurred; but Paul’s whole worldview is based on the belief that it has.
23 See e.g. Martyn 1997a, 255–60. On Paul’s conversion, and the significance of Gal. 1:13–17, see ch. 8 below.
24 On the Pauline meanings of ‘flesh’ see e.g. Wright, Romans, 417f.
25 On pistis Christou here and elsewhere see e.g. Hays 2002 [1983]; Hooker 1989; Dunn 1991 (reprinted and updated in Hays 2002 [1983], 249–71), with other bibliog. there.
27 The same sequence of thought can be observed in 3:22, which reads, following the line of the Greek rather than of polished English: Israel’s god, through ‘scripture’, shut up everything under sin, so that the promise could be given to those who believe, on the basis of the faithfulness of the Messiah, Jesus. As frequently in 2 Cor. (see below), such juxtaposition of negative and positive embodies the pattern of death and resurrection.
28 See Keesmaat 1999, chs. 2–4; Wright, Romans, 510–12.
29 Jesus’ sonship and resurrection are linked in Rom. 1:3f. (below, 572, 723–6).
31 e.g. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20. See below, 566–8.
32 cf. e.g. 1 Cor. 6:9f.; cp. 15:50; Eph. 5:5.
33 Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23. Elsewhere in the wider Pauline corpus the phrase is only found in 1 Tim. 1:16; 6:12; Tit. 1:2; 3:7. It is frequent in John; see 441 below.
34 cf. Pss. 125:5; 128:6.
35 See Wright, ‘Paul’s Gospel’.
37 See Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:35–9.
38 cf. Wright, Climax, ch. 4; for the political dimension, Wright, ‘Paul’s Gospel’. On ‘exaltation rather than resurrection’ cf. Reumann 2002, 410–13, 418–22.
39 Robinson 1982 established a trend now routinely followed: e.g. Evans 1970, 138f; more extreme in Riley 1995, 106.
43 Nero was described as ho tou pantos kosmou kyrios; cf. Oakes 2001, 149.
44 This understanding seems to me preferable to supposing that Paul is here talking about ‘working’ in the sense of the normal faith-and-works debates.
45 cf. Phil. 3:10f., 20f. We might comment in addition that the poem’s central point—that Jesus was ‘obedient unto death, even the death of the cross’—places the stress on humiliation, which is then reversed by exaltation; but it also strongly implies that death is itself to be defeated or reversed, which of course means resurrection.
46 1 Thess 4:13; see above, 217.
48 For this as the conclusion, cp. 1 Cor. 15:58.
49 A good example is Richard 1995 on 1 Thess. 4:16f.
51 Conf. 77–82.
52 Cf. Cic. De Leg. 2.2.5; Oakes 2001, 138.
53 cf. Wis. 8:19f. (above, 172); and cf. e.g. Hierocles 3.2.
54 For the revelation ‘from heaven’ see e.g. Rom. 1:18; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7. Among the OT background echoes we should note Ps. 57:3 [56:4 LXX]; the entire psalm is significant, not least its insistence on God’s sovereignty and glory over earth as well as heaven (vv. 5, 11). The whole new-creation theme tells strongly against Robinson 1982, 7, who leaps from Phil. 3:21 to a declaration that Paul ‘visualized the resurrected Christ as a heavenly body, luminous’.
55 Goodenough 1967 [1938] chs. 1–3.
56 See above, 214–18, on 1 Thess. 4. For the imperial rescue from the Thracians see Collart 1937, 249–51.
57 See Oakes 2001, 139f., quoting an inscription from Ephesus dated to 4 BC, referring to Augustus as ‘the God made manifest [epiphanes], offspring of Ares and Aphrodite, and saviour [soter] of human life’. For Claudius as soter kai euergetes see Oakes 140. Soter is found frequently in the Pastorals: 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:4; 2:11, 13; 3:6.
58 See Wright, Climax, 57–62.
59 For the hope of resurrection as central to Judaism, seen from Paul’s point of view, we may compare Ac. 23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:5–8, on which see 451–7 below.
60 Some were suggesting this, it seems, by the time of 2 Tim. 2:18; see below, 267–70.
61 Wright, ‘Paul’s Gospel’.
62 Especially in Som. 2; see Goodenough 1967 [1938] ch. 2.
63 See too Eph. 1:18; 4:30; and below, 257–9, 304, on Rom. 8:12–17; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5.
64 See JVC 268–71.
65 This world of thought is many a mile away from the ‘left wing of the Pauline school’ invented by Robinson 1982, 19 as an anticipation of gnostic thought.
66 On the poetry and theology of the passage see Wright, Climax, ch. 5.
67 See Wright, Colossians, 76f., 84f.
68 For the baptismal overtones cf. 2:12f.; the theme of new creation links the passage back to 1:18–20, 23.
70 See Wright, God’s Worth, ch. 6.
71 For many more details see Wright, Climax, chs. 2, 10–13; Romans.
72 cf. Rom e.g. 4:24f.; 5:11, 21; 6:11, 23; 7:24; 8:39; 9:5, on all of which see Wright, Romans, ad loc. In ch. 12 below I argue against the idea that Christos has become for Paul simply a proper name.
74 For the ‘messianic’ meaning of ‘son of God’ at this point see Wright, Romans, 416–19. Paul builds in other meanings to this phrase in, e.g. 5:10 and 8:3; but these, though rich and dense, have not left behind the home base of ‘Messiah’, which is indicated here not least by the reference to David and by the ‘royal’ overtones of his worldwide rule in 1:5.
76 Jos. War 3.399–408; 6.312–15; discussed in NTPG 304, 312f.
77 The collective implication of Jesus’ resurrection are hinted at in Paul’s phrase ex anastaseos nekron, literally ‘from the resurrection of the dead ones’ (1:4). There is a link from here to the ‘firstfruits’ image in 1 Cor. 15:20.
78 See the speculations attributed to Herod, and to Galilean Jews in general, in Mk. 6:14–16 (discussed below, 411–14). The present point is developed further in ch. 12.
79 See JVG ch. 11.
81 Pss. 2:7–9; 72; 89:19–37; cf. the portrait of Solomon in 1 Kgs. 10:14–29 (which belongs quite closely with Ps. 72).
82 Ps. 2:7–9; Ps. Sol. 17–18; Ac. 17:31. When Paul says in 1:32 that ‘those who do such things deserve to die’, he is setting up this part of his argument for the answer which comes, with the defeat of death, later in the letter (see below).
83 See Wright, ‘Law’; Romans, 440–43; and e.g. Gathercole 2002.
84 cf. 1 Tim 6:16 (see below, 269).
86 Rom. 1:18–32, esp. 1:20f.; more details in Wright, Romans, 432–6.
87 I owe this point to a paper given by Professor Morna Hooker, now published as Hooker 2002.
88 See Wright, Climax, ch. 2.
89 cp. too 1 Cor 15:56f., where the resurrection is the answer to the problem of death, sin and the law.
90 More details in Wright, ‘Exodus’; Romans 508–14.
91 Rom. 5:3–5. For details see Wright, Romans 516f.
92 For the shape of the paragraph cf. Wright, Romans, 523–5.
93 For very different metaphorical uses of ‘resurrection’ language for present experience see below, 534–51. A recent study of resurrection and ethics in Paul is Lohse 2002.
95 An example of a logical future: ‘if you have locked the door, we shall be safe’. If the condition is satisfied, we are already safe; the only actual futurity consists in our discovering whether or not you did lock the door.
98 On Rom. 7 see Wright, Romans, 549–72.
100 Deut. 30:15–20; Sir. 17:11; 45:5; Bar. 4:1; Ps. Sol. 14:2.
101 The now standard assertions that Paul did not believe in bodily resurrection usually ignore Rom. 8 (e.g. it is hardly mentioned in Avis 1993a, an exception being Rowland 1993, 83). Perkins 1984, 270, suggests strangely that the ‘making alive’ in 8:11 has to do with a present aliveness which becomes the basis of ethics. The language surely works the other way around, as in 1 Cor. 6 (see below, ch. 6): because the body will be raised in the future, therefore it is important how it behaves in the present.
103 Gal. 2:20; cf. 2 Cor. 10:3.
104 This passage calls into question the suggestion of Longenecker 1998, 201 that there seems to be a reduction in apocalyptic imagery and expressions as we move into the later letters.
105 For the ‘first-fruits’ metaphor cf. Rom. 11:16; 16:5 (and the commentary on those passages in Wright, Romans, 683f., 762); 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 16:15; 2 Thess. 2:13.
106 On the punctuation, a vexed problem throughout the paragraph, see Wright, Romans 612f.
107 Most translations render dynesetai in the last line simply as ‘will be able’, but part of the point is the contrast between the dynamis of God (1:4, 16, 20; 4:16), seen most particularly in the resurrection of Jesus and the gospel which announces it, and all the dynameis of the world.
108 On these questions see Wright, Romans, 620–26. The best example of the former mistake is C. H. Dodd (Dodd 1959 [1932], 161–3); of the latter, Krister Stendahl (Stendahl 1976 ch. 1; Stendahl 1995).
109 Details in Wright, Romans, 655–66. Vos 2002, 303–10, sees this as part of the ‘shadow side’ of Paul’s resurrection-gospel.
110 On the parallels with earlier passages see Wright, Romans 681.
112 Rom. 11:26; see Wright, Romans, 688–93.
113 cf. e.g. Gundry 1976.
114 e.g. Robinson 1952.
115 For the structure of Romans 12–13 see Wright, Romans, 700–03.
116 Several MSS read ‘of the Messiah’, but this is almost certainly an assimilation to 2 Cor 5:10, and to the normal Jewish expectation that the Messiah would judge the world (cf. Rom. 2:16; Ac. 17:31).
117 It was only when completing this book that I discovered where I had first met this exegesis of 15:12: in Torrance 1976, 30.
118 On the integration of Rom. 13:1–7 with this theme see Wright, Romans, 715–23.
119 Num. 16:12–14. This story was woven into Israelite tradition at other points: cf. Ps. 106:16–18.
122 cf. too Lev. 24:16; Sir. 23:10 (on invoking the name of the lord).
124 Corresponding to Rom. 5:17; cf. too 1 Cor. 4:8, though that is heavy with irony.
125 On e.g. Rom. 4:24f. see above, 247f.
126 Against e.g. Harvey 1994, 74: ‘The place where we are justified is in heaven: by being united with [Christ] in his resurrection we share his justification, which was in the spiritual (not bodily) realm.’ This seems to me to put the cart thoroughly before the horse. The resurrection is the basis of justification, not vice versa; and, as we have seen, the resurrection is always bodily (and occurs through the work of the Spirit). For the phrase cf. 1 Cor. 6:11: ‘you were justified … in the Spirit of our God’.
127 On resurrection in the Pastorals and the main Paulines cf. R. F. Collins 2002.
128 Longenecker 1998 offers a recent alternative proposal concerning development.
129 For a possible challenge to this (which so far, it seems, has not been taken seriously by other scholars) cf. Wise 1999.
130 On the analysis of worldviews see NTPG esp. 122–6. For a sketch of Paul’s worldview see e.g. Wright, ‘Paul and Caesar’.
Chapter Six: Resurrection in Corinth (1): Introduction
1 e.g. recently, Boismard 1999 [1995]. Boismard places these two sections in the two different main halves of his book, listing the first under ‘the resurrection of the dead’ and the second under ‘the immortality of the soul’.
2 See e.g. Lüdemann 1994, 33, citing Mk. 13; 1 Thess. 4 and 5; Did. 16; Barn. 21.
3 We may discount the practical asides in 1 Cor. 15:29–34; these show no signs of being the main reason for the writing of the chapter.
4 See esp. Thiselton 1978.
5 1 Cor. 4:6, 18, 19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4. The other appearance is Col 2:18. Cf. too physiosis in 2 Cor. 12:20.
6 Hays 1999.
7 The best of such attempts seems to me that of Winter 2001.
8 The translation ‘unspiritual’ for psychikos in e.g. NRSV is misleading. Paul is defining people here not in terms of what they are not, but in terms of what they are. This is cognate with the later struggles of the RSV/NRSV on the word; see below.
10 See ch. 7 below, 347–56, on 1 Cor. 15:42–9.
11 See the evidence set out in BDAG 914, and esp. Parsons 1988. The use of the key terms in 1 Cor. 15 will be discussed in the next chapter.
12 The closest we might get to a clear differentiation, in my judgment, is that offered by Schweizer in TDNT 9.663: the unbeliever is psychikos, i.e. merely living an ordinary human life, whereas a Christian who is ‘making no progress’ or is ‘exclusively set on what is earthly’ is sarkikos. This is possible, but it is not clear to me that Paul uses the terms with that precision.
14 cf. too Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5. Paul can refer to God’s kingdom as a present reality, as in e.g. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13; 4:11; other ‘future’ refs. include 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1; 4:18.
15 This is O’Donovan’s point (1986, 13–15): ‘Christian ethics depends upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.’ See the discussion of continuity in Thrall 2002.
16 cf. e.g. Hays 1997, 103.
18 So, rightly, Perkins 1984, 268f.
19 cf. 1 Cor. 7:23; Gal. 4:5.
20 Winter 2001, 216–25.
21 On 1 Cor. 8:1–6 in particular see Wright, Climax, ch. 6. For the context and social situation see Horsley 1998; Winter 2001.
22 See Wright, Romans, 730–43, where the differences as well as the similarities between that context and the present one are clarified.
23 cf. Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8.
24 cf. e.g. Thiselton 2000, 848–53.
25 The regular term ‘spiritual gifts’ in theological discussion comes from the word charismata (1 Cor. 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31; also 1 Cor. 1:7; Rom. 12:6). Paul uses this word in different senses in 1 Cor. 7:7, and in Rom. 1:11; 5:15f.; 6:23; 11:29.
26 cf. O’Donovan 1986, ch. 12; e.g. 246: ‘love, the form of the moral life, is grouped, not with the spiritual gifts, which have their own intelligibility, but with faith and hope which depend for intelligibility upon the end of history.’
28 See the recent full treatment in Thrall 1994–2000, 49–77.
30 cf. too Heb. 11:19.
32 See the studies collected in Hooker 1990.
33 cf. Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; and, below, 2 Cor. 5:5.
34 See esp. Hafemann 1995.
35 On this passage see Wright, Climax, ch. 9; Matera 2002, 390–92.
36 To understand what is going on in Paul’s mind here, we need of course to add the discussions of the law in Rom. and Gal.
37 Paul is here echoing 1 Cor. 4:1–5. He is not, as used often to be suggested, making a comment about ‘not knowing people according to the flesh’ or ‘not knowing Christ according to the flesh’ in the sense of refusing to have anything to do with history.
38 I have made this argument briefly in Wright. ‘Becoming the Righteousness’.
39 cp. 1 Cor. 16:1–4. On these fragments and their analysis see e.g. Thrall 1994–2000, 3–49.
40 2 Cor. 8:2, 9.
41 See Judge 1968, 47. It is remarkable that recent commentators (e.g. Furnish 1984, 542; Thrall 1994–2000, 765), though noting Judge’s case, have neither picked up the rhetorical point, nor spotted one of the strengths of Judge’s case: the corona muralis had to be claimed on oath, thus explaining Paul’s solemn invocation in 2 Cor. 11:31.
42 cf. too, of course, Jn. 1:14: ‘the Word became flesh and “tabernacled” (eskenosen) in our midst’, where the Temple-related overtones ought not to be disputed.
Chapter Seven: Resurrection in Corinth (2): The Key Passages
1 The precise count of words depends of course on textual variants, but what matters here is rough equivalence of scale, not exact numbers.
2 See Mitchell 1991.
3 See e.g. Wis. 13:1–9 (pagan ignorance of the creator); cf. esp. 1 Cor. 15:34.
4 See the fine exposition of this theme in de Boer 1988 ch. 4.
5 Interestingly, Paul only mentions the ‘soul’ once, and then in relation to the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), where the word means, more or less, ‘being’ or ‘living creature’, with no hint of immortality.
6 Against e.g. Harvey 1994, 74f., who claims that ‘the most obvious sense of “Jesus was raised on the third day” was that he had been exalted into heaven.’ The language itself simply cannot mean that; the entire argument of the chapter, the letter, and of Paul’s writing as a whole (chs. 5 and 6 above) tells conclusively against this suggestion.
7 Martin 1995, 115–17; 127–9; the whole chapter is important in its corrective to popular assumptions, though Martin’s eventual solution does not, I think, do justice to the wider theology and exegesis with which Paul so carefully frames his account of the resurrection body. See too e.g. Galen, Natural Faculties, 1.12.27f.
8 The deniers were denying ‘resurrection’. Had they held something like the view of the Letter to Rheginos (see below, ch. 11), they would have used the word ‘resurrection’ to refer to a present spiritual experience; but they did not deny that experience, but rather affirmed it. What is being denied in v. 12 is the resurrection of the dead. Likewise, if what the deniers were wanting to affirm was an ultimate non-physical ‘spiritual’ bliss, this still makes it clear that they were denying future bodily resurrection. That, therefore, must be what Paul is arguing for throughout the chapter.
9 See Bultmann in Bartsch 1962–4, 1.38–41, 83.
10 Bultmann has been followed by many: a recent example is Patterson 1998, 218, who states that Paul was wrong to use ‘appearance’ stories to reinforce resurrection belief, since that implied that something had happened, whereas in fact all that happened was the coming to faith of the early church.
11 See esp. Kendall and O’Collins 1992. Coakley 2002, ch. 8 never allows for this distinction.
13 paredoka and parelabon (v. 3, the latter echoing parelabete in v. 1) are technical terms for the receiving and handing on of tradition.
14 So Hays 1997, 255.
15 So Hays 1997, 257.
16 So e.g. Patterson 1998, 216f.
17 I find the lengthy traditio-historical analysis of Lüdemann 1994, 33–109 almost entirely worthless.
19 See JVG passim esp. e.g. 202–09.
20 See NTPG 241–3; and e.g. Wright, Romans, 632–70 on Rom. 9:6–10:21.
21 Hays 1997, 256: neither Paul nor any other early Christian could have conceived of a ‘resurrection from the dead’ which left a body in the tomb. See too Fee 1987, 725, with bibliog. (n. 61); and now esp. Hengel 2001, with plentiful recent German bibliography. Hengel’s substantial paper should silence the suggestion that the argument is advanced ‘somewhat desperately’ (Wedderburn 1999, 87).
22 So Hays 1997, 257.
23 cf. e.g. Rom. 4:24f.; 6:4, 9; 1 Cor. 15:15. Cf. esp. Hofius 2002.
25 Details in McArthur 1971. Other biblical ‘third day’ passages (listed in e.g. Midrash Rabbah on Gen. 22:4) include Gen. 42:18; Ex. 19:16; Josh. 2:16; Jonah 2:1; Ezra 8:32. On the question of whether ‘according to the scriptures’ goes with ‘raised’, or with ‘after three days’ see e.g. Thiselton 2000, 1196, with other literature.
27 How, in the light of the present passage, Perkins 1984, 137 can claim that ‘the early traditions of resurrection … are auditory and not visionary,’ I simply do not understand.
28 e.g. Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 3:2; 6:3; 16:10; Ps. 83 [MT 84]:7; Isa. 40:5; 60:2. The total of all such occurrences is 46. See Newman 1992, 190–92. This is not sufficient, though, for Newman to claim that this language by itself is an indication that Paul defines his Christophany ‘as a revelation of eschatological Glory’.
29 Thus: Ex. 24:11; Deut. 16:16 (twice); 31:11; 1 Kgds. [MT Sam.] 1:22; Ps. 41 [MT 42]:2; 62 [63]:2; Sir. 32[35]:4; Isa 1:12.
30 Thus: Gen. 1:9; Lev. 13:14, 51; Deut. 16:4; Jdg. 5:8; 2 Kgds. [MT Sam.] 22:16; 3 Kgds. [1 Kgs.] 10:12; 4 Kgds. [2 Kgs.] 22:20; 2 Chron. 9:11 (= 3 Kgds. [1 Kgs.] 10:12); Ps. 16 [MT 17]:15; Song 2:12; Jer. 13:26.
31 Thus: Gen. 46:29 (Joseph appears, i.e. presents himself, to Jacob); Ex. 10:28 (Moses appearing before Pharaoh); 2 Kgds. [Sam.] 17:17 (Jonathan and Ahimaaz could not risk being seen); 3 Kgds. [1 Kgs.] 3:16 (two harlots appearing before Solomon); 18:1 (Elijah being told to ‘appear’, i.e. present himself, to Ahab); 18:2, 15; 4 Kgds. [2 Kgs.] 14:8, 11 (two kings looking each other in the fact) (paralleled in 2 Chron. 25:17, 21); Sir. 39:4 (the wise man appears before rulers); Dan. [Th] 1:13; 1 Macc. 4:6, 19; 6:43; 9:27.
32 On the whole topic of ‘seeing’ the risen Jesus see the important essay of Davis 1997.
33 So, rightly, Hays 1997, 257.
34 Stuhlmacher 1993, 49. Stuhlmacher then backs off (50) from the implication, saying that the statements are confessional ‘and not descriptive of an objective fact’, justifying this not historically but in terms of the needs of a contemporary apologetic. Granted that there is such a thing as false ‘objectification’, that does not mean there is not also an opposite danger—of collapsing everything into subjectivity. Faced with these alternatives, 1 Cor. 15 looks as though it is more concerned to avoid the latter.
37 This is advanced by e.g. Gilmour 1961, 1962; cautiously opposed by e.g. Sleeper 1965; swept aside as not generally accepted by Thiselton 2000, 1206. Gilmour 1961, 248f. traces the proposal back to C. H. Weisse in 1838, followed by Pfleiderer in 1887 and von Dobschütz in 1903, and by many others since then.
38 See Fee 1987, 730 n. 84. Contra e.g. Patterson 1998, 227–37, who argues that large groups do not see visions, therefore the Twelve did not, nor did a group of 500; what happened was a collective ecstatic experience, like glossolalia. The obvious responses are: (a) the Corinthians had glossolalia in plenty, but Paul knows they have not seen the risen Jesus; (b) if, as Patterson allows (237), the group in question did think of it as an ‘appearance’ of Jesus, this undermines his original premise, and reopens the question.
39 Gosp. Hebr. (Jerome De Vir. Ill. 2).
40 On James see NTPG 353f.; and e.g. Painter 1997; Chilton and Neusner 2001. On the significance of James in relation to Jesus’ Messiahship see below, 560f.
41 e.g. Schüssler Fiorenza 1993, 78.
42 See the careful survey in Bauckham 2002, 268–77, citing e.g. Jos. Ant. 2.219, though arguing that the key point in some of the Jewish material is not so much the unreliability of the women as the fact that men preferred to think of themselves as the mediators of divine revelation.
44 So e.g. Carnley 1987, 141; Bovon 1995, 147–50; and cf. Hengel 1963; Benoit 1960.
45 See Wright, Romans, 762. Bauckham 2002, 165–86 proposes that ‘Junia’ in this text is to be identified with the ‘Joanna’ in Lk. 8:3; 24:10.
47 See LSJ ad loc.
48 For ugliness cf. e.g. Num 12:12; cf LXX Job 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; Philo Leg. All. 1.76. See further Schneider in TDNT 2.465–7; Nickelsburg 1986; Thiselton 2000, 1208–10.
49 For this explanation cf. too Rowland 1982, 376.
51 I owe this suggestion (as indeed much else) to Dr Nicholas Perrin.
52 cf. too 1 Tim. 1:15f.
53 The only other occurrence of ektroma in the LXX is in Eccl. 6:3, which does not appear to be relevant here.
55 So, rightly, Hays 1997, 252f.; Martin 1995, 106; cf., differently, Vos 1999; Delobel 2002. 2 Tim. 2:18 is not parallel (see above, 267–9). For the pagan context see above, ch. 2.
56 Kellermann 1979, 65 suggests that the author of 2 Macc. 7 used anistemi to mean non-bodily ascension to God; but the vv. in question (9, 14) both speak of the future bodily resurrection. Schwankl 1987, 257 n. 47 supports this contention as follows: Philo, Cher. 115, describes the post-mortal progress of the soul to God with the verb metanastesetai. However, metanastasis and its cognates never had any overtones of ‘resurrection’; the word-group simply means ‘migration’ (e.g. Xen. Mem. 3.5.12; Polyb. 3.5.5; other refs. in LSJ s.vv. metanastasis, metanistemi). Schwankl also cites a grave inscription of Antipater of Sidon (c. 170–100 BC), calling the post-mortal ascent of the soul an anastasis (Anthologia Graeca 7.748; text in Hengel 1974, 197); but the original inscription reads astesin, and even if the proposed emendation of this to anstasin be accepted this is hardly a firm base from which to overturn the otherwise universal usage.
57 Should it perhaps be translated, ‘if the Messiah is announced (or: if [Jesus] is announced as Messiah) because he was raised from the dead …’? If so, this would be a close parallel with Rom. 1:4.
58 See above, chs. 3 and 4. Fee 1987, 743 n. 24 points out that this verse only makes its point if Paul thinks of the resurrection of Jesus as a definite event.
59 Hays 1997, 260: the emphasis on the futility of a non-resurrection position goes with the warning about believing ‘in vain’ in v. 2, and the similar emphasis in vv. 10, 32, 58.
60 As in 15:6; 1 Thess. 4:13–18; only in the latter passage he was trying to alleviate anxiety about them, whereas here he is trying to stir it up (so Hays 1997, 261).
61 On this whole theme cf. e.g. Lincoln 1981.
62 For kingdom-expectation in the period cf. NTPG 302–07; JVG 202–09.
63 cf. Rom. 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 2 Thess. 2:13.
64 Note the close parallels with Phil. 3:20f. Cf. too 1 Pet 3:19–22; and the use of Ps. 8 in Heb. 2:5–9.
65 Against e.g. Perkins 1984, 221. On Paul’s use of scripture here see Lambrecht 1982.
66 Though tagma principally means ‘order’ in terms of hierarchy, military rank etc., it can also refer to a stage in a sequence; see BDAG 987f., with other refs.
67 cf. JVG 507–09.
68 Pss. 2; 72; 89.
69 Hays 1997, 264.
70 The same root occurs, perhaps itself dependent on Ps. 8:7, in Dan. 7:27 LXX: all authorities ‘will be subject to him’, hypotagesontai auto.
71 On death as a ‘power’ see e.g. Rom. 8:36–8; 1 Cor 3:22.
72 cf. Eph 1:22; Col. 3:11 (of the Messiah). ‘All in all’ is a Pauline idiosyncrasy (Fee 1987, 759). For the final sequence, compare 1 Cor. 3:22f.
73 The question of whether there is a further moment at which all the dead are raised (the question, in other words, of whether eita at the start of v. 24 refers to a further ‘then’ that follows the resurrection of the Messiah’s people in v. 23b, and if so, as seems likely, whether at this subsequent moment a further resurrection of all who have not belonged to the Messiah’s people is envisaged) does not need to be settled for the purposes of our argument. See BDAG 988.
74 See Fee 1987, 747, with e.g. McCaughey 1974. It should be noted that in v. 28 Jesus is spoken of as the divine ‘son’, with resonances of Psalm 2:7, 12 and Rom. 1:3f.
75 For the sudden change of style cp. e.g. Gal. 4:12–19.
76 See Fee 1987, 62.
77 On the passage see Winter 2001, 96–105.
78 Thiselton 2000, 1240–49.
79 See the lengthy discussion in Fee 1987, 763–7. Some have detected here echoes of the sacrifices on behalf of the dead in 2 Macc. 12:43–5 (above, 152f.).