Chapter 362 of 404

Notes to Chapter 22

1 Brown, Death, xii.

2 E.g., Wright, Resurrection; for various approaches to the subject of Jesus’ resurrection, see Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection; for alternative views on the nature of the resurrection, see the discussion in Wright and Crossan, “Resurrection”; cf. also the summary of views in Schutte, “Resurrection.” I will not address spurious “scholarship” like Cameron’s “documentary” of the “Jesus tomb”; for responses, see e.g., Freyne, “Tomb”; Hoppe, “Tomb”; Gieschen, “Tomb”; Rasimus, “Évaluation” (as fiction); Riesner, “Jesus-Grab”; López, Family Tomb; especially Meyers et al., “Tomb” (with mostly negative responses to the documentary except from James Tabor; see esp. Meyers’ critique). Scholarly circles tending to be skeptical of information in the Gospels did not prove friendly to the film, either (Hoffmann, “Faccidents”).

3 See Lindars, “Composition,” 147. He believes that John utilized his material creatively (Lindars, Behind, 76). Dodd, Tradition, 148, contends that John’s resurrection narratives represent discrete units of tradition woven by the Evangelist into a seamless whole.

4 Wenham, “Narratives”; Gundry, Matthew, 590-91.

5 The sudden ending in Mk 16:8 fits some ancient narration patterns; though in some cases, e.g., L.A.B., the ending may be lost, one may also compare abrupt original endings, e.g., in some of Plutarch’s works (Fame of Athenians 8, Mor. 351B; Fort. Alex. 2.13, Mor. 345B; Fort. Rom. 13, Mor. 326C; Uned. R. 7, Mor. 782F); Isoc. Demon. 52, Or. 1; Demetrius On Style 5.304; Lucan C.W. 10.542-46; Herodian 8.8.8. See especially Magness, Sense, for more ancient literary parallels; for consistency with Markan style, especially a final gar, cf. Boomershine and Bartholomew, “Technique.” An abbreviated conclusion allows Mark to retain the centrality of the cross without actually playing down the resurrection (cf. also Thompson, Debate, 225), because he points to resurrection appearances beyond his narrative (e.g., Anderson, Mark, 353; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 42; Hooker, Message, 120; cf. Mk 14:28; 16:7). Farmer, Verses, even makes a noteworthy case on external (pp. 3-75) and internal (pp. 79-103) grounds that Mk 16:9-20 has more support for being the original ending than often accepted, though few concur.

6 CD 9.21-22; 10:1.

7 See e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.219; m. Yeb. 15:1, 8-10; 16:7; Ket. 1:6-9; tos. Yeb. 14:10; Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; cf. Lk 24:11; Keener, Paul, 162-63; Baumgarten, “Testimony of Women”; Hooker, Message, 119. Some, though not all, condemned listening to women more generally (e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.255; Sent. Syriac Menander 118-21, 336-39). Nevertheless, Maccini, Testimony, 63-97 rightly notes the responses are more diverse than in legal contexts. Ilan, Women, 227 thinks that in practice the non-Pharisaic legal system “often” required women’s witness; even if this is overstated, women could testify concerning various matters, and some views of 1QSa 1.10-11 suggest that Qumran was more open to the practice than Pharisees were (Ilan, Women, 163-66). Although Josephus tends to downplay women’s roles in the biblical narrative, he highlights some like Abigail (Begg, “Abigail”).

8 Hesiod WD 375; Livy 6.34.6-7; Babrius 16.10; Phaedrus 4.15; Avianus Fables 15-16; Justin. Inst. 2.10.6 (though contrast the earlier Gaius Inst. 2.105); Plut. Publicola 8.4; Gardner, Women, 165; Kee, Origins, 89. Many men regarded women as gullible (cf. Philo Prob. 117; Juv. Sat. 1.38-39).

9 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 40-41; cf. L.A.B. 9:10. Our earliest version of Mark lacks a narrative that would address this point, so Luke’s could be the earliest we have (as we have noted, there were probably multiple reports of the resurrection appearances in any case).

10 Cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 151; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 126. Dunn also notes the tradition that stresses Peter first (1 Cor 15:5; cf. Lk 24:34; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 126), which Farmer and Kereszty, Peter and Paul, 46, regard as a pro-Petrine tradition. It probably simply reflects omission of the women.

11 See e.g., Byrskog, Story as History, 192-94; Wedderburn, Resurrection, 57-61.

12 E.g., Hodges, “Tomb.” C. L. Blomberg notes here Wenham, Enigma; Harris, Raised, 69-71; Ladd, Resurrection, 91-93.

13 E.g., Dibelius, Jesus, 139.

14 Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 424 (following Bogart and Montell, Memory, 77), compare conflicting reports of the 1881 lynching of the McDonald brothers, one reporting the young men hanging “from a railroad crossing” and the other from a pine tree. Amazingly, later discovered photos confirmed both accounts as true — apparently the victims were moved to a more public venue after their murder. Cf. Bruggen, Narratives, 91.

15 See Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 423-24.

16 Some ancient historians and biographers already recognized the value of this principle when dealing with sources conflicting on details (cf. e.g., Plut. Alex. 38.4).

17 Sanders, Figure, 280.

18 See e.g., Thucyd. 1.22.3.

19 With, e.g., Boyd, Sage, 277-78.

20 One might compare the different accounts of Callisthenes’ death from eyewitnesses, which nevertheless agree that he was indicted, publicly scorned, and died (Arrian Alex. 4.14.3, writing centuries after the event).

21 Luke 24 is long, though recapitulated briefly in Acts 1; Mk 16:1-8 and Matthew 28 are quite brief; John includes both Judean and Galilean appearances.

22 Diog. Laert. 6.2.38. Josephus seems once caught unexpectedly by the end of his scroll (Jos. Apion 1.320); Matthew, approaching the length limit of his standardized scroll, may hasten to his conclusion; Luke may have sufficient space remaining to provide further detail before his closing. John’s “second” conclusion (ch. 21) fits the Gospel if John employed a scroll of standardized length, but by early in chapter 20 it would be clear to either the Fourth Gospel’s author or a later disciple how much space would remain at chapter 20’s completion.

23 For what it is worth, also Gospel of Peter 12:50-13:57. Ancient sources more often than not left women unnamed (see Ilan, “Distribution”), but Mary is abundantly documented in the resurrection traditions (Mk 16:1; Matt 28:1; Lk 24:10).

24 Price, “Easters,” finds parallels in pagan narratives; I will address such comparative literature for signs in my subsequent book on miracles.

25 Mack, Lost Gospel, p. 2.

26 The attachment of geographical attributions to specific traditions is likewise speculative (cf. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 16).

27 Smith, “Appearance,” divides the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, noting that some texts depict his vindication as appearance and others as exaltation. Playing these elements off against each other as contradictory, though, is fallacious logic (especially since they often occur together in the same documents; 1 Cor 15:5-8, 20, 25; Phil 2:9; 3:10; Lk 24; Acts 1:3-11; Mk 16:14, 19; probably Jn 20:17, addressed in Keener, John, 1193-95).

28 Witherington, Sage, 139, likewise critiques Mack’s (Myth, 73) dismissal of Jewish elements in the Jesus tradition (corban, levirate marriage, sabbath, fasting, eschatology, etc.), which underlies Mack’s doubt that Jesus engaged Jewish institutions. The idea that the Jewish elements of the tradition are later accretions is precisely counter to any natural reading of the evidence.

29 See Aune, “Problem,” 48.

30 See Boring et al., Commentary, 151; Philost. V.A. 7.14.

31 E.g., Apul. Metam. 8.8; 9.31; ARN 40A. One supposed divine apparition turned out to be a conjured ghost of a gladiator (one of low class; Eunapius Lives 473). Likewise, although the biblical tradition reported only apparitions of angels in dreams, both pagan (e.g., Hom. Il. 23.65, 83-85; Eurip. Hec. 30-34, 703-6; Virg. Aen. 1.353-54; 2.268-97, 772-94; 4.351-52; 5.721-23; Ovid Metam. 11.586-88, 635, 650-73; Apul. Metam. 8.8; 9.31; Plut. Bravery of Women, Mor. 252F) and Jewish (ARN 40A; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 11:23; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Ket. 12:3, §7; Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. Acts of Paul 11.6) dreams often included apparitions of deceased persons.

32 E.g., Plutarch’s reports of Romulus more than half a millennium earlier (in Talbert, Gospel, 41; cf. Plut. Camillus 33.7). Boring et al., Commentary, 163-64 cites Romulus’ apotheosis appearance to Proculus Julius in Livy 1.16.2-8; Plut. Romulus 28; Numa 11.3; Ovid Fasti 2.500-9, and notes that Justin 1 Apol. 21 made an apologetic comparison between Jesus’ resurrection appearances and pagan understanding of imperial apotheosis.

33 Philost. V.A. 8.31; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 320.

34 Blackburn, “AN?PE?,” 193.

35 Philost. Hrk. 58.2.

36 Philost. Hrk. 9.1. He visits both Hades and the world of the living (11.7), but visits his wife only in Hades (11.8). Others also returned from Hades without immortality (e.g., in the much later Antonius Diogenes Thule 109ab) or lived during the night while remaining corpses during the day (Thule 110b).

37 See Bowersock, Fiction as History, 108-13; even his mid-first-century parallel does not indicate a bodily resurrection (it may simply mean “a brief tryst with his wife,” 112, as in earlier sources; see Petronius Sat. 129.1).

38 Lucan C.W. 6.667-775; cf. Antonius Diogenes Thule 110b. Resuscitation stories are common but most simply claim apparent deaths (Bowersock, Fiction as History, 99-100, 104-8; more convincing are OT parallels), which often invite suspense on behalf of characters with whom readers have begun to identify; see e.g., Xenophon Eph. 3.5-7; Apoll. K. Tyre 25-26; Iamblichus Bab. St. 3-6 (Photius Bibliotheca 94.74b-75a); earlier, Menander Aspis 343-87.

39 Bowersock, Fiction as History, 117-18; cf. discussion of apparent deaths in novels in Perkins, “Scheintod” (who connects it with Christian resurrection).

40 Avi-Yonah, “Sources,” 60; Flusser, “Paganism.”

41 The influence of a third-century CE Mithraeum in Caesarea (on the Mithraeum see Bull, “Medallion”; Lease, “Mithraeum”; Flusser, “Paganism,” 1099) is unclear, since Caesarea was of mixed population and the date is much later than our period (cf. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82).

42 Cf. arguments in Philonenko, “Initiation”; idem, “Mystère,” 65-70; Petuchowski, “Mystery.”

43 Willoughby, Initiation, 225-62 tries to compare Philonic language with the conversion language of the Mysteries, but like Godwin, Religions, 78-83, tends to generalize too much. More nuanced is the approach of Wolfson, Philo, 1:27-36 (and cf. 1:101; Philo adapts their language but denounces them as religious alternatives).

44 Russell, “Mysteries,” 338; cf. Reitzenstein, Religions, 174-84.

45 Reitzenstein, Religions, 125.

46 On Roman Judaism, see more fully Leon, Jews of Rome; Donfried and Richardson, Judaism.

47 Apol. 47.14.

48 Eliade, Rites, 120.

49 Benoit, “Mystères,” 79-81.

50 Metzger, “Considerations,” 10-11; Eliade, Rites, 115. The proposed similarities between Mithraism and Christianity (cf. Gervers, “Iconography,” though qualifying on p. 598; cf. Gager, Kingdom, 132-34; note the contrast stressed by Mattingly, Christianity, 5) also come from the later period in which both had become popular. Deman, “Mithras,” for instance, notes the later link between the twelve apostles and the twelve signs of the zodiac; but the twelve apostles in earliest Christian tradition stem from the twelve tribes (though Judaism had already linked the tribes with the zodiac in that period). The closest true parallels address only later Gentile Christianity, as it assimilated into a broader Roman cultural context. The alleged “suffering” of Mithras is speculative (so Klauck, Religious Context, 141-42).

51 Metzger, “Considerations,” 11.

52 Metzger, “Considerations,” 20.

53 Manson, Sayings, 64-65 stresses the moral contrast between the Mysteries (where moral ideals were irrelevant) and Christianity (cf. Carcopino, Life, 138-39). For many differences, see also Calderón, “Cultos de misterios.”

54 Metzger, “Considerations,” 15.

55 Cf. Nock, “Vocabulary,” 136, for Christianity’s “Oriental” nature but lack of “Oriental” trappings. This is not to suggest that many other Greco-Roman cults could not be distinguished from one another, but rather to point out that the originating cultural matrix of Christianity was different enough, and earliest Christianity’s monotheism rigorous enough, to disallow the degree of assimilation that could characterize most of the cults.

56 Cf. Nock, Gentile Christianity, 31; Cadbury, Acts in History, 28; Meyer, “Mysteries,” 724.

57 Just as fertility fled the earth during Demeter’s search for Persephone in the Eleusinian myth (with roots perhaps even as early as Neolithic times, in Burkert, Religion, 160), so it flees during the absence of the Hittite deity Telepinus (ANET 126-28), the Canaanite Baal (ANET 129-42; Bright, History, 118; Albright, Yahweh, 125-27), and perhaps the man Aqhat (ANET 149-55; esp. Ginsberg’s note on p. 155). The same theme appears in the late second millennium BCE story of Ishtar’s descent to the netherworld (ANET 108 lines 76ff; cf. reverse 34ff). It seems likely that a much older story line or lines stand behind all the regional variations. Some have even claimed that Marduk died and rose again in some sense (Klausner, Paul, 103), but I have not found this in Enuma Elish (in Heidel, Genesis, 18-60).

58 In the epic of Gilgamesh (Gilg. 6.97-99; ANET 84), Ishtar forces Anu to comply with her demands by threatening to smash the doors of the netherworld and to raise up the dead so that they outnumber the living, and similarly addresses the gatekeeper of that world in the tale of her descent there (ANET 107, Descent lines 12ff ). In a tale perhaps dating to the first half of the second millennium BCE or earlier, Inanna is put to death (though she is a goddess), but after three days and nights she is restored, as the food and water of life are sprinkled sixty times on her corpse (ANET 52-57, especially 55).

59 E.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.5; cf. also Plutarch Isis, passim.

60 For divergent traditions and their antiquity, see Wagner, Baptism, 115-20. Cf. his rescue in “The Theology of Memphis” (tr. J. A. Wilson), 4-6 in ANET, 5; his apotheosis to immortality among other gods (Diod. Sic. 1.20-22); his return to life in Plut. Isis 35, Mor. 364F. Osiris is euhemerized in Manetho Aeg. frg. 1.1. Serapis assumes some such functions, though not for the masses (Dunand, Religion Populaire, 89-92).

61 Wagner, Baptism, 119; on Nile water, see pp. 127-35. The patching together of his parts either reflected or produced a more widespread story line (e.g., Ovid Metam. 6.401-11); Greeks also told of severed divine genitals creating life (Uranus’ form the Furies, Apollod. Bib. 1.1.4). Some Greeks treated Osiris and Isis as genuine historical characters (Manetho Aegyptiaca fr. 1.1, in Armenian Euseb. Chronica 1.p. 93).

62 E.g., Plut. Nicias 13.7.

63 Wagner, Baptism, 171-207, especially p. 195; cf. Klauck, Religious Context, 120-28 (esp. 121-22). The Adonis tradition itself was Semitic and imported into Greek religion from an early period (Burkert, Religion, 176-77 thinks perhaps as early as the sixth century BCE). Cf. Ovid Metam. 10.710- 39; Callim. Iambi 3.193.37; Philostratus Hrk. 45.6; in the Greek bucolic poets, e.g., Women at the Adonis Festival (third century BCE), a lament for Adonis perhaps by Bion, and The Dead Adonis (Greek Bucolic Poets LCL pp. 176-95, 386-95, 480-83). Cf. Daphnis (Müller, “Daphnis”); earlier mourning for Tammuz in Gilgamesh 6.46ff (“The Gilgamesh Epic,” tr. E. A. Speiser, 72-99 in ANET 72-99).

64 Apollod. Bib. 3.14.4, where Persephone and Aphrodite originally had a time-share agreement about Adonis (probably derived from the Persephone myth about the custody battle between Hades and Demeter, e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.5.3); cf. Iamblichus Myst. 1.11.

65 E.g., Lucian Dialogues of Gods 233-34 (20/12, Aphrodite and Eros 1); Gout 30-32; Syrian Goddess 6, 15; Ps.-Lucian Affairs of the Heart 42. Nevertheless, Attis appears as a deified mortal in Lucian Parliament of Gods 9.

66 Wagner, Baptism, 219, 229; for the typical story, see Vermaseren, Cybele, 91; for the antiquity of the cult more generally, see Bremmer, “Attis.”

67 Cf. Otto, Dionysus, 79-80, 103-19.

68 E.g., Hom. Il. 5.339-42, 382-404, 855-59, 870; on the death of Pan in Plut. Mor. 419.17, see Borgeaud, “Death.”

69 Fragments of dithyrambic poetry (c. 1 BCE) in SP 3:390-93.

70 E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.5.3; cf. Guthrie, Orpheus, 31. On Persephone further, see Zuntz, Persephone (with archaeological data); Stroud, Demeter; less helpfully (from a more speculative, psychoanalytic perspective), Downing, Goddess, 30-50.

71 See documentation in Gasparro, Soteriology, 30 n. 16. On the imagination of early comparative religionists, see Lessa and Vogt, Reader, 7.

72 E.g., Conzelmann, Theology, 11; cf. Case, Origins, 111; Bultmann, Christianity, 158-59; Ridderbos, Paul, 22-29.

73 Burkert, Cults, 100: “This multiplicity of images can hardly be reduced to a one-dimensional hypothesis, one ritual with one dogmatic meaning: death and rebirth of ‘the’ god and the initiand.” Casadio, “Emasculation,” however, thinks that the category remains valuable.

74 E.g., Apuleius, whom Dunand, “Mystères,” 58 interprets thus.

75 E.g., Firmicus Maternus De Errore Profanarum Religionum 22 (in Grant, Religions, 146).

76 E.g., Davies, Paul, 91; for caution about dying-and-rising deities, see further Donfried, Thessalonica, 41 (following MacMullen, Paganism, 55); Nock, Gentile Christianity, 29; Klauck, Religious Context, 151-52; Mettinger, “Rising.”

77 Wagner, Baptism, 87. Thus Heracles sought initiation so he could capture Cerberus in Hades (Apollod. Bib. 2.5.12).

78 Gasparro, Soteriology, 82.

79 Kyrios Christos, 57.

80 For the vegetative association see e.g., Ovid Metam. 5.564-71; Gasparro, Soteriology, 29, 43- 49; Ruck, “Mystery,” 44-45; Guthrie, Orpheus, 55-56.

81 Cf. Metzger, “Considerations,” 19-20; Ring, “Resurrection,” 228.

82 Some Greeks may have also thought of “three days” in terms of some burial traditions (cf. Thucyd. 2.34.2, for honoring Athenian war dead).

83 Bousset’s Hellenistic parallels (Kyrios Christos, 58) have been deemed unconvincing (cf. Nock, Gentile Christianity, 105-6; Jeremias, Theology, 304; Fuller, Formation, 25). Many think that the LXX is a more likely source (Hos 6:2; Jon 1:17; cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Nock, Gentile Christianity, 108), though it is unlikely that the early Christians would have noticed elements favoring it had the “third day” not been their initial experience. (Later rabbis associated Hos 6:2 with the resurrection of the dead; see p. Sanh. 11:6, §1; cf. McArthur, “Day,” 83-84.)

84 Some later traditions suggest the retention of the soul for three days after death (until the soul sees the body begin to decompose; Gen. Rab. 100:7; Lev. Rab. 18:1; though cf. Dola, “Interpretacja”) or require three days of purgatory before preparation to appear before God (3 En. 28:10; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 4:7) or that one should confirm the actuality of the person’s death within three days (Safrai, “Home,” 784-85). This might possibly fit a broader idea expressed in three days of mourning (Ap. Rhod. 2.837).

85 Metzger, “Considerations,” 18-19.

86 E.g., Ignatius Trall. 9; Augustine On the Trinity 4.6, 10 (ACCS, 238). The third day can mean “after three days,” as in L.A.B. 11:1-3; or parts of each of three days (Scott, Customs, 260; p. Kil. 2:2, §1, on tos. Kil. 1:16); in either case it means “soon” (Gen 40:12-13, 18-19; Ex 3:18).

87 For the concrete connection with a new creation, see e.g., Moltmann, “Resurrection”; Wright, “Resurrection.”

88 ARN 40A; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 11:23; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Ket. 12:3, §7; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Eccl. Rab. 9:10, §1; cf. Acts Paul 11.6; among Gentiles, see Hom. Il. 23.65, 83-85; Eurip. Hec. 30-34, 703-6; Virg. Aen. 1.353- 54; 2.268-97, 772-94; 4.351-52; 5.721-23; Ovid Metam. 11.586-88, 635, 650-73; Plut. Sulla 37.2; Br. Wom., Mor. 252F; Apul. Metam. 8.8; 9.31; cf. Hom. Od. 4.795-839; 19.546-49; Appian Hist. rom. 8.1.1; Arrian Alex. 7.30.2.

89 Mack makes Jesus’ resurrection purely mythical (Mack, Myth, 112-13) by wrongly equating immortality in the Wisdom of Solomon with resurrection in 2 Maccabees, wrongly interpreting eschatological narratives about Christ’s resurrection as if they were eschatological allegory, and wrongly taking the Spirit in a purely hellenistic sense instead of its Jewish usage easily demonstrable in early Christianity (on this last point, see e.g., Keener, Spirit, 6-48; Turner, Spirit, 1-18).

90 Some utterly unrelated cultures also supply examples of resurrection legends (e.g., the Sonjo myth in Mbiti, Religions, 251), although without the historical attestation surrounding the case of Jesus. But given the transcultural interest in life after death, one need not suppose an organic connection among all such accounts except when they are geographically close and the story line is substantially similar.

91 E.g., Hdt. Hist. 2.123; Plato Phaedo 64CD; 80DE; Phaedrus 245C; Laws 8.828D; Rep. 10.611BC; Aristotle Soul 1.4, 408b; Diog. Laert. 8.5.83; see further sources in e.g., Keener, John, 553-54.

92 Burkert, Cults, 21; Grant, Hellenism, 11-12; Mylonas, Eleusis, 268-69; Wagner, Baptism, 87.

93 Wagner, Baptism, 112.

94 Burkert, Religion, 293-95; idem, Cults, 21-22.

95 Gasparro, Soteriology, 84-106, 125; Wagner, Baptism, 255-56.

96 The idea of astral immortality (Cumont, After Life, 91-109; cf. Reitzenstein, Religions, 64-65; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 40-41) is much broader than the Mysteries and thus should not be directly linked to them (Gasparro, Soteriology, 98). The doctrine of bodily resurrection might appear in the Hebrew Bible earlier than it is attested in Persian texts (Yamauchi, Persia, 456-57, 461; cf. 409; for immortality, however, cf. Olmstead, History, 40, 100-1). Some, however, do date Persian apocalyptic ideas earlier (see e.g., Rennie, “Zoroastrianism”).

97 Cf. Lewis, Life, 100.

98 See Ferguson, Backgrounds, 439. Some add Ezek 37; some (see e.g., Bronner, “Resurrection Motif”) find even broader antecedents. Others argue that before Dan 12, most biblical images of return to life were simply metaphors (so Léon-Dufour, Resurrection, 19), though one might ask how we would know that. On Is 26, see e.g., Raharimanantsoa, Espérance, 408-26; for Dan 12:2, see 426-47; for national resurrection (as in Hos 6:1-3; Ezek 37:1-14), 363-408 (on Ezekiel, 378-408). For one survey of early and late evidence, arguing for a decisive shift with 2 Macc 7, see Bauer, “Tod.”

99 Cf. Wifall, “Status.”

100 Jos. Ant. 18.16-17; War 2.165. Osborne, “Resurrection,” 932, cites also some hellenistic works (4 Macc; Wisd 2:23-24; 3:1-4; Philo Creation 135; Gig. 14; perhaps also 1 En. 103:4); and, as denying even immortality, Sirach (17:27-28; 30:17; 37:26; 39:9; 44:8-15; 46:19).

101 Rabbinic texts often emphasize that the Sadducees, unlike Pharisees, denied the teaching, hence held no place in the coming world (e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1; ARN 5A; 10, §26B; cf. b. Sanh. 90b). The doctrine of the resurrection was particularly relevant in the context of martyrdom (2 Macc 7:9, 11; 14:46); those inclined to defend the honor of martyrs hence took serious offense at the denial (rabbinic texts also suggest moral consequences for denying resurrection and judgment, which they viewed together).

102 See Puech, Croyance; idem, “Messianisme”; idem, “Resurrection Faith,” 643-58, esp. 646-58; Charlesworth, “Resurrection,” 145-53; Sanders, Judaism, 370; cf. Ulrichsen, “Troen.” The supposed resurrection of the Teacher of Righteousness is based on inference from a reconstructed text (cf. 4QpPs 37 frg. 2.2-4 in Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 272), which most other scholars have reconstructed quite differently.

103 See especially fragments in 4Q521; also “Pseudo-Ezekiel” (4Q385-386) in Dimant, “Resurrection”; Hogeterp, “Resurrection.” Some contrary claims (e.g., “Essenism and Christianity,” Lightfoot, Colossians, 397-419, offering various contrasts with the Essenes) predate the discovery of the Scrolls (depending on e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.18).

104 E.g., Stemberger, “Auferstehungslehre”; in the Targums, see e.g., Tg. on Hos 14:8; McNamara, Targum, 136.

105 This is true though Josephus, adapting his depiction of Jewish “sects” to Greek schools like Pythagoreans and Middle Platonists, depicts the Pharisaic confidence in more acceptable hellenistic terms suggesting reincarnation (Jos. Ant. 18.14; War 2.163; 3.374; Apion 2.218). Cf. Luke’s portrayal of Paul in Acts 23:6; 24:15.

106 They condemned a few others for its denial besides explicit Sadducees, e.g., p. Sanh. 10:2, §11. Other texts regularly defend the resurrection long after the Sadducees themselves had ceased to be an issue (e.g., Lev. Rab. 27:4; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8), but that the rabbis would engage in “textbook apologetics” (not uncommon in some more traditional religious circles today) would not be surprising, given the variety of hypothetical legal situations they also surveyed.

107 E.g., Ps. Sol. 3:12; 15:12-13; 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23, 29; 2 Bar. 30:1; 51:1-6; L.A.B. 3:10; 25:6-7; Test. Ab. 7:16B; cf. Test. Jud. 25:1-4; Zeb. 10:2; Apoc. Ezek. introduction; though contrast Jub. 23:31. See more fully Osborne, “Resurrection,” 933 (who adds to those above 1 En. 46:6; 51:1-2; Ps. Sol. 13:9-11; 14:4-10; 4 Ezra 4:41-43; 7:32-38; 2 Bar. 49:2-51:12; 85:13). Compare also the graffito in Greek at Beth She’arim: “Good fortune in your resurrection” (Finegan, Archeology, 208). The Second Benediction of the Amida, affirming the resurrection, is likely early and was undoubtedly recited beyond Pharisaic circles (cf. Charlesworth, “Resurrection,” 154-55).

108 Some have suggested that even the use of ossuaries for secondary burial in the first century might support the widespread character of belief in the bodily resurrection (Rahmani, “Glwsqmwt”; cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 1:164-77), but this premise is open to question (Fine, “Burial”; Regev, “Ossuaries”), especially given the Sadducean ossuaries (cf. e.g., Evans, “Caiaphas Ossuary”; Horbury, “Ossuaries”). Levine, Hellenism, 65-67, argues that ossuaries are irrelevant to belief in the resurrection (they could adapt the Roman custom of secondary burial of cremated ashes). Ossuaries belong especially to the Roman Imperial period and the pre-Israelite Chalcolithic period (see Silberman, “Ossuary”).

109 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 237; cf. Wright, People of God, 320-34; Schuller, “Resurrection.”

110 Some evidence exists in contemporary Egyptian Judaism, but Philo himself never mentions the doctrine (Wolfson, Philo, 1:404). In Palestine, the Samaritans may well have accepted it, though our evidence here is late (see MacDonald, Samaritans, 376). For Rome c. 100 CE, Boring et al., Commentary, 289, cites CIJ 1.348-50. The belief may have flourished in the Persian diaspora, given the compatibility of some Persian conceptions (although their date remains debatable).

111 Ps.-Phoc. 102-5.

112 See Garte, “Resurrection.”

113 Collins, “Apotheosis,” 97.

114 One cannot, however, cite the widespread use of crosses on early ossuaries, which probably are simply markings for the placement of the lids (Smith, “Cross Marks”).

115 Cf. e.g., in Iren. Haer. 2.29; Wright, Resurrection, 534-51. Pagels, “Mystery,” finds gnostics who affirmed resurrection in some sense; cf. the Nag Hammadi Treatise on Resurrection 1.4 for resurrection in “spiritual flesh” (what is superior to flesh). But cf. Gospel of Philip 2.56.25-57.23 (Nag Hammadi Library, 134).

116 See Rivkin, “Meaning,” 398.

117 See the review in Kennedy, “Resurrection.”

118 Ladd, Theology, 320. Cranfield, “Resurrection,” 389-90, argues that alternative proposed explanations (deception or mistake) are weak.

119 Cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 191, though he admits that on Jewish presuppositions a resurrection meant “that the body of Jesus had not remained in the grave,” hence does not claim that Paul did not believe the tomb was empty.

120 Weeden, Mark, 102.

121 Boyd, Sage, 275.

122 By itself, the empty tomb would prove nothing except that Jesus’ body was missing; once combined with resurrection appearances, however, it sent a different message to Jesus’ followers that the expected eschatological event had begun (cf. Wright, Resurrection, 688).

123 Jos. Life 420-21. Cf. death a month after a beating, due to swelled intestines (Philost. Lives 2.10.588). Apul. Metam. 10.11 cites a drug to simulate death (cf. also Diog. Laert. 8.2.61), but his book is full of magic herbs that can do almost anything, here accommodating the story line (cf. the similar plot device in Ach. Tat. 3.15-21; 5.18.2; 7.6.2).

124 Char. Chaer. 1.4.11-12; 1.8.

125 Schweizer, Jesus, 48. For a fuller defense of the empty tomb traditions, see Craig, “Tomb”; idem, “Historicity”; idem, “Rise?” 146-52; idem, Assessing, passim, especially 351-78; Ladd, “Resurrection”; on the bodily character of the resurrection, see Craig, “Resurrection,” 47-74.

126 See Boring et al., Commentary, 162-63; Robbins, Teacher, 192. Celsus compared the empty tomb with Cretan myths of Zeus’ tomb (Cook, Interpretation, 54), but it in contrast to that myth Jews insisted on burial, the earliest tradition attests to Jesus’ burial (1 Cor 15:4), and such recent historical claims are not comparable to local myth traditions about the distant past.

127 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 41. For the evidence all pointing to the tomb being empty, see also Perkins, “Resurrection,” 442.

128 Grant, Jesus, 176; cited in Habermas, Evidence, 114. Wedderburn, Resurrection, 21, notes that to exclude Jesus’ resurrection from historical analysis gives “the impression of an unwarranted special pleading” (having noted Lüdemann’s critiques against Barth on 16-17).

129 Which many scholars think were common enough to warrant the fear (Kysar, John, 296; Beasley-Murray, John, 371); cf. Iamblichus Bab. St. 7 (Photius Bibliotheca 94.75a). Many tomb inscriptions threatened curses on tomb violators (Jeffers, World, 45); Cyrus’ tomb reportedly bore the warning not to rob it, for it held little wealth (Plut. Alex. 69.2).

130 An edict against stealing corpses found in Nazareth might not be from Nazareth (Giovannini and Hirt, “L’inscription,” arguing also that it stems from the Augustan period). Given the small size of Nazareth, however, if it were to hail from Nazareth, it would probably be a response to Christian proclamation (cf. Wright, Resurrection, 708-9).

131 Char. Chaer. 3.3 (which also emphasizes the tragedy of a missing corpse); cf. also Xenophon Eph. 3.8-9; perhaps Apoll. K. Tyre 32 (though cf. 44).

132 Lewis, Life, 96. Some would have considered these practices simply folk cures (see e.g., Pliny N.H. 28.2.4-7; Pliny himself [28.2.8] rejects these approaches).

133 E.g., Ap. Rhod. 4.51-53; Lucan C.W. 6.538-68, 626; Ovid Her. 6.90; see especially the tale of Telephron in Apul. Metam. 2.30; in other cultures, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 261.

134 PGM 1.248-49; 2.49-50; 4.342-43, 1390-95, 1402-3, 2211-17; 57.5-6; 58.5-9; 67.21; 101.1-3; these ghosts were more malevolent (Plut. Cimon 1.6; 6.5-6). If Jesus’ enemies considered him a magician (Mk 3:22), some Jewish leaders may have even anticipated the theft of the body as in Matt 27:64. In less severe cases, tombs generally settled for divine threats against robbers (e.g., IG 3.1417 in Grant, Religions, 9). Both tying rope from a cross (Pliny N.H. 28.11.46) and iron pounded through the hands (Lucan C.W. 6.547) were used in witchcraft (as a superstitious cure in m. Shab. 6:10; p. Shab. 6:9, §2).

135 Rightly pointed out to me by William Lane Craig in personal correspondence (Aug. 16, 2007), challenging and correcting my earlier citation of pagan parallels for stealing corpses for witchcraft (Keener, Matthew, 699 n. 284; idem, John, 1181, citing e.g., Ap. Rhod. 4.51-53; Lucan C.W. 6.538- 68, 626; Ovid Her. 6.90; Apul. Metam. 2.30).

136 Stauffer, Jesus, 144-45, who suspects the question also stands behind Jn 20:15 (where it is not clear), points out that the theory continued to circulate in later times (Just. Dial. 108; Tert. Spec. 30).

137 Grave-robbing was not only impious (e.g., Plut. Mor. 173B), but a capital offense (e.g., SEG 8.13 in Sherk, Empire, 52, §27). For the sanctity of tombs, see e.g., Plut. Themist. 9.4; cf. Jos. War 4.531- 32; Apion 2.58.

138 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 40. On Matthew’s guards, see Keener, Matthew, 696-97, 713-15.

139 Their failure to produce it is an important argument (noted in Wedderburn, Resurrection, 61-63, albeit ambivalently). It would need to be fairly soon to be fully recognizable, however.

140 Sanders, Figure, 280.

141 Dio Cass. 58.4.5-6; 63.11.2-12.1. Josephus cites Jews’ willingness to die for the law (Apion 1.42- 43).

142 Sanders, Figure, 279-80. Some have contrasted the later apostasy (though not necessarily recantation) of some of the original witnesses to Joseph Smith’s golden plates.

143 Sanders, Figure, 280.

144 Mack, Myth, 308; earlier, cf. cross-cultural, “ecstatic visionary experiences” in Perrin, Bultmann, 47. Likewise, against the unanimous witness of extant evidence, from earliest to latest, he supposes that the resurrection was a late myth originated by Christians not in Jewish Palestine but in northern Syria and Asia (Lost Gospel, 2). Evidence for early tradition for the site of the tomb (noted in our previous chapter), the largely Palestinian evidence for Jewish belief in the resurrection, the extreme unlikelihood of a Diaspora movement becoming more Palestinian or Judaized in the anti-Judaism of parts of the Greek East, and so forth render his suggestion incredible.

145 See e.g., Dibelius, Tradition, 18-20; Gerhardsson, Memory, 299-300; Barrett, Jesus and Tradition, 1-2; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 251; Hunter, Predecessors, 15-17; Fuller, Formation, 10-11; Webber, “Note”; Fee, Corinthians, 722.

146 For the disciples genuinely meaning “resurrection,” see e.g., Bryan, “Saying”; idem, “Mean.”

147 E.g., Dio Cass. 42.11.2-3; Lucan C.W. 1.11; Plut. Cimon 1.6; 6.6; Ach. Tat. 5.16.1-2; cf. Thom, “Highways,” 104-5 for the Pythagorean view. Deities also sent phantom images made only of cloud (e.g., Apollod. Epitome 1.20; 3.5).

148 Plut. Brutus 36; Caesar 69.5, 8; Cimon 6.5.

149 Sanders, Figure, 278. Some contended that the particular identity of ghosts was difficult to distinguish, since they interchanged their appearances (Philost. Hrk. 21.1).

150 Although the second-century date makes the work’s value here questionable, we may also note postresurrection conversations of Jesus in the anti-Gnostic Epistula Apostolorum.

151 Goppelt, Times, 18-19. For the incompatibility of mere apparitions with a “resurrection” claim, see also Evans, “Traditions,” p. 56.

152 Cook, Interpretation, 58-59.

153 E.g., Eurip. Bacch. 42, 53-54; Plut. Cicero 14.3; Ael. Arist. Or. 48.41; Apul. Metam. 11.3; Ach. Tat. Clit. 7.12.4; Char. Chaer. 2.2.5; 2.3.5; Philostratus Hrk. 2.8; 18.1-2 (see further Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxvi); reports in Grant, Religions, 9-13, 123; in unrelated cultures, see e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 105-12 passim; for more concrete effects of angelic manifestations in hellenistic Jewish tradition see Tob 12:19, 22; 2 Macc 3:24-26 (cf. God in 2 Macc 3:30).

154 Nilsson, Piety, 106; Diod. Sic. 5.62.4; 11.14.3-4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.56.1-3.

155 Cf. Grant, Gods, 66, 54-55, 64-65.

156 E.g., PDM 14.74-91, 95, 98-102, 169.

157 So e.g., Plut. Coriol. 3.4 (writing of the time of Tarquin, 3.1); or, less dramatically, the appearance of the Dioscuri’s stars (Plut. Lysander 12.1; 18.1).

158 E.g., Schweizer, Jesus, 48-49. Against hallucinations, see Schweizer, Parable, 84. The “cognitive dissonance” comparison with a tiny flying saucer cult proves not analogous: that cult reinterpreted a prophecy that did not materialize, rather than testifying that an unexpected event had happened (Wright, Resurrection, 699). A sounder historical analogy would be all the first-century Jewish movements whose founders died — yet those movements ended (Wright, Resurrection, 700).

159 Grayzel, History, 516; Bamberger, Story, 240.

160 Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, 920; Greenstone, Messiah, 225-30.

161 Jos. War 6.297-99; cf. 2 Kgs 6:17; 2 Macc 3:24-26; 4 Macc 4:10-11; Sib. Or. 3.805-8.

162 Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 182-84.

163 Somewhat similarly, Saulnier, “Josèphe,” suggests that Josephus borrows the tradition from Flavian propaganda.

164 Tac. Hist. 5.13.2-7 likely depends on Jos. War 6.288-315.

165 E.g., Aul. Gel. 4.6.2.

166 E.g., Lucan C.W. 1.526-57 (most obviously regarding Charybdis; 1.547-48); 572-73 (a giant Fury stalking the city and shaking the snakes in her hair).

167 E.g., many of the portents listed in Livy 21.62.5; 24.10.7-10; 25.7.7-8; 26.23.4-5; 27.4.11-14; 27.11.2-5; 29.37.1-5; 29.14.3; 32.1.10-12; 33.26.7-8; 34.45.6-7; 35.9.2-3; 35.21.3-6; 36.37.2-3; 40.45.1-4; 41.21.12-13; 43.13.3-6; 45.16.5; Lucan C.W. 1.562-63.

168 E.g., Livy 21.62.4-5; 24.10.10; 42.2.4; Plut. Themistocles 15.1; Hdn. 8.3.8-9.

169 App. C.W. 4.1.4 (43 BCE); one of the portents in Livy 24.44.8 (213 BCE); Caesar C.W. 3.105; Philostratus Hrk. 56.2.

170 E.g., Livy 24.10.11; 24.44.8. If I correctly interpret Livy’s summaries, in some cases some reported seeing figures at another location when those present at that location could not confirm them.

171 Livy 21.62.5.

172 E.g., Livy 21.62.1; Hdn. 8.3.8 (though he concludes that it is credible, 8.3.9).

173 Livy 21.62.1; 24.10.6; 27.37.2; 29.14.2; cf. Lucian Peregrinus 39-40.

174 See the LCL note on Livy 29.14.3; cf. some discussion in Strothers, “Objects.” Flames seen in the sky (e.g., Livy 32.8.2); showers of “stones” (36.37.3); a rainbow in a clear sky (41.21.12); meteors (e.g., Livy 43.13.3); a comet shining for seven nights (Suet. Jul. 88) and many other phenomena are also plausible in this manner. Some reports, of course, were simply fabricated by someone.

175 E.g., Collins, “Apotheosis,” 97. It was often associated with the messiah (Sipre Deut. 34.4.3; p. Ket. 12:4, §8) or the age to come (Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 140, on b. Sanh. 90a, bar.).

176 E.g., Acts 1:3-6; “from among the dead ones” (Rom 1:4; cf. 1 Cor 15:20; Gal 1:4; Heb 6:5).

177 Two centuries later, as pagan alternatives to Christian claims circulated, worship of deceased but active heroes was common. Already in the Gentile world of the apostolic period, apotheosis was the common explanation for old “heroes” like Heracles and Asclepius; they were no longer considered dead. But as the Jesus movement allowed only one God, they also allowed only one risen Lord.

178 Lapide, Resurrection, accepted the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as compelling (Jesus being a prophet of God), but did not view him as Messiah. This position is exceptional, but of course much easier than arguing Jesus’ Lordship without the resurrection.

179 Many note that the church’s early faith invites explanation, challenging scholarship that ignores our earliest Christian literary evidence, Paul’s letters (e.g., Barnett, Jesus and History, 25, 39-50). As Schweizer, Parable, 16, puts it, “we certainly cannot assess Jesus separately from the impact he made”; or as Dunn, New Perspective, 15-34, notes, attempts to screen out the faith of the Gospel writers as bias miss the point: early Christian faith flowed from the faith-stimulating impact of Jesus (see esp. 29). Although personally agnostic regarding what happened, Wedderburn, Resurrection, 39-47, is convinced that something must have happened to generate the disciples’ faith. On the belief in Jesus’ messiahship resting on resurrection belief (without which the disciples would be extraordinarily hailing an executed leader as Israel’s continuing deliverer), see Wright, Resurrection, 553 (more generally, 553-83). But for the warnings of some against extrapolating back from the faith that Jesus evoked (pace Dunn), see Schröter, “Begründer.”

180 Supposedly (but not usually actually) unique. The emphasis on uniqueness allowed its proponents to maintain that they still followed what they regarded as “essential” in Christianity.

181 Cf. Keck, History, 127-28.

182 Just as some later rabbis believed that Hezekiah had nearly become the Messiah (e.g., b. Sanh. 94a; Song Rab. 4:8, §3), though some have applied this designation to R. Judah (Aberbach, “Hzqyhw”).

183 Excepting Judas, whose betrayal, as we noted, was undoubtedly not invented (given the criterion of embarrassment).

184 See our comments on the abandonment of Jesus’ disciples in ch. 21.

185 Ladd, Theology, 370; Ladd, Last Things, 82-83; Fee, Corinthians, 786; Gundry, “Physicality,” 216-17; Keener, Corinthians, 132. On Diaspora Jewish application of such language regarding Adam and the other man in the creation narratives, see e.g., Philo L.A. 1.31-32; Isaacs, Spirit, 78; Pearson, Terminology, 17-20; Horsley, Corinthians, 211-12; Horsley, “Resurrection”; though Genesis itself (esp. Gen 2:7 LXX) supplies much of this background (cf. Fee, Corinthians, 785, n. 42; Barrett, “Significance,” 113; both terms together in Jos. Ant. 1.34).

186 Keener, Corinthians, 131. Some early Jewish sources, including Dan 12:2-3, seem to portray the resurrection as angelic or like stars (1 En. 43:3; 2 Bar. 51:10; perhaps 1 En. 51:5; 104:2-4; 2 En. 22:8-10; Ps.-Phoc. 104; Pr. Jac. 19); cf. Fletcher-Louis, Angels, regarding the partly angelomorphic character of the resurrection in Luke-Acts. This perspective may contrast or stand in tension with the more corporal conception in e.g., 2 Bar. 49:2-50:4; Gen. Rab. 95:1; 100:2.

187 “Resurrection” in Judaism was bodily by its nature (Dan 12:2) — otherwise it was something other than “resurrection” (see Wright, Resurrection, 85-206, first brought to my attention by C. L. Blomberg).

188 As noted, Jewish tradition regarding criminals’ graves would keep the corpses separate so they could be reburied at the end of a year. This may help explain why we do not have many Palestinian Jewish mass graves from the period.

189 Contrast forced-choice logic in Bultmann’s theological approach: since John presents Jesus’ resurrection in unity with the cross, the resurrection cannot be an authenticating miracle as Paul and other sources from the apostolic church claim (“Mythology,” 36-37).

190 E.g., 4 Ezra 3:7, 20-22; 4:30; 7:118-19; 2 Bar. 17:2-3; 23:4; 48:42-43; 56:5-6 (but cf. 54:15, 19); Life of Adam 44:3-4; Sifre Deut. 323.5.1; cf. more nuanced discussion in Davies, Paul, 32-34; Barrett, Adam, 14-15; Scroggs, Adam, 18-20; Hayman, “Fall.”

191 See Tan, Zion Traditions, 221-23, on the authenticity of this material (e.g., Matt 19:28//Lk 22:30).

192 See e.g., discussion in Keener, John, 1194-95; more fully, my forthcoming commentary on Acts at Acts 1:9-11.

193 Several bridges may have provided coherence between the pre-resurrection teacher Jesus and Paul’s experiential “union” with Christ, including the experience of the Spirit (related to Jesus reigning in his church; this experience may be dominant); any Jesus tradition concerning indwelling in John’s last discourse (attested only in John, but who might have independent tradition on this point, if not dependent on Pauline theology; cf. Keener, John, 998, 999 n. 114); and/or Paul’s conversion as narrated by Luke, where the risen Jesus identifies with his church (Acts 9:4; see Kim, Origin). But the expected corporate character of the resurrection (Dan 12:2), conjoined with Jesus’ accomplished resurrection, could also naturally lead to a partly realized eschatology in which Jesus’ followers would share some of the resurrection life.

194 Concerning Mk 12:18-27, where Jesus defends it, see e.g., Schweizer, Parable, 87; Witherington, Christology, 15 n. 58.

195 For the dependence of the parousia on the resurrection, see Plevnik, “Parousia,” especially 277.

196 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 504, 508.

197 Treatments of the subject often recognize this question in addition to the historical one (e.g., Wedderburn, Resurrection, 97 [who also notes philosophy’s uncertainty regarding human postmortem survival, 129-35]); the philosophic objection is ancient (Apocrit. 4.24). History as history cannot decide whether an event is a miracle (a theological and philosophic judgment), but it can address whether or not an event literally happened (see Habermas, Evidence, 25). For a philosophic response, see Houston, Miracles, 210-23.

↑ Back to top