THE JEWISH BACKGROUND TO

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD

BY N. T. WRI GHT*
JSHJ
Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus
David J. Bryan voi.3.2 pp. 155-169
DOI: 10.1177/1476869005058193
2005 SAGE Publications
Cranmer Hall, University of Durham London, Thousand Oaks, CA
Durham, UK and New Delhi
http://JSHJ.sagepub.com
ABSTRACT
This response to N.T. Wright's recent magnum opus on the resurrection of Jesus
concentrates on his handling of the Jewish background to the beliefs about what
had happened to Jesus. It was made in dialogue with the author at the British New
Testament Conference in Edinburgh (Sept. 2004). In his study Wright vigorously
argues that Christian beliefs stand out as both continuous with the mainstream of
Jewish thought on the subject, but also introducing a new and unexpected element,
namely that no one expected an individual to rise ahead of the rest of humankind.
This conclusion forms the bedrock for Wright's investigation of the New Testa-
ment traditions about Jesus and his robust defence of the traditional belief in the
bodily resurrection of Jesus as an historical event. The pivotal nature of his conclu-
sion about the background beliefs therefore called for a thorough analysis of his
handling of this material. This article goes some way to offering that kind of
critique.
Key words: resurrection of Jesus, resurrection, life after death, exaltation, trans-
formation, N.T. Wright
This critique of what is a small part of N.T. Wright's book. The Resurrection of
the Son ofGod^'Hope beyond death in post-biblical Judaism'comes with
enormous admiration for what he has tried to do in this huge study. I heartily
agree with a recent reviewer who wrote: 'Where lesser mortals acquiesce in los-
ing the wood for the exegetical trees, N.T. Wright deals in inter-galactic eco-
systemswithout neglecting in the process to footnote a surprising number of
trees.'^ My study will inevitably focus upon a few Jewish trees and whether
Wright has managed to place them in the correct part of the forest or even the
right avenue!
* I thank Tom Wright for the stimulating dialogue which we enjoyed at the BNTC in
Edinburgh in September 2004. My article reflects what was said on that occasion, but also
some development in my thought in the light of that conversation.
1. Herein: 'RSG\
2. M. Bockmuehl, 'Compleat History of the Resurrection: A Dialogue with N.T. Wright',
JSNT 26.4 (2004), pp. 489-504 (489).
156 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
After his analysis of beliefs about 'Life beyond Death in Ancient Paganism'
(Chapter 2), which includes a wide range of ancient Greek and Roman views,
Wright presents us with a diachronic study of Jewish antecedents to Christian
reflections on resurrection in general and the resurrection of Jesus in particular.
He breaks this down into two sections:
(a) 'Time to Wake Up (1): Death and Beyond in the Old Testament' (Chapter
3). This incorporates a study of the classical texts that describe 'the regular Old
Testament belief about the fate of the dead: death is a one-way street on which
those behind can follow but those ahead cannot tum back' {RSG, p. 96), and a
brief look at what Wright calls 'unexplained exceptions'Enoch (Gen. 5), Elijah
(2 Kgs 2) and Moses (Deut. 34) {RSG, pp. 94-95). After a study of' hope' in the
Old Testament, which is based upon YHWH's covenant commitments to Israel,
he then traces the emergence of hints of hope for the deadPss. 16.8-11, 22;
104.29-30; Job 33.15-30; Pss. 73 and 49. The study then concludes with an
examination of texts that speak about the 'awakening' of the sleepershere
Wright places Dan. 12.2-3 (pp. 109-15) at the head of the sequence of the other
key texts: Isa. 24-27 (esp. 25.6-8, 10; 26.16-21), Hos. 6.1-2, 13.14 and Ezek.
37.1-14.
Wright's discussion at the end of this survey is important for the development
of his on-going discussion. So I will briefly summarize the headline points here:
Hope for resurrection is expressed in 'the context of the continuing
affirmation of the Jewish hope for restoration, for liberation from exile,
persecution and suffering' (p. 121). Even where bodily resurrection is
without doubt present, such as Daniel, this context is still to the fore.
'Hope for bodily resurrection is what sometimes happens when the
hope of ancient Israel meets a new challenge' (p. 122).
There is 'a creative fluidity between the restoration of Israel to the
land and the tiew bodily creation of human beings after the state of
death' (p. 123).
He tentatively explores the possibility that the hope might have grown
out of the use of a representative for Israel such as the servant of Isaiah
40-55. God will restore the nation's representative and this might have
become the trigger for the idea in Dan. 12 of the resurrection of the
martyrs (p. 122).
Of the three positions found in the Old Testament(a) the dead are
asleep with the ancestors; (b) the dead may be received by YHWH into
some continuing life; and (c) some of the dead can hope for resurrec-
tionthe strongest connection is held ironically between (a) and (c).
This is because of the intertwining of bodily resurrection and national
hopes (p. 124).
There is no need to posit another origin for this hopesuch as the
Bryan The Resurrection of the Son of God 157
influence of Zoroastrianism during the period of Persian domination
(pp. 124-25) or earlier Canaanite influence (pp. 126-27).
(b) 'Time to wake up (2): Hope beyond death in post-biblical Judaism' (chap-
ter 4). Wright introduces this survey as follows:
If the Bible offers a spectmm of belief about life after death, the second-Temple period
provides something more than an artist's palette: dozens of options, with different
ways of describing similar positions and similar ways of describing different ones.
(RSG, p. 129).
He then attempts to make sense of the palette by breaking it down into cate-
gories. Thus here he departs from a diachronie approach to a thematic method.
i. 'No Future Life, or None to Speak of: The Sadducees' (pp. 131-40).
This includes a look at the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirah, whom Wright
regards as the spiritual ancestor of the Sadducees (p. 136).
ii. 'Blessed (and Disembodied) Immortality' (pp. 140-46). Exemplars of
this line are Ps.-Phocylides (102-15), T. Abr. (20.14), the Epistle of
Enoch (7 En. 103.3-8), Hillel {Lev. R. 34.3), Johanan ben Zakkai
(Z;. .eer. 28b), 4 zra (7.75, 78-80, 88, 95), 4 Mace. 10.4, 13.13-17,
etc.), Jub. (23.27-31), and Philo of Alexandria. He does not include
Wisdom of Solomon here, as many would have expected. (See below.)
Some of these, Wright points out, also expected the resurrection of the
body to followHillel, Johanan and 4 Ezra.
iii. 'Resurrection' (pp. 146-99). Here I will simply list the texts covered
that are held to belong in this category: the tendency of the Lxx trans-
lators both to retain and increase references to resurrection in compari-
son with their Vorlage, 2 Mace, 1 En.,T. Mos.,Apoc. Mos.,Sib. Or. 4,
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 4 Ezra, 2 Bar., Ps. Sol., Wis.,
Josephus, 4Q Messianic Apocalypse, Hodayot 14 and 19,4Q Pseudo-
Ezekiel, Ps.-Philo, and various rabbinical sources and Targumim
Before commenting in detail, it is worth quickly summarising Wright's con-
clusions:
'By no means all Jews believed in a coming resurrection.' 'But there
was a strong strand of resurrection belief (p. 201).
The survey contradicts views such as Porter's that 'there is only a hint
of the concept of a bodily resurrection to be found in this period'.^
3. S.E. Porter, 'Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament', in S.E. Porter, M.A.
Hayes and D. Tombs (eds.). Resurrection (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp.
52-81.
158 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
'"Resurrection" was life after "life after death".' It 'was not the redefi-
nition or the redescription of death, but the reversal or undoing or
defeat of death. It belonged to the strong doctrine of Israel's god as the
good creator of the physical world' (p. 201, Wright's emphasis).
The metaphorical meaning of resurrection retained a concrete
referent, namely as a rich way of referring to the retum of Israel from
exile (Ezek. 37). This gave the resurrection hope a political dimen-
sion, indeed a revolutionary element'it spoke of concrete hope of
national freedom and a desire for justice' (p. 202).
From at least the third century the metaphor took on new lifeit
became a literal expectation and thus a reaffirmation of ancient Israel-
ite belief in the goodness and god-givenness of the created world and
of bodily human life within it (p. 202).
The widespread belief in future resurrection generated a belief in an
intermediate state, which was expressed in different ways (p. 203).
Resurrection when it is spoken of is not about disembodied bliss, but
is the second stage of this post-mortem life. This is not the same as
the exaltation of Enoch or Elijah (p. 204).
'Nobody imagined that any individuals had already been raised or
would be raised in advance of the great last day.' 'There are no tradi-
tions about a Messiah being raised to life' (p. 205).
Christianity then was a 'new mutation that sprang up, like a totally un-
expected plant, within the already well-stocked garden' (p. 206).
But, does this study provide a secure enough foundation for such conclusions
that are of enormous importance for what follows in Wright's study of Early
Christianity, of Paul's testimony and that of the canonical gospels about what
happened to Jesus?
A Canonical Bias
My first comment is about the overall approach of Wright's survey. The frame-
work separates canonical and non-canonical sources. This undermines the dia-
chronic approach that he takes and skews the study as far as a history of
religious beliefs goes. A consequence of this is that I am left less than convinced
about his solution to the interesting question of the genesis of the hope of
resurrection faith.
The term 'post-biblical Judaism' for the second part of the study is inap-
propriate. To be sure it is better than the term 'inter-testamental Judaism', which
implies a Christian framework. However, it assumes tidiness about the way that
the canon of writings that became the Hebrew Bible relate to one another and
Bryan The Resurrection of the Soti of God 159
catne to be giveti their authoritative status. But this is utisupportable, as a
cursory glatice at the contents of the library at Qutnrati alotie would show.
One serious consequence of this framework is that Wright's important dis-
cussion of'Resurrection and the Hope of Israel' (pp. 121-27) takes place with-
out reference to significant texts from the Enoch corpus that are either older than
{Book of Watchers, Book of Luminaries, Apocalypse of Weeks'*) or else are con-
temporary with Dan. 12.2-3 {Book of Dreams). One of the features of the oldest
parts of this corpus is a wider focus upon all humanitythe 'righteous' and
'wicked' could be from any ethnic group. Indeed Israel does not really feature in
Watchers, which certainly has a full-blooded expectation of the resurrection of
the righteous (7 En. 22). I would date the book to the period of the Diadochan
Wars when Palestine was frequently at the heart of bloody and violent cotiflicts.'
The book is understandably obsessed with the problem of human violence, and
offers an aetiology of evil in the form of the tnyth of the fallen angels (7 En. 6-
11; cf. Gen. 6.1 -4). Their union with human women has many consequences
the divulging of secrets detrimental to human flourishing and the generation of
giants whose violence precipitates divine judgment in the form of the deluge.
There is also the hint in chapter 15 of 7 . that demonic powers are released
from the giants once they have died and these continue to terrorize humankind
(7 En. 15.12-16.1). What this text implies is that, for this author, at least resur-
rection faith grows out of engaging with hard questions about the world that
God has made, and about hoping that in the end justice will be seen to be done.
In other words, theodicy is the driving force in this text, as it is for many of the
Old Testament authors, especially the author of Psalm 73 who comes very close
to a resurrection faith.*
Removing the canonical framework in this way introduces an untidiness that
makes Wright's 'inner-biblical explanation' of the emergence of resurrection
hope less convincing. The Enoch tradition may not have been influenced by Zoro-
astrianism, but it attests a deep conversation between older Israelite theology and
Mesopotamian traditions akin to what we can see going on in the Priestly tradi-
tions of Genesis 1-11. That is not to say that concems about YHWH's covenant
commitments to Israel did not play a part. But post-exilic Judaism did not develop
resurrection faith on its own without influence from elsewhere. Theodicy was
clearly one of the driving forces in this joumey, as the Book of Watchers shows.
4. /w. 93.3-10; 91.1-17.
5. The work is clearly composite, but had received its final form before the writing of
the Book of Dreams during the Seleucid crisis of 170-163 BCE. The idea that giants are
typological of the Diadochan generals was first put forward by G.W.E. Nickelsburg in Jewish
Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 51 -52.
6. On an exposition of this influence in relation to the Old Testament see R. Davidson,
The Courage to Doubt (London: SCM Press, 1983), especially the chapter 'Worship and the
Search for Enlightenment' (pp. 18-73).
160 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
Transforming a Delta into an Estuary?
Wright, as noted, has broken up the complex Jewish palette into three categories.
I want to focus my attention on category three, 'resurrection'. In Wright's
analysis, this category certainly has the lion's share of the relevant Jewish
source material, and does seem as a whole to support the argument that belief in
bodily resurrection was widely held by 'most Jews around the tum of the com-
mon era' {RSG, p. 147). Thus we are given the impression that although there
was a wide range of views, this is the main stream, and the best background
against which to place early Christian beliefs about Jesus. However, because I
do not place so much of this material in this category, what follows is a more
detailed engagement with these sections.
Wright's first evidence derives from an analysis of the LXX that focuses on
the verbs otvioxriiJi ('to raise up') and Eyeipco ('to raise up') and their cognates.
This it seems to me is persuasive. Wright shows that the translators surprisingly
did not flatten out references to resurrection to something more Platonic (Dan.
12.2-3; Isa. 26.19). On the contrary they 'understood the key Old Testament
passages in terms of a more definite "resurrection" sense than the Hebrew would
necessarily warrant' {RSG, p. 150). Among a number of clear examples that
Wright offers is the LXX rendering of the ambiguous Job 19.26a. The MT
nt^t~1S|"p] '^"liU ~int?ll 'aftermy skin has thus been destroyed'becomes in the
LXX cxvaoTTioai TO Sepya |jou 'he shall raise my skin'. One strange aspect of
this section is Wright's inclusion of 2 Mace. 7.9, 14; 12.44 in this discussion.
Yes 2 Mace, is in the LXX, but it and its source, the history of Jason, were com-
posed in Greek.^ Be that as it may, 2 Mace, then features as Wright's second
piece of evidence in this section (pp. 150-53). Naturally he concentrates on the
epic story of the martyrdom of the mother and her seven sons in chapter 7,
whieh unequivocally refers to the hoped-for resurreetion of those who suffer
because of their loyalty to Israel's God and law. He also ineludes the gruesome
account of Razis's suicide in which the hope is clearly enunciated (2 Mace.
14.37-46).
The next section brings in the so-called apocalyptic literature (pp. 153-62).
First there is a survey of the corpus of writings in 1 Enoch. The BookofWatehers
(7 En. 1-36) has a vision of judgment (1.8), blessing for the righteous dead and a
new world or this-worldly paradise (5.7; 10.17-11.2; 25.4-7). Although he finds
no explicit referenee to resurreetion, Wright argues persuasively that this seems
to be implieit within the text's vision of the fiiture. His exposition, however,
unfortunately gives little attention to chapter 15 whieh has important things to
7. So e.g. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 121; J.D. Newsome, Greeks, Romans, Jews
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press Intemational, 1992), p. 20L
Bryan The Resurrection of the Son of God 161
say about the author's view of the creation of demonic spirits from the mixing
of the human and angelic order.^ He also surprisingly relegates his comments on
chapter 22 to a footnote on p. 154 in spite of the fact that it supports his general
case. This chapter describes four beautiful places intended to be a repository for
'all the souls of the sons of men' (22.3) until the day of judgment (22.4). As in
the book of Revelation' the spirits of the dead complain, that is, cry out for
justice (v. 5). Among them is the voice of Abel, who appeals for Cain's off-
spring to be destroyed from the face of the earth! Confusingly the spirits are
separated into three groups (four are surely expected)the righteous (verse 9),
sinners who are already in torment (verses 10-11), and finally those with a com-
plaint (verse 12). Resurrection will come, but unlike Dan. 12.2-3, it intriguingly
will not be granted to the sinners (vv. 13-14). The implication is that on the day
of judgment they will be punished by being left in the place of torment where
they are already. So the righteous dead are in a beautiful place, awaiting judg-
ment and resurrection. Some experience a measure of bliss'the spring of
water and on it is the light' (v. 9). Others are crying out for justice.
The Similitudes (7 En. 31-11) is seen by Wright to be similar to the Book of
Watchers, except that in chapter 51 a future resurrection of all is plainly described
followed by a differentiation of the righteous and holy. Oddly he overlooked the
significance of Enoch himself as someone who not only survives death, but in
this section of 7 En. is identified as the Son of Man (71.14). The Book of Lumi-
naries (7 En. 72-82) is not a rich seam to mine on this topic. Although Wright
does not say so, I would argue that it also falls into the same pattem as the Books
of Watchers and Similitudes, as the following text makes clear: 'Blessed is the
man who dies righteous and good, conceming whom no book of iniquity has been
8. The author clearly believes that humankind and angels belong to completely different
orders of being. And yet because he embraces the foundation myth (see chapters 6-8 and Gen.
6.1-4 for a truncated form of the story), he considers the mixing of the two to have occurred
and to have brought great evil upon the earth. This in tum necessitated the flooding of the earth
as a great cleansing. But the mixing of the 'spiritual' and 'holy' and immortal (I assume this is
implicit in 'living an eternal life') has been joined with 'flesh and blood' (15.4). The outcome
is the birth of the giants whose violence brings about the judgment of the flood. Something
new now seems unleashed'the giants who were bom from body and flesh will be called evil
spirits'; 'evil spirits came out from their flesh because from above were they created' (15.8-9).
And although these giants will die, the impression is that their evil spirits will continue to
harass humankind: 'And these spirits will rise against the sons of men and against the women
because they came out from them. In the days of slaughter and destruction and the death of the
giants, wherever the spirits have gone out from their bodies, their flesh shall be destroyed until
the day of the great consummation is accomplished ...'(15.12-16.1). Though not clear, there is
more than a hint of an aetiology of current evil upon earth, and a theory of how demonic
powers still influence things.
9. Rev. 6.9-10.
162 Joumal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
written, and against whom no guilt has been found' (81.4). Clearly a judgment
is still expeeted that will be a blessing for the righteous.
Wright notes that the Book of Dreams (7 En. 83-90) envisages a gathering of
Israel as a flock of sheep, including those who have died, as a prelude to the
messianic kingdom (90.33). Thus resurrection is implied. But Wright fails to
note that it is only the resurrection of the righteous that is expected. Strangely he
does not include any discussion of the transformation of Noah (89.1, 9) and
Moses (89.36-38) into angelic form or the ascension of Elijah (90.52). Nor does
he note that both Israelites and also Gentiles who survive the final battle will
also be transformed into the kind of humanity that lived before the flood (90.37).
Finally, 1 En. 91-107 (usually ealled by scholars the Epistle of Enoch) sets
out the two ways of the righteous and the sinner. At the judgment 'the righteous
will rise from sleep, and wisdom will rise and will be given to them' (91.10).
The survey also includes 96.1-3 and 102.4-11, 103.4, 104.1-4 and 108.11-15
(which is often regarded as part of the redactional framework of the whole cor-
pus). These include the concept of a period of waiting for the righteous before
they rise to newly embodied life. Though Wright did not refer to it, 92.2-4 also
includes this hope.
Although I have quibbled with Wright's handling of the various parts of the
Enochic corpus, I think that he is on the right lines in his summing up: 'there is
no reason to suppose that 1 Enoch ... contains a single doctrine on this topie',
but 'as a whole it supports something like the view of resurrection we find in
Daniel and 2 Maccabees, and also shows the various ways in which something
like this could be said, not least ways which could include the transformation, as
well as the revivification, of the righteous dead' {RSG., p. 157). Where I would
demur with him is with the conclusion that the book as a whole expects the
wicked to be raised up for judgment. Only the Similitudes (51.1-2) agree entirely
with Dan. 12.2-3. Given that this is the latest part of the corpus, either written at
the end of Herod's life or in the first century CE, when Daniel was beeoming an
authoritative text, this is significant. Watchers, Dreams and the Epistle of Enoch
leave the wicked dead just thatdead. Bearing in mind the anthropology of the
authors of the Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch, this state is one of conscious
disembodied misery. This is especially clear in the Epistle ofEnoeh'their souls
will be made to go down into Sheol.. .and in buming flames your spirits will come
to the great judgment...' (102.7-8). To my mind this places these books some-
where between categories 2 and 3 in Wright's typology.
T. Mos. eomes next in Wright's survey. The eschatologieal poem of chapter
10 is singled out, whieh refers in verses 8-10 to the exaltation of Israel above the
stars. No explicit referenee to resurrection is made, but the possibility of an
inter-textual connection with Dan. 12.3 inclines Wright to see this as belonging
to the same category of thought {RSG, p. 157). This is, of course, a moot point.
As an incomplete book, we don't know how it ended. But if it ended, as the
Bryan The Resurrection of the Son of God 163
extant text of 10.12 says,'" with some kind of exaltation or assumption of Moses
after his death akin to the traditions alluded to by Josephus (Ant, 4.326) and
hinted at in Philo's allegory (Mos, 2.288), then Israel's future may well be seen
in the same light as that of Moses. Perhaps this text also belongs in another part
of the Jewish forest!
In the case of Apoc, Mos,'' the evidence is much clearer. All of Adam's seed
will be raised on the last day (41.3). That said, the author combined belief in the
migration of a soul from the body at death and the hope of the resurrection (43.2-
3). Certainly the reference in the Sib, Or, 4.179-92 (discussed in RSG, p. 158)
unambiguously refers to bodily resurrection of all before the great judgment.
However, while both these texts give a sense of the ongoing Jewish traditions,
there is uncertainty about their relevance as background to the events surround-
ing Jesus and the origins of Christianity. The fourth book of Sibylline Oracles
has without doubt been redacted by someone following the eruption of Mount
Vesuvius (4.130-35) and refers to the myth of Nero's flight to Parthia (4.119-24,
134-39). Similar caveats must also be brought against the references to resur-
rection in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (see RSG, p. 159). I have
argued elsewhere that the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is a Christian com-
position that incorporates some older Jewish sources.'^ This makes it highly
problematic as a source for the background to Jewish beliefs about the resurrec-
tion. And on closer inspection each piece of evidence evaporates:
T, Levi is one of those parts of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
that certainly has an older Jewish source.'^ But it is hard to see for
sure a reference to resurrection in the new priest being likened to a
new star that shall rise in heaven like a king {T, Levi 18.2-3).''' This
seems to be a metaphor for the renewal of the priesthoodcf. what is
said about the Levitical priesthood in T, Levi 4.3-4 (esp. 'And like the
10. 'Forfrommy death, that is my assumption ....' R.H. Charles ofcourse regarded the
second elause as an addition by an editor who wanted to combine two ancient documentsone
referred to as the 7". Mos, and the other as the Ass, Mos, See the critical introduction by J.P.M.
Sweet to this text in H.F.D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1984), pp. 601 -604. Note D.C. Duling in OTP 1, p. 913 (note h) defends his translation
'from my death and burial', but with no reference to the primary text!
11. That is the Greek form of the Life of Adam and Eve^cs OTP 1, pp. 249-95.
12. Cosmos, Chaos and Ihe Kosher Mentality (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),
pp. 263-72.
13. For Aramaic Levi see the English translation by Greenfield and Stone in H.W.
Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1985), pp. 460-69.
14. Hollander and de Jonge (Twelve Patriarchs, pp. 179-80) think that this is a reference
to the star associated with Christ's nativity in Mt. 2.2ff. and the subsequent illumination of
humankind through the incarnation.
164 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
sun will you be to the whole race of Israel') and in T. Naph. 5.1-4
where Levi grasps the sun and Judah the moon.
The text from T. Jud. 25.4 comes from a section that has been heavily
influenced by the Beatitudes and other parts of the New Testament:
Ka\ 01 Ev XuTTri TEXeuTTjoavTEs duaaTTioovTai
'And those who have died in grief shall rise in joy'cf. Lk. 6.21; Mt. 5.4.
Ka\ 01 EU TTTCaXEK? SlCX KUpiOV
'And those who were in poverty for the Lord' s sake will be made rich'cf. Lk.
6.20; Mt. 5.3; and especially 2 Cor. 8.9 (I'ua UIJETS TTI SKE'IUOU
Kal 01 EU TTEVig
'And those who were in want will be fed' cf Lk. 6.21; Mt. 5.6.
Kai 01 6ia Kupiou aTToSauouTEs E^UTrvioSfioovTai EV
'And those died for the Lord's sake will awake to life'cf Mt. 5.11.' ^
T. Zeb. 10.1-3 follows an explicit reference to the incarnation (9.8-9).
T. Benj. 10.6-9 actually includes an explicit reference to the incarna-
tion: 'Then we also will rise each one over our tribe, worshipping the
king of heaven who appeared on earth in the form of a man of
humility...' (v. 7). Compare (fjavETai Mop't'fi av6pcoTTOU Tair-
sivcooEcos with Phil. 2.6-7 and 3.21.'*
4 Ezra (4.35, 42; 5.41-42; 7.28-32, 36-37, 95, 97) and 2 Bar. (30, 50-51)
have a similar outlook to that of the Enochic writings. But both texts are from
the period after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Thus they are not entirely ger-
mane to the discussion. They are illustrative of ongoing Jewish beliefs, but do
provide evidence of antecedents to early Christian beliefs about Jesus.
Finally, though Wright acknowledges that the Psalms of Solomon are not an
apocalypse, he includes here the references to the resurrection of the righteous
when God visits them (3.11-12 [14-15]). The context of a fierce longing for
divine judgment is noted, though he does not comment on the clear denial of
15. Text is taken from M. de Jonge in collaboration with H.W. Hollander, H.J. de Jonge
and T. Kortweg, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text
(PV TG, 2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), p. 781; Hollander and de Jonge, Twelve Patriarchs, pp.
229-30.
16. Text from de Jonge e/a/., Testaments,^. 177; see also Hollander and de Jonge, Twelve
Patriarchs, p. 438.
Bryan The Resurrection of the Son of God 165
resurrection for 'sinners'. They are tormented but not raised. So this too belongs
somewhere between categories 2 and 3.
Surprisingly, perhaps controversially, Wright plaees Wisdom of Solomon in
this part of the Jewish palette of beliefs about life after death (pp. 162-75). Given
the likelihood that Paul knew this book and alluded to it, this is an important
part of the investigation. While quite clear that the book 'teaches the immortality
of the soul', Wright agrees with the line of Thomas Aquinas and more recently
Emile Pueeh that the author also envisaged resurrection. The crunch text is 3.1 -
10. To be sure, 3.1-4 offers 'a warm and moving account of the present state of
the righteous after death', with the souls of the righteous being held in God's
hand (p. 165). But this is seen as a mere prelude in a two-stage process. Verses
7-10 speak of a visitation by God following which they will shine forth and run
about like sparks in the stubble. He argues persuasively that this must be a refer-
ence to the day of judgment (p. 169), and then suggests that the shining forth
and running through sparks like stubble has resurrection in view. To support this
he appeals to the similarity of the ideas with Dan. 12.3 (avaXotnvlvouoi vWis.;
EKAa|jv|;ouaiuLXX-Theodotian Dan. 12.3) and with resurrection passages in 1
Enoch and elsewhere (7 En. 38.4; 39.7; 62.13-16; 104.2; 108.12-14; 4 Ezra
7.97; 2 Bar. 51.10). The image of running through stubble like sparks implies
some role for the righteous in the judgment, which fits with 4.16-5.23, where
the wicked who oppressed the righteous will be made to face the consequences
of their deeds and words. Finally, in this passage Wright notes the use of the verb
'to stand' when the righteous confi-ont the wicked at the judgment. Although 'the
word "stand" {stesetai) does not by itself indicate resurrection, it is closely
cognate with the word that would have done {anastasis), and since the point is
that formerly dead people are now, surprisingly, confronting and judging the
wicked, it is safe to say that resurrection is meant' (p. 171). However, this is a
sleight of hand. The context of 5.1 is that of the shoek of the wicked following
their own deaths'After this they will become dishonoured corpses, and an out-
rage among the dead forever' (4.18)at the time when their sins are reckoned up
(4.20). Naturally the primary challenge to Wright's hypothesis is the consensus
that the underlying anthropology of the book is Platonic. So he devotes some
attention to the key passage in chapters 8-9 (p. 172). He makes a good ease for
a non-Platonic reading of this passagewisdom confers immortality (8.13); and
there is clearly a tension between 8.19-20, in which pseudo-Solomon's soul
enters an undefiled body, and 9.15, where 'a perishable body weighs down the
soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtfiil mind'. Wright distances himself
from Grabbe's view that the author accepted Plato's theory of transmigration of
souls into bodies. He goes on to argue that the main contrast is not between an
immortal soul and a dispensable body. Rather, the author thinks, the problem is,
as in Paul, that the present body is perishable and doomed to die. This line of
argument is bolstered by noting that death is not welcomed in chapters 1-3, and
166 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
that it is viewed as an intruder in God's world. The retelling of the Exodus in
chapters 16-19 is also appealed to in support. The created world is not a gloomy
evil place, as in Platonism, but is the good creation of the good creator, who
fights on Israel's side against the forces arrayed against them, including death
(pp. 173-74). These are strong arguments, but they do not dispel for me the
sense that our author believed that souls pre-exist bodies (8.19-20) and that he
accepted some Platonic views of the body. Thus while I would place Wisdom in
category 2, Wright's exposition, however, makes me think that the book has
some affinities with category 3 in his typology of beliefs.
Wright now tums to Josephus (pp. 175-81), whose own views in so far as we
can identify them fit within a two-stage personal eschatology: first the souls go
to heaven, then they retum to live in a new, holy bodyWar 3.371, 374-75;
Apion 2.217-18. This is said to be a clear-cut Pharisaic position (p. 177). In his
descriptions of the beliefs of others, because of his desire to present Jewish par-
ties as similar to the three major schools of Graeco-Roman thought, he misrepre-
sents them. For example, he tones down Pharisaic belief in the resurrection, and
makes them sound like some version of transmigration. Thus Josephus needs to
be decoded.
'Leaming to "decode" Josephus comes in handy' when it comes to the
Essenes and Qumran (pp. 181-90). Although he says that the Essenes did not
believe in the resurrection {War 2.154-58), Wright argues that in fact they did,
as Hippolytus later said. He argues that it would be hard to connect the Josephan
Essenes with the people behind the DSS. Although the great majority of texts
from Qumran say nothing about the future fate of the dead, a la Puech, he refers
us to three key texts that expect resurrection4Q52\; the Hymns lQH 14.29,
34-3 5 and 1QH 19.10-14 (though he does admit that these may be metaphors for
victory over evil [p. 187]); and finally so-called Pseudo-Ezekiel 4Q 385, 385c,
386, 391. Evidence that might point in another direction is not offered. For
example, Jub. with its concem for calendrical halakah must have been held in
high esteem at Qumran, and it is a famous example in my view of the kind of
beliefs which Josephus ascribes to the Essenes.
After a brief survey of Pseudo-Philo's Bib. Ant. (pp. 189-90), this breathtaking
tour is completed with what Bockmuehl describes as 'a somewhat perfunctory
survey of rabbinic and Targumic sources that remains vague on dates ... and
cites none of the specialist literature of the last two decades'.'^
What all this means, I think, is that the case for a widespread belief in resur-
rection is not quite as strong as Wright has argued. By squeezing the evidence
into three categories we lose sight of a fourth important variation that is a mix-
ture of Wright's categories 2 and 3. This variant, which is attested most clearly
in the Book of Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch, combined belief in the
17. Bockmuehl, 'Compleat History', p. 492; see RSG, pp. 190-200.
Bryan The Resurrection of the Son of God 167
continued conscious existence of the souls of the wicked, but only looked
forward to resurrection for the righteous. Thus the picture of a primary or main
stream of belief in relation to resurrection needs to be adjusted to something
more akin to the Nile Delta with many tributaries. While this is not devastating
to Wright's overall argument, it does weaken it and does not dispel the impres-
sion that the evidence has been enhanced in the interests of apologetics.
Exaltation, Transformation arid Resurrection:
Another Look at the So-called Exceptions
In this final section we come to what I regard as the weakest aspect of Wright's
analysis of the Jewish background to the Christian traditions about Jesus'
resurrection, Wright describes the beliefs about the survival of Enoch, Moses
and Elijah as 'the unexplained exceptions to the universal rule' (p, 95). This
conclusion is in part the consequence of a lop-sided analysis that discusses these
exceptions in the context of the canonical texts. In the light of these they are
indeed a mystery. But once you look at these traditions against the background
of the non-canonical texts, it becomes evident that the allusions in the case of
Enoch and Moses were the tip of great icebergs of tradition and speculation
about the exaltation of these heroes. Furthermore, once we move outside the
canon, we also need to include Noah in this category,'^
Clearly quite a few Jewish people thought that God made exceptions of some
special people from the normal course of events. And in the case of at least two,
the background influence is from a wider field than Israel's own traditions:
a) Enoch
'Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him' (Gen.
5,24).
'Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all
generations' (Sir, 44.16).
H.S, Kvanvi g" showed quite some time ago that this figure grew out of
Mesopotamian traditions about primeval time. He points to two key prototypes
18. I cannot here offer a fiill study of the hnk between exaltation and transformation in
these texts.
However, this has been offered by Martha Himmelfarb in Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and
Christian Apocalypses (New YorkOxford: OUP, 1993), esp. chapters 2-3.
19. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure (Oslo: Skrivestua, Det teologische
Menighetsfakultet, 1983). See especially pp. 240-49. Antecedent to Kvanvig is the article by
Rykle Borger, 'Die Beshworungsserie Bit Meseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs', JNES 33
(1974), pp. 183-96.
168 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
who were Uanadapa, a sage who composed astronomical works, and Enme-
duranki, a king who travelled with the gods, read heavenly tablets and ascended
to the heavenly assembly.^"
The early traditions about Enoch also offer a prototype not simply of a man
who escaped death, but also of a human being who ascends to the heavenly
temple and plays a high priestly role there1 En. 14.9-18; 87.3-4 and Jwft. 4.23.
Enoch's ascent implies transformation into angelic form^'
b) Noah
Noah is transformed into an angelic form in the Animal Apocalypse {1 En. 89.1,
9). This clearly implies that he did not die but was taken away when his life on
earth drew to a close. Again the background is Mesopotamianthe flood hero
Ziusudra is given eternal life after the flood in the Sumerian version {Atrahasis
vii, lines 254-56,259-60); similarly, Utnapishtim in the Epic ofGilgamesh (XI,
lines 193-95) and Xisouthros in the Babylonica of Berossus.
To my mind, this complicates the account of the origins of beliefs about
resurrection. Some special people could be transformed or exalted to heaven
instead of dying. Once this idea entered the bloodstream of Jewish thought, it
probably provided some explanation of what had happened to Elijah and
provided the spur for the speculations about the transformation of Moses.^^
Of course, Wright will say that in relation to these figures no texts use the
language of resurrection. But that is specious. The language was not used
because, in the minds of the authors and their communities, they had not died.
For me, a key consideration is whether the relevant authors hold an anthropology
20. Kvanvig has been supported by others. For example, J. VanderKam concluded his
study of Gen. 5.21-24 as follows: 'one can say that the priestly editor of Gen 5.21-4 has
expressed his acquaintance with a fairly broad range of Mesopotamian traditions in remarkably
few words. Here, as in his creation and flood narratives, he betrays how extensively he has
drawn from foreign mythology in order to paint a picture of the primordial age that suited his
purposes. The Enoch whom he presents has the following traits: 1. he was associated with the
solar year (his 365 years) as Enmeduranki was associated with the solar god Shamash; 2. he
was a companion of angels (walked with 'elohim) both during his and after his 365 years as
Enemduranki had enjoyed the company of Shamash and Adad; and 3. he was removed to some
unspecified location as the Mesopotamian flood hero was taken by the god of the flood from
human society' {Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition [CBQMS, 16; Washington,
DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984], pp. 50-51).
21. See the recent discussion of A.A. Orlov, 'Celestial Choirmaster: The Liturgical Role
of Enoch Metatron in 2 Enoch and the Merkabah Tradition', JSP 14.1 (2004), pp. 3-29. In his
discussion of the older traditions, he refers extensively to earlier studies of this theme, includ-
ing M. Himmelfarb's seminal work, 'Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple', SBLSP
26 (1987), pp. 210-17, and J. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press, 1985), p. 117.
22. See the brief discussion earlier on 7". Mos.
Bryan TheResurrectionof the Son of God 169
that a complete human being is somehow embodied. As far as I can tell they all
do, and thus we are talking about transformed or exalted humanity, akin to what
Paul perceives will happen to those who are alive at the parousia of Jesus Christ
(1 Cor. 15.51-52). The only difference is that these patriarchs are singled out for
transformation ahead of all the rest. We should also take note that none of the
traditions about these figures dispenses with the body and simply talks about the
ascent of the soul to heaven. This surprisingly even includes Philo, whose account
of the ascent of Moses makes interesting reading'when he had to leave this
mortal life for immortality,... the Father ... resolved his twofold nature of soul
and body into a single unity, transforming his whole being into mind, as pure as
sunlight' (Moses 11.288).
In this light and bearing in mind that in Dan. 12.2-3 resurrection and trans-
formation or exaltation belong together, the neat distinction between these heroic
figures and the resurrection of Jesus is too sharply drawn. An important consid-
eration to keep in mind here is the strong connection in the Pauline tradition
between the resurrection and the heavenly ascent of Jesus (Eph. 1.20; 2.6). If
you think like the author of Ephesians, and you believe some of the patriarchs
are also in the heavenly places, then you would surely see their exaltation as
akin to that of Jesus, and you would probably want some explanation for their
presence there. Such an explanation is, I think, offered in the accounts of a
transformed and glorious Jesus, strikingly similar to the post-resurrection Christ
of Rev. 1.13-16, conversing with Moses and Elijah in the Gospels (Mk 9.2-4).
The Lukan account of the transfiguration significantly has Jesus speaking with
them about 'his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem' (Lk.
9.31). Here surely is a hint of apologeticsthe early Christians came to view
their heavenly exaltation as dependent upon the events of the Passion and Resur-
rection. But equally clear is the fact that the Gospel writers saw the similarity
between Jesus and these exalted figures of the past.
Conclusion
This evaluation of Wright's approach to Jewish views on resurrection has impor-
tant ramifications for the historical study of the resurrection of Jesus. What this
means is that Wright's argument that no one expected anyone to rise ahead of the
rest of the righteous is not quite so firm as he and others before have argued.^^
Indeed, far from being an erratic boulder, the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus
have antecedents in the traditions about the patriarchs Enoch, Noah, Moses and
Elijah. These may well be the background to the early Christian claim that Jesus
rose again 'on the third day in accordance with the scriptures' (1 Cor. 15.4).
23. E.g. C.C. Rowland, Christian Origins (London: SPCK, 1985), pp. 187-93.