The resurrection of the dead as a historical event

[FransJVermeiren]

Recently I touched the ‘resurrection of the dead’ subject in the Didache XVI and Quadratus topics, but I believe it deserves a more profound discussion.

This subject is not the easiest one, as in my opinion in early Christianity this phrase has quickly evolved from a historical description into a supernatural, mythological concept. However, there seem to be enough examples in the New Testament and in other early Christian writings of the use of ἀνάστασις (εκ/των) νεκρων in its historical sense. This does not mean that transparant language has been used to describe this specific historical situation. The authors of these writings were describing a sensitive reality they wanted to hide from the Romans or other hostile outsiders, so they purposefully used a phrase that could lead to multiple interpretations (and that has indeed in the long term led to a generalized mythological interpretation).

In the Didache topic I explained that ἀνάστασις νεκρων, which is traditionally translated as ‘resurrection of the dead’, can as well be translated as ‘rising of the mortally ill’, with rising to be understood as survival and recovery. In Didache XVI the ‘rising of the mortally ill’ is one of three signs that describe the culminating events of the war of the Jews against the Romans. As we shall see below, a large group of people recovered. If we try to discover a large group of people recovering after escaping death in that era and region, we should think in the first place of the survivors of the siege of Jerusalem. Although tens of thousands of people died during the war, tens of thousands of others survived the nightmare of famine and infectious diseases during the five months of the siege.

In The Jewish War book VI, 401ff Josephus describes the fall of Jerusalem. In verse 402 he tells that at the very end of the siege the defenders of the city hided in underground passages. The day when the Romans enter the city, they massacred ‘indiscriminately all whom they met’ until dusk, when they ‘ceased their slaughter’. In verse 414 Josephus says ‘Because the soldiers were now growing weary of bloodshed, and survivors appeared constantly, Caesar [Titus] gave orders to kill only those who offered armed resistance and to take alive all the rest’. Here Josephus clearly states that a lot of people survived, and that they ‘appeared’ from their homes or hiding places. How close to death these survivors were becomes clear from the following verses, in which the sad fate of the collected survivors/prisoners is described. Verse 419: ‘During the days in which Fronto was sorting them [the prisoners] out, eleven thousand of the prisoners perished from starvation, some because they did not receive any food because of the hatred of their guards, others because they would not accept it when offered. Moreover, to fill so many mouths there was not even enough wheat.’

So when we come across an ἀνάστασις (εκ/των) νεκρων phrase in early Christian texts, it might refer to the extreme and unique historical event of the survival and recovery of thousands of starved, moribund victims of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Before going on to different ἀνάστασις (εκ/των) νεκρων phrases in the New Testament and in early Christian writings, I would like to discuss briefly Matthew 27:52-53, the Gospel passage with the closest parallel to the account of Josephus. I translate it the same way as I did in the Didache XVI topic.
'The memorials also were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised (ἠγέρθησαν), and coming out of the memorials after his [Jesus’] rising (ἔγερσιν) they went into the holy city and appeared to many.'
Here not the word ἀνάστασις is used, but the synonymous ἔγερσις (noun) and ἐγείρω (verb).

This veiled description in Matthew matches well with Josephus’s account:
• In both cases a great number of people is involved.
• In both cases the hiding places are underground dwellings: ὑπονομοι in Josephus and μνημεια in Matthew.
• The ‘fallen asleep’ in Matthew mentions a symptom of the terminal stage of famine, when victims become lethargic and sleep or doze most of the day. Josephus extensively describes the famine during the siege, including a case of cannibalism.
• For the appearing of the survivors/sleepers Josephus and Matthew use a form of the same verb: ἀνεφαίνετο and ἐνεφανίσθησαν, respectively.

How survivors of famine look like is described by Nevin S. Scrimshaw in his excellent article The Phenomenon of Famine (1). He quotes Osborne who describes the Irish famine in the middle of the 19th century, concretely in the spring of 1847: 'Among those still living, the skin, rough and dry like parchment, hung in folds; eyes were sunken back into the head, and faces and necks were so wasted that they looked like the skulls of the dead.'

(1) Scrimshaw (N.S.), The Phenomenon of Famine, Annual Review of Nutrition 1987, 7:1-21.

Next time I will discuss the resurrection of the dead in the Quadratus fragment and in the writings of Philip of Side.

[FransJVermeiren]

The Quadratus fragment

The Quadratus fragment in Eusebius goes as follows:
But the works of our saviour were always present, for they were real: those who were healed (οι θεραπευθεντες), those who rose from the dead (οι ανασταντες εκ νεκρων). We did not only see them get better and recover, but they stayed with us. Not only as long as the saviour was home, but also after he departed they were around for enough time so as that some of them stayed unto our own times.

Elsewhere I have shown that this fragment favors a late date for the beginnings of Christianity because survival of a group of people into the reign of Hadrian (125 CE) is not possible for people who witnessed events that took place in or around 30 CE. But there is more in the Quadratus fragment than this purely chronological argument. There is also a small piece of content in favor of dating the beginnings of Christianity during the war of the Jews against the Romans.

While in my contribution above I mentioned ἀνάστασις (εκ / των) νεκρων as one category, maybe we should consider ἀνάστασις (των) νεκρων and ἀνάστασις εκ νεκρων separately. Strong’s sees εκ as ‘one of the most under-translated (and therefore mis-translated) Greek propositions’. One of its meanings is ‘from the midst (of a group, number, company, community) of many’, with ‘before collective nouns’ as one possible use.
So maybe in each case a slightly different side of the same reality is shown:
• ἀνάστασις (των) νεκρων can be translated as ‘rising (survival, recovery) of the mortally ill’, so here we meet the group of survivors;
• ἀνάστασις εκ νεκρων can be translated as ‘rising (survival, recovery) from the midst of the dead’, so here survival is contrasted with a group of mortal victims.

An interesting element of the Quadratus fragment is the name of the group under discussion: οι θεραπευθεντες, οι ανασταντες εκ νεκρων. Are these two groups, as is usually translated, with ‘and’ between them? Those who were healed and those who rose from the dead? Or is the second part a further specification of the first? I believe the latter is the case because there is no ‘and’ (και) in Greek.

‘To heal’ is a possible translation of the Greek verb θεραπευω, and in relation to Christ it is always translated like this. But its meaning is much broader, the whole spectrum of ‘care for’, ‘wait upon’ and ‘treat medically’ (without a warranted healing, of course). So, if the same group is meant, this group of people needs care when they survive in the midst of a lot of mortal victims. That exactly was the case with the emaciated survivors of the siege: they were so feeble that they couldn’t take care of themselves. Only with the help of others, who supplied food to them, they survived. (After his survival we also see Jesus asking for food at several occasions.) The following verses show that those who received care did survive for a long time, some of them until 125 CE. See my contribution in the ‘Papias, Quadratus, Eusebius and Philippus Sidetes’ topic.

I believe the Quadratus fragment can be translated more straightforward as follows:
But the works of our saviour were always present, for they were real: those who received care, those who rose from the midst of the dead. They were not only seen when they received their care and when they recovered, but they stayed with us. Not only as long as the saviour was home again, but also after his death they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived unto our own times.

[spin]

When you attempt an analysis of this type you must check how the terminology is used elsewhere before positing alternative meanings. Look at Mk 9:9,10, 12:25, Lk 20:35, 24:46, Jn 20:9, 1 Peter 1:3. Is there any doubt in these examples what ανιστημι εκ νεκρων means? Can you find any clear examples where it does not mean bringing back from being dead?

[Secret Alias]

It is debatable whether the Nag Hammadi Treatise on the Resurrection really assumes physical death as preceding re-standing:

O Rheginos, do not lose yourself in details, nor live obeying the flesh for the sake of harmony. Flee from being scattered and being in bondage, and then you already have resurrection. If you know what in yourself will die, though you have lived many years, why not look at yourself and see yourself risen now? You have the resurrection, yet you go on as if you are to die when it is only the part destined to die that is moribund. Why do I put up with your poor training? Everyone finds a way, and there are many ways, to be released from this element and not to roam aimlessly in error, all with the end of recovering what one was at the beginning.

Similarly the Pauline 'death baptism' (however defined and by whatever terminology) is often assumed to take place after establishing a 'ritualized death' - i.e. not a 'real' (final) physical death (cf. the second baptism of the Marcosians). I think even the 'let the dead bury their dead' is understood metaphorically by Clement's source somewhere. Not always as cut and dry as you make it, spin.

[Secret Alias]

[spin]

It is debatable whether the Nag Hammadi Treatise on the Resurrection [Exact reference lost in the aether?] really assumes physical death as preceding re-standing:

O Rheginos, do not lose yourself in details, nor live obeying the flesh for the sake of harmony. Flee from being scattered and being in bondage, and then you already have resurrection. If you know what in yourself will die, though you have lived many years, why not look at yourself and see yourself risen now? You have the resurrection, yet you go on as if you are to die when it is only the part destined to die that is moribund. Why do I put up with your poor training? Everyone finds a way, and there are many ways, to be released from this element and not to roam aimlessly in error, all with the end of recovering what one was at the beginning.

Similarly the Pauline 'death baptism' (however defined and by whatever terminology) is often assumed to take place after establishing a 'ritualized death' - i.e. not a 'real' (final) physical death (cf. the second baptism of the Marcosians). I think even the 'let the dead bury their dead' is understood metaphorically by Clement's source somewhere. Not always as cut and dry as you make it, spin.

I understand that anything linguistic you run from preferring to confuse issues by looking at things that are much later, in different languages, that are totally irrelevant to the language use in question.

The issue is what the phrase means in Greek. Can FransJVermeiren wheedle his way out of the literal reading of the phrase ανασταντες εκ νεκρων? (Whether that is literal or ritualized dead is irrelevant. Besides, you need to argue ritualized death from contemporary sources or earlier. Good luck!)

[Secret Alias]

Yes Frans is a dimwit. But the idea that everything is so certain with you is disheartening. What exactly are you limiting our discussion down to:

1. Greek texts
2. orthodox texts

Sure by that token you are right. But what are you really studying? Sanctioned texts within the Roman Empire. Fine. Like soccer players from the United States as a group. Garbage in, garbage out.

[spin]

Yes Frans is a dimwit.

This sort of statement invites blowback.

But the idea that everything is so certain with you is disheartening.

You seem to have been asleep most of the time to be able to make this assertion.

What exactly are you limiting our discussion down to:

1. Greek texts
2. orthodox texts

Sure by that token you are right.

Have you got a clue how you discern the meaning of terms in a language?? You give me the idea that you are incapable of doing an philology. Can you understand what a phrase in Greek means other than generally by looking at Greek usage?

Rule one: to understand basic meanings in a language, you must analyse that language.

Rule two: if you want to advocate a meaning that does not reflect the general usage in the language, you must supply a range of examples to support your astandard meaning, such that it would cause other to consider your claim. (You don't just pull a single half-assed notion you dug out of a text in another language in another time to push for a deviant meaning.)

But what are you really studying?

Here, the meanings of statements in Greek. Not Coptic nor any other language. How silly can you been eschewing the language you are trying to understand and looking elsewhere to understand th meanings in that language. That's just too silly for words.

Sanctioned texts within the Roman Empire.

Rubbish. You have this penchant for changing the subject at the drop of a comma.

Fine. Like soccer players from the United States as a group. Garbage in, garbage out.

You should probably go peddle your conspiracies elsewhere. Somewhere you can make bold/bald assertions without fear of challenge.

[Secret Alias]

Secret Alias wrote:
Sanctioned texts within the Roman Empire.

Rubbish. You have this penchant for changing the subject at the drop of a comma.

Hardly a change of subject. Ok you're old. I get it. Time to close your eyes soon so you crave order and stability. So now for your benefit we have to pretend that it's a 'conspiracy theory' to suggest that what the Church Fathers themselves say about the origins of the gospel (viz. it was first written in another language OTHER than Greek) while believing that the same Church Fathers faithfully preserved the original rescension of the New Testament material is 'serious-minded' and sober. The Church Fathers report the earliest gospel was written in another language other than Greek and that they faithfully preserved the gospel in Greek. It's a mixed bag. You chose to disregard one comment and embrace the other, I embrace the other and reject the latter. But YOU make it seem as if everything is cut and dry whereas I accept (and embrace) the limitations of my theories. I have a lot of old people in my life so I can deal with this sort of intellectual myopia but I just want to bring it to your attention.

[Secret Alias]

And I love the way you think that your retarded holding up of the surviving Greek fragments and manuscripts ISN'T a mountainman argument while any hint of manipulation of the surviving material and 'locking in' that corrupted material IS mountainman-like. Every fucking thing you say is developed from old-thinking about the canon. 'Paul wrote the letters first and then the gospel was produced later.' Ugh! If you just said 'maybe ...' or 'I think ...' this drivel is true, I'd be like 'ok we can have a discussion.' But you pretend these things are established facts rather than just a reflection of a tradition which said 'Paul wrote the letters and then the gospel was produced later.' What? When you go to a magic show do you think the card REALLY disappears because the magician said a magic word? But in the case of a Church Father attempting to impose his beliefs about the history of the Church, the texts reflecting what he believes CAN ONLY BE because the texts existed a priori to his beliefs. I try to stay out of these discussions but as I said, I have a lot of old people in my life. Can't take it out on them, but you, that's another story.

FWIW my mother (a) can never remember that there is a 3 hour time difference between her and me and (b) wonders why I can't talk on the phone for more than an hour 9 - 5. 'Oh I forgot you have to work and that you're not retired like me!' It's like engaging with you at the forum.