Where Did the Doctrine of the Bodily Resurrection Come From?

[Joseph D. L.]

It could have been inspired by the episode of Enoch being wisped bodily into Heaven.

The point of resurrection is to bring the deceased into Heaven. The idea that you go to Heaven upon death is not Biblically founded. So in eschatological beliefs, the dead would need to be bodily resurrected so as to be welcomed into Heaven.

[Secret Alias]

And Sadducees and Samaritans are identified as rejecting the resurrection of the dead in the third century https://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6K ... on&f=false

[Secret Alias]

By the late third century all accepted the resurrection of the dead. The doctrine is clearly aimed at antinomianism and libertinism.

[Ben C. Smith]

But the Samaritans - who base all their exegesis on the Torah- also adopted it, even though the Pentateuch says nothing about it. https://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6K ... an&f=false

That link says that the evidence for Samaritan belief in the resurrection is uncertain.

I am not as sure about the development of Samaritan doctrines overall, anyway. The rationale behind the development of the doctrine of resurrection seems as clear as anything can be for Judaism and, by extension, for Christianity; the whole Samaritan issue (what they believed and when they started to believe it) is much less clear to me.

[Secret Alias]

I don't have the page open in front of me but I think you may have misread the references. The evidence for when or how the Samaritans came to the belief in the resurrection is unclear. That Samaritans currently believe or have adopted a belief in the resurrection is unquestioned. Just ask a Samaritan. But the situation is the same with Judaism or Christianity - i.e. there is evidence that the belief wasn't universal within any of these traditions but rather the opposite might originally have been true. But eventually the belief became orthodoxy. I wonder if the belief is found at Qumran.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't have the page open in front of me but I think you may have misread the references.

It says that evidence for a Samaritan belief in the resurrection is unclear up through the fourteenth century. That is what I was responding to. For the Samaritan religion to have adopted the belief so long after Judaism and Christianity did seems unproblematic, so far as assessing all three religions together is concerned; religions can change over time, and cultural shifts and pressures can make certain beliefs more or less accessible as fuel for those changes. I guess what I am saying is that, if the Samaritan belief in a resurrection really is as late as that, then it seems irrelevant for anything to do with what happened within Judaism (and Christianity) centuries earlier. If the Samaritans and the Jews (and Christians) had independently adopted resurrection as a doctrine at about the same time, yes, I would certainly be wondering what was up with that. But centuries later? That does not even really stack up to the level of coincidence to be explained, unless I am missing something. What matters for me is that (A) their adherence to the Pentateuch/Torah and (B) their original and apparently longstanding disbelief in a resurrection make mutual sense to me.

But the situation is the same with Judaism or Christianity - i.e. there is evidence that the belief wasn't universal within any of these traditions but rather the opposite might originally have been true. But eventually the belief became orthodoxy.

I agree about Judaism: the belief was not original or early, but grew up later. But, as I said, Christianity is not an independent instance in this case: it obviously got the doctrine from Judaism. (That is not to say that the belief was necessarily universal in early Christianity, just as it was not universal in late Judaism; it is only to say that those Christians who believed in a resurrection got that doctrine from those Jews who believed in a resurrection.)

I wonder if the belief is found at Qumran.

There is the so called Messianic Apocalypse:

4Q521:

Fragment 1, column 1: 1 [...] ... [...] 2 [... and you] have listened [...] 3 and the work of [...] 4 and what [you] have transgressed; [...] 5 and to fear the [...] 6 the right[eous] have multiplied [...] 7 and the arisen [...] 8 and the love [of ...] 9 ... [....]

Fragment 2, column 2: 1 [...for the heav]ens and the earth will listen to his anointed one, 2 [and all th]at is in them will not turn away from the precepts of the holy ones. 3 Strengthen yourselves, you who are seeking the Lord, in his service! ~ 4 Will you not in this encounter the Lord, all those who hope in their heart? 5 For the Lord will consider the pious, and call the righteous by name, 6 and his spirit will hover upon the poor, and he will renew the faithful with his strength. 7 For he will honor the pious upon the throne of an eternal kingdom, 8 freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twis[ted.] 9 And for[e]ver shall I cling [to those who h]ope, and in his mercy [...] 10 and the fru[it of ...] ... not be delayed. 11 And the Lord will perform marvelous acts such as have not existed, just as he sa[id,] 12 [for] he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim good news to the poor 13 and [...] ... [...] he will lead the [...] ... and enrich the hungry. 14 [...] and all ... [....]

Fragment 2, column 3: 1 and the law of your favor. And I will free them with [...] 2 it is su[re:] The fathers will return towards the sons. [...] 3 which the blessing of the Lord in his good will [...] 4 May the [ea]rth rejoice in all the pla[ces ...] 5 fo[r] all Israel in the rejoicing [...] 6 and the ... [...] ... [...] 7 ... [....]

Fragment 5, column 1 + fragment 6: 1 [...] ... 2-3 [...] 4 [...] ... [...] do not serve with those 5 [...with] his frie[nd] and with [his] neighbour 6 [...] good to you and fortify the [po]wer 7 [...] sustenance, the faithful ones will grow

Fragment 7 + fragment 5, column 2: 1 [...] see all th[at has made] 2 [the Lord: the ear]th and all that is in it, ~ the seas [and all] 3 [they contain,] and all the reservoirs of waters and torrents. ~ 4 [...] those who do the good before the Lor[d] 5 [...] like these, the accursed. And [they] shall b[e] for death, [...] 6 [...] he who gives life to the dead of his people. ~ 7 And we shall [gi]ve thanks and announce to you [...] of the Lord, wh[o ...] 8 [...] ... and opens [...] 9 and [...] 10 and [...] 11 he reveals them ... [...] 12 and the bridge of the abys[ses ...] 13 the accur[sed] have coagulated [...] 14 and the heavens have met [...] 15 [and a]ll the angels [...] 16 [...] ... [....]

Fragment 8: 1 [...] a wall bet[we]en 2-4 [...] 5 [...] they will appear 6 [...] to Adam 7 [...] Jacob 8 [...] and all his h[o]ly utensils 9 [...] and all his anointed ones 10 [...] and /[they] will spea[k]/ the word of the Lord and [...] 11 [...] to the Lord {[t]he[y] will speak} 12 [...] the eyes of [....]

This revival of the dead may resemble the likes of Elijah and Elisha more closely than it does the eschatological doctrine of Daniel 12.1-3 (for example), however.

[Secret Alias]

Thank you. Very useful. But regarding this:

But, as I said, Christianity is not an independent instance in this case: it obviously got the doctrine from Judaism.

Philo makes clear that "Jews" - the true Oniad tradition - expected the promise of heavenly translation. Gen 15:5 = astral life. Somehow the true tradition was corrupted by a non or extra-Pentateuchal understanding and it took over all three traditions for reasons I can't understand.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thank you. Very useful. But regarding this:

But, as I said, Christianity is not an independent instance in this case: it obviously got the doctrine from Judaism.

Philo makes clear that "Jews" - the true Oniad tradition - expected the promise of heavenly translation. Gen 15:5 = astral life. Somehow the true tradition was corrupted by a non or extra-Pentateuchal understanding and it took over all three traditions for reasons I can't understand.

Heavenly translation does not seem to be the earliest Jewish belief, either. I think the concept of Sheol is earlier and more foundational.

And my whole purpose on this thread has been to emphasize that there are not three traditions to be explained: Christianity, for one, is already explained by Judaism. This leaves two of your traditions to account for: Judaism and Samaritanism. Judaism I have already attempted to explain; it is actually pretty easy to understand the steps to get there within Judaism. Samaritanism is cloudier, for sure. But its acceptance of the doctrine may be so late as to render it irrelevant to the embracing of that doctrine by the other two traditions, anyway.

IOW, from my perspective, your statement that "it took over all three traditions" for unknown reasons can be reduced down to this: it took over Judaism for reasons which are easy to see, and it took over Christianity precisely because Christianity got it from Judaism. This leaves only one tradition, Samaritanism, to explain.

[Secret Alias]

I guess I have to agree that the doctrine LIKELY spread from Judaism to Christian groups. Celsus identifies the belief as specifically Jewish (Con Cels. 5.14) and held by 'some Christians.' So yes - that makes sense. But again, and perhaps I have to rephrase my original question. Why would people choose to believe something that had no authority from the scriptures and which was contradicted by the earliest Jewish, Samaritan and Christian beliefs - 'earliest Jewish' assumes that the Oniads represented the authoritative reading of the Pentateuch and that Philo was their mouthpiece. There had to be a break in the authoritative reading of the Pentateuch. This is an argument which results from the loss of authority.

[Secret Alias]

Let's look at Celsus https://www.jstor.org/stable/1508085?re ... b_contents writing near the end of the second century:

It is foolish also of them to suppose that, when God
applies the fire (like a cook!), all the rest of mankind will
be thoroughly burnt up, and that they alone will survive,
not merely those who are alive at the time, but also those
long dead who will rise up from the earth possessing the
same bodies as before. This is simply the hope of worms.
For what sort of human soul would have any further desire
for a body that has rotted? The fact that this doctrine is not
shared by some of you (Jews) and by some Christians
shows its utter repulsiveness, and that it is both revolting
and impossible. For what sort of body, after being entirely
corrupted, could return to its original nature and that same
first condition which it had before that was dissolved? (5.14)

Certainly Celsus agrees with you that the belief is 'Jewish' and held by some Christians. And 'some Christians' but not all. Celsus goes on to say:

As they have nothing to say in reply, they escape to a most outrageous refuge by saying ‘that anything is possible to God.’ But, indeed neither can God do what is shameful nor does he desire what is contrary to nature.

Athenagoras seems to respond to Celsus when he writes:

Thus does reason, tracing out the truth from the natural sequence, afford ground for believing in the resurrection, since it is safer and stronger than experience for establishing the truth. [Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Body 17]