Since 1986 I have authored or co-authored seven books here pictured in various English editions. You can find links, reviews, and supplemental materials here:
I am not insulted in the least. Who does not love a good bargain? I believe this is a fine book and that you can get a hardcover copy, which I recommend because of the front and back end color cover plates, for a Penny–well all to the good. No excuse for not owning your own copy–and the postage will run more than the book! Click on the image and it will take you to Amazon:
In Paul’s view of resurrection of the dead the body is left behind like an old change of clothing, to turn to the dust, whereas the spirit is “reclothed” with a new spiritual body. Resurrection is neither corpse revival nor transformation of the physical “body of dust” into a spiritual form.
And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And multitudes of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever. (Daniel 12:1-4)
The metaphor of “sleeping in the dust of the earth” and then awakening captures precisely the core idea of resurrection of the dead. The bodies of the dead have long ago decayed and turned to dust, so this is no resuscitation of a corpse, nor is it even Ezekiel’s vision of reclothing dry bones with sinew and skin. This is an entirely new concept that has begun to develop in Jewish thought and Jews like Jesus, as well as the Pharisees, believed that on the “last day,” the dead would be raised. What people mix up is the literal idea of resuscitation or the “standing up” of a corpse, and the fully developed Jewish idea of resurrection at the end of days. The latter does not involve collecting the dust, the fragmentary decaying bones, or other remains of the body and somehow restoring their form. According to the book of Revelation, even the “sea” gives up the dead that are in it—which can hardly mean one must search for digested bodies that the fish have eaten and eliminated—as unpleasant as the thought may be (Revelation 20:11-15).
Resurrection of the dead is neither corpse revival or transformation of the physical “body of dust” into a spiritual form. This might be the view of a child who does not yet understand the idea, or metaphorically one could speak of the dead “coming out of their tombs,” as in the famous Michael Jackson video “Thriller,” but no one thought of it literally that way in terms of what would happen at the end of days.
The fully developed view of resurrection of the dead among Jews in the time of Jesus was that at the end of days the dead would come forth from Sheol/Hades—literally the “state of being dead,” and live again in an embodied form. The question was—what kind of a body? And it was there that the debates began. The Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, poked fun at the Pharisees, who affirmed it. How could God raise the dead—what if a woman had had seven husbands in her life, each of whom died and she kept remarrying—in the resurrection whose wife would she be? Jesus was confronted with this question in the gospels (Luke 20:34-40). His answer was clear and unambiguous—when the dead come forth they will be in a transformed body, much like the angels, not the literal physical bodies that they once inhabited—there will be no “marriage or giving in marriage” as there will be no “male or female” in terms of physical sexual gender. There will be no birth, no death, but a new transformed life.
Paul is the crystal clear on this point. Some of his converts in the city of Corinth were denying the resurrection of the dead. They were most likely thinking along the lines of Plato—if the immortal soul is freed from the prison of the body at death, why would it ever return to the body? And yet that is precisely what Paul defended—a return to a body—but as he makes very clear, it is not a natural or “physical body”—the one he calls the body of “dust,” but a spiritual body—literally “wind body,” (pneumatikos), that is transformed and not subject to death (1 Corinthians 15:42-50). One thinks of the “aliens” in Ron Howard’s 1985 film “Cocoon,” in which these “light beings” had form and shape but clearly were beyond any kind of physical or biochemical composition.
Resurrection of the dead, according to both Paul and Jesus, has nothing to do with the former physical body. Paul’s objectors taunted him—“How are the dead raised? In what kind of a body will they come forth?—he called them fools—as obviously they had no clue about the concept of resurrection, mistaking it for corpse revival (1 Corinthians 15:34). Paul says that Jesus had become, what he calls, a life-giving spirit. The difference between this idea and that of the Greek notion of the immortal soul is difficult to understand, but in the Hebraic view of things the distinction was important. Simply put, in Greek thought death was a friend—that released one from the bonds of the lower, mortal, decaying, material world. In Hebrew the created world is good—even very good—and death is seen as enemy—but one that can be conquered. Paul writes that the “last enemy to be destroyed is death,” and then the creation, which is good, will be “released from its bondage to decay” (1 Corinthians 15:26; Romans 8:21).
The whole concept turns on the notion of how the created world is viewed—as something to abandon and escape, or something to be transformed and changed. That is why the Bible speaks of a “new heavens and a new earth,” rather than leaving this earth to go to heaven (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1). The kingdom of God is when the will of God is done on earth as it is in heaven. In both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament the ideal future is when God comes down to the renewed creation, not when we leave a hopeless world to join God in heaven (Revelation 21:3).
Paul makes clear that in Christian resurrection the body is left behind like an old change of clothing, to turn to the dust, and the spirit is “reclothed” with a new spiritual body. He compares the physical body to a temporary tent, and the new body is a permanent house (2 Corinthians 5:1-5). He even throws in a polemic against the Greek Platonic view of the “unclothed” or disembodied immortal soul—he says our desire is not to be naked, which is the state of death before resurrection, but to be clothed again! There is a continuity between the old physical body and the new spiritual one–but it is not that the physical is somehow “transformed” into the spiritual. The continuity is the “spirit” of the person, that survives the death and decay of the body and is then subsequently “re-clothed” in a form Paul refers to as a “life-giving spirit.”
This has everything to do with the earliest Christian view of Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrection hope his first followers held. That is why the presence of bones—even the bones of Jesus, next to statements of faith in resurrection, were not a contradiction. The confusion has come over the accounts in the gospels of the empty tomb of Jesus, and his “appearances” to his followers following his resurrection–all of which were written after 70 CE when the links with the faith of the Jerusalem community had been severed.
The confusion has come in the gospels because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the empty tomb. There was an empty tomb—but it was the first tomb, the temporary one in which Joseph of Arimathea placed the corpse of Jesus until the Passover and Sabbath were past. This is no threat to the original Christian resurrection faith, it is actually an affirmation of that faith. Paul knows nothing of that first empty tomb. He knows that Jesus died and was buried and on the third day he was raised up. Paul’s focus is on the heavenly exaltation of Jesus, raised to the right hand of God (Philippians 2:5-10). Jesus then appeared to his followers, not as a resuscitated corpse, but in Paul’s words, as a “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). These words of Paul are our earliest testimony to faith in Jesus’ resurrection. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were written between 70-100 CE. The names on the books are traditional. They are not included in the text but added later as “titles” to the manuscripts. In other words, Mark does not begin, “I Mark, having witnessed these things, do hereby write…” Nor does Matthew, Luke, or John. In that sense all four gospels are pseudonymous—we don’t know their real authors.
What is particularly telling is that if you take the gospels in order, beginning with Mark there are no appearances of Jesus—just the statement that he will “go before them to Galilee.” I understand this as a reference to his second coming, namely, the expectation that they will see the “Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven” as Jesus predicted, parallel to his transfiguration on the high mountain in the Galilee (Mark 9:1; 14:62). In Matthew the women at the tomb see Jesus and later the eleven apostles on a misty mountain top—but some doubted. He gives them their commission to take the gospel to the world (Matthew 28:18-19). Here we have clearly left the world of history and entered the world of theology. The “Great Commission” is Matthew’s view of the Christian mission until the end of the age. Scholars do not take these as words as those spoken by the historical Jesus. Luke expands things further and first introduces the idea that Jesus came back in a physical body—wounds and all and asking for food to eat. He includes Jesus appearing to two men on the road to Emmaus, and then to the eleven apostles and other disciples. They mistake him for a ghost, but he lets them know that he has “flesh and bones” and is not a spirit. He then eats fish in front of them (Luke 24:39). John, like Luke, promotes this same view—that Jesus shows his wounds to Thomas and later meets a group of the apostles on the Sea of Galilee and is cooking fish on the shore on a charcoal fire (John 20:24-25; 21:9-14). See Deborah Thompson Prince “The ‘Ghost’ of Jesus: Luke 24 in Light of Ancient Narratives of Post-Mortem Apparitions,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (March 2007) 29:3, pp. 287-301.
What Luke and John introduce here, namely that Jesus appeared in the same body that had been placed in the tomb represents a major departure from early Christian resurrection faith. This understanding of Jesus’ resurrection has led to endless confusion on the part of sincere Christians who do believe Jesus was raised from the dead. These stories are secondary and legendary. We know this because Mark, who wrote decades earlier, does not know them, and Paul, who is still earlier says plainly that the new body is not “flesh and blood” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Apologists have tried to reconcile these accounts by saying Jesus had “bones and flesh” but it was somehow “different” bones and flesh—it was “spiritual” not physical. They have compared it to stories of the appearances of angels or messengers in the Hebrew Bible, who appear, even eat, and then depart (Genesis 18:1-8). The parallel is not valid. The angelic messengers in the Hebrew Bible are often humans, spoken of a mal’akim—the normal word for messenger but mistranslated “angel.” Other times they are portrayed as beings from the other realm who appear and disappear at will, sometimes rising in a puff of smoke (Judges 6:19-22).
These accounts of Luke and John are quite different. They were written for apologetic purposes against pagan critics like Celsus who charged that the “appearances” of Jesus to his followers were merely based on hysteria and delusion. By the time Luke and John wrote, at the turn of the first century or even later, the battle the Christians were fighting was with the non-Christians and Jews who did not accept Jesus born of a virgin or raised from the dead. The pagans charged that the resurrection appearances were delusional but within Jewish tradition it was known that the body was moved. Matthew’s polemic against this view, protesting that it was a Jewish lie, actually testifies to its partial truth (Matthew 28:11-15). Matthew, in his typical anti-Semitic fashion, charges that the Jews were easily bribed for money and willing to spread a lie, saying “The disciples came and stole him away.” Part was true—they did come by night and take the body away, but they hardly stole it. Joseph of Arimathea had been given permission to take care of the burial by the Roman governor himself—Pontius Pilate. When Matthew says the “story” is spread among the Jews to this day,” that is likely also partially true. Jews who lived in Jerusalem knew that Jesus body had been moved, and reverently buried by his family and his followers. What one has to remember is that the gospel writers, removed five or six decades from the events, know nothing of the Christianity in Jerusalem that thrived and grew even before Paul came along. Jesus died in 30 CE, Paul writes in the 50s CE, and the gospels were written between 70-100 CE, or even later. They are far removed from the original followers—most of whom are dead, including Paul, Peter, James, and most other first witnesses.
The question I get asked most in this regard is how could one believe that the followers of Jesus were running around Jerusalem three days after Jesus died claiming he had been raised from the dead if his tomb was just two miles to the south of the Old City. This question assumes a fundamental misunderstanding. It takes legendary accounts written many decades after the events, and the history of the movement as narrated by Luke in the book of Acts, as if it reflects things as they were in the period 30-70 CE. For that Paul and the book of James are our only witnesses, plus the restored document Q.
The Q document and the letter of James are wholly concentrated on the ethical teachings of Jesus. They contain no Christian theology at all. The letter of James only mentions Jesus twice, both times in passing, but says nothing about the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, on the other hand, has begun the development of what we come to know as classic Christian teachings—Christ as the incarnate divine Son of God, his death and resurrection for sins, forgiveness through his blood, baptism as a mystical rite of union, and the Eucharist as eating the body and blood of Christ. Paul is early enough though to have the notion of resurrection of the dead straight and he says he received what he passes on in this regard—presumably from the first witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
In an ironic sense, though I believe that Paul’s theology is far removed from that of Jesus first followers, his view of Jesus’ resurrection comes directly from them—and it did not involve bones or corpses being revived. He makes that crystal clear.
I realize it is hard to imagine, given the confusion the later gospel accounts have introduced, that early followers of Jesus would have visited the Jesus family tomb and declared their resurrection faith, while honoring and remembering their revered Teacher, the one they believed was the messiah. When one understands the Jewish culture and context that is precisely what one would expect. Within Judaism the tombs of the zadikim—the righteous ones, are honored, remembered, and considered holy. Accordingly, finding the tomb of Jesus and his family would not be a threat to early Christian faith, but a vehicle for recovering the Jewishness of Jesus and his first followers, serving as a bridge between these two great religions—Christianity and Judaism, as their common roots are better understood. On the probability that the permanent tomb of Jesus and his family has been found south of the Old City of Jerusalem see my overview here, and for the latest evidence, the book, The Jesus Discovery (Simon & Schuster, 2012).
Yesterday I happily received my copy of the long awaited book, The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? edited by James H. Charlesworth (Eerdmans, 2013). From my initial perusal I highly recommend this impressive and comprehensive work for any of my readers who have followed the “Talpiot Jesus tomb” discussion since the publication of my book, The Jesus Dynasty in 2006 and the release of the book and film by Simcha Jacobovici The Family Tomb of Jesus and The Lost Tomb of Jesus in 2007. This thick 592 page volume consists of papers delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on “Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” The focus of the conference was a singular one–as stated by Prof. Charlesworth in his opening remarks–”Is the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb that of Jesus of Nazareth?–What is the Evidence Pro and Con?” This international gathering of scholars was held at the Mishkenot Conference Center in Jerusalem, January 13-16, 2008. The fields of expertise were diverse–historians, biblical scholars, archaeologists, physical scientists, statisticians, epigraphers–and the points of view expressed represented a full range of possible opinions. The conference itself was not without its controversies–see my blog post report here and my response to the confusion and storm of criticisms after the conference on the Society of Biblical Literature website here. It is nice to finally have the papers with full documentation and notes, some of which were submitted by those who could not attend but nonetheless sent in their contributions. My own contribution, “The Talpiot “Jesus” Tomb: A Historical Analysis,” is one of the 30 contributions–including a most intriguing typesetting error. My hope is that we can now consider the results of the conference in a calmer and more objective atmosphere at the close of 2013. The only unanimous resolution at the Princeton Jerusalem conference was a voice vote at the closing session that urged exploration of the adjacent “Patio” tomb, just north of the “Jesus” tomb. The results of that effort, subsequently carried out by Rami Arav, Simcha Jacabovici, and me, we survey in our 2012 book, The Jesus Discovery. I look forward to reading this volume in its entirety over the semester break and I will offer comments and evaluations of all of the contributions in series of reviews on this blog. Simcha Jacobovici, who attended the conference but did not present a paper or response, has already published his initial evaluation of the volume here. Below are preview shots of the Table of Contents:
- On p. 259 we read that the Aramaic מרא (mara’) means “sit” or “matter” ?? which is quite a creative and new definition that I am sure my colleague Chris Rollston will enjoy. It took me a while to figure this one out until I realized that these are simple one letter typos for “sir” and “master” by the typesetter! [↩]
I was totally surprised by today’s e-mail edition of Bible History Daily distributed by the Biblical Archaeological Society! Featured was a new DVD, “Jerusalem Discoveries from the Time of Jesus,” putting together four of my BAS lectures, dealing with some of the most controversial topics related to my research–the James ossuary, The Talpiot tombs, and Pixner’s theories regarding the Essene Gate and the “Church of the Apostles.” I am referred to as a “renowned biblical scholar,” which some of my colleagues might want to debate, but I thank BAS for the compliment. I should point out that those of us who do these BAS lectures receive no royalties but any proceeds go to supporting the worthy work of the non-profit Biblical Archaeology Society. You can read details regarding this particular DVD here.