In my previous post I discussed the beginnings of the Jewish idea of the “resurrection of the dead.” This view is a pretty much commonplace today: in every Christian church that recites a creed today, and in many conservative churches that do not use creeds, it is believed that at the end of time there will be some kind of judgment and people will be raised from the dead.
At the same time, I have to be frank and say that it seems to me that most Christians – at least the ones I know (not just scholars, but most Christians) – don’t actually *believe* in a future resurrection. They think they die and go to heaven in their souls. Their souls may have some kind of physical attributes: they have all their sense of hearing, seeing, etc., and they can be recognized as who they were so you’ll be able to see your grandmother there. It’s true, even this has always caused problems for people who hold the idea. Which of my many bodies will I have in heaven? The one I had when I was at my prime? The one I died with? What about wounds, injuries? What about birth defects and disabilities? I don’t even know what my grandmother *looked* like when she was 23; how will I recognize her? People who have thought about such things have solutions of course – the solutions go way back to the early centuries of the church. But they are problems.
Even so, my point is that most people, even (especially?) deeply committed Christians who think they are standing within the traditional Christian tradition, think you die and your soul goes one place or the other, and your body just rots away (or is cremated, etc.), even if the soul retains the bodily attributes of the now disintegrated body. And that is NOT, let me reiterate, it is NOT, the understanding of the “resurrection of the dead.”
That is to say, it is not the view that Jesus …
Only members of the blog can see what I say next. Including a massively controversial tangent that is not meant to be controversial. (Involving abortion.) If you don’t belong to the blog, now would be a good time to join.
The ending private tag is showing. I assume the opening tag is missing.
Great post.
Ugh. Thanks.
I was surprised to read that by the time of Jesus, the idea of resurrection of the dead was the dominant view in Judaism. Can you provide support for that assertion? I had been assuming that it was a much more recent innovation, appearing only about 150 years before Jesus, and that we probably could not say how many of the Jews had embraced it by Jesus’s time. Certainly the Sadducees, who seem to have been very dominant at that time, had not.
It is first recorded in the third century BCE. By the time of Jesus it was the view of the Pharisees and the Essenes and probalby the Fourth Philosophy (all the groups Josephus mentions apart from the Sadducees), along with the other non-Christian group we know about at the time, the followers of John the Baptist; and it is the view found in most of the surviving literature of the time that intimate a view of eschatology (Dead Sea Scrolls; Jewish apocalypses; etc.). Apart from the Sadducees, I can’t think of other Jews or Jewish texts that attest an alternative eschatology at the time. So the evidence may all be skewed, but it does seem all to point in the same direction.
I’m still a little confused by Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15. He states in verse 44, “…it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
He goes on in verse 49, “And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.”
It sounds to me like he is saying when we are raised it will be in a NEW heavenly (spiritual) body, not the natural, earthly body. Growing up, this is what I was taught would be our soul’s body in heaven (I am no longer a believer, however). Am I just misreading this?
Yup, maybe I better post on this. I’ve done so before, but a refresher is never a bad idea!
Yeah, especially since English translations always want to translate “psychikos soma” as “physical body”, but the Greek “psyche” means mind or spirit. It really looks like Paul is saying “It is sown a [mind or spirit] body, it is raised a [breath or spirit] body”, which would make even less sense.
My knowledge is quite limited, but I have read that Middle Platonists thought everything on Earth was made of the four elements (and therefore corrupted), but everything out beyond the moon was made of ether, where ethereal daimones live. Is Paul implying that our bodies will be replaced by bodies of ether?
Not quite. I’ll explain in a future post!
(Dr. Ehrman’s previous post on the topic is at https://ehrmanblog.org/paul-resurrection-spiritual-body/)
Was there a follow up to this??
I’m not sure if I replied. Paul does believe that Jesus’ was raised as a “spiritual body.” But by that he did not mean “in spirit, not in body.” He meant the body had been transformed into a different *kind* of body that, made up of the “stuff” called PNEUMA (“spirit-substance”) instead of HYLOS (gross-material-substance that we are now made up of), that now could not be injured, sick, or killed. It was an immortal body. But it was still a body. It’s not the soul going to heaven. It’s a material body but a perfect kind of matter.
I recently read an interesting blog post about how ancient non-Jewish cosmologies shaped early Christian thought — https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/the-structure-of-heaven-and-earth-how-ancient-cosmology-shaped-everyones-theology/ — and that author sees the “your soul goes to heaven after you die” idea as coming ultimately from Plato’s Timaeus. In the Timaeus, souls and stars are made of the same stuff, and if a person lived a righteous life, his soul went up to become one with his own star. In fact, that blog author sees Middle Platonism as the basis for many of the odd bits in the New Testament — Paul’s “third heaven”, and his talk of “archons and powers”, for instance. Does this seem likely to you? (And if you were planning to get to Platonism in the “later post” you mention, my apologies for skipping ahead!) Either way, I’m really looking forward to your upcoming book.
Regarding abortion, I’ve always found it amusing that so much of modern American Christianity is wrapped up in an issue that was so obviously not a big concern for the Biblical authors. I do note that a prohibition on abortion is found in the Didache, one of the earliest extant Christian texts outside the Bible. So the prohibition is clearly early — just not early enough to have made it into the canon. (I also note that the issue is not raised in terms of “We must stop people from doing this”, but merely as “We Christians do not do this ourselves”, a perspective that could perhaps be seen as “pro-choice”… but I digress.)
I wouldn’t say it comes from the Timaeus, or originally from Plato: but Plato is absolutely the most influential spokesperson for the immortality of the soul (as opposed to the body), e.g., especially in the Phaedo, which is all about that.
With the author of Luke, it seems there are two instances that I can think of where the reward/punishment was immediate rather than being deferred until after a later judgement. The first is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, and the second is Jesus telling one of the thieves on the cross that today he will be with him in paradise.
Do you think Luke saw these as unique individuals with special circumstances (like Enoch or Elijah) so they didn’t wait in the ground after death, or do you think Luke had a different view of what one experiences immediately after death?
Yes indeed. That was what Luke thought. I have an extended discussoin of this in my book; I’ll look to see if I’ve discussed it yet on the blog.
*The body you have now*.[ …] You can’t exist apart from the body. You in a sense are your body. And when you are granted eternal life, you will live in the body.
_________________________________
[Fernando] * The body you have now *. That does not seem to be Paul’s teaching on the resurrection and eternal life after death in this world.
Let’s see:
Philippians 3: 20-21
“21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will ** transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body “.
1 Corinthians 15: 43-44
43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as * natural human bodie *, but they will be raised as * spiritual bodies *. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.”
There are many contradictions and inexplicable things in these two passages.
On the one hand, Paul’s aspiration that his resurrected body for eternal life be * like his [Jesus] glorius body *, seems quite self-centered and presumptuous. Of course that is not exactly the same as * the body you have now *
On the other hand, it is a contadictio in terminis, an oxymoron, talk about * spiritual bodies *.
Paul himself often opposes natural flesh (sarx) and supernatural spirit (pneuma). Then talking about the spiritual body (flesh) in Paul’s case is, at least, shocking.
Bart continues:
* You can’t exist from the body. You in a sense are your body. And when you are granted eternal life, you will live in the body *
True. That is why the resurrection and eternal life of a specific person is absurd. For if it is not with his earthly body, it will not be the same person who lives forever. But this is impossible. For the body is subject to biology and life, which after all is nothing but a series of biochemical reactions, cannot be eternal by nature.
Of course, some believers will think that the almighty god can make one thing and its opposite happen at the same time. Or change at will the laws that govern thermodynamics and biology and let telomeres do not control the aging of our body cells.
There’s also Ezekiel 37:1-14 (if someone is really intent on finding bodily resurrection in the Jewish scriptures).
The idea of an afterlife raises a lot of interesting questions, which even the people of Jesus’ day recognized, which is why they posed the question of someone who has been been married multiple times: who gets her/him in the afterlife? But Jesus reportedly had a ready answer: no marriage in the afterlife! I’m sure that’s sad news for some, but good news for others!
even tho
>> God allowed Elijah to ascend to heaven without dying,
>> as he did much earlier with the mysterious figure Enoch, .
>> If these two live forever, why not others?
But these two examples, and you might include Jesus resurrection, are also SUBSTANTIALLY different than
1) future resurrection of the body, and
2) thinking you are going to live forever in your *body*
that virtually everyone else in the Greco-Roman world (or modern world) thought was horrifying and ludicrous
I really don’t see how they are analogous at all
No one (lets say rather very few) sees Enoch or Elijah or Jesus walking around like they see Bart Ehrman or myself.
I think a better analogy is that Enoch and Elijah and Jesus have been transported to a different dimension (with their bodies I dont know) but it is a dimension you and I can’t easily perceive right now
and to say Elijah and Jesus and Enoch have the same kind of “bodies” as Bart Ehrman and I now have, you a being very confusing
The doctrine of the Trinity would be another thing that’s not present in the original text but is now commonplace.
You got a mention in today’s Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/christ-2
So I heard. Go figure….
additionally I think you have said previously that
1) majority of Jews of Palestine were NOT apocalypticist at the time of Jesus
and now that
2) This is definitely the view Jewish apocalypticists had [I dont know if this is UNIVERSALLY true of apoclyptcist of Jesus time, I dont think you have made this claim before] [but assuming it is universally true]
I think that it still does not follow at all that
3) this view bec[a]me dominant in a religion [Judaism]
No, that’s not what I’ve ever said (your point #1). It was the view widely held, so far as we can tell.
ok i must have been confused
maybe you said that the majority of Jews did not belong to one of the 4 groups mentioned by Josephus so I assumed that the apocalyptic group was even smaller than those
but maybe they apocalyptic ideas are broader than those 4 groups ?
Yes, the groups are like civil organizatoins (the Rotary Club, the Elks, etc.). Few people belong to them, relatively speaking, but the views they have may be widely shared. Apocalypticism was the view, not one of the groups.
“Or Paul, or any of the early followers of Jesus or any author of the New Testament. They were precisely arguing against the idea that the soul and body would separate at death, one to rot into non-existence and the other to live forever. Their view was the opposite.”
I am a little confused about this topic. A decade ago, influenced by N.T. Wright’s popular writings and talks and endorsement of Christian physicalists (i.e. contemporary Christians who, in context of philosophy of mind, reject the existence of the soul as an immaterial substance), I thought the New Testament view is exclusively physicalist (see http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/mind-spirit-soul-and-body/). The New Testament rejects the idea of separation of soul and body at death.
Then I came across Christian philosophers who pointed out N.T. Wright had also defended an “intermediate state” view of the afterlife:
https://philpapers.org/rec/RICRTN
It seems Pauline passages about “being with the Lord” after death suggests an intermediate state prior to bodily resurrection. Book of Revelation’s allusion to martyred saints crying out for justice suggests an intermediate state. While I accept that all New Testament writers view the ultimate state for believers is eternal life in a resurrected body when they will be made whole again, it seems to me there are passages alluding to what we would now term as an immaterial soul, capable of consciousness and experiences, persisting after death of the body, prior to bodily resurrection.
Can you clarify?
It’s complicated! (As we say these days.) I explain it all in my forthcoming book, but it’s very hard to do in a comment, or a blog post. Short story: Paul definitely believed in a future resurrection of the body; when it didn’t come right away,as expected, he came to think there would be an interim period of existence with Christ after death prior to the resurrection of the body. The question is: would this interim existence be with a temporary body in heaven, or without a body? It could be argued either way. In my book I explain the options and come down on one of the sides.
Interesting. I look forward to reading your forthcoming book. I suppose if Paul was quizzed at the time he was writing his later epistles, whether he thought the intermediate state was embodied in some way, he might have answered he needed to think more about it.
How about the Book of Revelation allusion to martyred saints crying out to God to avenge their blood? Should we read it as an allusion of a theology of intermediate state, or the author was in a state of apocalyptic frenzy, using vivid imagery which is not meant to be taken literally?
Revelation has a different view from Paul’s. It’s view is that only martyrs go into heaven before the final resurrection. It doesn’t say what happens to everyone else.
Off-topic q – in Matthews version of the trial of Jesus the Sanhedrin is looking for evidence against Jesus but cant find any witnesses that agree. Then finally two do agree that he said he could rebuild the temple in three days and its only then that the high priest rises and demands Jesus answer this testimony.
In Mark’s version however even these witnesses about the temple quote don’t agree with each other, just like all the others, but he still has the high priest rise and demand Jesus answer their testimony.
Doesn’t the coherency of Matthew’s version indicate that he is the original writer and that Mark occasionally edits his source material for the worse?
It’s usually taken the other way, that editors try to make things easier to understand rather than more confused.
But its not about ease of understanding, Mark and Matthew are saying different things, its about the coherency of the account. Whether the units of the story, “sanhedrin looking for evidence” “many witnesses not agreeing” “then two/some relating the temple story” “high priest rising because he’s got his evidence” etc, cohere as a unified whole.
Marks single additional unit “even they couldn’t agree” renders the whole incoherent. The “temple” testimony is just like all the rest, it shouldn’t result in the high priest rising. Mark’s account should be considered the product of two authors.
Matthew’s account coheres as a whole and should be considered the product of a single mind.
An interesting discussion. Yes Bart, one logical argument is that life is eternal and, by defintion, life cannot die. However, I think that the belief that Jesus had was that body dies when life (breath, mind) leaves it. I agree there are some deep questions here about what a spiritual body or just existence as a soul would mean in real terms, but I fail to see how Jesus’s and Paul’s pharisaical / Danielian belief in the resurrection on the last day, precludes a belief in a spiritual body in the meantime. I can see that one might argue that a ‘spiritual body’ is an oxymoron, but I think it is reasonable to conjecture that the spirit or soul contains all the information about you at various ages and thus could take on different appearances depending on the situation of the interaction between it and another spiritual body.
a thought on abortion,(I am against it for the record unless there are extenuating circumstances, or at least very early in pregnancy) Christians can apologize for god’s actions in every known situation(noah’s flood, earthquakes,tsnunamis, or any other natural disaster that kills children, babies, and i’m sure a number of unborn babies, we just don’t understand god. but since they also believe life begins at conception, or at least at heartbeat, how might they explain miscarriages when the baby is wanted? is that not a natural abortion? who caused that??? I would submit that based upon that idea and biblical history that god would be far and away the most prolific abortionist ever
Probably the same one who caused death by other natural disasters. (I.e., no one!)
Intriguing blip in red today!
“Which of my many bodies will I have in heaven? ” My Grandmother worried about that one. The most obvious answer being the one you have when you die… which caused her to lament that she would be a 72 year old woman with a 49 year old husband and a two year old baby – and whats heaven about that?
!! Yup, my mom had the same problem….
> “If you wonder how a view can become dominant in a religion that claims to base its views entirely on a set of Scriptures that, in fact, never talks about it, there are plenty of analogies[…]”
Y’know, perhaps it might have been, well, “safer”, to stick with something like, say, Trinitarianism as an example?
Just sayin’….
😉
Certainly more theological….
This brings to mind the question that should precede this one. When did the idea that we even have a “soul” first come up?
We don’t know. It can be found as far back as our earliest Greek texts — it’s in Homer, e.g.,
But, is it in the Iliad? The earliest versions? I raise the question as I am rereading Julian Jaynes on consciousness and the bicameral mind. He bases much of his bicameral mind hypothesis on the early Iliad which is said to be devoid of individual conscious thought by men – they are directed by gods, their bicameral other brain lobe. Pertinent here perhaps as …. could a bicameral individual without modern consciousness even contemplate a “soul”?
Odyssey 11. Anyone who doesn’t think Greeks believed in a “soul” should read that book or, say, Plato’s Phaedo. The whole point of the dialogue is to show that the soul is immortal and survives the death of the body.
Wow. Fascinating. So Jesus’ Resurrection in a physical body was an example of a belief that came out of thin air just two centuries before?! Supposedly Mary was assumed into heaven bodily as well, but I think only Catholics believe in the Assumption of Mary. Elijah and Enoch will come again as the “two witnesses” in Revelation and then die in the Apocalypse.
Dr. Ehrman,
Why did Paul (and presumably others) have such a strong feeling that Jesus was going to return soon? But moreover,
In 1 Thess. 4:13-18, 1 Cor. 15:20ff, and elsewhere as he instructs about the afterlife/future resurrections of believers; Do you think that Paul obtained (or was convinced he obtained) these teachings directly from Jesus himself, or do you think Paul is extrapolating?
Because this was the standard view among Jewish apocalypticists: the world has gotten so awful that God won’t let it go on for much longer. Many still feel that way, and I completely sympathize!
Dr. Ehrman,
I agree with you on this. However, everytime I express this view to certain scholars they haughtily cite 2 verses in rebuttal: 1 Cor. 15:44ff and 1 Cor. 15:50 to say that we are wrong. Is there any compelling evidence, perhaps from among Paul’s own letters that can refute their notion that Paul did not believe in a bodily resurrection, but merely, as they say, a “spiritual” one? Please let me know how you would argue this one, because this has long been a frustrating issue for me.
Looks like I need to deal with this again on the blog. Paul is arguing *against* the idea that the resurrection will be not be bodily, but his exposition is difficult, and people gloss over precisely his main point by not paying attention to what he actually says.
Does your soul go to heaven?
I think all are born in heaven and have free will. We can change our beliefs and actions to go to heaven or not. Best to do it while alive on earth.
Some people thought you could pray for dead sinners to help them get into heaven. I don’t know if that works. It was their choice. I don’t know though. SO say the prayers for them if it helps.
We have to give everyone the choice. Educate people so they can choose to make better decisions, choices, actions, work, etc.
Praying does help people alive on earth. It may help you forgive sinners (in your view) that have died. You will change your own heart by praying for forgiveness for others.
I also think people in heaven can help you when you connect through prayer.
We really don’t know, although living our best lives helps all. Help people to triumph over sin and evil while they are alive. Help future generations to triumph also.
Best to focus on the good (positive) parts to create good in our lives. Using gender-neutral words for all people since God is with all at birth.
” May he give splendour, and power, and triumph, and a coming-forth [i.e., resurrection] as a living soul to see Horus of the two horizons 8 to the ka of Osiris, the scribe Ani, triumphant before Osiris, who saith:
Hail all ye gods of the Temple of the Soul, who weigh heaven and earth in the balance, and who provide food and abundance of meat. Hail Tatunen,
One, creator of mankind and of the substance of the gods of the south and of the north, of the west and of the east. Ascribe [ye] praise unto Ra, the lord of heaven, the Prince, Life, Health, and Strength, the Creator of the gods, and adore ye him in his beautiful Presence as he riseth in the atet boat.
They who dwell in the heights and they who dwell in the depths worship thee. Thoth and Maat both are thy recorders. Thine enemy is given to the fire, the evil one hath fallen; his arms are bound, and his legs hath Ra taken from him. The children of impotent revolt shall never rise up again.”
E. A. Wallis Budge. The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Wow! Quite a thought provoking post!
Both Peter & Paul refer to the putting off of their bodies.
1Cor 15 says that the resurrected body is a spirit body.
2 Cor 5 says that you have to leave your body behind before you can go to heaven (presumably in your spirit body) to be with Jesus. Flesh, blood & bone can’t go to heaven.
Here is a great piece on the subject by Anthony F. Buzzard M.A. (Oxon.), M.A.Th.
What Happens When We Die?
A Biblical View of Death and Resurrection
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahUKEwiRoovc8ZvkAhVMmeAKHYEYCQoQFjADegQIBRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffocusonthekingdom.org%2FWHWWD.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2GFRdyi_-1x0TorZfEg1dj
In my view, the idea of the resurrection must have come with the awareness of what death itself is.
And in Genesis 1:27: God created man in his own image and likeness, why are we not eternal like him?
I think this is the point of the question. Why do we die when God is eternal? Aren’t we your image and likeness?
I disagree that Jesus believed eternal life was physical/bodily
I know you have commented on Matthew 10:28 before.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
there is NOT the slightest indication in this verse that Jesus meant the ‘killed body’ / ‘unkilled soul’ pair could be transformed into resurrected body & unkilled soul, why does he even mention ‘hell’ ?
Yes, what Jesus is saying is that humans can kill your body (even if it is to be raised later) God can destroy your whole being (so there will be no future resurrection for you)
Dr. Ehrman,
A scholar once mentioned this to me, and I’d like to know what you think. Do you take Galatians 2-3 as strong evidence for how Paul writes about “spiritual” in a way that still indicates bodily/having a body (since the Galatians apparently obtained “the Spirit” and are still alive)? I take it these were the verses of interest: “…Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?…After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?…does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?” Yet Paul gives this the capital “S” while in 1 Cor. 15 it’s “s” spiritual, some may think that’s important.
I”m afraid I’m not following your question. For one thing, ancient Greek didn’t use upper-case and lower-case letters; it’s the English translators that are making the “S” a capital.
Dr. Ehrman,
I guess the best way to put it is as a search for weighty evidence that: 1 Cor. 15:44 and 1 Cor. 15:50 do NOT, as some critics contend, mean that the body rots away forever and that the “resurrection” is only tantamount to something like a phantom spirit, perhaps something wispy and transparent/translucent that persists after death. In other words, what verse(s) from Paul can we quote to indicate that he holds to a bona fide grave-evacuating resurrection?
Read 1 Corinthians 15 as a whole. The whole point is that the body is to be *transformed*; when Paul says resurrection, that’s what it means: the body is brought back to life. For Paul, and for most Jews, there simply was no other meaning: to be “resurrected” meant to have a body conme back to life. What’s different for Paul is that he didn’t think it means just the reanimation of a corpse. It meant a transformed body made immortal, like Jesus’ body. I’ll explain at length in my book.
I believe you accept that Jesus and Paul thought that we humans are composed of 2 aspects – body and soul
see Matt 10:28, and Rom 8:10
and that the body may be dead or killed but the spirit alive. That is fine.
But, in my opinion, you make a couple of assumptions that are not well warranted
————-
1. if the spirit is dead/killed the body is also (i.e a dead spirit implies a dead body)
that does not appear to be the case, see
Jesus words : Matt 8:22
Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead.
(ie a “dead” person can still (using his “live” body) perform the activity of burying corpses )
Paul’s words Eph 2:1. . .
As for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world . . .
(i.e a “dead” person can walk (“live” body) in ways of the world
See also Rev 3:1 – you have a name that you are alive(body), but you are dead (spirit).
—————–
2. THE RESURRECTION refers to resurrection of the “body”
However most of the NT verses that can be used to demonstrate a belief in “resurrection” can be better understood as referring to resurrection of the spirt or soul rather than the body
Jesus parable of prodigal son Lk15:24
this son of mine was dead and has come to life again – certainly does not mean bodily resurrection
(can’t think of any other examples from Jesus right now)
Paul Eph 2:4,5
even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ
see also 1 Jn 3:14
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.
I actually don’t think they imagined body and soul in the two ways we post-Cartesians do. The human was a unity, not two separate things combined.
then how do you make sense when the pre-Cartesians use the terms “life” and “death” that do not at all correspond to life and death of the physical body – as above quotes demonstrate
it is perfectly ok to say those word “life” and “death” don’t correspond to the spirt/soul if that is how you choose, but in that case can you explain what the words do refer to ?
Are you going to tell me that when he said “dead” people who do the burying means really Jesus is saying
Let the [people who are to be resurrected but then annihilated] bury the [physically] dead.
and like wise all other references to “dead” in like fashion???? and contrary when speaking of “life” in a way not corresponding to the body
certainly seems a stretch just to maintain the view, if that’s what you think
It depends which culture you’re referring to. In some Greek circles, the soul was immortal and did survive the body (thus Plato); in Jewish cultures, the soul was more like “breath” — without it the body can’t live, but it doesn’t exist apart from the body. The living human is the body with “breath.”
it adds nothing in explanation
to say “a corpse is a body lacking breath” and/or “a live person is a body containing breath”
Now if you explain the difference in 1st century Jewish concept of “breath” and 21st century concept of “soul”, maybe that adds some value.
and it doesn’t answer in terms of “soul” or “breath” what Jesus meant that that the “dead” should be buriers
regarding bodily resurrection;
It does not appear to me that “bodily resurrection in the last days” is a dominant theme/teaching/preaching of the NT, tho you claim it to be a dominant ‘view’ at Jesus time
Even though the very large Hebrew Bible mentions it EXPLICITLY only ONCE, it does mention it once (Daniel 12:1-3).
Where in the NT his it mentioned, as explicitly as it is mentioned by Daniel? (like rising from dust?) (Matt 27?)
I think Jesus really only explicitly discussed “resurrection” when he was posed a kind of trick question by his opponents the Saduccees. Even here it is far from clear that Jesus is speaking of bodies arising from graves (as Danile probably)
If he’s opposing Sadducees who reject the doctrine of resurrection, what would he be supporting other than the doctrine of resurrection?
The Zoroastrian view of bodily resurrection is particularly curious – the flesh isn’t thought to live forever, but the _bones_ will (eventually). This is of course connected to the practice of sky burial (attested archaeologically from about the 5th century BCE), with the unclean and corruptible flesh being picked off by scavengers and the bones being stored in ossuaries. It seems that the idea was a personal eschatology where the soul (urvan) goes in to live in the afterlife, and a universal eschatology, where the bones are resurrected and reunited wtih the soul after good is once again separated from evil. Ultimately, death is an aberration and corruption, the natural state of all living things created by Ahura Mazda to embody “ameretat”, literally immortality.
Dr. Ehrman,
If I read you correctly, you do NOT think that Paul believed in an intermediate state for the soul between one’s death and the universal bodily resurrection, but that the soul and the body are one. But what do you make of these verses?
2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Philippians 1:23, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
Nope, you’re not reading me correctly! I think Paul *did* come to believe in an intermediate state (which, of course, he did not think would last long since he end was coming soon)
Dr. Ehrman,
So Paul did believe that the soul still continues to exist separated from the body at death and has consciousness in an intermediate state, and although this state is better than this life, it is not as illustrious as the resurrected state will be, is all of this correct?
It’s not clear if he thinks the soul lives on in the intermediate state without the body or if it is given a temporary body in the intermediate state because it *can’t* live without the body. It all has to do with how one interprets the opening of 2 Cor. 5. I tend to think the former is probably what he has in mind (as I explain in my book), but it’s not at all obvious or clear.
apologies for my repetition
you said
> If these two (Enoch, Elijah) live forever, why not others?
you are conflating, at least, 2 ideas
living forever, and
living for ever on earth, and
corpses being reanimated
Ok Enoch and Elijah, I suppose, live forver, according to scripture, but there is no indication they continued to live on earth and there is no indication that they were reanimated corpses
and regarding the comment
> If God brings living creatures into being, and God is eternal,
> then isn’t life eternal? Even for those who die?
of course that makes perfect sense, however it is not an argument for “bodily resurrection of the dead” as opposed to souls going to heaven
>let me reiterate, it is NOT, the understanding of the “resurrection of the dead.”
> That is to say, it is not the view that Jesus … had.
Ok then why not reference verses ascribed to Jesus that indicate his understanding of “resurrection of the dead”. (not interested in quotes of Paul or others)
Nothing I can remember where he preaches or even discusses bodies rising from graves.
Mark 12:14-27?
>>Nothing I can remember where [Jesus] preaches or even
>>discusses bodies rising from graves.
>Bart September 1, 2019
>Mark 12:14-27?
there is no mention of graves (or even bodies)
your argument is circular
if “dead” always and ONLY in Jesus lexicon refers to physical bodies and bodies are put in graves, then you are correct
No, he doesn’t. Just as most people who talk about resurrection don’t mention graves or bodies. But apart from that: what do you think Jesus’ view was about what would happen at the end?
>Bart September 2, 2019
>. . . what do you think Jesus’ view was about what would happen at the end?
It is far from clear, but
1) Jesus only addresses it here, and only at the insistence of his opponents, so I guess it (afterlife and/or resurrection) is not a focus of his ministry/mission (as he sees his mission)(.ie his mission was God’s Kingdom on Earth)
2) I see enough references in Gospels that Jesus uses the terms “life” and “death” to refer often to something other than life and death of physical self.
If he uses “life” and “death” symbolically, he could also potentially understand and preach “resurrection” symbolically, if he were so required on occasion to use that term as above. “Resurrection” meaning going/transitioning from “death” to “life”, all 3 terms used metaphorically.
I can only commit to the idea that he probably equated “death” to “being distant from God” and then “life” to “being loved by God” (best way to understand Matt 8:21, L 9:60) And so “ressurection” could mean going form a state of being distant form God to a state where one realizes he or she is loved by God.
How that correlates to ideas such immortality and or afterlife is not perfectly decidable.
However I don’t think the idea of immortal “soul” as understood by 21st Christians is out of the question
That sounds very modern to me. I’d have to see some evidence that first-century Jews who talked about life and death did not think about it in terms of the body. That’s almost always what ancient people *did* mean by it.
Don’t these 3 first-century Jews
Jesus Matt 8:22
Paul’s words Eph 2:1. . .
author of Revelation 3:1 – he is/was Jewish, right??
count as some evidence of their thinking their about “life” and “death” in terms other than the body
Yes indeed, like all words, “life” and “death” can be used metaphorically. Every time we see a word, every single noun, e.g., that we ever read, we have to ask ourselves — we almost never do this consciously — whether it is meant literally or figuratively. The reason we don’t do it consciously every time we hit a noun, apart from the fact it would be a waste of time and take way too much brain space — is that we do it only when osmething in the context jumps out at us to make us think, “she *can’t* mean that *literally*. And so when I say — as I’ve been saying a lot lately, in fact — that I’m up over my eyeballs in work, a literal sense makes no sense, and so the reader goes to a metaphorical meaning. If the literal sense makes perfect sense, given the context and assumptions of the speaker, then we don’t make the leap, and in 99.99% of the time, realize it would be wrong to make the leap. Of course, we’re not really leaping….
Not sure I agree with your probability estimation
since we see clear precedents in Jesus ministry of his using these terms metaphorically (I will accept your “in 99.99% of the time” as hyperbole, whether meant that way or not),
But dont you think that your hypothesis suffers the identical weakness
“If the literal sense makes perfect sense,”
Jesus said Abraham Isaac and Jacob are ALIVE, – that isn’t literally true even in your theory however you reword it (well at least not in unity with their bodies) And you wrote below
“these patriarchs still are (IN SOME SENSE he doesn’t explain) alive,”
Though I guess it hinges on “given the context and assumptions of the speaker,”
“If the literal sense makes perfect sense,”
Jesus answer to Sadducees regarding resurrection doesn’t make perfect sense
also I dont know if this is accurate
but here it is does seem to leave open other possibilities at Jesus time such as immortality of “soul” maybe in “heaven/hell”, or maybe reincarnation – points of view which are certainly distinct from that of resurrected bodies out of graves,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_the_dead#Rabbinic_and_Samaritan_Judaism
During the Second Temple period, Judaism developed a diversity of beliefs concerning the resurrection. The concept of resurrection of the physical body is found in 2 Maccabees, according to which it will happen through recreation of the flesh. Resurrection of the dead also appears in detail in the extra-canonical books of Enoch, in Apocalypse of Baruch, and 2 Esdras. According to the British scholar in ancient Judaism Philip R. Davies, there is “little or no clear reference … either to immortality or to resurrection from the dead” in the Dead Sea scrolls texts. Both Josephus and the New Testament record that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, but the sources vary on the beliefs of the Pharisees. The New Testament claims that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but does not specify whether this included the flesh or not. According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people will be reincarnated and “pass into other bodies,” while “the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment.” Paul the Apostle, who also was a Pharisee, said that at the resurrection what is “sown as a natural body is raised a spiritual body.” Jubilees refers only to the resurrection of the soul, or to a more general idea of an immortal soul.
and since you allow 3 comments per day
doesn’t
Mark 12:14-27?
actually imply Abraham Isaac and Jacob are ALIVE today (or at least at the time of Moses)
no indication their graves are empty or that they are walking around with physical bodies
However I am not certain that is what Jesus meant. ( as above maybe he only meant they were greatly loved by God)
Yet if I were ONLY to consider whether Jesus meant Abraham Isaac and Jacob were in “a” “heaven” or were walking around in their reanimated dead bodies I guess I would think he meant the former . ..
If nothing else, it means that for Jesus, death is not the end of existence. Apart from deeply Hellenized Jews, most Jews at the time did not subscribe to the immorality of the soul, but to the resurrection of the body. My sense is that Jesus, a rural uneducated Jew in the hinterlands, was not deeply hellenized. And since he’s arguing *about* the resurrection of the body, he seems to be indicating that death is not hte end of the story, these patriarchs still are (in some sense he doesn’t explain) alive, and that, therefore, they will be resurrected.
Isn’t it true though, that the non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter explicitly condemns abortion?
Well, it does not say “thou shalt not abort,” but it does show that the women who did so are suffering horrible torments forever in hell for it, so I suppose that’s as clost to an explicit condemnation as one can find! (Of course people who loan money at interest are also tormented eternally in horrible ways, as are women who lost their virginity before marriage and anyone who is disobedient to their parents!)
Couldn’t the word “ everlasting” in the book of Daniel suggest “ hell” and torture ?
I’ll be dealing wit that in my book! It says they will be “despised” forever, not that they will be tortured (let alone forever).
Dr. Ehrman, you make a powerful case that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed in an earthly and immanent kingdom. In the final form of the canonical gospels we have, do you feel that the authors intended their readers to feel understand him that way as well? I’m mildly disappointed that the heaven and hell book did not address jesus’ statement in John 18:36 about his kingdom is not of this world. Also Matt. 16:28, some wouldn’t taste death until they see the kingdom. Is it possible that both of these writers saw the kingdom as the church?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, yes. I didn’t deal with every passage in the NT because of space restrictions, but what I said about the rest of John applies to this verse: now, for this Gospel, Jesus does not preach an apocalyptic message, but one that is set *against* an apocalyptic view (on heaven and hell)
As for Paul, in the book you call the readers attention to 1 thess 4:17, “meet him (Jesus) in the clouds and remain there with him.” Mildly disappointed that you allowed years of Christian interpretation to read into that text that the risen and transformed Christians would then accompany Jesus back to earth for his millennial reign. Dr E, as you are so fond of saying, but that’s not what the text says ???? even though in this early Pauline letter, the writer does expect Jesus’ return to be just around the corner, he doesn’t suggest anywhere that he is coming to earth to set up a kingdom here. The writer of the John gospel even explicitly states that his followers would be where Jesus was going. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself so that where I am you may be also,” John 14:3 nrsv. I challenge that nowhere in the N/T does any author state that Jesus will ever again set foot on the earth. What do you think? ???? I value your opinion ????
I’m not sure what you’re saying the text does say. It doesn’t say, for example, that everyone is going up to meet Jesus in the air and they are going to live there, up in the air (but below heaven) forever. The reason for thinking that it means they are going to escort him into his kingdom is because the language used reflects the familiar procedure of city’s leaders going out to meet visiting dignitaries to bring them into their realm; i.e., this would be a familiar image to readers at the time. But I”m open to a different interpretation. I don’t think John’s Gospel can be used to interpret 1 Thessalonians, since it was written 40 years later by someone who didn’t know Paul or 1 Thessalonians and who had very different views from Paul in many signficant ways (*especailly* eschatology!)
Well, seriously, since I never finished my MDiv I hesitate about postulating an opinion on anybody in the scholarly realm lol! But… back in the day, a greek influenced person “heaven” woulda been up and “hell” woulda been down. Is Paul using kinda up imagery? Air, clouds etc to refer to spiritual realm?
Hey, *starting* an MDiv is a major step! Yes, heaven was the realm of the gods and Tartarus was usually (though not always) placed in the underworld. But the “air” was neither — it was the space between us down here and the realm of the gods above. Does that answer your question?
It may well be debated by the Jesus Seminar that John 18:36 my kingdom is not of this world is of doubtful origin? What do you think?????
I think it would have been a short debate! The seminar certainly would not have seen the saying as authentic. I don’t either. It runs contrary to what Jesus says in the earliest sources, consistently.
I’ve seen in more than one of your books, including the book heretofore known as h&h, that to Paul, baptism was the point in which a person was united with Christ, saved, if you will. I fully agree! Question, back when you were an evangelical, did you teach people to be baptized for the remission of their sins? Why do you think so many Christians today say that baptism is unnecessary?
No, my view at the time was that baptism showed outwardly what had already happened inwardly (being cleansed of sins)
Wow!!!!!!!!! Although I’m not surprised now that I think about it. You, like all of us, were greatly influenced by what we’ve always been taught. We are forced to revisit a great many things when we actually critically read closely ???? me too of course! I appreciate your honesty
I understand that they believed in a continuity, and a spiritual world. I am positive that they even believed in reincarnation (like many today) on this world and other realms (some jewish references) beside the esoteric interpretation of the Torah ,,,,,,
* Job 33: 29-30
* Jeremiah 1: 5 (NKJV)
* Wisdom of Solomon 8: 19-20
* Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, Chapter 1, Nos. 2-5
* Josephus, The War of the Jews, Book III, Chapter 8, No. 5
* Josephus, The War of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 8, No. 11
* Philo Judaeus, De Somniis 1:22
* Rabbit Moses Gaster: “Transmigration” in lexicon of religion and ethics
* Bahir, 195
* Zohar
* Gershom Scholem
Some of the references are before Jesus (Zohar) but these mystical thoughts (which also include reincarnation) refer to much earlier ideas and also scriptures.
Today, so many even mainstream rabbis embraze those thought in those more esoteric thoughts that the first man in the state of Adam Kadmon where man first was created in a spiritual form and descended through four worlds (level of consiousnesses) until the physical,,,and would again ascend back to unity with the creator.
For many of those ideas, a surviving soul and spirit are fundamentals /nessecary in this cosmology.
Vangelis and Jon Anderson – I’ll Find My Way Home Lyrics
You ask me where to begin
Am I so lost in my sin
You ask me where did I fall
I’ll say I can’t tell you when
But if my spirit is lost
How will I find what is near
Don’t question I’m not alone
Somehow I’ll find my way home
My sun shall rise in the east
So shall my heart be at peace
And if you’re asking me when
I’ll say it starts at the end
You know your will to be free
Is matched with love secretly
And talk will alter your prayer
Somehow you’ll find you are there.
Your friend is close by your side
And speaks in far ancient tongue
A seasons wish will come true
All seasons begin with you
One world we all come from
One world we melt into one
Just hold my hand and we’re there
Somehow we’re going somewhere
Somehow we’re going somewhere
You ask me where to begin
Am I so lost in my sin
You ask me where did I fall
I’ll say I can’t tell you when
But if my spirit is strong
I know it can’t be long
No questions I’m not alone
Somehow I’ll find my way home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AV4GmLvvwY
Somtime things can be said beautifully in a song or poetry as above.
Bart, you wrote an article for Time Magazine (May 8, 2020) related to this subject. It was “What Jesus Really Said About Heaven and Hell.” I’m a BIG fan, Bart, but you said something In the last paragraph of the article that surprises me and irks me: “And so, in this, the greatest teacher of the Greeks and the founder of Christianity agreed to this extent: when, in the end, we pass from this earthly realm, we may indeed have something to hope for, but we have absolutely nothing to fear.”
Do you really feel comfortable saying that Jesus was the founder of Christianity?
On one level I do. The Christian faith is built on the foundation of the life of Jesus. Without him, there would not be any Christianity. About whom else could that be said. (Certainly not Paul! There were Christians before him and Christians who flat out disagreed with him; so he is not the foundation for the entire religion)
Hi dr. Ehrman, I’ve just finished reading your book Heaven And Hell. Before that I’d been reading Sanders Historical Jesus book. I feel the two of you majorly disagree and I still can’t figure it out.
Sanders seems to endorse the view that Jesus idea was that the Kingdom of God was already “now up there” and that Jesus message was that that Kingdom would be instituted “in the future down here”. According to Sanders, multiple passages present a view that the righteous/faithfull will win eternal life when they die, and thus will enter the kingdom of god (which is already up there) upon death.
Wouldn’t a scholar like Sanders have very good reasons for such a view? Did historical Jesus in your view in fact believe there was already in some sense a Kingdom of God “up there” in heaven, or did he mean by the term merely the future Kingdom of God that was yet to come here on earth? And do you think that, in Jesus view, after the endtimes there would continue to be a difference between God’s kingdom up there and the now instituted kingdom on earth? Or would it all be just one Kingdom?
I don’t recall Sanders arguing that Jesus believed that a person went “up there” to heaven in their soul/spirit at death. If he does argue that he would have given some reaosons/arguments for thinking so based on Gospel verses the he thought authentically go back to Jesus. Do you know what those were?
Well, Sanders gives six categories of meanings of “Kingdom of God” and basically argues that Jesus meant all of these meanings at the same time. Jesus wasn’t logical about it. I like his book, but here I found his reasoning very murky and puzzling.
The one argument that made some sense to me was this: (ch.11p.172)”The kingdom is there now and in the future will also be here. (…) Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
Other texts he gives just don’t seem to say what Sanders says they say: (ch.11p.171)”There are several passages in the gospels that refer to entering the kingdom (=heaven) at the time of death or the judgment. (he quotes Mark 9:47 mistranslating Gehenna with hell) Here ‘kingdom of God’ is opposite hell, and one ‘enters’ it after death.”
He paraphrases Mark 10:17-22 emphasizing ‘treasure in heaven’. Then: (ch.11p.172)”Allthough this passage does not contain the word ‘kingdom’, it lends general support to this definition: individuals gain eternal life at the time of death.”
He also gives Mark 10:15 (&parr.) and Matt. 7:21 (ch.11p.172)”People enter the kingdom after death, provided that (…theypassjudgment…). God does not create the kingdom then, and so it always exists.”
Yes, Jesus certainly appears to have taught htat the Kingdom was here and now. Sanders does not mean by that that people die and go to heaven. He means that the future earthly kingdom has begun in the ministry of Jesus: those who follow his teachings are beginning to experience the kingdom. I don’t think the comments about Gehenna have to do with what happens immediately after death. Jesus does seem to refer to life in heaven sometimes, but I don’t think those sayings go back to Jesus himself (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man for example) and he does not use “kingdom” language in them.
Hello,
I have read many comments regarding “Soul” Some believe it has ‘substance’ that is a “part” of the human makeup. Others believe that it is eternal others that it can be killed. I am sure I read somewhere in Genesis (I think, as it is many years since I read it) that “soul” is something we BECAME we ARE soul, or have I got it completely wrong? Or have various church/religious leaders have a vested interest in alluding to something that can be lost to coerce us to their way of thinking /behaving?
It completely depends on whom you ask or what you read. My book Heaven and Hell tries to lay out the main options.