(25 votes, average: 4.68 out of 5)
Loading...I often get asked if ancient Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism or other kinds of Persian thought – especially when it comes to the specific doctrine of the “resurrection of the dead” and, more generally, the whole category of “apocalyptic thought.” I used to think so! Now I’m not so sure. At all.
I’ve talked about apocalypticism and resurrection on the blog before. Here I’ll discuss where these ideas came from, before, explaining more fully what they ended up looking like. This discussion is taken from an early draft of my forthcoming book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife.
*********************************************************
After the period of the classical prophets, Jewish thinkers came to imagine that in fact there would be life for the individual who had died. For them, there was a possibility of life beyond the grave – real, full, and abundant life. But in the original Jewish conception, unlike widespread Christian views today, the afterlife was not a glorious eternity lived in the soul in heaven or a tormented existence in hell, attained immediately at the point of death. It was something else altogether. It was the idea that at the end of time God would vindicate himself and his people. When history and all its evil and suffering had run its course, God would reassert his sovereignty over this world and destroy everything and everyone who was opposed to him, bringing in the perfect, utopian world he had originally planned. Inhabiting this world would be the righteous who had lived and suffered throughout all of history. God would miraculously bring them back into their bodies, and they would live, bodily, without any pain, misery, or suffering, for all time, in his most glorious kingdom.
Those who were wicked would also …
You will need to be a member of the blog to see the rest of this post. The good news is that it is easy to join. And every penny of you membership fee goes to charity. So what’s the downside??
Well, Hultgård has at least studied Iranology (though he’s absolutely not a household name) but I would suggest a much better overview of the field’s thought is found in Almut Hintze’s 2019 paper “Defeating Death”: https://www.academia.edu/38669109/2019_Defeating_Death_Eschatology_in_Zoroastrianism_Judaism_and_Christianity._In_Irano-Judaica_VII._Studies_Relating_to_Jewish_Contacts_with_Persia_Ed._by_Julia_Rubanovich_and_Geoffrey_Herman._Jerusalem_The_Ben-Zvi_Institute_for_the_Study_of_Jewish_Communities_in_the_East_2019_pp._23_72?source=swp_share
She argues for an early well-developed eschatology in Zoroastrianism but also provides a useful summary of the different perspectives.
Thanks.
IIRC, the opinion that the Jews influenced the Persians rather than the other way around was rejected because it seemed unlikely that a victorious world-culture like Persia would pick up stuff from a large insignificant tribe from Palestine. But stranger things have happened – “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio.”
“Some experts have undercut the entire thesis by pointing out that we actually do not have any Zoroastrian texts that support the idea of resurrection prior to its appearance in early Jewish writings.”
I also have to point out that this is simply false. The Zam Yasht (Hymn 19, or “Hymn to the Earth”) still exists, and is still rooted in a pre-Achaemenid oral/epic tradition. You can argue about doctrine (where I will take pains to point out that these are hymns that allude to familiar concepts, not exegesis), but it certainly does “support the idea of resurrection”.
22. That belongs to the gods in the heavens and to those in the material world, and to the blessed ones, born or not yet born, who are to perform the restoration of the world.
23. It is they who shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;
24. When the creation will grow deathless, – the prosperous creation of the Good Spirit, – and the Druj shall perish, though she may rush on every side to kill the holy beings; she and her hundredfold brood shall perish, as it is the will of the Lord.
For its brightness and glory, I will offer it a sacrifice ….
For analysis and dating of the Yasht, I recommend: Humbach’s Zamyād Yast: Yasht 19 of the Younger Avesta : Text, Translation, Commentary
Bart: “Even more significant, the timing does not make sense: Judah emerged from Persian rule in the fourth century BCE, when Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) swept through the eastern Mediterranean and defeated the Persian Empire. But the idea of bodily resurrection does not appear in Jewish texts for well over a century after that.”
This particular argument does not strike me as very strong. I would expect it take a while for dramatically new and foreign ideas to percolate within the Jewish tradition before the right circumstances (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) would provide the occasion for them to appear in literary expression and be embraced as authentic.
The issue is what evidence we have of Persian influence in Judea in the third century, *apart* from this. Nothing comes to mind! Though we see tons of Greek influence.
Bart: “The issue is what evidence we have of Persian influence in Judea in the third century, *apart* from this. Nothing comes to mind! Though we see tons of Greek influence.”
I would think most of the Persian influence would have already occurred earlier. The question is how much of it was absorbed or continued to percolate until it eventually found enduring literary expression in the Maccabean or apocalyptic literature. Who are the best scholars to read on the influence of Persian culture on Israel between the time of Cyrus and that of Alexander?
Great question! I suppose any of the Hebrew Bible scholars who deal with post-exilic literature, from 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, to Ezekiel, 2 and 3 Isaiah, Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi, etc. I suppose to make the chronological case you’d have to argue for proto-apocalyptic materials leading up to something like Daniel 12?
Hi, I don’t know what Bart’s opinion on him is, but speaking from my point of view as an amateur scholar of pre-Islamic Iran and Zoroastrianism, I would personally suggest reading Shaul Shaked: https://huji.academia.edu/Shaul_Shaked
He’s one of few scholars who possess a genuine dual expertise in Iranian and Hebrew tradition. He’s noted for saying that it “does not seem at all likely that so many similarities [between post-exilic Jewish and Iranian tradition] could have been formed in parallel independently”.
Yaakov Elman and Shai Secunda, who wrote the Judaism-Zoroastrianism intersection chapter in the “Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism”, might also be interesting names to check out!
L_C_Nielsen, thank you very much for this reference and your other posts on this thread. Much appreciated!
My question is, do we have evidence of Persian influence in Greece?
Nothing comes to mind….
A good start would be this Iranica article on Persian Influence on Greek thought: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-iii
As well as this one on cultural relations: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-ii
A more light read on architecture can be found here on Livius: https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/persian-influence-on-greek-culture/architecture/
It’s rarely emphasized in classical historiography, but the flourishing of Classical Athens and so on was precisely during its coexistence with the Achaemenid Empire, and so there are too many connections to name. For instance, Xenophon, one of the most widely read classical authors, was a mercenary under the pretender Cyrus the Younger.
Are there any particular scholars or works/books you’d recommend on the Greek influence in Jewish culture? I’ve never thought about it before other than negative reactions to Greek influence such as the Maccabees and related subjects.
It depends how deeply you want to get into it. The classic is Martin Hengel’s book Judaism and Hellenism; but it’s very scholarly. Or maybe ahy book on the Maccabean period, such as the opening bits of Shaye Cohen’s, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah?
Thanks- I’ll check them out!
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think Paul reasoned that since God originally created everything perfect, including the physical world and the bodies of people, that through Christ one day all of these things will be restored as they should be?
I don’t know for a fact that he reasoned that way, but I tend to *think* he did….
Did the belief in Satan as a personal enemy of God and His people arise at the same time as these afterlife beliefs, or do they seem to be two independent developments?
Yup, same time and closely related.
For those new to the blog, I highly recommend Dr.Ehrman’s book on this theodicy (suffering) issue entitled “God’s Problem.”
Thank you for the post Dr. Ehrman,
How much influence (if any) do you feel Zoroastrianism had on “dualing” Gods within Jewish thought? I do not see much evidence of a devil or demons, or one fighting God until the NT. I see lesser gods being defeated by the Jewish God, but not so much a Devil. Do you think the concept of a devil was influenced by that Persian religion?
Thanks.
I think the idea of Satan arose precisely at the same time and in the same circles as the idea of resurrection, so if Persia influenced one it also influenced the other….
Sounds fascinating already. And it’s interesting how the problem of suffering/evil affected beliefs about the afterlife.
The most amazing thing about the question of suffering is the people who think they’re providing you with an argument you’ve never heard before.
Yes indeed, it’s quite remarkable! (And often they think they came up with it!)
I’m really interested in your thoughts on this and am excited you are addressing it. I’ve heard the ideas of Zoroastrianism were influential in Judaic dualism so often that I always assumed there was strong evidence of it.
One comment however doesn’t convince me. You state, “But the idea of bodily resurrection does not appear in Jewish texts for well over a century after that.” Is there a time limit on how quickly a new idea takes to percolate into a new view? Would we expect dualism to become syncritized rapidly? Or bodily resurrection?
No, no time limit! Necessarily. My point is that by the early 3rd century we start seeing significant Greek influence on Judaism in a variety of ways. I don’t know of any evidence of *Persian* influence at the time. And so what’s the likelihood that in this one theological view Persia was dominantly influential, but nowhere else in Judean life and thought? (If someone does konw of Persian influence on Judean life and thought in the third century, I’d love to know about it!)
I don’t know what you would count as influence on thought, but Ecclesiastes has loanwords from Persian and is usually thought to date to the very early second century at the absolute latest, with AFAIK most arguing for an earlier date. I believe the same is true for Nehemiah.
Loanwords from Persian are somwhat remarkable in themselves since it doesn’t seem like Persian was that widely used (for the wider empire, Aramaic was preferred; for the Persian heartlands, Elamite was dominant.) For comparison, among the known administrative Persepolis tablets, there’s exactly _one_ written in Old Persian, but thousands and thousands written in Elamite. There’s still some debate surrounding the nature and use of the recorded dialect of Old Persian, but it seems like the most prolific use of Persian was in royal inscriptions, which I’ve often seen argued were originally composed in Elamite anyway (at least in the case of the Behistun inscription, which contains the bulk of all known text in Old Persian).
Yup, good point. Correct me: wasn’t Aramaic the language used throughout Persia in the 5th-4th c BCE onward?
It’s entirely possible, but AFAIK there are no substantial records beyond about the year 450, so off the top of my head I don’t know how we would know. We do know that Aramaic was widely used in the East as well though, since Parthian script (aka “Pahlavi script” in Middle Persian) is basically just Aramaic script complete with ideograms and all*, and Indic (sanskrit and prakrit) scripts are also based off Aramaic. The Fortification archive stretches to about 490 and consists of about 10,000 tablets in Elamite and 1,000 tablets in Aramaic. The Treasury archive stretches to about 450 and consists of about 200 tablets in Elamite and a handful in Akkadian.
*so e.g. “Shahanshah is written something like MLKYNMLK. Unfortunately they’re not as funny as the use of Sumerograms in Akkadian, where you end up with the Akkadian “Shar Raba”, Great King, effectively being written as Sumerian LU.GAL.GAL – literally “Big Big Man”, since the Sumerian word for king is literally “big man”…
Since the powerful estates of Persia used massive amounts of labour from other parts of the empire, it would almost have been necessary to use Aramaic to some extent. Plus, Persepolis itself is a very peculiar place since it was more like a massive palace complex than a proper “city”. Unfortunately we don’t have records from e.g. Susa, which would probably have been more representative.
I can’t quite agree with your characterization of Jewish resurrection. In Second Temple times there was a shift from community focus to individual afterlife, but there was still no agreement. On the one hand, you have Sirach, which said that the dead inherit worms. On the other hand, in 2 Macc. the widow and her seven sons expected to be restored to life in perfect bodies – but the wicked king would have no afterlife, not even in hell. Then there is 1 Enoch, which thinks up lots of torments for the wicked, and Wisdom, which has the righteous looking forward to standing by God’s throne watching their persecutors approach in fear. Plus the Sadducees didn’t believe in any resurrection at all. So I wouldn’t say that resurrection, especially bodily resurrection, of the good and the wicked was commonly believed among Jews in the last two centuries BCE.
Only gradually did the rabbis (successors to the Pharisees) impose their view in Talmudic times – which is that hell is temporary, 12 months at most (though it may seem longer to the sinner), and consists of being kept away from God (though even here there is not unanimity). The truly wicked are simply extinguished.
On Zoroastrian influence, I do agree that we simply don’t have enough information. I’ve even seen arguments that the Greeks influenced the Zoroastrians, but the plain fact is that no one has been able to show precedence.
I am definitely not saying there was any unanimity about understandings of resurrection or *anything else* in second-temple Judaism!!
Nor at any other time! 🙂
Regarding the different ways monotheists have tried to understand the problem of evil and suffering in the world, your readers might enjoy the free Yale lecture series Introduction to the Old Testament, as taught by Dr. Christine Hayes.
https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
A consistent theme in her lectures is that the Hebrew Bible is a collection of different texts that explore wildly different ways of explaining the suffering of the righteous. She talks about the standard prophetic view you mention — that suffering is always a just punishment from an all-powerful God — and contrasts that with the ways the Job or Ecclesiastes or portions of the Torah deal with the question. I found it quite enjoyable, and I hope some of your readers do as well.
(Of course your very personal and admirably candid “God’s Problem” deals with these same issues, but with the purpose of understanding what might be convincing or useful to a modern person today. I highly recommend it, but it serves a different purpose. Dr. Hayes’ lectures attempt merely to describe important understandings found in the Hebrew scriptures, rather than to evaluate their relevance today.)
Yes, she’s a fine scholar indeed, and I recommend her course as well. God’s Problem was not meant *only* to be about modern relevance of course; most of it was simply exegesis of biblical views, but at a lay-person’s level, not at a highly sophisticated one.
Probably need to give some credit to the Jews. They may have learned of some ideas from other cultures but then they put them into their stories and books.
The opposite of Eternal life would be the Apocolypse?
If eternal life is spiritual and universal, could you live on after the end of the world as the Universe continues to grow and change?
It is kinda crazy that the Ancient Egyptians wanted eternal life, after all, they probably suffered more than us, or maybe not?
Maybe they just prayed every day and were thankful for all that they had. Can prayer reduce suffering? Are we praying enough or do we let our minds focus on the suffering in the world?
Do Christians really want eternal life?
Do they believe in an Eternal God and good?
Pascal’s wager: you would be better off if you believe in God and live as though you believe in God.
Note: I think we are all (including Jews and Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans) born equal and connected to God. We learn to dislike others and to suffer and sin. We can change our beliefs. There are souls of different ethnicities and genders in heaven. It is best to like all people.
I mostly read & listen to prayers that say I did not suffer. I am rewriting some to be gender-neutral and ethnicity neutral.
Dr Ehrman –
Pardon the naïveté of the question: Which are the key Jewish texts that were written during the period of Persian rule (as opposed to ones that just refer back to that period)?
Cheers!
Certainly 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, parts of Ezekiel, and a number of the minor prophets, such as 2 and 3 Isaiah, Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi,
Awesome, thank you
Regarding Ezekiel, I think there’s a general misconception that he taught a doctrine of Resurrection during the exile period through his vision of the Valley of Dry Bones. But in fact that vision was intended to refer to the resurrection and future glory of Israel itself after the exile, not to life after death.
Yup! I think I’ve posted on that, but I’ll look.
Bart, I think Isaiah 53 speaks unequivocably about life after death:
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Even if one accepts the deutero-Isaiah hyopthesis, I gather the timing is till peri-exillic
Ah, see tomorrow’s post (which I made before seeing your comment!)
Great post, looking forward to part 2!
Question: When Job says “[after my death] in my flesh shall I see God” (Job 19:26) would that be considered an earlier reference to bodily resurrection?
The problem with the Job passage is that it appears to be impossible to translate into English, and that’s because it’s impossible to understand Hebrew. The King James translators took a stab at it, but ended up making it coincide with their theological views. But Hebrew linguists generally admit that we don’t know what it’s saying, except it doesn’t seem to be saying that….
Thanks so much for the response! I wasn’t aware of that.
Dr. Ehrman,
In his book, John Barton offers these 3 examples as strong evidence that from the earliest years following the resurrection, Jesus was the Son of God. Do you agree? Do you think these are indeed solid examples?
Rom. 1:1-4: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”
2 Cor. 8:9: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”
Phil. 2:6-11: “Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.”
Yup, I like his book very much. I give more evidence in my book How Jesus Became God (which is all about the question)
Bart,
Paul says the resurrection of the dead will be of those who are “in Christ” and who “belong to Christ” (1 Thess 4:16; 1 Cor 15:23). Does Paul think:
A] *only Christians* who have died will be resurrected when Jesus returns
OR
B] a much larger general resurrection will occur when Jesus returns that also includes non-Christian people who died before Jesus’ ministry, so Paul uses the language he does in the passages above simply because he is addressing specifically Christian concerns.
Paul appears to have thought like Jesus, that the true followers would be raised for eternal life, and others (the vast majority of people) would be annihilated, never to live again. I’ll be talking about that in my book.
Bart,
Your answer was not quite clear. Let me ask my question in a different way: Did Paul think *any* Jews who died before Jesus was even born would be resurrected from the dead when Jesus returned? If your answer is yes, how do you explain Paul saying the resurrection of the dead will be (only?) of those who are “in Christ” and who “belong to Christ” (1 Thess 4:16; 1 Cor 15:23)?
He appears to have thought that some faithful Jews were looking forward to the coming of Jesus, so it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t think they would be raised. Maybe he understood them in a sense to be “in Christ.”
Speaking of Greek influences, I’m interested in reading The Iliad since I understand that it’s a great source of Greek mythology/theology… would you know or can you recommend a reliable version to read that also provides study notes, etc.?
I don’t know about one with study notes — maybe someone else can help. But there are excellent translatoins available. My favorite is by Fagels. Terrific.
Funny you just replied on that regarding Fagels as I was just looking at that version on Amazon- seems to also have the best reviews too. Thanks! I also ordered that Judaism and Hellenism book.
Professor Bart
Yesterday I watched Bohemian Rhapsody, and something caught my attention in the movie.
Freddy Mercury’s father was Zoroastrianism.
This surprised me, because I thought religion was extinct, with the growth of Islam
Does Zoroastrianism still exist? In which countries or places can we find remnants of this religion.
It apparently still exists, but it’s tiny.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with this comment from M. Eugene Boring?
“[According to Paul] Christian hope involves the redemption OF our bodies along with the whole creation (Rom. 8:23), NOT redemption FROM them. The life of the world to come will manifest both continuity and discontinuity with the present world.”
Yes indeed, very much so.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with this?:
In 1 Cor. 15 Paul opposes “spiritualists” who thought that all that stood between them and heaven was sloughing off their current bodies and entering fully into the realm of the Spirit.
Pretty much. It’s a very disputed area; I have an extended discussion of 1 Cor 15 (and it’s many misinterpretations) in the new book.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is this a true statement?
“Spiritual body” does NOT mean a body made of “spirit,” as though it were composed of ethereal vapor, but rather that the resurrected body shares the power of God’s realm, just as the earthly body shares the weakness of this world.”
– Prof. Boring in The People’s New Testament Commentary
Yes, though I think most readers would have trouble understanding exactly what he means here.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think Paul was converted in the full 180 sense, OR do you think that with his encounter with the risen Jesus, Paul still remained fundamentally Jewish, but now just accepted that Jesus was indeed the long-awaited Messiah?
I think that *is* the 180 sense.
“Some experts have undercut the entire thesis by pointing out that we actually do not have any Zoroastrian texts that support the idea of resurrection prior to its appearance in early Jewish writings.”
It seems to me that this statement ignores an important fact that some Greek historians in like Theopompus, from fourth-century BCE, made statements on the teachings of Zoroaster in regards to the resurrection of the body.
The corroborative evidence of these early Greek historians strongly suggests that the Persian doctrine of resurrection predates the emergence of the idea of resurrection in early Jewish writings.
It’s been a couple of years since I’ve looked at all this. Remind me: where does Theopompus say this and what does he say?
Θεόπομπος, what a great name! Of course, it is only humorous in English.
Bart,
From what I can glean, Theopompus was the “go-to guy” for specifics of Zoroaster teachings.
He was quoted by Diogenes Laertius: “In the eight book of the Philippics, according to Magi, men shall come to life and be immortal ” Eudemus of Rhodes also gave a similar testimony
Theopompus is referenced by Aeneas of Gaza: “Zoroaster preaches that a time shall come there will be a resurrection of all the dead”
Plutarch using Theopompus as a source gives an outline of Zoroaster cosmology which turns out to be is similar to the later written-down texts attributed to Zoroaster
Upon some research, my preliminary impressions of “Zoroaster connection” is:
–Dating concept of resurrection before its emergence in Jewish thought does not necessarily prove influence.
–Although it is difficult to know exactly what was Theopompus’s exact understanding of Zoroaster’s teachings on resurrection was, and whether his description exactly matches Zoroastrian mythology, one can assume that the “general” concept of resurrection,as taught by Zoroaster was known in 4 BCE.
–In addition,Plutarch’s description of Zoroastrian eschatology gives credence to the relative authenticity of the content of the Old Avestan texts that recorded oral traditions.
Are these preliminary conclusions reasonable? Any additional insights would be appreciated.
Ben
Thanks. As I mentioned, I haven’t looked at this material in a couple of years, and off hand cannot recall why Theopompus’s account has been called into question. You may want to look up the discussions of Elledge and/or Levenson in their books on Resurrection in in Ancient Judaism.
Will do..thx
Bart,
I am enjoying reading your latest book on Heaven and Hell, and your reference on the question of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism piqued my interest and encouraged me to investigate the subject further and also to do something useful in this time of COVID!
The books you recommended were available on Kindle and the references to Theopompus is as follows:
Elledge covers Theopompus’s testimonies in some detail, and even after allowing for some mis/re-interpretation of Zoroastrian views by Theopompus, he states(page 49) :
“ Nevertheless, the testimonies of Theopompus anchor the belief in revivification into an everlasting life to the latter half of the fourth century BCE. This antedates the flourishing of literal conceptions of resurrection in Judaism during the Hellenistic era.”
There are no specific references to Theopompus testimonies in Levenson ‘s book, but he argues for an internal-development of the concept of resurrection. Collaterally, he surprisingly, at end of chapter 13, states that Zoroaster theology ”probably influenced the development of apocalyptic in Jewish circles”
Any additional insights are appreciated.
Thanks. To balance Elledge’s views, look at Anders Hulgard’s essay on “Persian Eschatology,” in vol. 1 of John Collins, Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism and Alan Segals, magisterial study, Life After Death, ch. 4: Iranian Views of the Afterlife and Ascent to the Heavens
Dr. Ehrman,
I have a lot of friends who are pastors and professors who believe that Jesus fulfilled all the end times prophecies (also known as full preterism). This ideology seems to be growing with Christians I am familar with.
One of the arguments they use to prove this was all a “spiritual fulfillment” is by pointing out that people were teaching the resurrection had already passed (i.e., 2 Tim. 2:17-18). They argue that if people were expecting a physical resurrection and the destruction of the world, then there is no way somebody could have been convinced the resurrection was already passed. Because if it had already passed, they wouldn’t be living and the world would be destroyed.
Yet, they were able to be “overthrown” and believe the resurrection was already past because they believed everything was spiritual.
What is your response to this? Specifically 2 Tim. 2:17-18.
Yes, this view that the resurrection was a spiritual event rather than a future bodily one is aalready around by the time Paul writes 1 Corinthians; it’s the view he’s attacking in chapter 15. It appears, though, to be a *reaction* to the earlier claims that the resurrection is physical, which was the standard Jewish view that Jesus and Paul both inherited. As Christianity spread to gentiles, who did not hold to a bodily afterlife, but as a rule found it repugnant, they started taking a more Platonic line that the resurrection comes when the soul separates from the body and that it can be experienced, in the soul, to some extent in the present. I have a long discussion of this in my book Heaven and Hell.