For those unfamiliar with James Tabor, he is a New Testament scholar and part of the team that has been promoting the Talpiot tomb discoveries. He believes the Talpiot A tomb contained the bones of Jesus, and so he denies the resurrection of Christ as defined as the raising of Jesus’ dead body three days after dying on the cross. But the gist of his article is that ancient Jews and Christians conceived of resurrection as a reconstitution of the dead person in a new body, not a raising of the dead body, making the old body irrelevant. Hence he does not see his view that Jesus’ body was not raised on the third day as a repudiation of the idea of resurrection — and even a physical resurrection at that. Although I think his articulation of this view (as it involves a rejection of the more common view) suffers some coherence problems, I would not want anyone to pass on reading his essay. It’s well worth your time. Readers should digest Tabor’s article first before proceeding.

Lastly, before I proceed, I want to make it clear that what Tabor has produced is intended as a piece of conciliatory scholarship (see the last paragraph). For the record, I think he is entirely sincere in that regard. I have some criticisms of his thinking in what follows, but I want it to be understood that I appreciate what he’s doing here. I just see some coherence problems.

Evaluation

Tabor’s article was a delight to read as he succeeded in bringing out important nuances to how resurrection gets discussed, and how he sees that discussion aligning with, or departing from, primary material in the Old Testament and Hellenistic-Jewish context. He hits his stride about half way, making his contention clear (emphasis mine):

. . . 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).

Corpse revival is not resurrection of the dead–at least in its classic sense of what happens to all humankind in 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 highlighted portions bring into focus where Tabor diverges with what we might call a traditional view of resurrection. He sees incongruity between the Jewish/Judeo-Christian understanding of resurrection and the gospel accounts of the empty tomb because “corpse revival is not resurrection from the dead.”  Tabor believes that Jesus’ body was removed from the garden tomb, which was intended as a temporary tomb, and then deposited in what has been called the Talpiot A tomb, where it remained until its discovery in 1980, whereupon all the bones in the tomb were removed and reburied in an unknown location (a practice that is normative in accord with orthodox Jewish wishes when such remains are found). Tabor considers the empty tomb reports in the gospels to have been written post-70 AD, “when the links with the faith of the Jerusalem community had been severed.” In other words, the empty tomb account is, for Tabor and others, in conflict with an original knowledge (and theology) of what happened after the death of Jesus held by the pre-70 AD followers of Jesus. Thus there is a conflict between the beliefs of the original Christians and some of the content of the New Testament.

I don’t follow this thinking since it is problematic in terms of coherence. I offer several items for consideration.

1. The Cart Before the Horse?

At the outset, I would object that one ought not arbitrarily dismiss the empty tomb accounts as late. Tabor would respond that such dismissal is not arbitrary. But I would ask what I think is a reasonable question: Other than the reconstructed theology that results from this division of the material, what empirical data from the text produce that division and the reconstruction? I have read a good deal of NT scholarship that presumes the division, but how do we actually know it is real?  Is there something in the grammar or syntax or literary character of these accounts that betray such lateness? If so, I’d like to see it. In the absence of any specifically textual data that produce a pre-/post-70 AD dichotomy to which Tabor adheres, the only conclusion one could draw is that the dichotomy is merely a hermeneutical filter brought to the text.  And on one level even if there was textual evidence of lateness it wouldn’t prove the point. Why? Because the fact that X idea wasn’t written about until some point does not prove X idea wasn’t embraced prior to it being written down. This is basic logic. But, in a nutshell, I don’t want a scheme that argues for stripping out the third day empty-tomb resurrection element just because it sounds workable by those who want to dispense with the third day empty-tomb element as part of a larger argument about what happened to Jesus’ body. If that particular element is to be stripped out of the accounting, I want it stripped out by the data of the text, not by virtue of a preconceived filter brought to the text. Coherence in interpretation isn’t based on the beauty of one’s conclusion in one’s own eye (or in collective eyes); it’s based on whether the conclusion actually proceeds from the data. Reconstructive opinion isn’t a substitute for data.

2. Chronological Comment out of the Ether?

Second, Tabor believes Paul’s theology was consistent with the “pre-70 AD reconstitution view” of resurrection which he embraces in his essay (Tabor: “Resurrection of the dead, according to both Paul and Jesus, has nothing to do with the former physical body,” and “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” ).  For Paul, Jesus was a “life-giving spirit” (quoting 1 Cor 15:34), and so Paul did not believe that Jesus’ corpse was revived.

But is that all Paul believed about Jesus? Is it impossible that Paul believed in both a corpse revival and a “spiritual body? Many of course would argue just that. But, one could say that, since it’s pretty certain Paul died before 70 AD, his theology could not have drawn from all that post-70 “dead body now standing up” late theology . . . if it’s late . . . right?

This trajectory is related to my first objection, but has tidiness problems of its own.

While it is true that Paul’s writings do not mention the “tomb” of Jesus with respect to his resurrection language, in 1 Cor 15:4 Paul writes that Jesus was buried and raised “on the third day.” A straightforward reading of this phrasing would have Paul’s language of resurrection linked to the “third day” idea that derives from the gospel portions that Tabor says were added after 70 AD. In other words, it seems clear that Paul’s chronological reference to the resurrection derives from the empty tomb description put by all the gospels as occurring on the “first day” of the week subsequent to the dead Jesus being removed from the cross before the beginning of the Sabbath.¹ But how can that be if Tabor is correct? If Paul knew nothing of the first empty tomb, whence the third day reference? If we presume the chronological indicators in the gospels about Jesus being raised on the first day of the week after he was put in the tomb before the preceding Sabbath began were absent from any gospel material Paul could have seen to learn about Jesus’ death and burial, where did he get his “third day” chronology? If Paul was thinking only of a future bodily “reconstitution” resurrection “at the last day” subsequent to Jesus’ Talpiot A burial, the chronological reference makes no sense. It seems to me that the gospels are the logical source for Paul’s chronological wording. 

But let’s think a bit about how this “third day” information got into Paul’s letter if the gospel material about the third day was post-70. I see two possible answers: (1) Paul got the idea from the OT, not the NT gospels, and so Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:4 does not undermine Tabor’s view that the third day material in the gospels is post-70; (2) someone added that language after 70 AD to Paul’s pre-70 letter.

I’ll take the latter first since it’s my guess (and it’s only a guess) that Tabor would choose door number two. It seems akin to what he’s saying about the gospels, so it seems like a good guess. If so, I’d again like to see the empirical textual data for that. It’s a reasonable request. I want data to drive the conclusion, not a presupposed interpretive template.

I looked at several leading commentaries by respected critical NT scholars, all of whom place 1 Corinthians at roughly 50-55 AD, shortly before, and in conjunction with, the composition of Romans, which is dated to the mid-to-late 50s AD. For sure, many struggle with the third day language because they favor the dichotomy Tabor follows. But why? Do these scholars have a reason other than theological preference for finding the phrase in Paul uncomfortable? Without data that is the picture created.

The former alternative — that Paul’s “third day” language derives from the Old Testament (and not the gospels), is adopted by some NT scholars I referenced while reading Tabor’s article. Conzelmann is illustrative. After listing four other speculation-driven options that are offered to defend the lateness of the phrase, he writes (sorry for the imprecision of the transliteration due to Greek font problems): “So there remains a fifth possibility, alongside the first: 5) The date was derived from Scripture. The phrase kata tas graphas “according to the Scriptures,” presumably again refers here, too, not only to egegertai “he was raised,” but to the whole statement. The allusion is indicated in the same general way as that to Isa 53. It can only be to Hos 6:2.”[1. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia; Fortress Press, 1975), 256.]

This OT source option is a possible choice for Tabor, but I wonder how comfortable he is with it. That a Jew and not a Christian could get a three-day resurrection from the OT undermines his argument elsewhere that certain “resurrection symbology” from Talpiot B (i.e., the “Jonah fish” symbol on an ossuary) is evidence for its identification as a Christian tomb.²

But the OT option has internal problems of its own. The “third day” reference is immediately followed by the reference to Peter seeing the resurrected Christ, and then the twelve — a chronology that proceeds from the gospel chronology involving the third day resurrection.  Although appealing to the OT seems a better option, that option has far less explanatory power than just saying Paul got his chronology of events from the gospels, and that means their content was pre-70 AD. Unless Tabor can provide another explanation for Paul’s chronological comment, the notion of this information being added to Paul’s thinking after 70 AD lacks coherence.

Another internal problem for the OT option is probably apparent to readers. If Paul could look at Hosea 6:2 (per Conzelmann above) and perhaps marry it to Jonah 1:17 and Jonah 2:2 (cf. the reference to Sheol), then how is it that the gospel writers could not have done the same thing prior to 70 AD? Why does Paul’s interpretive observation from the OT become unreasonable when the observers  and interpreters happen to be a group of Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah, but who were living before 70 AD? On what exegetical, grammatical or syntactical grounds (i.e., grounds that aren’t a theological statement) are we concluding that the third day wording found in the gospels could not have had the same source as that of Paul’s phrasing (and any Jonah fish symbol in Talpiot B)? Again, this strikes me as a very reasonable question.

3. The Either-Or Fallacy

Another coherence problem in Tabor’s articulation is that it presents the reader with an either-or fallacy. Tabor presents his readers with a choice between two options: either embrace the notion that Jews and the original Christians thought of resurrection as a “corpse revival” (the “standing up” of the original, now dead, body) or embrace the fact that Jews and original Christians conceived of resurrection as a remote, future, physicalized re-constitution of the dead person, making the status of anyone’s earthly bones (including those of Jesus) irrelevant to the discussion. There’s actually at least one more option: Jews and early Christians accepted both these notions as resurrection and did not set the two in opposition to each other.

Let’s consider Ezekiel 37:5-6, cited by Tabor in his essay:

“…And I will lay sinews upon you and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the LORD.”

Tabor takes this vision of the dry bones as a reconstitution (“Resurrection of the dead here, clearly, is a reconstitution of the physical body”). But I would suggest it is not reconstitution. It simply does not describe or presume the same circumstances as Tabor’s other (better) examples that certainly require reconstitution. What I mean is that, in Ezekiel’s vision, there are bones in the valley, and those same bones become enfleshed and re-animated. The bones are not re-created from dust in the vision (that would be reconstitution). The vision is one of fallen victims whose skeletons lay exposed, or who were perhaps buried (Ezek 37:1). Other examples  Tabor notes, or could note, such as bodies lost at sea or immolated bodies, would obviously require reconstitution. But one cannot coherently use Ezek 37 as reconstitution since the bones of the dead are in fact the starting point for the resurrection depiction — just as bones in a grave would be the starting point for a corpse revival resurrection. Tabor apparently (?) presumes that one can only speak of bodily resurrection (i.e., the original body “standing up in corpse revival”) before the flesh has rotted. But on what basis could this view be parsed so precisely? It cannot, and so his categories for resurrection are somewhat contrived, though the nuancing is merited. My view, as noted earlier, is that the Jewish (and Judeo-Christian) view of resurrection included both “standing up” of the old body and reconstitution where that was logically necessitated. I need Tabor to prove that a Jew or early Christian would have rejected one of those before I can begin to see this approach as making sense. I think everyone could agree that there was no uniformity of opinion among Second Temple Judaisms regarding the resurrection, a mode of resurrection, or definition of resurrection. Any argument based on that presumption is tenuous.

4. Servant-King, Corporate and Individual

Another angle to the either-or fallacy presented by Tabor is the incident in Matt 27:51-53, which is seen by many as an allusion to Ezek 37:1-14. This is important since the resurrective events of Matt 27:51-53 are overtly connected to the resurrection of Jesus by the gospel writer.

The above consideration becomes weighty when one factors in some stock elements of OT theology. For an Israelite (and for later Jews wanting a royal deliverer) the anointed king represented the nation. Consequently, the messiah, the ultimate king figure, represented the nation (this individual-to-corporate representation is basic to an OT theology of kingship, and was hardly unique in the ancient Near East). A close reading of Isaiah 40-55 reveals the same thinking about the “servant” in those chapters. The titular servant of God is most often corporate Israel, but is also an individual (most notably, in Isaiah 53). That would mean that anyone associating Isaiah 53 with the messiah (right or wrong — the point is that NT writers did just that) would see the messiah as representing Israel as the servant (and, as noted above, also as king).

So what’s the point? Just this: if the vision of Ezekiel 37 describes the resurrection of the nation of Israel, it could quite easily have been interpreted as being connected to a resurrection of the individual that represented the corporate nation: the servant-king-messiah. And if it is possible to see “standing up corpse revival” in Ezekiel 37 (which is basically described in explicit terms there), that could have fed an expectation or belief that this is what happened to Jesus (for those who saw Jesus fulfilling those roles). These connections are, as I noted above, stick elements of OT and NT theology. There is nothing new here to which I can lay claim.

If the above is the case (that NT writers thought along these lines, or that any Second Temple Jew who knew the Scriptures relatively well) then no one would be surprised at any literary and conceptual connection made between the individuals in Ezekiel’s vision and Matthew 27:51-53 being raised (“stood up” in their original bodies) and the representative of Israel (Jesus as messiah) being raised in the same manner.

5. Front-loading a Question

I want to briefly add a note about the Matthew 27:51-53 episode and include the raising of Lazarus (John 11). One of the reasons Tabor rejects these passages saying anything useful about resurrection is because he presumes (probably correctly, even though the text is silent) that these individuals died (again) later on.  Tabor contends that this isn’t the sort of resurrection Jews were expecting has some validity (“What is important to note about all these stories of “resurrection” is that these people returned from death to live again, but they then they subsequently died again”).

The logical problem here concerns how far to press that point. Tabor’s rejection rationale is only valid if the stories reflect the intellectual parsing (on the part of the writers and early Christian readers) Tabor ascribes to them. For Tabor’s objection to have real weight one would have to be sure that there wasn’t a mere point of analogy behind the story (and the episode, for those who assume it happened). That is, while Lazarus and the saints of Matt 27:51-53 were going to die again, how do we know the Jewish writers and readers mostly and exclusively thought “that’s not the sort of thing I’m looking forward to, so that can’t be what my Bible is talking about by resurrection,” and not rather, “this power is a wonderful foretaste of what will happen at the last day, when the kingdom of God comes”? The latter perspective is accompanied by the theological element of the OT that the eschatological kingdom will be an Edenic restoration, a time when there are no more tears due to there being no more death (Isa 25:6-8; 30:19; cp. Hosea 13:14). In other words, there is an “comparing apples and oranges” element to Tabor’s assumption here.  He has to assume a certain amount of theological ignorance on the part of the pre-70 Jewish biblical writers. But that hardly seems coherent given the theological-literary output of the Second Temple period, unless one wants to argue the gospel writers had no exposure to that, which would be a hard sell.

Conclusion

I want wrap up by repeating that, despite these criticisms, Tabor’s effort deserves attention and commendation. I wouldn’t have spent the time on it I did if I didn’t believe that. By way of a probably awkward illustration (and I don’t mean any irreverence here), if I died tomorrow and met Jesus in heaven, and he said, “Mike, I’m glad to see you, but I have to tell you that Tabor was right about my resurrection — you see me embodied but I’m really just a life-giving spirit now, preparing to reconstitute all those who believed in what did on the cross, and to be reconstituted myself by my Father when that time comes,” I’m not going to take a rain check or ask Jesus if he’d read this review. Reconstitution the way Tabor describes it would still be a miraculous, gracious act of God, and Tabor’s NT would still have Jesus as the center of that plan. But as things stand now, I’m not persuaded of Tabor’s position.

Technorati Tags: bones, Christianity, dead, Early, Ezekiel, gospels, Jesus, Jewish, Paul, resurrection, Tabor, tomb

Technorati Tags: afterlife, heaven, TIME

Technorati Tags: Bible, Gehenna, hades, hell, New Testament, Old Testament, Sheol, Tophet, tophetim

1. When nephesh is described as being in sheol, does the term refer to only the inner part, the body, or the totality? It seems that if Sheol refers to the grave, the answer would be “totality.”  See Psa 16:10; 30:3; Psa 56:13.

Psa 16:10 isn’t hard to parse in my view.

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,

or let your holy one see corruption.

I think it’s pretty clear that this verse sees the total person (body and soul). But there are two interpretive options here.

A. The word translated “corruption” here is shachat, a word that often means “pit” elsewhere (cf. Ezek. 19:4; Job 9:31; Psa 7:15). As such, there is parallelism between “Sheol” and “pit”. They obviously both mean grave (hole in the ground). The verse therefore could be a statement of physical deliverance from death. This seems the most coherent view. Since death involved the cessation of life in terms of both body and its animation, we’d have a “whole person” reference here if the psalmist is talking about physical deliverance from lethal danger.

B. The statement could also be a statement of afterlife deliverance from Sheol, in which case, the immaterial part of a person goes to Sheol and the body does not. That idea may be expressed more clearly in other verses (see below), but it has problems here. Here’s how the verse would break down:

For you will not abandon my soul (inner immaterial part) to Sheol (the Underworld),

or let your holy one (the body?) see the pit (the grave).

“Holy one” would have to stand in place of the body. This is a bit of a stretch. We’d also have to separate Sheol from the pit and have one refer to the Underworld while the other doesn’t – it refers only to the dirt grave. Do we have any reason to do that other than what we “see” in the verse (in other words, is exegesis producing interpretation, or vice versa)?

Option A is just easier and free of problems. Occam’s razor.¹

How about Psalm 30:3?

O Lord, you have brought up my soul from Sheol;

you restored me to life from among those who go down to the pit.

Here we have the same Sheol/pit parallel, but “pit” is a different (very common) Hebrew word (bor). It’s a hole in the ground (see Gen 37:20 for where the word is used – familiar story).

The verb “restored me to life” is the common verb chayah (“to make or keep alive”; “revive”). It’s easy to see how this text also refers to physical deliverance from fatal harm, and is not commenting on the afterlife. The same problems in Psalm 16 are present here.

Here’s Psa 56:13

For you have delivered my soul from death,

yes, my feet from falling,

that I may walk before God

in the light of life.

This is also pretty easy to identify as physical deliverance (the psalmist wants to continue in the “light of life” — and one can walk before God in this life (cf. Gen 17:1-2 for the same phrase).

2. But then what about passages that have the ruach apparently disembodied?  See Eccl 3:21; Eccl 12:7 (it appears the ruach “goes” somewhere after death; it leaves the body).

Here are the two verses:

Eccl. 3:21 – Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?

Eccl 12:7 – and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The first one perhaps targets some cultural or religious belief that there is a difference between humans and animals when it comes to death and the afterlife (“who knows”), but whatever that is isn’t made clear. I think both verses taken in tandem do point to the idea that, upon death, the spirit — the immaterial part of a human being, the thing which animates the body, the “life spark” if you will, returns to God who is perceived as dwelling above the firmament / heavens. Does this refer to afterlife, or is it more general?  Here’s what I mean.

Let’s start with the general idea. This could speak universally in the sense that the ancient writer conceived of the “life spark”, which was originally imparted to humanity by God (Gen 2:7) returns to God at death. The body would go to the grave. The problem, then, would be matching this up with the idea of Sheol. It is clear there is some sort of consciousness associated with the afterlife, even in Sheol. How is this possible without the “thing” (spirit/soul) in which the inner life is associated in the rest of the Hebrew Bible? If that’s “outta here” then how can there be ANY afterlife in Sheol?

Now for the second option: this language speaks of the “dust” (a euphemism for the body, since it was created from “the dust of the ground”; cf. Genesis 2:7) returning to the ground –but here conceived of as the Underworld–and the spirit (the immaterial part) returning to God in a salvation-afterlife sense. In other words, it’s poetic language for a positive afterlife with the body staying behind. This is possible in Israelite thinking, since the subject of a physical resurrection is asserted only in texts that are demonstrably late (Ezekiel and Daniel 12).² To be consistent with the rest of the canon, one would have to argue that such salvation is only for the righteous, not all.

My inclination here is to go with the first view with a slight adjustment. “Sheol” is simply a cosmic-geographical conception that refers to TWO “places” in Israelite thinking: (1) “where everyone goes when they die” and (2) “where the unrighteous remain after going there when they die.” This double-duty of the word is important.

It seems to me that these verses in Ecclesiastes do *not* contradict the ideas I’ve blogged before related to the negative and positive view of the afterlife in the OT: everyone dies and goes “to the great beyond” (a general description even we use today to refer to the “spiritual realm”; Sheol referent #1); the righteous among them go to be with the Lord (there’s the spirit departing to God idea from Ecclesiastes) and the unrighteous do not (they remain in Sheol, which is anything but pleasant – Sheol referent #2). Those in Sheol have a conscious afterlife because their spirit — which, having left the body now belongs to the “spiritual realm”–hasn’t left Sheol to go anywhere else. The righteous also have a conscious afterlife because their spirit is just at a different address in the “spiritual realm.” As I’ve noted before, this isn’t as developed as the NT thinking, but it’s one the same page for sure.

3. What about passages where ruach and nephesh both occur?  Are they distinguished or are they “parallel” to each other?  Here’s the list of the ones that matter (i.e., ruling out clear references to wind or God’s spirit):

Job 7:11

“Therefore I will not restrain my mouth;

I will speak in the anguish of my spirit;

I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.

1 Sam 1:15

But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord.

It would be silly to think that one set of emotions come from the spirit and another set comes from the soul. We’ve already seen that the terms overlap with each other in a whole range of emotions. They are clearly parallel and synonyms here in both passages.

Job 12:10

In his hand is the life of every living thing

and the breath of all mankind.

The terms are also synonyms here, by virtue of the abundant references for each term as referring to life itself and breath (a “vital sign”).

Isa 26:9

My soul yearns for you in the night;

my spirit within me earnestly seeks you.

For when your judgments are in the earth,

the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

The terms are also synonyms here since, as we saw in past posts, both refer to inner yearning when used separately.

Now for some additional questions to tackle:

1. What about Old Testament thinking about the “heart”? Does this point to a third part of a human being, or does it overlap with nephesh and ruach?

2. What about the OT shema statements (“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”)?  How should these be understood? Do they contribute anything to the discussion?

3. What about New Testament statements that apparently distinguish between soul and spirit?  (For example, Hebrews 4:12).

Technorati Tags: anthropology, nephesh, ruach, Sheol, soul, spirit

First, since no one escapes the grave (Sheol) unless God raises them, Sheol is conceived of as never ending. The unrighteous who are not raised from Sheol are therefore in a never ending situation.

Second, Sheol for the unrighteous may indeed be a frightening place in Israelite thought depending on one factor: how did Israelites think of the Rephaim in Sheol?

The Rephaim are described as being in Sheol (Job 26:5-6; Prov 9:18) and are conceived of in two ways in the Hebrew Bible:  deceased great kings / rulers of old (e.g., Isa 14:9) and a giant clan (cf. Deut 2:11; 1 Chron 20:4). Outside the Hebrew Bible, the Rephaim are known in Ugaritic literature, but only as olden kings, not giants. For this reason, scholars typically look at the biblical Rephaim descriptions as coming from two divergent traditions. This is certainly possible, but it is also possible that the reason for the two types of descriptions is that the Israelites conceived of the Rephaim both ways, and those two ways are related.  In my view, it is possible to consider the Rephaim as a giant clan who produced notable rulers / kings in Canaan.  I don’t see a necessary incompatibility.

Given this notion, the Rephaim inhabitants of Sheol represented the ancient ruler-giant clans who were Israel’s great historica enemies. These enemies are specifically traced back to the Nephilim (compare Deut. 2:11 and Numbers 13:32-33). Adding 1 Chron 20:4 to that mix shows that the Rephaim were considered a giant clan that traced its roots back to the Nephilim.

The Nephilim are important in this equation because Second Temple Jewish texts (“intertestamental”) like 1 Enoch trace the origin of demons to the Nephilim. Without going into great detail, when a Nephilim giant was killed, the immaterial spirit of that Nephilim was considered a demon. This is the Second Temple explanation for the origin of demons. The disconnect here, though, is that the shedim of 1 Enoch were sentenced to roam the earth to harass humans. It is not clear they reside in the Abyss, but it does seem they can be there (but are not imprisoned there, like the original offending Watchers (sons of God) of Genesis 6 (they are imprisoned in all the OT, NT and 2nd temple Jewish traditions).

Here is the key point.  It may be that the Rephaim in Sheol were considered demonic as well as great warrior kings of old (six of one, half dozen of another) based on:

Ezekiel 32:21 (very literal): The gibborim (“mighty chiefs” in ESV) shall speak of them with their helpers out of the midst of Sheol; They have come down, they lie still, the uncircumcised, slain by the sword. The thing to note here is the term gibborim, which of course shows up in Genesis 6:4 in connection with the nephilim. Granted gibborim does NOT mean “giant” in general; the context must point that way. The point here is that gibborim could be viewed as the same as the Rephaim (synonyms) since the description of the gibborim that are in Sheol in Ezek 32 is basically the same as the warrior kings who are the Rephaim in Sheol in other passages. Since the Rephaim in Sheol can still be conceived of as dead giant clan kings, and since those dead Rephaim *may* be conceived as well as the departed spirits of those giants (which would be a parallel to the departed spirits of the nephilim being the demons), we could argue that the OT Sheol includes the idea that demonic spirits are in Sheol. This is not secure, but it is possible.  It would give us some sort of clue as to where later Second Temple and NT writers get some of their theology.

It should be noted that many commentators think the nephilim are in Sheol via Ezekiel 32.  There are often comments or textual notes on Ezek 32:27, where the “fallen” (n-p-l-m; nophelim) are in Sheol.  Some argue that the Hebrew there should be repointed as nephilim. I do not believe this is coherent since “fallen” (n-p-l-m) occurs in 32:22 where we read the “fallen” are “fallen by the sword.” It would make no sense to have “nephilim by the sword.” The same issue applies to 32:23 and 32:24.

So, what we have is that there is a possibility that an Israelite would have view Sheol with fear, not just because it meant death, but because the unrighteous would be forced to spend the afterlife with Israel’s ancient enemies, the giant clans of old, who were perhaps also conceived of as demons. This is possible, but not certain.

What about the element of fiery punishment? Well, if the above holds true, that wouldn’t be viewed as any sort of reward. There is also fire in Sheol according to Prov. 30:16. Job 31:12 *may* suggest there is fire in Sheol (cf. Abaddon in Job 26:6). (See also Psalm 140:8-10).  Granted, we do not have descriptions of sinners being burned in torment, but the essential elements are there. I think it is fair to say that the kernel elements of the fiery hell of the NT and Second Temple Judaism are present in the OT.

My conclusion is that it is incorrect to say that the OT does not have any sort of conept of a “bad” afterlife that resembles hell. That is an extreme conclusion that simply refuses to triangulate the range of OT material. It also goes too far to say that the concepts are identical between the testaments. There is a progression of the ideas from the OT to the NT.

Technorati Tags: hell, Old Testament, rephaim, Sheol, the dead

By now you’ve had plenty of time to read through the file I posted with all the occurrences of Sheol.  You should have noticed that, for the most part, it has a negative feel, either because certain occurrences speak of the grave and people don’t like to die (!) or it’s the place the wicked are headed to. But you should also have noticed that, on occasion, the righteous are said to be headed to Sheol (e.g., Jacob: Gen 37:35; 42:38; 44:31). This in fact is what steers many scholars (probably most) to see Sheol as either the grave or some sort of reference to a place “in the earth” that everyone goes to. This latter element is, of course, part of the three-tiered cosmology of ancient Israel and other ANE peoples. Sheol is “bad” because the wicked are there; Sheol isn’t “bad” because the righteous are there, too.

While it’s clear that the dead go to the grave/Sheol and therefore reside in Sheol (whatever that is), it seems that the questions of eternal paradise or eternal punishment are not addressed in the OT text. After all, there’s no real clear passage that speaks of Sheol being anything like heaven, and it’s never really described like we’d think of hell.

Well, not so fast on both counts.

Let’s take the “heaven” idea first. The notion that the cumulative occurrences of Sheol prove that the OT has no idea of an eternal heaven is misguided. The reason is the assumption that studying the occurrences of Sheol is the right strategy or trajectory for delving into the issue of whether the OT teaches there is a blissful afterlife. It isn’t.

There are definite hints that there is something beyond Sheol for the righteous. Normally, according to Job 7:9, no one comes up out of Sheol (“As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up”). But the Lord can accomplish this per 1 Samuel 2:6 (“The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up”). “Raises up” is a literal translation and the verb here is NOT the one typically used for physical deliverance, and so the idea of coming “up” out of Sheol (which was conceived of as under the earth) appears to be in view.  This “upward” language is interesting in light of Prov 15:24, where we read: “The path of life leads upward for the prudent, that he may turn away from Sheol beneath.” The “upward” idea is clearly contrasted with Sheol, which is “below” in Israelite cosmology. The text could be read in two ways: that the righteous never go to Sheol, which doesn’t seem correct in view of other passages, or that the righteous wind up “up there” (opposite Sheol) after death at some point (and death = Sheol). The second option is consistent with the idea that everyone goes to Sheol but the righteous don’t stay there.

This is important since many try to argue that all that is in view is deliverance from physical harm that would bring death (and hence a trip to Sheol). Psalm 30:3 also seems to clearly suggest that the Lord can remove someone from Sheol and raise them out of the place of the dead: “O Lord, you have brought up my soul from Sheol; you restored me to life from among those who go down to the pit.” Psalm 49:15 echoes the same thought: “But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.” What’s interesting about this verse is the idea of being “received” by God — which would make little sense if the point was merely protection from harm in this life. The Hebrew word here for “receive” can also mean “taken,” and so the idea may also be removal from Sheol.

So, the references to Sheol itself can include the notion of being removed from Sheol, at least for the righteous.  But there is more. Some scholars fail to look outside the passages that have the word Sheol in them, and that omission leads to poor conclusions.

Building on the idea of the righteous escaping from Sheol at the pleasure of the Lord, we read in Psalm 73:

23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand.

24 You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory.

25 Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.

26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

The language of being “received to glory” is noteworthy (it is the same word as in Psalm 49:15). Some would argue that the meaning is that God will honor the person in question, and that “glory” does not refer to the presence of God. That position is made more difficult by what follows:  ”Whom have I in the heavens but you?” Yes, this could be an appeal like “what other god do I have but you?” but it’s obvious that God was thought to dwell in the heavens — and so that may be where the person in question will be “received.” The “holding of the hand” deserves some attention, since “upholding” is elsewhere associated with the presence of God: “But you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in your presence forever.”  The notion of the Lord being the “portion” of the psalmist “forever” is important as well. “Portion” is a very important and familiar word to any who have read my work on the divine council. It is the word for “allotted inheritance.” That God is perceived to be the inheritance of the righteous psalmist is the flip side of the idea that Yahweh has his own portion (inheritance) which is Israel, his people. The idea is that there is a personal eschatology (being with the Lord forever) with the national eschatology that springs out of the OT worldview of Israel as a divine inheritance.  The “portion” language is echoed in Psalm 16:5 (“The Lord is my chosen portion and cup; you hold my lot”). Elsewhere in the same psalm (vv. 10-11) the psalmist says: “For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”  Clearly the psalmist expected that the righteous to be with the Lord and not remain in Sheol (cf. “the holy” — and the word is not qadesh, the normal word for holy — it is chasid — a synonym for the righteous).

In my judgment, and without belaboring the data, a good case can be presented that the OT does indeed teach that the righteous do not remain in Sheol but are with the Lord. Since God was thought to have no end in Israelite theology, any existence with him for the righteous would be eternal.

Next up: Sheol for the unrighteous.

Technorati Tags: heaven, hebrew, Israelite religion, Old Testament, Sheol

I’d like readers to download this file for consideration.  It is all the occurrences of the word “Sheol” in the OT and the corresponding translation in the ESV. I’d like you all to tell me what you think — do you see a blissful afterlife or eternal punishment?

Natrually, there’s more to the issue than this file, but we need to start here.

Technorati Tags: afterlife, heaven, hell, Sheol

Deborah Thompson Prince, The ‘Ghost’ of Jesus: Luke 24 in Light of Ancient Narratives
of Post-Mortem Apparitions

Jason Robert Combs, A Ghost on the Water? Understanding an Absurdity in Mark 6:49–50

Technorati Tags: ghost, ghosts, Jesus, New Testament

1. The human dead

• This is by far (and perhaps exclusively) the referent of the term metim.
• This term, then, would be a term that, in contexts that describe an ongoing afterlife in the Underworld / realm of the dead, would describe a ghost-the spirit of a departed dead person. Term number also describes a human ghost.

2. The dead kings of old / the dead Rephaim

• This category presents a difficulty, and so we’ll be discussing it further. Rephaim could of course die, so it is no surprise that the word metim is used in connection with them. There are questions to address with respect to the Rephaim: (a) should they be viewed as merely and only human or, since they are also one of the giant clans that descended from the nephilim,¹ should they be viewed as part human and part divine; (b) when one of the Rephaim was killed, should the departed spirit be viewed as a demon? This was the view of 1 Enoch, for example (demons are specifically said to be the departed spirits of the nephilim giants); (c) are there any biblical texts that have the Rephaim not only as the dead warrior kings of old, but as demonic spirits. For sure the Rephaim are among the giant clans descended from the nephilim, but are the dead Rephaim also demons?

3. The offending divine sons of God of Genesis 6 infamy (a.k.a., the “Watchers”)

• Jewish tradition is consistent that these beings were imprisoned until the time of the end. Although we are not given this detail in the OT, the NT tells the same story. 2 Peter 2:4 says that “the angels that sinned” were cast into “Tartarus.” This is precisely the Greek word that Jewish texts (like 1 Enoch in Greek) use to describe the place where the sons of God who sinned in the Genesis 6 story were imprisoned.

4. The spirits who have knowledge (“the spirits; that is, the knowing ones”)

• This is terminology frequently used in passages that condemn mediums and their activities.
• There is no evidence that this term is used for human dead (see below). These are non-human spirits.
• Passages:

Deuteronomy 18:9-13 (my translation):

9 “When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or his daughter through the fire, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or makes potions from herbs 11 or a spell binder, or one who consults a non-human spirit that has knowledge (šōʾēl ʾôb yiddĕʿōnî), or who inquires of the human dead (dōrÄ“Å¡ el-hammÄ“tı̂m), 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, 14 for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to those who practice divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.

NOTE: verse 11 distinguishes the spirits who have knowledge from the dead. I would argue that the these spirits are non-human entities and that the dead are the human dead.

Leviticus 19:31 - “Do not turn to the spirits (ʾôbôt), to the ones who have knowledge (yiddĕʿōnî); do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am Yahweh your God.

Leviticus 20:6 – “If a person turns to the spirits (ʾôbôt), to those who have knowledge (yiddĕʿōnî), whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:27 – “A man or a woman who is with a spirit (ʾôb) or one who has knowledge (yiddĕʿōnî) shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”

Isaiah 29:4 – And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak, and from the dust your speech will be bowed down; your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a spirit ((ʾôb), and from the dust your speech shall whisper.

NOTE: Lev 20:27 makes it clear that the ʾôb / ʾôbot can possess human beings (the medium), and Isaiah 29:4 has the ʾôbot coming from up out of the ground (i.e., from the Underworld).

5. “Ghosts”

• The word ʾitÌ£tÌ£iÌ‚m is used only once in the Old Testament, Isaiah 19:3. This is the Hebrew equivalent of ʾetemmu (notice the consonants between the Hebrew and Akkadian term are identical), the most commonly-used term in ancient Mesopotamia (Akkadian) for “ghost” as in “departed spirit of a human being.”² English translations are frequently of poor quality here, so I’ll give my translation with the Hebrew words of importance-you will recognize them by now:

Isaiah 19:3 – “and the spirit of the Egyptians within them will be emptied out, and I will confound their counsel; and they will inquire of the idols and the ghosts (ʾitÌ£tÌ£iÌ‚m), and the spirits (ʾôbôt), the knowing ones (yiddĕʿōnî).

NOTE: The ʾiṭṭîm are grouped together with other terms for non-human entities in this passage, including idols, which were thought to be inhabited by the god(s).

6. Demons

• There are a couple words for “demon” in the Old Testament (that are found more widely in literature in literature of Israel’s neighbors, like Mesopotamia):
• sÌŒediÌ‚m (twice: Deut. 32:17; Psalm 106:37)
• liÌ‚liÌ‚t (once: Isaiah 34:14); the term is associated with the night and with winds; usually viewed as a demonic spirit for that reason. Referred to as a demon in Akkadian literature.

Should “Rephaim” be listed as a term for demon? I’ll address that possibility in the next installment. We’ll also hit on ghost terminology in the New Testament before we wrap this up.

Observation Summary:

1. I think we can say that there is scriptural warrant for distinguishing ghosts from demons. There are, in point of fact, references to ghosts in the Old Testament and those ghosts are the departed spirits of the human dead, not demons.

2. It is interesting that, while the OT says mediums can be possessed by non-human spirits (ʾôbôt; Lev. 20:27), it never says mediums can be possessed by the spirits of human dead. Perhaps this can form the basis of viewing whatever happens at a séance (in instances where the medium is “indwelt” by the contacted entity) as more likely demonic than true contact with the human dead.

3. Recall from an earlier post that Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Isaiah 8:19 suggest that the departed human dead aren’t very good sources of information-but the non-human spirits are called “knowing ones.” It seems we should be suspicious of knowledge gained from alleged contact with the (human) dead-scripturally speaking, the odds are in favor that the contact was made with non-human spirits.

Technorati Tags: afterlife, grave, Sheol, the dead

Deut 18:11; Deut. 26:14; Deut 28:62; Psa 88:5; Psa 88:10; Psa 106:28; Psa 115:17; Eccl 9:3; Eccl 9:5; Isaiah 8:19; Isaiah 26:14; Isaiah 26:19

Continuing on in our efforts to parse the dead (metim) … I once again offer my working hypothesis:

The term “the dead” refers to those things that can and do die (they are inherently mortal, having determinate lifespans, and must do certain things [like eat and breathe] to keep existing). The most notable example, of course, is human beings, and so metim most often refers to human beings. The metim, then, are not the spirits (ʾob / ʾobot) that can be conjured. The metim do have some sort of disembodied existence and can be contacted (hence the prohibition), but don’t seem to be reliable sources of information. This would mean that the ʾob / ʾobot would be non-human spirits.

Last time I posted about Deut 18:11; Deut 26:14; and Deut 28:62.  Let’s try and get through more of the list.

Psalm 88:5; Psalm 88:10 -

³ For my soul is full of troubles,

and my life draws near to Sheol.

⁴ I am counted among those who go down to the pit;

I am a man who has no strength,

⁵ like one set loose among the dead (metim),

like the slain that lie in the grave,

like those whom you remember no more,

for they are cut off from your hand.

⁶ You have put me in the depths of the pit,

in the regions dark and deep.

⁷ Your wrath lies heavy upon me,

and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah

⁸ You have caused my companions to shun me;

you have made me a horror to them.

I am shut in so that I cannot escape;

⁹ my eye grows dim through sorrow.

Every day I call upon you, O Lord;

I spread out my hands to you.

¹⁰ Do you work wonders for the dead (metim)?

Do the departed (rephaim) rise up to praise you? Selah

¹¹ Is your steadfast love declared in the grave,

or your faithfulness in Abaddon?

¹² Are your wonders known in the darkness,

or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

It’s pretty clear that the dead (metim) in 88:5 refers to the human dead. The wider context clearly casts the dead as “the slain that lie in the grave.”  In 88:10, though, there is an issue: are the dead in 88:10 synonymous with or alongside the rephaim?  If the former, the dead may be non-human (or, better, more than human) mortals. Briefly, the rephaim are, most generally, the dead kings or great warriors of antiquity.  Sources within and outside the Bible confirm this identification. In the biblical case, however, the rephaim are related (literally) to the giant clans in the Old Testament. These clans are in turn identified as descendants of the nephilim (Gen 6:4), who were offspring of human women and divine beings (the sons of God).¹ There is nothing about the Hebrew that compels the conclusion that the terms are synonymous, and so my working hypothesis is still intact. Even if metim can refer to rephaim, it is clear that the giants of the OT were mortal-they could be killed-and so it wouldn’t be odd for the term to apply to them as well.  Though our topic (differentiating terms for the human dead, ghosts / spirits of the human dead, and non-human Underworld spirits in the biblical worldview) relates to the question of Sheol and the afterlife, I don’t want to get sidetracked on that.  I have another working hypothesis on that (scholars have widely disagreed), so that’s for another time.

Psalm 106:28 – Like Deut 28:62 in the previous post, this is a reference to sacrifices for the human dead. In this case, living people are condemned for eating from the animal sacrificed as an offering to the dead.

Psalm 115:16-18

¹⁶ The heavens are the Lord’s heavens,

but the earth he has given to the children of man.

¹⁷ The dead (metim) do not praise the Lord,

nor do any who go down into silence.

¹⁸ But we will bless the Lord

from this time forth and forevermore.

Praise the Lord!

There’s nothing in this text that would indicate that the dead (metim) are anything but the human dead.

Eccl. 9:3-5

³ This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead (metim). ⁴ But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. ⁵ For the living know that they will die, but the dead (metim) know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

The same can be said for these verses-the dead (metim) here appear to be the human dead. This verse is interesting as well in that it says “the dead know nothing.” One wonders why they were contacted, and how this verse fits into the prohibition against contacting the dead.  We’ll hit necromancy in a future post on the present topic. In fact, the verses below deal with necromancy.

Isaiah 8:19

And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead (metim) on behalf of the living?

This verse refers to the human dead being contacted. It’s pretty straightforward.  We’ll see it again when we hit necromancy.

Isaiah 26:13-19

¹³ O Lord our God,

other lords besides you have ruled over us,

but your name alone we bring to remembrance.

¹⁴ They are dead (metim), they will not live;

they are shades (rephaim), they will not arise;

to that end you have visited them with destruction

and wiped out all remembrance of them.

¹⁵ But you have increased the nation, O Lord,

you have increased the nation; you are glorified;

you have enlarged all the borders of the land.

¹⁶ O Lord, in distress they sought you;

they poured out a whispered prayer

when your discipline was upon them.

¹⁷ Like a pregnant woman

who writhes and cries out in her pangs

when she is near to giving birth,

so were we because of you, O Lord;

¹⁸ we were pregnant, we writhed,

but we have given birth to wind.

We have accomplished no deliverance in the earth,

and the inhabitants of the world have not fallen.

¹⁹ Your dead (metim) shall live; their bodies shall rise.

You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!

For your dew is a dew of light,

and the earth will give birth to the dead (rephaim).

This passage again takes us into the question of whether the term (metim) can refer to rephaim and not only the human dead. In Isaiah 26:14 it appears that the metim and the rephaim are identified with each other. This isn’t certain, but it looks that way, since both “they’s” in v. 14 likely refer back to v. 13-the other lords that ruled over Israel.  This may refer to kings of old (and perhaps of giant clan lineage) that ruled over Israel but which were killed off.

I would argue, though, that in Isaiah 26:19 the dead are humans-specifically, human followers of Yahweh (“YOUR dead”-speaking of Yahweh).  These believers will rise / be resurrected.  In contrast the earth (the ʾerets in Hebrew) will ABORT the rephaim.  The word ʾerets is the normal word for “earth” or “land,” but it is also a synonym for Sheol. The verb here is naphal. In the Hiphil stem in means to “drop” and is used elsewhere as a euphemism for miscarriage or abortion.  This passage is in what is known to scholars as Isaiah’s “little apocalypse” (Isaiah 24-27). I take it as a reference to events associated with the Day of the Lord, when the evil spirits will be expelled or released from the Pit before their final defeat (cf. Revelation 9).

In the next post, I’ll take this material and (pardon the pun) flesh out a taxonomy (so far) of the Underworld.

Technorati Tags: ghosts, Sheol, the dead