Death and Resurrection in the Hebrew Scriptures
Posted June 17th, 2008 by Larry Herr
in
image:
The author of Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, Jon D. Levenson, is the Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard University Divinity School. He has been studying the idea of death and resurrection in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and early Judaic sources (including Rabbinic and New Testament texts) since his Harvard Ph.D. dissertation on the theology of restoration in Ezekiel. As a classmate of mine for four years, we sat through many lectures, shared monumental assignments in Akkadian, and compared ideas over lunch in the Divinity School cafeteria.
It is a genuine pleasure to bring this book to the attention of thought-oriented Adventists for whom the idea of resurrection is an important part of our intellectual reflection. Levenson writes for an educated lay audience that is both Jewish and Christian. He either avoids specialist terms, or carefully defines them, and translates Hebrew words, many times brilliantly encapsulating difficult ideas in just one or two English words.
Because he writes primarily from a Jewish point of view, the observations about theological ideas and biblical exegesis are often expressed in ways that appear new to us, but at the same time they resonate with our Adventist apocalyptic background. I was frankly surprised how similar his Jewish and my Christian Adventist apocalyptic expressions were. Thus, for an Adventist reader, there is a sense of freshness, but we recognize the themes easily.
The book also incorporates some of the most skilled exegesis I have seen in a book of this nature. Levenson is intimately acquainted with the literary styles and languages of the texts he uses (some are Canaanite texts, as well as biblical and rabbinic ones). The tightly controlled logic which he uses to present very close readings of the texts never extended beyond the limits of the text. Sometimes, in the preliminary overviews of his conclusions, I thought he over-generalized at times, but, in the end, after he presented all the details, he convinced me.
Before reading this book, I must confess that I tended to see resurrection as a very late entity in the Bible, not present at all in the Old Testament, except for Daniel 12:1-3. Well, of course there were various miracles in the Elijah and Elisha stories, but they were exceptions. Exceptions that prove the point. And some references, such as the Enoch verses in Genesis, are so vague it is difficult to be sure what the text is saying, even in general terms. In one of my undergraduate courses I conduct a whole class period on the Valley of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37, showing how it used the idea of resurrection not as an example of a fact of a real resurrection, but as a metaphor for the restoration of Israel. Happily, Levenson agrees with me. But he goes farther. He argues that, because the metaphor was used, people must have understood it as divinely possible. I used to suggest that Ezekiel 37 represented a movement of Israel’s thinking toward the idea of resurrection that would then be presented as fact in Daniel 12.
In a virtuoso foray throughout the Bible, Levenson shows how this kind of symbolic, figurative, and literary thinking about resurrection permeates almost every type of biblical literature, including the Pentateuch, the Former and Latter Prophets, the Psalms, and even Wisdom literature (which also most strenuously denies an afterlife—Eccl. 9:15, a verse precious to Adventist thinking). In his mind, although ancient Israel may not have thought of resurrection the way we moderns do, the seeds of our view can be found throughout the Old Testament. There was thus no “jump” to a belief in the reality of a resurrection in the early Judaism of the Rabbis or the New Testament.
The most earth-shaking conclusion for scholars from this study is the resounding conclusion that the origins of the idea of resurrection was not simply borrowed from the religions, mythologies, and cultures around Israel (some have suggested that Zoroastrianism was an important influence), but rather are to be found latent within the Israelite literary traditions of the Old Testament. Interestingly, because they have almost no literary connections with the biblical texts, he avoids discussions of the theme of the dying and rising gods in most of the ancient mythologies, including Egypt (Osiris and Isis) and Mesopotamia (Tammuz). However, he does mention the Canaanite version from the texts found at Ugarit centered around the god Baal (Hadad), who is defeated by the god Death, but raised up (partially, at least) by his sister Anat. In Levenson’s defense, these are myths about gods which define the dry and rainy seasons of the year (Baal is the storm god). They are not trying to suggest the idea of human resurrection, metaphorically or in reality.
Levenson refers to almost every text in the Old Testament that could presage the idea of resurrection. Therefore, it was a surprise to me that he did not refer to Job 19:25-26: “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God.” Probably because of the word “redeemer” (the capital “R” in most versions is the decision of the editor) most Adventists, who read these verses without the benefit of the surrounding context in the chapter and in the rest of the book, see it as a reference to the resurrection of the flesh in Jesus Christ. The context, of course, does not support this rather facile interpretation, and it may not be an issue in Jewish thinking. However, I hope that, in a second edition, he will include this passage.
I have, of course, done an immense disservice to Levenson by trying to summarize his extremely detailed reading of many biblical and rabbinic texts, as well as his carefully nuanced conclusions. But this audience should know that, for Adventists, this is now the best source to begin reading about the origins of the idea of resurrection in the Bible.
Larry Herr writes from Canadian University College where he is a professor of religious studies. He received his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University in 1977.
You can buy Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel through our Amazon store and support Spectrum with your purchase.
Search
- Jared Wright on Live Blog: US Presidential Debate tonight
- Elaine Nelson on The Struggling Masses, Part 2: Further Analysis
- Eric Scott on The Struggling Masses, Part 2: Further Analysis
- Elaine Nelson on A Foray into Myth: The Origins of the Genesis Flood Story
- Carrol Grady on Accident at the Annual Council - Bill Johnsson Hurt
- Heather May on Checking the Church State Council's Facts on Prop. 8 Issues
- Dan Clarke on Live Blog: US Presidential Debate tonight
- Eric Scott on A Foray into Myth: The Origins of the Genesis Flood Story
- Tom Zwemer on Good News Tour: Bringing Maxwell back to LLU*
- gladys on La Voz de Dios en mis Sueños
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Hi Larry
This book sounds very interesting, and all the more so because of your friendship with the author!
I have two questions: (1) How does Levenson relate the idea of resurrection to the idea of the restoration of Israel? (2) How do the ideas in this book relate to his earlier books?
I am thinking particularly of his book on creation and evil. I have not read it; however, my impression from glancing through it and from some of the reviews, is that this earlier book argues that in the Hebrew Bible God does not vanquish evil once and for all but continues the battle of creation against it in an ongoing way. Perhaps my understanding of this earlier book is not accurate, however.
More generally put, if we were to paint a Harry Anderson scene that would accurately depict what Levenson has in mind when he speaks of "resurrection," on the one hand, and the "restoration of Israel," on the other, what would it look like? I need a visual aid!
Thanks for any help you can give me!
Dave
Interesting review. I remember a couple of quarters ago when covering the book of Ecclesiastes telling the class that there is hardly anything in the Old Testament about resurrection or life after death. It was like pulling teeth to get any to accept that historical fact. Hopefully this book will help.
It would be interesting to see if he covers when the real change in view about the possibility of resurrection did occur. It seems to me it was in the intertestamental period which is likely when the book of Daniel was written (but we Adventist don't like that position). But I would like to see some scholarly information about that period and it would just be wonderful for my pocketbook if it was included in the above book.
From the Amazon review:
"A Major Disappointment, June 8, 2008
By Cebes (Dracut, MA United States)
This review is from: Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (Hardcover)
Levenson is one of the top Biblical scholars today, and his previous book Death & Resurrection of the Beloved Son is simply a brilliant and innovative work, albeit demanding. So one expected further great things in Levenson's new book. This book purports to challenge the scholarly consensus that the doctrine of resurrection of the body is a major innovation in traditional Judaism and probably the result of influence from the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, which did include such a doctrine. But the argument falls flat. While there are a couple of mentions of the possibility of reviving the dead in the pre-apocalyptic period, even Levenson himself admits that the standard Jewish view was that bodily death was final. He also points out that what mattered for traditional Judaism was not individual survival after death, but survival of the Jewish people as a whole. However, he does not seem to realize that this last point undercuts his argument, for it suggests that the doctrine of individual bodily resurrection was indeed a dramatic innovation. His argument that bodily resurrection was continuous with traditional Judaism comes down to the extremely weak claim that God is a God of life and promised blessings to Israel. But how you can derive a very specific and alien doctrine of bodily resurrection at judgment day, from this extremely vague generality about God being a god of life, is beyond me. Wouldn't it seem to be more likely that being directly exposed to this new specific doctrine of resurrection among the Persians would be a better explanation? Nor does Levenson explain, if the resurrection idea is continuous with the Jewish tradition, how it is that so many Jewish groups vigorously opposed this new doctrine (e.g. the Saducees). In the end, even Levenson admits that, as he puts it, the conventional view that resurrection is a major innovation "is not necessarily wrong" (Watch out for double negatives: they usually indicate when an author is making a reluctant concession), and that there is a "large measure of truth" to the conventional view. In order to defend his unlikely conclusion, Levenson is forced to insist on a more "dynamic" conception of truth. That sure sounds like relativism to me. But in any case, the argument is extremely weak and unconvincing. By all means, read Levenson's "Death and Resurrection." But this new book just doesn't measure up.
Always with an uplifting and encouraging word, eh, Elaine?
Be it reading, writing or understanding these words hold true: Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
The review Elaine brought to our attention posed my questions more effectively than I did: What is the connection in the development of Hebrew thought between the "resurrection of the body" and the "restoration of Israel" and does Levenson help us understand it?
My impression has been that logically and historically the idea of the resurrection of the individual body emerges in connection with a heightened awareness of individual responsibility. How the ostensibly individualistic notion of resurrection relates to the communal uncertainty about the destiny of the people of Israel in Levenson's view is what I don't "get."
I hope I don't have to read the whole book to figure this out.
My understanding is that Levenson concedes that bodily resurrection was a major innovation, but arising from within Judaism rather than the direct result of foreign (Persian) influence. Is this conclusion surprising in light of the characteristic feature of Jewish separateness?
Cliff, why are your comments always so sarcastic and unkind?
Joselito
Thanks! This is helpful. Do you know how Levenson connects the ideas individual resurrection and communal restoration, even if the roots of these ideas are more Hebrew than Persian? I appreciate your assistance!
Dave
It seems a work required reading for understanding the Hebrew thinking about death and resurrection.
God bless you.
Cliff,
I agree with Carrol Grady, but she left one out in her comments.
It should read ".....sarcastic, unkind and true.
A few nights ago Steve, on the Colbert Report briefly interviewed Bishop N.T. Wright on his new book "Surprised by Hope" about the three distinctions involved in resurrection. Amazon could give us the scoop, but he is a well recognized biblical scholar.
Perhaps this recent comment by Judith Warner in the NYTimes applies to some of us here:
"When you cut the umbilical cord, opening your mouth to find your voice, you find that you are out in the cold."
In defense of Elaine the only thing in this thread that Elaine wrote to inspire his sarcasm was "From the Amazon review:" Everything else was from the other reviewer. I thought it was helpful and it still ended up with by all means read the book.
I have a question for Larry and the others who have read Levenson's book. In his article, Larry states the following:
"Levenson refers to almost every text in the Old Testament that could presage the idea of resurrection."
I wonder whether Levenson includes the clear, unambiguous, reference to a bodily resurrection in 2 Maccabees 7:9. Here is what the author of this passage puts in the mouth of one of the victims of Antiouchus Epiphanes before his death:
"You, accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever." Similar passages are found in 7:11,14,23,29,36; 12:44; and 14:46.
Since Larry states that Levenson "has been studying the idea of death and resurrection in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and early Judaic sources," I thought he might have included such passages from the Septuagint.
We need to bear in mind that when Jesus was confronted with the question of resurrection, his opponents used the story of the woman with her seven husbands who had died on their weding day, and such story was taken from the book of Tobit. Fragments of this book, written both in Aramaic and in Hebrew, were found in Qumram. This seems to me an evidence that the Septuaging might have been the Bible used by Jesus and his disciples.
I wonder also why we Adventists have ignored such a clear passage dealing with the belief in a bodily resurrection, especially, considering that the reference found in the book of Job is being questioned by experts. Here is the comment I found in the New American Bible in reference to Job 19:26 [19:27 in the NAB version of the Bible]:
"The meaning of this passage is obscure because the original text has been poorly preserved and the ancient versions do not agree among themselves."
Evidently, there were Jews who did believe in the physical resurrection of the faithful, while other inspired writers did not. We find the following in Isaiah 65:17,20, and 25:
"Behold I create new heavens and a new earth ... Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. ... The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox."
This seems to be a far cry from the idea of a bodily resurrection leading to eternal life in the hereafter!
Any comments from those who have read Levenson's book?
Nic said:
"This seems to me an evidence that the Septuagint might have been the Bible used by Jesus and his disciples."
Most scholars when studying the quotations used by the NT writers, are convinced that the Septuagint was the common source at that time. They are not identical to the Hebrew in many ways. The Septuagint, written in the third century B.C. was the one used by most Jews at that time as the majority then lived outside Palestine and were living in Greek-speaking countries.
During the intertestamental period, and likely during and after the Exile, the Jews were introduced to the idea of a bodily resurrection from the Persians and readily adopted it; which is why it is a subtle appearance in the later OT books. If one accepts that most, if not all of the OT we have today was written during that period, then it is much easier to understand the idea of life after death. Certainly, there was no such belief in the early patriarchal period as there entire hope for immortality rested on their offspring.
E:
You stated the following on 22 June 2008 at 8:21:
"During the intertestamental period, and likely during and after the Exile, the Jews were introduced to the idea of a bodily resurrection from the Persians and readily adopted it; which is why it is a subtle appearance in the later OT books. ... Certainly, there was no such belief in the early patriarchal period as there entire hope for immortality rested on their offspring."
This is a very interesting conclusion. My question to you would then be: On what basis did Jesus say to his questioners who had doubts about a bodily resurrection: "You err because you ignore the Scriptures and the power of God!" What Scriptures was Jesus referring to? The scriptures of the Persians? Were these Persian writings authoritative both for the Jews and Jesus?
It is often difficult to clearly say what Jesus meant when He talked to the people who were trying to trip Jesus up. Because He would often use the same word play techniques that they used on Him. Classic example is Jesus use of the Psalm "know you not that you are gods".
What I would guess from the quote you gave is that from the scriptures we see the creative power of God who can call life out of nothing, the stories of life restored to certain people that had been dead. When this are put together with his second clause, the power of God. Any argument against the possibility of resurrection has to be because they ignore the power of God. It does not have to mean that the Old Testament scriptures had the inclusion of resurrection to eternal life scriptures.
A lot of people think that if Jesus used an old testament verse it was because that verse was literally and historically true, but that is not they way He used them. They were often starting points for concepts He wanted to teach. It is similar to the misuse of the verse that says all scripture is inspired by God. We use that first part and ignore the rest of the statement which says the scriptures are a benefit for teaching and leading one to righteousness. That is way different from claiming that all scripture is the Word of God, as if it is what God caused someone to write. Rather Scripture is used to teach and to bring people to God and that is the inspired purpose. That is why people like the writer or the book of Matthew can rip an old testament text out of it's context to teach a totally different concept, he was simply using it as a cultural starting point to attract the people he was writing to while expressing a new thought to them such as God with us through the word Immanuel.
Rc:
You stated on 22 June 2008 at 10:14:
"It is often difficult to clearly say what Jesus meant when He talked to the people who were trying to trip Jesus up. Because He would often use the same word play techniques that they used on Him. Classic example is Jesus use of the Psalm 'know you not that you are gods'."
It seems to me that Jesus was referring to some authoritative writings. This is why he argued that they erred as a result of ignoring "the Scriptures and the power of God!" If the Jews had inherited the belief in a bodily resurrection from the Persians, then the conclusion I get is that Jesus was referring to the Persian scriptures, which is highly unlikely. Therefore, I conclude that Jesus must have had the Jewish Scripture in mind, and on this basis, I conclude that the notion of a bodily resurrection must have been rooted in their own Scriptures instead of the writings of the Persians.
The "Classic" example you cite does not fit, I believe, because God himself had told to Moses that he would be a God to Pharaoh. The term God means simply Lord, and is translated in this manner in the Scriptures. There were human lords, and divine Lords. The faithful Jews had Jehova as their Lord, but the surrounding nations worshipped many lords both human and divine. In the Psalms we also have a statement which reads: "The Lord said to my Lord." This could be interpreted as God speaking to King David, or God speaking to his Messiah.
You also stated: "A lot of people think that if Jesus used an old testament verse it was because that verse was literally and historically true, but that is not the way He used them."
My question had nothing to do with the inerrancy of Scripture. The Jews who questioned Jesus held in high honor their sacred writings, and they used such to try to entrap Jesus, and Jesus defended himself by the use of the same sacred writings. This means that common sense would dictate that, based on Jesus' reponse to his enemies, we must conclude that the idea of a bodily resurrection did not originate with their association with the Persians, but that it was rather rooted in their own Scriptures.
Post new comment