RESURRECTION
is
that
of
ben-Sira,
and
in
his
work
we
loolc
in
vain
tor
the
Idea
of
a
resurrection,
either
national
or
individual.
On
the
other
hand,
the
eschatological
conceptions
of
this
author
do
not
seem
to
advance
beyond
those
of
Ecclesiastes
(cf.
Sir
IZ^").
Book
of
Enoch.
—
Very
different
from
the
foregoing
are
the
ideas
prevalent
in
this
composite
apocalyptic
writing.
The
oldest
portion
contains
an
elaborate
theory
of
Sheol,
and
teaches
the
resurrection
of
all
righteous
Israelites,
and
so
many
of
the
wicked
as
have
escaped
'without
incurring
judgment
in
their
life-time'
(22>»').
The
sinners
who
have
suffered
here
'will
not
be
raised
from
thence'
(22"),
inasmuch
as
retribution,
in
part
at
least,
has
overtaken
them.
Another
writer
of
a
somewhat
later
date
speaks
of
the
resurrection
of
righteous
Israelites
only.
These
shall
be
raised,
after
judgment
and
retribution
have
been
meted
out
to
sinners,
to
share
in
the
glories
of
the
Messianic
Kingdom
(QO^'-^s).
A
similar
opinion
is
expressed
in
another
part
of
this
writing.
None
but
the
righteous
shall
rise
(91'");
but
the
author
seems
to
interpret
the
resurrection
as
that
of
the
spirit
only,
and
not
of
the
body
(103").
The
most
important
and
best
known
section
of
the
Book
of
Enoch
(chs.
37-70),
which
is
known
as
the
Similitudes,
contains
an
explicit
assertion
of
a
general
resurrection
(5i')
.
Whether,
however,
the
writer
intended
to
convev
the
idea
of
a
resurrection
of
the
Gentiles
is
somewhat
doubtful.
The
words
of
this
passage,
if
taken
literally,
would
certainly
convey
the
impression
that
a
universal
resurrection
is
meant.
At
the
same
time
we
must
remember
that
this
thought
would
be
quite
contrary
to
the
whole
habit
of
Jewish
escharological
thinking,
and
would
stand
unique
in
Jewish
pre-Christian
literature.
(For
discussions
of
this
question
see
the
ad-mirable
critical
edition
of
the
Book
of
Enoch
by
R.
H.
Charles,
passim,)
Psalms
of
Solomon.
—
These
are
probably
the
prod-uct
of
the
1st
cent.
B.C.
Here,
too,
a
resurrection
of
the
righteous
alone
is
taught
(3«
13=,
cf.
#).
More-over,
no
resurrection
of
the
body
is
mentioned
ex-plicitly,
though
it
would
be
rash
to
assume
from
his
words
that
the
author
did
not
hold
this
doctrine.
2
Maccabees.
—
A
very
definite
doctrine
of
the
resur-rection
is
taught
in
this
book,
though
the
author
ex-pressly
denies
its
applicability
to
the
Gentiles
(7",
cf.
2
Ea
7
("'■]).
The
resurrection
of
the
body
is
strongly
held,
as
affording
a
powerful
incentive
and
a
glorious
hope
for
those
who
underwent
a
cruel
martyrdom
(1446
7ii_
of.
79.
w).
At
times
the
writer
seems
to
be
controverting
the
denial
of
a
resurrection,
as
when
he
stops
to
praise
the
action
of
Judas
in
offering
sacrifices
and
prayers
for
those
who
had
fallen
in
battle,
on
the
ground
that
he
did
so
because
'he
took
thought
for
a
resurrection'
(12").
If
there
were
no
resurrection
of
the
dead,
such
a
course
of
action
would
be
super-fluous
and
idle
(12«).
Book
of
Wisdom.
—
It
is
only
necessary
to
say
of
this
writing
that
it
is
an
Alexandrian
work,
written
about
the
beginning
of
the
Christian
era,
and
that
according
to
it
the
body
is
an
incubus
dragging
the
soul,
which
is
destined
for
incorruption
(,2?^
3'),
earthwards
(9'^
[cf
.
art.
'Wisdom,
Book
of,'
in
Hastings'
DB
iv.
930
f.I).
3.
Position
of
the
doctrine
at
and
immediately
sub-sequent
to
the
time
of
Jesus
Christ.
—
It
might
be
said,
and
said
with
justice,
that
the
foregoing
views
were
representative,
not
of
contemporary
popular
beliefs
and
ideas,
but
of
conceptions
prevalent
among
the
educated
and
thinking
classes.
It
is
reasonable,
how-ever,
to
expect
that
by
the
time
of
Jesus
these
lines
of
thought
would
have
penetrated
to
the
masses,
with
such
modifications
as
they
were
likely
to
assume
in
and
during
the
process.
This
expectation
is
found
to
be
in
harmony
with
what
we
observe
to
have
actually
existed;
for,
with
one
or
two
exceptions,
when
He
felt
called
on
to
make
a
specific
declaration
(cf.
Mk
12i8-"=Mt
222S-32
=
Lk
20^'
-28,
Jn
S''"-),
Jesus
everywhere
in
His
teaching
assumed
the
truth
of,
and
belief
in,
the
resurrection
of
RESURRECTION
the
dead.
We
know
that
materialistic
views
of
this
doctrine
were
held
side
by
side
with
the
more
spiritual
ideas
so
prominent
in
the
Book
of
Enoch
(cf.
61*
104«-
'
621"-
etc.).
In
the
Apocalypse
of
Baruch,
for
example,
the
questions
were
aaked,
'In
what
shape
shall
those
live
who
live
in
thy
day?
'
'
Will
they
then
resume
this
form
of
the
present,
and
put
on
these
entrammelling
members,
which
are
now
involved
in
evils,
and
in
which
evils
are
consummated,
or
wilt
thou
perchance
change
these
things
which
have
been
in
the
world,
as
also
the
world?'
(492').
To
these
the
answer
is
given,
that
the
bodies
of
the
dead
shall
be
raised
exactly
as
they
were
when
committed
to
the
ground,
in
order
that
they
may
be
recognized
by
their
friends
i^SO^^O-
After
this
object
has
been
achieved,
a
glorious
change
will
take
place:
'they
shall
be
made
like
unto
the
angels,
and
be
made
equal
to
the
stars,
and
they
shall
be
changed
into
every
form
they
desire,
from
beauty
into
loveliness,
and
from
lignt
into
the
splendour
of
glory'
(ol'°,
cf.
Mk
12"=
Lk
20s«
=
Mt
22™).
Even
in
Rabbinical
circles
sensuous
conceptions
were
frequent,
so
that
even
the
clothes
in
which
one
was
to
be
buried
became
a
subject
of
anxious
care
(see
The
Apoc.
of
Baruch
ed.
R.
H.
Charles,
notes
on
chs.
50-51,
and
Introd.
p.
Ixxx).
At
this
period,
too,
the
ideas
of
a
universal
and
of
a
first
and
a
second
resurrection
were
held
and
taught
(Apoc.
Bar
30^-',
2
Es
7^'-
"-").
For
our
purpose
it
is
not
necessary
to
do
more
than
refer
to
the
Hellenistic
or
Pythagorsean
speculations
of
the
Essenes
to
which
Josephus
makes
reference
(see
BJ
11.
viii.
11;
SohUrer,
HJP
II.
iii.
205).
The
only
form
of
Judaism
which
contained
principles
of
continuity
and
life
was
repre-sented
by
Pharisaism.
The
view
of
this,
the
most
religious
and
the
most
orthodox
of
the
Jewish
sects,
with
regard
to
the
resurrection,
limited
it
to
the
righteous,
for
whom
they
postulated
a
new
and
a
glorified
body
(see
BJ
II.
viii.
14,
cf.
Ant.
xviii.
i.
3).
While
this
doctrine
of
a
personal
resurrection
seems
to
have
made
much
more
headway
in
the
Judaism
of
this
age
than
the
other
Ideas
referred
to
above,
it
also
clearly
appears
that
the
limitation
of
its
scope
to
the
righteous
was
more
universally
held
than
its
extension
to
the
wicked,
in
spite
of
the
teaching
in
Daniel
(12^),
Apoc.
of
Baruch
(302-'),
and
2
Esdras
(732-").
Moreover,
a
difference
of
opinion
continued
to
exist
as
to
the
time
when
it
was
supposed
to
take
place,
some
writers
placing
it
im-mediately
before
(cf.
En
SI'')
and
others
immediately
after
the
close
of
the
Messianic
era
(cf.
En
91'°
92",
Apoc.
Bar
40-42,
2
Es
4«,
Ps-Sol
S'"
139
etc.).
4.
Teaching
of
Jesus.—
(a)
The
Synoptics.—
Ma.ny
of
the
passages
in
which
Jesus'
teaching
on
the
resurrection
is
recorded
by
the
Synoptists
might
be
interpreted
as
leaving
no
room
for
the
doctrine
that
the
wicked
shall
rise
again
from
the
dead.
The
most
conspicuous,
perhaps,
of
these
is
that
incorporated
in
the
Lukan
narrative
of
His
controversy
with
the
Sadducees
(Lk
20'"').
The
form
of
the
expression
'
the
resurrection
from
the
dead,'
as
has
been
pointed
out,
'implies
that
some
from
among
the
dead
are
raised,
while
others
as
yet
are
not'
(see
Plummer,
'St.
Luke'
in
ICC,
ad
loc).
The
other
expression,
'sons
of
the
resurrection,'
is
remarkable
for
a
similar
reason.
There
seems
to
be
an
implied
antithesis
between
those
whose
sonship
results
in
immortality
and
those
who
can
have
no
such
hope
(cf.
Plummer,
op.
cit.
Lk
20«
n.).
Other
instances,
which
might
be
considered
as
lending
countenance
to
this
view,
speak
of
the
'
resurrection
of
the
just
'
(Lk
14"),
and
contain
promises
of
restoration
in
the
glory
of
His
Kingdom
to
'his
elect'
(Mk
132'=Mt
24=').
When,
on
the
other
hand,
we
take
a
general
survey
of
the
eschatological
teaching
of
Jesus,
we
find
that
the
doctrine
of
a
general
bodily
resurrection
occupies
a
very
assured
position
even
in
the
Synoptic
records.
Not
only
do
we
find,
as
already
noted,
that
His
teaching
on
this
subject,
as
against
Sadducean
negations,
was
pleasing
in
Pharisaic
circles
(cf.
Lk
20™),
but
He
is
also
seen
to
refer
to
this
question
in
terms
of
current
Jewish
orthodoxy.
The
future
life
is
personal
in
the
fullest
