Resurrection in Second Temple Judaism

(avg. read time: 10–20 mins.)

For my initial post related to Second Temple Judaism this year, I would like to present part of a rather extensive paid subscriber exclusive post from last year. That’s right. To the surprise of no one, I am posting about resurrection in Second Temple Judaism. Perhaps I might do a more detailed series on this another time, as I am still considering how best to present the texts on resurrection in the OT and Second Tempe Judaism as context for understanding resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels (and, by extension, the rest of the NT, since this is my first planned volume in the series). But for now, here is what I have written on resurrection in Second Temple Jewish texts.

I do not have space to analyze each resurrection text individually, as others have done, but I provide here a thematic analysis while noting the distinctives of each text when appropriate.¹ Thematic study provides the best means for determining a theology of resurrection as it enables one to see what purpose resurrection serves in the different texts and how it functions in the texts’ eschatological pictures. The precise shape of resurrection theology in these works comes from the precise association of resurrection in constellations of ideas connected to resurrection in the text or larger co-texts/contexts. As Pheme Perkins has observed, “The particular imagery one finds in a text is more likely to be dictated by the other images that surround it than by concerns for a dogmatic position about life after death. The primary focus of much of the metaphoric language in these traditions appears to be the renewal of life that transcends and overturns the tensions and evils of this world.”² Furthermore, my focus here is on Second Temple Jewish works, largely excluding what is contained in the OT, except as needed for reference, and with the broadest scope of this era that extends to ~135 CE. This will not necessarily exclude rabbinic texts or other later ones, but I only reference them insofar as they provide further confirmation of themes of resurrection theology from earlier texts. Alongside my thematic analysis, I organize my examination of these texts in roughly chronological order, which was more relevant for my Matthew analysis, but which I leave unchanged here out of seeing no point in changing it for now. One final qualification I must make here is what I mean by the term “resurrection.” By “resurrection,” I mean the renewal of bodily life, particularly with an implied physical upward movement, after a period of death, and by “general resurrection,” I mean the collective resurrection that texts assign to the eschaton (I prefer the term “general” to include both texts that only concern the resurrection of the righteous and texts that feature an explicitly universal resurrection).³

The first and foremost theme—because it presents the most fundamental impetus for resurrection belief—connected to expectations of resurrection is that of the link between the inexorable faithfulness of God and the vindication of the faithful.⁴ Richard Bauckham summarizes this theme well as the belief that, “The Old Testament God could be trusted to vindicate the righteous and to be faithful in his love for his own. If those purposes could be fully attained only beyond death, then he could be trusted to raise the dead.”⁵ Indeed, if God’s faithfulness is inexorable and death presents an obstacle to God’s faithfulness to the faithful ones, then death must give way to resurrection. God’s faithfulness to both the living and the dead in vindication of the faithful—specifically, in vindication of the patriarchs by whom God self-identifies—unites the opening two Benedictions of the Amidah, a key part of Jewish liturgy. The same faith comforts the martyrs of 2 Maccabees and the Epistle of Enoch, that the God to whom they have been faithful will demonstrate faithfulness to give them what was promised by raising them from the dead and vindicating them by his judgment (2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29; 12:43–45; 14:46; 1 En. 91:10–11; 97:1–6; 102:4–11; 103:9–15; 104:5–11; 108:8–15; cf. 1QH^a XII, 26–27; XIV, 29; T.Jud. 25:4). God will provide the ultimate, eternal vindication of those who define themselves by their faithfulness to him by enabling their faithful way of life to continue forever (1 En. 92:3–5; 103:4; LAB 19:12–13; 23:13; cf. Dan 12:1–3). Possibly, this same idea is present in relation to an implied resurrection in Wis 3:4–8 and 5:15–16 (cf. 6:17–20; 10:10; 19:22), although this is debatable.⁶ (I am inclined to think that resurrection is implied in these texts because the scenes in question occur at some remove from death, at which time the righteous receive immortality and the promises of the kingdom.) In other texts, God’s faithfulness to and vindication of the faithful has no reference to the earthly suffering of the righteous, but God still gives this eschatological endorsement to their lives by means of resurrection (1 En. 51; 60:5–6; Pss. Sol. 3:12 [cf. 14:10; 15:6]; Sib. Or. 4.179–192; Josephus, J.W. 3.374; Ag. Ap. 2.217–218; 4 Ezra 7:91–98, 115, 128; 12:33–34; Apoc. Mos. 13:2–5; 28:4; 4 Bar 6:6–10). The same theme continued to be important in the rabbinic age (b. Sanh. 90b), although certain attempts to systematize biblical teaching led to more explicit emphasis on God’s faithfulness to Jews in contradistinction to Gentiles (91b).

The second and most frequent theme is resurrection for the purpose of final judgment.⁷ This theme is highly similar to the previous one—hence why many texts with the first theme also feature this theme—but it also features an explicit or implied judgment scene, usually involving both righteous and unrighteous, wherein God executes justice and sets the world aright.⁸ Probably the oldest Second Temple resurrection text, the Book of the Watchers, primarily connects resurrection with this need for final judgment due to its concern for theodicy (1 En. 25:4–5; 27:3–5; cf. 22:8–14). Thus, as David Bryan avers, “What this text implies is that, for this author, at least, resurrection faith grows out of engaging with hard questions about the world that God has made, and about hoping that in the end justice will be seen to be done.”⁹ This thematic connection continues in later text beyond those already noted (2 Macc 7:34–36; 1 En. 61:8–11; 91:14–15; 100:4–5; Apoc. Zeph. 10:4–11; Wis 3:18; 4:20–5:23 [esp. 5:15–16]; T.Zeb. 10:2–3; T.Benj. 10:6–11). The theme also appears in implied resurrection contexts in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QH^a XII, 26–27; 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 4–6; 4QTQahat ar/4Q542 1 II, 3–8; cf. T.Jud. 25:3).¹⁰ This would also be a consistent, although not pervasive, theme in the interrelated works of Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, which stand, roughly, at the beginning and end of the first century CE (LAB 3:10; 25:7; 4 Ezra 4:26–5:13 [esp. 4:40–42]; 7:32–44; 2 Bar 50:2–4; 83).¹¹ The famous fragment of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel describes the resurrection as being primarily for the purpose of the final judgment and rendering a verdict on the deeds done with the participation of both body and soul (Apocr. Ezek. frag. 1). This theme is also evident in the works of Josephus, as statements on resurrection and immortality in general typically concern retribution (for resurrection in particular, see Josephus, Ant. 18.14; J.W. 2.163; Ag. Ap. 2.217–218). As C. D. Elledge observes, this is part of Josephus’s overall historiographical program in “showing that history, and even the cosmos itself, have been harmoniously orchestrated by providence according to principles of justice that work themselves out in the course of human affairs.”¹² He may translate this theme and the views of Jewish schools on it in terms of Greek philosophy, but one should still see him in continuity with this theme of Jewish teaching on resurrection and retribution.¹³

The third theme is the basis for resurrection expectation in the power and authority of God, often expressed in terms of God being King and Creator.¹⁴ While it appears infrequently in the immediate contexts of resurrection texts relative to the previous two themes, it is likely that one should understand this theme as implied in each expectation of resurrection. If death is to be reversed in resurrection, if the faithful are to be vindicated beyond death, it can only be by the power of the God who is Creator and King.¹⁵ This belief is the foundation for the second benediction of the Amidah, as the prayer invokes God’s power and authority in every clause (cf. expressions of God’s identity through descriptions of divine power in 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521 2 II, 11–12; 7+5 II, 6; 4 Bar. 6 :10). Likewise, the hope of the Book of the Watchers rests on God as the King (1 En. 22:14; 25:3–6; 27:3–5). The same foundation is in place for resurrection hopes in 2 Maccabees (7:9, 11, 14, 23, 28–29; 14:46), but this book adds another element by linking the resurrection to God’s creative power in bringing forth life out of nothing (7:23, 28–29). As Lidija Novakovic explains, this particular protology/eschatology connection, “pertains to the manner in which the identity of resurrected individuals is preserved. If God is to recreate the bodies of the martyrs from nothing, then the personal identity of those martyrs will not be preserved by any kind of continuity between their mortal and resurrected bodies, but by God alone.”¹⁶ Wisdom 3:7–9 and T.Dan 5:11–13 link God’s authority and power as King not only to resurrection, but also to the reign of the saints post-resurrection.

This last point leads to a fourth theme of resurrection in connection with the exaltation and reign of the saints.¹⁷ This idea may be implied in 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 4–9, given its affinity with Dan 7.¹⁸ It is more directly stated in the Epistle of Enoch as the rewarded end of the way of righteousness that the righteous will receive authority and judge (1 En. 92:3–5). The same idea appears in Wisdom of Solomon (3:7–8; 5:15–16), with the author evoking judgment imagery (Isa 5:24; Joel 2:5; Obad 18; Mal 4:1) to describe the risen believers as judging and governing the nations in subjection to God (cf. Dan 7:22; 12:3; T.Dan 5:12–13).¹⁹

Some other works, taking their cue from the celestial imagery linked with resurrection in Dan 12:3, provide a fifth theme of portraying the resurrection state in angelic fashion.²⁰ In Daniel, the reference to the wise shining like the expanse of heaven resonates both with earlier themes in the book of the exaltation of the righteous through God’s promise of royal authority to them (2:35, 44–45; 7:13–14, 18, 22, 27) and with the association of royalty with angels or celestial bodies (Num 24:17; Judg 5:19–20; 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20; Isa 14:13). The language of the Epistle of Enoch seems to be directly dependent on Daniel (1 En. 91:10; 108:8–15). Indeed, 1 En. 104:1–4 makes a direct comparison between the risen ones and the angels in terms of rejoicing with imagery drawn from Daniel to describe the vindicated righteous as shining like the lights of heaven. The Wisdom of Solomon seems less extensively dependent on Daniel, but the association of shining—with a verb (ἀναλάμπω) that is similar to what appears in the Greek versions of Daniel (ἐκλάμπω)—with the reign of the saints comports with the angelic imagery of resurrection in Daniel. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch include this imagery within more developed eschatological pictures (4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Bar. 51:1–6) and 2 Baruch is most explicit about the connections between the exaltation of the resurrected saints, light, the stars, and the angels.²¹

Still other texts, taking their cue from Ezek 37, manifest a sixth theme of connecting resurrection with the widely expressed hope of return from the state of exile, subjugation, and dispersion/disintegration.²² Similar to the first theme, the conviction arose that those who initially received these promises must be alive at the time of their fulfillment. In some texts that otherwise show resurrection belief, the hope for national return and restoration appears at some remove from the immediate context of resurrection statements (Wis 19; T.Benj. 9:2; 4 Bar. 3:14; 4:9; 6:24; 7:22–23; 8:3–11; Pss. Sol. 8:28; 9:1–2; 11; 17:26–32; 2 Bar. 78; Tenth Benediction of the Amidah). While the link is not as direct in these cases, they still illustrate the compatibility of these expectations for these authors. Some of the earlier resurrection texts, namely the Book of Dreams and 2 Maccabees, make this connection (1 En. 90:33; 2 Macc 7:32–38), as the pattern of dispersion and return mirrors destruction and resurrection (cf. T.Benj. 10:11).²³ The Similitudes of Enoch associate resurrection bodies with garments of glory and life that do not wear out, which may evoke the new exodus by amplifying the blessings of the exodus to everlasting consequence (Deut 8:4; 29:5). Other texts evoke this new exodus hope through connecting resurrection to the arising of the ark of the covenant to effect the gathering of the saints (Liv. Pro. 2:15), the return from Egypt as the precedent for God’s eschatological deliverance (T.Dan 5:8–9; 2 Bar. 75:7–8), and the renewal of the supply of manna from heaven (2 Bar. 29:8). 4QPseudo-Ezekiel/4Q385 also highlights the connections in these two expectations as it has taken a text—Ezek 37—that once emphasized return from exile and accentuates the resurrection language to translate it into a literal expectation.²⁴ The later rabbis would likewise read texts that referred to the return of Israel to the promised land (such as Isa 35:6 and Jer 31:7) as promising the resurrection (b. Sanh. 91b).

The seventh theme, as implied by the point of the previous theme, is that the patriarchs of Israel themselves would arise in the resurrection to receive the promises of God.²⁵ Their resurrection to receive these promises resolves the story of Israel by bringing it full circle in consummate fulfillment of the promises that rest at the foundation of Israel’s covenantal identity. This idea may be implied in the connection between the First and Second Benedictions of the Amidah, wherein the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is also the reviver of the dead. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah portrays Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—among others—as receiving resurrection in their deliverance from death and as leading intercession for those who are in torment (Apoc. Zeph. 9; 11:1–4). The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs regularly refer to the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—along with the other patriarchs—in the eschatological state (T.Lev. 18:14; T.Jud. 25:1; T.Benj. 10:6–11; cf. T.Zeb 10:2; LAB 23:13). The rabbis related these expectations more explicitly to specific Scriptures as they read texts such as Exod 6:4 and Deut 11:21 as referring to promises that God must fulfill to the patriarchs directly, thereby necessitating their resurrection (b. Sanh. 90b).

Other texts would extend the story resolved by resurrection further back than the patriarchs in the eighth theme of resurrection texts: resurrection is part of God’s new creation work.²⁶ In some cases, the link is as explicit as stating that there will be a new creation accompanying this resurrection (1 En. 91:16; LAB 3:10; 4 Ezra 7:30–44 [here the picture is clearer and a temporal gap is established between new creation and the precursor resurrection]), but other texts use proctological and prophetic imagery to invoke this promise. In the Book of Watchers—and even in much later works—the resurrection establishes renewed access to the tree of life and to the everlasting life implied thereby (1 En. 25:4–6; cf. LAE 42; Apoc. Mos. 28:4). Other texts link resurrection to a return to the garden of life (1 En. 61:12), access to paradise in redemption of what Adam did (T.Lev. 18:10–14; Apoc. Mos. 13:2–5), the coming of the New Jerusalem that fulfills the function of Eden (T.Dan 5:12–13), the rest of the coming age as anticipated in the Sabbath rest (LAE 51:2; Apoc. Mos. 43:2–3), and the participation of Adam and Eve in the resurrection (Apoc. Mos. 10:2; 41:3). The Similitudes of Enoch and the aforementioned connected trio of Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch all link the resurrection to the transformation of creation with imagery drawn from or based on the prophets (1 En. 51; LAB 19:12–13; 4 Ezra 7:30–44; 2 Bar. 73–74).²⁷ As in Ezek 37, Sib. Or. 4.181–182 describes resurrection as the re-creation and re-formation of humans. The rabbis also taught that the resurrection was an essential precursor to the World-to-Come (b. Sanh. 90b; 91b) and an act of new creation (Gen. Rab. 8:1; 14:2–5).

The ninth theme of interest is the question of an expected Messiah’s involvement in resurrection.²⁸ Potentially the earliest relevant text is 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521 2 II (as well as 7+5 II, 6). The grammar and syntax indicate that the subject of the action in question is the Lord (ll. 5–8, 11–12), while the Messiah disappears as a distinct subject after l. 1.²⁹ Benjamin Wold has presented a good argument for why one could read this passage as implying the Messiah being the agent of God’s action via the parallel in 4QpsEzek^b 1 I, wherein Ezekiel is God’s agent in raising the dead by prophesying.³⁰ But more likely is Lidija Novakovic’s argument that this text is more about what will happen in the messianic time rather than the actions of a messianic figure (cf. 2 Bar. 72–74).³¹ While Moses and Aaron have messianic function in Liv. Pro. 2:14, they are only tangentially related to the general resurrection. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, whether the framework for the expected Messiah is priestly, royal, or prophetic, no text attributes resurrection to the action of the Messiah; these texts merely refer to the Messiah in the context of the time of resurrection (T.Lev. 18; T.Jud. 24; 25:1–4; T.Dan 5:10–11; T.Benj. 9:2; 11). 4 Ezra 7:28–29 and 32 state that the Messiah will die after a 400-year intermediate period and the implication is that the Messiah will also rise with the rest of the dead (2 Bar. 39:7–40:3). Even in 2 Bar. 30:1–2, the resurrected ones hope in the Messiah, but he does not raise them; their rising simply coincides with the time of messianic action.

The tenth theme is the coordination of resurrection with the fulfillment of Scripture, often by means of allusion or echo.³² The language of the Second Benediction of the Amidah mixes multiple texts, such as Deut 32:39 (referring to God as the one who puts to death and makes alive), Dan 12:2 (in reference to those who sleep in the dust, although this also connects to Isa 26:19), and Isa 26:19 (describing the revival of the dead). The closing of the story of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees follows in the tradition of Dan 12 in presenting the expectation of resurrection for those who embody the role of the Suffering Servant in Isa 53 (7:32–33, 37–38; cf. Isa 53:4–6, 10–12).³³ Most frequently, these resurrection texts rely on the language of Dan 12, so as to convey resurrection as the fulfillment of the same (1 En. 91:10–11; 92:3–5; 104:1–4; 108:8–15; Wis 3:7–8; 1QH^a XII, 26–27; 4 Ezra 7:32, 97). This text, or possibly Isa 26:19 (it is difficult to tell due to the key similarities in language between the Isaianic and Danielic texts), seems to stand behind the imagery of 1QH^a XIX, 12–13, although it is not entirely clear if this text is referring literally or metaphorically to resurrection.³⁴ Another connection to Dan 12 may be implied more indirectly through the reference to the people of God rising in the midst of a use of Dan 7 in 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 1–6. Apart from references to Daniel, 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521 attaches the resurrection—among a string of other eschatological expectations—to the fulfillment of a collocated reference of Isa 35 and 61 (2 II, 7–12; 7+5 II, 6). This text anticipates the use of these same texts in reference to resurrection, inter alia, in Matt 11:5 // Luke 7:22. As noted already, 4QPseudo-Ezekiel/4Q385 portrays literal resurrection as the proper fulfillment of Ezek 37. This trend of correlating resurrection to Scripture would become much stronger in the rabbinic teachings, as the rabbis sought texts everywhere, particularly in the Torah, to attest to their hope for resurrection (b. Sanh. 90b [Num 18:28; Deut 31:16; Isa 26:19; Song 7:10; Deut 11:21; 4:4; 31:16; Num 15:31; Ps 72:16]; 91b [Deut 32:39; Exod 15:1; Josh 8:30; Ps 84:5; Isa 52:10]; b. Pesaḥ. 68a; Sipre Deut. 306.35 [Ezek 37]; 329.3 [Deut 32:39]).

The eleventh and final theme associated with resurrection is anthropology.³⁵ Most Jewish texts that explicitly address such matters clearly indicate that resurrection is a bodily reality, a reunion of all that constitutes a human being after a time of being dead (2 Macc 7:9, 14; 12:43–44; Apoc. Zeph. 10:12–14; Ps.-Phoc. 100–108, 111, 114–115; 1 En. 51; LAB 3:10; Josephus, J.W. 3.374; Sib. Or. 4.181–183; 2 Bar 50:2–51:6). Famously, the Apocryphon of Ezekiel justifies bodily resurrection as being necessary for the final judgment, so that soul and body can undergo judgment together for deeds in which both participated (frag. 1). The rabbis reasoned similarly (b. Sanh. 91b; Sipre Deut. 306.35; Gen. Rab. 14.5).

However, some scholars claim that a few Jewish texts present a type of spiritual resurrection—wherein the body has no clear role in the eschaton—or present a different view of post-mortem fate than the resurrection interpretation. Bryan argues that Wis 8:19–20, which seems to imply a pre-existent soul, undermines the resurrection interpretation of Wisdom, since that eschatology seems to be inconsistent with the apparent Platonic views of the author.³⁶ The scene in 1 En. 22:8–14 allegedly teaches a spiritual resurrection by means of denying that the spirits of the wicked will be “raised” from the pits where they reside.³⁷ Other texts thought to present this view include 1 En. 103:3–4 and 108:8–15.³⁸

Still, these objections do not undermine the picture presented elsewhere. The Wisdom text may well indicate the Greek philosophical influence on the author, but it is not inconsistent with other Jewish statements, as one sees in 1QH^a V, 24–25. Furthermore, unless one takes this text in isolation, it is not entirely clear what the author’s anthropology is. The scene in 1 En. 22 is not one of any resurrection of spirits, but the terminology in both Ethiopic and Greek signify “removal” rather than “resurrection.”³⁹ At best, the movement of the spirits in question may be the first phase of resurrection: they are removed (or not removed, in the case of the wicked) in order to be reunited with their bodies, but resurrection terminology does not apply to the spirits themselves. In fact, as James P. Ware and John Granger Cook have argued, at no point before the Gnostics does anyone in Greco-Roman, Jewish, or Christian texts make the soul, the spirit, or any other such aspect of human beings the object of resurrection verbs.⁴⁰ Their observations hold true in these texts as well, as 1 En. 103:3–4 refers to revivification and exaltation of spirits, but not to their “rising/resurrection” per se, as in 91:10, where it refers to the person as a whole. Furthermore, one must consider these texts in the context of the larger Epistle of Enoch, particularly in light of the denial of the resurrection by the wicked mockers in 102:6–8. This is addressed in multiple cases before and after this mockery through resurrection, the description of which the author borrows from the bodily resurrection of Dan 12 (1 En. 91:10; 104:1–4; 108:8–15).⁴¹ As such, as in other cases where it is not explicitly stated, it is a safe prima facie inference that these expectations of resurrection involve a bodily resurrection.⁴²

1. For more succinct summaries, see Richard Bauckham, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 80–95; Adelbert Denaux, “The Controversy between Jesus and the Sadducees about the Resurrection (Matt 22:23-33) in the Context of Early Jewish Eschatology,” in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality, ed. Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden, BTS 13 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 130–41; Lidija Novakovic, Raised from the Dead According to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection, T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts 12 (London: Bloomsbury; T&T Clark, 2012), 82–113; Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 37–53; Émile Puech, “Jesus and Resurrection Faith in Light of Jewish Texts,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 643–58. For more extensive analyses, see Hans Clemens Caesarius Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor. 15, part 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background, ConBNT 7:1 (Lund: Gleerup, 1974); C. D. Elledge, Life After Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus, WUNT 2/208 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); idem, Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism 200 BCE–CE 200 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Ohyun Kwon, The Formation and Development of Resurrection Faith in Early Judaism (PhD diss., New York University, 1984), 173–324; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, exp. ed., HTS 56 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 23–223; Émile Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancient, 2 vols., EBib 2/21–22 (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1993), 1:79–242, 2:335–762; Otto Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk. 12, 18-27 parr): Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung, BBB 66 (Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1987), 173–274; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 146–206.

2. Perkins, Resurrection, 55.

3. This definition is closest to definition #15 in James H. Charlesworth’s taxonomy (“Prolegomenous Reflections Towards a Taxonomy of Resurrection Texts (1QH^a, 1En, 4Q521, Paul, Luke, the Fourth Gospel, and Psalm 30).” in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity, ed. Ian H. Henderson and Gerbern S. Oegema, Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2 [Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006], 240). Similarly, it is a condensed version of Lidija Novakovic’s (Raised, 70): “It seems, then, that a working definition of resurrection should include the following components: (1) reference to literal death, (2) revival of the dead after an interim period of lifelessness, (3) new life of a bodily nature, (4) new life of endless duration, (5) an eschatological context, and (6) preservation of individual identity through a means other than immortality of the soul.” Naturally, the restriction of “bodily” on the scope of “resurrection” will be objectionable to some who posit that some Jewish texts express belief in a spiritual resurrection. I address this matter in more detail below.

4. Wis 3:4–8; 5:15–16; 6:17–20; 10:10; 19:22; 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29; 12:43–45; 14:46; 1 En. 51; 60:5–6; 91:10–11; 92:3–5; 97:1–6; 100:6; 102:4–11; 103:4, 9–15; 104:5–11; 108:8–15; Sib. Or. 4.179–192; 4 Ezra 7:91–98, 115, 128; 12:33–34; T.Jud. 25:1, 4; T.Zeb. 10:2; Apoc. Mos. 13:2–5; 28:4; LAB 19:12–13; 23:13; 4 Bar. 6:6–10; Pss. Sol. 3:12; 1QH^a XII, 26–27; XIV, 18–19, 29; Josephus, J.W. 3.374; Ag. Ap. 2.217–218; First and Second Benedictions of the Amidah.

5. Bauckham, “Life,” 86. Cf. Elledge, Life, 24; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 51.

6. The majority view that denies the presence of resurrection belief in Wisdom of Solomon due to Platonic influence (cf. 8:19–20) is presented in Cavallin, Life, 127; Elledge, Life, 27–28. Wright (Resurrection, 162–75) and Puech (La croyance, 1:92–98) represent the minority view that there is resurrection belief in Wisdom.

7. Wis 3:18; 4:20–5:23 (esp. 5:15–16); 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 23, 29, 34–36; 14:46; 1 En. 25:4; 27:3–5; 51; 61:8–11; 91:10–11, 14–15; 92:3–5; 100:4–5; 102:4–11; 103:5–15; 108:8–15; Sib. Or. 4.179–192; Apocr. Ezek. frag. 1; Apoc. Zeph. 10:4–11; 4 Ezra 4:26–5:13 (esp. 4:40–42); 7:32–44, 115, 128; 2 Bar. 50:2–4; 83; T.Jud. 25:3; T.Zeb. 10:2–3; T.Benj. 10:6–11; LAB 3:10; 25:7; Pss. Sol. 3:12 (cf. 17:25–26); 1QH^a XII, 26–27; XIV, 18–19, 29; 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 4–6; 4QTQahat ar/4Q542 1 II, 3–8; Josephus, Ant. 18.14; J.W. 2.163; Ag. Ap. 2.217–218.

8. On the significance of the judgment scene for resurrection belief, see Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 55–59, 211–15.

9. David Bryan, “The Jewish Background to The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright,” JSHJ 3 (2005): 159.

10. Puech (“Jesus,” 571) observes a link between the passage from 4Q246 and the judgment scene in Dan 7.

11. On the relationship between these works, see Daniel J. Harrington, “Afterlife Expectations in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, and Their Implications for the New Testament,” in Resurrection in the New Testament: Festricht J. Lambrecht, ed. R. Bieringer, V. Koperski, and B. Lataire, BETL 165 (Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2002), 21–34.

12. Elledge, Life, 137.

13. Ibid., 82–127.

14. Wis 3:7–9; 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 28–29; 14:46; 1 En. 22:14; 25:3–6; 27:3–5; T.Dan 5:11–13; 4 Bar. 6:10; 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521 2 II, 7, 11–12; 7+5 II, 6; Second Benediction of the Amidah.

15. On the biblical connection between the expectation of God acting as Lord and Savior to what God has done as Creator, see Pss 65:5–13; 74:12–23; 89:5–18; 93; 97:1–6; 102:25–28; 104; 135:5–7; 136:5–9; 145:15–16; 146:5–7; 147:4–5, 8–11, 14–18; Isa 40:12–31; 41:17–20; 44:24–28; 45:12–18; 48:7–13; 55:10–13; Jer 31:35–37; 32:17–19; 33:20–26; 51:15–19.

16. Novakovic, Raised, 91.

17. Wis 3:7–8; 5:15–16; 1 En. 62:15; 92:3–5; T.Dan 5:12–13; 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 4–9.

18. Puech, La croyance, 2:571.

19. Wright, Resurrection, 169–70.

20. Wis 3:7–8; 1 En. 91:10; 104:1–4; 108:8–15; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Bar. 51:1–6, 10; LAB 26:13.

21. Bauckham, “Life,” 93; Cavallin, Life, 203–5.

22. 2 Macc 7:32–38; 1 En. 62:15–16; 90:33; 2 Bar. 29:8; 75:7–8; T.Dan 5:8–9; T.Benj. 10:11; Liv. Pro. 2:15; 4QpsEzek^a/4Q385. On this hope in Second Temple Judaism, see Richard Bauckham, “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts,” Pages 435–87 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 435–87; Craig A. Evans, “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 299–328; Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

23. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 135.

24. For more on this text, see Puech, La croyance, 2:605–16.

25. Apoc. Zeph. 9; 11:1–4; T.Lev. 18:14; T.Jud. 25:1; T.Zeb. 10:2; T.Benj. 10:6–11; LAB 23:13.

26. 1 En. 25:4–6; 51; 61:12; 91:16; Sib. Or. 4.181–182; 4 Ezra 7:30–44; 2 Bar. 73–74; T.Lev. 18:10–14; T.Dan 5:12–13; LAE 42; 51:2; Apoc. Mos. 10:2; 13:2–5; 28:4; 41:3; 43:2; LAB 3:10; 19:12–13.

27. Elledge, Resurrection, 31.

28. 4 Ezra 7:28–29, 32; 2 Bar. 30:1–2; T.Lev. 18; T.Jud. 24; 25:1–4; T.Dan 5:10–11; T.Benj. 9:2; 11; Liv. Pro. 2:14; 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521 2 II; 7+5 II, 6.

29. Hans Kvalbein, “Die Wunder der Endzeit: Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 und Matth 11,5,” ZNW 88 (1997): 111–15; Lidija Novakovic, “4Q521: The Works of the Messiah or the Signs of the Messianic Time?” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, ed. Michael Thomas Davis and Brent A. Strawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 214–15.

30. Benjamin Wold, “Agency and the Raising of the Dead in 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and 4Q521 2 ii,” ZNW 103 (2012): 8–13.

31. Novakovic, “4Q521,” 209–10, 219–25.

32. Wis 3:7–8; 2 Macc 7:32–33, 37–38; 1 En. 91:10–11; 92:3–5; 104:1–4; 108:8–15; 4 Ezra 7:32, 97; 1QH^a XII, 26–27; XIX, 12–13; 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 1–6; 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521 2 II, 7–12; 7+5 II, 6; Second Benediction of the Amidah.

33. H. L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 3 (1953): 400–404; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 39–41; Wright, Resurrection, 115–16.

34. For the literal reference view, see Puech, La croyance, 2:572. For the metaphorical reference view, see Charlesworth, “Prolegomenous,” 247.

35. 2 Macc 7:9, 14; 12:43–44; 1 En. 51; Sib. Or. 4.181–183; Apocr. Ezek. frag. 1; Apoc. Zeph. 10:12–14; 2 Bar 50:2–51:6; LAB 3:10; Ps.-Phoc. 100–108, 111, 114–115; Josephus, J.W. 3.374.

36. Bryan, “Jewish Background,” 165–66.

37. Elledge, Resurrection, 136; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 168–70.

38. Elledge, Resurrection, 25–26; Cavallin, Life, 47.

39. John Granger Cook, “The Use of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and the ‘Resurrection of a Soul’,” ZNW 108 (2017): 269.

40. Ibid., 259–80; idem, “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15,” NTS 63 (2017): 56–75; James P. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” NTS 60 (2014): 490–97.

41. In the case of Daniel, the internal logic necessitates a bodily resurrection as the contrasting imagery of sleep and awakening implies that the body is involved in the latter as in the former. Furthermore, the intertextual links with Gen 3, Isa 26, and 66 indicate that bodies are in view as the objects of rising and abhorrence.

42. For more on this subject, see a draft of one of my now-published articles here.