Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis

2020; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 30; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/bullbiblrese.30.2.0341

2576-0998

Eckhard J. Schnabel,

Classical Antiquity Studies

John Cook, Professor of Religion and Philosophy at LaGrance College, has been known for his work on crucifixion in Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 327). Challenged by his father, a retired pastor (p. vii), he has now written on resurrection. The book is divided into seven chapters, followed by a conclusion, 37 images (pp. 623–45), bibliography (pp. 647–71), and indexes. The index of modern authors is very selective: Cook refers to many more authors of monographs and essays than he lists in the modern authors index, which is barely more than a singe page long, or indeed in the bibliography. The subject index is rather brief as well. The references to specialist literature throughout the volume are focused, albeit not exhaustive; e.g., M. J. Vermaseren’s Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque does not seem to be used (it does not appear in the bibliography). This is not a critique but merely an observation: nobody can read everything.In the introduction (pp. 1–55), Cook clarifies that his monograph is not intended to contribute to Christian apologetics or to critique Christian faith, which holds that the miracle of Jesus’s resurrection did indeed happen: he pursues “a historical investigation of resurrection and analogies for resurrection in the Greco-Roman world (including Second Temple Judaism) and the origins of the language for resurrection” (p. 7). He cites the anti-resurrection statements of Gerd Lüdemann, who pours scorn on those who believe in the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus, and he cites Martin Hengel’s critique of Hans Conzelmann’s view of Jesus’s resurrection, but he does not point the reader to the arguments of Hengel and others who have argued for the actuality and historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Cook then proceeds to investigate relevant Hebrew, Greek, and Latin terms used for resurrection.Chapter 1 presents the evidence for the resurrection of divinities from Dumuzi/Tammuz, Baal, Osiris, Adonis to Attis, Melqart/Heracles, Dionysus, Asclepius Eshmun, and Mithras (pp. 56–143). Cook provides the relevant primary sources (in the original languages, with English translation), which he discusses with reference to specialist literature. He concludes that there are similarities and differences when we place the resurrection of Jesus in the matrix of the bodily resurrection of ancient cult figures, a legitimate enterprise that we find already in Justin, Tertullian, Theophilus, and Origen. At the same time, it is telling that, according to Cook, the rebirth or resurrection of Osiris is the closet analogy, adding the comment, “although Osiris remains in the netherworld—wherever it is located” (p. 143).Chapter 2 surveys the evidence for resurrection accounts in Greek and Latin texts, from Euripides to Pliny (pp. 144–246). In the conclusion, Cook points to the fact that many classical texts affirm the impossibility of resurrection, while stories of the resurrection accomplished by Asclepius, Polyidus, Heracles, and others remained popular. The concept of resurrection was a available, but a firm concept of temporary resurrections cannot be established.Chapter 3 presents the evidence of tombs (empty or occupied) and postmortem appearances (pp. 247–321). Cook concludes that the absence of Callirhoe’s body from her tomb in Chariton’s fictional romance has “close affinities” with the Gospels (p. 321), an assertion in the conclusion to the chapter that is not based on a comparison, detailed or otherwise, in the section on Callirhoe (pp. 279–84); since the differences are much more pronounced than any existing affinities, the term close in Cook’s assessment does not seem warranted.Chapter 4 discusses translations and apotheoses of both legendary and historical heroes (pp. 322–412). A key difference to the Gospel accounts is that people who are said to be translated did not return to life or appeared to people in postmortem appearances; exceptions are Aristeas, Romulus, and Peregrinus (p. 411).Chapter 5 investigates the apotheoses of emperors (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Nero, and others), the consecratio or deification being a decision of the Senate (pp. 413–54). In Roman iconography, images of the ascension of an emperor were popular (see images nos. 23–34), but witnesses stating that they saw the emperor ascend to the gods were not necessary for deification. Cook notes, correctly, that Luke regarded Jesus as Son of God already before his ascension, and Luke affirms that Jesus’s risen body was taken to heaven, not only his soul (p. 454).Chapter 6 discusses resurrection in Jewish texts (pp. 455–569; title of the chapter in the table of contents p. xiv; the title p. 455 reads “Resurrection in the Hebrew Bible and Later Jewish Texts”): Hebrew Bible and LXX, inscriptions, Ethiopic Enoch, other pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Qumran, the Eighteen Benedictions, Targum and rabbinic literature, the frescoes of Dura Europos, Toledot Yeshu. Cook shows that, while there were different views of the afterlife, “there was a very strong tradition of bodily resurrection” (p. 568), arguing that the “current fashion” of some scholars asserting that there were various concepts of “resurrection” in Second Temple Judaism “seems fundamentally wrong” (p. 569).Chapter 7 discusses the empty tomb, resurrection, and translation of Jesus in the NT (pp. 570–618), focusing on 1 Thess 4:17; 1 Cor 15; Phil 3:21; Mark 16; Luke 13:34–35; Luke 24; Acts 1). Cook concludes that “there is not a fundamental difference between Paul’s conception of the resurrection body and the images in Mark and Luke of Jesus’s risen body” (p. 618). The translation stories in Greco-Roman literature and narratives of the apotheosis of emperors rendered Jesus’s ascension and exaltation “more credible to the Mediterranean audience of the Christian missionaries’ proclamation” (p. 618).The brief conclusion (pp. 618–24) succinctly summarizes the earlier chapters. The last paragraph of the book begins with the sentence “The hope in resurrection remains congenial for many” (p. 623). Even though philosophical critics of resurrection abound (from Celsus to Hume, and beyond), even logical empiricists such as A. J. Ayer are drawn to reflect on resurrection, sometimes after a near-death experience (p. 624). Cook concludes by quoting Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15:15 and Paul’s statement of fact in 1 Cor 15:20.Cook’s monograph is an indispensable resource for investigations of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Jewish texts on resurrection. The author demonstrates that the proclamation of Jesus’s bodily resurrection and ascension was not as strange in the Mediterranean world of the first century as it may appear today.