Judaism in Late Antiquity, 4: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-To-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity

359 Pages·1999·7.08 MB·English

by  Alan Avery-Peck

JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY
PART FOUR
DEATH, LIFE-AFTER-DEATH,
RESURRECTION AND THE WORLD-TO-COME
IN THE JUDAISMS OF ANTIQUITY
HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK
HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES
ERSTE ABTEILUNG
DER NAHE UND MITTLERE OSTEN
THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
H. ALTENMÜLLER · B. HROUDA · B.A. LEVINE · R.S. O’FAHEY
K.R. VEENHOF · C.H.M. VERSTEEGH
NEUNUNDVIERZIGSTER BAND
JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY
PART FOUR
DEATH, LIFE-AFTER-DEATH,
RESURRECTION AND THE WORLD-TO-COME
IN THE JUDAISMS OF ANTIQUITY
JUDAISM
IN LATE ANTIQUITY
EDITED BY
ALAN J. AVERY-PECK
AND
JACOB NEUSNER
PART FOUR
DEATH, LIFE-AFTER-DEATH,
RESURRECTION AND THE WORLD-TO-COME
IN THE JUDAISMS OF ANTIQUITY
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON • KÖLN
2000
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
(Revised for vol. 1)
Judaism in late antiquity.
(Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung,
der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, 0169-9423 ; 16.-17. Bd.)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: pt. 1. The literary and archaeological
sources.—pt. 2. Historical syntheses.
1. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period,
586 B.C.-210 A.D.—Sources. I. Neusner, Jacob.
1932– . II. Series : Handbuch der Orientalistik.
Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten ;
16.-17. Bd.
BM176.J8 1994 296’.09’01594–30825
ISBN90–04–10130–6
Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Handbuch der Orientalistik.– Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill.
Teilw. hrsg. von H. Altenmüller. – Teilw. hrsg. von B. Spuler. –
Literaturangaben
Teilw. mit Parallelt.; Handbook of oriental studies
Abt. 1. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten = The Near and Middle East /
hrsg. von H. Altenmüller …
Teilw. hrsg. von B. Spuler
Bd. 49. Judaism in late antiquity
Pt. 4. Death, life after death, resurrection and the world-to-come in the
Judaisms of antiquity. – 1999
Judaism in late antiquity / by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob
Neusner. – Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill
(Handbook of oriental studies : Abt. 1, The Near and Middle East ; …)
Pt. 4. Death, life after death, resurrection and the world-to-come in the
Judaisms of antiquity. – 1999
(Handbook of oriental studies : Abt. 1, The Near and Middle East ;
Bd. 49)
ISBN 90–04–11262–6
ISSN 0169-9423
ISBN 90 04 11262 6
© Copyright 2000 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted
by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
PRINTEDINTHENETHERLANDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ........................................................................................ vii
Introduction
The Four Approaches to the Description of Ancient
Judaism(s): Nominalist, Harmonistic, Theological, and His-
torical ..................................................................................... 1
Jacob Neusner, University of South Florida and Bard
College
i. the legacy of scripture
1. Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence ............................ 35
Richard Elliott Friedman, University of California, San
Diego
Shawna Dolansky Overton, University of California,
San Diego
2. Death and Afterlife in the Psalms ........................................ 61
John Goldingay, Fuller Theological Seminary
3. Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded (cid:147)Death
after Death(cid:148) in Ancient Israelite Society ............................. 87
Brian B. Schmidt, University of Michigan
4. Death and Afterlife in the Wisdom Literature..................... 101
Roland E. Murphy, Whitefriars Hall
ii. judaic writings in greek
5. The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature................................ 119
John J. Collins, University of Chicago
6. Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apo-
crypha and the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha............... 141
George W.E. Nickelsburg, The University of Iowa
vi table of contents
7. Eschatology in Philo and Josephus....................................... 163
Lester L. Grabbe, University of Hull
iii. the dead sea scrolls
8. Death, Resurrection, and Life after Death in the Qumran
Scrolls.................................................................................... 189
Philip Davies, Sheffield University
iv. earliest christianity
9. Resurrection in the Gospels................................................. 215
Bruce Chilton, Bard College
v. rabbinic judaism
10.Death and Afterlife in the Early Rabbinic Sources:
The Mishnah, Tosefta, and Early Midrash Compilations 243
Alan J. Avery-Peck, College of the Holy Cross
11.Death and Afterlife in the Later Rabbinic Sources:
The Two Talmuds and Associated Midrash-Compilations 267
Jacob Neusner, University of South Florida and Bard
College
12.Death and Afterlife: The Inscriptional Evidence................ 293
Leonard V. Rutgers, University of Utrecht
13.The Resurrection of the Dead and the Sources of the Pal-
estinian Targums to the Pentateuch ................................... 311
Paul V.M. Flesher, University of Wyoming
General Index ............................................................................ 333
Index of Biblical and Ancient References................................. 335
PREFACE
The most puzzling problem in the study of Judaism in late antiquity
arises out of the diversity of the literary evidence produced in the
name of that religion, which, by any definition, riddled with contra-
dictions, sustains a variety of propositions and their opposites. Every-
one knows that the Hebrew Scriptures ((cid:147)Old Testament(cid:148)) yield di-
verse pictures of God and various accounts of the critical issues of
ancient Israel(cid:146)s world-view and way of life. From the closure of Scrip-
ture forward, moreover, for whatever issue we take up, we find that
the writings authoritative for one group or another define in contra-
dictory ways the critical components of Judaism, whether these per-
tain to matters of behavior or concern matters of belief. Not only in
minor detail but in fundamental conviction, the written evidence
presents us with directly contradictory propositions on pretty much
everything that counts. The obvious point of division within ancient
Israel, the familiar conflict between Torah and Christ, (cid:147)Judaism(cid:148)
and (cid:147)Christianity,(cid:148) does not obscure the many other equally pro-
found obstacles to the conception(cid:151)the conviction, really(cid:151)that all
evidence produced by circles of Israelites attests to a single Judaism.
Yet how to portray the full complexity of the problem, neatly phrased
as (cid:147)one Judaism or many,(cid:148) not in normative, theological terms, but
in analytical ones?
To answer that question, one Judaism or many?, we devised a
simple experiment and invited the participants in this volume to help
us carry it out. We determined to describe the views on a single topic
set forth by the various bodies of literary evidence deemed to speak
for Israelites, thus to stand for the religion, Judaism. These groups of
writings, respectively, are universally differentiated from all others
deemed to belong to Israel, e.g., Scripture as a whole as against other
Israelite writings; distinct parts of Scripture such as Psalms or the
Wisdom literature; apocalyptic and the non-apocalyptic pseudepi-
graphic literature, Philo; Josephus; the Dead Sea Scrolls; earliest
Christianity (the Gospels in particular); the Rabbinic sources; the
Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch; and, as a control out of
material culture, the inscriptional evidence. While such a sample
does not exhaust the possibilities among the writings of ancient Isra-
elites to be differentiated from one another, it does represent a con-
viii preface
siderable selection. And, we think it is self-evident, no one in the
academic world today would deem all of these bodies of writing to be
interchangeable and mutually indistinguishable, so the sole given of
the experiment is that the Dead Sea Scrolls may be read as a cogent
statement distinct from Psalms or Philo or the Mishnah, and so
throughout.
Inviting specialists in the diverse bodies of written evidence to
answer a single question out of the resources of the writings on which
they concentrate, we simply said, (cid:147)Here is a theme of considerable
interest to most writers in the Israelite world of antiquity; tell us what
the writers you know well have to say about it.(cid:148) In the characteriza-
tion of the views of clearly-differentiated bodies of writing, we antici-
pated we should lay out a very large sample of ancient Israelite
thought that intersected on a single subject, and we expected that this
collection of research-reports would produce(cid:151)and here does pro-
duce in concrete terms(cid:151)one of two results. It would place on display
indicative components of Judaism in its full diversity and inner inco-
herence and show that the notion of a single, coherent religion, all
parts of which attest a single cogent whole, falls of its own weight
under the mass of documentary contradictions. Or the inner har-
mony that shines forth from the repertoire of the superficially-diverse
data would emerge in the commonalities that prove blatant. This
approach differs from one that would intentionally pick and choose
and so create a harmony of all the evidence for a single, unitary,
account(cid:151)a definition of (cid:147)the(cid:148) view of the topic characteristic of all
evidence, or of the main stream, or of the normative component
thereof. Here, rather, having assembled the data, we lay it out for all
to see.
Colleagues may draw their own conclusions. Some may see in the
repertoire of evidence from diverse sources large-scale unities, which
then stand for that single (cid:147)Judaism(cid:148) that defines the common de-
nominator among the various (cid:147)sects(cid:148) or (cid:147)small groups.(cid:148) So they will
pursue the path of a single Judaism to be described as a core, or (cid:147)an
evolving tradition,(cid:148) or any of the other solutions to the problem of
diversity that have found favor in one circle or another. Yet others
may accept that, in the case at hand, we cannot define a single,
normative and authoritative Judaism. They will dismiss out of hand
the possibility for ancient times of describing, analyzing, and inter-
preting the history of a single religious tradition, (cid:147)Judaism.(cid:148) Both
approaches(cid:151)the realist, the nominalist, in medieval terms(cid:151)contain
preface ix
within themselves a variety of unsolved problems. For the moment, it
suffices to lay out the results of the experiment, the research reports
that comprise the present volume.
Do these papers form a cogent book? Within the (cid:147)realist(cid:148) theory,
they ought to, and perhaps they do. Within the (cid:147)nominalist(cid:148) theory,
they ought not, and perhaps they do not. Those who read and use
this book will form their own answer to that question. Were the
editors to undertake to explain the cogency or to underscore the
incoherence of the results of the research reports assembled here,
they would close the very question they mean here to open and
instantiate: how would we know whether in antiquity there was one
Judaism or many? What evidence would point to an answer to that
question, and how would that evidence, inevitably containing contra-
dictions and flaws, be read to elicit that answer? Here we make
possible an experiment in answering that critical question for the
study of ancient Judaism.
Among the approaches currently deemed persuasive, the editors,
as a matter of fact, do choose one and reject others. But this book,
and the series of which it forms a continuation, is intended to portray
the state of learning, not to advocate a particular position within the
contemporary debate or to demonstrate the correctness of that posi-
tion and to instantiate the weakness of other approaches. Rather, we
mean to open questions of method through the study of evidence and
cases. That is why we leave it for readers to make use for their own
purposes of these research reports, coherent as to theme, coherent or
not as to results. The chapters in the shank of the book do not speak
to a larger question of method, but they serve to illustrate one. It is,
indeed, a question of method that even beginning students of
Judaism in late antiquity (encompassing also formative Christianity)
must address and, we hope, will find accessible through the case
studies at hand.
The question of method concerns definition: precisely what do we
mean by the word (cid:147)Judaism,(cid:148) of what do we speak when we use that
word, and how do we find out? No more fundamental question in the
study of religion than what we mean by (cid:147)religion(cid:148) presents itself, and
for a particular religion, the same is so. In late antiquity, two massive
religious worlds, the ones we call (cid:147)Judaism(cid:148) and (cid:147)Christianity,(cid:148) took
shape and defined themselves, both in relationship to one another
and in their own, autonomous terms. So when we ask about ques-
tions of definition (including self-definition), when we speak of (cid:147)one