Steven Carr

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/115/42.0.html

Interviewer
But the idea that no Greeks believed in the resurrection of the body is very important for understanding the context of the Christian proclamation.

N.T.Wright
It really is. Over a period of more than a thousand years, whenever the question of resurrection—some substantial bodily life at some distance after death—comes up, people just say, "Sorry, no, that's not on." That really is very important to grasp.


CARR
Is it really true that nobody in Greek culture thought that there could be bodily life some distance after death (eg 3 days after death)?

Rick Sumner

Asclepius raised several people from the dead. Zeus was so repulsed by this that he struck Asclepius down for his trouble.

Regards,
Rick

Steven Carr

It is strange that such a well-read scholar like the Bishop of Durham spent so long searching for Greek stories of the dead being brought back to life and totally missed this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius

Doesn't he have Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgons

'In Greek mythology, blood taken from the right side of a Gorgon could bring the dead back to life, yet blood taken from the left side was an instantly fatal poison'

http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlel...Asclepius.html

'Some of Ascleipius' most famous cures took place with a special herb he received from a "serpent in a tomb" and the "Gorgon's blood". Athena, the mother of Asclepius, gave him two vials of the blood of Medusa, the Gorgon, that had the power to save lives and resurrect the dead. If anyone saw Medusa with her poisonous snake hair they would immediately become petrified and die. The Gorgon's blood could either kill or bring back to life depending on how it was used.'

Layman

Carr, we've been over this. Wright is familiar with some of the "resurrection" stories from ancient Greek mythology. And he distinguishes them. I can't remember if he addresses your latest example directly, but he certainly addresses the issue--and comments on a "resurrection" story related to Asclepius.

The differences:

First, to Christians "resurrection" was more than simply getting a second chance to die again--as seems to be the case with Asclepius's patients or the related story of Alcestis. This is no different than Lazarus, which was not the Christian ideal. Instead, to Christians, resurrection actually is a state of life-after-death. A permanent raising and transformation of the body that will not die again.

Second, a few stories from the distant past of Greek mythology are not examples of prevailing, or even common, attitudes of Greeks towards resurrection.

When commenting on Alcestis, Wright wrote:

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 67-68.

It's fine and, perhaps, reasonable to disagree with Wright's assesment of the significance of these stories, but to pretend he is simply ignorant of Greek stories about being raised from the dead is a cheap tactic with no substance.

Bernard Muller

I would have to agree with Layman on this one. When I studied that subject, that's what I found out. Resurrection of the soul was accepted by "intellectual" Gentiles and hellenized Jews, but not bodily resurrection, more so after 3 days from death (when the body starts to loose its integrity, opposite mere revival).

However, the gospelers will change that. First, to prove the dead Christians will go through a tangible resurrection. That's why Moses & Elijah appears on the mountain in GMark before Jesus resurrects.
Then Jesus himself, as appearing first in GLuke (but not apparently in his former body), then GJohn (in his old body). But resurrections before Jesus' own still appear in the later gospels, the widow's son in GLuke, Lazarus (dead for more than 3 days) in GJohn, and also "all saints" in GMatthew.

Paul was very evasive on the issue. He treats the resurrections, both of dead Christians and Jesus (sometimes in parallel) but they seem to be more spiritual than physical (but still a "body" is mentioned for the heavenlies).

In Romans1:3 & 1Cor15:20, Paul strongly suggested Jesus was the first to resurrect. Actually, in part of his epistles, Paul had a hard time to have his converts accepting Jesus' resurrection (for me, Cor15:3-11 is a later interpolation), body or soul.

1Cor15:12-16 "Now if Christ is PREACHED that He has been raised from the dead , how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised."

Ro10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

1Co15:29 "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, ..."

1Co15:32b "If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!""

The "Nazarenes", Jesus' closest followers, and most likely Jesus himself did not believe in (the) resurrection(s), body or soul (as the Sadducees) (evidence in 'James'), as probably all other rural Palestinian Jews, as "Luke" knew it.

Ac26:6-8 NASB ""And now I [Paul] am standing trial for the hope
[of resurrection, according to Ac24:15 and Ac23:6b "... concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I [Paul] am being judged!"]
` of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King,
[Agrippa II, the Jewish king of eastern Galilee & Cesarea Philippi]
` I am being accused by Jews.
[among them "Sadducees" (Ac23:6-8) and "chief priests and Jewish leaders" (Ac25:2)]
` Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?"
[explaining why some Galilean villagers would be "questioning what the rising from the dead meant" (Mk9:10)]"

The earliest Ebionites (or Ebionistic Gentiles) did not believe in (the) resurrection(s). My main piece of evidence comes from the most unlikely source, GThomas (all over), but also the (expurgated) Didache.

I have a few pages dealing on the issue, but the main ones are HJ-2b (from the middle), HJ-3a (the "empty tomb"), HJ-3b (at the end: the crucifixion) and GThomas.

HJ-2b (search on >> B) Jesus <<)
HJ-3a Here, I made points that the empty tomb was an afterthought of "Mark", after he completed the gospel at 15:49.
HJ-3b
GThomas

Best regards, Bernard

Steven Carr

I remind you of Wright's words 'Over a period of more than a thousand years, whenever the question of resurrection—some substantial bodily life at some distance after death—comes up, people just say, "Sorry, no, that's not on."'

Then it turns out that he doesn't mean that at all.

Then you say ' A permanent raising and transformation of the body that will not die again.'


He limits resurrection by the death of a thousand qualifiers, the 'bodily life at some distance after death' turns into 'must not die again.' There must be temples raised, and prayers raised to them. There must be nobody who doubts the story (Jesus was NOT resurrected - Celsus doubted it, and so by Wright's double-standards, it was no more than a myth, if intelligent pagans doubted it.)


No wonder Wright can dismiss stories he himself admits exist (despite giving interviews denying the existence of such stories) - he simply plays with the words until he demands an exact parallel. When there is no EXACT parallel, he declares there is no paralll at all.

And they are certainly NOT evidence that the common attitude of Greek peasantry was that people could come back to life again.

Wright provides no evidence other than the most well educated, intelligent sceptics, as though Celsus was indicative of all Greeks. This is shoddy methodology.

And to go from no Greeks believed in resurrection, to only some Greeks believed in resurrection destroys his case that such ideas were unheard of. They WERE heard of, as Wright is forced to conced.

Only a small minority of Jews believed that Jesus was resurrected, so it hardly matters if only a few Greeks believed in resurrection. We just need a small minority who did.

There are other references to resurrection in Greek myths.

From http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Asclepius.html

Capaneus, who was killed by Zeus' thunderbolt during the war of the SEVEN AGAINST THEBES, was raised from the dead by Asclepius, and so was the son of King Minos 2 of Crete, Glaucus 4, who had drowned in a jar of honey. Hippolytus 4, son of Theseus, was also raised from the dead by Asclepius, and so was Lycurgus 4, son of Pronax, son of King Talaus of Argos, and King Tyndareus of Sparta.

In short, Wright said Greeks had no concept of resurrections, yet their own myths had just that concept. All he can do is try to wave it away because it is not an exact parallel.

Layman

You are really overplaying whatever hand you think you have here. First, you said that Wright was not aware of any such stories. Obviously you have not read his book. Second, you ignore the fact that Wright is talking about concepts of "life after death" and not generic miracles of returning to life to die again--which has nothing to do with the afterlife. He is very clear about this in his book. Again, which you obviously have not read.

Instead of nitpicking selected quotes lifted from a very limited interview, perhaps you should read the book. HIs views are no secret. He spends several hundred pages discussing the resurrection, devoting much of it to discussing the life-after-death beliefs of Greeks.

If you have evidence that the Greeks, or some significant minority of them, believed in a general afterlife of a bodily resurrection and transformation into a being which would never die then please offer it. I, very seriously, would be interested in such evidence.

Steven Carr

And you can prove that NO Greeks believed in bodiky resurrection, even though they were stories about it?

This is an extreme argument from silence.

There were Greek myths about bodily resurrection, showing that Greeks knew of the concept.

Obviously most were as sceptical of the idea of bodily resurrection as I am, but that does not prove Wright's case that all Greeks rejected bodily resurrection.

Of course, Layman will tell us that Moses was NOT resurrected. There were NO resurrections before Christ. Wright says so, so it must be a fact.

Either Moses was in a spiritual body, or he was resuscitated, and died again.

One thing is certain, Moses was not resurrected.

Baffling, when he could simply have described what he and the disciples saw. They saw that Jesus had flesh-and-blood, which makes his 'Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God' a little baffling to his intended readers.

Presumably an ethereal body, made out of an imperishable substance - not one which, for example, showed the marks of corruption in the form of wounds.


Of course. After all Moses died again, as he was NOT resurrected, and could not possibly be in a spiritual body (no such thing as a spiritual body, says Wright)

So what sort of non-resurrected body was Moses in, when he 'appeared' to the disciples (same word for appeared as in 1 Corinthians 15)


<skip>

Layman

Where does Wright say this?

Steven Carr

It was Wright who tried to pass off to Christianity Today readers the idea that there were no stories in Greek life of people having a bodily life after death.

Why not attach wheels to the goalposts to make them easier to move? Now we have this new condition - not just bodily life after death (like Moses and Lazarus), but now the said resurrectee has never to die again. Where was that in Wright's interview, when he quite unintentionally (?!?) gave the idea that Greeks had no stories of bodily life after death.


Why not attach wheels to the goalposts to make them easier to move? Now we have this new condition - a GENERAL afterlife!

Where was that in Wright's interview, when he quite unintentionally (?!?) gave the idea that Greeks had no stories of bodily life after death.

Easy to say that A has no concept of B. Just attach enough conditions to B, and you can say that A's concept has no relation to B.

Fact. The Greeks had a concept of bodily life after death. It was not totally brand new, bursting onto the world in 33 AD.

Indeed, where did Judaism get the idea from , if it was not due to Hellenization? It was not in the Scriptures before the rise of the Greek Empire.