Resurrection: Its Fuller and Original Meaning (according to Critical Biblical Studies)

 (JKK's Notes)

-Julius-Kei Kato, PhD

"Easter" ... You know that this refers to Jesus's resurrection, right? Have you ever wondered what “resurrection” really means … I mean, its full implications? Many think, it simply means that Jesus who was crucified and laid in the tomb just got up and walked out by his own divine power. And this proves his divinity, that he was God-walking-on-earth, so the argument goes. (I'm reminded here of the last scene in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.) Well, if you thought that was all “resurrection” meant, think again. It's not all that simple.

In these notes, let us deepen our knowledge of Easter and of what resurrection means … in a fuller sense.

SOURCE: I am heavily dependent on New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan and the various points he makes in his work: Resurrecting Easter: How the West Lost and the East Kept the Original Easter Vision (2018). Other resources mentioned below.

[1] Clarifying Terms: Resurrection vs. Ascension

Many modern Christians—and even some scholars—use the term “resurrection” without understanding its original meaning in the Mediterranean world of Jesus and the first Christians. So, let's clarify first and distinguish between the precise meaning of—what we refer to in English as—"resurrection" with some related but different concepts.

In the first-century Mediterranean world, there was already a widespread belief that special individuals (such as Moses in the Jewish tradition or Romulus for the Roman empire) could be taken up to the divine realm after death. This phenomenon is known as apotheosis, a Greek word that literally means "the process of becoming divine." In practice though, apotheosis referred to an extraordinary person being accorded a kind of exaltation or going up into heaven after their earthly lives.

The more proper English words to express what apotheosis means could be: “ascension” or “assumption.” In fact, these words have been appropriated in the Christian tradition to refer to: (1) Jesus' going back up into heaven (ascension) and (2) his mother Mary being "assumed" body and soul into heaven after her death (Mary's assumption). 

However, neither "ascension" nor "assumption" is what the New Testament refers to when it refers to what happened to Jesus after his death on the cross. The New Testament uses the Greek word anastasis (regularly translated as "resurrection"). That word literally means: "to rise", "to stand up."

To summarize:

·       Apotheosis as ascension or assumption is not the same as resurrection.

·       Apotheosis was a common concept across Mediterranean cultures as a way of glorifying special, exceptional people after their earthly existence.

·       Anastasis as Resurrection, by contrast, was not universally accepted in the Mediterranean world. Rather, its use was sectarian. That is, it was used by a sect within Second Temple Judaism.

[2] Resurrection as a Pharisaic, Eschatological Concept

Respected New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan argues that resurrection (anastasis) in the first century was used specifically by Pharisaic Judaism.

Its meaning was precise:

·       It referred to a future, collective event. This means: Anastasis (resurrection) was not originally an event that happened to an individual. It was a significant, big-time happening that the Pharisees thought would involve a large number of people.

·       Concretely, this is what anastasis referred to: At the end of time, God would:

o   Raise all humanity

o   Conduct final judgment

o   Assign reward or punishment. That eventually came to be understood concretely as “heaven or hell”

If you're a Christian, those concepts will be familiar to you. But now, you know their origins! What you probably don't know is that resurrection was not primarily about an individual returning from death in isolation. Rather, it was primarily about cosmic justice being fulfilled. This belief stood in contrast to another dominant party at the time, the Sadducees, who denied such a future resurrection and were generally aligned with the status quo under Roman rule.

[3] Paul’s Radical Claim in 1 Corinthians 15

It is logical to think that Paul the Apostle (who was a Pharisee before he encountered the risen Christ) uses the term resurrection (anastasis) in this full Pharisaic sense. Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus is raised (1 Corinthians 15), he is making a noteworthy theological claim. (Chronologically speaking, this passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is the earliest mention of the “resurrection,” even before the gospels were written.)

What did Paul mean by saying “Jesus was raised”? He meant that:

·       Jesus’s resurrection is not an isolated event

·       Rather, it is the beginning of the general resurrection of all humanity (It is a collective event)

The essential point about Paul's logic, therefore, is that:

·       Both Jesus’s resurrection and the resurrection of all humans are just one thing: If there is no general resurrection, then there is no (individual) resurrection of Jesus! Try to wrap your minds around that. I’m sure it’s difficult if you are a Western Christian.

·       Conversely: Jesus’s resurrection only makes sense as part of the resurrection of all people at the end of time.

Crucially, JD Crossan argues the following point which might surprise you:

It never occurred to Paul that Jesus could be raised as a special exception (e.g., because he is Messiah or Son of God). Why? If one wanted to claim a unique privilege, the appropriate category to use in Paul’s world would be, as mentioned above, ascension (apotheosis), not resurrection (anastasis).

[4] The Problem with the conventional Christian understanding of a “literal” resurrection.

Crossan challenges modern literalist interpretations of the resurrection. He contrasts two types of claims:

(A) The Standard Western Christian Individualistic View

·       Jesus rises alone from the tomb

·       This is often imagined in physical, literal terms

(B) The early Christian Understanding of the Resurrection (that has continued in Eastern, Greek-speaking Christianity). This fundamental understanding is seen by contrasting Western depictions of the resurrection in art with Eastern depictions. In Eastern iconography and art

·       Jesus does not rise alone

·       He raises Adam and Eve from the underworld—This is a symbol for all humanity 

[5] The Key Argument: Crossan’s most provocative point:

·       Christians often focus on whether Jesus literally came out of the tomb

·       But this is actually--what we can call--the "smaller claim"

The larger, more important, and original claim was: Jesus inaugurates the resurrection of the entire human race

Crossan presses the next point rhetorically:

·       People can imagine (whether they believe it or not) a man leaving a tomb

·       But how could Jesus literally bring all humanity (Adam and Eve) out with him?

That exposes a deeper issue:

·       Should not “resurrection language” be considered primarily as symbolic, theological, and cosmic … and not literal

·       “Resurrection” in its original sense (as Paul used it in the New Testament) is not merely about a physical event involving one body (although that body belongs to Jesus)

[6] Conclusion: What Early Christians Really Claimed

Crossan concludes:

·       The central and original Christian claim was not: “Jesus came out of the tomb”

·       Rather, it was: “Jesus did not come out alone. Jesus was raised from the dead and he brought along everyone else with him? Isn’t that the better good news?! 

In other words:

·       Resurrection is about the transformation of all humanity

·       Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning of universal restoration

·       A purely literal, individualistic reading misses the original central meaning

Summary of John Dominic Crossan’s Main Arguments

1.     Modern confusion: Many misunderstand “resurrection” by conflating it with ascension/apotheosis.

2.     Historical meaning: Resurrection in Second Temple Judaism (the context of Jesus and earliest Christianity) = future, collective, eschatological event.

3.     Paul’s theology: Jesus’ resurrection = start of the general resurrection, not so much a special exception.

4.     Literalism problem: Focusing on a physical, individual rising is a reduction, an impoverishment of the original claim.

5.     True claim: Early Christianity proclaimed a cosmic event—the raising of all humanity.

6.     Key insight: The boldest claim is not that Jesus rose, but that he raised everyone with him.

 

EXTRA Insights from Bernard Brandon Scott’s The Trouble with Resurrection (2010)

New Testament scholar Bernard Brandon Scott also has an insightful book on the resurrection that exemplifies well what critical biblical scholarship is when applied to the topic of the resurrection. I plan to share some more extended notes on that book later. Meanwhile, let me just mention some general points that I gleaned from it.

Scott’s fundamental claim—which I think is a really important point that critical biblical studies shows—is that “resurrection” is not a single, stable concept in early Christianity but a contested, evolving, and rhetorically constructed idea. The “trouble” lies precisely in the fact that later orthodoxy (especially creedal Christianity) has flattened diverse early interpretations into a single, literalized narrative of bodily resurrection.

For Scott, resurrection language in the New Testament and early Christian traditions:

·       does not primarily refer to a resuscitated corpse,

·       emerges from symbolic, visionary, and communal experiences, and

·       functions as a meaning-making response to the execution of Jesus, rather than a description of an objective historical event.

*****

Resources

·       I'm basing this blog mainly on John Dominic Crossan's emphases in his book Resurrecting Easter (2018) and his various interviews on YouTube, mainly: 

·       Resurrection Then and Now with John Dominic Crossan and Bernard Brandon Scott

https://vimeo.com/1177164080/ef86841b8b?fl=pl&fe=vl

·       Also consulted: Bernard Brandon Scott's The Trouble with Resurrection (2010)

---