The question of an alleged resurrection in Jubilees 23:29–31

Introduction

In recent years, a consensus has emerged that Jub. 23:29–31 is not a reference to resurrection. Not all agree, however, and this warrants a detailed investigation and a sustained argument for the thesis that the Lord’s servants (ʾagbertihu) should be clearly distinguished from the righteous (s.ādeqān) whose bones are buried in the earth and whose spirits are alive. This distinction provides a warrant for the more general thesis of this investigation—namely, that there is no spiritual resurrection in Second Temple Judaism. The question whether one can identify a tradition of a so-called spiritual resurrection in Second Temple Judaism has been examined by Alexander J. M. Wedderburn. He reviewed certain texts from that period where others had seen evidence of a non-bodily resurrection and came to a negative conclusion concerning the existence of a spiritual resurrection. ¹ I reviewed a wider set of texts and came to the same conclusion as Wedderburn. ² The assertion that a spiritual resurrection did exist in certain texts is highly controversial, and this article provides additional reasons for rejecting the concept—using Jub. 23:29–31 as a test case. The test case is of fundamental importance, because probably the only strong potential counter example to the premise that a spiritual resurrection is absent in ancient Judaism occurs in Jub. 23:29–31. Certain scholars, in particular John J. Collins and Bruce D. Chilton, have claimed that the passage in Jubilees is an exception to the thesis. ³ These scholars, in my view, err in their evaluation of the text in Jubilees. The issue is not only important in its own right but also important for understanding the context of the resurrection in Second Temple Judaism.

The concept of resurrection in Second Temple Judaism

The definition of the concept of resurrection is clearly important. If the word can mean anything the scholar desires, then discourse breaks down. One may begin with a distinction Elias J. Bickerman made between stories in which individuals (usually alive) disappear and are taken to a supernatural location (translation narratives) and resurrections. He argues as follows: “there is principal difference between a translation and resurrection narrative: in the former the demonstration of disappearance is enough, but in the latter an indication of a return to existence [Wiederdasein] is necessary.” ⁴ He offers two principle methods for proving the resurrection of an individual:

That a dead person lives, be it on earth, be it in heaven, can be shown or proven, as with every other change, only in two ways: either by the statement of the fact, of what has happened, or by the observation of the process, of what is happening. ⁵

These are reasonable criteria for what should count as a resurrection narrative, although no set of criteria can be taken as absolute. I would add this criterion for most resurrection narratives: an event in which a dead individual returns to life and stands up. The dead individual returns to life (mortal or immortal) and “is there again” (Wiederdasein).

A brief survey of HB texts that have resurrection imagery can help bring the concept into focus and justify Bickerman’s criteria. Ezek 37:3–14, although a reference to the return of the exiles, uses resurrection imagery. Commenting on the Greek text, John W. Olley formulates an argument that applies both to the HB and the LXX: “the mention of ‘tombs’ (vv. 12–13) can also suggest individual physical resurrection.” ⁶ I do not deny that the general sense is the return of the exiles. With regard to the image of resurrection in Isa 26:19 (יחיו מתיך נבלתם יקומון = ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις‎), ⁷ Carol A. Newsom writes,

there is good reason for taking this verse as expressing a hope for an actual resurrection in the context of God’s judgment of the oppressors and deliverance of the people. If so, it is a very close parallel to Dan 12:2. ⁸

In both Ezekiel and Isaiah, the image of resurrection depicts bodies rising. Dan 12:2–3 also, in my view, depicts a bodily resurrection—even (and especially) if one interprets the “dusty land” (אדמת־עפר) as Sheol, since Nicholas J. Tromp has demonstrated that in the HB the grave and Sheol cannot be separated. ⁹ In other words, corpses and shades are in the land of the dead. Daniel’s word for “awake” (יקיצו) should be compared to Gehazi’s failed attempt to raise the body of the dead boy in 2 Kgs 4:31 (לא הקיץ = οὐκ ἠγέρθη). The Greek translators’ choices for יקיצו in Dan 12:2 indicate people standing or rising up also: (LXX) ἀναστήσονται and (Theodotion) ἐξεγερθήσονται. Consequently, one cannot accept Outi Lehtipuu’s view of Daniel for whom “the land of dust” is the “underworld abode of the bodiless shades of the dead.” ¹⁰ Lehtipuu does concede that Daniel portrays “a body but a totally transformed one, not the recovery of the earthly body.” ¹¹ Dan 12:13 confirms the bodily nature of resurrection in the book since both the Hebrew (תעמד) and the Greek words (LXX, Theodotion: ἀναστήσῃ) for “stand” are bodily images. ¹²

The imagery of resurrection in the Greek-speaking Jewish writers of the New Testament—particularly in Paul—comports with the imagery in the HB. Nowhere in those writers do souls (ψυχαί) or spirits (πνεῦματα) “rise.” Paul’s primary words for resurrection are ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω along with ἐξεγείρω and ἀνάστασις. Paul envisions a bodily resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15:3–5, and in 1 Cor 15 he portrays the resurrection of Christ followers as the transformation of bodies (1 Cor 15:51–2) into risen bodies—what he calls an “enspirited body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν). ¹³ The statement that the Gospels adopt the imagery of the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is uncontroversial. One can demonstrate that “(i)n texts from Second Temple Judaism and paganism, which describe a person’s return to life, ἐγείρω and so forth are used for the resurrection of a body.” ¹⁴ It is important to note that those words for resurrection are not paired with ψυχή or πνεῦμα to express a “resurrection of the soul” or “spirit” until sources from the mid-second century of the Common Era (so-called Gnostic sources). ¹⁵ The discussion of resurrection in the HB and NT warrants Bickerman’s understanding of resurrection and the further criterion that in general a resurrection narrative envisions an individual who returns to existence after death and rises or stands up.

Scholarship on Jub. 23:29–31

Past scholarship on the text has tended to deny that Jubilees comprises any references to an eschatological resurrection. The venerable Robert H. Charles, basing his argument on 23:29, held that “the words ‘will rise up’ have apparently no reference to the resurrection, and mean merely that when God heals His servants (cf. Rev. xxii.2) they become strong.” ¹⁶ Paul Volz argued that in Jubilees the dead do not share in salvation, with the exception of a limited manner in 23:31: “Here the probable point of view is that the dead martyrs from their blessed place watch the happiness of the community of salvation and rejoice over it.” He then compares them to the “old patriarchs who fell asleep into eternal sleep” in 23:1, 36:1, 18 and 45:15. ¹⁷ Maria Chrysovergi identifies 23:29–30 as “a renewed future age” in which “healing should be understood as redemption from the dramatic consequences that shall follow the period of decline for Israel.” ¹⁸ For Todd R. Hanneken “they will rise” is a reference to the “prosperity of the living, not the resurrection of the dead.” ¹⁹ George W.E. Nickelsburg, however, views the text as ambiguous: if the servants are identical with the righteous, then there is “a resurrection of the spirits of the righteous.” But if the two groups are not identical, then “‘his servants’ may be those who are left alive. Verse 30a–c then describes how they ‘rise’ from their humility and their subjugation to their enemies or how they are taken up to join the spirits of the righteous, who are already in heaven.” ²⁰ However, heaven is not explicitly mentioned in the text, and I believe one can demonstrate the text is not ambiguous because of the argument developed below that the two groups are not identical. Richard J. Bautch introduces his study as follows:

Over the past 40 years, the scholarly consensus has been that the verses do not refer to bodily resurrection because the term “rise up” reflects not a tradition of the afterlife but simply one stock element in the Deuteronomistic historical pattern upon which the twenty-third chapter of Jubilees has been modeled. ²¹

An important exception to these views is that of John J. Collins. In a comment on 1 En. 103:3–4, Collins classifies Jub. 23:26–31 as “resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest on earth.” ²² Bruce D. Chilton likewise classifies Jub. 23:30–31 as an example of “resurrected spirits”—and consequently identifies the “righteous ones” of the text with the “servants.” ²³

The text: Jubilees 23:29–31

James VanderKam’s edition of the text and translation are:

23:29 They will complete and live their entire lifetimes peacefully and joyfully. There will be neither a Satan nor any evil one who will destroy. For their entire lifetimes will be times of blessing and healing. 23:30 At that time ²⁴ the Lord will heal his servants. They will rise and see great peace. He will expel his enemies. Then ²⁵ the righteous will see (this), offer praise, and be very happy forever and ever. They will see all their punishments and curses on their enemies. 23:31 Their bones will rest in the earth and their spirits will be very happy. They will know that the Lord is one who executes judgment but shows kindness to hundreds and thousands and to all who love him. ²⁶

VanderKam remarks that the lives of those in 23:29 have limits. ²⁷ This is apparent in 23:27:

23:27 The days will begin to become numerous and increase, and mankind [sic] as well—generation by generation and day by day until their lifetimes approach 1000 years and to more years than the number of days (had been). ²⁸

Already 23:27 provides a clue that there are two groups in 23:29–31.

The argument for the distinction between the servants and the righteous

This text signals that there is a fundamental distinction to be drawn in 23:29–31 between the “servants” and the “righteous.” The following argument, I believe, advances the prior scholarship on the text:

Therefore, one should clearly distinguish the “servants” from the “righteous” in Jub. 23:29–31.

“At that time” or “then” in its usage for “at that time” is probably the best translation for amēhā in 29:30 because of the first and second premise. In other words, the events in the lives of the servants in 23:30 occur at the same time as those of 23:29. The healing and peace of 23:30a are not a new theme, nor are the Lord’s actions against the enemies a new theme—the enemies who one learns in 23:29 have no place among those who exist in healing and peace during their lifetimes. Consequently, 23:30 does not follow 23:29 temporally but is a further specification of the healing and peace mentioned in 23:29. The reasons given above do indicate that this is probably the best translation choice, in particular the thematic unity of 23:29 and 23:30a.

Therefore, one should clearly distinguish the “servants” from the “righteous” in Jub. 23:29–31.

At the outset, it should be clear that this argument is inductive and not deductive. In other words, it is based on probability. One could, consequently, accept the truth of the premises and still deny the conclusion. However, if one accepts the truth of the premises, then it is highly probable that the conclusion is correct.

VanderKam notes the similarities between 23:29–30 and Isa 66:14. In addition, the righteous individuals of Isa 57:18–19 (for example, “I will heal them” [וארפאהו]) who rest on their couches (משכבותם) in 57:1e–2, which are graves, “enter into peace” and “are pictured as resting in death.” ³⁸ Premises one through seven indicate that the descriptions used for both groups in the text are patently different. Although the bones (cp. Isa 66:14) of the righteous are buried, they have “an ongoing spiritual life.” VanderKam concludes that:

the passage does not speak about the resurrection of the righteous but only about the ongoing existence of their spirits. As noted above, the writer says regarding Abraham that he “fell asleep forever and was gathered to his ancestors” (23:1); he will say the same about Isaac (36:18) and Jacob (45:13), and for none of them does he mention a resurrection. The eschatology of the author in this respect is consistent with the implications of his base text, Isaiah. ³⁹

VanderKam’s thesis is based on a careful reading of the text.

Now I sum up the argument developed above (premises one through seven). It is clear that the “servants” whose days are blessing (barakat) and healing (fawwes) are not dead. The peace, healing, and absence of enemies indicate the thematic unity of 23:29–30a—a description of the servants’ lives on earth. There is no affirmation that they have died, and the statement that “they will rise” (yetnaššeʾu) has nothing to do with resurrection. Collins’s approach, consequently, is in need of revision since he classifies Jub. 23:26–31 as “resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven.” ⁴⁰ There is no reference to resurrection in Jubilees, there is no mention of Sheol here, and there is no statement that “their spirits (manfasomu) will rise (yetnaššeʾu).” At most it is a tenuous version of the ongoing existence of the spirits of the righteous who are not revived, but who simply behold the joy of the servants of God who live very long lives, but not everlasting lives.

There are sufficient warrants to conclude that there is a fundamental distinction in the text between the servants of God and the righteous. The apocalypticist asserts that the patriarchs Abraham (23:1) and Isaac “fell asleep forever” (36:18). In other words, they did not “rise.” The servants in the text under examination walk the earth and live in peace. They are not dead. But the righteous whose bones are in the earth are dead and they observe the servants’ blessed and earthbound existence. There is no spiritual resurrection. This comports with the general thesis of this article about the absence of a spiritual resurrection in the texts of Second Temple Judaism.

The afterlife in 1 Enoch 103:2–4

One can compare this tenuous image of the afterlife in Jubilees 23 to a somewhat stronger affirmation in 1 Enoch 103:2–4. There the Greek text reads:

I know what is written in them (the tablets of heaven) and what is carved on them concerning you—that good things and joy and honor have been prepared and are inscribed for the souls of the pious dead. And they will rejoice, and their spirits will not perish, nor their memory, from the presence of the mighty one for all generations of the ages.

ἔγνων τὰ γ[εγραμμέ]να ἐν αὐταῖς καὶ ἐγκεκολαμμέν[α περὶ] ὑμῶν, (3) ὅτι ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἡ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ τ[ιμὴ‎] ἡτοίμασται καὶ ἐγγέγραπται ταῖς ψ[υχαῖς] τῶν ἀποθανόντων εὐσεβῶν· (4) καὶ χαιρήσονται καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται τὰ πνεύματα αὐτῶν οὐδὲ τὸ μνημόσυνον ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ μεγάλου εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τῶν αἰώνων.‎ ⁴¹

The Ethiopic of 103:4 has some important variations:

And the souls of those of you who have died in righteousness will come to life. And they will rejoice and be glad; and their spirits will not perish, nor their memory from the presence of the Great One, for all the generations of eternity. Therefore do not fear their reproaches. ⁴²

Collins comments on this text:

This is not the Greek idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the body. Rather it is the resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest on earth. A similar understanding of the resurrection is found explicitly in the Book of Jubilees [23:26–31], another writing from the second century B.C.E. that may be some decades later than the Epistle of Enoch. ⁴⁴

The apocalypticist does not state, however, that the spirits “rose.” Consequently, Collins’s use of “resurrection” to describe the state of the souls that return to life does not conform to the generally accepted meaning of the word which is defended above. ⁴⁵ “Exaltation” is far more accurate, however. Nickelsburg describes the event as a “revivification” of spirits—a term which corresponds precisely with the language of the writer: “These souls that descended with grief to Sheol (102:5, 7, 11) will rejoice when their revivification brings them up out of Sheol.” ⁴⁶ Loren T. Stuckenbruck argues that the writer is engaging in a “refutation” of the “sinner’s mockery, ‘how will they arise and see forever’ (102:8).” ⁴⁷ Furthermore,

The righteous, even those who have already died, will indeed spring back to life and, in so doing, they will enjoy the rewards which they are being promised (v. 3a, b) . . . one may infer that the writer is engaging in a two-way debate regarding the afterlife.

Stuckenbruck describes the state of the “righteous dead” as “resuscitation”—which is acceptable as long as one does not confuse that state with a resurrection. ⁴⁸ Nickelsburg’s category, “revivification,” is a better descriptor in my view.

Conclusion

In Jub. 23:29–31, there is a fundamental distinction between the servants of God and the righteous. There is no resurrection in the text. Jubilees 23 is not a counter example to the thesis held by Wedderburn and myself that resurrection in Second Temple Judaism is bodily, although the physical bodies of the dead are usually transformed. If one should discover a text that specifically indicates that “spirits rise from the dead” or “stand up,” then the thesis will be challenged. Certainly, there were other options for belief in the afterlife including immortality of the soul or the awakening of spirits (for example, 1 En. 103:2–4), but those options are not relevant to the present investigation. ⁴⁹