Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 65:4 (Dec 2022)
Article: Expectations And The Interpretation Of Resurrection As “Bodily”
Author: K. R. Harriman

JETS 65:3 (September 2022) p. 753

Expectations And The Interpretation Of Resurrection As “Bodily”

K. R. Harriman*

^* K. R. Harriman is Adjunct Professor of Greek at Asbury Theological Seminary, 204 N Lexington Ave, Wilmore, KY 40390. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: Studies of resurrection belief in the Bible and Second Temple Jewish texts tend to present one of two views. One I call the “open-referent/open-source resurrection” view, according to which early Jews and Christians used resurrection language in such a way that it may or may not have involved a body, and the source domain for metaphorical uses of such language was an ambiguous revival. The other I call the “body-referent/body-source resurrection” view, according to which this resurrection language entailed involvement of the body, and the source domain for metaphorical uses of such language was restoration to bodily life that implied upward physical movement. In this study I evaluate these views and the expectations they produce for what the audience should find in resurrection texts in light of analyzing OT and Second Temple Jewish texts and applying resulting insights to the resurrection presented in Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 (particularly, Jesus’s resurrection). I argue that the body-referent/body-source resurrection view produces expectations that better comport with the content of these texts, especially since it better fits the semantics of the resurrection verbs in their contexts and the implications of the metaphorical uses.

Key words: bodily resurrection, spiritual resurrection, metaphorical resurrection, resurrection semantics, Second Temple resurrection belief, Daniel 12, 1 Corinthians 15

An ongoing debate exists in scholarship about resurrection belief among early Jews and early Christians. This debate involves whether these people thought that resurrection language entailed a bodily event or if they thought it could involve other anthropological aspects in such a way as to be nonbodily. Of further interest is the question of how metaphorical uses of resurrection language—readily acknowledged by all—that do not refer to a literal return from death contribute to understanding what these ancient people expected to be involved in resurrection. The scholarly views on the possibilities can be divided into two broad views that could be further subdivided according to views on particular texts (though not for my purposes here).1 What I call the “open-referent resurrection” view ...