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