Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife

[Caroljeen]

@5wize @The Pixie

I apologize for running behind in my reading. I finished chapter 6. There is so much Jewish history in this chapter that I don't know because it's not in the Bible. There's much that I disagree with also. I'll post response tomorrow.

 

[Caroljeen]

Chapter 6: Dead Bodies That Return to Life: The Resurrection of Ancient Israel

I will have to write some daily posts this week to address this chapter.

From the first page (193) Ehrman wrote that after the classical prophets [Amos, Hosea, and Micah], Jewish thinkers came to imagine an afterlife.
I gave plenty of scriptures in the my last response to the chapter 5 to support that there were mentions of the after life through out the OT not just after the classical prophets. The OT isn't written topic by topic like a systematic theology book. It's a history of the nation of Israel and their relation to God. That why mentions of the afterlife are interjected throughout the OT.

Ehrman also asserts that the Jewish afterlife after the time of the classical prophets was not like the Christian afterlife at all. "But in this original Jewish conception, unlike the widespread Christian views today, the afterlife was not a glorious eternity lived in the soul in heaven or a tormented existence in hell, attained immediately at the point of death. It was something else altogether.... IOW, Ehrman is about to present a strawman argument.

This is what he wrote, "It was the idea that at the end of time God would vindicate himself and his people. When history and all its evil and suffering had run its course, God would reassert his sovereignty over this world and destroy everything and everyone who was opposed to him, bringing in the perfect, utopian world he had originally planned. In habiting this world would be the righteous who had lived and suffered throughout all of history. God would miraculously bring them back in their bodies, and they would live, bodily without any pain, misery, or suffering, for all time, in his most glorious kingdom. Those who were wicked would also be brought back to life. In the original understanding of resurrection, they would be raised in order to see their crimes and pay for them with a final and irreversible punishment: they would be destroyed for all time."

I basically believe and agree with everything that Ehrman wrote about the Jewish after life above. It is, imo, similar to the afterlife of my Christian faith and not "altogether different." as Bart asserts. I don't have a problem with anything he wrote in that paragraph. What I disagree with is his assertion that the Jewish afterlife and the Christian afterlife is different. See the entire chapter of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21:1-4

Ehrman wrote, "The doctrine of the bodily resurrection of the dead at the end of times originated about two centuries before the life of Jesus, and by his day it had become a common feature of Jewish thought." (page 104) It annoys me that he doesn't give references when he makes these types of statements. There are no footnotes. The chapter notes at the end of the book are sparse. This book is not well attested, imo.

I don't believe that we will live in heaven but on a new earth just as the Jews believe according to Ehrman. Rev 21:1-4
I don't believe that I will live as a resurrected soul without a body but just as the Jews believe according to Ehrman. 1 Cor 15
I'm not sure how the "for all time" bodily resurrection Ehrman speaks of for the Jews is any different that the Christian resurrection.
He is also speaking of annihilation which I also believe. I simply don't see much of a difference between the two although Ehrman makes it sound like the Jewish afterlife and the Christian afterlife are completely different.

Both will be resurrected into bodies that last forever...no more dying.
There is one major difference and it has to do with how he understands the Jewish "soul". I'll address that in another post.

The earliest Christians were ALL Jewish and there wasn't a new testament written at first. Their scriptures were the OT and they found Christ throughout it's "pages". There is enough in the OT to produce a robust view of an afterlife very similar to that in the NT. I believe the NT disciples would disagree with Ehrman. His interpretation is faulty and leads to the setting up of a strawman.

God is going to restore all things that were corrupted through human and angelic rebellion.

Acts 3: 20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, 21 who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets

 

[The Pixie]

I will have to write some daily posts this week to address this chapter.

This is where we get to the interesting stuff!

I basically believe and agree with everything that Ehrman wrote about the Jewish after life above. It is, imo, similar to the afterlife of my Christian faith and not "altogether different." as Bart asserts. I don't have a problem with anything he wrote in that paragraph. What I disagree with is his assertion that the Jewish afterlife and the Christian afterlife is different. See the entire chapter of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21:1-4

Then the issue is that your view of the afterlife is quite different to most modern Christians, who believe the righteous go to heaven immediately on death and the rest go to hell. Ehrman is comparing the Biblical claims to that of most modern Christians; it feels like a strawman because your beliefs follow those in the Bible.

See here:

Do Christians go straight to Heaven when they die?

jesusplusnothing.com

The earliest Christians were ALL Jewish and there wasn't a new testament written at first. Their scriptures were the OT and they found Christ throughout it's "pages". There is enough in the OT to produce a robust view of an afterlife very similar to that in the NT. I believe the NT disciples would disagree with Ehrman. His interpretation is faulty and leads to the setting up of a strawman.

Right. The very earliest Christians believed in an afterlife just as the earlier Jews. Christianity obviously started to diverge from Judaism, to become a separate religion, and at some point the majority view was that the righteous go to heaven immediately. I think there may be an intermediate stage where the righteous go to heaven, but then come back to earth at some future event. I am not sure when that was, certainly after Paul and perhaps after all the NT was written. I guess Ehrman discusses it, but cannot remember.

 

[5wize]

Chapter 6: Dead Bodies That Return to Life: The Resurrection of Ancient Israel

I will have to write some daily posts this week to address this chapter.

From the first page (193) Ehrman wrote that after the classical prophets [Amos, Hosea, and Micah], Jewish thinkers came to imagine an afterlife.
I gave plenty of scriptures in the my last response to the chapter 5 to support that there were mentions of the after life through out the OT not just after the classical prophets. The OT isn't written topic by topic like a systematic theology book. It's a history of the nation of Israel and their relation to God. That why mentions of the afterlife are interjected throughout the OT.

Ehrman also asserts that the Jewish afterlife after the time of the classical prophets was not like the Christian afterlife at all. "But in this original Jewish conception, unlike the widespread Christian views today, the afterlife was not a glorious eternity lived in the soul in heaven or a tormented existence in hell, attained immediately at the point of death. It was something else altogether.... IOW, Ehrman is about to present a strawman argument.

This is what he wrote, "It was the idea that at the end of time God would vindicate himself and his people. When history and all its evil and suffering had run its course, God would reassert his sovereignty over this world and destroy everything and everyone who was opposed to him, bringing in the perfect, utopian world he had originally planned. In habiting this world would be the righteous who had lived and suffered throughout all of history. God would miraculously bring them back in their bodies, and they would live, bodily without any pain, misery, or suffering, for all time, in his most glorious kingdom. Those who were wicked would also be brought back to life. In the original understanding of resurrection, they would be raised in order to see their crimes and pay for them with a final and irreversible punishment: they would be destroyed for all time."

I basically believe and agree with everything that Ehrman wrote about the Jewish after life above. It is, imo, similar to the afterlife of my Christian faith and not "altogether different." as Bart asserts. I don't have a problem with anything he wrote in that paragraph. What I disagree with is his assertion that the Jewish afterlife and the Christian afterlife is different. See the entire chapter of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21:1-4

Ehrman wrote, "The doctrine of the bodily resurrection of the dead at the end of times originated about two centuries before the life of Jesus, and by his day it had become a common feature of Jewish thought." (page 104) It annoys me that he doesn't give references when he makes these types of statements. There are no footnotes. The chapter notes at the end of the book are sparse. This book is not well attested, imo.

I don't believe that we will live in heaven but on a new earth just as the Jews believe according to Ehrman. Rev 21:1-4
I don't believe that I will live as a resurrected soul without a body but just as the Jews believe according to Ehrman. 1 Cor 15
I'm not sure how the "for all time" bodily resurrection Ehrman speaks of for the Jews is any different that the Christian resurrection.
He is also speaking of annihilation which I also believe. I simply don't see much of a difference between the two although Ehrman makes it sound like the Jewish afterlife and the Christian afterlife are completely different.

Both will be resurrected into bodies that last forever...no more dying.
There is one major difference and it has to do with how he understands the Jewish "soul". I'll address that in another post.

The earliest Christians were ALL Jewish and there wasn't a new testament written at first. Their scriptures were the OT and they found Christ throughout it's "pages". There is enough in the OT to produce a robust view of an afterlife very similar to that in the NT. I believe the NT disciples would disagree with Ehrman. His interpretation is faulty and leads to the setting up of a strawman.

God is going to restore all things that were corrupted through human and angelic rebellion.

Acts 3: 20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, 21 who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets

I think you are being too hard on Ehrman in that you forgot what he wrote in Chapter 5:

“The Hebrew Bible is no monolith: it contains a wide range of views held by different authors over a period of many centuries. So not all authors of Jewish scriptures held to the view that death was the end of the story. We find some hints, outside the comments on Sheol in the poetic books, that the dead may in some sense live on, departing this life"

This is very clear in the story of Saul being called forth by Samuel. What is not clear is what the state of Saul was before being called forth. Was he in a dreamless state of death and angry at being awakened... that state that Samuel tells Saul he will soon join him in? That common death?

As far as the mentions of living after death in Amos, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, they were prophets that were in the business of a national rhetoric more so than a rhetoric concerning individual souls, although the two topics were blended metaphorically.

As far as the references for the eventual evolution from the common fate of death to a more elaborate individual (not national) resurrection with the separating of the wheat from the chaff, Ehrman was very clear that the migration happened later in Judaism, within 200 years of Christian thinking with the apocryphal book of Enoch 1 and the post Babylonian exile book of Daniel. Here is where the Jews started to struggle with the injustice and suffering of God’s chosen and started to toy with Zoroastrian-like ideals of a great cosmic struggle where sides must be chosen and rewards come after death as this world did not contain the justice they felt their inheritance.

It’s all there... p. 104 to120.

This all eventually spilling out into an apocalyptic book of Revelation after Christians took up that apocalyptic narrative - more than likely written by the same author of the highly supernaturally evolved nature of Jesus depicted in the non-synoptic gospel of John.... both very late century supernatural apologetics for a kingdom that did not come, and a justice denied, to the generation that stood before Jesus.

We can see both the Jewish and the Christian rhetoric becoming boiled to a froth... for the Jews when the world did not comport to their sense of being God’s chosen, and then by the Christians when the kingdom did not come.

 

[The Pixie]

Kind of just nit-picking, but..

As far as the references for the eventual evolution from the common fate of death to a more elaborate individual (not national) resurrection with the separating of the wheat from the chaff, Ehrman was very clear that the migration happened later in Judaism, within 200 years of Christian thinking with the apocryphal book of Enoch 1 and the post Babylonian exile book of Daniel. Here is where the Jews started to struggle with the injustice and suffering of God’s chosen and started to toy with Zoroastrian-like ideals of a great cosmic struggle where sides must be chosen and rewards come after death as this world did not contain the justice they felt their inheritance.

It is debateable how far Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. I think an argument can be made that the influence was the other way. We just do not know enough about its roots to say.

This all eventually spilling out into an apocalyptic book of Revelation after Christians took up that apocalyptic narrative - more than likely written by the same author of the highly supernaturally evolved nature of Jesus depicted in the non-synoptic gospel of John.... both very late century supernatural apologetics for a kingdom that did not come, and a justice denied, to the generation that stood before Jesus.

I think it pretty unlikely Revelation and the Gospel of John had the same author.

See for example Ehrman:

https://ehrmanblog.org/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation/

 

[Lucian]

This all eventually spilling out into an apocalyptic book of Revelation after Christians took up that apocalyptic narrative - more than likely written by the same author of the highly supernaturally evolved nature of Jesus depicted in the non-synoptic gospel of John....

Very few, if any, critical scholars think this. One obvious factor is that the Gospel of John is written in good Greek, whereas the Revelation is at times bordering on illiterate.

 

[5wize]

Very few, if any, critical scholars think this. One obvious factor is that the Gospel of John is written in good Greek, whereas the Revelation is at times bordering on illiterate.

You are right. After looking it up again, that was a poor and old reflection I kept based off Justin Martyr.

 

[5wize]

Kind of just nit-picking, but..


It is debateable how far Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. I think an argument can be made that the influence was the other way. We just do not know enough about its roots to say.

Yes it is debatable. I tried to phrase that in such a way as to not imply a direct influence as opposed to a likeness. My wording was clunky to that end.

I think it pretty unlikely Revelation and the Gospel of John had the same author.

See for example Ehrman:

https://ehrmanblog.org/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation/

You are correct. See reply above to Lucian.

 

[Caroljeen]

Very few, if any, critical scholars think this. One obvious factor is that the Gospel of John is written in good Greek, whereas the Revelation is at times bordering on illiterate.

Could it be that John had someone different translating for him while he was exiled to the island of Patmos?

 

[SteveB]

Very few, if any, critical scholars think this. One obvious factor is that the Gospel of John is written in good Greek, whereas the Revelation is at times bordering on illiterate.

Revelation bordering on illiterate....

OK.
I'll bite...

Why is Revelation bordering on being illiterate?

 

[Lucian]

Could it be that John had someone different translating for him while he was exiled to the island of Patmos?

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting the book wasn’t originally in Greek?

 

[Caroljeen]

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting the book wasn’t originally in Greek?

I'm suggesting that John was a Jewish fisherman and didn't know Greek. He would need to have someone to write it for him...an amanuensis.

 

[Lucian]

I'm suggesting that John was a Jewish fisherman and didn't know Greek. He would need to have someone to write it for him...an amanuensis.

I suppose that would be true. But critical scholarship rejects the idea he wrote either the Gospel of John or the Revelation, and rejects the idea the two share an author.

 

[Caroljeen]

I suppose that would be true. But critical scholarship rejects the idea he wrote either the Gospel of John or the Revelation, and rejects the idea the two share an author.

I'll have to find why they reject it. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[Lucian]

I'll have to find why they reject it. Can you point me in the right direction?

I suppose something like Bart Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford, 2019) would cover this kind of stuff. But a reference work like Oxford's A Dictionary of the Bible would also be helpful, and is available online.