1. Terminological clarification: the meaning of resurrection

First, it is necessary to offer a terminological remark¹ on the different eschatological doctrines² which can be found in late II Temple Judaism³. We will be working with the following classification⁴:

It is important to notice that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead adopts different levels of meaning in intertestamental literature:⁵

Many of them often overlap (e.g. the exaltation of the just usually includes the exaltation of the martyrs), and most texts, like Dan 12, tend to adopt different levels of signification. The most immediate one is that of resurrection as response to the fundamental problem of theodicy (the longing for justice). In fact, the reinterpretation of Ezek 37 in terms of individual resurrection might be as early as the Pseudo-Ezekiel in Qumran (4Q385-388, 391), generally dated back to the 2^nd c. B.C., whose principal theological motivation is the problem of the reward of the just people.⁶

Given the lack of accurateness and systematicity which is often found in intertestamental eschatology, it seems reasonable to pose at least three questions concerning each of the specific citations of the idea of resurrection that may be the subject of our analysis:

Thus, we have three principal categories to which we must pay attention: the reality of the resurrection, its nature, and its scope.

2. Resurrection in the Q source

It is almost generally agreed⁷ that eschatology plays a central role in the Q source⁸. Together with the sapiential speeches of Q, we find an important number of sayings related with «the announcement of judgement»⁹.

Nevertheless, the pre-eminence of eschatology does not entail an equally binding prevalence of the belief in the resurrection of the dead at the end of times¹⁰. Eschatology may be focused on the importance of divine judgement, without explicitly mentioning resurrection as the way of accessing such a final judgement. The relevance of the eschatological element in Q is visible in passages like 3:7-9, 3:16-17, 6:43-45, 10:14, 11:16.29-30.32, 11:48.49, 12:49.51-53, 12:56, 13:24, 13:29, 13:30, 13:34-35, 14:27, 17:20-21, 22:28.30. The coexistence of these verses with passages of ethical nature and, within eschatological ideas themselves, the ambivalence of the «eschatological model» makes it difficult to elucidate the kind of eschatology that the author is endorsing¹¹. For example, we find, in some cases, a theology which is reminiscent of the so-called «theology of the two ways»¹², in others, a more apocalyptic tone about the imminence of divine judgement that is, nonetheless, qualified by passages like Q 17:21, in which we are told that the kingdom will not come in a spectacular way).

The only explicit mentions of the term «resurrection» in the Q source appear in Q 7:22 and Q 11:31-32.

In all three cases, the word used to express the notion of resurrection is ἐγείρονται. In the Septuagint translation of Dan 12:2, the term was ἀναστήσονται, which also appears in Isa 26:19 (together with ἐγερθήσονται), 2 Macc 7:9, 7:14, Testament of Judah 25:1-4a.4b, Psalm of Solomon 3:12, Testament of Job 40:4, and in some other Septuagint readings of passages of the Hebrew text which, in principle, lack eschatological connotations, like Ps 1:5 and Job 19:26¹⁵. The verb ἐγείρω appears in texts like Isa 26:19, Testament of Abraham¹⁶, and Testament of Job 4:9. The profusion of terms regarding the action of «raising» and its potential eschatological connotations which can be found in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and intertestamental writings indicates that there was no systematic effort to unify the lexical field in accordance with a well defined set of theological categories.

There is an inherent lack of accuracy in many texts, so that it is very complicated to clarify whether they are referring to a physical resurrection or to a vague spiritual resurrection of the dead¹⁷. Passages like Isa 26:19 have been usually included under the label of «collective restoration of the nation», rather than being understood as formal expressions of the belief in the individual resurrection of the dead at the end of times¹⁸, whereas Dan 12:2 is, for most scholars, a statement of the resurrection of the dead in an individual and corporeal sense¹⁹. Testament of Job could be interpreted as endorsing an individual resurrection of the dead²⁰, whereas Testament of Abraham poses serious questions on whether there is an actual allusion to the act of «resurrecting», not only a vague expression of some sort of spiritual persistence (which does not necessarily entail dying and rising from the dead later)²¹. A similar remark could be done about the Psalms of Solomon²².

Within the Q source, the verb ἐγείρω appears, in addition to the already quoted 7:22, in the following cases: Q 3:8 (with parallels in Matt 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9), 7:28 (with parallels in Matt 11:7-11 and Luke 7:24-28), 11:31 (with parallels in Matt 12:41-42 and Luke 11:31-32), and possibly Q 13:25 (with parallels in Matt 25:12 and Luke 13:25). In all the cases, it has a «physical» connotation, referring to the act of «rising», although in Q 11:31 it seems to point to an eschatological dimension, as we shall examine later.

In Q 7:22, the resurrection of the dead appears as one of the six signs of the arrival of the «coming one». Since the act of «rising from the dead» is put next to a set of physical healings and before the evangelization of the poor, it is reasonable to suppose that the idea of resurrection has no eschatological dimension. Rather, it points to a resurrection within the parameters of the current life, as those performed by Elijah and Elisa: the ability to revive people, without releasing them from the chains of death into a final, definitive life. Cf. 1 Kgs 17:17-24, 2 Kgs 4:18-37²³. There seems to be a clear subordination of the act of resurrection itself to the inauguration of the kingdom that has taken place through the ministry of Jesus. Therefore, resurrection would be subordinated to the announcement of the kingdom, fulfilling a «subsidiary» role: that of expressing the power of the new life in the kingdom.

Also, the fact that this resurrection is accompanied by a series of physical prodigies (like allowing those who are blind to see) might recall a physical act, not just a spiritual «healing», an implication which is not necessarily entailed by the use of the verb ἐγείρω (at least from the perspective of intertestamental literature, because Testament of Abraham uses it, even though it is not clear whether it is actually referring to a physical resurrection stricto sensu)²⁴.

As Kloppenborg remarks, the pericope of Q 7:22-23 depends on Isa 61:1-2²⁵, 42:7²⁶, 35:5²⁷, and 29:18-19²⁸. The acts of restoring sight and evangelizing the poor are prophetic signs, according to Isa 61:1-2²⁹, as it is raising the dead and healing the lepers (cf. 1 Kgs 17:17-24, 2 Kgs 4:18-37). However, the cleansing of lepers does not appear in Isaiah at all. Kloppenborg suggests that the pericope might be a «post-Easter interpretation of Jesus’ deeds as evidence of the presence of the kingdom»³⁰. In any case, and beyond the problems associated with any attempt of attributing this pericope to Jesus himself, it seems clear that its reference to the resurrection of the dead is not necessarily connected with an eschatological meaning. Rather, it is a sign of prophetic authority inspired by the great prophets of the Hebrew Bible (like Elijah and Isaiah). Any potential eschatological element would have become present in the preaching of the kingdom by Jesus, who is «the expected one»³¹. The prophet serves the announcement of the kingdom, and his deeds operate in function of such a reality.

b) Q 11:31-32: «The queen of the south will be raised at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and look, something more than Solomon is here! Ninevite men will arise at the judgement with this generation and condemn it. For they repented at the announcement of Jonah, and look, something more than Jonah is here»³². The synoptic parallels are Matt 12:41- 42 and Luke 11:31-32³³.

In Q 11:31-32, we are told that «the queen of the south» will be raised (ἐγερθήσονται) in the judgement (ἐν τῇ κρίσει), and the men of Nineveh will also arise (ἀναστήσονται). The alternation of both verbs keeps resonances of the Septuagint version of Isa 26:19³⁴. However, in the latter the order is the inverse: ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις. The use of one verb or the other seems to be indifferent, thereby showing that both are interchangeable in similar contexts, so that the choice of one or another does not add any significant theological variation³⁵.

The most relevant feature of this passage is the strong connection that it establishes between resurrection and ethics. Resurrection is subordinated to divine judgement, in which justice will be finally delivered. However, it is not clear whether the explicit reference to certain specific personalities (the queen of the south and the men of Nineveh) involves the idea of a pre-eminent order in the resurrection, as we shall see later in the dispute with the Sadducees in the Gospel of Mark. The mention of both the queen of the south and the men of Nineveh may act as illustration of the magnitude of present faults, the insurmountable nature of divine judgement, and the inexorability of conversion.

The fact that the eschatological element plays a significant role in Q, together with the relative absence of clear references to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead in an equally eschatological sense (that is to say, as resurrection at the end of times), indicate that the source of sayings used by Matthew and Luke did not attribute a central role to this belief.

Its principal eschatological concern seems to be divine judgement, not the specific way in which to access it.

3. Resurrection in Mark

Although eschatology does certainly play a central role in the Gospel of Mark³⁶, there is no systematic attempt at integrating the different elements implied by the eschatological narrative into a coherent, theological structure. The consequences of the resurrection of Jesus regarding the eschatological fate of humanity (concerning the idea of a general resurrection at the end of times) are not elucidated at all. Unlike Paul, for whom the resurrection of Jesus anticipates the general resurrection of the dead (something that H. Koester calls «resurrection in two stages»³⁷ as in 1 Co 15), the Gospel of Mark does not offer an account of the eschatological iter involved in the very idea of resurrection of the dead and its instantiation in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

Nevertheless, the fact that Marks participates in the eschatological atmosphere that prevails in many Jewish intertestamental works is confirmed by the dispute between Jesus and the Sadduccees, as appears in 12:18-27, perhaps the most important synoptic text on the resurrection of the dead³⁸. This discussion is normally included under the label of that which Bultmann named «Streitgespräch»³⁹. It reads as follows:

18 Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him; and they asked him, saying: 19 Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies, and leaves his wife behind, and leaves no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring. 21 And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise. 22 So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. 23 Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife. 24 Jesus answered and said to them, Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?⁴⁰ 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.

As J.P. Meier has pointed out, the whole pericope is «structure and balanced»⁴¹ in two parts:

This is the only appearance of the Sadducees in the Gospel of Mark⁴². The argument with the Sadducees would be plausible if we were to believe Josephus’ account of their endorsement of a more conservative Jewish theology, reluctant to some II Temple ideas, such as the belief in the afterlife⁴³. In this sense, there is no sufficient reason to suppose, as several authors (Bultmann included)⁴⁴ have done, that it constitutes the addition ad hoc of a debate occurring inside the primitive Christian community, for it is unlikely that this kind of discussions might have taken place with a group, the Sadducees, almost utterly extinguished after 70 CE. However, it seems clear that Mark is also willing to show to his audience the superiority of Jesus as a teacher over the Sadducees. The pericope therefore combines historical and purely theological elements⁴⁵.

This debate must be framed within the context of the activity of Jesus⁴⁶. In fact, the definition of the Sadducees as those who «say there is no resurrection» (λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι) indicates that the audience of Mark was no longer familiarized with this Jewish group⁴⁷. The dispute between Jesus and the Sadducees would fit into the larger context of the II Temple discussions about certain eschatological ideas that had become prominent in some circles, especially those of apocalyptic nature, since the 3^rd c. B.C. onwards, seen by some factions as a challenge to a more traditionalistic interpretation of the religion of Israel. Even if the dispute as such had been elaborated a posteriori by the redactor of the Gospel, it could still correspond to a realistic situation in the time of Jesus. Also, the fact that the exposition of the general resurrection of the dead comes before the Passion narrative may be due to the redactional intentions of the evangelist, who is willing to offer a coherent structure of his account of the ministry of Jesus, but it does not automatically disqualify its historicity, especially since, as we shall see, this pericope participates in the typical intertestamental ambiguity concerning eschatological doctrines, in which mutually contradictory beliefs (like those of resurrection and immortality of the soul) are combined without any systematic explanation.

In any case, it is disturbing to realize that the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead, which is nowhere else explicitly treated in the entire Gospel, is accepted here as a «given». It does not contradict the levirate law (as expressed in Deut 25:5)⁴⁸, and it is theoretically based upon solid biblical foundations. The attempts at «proving» the doctrine of resurrection from the Hebrew Bible are particularly important in rabbinical literature⁴⁹. However, rabbinical texts, unlike Mark, never use Ex 3:6⁵⁰ as standing in favour of resurrection⁵¹, and the original sense of Ex 3:6 has nothing to do with the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, for it is referred to the hope that, just as God has delivered the patriarchs from their distresses, He will «now liberate and succor their enslaved descendants»⁵². Thus, it is associated with a temporal liberation, not with an eschatological reality. The fact of quoting a passage from the Book of Exodus, while the Sadducees are referring to a text from the Book of Deuteronomy, might have to do, as several commentators have noticed, with the idea of «temporal priority» in exegesis, as developed by rabbinic literature. This could be the reason why Jesus (or Mark), instead of alluding to a passage with more direct connotations of the resurrection of the dead (like Dan 12:2), decides to quote a verse from Torah⁵³.

Mark seems to be taking the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead for granted. The very belief in the resurrection of the dead at the end of times poses no theological difficulty for the evangelist at all, who puts in Jesus’ words a hypothetical attempt at demonstrating that such a notion is already latent in the Hebrew Bible. A similar example of the non-problematic character of the doctrine of resurrection can be found in some passages of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (usually dated back to c. 2^nd c. B.C., although the many Christian interpolations indicate that they did not reach their final form until the 2^nd c. CE)⁵⁴ , as Testament of Judah 25:1, in which an order in the resurrection is established (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob shall rise first), too. Although the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are still impregnated with the imagery of the collective restoration of the people of God,⁵⁵ there is also a tension with a more universalistic approach⁵⁶. However, there is no unified eschatology in these intertestamental writings⁵⁷.

The pre-eminence that the Testaments attribute to the patriarchs suggests a narrow connection with the Markan pericope. Passages like Testament of Simeon 6:2.5-7, Testament of Benjamin 9:6-7, and Testament of Judah 25:1.4a.4b speak about the resurrection of the people of God, granting a primordial role in it to the biblical patriarchs (including Enoch, Noah, and Sem in Testament of Benjamin 9:6). The problem of this potential association lies in the vagueness of their references to the resurrection. Recalling the three questions that, as we have said in the introductory section, constitute an essential step in any disquisition on the biblical doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs elucidate neither whether they are alluding to a real, individual resurrection (not just to a restoration of the people of Israel), nor if it is corporeal (not merely spiritual) and universal (beyond the frontiers of the people of Israel). The exception to this could be Testament of Benjamin 9:6-7, in which there seems to be a real, corporeal resurrection. However, its universality is not obvious. In spite of the fact that it explicitly states that all shall rise, it is difficult to be sure, given the highly «Israelite context» that prevails in the whole book, of whether there is a real universalistic, not simply ethnocentric, approach to the doctrine of resurrection. Thus, we cannot know if this text is actually endorsing the resurrection of other peoples⁵⁸. In Testament of Judah 25, resurrection is linked to the restoration of Israel⁵⁹. Resurrection, in all cases, is the reward for those who have been just⁶⁰. The relevance of the corporeal element is not clear at all. In all of them, the doctrine of resurrection seems to be accepted without any attempt at offering a theologically systematic vision⁶¹.

These deficiencies are also present in Mark 12:18-27. Instead of a real resurrection, which must inevitably affect the material dimension of the subject, Mark seems to support the immortality of the soul or a vague spiritual persistence together with God⁶². If the patriarchs are alive with God, it is difficult to interpret resurrection as an eschatological event destined to occur at the end of times. Rather, it is viewed as the «continuation» of earthly life in a spiritualized form in the presence of God⁶³. The Gospel might be referring to a kind of resurrection which takes place immediately after the death of the individual, without any eschatological projection to the end of times, as opposed to apocalyptic writings like Dan 12:2.

Mark seems to justify the possibility of the resurrection of the dead on the basis of both the Scriptures (v. 24: τὰς γραφὰς) and the power of God (v. 24: τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ), which prove that God is «God of living». Mark points to the idea that the patriarchs are already enjoying divine presence. The topic of the «eschatological joy» of the patriarchs can be found in passages like Testament of Simeon 6:7, Testament of Levi 18:5, Testament of Judah 25:5, Testament of Nephtali 6:10, and Testament of Benjamin 10:6. It suggests that the patriarch shall rise in joy, praising the Most High for his wonders. However, if some of the passages from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (particularly Testament of Benjamin) speak in terms of a real resurrection (an overcoming of death), not of some kind of spiritual persistence which is ambiguous regarding the reality of death and the centrality of the body, this is not the case with Mark.

The Markan ambivalence between resurrection and spiritual persistence keeps a close connection with the Testament of Abraham, which simultaneously defends the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and that of immortality of the soul⁶⁴. This work describes the last moments in the life of Abraham, who, before dying, initiates an apocalyptic journey in which he receives a series of revelations on the fate of souls and divine judgement. According to the Greek version of this work (the so-called «B version»), generally dated back to 1^st century B.C. or 1^st century CE⁶⁵, Abraham will be «lifted» (ἀναλαμβάνησαι) to heaven (paraphrase of the exaltation of the righteous man, who shall enjoy divine presence), whereas his body will remain on earth for seven thousand years. After that, «all flesh shall rise» (τὸτε γαρ ἐγερθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ). According to É. Puech, the expression «all flesh» refers to the totality of the person⁶⁶, including the corporeal dimension. This may suggest that in some Jewish circles of apocalyptic nature it was accepted that the great biblical patriarchs were, in some way or another, pre-eminent in enjoying divine presence in the afterlife, without having to await the general resurrection of the dead at the end of times⁶⁷. This is what Mark seems to be evoking when incurring in the apparent contradiction of stating, on the one hand, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, while at the same time supporting, on the other hand, the idea that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are already enjoying divine presence, «life» with God⁶⁸.

Why does the idea of resurrection that is inferred from this dispute not show a well- defined eschatological orientation in terms of resurrection? Why is the eschatological vigour absent here, while it is present in other passages from this Gospel? Is there an attempt at reconciling a future eschatology with the idea of the spiritual persistence of the person after death? Does Mark have an «eschatological» conception of the afterlife, comparable to the Q source (cf. Q 11:31-32), or, rather, he is committed to the notion of a mere spiritual persistence of the just after death? The answer to this and other questions might lie in the realization that Mark is not trying to bequeath upon his audience a systematic treatment of the topic of resurrection, but he simply wants to defend the existence of life after death. In light of this text, it is possible to recognize two perspectives on the resurrection: the divine one, which is, so to speak, «eternal» (the patriarchs are already alive for God, for He «sees» everything), and the temporal one, in which resurrection has not yet taken place, for it is an eschatological event which will happen at the end of times.

In our opinion, the most important feature of the Markan account of the dispute between Jesus and the Sadducees is the ambiguity of the idea of resurrection which underlies the discussion. This ambivalence is visible in two aspects. First of all, the reader cannot be sure whether Jesus is actually referring to a real resurrection (in the sense of overcoming death at the end of times through returning to life, be it in body, spirit, or both forms) or to some kind of spiritual persistence after death, as he seems to suggest by alluding to the fact that the patriarchs are alive (for God is not the God of dead, but the God of living). Second, the vagueness of the terminology is equally noticeable: whereas ἀνάστασιν is certainly used, the term ἐγερθήσονται also appears. This linguistic ambivalence echoes that of many biblical and intertestamental texts⁶⁹.

As a final remark, there seems to be no clear connection between the general resurrection of the dead in this passage and the figure of the Messiah. If in different intertestamental texts, like 1 Enoch 51:1-5, 61:1-2.5.8, and Testament of Judah 24:5-6.25:1- 5, there is an association between the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead, this idea is entirely absent in the dispute with the Sadducees. The resurrection of the dead seems to have no messianic connotations, in a way which resembles texts such as Dan 12:2, 1 Enoch 10:17, 25:4, 91:10, 92:3, Psalm of Solomon 13:10, 14:1, and Sibylline Oracles 4: 181-187⁷⁰.

It is reasonable to suppose that Jesus’ disciples had some degree of knowledge of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, for we have no evidence of Jesus instructing them about this idea, which nonetheless appears as a «given» in the dispute with the Sadducees. The lack of understanding that they show in Mark 9:9-10⁷¹, during the episode of the Transfiguration, could be related to the specific event of the resurrection of Jesus, not to the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead as such. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the compound «ἐκ νεκρῶν», used in Mark 9:10, normally refers, in the New Testament, to the resurrection of Jesus, whereas the resurrection of the dead, in its general scope, is rendered by the formula ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν⁷². In any case, the disciples’ understanding of the very notion of resurrection would have been rather vague, especially if we take into account the great variety of eschatological conceptions of the afterlife that existed in Judaism by the time of Jesus, and the difficulties involved by offering a unified interpretation of the meaning of resurrection in intertestamental literature. 32):

4. Resurrection in Matthew and Luke

Matthew’s parallel to the dispute with the Sadducees goes as follows (Matt 22:23-32):

23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said to them, You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

There are no significant variants over Mark 12, probably with the exception of the use of «περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν» (Matt 22:31), instead of ἐγείρονται (Mark 12:26)⁷³, aside from the lack of an explicit mention of the «book of Moses», as opposed to Mark 12:26 (τῇ βίβλῳ Μωϋσέως). Matthew uses the verb ἐγείρειν in 11:5, parallel to Q 7:22. The absence of an explicit reference to the book of Moses might be related with the specificity of the audience that Matthew is addressing, more familiarized with the Hebrew Bible⁷⁴.

According to J. Clark-Soles, Matthew’s eschatology is impregnated with strong ethical connotations, which serve a «sectarian» goal: that of separating the righteous from the wicked (cf. Matt 13:49-50.25:32-33.25:46). In fact, the distinction between bad and good people acquires great importance in this Gospel (cf. Matt 22:10: πονηρούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς)⁷⁵. This attempt at a self-definition is common to many apocalyptic writings, even if universalistic language prevails⁷⁶. The pre-eminence of the ethical dimension could lead to the conclusion that Matthew is primarily interested in resurrection as some sort of vindication of the just. As we have seen in the analysis of the dispute with the Sadducees, it seems that resurrection is understood as expression of the omnipotence of God, which cannot be defeated by death. This suggests a more spiritualized representation of resurrection as such. However, this point is contradicted by the importance of the corporeal element in Matthew, a vivid proof of which is the enigmatic statement in Matt 27:52, right after Jesus yields up his spirit:

«And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised (ἠγέρθησαν)».

The association of sleeping with death seems clear in light of intertestamental literature (cf. Dan 12:2, Jubilees 23:1.36:18, Testament of Judah 25:1, 1 Enoch 49:3, 91:10, Book of Biblical Antiquities 3:10. 11:6.19:12, 4 Ezra 7:32, 2 Baruch 11:4.21:4. 30:1.36:10.85:3) and certain passages of the New Testament itself (cf. 1 Co 15:20, which uses, just as Matt 27:52, the term κεκοιμημένων, «those who have fallen asleep»). Nevertheless, the situation becomes more complicated if we take into account that in Mark 5:39, during the episode of the daughter of Jairus, there is a clear differentiation between being dead and being asleep: «The child is not dead, but sleeping τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει)». In any case, this verse might imply a literalistic reading of «to sleep», as opposed to a metaphorical interpretation of this verb as an allegory of death. According to ^{G. Rochais}, to sleep and to be asleep can be replaced, in general terms, by to die and to be dead, but they alone do not clearly point to the idea of resurrection. Their reciprocal connection should be elucidated by the examination of the specific contexts for the different passage⁷⁷.

Also, the importance of the ethical element in Matthew’s eschatology is visible in light of his insistence on the «day of judgement» (ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως), which, in passages like Matt 10:15, 11:22.24, 12:36 seems to presuppose some sort of «revival» of those who are dead (like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah) in order to be judged by God. It would be, nonetheless, excessively hypothetical to understand these sayings in terms of the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead, for there is no evident link between the belief in divine judgement and the idea of the resurrection of the dead at the end of times. In fact, in several intertestamental texts, both the affirmation of the eschatological divine judgement and a vague idea of persistence of the personal identity (which does not allow to be associated with the specific thematization in terms of resurrection -this is, overcoming of dead, not a mere spiritual permanence) simultaneously coexist. Some instantiations of this claim (e.g. the independence of the ideas of eschatological judgement and resurrection) are 1 Enoch 1:8-9, 1 Enoch 22:1-23:4 (especially 22:6-11)⁷⁸, 1 Enoch 61:6-8, 1 Enoch 104:1-5, Testament of Levi 18:10-14⁷⁹.

Concerning Matt 27:52, the apocalyptic background seems clear in light of Dan 12: the reference to «many bodies» (πολλὰ σώματα) is reminiscent of Dan 12:2, «many of those who sleep (πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων in the Septuagint)», with an allusion to the corporeal element (those who are sleeping in the dust of the earth). In this sense, Matthew might be highlighting the role of Jesus in the fulfilment of apocalyptic expectations⁸⁰. This conjecture would be confirmed by the abundance of terms referring to death and destruction in this Gospel⁸¹.

Although several commentators have drawn the connection between Matt 27:52 and Ezek 37 (the vision of the valley filled with dry bones), and there is evidence that this biblical passage was subject to an interpretation in terms of resurrection of the dead in Qumran (as early as the 2^nd c. B.C., in the so-called «Pseudo-Ezekiel»)⁸², in the Targumim⁸³, and in some iconographic representations (most notably the Synagogue of Dura Europos in Syria)⁸⁴, the most obvious textual reference is Dan 12:2 (whose Septuagint version dates back to 140 B.C.)⁸⁵. The sentence «πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων» is parallel to «πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων», even if the verbs change⁸⁶.

In any case, the apocalyptic substrate (with a strong emphasis on the eschatological element) of the doctrine of resurrection in Matthew should not make us underestimate the intense prophetic dimension that is present, too. Resurrection, just as in Q 7:22, is associated with a series of prophetic signs that recall the prodigies performed by Elijah and Elisa and the statements from Isaiah (which we have already highlighted). Thus, in Matt 10:8 the disciples are commanded to «raise the dead» (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε), together with healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, and casting out daemons, in the context of the explanation of their mission and with a clear relationship to Matt 11:5⁸⁷.

The tension between the prophetic and apocalyptic elements subsists in Matthew. It is therefore very difficult to elucidate the accurate meaning that the evangelist was giving to the idea of general resurrection of the dead at the end of times. Just as in Mark, there is no systematic effort to offer a coherent eschatological doctrine. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude, as Clark-Soles does, that «Matthew has (…) inherited the notion of resurrection and he reflects contemporary debate in his first-century Jewish context»⁸⁸.

Luke’s parallel to the dispute with the Sadducees goes as follows (Luke 20: 27-38):

27 Some Sadducees -- those who argue that there is no resurrection - approached him and they put this question to him, 28 «Master, Moses prescribed for us, if a man's married brother dies childless, the man must marry the widow to raise up children for his brother. 29 Well then, there were seven brothers; the first, having married a wife, died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third married the widow. And the same with all seven, they died leaving no children. 32 Finally the woman herself died. 33 Now, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be, since she had been married to all seven?» 34 Jesus replied, «The children of this world take wives and husbands, 35 but those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the resurrection from the dead do not marry 36 because they can no longer die, for they are the same as the angels, and being children of the resurrection they are children of God. 37 And Moses himself implies that the dead rise again, in the passage about the bush where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 28 Now he is God, not of the dead, but of the living; for to him everyone is alive».

One outstanding difference with respect to the versions of Mark and Matthew is found in the sentence «those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world» (οἱ δὲ κατα- ξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν), put together with «and in the resurrection from the dead» (καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν). Does this variation imply that, for Luke, to be worthy of a place in the other world constitutes a separate reality from the resurrection of the dead? Both the place in the other world and the resurrection come as the complement of «those who are worthy» οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες), but they seem to be juxtaposed as two distinct elements.

Another important difference is the expression ἰσάγγελοι (a hapax legomenon in the New Testament), which has parallels in Philo of Alexandria (De Sacrificio Abel 1: he applies it to Abraham), 2 Baruch 51:10, and 1 Enoch 15:6. Although, as J.A. Fitzmyer notices, the presence of this expression in Luke shows that this Gospel is «less Semitic» than Mark⁸⁹, we should not forget the relevance of angels in eschatological frames in the Hebrew Bible and several intertestamental writings⁹⁰.

The explicit mentions of the idea of general resurrection of the dead in Luke generate, just as in Mark and Matthew, great confusion regarding the scope of this doctrine in the mind of the evangelist. Luke 14:14 speaks in terms of «the resurrection of the just»: «Then you will be blessed, for they have no means to repay you and so you will be repaid when the upright rise again (ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων)», in the context of a series of parables (like the one on the guests and the wedding feast) that Jesus pronounces during his trip to Jerusalem, which are connected with the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 14:15). According to J.A. Fitzmyer, the background to this passage is Dan 12:2 and the conception of the resurrection as a reward for those who have suffered in the name of God⁹¹.

Resurrection, at least according to Luke, seems to be restricted to the just people. It is therefore a reward resulting of good ethical behaviour, not just a means so that divine judgement may take place. This probably stands in close association with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in which, as we have seen, resurrection, although in some cases (like Testament of Benjamin) may adopt universalistic connotations, appears as a prerogative of the people of Israel, with a clearly defined «taxonomy» in which the patriarchs (model of the just person) enjoy a preferential role. Resurrection, in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, is intertwined with a set of vivid admonitions about a good ethical life, faithful to divine Law. Resurrection is, itself, the sign of a divine prize for the just. It is, by its very concept, a salvific act⁹², especially addressed to those who have suffered in life. Thus, Testament of Judah 25 promises a joyful resurrection for those who have lived in sadness. It is interesting to notice that just as Testament of Judah 25 insists upon the importance of the eschatological future as a contradiction to the present (those who suffer sadness will rise in joy, those who have lived in poverty will be reach, the weak shall be strengthened…; cf 25:1- 5), the parable of the guests in Luke 14 contain a challenge to the present time, which is opposed, in a colourfully contradictory way, by the reality of an eschatological future that radically differs from the current state of things: «For everyone who raises himself up will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be raised up». (Luke 14:11).

The eschatological future, as a challenge to the present, implies that those who will be invited to the heavenly meal are the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind (Luke 14:13). In a similar way, the man who organizes the great banquet in Luke 14:15-24⁹³ faces rejection from his initial guests, and he decides to invite unexpected people to participate in his feast. The kingdom of God contrasts with the present and its concomitant assumptions. As we have remarked earlier, this perception of contradiction was already latent in intertestamental literature, associated with the notion of eschatological life as reward for those who deserve it on account of their faithfulness to God. It is therefore difficult to assess whether resurrection really entailed a universalistic scope. As F. Bovon notices, there were at least two representations of the idea of resurrection by the time in which the Gospel of Luke was written: the first depiction was more universalistic, while the second one conceived of resurrection as the exclusive reward of the just people, without any defined attempt of reconciling the two of them⁹⁴. In this particular passage, the author seems to be endorsing a more restrictive sense, whereas in Acts 24:15 there is a clear universalistic stance⁹⁵.

In Luke 16:19-31 (the story of Lazarus), we read that the poor beggar was taken by the angels to the bosom of Abraham (εἰς τὸν κόλπον Ἀβραάμ). This idea is reminiscent of 4 Macc 13:17 (associated with the belief in the immortality of the patriarchs)⁹⁶. The whole episode of Lazarus and the rich man comes before a series of apocalyptic admonitions (17:22- 37), transmitting the idea that ethical behaviour in the present is influential for the future life. This might confirm the fact that Luke had in mind a restricted idea of resurrection, constrained to just people. Resurrection would be linked to the fundamental ethical distinction between the just and the wicked⁹⁷. Although this could be understood as a rejection of a more «materialistic» or even «eschatological» view of resurrection (as the notion which was present in several works of apocalyptic literature), we should not forget that intertestamental literature itself, in particular in the case of certain apocalyptic writings, gave a rather similar degree of importance to the ethical distinction between the just and the wicked in its eschatological dimension. This frame is already visible in late prophetic books, like 3 Isaiah, and it gradually led to a more universalistic picture, in which the centrality of ethnic factors was replaced by the ethical behaviour of every individual in the eyes of God. Ethical dualism (the distinction between the just and the wicked), not ethnic membership in the nation of Israel, would therefore become the primary criterion to distinguish one individual from another in the light of eschatological, divine judgement⁹⁸.

Conclusions

Q offers significant eschatological elements that nonetheless do not necessarily affirm the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead at the end of times. The messianic time seems to have arrived through the announcement of the kingdom of God by Jesus of Nazareth. The eschatological dimension does not require a concrete thematization in terms of the general resurrection of the dead as the conditio sine qua non for divine judgement.

It is reasonable to suppose that the earliest movements of followers of Jesus integrated the apocalyptic expectations shared by different groups within late II Temple Judaism into a vision of the inauguration of the messianic era, subordinating the faith in the general resurrection to the belief in the kingdom which has been initiated by the preaching of Jesus. This might be the reason why, in the synoptic tradition, the topic of the resurrection is focused on the resurrection of Jesus, which practically «eclipses» and even reshapes the doctrine of the general resurrection as such. Unlike Paul, who in 1 Co 15 has a clear image of the eschatological order of resurrection (the resurrection of Jesus anticipates the universal fate that the whole of humanity shall experience at the end of times), the synoptic tradition was fundamentally concerned with the fact that «the new age had been ushered in»⁹⁹.

The doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead seems to be taken for granted in the synoptic tradition, as follows from the dispute with the Sadducees in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. However, it is intrinsically ambiguous. It is difficult to know -at least if we constrain the matter of our analysis to the explicit references to this idea- whether the evangelist is speaking in terms of a real resurrection (the overcoming of death at the end of times by the power of God) or some form of vague spiritual persistence which denies the very fact of death (at least regarding the spiritual dimension of the human person).

Although our study is restricted to the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead as such, without examining the resurrection of Jesus, an important remark must be made: if the very belief in resurrection may be considered ambivalent in the synoptic tradition (at least from a purely conceptual point of view), given that it sometimes incorporates different underlying conceptions of afterlife, how should we understand the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus? Does it participate in this ambiguity, too? Does it categorically reshape the very idea of general resurrection, thus contributing to shedding new light on its deepest meaning, or there is reasonable ground to suspect that the resurrection of Jesus assumed the same degree of conceptual obscurity as the doctrine from which it emanated (the general resurrection of the dead in its late II Temple background)? How does the eschatological idea of an intermediate state help solve these conceptual problems, even if through a predominantly dualistic perspective, in which soul and body may be temporarily separated?