The Resurrection

Vermes does an excellent job as an historian examining the development of notions of life, death, and life after death throughout ealier history in the Jewish world. He then turns to the tales of Jesus of Nazareth's resurrection in the New Testament, giving them a thorough examination regarding their development and possible historical value, if any. He definitely avoids conclusions he does not feel warrented by what he considers the New Testament documents, which is, I feel the one criticism that can be leveled at what is otherwise a very thorough treatment. Somehow he doesn't fully make the case for the fictiveness of most of the trial and crucifixional stories in the Gospels, and certainly doesn't deal with the contradiction between the Markan tale of Jesus's burial the same day as his crucifixion in the sort of tomb reserved for upper echelon people--the nobility and kings--and the fact that Roman crucifixion practice did not permit removal of the body of the crucified, but left them on the cross to be food for birds and dogs, thus terroristically preventing the proper burial so dear to the hearts of the peasantry. Jesus, in fact, was no doubt left on the cross, and his remains ultimately thrown into the usual common bone-burial spot used for such removals. Whatever his resurrection was would have to be explained more on the basis of the hopes and dreams of his followers than the bodily "standing up from among the dead ones" these unhistorical tales have fomented among Christians since the time they were eventually developed after the fact of Jesus's disciples concluding that he was now alive again somewhere somehow on the divine plane of God. Vermes probably avoided examining these issues due to the furor they would doubtless cause among those whose beliefs are founded on the notion that somehow these stories describe actual historical events when in fact they are perhaps best called "theological fictions."

"Resurrection" is an interesting exploration of the resurrection stories by one of the leading New Testament scholars today. He gives a far more lucid and concise exploration of the idea of resurrection in the Old and New Testaments than N.T. Wright does in his massive "Resurrection of the Son of God." Vermes begins by exploring the idea of resurrection/afterlife in the Old Testament. In short, there's not much there. In the Old Testament, the prevailing idea of death was Sheol- a semi-conscious, joyless existence in the grave shared by wicked and just alike. The idea of a resurrection of the just first appears in the Maccabean period, when Jewish martyrs wanted to continue worship of God beyond the grave. The idea of resurrection, of both the wicked and the just to their respective rewards, first appears explicitly in Daniel. In Jesus' time, the only major group to except the idea of resurrection were the Pharisees. According to Vermes, it's not clear that most of the Jewish world yet accepted the idea. Vermes then moves on to exploring the resurrection narratives and Jesus' teaching on resurrection. Vermes analyzes the texts and concludes that Jesus actually taught very little regarding the resurrection of the body. Further, the actual resurrection narratives don't agree. For one thing, Jesus ascends into heaven immediately in some versions, and waits 40 days in others. Finally, Vermes concludes that the resurrection narratives were primarily about Jesus' glorification at the right hand of the father, not resurrection, and that the early Christians were expecting to have glorified bodies along with Jesus in their own lifetime. As this failed to materialize, Jesus' resurrection was regarded as the "first fruits" for the just who died. The only part of the book that was not convincing was Vermes' explanation of the resurrection. He claims that Jesus "rose again in the apostles' hearts" after his death, and that they simply wanted to continue his mission. But if this was the case, then why would they have felt the need to write about the resurrection as though it were real in the first place? Why wouldn't they just have said that they were carrying on the ideals of Jesus, rather than writing something that they didn't believe was true? Still, this is an important book by an acclaimed scholar that hopefully will encourage readers to explore the topic further.

An outstanding even-handed look and evaluation of the many forms and stories of resurrection in the Bible. The book does not seek to prove or dissprove the resurrection. As Sgt. Joe Friday(Jack Webb) used to say on the old "Dragnet" TV show: "The Facts, Mam, just the facts...." That's what Geza Vermes gives us in this scholarly, but readable and easily understood work: The ideas and concepts of resurrection and life after death in the Jewish world in Jesus' time, What the Gospels say-and don't say--about Jesus' resurrection, How Paul views it, How critrics have sought to explain it away, and, in the end, he leaves it to the reader to decide what is true, what isn't, what's fact and what's tradition. As any good teacher should do. There are those, of course, good meaning Christians, who will criticize the book because it doesn't attempt justify their view of truth...there will be others, good people, too, who will attempt to discredit the book because it even bothers to consider that resurrection might be real... In the end, the book is right where the author intended it to be and where it should be---and outstanding compilation and evaluation of all the resurrection stories, not just those regarding the resurrection of Jesus., but all resurrections cited in the Biblen (Surely you realize that Jesus is not the only resurrection story in the Bible.) And outstanding piece of work for Christians who want to use their God-given mind and think. Perhpas not for the Fundamentists among us, good people though they are. who say, "It's in the Bible and that's all there is to it...." The question then becomes, "Which of the resurrection accounts do you beleive?" because they all can't be true..... This book outlines them all with respect and reverence, points out tht differences and similarities, and let's the reader--the thinking Christian, if you will--determine what he or she beleives. That, in turn, becomes "truth" for that individual. Good work. Highly recommended.