Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:58:40.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2016

John Granger Cook
John Granger Cook*
Affiliation:
Religion and Philosophy, LaGrange College, 601 Broad St., LaGrange, GA 30240, USA. Email: jcook@lagrange.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of the semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and the nature of resurrected bodies in ancient Judaism and ancient paganism, one can conclude that Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection of Jesus unless he believed the tomb was empty.

Keywords

1 Cor 15.3–5empty tombresurrection in paganism
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 56 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Wilhelm Bousset, one of the original members of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, in his discussion of 1 Cor 15.3–5, wrote: ‘Here it is now extraordinarily important that the Apostle says nothing either concerning the empty tomb or concerning the witness of the women about the empty tomb. What he does not say, one cannot wish to read between the lines.’Footnote 1 This is an argumentum ex silentio and as such is logically invalid. Nevertheless, Bousset's approach has become programmatic for many scholars in the discipline.Footnote 2 My thesis is that Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection of Jesus unless he believed his tomb was empty. The intention of the article is certainly not to prove the historicity of the empty tomb – a pointless exercise after the arguments of David Hume.Footnote 3

The argument schema for the thesis is as follows:

  1. 1. ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω, when used to describe resurrection, imply a physical movement upward.

  2. 2. In ancient Judaism (from the second century bce on), the existing evidence demonstrates that individuals viewed resurrection as physical (i.e. bodily). Clearly some ancient Jews believed in other versions of the afterlife such as the immortality of the soul or the future exaltation of the spirit.

  3. 3. In ancient paganism, texts from classical Greece, the Roman Republic and the Empire all envisioned cases of resurrection as physical.

  4. 4. Given the semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and this ‘cultural encyclopedia’ of resurrection, one can conclude that Paul and his readers, Jewish or pagan, would have assumed that a tradition about the burial of Christ and his resurrection on the third day presupposed an empty tomb.

1. Some Methodological Reflections

By ‘physical resurrection’ I mean a resurrection in which the body of a dead individual returns to life in some sense (e.g. a return to mortal life or immortal life). ‘Physical’ or ‘bodily resurrection’ is consistent with a transformation of the earthly body (e.g. into a σῶμα πνευματικόν). The evidence, by necessity, for resurrection in paganism is from widely diverse chronological eras and appears in diverse contexts in the authors who preserve the traditions. Nevertheless, one can discern patterns in the pagan narratives of resurrections that are clearly analogous to resurrection in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Jonathan Z. Smith's distinction between analogy and genealogyFootnote 4 in the history of religions can serve to illuminate the comparisons to be made below: they are analogies and not genealogies. My goal is not, for example, to demonstrate pagan influence (a genealogical method) on Paul and early Christianity or vice versa. In the discussion of Greco-Roman divinities below I have dispensed with the concept of the annual resurrection of vegetation deities.Footnote 5

2. The Semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω

James Ware, in a recent analysis of ἐγείρω, distinguishes three senses, the first two of which are closely related: (1) ‘awaken, raise from sleep’ or ‘wake up, rise from sleep’; (2) ‘rouse up, stir up’; and (3) ‘raise up, set up right’ or ‘rise up, stand upright’.Footnote 6 In the first and third senses ‘the basic semantic meaning of getting up or arising to stand is present’.Footnote 7 This seems correct in general, although there are usages such as Homer, Il. 2.41 where ἔγρετο δ’ ἐξ ὕπνου (‘he woke from sleep’) is followed by ἕζετο δ’ ὀρθωθείς in 2.42 (‘he sat up straight’). In such a text, one cannot demonstrate that the meaning ‘arising to stand’ is necessarily present in ἔγρετο. On the whole, however, Ware is accurate. One could argue that Il. 2.42 simply clarifies the action of ‘getting up’ that is implied by ἔγρετο.

A text (probably first or early second century ce) attributed to Ammonius the grammarian distinguishes between the two verbs: ἠγέρθη καὶ ἀνέστη διαφέρει. ἠγέρθη, μέν, λεκτέον ἀπὸ ὕπνου, ἀνέστη δὲ ἀπὸ κλίνης (‘ἠγέρθη and ἀνέστη differ. Ἠγέρθη (he/she rose) is, on the one hand, to be said “from sleep”, but ἀνέστη (he/she rose) is to be said “from that on which one lies”’).Footnote 8 Clearly Ammonius perceives a physical meaning in both verbs. In another text, Ammonius writes: ἀναστῆναι καὶ ἐγερθῆναι διαφέρει. ἀναστῆναι μὲν ἐπὶ ἔργον, ἐγερθῆναι δὲ ἐξ ὕπνου (‘ἀναστῆναι and ἐγερθῆναι differ. Ἀναστῆναι is, on the one hand, to rise for a task, but ἐγερθῆναι is to rise from sleep’).Footnote 9 In another work dedicated to ‘incorrect phraseology’ (περὶ ἀκυρολογίας), the grammarian distinguishes the verbs so: ἀναστῆναι τοῦ ἐγερθῆναι διαφέρει. ἀναστῆναι ἐγρηγορότως, ἐγερθῆναι τὸ ἐξ ὕπνου (‘ἀναστῆναι differs from ἐγερθῆναι. One rises (ἀναστῆναι) while awake, but one rises (ἐγερθῆναι) from sleep’).Footnote 10 Grammatical rules are occasionally broken, as in Ps.-Plato's Axiochus: Ἀγαμήδης γοῦν καὶ Τροφώνιος … κοιμηθέντες οὐκέτ’ ἀνέστησαν (‘Agamedes and Trophonius indeed going to sleep no longer rose up’).Footnote 11 A text of Eupolis the comic has a similar usage: τίς οὑξεγείρας μ’ ἐστὴν οἰμώξει μακρά· | ὁτιή μ’ ἀνέστησ’ ὠμόϋπνον (‘Who was it that waked/raised me? You will wail aloud | because you raised [or “woke”] me from my unfinished sleep’).Footnote 12 In general, it is true that classical Greek texts do not use the verb ἀνίστημι to mean ‘rise (from sleep)’. Both verbs imply a physical motion upward from the state of sleep, lying down or death – in contexts where individuals are sleeping, lying down or dead.

LXX and NT usage of the verbs for resurrection has roots in classical usage. A chorus in Sophocles’ Electra tells her that she will never raise her father from the lake of Hades, which is common to all, by wailing or by prayers (ἀλλ’ οὔτοι τόν γ’ ἐξ Ἀίδα | παγκοίνου λίμνας πατέρ’ ἀν|στάσεις οὔτε γόοισιν, οὐ λιταῖς).Footnote 13 There are a number of examples of the verb used in this way in classical literature.Footnote 14 Examples of ἐγείρω and its cognates are more difficult to find. In Aeschylus’ Choephoroe, Orestes asks his dead father: ἆρ’ ἐξεγείρηι τοῖσδ’ ὀνείδεσιν, πάτερ; (‘Father, are you roused up by such taunts?’). Electra adds: ἆρ’ ὀρθὸν αἴρεις φίλτατον τὸ σὸν κάρα; (‘Are you raising up your beloved head erect?’).Footnote 15 If Ammonius is correct, then both lines are essentially referring to the same motion. Apollodorus describes Heracles’ raising of Theseus (who was bound near the gates of Hades) using the same verb: ὁ δὲ Θησέα μὲν λαβόμενος τῆς χειρὸς ἤγειρε, Πειρίθουν δὲ ἀναστῆσαι βουλόμενος τῆς γῆς κινουμένης ἀφῆκεν (‘Taking Theseus by the hand he raised him up, but although he wanted to raise Pirithous, when the earth quaked, he let him go’).Footnote 16 Theodoret presumably quotes Apollodorus (the second-century bce historian) accurately, when the latter writes that Asclepius raised some who had died (τινας τῶν τετελευτηκότων ἐγείρειν).Footnote 17 In the case of the resurrections/awakenings of Tyrian Heracles and Dionysus the verb ἐγείρω was also used.Footnote 18 Physical motion upward (usually ‘standing up’) is implied in all these texts. Clearly the verb is not equivalent to ‘exalting’ (for which an ancient Greek author would use ὑψόω).Footnote 19

3. Resurrection in Ancient Judaism

From the second century bce onward clear traces of resurrection can be found in some Jewish texts.Footnote 20 Claudia Setzer summarises the ambivalent views of ancient Judaism admirably:

… Jewish materials from the second century bce through the first century ce exhibit a range of understandings of the afterlife. Fairly explicit claims of bodily resurrection appear in texts like 1 Enoch (51),Footnote 21 2 Maccabees,Footnote 22 4Q521,Footnote 23 and Sibylline Oracle 4.Footnote 24 A mix of concepts of resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul appear in 1 Enoch (91, 103),Footnote 25 1QH,Footnote 26 4 Ezra,Footnote 27 2 BaruchFootnote 28 and Pseudo-Phocylides.Footnote 29 Ambiguity prevails in works that nevertheless imply resurrection, such as ‘the Book of the Watchers’ [1–36] in 1 Enoch, The Testament of Judah,Footnote 30 Psalms of Solomon,Footnote 31 and CD 2:7–12.Footnote 32

Ironically, the sinners taunt the righteous with the concept of the resurrection of the body in 1 Enoch 102.8: ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀναστήτωσαν καὶ σωθήτωσαν (‘Henceforth let them arise and be saved’) – and then they proceed to deny its reality.Footnote 33 Daniel 12 should be added to the list, despite the reservations of some.Footnote 34 The Greek translations clearly indicate physical resurrection (Dan 12.2 LXX: ἀναστήσονται; Theod.: ἐξεγερθήσονται). John J. Collins classifies the view of afterlife in Jub. 23.26–31 as ‘resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit’ to heaven.Footnote 35 Jub. 23.30, however, only asserts that the Lord's servants ‘will rise (yetnaššʾu)Footnote 36 and see great peace’, and the phrase is a reference to the ‘prosperity of the living not the resurrection of the dead’.Footnote 37 ‘Exaltation of the spirit’ is acceptable in certain cases,Footnote 38 but ‘resurrection of the spirit’ is a category mistake,Footnote 39 not appropriate for Jewish or pagan texts, as a close analysis of the verbs for resurrection (such as ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω) indicates. Spirits do not rise from the dead in ancient Judaism, people do.

4. Resurrections in Paganism

No cultural encyclopedia of resurrection in antiquity would be complete without a review of the traditions in paganism.

4.1 Resurrections Performed by Asclepius, Polyidus and Heracles

Asclepius, Polyidus and Heracles were known for their abilities to raise individuals from the dead. Philodemus (ca. 110–40/35 bce),Footnote 40 in his treatise On Piety, has a tradition of Asclepius’ resurrections:

Zeus struck down Asclepius with a thunderbolt, as the one who wrote the Naupactica [Hesiod's era] affirms and Telestes [4th c. bce] in the Asclepius and the lyric poet Cinesias [ca. 450–390 bce], because after being entreated by Artemis, he raised Hippolytus [from the dead] (ὅ[τι τὸ]ν Ἱππόλυτον [παρα]κληθεὶς ὑπ᾽ Ἀρ[τέμι]δος ἀνέστ[η]σε[ν]); but Stesichorus [ca. 600–555 bce] in the Eriphyle wrote that it was because of Capaneus and Lycurgus.Footnote 41

Ps.-Eratosthenes (second century ce) notes that Asclepius’ transgressions included raising the dead by the art of the physician, and that his last resurrection was that of Hippolytus, son of Theseus (τούτου τέχνῃ ἰατρικῇ χρωμένου, ὡς καὶ τοὺς ἤδη τεθνηκότας ἐγείρειν, ἐν οἷς καὶ ἔσχατον Ἱππόλυτον τὸν Θησέως).Footnote 42 There are numerous testimonies to resurrections accomplished by Asclepius.Footnote 43

Palaephetus (fourth century bce?) tells the story of Glaucus as an example of an impossible event:

καὶ οὗτος ὁ μῦθος παγγέλοιος, ὡς δὴ τοῦ Γλαύκου ἐν πίθῳ μέλιτος ἀποθανόντος ὁ Μίνως ἐν τῷ τύμβῳ κατώρυξε τὸν Κοιράνου Πολύιδον (ὃς ἦν ἐκ τοῦ Ἄργους), ὃς ἰδὼν δράκοντα ἑτέρῳ δράκοντι τεθνεῶτι πόαν ἐπιθέντα καὶ ἀναστήσαντα αὐτόν, καὶ αὐτὸς ταὐτὸ ποιήσας τῷ Γλαύκῳ, ἀνέστησεν αὐτόν. ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀδύνατον, ἀποθανόντα ἄνδρα ἀναστῆσαι ἢ ὄφιν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἄλλο ζῷον.

And this tale is utterly ridiculous, that when Glaucus had died in a jar of honey, Minos buried Polyidus son of Koiranos (who was from Argos) in the tomb, who seeing a serpent place an herb on another dead serpent and raise it, also did this to Glaucus and raised him. This very thing is impossible: to raise a dead man or serpent or any other animal.Footnote 44

Palaephetus proceeds to give a rational explanation for the account.

Agatharchides (second century bce) includes Alcestis among those whom Heracles raised:

And Alcestis, Protesilaus and Glaucus who died rose again (καὶ τὴν μὲν Ἄλκηστιν καὶ Πρωτεσίλαον καὶ Γλαῦκον τετελευτηκότας πάλιν ἀναστῆναι), the one being brought up by Heracles (τὴν μὲν ὑφ’ Ἡρακλέους ἀναχθεῖσαν), the other because of his love for his wife, and the last because of the prophecy about the one buried with him.Footnote 45

In all the examples above, individuals’ material bodies are raised (i.e. there is no statement that their corpses were left in tombs).

4.2 The Resurrection Narratives of Naumachius

Proclus (410/12–85 ce) describes certain individuals who apparently rose from the dead:

καὶ γὰρ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν τινες ἤδη καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ἔδοξαν καὶ μνήμασιν ἐνετέθησαν καὶ ἀνεβίωσαν καὶ ὤφθησαν οἳ μὲν ἐγκαθήμενοι τοῖς μνήμασιν, οἳ δὲ καὶ ἐφεστῶτες.

Because in our time certain individuals who were thought to have been already dead and who had been buried in their tombs came to life again and appeared (were seen), some lying on their tombs and others standing up.Footnote 46

Proclus gives several examples from an individual named Naumachius:

And Naumachius of Epirus, who lived in the time of my grandparents, records that Polycritus, one of the most distinguished of the Aetolians who had obtained the office of Aetoliarch, died and came to life again in the ninth month after his death (ἀποθανεῖν καὶ ἀναβιῶναι μηνὶ μετὰ τὸν θάνατον ἐνάτῳ); and he came to the public assembly of the Aetolians and advised them on the best course of action to take concerning affairs that they were deliberating. Among the witnesses to these events were Hieron the Ephesian and other historians who wrote about what happened to Antigonus the king and other friends of theirs who were not present during the events.Footnote 47

It is a bodily resurrection.

Proclus quotes Naumachius for the account of another individual named Eurynous from Nicopolis:

But there was not only this individual (Polycritus). In Nicopolis, among those who did not live long ago, a certain person named Eurynous experienced the same thing. After being buried by his relatives outside the city, he returned to life on the fifteenth day after his burial (καὶ ταφέντα πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ὑπὸ τῶν προσηκόντων ἀναβιῶναι μετὰ πεντεκαιδεκάτην ἡμέραν τῆς ταφῆς) and said that he had seen and heard many amazing things under the earth but that he had been ordered to keep everything secret (unspoken). And he lived not a short time afterwards and appeared to be more just after his return to life than before (καὶ ἐπιβιῶναι χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον καὶ ὀφθῆναι δικαιότερον μετὰ τὴν ἀναβίωσιν ἢ πρότερον).Footnote 48

Eurynous rises again and leaves his tomb.

Naumachius continues with a description of an individual named Rufus of Philippi who lived near his own time:

He adds still another account of an individual who, as he says, lived recently: a certain Rufus from Philippi in Macedonia who had been honoured with the revered high priesthood of Thessalonica. For when this person died he came to life again on the third day and coming to life said that he had been sent by the chthonic gods (τοῦτον γὰρ ἀποθανόντα τριταῖον ἀναβιῶναι καὶ ἀναβιοῦντα εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὑπὸ τῶν χθονίων ἀναπεμφθείη θεῶν) to furnish certain spectacles for the people, which he had happened to promise, and living until their completion he immediately died.Footnote 49

Naumachius, in Proclus’ excerpts, gives no explanation for these events other than the hint that the ‘chthonic gods’ were responsible. Proclus himself believes they were near-death experiences, in which a spark of life remained in the apparently dead bodies.Footnote 50

4.3 Resurrections of Greco-Roman Divinities

The discussions below must necessarily be short, but that should not detract from their accuracy.

4.3.1 Osiris and Horus

The most ancient depiction of the resurrection of a divinity is that of Osiris. The Pyramid Texts are unambiguous. Resuscitation is clearly expressed in this Pyramid Text:

Osiris awakes: the god once slack rouses, the god stands up, the god takes control of his body. This Pepi (II)Footnote 51 Neferkare awakes; the god once slack rouses, the god stands up, the god takes control of his body. Horus stands up that he might array this Pepi Neferkare with the woven cloth that comes from him …Footnote 52

Apparently the Netherworld (Dewat), where Osiris reigns, is occasionally located in the sky.Footnote 53 In a Ptolemaic-Roman temple at Denderah, Osiris is depicted in several pertinent scenes (see Fig. 1): in one he is lying dead and being ‘mourned by Isis and Nephtys’ (Fig. 1a). In another he is depicted ‘rising from his bed in a floating position’ (Fig. 1b).Footnote 54 Plutarch, who identifies Dionysus and Osiris, refers to the dismemberment, resurrection and rebirth of Osiris:

ὁμολογεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ Τιτανικὰ καὶ Νυκτέλια τοῖς λεγομένοις Ὀσίριδος διασπασμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀναβιώσεσι καὶ παλιγγενεσίαις.

The narratives of the Titans and of the Night Festivals (the Titanika and Nuktelia) correspond with the so-called dismemberments, returns to life and rebirths of Osiris.Footnote 55

Figure 1. Depictions of Osiris from a Ptolemaic-Roman temple at Denderah: (a). Osiris being mourned by Isis and Nephtys; (b). The resurrection of Osiris. Drawing from A. Mariette, Dendérah, vol. iv (Paris: A. Franck, 1873) Plate 90, digitally scanned by the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg and available at: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/mariette1873bd4/096.

Although Plutarch uses plurals, he probably does not intend the reader to understand a cyclical series of dismemberments and so forth. J. Gwyn Griffiths believes that the rebirth may refer to Osiris’ incarnation (reincarnation) as Apis, where Apis is conceived as being the ‘image of the soul of Osiris’.Footnote 56 It is bodily resurrection, and there is no question of Osiris’ body being left in the tomb.

According to Diodorus Siculus, Isis raised Horus from the dead using a ‘medicine of immortality’:

εὑρεῖν δ’ αὐτὴν καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀθανασίας φάρμακον, δι’ οὗ τὸν υἱὸν Ὧρον, ὑπὸ τῶν Τιτάνων ἐπιβουλευθέντα καὶ νεκρὸν εὑρεθέντα καθ’ ὕδατος, μὴ μόνον ἀναστῆσαι, δοῦσαν τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας ποιῆσαι μεταλαβεῖν.

Furthermore, she discovered also the drug which gives immortality, by means of which she not only raised from the dead her son Horus, who had been the object of plots on the part of Titans and had been found dead under the water, giving him his soul again, but also made him immortal.Footnote 57

Horus rises bodily.

4.3.2 Dionysus

Although there are many Dionysi,Footnote 58 there exist several intriguing versions of his resurrection after the dismemberment he suffered at the hands of the Titans. In one version (the non-Orphic) his members were put back together. Philodemus has this version: [δι]/ασπασθεὶς ὑπὸ | τῶν Τιτάνων Ῥέ[ας] τὰ | μέλη συνθε[ίσης] | ἀνεβίω[ι] (‘torn apart by the Titans, Rhea put his members together, and he returned to life’).Footnote 59 Plutarch refers to Thyiads (female devotees) who awaken/raise the Liknites (God of the Mystic Basket):

Similar agreement is found too in the tales about their sepulchres (τὰς ταφάς). The Egyptians, as has been stated, point out the tombs (θήκας) of Osiris in many places, and the people of Delphi believe that the remains of Dionysus rest with them close beside the oracle; and the Holy Ones offer a secret sacrifice in the shrine of Apollo whenever the (female) devotees of Dionysus wake the God of the Mystic Basket (Liknites) (ὅταν αἱ Θυιάδες ἐγείρωσι τὸν Λικνίτην).Footnote 60

Martin Nilsson argues that the passage gives one the impression ‘that Plutarch has in mind not the awakening of a sleeping god but the raising of him from the dead’.Footnote 61

The people and council of Rhodes (after 212 ce) honoured a priest of Bacchus/Dionysus who had given 360 drachmas to the individual charged with ‘waking’ Dionysus:

… having given to the hydraulic organist who wakes the god (τῷ ἐπεγείροντι [τὸ]ν θεόν) 360 drachmas, and to those who sing hymns to the god each month 40, and for the two descents/returns of the god (ταῖς τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ καθόδοις δυσί) …Footnote 62

Nilsson believes that the two ascents are Dionysus’ ‘rebirth after his being dismembered by the Titans and his ascent with Semele’.Footnote 63 Given the tradition of Dionysus’ resurrection, it is doubtful that the reference here is merely to a ceremony to reanimate a statue, particularly since the text refers to his descents/ascents.

In the Orphic version Athena saves Dionysus’ heart, from which his body is refashioned.Footnote 64 Proclus writes that Athena preserves Dionysus ‘immaculate’ (διὸ καὶ σῴζει μὲν τὸν Διόνυσον ἄχραντον).Footnote 65 In both versions of Dionysus’ resurrection or awakening it is his body that rises (even if it had to be remade from his heart). Philodemus, for example, makes it clear that his body was put back together. This conception of Dionysus’ resurrected body is patently material.

4.3.3 Adonis

Theocritus (third century bce), in his idyll on the Adonia in Alexandria, describes Aphrodite rejoicing with her husband (νῦν μὲν Κύπρις ἔχοισα τὸν αὑτᾶς χαιρέτω ἄνδρα), although he leaves the next day, and the chorus mourns:Footnote 66

ἕρπεις, ὦ φίλ’ Ἄδωνι, καὶ ἐνθάδε κἠς Ἀχέροντα
ἡμιθέων, ὡς φαντί, μονώτατος.

You alone of the demigods, as they say, beloved Adonis, go both here (to this world) and also to Acheron.Footnote 67

The scholiast to Theocritus writes that Adonis spends six months with Aphrodite and six months with Persephone:

It is said that after death Adonis spent six months in the arms of Aphrodite and six more in the arms of Persephone (λέγεται δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἀδώνιδος, ὅτι καὶ ἀποθανὼν ὁ Ἄδωνις ἓξ μῆνας ἐποίησεν ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις τῆς Περσεφόνης). This which is said is real, because Adonis, that is, the grain which is sown, passes six months in the ground after the sowing, and Aphrodite has him for six months, which is the mildness of the open air. And after that people harvest him.Footnote 68

Lucian apparently witnessed this ritual in the temple of Byblian Aphrodite:

ἐπεὰν δὲ ἀποτύψωνταί τε καὶ ἀποκλαύσωνται, πρῶτα μὲν καταγίζουσι τῷ Ἀδώνιδι ὅκως ἐόντι νέκυι, μετὰ δὲ τῇ ἑτέρῃ ἡμέρῃ ζώειν τέ μιν μυθολογέουσι καὶ ἐς τὸν ἠέρα πέμπουσι.

After they have finished beating their breasts and lamenting, they first make offerings to Adonis as to the dead, and afterwards, on the next day, they claim [or ‘recite the myth’] that he lives and send him into the air.Footnote 69

Jane L. Lightfoot draws attention to the parallel between Ps.-Nonnos's ἀναβεβιωκέναι τὸν Ἄδωνιν (‘Adonis had come to life again’) and Lucian's ζώειν τέ μιν μυθολογέουσι.Footnote 70 Brigitte Soyez argues that any attempt to reduce ‘he is alive’ to a theatrical scene, the erection of a pillar symbolising Adonis, irony or a mystical illusion is simply a fundamental misconstrual of the meaning of the text.Footnote 71 Lightfoot thinks that ‘alive’ refers to the ‘sharing arrangement with six months in either world’.Footnote 72 Adonis’ body is physically present with Persephone and Aphrodite and this corresponds closely with resurrected bodies in Christian tradition.

4.3.4 Tyrian Heracles

A number of individuals in the ancient Mediterranean identified Tyrian Heracles with Melqart.Footnote 73 An illuminating passage from Josephus refers to Menander's account of Hiram of Tyre's reign:Footnote 74

Moreover he went off and cut timber from the mountain called Libanos for the roofs of the temples, and pulled down the ancient temples and erected new ones to Heracles and Astarte; and he was the first to celebrate the awakening of Heracles in the month of Peritius (πρῶτός τε τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ἔγερσιν ἐποιήσατο ἐν τῷ Περιτίῳ μηνί).Footnote 75

There is a parallel text in the Contra Apionem:

He demolished ancient temples and built new ones, both to Heracles and to Astarte. He initiated the ‘Awakening’ of Heracles, in the month of Peritios (πρῶτόν τε τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ἔγερσιν ἐποιήσατο ἐν τῷ Περιτίῳ μηνί) …Footnote 76

John M. G. Barclay notes that the Latin translator and others have understood the text to mean ‘“erection” of a temple’.Footnote 77 He argues that ‘it is not clear why Heracles’ temple should be so singled out (L wrongly adds a reference to Astarte's as well …) nor why it should be dated so precisely. Menander is probably referring to the institution of an annual festival of the “Awakening” of the God …’Footnote 78 ‘Resuscitation’ or ‘resurrection’ would probably be good translations for ἔγερσιν in the texts in Josephus.Footnote 79

An inscription is relevant, which mentions an individual named Martas from Philadelphia/Amman, who is ἐγερσε|[ίτην τοῦ] Ἡρακλέ/ου[ς] [βουλ]ε[υ]τὴν καὶ | πρ[όεδρο]ν (‘resuscitator of Heracles, councillor and proedros (president)’).Footnote 80 Ἐγερσείτης was probably a cultic term (Erwecker des Herakles ‘awakener of Heracles’) and not a term meaning ‘temple constructor’. Corinne Bonnet argues that each year in February and March there was a festival of Egersis, which comprised the burning of Melqart (Tyrian Heracles), the subsequent mourning, and his awakening or resurrection.Footnote 81 If this interpretation (and reconstruction) of ἐγερσείτης is correct, then there were individuals associated with the resuscitation of Tyrian Heracles/Melqart.

It is probable that Eudoxus of Cnidus’ reference to the resurrection of Tyrian Heracles illuminates the festival:

Eudoxus of Cnidus, in the first book of his descriptive geography of the earth, says that the Phoenicians sacrifice quails to Heracles, because when Heracles, the son of Asteria and Zeus, was going to Libya he was killed by Typhon. But when Iolaus brought him a quail and set it near him, he smelled it and came to life again (Ἰολάου δ’ αὐτῷ προσενέγκαντος ὄρτυγα καὶ προσαγαγόντος ὀσφρανθέντα ἀναβιῶναι).Footnote 82

Ἀναβιῶναι in context clearly implies that Heracles was raised from the dead. Eudoxus’ account is undeniably of a material body. Menander and the inscriptions that mention an official who was the ‘raiser/awakener of Heracles’ also imply that Heracles’ body is the object of the rituals.

4.3.5 Attis

The narratives of a resurrection of Attis are late, at best. In Pausanias’ (second century ce) Lydian version of the Attis myth, Attis is either killed by a boar or goes mad during a wedding and castrates himself when Agdistis, in love with Attis, interrupts the youth's wedding:

But Agdistis repented of what he had done to Attis, and persuaded Zeus to grant that the body of Attis should neither rot at all nor decay (μήτε σήπεσθαί τι Ἄττῃ τοῦ σώματος μήτε τήκεσθαι).Footnote 83

In Arnobius’ version of the myth, which is presumably based on Timotheus (‘the Athenian Eumolpid’), an author who wrote ca. 300 bce, only Attis’ little finger survives death:Footnote 84

Jupiter refuses Acdestis’ request that Attis might come back to life (Iuppiter rogatus ab Acdesti ut Attis revivesceret non sinit). But what is possible by concession of fate, this he grants without objecting: that his body should not decay, that his hair should ever grow, that the very smallest of his fingers should live and alone react by continued motion (ne corpus eius putrescat, crescant ut comae semper, digitorum ut minimissimus vivat et perpetuo solus agitetur e motu). Satisfied with these favors, Acdestis, it is said, consecrated the body in Pessinus, and honored it with annual rites and with a sacred ministry.Footnote 85

Smith notes the ‘second to fourth century ad reinterpretation, within some of the “mystery” cults, of archaic locative traditions of dead deities in new experimental modes which appear to testify to these deities returning to life. In the case of Attis, there are only scattered hints of this process.’Footnote 86

Hippolytus, in his discussion of the Naassenes, affirms a resurrection for Attis (who is called ‘Pappas’ in the text).Footnote 87 The anonymous source (‘he’) is a ‘Gnostic’Footnote 88 author whom Hippolytus does not name:

λέγουσι δὲ οἱ Φρύγες <τὸν> αὐτὸν τοῦτον καὶ νέκυν, οἱονεὶ ἐν μνήματι καὶ τάφῳ ἐγκατωρυγμένον ἐν τῷ σώματι … οἱ δὲ αὐτοί, φησί, Φρύγες τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον πάλιν ἐκ μεταβολῆς λέγουσι θεόν· γίνεται γάρ, φησί, θεός, ὅταν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστὰς διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης πύλης εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.

But the Phrygians say that the same one is also a ‘corpse’, having been buried in the body as in a monument or tomb … And the same Phrygians, he says again, say that this same one is by reason of the change a god. For he becomes a god when he arises from the dead and enters into heaven through the same gate [the gate of the heavens].Footnote 89

Firmicus Maternus also is a late witness to a resurrection of Attis. After describing Attis's death at the hands of Cybele, he says:

They (the Phrygians) advanced the claim that he whom they had buried a little while earlier had come to life again (Phryges … quem paulo ante sepelierant revixisse iactarunt); and since the woman's heart burned unbearably with overweening love, they erected temples to the dead youth … His death they interpret as the storing away of the collected seeds, his return to life as the sprouting of the scattered seeds in the annual turn of the seasons (vitam rursus quod iacta semina annuis vicibus reconduntur).Footnote 90

The conclusion of Jan Bremmer has the strongest warrant: ‘Attis’ “resurrection” is not mentioned before the third century and seems closely connected with the rise of Christianity, just like the “resurrection” of Adonis is not mentioned before the third century’.Footnote 91 The question of analogy and genealogy in the history of religions is controversial.Footnote 92 The resurrection is bodily (i.e. material) in Firmicus Maternus. The buried Attis rises again. The ‘Gnostic’ Phrygians of Hippolytus, however, relate the bodily resurrection of Attis to the spiritual resurrection of the pneumatikoi who are ‘born again from the bodies of the earthly’ (τουτέστιν ἐκ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν χοϊκῶν, ἀναγεννηθέντες πνευματικοί, οὐ σαρκικοί).Footnote 93

5. Protesilaus the Hero

Protesilaus was the first Greek hero to die in Troy.Footnote 94 Philostratus, in the Heroikos (a dialogue between a Phoenician and a vinedresser in Elaious), asserts that Protesilaus returned to life twice.Footnote 95 The Phoenician asks, ‘Has he come back to life, or what has happened?’ (ἀναβεβιωκὼς ἢ τί;). After persuading his wife to return with him to Hades, he returned to life again:

Phoen.: And yet he is said to have died after he came to life again (ἀποθανεῖν γε μετὰ τὸ ἀναβιῶναι λέγεται) and to have persuaded his wife to follow him.

Vinedr.: He himself also says these things. But how he returned afterwards too, he does not tell me even though I've wanted to find out for a long time. He is hiding, he says, some secret of the Fates (Μοιρῶν τι ἀπόρρητον). His fellow soldiers also, who were there in Troy, still appear on the plain, warlike in posture and shaking the crests of their helmets.Footnote 96

Jonathan Burgess argues that it is the ‘shade of Protesilaos’ who ‘spends time with Laodameia in Hades’ and who ‘appears to humans in Phthia and in Elaious’.Footnote 97 This is warranted given the vinedresser's assertion, when asked to explain the nature of his association with Protesilaus and his ability to foretell the future, that

[t]o be cleansed of the body is the beginning of life for divine and thus blessed souls (ψυχαῖς γὰρ θείαις οὕτω καὶ μακαρίαις ἀρχὴ βίου τὸ καθαρεῦσαι τοῦ σώματος). For the gods, whose attendants they are, they then know, not by worshipping statues and conjectures, but by gaining visible association with them. And free from the body and its diseases (ἐλεύθεραι νόσων τε καὶ σώματος), souls observe the affairs of mortals, both when souls are filled with prophetic skill and when the oracular power sends Bacchic frenzy upon them.Footnote 98

Antonio Stramaglia describes Protesilaus and Palamedes (Heroik. 21.6) as ‘souls that have been heroized’ (anime eroizzate).Footnote 99 This explains why the narrative of Protesilaus’ return to life is consistent with his body being buried in the Chersonesus.Footnote 100 It also explains the absence of the verbs ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω to describe Protesilaus’ return to life, and the use of the more ambiguous ἀναβιόω – a verb avoided by the New Testament.

6. Conclusion

On the basis of the semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and the cultural encyclopedia of resurrected bodies, one can conclude that Paul would have assumed that the tradition about the burial of Christ and his resurrection on the third day presupposed a tradition of an empty tomb. To put it another way: Paul would have taken it for granted that the resurrection of Christ was inconceivable without an empty tomb. Consequently, according to the normal conventions of communication, he did not need to mention the tomb tradition.

The following objections may arise:

  1. (1) One could assert that the semantic analysis of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω is wrong – that is, the verbs do not imply physical motion upward. In this case, the burden is on the scholar in question to show that in the context of resurrection, either ἀνίστημι or ἐγείρω is used to refer only and clearly to spirits, souls or astral bodies in a pagan or Jewish text. This is not to deny that there was a spiritual or metaphorical usage of resurrection words in the New Testament and early Christianity (Col 2.12; 3.1; Eph 2.5–6). The metaphorical uses in the deutero-Paulines, however, are based on the image of the resurrection of Christ.

  2. (2) One can respond that some ancient Jews in the Second Temple period believed in a resurrection of the spirit. Again the burden is on such scholars to prove that verbs (e.g. the Hebrew המקים as in Sir 48.5 = ὁ ἐγείρας LXX; tanšeʾa in Ethiopic; etc.) or nouns for resurrection are combined syntactically (or semantically) with terms such as ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’. Such evidence is absent.

  3. (3) One could argue that pagan attitudes towards resurrection are irrelevant for the understanding of the New Testament – in particular, of Paul's views in 1 Cor 15. However, Paul's readers from pagan backgrounds would have viewed resurrection (as opposed to the immortality of the soul) as bodily. In that respect, there is a certain continuity between ancient Judaism and paganism, which is of fundamental importance for understanding the New Testament in its ancient context.

  4. (4) One could accept the truth of the three premises above and still deny the conclusion for which I have argued. After all, the argument is not deductive, but inductive. In our guild as historians one can only appeal to probability, however, and if the premises are true, then the conclusion seems unavoidable: Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection of Christ without believing that his tomb was empty.

Footnotes

*

I am grateful for comments on the article made by the NTS reviewer, by historians of religion Jan Bremmer and Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, and by philosopher Ian Morton. At the 2015 SBL meeting in Atlanta, I read an earlier version in the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti section. Abbreviations for Latin texts below are from the OLD and A. Blaise's Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. Abbreviations for Greek patristic texts are from LPGL.

References

1 Bousset, W., ‘Der erste Brief an die Korinther’, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt: Zweiter Band. Die Briefe. Die johanneischen Schriften (ed. Weiss, J.; Göttingen, 1908) 72–161 Google Scholar, esp. 146.

2 See Ware, J., ‘The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5’, NTS 60 (2014) 475–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 477–9, for a survey of similar views.

3 Hume, D., ‘Of Miracle’, Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (London: Millar, 1748) 173–203 Google Scholar.

4 Smith, J. Z., Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) 47–51 Google Scholar, 114, 118.  On genealogy cf. also Bremmer, J., ‘The Resurrection between Zarathustra and Jonathan Z. Smith’, NedThT 50 (1996) 89–107 Google Scholar (slightly expanded in idem, The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife (London/New York: Routledge, 2002) 41–55 Google Scholar).

5 Cf. Smith, J. Z., ‘Dying and Rising Gods’, ER 4 (2005) 2535–40Google Scholar and idem, Drudgery Divine, 90–3.

6 Ware, ‘Resurrection’, 492–5. A. Oepke, ‘ἐγείρω κτλ.’, TDNT ii.333–9 and idem, ‘ἀνίστημι κτλ.’, TDNT i.368–72 devotes minimal attention to resurrection in paganism (the same is true of Oepke's ‘Auferstehung ii (des Menschen)’, RAC i (1950) 930–8). Bertram, G., ‘Auferstehung i (des Kultgottes)’, RAC i (1950) 919–30Google Scholar uses the concept (now mostly abandoned) of the resurrection of a vegetation god. The finest linguistic survey of resurrection in paganism is still Fascher, E., ‘Anastasis-Resurrectio-Auferstehung: Eine programmatische Studie zum Thema “Sprache und Offenbarung”’, ZNW 40 (1941) 166–229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wedderburn, A. J. M. (Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987)Google Scholar surveyed the resurrections of certain gods, but was not concerned with linguistic analysis. Endsjø, D. Ø., Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has a large collection of references, but did few linguistic investigations and conflated resurrection with translation (individuals who have not died, or who are on funeral pyres, whose bodies are taken up to heaven or immortalized). Miller, R. C., Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (New York/London: Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar focuses on ‘translation fables’ and passes over resurrection traditions in antiquity.

7 Ware, ‘Resurrection’, 494.

8 [Ammonius], De adfinium vocabulorum differentia §216 (BT 56.15–16 Nickau). Cf. Nickau, K., ed., Ammonii qui dicitur De adfinium vocabulorum differentia (BT; Leipzig: Teubner, 1966)Google Scholar lxvi–lxvii on the date of the text (attributed to three different authors: Ammonius, Herrenius Philo, and Ptolemaeus). See also Lacore, M., ‘Du “sommeil sans réveil” à la résurrection comme réveil’, Gaia: revue interdisciplinaire sur la Grèce Archaïque 13 (2010) 205–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 [Ammonius], De adfin. voc. dif. §50 (14.3–4 Nickau).

10 [Ammonius], De impr. §48 (153.5–6 Nickau).

11 [Plato], Axiochus 10.367c.

12 Eupolis, fr. 328 Kassel–Austin = 305 Kock. Cf. Ps.-Zonaras, Lexicon Ε §606.

13 Sophocles, El. 137–9.

14 Homer, Il. 21.55–7; Aeschylus, Eum. 647–8 (ἀνάστασις), Ag. 1360–1; Sophocles, fr. 557 Radt; Euripides, Herc. fur. 718–19; etc.

15 Aeschylus, Cho. 495–6; the translation of Electra's question is from Sommerstein, A. H., ed. and trans., Aeschylus (LCL; 3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008)Google Scholar ii.277 (he translates ἐξεγείρηι with ‘awakened’).

16 Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.5.12. For further resurrections of Heracles, see §4.1 below.

17 Theodoret, Affect. 8.20 = Apollodorus, Περὶ θεῶν in FGrH 244 F 138.

18 These will be discussed below in §§4.3.2 and 4.3.4.

19 See Ware's critique (‘Resurrection’, 493–4) of conflating ἐγείρω with ‘rising into the air’ or ascension.

20 Collins, J. J., ‘The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature’, Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part Four. Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and The World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity (ed. Avery-Peck, A. J. and Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 119–40Google Scholar; Setzer, C., Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity: Doctrine, Community, and Self-definition (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 21–52 Google Scholar; Levenson, J. D., Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University, 2006)Google Scholar; and Nickelsburg, G., Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (HTS 56; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2007 2)Google Scholar.

21 1 Enoch 51.5 ‘my Chosen one will arise’ (tanšeʾa) … and the righteous will dwell (yaḫadderu) on it (the earth)’; trans. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and VanderKam, J. C., 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012) 180 Google Scholar.

22 2 Macc 7.9, 14; 12.43–4.

23 4Q521 fr. 2 col. ii + 4 l. 12 (ומיתים יחיה). Cf. Hogeterp, A. L. A., ‘Belief in Resurrection and its Religious Settings in Qumran and the New Testament’, Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (StTDJ 85; ed. Martínez, F. García; Leiden: Brill 2007) 299–320 Google Scholar, esp. 309–11.

24 Sib. Or. 4.181–3, 187–93.

25 In 1 Enoch 91.10, ‘the righteous will arise (yetnaššāʾ) from his sleep’ (not their spirits); trans. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 83–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 210 Google Scholar (the verse may be an addition; however, 4QEng ar = 4Q212 fr. 1 col. ii l. 13 apparently has the text). Cf. M. Black in consultation with VanderKam, J., The Book of Enoch or i Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 84 Google Scholar, 282 (‘i.e., in the resurrection’). In 103.3–4, however, spirits ‘will live’ (yaḥayyewu); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 523 calls this ‘revivification’.

26 Possibly 1QHa col. 14 l. 37, col. 19 l. 15. Stemberger, G., Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinensischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (AnBib 56; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1972) 3 Google Scholar believes resurrection is probably present in the Hodayoth.

27 4 Ezra 7.31–2 (bodies and souls; et promptuaria reddent quae eis commendatae sunt animae).

28 2 Bar. 30.1–2 (), 49.2; 50.2–3 ( clearly a bodily resurrection); 51.1.

29 Ps.-Phocylides 103–15.

30 Test. Jud. 25:1 Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστήσεται Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ εἰς ζωήν (the verb's use indicates bodily resurrection).

31 See Pss. Sol. 2.31 ὁ ἀνιστῶν ἐμὲ εἰς δόξαν and 3.11–12 οἱ δὲ φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον ἀναστήσονται εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Stemberger, Leib, 56–61 denies that Pss. Sol. 3.11–12 refers to resurrection. But see Sprinkle, P. M., Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and Paul (WUNT ii/241; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 89–90 Google Scholar. The verb's Greek usage (ἀναστήσονται) is enough to show that it refers to physical resurrection.

32 Setzer, Resurrection, 18. She admits (ibid., 14) that CD 2.7–13 is thoroughly ambiguous.

33 Cf. the translation and comment in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 511, 520.

34 A convincing defence of bodily resurrection may be found in Chester, A., Future Hope and Present Reality, vol. i: Eschatology and Transformation in the Hebrew Bible (WUNT 293; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 291–5Google Scholar. The Hebrew verb in Dan 12.2 (יקיצו) should be compared with the verb used for Gehazi's failure to raise the dead boy in 2 Kings 4.31, who showed no signs of waking/rising (לא הקיץ), translated in 4 Reg 4.31 with the very material οὐκ ἠγέρθη. Cf. Levenson, Resurrection, 186.

35 Collins, ‘Afterlife’, 124.

36 Cf. Dillman, C. F. A., Lexicon linguae Aethiopicae (Leipzig: Weigel 1865) 637 Google Scholar s.v. tanšeʾa (where it is clear that the verb has many other meanings besides references to resurrection).

37 Trans. Hanneken, T. R., The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees (Atlanta: SBL, 2012) 160 Google Scholar (his comment). Hanneken notes that the dead are ‘aware of the restoration’ but do not participate in it in 23.31. Cf. Volz, P., Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur dargestellt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1934) 29 Google Scholar.

38 E.g. 1 Enoch 103.3–4; Collins, ‘Afterlife’, 124.

39 A concept introduced by Ryle, G., The Concept of Mind (New York: Hutchinson, 1949) 16 Google Scholar (repr. University of Chicago Press, 2000).

40 Most dates below are from OCD 4.

41 Philodemus, De pietate 131 (52.5–17 Gomperz) = P.Herc. 1609 col. v. Cf. Edelstein, E. J. and Edelstein, L., Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (2 vols.; Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945)Google Scholar T. 73.

42 Ps.-Eratosthenes, Catasterismi 1.6D (BT Mythographi Graeci iii/1.7.6–13 Olivieri). Cf. Geus, K., Eratosthenes von Kyrene: Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Munich: Beck, 2002) 211–14Google Scholar, who argues that Ps.-Eratosthenes’ astronomical mythological text is a second-century ce summary of Eratosthenes’ Ἀστρονομία ἢ Καταστηριγμοί that transmits a core of the original. Cf. Suda Ε 2898.

43 Most are in Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, and I will not burden the footnotes here.

44 Palaephetus, De incredibilibus 26.

45 Agatharchides, De mari Erythraeo §7. Cf. Photius, Bibl. 250.7, 443b (CUF Photius vii.140 Henry). Aeneas of Gaza lists many other resurrections accomplished by Heracles. Cf. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus ( Colonna, M. E., ed., Teofrasto (Naples: Iodice, 1958)Google Scholar) 63.13–19 = Eudoxus fr. 372 ( Lasserre, F., ed., trans. and comm., Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966) 126 Google Scholar).

46 Proclus, In Platon. rem publ. 614b (ii.113 Kroll). I have consulted the translations in Festugière, A. J., Proclus: Commentaire sur la République, vol. iii (Paris: Vrin, 1970)Google Scholar.

47 Proclus, In Platon. rem publ. 614b (ii.115 Kroll). In Phlegon's (De mir. 2.1.6–7) version, Polycritus describes himself a ‘ghost’ (φάσματι) and ‘dead in body’ (τῷ μὲν σώματι τέθνηκα).

48 Proclus, In Platon. rem publ. 614b (ii.115 Kroll).

49 Proclus, In Platon. rem publ. 614b (ii.115–16 Kroll).

50 Proclus, In Platon. rem publ. 614b (ii.113 Kroll). Bremmer, The Rise and Fall, 94 includes Naumachius’ account of Eurynous in his chapter on ‘Near-Death Experiences’, even though he translates the relevant text as ‘he was seen to be much more just after his resurrection than before’.

51 He ruled ca. 2246–2152 bce.

52 Pyramid Texts, Recitation 690; trans. Allen, J. P., The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Atlanta: SBL, 2015 2) 287 Google Scholar (a text referred to by Griffiths, J. G., The Origins of Osiris and his Cult (SHR 40; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 64 Google Scholar).

53 Pyramid Texts, Recitation 466; trans. Allen, Pyramid, 128.

54 Mettinger, T. N. D., The Riddle of Resurrection: ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Ancient Near East (CB.OT 50; Stockholm: Almqvist, 2001) 172–3Google Scholar (with images).

55 Plutarch, Is. Os. 35.364f.

56 Plutarch, Is. Os. 35.364e–f. Cf. Griffiths, J. G., ed., trans. and comm., Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1970) 363–5Google Scholar, 435 (with reference to Is. Os. 20.59b and 43.368b–c). Griffiths (ibid., 434) compares this text with De E ap. Delph. 9.389A.

57 Diod. Sic. 1.25.6; trans. Oldfather, C. H., ed. and trans., Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (LCL; 12 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933–67)Google Scholar i.81.

58 Wedderburn, Baptism, 193, with reference to Cicero, Nat. D. 3.58 Dionysos multos habemus …

59 Philodemus, De pietate 3.44.4–8 (16 Gomperz) = P.Herc. 247 col. iii. Cf. Diod. Sic. 3.62.6; Origen, C. Cels. 4.17 (‘being torn apart by them (the Titans), and after all that being put back together and apparently coming back to life and ascending into heaven (οἱονεὶ ἀναβιώσκοντος καὶ ἀναβαίνοντος εἰς οὐρανόν)’); and Justin, Dial. 69.2 διασπαραχθέντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα ἀναστῆναι, εἰς οὐρανόν τε ἀνεληλυθέναι (‘torn apart, and dying, he rose again, and ascended into heaven’).

60 Plutarch, Is. Os. 35.364f–365a; trans. Babbitt, F. C. et al. , eds. and trans., Plutarch: Moralia (LCL; 15 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–69)Google Scholar v.87. Nilsson, M., The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age (New York: Arno, 1975) 38–41 Google Scholar was apparently sceptical of the antiquity of the tradition.

61 Nilsson, Dionysiac Mysteries, 39–40.

62 REG 17 (1904) 203, 1b.

63 Nilsson, Dionysiac Mysteries, 41. Pausanias 2.31.2 recounts Dionysus’ rescue of Semele from Hades.

64 See West, M. L., The Orphic Poems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983) 151 Google Scholar and 161–2. Firmicus Maternus, Err. 6.4; Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. 35a (ii.145 Diehl); Clement of Alexandria, Prot. 2.18.1–2 (the heart still palpitates, but Apollo buries the limbs of Dionysus in Parnassus (cf. the reference to Orpheus in 2.17.2)); Scholia in Lycophr. 355; and Proclus, Hymni 7.11–14: (11) κραδίην ἐσάωσας (Athena: ‘saving his heart’); (13–4) νέος … | ἐκ Σεμέλης περὶ κόσμον ἀνηβήσῃ Διόνυσος (‘… from Semele, around the cosmos, would grow again a new Dionysus’).

65 Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. 24d (BT i.168 Diehl). Cf. Proclus, In Plat. Cratyl. 406bc, §182 (BT 106 Pasquali): ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ διασπαράξει τῶν Τιτάνων μόνη ἡ καρδία ἀδιαίρετος μεῖναι λέγεται, τουτέστιν ἡ ἀμερὴς τοῦ νοῦ οὐσία. See Orphei hymni 53 for the trieteric ‘awakening’ of chthonic Dionysos (χθόνιον Διόνυσον | ἐγρόμενον) and the comment in Nilsson, Dionysiac Mysteries, 40.

66 Theocritus, Id. 15.129–43.

67 Theocritus, Id. 15.136–7.

68 Schol. in Theocr. Id. 3.48d.

69 Lucian, De dea Syria 6; trans. Lightfoot, J. L., ed., trans. and comm., Lucian: On the Syrian Goddess (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 251 Google Scholar. After πέμπουσι Lightfoot, ibid., 250 inserts a period with Seyrig, H., ‘La résurrection d'Adonis et le texte de Lucien’, Syria 49 (1972) 97–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 99. Lightfoot (pp. 184–208) convincingly defends the authorship of Lucian.

70 Lightfoot, Lucian, 311. See Ps.-Nonnos, Scholia Mythologica Oratio 5, historia 5 (CCSG 27.269–70 Nimmo Smith).

71 Soyez, B., Byblos et la fête des Adonies (EPRO 60; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 38 Google Scholar, with reference to Roux, G., ‘Sur deux textes relatifs à Adonis’, RPh 41 (1967) 259–64Google Scholar, esp. 262–4.

72 Lightfoot, Lucian, 311. She refers to Lucian, Dial. d. 19.1 ἐξ ἡμισείας ἀφείλετό με τὸν ἐρώμενον (‘you have taken away half of my beloved’). The resurrection tradition corresponds to later Christian witnesses (some only mention the finding of Adonis): Origen, Sel. in Ezech. 8.14 (PG 13.797–800) χαίρουσιν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ὡς ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἀναστάντι; Jerome, Ezech. 3.8 ad 8.14 (CCSL 75.99.285–301 Glorie); Cyril of Alexandria, Is. 18.1–2 (PG 70.441); Procopius, Is. 18.2 (PG 87/2.2140). Cf. PGM iv.2902–3.

73 See e.g. the bilingual inscription from second century bce in Malta that mentions Heracles and Melqart in Greek and Phoenician. Amadasi, M. G. G., Le iscrizioni fenicie e puniche delle colonie in Occidente (Roma: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, 1967)Google Scholar §1 and 1 bis, pp. 15–16 = IG xiv.600.

74 On Menander of Ephesus, cf. Barclay, J. M. G., trans. and comm., Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. x: Against Apion (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 72 Google Scholar (his date and identity are uncertain). Suda 2898 Ἐρατοσθένης (‘Menander’ was one of Eratosthenes’ pupils).

75 Josephus, A.J. 8.145–6 = FGrH 783 F1; trans. Thackeray, H. St. J., Marcus, R. et al. , eds. and trans., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities (LCL; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–65)Google Scholar v.649–51 (Marcus).

76 Josephus, C. Ap. 1.118–19; trans. Barclay, Josephus, 73.

77 Barclay, Josephus, 73. Cf. Cassiodorus, Ios. c. Ap. 1.18.119 (fecit erectionem mense Peritio; CSEL 37.27.1 Boysen). Thackeray (Thackery, Marcus et al., Josephus, i.211) also translated the text with ‘erected’. L (codex Laurentianus plut. 69 cod. 22, eleventh century ce) adds εἶτα τὸ τῆς Ἀστάρτης after μηνί and omits ἔγερσιν. Eusebius, Chron. ( Schoene, A., ed., Eusebi chronicorum libri duo (Berlin: Weidmann 1875)Google Scholar i.118) has ἔγερσιν. On the text, see Niese, B., ed., Flavii Iosephi Opera, vol. v (Berlin: Weidmann 1889) 21 Google Scholar, apparatus criticus. Niese retains L's πρῶτον (an adverbial use).

78 Barclay, Josephus, 73–4, with reference to Athenaeus, Deipn. 9.392DE and 1 Kings 18.27–8. Mettinger, Riddle, 90 makes a similar argument: ‘it would be nonsensical to say that Hiram was the first who built the temple X in the month of Y, while it makes excellent sense to say that the king was the first to celebrate a certain festival in a certain month’.  See the extensive analysis by Clermont-Ganneau, C., ‘L'Égersis d'Héraclès et le réveil des dieux’, Recueil d'archéologie orientale 8 (1924) 149–67Google Scholar.

79 Lipiński, É., ‘La fête de l'ensevelissement et de la résurrection de Melqart’, Actes de la xviie rencontre assyriologique internationale (Ham-sure-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mesopotamie, 1970) 30–58 Google Scholar, esp. 30 translates the word as ‘resurrection’.

80 IGLSyr xxi/2.29. Lipiński, ‘La fête’, 31, 56 translates the word as ‘resuscitator’ as does Bonnet, C., Melqart: Cultes et mythes de l'Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée (Studia Phoenicia 8; Leuven: Peeters, 1988) 144–8Google Scholar (on the proper reconstruction and interpretation of the offices listed). Cf. Mettinger, Riddle, 90–1. An inscription from Ramlah also mentions an ‘awakener/resuscitator’ (ἐγερσ[είτου]), probably of Heracles. Cf. Clermont-Ganneau, C., ‘Inscriptions grecques de Palestine’, Recueil d'archéologie orientale 7 (1906) 174–8Google Scholar, esp. 175; idem, ‘L'inscription grecque d'Amman’, Recueil d'archéologie orientale 8 (1924) 121–5Google Scholar, esp. 125; Bonnet, Melqart, 131–2. Lipiński, ‘La fête’, 56–7 notes that the Ramlah inscription refers to the cult of Heracles, because of the function (resuscitator).

81 Bonnet, Melqart, 104–13.

82 Athenaeus, Deipn. 9.392DE = Eudoxus, fr. 284a Lasserre. Cf. Zenobius (second century ce), Epit. 5.56 = Eudoxus, fr. 284b Lasserre.

83 Pausanias 7.17.10–12 (text from 12); trans. Jones, W. H. S., ed. and trans., Pausanias: Description of Greece (LCL; 4 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918–35)Google Scholar iii.269.

84 See Bremmer, J. N., ‘Attis: A Greek God in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan Rome’, Mnemosyne 57 (2004) 534–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 542–4 (who emphasises Alexander Polyhistor's use of Timotheus as a source; cf. FrGH 273 F 74), reprinted in his Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 267–302 Google Scholar.

85 Arnobius, Nat. 5.7 (CSLP 256 Marchesi); trans. McCracken, G. E., trans. and comm., Arnobius of Sicca: The Case Against the Pagans (ACW 8; 2 vols.; Westminster, MD: Newman, 1949)Google Scholar ii.417.

86 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 133.

87 Diod. Sic. 3.59.4 Ἄττιν, ὕστερον δ’ ἐπικληθέντα Πάπαν (‘Attis, later called Papas’).

88 The cautionary quotes indicate the problematic nature of the concept.

89 Hippolytus, Haer. 5.8.23–4; trans. modified from Legge, F., Philosophumena or the Refutation of All Heresies … (London: SPCK, 1921) 135 Google Scholar.

90 Firmicus Maternus, Err. 3.1–2; trans. slightly modified from Forbes, C. A., trans. and annot., Firmicus Maternus: The Error of the Pagan Religions (ACW 37; New York: Newman, 1970) 47–8Google Scholar.

91 Bremmer, ‘Attis’, 547 = Bremmer, Greek Religion, 280. I would amend this statement in the case of Attis to ‘second century’, the date of Lucian, who probably wrote De dea Syria.

92 Smith's Drudgery Divine is a case in point, and see the response of Bremmer (‘Resurrection’, 106 = Rise and Fall, 54).

93 Hippolytus, Haer. 5.8.23.

94 Homer, Il. 2.695–710.

95 Philostratus, Heroik. 2.7–11. See Lucian, Dial. mort. 28.1–2.

96 Philostratus, Heroik. 2.10–11; trans. Maclean, J. K. Berenson and Aitken, E. Bradshaw, Flavius Philostratus: Heroikos, trans. with intro. and notes (SBLWGRW 1; Atlanta: SBL, 2001) 9–11 Google Scholar. Cf. 58.1–2 on the inviolable secret of how he returned to life.

97 Burgess, J. S., The Death and Afterlife of Achilles (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009) 110 Google Scholar, with reference to Heroik. 11.7–8.

98 Philostratus, Heroik. 7.3; trans. Maclean and Aitken, Philostratus: Heroikos, 19–21.

99 Stramaglia, A., Res inauditae, incredulae: storie di fantasmi nel mondo greco-latino (Bari: Levante, 1999) 317 Google Scholar. Mantero, T., Ricerche sull’Heroikos di Filostrato (Genova: Istitute di Filologia Classica e Medioevale, 1966) 81 Google Scholar refers to Philostratus, Heroik. 43.3 where Protesilaus is called a daemon. I thank Professor Stramaglia for his comments to me on this problem (30 March 2015, personal communication).

100 Philostratus, Heroik. 9.1.

Figure 0

Figure 1. Depictions of Osiris from a Ptolemaic-Roman temple at Denderah: (a). Osiris being mourned by Isis and Nephtys; (b). The resurrection of Osiris. Drawing from A. Mariette, Dendérah, vol. iv (Paris: A. Franck, 1873) Plate 90, digitally scanned by the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg and available at: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/mariette1873bd4/096.