The roots of eschatology have been found to be far more widely spread in early civilizations than was formerly believed, and of all the conceptions of eschatology none has a more varied and compli- cated history than the conception of the resurrec- tion. It is not our task to trace out its roots in the ancient past. But we have to consider and take stock of the stage of development which the conception of resurrection had reached at the beginning of our period. It was the moment when the focus of national and political consciousness was shifting from the present to the future — a movement which expressed itself in every phase of human activity, especially in religion. Hence the significance of the mystery-religions, whose em- phasis was wholly on the future life. The word 'syncretism' has been much abused, but it ex- presses well the characteristic tendency of this fieriod. An immense number of cuiTents of re- igious and philosopliic thought were meeting and influencing one another, and it is easier to dis- tinguish the main currents than to estimate the extent to which they intermingled and modified one another. The history of the interpretation of St. Paul bears witness to the difficulty of this attempt. The main currents may be broadly distinguished as follows :
{a) Neo-Platonism, in its earliest form, repre- senting a fusion of Platonic philosophy with Oriental mysticism, and emphasizing tlie superior- ity of the intellectual principle in man, the povi, over the body. Hence, for our inquiry, it is an influence against the conception of a bodily resur- rection. Possibly it would be more accurate to call this current, in which PhUo has a place, Neo- Pythagoreanism.
(6) Orientalism, to use a broad term for the various forms in which the dualism and mysticism of the East expressed themselves in religious sects and mystery-cults, and so influenced religious thought in the Grseco-Roman world of our period. The eternal antithesis between matter and spirit, the necessity of redemption from the bondage of matter, and the consequent stress on asceticism, are factors working against the conception of a bodily resurrection.
((•) Judaism, although logically coming under the head of Orientalism, yet practically stands apart. At the time under consideration Judaism presents two forms of resurrection-doctrine : (1) the doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous only, developed from ethical and spiritual interests, and probably quite independent of external influences ; (2) the
RESUKRECTION
KESUKIIEGTION
323
doctrine of a general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, possibly, but not necessarily, due to the inlluence of Ma/.deism (cf. II. H. Charles, Eschatijlogff, London, 1913, pp. 139-141). In addi- tion to this divergence, Judaism also renresents two oilier lines of divergent thought on tins sub- ject, lines which were not so sharply separale<l at this period as they bocanio later: (i.) the I'ales- tinian doctrine of bodily resurrection, both of the individual and of the nation, for the Messianic king- dom : (ii. ) the Alexandrian doctrine, inlluenced by Neo-Platonic ideas, teaching only a s]iiritual resurrection, and tending to abanilon the idea of the Messianic kingdom. These various forms of thought will be dealt with in fuller detail in the historical examination of the Jewish literature.
(d) Chrisfianitij, receiving its doctrine of resur- rection from both forms of Judaistic thought, but profoundly mollifying the doctrine it thus received by the conception of the nature of Christ's resur- rection as interpreted by St. Paul, to be reacted on later by contact with the Hellenic and Oriental streams of thought, especially in the conflict with Gnosticism.
The fuller discussion of these various currents of conflicting and intermingling views concerning the nature of the resurrection, its time and conditions, will arise out of our examination of the various passages relating to it in the literature of the Apostolic Age.
//. The resurrection in the literature OF the Apostolic Age. — 1. Jewish literature. — The references to the subject of resurrection and the related question of body and spirit may be considered under the separate beads of Alexandrian and Palestinian, although, as already pointed out, at this time there was not a sharp line of demarca- tion. Palestinian Judaism was influenced by Alexandrian, and the literature of the former will show the influence of the latter in its con- ceptions.
(a) Alexandrian Judaism. — The principal liter- ary sources for Alexamlrian Judaism are Philo, the Book of Wisdom, 2 Enoch, and 4 Maccabees. The general attitude of this phase of Judaism towanls the resurrection can only be touched on briefly, as our main inquiry lies in the Christian literature of the period. The Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism must be touched on siifliciently to show its influence on the formation of Christian thought.
Philo holds the Neo-Pythagorean view of the evil nature of matter. The soul was once free from matter, has become united to and debased bj' matter, and can attain to the full knowledge of God, the supreme good, only by deliverance from matter. Hence the resurrection of the body is ob\-iously impossible, and any doctrine of a corporate resurrection of a blessed community can have no place. Philo's mysticism is purely indi- vidualistic, like that of Plotinus, and looks to the perfection of the disembodied soul, after death, with God. The national Messianic hope is replaced by the expectation of the universal triumph of the Law. In the words of a French scholar, E. Brehier, ' Of the whole Jewish eschatology, this idea alone retains its vitality in Philo's system, the future of the Law wdiich is destined to attain universal sway ' (Xe« idias philosophiques et religieuses de Philun d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1908, p. 10).