Mark Finney's brief book provocatively argues against traditional analyses of afterlife in the ancient Graeco-Roman and Jewish worlds. The conventional understanding is that the Graeco-Roman world viewed post-mortem existence as non-bodily, while for Judaism it was bodily. Finney believes that current views ‘are in need of re-evaluation for, in some senses, the reverse is true: the Greeks placed emphasis on the afterlife, for the resurrected hero, of an immortal physical body, while texts from the Hebrew Bible and Second temple Judaism focus their attention on the afterlife of the soul alone’ (2, 70, 179). In this sense, Finney argues in line with other scholars such as Gregory Riley, Stanley Porter, and more recently Dag Øistein Endsjø.
On the basis of this re-evaluation, Finney then argues that Paul is ‘consistent within Second Temple Judaism’ and therefore ‘concerned essentially with the soul and not the body’ (4). Thus, Paul ‘construes Jesus’ death as followed by his soul being raised from the dead and then up to heaven’ (114, 180). Luke's Gospel, however, changes Paul's notion of a resurrected soul to be more in line with the Greek notion of bodily resurrection (4, 139, 182). Luke's view ultimately becomes a ‘point of theological orthodoxy’ in early Christianity (4, 154, 183). In the last chapter Finney changes course slightly by examining the development of eternal punishments and hell, which are in some sense ‘ideological constructs’ (5–6, 173, 184).
Chapter 1 begins with Finney's recognition that Graeco-Roman views of afterlife are ‘dominated by Homer who remained [the] supreme influence well into the Roman period’ (6–7, 18). Upon death the soul (ψυχή) leaves the body and descends to the Hades where there is no hope for return. When arguing for bodily conceptions of Graeco-Roman afterlife, Finney is heavily dependent on Dag Øistein Endsjø (Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity (2009) ). Finney finds Endsjø’s description of Arctinus’ Aethiopis, preserved by Proclus (Chrest. 2), particularly helpful. In this account, Achilles’ body is taken bodily to the ends of the earth while on the funeral pyre (13–14). Thus Achilles does not end up despondent in Hades as Homer describes. Finney finds this, along with others (e.g. Heracles, Memnon, et al.), as evidence that the ‘notion of an immortalized body was not unknown to the Greeks’ (13). He further suggests that these immortalized bodies are not in the same category as those with eternal existence in Hades (13–16, 109).
Chapter 2 examines the Hebrew Bible. Finney examines four texts typically used to indicate bodily conceptions of afterlife: 1 Samuel 2.6–8, Isaiah 26.19, Daniel 12.1–2, and Ezekiel 37.1–14. Against scholars like Hans Cavallin and N. T. Wright, Finney argues that for the first three texts what is actually raised from the dead is not the body, but rather the ψυχή (28–34). ‘Yet, for Ezekiel it is perfectly clear: resurrection language means national restoration’ and need not refer to post-mortem bodily existence (36, emphasis his). These two interpretations are used as the primary lenses from which to evaluate the remainder of the Jewish sources (rising of the soul only: 27, 29, 32–33, 55, 57, 61, 63, 65, 66, 70; bodily resurrection as metaphor: 30–32, 35–36, 37, 80–81, 82). As a result, Finney concludes by stating that, apart from Josephus, there are no texts that unambiguously describe bodily afterlife in any Jewish source (86, 94, 179).
Importantly, Finney believes that the soul alone rises from the dead because at death the body decomposes while the soul descends ‘into the “dust” of the underworld’ (26). In contrast to traditional anthropological views of both body and soul (2), Finney believes that Genesis 2, Psalm 104.29–30, and Tobit 3.6 suggest that the essence of a man is spiritual (25). Moreover, in later texts as well as in Paul, the flesh is seen as evil in Jewish thought (49–50, 80–82, 113). Thus, although eternally existing, it is only the soul that descends to Sheol where they are considered ‘dead’ (27).
The texts from the Second Temple period surveyed in chapter 3 are considered by many scholars to present a clear concept of bodily resurrection, but Finney again argues to the contrary. He suggests ‘the majority of Second temple Judaism texts are actually consistent in presenting various afterlife scenarios for the soul and not the body’ (49). Psalms of Solomon 3.10–12 is a text in which some are said to rise up and others will not refer to the souls of the deceased since Finney argues that it is the soul alone that goes to Hades (cf. 16.2–3).
2 Maccabees 7.9–11 is a text generally believed to be referring to bodily resurrection. Here too Finney finds evidence for the resurrection of the soul. According to him, when one interprets this text as referring to embodied afterlife, then two areas of ‘ambiguity’ arise (61–63). First, why is it that the third son only hopes to have his body back? Why is he not certain? Second, is ‘the author thinking of physical attributes of a resurrected physical body or characteristics of the soul’ (62)? Since the resurrection of the soul is the dominant view in Judaism, Finney believes it makes better sense within that context and to understand that ‘what is received from God’ is the immortal existence of the soul (63). He concludes that the ‘ambiguities with 7.9–11 are most satisfactorily explained by envisioning a resurrection of the soul and to assert that the work maintains a resurrection of the physical body is very doubtful’ (63).
The Dead Sea Scrolls in chapter 4 similarly provide no clear evidence of bodily resurrection for Finney. The Dead Sea Scrolls have two texts which are commonly thought to be texts related to bodily resurrection. The Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), Finney argues, is comparable to a ‘number of texts which employ the language of physical resurrection, but which do so in metaphorical terms’ (80). He suggests Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385) could be interpreted in a number of different ways, but bodily resurrection is assuredly not one of them. Here he is astonished to find scholars such as Wright, George Brooke, and Devorah Dimant taking the view of bodily resurrection over ‘other more reasonable alternatives’ (83). Rabbinic thought is also examined in this chapter and is considered to be ‘multivalent’ (94).
Paul and 1 Corinthians 15 are analysed in chapter 5 in light of the previous interpretations of Graeco-Roman and Jewish afterlife. Finney states that Paul's language would be confusing to the Corinthians since they would interpret much of what he says regarding Jesus’ immortalized body as similar to their concepts of bodily afterlife. The pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor. 15.3ff.) would be interpreted by the Corinthians as referring to ‘physical immortalization’ (110), as would 15.38, 40, 44 (112). However, upon reading 15.50 (‘flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom’) the Corinthians would have been confused because here Paul is writing in a manner consistent with Second Temple Judaism and in non-bodily terms (112).
Finney concludes by arguing that Paul's writing makes for a ‘tortuous and unconvincing’ chapter which ‘exacerbates the confusion’ in Corinth (112, 113, 161). It is, however, curious that Finney has argued that the Corinthians would have understood most of chapter 15 as referring to bodily resurrection. Nevertheless, Finney believes that Paul's arguments for a ‘new entity’, ‘imperishable form’, ‘new or re-recreation’, and ‘glorified entity’ actually refer to Jesus’ soul being ‘housed within a new glorious entity’ (113–114, 116, 123, 181).
Chapter 6 is a short summary of the Gospels, Acts, and other New Testament writings. Finney's primary argument is that ‘Luke is making a concerted effort to establish a framework of resurrection belief more aligned to Greco-Roman thought’ (139, 182). Although Matthew displays ‘the beginnings of a physically resurrected Jesus’, it is unclear if this was a deliberate effort on Matthew's part or due to interpolations (127–128). Thus, it is Luke who ultimately portrays Jesus in ‘definitive physical form’ (129). Luke attempts to reconcile the earlier spiritual traditions with his bodily descriptions by noting how the disciples recognized Jesus as a spirit, but in physical form, which create a tension in his writings (129–130). The ‘crucial reason’ for this transition in Luke is the ‘significant rise of Graeco-Roman gentiles’ in the church (138–139).
Chapter 7 is a survey of the early church in which Finney contends that the notion of bodily resurrection grew as a response to Gnosticism and Docetism such that by the end of the second century the ‘church's catechetical instruction insisted upon the resurrection of the flesh as a point of orthodoxy’ (146, 154, 183). For example, Irenaeus specifically refers to those who use 1 Corinthians 15.50 literally in order to argue against bodily resurrection as heretics (148), while Polycarp and Tertullian also referenced groups who favoured a spiritual resurrection (146, 150, 154).
Chapter 8 provides a general overview of the development of hell up to the mediaeval period. In the Apocrypha and Second Temple texts references to suffering and fire develop (159–160). Matthew 10.28 notably references sufferings of the body and the soul while other New Testament texts refer similarly to the penalties of the wicked (163–165). Towards the end of the first century, punishments necessitated ‘the presence of the body’ since an ‘immortal soul could feel no pain’ (165). The Middle Ages developed with ‘total belief in Christianity’ and thus developed these notions further, especially in art (169–172). Finney concludes that religious authorities developed notions of hell as ideological constructs to demarcate the ‘righteous from the wicked’ (173, 184).
An initial assessment of Finney's book could rightly begin by noting that books on afterlife tend to be interesting and this one is no different. Finney's book is beneficial in its questioning of the current paradigm and raises important questions of clarity and nuance that will be appreciated by those interested in this subject.
Arguments that contend against the status quo tend have a number of obstacles to overcome before finding acceptance; here too Finney's book is no different. For example, the absence of a discussion on Enoch and Elijah is an unfortunate oversight by Finney. It would have been particularly beneficial to draw comparisons and contrasts with the Graeco-Roman view of Heracles, Achilles, or Memnon who were carried away just before death or immediately after (14–15) with Enoch and Elijah. Given the bodily inferences that Finney draws from the Graeco-Roman accounts, Enoch and Elijah could be considered analogous to Finney's understanding of Graeco-Roman views and thus imply the importance of the body in the Hebrew Bible. Additionally, many of Finney's interpretations are dependent upon his understanding of Jewish anthropology. It is noteworthy that Finney and those who argue in a similar vein (Riley, Porter, Endsjø, et al.) have not engaged with the important work by Robert Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology, with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (1976).
There are also some curious obstacles created by Finney's own arguments. For example, he believes that Paul argues for a spiritual resurrection but provides stronger arguments for understanding Paul as referring to a bodily resurrection! These include references to a ‘new entity’ (113–114), the use of bodily language (110–113), and arguments that would be interpreted as referring to embodied existence (110–112). One may also wonder why Luke would need to accommodate a Gentile audience if the church was already experiencing growth. Lastly, given that Finney argues that the Graeco-Roman world would recognize the disappearance of a body with being made physically immortal (14, 138, 182), why does he not discuss the empty tomb narratives in Matthew and Mark, which are earlier than Luke and indicate something occurred to the body of Jesus?
Ultimately, even those unconvinced by Finney's alternative reading may find that disagreements of this sort help identify potential blind spots or assumptions and encourage greater clarity in describing ancient views of afterlife.
