Is Richard Carrier Wrong about what the Sadducees Believed?

As I announced here on the blog, the Cadre has devoted a section on its web page to responding to the new skeptical assault on the resurrection, The Empty Tomb. Several responses to several of the chapters in the book are already posted, including the Introduction authored by me and my article responding to Dr. Robert M. Price's Chapter 4 (Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinathians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation). I have also been working my way through Richard Carrier’s own contribution, Chapter 5 (The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb). The first thing that occurred to me is that Carrier appears to write with much the same vitriol and bias that pervades Robert M. Price’s contributions in that he accuses those who think it unlikely that a Jewish sect would have adopted his particular theory of early resurrection belief as “inherently racist.” Furthermore, as Dr. Price does, Carrier also uses the term “apologist” much too broadly. For example, he labels J.A.T. Robinson an “apologist.” Though a Christian, Robinson was quite liberal in his theology and was castigated by the evangelicals of his day. More important, he was a provocative and well regarded New Testament scholar. Though Robinson no doubt saw the New Testament as more reliable than Carrier does, that is hardly grounds for labeling someone an apologist.

In any event, when reading a section where Carrier purports to represent the beliefs of the Sadducees, I noticed he stated that the Sadducees denied “even the existence of spirits, angels, or souls.” Page 108. I too once believed this after reading Acts 23:7-9:

When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) Then a great clamor arose, and certain scribes of the Pharisees' group stood up and contended, "We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?"

Having reflected on the issue more and researched more the beliefs of various Jewish sects, it now seems clear that the Sadducees did not deny the existence of angels. After all, they accept the first five books of the Bible, which are replete with references to angels acting as God’s servants. (see e.g., Gen. 16:7-11; 19:1, 15; 21:17; 24:40; 28:12; 32:1; Ex. 23:20, 23; Num. 20:16). Moreover, the only evidence for the Sadducees’ supposed denial of the existence of angels is this passage from Acts. Though I have a high regard for the historicity of Acts, I began to suspect I misunderstood the passage or, less likely, that Luke’s information was flawed. As it turns out, after a quick check of the many at-hand resources on the issue, none of them conclude – except Carrier – that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits altogether. Acts is not saying that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits per se, but either that they denied 1) the resurrection whether as angels or spirits, with these viewed as two different kinds of resurrection, 2) the highly developed eschatological paradigm of good and evil spirits adopted by the Pharisees (as distinguished from simple belief in angels), or 3) the intermediate state between death and resurrection, with these terms used to represent the condition of the dead within that state.

Joseph Fitzmyer leans towards the latter, believing that the terms refer to “the two modes of resurrection, as angel or as spirit.” The Acts of the Apostles, page 719. Thus, perhaps the old King James Version has it correct by translating it thus, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” F. F. Bruce leans towards the second, noting that “this developed angelology and demonology, like the belief in the resurrection, they would reject as a late accretion to the original faith of Israel. The Acts of the Apostles, page 466. See also Polhill, The Acts of the Apostles, page 470 (“He may have meant that the Sadducees rejected the eschatology of the Pharisees, which involved an elaborate hierarchy of good and evil angels.”).

As for me, I lean towards the third option – the Sadducees denied the intermediate state which was often described as being like angels or spirits. As N.T. Wright explains, in a book that Carrier cites to in his chapter:

There are three problems with this. First, if that was what Luke intended to say, he went about it a very strange way, using ‘neither . . . nor’ with ‘angel’ and ‘spirit’, followed by a word which means ‘both’, as of two, not ‘all three’. The Pharisees’ response, interestingly confirmed this, and helps to elucidate matters, by highlighting not the resurrection itself but the either/or of angel and spirit. Second, there is no one other evidence that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits; since they claimed to base their views on the Pentateuch, in which angels make frequent appearances and spirits are far from unknown…, it is very unlikely that they did in fact deny their existence. Third, Luke is very clear both in his gospel and in Acts that the resurrection of Jesus himself did not involve Jesus becoming, or even becoming like, an angel or a spirit. Thus, though attempts have been made to say that ‘neither angel nor spirit’ refers to different interpretations of the resurrection – resurrection life seen as angelic or spiritual – it is far more likely that Luke meant something else.

The most likely interpretation – and a very revealing one it is – is that those who held to belief in resurrection in this period, that is, the Pharisees, had also developed regular ways of describing an intermediate state. In that world, nobody supposed the dead were already raised; resurrection , as we have seen, describes new bodily life after a present mode of ‘life after death’. So: where and what are the dead now? To this, we may surmise, the Pharisees gave the answer: they are at present like angels, or spirits. They are presently disembodies; in the future, they will receive their new embodiment. What the Sadducees denied, then, was on the one hand the resurrection, and on the other hand the two current accounts of the intermediate state. They did not deny the existence of angels or spirits, but they denied that the dead were in a state that could be so described.

Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pages 132-34.

Wright finds support for this understanding in Acts 12:15, where Peter has been released from prison by miraculous intervention but when he appears to other Christians they think he is dead and so proclaim that it was not Peter, but “It is his angel.”

Ben Witherington adds additional support for this understanding:

Notice how Luke 24:36-43, when Jesus appears to his disciples, he is mistaken for “a spirit.” Notice further how in Acts 12:15 the Christians at the mother of John Mark’s house conclude that it is only Peter’s angel at the gate (the Greek reads literally ‘is it he angel of him”). Finally, notice how in what immediately follows in our text in 23:9 the Pharisaic scribes speak of the appearance of Jesus to Paul as the case of an angel or a spirit speaking to Paul. If we put all this together, it is reasonable to conclude that the term “angel” (cf. 1 Enoch 22:3, 7; 103:3-4) or “spirit” was sometimes used to refer to a deceased person, perhaps especially in circles affected by Pharisaic speculations about angels and the like. The point, then, of the explanation in v. 8 is that the Sadducees believe in no positive form of afterlife, either in the interim before the resurrection or at the resurrection.

The Acts of the Apostles, page 692.

Accordingly, whichever of the three proposed understandings are correct, it appears that Carrier’s discussion of Sadducee belief is oversimplistic, underinformed and, as a result, likely erroneous.


Steven Carr said…
'inherently racist'???

I quote the context Layman removes - '....the Jews of the early first century were somehow too monolithic and closed-minded to invent or introduce any novel ideas. Perhaps the inherently racist nature of such a claim escapes them.'

Carrier describes the idea that Jews are closed-minded as 'inherently racist'.

Carrier quotes Edward Bode as saying 'Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the tomb and another in a risen life.'

Carrier quotes Antony Harvey as saying 'the Greek conception .... never penetrated the Jewish mentality'.

Layman writes 'The first thing that occurred to me is that Carrier appears to write with much the same vitriol and bias that pervades Robert M. Price’s contributions in that he accuses those who think it unlikely that a Jewish sect would have adopted his particular theory of early resurrection belief as “inherently racist.”

Of course, Layman distorts. Notice that Bode says 'never', while Layman throws in 'unlikely', because Layman wants people to believe apologists are not as dogmatic as he is.

Layman assures us that talking about 'the Jewish mentality' could only be described as 'inherently racist' by people full of vitriol and bile.

Perhaps Layman thinks it is not 'inherently racist' to say that Jews never come up with new ideas.

However, at least Layman thinbks it only 'unlikely' that a Jewish sect would have adopted a theory claiming that the risen Jesus became a 'life-giving sirit'.

So he has moved away from the position that it was impossible. This is a significant development.
Steven Carr said…
'The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.'

What were the Sadduccees denying here, that the Pharisees acknowledged?
Layman said…
Carrier's comment is unjustified and, simply, nasty. Certainly it is unscholarly and would not likely have passed muster in any sort of respectable peer-reviewed journal. But since Carrier chose to forego peer-review and simply publish his theory along with Robert M. Price and his own viotriolic comments, he had the liberty to make such charges--however unfounded. Even Publisher's Weekly found Price's tone too much to handle, labeling it "polemical and mean-spirited." Carrier's comments serve him no better.

Scholars who have immersed themselves in first century Jewish thought and reach the conclusion that first century Jewish thought does not include certian notions are simply doing history, not being racist. They have drawn the line of what "Jewish thought" is Jewish but that is a mistake, not a major character flaw. Being "Jewish" is not only a matter of race, but of belief. Specifically, of religious belief. To note that certain fundamental Jewish beliefs are definitive of being Jewish during the time of Jesus and then noting that such beliefs were incompatible with those fundamental Jewish beliefs is not being "inhereintly racist."

Note that Carrier is not saying that only those who believe Jews were close-minded are racists, he is saying that anyone who believes that certain ideas were foreign to Jewish thought are racists. That is a big difference.

Is it inherently racist to conclude that "the death of the body is also destruction of God-creationed life" such that the condition of disembodied souls "cannot be described as life" in their view? Are we to conclude that there is no such thing as Jewish thought? If so, why is Carrier so obsessed with showing that his own theory would have been "plausible in early Judaism"? Obviously Carrier thinks that there is something that can be described as Jewish thought in the first century despite the fact that it is more diverse than most scholars think.

Carrier quotes Anthony Harvey as saying that "There is no evidence that the Greek conception of survival in the form of a disembodied soul ever pentrated the Jewish mentality." As this comment and the one in the paragraph above show, Carrier did not limit his charge of racism to those who claimed that such a thought would "never" enter the mind of a Jew. Bode was not the only scholar so labeled. Saying that there is no evidence that such entered the Jewish mentality is not the same thing as saying "Jews were too dense and boring to have thought of such a thing."

For Carrier's position to be tenable, he would have to prove that there was simply no such thing as Jewish thought, not just prove that it may have been more diverse than the consensus believes. And Carrier is going to have to go much further if he is going to prove that the scholarship of JAT Robinson, Oscar Cullmann, Anthony Harvey, and Edward Bode is simply predicated on racism on this issue. Wrong they may be, but no charge of being inherently racist has been substantiated.

All in all, Carrier is doing what Price did, using vitriol and baseless accusations to advance his anti-Christian agenda. It certainly is not the "sober, objective response” that is promised in the book's description.

And I have dismantled your "life-giving spirit" canard on infidels. It's a loser. Even Carrier's new theory is inconsistent with it as he recognizes that one can have a spiritual BODY.

And do you think Carrier is right when he says that the Sadducees did not believe in angels?
Layman said…

I already explained that I lean towards the view that the Sadducees denied 1) the resurrection, and 2) the intermediate state (explained as "angels and spirits").

Two other possibilities I also discussed. First, as Fitzmyer concludes "angels and "spirits" are referring to different forms of the resurrection, with "angels" referring to a bodily resurrection where we end up with bodies like angels have and of the "spirit" which he thinks means the survival of the spirit after death until the resurrection of the body. Second, "angels and spirits" are referring to the respective roles of angels and spirits in their elaborate views regarding the existence of good and evil spirits.

Perhaps you think that "all three" is problematic. It certainly would not be for last option I discussed. But in fact, the better translation of the Greek here is not "all three" bot "both."

NKJ Acts 23:8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection -- and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.

YLT Acts 23:8 for Sadducees, indeed, say there is no rising again, nor messenger, nor spirit, but Pharisees confess both.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines the Greek term at issue as "both of two, both the one and the other."

F.F. Bruce's commentary on the Greek text of Acts is perhaps most helpful. Bruce prefers the term "both", and notes that the translation would then mean that "the two beliefs are (1) in resurrection and (2) in angels and spirits." Page 466. This is quite consistent with the view I lean towards and Fitzymer's. Bruce also notes that it is "just possible" that the text means "all three." Write also notes that it is "better to take it as meaning 'both' if possible, discusses the evidence and concludes that "whereas not only is the meaning 'both' normal, frequent, and widespread, but compounds from the word always have a sense of duality (e.g., amphoterakis, 'in both ways', or amphoterekes, 'two angels/spirits must be taken as a hendiadys, so that 'both' means resurection on the one hand and angels/spirits on the other...." Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, page 132 n. 6.

I should add that Fitzmyer also translates the term to mean "both" rather than "all three."
I would so love to debate carrier. Since the sec web is afraid to deal with my arguments, and our one attempted debate he errupted into name calling, I doubt that will ever happen.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

Jewish writings and a change in the Temple at the time of the Death of Jesus

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

The Folded Napkin Legend