Seeking to escape the two possible "extreme reactions" of either "faith or disbelief" in the resurrection, Vermes argues for a "spiritual resurrection" where Jesus lives on in the hearts and minds of his followers (x).
Vermes does a nice job of summarizing the progression of Jewish thought on death, the afterlife, and resurrection. He contends that bodily resurrection was "alien to first-century Hellenistic Jews" (55).
After critically rejecting most of the New Testament resurrection texts (and offering the old argument that since the Gospel accounts are not identical, they must be false), he (amazingly) writes, "No New Testament text attempts to describe the actual return to life of the dead Jesus" (139). He argues "that there existed no established tradition among Jews about a dying and risen Christ (128). His conclusion: Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead, but his followers were "moved and inspired by the mesmerizing presence of the teaching and example of the real Jesus alive in their mind" (152).
In other words, the memory of Jesus inspires! But a memory of Jesus is not "the real Jesus" as he contends. And a "memorial" is not "resurrection" - no matter how much one strains the word to fit one's metaphysical presuppositions.
I guess if "faith" is an extreme reaction, I'm an extremist (along with N. T. Wright who Vermes offers as an extreme right-wing example). I guess I've never found it hard to believe that God could actually do God-like things, like bring life from death! God as mascot or moral coach is not quite as appealing to me as God as the ineffable-yet-knowable, transcendent-yet-immanent, loving-yet-just, infinite source of meaning, purpose, and joy.
Leave a comment