EXPECTATIONS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF RESURRECTION AS "BODILY"

The opposition to this position is the "body-referent resurrection" view, according to which, prior to Gnostic uses of resurrection language, early Jews and early Christians presented expectations of eschatological resurrection that necessarily involved the body in literal expressions, whether the body was explicitly referenced or not.3 The "body-source" aspect of this description conveys that, in metaphorical uses of resurrection language, the source domain remains a bodily event, namely restoration of a dead body to life that also implied an upward physical movement.4 Both views recognize the importance of analyzing the character of the "source domain" from which the ancient authors drew the conceptual metaphor of resurrection and in the light of which they understood the "target domain" (often, the restoration of Israel or healing) for understanding resurrection language more broadly.5 What is at issue in the cases of metaphorical usage is which view more accurately conveys the character of the source domain. [...]this view rightly discerns from these factors what expectations are licensed by the use of resurrection language, even when "body" language is not explicitly present. [...]I consider the factors by which we identify resurrection texts and how those factors contribute to the question of what expectations of meaning are licensed by the use of resurrection verbs in their contexts based on analysis of the given texts. By its famous parable of the cooperation of a blind man and a lame man to take fruit from a king's tree, this story justifies bodily resurrection as necessary for the final judgment, so that soul and body must undergo judgment together for deeds in which both participated.