Mesopotamian Roots for the Belief in the Resurrection of the Dead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The belief in the resurrection of the dead, a defining element of the Christian faith, did not begin with Christianity. At the time of the earliest Christians, several factions of Judaism held some form of the belief, disagreeing on whether it was physical or spiritual in nature. For the physical resurrection, evidence already appears in later writings of the Hebrew Bible; as a result, many scholars place the origin of the belief in the post‐exilic period, attributing it to foreign influence, generally from Canaan or Persia. But there is earlier evidence, both in and outside the Hebrew Bible, in those cases where a corpse returns to life, even temporarily. As argued here, it is this phenomenon, above all, that forms the basis of the belief in the physical resurrection in the Judeo‐Christian tradition, and, where it is concerned, a stronger cross‐cultural parallel is ancient Mesopotamia. In ancient Mesopotamia, there was clearly a belief that the dead could return from the netherworld to the land of the living, and it was part of a conceptual framework that integrated death, disease, medicine, and healing – as it was in the Hebrew Bible. For the history of religion, this dates the early roots of the belief in the physical resurrection of the dead centuries earlier than scholars have recognized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".