On "The Analects of Confucius" ***

I chose to read the James Legge translation available at Project Gutenberg. This is not the best version of The Analects, as became readily apparent in my reading. Other versions, some available online, offer substantial commentary, which is almost essential if one wants to grasp all that is being said. There are heavy references to various ancient Chinese figures and historical incidents, such that without the commentary, one often doesn't really understand what is being said.

For an overall "feel" of what The Analects are like, however, Legge's work will suffice. The work isn't so much first person as it is a series of short chapters in which various Chinese figures come to the Master (or sometimes others) for advice about a given situation. The Master then dispenses his wisdom. It is the dispensation of wisdom that, in many cases, resembles a collection of aphorisms: "A wise man is . . . ; a fool is . . ." and so on. The early books focus most especially on filial duty, while the later ones focus more and more on government. These two ideas, however, are related. Much emphasis is given to being a person of high moral values.

One particular little anecdote/piece of advice really struck me in the book. Confucius notes, at one point, that if one knows that a particular action/life course will lead to great wealth, one should pursue it with one's all, but since one is never assured that wealth is at the end of a course of action, one should instead pursue what brings joy. It's another way of saying, do what you love, and the money will follow, I suppose, but I hadn't ever quite seen it put this way. We don't control the future, so we should think of the present when setting goals. There is no point to pursuing riches that may or may not come if we don't enjoy what we do in the here and now, as the latter is all we can really be assured of.

On "Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 200" by C. D. Elledge ***

This book traces the history of theories regarding resurrection within Judaism shortly before and after Jesus's time. As Elledge notes in his introduction, resurrection was an idea largely unique to the Jewish people. However, his main point seems to be that resurrection was neither fully embraced nor fully defined by the Jewish people during this period, during which such thinking largely took hold.

With regard to the definition of resurrection, there are numerous ways to think about what it entails. Here are some possibilities: (1) It is a resurrection to a physical body from a state of "soul sleep." (2) It is a resurrection to a transformed (spiritual) body from a state of unconsciousness. (3) It is a resurrection to spirit, sans body. (4) It is a resurrection from a middle state of semiconciousness to full consciousness again. (5) It is a reuniting of the physical body with the eternal soul. (6) It is only for a few of the very righteous. (7) It is only for the righteous, with those who are evil remaining dead or in a semiconscious state. (8) It is for everyone, for judgment, with those who are evil being sent to further punishment. Elledge passes through various early Jewish writings to show how all of these are possibilities depending on which work you focus on. In other words, he shows that there was not full unity with regard to what resurrection meant or entailed. He also shows how some accepted mere death as the end all and be all for all and others accepted the idea of an immortal soul.

Elledge also delves into various theories regarding the origins of the belief, including that it came from Persian Zoroastrainsim, that it came from Babylonian and Assyrian mythologies, and that it developed natively within the Jewish community. (Early Jewish teaching emphasizes "immortality" through one's descendants.) He discusses why the theory likely found acceptance--that it tied into concepts regarding creation and regarding the need for justice. Next, he focuses on resurrection in specific works, before closing out with a discussion of where Josephus got his ideas with regard to the differing sects' beliefs on resurrection and how the varying beliefs came to affect Jewish rabbinical views and Christians toward the end of the period discussed. With regard to Josephus, Elledge notes that he was likely simplifying and "translating" said belief for others, putting it into terminology that Greeks and Romans would understand, which while presenting a truth necessarily loses some degree of precision in said translation.

Although a fine overview, the work is definitely a scholarly one--detailed and difficult in places.