the doctrine of the transmigration of souls into other
bodies. This tenet has been attributed to the sect of the Pharisees.
Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, gives this account of their
doctrine in these points: Every soul is immortal; those of the good only
enter into another body, but those of the bad are tormented with
everlasting punishment.” From whence it has been pretty generally
concluded, that the resurrection they held was only a Pythagorean one,
namely, the transmigration of the soul into another body; from which
they excluded all that were notoriously wicked, who were doomed at once
to eternal punishment; but their opinion was, that those who were guilty
only of lesser crimes were punished for them in the bodies into which
their souls were next sent. It is also supposed, that it was upon this
notion the disciples asked our Lord, Did this man sin, or his parents,
that he was born blind?” John ix, 2; and that some said, Christ was John
the Baptist, some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets,” Matt.
xvi, 14. The transmigration of souls into other bodies was undoubtedly
the opinion of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, and was embraced by some
among the Jews; as by the author of the Book of Wisdom, who says, that
being good, he came into a body undefiled,” viii, 20. Nevertheless, it
is questioned by some persons, whether the words of Josephus, before
quoted, are a sufficient evidence of this doctrine of the metempsychosis
being received by the whole sect of the Pharisees; for passing into
another or different body,” may only denote its receiving a body at the
resurrection; which will be another, not in substance, but in quality;
as it is said of Christ at his transfiguration, το ειδος του προσωπου
αυτου ἑτερον, the fashion of his countenance was” another, or, as we
render it, was altered,” Luke ix, 29. As to the opinion which some
entertained concerning our Saviour, that he was either John the Baptist,
or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Matt. xvi, 14, it is not
ascribed to the Pharisees in particular, and if it were, one cannot see
how it could be founded on the doctrine of the metempsychosis; since the
soul of Elias, now inhabiting the body of Jesus, would no more make him
to be Elias, than several others had been, in whose bodies the soul of
Elias, according to this doctrine, is supposed to have dwelt since the
death of that ancient prophet, near a thousand years before. Beside, how
was it possible any person that saw Christ, who did not appear to be
less than thirty years old, should, according to the notion of the
metempsychosis, conceive him to be John the Baptist, who had been so
lately beheaded? Surely this apprehension must be grounded on the
supposition of a proper resurrection. It was probably, therefore, upon
the same account, that others took him to be Elias, and others Jeremias.
Accordingly, St. Luke expresses it thus: Others say, that one of the old
prophets is risen from the dead,” Luke ix, 19. It may farther be
observed, that the doctrine of the resurrection, which St. Paul
preached, was not a present metempsychosis, but a real future
resurrection, which he calls the hope and resurrection of the dead,”
Acts xxiii, 6. This he professed as a Pharisee, and for this profession
the partisans of that sect vindicated him against the Sadducees, Acts
xxiii, 7–9. Upon the whole, therefore, it appears most reasonable to
adopt the opinion of Reland, though in opposition to the sentiments of
many other learned men, that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the
resurrection in a proper sense.
bodies. This tenet has been attributed to the sect of the Pharisees.
Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, gives this account of their
doctrine in these points: Every soul is immortal; those of the good only
enter into another body, but those of the bad are tormented with
everlasting punishment.” From whence it has been pretty generally
concluded, that the resurrection they held was only a Pythagorean one,
namely, the transmigration of the soul into another body; from which
they excluded all that were notoriously wicked, who were doomed at once
to eternal punishment; but their opinion was, that those who were guilty
only of lesser crimes were punished for them in the bodies into which
their souls were next sent. It is also supposed, that it was upon this
notion the disciples asked our Lord, Did this man sin, or his parents,
that he was born blind?” John ix, 2; and that some said, Christ was John
the Baptist, some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets,” Matt.
xvi, 14. The transmigration of souls into other bodies was undoubtedly
the opinion of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, and was embraced by some
among the Jews; as by the author of the Book of Wisdom, who says, that
being good, he came into a body undefiled,” viii, 20. Nevertheless, it
is questioned by some persons, whether the words of Josephus, before
quoted, are a sufficient evidence of this doctrine of the metempsychosis
being received by the whole sect of the Pharisees; for passing into
another or different body,” may only denote its receiving a body at the
resurrection; which will be another, not in substance, but in quality;
as it is said of Christ at his transfiguration, το ειδος του προσωπου
αυτου ἑτερον, the fashion of his countenance was” another, or, as we
render it, was altered,” Luke ix, 29. As to the opinion which some
entertained concerning our Saviour, that he was either John the Baptist,
or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Matt. xvi, 14, it is not
ascribed to the Pharisees in particular, and if it were, one cannot see
how it could be founded on the doctrine of the metempsychosis; since the
soul of Elias, now inhabiting the body of Jesus, would no more make him
to be Elias, than several others had been, in whose bodies the soul of
Elias, according to this doctrine, is supposed to have dwelt since the
death of that ancient prophet, near a thousand years before. Beside, how
was it possible any person that saw Christ, who did not appear to be
less than thirty years old, should, according to the notion of the
metempsychosis, conceive him to be John the Baptist, who had been so
lately beheaded? Surely this apprehension must be grounded on the
supposition of a proper resurrection. It was probably, therefore, upon
the same account, that others took him to be Elias, and others Jeremias.
Accordingly, St. Luke expresses it thus: Others say, that one of the old
prophets is risen from the dead,” Luke ix, 19. It may farther be
observed, that the doctrine of the resurrection, which St. Paul
preached, was not a present metempsychosis, but a real future
resurrection, which he calls the hope and resurrection of the dead,”
Acts xxiii, 6. This he professed as a Pharisee, and for this profession
the partisans of that sect vindicated him against the Sadducees, Acts
xxiii, 7–9. Upon the whole, therefore, it appears most reasonable to
adopt the opinion of Reland, though in opposition to the sentiments of
many other learned men, that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the
resurrection in a proper sense.