Loading...I am reposting the ten blog posts made on April 18 (or thereabouts) in celebration of our tenth anniversary of the blog. Here now is a particularly important one from 2017; at the time I was working on my book How Jesus Became God and thinking hard about how to understand the early Christian claims that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
******************************
One of the first books that I have re-read in thinking about how it is the man Jesus came to be thought of as God is Gerd Lüdemann’s, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (2004). Lüdemann is an important and interesting scholar. He was professor of New Testament at Göttingen in Germany, and for a number of years split his time between there and Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville. He is a major figure in scholarship, and is noteworthy for not being a Christian. He does not believe Jesus was literally, physically, raised from the dead, and he thinks that apart from belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection, it is not possible for a person to be Christian.
This book is written for people with a lot of background in New Testament studies. It is exegetically based, meaning that he goes into a detailed examination of key passages to uncover their literary meaning; but he is ultimately interested in historical questions of what really happened. To follow his exegesis (his interpretation) requires a good knowledge of how NT scholars argue their points: the book is aimed at other NT scholars and, say, graduate students in the field.
The basic historical conclusions that Lüdemann draws – based on a careful analysis of all the relevant passages and a consideration of the historical events that lie behind them – will strike many readers as radical:
If you’re interested, keep reading. That means joining the blog, which costs a small membership fee. But every thin dime you pay goes to help the needy. So do both yourself and others some good! Click here for membership options
One weak point in Lüdemann’s theory for me is in how or why the apostles would not only return home, but also ‘reassemble’ in Galilee. After a crushing ‘defeat’ and Peter’s documented tendency to over-react, I would expect at many of the original apostles would say ‘no thanks’ to Peter. Maybe that is accounted for already since there are few, if any, independent 1st/2nd century references of any of the original apostles, besides Peter, doing anything after the resurrection. There are no shortages of stories of how the apostles later set out to spread the Word and/or became martyred, but most of those stories seem to be regional in nature and were written well after the canonical writings were set.
Bart, other than Peter, and perhaps John, are there any other pieces of evidence that show original apostle activities before the 3rd century? The notes by Clement and others regarding authorship and activity do not seem to be convincing to me,
Nothing outside the canon, really. As you say, lots of stories — but all legends. Great ones though!
In Galatians, Paul says he met James and Peter in Jerusalem, so that would seem to indicate either they returned to Jerusalem after fleeing to Galilee or they remained there after the resurrection.
That’s right. The usual thinking is that they returned because they expected Jesus to return there (“He will come to Zion…”)
“It occurred because Peter had a vision of Jesus that included auditory features (he thought he saw and heard him).”
Where in the Bible does Lüdemann read that Peter had a vision of Jesus? I assume he bases this on Paul saying “and that he appeared to Cephas?”
Mainly the Gospel accounts.
The gospel accounts do not seem historical, such as John 21. Are there any gospel accounts that say Peter had a vision of the resurrected Jesus?
I’d say there’s a difference between whether they narrate a vision and whether they are historical. The only one that does not recount Peter seeing Jesus is Mark (which suggests that he *will* see him but doesn’t narrative the event)
When I was 18 in 1973, hearing lectures setting up a theological and historical case that Sun Myung Moon (Rev. Moon) was the new messiah charged by God with creating the Kingdom of God on Earth (in essence, Christ’s second coming). I struggled with how it could be possible, but I liked the members I had met. I was a bright kid with some belief in a supernatural. One night I awoke, sure that a man stood by my bed. The figure began berating me, explaining he was an ancestor and that I needed to listen to what I was being told. When I didn’t respond, the figure slapped me and I felt it hard. The rest of the night, I heard voices of ancestors, one by one, testifying that Moon was the new Christ. The experience was as real as my sitting here writing about it. There is no reason anyone should believe me, but my best friend, also hearing lectures, did and we joined together.
I am sure Peter and Paul experienced tangible, sensory visions and that others believed when told about it.
I left Moon’s group in 1983. I am now an atheist.
Very interesting account. I’d add that I’ve heard similar testimonies about people having visions of a holy figure beside their bed. One was a woman who said she saw Padre Pio beside her bed, another had an experience with a new age Tibetan guru. Both described their experience as extremely compelling. The psychological explanation is hypnogogic hallucinations.
Right up there with cognitive dissonance 🙂 My experience seemed utterly real and it had a huge effect on my decision to join a messianic movement. One reason the experience was believable was, aside from feeling the burning sensation of a slap, the being was ordinary, just an ancestor. I thought at the time, if I were manifesting a fantasy with my own mind, I would have imagined something angelic or magical. It was just a dirt farmer as well as I recall what I experienced.
Thank you for sharing this story, wpoe54.
Your own experience makes it easier for me to believe the possibility of the powerful vision theory.
Regarding the “visions” of the earliest Christian believers, what distinction is being made from hallucinations by use of the word “visions”? Is it a matter of negative connotation associated with the word “hallucination” or something else?
Depends whom you ask. For me, a “vision” is just something you see. Usually you see things that are there. You might call those veridical visions. Other times you see things that aren’t there. Those would be non-veridical visions. Non-veridical visions would be hallucinations, but to my ear is less judgmental.
The New Testament said that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Bible like Isiah and others (Coming of Messiah, he had to suffer and die, etc.). How does one teach these things in a good Seminary/Divinity College like PTS, YDS, etc. since historically, they were not probably talking about Jesus?
In a high level place like Princeton or Yale, it is typically pointed out that the early Christian authors were appealing to Scriptures to support their understandings of Christ and that, like other Jewish, Greek, and Roman interpreters of the time, they were doing so independently of what the authors of those texts really met. That kind of interpretive approach was a common pracice.
Why does he write off Mary’s vision? Isn’t she the first one to have such an experience? Is it multiply attested (Luke, John)? Would an argument from embarrassment apply? If she were an intimate partner of Jesus, it would make sense she’d be the first to have such an experience.
So at what time did the action shift from Galilee to Jerusalem?
Luke and Acts don’t even acknowledge a role for Galilee post Resurrection (counter to Mark and Matthew, with John recounting resurrection appearances in both Jerusalem and Galilee)
Luke (author as well of Acts) has a theological reason to stress Jerusalem. His first two chapters of Luke take place there, as do the last chapters of Luke. As does the beginning of Acts. As does the Temptation narrative. etc. His point is that salvation came TO Jerusalem (Luke) and that then it went FROM Jerusalem (Acts; especially, say 1:18). Luke sees it all as part of the divine plan. Salvation comes first to the jewish people in their capital, and goes from there to the gentiles, to the Ends of the Earth.
Thanks! Yes, Luke’s theological reasons for preferring Jerusalem seem clear. But is there any factual basis for an established community of Christians in Jerusalem some years or decades after 33AD? At some point did Peter, James, and one or more others return to Jerusalem? Or did a Christian community form there (minus Peter and James) based on Peter’s visions and this community became the factual basis on which Luke built his (strongly theological) narrative? Or simply no way to know? If this is covered in Triumph of Christianity, and go back and refresh my memory there.
Yes, Paul visited the apostles in Jerusalem a few years after his conversion (Galatians 1)
Dr. Ehrman,
If you’d had to pick a denomination, which one would you be?
Episcopalian. Love the liturgy.
Bart, I’m curious to know – in all three periods of your Christian life :
1. early childhood in a devout liberal household, then
2. fundamentalist, then
3. liberal Christian,
were you always in the Episcopal Church ?
Thanks
Yes, but in other churches as well, in all periods: Congregational (young); Plymouth Brethren, Evangelical Covenant, Indepdnent, Presbyterian, Lutheran — all Protestant.
Thank you.
Why does he write off Mary’s vision? Isn’t she the first one to have such an experience? Is it multiply attested (Luke, John)? Would an argument from embarrassment apply? If she were an intimate partner of Jesus, it would make sense she’d be the first to have such an experience.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you believe, the New Testament makes a distinction between “inheriting the Kingdom” and “entering the Kingdom”?
Where the first means ruling with Christ, and having rewards (cf. Matthew 19:28, 1 Corinthians 3:12), and the second means simply to be saved, to enter the Kingdom, as a lesser one, so to speak (think thief of the cross).
Please don’t be afraid of stating whatever you think, I just want to know what you think.
I think they are used interchangably.
Even if Lüdemann is not 100% correct on all points, the scriptures themselves show that the people who alleged a resurrected Jesus were all people who had had visions at one time or another. Some of them couldn’t differentiate between reality and vision. By today’s standards, people who are delusional are not considered reliable witnesses.
The women at the tomb, Peter, James, John and Cornelius all are reported to have had visions, though they appear to be more like hallucinogenic drug experiences. In Matthew 17:1-9 it was reported that Jesus took Peter, James and John up to a mountain where they allegedly saw Jesus transfigure into bright light and meet with Moses and Elijah. It’s reported by the author of Matthew as if it was something they really saw with their own eyes, but Jesus’ own statement to the disciples shows it was just a vision, not real.
Mat 17:9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”
Is Paul’s testimony reliable? He seemed to have a credibility problem wherever he went, always assuming that people would think he was lying. Rom 9:1, 2Co 11:31, Gal 1:20, 1Ti 2:7, 2Ti 4:16
Act 12:9 And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision.
Evidently, Peter wasn’t able to distinguish reality from vision. This is hardly the type of person anyone today would consider to a reliable witness.
Ludemann’s exegesis actually solves a problem that has puzzled me, i.e. the disciples would either have known Jesus’ body decomposed on the cross, or he actually was buried and raised physically. Because no records exist that Jesus’ body decomposed, combating the recorded words in the gospels that he was buried and resurrected becomes difficult. However, the disciples fleeing Jerusalem to Galilee means they were not present in Jerusalem to witness the body decompose.This is a very plausible explanation.
Not that I agree with all of his details, I basically agree with Ludemann. I have some rhetorical quibbles with his use of “physical” resurrection. I would want to ask him: why couldn’t one be a Christian and believe that the resurrection appearances were visions? Those who had the visions, (according to him) were mistaken about the physical resurrection and were Christians. How much more would one be a Christian if one realized the mistake and still accepted the value to life the teachings and example of Jesus
Dr. Ehrman – I’m curious to know which parts of Lüdemann’s reconstruction you disagree with?
I agree with most of it, actually. I don’t think, though, that we can provide a psychological analysis of why Peter had a vision; that’s way beyond what we can do based on our sources. I think his suggestion is a *plausible* explanation, though. I also think that Mary may have had a vision, possibly after she heard that Peter had. Or possibly he had his after he heard of Mary’s.
Why stop at Peter and Mary experiencing appearances of the post-crucified Jesus? Surely, in order to historically explain both what Paul, the Gospel writers, the early church fathers and the early circulating stories say about the resurrection and the evangelistic missions of the disciples, it is s lot more likely that these post-crucified appearances of Jesus were far more widespread than just 2 people? As you admit in your own writings, something fairy major had to have have occurred convinced the 12 and others to get Christianity started!
I stop with them because that gives us Peter, Paul, and Mary. OK, actually for a different reason. Peter and Mary are abundantly attested each as the “first.” I think there were two different sets of traditions going back respectively to each of them.
Did Ludemann have an opinion about the testimony of the women? Did he think they stayed around after the disciples fled and may have a better idea what happened?
Ah, sorry, I can’t remember. (I’m on the road and don’t have the article in front of me)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks very much for the illuminating summary. How about a summary of Dale Allison’s views?
Ah, that’s harder. He is gratifyingly ambivalent on a lot of points and often looks at the evidence on both sides without making a hard case the way Ludemann does. But of course he is a Christain believer and thinks that on balance Jesus probably actually was raised from the dead.
I would be interested to know where you would disagree with Lüdermann. His explanation seems very plausible.
As I mentioned to another commenter: I agree with most of it, actually. I don’t think, though, that we can provide a psychological analysis of why Peter had a vision; that’s way beyond what we can do based on our sources. I think his suggestion is a *plausible* explanation, though. I also think that Mary may have had a vision, possibly after she heard that Peter had. Or possibly he had his after he heard of Mary’s.
Is Biblical Pharmacology an area of study? Still, a Prophet going to be with God and angels would be logical?
Some people have written books on it; the only biblical scholar I know of off hand is John Allegro in his book the Sacred Mushroom.
I also think there was a degree of the disciples thinking Jesus literally saved them from the wrath of Rome. Jesus himself “took the bullet” on behalf of the movement. Who other than the “suffering servant” would do that, was their thinking. I think this feeling of Jesus sacrificing himself in order that they, the disciples could flee – which Jesus seems to command – had a profound psychological and spiritual effect on the disciples. He was literally their savior. They applied this in a universal way for those who came after them.
What do you agree/disagree with Ludemann’s argument Bart?
As I mentioned to another commenter: I agree with most of it, actually. I don’t think, though, that we can provide a psychological analysis of why Peter had a vision; that’s way beyond what we can do based on our sources. I think his suggestion is a *plausible* explanation, though. I also think that Mary may have had a vision, possibly after she heard that Peter had. Or possibly he had his after he heard of Mary’s.
Okay cool. Interesting!
Dr. Erhman; I found this blog post quite interesting. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of asking your take on visions, signs, dreams and prophecies. So, I am asking, being that I have a two part journal listing over twenty four episodes, making up different times, that together, include all of the above. Agreed, at first I was not sure if I really dreamt a prophecy or really saw what appeared to be a vision. But when I found myself standing in or at those exact places or times, either three weeks, three years or ten years later, I began writing them down. Almost all of them referred to a future time in my own history. A lot of them also correlated with the work I was conducting with the NT since 79. But when 9-11 and two years later, the second shuttle disaster took place, they matched up to the repeated numbers I’d been receiving since I was ten years old. So, I guess I’m asking, is it in your opinion, that these were merely a figment of my psyche?
I don’t think you can genuinely foresee the future, no. A lot of it comes down the accuracy of the correlation of the dream/vision and the event, in the details. If you’ve written detailed accounts that came true later — e.g. if in 1997 you wore about Islamic terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into the Twin Towers leading to massive destruction and loss of life, that would be something indeed. If you dreamed/described a terrorist attack on America, not so much.
It you continue having such visions that may come true, I STRONGLY suggest you have witnesses and possibly dated video (both) to your writing about them so that if the same thing happens years later you’ll have sufficient evidence.
The Most wonderful explanation is the report jesus came back alive. It means he was not actually crucified.
Back on dreams, they didn’t work that way. For example; when my wife and I were looking for a small apartment, but larger then what I was using for two years, we visited several locations. When we came to the forth one, the owner lead us upstairs, unlocked the door and opened it. My wife made a comment on it. I continued with, “If you go down the wall on the left, there’s a door that leads into a bedroom. If you go down the right, there’s a door at the end that leads into a living room. And if you walk diagonally across the living room, there’s a door near the corner that opens into a porch.” She says, “How do you know?” I said. “I dreamt the whole thing. It’s even the right color.” I’ve had quite a few like that. Is that close enough?
Nope. But it’s interesting!
I don’t fully understand what is meant by “[Lüdemann] thinks that apart from belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection, it is not possible for a person to be Christian,” specifically the last clause. Could you elaborate, Dr. Ehrman?
It means that no one can be a Christian (in Ludemann’s view) unless they believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection.
I’m a liberal Christian priest (from a fundamentalist background) without a need for a physical resurrection.
There’s a documentary on the late Ram Dass wherein he describes the impact his Hindu guru had on him and fellow devotees during life, and his continuing sense of ongoing presence after his death. I have wondered how similarly the early disciples of Jesus might have described their experiences.
I think this is a very interesting discussion. The problem is what you mean by “psychologically induced vision”. This is a term that I’ve never seen in the medical or neuroscientific literature. So I would respectfully suggest that this is a theological invention! Certainly deathbed visions, near death experiences and relatives and other close friends having an experience of seeing a person who has recently died are all very common. These are usually interpreted by physicalist physicians and neuroscientists as hallucinations. However, Research from Prof Bruce Greyson, Prof Peter Fenwick, and Dr pin Van Lommel and others provides evidence that hallucinatory phenomena are an inadequate explanation. Also I remain unconvinced that Paul believed in a physical bodily resurrection. I don’t think there is anything in 1 Corinthians 15 to support the idea that he believed this.
The psychological literature does have a category of non-veridical visions, “hallucinations.” I believe that is what is meant.
And there is certainly an abundant psychological literature that discusses it on psychological grounds (for example, visions of recently deceased loved ones). disabledupes{65a03a6bffc329e30f7cc908517ae37f}disabledupes
I am not sure the amount of psychological literature on this topic is sufficient to be described as ‘abundant’, but admittedly, that’s a value judgment. Certainly the subject of visions vs visitations seems ripe for debate. Maybe setting up some kind of discussion panel event would be worth thinking about?………
On the 2 traditions you refer to above re appearances to Peter and Mary, can you point me to where I can learn more about these? Many thanks, Bart.
My book Peter, Paul, and Mary for openers. 🙂
As to psychological literature: yeah, I’m not sure how one defines “abundant” in that great mass or even how to define that literature. But there is discussion, as you probably know, in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association; and I remember finding some of the essays in Etzel Cardeña et al, Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2000) useful for starters I’m sure you know the neurological literature since, well, that’s what you do. (!) But for hacks like me Oliver Sacks book on Visions was great. The idea of “false memories,” of course, is a much larger field, given both the psychologial and legal issues involved.
Ha! I’ve ordered a copy of your book. I’m wowed by your breadth of knowledge as always. Funnily enough, I have a copy of the 2nd edition of Varieties of Anomalous Experience (2014). In this edition, Cardeña doesn’t write the chapter on hallucinations, which is written by Richard Bentall, who says that research on visual hallucinations experiences is sparse and that most of the research is on auditory hallucinations and based on fMRI imaging data which suggests activation of speech areas during auditory hallucinations and possibly decreased ability to recognise one’s own speech. These studies however are mainly based on people with psychosis and not on normal people with spontaneous experiences which is what we’re talking about. Professor Bruce Grayson wrote the chapter on near death experiences and concludes at the end of the chapter “there is a core phenomenon that has been invariance through the centuries and around the globe. Controversy persists over whether that invariance is a reflection of universal psychological defences, neurophysiological processes, or actual experiences of a transcendent or mystical domain. Research into these alternative explanations has been hampered by the spontaneous and unpredictable occurrence of NDEs”. Cont……….
Cont……
Oliver Sacks was an atheist physicalist and in his book entitled “Hallucinations”, the only discussion that I can find of hallucinations of deceased relatives, is in chapter 13 “The haunted mind” which is only based on his own experience of his of the death of his his own parents and 3-4 other case histories, in which he starts with the pre-formed assumption that all hallucinations are, as you put it, non-veridical, but he quotes no scientific studies. I’m not up to date with the very latest literature, but I’m out to lunch today with one of my academic psychiatrist buddies who works with psychedelics, so I will use this and our debate as a launching pad for getting up to date 🙂
Ah, sorry. See how bad memory is? “Hallucinations”! Right.