(24 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I noted something unusual about the doubting tradition in the resurrection narratives (i.e., the tradition that some of the disciples simply didn’t believe that Jesus was raised) – in addition, of course, to the fact that there is such a dominant doubting tradition! (itself a fascinating phenomenon) – which is that there is no word anywhere of the women who discover the tomb doubting, but clear indications (either by implication or by explicit statement) that some or all of the male disciples doubted. This is true of three of our four Gospels.
- Mark 16:8. (This one is by implication only) We are told that the women never tell anyone that they have found the tomb to be empty. So, the disciples are not said to believe and, in fact, so far as we know from this Gospel, no one does come to believe. (Obviously someone did, otherwise we wouldn’t have the Gospel!)
- Luke 24:10-11. The disciples think the tale of women told that Jesus has been raised as he predicted is “idle” and they do not believe it
- John 20:1-10. Peter and the Beloved Disciple do not believe Mary Magdalene that the tomb is empty; they have to see for themselves.
It should be noted that in every instance of doubt, it is the men disciples who doubt; the women (Mary Magdalene and Co.) are never said to doubt. When they see Jesus (e.g., Matthew 28) then know it’s Jesus brought back from the dead. But the men sometimes doubt. Why is that?
To see the rest of this post, you will need to belong to the blog. It costs less to join per month than a hamburger at Five Guys! OK, the hamburgers are amazing. But the blog is *so* much healthier for you. And hey, why not both? And by joining, you are making a donation to charity. So how good can it get?
Dr Ehrman..Would it have mattered if the women did doubt??? As women, there word meant nothing.
Yeah people today certainly say that a lot about the ancient world, and Judaism in particular, but I’m not sure it’s universally true: lots of people believed women! Happened all the time.
I have a comment re hallucinations, similar to but different from visions. I was in a serious accident 27 years ago, and in the aftermath of two major surgeries, I was on morphine and percocet! And, boy did I have hallucinations. All of them were very real. In three cases that I recall, they were *so* real that I had to check on them later. And that is even though I was pretty sure they were just hallucinations. My point is that these things can be very real and believable, even when you have been trained as a scientist and have a pretty good idea of what is happening!
Right!! Important to bear in mind. But sorry to hear about he accident. Hope it’s all better now, and just a horrible memory.
I just finished Adela Yarbro-Collins book on Mark, and she holds that the earliest view of the resurrection was that Jesus went straight up to heaven when he was raised — no hanging out here on Earth to talk with people. She thinks this better fits in with early Jewish stories (e.g. Enoch), as well as the Philippian Hymn and Mark’s abrupt ending. According to this view, the disciples who saw Jesus initially believed they were seeing the exalted Christ who was in heaven, miraculously appearing to them (the same as Paul’s experience). The idea of a post-resurrection, pre-ascension period only came later, in response to doubts, as did the tradition about “proofs”.
What do you think of this? And is this theory compatible with your tentative suggestion of a very few enthusiastic and respected disciples who saw visions and convinced many of Jesus’s followers on Earth (though some doubted)?
I think she’s right!
Does away with any need for his corpus and tomb so it fits with what we apparently understand about Roman executions!
This book is on my Watch List now.
This view coincides with the view that for the earliest and first follower of Jesus, that they understood “resurrection” to be to “heaven” (someplace other than the physical earth)
it doesn’t coincide at all with the silly view that Jesus and his earliest followers thought resurrection would be in an eternal physical body on earth
Not sure I follow you. The idea is that Jesus’ body was taken up to heaven and he was made a divine being. That’s what the earliest Christians, as apocalypticists, appear to have thought.
I am not sure what apocalypticist and/or earliest christians (i.e. Jesus Mary Paul Peter) believed.
But it seems like if the above theory is correct, then the DESTINATION of “the resurrection of Jesus” was “heaven” – it was NOT earth.
Then it is reasonable and likely that if Jesus taught about “the end times resurrection of the righteous”, he taught that their destination would likewise also be in heaven, ie with God wherever God is/lives. We call that “heaven” for lack of better word, it may or may not have been understood by 1st century Jews to be up in the sky.
Whether the identical physical body which encompassed the soul during earthly life rose up, or whether it transformed and then rose up, or whether it decayed in a grave doesn’t appear to be germane to those few people who proclaimed visions of Jesus post crucifixion, as far as I can tell, until maybe Paul needed to create or invent some explanation for the curious Corinthians.
So the first people proclaiming visions of jesus didnt need to say his tomb was empty didnt need to say he had a meal with them didnt need to say they felt his wounds, that is – the state of his body and or corpse was immaterial.
Yes, as a divine being Jesus went up to heaven. And he’s coming back down.
I wonder if supernatural visions like this had more acceptance as fact at that time than now. For the average person supernatural explanations still occupy a large percentage of the the world no matter how much science is produced to refute it. But back then they didn’t even have that. Its hard to imagine that mind frame back then.
I have always had a problem theologically with the idea that the Disciples themselves could doubt and receive many physical proofs of Jesus’s resurrection (40 days worth!) while faith is required for the rest of us.
And one wonders what kind of “proofs” were needed….
Professor,
So I’m sort of confused…maybe you could clear up a few things. Do you differentiate between appearance and vision? Do you think they are the same? Different? If they are the same Then Paul clearly wrote in 1 Cor 15:5 that Jesus appeared to all of the twelve. Of course paul gives no indication that any doubted. I agree there seems to be at minimal a few individuals who had visions. My question is did all twelve? Or are they appearances instead? This is what I’m sort of confused on. Your thoughts would be awesome to clarify. Thanks!!
I hesitate to use the word “appearance” because that implies he really did show up. When I use the term “vision” I mean it in a neutral way: someone sees and/or hears something. That’s true whether the thing / person they saw/heard was really there or not. Some would say yes, others would say no, but in either case it’s something seen/heard, i.e., a “vision”
Hello Professor Ehrman. Surely Mary Magdalene is doing the same as the “doubting” disciples in John 20:14-15…
I’d say it’s not the same, but similar. The disciples have heard Jesus was raised and doubt it. Mary sees someone and doesn’t realize it’s Jesus; once she does, she immediately believes.
That’s something I have wondered about before. Women were not considered reliable witnesses in the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures of late antiquity, were they? I’ve read that the testimony of women (when it was allowed) was never given the same weight as men’s testimony. It’s interesting then to see that all four canonical Gospels agree that women were the first witnesses to the risen Jesus. If this were a fabricated story, you’d expect the writers to make the witnesses men to make the story more credible.
I notice that you speak as though Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene are all historical people. Is this a general consensus among historians? I’d be interested in your take on fictional and historical people in the NT someday. I’ve heard that Joseph is considered ahistorical by many, and John Shelby Spong (a smart guy, though not a historian) maintains that Judas Iscariot was fictional.
I don’t think rules about what could happen in a court of law are necessarily applicable to everyday life. Of course women were often believed! But people talk today as if it never happened. But would anyone make up the story of women finding the tomb? I deal with this objection in my book How Jesus Became God (since I used to agree with it, but came to see it was problematic).
I think there was certainly a father of Jesus. 🙂 Whether he was named Joseph, I don’t know, but I don’t see any reason to doubt it. And in my book on Judas I mount a sustained argument that he really existed and that actually is the one who turned Jesus in.
There are two reasons I’ve heard put forward for the uncertainty. The first is that Jesus is called “son of Mary” in Mark 6:3. The argument was that a man would be referred to as the son of his father. Designating him the son of his mother would be unusual unless his father’s identity was unknown. It could even be a taunt, effectively calling him a bastard.
The second builds on that. In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role in the infancy story. He has a prophetic dream telling him that he is to marry Mary, and a second telling him to flee to Egypt. This seems to be part of a pattern in Matthew of telling the Gospel stories in a way that roughly parallels stories from the Hebrew Scriptures. Joseph in Genesis also had an important connection to prophetic dreams.
The idea is that if the name Jesus’ father was not known, Matthew may have inserted the name of Joseph so fill in a gap in knowledge.
It’s been many years since I heard this and I may not be remembering it well. I think the main point was actually that we know his mother’s name with a greater degree of certainty than his father’s.
mwbaugh, you might find this interesting: https://papyrus-stories.com/2018/06/28/baby-exposed-baby-snatched-roman-egypt-style/
It’s a story of a first-century CE court case in Roman Eygypt. I don’t see any hint of sexism in the court records.
It also makes me wonder if Jesus was an “exposed” baby
My sense is that Jews didn’t expose babies the way other cultures did.
I agree, Bart.
I was wildly hypothesizing that perhaps he was an exposed baby from another culture
Any comment on Elizabeth Schrader’s work at Duke on how Mary’s role was deliberately diminished, possibly changed to Martha in some texts?
I’m afraid I can’t comment on her because I’m on her graduate committee. I will say that I do not find the view at all persuasive.
[ B. E ] “But others did not believe, even among the twelve. But Mary at least really believed it, as, possibly, did some of her friends. ”
[ F. P. ]
Twelve?Not eleven?
I think it’s the same mistake Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
And another thing: if Mary was such an important witness and she was also convinced of the resurrection of Jesus, why didn’t Paul ask her anything? And if he asked her, if he met her, I don’t remember Paul writing anything about that possible interview in his letters. Why?
And why are you so sure that
[ B. E. ] “Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 5, based on what he says he “received,” meaning almost certainly “received from Peter” when he was visiting him, as described in Galatians 1:18”?
[ F. P.] Isn’t it interesting to you that Paul writing that, “after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days”, wrote in that same letter paragraphs before: “11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. “? What did Paul and Peter talk about during those 15 days so that Paul firmly states that he has not received any information about the gospel of Jesus from Peter?
What Paul affirms in 1 Cor. 15: 5, his “creed,” is necessarily part of the gospel he preached. And yet it makes clear that: “the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Perhaps the gospel that Paul preached did not include the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, which sounds very strange to me if it were so.
In addition, I insist, the entire passage 1 Cor. 15: 5 and following lines sounds to me false, invented. The prophecies that never existed and especially not realizing Paul that there were no longer 12 apostles, but only 11 until the ascension of Jesus to heaven.
If the information of his “creed” comes from Peter, why doesn’t he say so and therefore leave the door open to think that this information comes from rumors, from narratives transmitted from mouth to mouth without any way of knowing or its origins or if they are true?
I”m not sure wehre he got the creed from, but you’re right, he doesn’t say Peter (or anyone else in particular! Just that he received it)
Dr Ehrman ,
In the gospels ,Jesus says no one knows the day or the hour of judgment
some have interpreted it to mean “the son knows, but the father makes known”
In your opinion is this altering the text
? why?
Not sure what you’re asking. In the next line he says “not even the son.” But scribes did change the text sometimes at that point, leaving out “not even the son.”
“The most impressive thing is that people who have visions INSIST that the visions were real, not made up in their heads.” Count me among the exception to the rule then. I’ve had visions, including one very real-feeling one with Jesus. But I also admit that they might well be a product of a psychological or in some cases psycho-chemical processes. 😉 And for the record, I definitely think John of Patmos was either fasting too much or eating the wrong kind of mushrooms.
Yes, but it (Revelation) Is pretty good poetic prose… reminds me of one comment I read about Poe’s The Raven, that you could almost smell the opium while you read it!
Dr. Ehrman,
Apologist put tons of emphasis on the notion that a woman’s testimony meant nothing in the ancient world of Judaism. The goal of course to show the criterion of embarrassment in a woman proclaiming the “Good News” of Jesus’ return. In your scholarly opinion, how much of this assertion actually is legitimate based on what we know of the role of women at the time?
Right. Would anyone make up the story of women finding the tomb? I deal with this objection in my book How Jesus Became God, since I used to agree with it, but came to see it was problematic and don’t buy it anymore. The idea that “women were never believed” is completely bogus. They were believed all the time, every day, of course, by one person or another or everyone.
May I add…and correct me if I’m wrong…evangelicals state that a woman’s testimony was not accepted in court hearings. This is wrong. Women were not allowed to testify on matters of the Jewish Law but testified all the time as to what they heard or saw in other areas. And they were certainly believed in these matters!
I”m not really sure how to answer. The Roman world didn’t have trials by jury the way we imagine them.
Mark 16:4-8:
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
(1) Mark doesn’t identify if the “young man” was an angel. Is Mark assuming here that the reader would know that he is obviously an angel?
(2) It was well know to the women that Jesus was crucified, why repeat it to them? The whole of verse six (6) sounds like a line from a very low budget movie.
(3) “But go, tell his disciples and Peter”. Why say “and Peter” when Peter is also one of the disciples?
(4) “They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid”. In John 20:2, Mary Magdalene went and told Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved. Isn’t this a contradiction?
1. No, not necessarily; 2. It’s to emphasize the point, I suppose; 3. I’ve often wondered that, but it’s clearly to emphasize his central role among the followers after JEsus’ death; 4. Yes indeed! Also contradictory to Matthew, who got his story from Mark!
It certainly sounds reasonable that only a few (Peter Paul and Mary at least) had a vision of Jesus post-crucifixion.
but wouldn’t that lead you to believe that at least for these 3 individuals, they understood Jesus ‘resurrection’ to be non-physical.
I mean if they said or reported to others (which they must have) Jesus was physically raised, wouldn’t others then naturally say “please take me to see him?” then what would/could these 3 answer ? “well he had a glorified body, so I can’t take you to him”, what would that even mean?
Don’t you think walking into locked rooms, eating, poking his wounds, came later (ie not from these 3 )
and wouldn’t that also likely mean the empty tomb came later?
Anyway if your hunch is correct what implications does it have on the idea of a ‘physical resurrection’ for the first followers of his?
No, it would actually lead me to think they thoughthe had been raised *physically*. The reason: they were all Jewish apocalyticists who believed at the end of the age would come a *bodily* resurrection. That’s what they were expecting as “the afterlife” — life in the body. If someone was raised, it would, for them, necessarily be inthe body. But yes, the empty tomb and the eating/poking traditions are almost certainly later, among doubters (e.g., converted gentiles) who were not raised on traditions of bodily resurreciton but believed in the immortality of the soul.
I don’t follow your logic
of course if you start wiht the the unquestioned premise that
>>all Jewish apocalyticists who believed at the end of the age
>> would come a *bodily* resurrection.
but it is just that a premise
but if you agree that these 3 individuals had some vision or revelation that jesus was “alive” even after his crucifixion, and their expierences DID NOT include what we normally correlate with “physical”, like eating, like coming out of tomb (zombi-ish), like having pokable wounds, then it means they were somehow able to convince a number of followers (allowing for some doubters), that Jesus “resurrection” may not have required his “physical” body.
The earliest Christians believed Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection regardless of what “type” of body he had. They then thought he “appeared” (ophthe) to them from there. These were thought of as appearances of the exalted Jesus from heaven. Later, after the story evolves is when we get the physical earthly appearances. They were probably written to convince gentile audiences who were more familiar with Greco-Roman hero stories which always involved a physical body. We see Luke combating the docetic views of Jesus in his resurrection story – “look at my hands and feet, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have” which indicates people were claiming Jesus was just a spirit. So we can infer there were different views of the Resurrected Christ but eventually the physical corpse revivification won out and became the Orthodox view.
Yup, that’s it. The original view was the resurrection of a body, which came back down on occasoin to appear to the disciples. Later followrs said it must not have been a real body. Authors like Luke were determined to show it really was.
>>The original view was the resurrection of a body,
I don’t think so
yeah, the original view was that Jesus was “alive”; but whether a physical “body” was an aspect of this/his “resurrection” didn’t seem to be germane
that
>>Christians believed Jesus went straight to heaven
is more plausible
Using your research into visions and how they almost always consider it real…the person was physically there, this leads me to assume that Peter Paul and Mary absolutely believed they saw the risen Jesus. Some others believed their testimony and some would naturally doubt…as they didn’t see a durn thing! While I think their apocalyptic beliefs probably factors in, their vision was even more of a factor. They really believed they SAW Him.
Previously I decided to stay out of the Old Testament. I studied it recently while also listening to the Book of the Dead (or Book of Life). Dr. Hayes said in her Old Testament class that she didn’t let her children study the Old Testament. Torah is not for ministering Angels.
I have been rereading the New Testament and found some truths and also found some Old Testament. SIlencing women, putting women down, and other conflicts. So if I have to stay out of the Old Testament, and it is in the New Testament, then I will stay out of it also.
So I am going to stay with the Book of Life (Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead).
It may have been the New Testament that directed me to Moses & Ancient Egypt previously. Also maybe in there that says you have to stay out of the Old.
Also, Adoration helped me with several things. Adoration is adoring the body of Christ, which I think of as the God, the one body, mind, spirit… connected by mutual love and equality… like-minded…
people went to adore Christ at birth
In adoration, you are free to say your own prayers and read whatever you want
During Mass you follow along with the prayers and readings, you may hear you are a sinner not worthy and you eat and drink the body and blood
I think Adoration is better: you don’t have to be a sinner, you are worthy, and you can be part of the One body,mind, spirit.
Since they had to get the New Testament to this point to attract people, it must be what people want to hear. Adoration may get people to the next level. We need to raise people’s awareness, loving-kindness, and worthiness. We begin with our own.
Once you get to that point, you may just have to stay out of the Bible. There is good and evil in it. The cost of finding the good is too high due to the negatives.
So I am staying out of the Bible and won’t be on this blog.
I do know that I have to speak to people who want to listen.
I feel like I graduated,
Thx for sharing Bernice
I too found it useful to avoid the Bible for a long time, it was like razor blades to me.
I needed to detox from preconceived ideas and programming, learn to allow the spiritual meaning to come through, learn to eat the fruit and spit out the pits …
What amazes me is, after much soul adventure and blossoming,
I read the gospels, and sometimes even other writings, and I am Blown Away by Glory and
Wisdom that shines through these words.
Imoe ymmv
Bless you on your Unique journey,
Wendy
The Bible is a fascinating piece of literature!
additionally in reference to the paragraph
>>A couple of readers have suggested that if these
>> were “visions” then it makes sense that there
>> would be considerable doubt. It’s an interesting . . . \
>> . . .people who claim that they have been abducted by UFO’s.
>>. . . People who have visions really seem to believe it.
not sure exactly what the readers you are referring to meant however
maybe the people who CLAIM to have been abducted by UFO’s believe they were real encounters (whatever real means)
BUT the people they report their encounters to are probably going to close to universal ‘doubters’
The four gospels testify against themselves. Why don’t people discuss the scriptural evidence of Jesus teachings in the Hebrew gospel account that was translated by George Howard? Looks to be very interesting to me. http://www.onediscipletoanother.org
It’s almost certainly a Hebrew translation of the Greek, made in the middle ages. I’m afraid George’s view never passed muster with other experts.
I’ve thought this for a while now. That it was the women who refused to let him go.
Why did the cult of Jesus thrive after his death, while that of John the Baptist, which had been so much more influential, gradually languish and disappear?
One reason could be that Jesus picked more talented disciples, better suited to finding new converts and building on the existing foundation (and would ultimately attract new leaders like Paul to their ranks). Another could be that Jesus was more open to gentiles than John, though it seems clear that both saw themselves as primarily reaching out to fellow Jews. Though both were charismatic preachers, perhaps Jesus’ parables and sayings were more suited for oral and written transmission, once that charisma had exited the stage.
These could all be reasons–we don’t know enough about John and his cult to be sure. But even if all of these factors existed, I consider them secondary to the fact that Jesus went out of his way to talk to women, and seems to have regarded them as equals in the spirit. Unlikely that John shared this quality with his former student.
John met his end by harassing Herod Antipas over what he considered an immoral marriage to his brother’s wife. Jesus would have likewise disapproved of the divorce and subsequent remarriage, but does not seem to have made an issue out of this type of thing. He was not, in the main, preaching about sexual morality–which very often turns into a condemnation of women as ‘occasions of sin.’
And John was, to all accounts, a very intimidating figure–not the kind you can see engaging in lively discussions with females, even bidding one of them to stop preparing a meal and join such a discussion, because matters of the spirit are more important–for men and women alike.
So their devotion to him was stronger. They followed him to the cross, not the men. No matter what you think happened to his body, the stories all say they were the ones who tried to tend to it. Think how terrifying that would be. But they did all they could for him.
They wouldn’t let him go. And as for Mary–don’t some stories say she had demons? Meaning she saw things that weren’t there. (Or so we say.)
I”m not sure demon possession in antiquity was ever associated with false visions, the way it is today. I can’t think of an instance anyway…
Yes, but we don’t actually believe she was possessed by literal demons, do we? Assuming we believe the stories of her having demons that Jesus cast out are even based on real events. She could have just been an imaginative and independent-minded young woman, who had powerful visions, that were taken as demonic possession, or later interpreted as such.
In other words, she, like Jesus (who may have claimed to speak to demons) was a visionary. And to a visionary, the inner vision as is real as the physical world, if not more so.
So wouldn’t she be the likeliest among his inner circle to have had a very real-seeming vision of the man who had believed in her potential risen in physical form, a vision that was not merely visual, but tangible as well?
And she might well have had charisma to rival that of Jesus–which would have made her vision very compelling when recounted to others.
But why would many if not most of the disciples have doubted her, when we must assume they wanted to believe he wasn’t really gone? It’s almost too obvious to mention, isn’t it?
Now I think on it, aren’t there some stories where Jesus himself is accused of either being in league with demons or being possessed by one? Not such an uncommon thing to say of somebody who has unconventional religious views. St. Teresa of Avila, who had powerful religious visions, was nearly burned by the Inquisition for the suspicion her visions came from Satan, and of course Joan of Arc really was burned (though more for beating the English in battle).
No, since I don’t believe there really are supernatural beings called demons, I don’t think she was possessed by them.
But that isn’t the question. The question is, did she have that reputation, even before she met Jesus, and if she did, might she have been the type of person who might, under moments of emotional stress and mystic exaltation, have seen Jesus before her in the flesh, experienced that just as vividly (if not more) as if he really was there–and then described that vision in such a compelling way as that many were convinced it had really happened, and perhaps had visions of their own as a response?
If that could happen with Teresa of Avila (and it did, beyond question), why not Mary Magdalene? The difference being that Teresa really would have been burned if she’d said Jesus or Mary of any saint had appeared to her in the flesh. That would have been overstepping, claiming equality with figures from the gospels. Teresa understood her visions were visions, much as she hoped they came from heaven (she did accept the possibility that visions could come from demonic sources, devoted much thought to how one discerned true visions from false).
No rules for Mary Magdalene. She’s rejected the authority of her fellow Jews by following this man. She reportedly had some measure of financial independence. Jesus’ other followers know she enjoyed great favor with him. She’s utterly free to decide what she has experienced and what it means. But since she’s a woman in a patriarchal society, she can’t seek official positions of authority–which in some respects, gives her a higher status.
Maybe it all really did start with her.
Yes, that is indeed a different question. We don’t know what her reputation was. We just have a couple of verses in Gospels written decades after she had died. She’s actually not mentioned much in the Gospels at all — only *once* (total, in all four) before the Passion narrative.
One of the proofs of Jesus’s ministry was his miracles. I find it quite ironic that the greatest miracle of all… coming back from the dead, was not reported to anyone outside of his followers. As Jesus told the leper to show himself to the High Priest as a testament to his healing, certainly Jesus would have done the same thing. After all… he had already conquered death and there was little the world could do to him now.
Jesus appearing to his enemies, that would have been something!
Dr Ehrman,
Mary might be the first or the only one who saw Jesus at the tomb.
Some questions arise:
1) If Jesus had just died and came back to life, would that not be the perfect time to mention it? ( Hey I just died and came back to life ) He didn’t. He told her that he was ascending to his God and her God.
2) She turns to him after thinking her is a gardener and says “Teacher” Rabboni …Not God, not Son of God not Holy Spirit? No Elohim not Eloh ? but RABBONI ( many translations to the word…God is not one of them and certainly was not used in hebrew nor aramaic to mean Elohim or Eloh )
3) Jesus tells her to go and tell his brothers …… God had brothers?
All this in the Gospel according to John, the only Gospel that emphasizes / claims or pictures Jesus as Divine and a deity. If Jesus knew he was Divine and a deity worthy of worship, this would be his perfect opportunity. ( supposedly he was scared of the consequences of the people before this event , however, Jesus is on his way up and away…. perfect timing to break that news… and Mary, a woman…Wow double perfect… she would have definitely told everyone )
— –That they (the Jews ) said:
“Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
( 2000 years have gone by and we’re still in doubt and make assumptions.)
Mary did not recognize Jesus. She thought he was a gardener. Could it be that the person who was crucified appeared to look like Jesus? (as mentioned above)
Mary went back to the disciples and told them she saw Jesus. ‘And she told them that he had said these things to her.” John-18. He did not tell nor mentioned he died and came back to life.
Mary never proclaimed Jesus came back from the dead, the angels supposedly told her that. Right?
1. I think the point is she would realize he was alive again, and wouldn’t need to be told it; 2. Rabboni is meant to show that it is a very early traditoin that originated in Aramaic speaking Palestine — i.e., it adds authenticity to the scene, rather than investing it with theological views that developed later; 3. Yes, of course gods can have brothers. Happens in the Greek and Roman traditions all the time; and in the Jewish! Moses was sometimes said to have become divine, and he had a brother
I suppose you’ve thought about, or been asked about this before, but if there was no tomb to begin with – i.e. if Jesus had just been left on the cross like everybody else who the Romans crucified – what you’re then left with are just the supposed visions by a few of the disciples, and the tomb stories just invented later. However, since the tomb is such a standard feature in the Gospels, it sort of makes more sense to me that Jesus’ body *was* taken down from the cross at some point and put into a (freshly cut?) rock tomb. I’m not sure how closely the Romans “policed” the bodies still hanging on crosses(?), or how easy or difficult it would have been for his disciples to have taken his body down. What do you think about this Bart?
That’s the problem. Romans didn’t allow decent burials; that was part of the punishment. So the idea that he was buried that day is completely implausible. I explain the entire matter at length in my book How Jesus Became God. And you’re right, it means that the tradition originated simply in visions. (Note: in the Gospels the empty tomb *never* creates faith. It only leads to doubts.
Yes – read your book and really enjoyed it. I guess I was asking more in a hypothetical sense – what may have been possible. There is the famous discovery of the heel bone of Jehohanan, as you know, which must have been picked up at some point by the young man’s family and put into an ossuary (which was then placed in a tomb). I suppose the likely scenario here was that the Romans eventually removed and tossed on the ground what was left of the remains on the crosses, which admittedly would have been mostly skeletal (presumably to reuse the wood and nails for other crucifixions?) We’ll never know for sure, obviously, but, just as obviously, members of Jehohanan’s family were able to retrieve at least this one bone.
I have an extended discussion of Jehohanan, and the significance of the discovery, on the blog; just search for it. The fact he was buried in an ossuary later doesn’t tell us how long he rotted on the cross before being taken down.
Right – I guess my general point was that in some instances, it obviously was possible for family members to have gathered what was left of someone, albeit after they had indeed rotted away. Not an ideal situation, but maybe retrieving something to bury was better than nothing(?), and the Romans either allowed that or didn’t police Golgotha 24/7. I’ll look up your discussion of Jehohanan.
Apparently so — at least in that case. But again, it may have been a month later. The other issue is that we know nothing about the poor fellow’s family. It’s normally thought that only osmeone with connections could pull something like that off (like Josephus did once). Jesus wasn’t from Jerusalem and was a lower class peasant from an uneducated impoverished family from what was in effect a different country. So no influence there. Again, we are dealing with probabilities here, not certainties, but I’d say the probabilities are extremely strong for one side on this one.
Bart you seem to accept the Visions of the risen Jesus by Peter, Paul and Mary as actually happened.
Why Not equally accept As actual events the physical appearances and touching of the risen Jesus written about in luke(24-3741); John 20-27 And Acts 1:3?
Becuase I don’t think there is as good of evidence for these accounts written many decades later. Each passage has to be considered carefully on its own merits whether it is likely embodying a historical tradition or not. With Paul we have his own testimony; with Peter we have Paul’s testimony (and Paul knew him); with Mary we are not in as good a situation, but we do have multiple accounts independently attesting it. None of that is true of the accounts in Luke or John, written 50-60 years later.
I think we need to read the story of resurrection from its early written sources
if we start from 1 Cor. 15:5, it will show that this story start by Peter who had a visual experience of Jesus which called by Paul and may be by Peter -before – as resurrection !
Paul never mention anything about the women and the empty tomb
it looks like the story of empty tomb and Marry with other women came up later after the time of Paul !
may be it was an attempt from Gospels writers to make the story more strong and believable
they chose to put the names of Mary with other women because that was the only way to fabricate the story of empty tomb because these women attend the process of crucifixion while no one of the 12 apostles was there to recognize the tomb later on.
It’s a good point. But the fact Paul doesn’t mention a tradition technically doesn’t mean he didn’t know about it, but even more important, even if he didn’t know about it — this is the key point — that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a tradition around before he was writing. He hadn’t heard everything about Jesus. Probably hadn’t heard *most* of the stories being told about Jesus. So if he hadn’t heard a story, it doesn’t mean that someone else could not have been telling it at the time or much earlier.
Some apologists say that paul would have shot himself in the foot if he had told his audience that women were the first witnesses, but didnt a male disciple confirm their claims ?
Doesn’t make any sense. Lots of people were saying women were the first witnesses. Do these apologists think all of them who said that were shooting themselves in the foot? Lots of injured Christians!
Professor, would not the trauma from the apparent fact that the women watched Jesus die (Mary Magdalene at least per the synoptics – the disciples having fled to Galilee) have made them more prone to visions or dreams?
POssibly indeed. But I don’t think it’s possible to psychologically evaluate anyone from antiquity.
Dear prof. Ehrman
When Paul wrote Corinthians letter it was almost 20 years past since Jesus death.
He was writing to prove for some people who had doubt about ressurcration and he was trying to bring all the evidences to prove that
He took the event by time order starting from first appearance of Jesus to Peter and end by the appearance of Jesus to him
That’s why it is unlikely that somrbody like Paul will forget or neglect most important thing like empty tomb or Marry meeting with Jesus and don’t use these evidence in his trial to prove ressurcration.
Ressurcration myth may be start with Peter for ( as visual experience) for psychological reasons and later with time the story start to build up and reconstruct by adding new detiales to it.
Thanks prof. For your respond
I agree!
Do you suppose the Ascension was invented to explain why the “risen” Jesus didn’t stick around to remove all doubts?
I actually think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I’ve never posted on it. I’ll add it to the list — it’s an interesting question and issue.
As far as I know, no one ever painted or drew a portrait of Jesus when he was alive…ditto for Mary. Therefore no one knows what either looked like. How then can those who today claim they have “seen” either one know for sure who they have visualized?
Name tags? REally don’t know — but it happens with other kinds of visions people have of people they’ve never met or seen either. It is indeed strange. I guess you just “know”
Considering the importance of dreams throughout the Bible, I might suggest that some of the disciples may have dreamed about the Resurrected Jesus and interpreted the dreams as being true. Even, today, it’s not unusual for people to contend that their loved ones really and truly visited them “last night” when actually, what they are describing is a dream.
It seems weird to us today, but ancients didn’t have the categorical difference between dream and vision that we have…
Is it possible that some of John Baptist’s disciples also had visions of John being resurrected?
Mark 6:14 and parallels seems to indicate that some people identified Jesus as resurrected John Baptist, and the report reached Herod. (In Matthew 14:2 it appears that Herod himself believed this as well, but this is probably just a Matthean quirk)
I guess there needs to be someone having reasons to believe John Baptist being raised from the dead (seeing visions? empty tomb?) and spread similar rumours before the identification of Jesus being resurrected John Baptist would happen. (apparently on a large scale)
And if such a tradition of resurrected John Baptist indeed existed, the Gospels have a lot of reasons to downplay it…
Possible — but I don’t think there’s much evidence they did; at least there are no reports of it.
Yet we don’t have any accounts written in the name of these women!
Just the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), who is not said to be the author of the work but whose discussoins with Jesus from the heart of it.
Okay. Interesting! I will look that up. Thanks.