Loading...I am ready and willing to begin answering questions readers have about my book How Jesus Became God. So feel free to ask away. Here is a good one I received today.
QUESTION:
I have enjoyed reading your interesting and thought provoking books, Jesus Interrupted and Forged. At the moment I am reading How Jesus Became God and would like to comment on some of the content of Chapter 5. To that point in the book, it seems to me you have been very careful to avoid speculation, but it seems to me that the application of your usual standards may have lapsed somewhat in regard to the visions of Jesus after the crucifixion. Specifically, what evidence do we have, apart from the Gospels, that any of Jesus’ disciples actually had visions of Jesus after his death? Certainly, at some point in early Christianity, the story of the visions became part of the lore, but as you have pointed out in previous parts of the book, the oral recounting of the stories was subject to embellishment and even invention. I see no reason that simple rumor among believers, other than the Disciples, could not explain how the visions of the Disciples entered the tradition. Please respond. If I am missing something here I would like to know it.
RESPONSE:
This is a good and interesting question (I’m not sure if the person who asked it is on the blog or not; I also responded via email separately, but more briefly). The short answer is that apart from the Gospels the only other good evidence we have are the book of Acts and the letters of Paul There is a lot of *not* very good evidence – for example, later Gospels and writings of later church Fathers, sources that many people would be reluctant to say provide no evidence at all! But having said this, let me stress: this does not make the Gospel accounts of the visions *different* from anything else we might say or think about Jesus. The Gospels (and Paul and Acts) are virtually our only evidence for *everything* having to do with Jesus! So I am no more speculative about the claims I make about visions than I am about anything else connected with Jesus. The New Testament provides us with our sources of information. And I would argue that in this case the evidence is really pretty solid.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, ARE YOU WAITING FOR CHRISTMAS????
It is rare for established scholars to openly admit changing their mind on major issues, as they have invested their credibility and authority on a thesis they presented and defended. So your admission is commendable, especially when you supplement with new insights that led to change of mind.
The Gathercole-Evans-Hills bunch should be glad to welcome you to the Early-high-christology club, and should be even more delighted if you go further in endorsing high christology as your personal belief. I would like to ask on their behalf – not that I have personal preference one way or the other – what evidence would you need to see in order for you to believe that Jesus is God?
I don’t think theological beliefs are based on “evidence.” And yeah, I would have thought the EHC club would have been pleased to see me, but so far as I can tell from their responses, it ain’t so! 🙂
Dr Ehrman, how do we know that there were sources L and M, instead of Luke and Matthew making up stories that augmented material from Mark and Q with depictions of Jesus in the context of their particular traditions?
It’s hard to say for sure. The way it is usually done is be seeing the editorial tendencies of each author and determining of these tendencies permeate the L and M materials or not. My sense is that the authors rarely made anything up wholecloth themselves…..
I’m reading your new book now so don’t have any questions on it yet unless you touch on this one in later pages: among all these illiterate peasants who wrote down and preserved M, L and Q?
Not the illiterate peasants! Apparently Greek-speaking Christians living outside of Palestine. But God knows who!
Hi Bart,
Since Jesus’ early disciples lived in a illiterate and oral environment, I’m assuming that the spoken word was something taken seriously. Wasn’t it? Could this also corroborate your view that who ever proclaimed haven seen Jesus raised from the dead truly believed it? Thanks!
I think the relationship of orality and literacy is really complex. I’m thinking about dealing with it in my next book!
I’m sorry but not buying it. The two issues you may have chaged your mind about are troublesome to me. First that the Synoptics do make reference to the divinity of Christ. I have read your exegesis about Q. If you add up all the references in Q, the earliest, probably oral traditions about Jesus. There is not one reference to his divinity. Second, I have read your analysis of the resurrection narratives in all four Gospels. It doesn’t exist in Mark. And, Luke, Matthew and John are irreconcilable. Acts appears to be a mess when compared to the others.
why are we now ascribing any reliable historicity to these accounts? And Paul? Am I wrong in reading your previous analyses of Paul? It is obvious that Paul received his information regarding the resurrection third, fourth or fifth hand.
What gives? Obviously anyone is entitled to change their mind on a issue. And I am reading your latest book, on Audible. But I am simply not buying your arguments. If the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be divine, meaning actually God, I would expect the Synoptics and Q to have made reference to it. Tell me why I’m wrong.
I think I explain why I think you’re wrong in the book! It has to do with what people at the time (Greeks, Romans, Jews) meant by saying Jesus is the one who was made the Son of God.
i feel like people forget that early christains were very religious and wanted to believe. im sure they wanted to see that Jesus had risen and the end times were coming and rome hadn’t won ect. these people prob arnt Richard Dawkins grade skeptics. one could argue that Paul doesn’t fit this because he used to persecute Christians but i wonder if he doesn’t build him self up a bit for effect (like when people say “i used to be a criminal but look how much ive changed now that ive found the lord!!!!” that aside paul is still a religious person before and after his conversion
There is a new movie coming out in time for Easter called Heaven is Real. Judging from the trailer, it is the true story of a little boy whose consciousness left his body, “near death experience,” and after returning to good health, he apparently accurately reported the hospital experience including what the doctors were doing as he could see it from the ceiling. He also talked about his experience of heaven and the relatives he met although he was too young to have known them or anything about them. It looks like he also began seeing people others could not see.
Another thought on this subject: It is not too uncommon for people to have “visions” of their recently deceased relatives, as well as religious figures.
What was particularly unique about the visions of Jesus after the crucifixion? I confess I haven’t yet read the new book, so if this question has already been answered, let me know. If the visions were the basis of believing and conferring god hood there ought to be tens of thousands of son and daughter “gods.”
Let me know if it still doesn’t make sense after you read the book!
OK. Thanks, Bart. I’m looking forward to reading it.
So, I’m at long last midway through How Jesus Became God, and have but one thing to say to you, Professor Bart Ehrman: What a marvelous book! I hope you don’t mind that what I’ve read thus far is all marked up with highlighter and about two dozen sticky notes, one of which I will refer to now that is labelled “visions”.
You mention being uncertain as to whether James, the brother of Jesus, actually saw the risen Jesus, and so I ask, why is that?
Thank you! James: simply because we have the report only in Paul. But since Paul knew him, I lean toward thinking that James did have a vision.
But isn’t James Judas? 😉
Depends whom you ask. 🙂
Hi
We know that Jesus spoke of things ie secrets of the kingdom of God / his Kingship etc in private to his disciples, so would it not be possible that he had told them that God would protect him against the enemy and that if he he was killed God would resurrect him? I am just contemplating, that the visions of the disciples may not entirely be based on hallucinations they had out of remorse for him after his death, but instead the stories of his resurrection may have been based on what Jesus had actually told some of his closest disciples in private? ie James, Peter, Mary? What do you think Bart?
Also, what eveidence do we have of the disciples having visions apart from what Paul reports and what is later added into the Gospels? My understanding is that apart from the NT links, the evidence is quite cold when it comes to understanding the disciples’ faith in the resurrection of Jesus? ie they seem to return to Jerusalem under James’ leadership and live out their lives as apocalyptic jews, but there is no understanding that they had faith in the resurection of Jesus, especially when we look at NT epistle of James or the didache?
pls comment
thanks
Sam Chahal
On your first point, yes anything is possible. The issue is always evidence.
On your second, yes, the evidence is all in the NT — for whatever view one takes!
Perhaps he told them he would be the first to enter the kingdom, and also told them the righteous dead would be resurrected into the Kingdom. One he (surprisingly) died, it would be natural to assume he would arise, and since he preached imminence, to “see” it shortly after the death. As bart says, pure speculation, but speculation itself can be interesting.
Peter’s commissioning of the work to go to the Gentiles followed a vision he had. Among believers of spiritual realms, visions seem to be an important revelatory process for sensing God’s desires.
Hello Bart,
I have been reading your books, although I have not completed “How Jesus became God”. I have also heard some of the interviews you have given.
The two things that have struck me as significant was your writing about the Roman leaders being considered gods and the CONTEXT, political and environmental, as it related to the belief in God and Jesus specifically. The second, is the visions.
Anyone who has been in a military or paramilitary organization knows the power and influence that a leader or General has. Just watch the reaction in a lower ranking group when the General announces his inspection or just to stop by. And, that is a leader who generally doesn’t kill or torture his/her troops.They thought of them as Gods, and a messiah would be such a person who is, beyond human. Idealized, catered to and submitted to. This would definitely be the tool to take control of the people by the power of that belief. If you do not have the physical power, isn’t the only way to fight back against the cruelty and abuse by the hearts and minds?
The visions, are a reasonable explanation for the people to believe Jesus rose from the dead. As you have written people have always had visions. And, continue to have significant dreams, visions and unexplained experiences that have life altering consequences for them. PTSD, flash backs, are they not flashing back pictures in the mind?
I have experienced what I really have no word for, because “visions” has many connotations I am not thrilled with. Wether created by the mind, caused by shock, chemical imbalance or the subconscious telling you something is wrong, is there no doubt that such an experience could cause a person to believe in something we know nothing about? Something that is so powerful that it could rule the world. It would make sense that we would create/believe in a divine being just to keep our feet on the ground and try to understand life.
Since we still have no PHYSICAL evidence of a dream, but we know they are real to us, isn’t the evidence?
The last sentence was meant to be; “isn’t that the evidence”?
There is no doubt that Paul had visions of Jesus. And as we all agree the gospels (and Acts for that matter) were written AFTER Paul and certainly influenced BY Paul. In one way or another they reflect his way of thinking (to a certain degree).
Wouldn’t it be possible that the story of visions started with Paul only and was incorporated into the gospels because… well, how could it be that Jesus appeared to Paul and not to his disciples?
I find it suspicious that there is such deep discrepancies in the different accounts of Jesus post-resurrection appearances.
Take for the example the different accounts of Jesus’ birth in Luke and Matthew. There are only two things that both have in common: a) Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and b) he grew up in Nazareth. Virtually every other details is mentioned in only one of the two gospels. It looks as if decades later two different authors had to reconcile that the promised Saviour was born in Bethlehem and he was called Jesus of Nazareth. So they both write a story to make this plausible. Matthew locates Jesus’ family in Bethlehem and lets them flee to Egypt and later settle in Nazareth. Lucas has his family of Jesus living in Nazareth and lets them travel to Bethlehem because of the census.
Couldn’t the appearances of Jesus be of similar nature? I.e. the authors of the gospels were faced with the fact that Paul preaches everywhere that Jesus was raised and reveals to him heavenly truths. How is that possible if Jesus did not appear to the disciples? Well, then let’s make this plausible to our readers as well.
In other words: Couldn’t Paul be the sole starting point of this vision thing?
It’s a good question: I’ll deal with it in a post soon instead of here.
Why do you suppose no one has had visions of Jesus since the Gospels? And why have there been visions of Mary instead?
See today’s post!
Two brief questions regarding the Philippians poem;
(i) in 2.6, is the “was” in the form of God (page 254 HJBG) actually present tense and more like “presently in the form of God” ? If it is the present participle maybe the poem isn’t about pre-existence (whether angelic or otherwise) but rather referring to Jesus’ human life?
And (ii) possibly somebody (who doesn’t have much of a social life) has already converted Phil 2.6-11 back into Aramaic to see if it has poem-like characteristics in Aramaic. Do you think that this poem originated in Aramaic or does it appear to have been a Greek composition?
“Was” in the verse is a participle whose tense indicates that it is agreeing (in time) with that of the main verb, which is an aorist (past tense); so he *was* (not “is”) in the form of God. And yes, some scholars have tried to revert it to Aramaic, but without much success.
I just like to comment on some of the comments posted. High Christology doesn’t mean Trinity, am I right? How come know one talks much about the Holy Ghost, how did he get mix up in all of this. I’v just gone through your book “after the new testament” and “Christianity in Antiquity” not much on the other third of “god”. Any books you can recommend that deal specifically with the Holy Ghost and how it became God too?
I deal with it briefly in How Jesus Became God.
Hi Bart,
I know this is a late entry but I do have a question for you.
In Paul’s statement that Jesus was, “born of a woman”, I take this to mean that Jesus did not just suddenly appear on earth, as perhaps, an angel might. Jesus was actually born of a woman and so he was human.
I also believe the both the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, would completely agree with Paul’s statement. I don’t believe, from Paul’s statement alone, that we can say one way or the other, whether the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth.
Do you agree?
John
Yes, that was Paul’s view. But no, I don’t think it was Matthew and Luke’s. They did *not* think (in my opinion) that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human. For them, he came into existence at his conception (unlike Paul).
This is an excellent question. I have reached the same point in your book and had exactly the same question. Your response, as usual, is also good and helpful. I still wonder if the “visions” could have been dreams since often people in the Bible seem to think visitors in dreams are actually real. An example would be the visit of the angel to see Joseph and tell him about the birth of Jesus described in Matthew. I also continue to ponder whether or not Paul’s conversion experience, with the falling down and confusion, was a seizure provoked by sunlight flickering through trees ending with post-ictal confusion.
What I enjoyed most about your newest book is your discussion of the continuum of beliefs concerning deity in the ancient world. There was not one meaning of deity and when discussing these beliefs you must ask “In what sense” of deity you are discussing. Similarly, there was not one sense of belief in Jesus but a continuum of beliefs ranging from a teacher to a prophet to a Jewish Messiah to a Christ figure which included a continuum of beliefs about Jesus as God in some sense.
–
The belief that since Paul met Peter and James, they must have had discussions of their resurrection visions is one of the oldest arguments in Christianity. You probably heard it even before you attended Moody Bible Institute. However, when Paul discusses Peter and James his emphasis is that he received nothing from them, that what he teaches he received from the resurrected Christ. Paul’s letters were written in the 50s and thus indicate that far from being in accord with Peter and James much of his Christian career was in competition with them. Paul was specifically disagreeing with the beliefs of the Jerusalem followers of Jesus.
–
In Corinthians when Paul speaks of the “appearances”, he does not say “Peter told me this.” or “James told me that.” He does not describe the appearances that many if not most Christians believe that he, Peter and James discussed with each other. Paul does not describe these in any way as something he discussed with Peter and James. Instead he repeats a traditional creedal statement of the Syrian church which he edits and in the process adds himself as the last witness to the resurrected Christ. The difference between “I spoke to the foundational witnesses of the resurrected Christ” and the repetition of pre-Pauline tradition can’t be stressed enough to understand this passage.
–
That there were other communities which did not base their beliefs on visions of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the Q source and texts such as The Gospel of Thomas, the Didache and the letter of James. The Gospels and Acts do not have to be jettisoned but they do have to be recognized as the product of only one part of the continuum of beliefs about Jesus.
–
The “Doubt Tradition” may be a recognition that Peter, Thomas and James were not teaching what eventually became a defining belief of the Hellenistic and then Roman Churches. In other words it is not “beyond any doubt that SOMETHING made the followers of Jesus come to believe he was raised from the dead (since they did come to believe this)” because there were communities that did not believe this originally or for generations to come.
–
In any case I’m not particularly trying to convince you of the above but I am interested if it is a good argument clearly made?
So are you imagining that Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus himself told him “I appeared first to Cephas, then to James, then to…” ?
No, but Paul states that when God revealed his Son to him, Paul did not confer with anyone or go to Jerusalem to see the apostles but rather went to Arabia before returning to Damascus. Paul’s beliefs were formed in the years before his meetings with James and Peter. Paul’s beliefs were formed in Damascus and Arabia which creates an ongoing tension between his beliefs and the apostles. In Corinthians it is revealing that Paul has to repeat tradition rather than an account of his meetings with James and Peter.
–
The existence of communities that did not have visions and resurrection beliefs as their basis could mean that Paul’s reliance on these for his beliefs came from Damascus rather than Peter and James. Indeed the whole context of Paul’s letters are his disagreements with Peter and James which does not seem probable for a person who actually spoken with them and heard descriptions of the foundational visions of the resurrected Christ.
Question:
Specifically, what evidence do we have, apart from the Gospels, that any of Jesus’ disciples actually had visions of Jesus after his death?
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman:
The short answer is that apart from the Gospels the only other good evidence we have are the book of Acts and the letters of Paul
Steefen (personal essayist), author of Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus / The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, 2nd Ed.:
He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, * * those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them * * spending a third day restored to life, – First century historian, Joseph ben Matiyahu (Josephus) contemporary to James, brother of Jesus.
Note: The Testimonium Flavianum is authentic. Scholars who said it was not gave reasons. One reason was that it was out of context, unrelated to the passage following it. That simply is not true. The Testimonium Flavianum is followed by a passage of a god appearing to a woman and spending time with her – god made man and walking among us, a claim of Christianity. Furthermore, this god appeared to her on the third day. As we know, Josephus changed camps from Jewish rebel leader against Rome to supporting the Romans against the Jewish rebels. IN CHARACTER, Josephus tells us the God who appeared to the lovingly devout woman and spent time with her revealed that he was not god.
This is Josephus’ stance of atheism against his former religion which was warranted because after the Babylonian exile, after the Seleucids, after Rome wipes away the success of the Macabbees, after Rome takes away a Jewish king in Jerusalem, after the garments of the high priests have to be given to Romans, and after the handwriting on the wall that Rome was going to win the Jewish-Roman war, after Joseph ben Matiyahu gave his speech with tears in his eyes and speaking (while crying) to the rebels, explaining if they did not stop, we would lose the temple to destruction, after all this and more, zelotry for the Jewish God was not amounting to anything.
The TF is not just Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3 but Sections 3 and 4! (This will appear in the 2nd ed of my book and will be on my website in a few weeks: http://www.waterbearingfish.com/SaulJosephus_ben_Matiyahu.html
The second reason the TF is authentic is because while Vespasian enriched Josephus for his support of the Romans, Vespasian also enriched another rabbi, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai who headed the university of Yavne after the Jewish Revolt was put down. Rabbi Joseph ben Matiyahu and Rabbi Johanan proclaimed the Jewish story. We know of the TF. As for Rabbi Johanan, he proclaims the impregnation of Mary by God, the Lion of Judah, and that God tried to save his people through her son.
In the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee (Gennesareth Lake), west side of the sea, north of Tiberias, at Taricheae, Jesus (Sapphias), a governor of Tiberias [on the western side of the Sea of Galilee; and Galilee is between Phoenicia and Samaria, which is north of Judea] and his party made a sally upon the Romans who were building a wall about their camp. The Romans leaped into their ships and slew the rebels under Jesus. The Romans also destroyed Jesus’ ships. And for Jesus’ men who were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts thrown by Romans or the Romans in their vessels caught them. When Jesus’s desperate drowning men swam to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their head or their hands. Titus leaped upon his horse and rode apace down to the lake. … The sea was bloody and filled with dead bodies. 6,500 people were killed because of Jesus’ attack on the Romans. The swollen dead bodies inflamed by the sun and putrefied, corrupted the air causing misery for the Jews and the Romans who won that battle. – War of the Jews
This is important because just as the biblical Jesus had to question Paul’s behavior, the Jesus in Galilee in War of the Jews did not like the actions of Josephus. Josephus made himself the sole general of the rebels in Galilee. However, the passage above shows Jesus leading rebels against Rome. Was Jesus killed in Galilee or was he one of the three acquaintances Josephus saw crucified in Jerusalem?
So, Josephus, saw Galilee and the Sea of Galilee devastated by Vespasian’s and Titus’s men. If there were a biblical Jesus who was the Socrates of Galilee in 30 C.E., healing and inspiring people, who goes down in history for 2,000 years and Josephus knew about this son of Galilee, he and we must be sad about what happened to Galilee in less than a 40-year generation of the great biblical Jesus. This defeat at Galilee weighed on Josephus decision to no longer have a zealous faith in the Hebrew God and people. Last night I was reading and saw that after the sack of Galilee, Josephus got captured in Galilee at Jotapata. Jotapata is just north of Sephoris. The Hebrew God did not in the Exodus tradition save Galilee and the overpowering was brought even closer to Josephus when he, face-to-face, convinced, not Jesus’s men but 40 of his own men to commit suicide, after such, he surrendered to Rome.
So, Josephus does say people who loved Jesus saw visions of him, but then he says this man Jesus was no God; for, look what happened to the Galilee of the biblical Jesus. What is a God for if not to protect the Galilean’s (Jesus’s) city.
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
But in sum, let me stress: *something* made the followers of Jesus think he had been raised from the dead; *one* of them tells us it was visions; this one knew others who had visions and tells us so; and the idea they had visions is multiply attested in numerous independent sources. It don’t know any argument against them *not* having visions (unlike the arguments against them finding an empty tomb). And so for my money it’s really not much speculation to say that they had visions.
MY COMMENT:
It’s true that the disciples had visions. It’s also true that Jesus appeared to them in real time.
The account recorded in John 21 is not a vision. Jesus and the disciples ate breakfast together. Jesus cooked it Himself. Read the narrative below. The disciples had no doubts that Jesus rose from the dead because they ate and drank with Him after His resurrection. You can’t have breakfast with a vision. A vision will not cook breakfast for you. Experiences like the one described below is why the disciples proclaimed with boldness the resurrection of jesus Christ from the dead. Do you agree that John 21 is not a vision?
JOHN 21:4-But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5-So Jesus said to them, “Children, you do not have any fish, do you?” They answered Him, “No.”
6-And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch.” So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.
7-Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.
8-But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about one hundred yards away, dragging the net full of fish.
9-So when they got out on the land, they saw a charcoal fire already laid and fish placed on it, and bread.
10-Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have now caught.” 11-Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.
12-Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples ventured to question Him, “Who are You?” knowing that it was the Lord.
13-Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise. 14This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.
That’s a very vivid vision!
Is it fair to say that your personal agnosticism/atheism is fundamentally based on your belief that the apostles halucinated?
No, not at all. They are unrelated.
Hi Bart. I was reading thru this posting and it’s very interesting. Have you made any discoveries since then that have changed you mind on the disciples seen “ something”? Any conclusions on what that something may be?
Nope! My views are the same.
Hi Bart!
I have a interested question: when was the word Apostles for the first time explicitly associated with the Twelve? I had a professor of the New Testament last semester and he share one peculiar theory: the word apostoles in the earliest Church (back in the time of Paul) meant simply: followers of Jesus. He states that this is evidently clear in Paul’s own epistles. Merging of the those two words (apostles and the Twelve) happened later and we see first glimps of that in the Gospel of Luke.
What do you think about that? He is not some crazy controversial scholar. He is really respected and has really good credibility.
Thanks for the answer!
It’s really hard to say. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 there is nothing to make one think that “the apostles” = “the Twelve.” On the contrary, Paul sees himself as an apostle. Acts does lend it self to the view that Luke thought there had to be 12 apostles, but it also calls Paul and Barnabas apostles. So it’s all very confusing. “Apostle” literally means “one who has been sent” (i.e., on a mission); in Xn circles this came to mean “one whom Christ has commissioned as his missionary/evangelist.” For Paul himself, this requires a person to have seen the resurrected Jesus. Before Paul, though, and in the life of Jesus himself, there were the “Twelve” disciples. Eventually these two overlapping groups came to be thought of as coterminous.
Thanks for the answer. I have to pose another related question. Same professor told me that full and correct title of early Christian text known as Didache is: Didachai ton apostolon which would mean Instructions for apostoles – not in a sense of the Twelve but in a broader sense of followers of Jesus.
His arguments are based on koine Greek (which he knows, I think, better then croatian language!) and he talkes about a book by Jean-Paul Audet, “La Didaché. Instructions des apotres” from I think 1958. Would you agree with his assessment? Thanks!
Greetings from Croatia!
The problem is that the title (and first verse) says that it is the Didache of the *twelve* apostles. So I’m afraid that interpretation doesn’t work.
The disciples believed they had these visions. What are your thoughts about the disciples’ use of psychedelics to see these visions? The reason I ask is because most people do not have visions without either psychological problems or with the use of psychedelics. With the use of those drugs then you could really understand how they would easily have those visions and believe them. Is there anything in the NT that would lead you to believe that? John Allergo makes that claim in his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. I’m not sure I believe all that but he makes a good claim about the visions. I just wanted your thoughts on this since you’re one of (if not) the best Bible scholars in our time.
My view is that people have visions all the time without being psychologically disturbed or blasted with LSD. 1/8 people will have a vision of a lost loved one after their death. Most of these are simply sane people. I talk about all this in my book How Jesus Became God,where I discuss the disciples’ visions and what we know about visionary experience today.
I went back and read chapter 5 in your book. I can see where people who are in those extreme situations can experience hallucinations. You also reference a book in your appendix. Hallucinations by Oliver stacks. I’ll check that out. Thanks again your your time and pointing me in the right direction.
Sacks is great — and that’s a very interesting book.
I was confused about what you meant when you said at the beginning of the article, “(since they did not come to believe this.)” My question is, wouldn’t the disciples have been more prone to believing in Jesus resurrecting from the dead? After all, wasn’t Jesus an apocalyptic prophet who taught that the dead would be raised, and “the son of man” would bring forth a new Utopian kingdom on earth? So, if the disciples firmly believed this theory, wouldn’t they be eager for the start of a new kingdom on earth? Consequently, if the disciples had a deep connection with Jesus, and expected his teachings to come true….it almost seems natural that at least one of them would have a vision of Jesus after his death. What do you think Bart?
Jesus was not teaching about his own resurrection or about the resurrecton of an *individual*, but of a massive resurrection at the end of time when *all* the dead would be raised. That’s what the disciples expected as well. So they woudl not have been primed to expect an individual rise. But once some of them claimed they saw Jesus alive again, they naturally *interpreted* it as the “beginning” of the resurrection. They thought all otehrw were soon to follow suit. But taht was not what they had been expecting, so it is not what would have generated an expectatoin that Jesus would be raised.