Loading...What do we make of Paul’s claim that 500 people at one time saw Jesus after the resurrection (in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5)? I get this question every now and then — maybe five or six times just this year. These days, among other things, I point 0ut something I hadn’t thought about in most of the years of my existence, that there was almost certainly no Christian group (meaning: a group of people who believed Jesus was raised from the dead) of that size in Paul’s day anywhere in the world! (I discuss the numbers of Christians at different time periods in antiquity in my book The Triumph of Christianity.) So on that level alone it seems highly implausible.
But jut now looking through old posts from many years ago, I see I was asked the question and dealt with it in a different way. I’d forgotten all about it, but see now that I give a bit of analysis that tries to unpack Paul’s claims. Here’s the Q and the A:
******************************
QUESTION on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:
“3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ”
Where do you think he got his information from especially on the 500? Many say it could only have come from Peter or James or else he made it up, which would be odd.
RESPONSE:
It’s a great question, and as with many great questions, I don’t think there’s a great answer. There are several things we can say. Paul did know
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
My sense is that *any* of these sources could have been his sources of information, and there is no way to evaluate why one of these sources has a better claim to being *the* source from any other source.
Several other things to note about the list. He gives six sets of appearances of Jesus, and the six divide themselves into two groups of three:
A: Cephas, the twelve, the 500
B: James, the apostles, Paul himself
The appearances in group A correspond to the appearances in group B. First there is an appearance to an individual who was to become a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Cephas/Peter and then James); second was to a group of people (the twelve disciples; the apostles); and third to a group/person who could vouch for the reality of the appearance: the 500 (the reason he says some are still alive to be asked is so that the report could be verified) and himself (who could also verify the report).
My point is that this careful construction of the list suggests that it is not simply a chronological listing: it is a careful construction of a list of witnesses. This is not simply a historically-driven list, it is one driven by a literary/apologetic motive.
And there are oddities in it.
- He indicates that Cephas was the first to have a vision of Jesus. What about the women at the empty tomb? Does Paul not know about them? Does he choose not to mention them? Why? (Note: at the end, when he says “last of all, he appeared also to me,” that “last of all” is usually taken to mean that he has given the full list, that there were no other appearances).
- He lists the twelve and the apostles as separate groups. Why? There are two puzzles here.
- Does he really mean the “twelve”? If so, that would include Judas Iscariot. But according to Matthew and Acts, Judas was dead by then. Paul never mentions the betrayal of Judas (not even 1 Cor. 11:22-24, for reasons I can explain if anyone’s interested) or the death of Judas or, even, the name Judas! Does Paul know the tradition that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own, or does he think that all twelve lived on and remained “the twelve” after Jesus’ death? Another option is that the term “the twelve” is simply a technical term for “Jesus’ closest disciples” and does not require that there were actually 12 of them. I guess that would be like the Big Ten conference which has more than ten teams in it….
- If the twelve does refer to the disciples of Jesus, as surely it must, then why does Paul have a separate appearance to “the apostles”? Who were the apostles if not the twelve, after Jesus’ death? Paul included himself as an apostle, of course, but he is not included in this appearance to “all the apostles.” That would be because he converted later. But who else would be in this group?
- Note that Paul does not differentiate the appearance to himself in any way to make it unlike the appearances to any of the others. In other words, he gives no indication that Jesus first appeared to the other five individuals/groups and then ascended and then only later appeared to him. Paul never mentions the ascension. And the appearance to him was like the appearances to all the others. The reason should be clear: for Paul, when Jesus was “raised,” he wasn’t simply brought back to earth. He was raised up to heaven where he currently lives and reigns, and occasionally comes down to appear to his followers.
So where did Paul get his information from? Maybe Peter. Maybe James. Maybe other Christians. Maybe a combination of them all. I doubt if he “made up” the idea of “500 brothers” at one time out of whole cloth. My sense is that rumors of these sorts of things circulate all the time – as with the appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary in modern times, as she is attested as appearing to 1000 people at once in some times and places. Do I think this is *evidence* that she really did appear to these people? No, not really. Same with Paul. There were stories about such appearances and he believed them.
Why would Paul add the redundant “though some have died”?Stating that “most are still alive”,he is telling more than the fact that those hundreds saw Jesus:he tells that Paul knows something more about their whereabouts,like news of some of them dying.It sounds personal and credible.
He relays a round number(an unlikely occurrence)without qualification. The women might have been included in the 500.
There is also the fact that the biblical ancients exaggerated numbers,
so I wonder if there are other numbers quoted by Paul elsewhere that might also seem exaggerated.
Lastly,there’s the missionary fire and the passion to convince.This crucial,ultimate goal,I believe,would override any scruple about providing an exact number.
Trying to figure what Paul heard and from whom falls in the same category as the mystery of what Paul knew in general.In this 500 telling,I see religious ornamentation,a creative urge and an exuberant expression of faith and devotion.Paul was a great and holy salesman.
He could have said 100 or 1000,for all we know.100 would have sounded minimal,and 1000,too much.Perhaps he zeroed on a plausible,impressive number. Had the numeric information come from great authority such as Peter, James or any of the Apostles,Paul would have said so.What could be better,truer,than their testimony?
I think he’s just passing along something he heard. It’s a rumor just floating around. When I was a hard-core believer I used ot hear all sorts of things like this about large groups in my own day (always involving miracles that people saw).
Well, the truth is that Jesus is mentioned twice in this passage: in 1 Corinthians 15:31 and 57.
The first time it appears as Jesus Christ, and the second time it appears as the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why do you put the word Jesus where there is none? 500 people did not see Jesus, they saw Christ.
I’m afraid I’m not following you. If he calls him Jesus Christ and then Lord Jesus Christ, why are you saying someone (me?) else “put the word Jesus” in there? You just typed the word Jesus twice yourself. I seem to be missing something? Would you say he also doesn’t call him “Lord” when he just called him “Lord”?
No, you don’t understand! Why are you putting the word Jesus where it wasn’t originally used? This is the question!
I am not asking you to put the word Jesus where it does not exist, but to NOT put the word Jesus where it is not used!
You write: 500 people saw Jesus at the same time after the resurrection…
That’s not true because that’s not what he says! That’s all he’s telling you! Do you understand? But nowhere does he talk about Jesus. He is talking about Christ!
You’re right. I don’t understand. If he uses the word Jesus (as you yourself noted in two of your quotations), then he is talking about Jesus. The name Jesus occurs many doezens of times in Paul’s letters (maybe five or six times just in his shortest letter Philemon? You can count to see). So I really don’t understand what you mean that he never talks about Jesus. For him, Jesus and Christ were not two separate entities. That’s why he calls him Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus.
No, I just noted that the word Jesus only appears twice in this passage. Only twice.
The last part of your letter shows that you don’t understand. For him, one entity was the Son mentioned in Philippians, and there was Christ, the slain Son.
When we accept Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, we enter into Christianity and we will never understand what he is trying to say.
You don’t have to believe that Paul is a liar. Paul was not a liar. I think he made a big mistake, but he didn’t lie.
For Paul, he was nothing but the Son and the Christ. Christ is the dead Son. The Son was not killed by men, but by God. And the dead Son became the Christ.
Nobody wants to accept that.
How bout we move on to another topic?
Okay. OKAY. Let me just ask you one thing. Read Hebrews without reading the word Jesus. You won’t have a hard time, I promise.
I know that Paul did not write this, but it is an instructive letter.
All the best!
Sorry — I thought you were talking about the writings of Paul. But in any event, it’s pretty clear that you are trying to argue a point without having any evidence or that you read something somewhere else written by someone who was just makin’ stuff up. As to your current point: You clearly have not read the epistle to the Hebrews. If you had, you would have noticed Jesus’ name does occur in numerous places.
Check out, e.g., Hebrews 2:9; 4:14; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; and 12:2. So let’s just say Paul and Hebrews and the rest of the NT does use the name Jesus and move on to talk about something else. disabledupes{4a89b64df0076410edbe34df27ab918a}disabledupes
Okay, let’s review it by taking out the word Jesus.
Hebrews 2:9 “But we see that he who was made lower than the angels for a little while was crowned with glory and honor for the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” This is about the Son. About the Boy.
Hebrews 4:14 “Therefore, since our great high priest who passed through the heavens is the Son of God, let us hold fast to our religion.” This is also about the Son.
Anyway, it is clear that he is talking about the Son when he writes at the beginning, “After God spoke to the fathers in many ways and in many ways in the past through the prophets, he has spoken to us in the last times through his Son.”
I have read the letter to the Hebrews quite a few times!
Then you know that if you take the word Jesus out of the text, you will no longer find the word Jesus there.
I think we need to end this conversation here, and move on to other things.
Hi!
“May I ask a question? (please excuse my bad English).
It seems from some parallels that Mark borrowed a lot from Josephus (both JW & JA).
I did a little research and discovered that Josephus wrote Jewish Wars in 75-79 and Jewish Antiquities in 93-94.
Then, why traditional dates still place Mark around the 70s ?
I know it’s because Mark alludes to the first Jewish Wars (66-70), so he could only have written after that, but how to conciliate this early date with the parallels with Josephus?
I also found that Papias may alluded to Mark, and this Papias wrote during Trajan’s reign (97-117), most probably around 110, from references in Eusebius and Agapius.
So, it seems Mark must dated somewhere between 95 and 110.
Why tradition still consider that Mark was written between 70 and 80 ?”
Good questions!
Yes, if Mark is quoting Josephus, he would have to be much later than 70 CE. But just because two authors say simiarl things doesn’t mean one is quoting the other. People often say similar things when talking about similar events. To show that someone is actually *quoting* another requires a pretty high level burden of proof. Extensive erbatim agreements, for example, would be a good piece of evidence. (We don’t have those between Mark and Josephus)
And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
May it be the best one ever.
Here we are between candles , still worshipping the Ashera Tree, in the form of Hannuka’s 9 branch Menorah.
We can’t hang fun stuff from it, like you do on a Christmas tree, but I’m throwing a Hannuka party and everyone gets a personalised gift.
My grandkids are among the ones who have it best: Jewish on one side, Christian on the other (neither side practicing or religious in any way, but celebrating the holidays): you get ALL the Jewish-Christian fun!
“there was almost certainly no Christian group … of that size in Paul’s day anywhere in the world”
Do we have strong reason to understand that “brothers and sisters” in that sentence means “Christians”?
If Jesus is to appear to 500 people, he could as well appear to a crowd include several non-Christians.
Perhaps several of them convert on the spot!
This sounds to me exactly like the “rumors of these sorts of things”.
Another possibility is that whoever told Paul this story grossly exaggerated the size of the crowd.
In the NT (outside the Gospels) whenever the meaning of “brothers” and “sisters” is clear and obvious, it refers to followers of JEsus. So that’s probably what it means here. And yup, someone was exaggerating! And yes, it’s possible that Paul’s imagining that this is what converted the crowd. But given what we know about the early Xn tradition, it doesn’t seem particularly plausible.
I once read somewhere (maybe from you) that all numbers in the Bible have a symbolic meaning. We see 3, 7, 12, and 40 having symbolic meaning in the Bible. Does the number 500 have any Biblical or ancient symbolism?
I don’t think all numbers have a symbolic meaning in the Bible; some certainly do. It gets used (some 25-30 times?), but I’m not sure it’s “significant” (that is “signalling” something) the way other numbers are.
What kind of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus did the NT writers try to convey and how would their readers/hearers understand them? I see three possibilities: (1) a resuscitated corpse (from an empty tomb) with superpowers, eg, to appear and disappear, that could also have been seen by opponents and neutral third parties; (2) “visions” of a spirit or spiritualized body that opponents and neutral third parties could have also seen; (3) visions of a spirit or spiritualized body that only believers, or only those selected by God, could see.
I think I was raised to believe #1. It seems like 2 and 3 would imply that the ascension happened simultaneously with the resurrection.
But 2 and especially 3 seem more consistent with the fragmentary, intermittent, hard to recognize, diaphanous, varying nature (ie, varying depending on which gospel or letter is the source) of the appearances that in fact came only to believers. Even the empty tomb is somewhat consistent with 2 and 3 in that there is no actual account of the resurrection itself.
I suppose the answer varies depending on gospel or letter. For the record, #3 makes the most sense to me.
I’m not sure all the authors have the same view. Luke and John go out of their way to stress that it was a real, resuscitated human body that could, for example, eat (and still digest?). Paul goes out of his way to stress that it was a “spiritual body.” For Paul it is definitely still a BODY, made out of STUFF (it’s not non-physical). But his conception is different.
Does the NT reflect an understanding that the resurrection was instrumental in bringing about atonement—or was the resurrection simply proof that atonement had happened?
If the resurrection was instrumental , in what way was it instrumental? Eg, that God had accepted Jesus’s sacrifice?
I suppose the resurrection was necessary for Jesus to defeat death, which might also imply the defeat of sin since death is the result of sin.
None of the authors explain the connection, and so it has to be inferred. Sometimes I think it shows that the “payment” for sin — which leads to death — had been paid; so that Jesus no longer had to stay dead (debt paid!). Sometimes it shows that Christ defeated the power of death and so he must therefore have defeated the power that was subservient to death, sin. I think Paul has both meanings, e.g. The Gospel writers don’t give much of an indication — they appear to think that it shows that God really was on Jesus’ side and so his death must have been by God’s design and that therefore God willed Jesus’ death and therefore it must have all been part of the plan of salvation.
If we accept that some outpouring of the spirit occurred at Pentecost that enlivened and emboldened the remaining disciples which resulted in charismatic gifts, then it wouldn’t be difficult to accept the group grew quite rapidly, as such groups do in modern times when we hear similar reports. In the early 90s, many churches rapidly grew after the reported “Toronto blessing” swept through evangelical churches.
Paul also seems to know at least some of the 500, if not knowing them personally, as he knew they were still alive. If he had met some of them, they would have been able to confirm the appearance. Given his repeated visits to Jerusalem, I would argue he probably did meet some of them.
Yes, if you subscribe it all to a miracle then there is no reason to do a historical analysis (since the acts of God are not subject to historical causality).
It’s not clear to me whether the original commentor here intended to imply that an “outpouring of the spirit” is inherently miraculous or not. He references the “Toronto Blessing” which is a great example of a modern day Pentecost. Tens of thousands of people were drawn to this charismatic flash-fire event which sprung up in Toronto in 1999. These kinds of singular events tend to, pardon my French, “draw out all the wierdos”. Whether this is what the OP meant or not, I do tend to think that the easiest explanation, as to what the appearance to the 500 was, is that it was some kind of major charismatic event, which probably occurred on either Pentecost or at a follow up Passover where another charismatic surge, similar to what happened on Pentecost, was replicated.
Interesting read, but I’m curious, 1 Cor 15: 3-8 is a creed, in that the illiterate followers could memorisation or use as a kind of liturgy.
So the fact, it isn’t a complete list is intentional, as it wouldn’t be easy to remember every individual. Which is why it doesn’t mention the women and why it seems to repeat, e.g. Peter was part of the twelve.
Do you agree that this particular creed was within 5 years of the resurrection?
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. Why if it is a creed wouldn’t it mention the women? And no, I don’t know any reason why anyone would/could argue it was formulated within 5 years of the resurrection. But I think I know why people mistakenly say that — it’s because they don’t understand a specific technical term that scholars use (apparently some not-well-trained scholars don’t understand it either!). Since at least mid-20th century (off hand I don’t remember who/when was the first) scholars have said this is a “pre-Pauline creed.” And apparently people don’t understand what that means. It does NOT mean that the creed was produced before Paul’s conversion. It means it was produced before it first shows up in the Pauline letter in which he cites it. All it means is that it was a creed floating around that Paul had told the Corinthians when he first converted them.
Apologies for the late reply,
My thoughts were, if what Paul was reciting in 1 Cor 15: 3-8 was something he heard from Peter and James, which they (Peter and James) told the early followers, as a kind of liturgy/statement of faith, then it wouldn’t be too surprising that the list given wasn’t complete, so as to be memorable.
I’m not an expert, so correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of reading Habermas, Licona and others, that the phrase “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance” is reasonably believed to be referred when he (paul) saw Peter and the around A.D 35ish, meaning the creed is likely to be before that?
I accept the actual letter was written later, so we cannot say for certain, but I think it is a reasonable inference to think it was an earlier saying.
Thanks for your reply.
The problem is that Paul gives us no hint when or from whom he heard this creed. He doesn’t name any one, say it coes the apostles, indicate when exactly it happened. It certainly suits the apologetic agenda that he heard it in, say, 35-37 or so. Maybe he did. Maybe he heard it from someone else 15 years later. Who know! I don’t think we can base on *argument* on something we don’t know. All we know is thathe heard it and endorseditbefore heconverted the Corintians in the 50s. Myview is that the earliest apostles believed Jesus died for sins, and was raised frm the dead and appeared to people very soon after his death. That doesn’t mean thiscreed wsa formulated by them then. The creed, bythe way is refined Greek, and James and Peter and the other almost certainly didn’t speak it let alone write it.
I would concede that, we don’t know it was or wasn’t, but I guess whatever side of the fence you stand, one has reasons to hold either view.
I assume, by this you mean this, that whatever the nature of these appearances, they weren’t physical? How soon do you believe they taught this?
I agree they almost certainly didn’t speak or write Greek, but it isn’t too far fetched to think they had earlier writings or dictated to someone who could write Greek! But again, these are things we cannot possibly know.
Oh, I absolutely think that the followers of Jesus who claimed he had appeared to them meant they had seen him *physically*.
We actually do have a good bit of evidence to evaluate the view that the apostles used secretaries and/or translators for thier views. Look up “secretaries” on the blog and you’ll see.
May be an example of the “Fish Story”…with each repetition the fish gets bigger, or Grandpa walking to school in the snow…each time the distance is longer and the snow deeper. Oral tadition could exaggerate until it reached Paul.
I’m sort of surprised you think there’s an issue about “the twelve.” Acts 1:26 describes how Matthias was chosen as a new member of the Twelve to replace Judas. I would presume that “the twelve” thus included Matthias in place of Judas. Is there any reason you think the story of Matthias is non-historical, or that Paul would have been unaware of that story?
Admittedly, the timeline in Acts presents the resurrected Jesus as making his appearance prior to Matthias being chosen. But that sounds to me more like an issue about Acts than an issue about Paul.
Yes, but Matthias in the traditions was NOT one of the disciples who saw Jesus, since his election came after teh ascension. Since Matthias is our only source that mentions Matthias, I don’t think we can assume that there was a non-reported tradition about him being one of the 12 right after the resurrection (If he ever was elected to join the others; many historical scholars think this is just Luke’s way of explaining that there continued to be an apostolic band — that it was important to have “twelve”)
What it seems to boil down to is a discrepancy in the timeline. Was Matthias chosen after the ascension, as Acts says? Or was he chosen beforehand, as the tradition in Paul seems to have it? I wouldn’t make any assumptions one way or another, but all in all it seems like a pretty minor discrepancy.
With regard to the historicity of the Matthias story, it in no way strains my credulity that the remaining eleven apostles could have filled a vacancy in their number. If it was important to Luke that there be exactly twelve, it could have equally well been important to Peter and the others.
Seems that Pauls recollection follows most closely with the Gospel of Luke (24) where the women did not see Jesus the day of the resurrection. Apparently the Author of Luke did a decent job of trying to collect actual facts from that time. Acts 1:21-22 says the Apostle choosen to replace Judas had to have been a witness to Jesus’s resurrection, therefore accounting for the 12 “Apostles” referred to by Paul. So Pauls remarks don’t seem to exceed those of the Author of Luke/Acts except for accounting for others to have witnessed the resurrection. However, Acts 1:21-22 only identifies the names of two previously unmentioned witnesses to the resurrection of what would be an “unnumbered” amount of witness’s. So I don’t see a lot of controversy of Pauls account.
What I see as possible controversy is in how the Gospel of John accounts Jesus after the resurrection. It gives witness of Jesus passing though solid objects and walking upon water. That is not the account of a human body of flesh. So question is whether Author of Luke/Acts infers a body of Flesh. The Ascention into a “Cloud” seems to indicate otherwise, as clouds indicate a devine presence.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. In Luke the women DO see Jesus on teh day of the resurrection. And the “twelve” never do see Jesus. Or are you saying something else?
In Luke 24 I can not find where the women actually encountered Jesus going to or returning from the Empty Tomb. They encountered the bright shinning men.. On the road to Emmaus are just 2 people, Cleopas and unnamed “person, and the 3 women are mentioned as who told them of the empty tomb. Luke 24:23 states the women did not see his body and the “angels” were a “vision”. So I can’t find where any “women” are identified as seeing the risen Jesus. but unless (v33) the women remained with the 11 apostles overnight, then the women would have encountered Jesus with the 11 the next day.
As for the 12… Acts 1:21-22 required that Matthias must have witnessed the risen Jesus. Thus the “numbered” 12 Apostles during Pauls ministry would have all been eye witnesses to the risen Jesus. Exactly as Paul writes in 1Cor 15. However I find 1Cor 15 interesting as he states Cephus “and” the Twelve.. So was there 12 others beside “Cephus”?
Sorry, my bad. As in Mark in Luke the women learn that Jesus has been raised but do not see him. As to 1 Cor. 15, yes, that may be an argument that Cephas was not Peter.
Off topic question: to what extent is “the church” responsible for the existence of the 4 gospels? Are the Catholics/Orthodox correct that the gospels are a product of the organizational church, or are the Protestants correct that the gospels were a grassroots literary product that came into being essentially independent of any clerical organizational authority? Does the church deserve credit for compiling the canon, or is it obvious that the 4 gospels would have been popularized had no organizational authority chosen them?
The Gospels definitely were produced before there was any organizational attempt to collect books together into a canon of Scripture. But they were written separately and circulated separately and were not combined into a canon until the second century. The first to speak of them as being all Gospels as a kind of unit is Irenaeus (around 180 CE) and the anonymous Muratorian fragment, about the same time. At the time there *other* Gospels used by other* Christains and groups that were considered (by them) Scripture. So it was a decision, not a foregone conclusion.
“According to the scriptures” He’s writing V1.0, is this a Greek grammar issue or a later writer who does not know there is no Pre-Paul?
Sorry, I don’t know what V1.0 means! “According to the Scriptures” does not mean “As narrated in the Scriptures” but “In accordance with what the Scriptures predicted”
I’m guessing Clair finds it odd that Paul said “according to the scriptures” given that his own writings were part of the scriptures.
Ah. OK. Well, Paul himself did not view his letters as Scriptural.
By V1.0 (“version 1.0”) I think Clair is trying to describe how Paul’s writings were the very first of what ended up becoming NT scripture, and so Claire is confused as to how Paul can be referencing earlier scripture if his was the first. The answer of course is that Paul is referring to Jewish scripture, not Christian NT scripture which didn’t exist yet and he would not have considered his own writings scripture.
Ah. He’s referring to the Hebrew Bible (which were the only Scriptures he knew).
Was Paul’s view that Jesus ascended to heaven the predominate view in early Christianity? I was studying tonight and realized only Luke mentions the ascension out of the four gospels. Would seem most of the Gospel writers also held this view?
The other Gospels don’t mention it, and Paul doesn’t use the term “ascended,” though he does talk about Christ being “exalted” (I don’t think he sayd “into heaven” though)
The idea that Jesus didn’t even have 500 followers, seems to me illogical:
Jesus have done something never happened before him: his teaching managed to expand outside the Jewish community to a foreign (i.e. the Greek) community in less than 20 years, in a missionary that didn’t last for more than 3 years. This never happened with the teaching of Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, etc.
A reasonable non-metaphysical explanation for this phenomenon is to say that Jesus had a high level of charisma that created a profound impression which was sufficient for his teaching to expand outside the Jewish community.
Also, Jesus was a mass preacher who went from a village to another, talking with the locals. I can say here that he was the “first” Jewish mass preacher. Other preachers were settled in a village waiting for the people to come in.
Therefore, highly charismatic mass preacher and he didn’t even have 500 followers?!!
The Jewish religious authority didn’t want to charge Jesus with blasphemy as this would take time, and they went to Pilate asking him to crucify Jesus. Therefore, Jesus did seem to be a serious threat to them ….. though he didn’t even have 500 followers?!!
————–>>
————–>>
A person with a good level of charisma with above average musical talent would probably have thousands of fans.
Let me put here a name that is almost lost in history: Sabbatai Zevi.
He claimed to be the Messiah in 1648AD but he was young at the time and no one took him seriously. His true missionary started in 1663 and in less than 3 years he had thousands and thousands of Jewish followers.
Some Jews alarmed the Ottoman authorities about Zevi’s “intentions” (history almost repeating itself) and the authority brought him and gave him 2 options: Either arrows will be fired on him and if he is the Messiah then he won’t die, or he will convert to Islam. If he refused to choose, then he will be executed. Next day, Zevi converted to Islam, and surprisingly, hundreds of his followers converted to Islam with him. He didn’t have super charisma, but still, he managed to have thousands of followers.
I wrote a paper which includes the reasons I think that Jesus had a high level of charisma. I did send you the link and I hope it is OK to include the link here:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/54.01-PuzzlesOfECH-22.pdf
Galilee was a sparsely populated place. You may want to read my discussion of the numbers of Christians at various points of the first century in my book Triumph of Christiany.
I might have been missing some major data here, and I will look at your suggested book. Thank you.
But to my current understanding: Galilee was a Tetrarchy (quarter of a kingdom) that was given to one of Herd’s sons. So, I am assuming here that the gathered taxes for the Romans in this part of the world was sufficient to make it a Tetrarchy.
Also, at the time of Jesus, there were at least two major well-known cities in Galilee: Sepphoris and Tiberias.
Furthermore, Jesus (according to Mark) went to Tyre and Sidon. He also went to Jerusalem and passed through the land of the Samaritans. Therefore, I can assume that the sphere of his missionary was from Jerusalem in the south, up to Sidon in the north, not just Galilee.
Nicely analysed. So you used to think Paul only believed in a spiritual resurrection? This would also be supported by 1 Corinthians 15:44 and 1 Corinthians 15:50. The Ascension may be some kind of synthesis that Luke developed to explain how Jesus stopped appearing to people, and, as you say, it doesn’t fit in with Paul’s resurrection appearance. So who are the apostles if they’re not the 12? Surely they must be a wider group of the early Jerusalem church? As for the 500, how can we be sure that there weren’t that many meeting together we don’t know the exact number of Jesus‘s followers do we maybe this is the group that were together on the day of Pentecost and maybe that’s what Paul is referring to which Luke gives a different slot to what time is the fire perhaps they all experienced a resurrection appearance at the same time
Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection but I would never say “only” a spiritual resurrection. For Paul that was a much bigger deal than a resuscitated corpse resurrection. MUCH bigger. It was still Jesus’ body, but it was GLORIFIED body that was not transformed into an immortal being able to dwell with God in heaven with no pain and no death — the kind everyone else will have at the resurrection. The 12 for Paul are the 12 disciples.
Bart, surely Paul believed either that the resurrection was physical ie material or he believed that it was spiritual or he wasn’t quite sure. You just can’t have “spiritual material”. It’s a non-sequitur – material is physical : stuff you detect through touch primarily – the sense that is least likely to be fooled, but physical things are also detected via vision, hearing, smell and taste. Spiritual – soma pneumatikos – is of the mind, consciousness, soul, or life-breath (as in animation), but non-material, not just different material. Paul knew about the difference between the body and the spirit – he refers to out of body experiences. Perhaps he himself was confused about what he had experienced, but I think it is more likely that, like most mystics, he had come to realise that that spiritual is more real than the physical! As he says elsewhere, he no longer puts any confidence in the flesh.
Yes, in modern thinking since Descartes, “spiritual” matter is non-sense. But in the ancient world PNEUMA (“spirit”) was a kind of matter. it was made of STUFF. If you want a good discussion of this that shows some of the important evidence, you might take a look at Dale Martin’s book The Corinthian Body. He deals directly with the question (lookin at ancient philosophical and physiological discourse on Pneuma, Soma, Psyche, etc), and in respect to Paul’s view of Jesus’ post-resurrection body.
Good discussion Bart, and as you might expect, I’m going to disagree without having time yet to read Dale Martin’s take 😉. However I have read Plato (in the Phaedo) and Aristotle (in De Anima) on this very topic and I am quite certain they both were very clear that the soul was immaterial, although it is questionable as to whether Aristotle accepted that the soul could exist separately from the body. Some of the presocratics did see pneuma as stuff but that was a lot earlier. As to Paul, i may indeed have to bow to yours and Dale Martin’s expertise, but as of now I remain of the opinion that Paul was a Platonist in respect to pneuma and soma. I’d nevertheless value further discussion as this is something of central interest to me. Merry Boxing Day.
Yup. You’re reading them in English.
Hi Bart, I’ve been thinking about this a little bit more. And without having read Alison’s ‘Corinthian Body’, I think I am coming more to his perspective as you have expressed it. In order to have a body at all (which by definition, has parts), one would have to in some way materialise, or at least “*visualise*” the Platonic-Aristotelian soul, because in both Plato’ and Aristotle’s metaphysics, the soul cannot have a body, it is un-extended, indivisible, immeasurable and immortal. So if we are to have an afterlife existence, consisting of more than just “disembodied mind“ then this mind would have to partly materialise or visualise (possibly flexibly, and intermittently). It may be therefore that Paul’s metaphysics of the soma pneumatikos compared with the soma sarkikos (in which he “no longer has any confidence”) was all based on what he saw in his vision(s) of Jesus, and he was trying to make sense of it hence the description in 1 Corinthians 15. Thoughts?
Do you mean DAle Martin’s book (as opposed to Dale Allison’s)? And yup, I pretty much share his view which I think you’ve summarized. (We were spending a lot of time together when he was writing the book, and he’s the one who convinced me too)
Yes, Dale, Martin. Did Paul base his conception and theology of the glorified (light-permeated), spiritual body on what he had seen in his vision(s)?. I wonder whether this may have been similar to what the other disciples saw as resurrection appearances of Jesus and what many have seen in near death experiences and other mystic states. I agree with the view that the descriptions in John and Luke of a a physical body with which could be touched, and which could eat fish et cetera are at odds with what Paul describes and are a mythologisation of what actually was seen. Isn’t this the real reason why Paul does not differentiate his experience of the resurrection body from that of Peter, James, and the 12 and the 500. I also wonder whether the appearance to the 500 is another version of what happened on the day of Pentecost. We don’t know from Acts what each individual experienced because the tongues of fire description is from a third person perspective.
No, the idea is that this is simply the widespread view at the time that Paul shared, and he naturally interpreted his experience in light of what he “knew.” (As to the Day of Pentecost, that’s soemthign we don’t have any reason to assume that he “knew” about…)
“My point is that this careful construction of the list suggests that it is not simply a chronological listing: it is a careful construction of a list of witnesses. This is not simply a historically-driven list, it is one driven by a literary/apologetic motive.”
Fair point Bart; but surely there is also a chronological (and subject) typology here:
– immediate personal appearances in Jerusalem; Cephas, Peter
– group appearances to Jesus’s close disciples (maybe outside Jerusalem); twelve, apostles
– later appearances to wider followers of Jesus; 500+ brothers and sisters, Paul himself.
Paul’s estimated number of 500 followers witnessing the risen Jesus together is only problematic, if we assume it happened within days (or at any rate weeks) of the crucifixion – in particular if we want to limit resurrection appearances to a period before ‘the ascension’. But if it took place in a similar time frame to Paul’s own experience, it is more readily explicable.
Paul is emphatic in his list, that some of these appearances were collective; and he specifies witnesses who can confirm this. There is no obvious reason why ‘appearing to 500’ would be less plausible than ‘appearing to the twelve’.
“If the twelve does refer to the disciples of Jesus, as surely it must, then why does Paul have a separate appearance to “the apostles”? Who were the apostles if not the twelve, after Jesus’ death? Paul included himself as an apostle, of course, but he is not included in this appearance to “all the apostles.” That would be because he converted later. But who else would be in this group?”
Paul seemed to have an open view on who could be called an apostle. He calls Andronicus and Junia, Barnabas and others apostles. Would these be “the apostles” he mentions who were not part of the twelve?
Right! It’s one of the mysteries of his list! But since Paul thought other people were apostles (Junia and Andronicus, e.g.,) then maybe he’s including them in the list? (Since he’s the “last” possibly the others had an earlier vision)
“What about the women at the empty tomb? Does Paul not know about them? Does he choose not to mention them? Why?”
Is this likely because there was no tomb so there were no women at the tomb?
So this tradition began after Paul and before the gospels were written?
He doesn’t seem to know them, no!
Edited: Nicely analysed. So you used to think Paul only believed in a spiritual resurrection? – supported by 1 Corinthians 15:44 and 1 Corinthians 15:50. The Ascension may be a synthesis that Luke developed to explain the cessation of Jesus’s appearances and, as you say, doesn’t fit with Paul’s resurrection appearance. So who are the 500? How can we be sure that there weren’t that many meeting together? We don’t know the exact number of Jesus‘s followers after his death do we? Maybe this is the group that were together on the day of Pentecost and maybe the 500 at once IS Paul’s reference to the day of Pentecost, which Luke gives a different slant to with tongues of fire? Perhaps they all experienced a resurrection appearance at the same time as experiencing tongues of fire? Surely something big must have happened for the day of Pentecost story to have emerged? 500 is big even if exaggerated! What’s the chance of 2 big events taking place around the same time and one getting forgotten by one author and the other getting forgotten by another author?
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree that no matter what the cause of the experiences of the risen Jesus, his followers and later Paul at least truly believed them to be literal, substantial appearances?
The following is a quote by a highly skeptical scholar who seems to be doing everything he can to “water it down”:
“The Greek term used by Paul in 1 Cor (opthe) is the normal term for an epiphany or vision, and nothing more. It does NOT mean a ‘personal appearance’ of a living person in totally human form (or ‘see & touch’ – you’ve got to be kidding!). No. No. No.
And Paul uses the same term for himself, qualified in Gal. with the term ‘apocalypsis’ (apocalyptein) – a revelatory ‘vision.’ When you look at the spectrum of experiences that those terms encompass in the Jewish and G-R world (such as Enoch’s vision of heaven in 1 Enoch, or Ezra’s vision of earth in IV Ezra), it is impossible to make them into anything more substantial. “
Yes. The whole point is that the resurrected body of Jesus was material, not immaterial — but it was a GLORIFIED form of “stuff” made impervious to weakness, pain, and death. opthe is simply the aorist passive indicative third singular of horoō, which means to “see.” It then means “was seen” but the passive of this verb takes on an active eaning “appeared.” I’m not sure what the author (who is it, by the way?) means by saying that 1 Enoch is not describing somethig the author is claiming actually to have seen (as substantial). Certainly the pits holding the are substantial enough, as one is bright with water flowing through it and the others contain dead persons who are awaiting physical torment and some of them experiencing physical torture already.
Why doesn’t Paul never mention Judas?
I wish we knew. My guess is he didn’t know the story about him.
500 is completely possible with Transjordan followers, if Jesus survived. My question is, how much do you think Paul was let in on knowing, Dr. Erhman?
I think Agrippa is the Adversary/Prince of This World/Bar-Abas/Prodigal Son. Paul, if he is first Saulus the Herodian, was a big fan of his!
The way Paul speaks to his son, Herod Agrippa II, in Acts seems more than even protocol requires, certainly differently than how Jesus turned the other cheek with Herod Antipas. Part of why Paul was un-smited could have been to persuade his Herodian kinsman to be nicer to The Way from Far Away.
I am at 11 people and counting in Josephus’ books of anti-establishment Jewish folk who survive their fates:
• Agrippa is mysteriously released/escapes in the cover of night
•Several of Herod’s family plan to fake-shed their mortal coil
•Herod Antipas had no idea about Phaesalis
So, Agrippa was adored. The last male Maccabee in Palestine married to an heir-producing Maccabee got a tiny market-taxer position in *Galilee*.
The Adversary wins Transjordan kingdoms (some marked by modified Nabataean Aramaic script), wins Tetrarch of Galilee-Peraea, and then wins King of The Jews.
My sense it that Paul picked up all his information about Jesus and his followers from story tellers before him, but that he developed his particular theological views based on what he heard (he indicates he picked the key points about the Gsopel from what he heard from Jesus)
That’s my sense, too.
Dr. Ehrman,
Some claim that Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus was considered to be even by Paul himself to be only an internal vision. Still, can we argue that since Paul clearly indicates that the same Jesus who appeared to him is the same Jesus who could appear to a large group at once, there is evidence that Paul DID NOT think that his encounter with the risen Jesus was an inner vision?
I believe I”ve answered yes to this question about a dozen times!
Bart,
Do you have any thoughts on whether Paul previously passed on to Corinthians the appearance tradition to over five hundred people at one time or is mentioning it for the first time when writing 1 Corinthians 15 (in which case “handed on to you” refers to just the info in vs. 3-5 and maybe vs. 7)?
It’s hard to say. It appears taht the creed he is quoting ended before that point (possibly eith “Cephas” or “the twelve”) and that the rest is his supplement. The question is whether he had taught them the supplement — which ends with his own experience of the risen Jesus. It’s hard to say if the 500 were part of what he taught them; the fact he adds that many were still alive (presumably so you can go ask them about it) may suggest he’s saying it to them for the first time? I really don’t know.
Hello Dr Ehrman. What do you make of the word “ektroma” in 1 Cor 15?
I suppose it means something like “miscarriage,” used symbolically to refer to someeone who is not born at the right time. But it seems to be a reverse image, since a miscarriage typically comes *before* its time and Paul is saying that he was born (came to observe the resurrected Jesus) *after* the right time (since it was at a different time from all the others, but later).
Bart,
So many Christian apologists make a big deal out of Paul not only mentioning 500 but also saying that they are still alive. Apologists are arguing that Paul was really going out on a limb by saying that they’re still alive in case anyone doubted him. But here’s the thing: Paul was speaking to believers, not skeptics. I doubt anyone in the Corinthian church doubted what Paul was saying and wouldn’t be inclined to seek out any witnesses. To apologists who might argue this nonsense (that Paul was challenging people to call his bluff-ergo, the account of the 500 is reliable), I respond: why is it that Paul doesn’t name any of the 500? I agree with you that the appearance to the 500 seems to parallel group sightings of the Virgin Mary. But the fact of the matter remains that none of the 500 are mentioned by name. How would anyone know who to consult or interview? Another stubborn fact-the “risen Jesus” is not described in any of these appearances. What he looked like, what he said, how anyone knew it was Jesus, etc. Nothing!
Rumors ike this float around *ALL* the time, unverifiable claims of dozens/hundreds of peole seeing things. The claim itself seems conving precisely because the reader assumes it must be true otherwise the author wouldn’t have said it….
You made a really good case, w/o saying it was 100% “so” that maybe the Cephas in Antioch isn’t Peter. It was a whole thing.
a. Any doubt from you that THIS Cephas was Peter
b. Presumably all saw Jesus in Galilee or Jerusalem… I know it is is not stated precisely but seeing as Pauls experience is “on the road”: is there any reason for that not to be a logical reading?
1. Yes, in my article on Cephas and Peter I mention this as a problem 2. I’m not sure what you’re asking. (Paul himself doesn’t mention being on the road, but Acts does). Luke says they all saw him in Jerusalem; Matthew says they all saw him, in Galilee; Mark doesn’t say anything about them seeing him.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was reading in a Bible dictionary the following definition of “vision.” Do you agree with this definition, or when you say “vision” in your writings and talks do you mean to use it in a broader way that allows for the possibility of objectivity? I remember you saying that your ultimate statement about the resurrection appearances uses the same language that you would have/could have used when you were a believer.
vision: “sight presented to the mind through a dream, vision, or other non-objective stimulus.”
I don’t like definitions that inclue the word being defined in teh definition. A “vision” is techniclly something that is “seen”
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think Paul was smart enough to purposely include the info that the appearance to the 500 was “at once” knowing that even in his time there would be critics who would claim hallucination/subjective visions?
I’m not sure what intelligence would have to do with it?
Dr. Ehrman,
Adela Yarbro Collins, perhaps as an ad hoc way of defending the hallucination theory, claims that the appearance to the 12 in 1 Cor. 15:5 was not a group appearance, but to individual members of that group. I believe you take the position that 1 Cor. 15:5 is meant to indicate an appearance to a group. What would be your rebuttal to those who take the Collins view?
Interesting. I didn’t know that. I”m not sure what would make her say that. The only reports we have, of coruse, are appearancess to the groups, not to each one individually.
Bart,
Thought experiment here. Let’s say the suggestion by Brand3000 is correct that the appearance to the 12 in 1 Cor. 15:5 was not a group appearance, but to individual members of that group, and the same goes for the appearance to “all the apostles” in 1 Cor 15:7. Let’s further suppose that none of these solo visual experiences of Jesus involved tactile interaction and some were just epiphany/message dreams of Jesus (putting aside that some could also have been exaggerations/fabrications), and none lasted more than, say, 20 seconds. Let’s further suppose that Paul is mentioning to the Corinthians the collective appearance to the 500 for the first time when writing 1 Cor 15 even though he has some doubts about this rumor and knows nothing more about it in order to help shore up his argument for Jesus’ resurrection up to heaven because he knows it is somewhat weak with just the individual appearance claims. Question: do you think it plausible that Paul could have been going around preaching Jesus’ bodily resurrection up to heaven with just the individual appearance claims described above, which many people could have easily dismissed as hallucinations and random or self-generated dreams?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Paul did go around preaching Jesus’ bodily resurrection even though many people could have dismissed the appearances as hallucinations.
Individual appearance claims would seem significantly easier for most people to dismiss as hallucinations or meaningless dreams than collective appearance claims. I think the latter would cause most people to explore the claim in at least a little more depth. As a thought experiment, do you think it plausible that Paul would have attracted the followers he did if he had at his disposal only *individual* appearance claims that had no tactile interaction, lasted no more than, say, 20 seconds, with some being just dreams of Jesus (I’m presupposing that Paul is mentioning the collective appearance to the 500 for the first time when writing 1 Cor 15 and “the twelve” and “all the apostles” are referring to individual, not collective, appearance claims)?
I guess. But if hundreds of peopel individually have them you coould argue that noe of them influenced the others, as could happen with groups. I don’t thiink anyone in antiquity thought about it this way though. Paul wasn’t calculating what would be the best strategy: he was just reporting what he heard.
Thanks for your opinion Bart. Is there any chance you could ask Brand3000 to post the reference for his/her comment: “Adela Yarbro Collins, perhaps as an ad hoc way of defending the hallucination theory, claims that the appearance to the 12 in 1 Cor. 15:5 was not a group appearance, but to individual members of that group.”
I think you already did!
Bart,
Yes, I asked Brand3000 for his/her reference but got no answer because I think they are no longer monitoring this thread. I thought you might have access to their email and be able ask them to post the reference for his/her comment: “Adela Yarbro Collins, perhaps as an ad hoc way of defending the hallucination theory, claims that the appearance to the 12 in 1 Cor. 15:5 was not a group appearance, but to individual members of that group.” If too much of a hassle I understand.
Nope, I don’t know the answer.
Brand3000, can you please give the citation from Collins? Thanks!
Those who find 1 Corinthians 15 an authoritative account of witnesses, should consider this LiveScience article on the so-called “First Century Manuscript” of Mark (still available and uncorrected on the web):
“The first-century gospel is one of hundreds of new texts that a team of about three-dozen scientists and scholars is working to uncover, and analyze, by using this technique of ungluing the masks, said Craig Evans, a professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.”
There you have early confirmation from an NT professor that a “first-century gospel” was uncovered from mummy masks by the work of “three dozen-scientists and scholars”.
All those early witnesses, confirmed by distinguished NT professor Craig Evans. And they didn’t just “see” the manuscript, they analyzed it!
Except that, of course, the manuscript is not first-century, not from a mummy mask, and Craig Evans wouldn’t know how many scholars are working on the manuscript because he had no involvement in it whatsoever, despite his frequent use of “we” in reference to the work on it.
So what can we really learn from the vague witness lists in a first century letter by a religious proselytizer?
Ha! Good point.
Dr. Ehrman,
In Galatians we see Peter, James, and John as the leaders of the early church. Do you think these 3 also had a distinct association with Jesus prior to his death?
Well, James would have been his brother. So yes there. (Though he was not his follower during his lifetime, according to our traditions) John is probably the disciple, the son of Zebedee, so yes there too. Peter — if this is Jesus’ disciple Peter, then obviously yes again too.
Brand3000, can you please give the citation for Adela Yarbro Collins that you mentioned above? Thanks!
“He indicates that Cephas was the first to have a vision of Jesus. What about the women at the empty tomb? Does Paul not know about them? Does he choose not to mention them? Why? (Note: at the end, when he says “last of all, he appeared also to me,” that “last of all” is usually taken to mean that he has given the full list, that there were no other appearances).”
Paul did not say either thing you claim.
The quote does not say he appeared to Cephas first.
If I say he appeared “last of all to me” that does not mean no other appearances happened other than what I listed before. It would mean he thought, at the time of the writing at least, no other appearances happened after that.
You are criticizing Paul for things he didn’t say and are not logically implied by what he said.
Right, he doesn’t use the term “first” with Cephas, but he says that he appeared to Cephas and THEN to the twelve and THEN ot the twelve and… and last of all to me. That does suggest a sequence of the appearances with Cephas being the first in the sequence. If you’re saying that this does not preclude appearances prior to that of Cephas, yes, of course that’s technically true. But you would still need to explain why, if he knew about the women, he chose not to mention them. If he did know about them, that would make the omission even nore interesting.
But I didn’t think I was criticizing Paul. I was asking questions about the implications of what he said and indicating how the passage is usually understood. It’s not obvious to me that this interpretation is wrong, though it may well be. But to be convinced I’d probalby have to see a reason in the context itself, or in other contexts of Paul’s letters, to suggest he knows that women saw Jesus at the tomb.
Are you suggesting he did know about them, or just that this passage doesn’t say one way or the other?
Bart,
Don’t you think that this appearance to the 500 could have occurred on either Pentecost or perhaps a similar event? Perhaps the Early Christians got together again one Easter and had Pentecost part-two? You write in How Jesus Became God a bit about a vision to a multitude occurring at a Charismatic church. I’m convinced that the best explanation for the so called “appearance” to the 500 is a similar such charismatic event given the extent to which charismatic behavior is documented in New Testament. I read James Dunn’s Jesus and the Spirit and, though he doesn’t make this claim, I became convinced of this as I read over his summary of the charisma in the early Christian church. I’ve recently bought books on the biggest Pentecostal movements, such as the “Toronto Blessing”, and they had lots of people report visions at that charismatic event. Your thoughts?
I don’t thnk it occurred at all, myself. But if you’re asking if that this is where Paul got the tradition from, I don’t know. The Book of Acts is the only place the Pentecost event is mentioned, and it was written decades after Paul. There’s no evidence of others knowing about it from the period.
So are you saying you think that Pentacost was invented or otherwise didn’t happen? Someone better go tell Luke Timothy Johnson.
Oh, lots of people have.
Lol!
I’ve heard a lot of near death experiences, but this one sounds as if it might be quite similar to Paul’s vision of Jesus: https://youtu.be/VhvGoA2oSE8
My thought on this, for what it’s worth… From the description of Paul’s own visions in Acts, it seems very little was needed to qualify as a ‘vision’. And Acts 5 describes a scene where Peter and the apostles preached publicly to a huge crowd who supposedly converted en masse.
So my theory is that these might be different exaggerated versions of the same scene, which was some kind of public preaching with effects rather like the charismatic sermons of today, and that ‘Jesus appeared to these people’ was understood only in some sort of spiritual or metaphorical sense (and the numbers were exaggerated later on).
A question: Is it possible that the reason the women weren’t mentioned in 1 Corinthians is because women had so little respect in that society that they weren’t counted when that creed was formulated?
Yup, that’s completely possible. Paul, though, appears to have a high view of women as he speaks with approbation of a number, by name, in cluding a deacon and one of the leading apostles (Rom. 16:7).
Bart,
Could you maybe speak to your view of how wide-spread “gifts of the spirit” such as speaking in tongues, were?
It’s hard to know. Paul talks about them in 1 Corinthians almost casually, in the sense that he simply presupposes that they were widely known, talked about, and used in the church in Corinth, but he says hardly anything about them elsewhere. Were they practiced in all his churches, but were never a problem elsewhere? It wold seeem weird that they are only in one of them, since he started *all* his own churches… My suspicion is that they were widely used in Paul’s churches early on. We don’t hear of them elsewhere much.
If you’re willing to accept that the charismatic gifts were possibly widespread, then why not believe that Pentecost was a real event? Modern day Pentecosts occur all the time: The Toronto Blessing, the Lakeland Revival. Historically, we know of the intense revival episodes during the Great Awakening and of the monstrous crowd drawing Marian apparitions, some of which you’ve written about yourself. It seems to me quite natural to think that Pentecost was a similar such event and that the appearance to the 500 either occurred at Pentecost or at a similar such event.
I think Israelites were widespread, but that isn’t evidence that the Exodus happened. Every event has to be examined on the basis of surviving evidence. The book of Acts has numerous statements and accounts that could not have happened as described, and so the question is whether the account of Pentecost is one of its accurate or inaccurate accounts. Given the fact that the narrative fits perfectly with Acts own literary and theological agendas, and that it contains information that almost certainly cannot be true (the number of converts after Peter’s sermon is an obvious example), and that not a single other source mentions it (including Paul, who would be most interested), makes it highly suspect. (I’ll also point out that the glossolalia in Acts 2 is fundamentally different from that described by Paul in 1 Cor. 12=14; in Acts it is known human languages; not for Paul)
Mmmm. I see. That is really interesting.
Am I wrong in my understanding that “tongues” (glossolalia) was practiced in many of the ancient pagan religions of the time, with Oracles speaking in tongues having an interpreter to translate? I’ve been under the impression that such glossolalia was not unique to early christianity. it wouldd be somewhat expected, because of the underlying belief that the gods spoke to humans through such. The question in my mind is why Paul would have condoned such within the Church. I haven’t found references to any Jewish practice of glossolalia, but only the reference of Job”s daughters speaking and singing in angelic languages. Possibly why Paul had to accept such in the Church and play it down in 1st Corinthians and place rules on it. I believe such was limited only to a few communities and was relatively short lived.
There are accounts of religious ecstasy in pagan religion, involving what others considered “talking non-sense.
Bart,
Is there any strong consensus on approximately *when* the confrontation between Cephas and Paul took place in Gal 2:11-14, or at least the *earliest* it could have taken place (in terms of years after Paul’s conversion or an actual date)?
It has to have been at a time (prior to Galatians) when there were signficiant numbers of both Gentile and Jewish Christians in Antioch. IF Galatians was written in the mid 50s or so, then the late 40s or more likely early 50s would make sense.
Bart,
Do you think Paul’s argument or summary of evidence for Jesus’ bodily resurrection up to heaven in 1 Cor 15 works if none of the appearance traditions could vouch very well or at all for Jesus’ corporeality (i.e., all of the appearances were just brief transparent visions or dreams, and maybe a bright light in the sky)? Asked another way, do you think Paul’s rhetoric in 1 Cor 15 *requires* that all, or least some, of the appearance traditions had narratives that could vouch for Jesus’ corporeality?
Yes, that’s his point.
Bart,
There is one thing nagging me about your hypothesis that the collective appearance tradition to “the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5) is a rumor or legend that Paul picked up during his travels (whether part of a creed or not), and I am wondering if you have a good answer. When Paul picked up the collective appearance tradition to the twelve, Paul must have wondered why Peter never mentioned it during their initial two week meeting together three years after Paul’s conversion (Gal 1:15-19). How do you think Paul answered this question to himself?
I’m usually amazed at what people don’t get around to asking themselves.
It seems far-fetched that Paul, upon hearing about a collective appearance by Jesus to the twelve for the first time, would not at that very moment wonder why Peter (one of the twelve) never mentioned it during their two weeks together (this is a fairly significant event, not a minor detail). Assuming Paul asked this basic question, do you have any ideas on how Paul might have answered it such that he would adopt this same appearance tradition into his own preaching?
I think we’ve done around enough on this question. Let’s move on to other topics!
Jon1, one thing I think you have to incorporate into your thinking about how the earliest Christians would have thought is cult studies. Sociologically, the earliest Christians fit into the category of a cult. Think about it; they followed a faith healer around who called himself a divine king of a future godly kingdom. We who grow up with the Western traditions generally look at this whole chapter of the church’s history from the lenses of Christians – who already believe in the divine message, but if you want to be truly scientific in your approach then you’ll see that historically they fit the description of many many cults throughout history. And when you study cults you see the most bizarre behavior of all kinds. I say this as a believer myself. And bizarre human behavior doesn’t have to be only on the religious topics – I’m sure you’ll agree there are all sorts of idiocies going on in all realms of humanity; politics, cooking, sports, ect!
It’s interesting that historians of modern religion have become very reluctant to use the term “cult,” since it is most often an evaluative term of a religion that seems very weird to outsiders, as opposed to their own religion that also could and can be seen as very weird in its own rights!
Yes! The history of the word “cult” is very interesting! I have a cousin that says, “everything is a cult!”, and in some ways I think she’s right! Any collection of people that hold something “X” to be a pivotal point of their belief system can then be thought of as members of the “cult of x”. I realize that the most politically correct term these days would be “New Religious Movement” to avoid the negative connotations of the word “cult”. However, I, personally, in my dialogues with people, like to still use the word cult when I talk about the possibilities of the early Christians – and I consider myself a (very liberal) believing Christian! The reason I like this is because it really hits my point home: if the Christians weren’t divinely inspired, then they were a cult in a fairly pejorative sense of the word. I think it’s important to get people to really think about that we may not be talking about normal people here. These would be the disenfranchised, the outcast, and probably the mentally-off. I actually spent real time hanging out with an actual cult and it’s hard truly appreciate what they’re like.