(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I pointed out that we simply don’t know how many of Jesus’ disciples came to believe that he was raised from the dead. In my view there is actually some *evidence* that some of them never did believe it. I lay the evidence out in my book How Jesus Became God. It has to do with the fact that there is such a strong tradition of “doubt” in the resurrection among Jesus’ followers. Here is how I lay out the evidence there.
***************************************************************
In considering the significance of the visions of Jesus, a key question immediately comes to the fore that in my judgment has not been given its full due by most scholars investigating the issue. Why do we have such a strong and pervasive tradition that some of the disciples doubted the resurrection, even though Jesus appeared to them? If Jesus came to them, alive, after his death, and held conversations with them – what was there to doubt?
The reason this question is so pressing is because, as we will see later in this chapter, modern research on visions has shown that visions are almost always believed by the people who experience them. When people have a vision – of a lost loved one, for example – -they really and deeply believe the person has been there. So why were the visions of Jesus not always believed? Or rather, why were they so consistently doubted?
Jesus, of course, does not…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! It costs little and gives a lot — and every dime goes to charity.
I’ve always suspected there was high evangelistic value in the doubting stories, as if to say: “You see, even apostle x doubted, and he came to believe – so you can too!”.
One suggestion .. Because Dr. Ehrman, visions are so astonishing and out of the physical experiential reality that when they occur, the first reaction of the “intellect” as an aspect is to NOT believe them and even deny them (for the sake of “sanity”). It takes some maturity on the part of the intellect to allow and recognize a visionary experience. These are illiterate people .. it would take time for the intellect to not only accept but absorb and some may never reach that point.
Yes, that’s how most of us would think about it! But as it turns out, psychological studies have shown just the opposite: people tend to believe in visions, quite strongly, since they are so real to them.
Visions do occur among other like phenomena. I have no doubt. But the mechanics of a phenomena of this caliber and the human intellect is complex. I am separating “intellect” from other workings or attributes of the mind. It would be a mistake to think of visions as snap shots of the person or people as well. Visions are also energy .. a rarefied energy and it takes a developed nervous system to not only view but sustain and yes recall. When one understands the “mechanics” of this kind of phenomena its plausible what the disciples saw or did not see.
Where is the evidence for visions being any kind of energy? Visions, of the type referenced above, are equivalent to hallucinations.
Yes, they are indeed hallucinations, or as you might say, “non-veridical visions.”
Or equivalent to a waking dream….dreams seem utterly real when happening.
Maybe the people who didn’t believe their visions kept quiet about them, and hence those people were not included in these psychological studies.
No, the studies do include people who claim never to have had visions.
Yes, I agree with Prof. Ehrman. I know WAAAAAYYYY too many people who believe every outlandish thing imaginable. These are the same types of people who can feel the actual physical presence of their loved ones after they die. See Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World for further proof.
The Demon Haunted World.
Thanks for the heads up! It sounds fascinating! I will have to read it.
I hold a great deal of admiration for Sagan; his work; his insight. Whereas he did not, I do find God in near all of his teachings; but then, I’m a big Gerald Schroeder fan, as well.
Proof of what–that many people believe outlandish things? That needs no proof. I would ask you for proof that their beliefs are outlandish. Is that what Sagan provides?
I don’t think visions are so extraordinary. I think many people have them–after surgery, after the death of a loved one, while in the throws of death, etc. Visions are not uncommon. It’s just that people usually don’t talk about them. In any group of ten seniors, I am sure that two or three will fess up to having had a vision at sometime in their lifetime. And, I’m with Dr. Bart, when we see things we really think they are there. It may take weeks or even years for the reality of the experience to fade.
justjudy6,
My mother believed her beloved deceased father visited her often. I can’t count the times, as child, when I’d awaken in the night to find her sitting in the darkness and talking to someone who just wasn’t there. It was really rather frightening.
At the ripe old age of barely 33 she died of cancer. An aunt, her sister, yet recounts going to visit her on the afternoon of the night she died, only to have found her so engrossed in conversation with Jesus, who seemed to be standing alongside her bed, that she didn’t know my aunt was there until his (unseen and unheard by my aunt) presence left her.
Being a witness to my mother’s apparent vision has helped my aunt to be at peace regarding the passing of my mother, her baby sister, and for a long time it was a source of great comfort for the three of we who were suddenly orphaned. If Jesus was there for her, on her death bed, surely he also there for us; though I never saw him and he never told me so.
In the here and now, I’ve a former sister-in-law who is in the ministry. She found Jesus during the Brownsville movement, and is quite charismatic. She preaches often, and always regarding Biblical prophesy. She absolutely insists that her 5 year old deceased son, my nephew, visits her many times a month and reveals to her events that are soon to occur; in particular “The imminent rapture of the church.”
I am but one; and yet I know two. How many more so many others?
Yes, I will have to read Sagan’s book.
A vision, both auditory and visual which is how we experience life would be very believable to the person experiencing it. Particularly at a time in history when photographs did not exist. The mind sees it. Since it comes from the individual brain, there is no reason anyone else should believe it unless it is described by someone as so extremely real or of authority. Very interesting Bart. The Romans and the preachers were the authorities at that time? The best educated and orators began telling the congregation Jesus was alive again? But group visions? Are they akin to excitability and anxiety amplifying to the degree others feel it and then experience it themselves? Fascinating stuff
Yes, group visions do happen, especially in religious contexts. I give examples in my book How Jesus Became God.
But the earliest account we have, from Paul, says Jesus appeared to over five hundred people. That was written about 20 years after the crucifixion. Much later we have these much more detailed accounts, that say it was just a chosen few. Is Paul referring to the story of Pentecost?
Paul had his own personal revelation–why would he want to dilute the significance of that by saying that hundreds of people had seen Jesus after his death?
He doesn’t mention Mary Magdalene, let alone make her the first witness, but given his feelings about women, I think we can figure that out pretty easy.
I agree it would have started small, and gotten bigger over time. But it may have been one of those things that builds on itself–I’m tempted to reference the Salem Witch Trials–it starts with a few, and starts to spread. After a while, it’s not clear who actually saw something, and who just went along with it.
And I’m guessing you’ll get to this soon enough–but why does Paul say Jesus first revealed himself to Cephas (Peter) and then the Twelve? Now we’ve got thirteen disciples right after the crucifixion. When really, there should just be eleven, if Judas betrayed Jesus and shortly thereafter died. But even if that didn’t happen, there’d still just be twelve, including Cephas/Peter.
One possibility is that Paul really does just mean the main body of the disciples when he says ‘The Twelve.” That the number is so significant to him he just makes it twelve, no matter how many actual disciples there were.
I think the idea is that he first appeared to Cephas then to *all* his disciples (not Cephas AND twelve others)
Do you still lean towards a distinction between Cephas and Peter?
THese days I lean the other way….
No, there’s nothing to tie the vision to the 500 to Pentecost (the latter of which Paul gives no evidence of knowing about) His point is that Jesus really was raised from the dead, physically, as others could attest.
Understood. I still find that mass hallucination Paul seems to be describing hard to understand. And of course it does tend to indicate Jesus already had hundreds of followers.
He had a lot more than twelve, or nobody would have bothered to crucify him.
Does your argument here imply that historically Jesus never spoke to his followers about the need to die and be raised from the dead?
Yes, that is my assumption. I don’t think Jesus planned on dying or wanted to die.
That’s a lot of completely fabricated accounts, Bart.
Too many, I think. We might as well believe Jesus was a myth, if the story is that made-up.
Three different stories, in three very different gospels, have a woman anointing him with expensive perfume, and his response is to say she’s anointing him for his burial–even though anointing on the head was what you did for a king. It’s an odd story, sticks out to this day–meaning that it probably did happen.
Again, nobody in Jesus’ time, in Jesus’ setting, doing and saying what Jesus did, having just recently heard of the execution of John the Baptist, would have been blind to the potential consequences of his actions. He may well have believed he could overcome those consequences–or that God could overcome them–but he went right on believing John was also special to God, and John had not been protected.
It doesn’t make any sense, even within the assumptions he was operating under.
I’ve always had a theory that the resurrected Jesus was someone else – perhaps it was a “twin” or a “Just” brother that wasn’t known to the majority of the disciples??
Could the doubt tradition perhaps also indicate a schism among the disciples between the “seers” and their believers and the doubters? A schism that was obvious within the early movement (by the doubters absence?) and which had to be explained away such that by the time the later three gospels were written the schism is left out but the doubt tradition is included for good measure?
Yup, that’s possible
You’ve said elsewhere that people in that era didn’t make a clear distinction (at least in describing them) between “visions” and *dreams*. And at least some people are *more* likely to believe the content of a *dream* is real (because dreams are “normal,” and “visions” aren’t). I myself had that experience, with a dream in which my dead mother told me she was, in a sense, still alive – and let me hold a baby that I understood would be her next incarnation.
Bart, I just read Acts 1:3 and see those 40 days also included a short course for the apostles “about the kingdom of God.” … Too bad we don’t have any records of those teachings!
Mr Ehrman
If we just make a small assumption, then all these questions are easy to answer. Let’s just for a minute assume that the idea of the resurrection stems from when the Lord revealed Himself on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19.
«Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”»(…)«The LORD said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” Then Moses told the LORD what the people had said. 10 And the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. 12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.»(…)«On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.
This answers Matthew 28:7 were “some doubted.” The story in the Exodus is all actually much about the Israelites doubting faith in the Lord through forty years in the desert.
This answers John 20:17 «Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.»
And this answers Matt28:16 «Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.»
I believe the experiences the disciples had of Jesus were most likely visionary, but it’s Paul’s vision of Jesus that is more difficult to comprehend. Paul had never met Jesus and having lived in the first century wouldn’t have ever seen another physical representation of Jesus, such as a painting or sculpture or other iconography. I can’t recall another vision narrative where the person experiencing the vision had no previous visual reference.
It happens every time the blessed virgin Mary appears to people!
Have you heard of any other cases of 3 or more separate people having similarly themed visions around the same time?
Yes, it’s a common phenomenon. I talk about cases in my bookj How Jesus Became God.
Excellent!
An intriguing idea. It sounds pretty solid. My suspicion of stories like Emaus has always been that these people, may have met the stranger and after hearing stories like Peter’s they have an AHA moment . Aha the stranger we had dinner with wasn’t a stranger, it as Jesus! I know that is pure supposition, but think there’s some conviction
behind the stories.
“(a) Paul never once calls Peter a “disciple” (in fact, no such term appears anywhere in Paul’s letters–he never shows any knowledge of such a thing as there being a “disciple” of Jesus) and (b) Paul never mentions Peter being close to Jesus at all, much less the “closest” to him (other than being the first to receive revelations of Jesus: 1 Cor. 15:5). This is actually one of the many curious things about Paul’s epistles that suggests the Jesus myth theory is correct: Paul continually assumes only apostles exist, and that apostles are made apostles by having a revelation of Jesus. The idea that anyone actually saw him or spent time with him in the flesh is nowhere found in his letters.”
-“Mythicist Who Shall Not Be Named”
I know quoting RC is like inviting Banquo to this blog’s banquet, but the above quote had me re-reading Paul’s letters and his determination for what comprises an Apostle of Jesus. Much of what I reread, especially 1 Corinthians 15:8, seemed to support this definition of Apostleship.
Is there something here I am missing? My guess is yes! If so, what? An aside here, but reading Paul’s letters consecutively in a short time-span was a first for me and I thought such an exercise would help me to better understand Paul. In some way it did, but I ended up with more questions about Paul than answers, even though read the undisputed epistles first.
Sorry, but this is all very problematic. But as with most mythicist positions it would take about a page to explain why — which is why I usually don’t deal with their argument-after argument-after argument-after argument…. (BTW: Paul does mention the twelve. And yes, apostles are different from the twelve, though they overlap)
As discussed by Dr. E in his book and by others (e.g., Oliver Sacks) with lay (non-neuroscientist types) persons as the collective target, hallucinatory experiences are multi-factorial. In some cultures, hallucinations are “normal,” representing learned grief or ecstatic behavior. But in the “western” mindset as experienced by, I assume, most of this blog’s participants:
When hallucinations (any modality: visual, tactile, auditory, olfactory) are recognized as such by the person experiencing them, that is, not endorsed as “real,” they are ‘non-delusional,’ and might not reflect any brain malfunction.
When hallucinations are endorsed as “real”, they are ‘delusional.’ A person of “modern western” worldview experiencing–and capable of relating to others in real time–delusional hallucinations has perforce some perturbation of brain physiology, whether temporary or permanently, of multiple possible causes (drugs, trauma, stroke, degenerative disease, sleep or oxygen deprivation, a combination, etc.). Such persons are not fully capable, or are incapable, of cogent, deliberative self-reflection/assessment of these experiences, at least from the perspective of the otherwise “normal” independent observer. Many otherwise normal persons, for example, now “down” (recovered) from drug-induced episodes, remember themselves, while previously intoxicated, as 1. vividly endorsing the reality of hallucinations and 2. at the very same instant doubting what they nonetheless really believe they’re seeing (or hearing).; cognitive dissonance. (Whether that self-reflective meta recall is accurate is another issue.)
To the extent that the gospel narratives at all reflect what actually happened 2K years ago, and assuming that Dr. E’s conjectures (hallucinations > resurrection > stories > Christianity) re: that “history” are accurate, the delusional hallucinations (“visions”) of the disciples, Paul, etc. engender the same differential diagnosis: did these people practice undocumented cultic drug ingestion(s) and if so, were the “doubters” those that discontinued usage; did collective extreme emotional distress trigger shared hallucinations (see: Devils of Loudun); were shared, even temporally disconnected (i.e., disciples vs, later, Paul) hallucinations reflective of learned behavior in these communities at this time; were the causes of these hallucination in different persons entirely independent (e.g., epileptic or migrainous hallucinations for Paul, grief hallucinations for Peter? I dunno.
Dr. Ehrman, the disguised or unrecognized god/king is such a common trope in ancient stories (cf. Odysseus, et al.) that I have to ask how much of the unrecognized Jesus scenes are a result of the writers trying to suck in the readers with such recognizable tropes? If I were to put myself in the shoes of an early christian evangelist, and someone who I was trying to convert asked me, for example, how I know for a fact that the disciples saw the risen Jesus, I would probably immediately reply: “Well, of course, since they are wise men, they weren’t easily convinced, and so it was only after thorough investigation of the matter that these highly discerning men were convinced that it was, in fact, Jesus whom they were seeing before them.” And, voila, you have the beginning of the doubting Thomas tradition.
The problem is that these motifs always result in the person coming to realize beyond any doubt that the one they did not at first recognize is in fact a god/king/etc.
Interesting aside (interesting to me). The character who does not recognize Odysseus on his return to Ithaca is his faithful swineherd and childhood friend (and eventual co-kicker of suitors’ butts) Eumaeus, a personage I always think of when I scan the phrase “Road to Emmaus” (they are probably pronounced very differently, but I am in this event happy with my “poor Latin and no Greek”).
Other fun fact, the “narrator” of the Odyssey (as opposed to character speaking within the epic) breaks from third person only (per the translations I have read) when he directly addresses Eumaeus, a character in the story(!) in the second person, “…and you replied, Eumaeus, loyal swineherd…”
So, the initial visions of the risen Jesus were those of Peter and Mary Magdalene. And these occurred within days of the first Easter Sunday. Then there was a period of time when doubt was prevalent among the apostles and disciples. Question: did those doubters become believers solely on the basis of the testimony of Peter and Mary? Or did this fairly large group experience resurrection visions themselves? How long did it take for the resurrection belief to form in this larger group? What’s the consensus of the NT scholars on this question?
Well, there’s probably no consensus. Most NT scholars are Christian, and so most believe that Jesus really appeared to the disciples. My view is that a small number had visions and others believed them. Though some did not.
This is actually THE most interesting aspect of this whole story. I think it’s very probable that the Apostles did not actually believe in a ‘physical resurrection’ with someone walking out of a tomb. But that’s how later people understood ‘resurrection’ and that’s how these conflicting and inconsistent stories about the ‘resurrection’ have developed.
Personally I think it went like this: after the crucifixion the Apostles went back to where they came from when suddenly Peter has kind of an epiphany while trying to rationalize what just happened (the man he thought would ‘save the world’ had failed): No, he could not have been wrong! It’s impossible! That means that even though it LOOKS like a failure, it’s actually a success! They were able to kill the body but not the spirit. The spirit lives on! The spirit has been resurrected in a new, heavenly body! (actually the same thing that Paul believes).
Peter then told this to the other Apostles. Some agreed, some did not. But it got the ball rolling. And over time things were misunderstood, the exact original meaning got lost (and not just in translation).
Readers of this website might be interested in these two Internet reviews of the Bass-Ehrman debate:
1. “Who Is the Son of Man? A Review of My Debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman.” This is a two-part review written by Dr. Bass. Some of the last section of the first part of this review, about the different Old Testament words used for God, is a bit esoteric and hard to follow. The same can be said about the “son of man” section of the second part. of the review. Surely, God would not have made such an important subject so esoteric that only those with esoteric, “secret” knowledge can figure it out. Much of what Dr. Bass said in the actual debate was hard for me to follow so reading his arguments was somewhat helpful, but his arguments are still confusing, at least to me.
2. “Bart Ehrman vs. Justin Bass Debate by Richard Bushey.” The most interesting section of this review is about how dissimilarity can be used to confirm, but not to disconfirm history. Otherwise, everything that sounds like what early Christians would have said about Jesus gets disconfirmed and discarded.
In the debate, Dr. Ehrman did not have time to address the issue of whether or not Peter was a source for the author of Mark. Is there any evidence among early Christians for this idea? Thanks!
Yes, the idea goes back at least to Papias in a book he wrote around 130 CE or so.
I have really enjoyed having this storyline laid out as one unit. I had always assumed, like toejam, that the doubting passages were meant for audiences who would not have had the opportunity – geographically or temporally – to experience a risen Jesus. As time went by with out a second coming, this would have become more urgent. Now you point out that much the same problem would have existed among the first followers of Jesus.
I must say, that the sequence of events as you have laid them out here explains much more of the evidence then any other theory I have encountered.
An outstanding post, Professor. Thank you for it. I can’t wait to read your new book ! (Any chance that your blog members could buy copies in advance ? 🙂
Ha! That would be nice….
Could it not be that the purpose of the skeptical passages is not to relate history but to persuade the reader? While people who have visions may be absolutely certain of what they saw, people they relate the vision to would not be so easily convinced. Added details about how one’s own skepticism, and that of others, was overcome would serve to answer the reader’s doubts, thus making it more likely that the reader would believe the story. If I told you that I had seen Elvis alive the other day, you would not believe me. If I added details about how my friends had seen him, too, and that we went out drinking with him, and so forth, …, well, you still wouldn’t believe me, but others might start to question their doubts about my story. Especially in a less scientific age than your own.
Maybe so…
DAY ONE
JESUS: Hi guys, thanks for coming. It’s good to see you all again. Now the reason I’m here is to prove to you all that I died and was resurrected. Thomas put that down and pay attention please. But before i get to the proofs I have to provide some background information, and unpack some terms like “death” and “resurrection”. After all that I will be able to show you the proofs, of which I have many. We should have the whole thing wrapped up in about 40 days. Peter would you like to share that with the rest of us?
PETER: Oh sorry Jesus. I was just saying to John that I love it when you do these… umm… what did you call it? Ehrman-threads?
Could you please comment more on the historical reliability of the doubt traditions?
If only one or two doubted, and the doubters simply went their own way, it’s hard to imagine the tradition being preserved. Is the presence of these accounts evidence of significant doubt among the disciples? If so, could the account in Acts of Jesus spending 40 days with the disciples be a response to the doubters? Likewise the various other appearances?
Or are the ‘doubt’ accounts more likely to be not historical and instead written into the text for some other purpose? For example, a tool for persuasion (as toejam mentioned – “these people doubted but came to believe, and so should you”)?
Yes, that’s the decision that has to be made! My sense is that the doubt traditions are so prominent that they indicate an uncomfortable historical reality.
“An uncomfortable historical reality”.
Being somewhere beyond the middle of Forgery and Counterforgery, I tend to think of the Book of Acts, itself, as historically uncomfortable.
“Are you Eijah?” Given these kinds of statements, the transfiguration, and that so often these eyewitnesses don’t even recognize the resurrected Jesus, I think the they are talking about random people(s) in their community and/or strangers that are “Jesus” to them. Jesus even primed them for this: “when I was hungry, you fed me.” Of course it could be a mix of stories like this and visions as well?
I agree it is strange that the disciples were not convinced by Jesus’s return–I always wondered if he looked like a different person. Bart’s thesis seems reasonable, there were only a few who had visions, but ‘all the disciples’ had to be stand-ins for all those who doubted.
Back when I was an evangelical this subject always made me uncomfortable. What do you mean they didn’t recognize him??
Elaine Pagels, one of your counterparts who is knowledgeable of The Gospel of Thomas (maybe even an expert) mentioned it was Thomas who doubted as a kind of slap as it was attributed to him starting the Gnostic branch. I say that is more than a coincidence of Thomas doubting.
Thanks for sharing
@Bart: since the Gospel of Mark, as the earliest Gospel, does not contain accounts of appearances by the ‘risen Christ’, why assume any Apostles had ‘visions’, or even ‘experiences’, that involved ‘interactions’ with a ‘reanimated Jesus’ walking, talking and eating?
Mark assumes that Jesus has preceded the disciples to Galilee and that he will meet them there. (see 16:1-8)
by the way, where in Mark did he actually tell the disciples this? or is it just mentioned in chapter 16?
and ok, true, Mark believed in an empty tomb too. too bad that he didn’t describe that ‘meeting in Galilee’ then … one wonders why not …
I recently did a good deal of study about the role of hallucinations (all types, but especially those caused by Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) in Christian history. One conclusion I came to was that we cannot always know the source of a visionary or auditory experience, therefore, we must judge it by the result. If the so called visions of early Christianity led some to following the teachings of Jesus in regard to love of neighbor and social justice, can we call them a good thing and embrace their message? If they lead one on an opposite track perhaps they should be rejected. I hope this isn’t too far off the subject. I strongly believe that in Paul’s case we have an example of an epileptic event and wonder if Mr. Ehrman would comment on this. My 2014 book The Controversial Christian Prophetess Ellen G White covers this topic in detail.
Yes, I think it’s *possible*. But the account of Paul being blinded by the light and falling off his horse, etc. does not come from Paul himself; it is based on the narrative of the book of Acts, which may not be reliable (since it tells the story three times in three different ways). In any event, I don’t think it’s possible to make a bona fide medical diagnosis on someone from 2000 years ago: you need a physical examination!
Absolutely, Mr. Ehrman, I agree. Exam is a necessity for a real diagnosis. And thanks for the reminder this is based on Acts, not the words of Paul himself. I was hoping you’d comment on the idea that we should evaluate so-called visions by their effect on others and not on their source. This is an idea I saw voiced by other writers; it is not my own.
Sorry my comment was unclear.
Reading my own comment, I realize this would be a matter of faith, not historical comment.
My view is that the “effect” a vision has is indeed our only access to it — so I think I agree.
Reading How Jesus Became God right now. As always, a great book.
Interesting:
Quran 4:158
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-“
Cont…
“But Allah raised him [(Jesus) up unto Himself. And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) will be a witness against them.”
Influenced by some Gnostic beliefs.
I find the appearance to James and one group appearance to the twelve (or at least some members of the 12) to be historically likely. The reason for the appearance to James is twofold: 1. Paul reports this and Paul knew James personally. 2. There are reports that Jesus’ brothers (including James) did not believe in him in the Gospels, when by the time Paul becomes involved, James the brother is one of the “acknowledged pillars” along with Peter and John. I think this quick turn-around is best explained if James did have some vision of his brother (as Paul believes he did).
For the appearance to at least some members of the twelve as a group, again, I think there are two key reasons for believing some such event happened: 1. Paul, again, reports this, and we know he at least knew some members of the twelve (Peter and John). 2. It’s multiply attested by independent sources (Paul, and then also Luke and John, who both seem to be writing about the same event taking place in Jerusalem).
If I were to reconstruct the appearances, I think that the list would include: Mary Magdalene, Peter, James, a group some members of the twelve and then lastly Paul.
What would you think of this list and the reasons supporting that list?
Yes, that’s pretty much my view too, except I’m not sure of any of the twelve outside of Peter.
Throughout the Gospels, the accounts of the Resurrection seem tacked on, suspiciously sketchy. If someone had come back from the dead, I would imagine his words would be important. Yet what are we told about what Jesus said during that time? Practically nothing.
I’m taking the psychological studies that say people tend to believe their visions at face value. That would apply to the disciples as well. So, I have no reason to believe any of these people ever actually doubted what they saw or that they couldn’t recognize a man they had known for years.
Like other commenters, I believe the “doubt” narratives were simply devices to “sell” belief to those who had NOT had visions, i.e., the readers of the gospel. In fact the gospel writer had almost certainly encountered people who had secondhand awareness of the visions and did not believe them. If people who have visions tend to believe them, it is also true that people who have never personally experienced a vision tend to doubt tales of other peoples’ visions. Human nature. So, how to prove the visions were really Jesus? Put the doubting reader in the shoes of a doubting disciple and walk him through the process.
It’s like you’re at the state fair and somebody tells you, hey, there’s a guy over in that building who has a knife that will cut tomatoes paper thin and it never gets dull.. Aww, I don’t believe that stuff. But you go over and listen to the sales spiel and the guy pulls out the knife and what does he do, start trying to verbally convince you how sharp and durable the knife is? No, first he acknowledges your doubt, builds it up to a crescendo, and then he saws through a brick with a knife before banging on it with a hammer, and then he slices those tomatoes paper thin. By then you’re pretty darn convinced (whether its true or not) that the knife will never get dull. Now that’s a pretty straightforward sales job, so it doesn’t take very long. But if all you have is words to cut through doubt, repetition and multiple witnesses are your brick and hammer. Even if there is so much doubt that it takes 40 days to break it down. Given the science, and the gospel writer’s knowledge of how critical belief in the resurrection is to the credibility of the gospel, that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Seeing is believing. Hearing takes a little more work.
sir as for the quote in matthew 28:17,”they worshiped him but some doubted”, according to a scholar i heard, he says that the greek doesn’t have the word “some” it should read “they worshiped him but they doubted”, according to the NASB it is translated this way as well. Does the greek say that ? (i don’t know greek so i can’t comment).
Yes, there is no word for “some” in the Greek of the verse.
Hi Bart, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 what does Paul mean exactly when he uses the word “appear?” Does the word in Greek mean a visionary appearance or could it mean that the disciples had an experience where they felt Jesus’ presence or something similar?
The verb he uses is the passive voice of the verb “to see,” so literally it means “he was seen.” Normally — not just in this context — it is taken in an active sense to mean, “he appeared.” It doesn’t necessarily mean “a vision of something that wasn’t really there.” It usually refers to something that was there being seen.
Where are the Testimonies of the 500 Witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:6?
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.—1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (ESV)
Nowhere to be found.
Exactly!
When Jesus appeared to people other than Paul why did he not tell them that salvation was to be attained through belief in the resurrection and the laws were no longer mandatory. Why did he wait to appear to Paul before saying these things?
Maybe they just forgot that part in the excitement of the moment. (!)
Very easy to forget in that situation!
Why would the Gospel writers include a doubting tradition, Bart?
I think the tradition was deeply rooted in the Christians’ stories, and that it originated to explain why some of the earthly follower of Jesus never did come to faith. But it functions in the Gospels to show that it makes sense if you yourself doubt — but he really DID rise!!
The doubting tradition in the Gospels and the women being afraid at the end of Mark reminds me of the story of Muhammad fearing and doubting the angel.