Loading...On this Easter Sunday I would like to explain what I think led to the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. A lot of readers over the years have not liked my answer (readers on wide ends of the spectrum): I think some (a few) of the disciples had visions of Jesus. That is, they saw him, or thought they saw him — which for them would have been the same thing.
I dealt with the matter in my book God’s Problem, and responded to a question on the blog about it a long time ago. Here it is.
QUESTION:
I am reading How Jesus Became God and would like to comment on some of the content of Chapter 5. To that point in the book, it seems to me you have been very careful to avoid speculation, but it seems to me that the application of your usual standards may have lapsed somewhat in regard to the visions of Jesus after the crucifixion. Specifically, what evidence do we have, apart from the Gospels, that any of Jesus’ disciples actually had visions of Jesus after his death? Certainly, at some point in early Christianity, the story of the visions became part of the lore, but as you have pointed out in previous parts of the book, the oral recounting of the stories was subject to embellishment and even invention. I see no reason that simple rumor among believers, other than the Disciples, could not explain how the visions of the Disciples entered the tradition. Please respond. If I am missing something here I would like to know it.
RESPONSE:
This is a good and interesting question. The short answer is that apart from the Gospels the only other good evidence we have are the book of Acts and the letters of Paul. There is a lot of *not* very good evidence – for example, later Gospels and writings of later church Fathers, sources that many people would be reluctant to say provide no evidence at all! But having said this, let me stress: this does not make the Gospel accounts of the visions *different* from anything else we might say or think about Jesus. The Gospels (and Paul and Acts) are virtually our only evidence for *everything* having to do with Jesus! So I am no more speculative about the claims I make about visions than I am about anything else connected with Jesus. The New Testament provides us with our sources of information. And I would argue that in this case the evidence is really pretty solid.
To see the rest of this post, you will need to be a member of the blog. If you don’t belong yet, what are you waiting for? Christmas? It’s only Easter! Click here for membership options.
You wrote “L (Luke’s special source), …, Acts (different traditions)”.
So, in your view, was ‘L’ one of the sources for Jesus’ resurrection stories in Acts, or did the author of Acts use a different set of sources instead of ‘L’ for Acts’ resurrection stories?
Is your view the standard view?
L usually is used only of his Gospel source; he definitely had source fo the Adts, as well.
Your reasoning makes perfect sense. But what are we to do with the fact that these people had “visions”? Were they suffering from mass hysteria? Were they convinced by dreams? Were they mentally ill? Or were the visions truly supernatural? (I’m pretty sure I know what you would say about the last one.)
People see things that aren’t there all the time. One out of eight will see a deceased loved one. Doesn’t make them crazy — it’s just what happens. Lots of interesting psychological studies of the phenomenon. I talk about it in my book How Jesus Became God.
Hallucinations are actually very common amongst healthy people. Most people, for example, will have experienced hypnogogic or hypnopompic hallucinations (they happen as you fall asleep or wake up) – usually an experience of someone calling their name or hearing bells. Occasionally these hallucinations are a bit more detailed and when this happens they sometimes evoke strong beliefs of a particular scenario playing out. Add to this the phenomena surrounding sleep paralysis when the person experiences something in a dream but it carries over to wakefulness whilst the paralysis from sleep remains, and you get extremely powerful experiences that the person would swear blind were real, no matter what evidence is put in front of them. Again this is fairly common and not associated with mental illness.
Finally even if there was mental/neurological illness, there are lots of potential causes from temporal lobe epilepsy (seizures often cause strong emotional/spiritual experiences), schizophrenia (usually auditory hallucinations), schizoaffective disorder (like schizophrenia but has a mood component – more common in women), severe depression (this is seen less commonly today thanks to antidepressants), manic episodes as part of bipolar disorder, late-stage Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, strokes, brain tumors (including secondaries), even migraines.
Given your choice of member name, I’m not surprised you have all this knowledge!
Since Paul did not know Jesus and Paul knew that to be an apostle, he needed to be with Jesus, and since it appears that many people did not believe Paul’s claims, why do you find it so hard to believe that he may have fabricated his stories of “visions” of Jesus and a trip to the third heaven and seeing things that he could not talk about. (How convenient that he could not talk about it.) It seems very easy to think that Paul saw a need to claim a vision of Jesus (Christ) since some of the original followers said they had visions (which I think were dreams). Also, since Paul’s message was different and directed at including Gentiles, he had to claim that Christ gave him his “gospel.” It is not surprising that many of the people did not believe Paul’s claims. His claims seem unbelievable and made up.
My view is that i needs to be evidence for a claim that an author’s just makin’ stuff up, rather a general sense that it’s possible. People have visions and ecstasies all the time; sometimes people make them up, but usually they really have them. (I dont mean that what they “see” was really there, just that they believe they saw them)
So like there is evidence that the author of Acts made stuff up since it does not match with what Paul himself wrote, right?
Is it sort of evidence that Paul made things up if he repeatedly had to tell people “I do not lie?” It seems people need to say this when others think they are lying.
I wouldn’t say that there is any evidence that he was just makin’ stuff up. People tell different versions of the same story all the time, usually without knowing it or meaning to. Happens *all* the time, even with sincere folk.
You sound like you may be mitigating the idea of “making stuff up” by recycling that phrase. Humans may be prone to having visions but they seem more prone to claiming they have visions. “Making stuff up” takes on greater significance when an inchoate theology requires 1) some link to divinity, i.e., a resurrection and 2) a contributing event, i.e., a personal vision, impervious to dispute. Given human nature, it may be hard for scholars to feel comfortable reducing some very important topics to everyday B.S. But that, in fact, may very well be what happened. The evidence lies in the extremes we’ve see people take for their belief system over the centuries. I’m waiting for the day we discover evidence for a whole economy birthed from Christianity — like the Facebook of its time.
I really don’t know if people make up visions more than they have visions. Have you seen some kind of controlled study that argues that, or are you saying that makes the best sense to you?
From Galatians we know that Paul had serious problems of cedibility, he insisted that he was “an apostle not sent from men nor through the agency of man” and that when converted he “did not immediately consult with flesh and blood”, how then he became a Chrisitian?
Of course if yout think in Paul as a hard working tent maker that commited his entire (adult) life to preach salvation through christ you could believe in such a vision so powerful that que learnt the entire gospel (whatever the gospel was in Paul’s time) in a flash.
I think Paul was one of those ” Christ-monger” that the didache warns “Watch that you keep away from such.” But as in many other times in history the didache writers and the ones who warned the Galatians lost and Paul won.
Read an old book recently (Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity) who concluded that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, but just “swooned” and was taken to be dead. The pierced side, he argues, was a superficial wound. So, Jesus was removed from the cross, wrapped in a burial cloth and interred. He “came to” in the tomb and shouted until someone, perhaps that gardener, noticed and released him. Weigall has some interesting ideas about what happened to him subsequently but as far-fetched as this scenario is, it does explain a few things. Jesus probably believed that he had died and been brought back to life. His disciples probably considered his return from the grave miraculous. It explains how Jesus could eat and display wounds. The book is obviously dated but there are some interesting observations in it. One thing seems definite: if Jesus DID die on the cross he did it much more rapidly than most. And that’s suspicious.
Yup, it’s an old view. Most famously put forth by Hugh Schonfield, in The Passover Plot.
You write as a true historian.
I believe in the resurrection of Christ I also believe you are a man who speaks what you know and not what you cannot know. What MAY be possible and what is likely not. You speak plainly and truthfully not what others, believers or non-believers, would have you say.
You are a man Jesus would have loved.
That’s very kind of you.
Dr. Ehrman, a while back on the blog you shared a summary of Lüdemann’s reconstruction of what really happened after Jesus’ death, and indicated that it was mostly the potential psychoanalysis of Jesus’ followers that you didn’t think was possible. I understand why, any analysts being 2000 years removed from their subjects’ minds. My question is what parts of the reconstruction do you think might depend on psychoanalyzing Jesus’ followers? I’m thinking about what lies behind today’s holiday, what those followers experienced they lead to Easter Sunday
My view is that one can come up with a range of plausible psychological explanations for why people said and did in the past, but to nake a *claim* based on one of those views, especially for people living in completely different cultures and contexts, is going too far. It would be going too far, e.g., to say that Paul had a vision of Jesus BECAUSE he felt guilty for his sins and coming to think Jesus was raised allowed him to resolve his guilt for doing what he couldn’t stop himself from doing….
I just don’t understand how Paul is supposed to actually have had a vision of Jesus. The two never met, did they? You talk in your book that people have visions of relatives/people close to them, but I have a hard time believing you can have a vision of someone you have never met. Sure, some people say they had visions of Mary even nowadays, but that is not comparable since it is a religious figure those people grow up with, and even then I find really hard to believe them.
Rather, I would say that the fact that Paul first persecuted christians but later converted indicates that he was a mentally unstable person and therefore not reliable.
Since Paul was persecuting Christians, he probably had Jesus on the brain. So it’s not too stragne for him to have a vision, I guess, and it wouldn’t necessarily make him crazy or unstable. He may have been unstable! But he may have been steady as a rock. My view is that he didn’t suffer from any particular psychological disorder.
I wouldn’t call him crazy, but certainly a person who was ready to completely change his opinion if he found it profitable. For instance, like you argued in your books he didn’t require new converts to follow Jewish customs, since he realized the christian way could be succesfull without such a burden imposed on the new converts. Now that’s strange for a Pharisee son of a Pharisee. But he saw the opportunity and took advantage of it. I consider the purported Jesus vision on the way to Damascus to be a similar opportunistic change of mind. Certainly that’s pure speculation. But while I find the idea of people who were very close to Jesus having visions of him to be a genuine reaction to Jesu’s cruxifiction, Paul’s account sounds incredibly suspicious to me.
Paul’s viewpoints are too far removed from Pharisaic Judaism, and his knowledge of Pharisaic Judaism is so muddled, that I doubt he ever was of the Pharisaic school of Judaism.
The question of course is how we know what Pharisaic Judaism was like in his day, since he is the only author who had ever been a Pharisee whose writings we have from before 70 CE!
So how do you explain these ‘visions’?
People have visions all the time. ONe out of eight of us will see a deceased loved one and be convinced that we’ve really seen them….
“We have records of visions of Jesus in Mark, M (Matthew’s special source), L (Luke’s special source), John, Acts (different traditions), and Paul. These sources are *all independent of each other*.”
This is a really interesting post Bart; and essentially convincing to me.
But the pedant in me asks;
– can we really state that the ‘post resurrection’ visions of Jesus in L are independent from the traditions in Acts (given that the same author presents both)?
– and can we really state that the ‘post resurrection’ visions of Jesus in Mark are independent of those in the other Gospels – at least those in the canonical version of Mark we have in our New Testaments (given that Mark 16 9-19 is almost universally considered secondary)?
1. I think so; since his Gospel sources seem to be inconsistent with what he says in Acts 1 (plus of course the Pauline visions are not related to Luke) 2. Mark would not have gotten his account from the others, since he wrote first, so I should think they could not by definition be “dependent” on them.
“As an historian, I am not concerned whether these ancient people “actually” experienced God. I can never know this. But this does not make its study pointless. As Bernard McGinn has aptly remarked, “Experience as such is not a part of the historical record. The only thing directly available to the historian…is the evidence, largely in the form of written records…” What I wish to understand and map is their belief that God had been and still could – even should – be reached, that the boundaries between earth and heaven could be crossed by engaging in certain religious activities and behaviors reflected in the stories of their primordial ancestors and great heroes. ”
April deConick https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/definition.pdf
Dr Ehrman,
Thank you for your wonderful post, and this blog in general. Can you explain a little about whether Peter, James, and Paul thought that Jesus’s resurrection was physical or spiritual? The Gospels, especially Luke and John, appear to insist on a physical resurrection (maybe to counter Marcion?), but the nature of Jesus’s resurrected form in Paul (and James and Peter) seems ambiguous to me.
Thank you so much!
Paul emphatically maintained it was a physical resurrection, and indicates that the others did as well. That coincides with what we know about Judaism at the time: a resurrection meant a resurrectoin of the *body*
Sorry if you’ve repeated this elsewhere, but why do you think the early Christians interpreted these visions as actual bodily manifestations of Christ? Modern day psychological phenomena like Marian apparitions, grief-induced hallucinations, all have a fleeting ephemeral nature to them. No one really believes these visions are physical bodies.
Do you think the early Christians were just framing the visions within a first-century Jewish understanding of the Final Resurrection?
This is the peculiar thing about early Christian origins, if grief-induced visions of loved ones were common occurrences, why did, in this instance, these visions of Christ weren’t taken to be just that? Why were they warped into something eschatological?
Because ancient Jews did not believe in “living creatures” who did not have bodies. If a person was alive, it was necessarily in the body. I talk about this at length in my book Heaven and Hell.
I think you give the empty tomb too little credit lol. I know I know. The first thought isn’t that he raised from the dead, more likely am I at the right place etc. But there was a man or an angel there telling the news as well. Whether jesus was taken out from the tomb dead or “in a resurrection state” I can’t argue. However they can have been lead to the physical body after all this. So why are visions mentioned? Paul may have had that or he has been included by the apostles in the vision of Jesus (what to do after he is gone). If jesus survived all this, which is unlikely, it would be dangerous to talk about jesus in other manners than visions. Its dangerous enough with the visions itself. 200 words is too little for this, but I still appreciate your view and will add it to my pondering. You may be right, and you may not be on this one. That’s the fun with these things. Hope you had a wonderful Easter/passover
This is my first comment so I apologize if it is an obtuse question, but is there any reason to think that some of the disciples might have encountered a lookalike passing himself off as the Risen Christ? The gospels have at least a couple of these post-crucifixion encounters start with the disciple(s) in question not recognizing the risen Jesus only to realize later that it was him they were talking to. Of course such a possibility could certainly coexist along with visionary appearances.
Some have suggested that! I’d say it’s hard to verify one way or the other, give our incredibly sparse sources….
Consider there were false Neros after his death, who seem to have convinced at least some people…
Visions, in some way or another seem to be the starting point of many religious beliefs concerning a testament of a new book/bible. Interestingly, Judaism does not claim this but rather over a million or two Jews heard the voice of God on Sinai. In visions, I am somewhat surprised in how many really start to believe this lore started by one or a few, especially the way Christianity exploded and then Islam and even throw in the Mormons. Surprisingly, Judaism levelled off, with not a big following. People can become more alluring, I guess, which is scary.
Plenty of people have visions of the deceased (and have for millennia) so this isn’t unique or specific to Jesus. My uncle saw my aunt after she passed away. Whether it was her spirit or his brain creating the image, he still saw her.
One out of eight people have these kinds of visions in particular.
Now THAT is worth exploring!
And has been at length! If you’re interested in visions in general, a great place to start is Oliver Sacks book Hallucinations.
Dr.Ehrman,
I know this question is way,way,way out there. What are the chances the disciples used a practice similar to what the Oracles used in ancient times to contact Jesus? I read Oracles inhaled vapors or used herbs to see visions and prophesize. I wonder if this could have been possible with the disciples after Jesus’death?
Thanks
It’s an intereating idea, but there is no indication of it, and the use of oracles was probably not known among Jesus’ rural, Jewish, uneducated followers.
Hi, Dr. Ehrman!
You’ve said that these Early Christians acted so highly motivated that it added credence to the idea that they likely experienced something unusual, like a vision.
Would there be accounts of the behaviors of followers of the other itinerant preachers that co-existed at that time?
Full disclosure, I’ve seen my own, colored aura clearly while chanting Sanskrit. No drugs that I know of.
No prompting or expectation of a visual experience. I kept looking back and forth between the words in the book and examining the qualities of the boundary of color, to cement the memory.
It lasted only about 20 minutes. Everything was normal except for that. Haven’t tried to repeat it.
So, I remain curious about unusual phenomena. (And full cray disclosure, there’s odd experiences with the Edgar Cayce readings, too).
I am so impressed, with the way you write. Your deep dives, and this Easter gift, Dr. Ehrman.
I hope you’d like to comment on how commonplace visions, and acting on them, were at that time.
I”m afraid we don’t know about how followrs of other preachers acted — or at least we don’t know much. Some of John the Baptist’s followers were quite committed, even for years after his death (they are still around by the time of Acts 19); they ended up being connected with the Mandaean religion. Others were killed for followning their leader. In none of these cases do we hear about visions though. I will say that virtually everyone who has a vision believes it was “real,” not imagined, and often they act on it….
This is such an informative rabbit hole!
I just saw my email had a comment response. (It was my first). And I am so excited the real Dr. Bart Ehrman responded to me. With such a high-quality, thorough answer.
*happy hand-waving*
Another excellent post.
Slightly unrelated, but what do you think of the historicity of the instruments of derision used in Jesus’s execution? Precisely the purple cloak and crown of thorns. I’ve heard the idea that it was a deliberate allusion to Vespasian’s Triumph, where Vespasian was likely wearing the traditional garb of a Triumph: a purple toga and a crown of laurels . Could it also be the case that soldiers overseeing Jesus’s execution were deliberately just trying to mock Jesus with the faux garb of a triumphant Roman ruler?
Yes, I think they were legendary, told in order to highlight the irony that he really was a king, but one who suffered before entering his glorious realm.
Dr. Ehrman,
Great post for Easter. Do you agree that the single best piece of information that we have about the claims of resurrection appearances are from 1 Cor. 15:3ff? Paul is writing at a time when most of Jesus’ contemporaries are still alive, and most scholars date 1 Cor. 15:3-7 as being pre-Pauline, taking the data back even earlier. While other things from the Gospels and more broadly the New Testament itself may have been legends that grew over time, the fact that at least some had visions of the risen Jesus goes back to a time, I believe you once stated within just weeks, of Jesus’ death on the cross. Is this all correct?
I doubt if most of Jesus’ contemporaries were alive at the time, certainly not the adults who knew him during his ministry. But yes, Paul’s claims are the earliest we have.
Dr. Ehrman,
While Paul writes his letters, Jesus’ own brother James is still alive, so are Peter and John, as well as most of the 500 from 1 Cor. 15:6. So why do you say that by the time Paul writes, most from Jesus’ generation are dead? Yet if so, do you think at least some are still alive at the time when Paul writes?
Many of the younger people at the would still be alive 25-30 years later; but life expectancy was not great at the time. I don’t think there’s anything to suggest that Paul knows anything about the 500 individually.
I’m not sure Dr. Ehrman has claimed the creed can be dated back to within a few weeks from Jesus’s execution. If I remember correctly that seems like a claim Gary Habermas makes. I don’t know how one would calculate it in circulation that early. I mean Paul likely converted within a few years of Jesus’s death. It could have been formulated and givennto Paul then, or perhaps when he visited Cephas 3 years after Damascus, or maybe in Jerusalem 14 years after meeting with Cephas (Gal 1:18, Gal 2:1). I’m not sure how you could make the case that the creed was created prior to Paul’s conversion as early as the crucifixion.
I personally think it’s riduculous to claim it dates back to just a few years after Jesus’ death. On what basis?
Dr. Ehrman,
No, the tradition doesn’t date back to within a few weeks of the cross, all I said was that most scholars seem to think it’s pre-Pauline, simply meaning it existed prior to Paul’s conversion. Of the respected scholars who had that view were: James D.G. Dunn, A. J. M. Wedderburn, John Meier, Gerd Lüdemann. John Dominic Crossan writes in ‘Excavating Jesus’, “Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that ‘I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn received.’ The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he ‘went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days.’” As far as when the resurrection visions were first experienced by Jesus’ early followers, YOU once gave the estimate that rather than being on “the third day” it could’ve been as many as a few weeks after Jesus’ death.
Ah, no that’s a mistake people make. A common one. When someone says a passage in Paul is a “pre-Pauline tradition” they do NOT mean that it is a tradition that started prior to when Paul converted. They technically mean that it is a tradition that was in existence before Paul quoted it in this particular letter. AS to *when* before … that’s when it gets especially tricky. Crossan is speculating on when Paul heard of it, but he really can’t date the trip to Jerusalem in the “early 30s” (I’m not sure why he does) Paul almost certainly didn’t convert until 33 or 34, so the trip would have been 36 or 37 at the earliest. And, of course, we don’t really know when Paul acquired this precise tradition in the form he quoted it int he 50s.
I mean it’s technically possible. Isn’t the general concensus that Jesus died AD 30-33, and Paul’s conversion took place AD 36 or earlier? It’s technically possibly Paul received the creed within the same year he converted. I don’t necessarily think this is true, but I don’t see it as too out there.
OK, it’s not ridiculous. But there’s no basis for it. Paul was writing in the mid 50s. ON what grounds would one say that a creed he quotes that was produced before he was writing in, say, 55 CE probably was written in 32 CE???
Hi Dr Ehrman,
What causes such visions? Grief? Drugs?
Paul does sound like he had a typical vision, maybe even Mary at the tomb, but the rest of the accounts seem like a shared vision by multiple disciples. Can visions be shared like that?
Grief, drugs, and lots of other things. Check out Oliver Sacks book Hallucinations. And yes, group visions do happen. Large groups see the Blessed Virgin Mary all the time.
The question of the resurrection cannot be answered on empirical terms. Perhaps thankfully. Both believers and disbelievers will chose their evidence (and 2,000 year old documents can’t be ‘not evidence’ simply because you disbelieve them – that’s circular reasoning.)
Something reminded me of this mentality in reading about Herod’s fortress of Masada, and the last defenders there.
According to Kenneth Atkinson, no “archaeological evidence that Masada’s defenders committed mass suicide” exists.
This comes across as an attempt to sound academic, profound, revisionist and contrarian. But most people don’t expect to find the remains of the last Masada defenders, still with their knife wounds. It’s enough to get the gist of what happened from historians (in this case the Roman encampments, causeway and lack of destruction of the fort.)
Saying ‘there’s no evidence’ is often meant as a sly way of saying ‘it never happened’ or ‘look how clever I am.’ And this is how I view this particular thread about ‘visions’
My brother died a few years ago and seeing the body really allowed me to start accepting the loss. If I hadn’t seen the body at the funeral, I don’t think I would believe he was dead to this day. I would probably (on some days) think he was still out there somewhere.
I presume that an empty tomb (however it came to be empty) kept alive the disbelief that Jesus was, in fact, dead. This bewilderment on top of experiencing the abrupt demise of their social group, their leader being apprehended (as a result of betrayal, no less, by one of their own) and crucified just days prior would have wreaked havoc on their psyche. I can’t imagine how traumatic this all would have been for them. This and other factors such as their zeal for and closeness to Jesus (especially for James and Peter) may have caused their severely traumatized brains to experience these “visions” or what I call theological hallucinations and flashbacks.
I’m no psychologist and by no means trying to diagnose historical figures but I just can’t see how they were not deeply affected psychologically from all of this.
Thank you, Paulogia (a youtuber) would love to hear! And by visions you mean some sort of hallucination, unrelated to “real” appearance? What about the common apologetic response of those 500 witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9? I always tend towards cognitive dissonance/denial phase (see 2020 events, antivaxers, climate change response etc.) maybe coupled with some sort error in reports of his burial place and boom, ‘He wasn’t there!’ Is this theory any good?
I wish we knew something about the “500.” I should think that if that was an old tradition, the Gospel writers would have known about it. So I’m not sure where Paul’s getting it from! But even so, there are thousands of people who have seen the Blessed Virgin Mary, often in large groups, but I don’t think they really have.
What do you think about the ending of Mark at 16:8? Does it not seems to be an odd way to end the gospel? I am thinking that Jesus meeting them in Galilee (verse 7) referred to visions of Jesus like the ones mentioned by Paul in 1st Corinthians 15:3 -8 and not to any unequivocally physical appearances as found in the other gospels. What do you think?
I think it’s the perfect ending. I’ve talked about it on the blog before; if you do a word search for 16:8 you’ll easily find it.
Regarding this I have wanted to ask you for a long time. Doesn’t the ending of 15 seem odd? 15:47 is like the beginning or a continuous to chapter 16. I cant say I have noticed the other chapters ending this way. I understand why it has to be there. They have to answer how this news reached the disciples but something is strange for me there. Almost like the whole chapter 16 is an addiction to the original text.
Have you anything on that?
As you probably know, the chapter divisions are not original to the text. 15:47 is usually understood to be necessary to 16:1-8 because it shows that the women would know which tomb to go to. But there are oddities, in parcitur if one thinks that Mary the mother of Joses is the same as Mary the mother of James (see 6:3). Possibly they come from different sources? But 16:1-8 cohere with the rest of the text in other many other ways, and are not missing from any of our mss.
So here’s something I’ve always wondered: perhaps the most famous encounter of the disciples with the risen Christ is the “doubting Thomas” episode in John 20:24-29. The author seems to want to counter stories that the disciples had simply been “seeing things” when they claimed Jesus had been raised from the dead. So Jesus, who has basically apparated into their house, invites Thomas to see the nail holes in his hands and place his finger in the wound on his side, and thus Thomas is convinced. My question is, what are the theological/Christological implications of the fact that the risen Jesus was a phantom that could appear and disappear at random, but his resurrected (and, supposedly, glorified) body apparently still bore the wounds of his crucifixion? Wouldn’t those have been repaired?
Yes, both Luke and John want to insist that Jesus’ resurrected body is actually simply his raised cadaver. Paul thinks it was a glorified body, which I assume means it didn’t have any wounds. Different early authors ha different views of what it all entailed. How it could be *both* a cadaver and a ghost is a bit hard to figure out….
Could the visions have been drug related. I imagine smoking something to create contact with Jesus could be an explanation for the visions. I’ve heard no talk of this anywhere, just throwing it out there. Were drugs used to enhance visions or bring on visions and because it was normal no one mentioned it?
Probably not. There are lots of reasons people have visions, and psychedelics are not talked about in our texts.
It is very difficult for most people to handle a radical challenge to their beliefs, especially if they have made significant life investment in those beliefs, like leaving behind everything including family to follow Jesus. So, as a physician I can easily accept that Jesus’ grief-stricken disciples had visions of him after his death to confirm in their minds that their beliefs and their sacrifices were not in vain. Some cultures accept visitation by recently deceased relatives as a normal experience. In Paul’s case I wonder if overwhelming guilt from persecuting peaceful Christians may have led to his vision and conversion experience. None of this is “proof” that the disciples had visions of a resurrected Jesus but I think it is a good foundation for accepting the possibility.
I don’t think that there is much doubt that the Apostles and other disciples of Jesus had visions of him as risen from the tomb after his crucifixion and death. Such illusions are natural and are part of what’s called “cognitive dissonance resolution”.
His closest followers believed that he was the Messiah, the Chosen One, who would rule in the new world order, and that they (the Apostles) would each rule over one of the twelve tribes. Unfortunately, Jesus was arrested, tried, tortured, and crucified for the crime of sedition. These events disconfirmed everything that the followers of Jesus believed would happen during that Passover in Jerusalem . Hence, the cognitive dissonance.
To resolve the dissonance, Peter, James and Mary Magdalen claimed that they had visions of the risen Jesus. Jesus’ Apostles and disciples were a charismatic group that believed the visions of the group leaders were real. And to belong to that group, you had better believe that also.
Paul is clearly comfortable with visions and visionary experience. I wonder about Jesus and his original disciples. If Jesus’ disciples had visions before Jesus’ death it wouldn’t be a stretch to expect such after his death. From our available sources would you say that Jewish apocalypticists tended towards charismatic experience in general?
thanks
No, I don’t think so. Visionary experiences seem to happen more based on psychology than theological views.
Could a “vision” also be considered a dream? How was “vision” defined in those days? I have a “vision” of my Hubby in dreams.
Oddly enough, in the ancient world they didn’t ususally differentiate between sleeping and waking visions the way we do (“he was just dreaming”); they were basically the same and could be equally valid.
Re: visions and dreams in the ancient world
Prof Ehrman could you provide the name of a scholar or a title of a piece of scholarship on this subject? I’m totally fascinated and would love to follow up.
thanks
I had a student who wrote a PhD dissertation on it some years ago (Jason Combs) but I can’t think of anything for a broad readership off hand.
I have always been curious as to why Paul seemed so completely disinterested in Jesus as a man in his writings. Since, as you say, he had conversations with Peter and James one would think that he would have asked them a million questions about what Jesus was like and the years they spent with him. One would also think that this information would be a great selling point in finding converts. I find it hard to reconcile one with the other.
Yup, me too. I talk about it here and there in some of my books. It’s hard to know if Paul simply didn’t know any more (wasn’t interested in learning more for some reason?); or if he knew more but never talked about it (but why?); or talked a lot about it but just not in these letters; or thought Jesus’ life was relatively irrelevant for understanding his death; or …soemtihng else….
This has always struck me as an interesting bit of proof that Paul really *did have* an extraordinary vision of some kind that absolutely convinced him that he had had an encounter with the risen Christ. It’s clear that in his (at times difficult) relationship with the disciples who had actually lived with Jesus — particularly with James and Peter — that Paul’s attitude was like “Well, I don’t care if you ‘knew Jesus of Nazareth personally’ or whatever. I’ve seen the glorified Lord in a vision from Heaven, so you guys can like sit back and chill, kay?”
So now I’m more fascinated than ever with this idea that, as he appeared to the original disciples, Jesus was a kind of revenant who still bore the scars of his crucifixion (while still being able to come and go like a phantom or something), but who then appears to Stephen and Paul — following his ascension — as the triumphant Son of Man/God at the right hand of the Father. Jesus’s resurrection appears to have been a multi-stage process of a kind.
Thank you for answering a question that has bothered me for some time. Something inspired them to risk their necks, it was not an invention. Visions, or mass hallucinations are not all that uncommon, particularly coming after a traumatic event, and it must have been traumatic to see their leader die.
Re: Did the disciples “see Jesus raised from the dead”?
It seems to me, as a modern skeptic, and as a person with common sense, that if they really did “see” him, they must have known that he had not been raised physically. And so, if Jesus had not taught them about anything but literal bodily resurrection, this must have caused them much cognitive dissonance. Somehow, they still believed; nevertheless, some Gospel accounts seem to emphasize physicality. And so, here is my question:
Did the Gospel writers think of this manifested physicality of the risen Lord as literal and bodily? (As opposed to something I might find more credible, something literary/metaphorical/visionary.)
My sense is that ancient Jews in that time and place beleived that if a dead person came back to life he *had* to have been raised physically, since life cannot exist apart from the body. They did not believe souls lived on. People today do, so it’s hard for them to imagine why someone would think “bodily resurrection”! But that was the category available to them.
As a matter of pure evidence, the record is that the percipient witnesses “saw” the resurrected Jesus. Unless they so said, these were not “visions” with all the haze and suspicion that rides with that word.
I would amend your final sentence to read: ” None of this is undisputed evidence that the disciples literally saw a resurrected Jesus but I think it is a good foundation for accepting the possibility.”
The could have been visions, but the record does not so confirm.
My view is that a “vision” is simply what someone sees (from the Latin word video- I see); some visions are veridical (“I’m seeing my desk just now”) and some are non-veridical (“I’m seeing the Blessed Virgin Mary just now”). But yup, I know, people usually here “vision” and think of something a bit strange…. The reason I like it for Jesus after his resurrectoion is that both believers and non-believers can agree, in principle, that the disciples actually saw something….
Hi Bart,
I think there’s a slight error in the penultimate sentence: “I don’t know any argument against them *not* having visions”. I’m assuming what you meant to say is “I don’t know any argument *against* them having visions”…?
(An argument “against them *not* having visions” – the current wording – would be the same as an argument *for* them having visions: precisely the kind of argument you’ve clearly established in your post!)
Ha, you’re right. Too many negatives in there…
They were a cult just any other cult, the fact that the most important religion in western history evolved
from this cult of rural Galilea in the first century does not change things, if members of a cult today from
rural south america tell about a man who died and then rise again evereybody would think that they or somebody inside the cult invented it all and this what probably happened two thousand years ago.
Bart,
If Paul heard about the appearance to Peter and/or James *after* his fifteen day visit with them, when and how would Paul go about asking them about it in order to compare his experience with theirs?
Not sure. Write a letter maybe? Send someone to ask? More likely gather information from what others reported? Too bad they didn’t have Zoom — especially with a recording function!
Bart,
You said that if Paul heard about the appearance to Peter *after* his fifteen day visit with Peter, then Paul would have written a letter or sent someone to ask Peter about his experience of Jesus in order to compare Peter’s experience with his (i.e., Paul’s) own. If Paul would do this for Peter’s *solo* experience of Jesus, wouldn’t Paul do the same for a rumor he heard of a *collective* appearance to the twelve (which included Peter who he could ask)?
YOu were asking me about the *possible* ways Paul may have found out later, and I was listing the ones that came to mind. I didn’t say that he did it and have never thought htat he did. My personal view is that Paul heard about Peter’s claims before he went to Jersusalem the first time.
Bart,
Thanks for clarifying that you think Paul heard about Jesus’ appearance to Peter *before* Paul first went to Jerusalem. However, I was asking about the claim that Jesus appeared to “the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5). My understanding is that you think Paul heard about the appearance to “the twelve” *after* his fifteen day visit with Peter. If so, wouldn’t Paul have written a letter (a mode of communication available that you just affirmed) to Peter asking him about this collective experience to the twelve (of which Peter was a member) that Peter never mentioned in their earlier meeting, if only out of curiosity about what happened?
I can’t imagine that Paul heard that Jesus appeared to the “twelve” from Peter, since Peter knew better than almost anyone that there were only “eleven.” Paul seems to be picking up a tradition that he had heard before, posssibly when he was first persecuting the Christians.
Bart,
Ok, I understand now. You think Paul heard that Jesus appeared to the twelve collectively while he was still persecuting the church. I think we have been down this road before, but just to confirm, do you really find it plausible that Paul never asked Peter about the collective appearance to the twelve (of which Peter was a member) during their fifteen days together after Paul’s conversion?
As I’ve said each time: I don’t know.
Bart, would you discuss a couple ways theologians attempt to reconcile that Jesus’ body was literally raised up again (the tomb being empty) and the future bodily resurrection of those who have decomposed, been cremated etc. ? Is there a claim that somehow his bodily resurrection is to be uniquely different from that of deceased believers?
It depends whom you ask. But our first known theologian, Paul, goes out of his way to insist that hte future resurrection of believers will be *just like* that of Jesus: they will rise with glorified, majestic, immortal bodies that will no longer be able to suffer and die (all in 1 Cor. 15)
Dr.Ehrman,
How much influence do you think the story of Romulus had on the post resurrection story?
There appears to be similar back stories and directions given to the followers of both, Jesus and Romulus.
Thanks
Direct influence? Probably zero. The followers of Jesus who first talked about Jesus’ resurrection (illiterate, uneducated Jews from a rural backwater) almost certainly knew nothing about Romulus. But it was the *kind* of story sometimes told in a wide range of circles. Still Romulus was not raised from the dead. Jesus’ resurrecdtion is that story of an “exaltation to deity” put into a Jewish mold, where the only way to live on was to do so in the body.
I think the difference between Jesus and other preachers, like John who had disciples who remained loyal after their deaths, is that Jesus preached that God’s kingdom was at hand and that he would be a ruler or king of that kingdom in a real physical way. Jesus’ disciples thoroughly believed this. And when he suddenly and unexpectedly died it left them very confused and feeling guilty for having let this happen. This unresolved grief contributed significantly to the visions and a new message was developed where the real words of Jesus could still make sense in light of his death. I think their intentions and beliefs were genuine. Which is why they were willing to die for it.
Do you think is a reasonable conclusion based on historical evidence? Perhaps the original message of Jesus can be determined historically, but it may be impossible to really say why the disciples had these visions. Which is why it’s understandable that many would still believe that Jesus actually did appear to them in the flesh.
I agree about Jesus being different in saying he would be the future king. I don’t think we have the tools to do a psychological evaluatoin of the apostles after his death. It’s hard enough to psychyoanalyze soneone you’ve been talking to three times a week for two years. We have not a single word from any of them. I wish we did!
Prof. Ehrman,
I’m not sure if you’ve addressed this in an earlier blog post, but I was wondering if in Matthew, Jesus’ insistence on keeping to the law of Moses was emphasized by a community of followers possibly due to growing concerns about the Pauline community’s laxity in regard to the law, perhaps like the Letter of James appears to.
On the other hand, how did the Matthean community reconcile Jesus’ law-observance with his dismissal, also in Matthew I believe, to the young man who wanted to follow him but had to bury his father first, in honor of the commandments? Or Jesus & his followers sabbath observance? Did Jesus have a system of prioritization with his own interpretations, when it came to the 600+ laws laid down? Is it likely some of said laws were actually not original to the Torah, or the version Jesus considered cannon, but added based on ‘gnat-straining and camel-swallowing’ non-scriptural rules and customs?
Yes, it’s sometimes thought that Matthew is intentionally anti-Pauline. I’ve thought about it for years but don’t know of evidence that’s compelling, one way or the other. By the time he was writing there were lots of gentile beleivers in Jesus and my guess is that lots of them wanted almost nothing to do with Jewish law, except insofar as it predicgted Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus and his followers do not ever actually break the law. They do break Pharisaic (and other) *interpretations* of the law. But Jesus in Matthew actually makes the law harder to follow than easier and says that problem with the Pharisees is not their strict interpretations but their not practicing what they preach….
The only biological organisms in which death and dormancy are difficult to define exist on the microbial level. Complex life such as us higher mammals, that state is easier to determine. You can appear to be dead but exist in a comatose state. Pliny the Elder of the first century records several times when people have been mistaken for dead, the first century historian Josephus witnessed survivors of crucifixion.
See also “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story” by Richard Carrier (2006)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/2.html
Completely off-topic:
(How or Would) you distinguish between Paul’s use of ὅλον τὸν νόμον (the whole law) in Gal 5,3 and his use of ὁ πᾶς νόμος in Gal 5,14?
It seems to me Paul could have used πᾶντα νόμους (every law) in 5,3 and should have used ὅλος νόμος in 5,14, but he didn’t. Is there a nuance I’m missing?
Or is this probably just an inconsequential variation in language? As is often the case.
I actually do think he means two different things, but I’d say it has to be determined by the context. Then again, every word is determined by the context. As I read it, in Gal 5:3 he is saying that if you get circumcised you should not think that that is the only part of the law you need to observe. You have to keep every one of the laws, the whole shooting match. My hunch is that the Judaizers are insisting on circumcision as the sign of the covenant, incumbent upon all male followers of the God of Israel, because of his covenant with Abraham; but they are not insisting on everything else (possibly not even Sabbath?). In 5:14 I think he is speaking not of specific laws that need to keep if you think you need to be circumcised but with the entirety of God’s will as expressed in the law: you love your neighbor — really do it — and you’re good. With that reading he certainly could have used πᾶντα νόμους in 5:3; it would have been synonymous. But it would have been slightly different from ὁ πᾶς νόμος. But, as you know, Galatians is dense and controverted!
Dr. Ehrman,
Excuse me for asking this off topic question here. But, do you know of any ancient anti-Roman writings that survived throughout antiquity? I’m talking about writings that existed within the realm of the Roman empire, not from places outside of their control. I’m curious to know if they allowed such documents to circulate as we would in the modern free world, or if they counteracted against them in any way, even apart from physical punishment. And, could this have anything to do with the pro-Roman vs anti-Semitic views we sometimes see in the Gospels?
Well, for starters there are some in the New Testament — at least the book of Revelation. THat’s really what it’s about. I’ll need to think more about other anit-imperial literature. Off hand I’m not coming up with something, but I have this gnowing thought that there are some obvious examples. Maybe others on the blog know.
Ok Doc, One last question about this subject.
Do you guys [scholars] somewhat, mostly, fully, classify the book of Revelation as anti-imperial?
Yup. It’s pretty clearly that. The Beast is Rome; so is the Whhore of Babylon; 666 is Nero — these are all very standard understandings of the author’s enemy among scholars.
Dr. Ehrman,
I know you’ve written about oral history transmission and the psychology of eyewitness memory and testimony, but I think the psychology of rumor and gossip also has something to say about how these post-resurrection appearance stories were transmitted, particularly as to the number & identity of those people who allegedly had visions of Jesus.
Like you, I believe it’s reasonable to assume that one or more disciples actually had visions (in my view, of the dream variety).
Just based on observable human nature TODAY and the studies of rumor and gossip psychology, I think it is reasonable to postulate that either:
(1) the number of post-resurrection appearances were inflated in the chain of oral transmission, OR
(2) once one disciple shared his vision with the other disciples, the others either (i) immediately claimed to have also had a vision in order to not seem less devoted, or (ii) with the “seed” of the first reported vision planted in their minds, soon thereafter had visions of their own (i.e. in a dream).
Do you think the number of reported visions that eventually made their way into the NT might have “grown” in this way?
Yup. The literature on rumor and gossip is very intersting, and I agree that it’s relevant.
When it comes to ‘normal’ events, unanimity (to whatever degree it exists) of independent sources reinforces and supports a presumption of historical accuracy. This is not so regarding miracles and, to an extent, miracle workers.
Instead, such consistency advertises more for a certain tradition of belief, rather than to the prospect that miracles actually occur(ed). I get it that the few sources we have for Jesus are the only game in town, and to relegate the Gospels and Epistles too entirely to the canon of ancient myth is to cast the practice of Biblical scholarship as it exists today into the abyss. But, the closer we tether the man Jesus to the stories of miracles like the resurrection (which provide the entire motivation for the authorship and circulation of the texts), don’t we erode the supports underlying the presumption that the Bible contains evidence of actual historical events?
I don’t think so. Misinformatoin about someone’s activities is just the same as all other misinformation. It has to be dismissed. But that doesn’t mean everything else said about the person is misinformation.
Dr. Ehrman: It seems each time at Easter that the Resurrection is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Different Christians believe different things. Example: PAUL himself. He seems to think, at times, the Resurrection will be a spiritual one; other times, he seems to preach a physical one! It cannot be both, or can it? The Roman Catholic teaching is that you have a soul that will, at some point, be REUNITED with your body. Saint Augustine taught that the soul is a “special substance, endowed with reason, adapted (by God) to rule the body.” (Did the EARLIEST Christians believe this?) However, Jesus himself, according to Luke 24:39, displays his Resurrection as a PHYSICAL one: “Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (NRSVCE) After this display, he ate food with them. This is CLEARLY not a SPIRITUAL being! What is your view?
The earliest Christians definitely did NOT think it was a non-material being. Jesus was bodily raised from the dead for them, not in some kind of mystical spiritual way.
Dr. Ehrman. I have a different, and probably unusual view of the resurrection. The book of Exodus is believed to have been written by at least two different theological traditions – the Elohimist source and the Yawhist source.
It is the god from the Yawhist source we find in Exodus 19. This is a God who asks the Israelites to kneel and pray from a distance. This is a God who only allows Moses to meet him. And the meeting takes place on the morning of the third day, just as with Peter at the resurrection!
Exodus 19:16-17
If we assume Peter to represent Moses in one way or another, then 1 Corinthians 15 can be seen as a chronological extension of who God reveals himself to through the books of Moses.
Then Jesus revealed himself to the “twelve”. Which twelve? Were Judas, Jacob, and Peter part of these twelve? “The Twelve” is clearly a term in line with “The Seventy-two” or “The 144,000”. We can also read in the Gospel of Luke that the concepts of “the twelve” and “the seventy-two” are confused.
God revealed himself to “the seventy-two” in Exodus 24.1
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Tribal leaders were something Jethro had recommended Moses introduce. What was the total number of tribal leaders Moses had to appoint?
Well, the tribal leaders were to be officials over a thousand, a hundred, fifty and ten.
One way to understand this is that the tribal leaders were to be leaders over 1160 men, as in the Roman numeral MCLX which is read as thousand, hundred, fifty and ten.
If each tribal leader led 1160 men out of a total of 600,000 men, then there would be 600,000 /1160 = 517 tribal leaders. There must have been at least 517 tribal leaders!
Deuteronomy 5:23-26: ‘all the leaders of your tribes and your elders came to me. 24 And you said, “The Lord our God has shown us his glory and his majesty(…) 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer.
Some of the Tribal Leaders hadn’t endured the presence of God and had died.
It seems that my post asking this question has vanished, I can’t find it anywhere. If you already answered this, I apologize.
What do you think about the idea 7Q5 from the Dead Sea Scrolls is a fragment of Mark? How accepted is this idea among NT scholars?
Sorry, I did answer it! No, that view has been disproved. I don’t know of any experts on the DSS or of the textual tradition of Mark who thinks it is a fragment of Mark. Maybe someone on the margins of scholarly opinion does?
Off topic, but I came across this and am genuinely curious how it gets resolved. In Matt. 5:22 Jesus says that anyone who calls someone a fool (Μωρέ) will feel the fire of hell. But in Matt. 22:17 he himself calls the Pharisees and scribes fools (μωροὶ) (ok, “foolish” – same word). How is this explained?
(Sorry, that should be Matt. 23:17, not 22:17.)
Paul builds a lot of the “Jesus/Church theory/liturgy” with his own private Jesus visions- e.g. to mention just one, 1 Corinth 17. -the initiation of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the definitive saviour role of Jesus via a new “blood covenant”, implying atonement/sacrifice vis-vis the Father.
It’s a worry. Paul, the bloke who wasn’t at the last supper, was the one who got the grand narrative scoops.
How we long to hear from the disciples, Peter and John, the Son of Zebedee. And of course, James the Just.
Paul and the Gospel writer John are a pigeon pair in cracking the big ideological headlines.
Dr. Ehrman,
You seem to be ambivalent about 1 Cor. 15:6. Do you think Paul added this passage to the tradition with the aim of expressing, or perhaps to convey to critics, that the sightings of the risen Jesus were bona fide and NOT mere unsubstantiated visions? Also, we tend to think of hallucinatory vision theory as relatively new, but do you think that Paul and/or some of the earliest apostles probably heard that claim themselves made by their contemporary critics?
Thanks for your help. I’d greatly appreciate your insights here; this is a big topic of interest for me.
Yes, Paul is reminding the Corinthians that Jesus really was *seen* after his death; this was not to prove to them that Jesus was raised but to emphasize that it was a *bodily* resurrection (not of the soul) so that the resurrection of believers would also be bodily. He was combatting those who thought they had already experienced a bodily resurrection.
And no, I”ve never thought that hallucinations were unknown in the ancient world.
Dr. Ehrman,
So do you think there was probably a time when the early apostles themselves were faced with critics telling them that they just had hallucinations (or the equivalent to it) of the risen Jesus?
Non-Christian critics? We have no idea.
Yes, I agree, Dr. Ehrman. But did Paul think the resurrection was spiritual or physical? Jesus himself claims the resurrection was Physical! After all, he even has a meal with his disciples! Paul seems to be all-over-the-place on this. Could you explain?
The whole point of 1 Corinthians 15 is that it was a physical, bodily resurrection; that’s the very basis of Paul’s argument that the future resurrection of believers will be physical and bodily.
“Paul personally knew Peter and James. There is really no doubt about that. He spent time with them… Where would he get that information? It’s hard to believe he would have gotten it anywhere except from them – or if he did get it from somewhere else, that he didn’t simply ask them about it, if nothing else to compare his experience with theirs”
Dr. Ehrman I just don’t see how Paul’s High Christology: Jesus being a pre-existent divine being could be different than these guys. I think he had to have discussed these finer points of who Jesus was with them. You make the case (elsewhere) based on textual criticism it is more likely the Jerusalem church saw Jesus as becoming divine at Baptism, on the cross, resurrection etc. You just don’t buy that Paul would have discussed that point with them and if he/they disagreed on it, there would have been angry letters about it (at least on Paul’s side)? Is that a correct summation of your view on that point?
My view, which I”ve stated repeatedly, is that I don’t know what he discussed with them I have to say, I’ve had dozens even hundreds of conversations with lots of people I know who don’t have a clue what I personally think about topics of mutual interest. Here’s an interesting factoid: I’ve been in the Religious Studies Dept. at UNC for 32 years. In all that time, I have NEVER had a discussion of my personal beliefs with another faculty member. Weird? Maybe. But … well, we shouldn’t assume that what we ourselves would discuss is what others would.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have just enrolled and so thrilled with your blog.
It is already obvious to me I have so much to learn not only about the history of the Bible but my goodness you and others throw around words and concepts that this old grandpa didn’t even know existed.
I have already purchased two of your books in hardcover and audio.
My limitations culturally and educationally won’t allow me to participate in the Ping-Pong like dialogue but I promise you this I come with an open mind to wipe clean the residue of misinformation I have been fed since childhood on the subject of Christianity and the Bible.
Thank you for sharing your expertise and allowing our contributions to help those less fortunate.
Rob Bccnp1
Great! Welcome!
It seems to me that implied in the initial question that started this post is the fact that there is no report anywhere in the NT of anyone reporting that they actually observed the resurrection. Only the empty tome. Thus, the proofs of the resurrection are the reported visions of a an already resurrected Jesus, but not the resurrection itself.
Somewhat like the argument from induction that says if I wake up in the morning and observe that the ground is wet that I can conclude that it likely rained while I was sleeping.
I had a professor in college in the 1960s that pointed out that the real world is any world or thing that can be observed by two or more people and reported on.
There are no such reported observations on this issue.
Cleveland Thornton
Dr. Ehrman,
How long after Jesus’ death do you think the resurrection visions of him began. I believe there was a time when you estimated within a few weeks, does that still stand?
I don’t know. Days? Weeks?
Hello Dr. Ehrman
Not sure if this would be off-topic, but regarding the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, I’ve heard that the prophecy of the temple destruction “not one stone will be left here upon another” and possibly the “desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place”, would be an example of vaticinium ex eventu – a prophecy made after the fact, and would have been composed after the temple destruction of 70 AD, which was meant to be the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Would the prophecy of “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” in the same chapter have been composed after 70 AD as well, and, if so, was there some historical event meant to be its fulfillment as well?
They may be prophecy after the fact, but if so it is written by someone who never saw the sitaution on the ground, since there certainly even today are stones standing on one another. And the problem with the Son of man coming on the clouds being post-70 is that when Jesus refers to this person, he does not seem to be talking about himself — a problem if later followers invented it.
I have a question which is related to the death of Jesus, Why does Acts describe Jesus’ death in the following manner rather that using the word crucified or crucifixion?
Acts 5:30 whom ye slew and hanged on a tree
Hanging a person on a stake or a cross was understood to be hanging him on a tree.
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
While you grant multiple independent attestation for the visions of Jesus (Mark, Acts, M, L, 1. Cor. 15 and John) and therefore consider the visions (however you want to interpret them) to be on a firm historical ground why doesn´t the same work for the burial accounts?
After reading your book HJBG, I understand that you doubt the burial accounts on the criteria of contextual coherence (Roman crucifixion and burial practices). However, aren´t the burial accounts also multiply attested (Mark, Acts 13:28-29, 1. Cor. 15:3-5, John and possibly M and L) which in turn would raise the level of historical probability for the burial of Jesus?
You also point out how the mention of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospel accounts might be explained as part of the process of giving “Names for the Nameless” as the oral tradition developed or as “finding good guys among the bad guys”. At the same time you mention how there was animosity in the early church towards the Jews. Wouldn´t the invention of Joseph be quite improbable just because of this animosity? (criterion of embarrasment/dissimilarity)
So in total, one criterion (contextual coherence) might point to one direction, while the other criteria to another?
We have only two burial accounts: Mark and John. Acts 13 *may* be a separate one, though of course it contradicts what the Gospel of Luke itself says (by the same author) The other references are simply to him being “buried” (with no narrative of it). The word can mean being thrown into a common grave; or having a couple of handfuls of dirt thrown on the corpse (as in Homer already); or being put into a pit.
But yes, I completely agree that the tradition of Jesus receiving a decent burial is very early, hence attested in independent sources. As with all historical judgments, this tradition has to be subject to multiple criteria and critical assessment. It’s attested less commonly than the appearance tradition, of course; there is evidence that the early Xns wanted to emphasize it to prove it really happened (the guard at the tomb motive); and there is the question of whether that kind of thing *ever* happened. I think the answer to the latter is no. Someone asking nicely doesn’t alter the consistent Roman practice which was utilized for a concrete adn definite reason. As to visions, yes, they do and did happen all the time. So I don’t think the two cases are the same.
Regarding burial and the empty tomb: the reason given for the followers to go to the tomb was to anoint the body. How did this make sense to the gospel writers, or believers? I understand the significance of anointing a person, but wouldn’t a dead person be anointed before being buried? Of course it was necessary for the resurrection story for the followers to visit the tomb and find it empty, but a more believable reason would be that they went to the tomb to grieve or pray or anything but anoint the body.
Was there any significance to visiting the tomb on the third day? Other than to prove that Jesus was really, really dead, why not visit on day 5 or 7 or 2?
Thanks for your Sunday lectures these past weeks. Really enjoyed them!
The idea in the Gospels is that Jesus had to be buried hastily on Friday because the sun was going down and Sabbath was therefore soon to begin; he couldn’t then be buried properly. The women were going to give a proper burial as soon as it was light on the day after Sabbath — so that would be the third day (dead on Friday, all of Saturday, early Sunday).
Have you heard the argument that visions would have been fairly common and seen as spiritual visitations but when such visions of deceased persons happened they were not interpreted as resurrections? It seems then that something else would be needed to explain why a unique resurrection belief Jesus was formed about Jesus. Do you think something else explains why that specific belief was formed rather than a belief that a spirit or ghost had visited them?
THe only other explanation typically given is that hte tomb was empty. Quite apart from whether that was true or not, neither the NT nor sense would lead someone to think that would make anyone believe that the body had been raised. So I think on this point the NT is right: it was the visions.
Well in fairness many apologists would say that a better explanation is that the resurrected Jesus actually appeared to the disciples.
I think visions would make sense as part of the story, however, it seems that once Paul’s vision took place that a resurrection belief was already in place in the Christian community which could then be used as an explanation that the resurrected Jesus caused Paul’s vision. I think an empty tomb alone wouldn’t be incredibly likely to form a resurrection belief, but an empty tomb paired with visions seems to make such a belief more likely to form.
I still don’t see how a vision of Jesus alone wouldn’t have just been interpreted as a ghost; it might have still spurred on a religious movement, but why would such an experience turn into a belief that Jesus body was resurrected? Was it developed from Jesus apocalyptic teachings about the final resurrection somehow applying to this one case earlier than the final resurrection as some sort of firstfruit? I don’t know what event, texts, or tradition might cause that. Was the nature of the visions tactile so that they would reason that this Jesus must have a body?
YEs, that’s completely right. IN my book HOw Jesus BEcame God I talk about that. My view is that the disciples came to believe in teh resurrection because somem of them believed they saw Jesus alive afterward, and that really is the reason they came to believe in it. Believers would say it’s because they actually *saw* him (a “veridical” visions — that is seeing something that’s really there) and non-Believers would say they “saw” something that was not really there (a “non-veridical” vision). I use the term vision not as a synonym for “hallucination” but as what it literally means, “something that was seen” (from the Latin word video — “to see”)
1. Do you think it’s plausible the disciples saw someone passing as the Risen Christ? Paul says his vision of Jesus told him to preach to the gentiles, so I’m not sure how that would work.
2. For your present opinion, is any reason to doubt that Paul saw a vision?
1. I’d say it’s possible that they were mistaken in what they saw, yes. 2. I think it’s possible it was a dream, or a mistaken itentity, or a hallucination, or… I do think he was convinced that he saw Jesus.