By all counts, this is the strangest Easter in memory – one of the two most important holy days in the year for over two and a half billion people in the world, the vast majority of whom cannot celebrate it together for the first time in their lives.
Even so, for many of these Christians this particular Easter, with the message it brings, could not have come at a better time. And even for those of who are not Christian, the season brings a powerful message, worth reflecting on.
Even as a committed Christian, I always had a surprisingly ambivalent relation to Easter. For the first thirty years of my life, I was very active in the Church; as a young adult I was not just a faithful attender of church who was engaged in worship and Sunday School, I became actively involved in church ministry as a youth pastor, head of Christian education, assistant pastor, and pastor (of the Princeton Baptist Church). But I was never as joyful at Easter as everyone else in my circles appeared to be.
Like most Americans, I suppose, I much preferred Christmas, even though I did feel a bit guilty about it, since, well, surely Easter and the resurrection of Jesus is the *point*, right? But more than that, I always (and weirdly in the eyes of most my friends eyes), always preferred Good Friday to Easter, and always thought it got completely undersold. Almost no one would go to church for it, in comparison with Easter. But I thought it was the day that really mattered: Christ’s sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world. What could be more important?
I realized Easter was much better for him, of course. We might call it “good” Friday, but it was obviously the most horrible day of his life, as he spent a good part of it being tortured to death. It was “good” only for us. But rather than making us feel good, it should (I thought) make us feel horrible. It was because of *us* that he had to do *that*. To some extent that made me feel guilty, but more than that it produced gratitude, ultimate gratitude for the ultimate sacrifice, and I never understood why other Christians didn’t see it that way. They just were eager to get past it to the glories of Sunday morning and the big Easter celebration of what really mattered to them: the resurrection.
I always thought the death was far more important. And it always seemed to me that jumping too quickly to Easter was getting salvation on the cheap. It was all good news, and no bad news; all glory and no pain; all happiness and no misery. It always seemed weird to me going to church with everyone ready to celebrate the victory without having reflected on the costs of the war.
All sorts of other analogies came to mind. Focusing on Easter was kind of like watching part of a World Series game but seeing only the rally in the 9th inning with two outs and not watching all the game before then to see why the rally was so flippin’ unbelievably unlikely and amazing; or reading a long novel with a happy ending but actually reading only the happy ending and not the entire novel to see why the ending was so spectacular and uplifting.
So I never really enjoyed Easter services because I never was sure that my fellow parishioners were taking it all very seriously, for what it really meant. And so I went through the motions with some gusto as required (though I never, ever liked that sunrise service thing….), but at the end my emotional register and mood was somewhat the opposite of what it was on Christmas With Easter I was always glad it was over with, instead of feeling a kind of drawn-out sense of joy, happiness, and contentment in its aftermath.
OK, so that wasn’t everyone’s feeling. At the same time, and possibly a bit oddly, I stressed and felt the real importance of the Easter message, not just on Easter Sunday but throughout the year. And as I said, it is a message coming at an extraordinarily good time this year. It is a message worth reflecting on, not only for Christians but even for those of us who do not (or no longer) identify with the Christian faith.
It is the most powerful message that the Christianity brings to the world, in large part because in its original and deepest form it takes the real situation of the world very seriously and addresses it head on without shying away from it. It is a not a message that skips the pain to get to the happiness, that avoids the misery by focusing on the pie in the sky in the bye and bye. It is a message that resonates most with those who are in the midst of their pain and misery, whose suffering is very real, tangible, physically and mentally agonizing. It is a message that does not minimize, justify, or mollify the reality of human suffering. The horror continues. The pain persists. The darkness is everywhere.
But in the end, evil will not have the last word. There is hope.
This is not cheap solace. It is not facile advice or simplistic solace given to someone in the depths of despair about a child who has died, or has been disfigured in an accident, or is in the throes of agony with cancer. The crucifixion of Jesus was real, and he felt it. Writhing in agonizing pain. He didn’t take it calmly knowing that he’d be fit as an immortal flea in a couple of days. The torture was real torture for him, as it is for so many others, every day, throughout the entire world.
For most of the many billions of people who have ever lived in the world, life has of course had good moments; but most of existence has been a lifetime – usually a very short one – of perpetual pain and suffering. The material world is unaware of our existence and not at all concerned about the sentient creatures who dell on it, doesn’t give a damn about them, in the least. Pandemics, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, flooding, crop failure, leading to starvation, homelessness, disease, and and and…
And that is not considering the pain humans inflict on one another – war, torture, oppression, injustice that leads to pain and death, inequalities that create massive starvation, lack of concern for those suffering and dying horribly because they are not “one of us.”
The pain is real, even if most of us who are in our personal, comfortable situations can turn it off. But during the greatest international crisis of our life time, it is now suddenly very hard indeed to turn it off. It is all around us even if it has not yet invaded our personal space. And we realize that good Friday is not so good after all, when we ourselves, those we love, or those we ceaselessly hear or read about are living and dying through it.
But still. There is the message of Easter. The message does not — or at least should not — justify the pain or soften the suffering, per se. But it is still the Christian message. There is a glimmer of light in the world of darkness. Evil does not have the last word. God does. Death is not the end of the story. There is a different ending, beyond our understanding, not one we can conjure up through our own efforts, but one that comes from forces far beyond our ability to understand let along control. In the end, love wins. Suffering ends. Pain disappears. Good triumphs.
This is not a message I literally believe. But it is a message that resonates in my heart, in a period of pain and darkness. And one that I choose to live for.
I wish you all a very happy Easter.
Mark Goodacre theorizes that the centurion’s remark in Mark 15:39 “ Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” is likely meant sarcastically. Reading the remark this way is another source of irony in Mark’s message.
I can see some reason for this reading, but what are your thoughts? Is this a common view?
Interesting idea, but I doubt it. I’d have to see his whole argument. But the striking thing is that Mark brackets Jesus’ life with the declaration he is the Son of God, by God himself (1:11); and ends it that way, by the centurion. And right in the middle (ch. 9, transfiguration) it comes again. It’s a way of stressing, he *really is* the Son of God. And who recognizes it? Not a Jewish leader. A gentile. That’s where the mission’s going (for Mark)
I think Luke’s conversation on the cross could be interpreted sarcastically: “Oh, WE deserve to be crucified, but not YOU (goody-two-shoes who’s hanging on a cross just like us). Hey, remember me when you come into your ‘kingdom’ (snicker)”. Jesus responds, “Hey, you’re gonna be dead just like me by the end of the day.” But I don’t think that’s how Luke really intended it. I doubt anyone recorded anything said while Jesus was on the cross, but it’s fun to speculate how such comments could be interpreted over time.
Maybe so. But Jesus didn’t hear the sarcasm then! And since it’s Luke who is the only one conveying the account (i.e., it’s not something that actually happened), and since he doesn’t take it that way, well, seems unlikely? Hey, unless Jesus is using sarcasm in response! Now we’re getting into interesting territory….
I believe I heard Dr. Goodacre present the idea on his podcast, here is a blog post where he supports the idea that the centurion’s “Truly this was the son of god” comment in Mark is sarcastic.
https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/centurions-sarcastic-cry-in-mark-1539.html
“To read the text in this way coheres with the rest of Mark’s Passion Narrative, which is commonly regarded as rich in irony. Jesus is repeatedly mocked as a king (15.9, 12, 18, 26, 32) with purple cloak, crown of thorns and mock homage (15.17-20), but the reader knows that he really is a king. He is mocked as a prophet (14.65) while his very prophecies are being enacted all around him (the mockery itself, fulfilling his Passion predictions, and Peter’s denial, fulfilling Jesus’ Last Supper prophecies). Given this context, it is difficult to think that the centurion’s remark can be intended as a “confession” of faith in Jesus. Reading the remark as the crowning element in the dramatic irony of Mark’s Passion Narrative makes good narrative sense.”
The blog post admits that this interpretation is not popular. He mentions John Fenton and Donald Juel as potential proponents.
Just change the last sentence to wishing us all a “Joyous Easter!” and I will offer a hearty “Amen”! In fact, I will “amen” this most appropriate and up-lifting sermon from this member of your congregation, because you have done a good a job as could be done on this day and unhappily likely better than most. So I am truly most grateful!
Thanks
Frank
Thoughtful post. … And put “Easter” in the blog’s search box to get a chance to read (or re-read) Bart’s 2018 thoughts.
Thanks Bart, that is something I needed to hear. Do you have any copies of sermons you gave when you were a pastor? I am sure alot of us would love to read them.
Not electronically!
You have company in not finding Easter as exhilarating as others. I too found it lacking. Personally the Maundy Thursday services always moved me more than Christmas (which is TOTALLY made up) or Easter. During my run today I listened to Christian music that was important to me during the years I was a believer and it gave me some sense of peace. I reflected that, unlike Christmas, this holiday is based upon at least partially true events of the crucifixion, the supposed discover of an empty tomb and the mystery and response that surrounded it. And then the world changed forever. So yes, Easter is significant whether you are a believer or not and it is worth our reflection. Thank you for yours! Stay well!
There’s a story about an Eastern sultan who asked his vizier to give him a message that would make a happy man sad and a sad man happy. The vizier searched all over the kingdom, until he came to an old jeweler. The jeweler said that he knew what message would do that and engraved it on a ring. The message was “This too shall pass.”
I’m not sure how one *literally* interprets any great truth. LIteralism is about facts, and facts matter. Facts are necessary and unavoidable (like viruses, though I’m trying my best). But truths are more important, because while facts are reality, truth is the meaning behind it–and meaning is something we create. Without consciousness, there is no meaning. We make it for ourselves, as do our animal brethren, in their own way, with their own forms of consciousness.
This is why fundamentalism is wrong, because it confuses the true and the real. But this is also why we can’t run away from the many truths (religious, philosophical, metaphysical, metaphorical, poetical) we and our ancestors have created together, which shaped the world we live in, and which have improved our lives, and at least given us the chance to overcome the worst in our natures, and evolve, over time, into the beings we were meant to be. Which I fully believe is what Jesus was trying to do, and we don’t need to worship him to feel his pain, to try and understand his truths, and be inspired by his sacrifice.
Now I’m going to self-distance some more. Happy Easter.
Thank you for words I needed to hear today. I was missing the old me. The me who used to feel joy. You reminded me that there is hope.
Brilliant. Thank you, Bart.
Wow. If I threw out your sentence near the end,” This is not a message I literally believe”, I would conclude it is a message from your first thirty years of life. I concur with all of your sentiment. I have felt the same way for most of my life. Good Friday, was the most important day for me as well, not understanding what it meant to dye for the sins of the world. One man’s sacrifice to redeem us. I was sad and maybe as you say, guilt overtook my emotions as well. My mother would always make fish of some sort on Good Friday, never meat, claiming it represented Jesus in the flesh. Oddly, ” The Ten commandments” was one movie that uplifted me, seeing the power of this supernatural God at work. Easter for me was more about eating normal again and never really grasped its celebratory effects on believers. Because I was young, the effect of the resurrection did not penetrate my heart yet. Being healthy and strong early in my life made me invincible and oblivious to the efficacy of its message, eternal life. Someone once told me, ” Love is the external manifestation of
hope and faith”. I never forgot.
This shows how you were a true Christian. Great post. Be blessed and stay well Bart.
Thank you, Bart. Touching and honest. I’m thankful to find my own feelings about Good Friday and Easter affirmed and substantiated.
There’s a strong “light at the end of the tunnel” predisposition in the American psyche. That has often served us well, but it doesn’t square with the message of the Gospels, or of the Old Testament scriptures either.
The aversion to looking deeply at evil and suffering is likely behind what has sometimes seemed to commentators outside our culture a kind of superficiality in the American spirit.
This theme of the suffering of Good Friday you talk about resonated with me in a special way this year – not because I am Christian (I am not), but because of a very common experience – the loss of a pet. One might think, c’mon, a cat passing away after a long and happy life – what’s the big deal? Yet it was a big deal for me, since she kept me company for many years when I lived alone, and I was in profound mourning for 3 whole days. During the time she was with me, my father passed away, and, I’m a bit embarrassed to say it, but I felt nothing like the pain and deep sense of loss I felt when my cat died. Be that as it may, mourning a loss is such an intense feeling that, reflecting on it now and at the time, it seemed to be pregnant with such a deep sense of meaning, even a kind of beauty, that I couldn’t deny the sanctity of the moment. I knew on a profound level that the suffering I was feeling in those moments had a deep purpose – what I didn’t know – I simply *knew* that it did. How my experience applies to other’s lives and situations I can’t say, but perhaps Pathos serves a purpose beyond our understanding?
I completely understand. We lost two cats and a very much beloved dog over the past year. It seems weird on the outside that such things can have such an effect, buut they do….
In this beautiful post you have managed somehow to express the ineffable.
This is one of your most magnificent columns. Thank you from NYC, a city truly in agony.
Hey Bart. Just registered for your 2-month trial a while back. This is a bit off topic but I just wanted to ask you about the “blood moon” prophecy that the Bible talks about. Many Christians would see a red moon one night and say that the end times are coming soon. They take passages from Joel, Acts 2 and Revelation to support this theory. Is there any insight you can give on this?
Yup, it’s been happening for as long as there were Christians, and so far, for nearly 2000 years, no one has been right yet! That sould at least give one pasuse.
I enjoyed listening to your recent interview with Terry Gross!
Quality of the audio seemed a little off (distant)–in contrast with some of your previous Terry Gross interviews.
Yup, world crises change things! This one was on Skype instead of in a studio. I hated the sound quality, but others said they got by fine with it considering everything going on. Glad you liked it anyway!
Dear Bart,
Thank you so much for your message that resonates in my heart, also, and I will share it with friends in our village congregation, many in the ‘at risk’ age group and now supporting each other on-line, by phone and through sending Easter cards via our wonderful postman.
We wish you a very happy Easter too!
Andrew.
My problem with the Christian response is the idea “you can’t handle this, you need God.” It teaches you to depend on a god because you can’t depend on yourself and others. But the god offered by Christianity doesn’t do anything that can be shown wouldn’t have happened without a god (I refer to answer to prayer). People are handling their problems with the help of other people then attributing their own actions as the work of a god. People are stonger and better able to handle this if they let go of the god idea and use the resources within themselves.
Dr. Ehrman, It’s a bit off topic , I learned from you among other things that the historical Jesus believed that when kingdom of God came his twelve desciples ( including Judas) would rule over the twelve tribes and Jesus himself would rule over them.
Jesus also believed that people who were dead would be raised from the dead bodily to live in the kingdom of God.
So Jesus must have thought that he would rule over Abraham and Moses…..and John the baptist in the kingdom of God.
It wasn’t so modest of him then ! if that was the case I wonder what was his reasons for thinking so highly of himself ?
It’s usually thought that he believed God had informed him of all this.
Thanks for this – hope you don’t mind if I quote you…
As long as you send me an envelope filled with ummarked large bills, it’s AOK. Or if you forget, I guess that’s AOK too.
Should Simon Peter be credited as the first person to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion?
The reason I ask is Peter is listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5 as the first in seeing Jesus alive. In Luke’s Gospel there is a isolated account where Peter sees Jesus resurrected in Luke 24:34. So is there a tradition where it was believed that Peter saw the resurrection of Jesus first?
Yes indeed, that does appear to be Paul’s view.
Prof Ehrman,
My question has to do with events in the Easter narrative. When Jesus is asked for a sign by the Pharisees, he gave them the ‘sign of Jonah’ and emphatically stressed in Matthew 12:39-40 – ‘…For as Jonah was in the great fish for three days and three nights, so I, the Messiah,[i] shall be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.’
NB – It was not the third day in this instance as it would have then been relative to the what the first day was. It was quite explicit – 3 days and 3 nights
So how can we deduce three days and three night from when Jesus is crucified (Friday noon/evening) to Sunday morning when he resurrects (that’s like 2 days and 2 nights)?
What are we to do with Jesus’s prophecy of 3 days, 3 night against the differing timelines we find in the Easter narrative.
The usual explanation is that Jews counted any part of a day as good enough to be considered a full 24-hour day.
Thank you for sharing your take on Easter. I was a pastor for 31 years and shared your perspective on Good Friday and Easter. I always felt Good Friday the more powerful service with an affirmation of real life suffering, with, at least at that point, no hope. The full church on Easter was nice; it was great to see everyone. There’s some very good music. But there was indeed a blandness about it for me, to paraphrase what you said, to see the joyful resolution without experiencing the pain and suffering it resolved.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for the uplifting and integral message. It reminds me of something, either Fr. Daniel Berrigan or Civil Rights activist Chris Hedges (I could be conflating them), said along parallel lines, ‘In the face of radical evil and suffering, acts of human kindness and resistance are ultimately what ensures that evil cannot conquer. And ultimately, faith is the belief that the good draws to it the good, even if all the empirical evidence around us says otherwise’. Happy belated Easter.
Thanks Bart, it lovely to hear some agnosticism from you. Jesus of Nazareth was cerainly a man aquainted with grief and suffering who ‘opened not his mouth’ to rescue himself, but only to express his agony ( I thirst; Eloi Eloi lama sabactani – Psalm 22); his compassion (behold your motther, behold your son; today you will be with me in paradise) and his destiny (Tetelesti – ?asahh from the end of psalm 22; and ‘into thy hands I commend my spirit’). Wow! A summary of human destiny. One small step is just to say Lord I beleive; help thou my unbelief. All that is required to make this step is humility and submission.
Nicely done. Your genuine respect for Christianity is noteworthy, admirable and amazing considering what you have learned and taught about the history of the religion. I need to do better at this “respect” part.
“In the end, love wins. Suffering ends. Pain disappears. Good triumphs.
This is not a message I literally believe. But it is a message that resonates in my heart, in a period of pain and darkness. And one that I choose to live for.”
You are quite an interesting individual; unique in my experience. I really enjoy reading your work and watching your videos. This is quite a lovely blog entry.
JonA April 16, 2020
You’re a killer, Bart. I read your 2020 Easter Reflection, including the last 3 lines. To my way of thinking you seem, for all practical purposes, to resemble a modern hybrid Christian clothed in agnostic-atheist garb. A useful combination or persona I might add. Especially in this day and age, and especially considering where you’ve come from.
Also I think this stance is quite beneficial, in that it is a good way to always be on guard against throwing out the baby with the Fundamentalist Christian bath water.
Best wishes. Stay well.
One can have hope without being a Christian!
Short term hope of course. Long term hope is more difficult to come by outside of a belief in the immortality of the soul (almost by definition). Of course, one can replace it with, hopes for ones children, one’s posterity and the long term effects one ones more charitable actions, but ultimately these hopes are deeply unsatisfying. On the other hand, as Paul said, If only for this life we [followes of Jesus] have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1Cor 15:19.
I dont’ think Christians are to be pitied because they are wrong about the afterlife. Paul may have thought so, but in his case it was because he was constantly being physically punished in very nasty ways for it.
Good point. Maybe Christians these days hedge their bets and try to get the best out of both worlds – literally 🙂
This year I witnessed the churches become the empty tomb on Easter and for me it was a profound realization. All across the world people were united through the suffering as we searched for unique ways to reach out to one another with hope. I saw marvelous examples of Jesus’ message unfolding in real life as nurses, doctors, police,etc….stepped up and sacrificed their comfort zone and possibly their lives to save others. There is no greater love……..
Also thankyou for your wonderful sermon. I enjoyed it very much…..
Please correct typo in paragraph before last:
” far beyond our ability to understand let along control.”
Shouldn’t it be “let alone”?
If I corrected all my typos I wouldn’t have time for a day job! But thanks. Gladd yu gott th poiint!
We find no easter in the Bible. Act 12.4 is correctly rendered “Passover” in virtually all modern translations. The name of ancient easter, non-biblical goddess of sex and prostitution was surreptitiously substituted in an attempt (quite successfully) to attack and discredit the biblical passover. Jesus suffered, died and was entombed on the Feast of Passover Wednesday before sunset, the beginning of the “high” sabbath, the first day of the biblical Feast of Unleavened Bread. He then rose three days and three nights later Saturday before sunset, several hours before the women arrived at the tomb early first day of the week, the day of the wave sheaf offering, Jesus himself appeared before God the Father in Heaven. Google “three days and three nights in the tomb” or “was Jesus resurrected on Sunday?” Pagan Sunday and easter worship were, without authority or portfolio, promoted by pagan Emperor Constantine. A brief review of his background reveal him to be no candidate for a disciple of Jesus authorized to change (pervert) Sabbaths painstakingly invented and implemented by creator, savior and coming king, Jesus Christ himself.
Bart,
Do you think the early creed in 1 Cor 15 ended with “he appeared to Cephas” (5a), or do you think the early creed ended with the appearance to “the twelve” (5b)?
I think it ended with “then to all the apostles.” (But I think “most of whom are still alive, thoguh some have fallen asleep” is Paul’s addition.)
Bart,
So just to clarify, do you think all of 1 Cor 15:3-7 (not including “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” in 15:6) was part of a *pre-Pauline* creed, i.e., a creed that was used by “the twelve” and “all the apostles”?
Also, do you think “all the apostles” in 1 Cor 15:3-7 *included* “the twelve” or was a group completely separate from “the twelve”?
I don’t understand your “i.e.” Yes, I think it is pre-Pauline. No, I don’t think there is evidence that it was a creed used by the twelve or all the apostles. And apparently “all the apostles” was a larger group then the twelve.
Bart,
Ok, so you think *all* of 1 Cor 15:3-7 (not including “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” in 15:6) was part of a Christian creed that existed *before* Paul converted to Christianity but Paul did not get this creed from any of the twelve or the apostles. Wow, I’ve never heard that approach before. Two follow on questions:
1] Where do you think Paul got the creed if not from any of the twelve or the apostles?
2] You said that “all the apostles” in the creed was a larger group than the twelve, but my question from before was do you think the twelve were *part* of the group called “all the apostles”?
Ah, no, sorry. “Pre-Pauline” is a technical term that doesn’t mean “before Paul was converted” (or, well, before he was born!); it means before Paul uses it in his letter. No telling when or where it came into being, other than it was some time before Paul wrote it in 1 Corinthians.
Bart,
Sorry, my bad, I thought “pre-Pauline” meant before Paul *converted*, not before Paul used something in one of his letters! Now that you set me straight on this, maybe a can ask better questions:
1] Do you think *all* of 1 Cor 15:3-7 (not including “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” in 15:6) was a *unity* before Paul used it, or do you think Paul has pieced two or more traditions together?
2] If you think Paul has pieced two or more traditions together, which traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7 do you think were separate before Paul pieced them together?
3] You said that “all the apostles” in the creed was a larger group than the twelve, but my question from before was do you think the twelve were *part* of the group called “all the apostles”?
1. I think it was a unity 3. yes, I think the 12 would be among the apostles.
Bart,
Three more questions if I could:
1] What is your % confidence level that *all* of 1 Cor 15:3-7 (not including 6b) was a *unity* before Paul received it instead of Paul being the first to combine the traditions in 6a and 7 with 3-5 (especially given the transition to epeita in 6a and 7a)?
2] Did David Moffitt convince you of your present position? The reason I ask is that Moffitt wrote in 2008 that you helped him with his view of 3-7 unity but also wrote, “For the past century the consensus position has been that only vv.3b–5 are part of a discrete pre-Pauline formula.”
3] To support his position Moffitt argues that 6b is *not* an apologetic for the veracity of the appearance to the 500 but is instead a preliminary reference to “those also who have died in Christ” mentioned later in vs.18. Is this your position?
1. I don’t do history by percentages. I’m pretty sure. 2. I don’t recall talking to or reading David Moffitt on the point. 3. Nope.
Bart,
You understandably don’t have much time so I’m reduced to asking bite sized questions. I hope you don’t mind. Two more questions:
1] Do you think 1 Cor 15:3-7 (except 6b) was initially *formed* as a unity, or do you think someone patched together several different traditions before passing the unified whole on to Paul?
2] If you think someone patched together several different traditions before passing the unified whole expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (except 6b) on to Paul, then which parts of the creed do you think circulated independently before being brought together?
They almost certainly formed the creed based on previously existing believed; whether the precise formulations were in circulation independently is a bit doubtful since the entire unit is nicely balanced, with one part reflecting the other, indicating a conscious creation out of previously existing ideas.
Bart,
If I follow your conclusion that some person or community created the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (minus 6b) all at once from previously existing beliefs (before Paul received it), then whoever created the creed put a *big* emphasis on the appearances of Jesus as *evidence* that Jesus was raised (the mention of the 500 especially leads to this conclusion). In your view, was this creed created in some isolated corner of the Christian community that escaped correction by church leaders (and then picked up by Paul), or would early Christian leaders (i.e., the 12 and all the apostles) have *agreed* that Jesus appeared to all of them and also to over 500 (or a large number) of people?
We don’t know.
Bart,
You said “we don’t know” if the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (minus 6b) was created in some isolated corner of the Christian community that escaped correction by church leaders (and was then picked up by Paul) or was professed by the 12 and all the apostles themselves, so you seem to think both are a possibility. Looking only at the second option, and given your view that only three or four people total had a vision of Jesus, what in your mind would one of the twelve or one of the apostles who did *not* have a vision of Jesus have said to someone who asked them to describe the appearance of Jesus to them?
I assume he wouldn’t say that Jesus appeared to him, but that Peter (or whomever) was the one who saw him.
Bart,
Could ώφθη be referring to dreams of Jesus among some of those listed in 1 Cor 15:5-7? If not, is it because ώφθη can never refer to dreams or because the context of the appearances as *evidence* for Jesus’ resurrection won’t allow it?
I haven’t looked, but I imagine the term could be used in a dream context (he appeared to me in a dream). As it turns out, ancients didn’t usually draw the fine line between dreams and visions that we today do.
Bart,
Can you please clear up a little confusion? You said earlier that if one of the twelve or one of the apostles who did *not* have a vision of Jesus had been asked by someone to describe their experience of seeing Jesus “he wouldn’t say that Jesus appeared to him, but that Peter (or whomever) was the one who saw him.” So are you saying here that some of the twelve and apostles were *simultaneously* proclaiming the creed in 1 cor 15:3-7 and yet denying they ever saw Jesus when asked, or are you saying that those among the twelve and the apostles who denied ever seeing Jesus were not *aware* that a Creed was circulating with a claim that they did see Jesus?
I’m not saying at all that the twelve were claiming they saw Jesus alive. I’m saying that the tradition embodied in the creed says that the twelve saw jesus alive. Big, big difference.
Bart,
I think I understand your position now, but just to confirm, are you saying that the creed expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (minus 6b) was circulating somewhere in the early Christian community but not among the twelve and all apostles themselves? If I got that right, doesn’t it seem strange to you that Paul would pass on a creed saying that the twelve and all the apostles saw Jesus without ever hearing that from any of the twelve or the apostles themselves?
I’m saying we have no way of knowing, and so we can’t assume that hte twelve were circulating it or base arguments on the claim that they were. I don’t think it’s any more strange that Paul would say what others were saying that it would be for you to say what others are saying without asking them. We all do that roughly a thousand times a day.
Bart,
I think I am finally running out of questions on this topic and appreciate your engagement, but I have at least two more questions:
1] If Jesus died in, say, 33 CE, what in your mind are the earliest and latest plausible dates for the initial formulation of the creed later expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-7?
2] Since Paul believed that Jesus appeared to all the people listed in 1 Cor 15:5-7, what do you think Paul thinks these people actually saw? A light? A ghostly image of Jesus? A corporeal looking image of Jesus? What?
1) I don’t think we have any grounds for saying when it was forumlated; my guess would be the late forties at the earliest, but it’s just a guess. Those people who boldly say it appeared just two or three years after Jesus’ death are just makin’ stuff up.
2) Paul almost certainly thought the others saw what he saw: Jesus himself, in body, returned from the dead and coming down from heaven.
Bart,
As I understand your hypothesis, Paul picked up a creed from some Christian community somewhere in the late 40s that said everyone listed in 1 Cor 15:5-7 had a corporeal appearance by Jesus, something Paul had never before heard from any of the twelve or the other apostles, but Paul believed it true anyway and never asked the twelve or any of the other apostles about these new traditions before passing them on to the Corinthians. Do I got that right?
No I definitely didn’t say that. We don’t know who he heard these things from. May I ask why you’re so invested in this specific issue? All we know is that Paul picked up this creedal statement from someone at some point and passed it along..
Bart,
Answering your question first: I think the appearance traditions in 1 Cor 15:5-7 are a fascinating and difficult historical puzzle to explain. My reason for pressing you so hard on this issue is that I respect your expertise and judgment on Christian origins and would like to more fully understand how you explain these appearance traditions.
Based on your last response (and those before) I now understand your hypothesis to be as follows: Paul picked up a creed from “someone” in the late 40s that Paul understood to be claiming that *everyone* listed in 1 Cor 15:5-7 had a corporeal appearance by Jesus, something Paul had never before heard from any of the twelve or the other apostles, but Paul believed it true and never asked the twelve or any of the other apostles about these new traditions before passing them on to the Corinthians. Now do I got your basic hypothesis right? If not, which part is wrong? It all seems to match up exactly with your responses to my previous questions.
No, I never said that Paul had never heard this from the apostles or the others. (I thought I had said that several times?) We don’t know who he heard it from or if anyone confirmed it to him. And yes, I know you want to know my opinion, but I’ve stated it a number of times but you are still asking me! Interested in other things?
Bart,
You said earlier of the creed expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-7, “we can’t assume that hte twelve were circulating it or base arguments on the claim that they were” and you also said, “I’m not saying at all that the twelve were claiming they saw Jesus alive.” But now you are saying, “I never said that Paul had never heard this [the creed expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-7] from the apostles or the others.” Which is it? In your view were some of the twelve or other apostles circulating the creed expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (which includes appearance claims they would have known were false) or not?
I’m not sure what our problem of communication is here. If I say that “We can’t assume that Nixon was in favor of sending more troops to Vietnam,” that is not the same thing as saying “Nixon was not in favor of sending more troops to Vietnam” We don’t know if some of the twelve were circulating the creed. That is not the same as saying the twelve were not circulating the creed.
Bart,
I got it that we don’t know whether or not some of the twelve or other apostles were circulating the creed (expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-7, minus 6b), but it would seem prudent to consider both possibilities to see where it leads. Possibly we can rule out one of the options. If the twelve or other apostles *were* circulating the creed, it would mean they were circulating traditions about Jesus appearing to themselves that they *knew* were false (on your theory only three or four people in total had a vision of Jesus and the appearance traditions function as *evidence* for Jesus’ bodily resurrection). I know people can say false things, but does it really seem plausible to you that all of the leaders in the early Christian movement would collaborate to encapsulate in a creed that big of an untruth?
OK, I think we’ve exhausted most of our resources on these few verses now. Let’ move on to something else.
Sorry Bart, looks to me like you are dodging the question, but I appreciate much of your other work.
Well, sorry you think so. I was being as clear as I could be. But let’s move on.