Paul says that Christ appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to five hundred at once , to James and all the apostles and finally even to me. When he was in Damascus for three years, what did he tell his converts about where and when these appearances occurred?
Some possibilities are:-
1. No-one, including Paul, was interested in these details so they were never discussed.
2. Paul said that he didn’t know any details but the reports were genuine. People believed him without further questioning.
3. Paul said that the appearance to the twelve had occurred in Galilee, which is what he had learnt while persecuting people in Jerusalem, and his own experience occurred on his journey to Damascus.
4. Paul said that the appearances had occurred in Jerusalem as reported in the gospels, which is what he had learnt while persecuting people there, and his own experience occurred on his journey to Damascus.
What other possibilities do you suggest? Which one do you think is most probable?
Just to clarify, Mark and Matthew say that Jesus appeared to them in Galilee (cf. Mt 28:16-17 & Mk 16:7), but Luke and John have him appearing to them in Jerusalem (cf. Lk 24:23-26), while John has him appear to them again in Galilee after first meeting them in Jerusalem (cf. Jn 21:1). This is a major discrepancy in the stories of the gospels, since Luke-Acts says that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem until Pentecost (cf. Lk 24:49 & Ac 1:4), while Matthew and Mark say that Jesus’s resurrection appearance to the women instructed them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, and John mixes the stories together. It’s a real problem.
I know that this doesn’t address your main question, but I just thought it was worth pointing out.
It’s often thought that Mark is writing in the shadow of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. It’s also suggested that he expects not just an appearance of the resurrected Jesus in Galilee but the Parousia itself. So perhaps he’s projecting back onto Jesus his own apocalyptic expectations. Matthew follows Mark. Luke and John are responding to the delay in the Parousia and reflect the actual historical situation, that there was an active Jerusalem community right up to the First Revolt. I have often suspected it is a mistake to assume because Mark is the earliest gospel that he is therefore always more historically reliable than the other gospels.
Jaihare,
Paul told his converts that Jesus was resurrected on the third day, which is consistent with accounts by Luke and John.
Mark does not say that Jesus actually appeared to the disciples in Galilee, just that they were told that he was going there.
Matthew reports that the women saw Jesus by the tomb on the Sunday morning and then says that the eleven disciples “made their way to Galiliee”, not that they fled there in panic when Jesus was arrested. This could mean that they remained in Jerusalem for days or weeks after the crucifixion but eventually “made their way to Galilee” where Jesus appeared to them. In that case, there is no inconsistency between the gospels, just different versions of the same events. The gospels are all consistent with the supposition that the disciples were in Jerusalem on the Sunday after the crucifixion.
The question is that if the disciples did actually flee to Galilee when Jesus was arrested, how did Paul and the gospel writers get things wrong?
jaihare said
Just to clarify, Mark and Matthew say that Jesus appeared to them in Galilee (cf. Mt 28:16-17 & Mk 16:7), but Luke and John have him appearing to them in Jerusalem (cf. Lk 24:23-26), while John has him appear to them again in Galilee after first meeting them in Jerusalem (cf. Jn 21:1). This is a major discrepancy in the stories of the gospels, since Luke-Acts says that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem until Pentecost (cf. Lk 24:49 & Ac 1:4), while Matthew and Mark say that Jesus’s resurrection appearance to the women instructed them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, and John mixes the stories together. It’s a real problem.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Jesus exists because we have multiple attestations equals erroneous thinking given this illustration of the declarations.
attestation: evidence or proof of something, a declaration that something exists or is the case, the action of being a witness to or formally certifying something
Steefen said
jaihare said
Just to clarify, Mark and Matthew say that Jesus appeared to them in Galilee (cf. Mt 28:16-17 & Mk 16:7), but Luke and John have him appearing to them in Jerusalem (cf. Lk 24:23-26), while John has him appear to them again in Galilee after first meeting them in Jerusalem (cf. Jn 21:1). This is a major discrepancy in the stories of the gospels, since Luke-Acts says that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem until Pentecost (cf. Lk 24:49 & Ac 1:4), while Matthew and Mark say that Jesus’s resurrection appearance to the women instructed them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, and John mixes the stories together. It’s a real problem.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Jesus exists because we have multiple attestations equals erroneous thinking given this illustration of the declarations.
attestation: evidence or proof of something, a declaration that something exists or is the case, the action of being a witness to or formally certifying something
Is this “Steve Campbell” you or someone else? I have trouble with the way that you post to people generally. I see that you tend not to use the feature. Are you quoting yourself from Historical Accuracy, quoting someone else, or just responding in your own words here? I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say to me. The first sentence you wrote seems to me to be two sentences rammed together.
Jesus exists because we have multiple attestations [of his existence].
[The claim that we have] multiple attestations [that confirm his existence] equals erroneous thinking…
I’d really like to understand what you mean, but I don’t. You can see that I’m trying to piece together what you mean. Perhaps you can rewrite it so that I can understand your meaning?
Thanks.
Blackwell said
Paul says that Christ appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to five hundred at once , to James and all the apostles and finally even to me. When he was in Damascus for three years, what did he tell his converts about where and when these appearances occurred?Some possibilities are:-
1. No-one, including Paul, was interested in these details so they were never discussed.
2. Paul said that he didn’t know any details but the reports were genuine. People believed him without further questioning.
3. Paul said that the appearance to the twelve had occurred in Galilee, which is what he had learnt while persecuting people in Jerusalem, and his own experience occurred on his journey to Damascus.
4. Paul said that the appearances had occurred in Jerusalem as reported in the gospels, which is what he had learnt while persecuting people there, and his own experience occurred on his journey to Damascus.
What other possibilities do you suggest? Which one do you think is most probable?
I don’t consider Acts to be a trustworthy historical source for anything about Paul, so that eliminates #3 and #4.
I would think that people were interested in hearing about how Jesus appeared to Paul, but is very elusive about his experiences. In 2 Cor. he says he’s not permitted to speak about going up to heaven so my guess is that he handled all the questions that way (i.e. “I can’t talk about it”).
Paul’s Visions and Revelations
12 It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. 3 And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows— 4 was caught up into paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)