Former Catholic, atheist for about 40 years since then. I’ve been enjoying Dr. Ehrman’s books, online courses (“How Jesus Became God”) and recently the podcasts. And I felt like Bart explained pretty well something I’ve wondered about: assuming Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead (which has been my assumption all these years), how did the “story” of how he did get started? And HJBG does a pretty convincing job of explaining/theorizing that the legends were passed down orally to people who were nowhere near Jerusalem in 33 ADish and we have no written accounts by people who were eyewitnesses (the Gospels being “attributed to” but not actually written by the disciples.
But this morning listening to “Did Paul Accept the Teachings of Jesus” on the Misquoting Jesus podcast, Bart mentions that Paul claims to have met with Peter and James not that long after the death of Jesus (a couple of years?), so it sounds like either those two said, “Yes, Jesus died but then days later he came back and hung out with us for a while, eating food, etc.” Do we think that’s what happened? Or is it more likely they each/both said they had a “vision” of Jesus after death (that could have been a dream?).
Or did they say nothing of the kind and Paul just claimed they did anyway because he needed the resurrection story to be true?
Bread is bread, welcome.
There are reasons to think that the earliest form of resurrection belief was as an apotheosis. God exalted Jesus to divine status. Subsequent “appearances” of the resurrected Jesus were probably visions and/or dreams. The dream hypothesis gets short shrift in many discussions but it’s useful to remember that to the ancients dreams were experiences of events external to themselves. They had no concept of the personal unconscious or subconscious. (I’ve had the experience myself of a particularly vivid dream of a recently deceased loved one giving me words of comfort. As a modern I’m content with the psychological explanation that one part of my brain was giving another part an experience denied in waking but if I lived in an ancient culture…? I could believe that this person returned.)
I think the idea of the resurrection of Jesus as some sort of resuscitation from out of an empty tomb came later when there were questions about the reality of the resurrection. A resuscitation does not appear to be Paul’s view.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I, too, assume the reports of Jesus “visiting” with the Apostles after death were most likely dreams (because the idea that He walked around after death visiting people seems singularly unlikely). But in my head after taking in Ehrman’s scholarship via the videos, podcasts and books was that when people started writing things down (30, 50, 100 years later) they were mostly sharing oral traditions they were familiar with. Because we don’t have anything written by eyewitnesses.
But Paul having met and talked with Peter and James – that’s only “second”-hand testimony vs. the gospels written by people 30+ years removed. Like, if I were Paul talking to Peter and James, I’d be, like, “So, you actually talked to him after he rose from the dead? And had dinner with him? Who else was there?” I’d probably want to interrogate them pretty thoroughly before believing something as fantastical as a man raised from the grave.
But of course that’s me and my 20/21st century mindset and accumulated knowledge. Apparently Paul had his own “vision” (before meeting Peter and James, I think), so maybe he didn’t need much convincing.
It’s fascinating because in 30 CE there was no printing, no “media” per se, most people couldn’t read or write so if these things did happen they left no real historical record. And if they didn’t (which I assume), there was either a conspiracy to promote a false narrative or there was enough “circumstantial” evidence to convince believers it was plausible and then they just keep making up details to make it more believable because they were convinced the underlying fact (of resurrection) was true even without first or second-hand knowledge.
But Paul having met and talked with Peter and James – that’s only “second”-hand testimony vs. the gospels written by people 30+ years removed. Like, if I were Paul talking to Peter and James, I’d be, like, “So, you actually talked to him after he rose from the dead? And had dinner with him? Who else was there?” I’d probably want to interrogate them pretty thoroughly before believing something as fantastical as a man raised from the grave.
But remember, Paul had his own experience of the risen Jesus; I’m sure he compared noted with the pillars when he spoke to them, but I don’t think he was looking to them to give him a reason to believe, he was already convinced.
Paul wrote that he had a revelation of the resurrected Jesus. Because it was his idea to sell his teachings and give them “divine” accreditation. A way as old as time and never gets old. “Serapis visited me because he loves me” Ptolemy. “Gabriel appeared to me and you must listen to me” – Muhammad. “The Angel Moroni appeared to me, and you must listen to me” Joseph Smith.
The entire narrative layer of the letters is pure fiction and a literary construct. A shy and traditional construct – everyone did it.
Only the evangelists brazenly announced the alleged testimonies of witnesses that Jesus was wandering around Galilee, but it was boring, so he went to Jerusalem. They did not have the courage to sign what they came up with.
And this fiction appealed to a wide audience.
But Paul having met and talked with Peter and James – that’s only “second”-hand testimony vs. the gospels written by people 30+ years removed.
We only have Paul’s version unfortunately but it is interesting to consider Paul’s attitude towards the original disciples as expressed in his surviving letters. Paul can’t just come out and say they’re full of sh*t, although he comes close in a couple places, so he is forced to continuously defend and uphold his own authority as an apostle. As the saying goes, he probably lost all the battles but ultimately won the war. If Ehrman is correct and Paul knew no Aramaic then whatever conversation that took place would have been limited by translation. Who knows what James, et al, really thought of Paul?
If I may explain my opinion (although I’m sure many will disagree considering ai’m evangelical)
I’m not sure I would directly compare Jesus to Mohammed (or even Joseph Smith) in the whilst we do have Mohammed claiming to of seen something he’s only one person in a cave (easier to explain away with hallucination or something) and I could go into Joseph Smith but don’t wanna bore you all but the witnesses of them can’t really be trusted either but the disciples all claimed to of seen something. But I would agree that Paul when he had his experience on the Damascus Road was arguably already convinced and just met the disciples (which we know from 1 cor 15) to make sure he wasn’t preaching heresy and it might of possibly of been a dream but then is it plausible that everyone has the same dream and as for the written accounts it’s always been my view that Mark knew Peter which he got his info from and then John was a direct eyewitness himself hence why his info is so different from the rest.
This however isn’t meant to be contentious or me trying to do some evangelism was just some personal thoughts when reading the forum
Tbf that’s a good point as Mark isn’t an eyewitness but got his info from Peter (who must’ve been making these claims if he got the info from him) and then John and Matthew I think are eyewitnesses with Luke not being an eyewitness but using the same sources although know many people will probably disagree with this as I think the gospel authorship is quite a debated topic so am interested to hear if someone has views that suggest otherwise as I’ve never really heard any arguments against the traditional authorship attribution to the gospels
If you are taking for granted the traditional attribution of the gospels, your argument has some plausibility.
But that traditional attribution is relatively late and extremely problematic.
The attribution starts with Papias (early 2nd cent), he describes two gospels and attributes one to Mark and one to Matthew. But there are problems:
First his descriptions of the two works are brief, so we aren’t sure that he is describing the books we know as Mt and Mk; in fact, what he does say about them doesn’t match what we have. He says Mark wrote down the stories and teachings from Jesus that Peter told, but without concern for order; but what we have in canonical Mark is a carefully structured narrative. Similarly he says Matthew wrote the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew: but canonical Matthew seems to have been composed in Greek and again, it is not a sayings Gospel (like, say Thomas), it is, rather, a narrative.
A second problem is that it is pretty clear that the gospel of Matthew copies large sections of text from Mark. But if Matthew was an eyewitness, why would he so slavishly copy the work of a man who was not an eyewitness? Even the story of Matthew’s own calling was borrowed from Mark, with no hint that it was autobiographical.
Third, Papias elsewhere recounts the story of how Judas died and it is completely different from what we get in Matthew. so, either Papias didn’t have canonical Matthew, or he did have the same book we know today as Matthew but didn’t consider it trustworthy–which would be strange if the thought it had been written by an apostle.
Finally, Papias is completely unreliable, and even early Chrisitans said so.
Gosh that’s a compelling case against Papias will definitely look at those links now thanks for all that info that will definitely help me when investigating the authorship of the Gospels as this is always an area I’ve really been meaning to study as it holds a lot of weight on whether Christianity can be considered true or not as if there are no eyewitness accounts of the ressurection (apart from Paul in 1 cor which I’m sure we’d all agree on) then that greatly damages the case for the ressurection.
Yeah, it turns out that there is very very little reliable historical information about most of the twelve (unless we trust the gospels themselves as reliable records, though even then there are some of whom we know almost nothing).
Paul tells us a little bit about Peter, James, and John.
Josephus tells us a bit about James (the Just, the brother of Jesus), namely that he was killed through an irregular judicial proceeding, which was commonly regarded as unjust.
1 Clement, if it can be trusted on such matters, tells us Peter died in Rome.
The Gospel of John seems to indicate that Peter had already died before the gJohn was completed.
I’m doing this from memory, so maybe I missed something, but that’s about it. Note that we get very very little information about what they believed and what they claimed happened–Peter, James, and John were clearly still active in the movement, so presumably they had some sort of faith in Jesus after the crucifixion, likely at least Peter and James had some sort of religious experience in which they saw Jesus (Paul says that they, as well as all the 12 saw the risen Jesus, but that is Paul’s claim; it isn’t clear where he got this claim from and it isn’t clear what they actually said happened). Paul also indicates that James was the head of a faction that was more rigorously Jewish in its understanding of Christianity, and this conforms with what Josephus says about him being known–even to Jews–as “the Just”.
Most of the apostles only appear in the gospels, and even there, some of them are little more than names, and even when they are just names, the gospels can’t always agree on those names were. For all we know, the rest of the 12 decided they had made a big mistake in believing Jesus was the messiah and went back to try to pick up the pieces of their former lives after Jesus was executed, and that might be why they leave no record and why the authors of the gospels, four-plus decades later, can’t even agree on what their names were.
Can see where you are coming from Robert but then also if Christ didn’t ressurect like it says in
1 cor 14:14-19
“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
So whilst I see what you mean but if Christ hasn’t saved us from our sins then whilst he does have some good teachings then woulf you agree that ultimately Christianity without the atonement is futile?
Also is it possible Matthew copied Mark because he maybe wanted a balanced viewpoint when retelling the events especially if Mark did use Peter (another disciple) as his source although this doesn’t explain the problems you have raised with Mark as Mark would have to be who we have traditionally attributed him to be in order for this to make sense (Hoping I make sense as well 😂)
Let’s suppose Paul . . . saw the resurrection as . . . little more than a very high admiration for a man and his teachings within an apocalyptic worldview.
I still can’t make any sense out of this.
Take 1 Cor. 15:12-18, what does that mean if “being raised from the dead” is simply a matter of having Paul’s admiration? Just rephrase it, glossing “raised from the dead” with “admired by Paul”:
Now if Christ is preached as [admired by me], how can some of you say that there is no [being admired by me]? 13 But if there is no [being admired by me], then Christ has not been [admired by me]; 14 if Christ has not been [admired by me], then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he [caused] Christ [to be admired by me], whom he did not [cause to be admired by me] if it is true that the dead are not [admired by me]. 16 For if the dead are not [admired by me], then Christ has not been [admired by me]. 17 If Christ has not been [admired by me], your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
The whole thing becomes utter nonsense. Even if Paul didn’t think of resurrection in bodily terms, he certainly thought it was something quite significant that God really did to Jesus and would do to others, not mere admiration from those you left behind at your death.
Also, if “being raised from the dead” is simply a matter of being admired by Paul for one’s life and teachings, why does Paul tell use nothing about Jesus’s life and teachings (aside from the bare skeleton of Jesus’ being born of a woman–like everyone–; killed in obedience to God–whatever that means for Paul–, and raised from the dead)? I think it is fairly clear that for Paul, who Jesus is is what makes Jesus’ death significant, and the resurrection was the effect and, importantly, the proof of the significance of what Jesus did. But for the resurrection to be proof, it has to be a real and remarkable divine action. A divine action that has been observed to be true as an historical fact.
I think we have to accept that the earliest Christians really did come to believe that Jesus had been raised–bodily or spiritually doesn’t much matter. And I have a hard time thinking this belief can be separated from the fact that Christianity survived as a movement. The only reason we even know the name Jesus today is that people thought he was the Christ after he was crucified. And the reason they thought he was the Christ was they believed God vindicated him by raising him from the dead, which they thought was a fact that had been empirically established.
“is it possible Matthew copied Mark because he maybe wanted a balanced viewpoint when retelling the events”
That doesn’t seem plausible to me once you get into the details of how Mt used Mk.
I can understand someone consulting another source to refresh his memory, but in that case I would expect him to still tell the story in his own words. Here the dependence will be subtle.
I can imagine someone using another source to fill in gaps (e.g., “I wasn’t there when this happened, so I will just copy the best version of the story I have”).
That doesn’t fit with things like Matthew’s copying his own vocation out of Mark.
It also doesn’t explain editorial fatigue, in which Matthew copies a story from Mark, but makes some changes near the start, and by the end forgets the changes he has made and falls back to just copying the source thoughtlessly so that the story no longer makes any sense (particularly clear, for example, if you compare their tellings the story of John the Baptist’s beheading).
@Porphyry
“The attribution starts with Papias (early 2nd cent),”
the earliest surviving attribution is Papias – that doesn’t mean it started with Papias.
“First his descriptions of the two works are brief, so we aren’t sure that he is describing the books we know as Mt and Mk; in fact, what he does say about them doesn’t match what we have. He says Mark wrote down the stories and teachings from Jesus that Peter told, but without concern for order; but what we have in canonical Mark is a carefully structured narrative.”
Papias is attempting to defend Mark from criticism. This is exactly what we would expect from a gospel which seems to leave out so much material. Papias’s defence is that Mark only wrote down what he heard Peter say. That Mark was not trying to write an ordered account of the life of Jesus but only what he hear Peter preach.
“A second problem is that it is pretty clear that the gospel of Matthew copies large sections of text from Mark. But if Matthew was an eyewitness, why would he so slavishly copy the work of a man who was not an eyewitness? Even the story of Matthew’s own calling was borrowed from Mark, with no hint that it was autobiographical.”
What would Matthew change the name “Levi” to “Matthew” in the “calling of Levi”?
“Third, Papias elsewhere recounts the story of how Judas died and it is completely different from what we get in Matthew. so, either Papias didn’t have canonical Matthew, or he did have the same book we know today as Matthew but didn’t consider it trustworthy–which would be strange if the thought it had been written by an apostle.”
Papias didn’t consider Matthew to be the infallible word of god – which isn’t strange even if he thought Matthew to be an eyewitness. Just because someone is an eyewitness of Jesus doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong about what happened to Judas.
“this conforms with what Josephus says about him being known–even to Jews–as “the Just””
Where does Josephus say the jews thought of James as being “the Just”?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)