Matthew tells us that, after the resurrection, the apostles went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go, and there he appeared to them: “And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.” (Mt 28:17)
This does raise interesting questions about the nature of the resurrection appearances.
But what has captured my interest at present is that it suggests to me a solution to the oddities that (a) a number of apostles are nothing more than a name in a list and, in fact, the Gospels, though they agree there were twelve, can’t even agree on their names, and (b) most of the apostles disappear after the gospels leave off. We hear about Peter and John, most importantly in Paul’s letters where they are matched with James the Just (who, though he knew Jesus, wasn’t one of the twelve), but the rest of them seem just to fade away.
It seems that Matthew’s admission that Jesus’ own intimates doubted on seeing him risen, and implying they didn’t worship him with the rest, is something of an embarrassment. When I see an author bring up something embarrassing, without some obvious need or ulterior purpose, I generally presume it is because the embarrassing fact, or at least some effect of that fact, was already known to his audience so he has to own it and, perhaps, to try to recontexualize it so it wouldn’t be quite as embarrassing.
Can we put these pieces together and suggest that “some,” perhaps really “most,” of the apostles didn’t accept the resurrection and either weren’t part of the earliest Jesus movement (and instead just went back to pick up the pieces of their lives as best they could after the crucifixion) or that they were part of the post-crucifixion Jesus-movement but that they, unlike Peter, James, and John, belonged to a part of the movement that didn’t accept the resurrection (precursors to the Ebionites, perhaps?).
This might explain why the other apostles are made such minor figures in the gospels, and indeed why the gospels can’t get their names right: by the time the gospels were written these other early followers–unlike Peter, James, and John–had long left the movement and were known only vaguely or not at all, and to the degree they were remembered, they remained as something of an embarrassment to the proto-orthodox movement, as they had gone their own way and rejected one of its principal claims.
This also fits with it being Peter and John who, for example, examined the empty tomb (Jn. 20:3-9 cf. Lk 24:12). It would make sense to place Peter and John, who did teach the resurrection, at the tomb on Easter morning. Their authority as witnesses was what the early (proto-orthodox) Christians needed to establish.
Moreover, Peter and John were also, according to the gospels, among the the only witnesses of several key events (E.g., the transfiguration). The rest weren’t, which might have been an explanation of the embarrassing fact they the rest didn’t end up believing, while also bolstering the authority of Peter and John.
Going even deeper into totally speculative territory: I wonder whether the “Peter, James, and John” as they appear in the gospels (especially at the transfiguration or the garden) were originally anachronistic stories about the three pillars, Peter, James (the Just), and John, invented to bolster the credentials of the three pillars.
I’m really running with this idea now, but this theory (that Peter was one of the only apostles who accepted the resurrection) could also account for the petrine passages (e.g., Mt 16:17, Jn. 6:67-69; Lk. 22:32), and Peter’s generally being given the first place among the apostles–both in the gospels and in Paul.
This might all be just a flight of fancy, but it tantalizes me. Anybody want to clip my wings?
Well, I don’t know that this clips your wings, but it could just be as in the ghost shows where someone relating the stories says that he or she was a total skeptic before actually seeing it with his or her own eyes. In that case, it is just anticipating an obvious immediate reaction that is likely to be shared by anyone hearing the claim. In so doing, it establishes a kind of credibility . . . at least if one is inclined to be convinced. (What is usually lacking for these claims is any evidence that they were totally skeptical, and often there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of their claims of skepticism. Among these are often that they had been doing ghost investigations for years, which is not usually something that total skeptics do.)
JAS said
Well, I don’t know that this clips your wings, but it could just be as in the ghost shows where someone relating the stories says that he or she was a total skeptic before actually seeing it with his or her own eyes.
Yeah, but that’s the thing. It is one thing for the apostles to doubt the women on Easter morning when they claimed the tomb was empty. It is one thing for Thomas to doubt the report of the other apostles that they had seen Jesus risen. But the some who doubted in Matthew doubted after they actually saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes. And it is right at the close of the gospel–there is no subsequent, but then Jesus told them to touch his wounds and believe, or anything like that that would suggest they got a further experience and started to believe.
I do not see a problem here. They are seeing something that exceeds their understanding, at least at first, and question their senses (as anyone might). It suggests that they were not predisposed to believe. The trick is that they all ultimately come to believe, which I presume is supposed to convince those who later only hear or read about it.
The more I think about this the more sense it makes–I’m afraid I’m falling in love with the theory.
One of the main themes of the gospels, especially but not exclusively Mark, is that the apostles didn’t recognize Jesus or understand him.
Those Petrine passages make an awful lot of sense if the authors are trying to explain why Peter is the most outspoken of the the twelve in insisting on the resurrection, and if it was a notorious fact that most of the other apostles didn’t lend any credibility to the resurrection story (I have prayed for you that your faith not fail. . . . when you have been converted, strengthen your brothers . . .you are rock on this rock I will build my Church . . . flesh and blood has not revealed this to you.”
Again, it seems remarkable that in I Cor. 15: Paul names two individuals (as distinguished from groups), other than himself, who saw the risen Jesus: Peter and James.
JAS said
I do not see a problem here. They are seeing something that exceeds their understanding, at least at first, and question their senses (as anyone might).
I can see the rationale for that reading, but it isn’t the only one nor even, I think, the most obvious.
First, it doesn’t say they “wondered” or they “were troubled” or anything like that (compare for example Lk 1:29 or Mt 14:26, Lk 24:37). It says they doubted (ἐδίστασαν — they wavered, were of two minds, vacillated, hesitated, uncertain).
Second, you say they “doubted their senses at first”–but there is nothing in the text suggesting that they came to stop doubting their senses. The silence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but it is odd. Literally the last thing Matthew says about the apostles is that some doubted when they saw the risen Jesus: they doubted their own first-hand experience of the risen Jesus–full stop, end of story.
I don’t mean to suggest that this is some smoking bullet that proves the resurrection didn’t happen or anything like that–I know quite well a believer can reconcile this text to belief in the resurrection and to a belief that the apostles as a whole preached the resurrection.
But it seems to me that the text suggest a possibility–namely, that some significant number of apostles didn’t accept the resurrection–and that reading makes a whole lot of sense in light of other things in the earliest Christian writings–for example, the rather enigmatic end of Mark (mk 16:8).
Porphyry said
. . . The silence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but it is odd. Literally the last thing Matthew says about the apostles is that some doubted when they saw the risen Jesus: they doubted their own first-hand experience of the risen Jesus–full stop, end of story.
And this, I think, is precisely the problem with what you are suggesting. You are reading much into that silence, without any further supporting evidence. Where is the gospel account actively arguing that there was no claim of resurrection? (I am not saying that the resurrection did necessarily happen, merely that I think you are misleading yourself in your reading as to what is being said or implied.)
Stephen said
I am not a specialist but apparently there are translation issues at play in Mt 28:17. The word here translated as “doubt” is not the typical word used in the NT. It seems the word actually being used is more like hesitation born of astonishment rather than lack of belief.
Interesting; do you have a source you are get that from? I’d be interesting to see what is says.
JAS said
Porphyry said
. . . The silence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but it is odd. Literally the last thing Matthew says about the apostles is that some doubted when they saw the risen Jesus: they doubted their own first-hand experience of the risen Jesus–full stop, end of story.
And this, I think, is precisely the problem with what you are suggesting. You are reading much into that silence, without any further supporting evidence. Where is the gospel account actively arguing that there was no claim of resurrection?
I think one of us is misreading the other, and I’m not sure who is misreading whom.
I think the gospel authors do accept the resurrection and intend to teach and defend it to their readers.
Thus, the apostles who were known to have testified to the resurrection would have been privileged in the gospels’ histories both because they were better remembered–being part of the same movement that the gospel authors came from and so they and their stories would have been better known to the gospel authors–but also because their authority was important for that community to establish–so there would have been a tendency to exaggerate their intimacy with the historical Jesus.
This in contrast to the apostles who didn’t accept the resurrection, and so either weren’t part of the Jesus movement at all, or who were part of that strain within the Jesus movement that didn’t accept the resurrection (thus naturally forgotten with time simply because they weren’t part of the community that the gospel authors were part of), and who were moreover an embarrassment to the gospel authors, who needed to be downplayed and whose lack of faith in the resurrection needed to be accounted for and, so far as possible, explained away.
I don’t think I’m reading into silence. Again, Matthew leaves the story with some of the apostles doubting, much like Mark ends with the apostles never even hearing about the resurrection. I’m taking the text, in some sense, at face value. The one who wishes to maintain that the apostles overcame their doubts somehow and began preaching the resurrection are adding something that isn’t in the text.
I guess what it comes down to is that to adjudicate definitively between the two readings, what we need is access to the historical context of the gospels that we simply don’t have. Was it generally known that the apostles as a group preached the resurrection, or was it an awkward and notorious fact that a number of the apostles didn’t preach the resurrection? I don’t think we have good sources on that question. I’m just pointing out that the latter seems to be possible, and it would fit really well with the texts that we do have.
, and question their senses (as anyone might).
But Ehrman said :
The reason this question is so pressing is because, as we will see later in this chapter, modern research on visions has shown that visions are almost always believed by the people who experience them. When people have a vision – of a lost loved one, for example – –they really and deeply believe the person has been there. So why were the visions of Jesus not always believed? Or rather, why were they so consistently doubted?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
jakejones said
, and question their senses (as anyone might).
But Ehrman said :
The reason this question is so pressing is because, as we will see later in this chapter, modern research on visions has shown that visions are almost always believed by the people who experience them. When people have a vision – of a lost loved one, for example – –they really and deeply believe the person has been there. So why were the visions of Jesus not always believed? Or rather, why were they so consistently doubted?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Thanks for digging that up. Obviously directly germane.
Nihil novum sub solum, I guess.
You at least seem to be saying that Matthew has some of the apostles doubting, and leaves it there. And because there isn’t a continuation that has them coming around, or at least a defensive discourse defending the idea of resurrection, you seem to be saying that suggests that the doubts remained. I would argue precisely the opposite.
JAS said
You at least seem to be saying that Matthew has some of the apostles doubting, and leaves it there. And because there isn’t a continuation that has them coming around, or at least a defensive discourse defending the idea of resurrection, you seem to be saying that suggests that the doubts remained.
Right. Matthew acknowledges that even after seeing the risen Jesus, some apostles doubted, and that is where he ends the story. Mark–whom I privilege for his antiquity, similarly ends his gospel with the apostles not even hearing about the empty tomb, let alone seeing the risen Christ. One can say the gospels don’t tell the whole story, but we can’t say that that those further details are part of what Mt and Mk say.
Again, it is one thing to say “I didn’t understand when Jesus predicted he would die and rise; I didn’t even believe it when others told me he had risen, but I came around when I saw him risen myself and spoke to him and saw him eat” and another thing entirely to say, “Some didn’t believe even when they saw him themselves; finis.”
I don’t think what we have here can be taken naturally as credibility building. In credibility building you always mention the thing that brought you around (“I was incredulous until . . . “); That is the sort of thing you get in Lk and Jn, but not in Mt and certainly not in Mk.
I would argue precisely the opposite.
The floor is yours.
Well, there is no further discourse because the writer did not see it as necessary. The presumption, without evidence to the contrary is that they came around, probably with little effort. We have extended debates within the church about the nature of Jesus being divine or human or somehow divine and human. We can see that there were extended debates about whether or not traditional Jewish laws still applied to new converts. We do not have a debate about the resurrection. Again, I am not arguing that it means that the resurrection happened, merely that it has not be a seriously questioned event . . . among the main followers.
For Dr. Ehrman’s post, I note several points. First, what he is arguing is the possibility that not all of the apostles saw a vision of resurrection, which is certainly possible. (If that is all of what you are arguing, then I agree that it is possibly what is meant.) I would not put much weight on studies saying that modern visions “almost always” (which is an “almost” and thus not conclusive even if one accepts that judgement) accepted by the viewer. Exactly how many cases where someone saw a vision and did not believe it are likely to be recorded?
JAS said
Well, there is no further discourse because the writer did not see it as necessary. The presumption, without evidence to the contrary is that they came around, probably with little effort.
My point is that that presumption is an unwarranted presumption. Is it possible that the authors presumed it was know and so felt no need to say any more, yes. Is it implied by the text, or is it the only reasonable way to read the text, no, not at all.
We have extended debates within the church about the nature of Jesus being divine or human or somehow divine and human. We can see that there were extended debates about whether or not traditional Jewish laws still applied to new converts. We do not have a debate about the resurrection. Again, I am not arguing that it means that the resurrection happened, merely that it has not be a seriously questioned event . . . among the main followers
We do indeed have evidence that some of the earliest christians doubted or denied the resurrection. 1 cor 15 presupposes that the resurrection was in question. And the ebionites seem not to have believed in the resurrection.
Porphyry said
We do indeed have evidence that some of the earliest christians doubted or denied the resurrection. 1 cor 15 presupposes that the resurrection was in question. And the ebionites seem not to have believed in the resurrection.
I was careful to say among the main followers, even though that was our original context.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert