Loading...QUESTION on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:
“3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ”
Where do you think he got his information from especially on the 500? Many say it could only have come from Peter or James or else he made it up, which would be odd.
RESPONSE:
It’s a great question, and as with many great questions, I don’t think there’s a great answer. There are several things we can say. Paul did know both Peter and James, and so presumably they told him that they had had visions of Jesus. He knew lots of other Christians who either were Christians before he was or who knew Christians who were Christians before he was. Or who were later Christians who had heard stories that were allegedly told by Christians who were Christians before he was.
My sense is that *any* of these sources could have been his sources of information, and there is no way to evaluate why one of these sources has a better claim to being *the* source from any other source.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, WHY WAIT?!?
Brilliant. Many thanks for taking the time out to answer that.
John
Evangelical apologists like Gary Habermas regularly claim that the vast majority of biblical scholars accept 1 Cor 15 as evidence the early disciples had individual as well as collective visions of the risen Jesus. Is this really a rock-solid historical data widely acknowledged in critical scholarship?
Most scholars agree with it. I won’t be mentioning Habermas in my book, but I will be going into the matter at some length. I’m not sure there were group visions — although there certainly could have been. There are group visions of Mary all the time (I’m not sure what Habermas thinks of those, since they seem to have even better evidence than the group visions of Jesus, but he certainly doesn’t believe they really happened.)
Some evangelical apologists may be open to the possibility of the Blessed Virgin appearing to people throughout history. Claims of Marian apparitions only face vehement rejection from Protestant fundamentalists. Some Protestants may be willing to admit they have been missing out on something important enjoyed by their Catholic brethrens. Marian apparitions don’t present a serious challenge to apologetical claims about the visionary experiences of the early Christians, after all Catholic Christians believe in both. What would more seriously undermine this type of apologetics are well-attested appearances (or at least better attested than the New Testament visionary accounts) of deities, angels and spirits in non-Christian religions. I am looking into the post-canonical Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu literature. It is necessary to look into post-canonical but nonetheless formative and influential literature of these traditions, because the canonical literature are either intended to be a-historical or refer to events centuries ago. I will let you know what I find! May take some time though.
Well that would be interesting, if you were right. Most of the protestant Christian apologists that I know (all of them, in fact!) are very strongly anti-Catholic. When I was in those circles we did not think Catholics were Christian!
A number of the evangelical apologists you had debated with are not anti-Catholic: William Lane Craig (he is comfortable with the official Catholic position on Mary who is not seen as object of worship, nor instrumental in salvation), Dinesh D’Souza (he has a Catholic upbringing but now describes himself as a non-denomination Christian and until recently was president of an evangelical Bible college). I envisage biblical scholars and apologists such as Craig Evans, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas are not anti-Catholic.
Well-known contemporary British evangelical apologists are typically not anti-Catholic.
Moodys Bible Institute probably churn out anti-Catholic apologists.
Calvinist apologists like James White may be anti-Catholic.
My feeling is that in the 21st century, there is a lot less hostility between Catholics and evangelicals.
Yes, I’m not saying they’re all anti-Catholic. But I would be AMAZED if any of the ones you’ve named would be willing to concede that the Blessed Virgin Mary has actually appeared to her followers. If you find out otherwise, do let me know — I’d love to hear it!
Let me start by saying that I do not ” believe in ” the Virgin Mary apparitions but I find the contemptuous dismissal of them by holders of Pauline theology both puzzling and a bit arrogant . Paul himself proudly claimed that he had not received his revelation from any living person but rather from Jesus who had died some years earlier . Now if you want to hold that dead people do not ” appear ” and instruct the living , fine ( that happens to be my own ” belief ” ) but if you are willing to base your belief system on a private revelation given to an individual 2,000 years ago , I would think that a respectful attitude would be called for . Intellectual honesty would demand the same yardstick be used to measure my beliefs as I use to measure yours .
I find it very interesting that critical scholars consider the visions by the “500” to be historical. This seems to me to be extremely thin evidence. The clear theological benefit suggests to me that it should be regarded with suspicion.
Assuming it is historical*, isn’t it possible that a star or constellation was identified and claimed to be the risen Jesus? This seems consistent with the 3-tier universe, and (according to Dale Martin, in “The Corinthian Body”) consistent with the beliefs that many people had regarding what happened to heroes after death.
* I assume “500” is not taken literally, and that they take it to mean “a whole bunch of people.”
I myself don’t think the vision to the 500 is historical. But yes, it would mean a whole lot of people.
Bart,
I have two related questions to add to your list based on your post above…it has to do with numbers and witnesses to events.
In reading the Gospels, and especially in Mark, I keep hearing of the great crowds that followed Jesus, and Jesus having to retreat to give himself space even climbing into a boat, and the feeding of the 5000 (twice), and statements such as **all of Galilee came to hear him* and his Sermon on the Mount speaking to vast numbers of people at one time, and constant references to “the crowds.”.
Is this not an exaggeration? I also read that Jesus stayed in and around Galilee most of his life, that he was not known to either Pilot or even to the Roman centurions (but had to be pointed out by Judas) and that the Temple mount was so large (25 football fields in size) that his disruption was a minor offense if even noticed at all, and what language did Jesus speak in order to have a discussion with Pilot, and so on.
All of this leads me to believe that these stories of Jesus and his fame were highly exaggerated by the witnesses.
On a good day I can hardly remember what I did the day before, but these stories can be remembered for decades in great detail…I don’t think so. And there are many stories where there would be no one present to remember or oven witness what happened, such as Jesus’ meeting with Pilot (Jesus didn’t have a secretary with him to jot down what happened).
So, two related questions:
1. To me, these huge numbers seem to be highly exaggerated. What do you think based on the texts?
2. Literacy was very small in those days. One even expects that Jesus may not have know how to read. There were no scribes with him to record what he did and said that I can determine from my readings. How reliable is memory in this case? I would think it is like a fishing tale…the fish gets bigger and bigger as it is told over and over again. What do you think?
Thank you, Todd
I think I can answer these quickly here, rather than in a post. Yes, the numbers almost certainly *have* to be exaggerated for the reasons you mention. And memory: it’s a tricky business, given the differences between oral and literary cultures; but I think a *lot* got changed and distorted in the retelling nof the stories about Jesus. I hope to devote some research to this in a few years, leading to a book or two.
Dr Bart: I think we have to go back to the Damascus road. He (Saul) sees a flash of light, thrown from his horse, hits his head and is somewhat out of it for several days. A few of us at work had a lunch discussion with a few doctors who said that these symptoms are indicative of a stroke. His personality changes, he has d illusions of what he believes to be of “gods”. This is not uncommon of people today. Given the situation in those times. no hope of a future, its a wonder they survived…In essence I think the man was looney tunes…I read Dr Tabors book “Paul and Jesus” and wow, what a misogynist. There was no place for women either here on earth or anywhere else.
Interesting idea about the stroke!
Isn’t that just the way that Luke relates the details of Paul’s conversion in Acts? Is this story reliable? Does Paul corroborate it in anyway? Did this Luke ever personally know Paul?
I’ve been deeply confused about 2 Corinthians 12 for quite a while. It seems the consensus is that Paul is referring to himself as the man who was caught up to heaven 14 years prior, and that he is referring to his conversion on the road to Damascus. Supposedly 2 Corinthians 12:11 is an admission that he’s referring to himself, but if he is, the language of the NIV is too subtle for me to draw that conclusion. In the original Greek is his meaning more explicit?
Anyways, 2 Corinthians 12 doesn’t seem anything like a retelling of the “Road to Damascus” conversion to me, so I’ve often wondered if he was referring to someone else who may have been partially responsible for his conversion.
I think he’s clearly talking about himself, since he keeps insisting that he doesn’t want to boast about it, which wouldn’t make sense if the person was someone else. But I don’t think he’s talking about his conversion experience but an ecstatic vision that he had later.
Meh… It don’t explain why Paul thought it was Jesus… Psychoanalysis is already hard as it is with the actually patient with you, but doing it 2000 years ago on a man who seems pretty rational is a stretch. What explains all of the data together? Empty tomb, fiction? Disciples, hallucinations? Paul, stroke? James, who knows? So we have fiction, hallucinations, stroke, and who knows? Why all of this to avoid the conclusion that the gospels, Paul, and the apostles claimed? Why should we only appeal to naturalistic explanations?
About the “women at the empty tomb”: Don’t most of those accounts describe their seeing one or more presumed “angels,” not Jesus? (I know there’s a version in which Mary Magdalen – on a return visit? – does see Jesus, and she initially mistakes him for a gardener.)
About “the twelve”: How soon after Jesus’s death are the apostles believed to have added that replacement for Judas, Matthias? Do scholars believe that really happened? If so, could Paul have meant to include him in references to “the twelve”?
“The twelve” vs. “the apostles”: Could Paul have meant the term “apostles,” here, to describe a somewhat larger number of disciples who’d been so convinced they’d “seen” the resurrected Jesus that they’d begun proselytizing?
1. In John Mary actually sees Jesus. IN the others, it’s someone else (or two someones) at the tomb.
2. According to Acts 2, the replacement happened about 40 days after Jesus’ death
3. Yes, possibly so!
thanks bart
How would you integrate this factoid as source material for Paul’s quote of 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus? Ken Humphries from Jesusneverexisted.com reveals this historical information:
“A disciple of Buddha – Kas ya pas – travelling with 500 monks – encounters an unknown personage from
whom he learns of the death of Buddha. Another unnamed disciple disparages the dead Buddha. In a variation
of the story, the 500 Buddhist monks become Paul’s 500 brethren (1 Cor. 15.6) – though Paul renders Kas ya
pas as ‘Cephas’ (Simon Peter has his own origin in Sâri Putra, also in the Buddhist ‘gospel’).
I’m not familear with this informatin, and frankly, whenever a mythicist starts talking about traditions from other religions, I always go to check their sources of information, since it is so often wrong. But the business of the names is certainly wrong. Cephas is an Aramaic word that means rock; as does Petros in Greek. Nothing to do with Buddhism.
Is there any chance that “500” was a Koine idiom of the day for an “unspecified number of people”, yo dogs know what I’m sayin’.
Yes, possibly unspecified number of LOTS of people.
I never noticed that Paul mentioned both ‘the twelve’ and ‘the apostles’! Intriguing indeed.
As for ‘to the 500’, isn’t that simply like saying ‘to a lot of people’? Because why would it have been exactly 500 people? Why not 499 or 501? Also, what happened to these ‘500’ alleged witnesses of the ‘resurrected Christ’? They seem to disappear into oblivion as well, just as most of the apostles/twelve …
Yup, LOTS of people at once….
If Saint Paul’s alleged belittling of women holds true, it would explain why he left out the stories about the women at the empty tomb, simply to strengthen the testimony with solid male witnesses.
I know this is not relevant (at all!) to the subject here but it is the only way I am aware of that I can ask a question!
I would be very interested if you could include in your blog at some time comments about the problems of translation. If there is one example I can think of it is the one of Paul’s journey to Damascus and the testimony of the soldiers who were with him when he had a vision. Did they not ‘hear’ or did they not ‘understand’ the voice that Paul heard? I know from my own background as a teacher of French and Spanish how, in both languages, these two verbs overlap in meaning. BTW Are you comfortable with ancient Hebrew and do you feel yourself qualified to comment on the Old Testament as well as the New? As I say this would all be of great interest to me
Yes, the translation is debated on these passages because of the Greek grammar, which is very hard to explain simply! But I’ll think about blogging on it at some point.
I try to read the Bible in Hebrew every day. I’m not very good at it — it’s not my main research language — but Hebrew Bible is a secondary field of expertise for me. I’ve just finished writing a college-level textbook on the entire Bible, Genesis to Revelation. so if you have questions, I can do my best to answer them.
A friend pointed out this article to me. I would appreciate your thoughts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hal-taussig/time-for-a-new-new-testament_b_3204221.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#slide=more295362
Many thanks for taking time to teach us through your books and this blog.
I’m happy to comment if someone wants to summarize the issues for me.
The author, one Hal Tausig, has encountered amazement whenever he has told people about the ~ 75 previously unknown documents from the first and second century that have been found in the past 150 years about early Christianity.
Mr. Tausig convened a meeting of 19 “nationally recognized spiritual leaders” in Feb. 2012 to recommend additions to the NT. They came up with the following 10 items to be inserted:
Gospel of Mary
The Thunder: Perfect Mind
Gospel of Thomas
Odes of Solomon
Prayer of Thanksgiving
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Gospel of Truth
Prayer of the Apostle Paul
Letter of Peter to Philip
Secret Revelation to John
Good grief. In other words, we should make the New Testament more Gnostic. Great idea…. (Why do I think it’s not going to fly?)
“8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. “ Is it possible that verse 8 is part of the original poem/hymn rather than Paul’s own statement? Could it not be a statement of faith in the resurrection for any believer?
I’ve never seen it interpreted that way, since Paul seems to be speaking about himself here. My sense is thta hte original creed ended in v. 5, but htere are different interpretations of it.
“Paul never mentions the betrayal of Judas (not even 1 Cor. 11:22-24, for reasons I can explain if anyone’s interested)….”
Very interested!
Paul’s whole psychology, based off of the legitimate epistles, just screams out a “serious case of confirmation bias”, along with his tendency to trip out and have “visions” of Jesus, and his other tendency to disparage people with different ideas for ridiculous reasons (“you pagans are knowingly worshipping other gods when you know MY god is the real one!”)
What do you think of that guy? Does he come across as as unlikable to you as he does to me?
I think he was a real religious genius. Though there are parts of his personality that do not seem to be very attractive to me….
In synoptic gospels Mark and Luke don’t talk of any vision of Jesus to women, but *angel(s)* appeared to women in all four gospels.
In synoptics only Matthew briefly talks of such Jesus vision to women right after resurrection, it seems to be some special tradition of Matthew. But it could well be redaction, just to book a “meeting” with disciples who were all flew to Galilee (sic) and could not witness any empty tomb nor resurrection (still, it’s bizarre for such Jewishy gospel to put such an important witness in the hands of women…)
Finally, John describes Jesus vision to Mary M. alone (when he has “not yet ascended to the Father”).
So I think there are three possible options:
1) At the time of Paul there was *no* tradition of resurrection appearances to women because it originated late (maybe with “Matthew”)
2) At the time of Paul there *was* a palestinian tradition of resurrection appearances to women, but it was not known in Damascus (where he presumably got first “christian” teachings) and so Paul was not aware of it
3) Paul as Torah-observant didn’t consider women as valid witnesses
It still seems odd to me that Paul would mention that most of the over 500 individuals were “still alive” if he himself had not already confirmed the report could be verified by at least one of these eyewitnesses. Such a claim would surely cause his audience to try to verify this phenomenal event, and if no one could actually locate any of these hundreds of contemporary eyewitnesses, it would be quite damaging to the writer’s credibility.
Yes, that’s the key point of the passage. But I think it’s understandable. It’s like me saying that there are thousands of people who have seen visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and many of them are still alive today. It would be true, but I wouldn’t necessary actually know the people or anything about them (I don’t): I’ve just heard the rumors.
Bart, as I saw it, I never thought as the appearance to the 12 as a group appearance. I thought of it as an individual appearance to a couple of the disciples individually. (which this actually refutes mythicism because you can’t have disciples if the person wasn’t living on earth). I say this because, if you notice in the creed it says “Cephas, then to the twelve”, it mentions a group but never specifies at once or not. As in the case of the 500 hundred it does specify (all at one time). Anyway, the appearance to the 500 could be historical but if you look in the gospels (assuming that it’s the same appearance) it says they doubted, why would they doubt if he was right before there eyes? Also, in the gospels they said he looked different each time, why is that? Also the appearance to the apostles may be just a second appearance to the disciples. I mean technically, all being an apostle was, was having a revelation from the Lord and seeing him?
Also, Ehrman what do you think about James the Just, do you think he was an unbeliever before seeing the Lord?
Yes, my sense is that his vision converted him.
I’m definitely interested, why did Paul not mention Judas?
I continue to struggle with the historical reliability or unreliability of the Gospels. The four Biblical Gospels and, to an even greater extent, the extra-canonical Gospels, contain many stories that, at least on the surface, seem to be extraordinary, if not downright farfetched. You often suggest that a Biblical author may have made up this or that story in order to promote a theological view. Does this mean that the Gospel authors were liars? Does any author in antiquity ever call the Gospel authors liars? Another possibility is that stories about Jesus were changed by decades of oral transmission and that each Gospel author had somewhat different information, but each wrote what he thought to be the historical truth with his selectively emphasizing that which he thought was most important. What do you think? .
I don’t think that the fact that stories got “made up” necessarily makes anyone a liar. Stories get made up all the time by people quite innocently — a detail gets exaggerated, and retold, and amplified, and turned into its own story, and no one knows exactly how. Happens every day. And I assume it did back then as well. People retell these stories as “true” because they heard them. But no malicious intent is necessarily involved.
Thanks
Hi Bart
In light of the horrific murder of the British soldier which happened yesterday only a few miles away from me, it made me think of a view I have held in the past,
The view being that Jesus was a radicalised fundementalist Jew who belonged to a minority group of Jews (just like the fundamentalist minority Islamists of today) who believed that God would intervene (by either sending a supernatural force to wipe out their enemies or a human force much like the pagan Cyrus the great of Persia in 539 bce who defeated the Babylonians and freed the Jews out of exile in a foreign land) to free the Jews of Roman rule,
I have held this view as I believe there is enough evidence/clues to verify this, for example all 4 Gospels attest to the disciples carrying swords/daggers or weapons of some sort (much like the siccari/zealots of the time), the Gospels also record one Simon the zealot who was part fo the 12 (some scholars such as Tabor have suggested that this simon was no other than the younger brother of jesus), there are secenes of scuffles and violence and in John Peter even chops off the ear of a guard! this to me suggests strong traditions that violence was part of the jesus mission and although he expexted peace in the new kingdom, he woould stop at nothing to gain that peace; I think that the strong emphasis on Jesus being un violent may have been added later by redactors and even if Jesus did talk of loving the enemies it was not the enemies of God (ie romans) he referred to but enemies within Judiasm (as we know there was civil unrest and many jews were at odds with each other ie essenes and pharisees for example)
after all he was crucified and it would make complete sense that this was beacuse he insighted a rebellion, protested against the romans as enemies of God and expected God to crush them – hearing this I am sure would be enough for the romans to have him crucified?
so IMO Jesus was a radicalised Jew who having learnt off John the baptist and perhaps even some things from the essenes wnt out on his own mission to insight God’s will which was to crush the romans and bring Israle back as a sovereign state,
your views and thoughts on this theory of mine please?
thanks
Sam
This is a view that some very few scholars have had since Reimarus in the late 18th century. There’s some evidence to back it up, as you know. But there’s a lot of evidence against it, as well, including all the passivism taught in the Gospels and the fact that jesus’ later followers were not revolutionary. My sense is that Jesus expected a supernatural overthrow of the romans, not a military conquest.
ok thanks Bart your view is of course apreciated and respected, however I do think that the fact that weopans were attested in all gospels and the fact that his punishment was crucifixion (only used for violent political criminals) I think the evidence speaks quite loudly. I agree absolutely that Jesus may well have expected a supernatural army of some sort or at least God’s intervention, however I am convinced that he went to Jerusalem to protest loudly that the romans being the enemies of God would be overthrown, I think he became radical (from a tradinional jew as we know he lived a normal life of a galilean peasant prior to his ministry)
the fact that his followers do not seem to be radical after his death IMO does not necessarily prove that they werent (or werent supporters of this earlier), they ay well have learnt their lesson after seeing jesus hung by the romans and changed their radicalism to something more mild it happens all the time today), also perhaps james the lesser/just the brother who took over had a more relaxed view on the apocalypse and under his leadership the followers changed? what do you think, is this possible in your view?
OK, thanks. Yes, you may be right. But crucifixion was not reserved only for the violent. Quite the contrary.
Bart please tell me more about your last point – I am 100% certain that the “violent factor or at least proposed by the jesus movement was a reality – please tell me more about the crucifixion aspect and the evidence of why people were crucified apart from them being political rebels to rome thanks and enjoying this conversation, Sam
Many low-life criminals (thieves and such) were crucified.
I wonder if the people Paul got his info from forgot to tell him, or knew about, the parable, miracle, and other stories of Jesus’ ministry as portrayed in the NT gospels.
“most scholars believe that there were visions of Jesus to his followers”
really? how? surly using the historical method its more likely it didn’t happen. its no secret that Paul is trying to sell theology and the credibility of the risen Messiah and the whole idea of visions is based on rumours. Moreover the info is 2nd, 3rd ect hand, and that the visions dont really make sense and contradict each other(who first saw Jesus, Mary or peter?) its probabilistically more likely they didnt have visions.
why do most NT scholars disagree with this?
By calling these “visions,” no one is committed to saying that Jesus really appeared to his disciples. Christians would say the disciples “saw” Jesus because he was really there; non-Christians would say they were hallucinations. But there’s no doubt, I think, that they had visions and *thought* they saw Jesus. I give all the reasons in my forthcoming book on How Jesus Became God. (If you don’t think they had visions, why would they come to think he was raised from the dead? Something must have made them think so!)
Bart – You said, “If you don’t think they had visions, why would they come to think he was raised from the dead? Something must have made them think so!”
It seems to me we don’t know very much about what the disciples actually thought. Did they necessarily relate Jesus’ conquering of death to the general resurrection, as Paul apparently did? I don’t think there’s much basis for this. The appearances to the key disciples could have been as mundane as sensing the presence of Jesus (a common phenomenon for families of deceased loved ones, as reported in various psychological studies), or appearances in dreams (Everett Ferguson writes, “the ancients regarded dream experience as no less real than other experience.” – Backgrounds of early Christianity, p 220). Waking hallucinations also occur, but are less common, so I think it is less reasonable to assume it was a waking hallucination. If many people indeed claimed to have had appearances, I’d guess this to be due to the power of suggestion coupled with the need to feel part of the inner circle.
OK, I’ll be interested in your reaction to my book where I spell out all the evidence. (Yes, sensing someone’s presence is indeed a form of “vision”)
This isn’t the only case of Paul’s use of ἀπόστολος seeming to mean something different from the limited sense in which that word is used in Matthew 10.2 and frequently in Luke and Acts. (Mark (6.30, referring back to 6.7) and John (13.16) each use the word only once in a totally literalistic sense of “he who is sent”, although my mischievous side wants to play with the sending theme in John and raise whether he thought John the Baptist was an apostle!) Other examples include:
– Romans 16.7: Andronicus and Junia
– 1 Corinthians 12.28-29: would Paul feel the need to observe to the Corinthians μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; if apostles weren’t somewhat more common than a limited band of Jesus’ contemporaries?
– 2 Corinthians 8.23: unnamed brethren — this was clearly enough of a concern to the KJV translators that they rendered it “messengers” rather than “apostles”!
– 2 Corinthians 11.13: the very notion of a false apostle does not fit well with there being a small closed group
– 2 Corinthians 12.11: Paul lampoons the super-apostles, precisely for this terminological issue
– Philippians 2.25: Epaphroditus — once more, the KJV goes for “messenger”, these being the only two instances in the entire NT where they did this
– 1 Thessalonians 2.6: “we” refers back to 1.1, including Silvanus and Timothy as apostles
Dr. Erhman: I have recently been reading a book entitled Apophasis and Psuedonymity in Dionysious The Aeropagite by Charles Strang/ and it occurs to me that I have begun questioning some of the assumptions of the historical-critical method as applied to the Bible and Antiquity. Namely/ I believe that many Christians/philosophers/educated people in Antiquity had a radically different conception of time and personal identity from modernity/ and what historical-critical method does is superimpose a lot of modern assumptions about the nature of time/ history and identity on the Tradition. It strikes me that historically/ Christianity was a symbolic religion/ as that term would be understood by ancient philosophers (not modern people)/ not a historical religion. Further/ I’m not sure that Orthodox Christians were involved in some historical revisionist agenda/ so much as interested in clearly expressing a symbolic and mystical theology-1) because they did not understand history as authoritative–its opinion/ not knowledge–nor 2) did they care too much about history/ as they were interested in symbolism and mysticism e.g. salvation not facts. (They did care about purity/ and older meant better vintage. But that’s not the same as older means truer. ) Further/ when someone like St. John Chrysostom is routinely channeling St. Paul/ who is speaking and writing through him/ I’m not sure you can say a particular book is a forgery/ any more than you can say a Buddhist Sutra written by a monk in the 3rd Century CE based on a vision in which Buddha dictated teachings while in the Heavenly Realms is a forgery.
Interesting observations. My view is that the best way to see how ancient people thought about authorship, literary property, “forgery,” the character and nature of writing, and so on, is by seeing what they actually say about it. That’s what I do in the first five chapters of my book Forgery and Counterforgery. I completely agree that we should not impose our views on ancient authors. But I also think that we need to prioritize what they say rather than what we try to surmise….
You are correct/ and I have not read Forgeries and Counterforgeries/ but I have looked at Jesus Interrupted. You might want to check out Strang’s book as he deals pretty extensively with the scholarship on pseudonymous writing in Late Antiquity. He pretty persuasively argues the point that Pseudo-Dionysius used a pseudonym specifically based on his own philosophical and theological understanding/ and he picked Dionysius the Aeropagate specifically for theological reasons. Although Pseudo-Dionysius is only one figure/ he has a lot in common with the Alexandrians and the Cappadocians.
People are very suggestible. In Lisbon in 1917, 30,000+ people allegedly saw the Sun dance around in the sky during an outdoor gathering of Catholics who were waiting for a miracle by our Lady of Fatima:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus could have been caused by a sunstroke, which can produce hallucinations. According to Acts, Paul was struck down under the noonday sun. He was very sick for several days afterwards. Presumably, a vision from God wouldn’t make anyone ill. But a heat stroke with dehydration could cause severe illness and possibly hallucinations.
Bart,
Two questions related to the early 1 Cor 15 creed:
1] Do you think “all the apostles” (in 1 Cor 15:7) includes some or all of “the Twelve” (from 1 Cor 15:5), or do you think these are two separate groups of people?
2] What do you make of the theory that the group appearance claims above (to “the Twelve” and “all the apostles”) are *authority designation appearances traditions* meant to uphold the authority of these groups? In other words, some people in these groups might *by themselves* have had visual hallucinations of Jesus, or heard his voice, or felt his presence, or experienced nothing, but these group appearance traditions are not interested in conveying such technical details; they are interested in conveying *teaching/preaching authority*. What do you make of this theory that some like Steve Patterson have articulated in the past? No simultaneous group experience of any kind is even necessary.
1. I think it includes them, but I’m not certain. 2. It’s possible. But it’s a question of what one means by that. Is he saying that Paul himself knew that only a couple of the twelve had the vision but attributed it to all of them? That seems unlikely, since he indicates already individuals *within* the group having visions, so he appears to be referring to both individual and group visions.
Bart,
In response to my question yesterday you said you thought it unlikely that the appearance traditions to “the Twelve” and to “all the apostles” (in 1 Cor 15:5, 7) are authority designation appearances traditions with no intent to convey simultaneous group experiences because “[Paul] indicates already individuals *within* the group having visions, so he appears to be referring to both individual and group visions.”
However, wouldn’t it make sense to separately mention the appearances to Peter and James if they were the *leaders* of the two groups “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (assuming the latter group was a separate group of people from the former group)?
The idea is that the people in these groups *by themselves* had visual hallucinations of Jesus, heard his voice, or felt his presence, but some might not have experienced Jesus at all, but all were capable of teaching, preaching, and defending their new beliefs.
I”m not saying they *did* all experience the vision; I’m saying that it seems unlikely to me that Paul would have said they all did if in fact he thought they didn’t.
Bart,
Paul says the appearance to the 500 was “at one time” but says no such thing for the appearance traditions to “the Twelve” and to “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15&7), so I think it is an open question whether Paul thought the appearances to “the Twelve” and to “all the apostles” were simultaneous group or individual experiences. Regarding the possibility that 1 Cor 15&7 might be authority designation appearance traditions without much interest in the technical details of the appearances, I think you may have bypassed my previous follow up question: If the appearance traditions to “the Twelve” and to “all the apostles” are authority designation appearance traditions, wouldn’t it make sense to separately mention the appearances to Peter and James *if* they were the *leaders* of these two groups, i.e., Peter is the leader of the Twelve (“he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve”) and James is the leader of all the apostles (“he appeared to James, then to all the apostles”)? I am assuming of course that the 12 and “all the apostles” were two separate groups. In other words, that Peter and James are listed separately does not seem to favor a simultaneous group appearance over authority designation appearance traditions with individual experiences in mind (the objection you brought up). I guess this is my third comment here so I am hoping you can answer my question. Thanks ahead of time.
Why wouldn’t the gospels mention that Jesus appeared to the 500 when Paul, writing decades earlier, says that he did?
Almost certainly they didn’t know the tradition.
Hi Bart, which apostles/disciples does Paul specifically mention meeting in his authentic letters? Am I correct in thinking it’s only Peter and James?
And John. And remember, this James is not one of the Twelve, but is Jesus’ brother.
Interesting
I’m going back into the archives here so I understand if you don’t see this.
I’m curious about Paul’s and the other gospels’ uses of the words “eido” and “blebo”.
I haven’t studied any greek but I’ve noticed ways in which they’re used in for example Matthews Isaiah reference Matt 13:14 “you will be ever seeing (blepo) but never perceiving (eido)”
This seems to suggest that ‘blepo’ indicates a literal seeing with ones eyes and ‘eido’ describes a metaphorical seeing/understanding.
Is that correct, and if so could Paul be using “eido” to convey visions of Jesus rather than literally seeing him?
Blepo just refers to what you see with your idea. The word eido is etymolodically related to the word “to know” and so has a different nuance.
Blepo just refers to what you see with your idea. The word eido is etymolodically related to the word “to know” and so has a different nuance.
Hi Bart, just a quick technical question . . .
1 Cor 15:3 says that Paul had ‘handed it on . . . ‘ i.e. the creed and it is past tense.
However, the Greek says:
παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,
which my translator says is present tense i.e. he is giving it to them in this letter written around 55 CE rather than 40CE when he stayed with them (???).
Can you shed any light on this and maybe say a word or two about your current views on this creed?
Thanks
The three verbs are all in the aorist.
“The three verbs are all in the aorist.”
Sorry Bart but I am not a textual critic.
What does that mean exactly?
Ah, sorry. In Greek, the “aorist” tense is what in English we think of as the “past” tense — something that already happened in the past. (there are other tenses for other kinds of things htat happened before now — the imperfect, the perfect, the past perfect, etc. — the the aorist is usually straight up: this *happened” already from teh time of writing.)
Thanks.
So does that imply that Paul first gave them the creed when he visited them around 40CD rather than writing it out for the first time in his letter to them?
Well, he doesn’t give a date, but yes, he’s indicating that this is what he preached to them at the outset.
Many thanks.
Can I ask another, unrelated question while I’m here?
We are told that only Romans could execute people for capital offences, but people could be stoned in Judea for other offences, could they not? For example James and Stephen.
So why didn’t the priests simply have Jesus stoned to death, for blasphemy say? Why was it necessary for them to take Jesus to Pilate for sentencing if they could still carry out executions for other reasons?
Yes, it’s the same as today: a mob or a group of people can murder someone outside the bounds of teh law. That’s what happened iwth Stephen. James, though, was executed by a ruling authority. Jewish *leaders*, as opposed to mobs, were not inclined to usurp Roman perogatives.
Thanks again Bart.
“James, though, was executed by a ruling authority. Jewish *leaders*, as opposed to mobs, were not inclined to usurp Roman perogatives.”
Are you saying that the Jewish authorities *did*go against Roman laws on this occasion?
If it actually happened, Herod as King would have been allowed the perogative. The rule against taking justice into one’s own hands was to prevent Jews (and other people) from executing “criminals” without authority from the Romans, based, say, on the law.
(The Sanhedrin could not stone people for blasphemy, e.g.) disabledupes{6eafea8ceaf95089f5d6f3d138d918f4}disabledupes
Terrific, many thanks Bart.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Do you think that the “500” in 1 Corinthians 15:6 was a scribal error and it originally referred to the episode occurred on Pentecost?
Thanks
I’ve never thought so, though I’ve heard people suggest it. I’d say there is nothing in Paul’s writings to suggest that he’s ever heard about what happened on the day of Pentecost. I myself don’t think Acts 2 is a historical description; it’s the only place in ealry Xty that mentions it, and it fits so well with Luke’s theological views and his narrative that it doesn’t appear historical to me.