(18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...So far I have talked about the significance of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection for both Christology (the understanding of who Jesus was) and soteriology (the understanding of how salvation works). It also was significant for eschatology (the understanding of what would happen at the end of time).
Christologically, the resurrection proved that Jesus really was the favored one of God, appearances notwithstanding. It may have *seemed* like the crucifixion would show that Jesus was not God’s son, and certainly not the messiah; but the resurrection (for those who came to believe in it) showed that in fact he was. He was the son of God in an even more exalted sense than anyone had thought – he actually had been made into a divine being. So too he was the messiah in a more exalted sense than had been expected – he was not a mere human king but the divine King of all.
Soteriologically, the resurrection showed that the death of Jesus had not been a mere miscarriage of justice or the unfortunate bad end to a good man. It showed that the crucifixion in fact was all part of God’s plan to bring about the salvation of the world. Jesus’ death had been an atoning sacrifice that brought redemption.
The resurrection also had a profound effect on the disciples’ understanding of eschatology, their notions of the end times. As I have argued repeatedly, Jesus himself believed that the end of the age was coming within his own generation, that a figure he called the “son of man” was to arrive from heaven in judgment on the earth (I’ll be discussing Jesus’ views of the son of man in subsequent posts). This figure was the cosmic judge of all things, as predicted by the prophet Daniel (see Daniel 7:1-14). At his coming all the dead would be raised, the good for reward and the wicked for punishment.
But once Jesus was believed to have been raised from the dead, the disciples’ views changed – not so much in ways to flat-out contradict what Jesus had taught but in ways that changed and shaped what he had said. They came to think that Jesus himself was the Son of Man he had predicted (historically, I will argue, he was certainly not predicting himself to come!); and they concluded that the end had started.
Before unpacking these two points, let me make another more fundamental one that most people have never thought about (or at least I assume so, since I never thought about it for about 50 years!). Here is the key question that is almost never asked: why would someone who had a vision of a deceased loved one think that the person had been raised from the dead?
Think about it. Suppose…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!! It costs so little and gives so much!!
True–it also requires an apocalyptic leader, which you have pointed out Jesus was.
So if these apocalypticists could have believed something like this could happen–why couldn’t Jesus?
Why would an apocalypticist believe God would just come down, transform the world into something better, and put him on a throne?
It’s too easy. It’s not how a real apocalypticist thinks. In fact, we have apocalypticists today–they’re called evangelical Christians, and some of them believe they’re going to be lifted bodily into heaven, while the world they leave behind goes to hell (quite literally). There’s best-selling books about this.
No, I don’t think Jesus believed that–he’d probably shake his head in disbelief that anyone could have distorted his ideas that far. But the disciples had his teachings directly from him–could they have really changed them as much as you think, so quickly? If he’d been teaching that he was going to be king–in a material worldly sense–and then died the way he did–it’s hard to buy that they’d just do this perfect 180 and say “He meant to do that.” They had to adapt his ideas to the reality they found themselves in, yes. But he’d given them material to work with there. He had predicted his death (because he remembered what happened to John the Baptist). He had talked about some kind of return. He planted the idea in their minds. And this explains how they had such vivid hallucinations of him. And how they were able to interpret them as meaning that they’d misunderstood him, who he was, what he was here for.
They were the ones who thought he’d be King–as a Jewish Apocalypticst would be inclined to think–they were looking for the Messiah–in the traditional sense. He’d either stopped believing in that, or never believed it to begin with. He was a prophet, and prophets don’t become kings in the Jewish tradition. Prophets speak truth to kings.
I’m not sure I want to decide what first-century Palestinian Jews thought on the basis of what twenty-first century American Christians think!
Human thought and behavioral patterns can be remarkably persistent across time and place and culture–innumerable variations, but the underlying patterns remain the same. And in my opinion, would persist (and perhaps worsen) even in the absence of any belief in a deity whatsoever. I’ve seen much evidence of this on the internet, unfortunately.
We’re the only animal that knows it’s going to die, thinks about it constantly, wonders what comes after.
So to me, the notion that Jesus was somehow immune from this seems unrealistic. He thought about his death, and he talked about it to the people who meant most to him, his disciples. We have memories of this, imperfectly preserved, in the gospels. This is not projecting modern attitudes into someone from a long-vanished past and culture. People are people, no matter where, no matter when.
Bart, as you point out, visions of deceased people happen a lot. That being the case, certainly Jesus wasn’t the only apocalyptic Jew that would’ve have been seen in a post-death vision. Certainly many were seen in the years before and after Jesus died. If your theory is correct, why weren’t others recorded as having been resurrected and deified?
I wish I knew! My guess is that with Jesus we have the “perfect storm”: his particular message, the expectations surrounding his person, his unexpected execution, the visions — where else was there that particular combination?
Maybe it was a perfect storm with Jesus, but certainly some of his followers would have died after him and appeared in visions. Why is there no record of them having been considered resurrected as well? If your theory is correct, it seems the audience of 1st Century Christians would have been primed for that very interpretation of visions of subsequently deceased followers, since didn’t Paul say Jesus was the first of many to come that would be resurrected?
There’s so much we simply can’t know, given our sources! But yes, Paul thought everyone else was to be raised very soon.
My conclusion from what you’ve said is that although after-death visions of relatives and friends are common for people today, people who lived at the time of Jesus did not ever have such visions. You seem to be saying that no one else who lived during the time of Jewish apocalypticism ever had such an experience. It must be a modern phenomena. Jesus must have been the first such vision, thus the first among those resurrected. Doesn’t it seem odd that we would have such visions today (can we say often) and no one then should have had one. And, if they did, how would they have explained them?
My guess is that with Jesus we have the “perfect storm”: his particular message, the expectations surrounding his person, his unexpected execution, the visions — where else was there that particular combination?
“It’s because they were not Jewish apocalypticists. The very notion of resurrection requires an apocalyptic world view.”
so does it follow that those who believe in Jesus’ resurrection today have much in common with the ancient Jewish apocalypticists? are they in a sense drawing the same conclusion as the followers of Jesus?
thanks for leading a great blog!
They certainly have some things in common (the end is coming soon!), but TONS of things are different (contrast first century Jewish Palestine and twenty-first century Christian America!)
The rationalization process that the first followers of Jesus went through involved coming to believe that the crucifixion was, in fact, part of God’s plan to bring about the salvation of the world. That would seem to mean that they did not believe that Jesus sacrificed himself. The human sacrifice idea was God’s and Jesus was just along for the ride. This required them to change their first century Jewish understanding that human sacrifice was wrong (after all, God certainly thinks that it serves a purpose). It seems that this line of reasoning could have led them to believe that, not only does human sacrifice bring salvation, but, since it is sanctioned By God, it is also an appropriate way to worship God – a “do this in memory of me” kind of alternative liturgy. Wouldn’t that have changed the course of Christianity over the centuries!
“Greater love hath no one than to lay down his life for his friends.”
That isn’t human sacrifice, any more than consensual sex is rape.
I get your point. It’s a good one. On the other hand, I’d say that it’s also different. Consensual sex is agreeing to a pleasure. That’s quite different from volunteering to be tortured for the sake of another. The Christian doctrine of the atonement traditionally has taught that Jesus *had* to do this because it was the only way to appease God. That’s not the same as agreeing to enjoy oneself! (Even if Jesus went to it willingly)
hello Bart
who has given the authority to the disciples to invent this doctrine . it looks to me that christianity was founded by the disciples and jesus was just used in the process
thanks
Do you remember how the people of Moses AS worshipped an idol in his absence?
Likewise, what appears to have happened is that early Christians elevated Christ AS to the level of God, i.e he has been raised to the right hand of God and now rules over the entire universe with God once they started to believe he was crucified and raised to heaven after death.
Later on it appears some Christians exalted him even further by saying he was ALWAYS divine, not a created being exalted to God status but in fact someone who was always divine.
This is what I understood from Bart Ehrman. As for what the early disciples precisely believed, we will learn it on judgement day if we make it to Paradise we can ask God about it may He guide us. Peter, James and Mary Magdalen seem to be at the heart of it all but we have practically no way of knowing what ot is they believed. As far as I know and I could be wrong, James and Peter became leaders of at least some early followers. What they did, God knows. It could be they found themselves in a tight spot like Harun AS with a number of Christians who started developing their own ideas of Isa AS and found themselves lacking authority to rightly lead the rest of the followers.
It could also be that they were in fact the ones who started to exalt him, calling him son of God and Lord. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, pretty much all early sources indicate that Peter believed Christ AS was alive after the crucifixion event-in fact it may be that he along with others had a certain type of hallucination which is usually found when a religious leader or someone beloved dies.
However there is a very strong doubt tradition in the gospel narratives indicating that a group of disciples doubted these visions of a revived Jesus AS.
When we say that Jesus’ followers had visions of Jesus after his death, could it possibly be that they had dreams of Jesus which when they awoke from the dream they then thought of the dreams as visions?
Yes indeed. As it turns out, ancients did not distinguish between dreams and visions the way we do.
Can we assume that Paul’s strange vision claims and cosmic trips were dreams that he viewed as reality?
I’m not sure we’re able to establish the actual mental events (even if he were here to interview!)
Paul stated that Jesus appeared to 500 and The Twelve, etc… indicating he appeared to many at the same time. None of the texts read as though the appearances were dreams. They may not always explicitly state the difference, but the tone of text changes when reading it as a dream, trance-like visions, or physical appearances.
Interesting stuff!
Could we go so far as to claim that a soul is not a part of Apocalyptic thinking?
They believed in the soul, but their view of it was very different. There was not a differentiation between the immaterial soul (which lived on) and the material body (which does not). The soul is made up of material — but it is completely bound to the body and vice versa, so one cannot live without the other.
if the soul and body were thought to be intertwined, what did the apocalyptic jews think happened to regular folks who had died but not yet been ressurrected?
It’s not clear. Some possibly thought that people simply entered into non-existence until the end comes.
It makes sense. As a Christian I believed in the resurrection of the dead as the hope of believers, and not in a disembodied eternity in ‘heaven.’ Towards the end of my faith I became incredibly annoyed with the common view promoted from evangelical pulpits that has more in common with Medieval thinking than what the biblical texts say. Most evangelicals I talked to about it seemed to think I was odd for believing in resurrection with (re)New(ed) Heavens and Earth, and a few insisted I must be more aligned with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s not understanding the ancient Jewish belief in resurrection that prevents people from understanding much of the text’s intent.
Hey Dr. Ehrman – any further word on when your new book on memory will be released? How is it progressing? Do you plan on doing a Great Courses / Teaching Company lecture series to coincide (as you’ve done with a few of your other books)?
Yes, it will be out on March 1, called Jesus Before the Gospels. Nope, don’t have a Teaching Course planned for this one.
Dr. Ehrman, I think it’s near impossible to make clear to the modern layman what the ancient notion of resurrection meant without making clear the Pythagorean concept of the universe. The Pythagorean concept of the universe that was dominant back then, and it informed beliefs about mortality versus immortality. For instance, when Paul talks about the “dead in Christ” being resurrected in a “spiritual body”, most modern people tend to assume he means that our soul lives on, but the subtle distinction that Paul is making is a philosophical one more than a theological one. This only makes sense when one knows how the Pythagorean concept of the universe (as outlined in Plato’s Timaeus) distinguishes the immortal, eternal, unchanging nature of the heavens versus the mortal, fugacious, mutable nature of the earth. Our physical bodies are earthly products, subject to corruption, disease and death. But when we are reborn “in Christ” in the “spirit” we are reborn in the incorruptible, immortal substance of the heavens (Aristotle’s “quintessence” or fifth element). That’s what Paul meant. Now, of course, Paul is merely uniting the Greek concepts of natural vs. supernatural to the Jewish concept of bodily resurrection of the dead on the Day of God, as foretold by the Prophets. So when the disciples thought they saw Jesus after death, they thought they were seeing Jesus in his heavenly, spiritual body, made of the incorruptible, immortal substance of the heavens.
So would you say Paul would have had to be a “Jewish apocalypticist” before he had his vision of Jesus and not turned into one by his experience?
Yup! Otherwise he would not have interpreted his vision as a resurrection.
You have some interesting points.
How about the Egyptians, didn’t they believe in an afterlife with the body. Isn’t that the reason they embalmed their dead, so as to prepare them for resurrection? But maybe they didn’t have monotheism, and therefore no mashiak?
I’m afraid I don’t know the Egyptian theology of death and afterlife.
Scientists want to explain away visions being caused by grief or stress, but I don’t buy it. Explain Paul’s vision. Was he grieving? Scientists also give weak explanations for shared near death experiences and shared visions. Are they really trying to tell me that if I and 100 other people see Jesus, we’re all having a brain hiccup? I don’t believe that for a second.
It does seem to me that certain experiences can definitely be shared and cause bystanders to partake in them. Feeling a peaceful presence in church can be experienced by an entire congregation at once. If you have four dogs and one of them dies, it seems they all end up dying within a year. The same goes for some couples and even working partners.
I’m wondering if something like that happened to Paul. The Christian movement was so strong with all these odd occurrences were happening that it caused Paul to have a vision. Since there have been documented cases of mass visionary experiences, thousands or millions of people could have a simultaneous vision of Jesus coming back, and it could happen to any of us whether we are believers or not.
Psychologists have a wide range of explanations for visions, not just grief or stress!
I’ve read a little bit about other explanations–wishful thinking and having the expectation for it. I like Carl Jung’s explanation myself–the collective unconscious.
Sadly, you don’t seem to be well enough informed in the methodology and subject matter that has been chosen for attack and scorn.
Alrighty
Most modern appearances of the deceased relatives happen when a living person awakens to see the deceased relative standing at the foot of the bed. I have heard stories of deceased strangers (ghosts) appearing in the same manner. Even many stories of alien abduction are described same way. It seems to me that we hallucinate strange encounters during the in-between state of being neither fully awake or asleep. After all, which is truly more likely: these encounters are objectively real or simply hallucinations?
I think the most frequent visions may occur on someone’s deathbed. I’m not convinced they’re hallucinations.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1021080-visions-of-dead-loved-ones-not-yet-known-to-have-died/
Where is the evidence to substantiate your claim that the disciples considered Jesus to have been not only resurrected but to have been also made into a divine being? The gospels and Acts written by Paul’s followers, together with his epistles, suggest that this was his idea, resulting from an exceptional experience which caused him to reverse his original position almost overnight. How else do you account for such a drastic change in the short period available from the records?
That’s the topic of my entire book! (How Jesus Became God)
Where are these questions answered in your book? I can only find assertions of the same unsubstantiated claims.
Under ‘The Belief of the Disciples’ you state ”For Jesus’s disciples, Jesus was raised into an immortal body and exalted to heaven where he currently lives and reigns with God Almighty”, and under ‘The outcome of faith’ you state
”The disciples, knowing both that Jesus was raised and that he was no longer among them, concluded that he had been exalted to heaven”.
Where is the evidence that it was the disciples who came to this conclusion rather than Paul?
Paul himself says he “received” the belief in Christ being raised from others (1 Cor. 15:3-5)
Bart given what you have said about the use of ‘magic’ by some preachers in that time of Jesus, and what we know about the ability of ‘cold readers’ to manipulate audiences, is it possible these experiences of the ‘risen Jesus’ were n some way deliberated manufactured or reinforced?
It’s possible — but I’m not sure how we’d ever be able to demonstrate it!
Did the Jews of Jesus’ time believe in eternal hell? Did Jesus believe in eternal hell? And if he did, where did he get the doctrine come from? I understand how the doctrine evolved later with the help of the Church Fathers, but I don’t know the circumstances behind the spreading of that doctrine during Jesus’ time.
I’ll deal on the blog soon with the idea of heaven and hell — good questions…
I’d be interested to see you extend these considerations in this post to the early Christian cult of martyrdom. I refer belief that these super-Christians were emulating Jesus’ death and that, consequently, they were on the fast track to a Jesus-like resurrection, whereby they skipped the step that non-martyrs endure, namely, death and disintegration of the body to await the Great Resurrection and Judgment at the End of Time.
Excellent point about how the “resurrection of the body” mindset of 1st Century Jews then easily segued into a wholehearted acceptance of Jesus’ bodily resurrection based (possibly) only on (more believable) visions of him. Your analysis provides much insight into why and what they came to believe way back in antiquity.
Nevertheless, as a testament of faith many 21st Century Christians — who have not lived through a period of rampant apocalyptic expectations — sincerely recite the Apostles’ Creed, which calls for a “resurrection of the body,” and/or the Nicene Creed, which declares a “resurrection of the dead.”
I have spoken to folks who have seen their deceased loved ones post death. I have also heard the dying say they see and hear loved ones already long gone, but there they are, paying the dying a deathbed visit. No verifiable physical presence, however. (Not that there needs to be one for those experiences to be meaningful for what they are as long as they are not made into something they are not.)
Some ideas, like the bodily resurrection of the dead, have especially strong staying power even when it’s impossible to fully comprehend — or even imagine — how a decayed, cremated or otherwise mutilated body could reconstitute itself and achieve a glorious re-animation.
Christian churches have become far more accepting of cremation. Wouldn’t you say this decision is a tacit nod to their members re the implausibility of bodily resurrection?
Yes, my sense is that bodily resurrection is not part of the Christian mindset for the most part. But I’m not sure about cremation: that wouldn’t disallow a later resurrection, since all it does is speed up the inevitable process.
At least theoretically, when I was young, Catholicism still taught “the resurrection of the body” as a required belief (in the Apostles’ Creed). Supposedly, the souls in Heaven would regain their original bodies at the end of…life on Earth? For that reason, it was thought important, whenever possible, to have amputated limbs buried with the original body.
Hi Bart,
Forgive me if you’ve already addressed this, but if not, could you discuss how and when the idea of the resurrection of the dead came about? I have been told the the Pharisees believed in it, but the Sadducees did not. Were there any other religions that believed in this(i.e. not simply an afterlife)?
Ah — I was trying to explain that in the past few posts! Resurrection thinking emerged with apocalyptic thought, probably during the Maccabean revolt, as a way of showing why the evil of the present time (and those who side with it) would not ultimately triumph; all wold face judgment at the resurrection.
Or, perhaps, the Maccabean priests were using resurrection, along with the promise of eternal rewards, as a strategy to encourage their guerilla fighters to make the supreme sacrifice in the resistance against their Greek overlords.
This is in response to the questions of why there weren’t claims of other apocalypticists being resurrected. I’d say there were. The question is why we don’t know about them. The first record we have of Jesus resurrection is from Paul, written 20 years after the fact. The reason we have this is because of what happened during those 20 years. Let’s say only Peter had a vision of Jesus. Would we still know about a resurrected Jesus? Maybe. What if it was only Thomas? He wouldn’t have believed it himself, let alone convinced others. It’s about who had the visions and how good they were at convincing others. I have no doubt some people had visions of John the baptist and thought he had been raised from the dead. How would we know? It just never took off. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of a lack.
They would only think he was raised from the dead because they believed in apocalypticism. It was all part of the plan that Jesus had laid out to his disciples and so they just expected it to happen. What were they thinking after 5, 10, 15, and 20 years passed and nothing happened?
I wish we knew!!
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
Here is the key question that is almost never asked: why would someone who had a vision of a deceased loved one think that the person had been raised from the dead?
MY COMMENT
The disciples did not merely have a vision of Jesus after his death. They literally saw Him. Jesus Cooked breakfast for them That’s why they believed in his resurrection. I believe the Gospel of John is true and historically accurate.
If my late grandmother appears to me and cooks breakfast for me then I too would believe in her resurrection… A vision of a deceased person would not cook breakfast…
John 21:10-13
10-Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11-So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12-Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13-Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
John 21:24
24-This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Did the mainstream Jewish belief mean a return to your old body always? Or did they envision them receiving completely new, imperishable bodies?
For those whose bodies had pretty much completely decayed and dissapeared, it seems hard to believe that the soul would return to that body even if it was to be transformed into a new body.
I’m wondering if the disciples understanding of Jesus resurrection would necessitate an empty tomb since the old body had been “raised back to life”. Some of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 seems like he might be saying the old body will just decay and a brand new body would be given to you (your soul).
The idea is that the new imperishable body is a transformation precisely of the current body, not a bran new creation.
Someone told me that the Jews in the time of Jesus believed that humans can only be in three states. They were either awake, asleep or dead. They did not know about unconscious states or someone being in a coma.
So is it possible that Jesus appeared to be dead to the people back then when Jesus was put in a tomb and at a later time, Jesus “came to” and exited the tomb? And if Jesus exited the tomb really alive, wouldn’t his disciples believe Jesus was resurrected?
I’ve never heard that. But yes, if they thought Jesus exited his tomb, they certainly thought he had been raised from the dead.
The idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion and just appeared to be dead is old. Surely, you must have heard of it before (although perhaps not this particuale variant)?
I don’t say I believe it, but I think it is worth consideration, because if true, it would give quite good explanations of some things.
Jesus hang on the cross just a few hours, shorter time than it took to die for most crucified. Suppose he just appeared to be dead. Suppose that it was discovered that he was dead when he was to be placed in the tomb, e.g. by Joseph of Arimanthea, who took him out of the grave, and gave him some healing treatment. It would then have been easy for Jesus to believe that he had been raised from the dead, and for the disciples to believe so when they met him afterwards.
Suppose also that Jesus really died a short time after that (not necessarily 40 days, this number is symbolic) from complications caused by the crucifixion. The disciples might have interpreted that as ascendance to Heaven, and that he would come back later as the Son of Man.
What do you think about that?
Oh yes, that’s been around for a while. But I didn’t think that was being asked. I think it’s historically higlhy implausible, since Romans in factd normally left crucified people on the crosses for many days before even burying them. But if you want to see the most famous modern exposition of the idea, see Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. In Chapter 2 of Genesis when YHVH Elohim is said to be creating man from the dust, the “flesh and bone” that gets created is prior to the “fall.” This seems to be a state where there is perfect unity or oneness with the mind of God (Elohim of Chapter 1–the Father)). As the creation story continues, it isn’t until the so-called fruit of the wrong tree (tree of opposition?) is eaten that the woman gets her identity and thus her name, Eve. It’s like after the knowledge of good and evil is realized, she gets an ego strapped on…as well as Adam. Now they are egotistical beings and thus, fallen. They are still apparently flesh and bone, but now experience physical pain. Since Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate act of humility, painful, and of course the complete opposite of having an ego– and since Genesis implies flesh and bone in a state of unity *prior* to having an ego or fallen nature, is it possible the disciples had this in mind when they saw Jesus? His closest disciples??? The Gospel writers make it a point to show Jesus eating actual food and Thomas touching his hands. Are these events consistent in all manuscripts? In any case, the whole deal seems consistent with how humanity allegedly develops in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, in my opinion. Any thoughts on this or is my Genesis synopsis WAY off the beaten path?
Yes, the manuscripts are consistent on this. My sense is that hte disciples of Jesus did not ask deep, penetrating, philosophical questions about the creation account in Genesis.
I get that sense too, that the disciples didn’t always seem to know what to make of Jesus. Do you have any sense as to whether Paul might have viewed his bodily resurrection in terms of the perfected “flesh and bones” prior to the Fall as Genesis implies?
Could well be — but he doesn’t ever talk about it in those precise terms.
Hi Bart,
I was wondering what your thoughts are to what William Lane Craig says about the disciples belief in the resurrection. He says that the resurrection in Jewish thinking was a collective event that happened at the end of the world and therefore the disciples wouldn’t have come to believe in Jesus as resurrected from the dead but rather exalted into heaven since it would be more in line with Jewish beliefs. In other words they weren’t expecting it and therefore would not have interpreted their visions of Jesus as him being resurrected from the dead.
The earliest believers would have thought that Jesus’ resurrectoin shows that the resurrection of all people has *started* (he is the “first furits” as Paul says in 1 Corinthians), that now the general resurrection will occur. But Craig must agree that they weren’t expecting it (since that’s what the Gospels say repeatedly) and that they did interpret their experiences as meaning he had been raised!
Dr Ehrman –
Re: “Here is the key question that is almost never asked: why would someone who had a vision of a deceased loved one think that the person had been raised from the dead?”
Your answer: Jesus’ disciples believed that Jesus had been resurrected because they were apocalypticists (my paraphrase, please correct me if I’m misrepresenting your view)
This view – that Jesus’ disciples would consider these “visions” of Jesus as evidences, not of a “visitation of a spirit” (ie, ghost), nor of a mere recuscitation, can hardly work at all, if none of them could confirm what happened with the body in the first place.
That is to say, unless they could actually *confirm* that Jesus’ body was indeed *gone* from where it was left, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to think of Jesus as having been either resurrected or even merely recuscitated. If nobody could say, as fact, that Jesus’ body *was no longer in such-and-such location*, then there is no way a claim of resurrection could have been made – at least, not in any fashion that would convince anyone else.
If I had a “vision” of my deceased Grandfather, I’d call it a “ghost”; there’s no way I would call it a “resurrection” *unless* I went to his grave, had it exhumed, and it was found to be empty. And, I would not have the least expectation that anyone else would believe my story that I had seen my Grandpa resurrected, if I couldn’t tell them, in fact, his grave was empty. (and even then, I’m not sure it would convince anyone).
So, no – the fact that Jews were expecting a resurrection “at the last day” – a general resurrection of all people – would not automatically lead, by any means, to the disciples accepting visions of Jesus as some kind of evidence of his resurrection. If anything, it flew in the face of what they would expect – which would be, “Jesus is dead until we all get resurrected”. And, this is exactly and precisely the reason that in the gospels, the disciples first believe they have seen a ghost, and it is precisely why Paul spends so much time trying to make sense of this unexpected event.
It’s easy to claim “oh, the disciples believed Jesus was resurrected because they were apocalpyticists”, thus believing “the end is near”, but nonetheless, in the absence of knowledge of whether Jesus’ body had indeed evacuated the place it was *supposed* to have been – be it a tomb or some random communal grave – I fail to see any reason whatsoever that a claim of resurrection could have been made at all, any more than I could claim that my Grandpa had been resurrected without having any reason whatsoever to believe that his body was no longer it it’s grave.
So, if Jesus’ body was just left on the cross to decompose, with whatever “remains” left over after the bird-pickings being thrown into a communal grave (as you propose in How Jesus Became God), then really, how on earth would you imagine that these guys, having visions of Jesus, could all claim “resurrection”, with none of them saying “hey, wait a minute… How do we *know* this was a resurrection if we don’t know if the pile of bones that was once Jesus is no longer in that hole in the ground?” Seriously, in the absence of something like an empty tomb, how could anyone expect that this resurrection tale would be convincing, even to those who had seen the vision?
They were a hundred miles away at the time. I think you need to try to think of how ancient people imagined things and what kinds of verification they looked for — not what we modern 21st century people do or would do in their place!
We see very clearly what level of verification people back then looked for; hence, the “empty tomb” story.
If that wasn’t any expected level of verification, then the gospels could have simply posited the resurrection based on nothing but the testimonies of Peter’s (and others) “sightings”.
Dr. Ehrman,
When a user asked “The precise Christian understanding about what happened Jesus after his death, that his actual body was restored to life and made immortal, is not attested of any pagan figure in antiquity”
You wrote “Right. But the idea was deeply influenced by pagan understandings of people who were taken up to live with the gods after they passed from this world”
Since the disciples came to believe in resurrection within a few weeks of Jesus’ death and that some of them were truly convinced that they had seen him resurrected and since both Jesus and his disciples believed in the resurrection as apocalyptic, the pagan understanding of his death you are referring to, therefore it does not refer to them, but to the subsequent image of heaven and hell, when Christianity began to spread among the Gentiles. Practically the difference between the understanding of his disciples and that influenced from paganism, lies in the physical nature of the resurrected body in the apocalyptic idea as opposed to that of a spiritual body, a soul in the sky, influenced by the pagan next understanding among Gentiles. Image of heaven and hell that still lasts today. It’s correct?
Thanks
I mispoke a bit, if you’re quoting me exactly. That “pagan” view was popular in “Jewish” circles as well. I have a fuller discussion of that in my book How Jesus Became God. You’re right; it’s a very important point.
So were Jesus and his disciples also influenced by that pagan view?
Thank you
I don’t think so, but it’s hard to know. Rural Jews at the time didn’t have much contact with broader culture.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
First of all, hello from Turkey. I wanted to ask you a question about the resurrection.
I do as much research as I can about the resurrection. Some people say that Jesus did not die on the cross, he just suffered a loss of consciousness.(Swoon Hypothesis)
Mr. Ehrman, is this view truly academically coherent or is it a fantastic exaggeration like the stories of Dan Brown? Who are the advocates of this view in academia? Can you give me a few names?
Best Regards.
It’s not a view held among scholars, no — at least I”ve never met a scholar who holds it. It was advanced most seriously by a scholar once, though, in the 1960s, by Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot. Scholars almost universally condemned the book as being completely sensationalized and groundless.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
Thank you very much for your reply. I am trying to get accurate information about Early Christianity but unfortunately there is a lot of speculation. I don’t want to read nonsense Apologies. If you’ll excuse me, I would like to ask you some questions:
1-) I hear a claim. According to this claim, the Apostles absolutely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Please be careful, absolutely. There is an academic consensus on this issue. Is there really an academic consensus on this?
2-) As far as I know, James did not believe in Jesus, but later believed that Jesus was resurrected. Perhaps Peter persuaded James. (You told this to David Wood, I remember this from there.) The critical point here is: “James didn’t believe in Jesus when Jesus was alive.” Is this claim a firm claim? Some people say that James believed in Jesus before. Are these people speculating, or is it possible that James believed in Jesus before?
3-) Some people say that the apostles do not believe in a bodily resurrection. According to them, the Apostles believed in a spiritual resurrection. Is this claim a speculation or is it based on serious grounds?
Thank you Mr. Ehrman. Best Regards.
1. The consensus is they did. My view is that we don’t know about all of them, since there’s only dubious evidence.
2. Paul knew James and seems to have thought that James claimed to have seen Jesus.
2. They are completely wrong about that. The disciples believed the body came out of the grave.
Really thank you for your reply. It is a great pleasure for me to correspond with someone like you. Thank you really.
There are not many people working on resurrection in my country. As far as I know, there is only one name. That’s why Your blog a great opportunity to talk to valuable people like you.
As far as I know, Marcus Borg says that the apostles did not believe in bodily resurrection. Mr. Borg was of course an important teacher, but to be honest I am not sure of the correctness of his ideas. I have a request from you. Can you give me a percentage? What percentage of teachers (Christian, Jewish, Atheist, etc.) in the academy say that the original belief of the apostles of Jesus is a bodily resurrection? If you can’t give a percentage, can you tell me your guess? What is the percentage of names in the academy who argue that the original belief of the apostles was not a bodily resurrection but something else (such as a spiritual resurrection)?
As far as I can see, names like Borg, Bultmann seem a bit radical. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t have an exact percentage, but the very large majority. I personally don’t think I know of anyone who thinks Jesus was resurrected but his body was left in the grave. If they do they typically say they don’t believe in a “literal” resurrection. But all the scholars I know think at least that the ealry Christians believed the body left the tomb. I’m not sure if Borg agreed with that or not. As a very liberal Christian he himself did not think Jesus was physically raised, perhaps, and possibly he assumed the early Christians shared his views? I”m not sure. And I’m not sure if Crossan also has that view (or other members of the Jesus Seminar).
Hi Dr Erhman, I’m new to your blog and I am enjoying your writings very much! I was wondering, could the disciples interpret it as a bodily resurrection because they interpreted certain passages in the Old Testament that may have suggested that, or even Jesus’s own words ‘destroy this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days’? These are specific points Christians will raise, indicating Christ as the firstborn from the dead instead of generalising the belief in a resurrection under the general framework of Jewish apocalyptic system.
My sense is that apocalyptic Jews developed the idea of a future resurrection in order to show that despite appearances, God really was sovereign over this world (in charge) and in the end would do justice. They found support for these views in Scripture. Jesus’ followers would have been raised iwth these views and so would have had a number of Scripture in mind. When they thought of afterlife, they thought of a bodily afterlife following the resurrection. Since Jesus came back to life, he must have been bodily resurrected. And they went and found more passages of Scripture to support hteir view that the messiah too would be resurrectioned (3 days: Hosea 6:2; the book of Jonah)
Thanks for your reply Dr Ehrman, the way you described it seems is like prophecies are often or always regarded in a rather regressive rather than foretelling fashion, where current events or narratives are made to fit into the prophecies rather than prophecies taking the lead to foretell. For example, I recall many of the 16th century reformers were dead sure the the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfilment of the antichrist or beast, since it was the dominant force that persecuted them in those days. Ecumenism is the fashion in christendom today, so this claim is no longer popular. It’s found mainly in the fundamentalist circles, or at least the denomination I came from.
Thanks for your reply Dr Ehrman, the way you described it seems is like prophecies are often or always regarded in a rather regressive rather than foretelling fashion, where current events or narratives are made to fit into the prophecies rather than prophecies taking the lead to foretell. For example, I recall many of the 16th century reformers were dead sure the the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfilment of the antichrist or beast, since it was the dominant force that persecuted them in those days. Ecumenism is the fashion in christendom today, so this claim is no longer popular. It’s found mainly in the fundamentalist circles, or at least the denomination I came from.
Dear Bart (if I may),
I do appreciate that this is an old post, but I wanted to share some thoughts about the subject of a brief exchange you had with a reader, Britt, in the comments above. Specifically, I am referring to why it is that (as far as we know) bereavement visions by other apocalyptic Jews were not interpreted as resurrections.
I have been thinking about this a fair bit over the past few days, and I wondered what you thought of the following (admittedly quite speculative) suggestion: One reason not all bereavement visions were interpreted as resurrections may be that most people would have been in a position to check whether the body of their deceased loved ones was still in the family tomb. By contrast, on the (reasonable?) assumption that the disciples had no idea about what had happened to Jesus’ body, the same could not have been said about them.
Many thanks in advance and best regards
Interesting thought! Yup, that’s worth thinking about!
Thank you very much for your reply. I was hoping to have your take on another issue please–I hope I am not taking advantage of your kindness!
What is the first, extant account of the *bodily* resurrection of Jesus? The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 does not seem to be helpful in this regard: While it says that Jesus was buried, raised, and that he appeared to Cephas and the Twelve, it does not specify whether he was raised *bodily,* or whether Peter et al. understood their visions to mean that he had been raised *bodily*.
The reason I ask is that I am trying to understand whether the historical evidence is compatible with the the idea that belief in the *bodily* resurrection of Jesus arose much later than the disciples had visions of him, where by “much later” I mean a few years later, but obviously before Paul started writing his letters.
Thank you again and best regards
I think for any apocalyptic Jew (like Paul) who said that someone “appeared” (or “was seen”) to them after death it meant that it was a bodily resurrection. I deal with that in my book How Jesus Became God. The same for the Gospels.
FYI – I’m trying to wrap my head around all this from a liberal Christian perspective.
Jesus’s apostles did not conceptualize that the soul and body could be separated from each other. So, they assumed that Jesus was physically resurrected. However, if they believed that, it posed a problem: How could it be Jesus’s physical body when his body decomposed on the cross before being thrown out? Therefore, they made up a story about Jesus being buried in a tomb, in which his (not decomposed) body would be preserved and thus be able to physically resurrect. Is this a logical hypothesis explaining why early Christian writers would make up the “fact” that Jesus was buried in a tomb?
If you were still a liberal Christian, considering his apostles historical context and dispositions, would you believe that it was more likely that Jesus’s apostles saw Jesus’s spirit or physical body?
The Jewish idea of a resurrected body didn’t have a problem with the body being decomposed before it was raised. The vast majority of bodies in fact would be decomposed. I know liberal Christians who think both.