(15 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...On this Easter Sunday, I thought I should say something about the resurrection of Jesus. It turns out I’ve said a lot over the years on the blog (I just checked!). Here’s a post from about five years ago, giving not my personal views but those of another well-respected New Testament scholar who, like me (we are a rare breed), is not personally a believer.
Bart Ehrman Resurrection of Jesus: What Are My Thoughts?
One of the first books that I have re-read in thinking about how it is the man Jesus came to be thought of as God is Gerd Lüdemann’s, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (2004). Lüdemann is an important and interesting scholar. He was a professor of New Testament at Göttingen in Germany, and for a number of years split his time between there and Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville. He is a major figure in scholarship and is noteworthy for not being a Christian. He does not believe Jesus was literally, physically, raised from the dead, and he thinks that apart from belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection, it is not possible for a person to be Christian.
This book is written for people with a lot of background in New Testament studies. It is exegetically based, meaning that he goes into a detailed examination of key passages to uncover their literary meaning, but he is ultimately interested in historical questions of what really happened. To follow his exegesis (his interpretation) requires a good knowledge of how NT scholars argue their points: the book is aimed at other NT scholars and, say, graduate students in the field.
The basic historical conclusions that Lüdemann draws – based on a careful analysis of all the relevant passages and a consideration of the historical events that lie behind them – is this:
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong, DON’T MISS OUT ON YOUR CHANCE!!!
Gerd Ludemann’s Perspective on the Resurrection of Jesus
- When Jesus was arrested and crucified his disciples fled. They did not go into hiding in Jerusalem – then went back home, to Galilee (where *else* would they go? They went home, to get out of Jerusalem!)
- Soon after, it was in Galilee (not in Jerusalem) that belief in the resurrection occurred. It occurred because Peter had a vision of Jesus that included auditory features (he thought he saw and heard him).
- This “vision” was induced by psychological factors. Peter felt terrifically guilty for having denied Jesus, and the “vision” he had brought forgiveness from his deep guilt.
- This vision was like other visions that people have (all the time): visions of dead loved ones; visions of the Virgin Mary. In these visions, of course, the loved ones do not *really* come back to life from the dead, and the Virgin Mary does not *really* show up at Lourdes, etc. These are psychologically-induced visions.
- Still, like many other people who have visions, Peter took the vision to be real and assumed that Jesus was alive again, in heaven.
- Peter brought the other disciples together and maintained with them that the end time was near, as Jesus had originally preached, and that the kingdom of God was soon to appear. The evidence? The resurrection of the dead had already begun. The evidence? Jesus had been raised. The evidence? He had appeared to Peter. All this is happening in Galilee.
The vision was infectious, and the mission got underway:
- Even Jesus’ brothers were caught up in the excitement and James became a believer in Jesus.
- The other person who had a genuine vision of Jesus was much later, the apostle Paul, who too experienced a psychologically-induced vision of Jesus. In this case, he found Jesus’ teaching of forgiveness and mercy appealing, even as he was violently persecuting the church as an enemy. But forgiveness won out and in a cataclysmic break from his past, Paul had a vision of the living Jesus, convincing him that Peter and the others were right: Jesus was still alive, and therefore had been raised from the dead.
- Some Christians thought that these visions showed that Jesus was spiritually exalted to heaven – not that his body had been physically raised from the dead.
- Others, including Peter and Paul, insisted that in fact, Jesus had experienced a physical resurrection of the body, which had been transformed into an immortal body before being exalted to heaven.
- The implication was that the tomb was emptied before Jesus’ started to make his appearances (other Christians also claimed to see him, but it is hard to establish that any of the others actually had any visions – they may have simply been building on Peter’s original claim).
- But by this time, it was too late to know whether the tomb was really empty.
For several reasons:
- We don’t know how much after his death the vision to Peter came; Acts suggests that it was fifty days before the preaching began; if so, the body would have decomposed.
- No one knew where he was buried anyway (the story of Joseph of Arimathea may be a later account, not something that really happened; Jesus may have been buried in a common grave or somewhere no one knew.
- It is worth pointing out, Ludemann notes, that Christians in Jerusalem appear to have placed ZERO emphasis on the location of the tomb. It was not until 326, according to Eusebius, that the alleged site of burial was “rediscovered” under a temple dedicated to Venus. Life of Constantine 3.26-28
- And so, the short story: Christianity started among Jesus’ followers in Galilee, sometime after his death, after Peter had a vision of Jesus that was psychologically-induced.
Bart Ehrman Resurrection: My Thoughts
So, to be clear, I’m not saying I agree with this entire reconstruction. But it’s very interesting, based on a detailed examination of all the evidence from the NT (and outside) by a skilled interpreter, and worth bearing in mind when trying to figure out what really happened both to Jesus’ body and to the followers of Jesus to make them believe it had been raised from the dead.
Understanding Peter’s vision/audition psychologically is not that much of a stretch but Paul’s is a lot more difficult to explain – though a lot easier than understanding it to have happened objectively. Paul didn’t know Jesus personally, and the vision/audition took place a lot longer after Jesus’s death.
is there reason to think that Paul knew very much about the teachings of Jesus, eg, about forgiveness, independent of the “fact” that in his vision/audtion he experienced forgiveness?
I wish we knew how much Paul *had* heard of Jesus’ teachings!
There is no evidence that Paul heard anything about any teachings of an earthly Jesus.
Are you saying that, when Paul states that he received his Gospel from no human origin or source, he was lying?
No, he received his “gospel” from the appearance of Jesus. But at that appearance Jesus did not instruct him in his earthly teachings (for example, the Sermon on the Mount). But Paul does quote *some* of jesus’ teachings, so he had heard about some of them at least from other sources.
But Paul must have heard about the Jesus “Gospel” well before he had his initial vision as per 1Cor15. He initially did not like it, and decided to persecute its followers. This tells us that he knew the basics of the apocalyptic Christ message from human sources, prior to his vision.
Therefore, Paul’s visions must have been unique and different from others. It became “his” Gospel, as he so clearly states. That also explains the appearance of others with competing Gospels – the apostles’ visions were, as expected, inconsistent.
As well, if Paul did quote “some” historical Jesus’ teaching, as you speculate, it would have been an easily detected lie when he proclaimed those teachings to be obtained by a direct personal revelation.
It may be redundant to state that a reverse process is a better fit. That is, rather than Paul quoting an historical Gospel Jesus, it was instead the Gospel writers who used Paul’s revelations and incorporated those in their writings.
I remember reading about Hillel the Elder and his teaching just prior and partially contemporary with Jesus. And doesn’t the NT say Paul was a student of his son or grandson? As a nonexpert and at face value: it seems that a lot of what Jesus and Paul taught was already around in Jewish circles. So except for Paul’s views specifically of Jesus and role as Christ, were they really that radical? Christian sermons and discussions I hear from conservatives ignore my understanding of the historical context and talk like Jesus and Paul had new radical teaching.
The book of Acts says that Paul studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel. I doubt it myself. Jesus’ own teachings were not a radical departure from those of other teachers at the time. Paul’s definitely were.
Aren’t there Christian NT scholars and theologians who would acknowledge that, say, Peter’s experience was private and that the vision/audition would not have been perceived by anyone who was with Peter — but that it nevertheless did or could have “objectively” happened in a spiritual dimension?
I don’t know. I don’t recall hearing anyone express that view.
Paul claims Peter was the first witness; the Gospels say the women. They all could have had visions of Jesus, from guilt or grief. Do you have an opinion on who started the resurrection claims?
My guess is that it was Peter, though it may have been one of the women.
It makes no sense that the narrative that women were the first to see the resurrected Jesus did not actually happen. At that time, the female testimony was not very reliable. So, why would anyone invent the story that it was the women who first saw him?
That’s the question I addressed earlier this month on the blog, here: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-meditation-practice-and-women-at-the-empty-tomb-readers-mailbag-april-9-2017/
First, it’s not true that women could not be witnesses, they could under certain circumstances. Secondly, it is fallacious to extrapolate that because women were restricted in legal proceedings that nobody ever believed anything a woman ever said in day to day life.
All of that is moot, though, because Mark does not present the women as witnesses, Mark says the women ran away and never told anybody about the tomb. Mark uses the women as a device to explain why no one had ever heard of this tomb before.
Moreover, while the other Evangelists were dissatisfied with Mark’s ending and all independently invented their own appearance narratives, none of them have anybody take the women’s word for anything. The disciples go back to check the tomb themselves before seeing Jesus themselves (in mutually contradictory accounts). The audience is never expected to take the women’s word for anything.
Good morning, Bart. Long story short, went to Amazon to find the Gerd Lüdemann book and stumbled upon another volume containing a Ludemann and William Lane Craig debate. Apparently, it did not go well for Gerd. I’ve seen Craig debate before and am always baffled by how much defference his NT claims are given. My question is, why do scholars allow Craig to claim that the Gospels are eye witness accounts containing “evidence” of the resurrection? Why not simply state at the outset that most critical scholars believe that the NT is a collection of oral traditions that no court of law would allow into court as evedence? Just wondering.
I haven’t seen the debate. What makes you think it didn’t go well for Luedemann?
Hello again and thanks for the response. To answer your question, I got the impression that Ludemann didn’t fair too well from the Amazon customer reviews accompanying the description of the book. Not a scientific sampling, I know. That said, most of the reviewers mention that Ludemann seemed caught off guard by Craig’s analytical presentation of the NT “evidence” of the resurrection. I’ve seen video of Craig’s debating style many times, and I can never understand why he is allowed to site NT stories as objective evidence rather than the highly subjective oral traditions that they are. I know you’ve debated Craig in the past. What was your experience in this regatd? Thank you.
Yes, consider the audience. Very few Amazon customers interested in the debate are going to be on Luedemann’s side going in. I think Craig is a skilled debater and a smart guy, but in my debate with him I thought he tried to belittle me, and that he came up with some very strange arguments.
You blew him away, but Craig has too much invested in his point of view to admit it.
Dr. Ehrman, I’m pretty much convinced at this point that this scholarly view is flawed. For one, I question the premise that Peter and the disciples believed Jesus was raised from the dead because they saw “visions” of him. I think it’s the other way around. Peter and the disciples already believed the eschaton was coming any day now — not years, not even months, but weeks or even days away. Just about every Jewish document I have read from that period, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, to 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, to the Testaments of Moses and the Patriarchs, to the New Testament itself, and on and on and on…they all point to that one unifying belief: Judgment Day is coming — maybe not today, or tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but it’s coming soon! and God will raise everyone from the dead to be judged; and everyone must be prepared for Judgment or he will not have a part in the next world. I can’t think of one source that says: Relax; take your time; Judgment Day is still a ways off; don’t stress about it. They ALL say: It’s an emergency! Don’t wait! Don’t waste anymore time! This could be your only warning! Prepare yourself now! Now! Now! Hurry!
So just imagine a group of apocalyptic Jews with this mindset, and suddenly their charismatic leader, who they believed was going to be their guide into the coming Kingdom, was suddenly and ignominiously executed by the state. Would they suddenly think, oh wait, maybe the eschaton isn’t coming soon then; maybe God is going to take his time now; maybe there’s no rush now. No, of course they wouldn’t think that. If anything, they would think the opposite, that Jesus’ death was a sign that Judgment Day was really right around the corner, and with it the Mass Resurrection of the Dead Saints. And since Jesus must have been one of the Saints, then that means he’s going to be amongst the first resurrected. And since Judgment Day is coming any day now, then Jesus has probably already been raised from the dead.
And then, and only then, did Peter and the disciples start actively seeking to connect with the risen Jesus. They purposely tried to induce “visions” of the risen Jesus, to confirm his resurrection, to confirm their steadfast beliefs in the coming eschaton. So I don’t think it was like how it is often portrayed by scholars, with the disciples going off to continue their lives as before, as if this whole escapade never happened, and then only after they saw “visions” of the risen Jesus did they decide that their mission must continue. No, they were as dedicated as ever to their mission after Jesus’ death, and they actively, purposely tried to communicate with his risen form so as to confirm their beliefs. Everything I know about human psychology tells me that this is what likely happened.
Points well taken… I suspect such apocolyptic fervor could have started a bunch of “I saw him too” lies amongst apostles and followers not wanting to be out done or left behind in thier personal commitment.
The way I imagine it is the disciples still believe judgement day is coming very soon, but Jesus wasn’t the Messiah, it must be someone else.
Interesting thoughts, but I wonder if the disciples were really in any position (education, social status, etc.) to formally push their claims related of the risen Jesus beyond more than say informal dialogue with family, friends and acquaintances. Have you considered the possibility that maybe a more formalized presentation of Jesus resurrection narratives originated with the community of Jesus followers in Damascus (diaspora Jews or proselytes to Judaism) where there may have been scribally literate Christian converts and where Paul had some of his initial contacts? Interested in your thoughts on this.
I don’t agree with Dr. Erhman and other scholars who hold that Jesus’ disciples were scriptural neophytes or otherwise too ignorant to posses and develop a complex Jewish eschatology. I think the portrayal we get of them in the New Testament as naive rubes is a fiction created solely for the purpose of dramatic irony.
No, it’d early antisemitism.
It eventually became anti-Jewish, but it started out as a literary technique for dramatic irony. It is also a rhetorical tool used for the sake of proselytizing.
Non-Christian being proselytized to: “If this Jesus guys was the Messiah, then why isn’t he the most famous person in the Jewish world?”
Proselytizing Christian: “The reason Jesus isn’t more well-known as the Messiah is that he kept the secret between his own personal companions, so that the enemies of God could be kept in the dark, and, in fact, the disciples didn’t even realize he was the Messiah at first! They only really knew for sure he was the Messiah after he died and he came to them in visions.”
Non-Christian person: “Oh, so I’m being privileged by God with receiving this eschatological secret?”
Christian: “Exactly! It’s your lucky day!”
This is a typical huckster tactic. God has singled you out for a cosmic secret. Don’t be foolish enough to ignore it.
It’s so clearly a rhetorical technique and a rationalization for questionable holes in the apostolic message that it’s kind of astonishing that not all NT scholars can see it.
Very interesting blog as usual. Thanks
My comments:
1. Would Ludemann contend that James, the brother of Jesus, was not a believer in Jesus during the lifetime of Jesus? If, so, I wonder how Ludemann would support that conclusion?
2. Without the physical Resurrection of Jesus, the atonement, and the divinity of Jesus, it seems to me that Christianity becomes very close to being secular humanism. These three beliefs seem to form the necessary core of Christianity.
3, It seems to me that If Jesus were who many contend that He was and is, then He would have been able to make all of this very clear, about His Resurrection, the atonement, and His divinity, to His disciples long before He died. Otherwise, all this theology becomes something the disciples made up in an attempt to cope with the unexpected death of Jesus. Moreover, if this is all true about Jesus, surely He and God would have found a better way to make it all clear than through a set of very old and problematic books which contain many contradictions and historical discrepancies.
1. Yes, he probably would say that. It seems to be the clear undestanding of Mark 2 and of John 7.
Thanks very much for the post! One question I had had to do the the very existence of Jesus. Having read most of your books I think I know where you stand on the topic but I recently heard that some of the evidence often cited, specifically comments made by Josephus regarding Jesus, are now under question as to their meaning and that they don’t point toward an existing person, namely Jesus. Have you run any to any of those arguments? Sorry I am not more specific on the evidence itself.
Yes, I deal with the entire matter in my book Did Jesus Exist?
I picked that one up a week or so ago. Looking forward to getting into it. Thanks!
Thanks, Bart. I deeply respect your integrity as a biblical scholar. I hope in 30 years from now you and others like you such as John Shelby Spong and James Tabor would be given the respect that you deserve . I know you don’t really care too much about that, but in my view the Christian church owes you guys a lot.
Thanks. I actually don’t feel disrespected at all. Those who do disrespect me hardly ever let me know!
Wow! Rarely have I read so much convoluted story telling based on absolutely nothing. I would have expected better from Ludemann, who seems to be mixing Paul and Gospels resulting in a “reconstructed” stew of weird fantasies. Some very creative exegesis!
Will the concept of Occam’s razor ever penetrate critical NT scholarship?
Obviously, the evidence based hypothesis of the celestial Christ of Paul – later transformed into the fabricated Jesus of Nazareth by Mark – wins the explanation, by simplicity alone, hands down.
Yes, the lack of tomb interest by early Christians is notable, but we don’t have to wait until 326 CE to note another major lack of interest – in Jesus of Nazareth himself! Paul, in Galatians 1:18, visits Cephas in Jerusalem (resulting in the infamous “brother” kerfuffle), but says about the earthly Jesus of Nazareth, presumably executed in Jerusalem only a few years earlier, absolutely NOTHING.
It seems interesting to me that in some of the cases where Jesus’ followers supposedly “saw” Jesus, that they did not recognize him at first. It seems like, as their leader, he would have been a pretty familiar face to them. Or Jesus could have said, “Hi – remember me?”.
Right! I talk about this in How Jesus Became God. (connected with the idea that many “doubted.” What were they doubting exactly???)
“Peter felt terrifically guilty for having denied Jesus”…
Does this mean Ludemann accepts the story about Jesus having “predicted” he’d deny him as fact?
I don’t care about the supposed discrepancies about when and how many times he’d deny him. From my modern perspective, any leader worth his salt would have told his followers to scatter if he was apprehended. And told them that if they *were* stopped and questioned, they *should* deny having been with him! Jesus should have shown concern for *them*. Are scholars sure that era was so different that he didn’t?
I doubt it. He is saying that after the fact Peter felt guilty.
It is amazing that when I present a version of this very possible, very plausible scenario to conservative Christians they dismiss it as implausible. When I ask why, they say it is implausible because it is not what the Gospels say happened. They also point out that there is no evidence for this version of events. When I ask them how they can be sure that the Gospel stories are 100% historically accurate, they tell me to prove they are not! Conservative Christians seem to believe that the onus is on skeptics to prove an alternative explanation is THE explanation for the Resurrection belief. If we are unable to do so, they seem to believe we must accept the one explanation that exists—theirs.
In western cultures, the onus is on the person making an extraordinary claim to prove his claim, not on the skeptic who questions it. Skeptics do not claim to KNOW how the Resurrection belief developed, we are simply suggesting possible and plausible alternative explanations for this ancient belief based on the little evidence that does exist surrounding the death of Jesus. It is exasperating that Christians cannot understand this.
P.S. to previous: I do, of course, accept that Jesus’s followers would have experienced “survivor guilt” over their still being alive, when their leader had been executed. And that could account for “visions.” My question was just about Peter’s feeling guilty for having “denied” Jesus…and whether the living Jesus would have *made him* think that was something he should feel guilty about.
Am I right in thinking you believe more disciples had “visions” than just Peter and Paul?
Personally, I think there should be greater emphasis on *dreams*, as distinct drom waking “visions.” I think mentally healthy people are more likely to have vivid dreams than “visions”…and more likely to take dream experiences *seriously*. The same may have been true two thousand years ago, even if the languages didn’t make the distinction clear.
“I think mentally healthy people are more likely to have vivid dreams than “visions’…”
It must be noted that this is a culturally-rooted belief. You couldn’t sell it in most traditional tribal cultures, nor in the Levant of late antiquity.
To me, the most interesting idea, which makes a lot of sense, is that there were few if any witnesses of the crucifixion and its aftermath among Jesus’ followers. Think about it. If you were a member of a cult whose leader had been arrested, found guilty of sedition, and nailed to a piece of wood until he died, would you hang around to see if the notoriously unforgiving Roman authorities were willing to leave it at that? And of course they had plenty of enemies there to point them out.
I could believe Peter hanging around a while after Jesus was taken, hoping against hope that he would survive, as he had in the past. But once it became obvious this wasn’t going the way he’d hoped, his faith would have temporarily broken, because this was not what was supposed to happen to the Messiah he already believed Jesus to be. The obvious thing to do is to get out of Jerusalem. And honestly, that’s probably what Jesus would have wanted them to do.
But he couldn’t stop believing in Jesus. So he couldn’t forgive himself for having abandoned his master. So he had to find some way to turn the tragedy into a triumph. We talk a lot about how Paul is the true founder of Christianity, and theologically speaking that’s probably true, but devotionally speaking, there’s a reason Peter takes precedence. A belief system isn’t much good without believers, is it now? Peter’s devotion was not just religious–it was personal. He loved this man. They all did. They couldn’t let him die for nothing. They had to make it mean something.
So how could they have gotten all these ideas about an empty tomb, come up with all these stories that make no sense? They had to piece it all together, well after the fact, with few if any witnesses to say this isn’t what happened. And they were deeply unhappy with the actual sequence of events that had occurred. They were not going to just wish away their failure as disciples, but they were going to reshape it. And make it something that had to happen, that was destined to happen, that was necessary in order for God’s will to be done, and Jesus to triumph over sin and death.
It would be nice to know more about how the Romans conducted crucifixions. In this case, there had been no actual insurrection, and Jesus was known to be popular. Pilate would have talked to Jesus, would have realized there was no real harm in him, but Roman law wasn’t much for second chances. They might not have left his body to rot (an affront to Jewish sensibilities). They might have felt the best thing was to just get him out of sight. Not his own private tomb. But once he’s buried, and nobody knows how to find the body, people can believe whatever they want.
As to people mocking Jesus on the cross–who would have been showing up for the crucifixion? People who didn’t like him. They had nothing to fear. Maybe some neutral onlookers, who felt sympathy for him, thought this was overly harsh punishment for some heterodox religious reachings. (well, that much is indisputable, at least).
The reason Paul is more often cited as the founder of Christianity than Peter, in my view, is because Paul took a Jewish sect and expanded it to the gentiles, which enabled it to survive the destruction of Jerusalem. Also, Paul at least left a record of his theology, more than Peter did.
I would not look for any sensitivity to Jewish custom on the part of the Romans; they had none. That’s why there was always so much tension between them. Pilate, from everything we know about him, would not have talked to Jesus beyond a perfunctory question or two, much like a judge asking “how do you plead? It’s unlikely they even had a language in common. Jesus was an insurrectionist who had stirred up trouble at Passover, the most volatile moment in the year, so Pilate would certainly have seen “harm in him.” Remember they crucified two others that day for being “lestai” – which technically means bandits, but which was used to describe guerillas fighting against Rome.
I get all that, but for the sect to expand to the gentiles, it had to survive and expand among the Jews first. It could have just died right after the crucifixion.
Any secular power has to think about what might trigger an uprising, because uprisings are expensive. The later uprising in Palestine cost Rome a great deal in treasure and lives, and of course they had much more than just Palestine to worry about. Pilate’s job was to try and prevent such messy occurrences. If he failed, he’d be removed. Rome didn’t care about offending Jewish religious sensibilities, but they worried about what might happen if they crossed a line they didn’t even know was there (they never understood the Jews–which is why for so long they assumed Christians and Jews were the same thing, since they seemingly worshiped the same God).
The problem with leaving Jesus’ body hanging on the cross to rot is that it might be stolen. Safest thing to do would be to take him down from the cross and either bury him in a mass grave, or burn him and scatter the ashes in secret.
However, it’s impossible to believe they’d let him have a private tomb that could become a martyr’s shrine, and of course–why didn’t it? Why was the location forgotten for so long?
In any event, the really important things were going on elsewhere–and Peter was behind that. Paul wouldn’t have had a cult to persecute and then join, if Peter hadn’t held it together.
Interesting. I missed this one the first time out.
How does Prof Lüdemann get the disciples back to Jerusalem with James in charge?
thanks
I don’t know. I suppose they simply decided to return. (Because they thought Jesus was going to come back there from heaven?)
Did not the governor/legate in Damascus pull Pilate and send him back to Rome in 36 due to an incident of brutality? Perhaps after 36 it was safer in Jerusalem. Perhaps the “gospel” didn’t go over so well in the Galilee….
Yes, Pilate was removed from teh governorship in 36. We don’t know what happened to him afterward; he simply disappears from the historical record.
sounds like a bunch of psycho-babble nonsense
Exactly how much experience has Lüdemann had with treating/diagnosing psychological disorders of patients experiencing hallucinations?
I’m afraid I have no idea!
Is there any reason to question Paul’s honesty when he claims that he was persecuting Christians? I have always been skeptical of this claim – Paul wasn’t a law officer. Why would Rome grant him, or anyone for that matter, authority to persecute others for religious beliefs?
He seems to be ashamed of it, so most scholars don’t doubt it (in fact, I’m not sure if I know anyone who does). He wasn’t authorized by Roman but by local Jewish authorities.
I don’t claim to be a scholar, but Paul’s story of persecuting Christians and being sent to Damascus to root them out is the supreme fantasy in Christian lore, although Paul’s claim to have met Jesus (using the words of the old Negro Spiritual) “in the air,” is right up there with the best religious fairy tales.
If Paul was in fact a Pharisee, and the Pharisees were in fact openly critical of the first Christians, then not only would we expect Paul to be critical of the first Christians, but we would expect him to be openly hostile to a sect of Jews who the Pharisees believed were spreading a potentially treasonous and incendiary belief.
Do you mean treasonous to the Romans–especially if he claimed to be king of the Jews? Some scholars opine that Jesus was a Pharisee–at least his opinions were closer to theirs than to the sadducees who didn’t believe in resurrection at all. The gospels portray the Pharisees as the bad guys because they were written after the destruction of the Temple and most of Jjerusalem, effectively eliminating the priestly orders and their hangers-on as a viable force in Israel. So the newbies (the proto-Christians) needed a different enemy, and lo and behold, up stepped the Pharisees–hiding in plain sight
.
I was wondering what did you think of The Case for Christ, the book or movie. As an agnostic, I thought it was a decent portrayal of one man’s dilemma ( don’t know why he had such an adverse reaction though of his wife becoming a Christian) of having a zealous Christian wife, but another person could have easily come to a different conclusion if they interviewed different experts.
Yes, expert opinion, as you know better than most of us, is, well, opinion, not evidence. I think the whole enterprise is completely flawed.
If would be nice if you could do several posts on the reasons.
I never seem to run out of things to talk about on this blog!
Because your subscribers give you good topics to write about. Lol I would be very interested to see a perspective of an expert on the Early Christianity. I was thinking to myself while watching the movie
“I bet the author would not have arrived at the conclusion if he interviewed Bart Herman. Why didn’t he interview Bart Erhman? Oh, maybe Bart wasn’t famous at the time.”
Despite claiming to have the position of an atheist/skeptic in the beginning, Lee Strobel operated under the odd presumption that the only “experts” were apologetic evangelical Christians.
His senario seems plausible. I think its also possible that peter and others claimed falsely to have visions. They had already achieved a substantial number of followers from Jesus ministry. A way to make a living that didn’t involve the menial labor of just plain fisherman. They could be important people. You can already see Paul reminding people to pay there bishops in his letters. So people are now being paid to share truth. As for Paul. He is Just one Pharisee among many as a Jew but As a Christian he can be a very learned person who commands alot of respect from the much less educated. A religious movement like mormonism, Christianity, Jehovahs witnesses offer many things to many people. Community, status, money, and most importantly purpose. All those movements have many people in them who dont ask too many hard questions because of the benefits they get. I have heard that the evidence that most of the disciples died for their faith is not very good. Is the evidence that peter and paul actually died for their faith strong enouph that dishonesty on their part is highly unlikely. Is there good evidence that they had the opportunity to recant their faith and save themselves ?
They do appear to have been martyred, but we have zero evidence of what actually happened and why.
Off topic: What do you think makes a bestseller? I mean you published a dozen trade books and the most successful of these was Misquoting Jesus. What drives the sales?
I ask, of course, because I am interested in generating interest in my own book as you know.
Also, what would you advise new authors who are yet unknown?
Thanks
Fady Riad
The Gospel of Lie: amzn.to/2pjfno6
Well, a book has to be widely interesting, dealing with questions people have, in ways others have not written about; they need to be very well written and gripping; they need to be written by people who know what they’re talking about based on expertise. But what makes a bestseller? End of the day, massive media attention!
This is not a comment for this post but a question for the reader’s mailbag:
I finished watching your debate with Robert Price and was, as always, very impressed with your knowledge and presentation. While, due to my bias I’m sure, I always think you win your debates, this was the first one I watched that I thought was surely evident on both sides that you obviously knew more than and outperformed your opponent. It was also most obvious in this debate that your opponent conveniently got rid of evidence he didn’t like. In fact, Dr. Price went so far as to claim the book of Galatians was not written by Paul because he didn’t want it to be. One thing I’ve always admired about you is your intellectual honesty. My question is, is there any evidence presented inside or outside the bible that YOU find particularly troubling for your own reconstruction of the life of Jesus that you wish simply was not there? Another way to say this is, is there an argument that you dread coming up in a debate because you feel it does hurt your case? How do you deal with it?
It completely depends on what aspect of Jesus’ life you’re referring to. There is difficult counter-evidence for nearly every position a scholar of the historical Jesus takes.
I prefer to follow the path of least resistance, which means not trying to explain the resurrection as a phenomenon brought on by either an individual or group psychologically induced vision. The easiest answer is that they did what people do all the time, they lied. I can see this much more likely, as their leader lay dead, to encourage and convince others of their movement, they shouted, “He Lives”, and thus the seeds of the resurrection were sown.
What people do even more than lie is to be mistaken.
What parts do you not agree with?
I agree with a good deal of it, but I don’t think we can psychoanalyze ancient people to figure out the psychology behind what they did and why.
agree with that! I mean I agree we cant psychoanalyze people who lived 2000 years ago.
nothing else as you’ve presented Lüdemann’s thesis seems very controversial
Yes, I can’t see how we can say why Peter had a vision, when we don’t even have an explicit reference to him actually having a vision. Guilt is just one possible cause for someone to have a vision, and I’m not sure that it’s even the most common. When my wife was a child, her 5 year old friend next door died, and her parents didn’t let her go to the funeral. Soon after, she saw Jesus carrying her up through the ceiling. This wasn’t a dream, it was as real as real. We both think this was probably caused by her brain needing some sort of closure on it. As for Paul’s vision, neuroscience has shown that intense focus on an object (or person, or God) is enough to trigger a transcendental experience (or vision) of that object. We even have documented cases of this sort of thing happening completely out of the blue, changing the person’s life from then on. Scholars should just say that Peter and Paul probably had some sort of a vision, and leave it at that.
I suppose the general outline is probably right. Just wondering, would the disciples have had any real reason for fleeing? They weren’t claiming to be messiahs or kings or anything that the Romans would care about. Were they fleeing from the Jewish authorities or the Romans?
Well, if their leader was charged with insurrection, and they followed him, they could be next. They were probably fleeing eveyrone in authority.
{{ It is worth pointing out, Ludemann notes, that Christians in Jersualem appear to have placed ZERO emphasis on the location of the tomb. It was not until 326, according to Eusebius, was the alledged site of burial “rediscovered” under a temple dedicated to Venus. Life of Constantine 3.26-28.}}
This is an incredibly salient point, it seems. If there was a real (empty) tomb, it would have been marked and made into a memorial or a Shrine from the very beginning. It’s pretty obvious that did NOT happen.
Ludemann makes two big assumptions to get to his conclusion. The first is that Peter’s denial of Jesus is a historical event and not simply Passion drama. It may be historical but can we say with certainty? The second is that Paul found Jesus’s teaching of mercy and forgiveness appealing. Given that he found the claims that Jesus was the messiah fraudulent, it is questionable that he found anything about the man or his teaching appealing.
I am always suspicious of psychoanalysis from a distance, the more so when done (as it almost always is) by people who are not psychologists. I think it is sufficient to note that visions of dead people were nothing unusual in that time, which I hold is one reason why Paul’s testimony was so readily accepted. (That he was probably a charismatic personality also helped.)
The Romans would not have capitulated to any directives of Jews regarding the crucified Jesus’ body. Once the Romans were in charge they would have crucified Jesus just like any other person. His body would have been left on the cross to decompose and be eaten by crows, etc. After a period of time, if they needed the cross he was nailed to, they would have simply tossed his body in a mass grave or dumping ground. The only other reasonable alternative is that Jesus’ family or followers would have waited for the Romans to take him down and then they could have buried him.
There are just to many contradictions in the gospels regarding Jesus’ death and alleged resurrection to believe they were historical facts.
My guess is that you’ve never read Josephus or Philo, or the Roman digesta? You seem quite sure Jesus’ body would have been left on a cross, yet, we have physical remains of a crucified victim that were found in a sepulchre – clearly not left on a cross.
It may be true that the vast majority of crucifixion victims in Palestine were left hanging on their crosses, but, that is because the vast majority of those crucifixions were done in wartime, or in an insurrection. But, the bodies of criminals that were crucified could indeed be returned to their families, or whomever requested them, except in the case of High Treason.
Was Jesus crucified for HIgh Treason? I doubt it. He was crucified on Jewish charges, not Roman charges – at the insistence of the Jews (as Josephus notes). Pilate probably had no idea who he was. And, in any case, it certainly wasn’t the Romans that arrested him or brought charges upon him.
You might ought to check out your history a bit better on this one…
You may be interested in my lengthy discussions about all this on my blog from earlier. I talk about both Philo and Josephus there. Search for Craig Evans on the blog and you’ll find the posts.
Craig Evans – I’ll check it out! Love to read more! Thanks, Dr!
I found that info you referred me to, and read it all. Oh, and, I gave myself a bonus, and listened to your debate with C. Evans (P1 & P2).
As to the info you referred me to: I totally appreciate your views on Josephus, including questioning whether what he said about Jews burying crucifixion victims was really accurate. We can take that approach with just about everything we read (of a “factual” nature), as a matter of “critical thinking”.
You seem quite certain, though, that Jesus was officially charged by the Romans for being an insurrectionist. This seems to be the main point you use in order to show why Jesus would have been left on the cross.
The really odd thing is that I have *never* seen Jesus being charged by the Romans with *anything*. The “reconstructed” Testamonium says “…And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross…”
This seems in line with what the gospel accounts say. I, for one, have no problem imagining that the Romans required that executions would be carried out by them, thus, the Jews needed to hand Jesus off to the Romans for execution. But, that doesn’t at all imply that the Romans themselves necessarily had any charges against Jesus at all. If one Jew had murdered another Jew, and was found guilty by the Jewish court, they’d have to be handed off to the Romans for execution. But, that does not at all imply that the Romans accused the man of murder, and certainly doesn’t imply that the man was found guilty in some type of Roman court.
I’m of very high confidence that you know the account Josephus gives regarding Ananus’ “illegal assembly” of the Sanhedrin (without Roman approval), and of his attempt to have James stoned to death, etc, etc – and, that Albinus “wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him…” The point being: the Jews, in this passage, don’t really seem to have had the authority to execute anyone without a Roman stamp of approval.
I’m just saying, though, that a “stamp of approval” was all that was necessary. It wasn’t at all necessary for the Romans themselves to have any charges whatsoever against a criminal tried in a Jewish court.
So, I’m just not sure how you are so certain that Jesus was charged by the Romans with anything at all, especially insurrection. I read your reasoning, and, I realize it’s just your take on it, your theory. If I were writing a book on the topic, I suppose I’d have a much different take on it. I’ve found information that is quite contrary to your view in (for example) Roy A. Stewarts “Judicial Procedure in New Testament Times”, and both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.
Me? I’d figure the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead for blasphemy or something, and simply took him to Pilate in order to have the Romans carry out the execution.
There are pretty solid reasons for thinking that he was killed for calling himself King of the Jews — but the argument is too lengthy for a comment here! I’ll add a truncated version of your post to the Mailbag and try to answer it there.
Are there such things as gnostic Christians anywhere anymore? If so, wouldn’t they qualify as Christians who don’t believe in the physical resurrection?
Steve Schullery (newbie)
There are certainly people who identify as Gnostics — in fact, Gnostic churches (e.g., in parts of California). The problem with “qualifying” as a Christian is knowing who gets to decide on the official definition.
Dr. Ehrman,
On a historical Jesus course (greatcourses) you mention early on and compare the description of Apollonius of Tyana’s life to Jesus; in so, you mention that the followers of Apollonuis were in competition with Jesus’s followers and that they each claimed the other was a “fraud/magician ” etc (I’m paraphrasing).
But I have never seen you mention or quote any written sources of any of Apollonius’ followers for reference to Jesus (as say evidence for historical Jesus), in your various books…?
You mention all the non-Christian (Roman) early sources, Jewish sources etc.
I was wondering if there are any? And how come you don’t quote these sources…Are they too late in the records to be trustworthy? Or are they only mentioned instead in writings from early (Christian) church fathers in respond- so that we don’t have any of the original writings (like Marcion’s views etc)
Thanks in advance,
The source is Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Eusebius, in his work Against Hierocles, talks about the disputes between the followers of Apollonius and the Christians.
As a newly retired high school Latin teacher who has relocated to Chapel Hill from New Haven, I am really enjoying this blog as well as the Women’s Bible Study group I attend. I’ve always been interested in the 1st century AD and the confluence of Jewish, Christian and Pagan religions, philosophies and ethics. By the way, I cannot find the answer to this question…AD being Latin and BC being English…when did that start? What Latin would Eusebius have used since he certainly didn’t use BC.
I’ve long wondered that and don’t know the answer! Maybe someone else could tell us. The use of the birth of Jesus as the time to separate the eras (AD/BC or now CE / BCE) was made after Eusebius, by the 6th century monk Dionysius Exiguus. Most authors in the Roman world dated events by the reign of Roman consuls or emperors.
I think the guilty vision theory is a bit far fetched . How can you explain for eg. people seeing Jesus together ? Some kind of shared “vision” ? That sounds ridiculous.
Secondly if at all Jesus died on the cross and birds was picking on his body and his body dumped into a mass grave and eaten by animals it is hard for at least one of his followers ( one of the 120 mentioned who gathered in the upper room to say he did not ressurect ) If I was one of the 120 of his followers living in israel at that time and I was a jew ( ie the obstinate holding onto one God belief etc. ) it is hard for me to not totally follow what happens to Jesus. Id be just watching him on the cross, following the moments of his dying and what happens to his body afterwards ( say to pay respects ) So if the body was thrown into a dump and dogs was eating it and I saw with my own eyes, there is no way any ones testimony that they saw jesus is going to sway me unless I saw him myself with my own eyes. And if there was a bunch of guys going around ( his followers ) saying he ressurected ( as a follower of him , I would refute it because i saw him being eaten by dogs in a dump )
Ressurection is rare but do happen . For eg. https://www.thelocal.fr/20170426/paris-woman-declared-dead-by-paramedics-then-brought-to-life-by-police
The real problem is not ressurection but where did he vanish after some days. If you just looked at “comming back to life” statistics there is 1 in a billion or some such odd for some one to come back to life. But most likely people who come back to life are again dead as time goes by. I think what is more rare is ascension narrative.
So it is more likely that he was dead and placed in the tomb and he came back to life , rolled the stone and meeting his followers. But what happened to him afterwards ?
How will you refute the above argument ?
I’m not sure if the visions were inspired by guilt or something else. And I very much don’t think there were 120 believers in Jerusalem a month after Jesus’ death.
Acts chapter 1 verse 15 says there was about hundred and twenty gathered . Why is it not reliable ?
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)
Acts is notoriously unreliable about numbers. 3000 Jews in Jerusalem convert in chapter 2; another 5000 in 4:30. More and more are being added every day. So within a few weeks of Jesus’ death, there are some 10,000 Christians. Can’t be right. These are later legendary accounts, almost certainly not reliable reports of what was really happening.
This is probably a dumb question but why those thousands of early conversions not possible ?
Because of tens of thousands of people converted, there would be a record of it in non-Christian sources. Christian sources are completely profligate when it comes to estimating their numbers. I’ll be talking about this in the book that is coming out in September.
Thank you for that insight. I have not thought about that. But are there any numbers in Acts that seems reasonable ?
I have also watched you speak in a few places that as a historian, you have to attach a probability figure to how likely some event is to have happened. So I want to go back to my original question. As people living in the modern age ( shall I say twitter age ) as a historian if you heard the story in the link below
https://www.thelocal.fr/20170426/paris-woman-declared-dead-by-paramedics-then-brought-to-life-by-police
1. How probable do you think that story is likely to be true ?
2. If it is probable, ( applying the same logic and standard you would apply ) Why is Jesus’ ressurection not probable ? ( can you please also explain the standard you apply so I can understand your reasoning )
Sorry — wish I had time to read other things. Not enough minutes in the hour or hours in the day!
Dear Bart,
On your recommendation I just read Gerd Lüdemann’s ‘The resurrection of Christ’. I managed to lay my hands on a Dutch copy.
Very interesting book! I can see both similarities and differences between you and him. Although the consensus amongst historians like you and him seems very high.
Anyway, thanks for the recommendation. If you have any more suggestions within this scientific field that are readable to ordinary blokes like me, please continue to give a hint now and then.
Greetings from the Netherlands,
Ronald Bezemer
About this: “When Jesus was arrested and crucified his disciples fled. They did not go into hiding in Jerusalem – then went back home, to Galilee (where *else* would they go? They went home, to get out of Jerusalem!)”
Jesus was arrested during the night, on a “Jewish day” (remembering that days began at sundown) before a Sabbath (maybe, two Sabbaths). At Jesus’ arrest, there was no way for any of them to know that He was going to end up being crucified. They couldn’t possibly know the outcome of Jesus’ arrest (which was, of course, his crucifixion) until that outcome (the crucifixion) actually happened, which was apparently just hours before the Sabbath(s) began.
So, according to this theory, the disciples learn of Jesus’ crucifixion *only because it happened*. They couldn’t know beforehand that it was *going* to happen.
At *that* point – the point at which Jesus’ is taken out for crucifixion – this theory then says that Jesus’ closest disciples unanimously decided “hey, let’s just leave, OK?” Not a single one of these guys had been arrested with Jesus (when they could have been), but now, all of a sudden, they’re so afraid that they all decide to leave. Not one of them simply decides to “lay low”, hunker down in Jerusalem some place till it blows over, and leave with the masses of Passover pilgrims. No. They *all* decide to leave. Not a single one of them sticks around even for the purpose of paying some kind of respect to this man Jesus, who had been so very important to them. Yep, they all say “hey, they’re out there crucifying the guy right now, I’m outta here, even though they didn’t even bother to arrest me when they had the chance”.
And then – a scant few hours before the beginning of the Sabbath (and, maybe two Sabbaths – a weekly Sabbath and a High Sabbath for the Passover) – they take off. They’ve got a few hours before the Sabbath(s). But, on those Sabbaths, how far are they going to travel? Jewish law says not more than about 3000 feet. Yep, they get to travel about a mile in the first few hours (before the Sabbath), then in the next 24, they get to go maybe half a mile. And, if it was two Sabbaths, why, they can cover a mile in 48 hours! That’s some pretty slow “fleeing”.
And, they couldn’t really carry anything on the Sabbath(s), like a backpack with food and water. You can’t carry objects from the house out into the street. You can’t carry stuff for more than a few feet. So, these slowly-fleeing disciples are looking right at 24 to 48 hours with no food or water. All for the sake of traveling a half a mile, maybe a mile. Great plan.
And it’s not as if they could stop at a local eatery on their half-mile (maybe a mile) trek in those 24-28 hours. Business transactions weren’t allowed on the Sabbath.
So, exactly when did this “going home, back to Galilee” actually take place? If somebody postulated that the disciples “laid low until after the Sabbath(s), and then took off for Galilee”, I could buy it. But, then, that’s pretty much what the gospels say, isn’t it?
Nope, this “going home, back to Galilee” idea *must* mean they took off pretty durn quickly after hearing that Jesus’ was being crucified. But, I guess I fail to see the point of fooling with that: They weren’t going to get far, they wouldn’t have food or water, they’d be stuck out on the open road between Jerusalem and Galilee for at least 24 hours, maybe 48 hours, and – they really didn’t have much of a reason to think anybody was even looking for them. And, if somebody *was* looking for them, it was going to be a far better strategy to just “get lost in the crowds” – the couple-hundred-thousands of Passover piligrims.
I dunno. This first idea that “When Jesus was arrested and crucified his disciples fled. They did not go into hiding in Jerusalem – then went back home, to Galilee (where *else* would they go? They went home, to get out of Jerusalem!)” – it looks pretty shakey to me. Not convinced at all.
Yes, I wish we have more information!!
Well, with the lack of information – and, with knowing that Jews couldn’t travel on a Sabbath, and certainly couldn’t carry travel provisions – I believe it’s infinitely more plausible that they did, in fact, go into hiding in Jerusalem, waiting for the Sabbath to end before leaving – rather than taking off immediately, once they learned Jesus was being crucified (which was just a matter of hours before the beginning of a Sabbath -or Sabbaths – during which they couldn’t realistically travel at all). Of course, if they waited for the Sabbath(s) to end (before they left), then, well, that’s exactly what the Synoptics say. *shrug*
Heck, if I had been faced with the decision as to “when to leave”, I’d say “what’s the point in taking off right now? If they wanted to arrest *us*, they could have done that already. And, we ain’t goin’ nowhere after a couple of hours, until after the Sabbath(s). So, i’m just stayin’ here. No point in doing otherwise”. But, that’s just me. I’ve always had a “practical” side to me. I don’t usually run when I’m not being chased, and usually don’t plan travel when all the airports have been shut down. I’m just that kinda guy.
In my reconstruction, they got out of town the day *before* sabbath, and so didn’t need to wait for it to end.
From “How Jesus Became God”: “The disciples feared for their own lives and went into hiding or fled town in order to avoid arrest. Where would they go? Presumably, back home to Galilee – which was more than one hundred miles away and would have taken at least a week on foot for them to reach…”
Also ~ “If it is true that the disciples fled from Jerusalem to Galilee when Jesus was arrested, and it was there that they “saw” him, they could not have seen him on the very first Sunday morning after his death”.
[ At this point, in your book, you mention – as I have mentioned – that “if they fled on Friday, they would not have been able to travel on Saturday, the Sabbath”, and then you simply raise a number of questions, ie: “Maybe some of them, or one of them, had a vision of Jesus in Galilee soon after he was crucified – possibly that following week? The week after that? The next month?” ]
So – which was it? Did they “go into hiding”, or did they “[flee] town in order to avoid arrest”? You do, after all, give both options in your book.
I don’t see, in this “reconstruction”, that they *necessarily* headed out of town immediately following Jesus’ arrest (in the middle of the night, traveling on foot, in darkness, BTW). What I see is that they might well have indeed stuck around, but remained in hiding.
BUT ADMITTEDLY – l may not have gotten to the part where you say, definitively, that the disciples did indeed take off for Galilee, in the middle of the night, when Jesus was arrested. So, I’ll take your word for it that that is indeed your “reconstruction”.
So – the issue: If the disciples *did*, in fact, take off for Galilee the very night Jesus was arrested, then, they could *not* have possibly known that Jesus was, indeed, headed for crucifixion and death; nobody was going to know that that was going to happen until it happened. So, upon arriving in Galilee – not really knowing what happened with Jesus – why on earth would any of them have visions of Jesus being alive??? They wouldn’t *know* that Jesus died in the first place, would they?
If you say “a news-bearer came to Galilee two weeks later and told them that Jesus had been crucified”, then, is it not entirely possible that this same news-bearer might also *know* that Jesus’ body was still hanging on the cross? I mean, if the news-bearer took notice of the crucifixion, then, is it not possible that by the time he left Jerusalem, he’d still seen the body on the cross? Or – if there was *one* news-bearer, then is it not entirely possible that there could have been *many* news-bearers, any one of which could potentially have witnessed the disposition of Jesus’ body?
MY BIG QUESTION: If the disciples took off for Galilee on the night when Jesus was arrested, and didn’t even learn of his death until maybe a couple of weeks later – through a “news-bearer” – then how on earth can we expect – realistically – that a message of the resurrection of Jesus would ever get started in the first place, since the disciples themselves could not possibly *know* how many *other* people (besides this news-bearer) potentially could have seen that Jesus’ body was left on the cross or thrown into a communal grave? There could have potentially been thousands that could refute the resurrection claim, for all the disciples knew. How, then, are any of them supposed to go out and preach that Jesus was resurrected, knowing full well that the story could get refuted by (potentially) thousands of people who were actually there (including the news-bearer)?
The message of the resurrection would have started just as soon as one of them (Peter? Mary?) had a vision/dream of him; they probably had a pretty good idea that he was going to be executed, I should think. My hunch is that no more people saw him buried in a public pit than saw they other two guys crucified with him the same day; or the ones the day after; or the ones the day after.
Dr. Ehrman,
A (possibly stupid) question that I think about of then is, Why didn’t anyone just produce the body of Jesus to show that he really was dead? The Bible seems to give an answer to this when it says in Matthew that the Jewish leaders said to spread the rumor that his body was stolen. Doesn’t this seem to indicate that THEY thought that his body was gone, too?
Are you asking why they didn’t do so historically? In my view it is because he was tossed into a common grave and deteriorated quickly, so when the question arose, there was no way to know which remains were his.
Dear Ehrman,
A Christian friend of mine made the following claim to me. I was undecided whether it was true or not, and I found it appropriate to ask you. Please enlighten me:
“Even the non-Christian New Testament Scholars in the academy think that Peter saw a vision and believed in the resurrection as a result of this vision. There is no debate on this issue. Only some Muslims who lack knowledge make this issue a matter of debate. Even Atheist Bible Scholars believe that Peter had see a vision and he believed the resurrection as a result of that vision.”
Really is there a consensus about this subject between all non-Christian New Testament Scholars? Thank You
No, there definitely is not. It’s what I myself think, but the evidence on the ground is very thin. (No writings from Peter, no references to it till probably 25 years afte rthe event, etc.)
Dear Ehrman,
First of all, thank you very much for your reply. If you allow, I would like to ask you a question about this subject. Is there a consensus among non-Christian scholars about anyone’s vision? For example, do all non-Christian scholars agree that Paul saw a vision?
I do not use the word vision in a religious sense here. Please do not get me wrong. Maybe what happened was not a vision, but the people who lived it thought that what they experienced was a religious miracle. For example, what Paul saw was just a hallucination, but Paul thought it was a vision.
Could you please list the names that non-Christian academics agree have had a religious experience about jesus’ ressurection? Like Paul, James etc.
No, scholars disagree on everything. Many might say he saw something and mistook it, or that he imagined it, or that he had a dream, or that he had a vision in a trance. Hallucinations would be a kind of vision (seeing something that isn’t there, that is, a “non-veridical vision).