Loading...In this thread I have been talking about what I discussed in my thirty-minute presentation at the Mythicist Milwaukee conference, in my debate with Robert Price. After pointing out a couple of problems with typical Mythicist arguments I devoted the bulk of my time to laying out the positive evidence for my view that whatever else you might want to say about him, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed as a real human being. In my last post I stressed the value of the Gospels, and their written and oral sources of information. There were lots and lots of sources, from the early days of the Christian movement, some of them coming straight out of Aramaic-speaking Palestine. It is almost impossible to explain how you could have so many independent sources saying similar things about the man Jesus unless he really was a historical figure.
But there is much more. Next in my talk I moved to the apostle Paul, obviously a key figure in the debate. There are thirteen letters written in Paul’s name in the New Testament. Six of these are widely considered to be pseudonymous – written by authors other than Paul, probably after his life. But that leaves seven letters that Paul himself almost certainly wrote, and in these letters it is quite clear – contrary to what people sometimes say, strangely – that Paul considered Jesus to be a real historical person.
The first point to stress in this connection is that …
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. JOIN!!! You get 5-6 posts each and every week until the universe collapses on itself, and that’s a lot of posts! It doesn’t cost much and every dime goes to charity!
Good points. But william lane craig mathematically proved in his debate with you that Jesus was real and was resurrected – so you could have just pulled out the numbers on them! Or maybe not …
Ha!
yeah right, in your mind he proved it. not in mine.
Bart,
If Matthew and Luke were indeed based on the Q Source and M and L respectively, that alone would show an abundance of sources within just two-three decades after Jesus’s death. However, some scholars have argued that Luke might actually have used Matthew and there was no Q Source (referring to the book, “Case Against Q”).
I have read arguments for Q in your book, The New Testament and it made sense to me. What is your personal opinion, do you think there must have been a Q source? Or could Luke have used Matthew directly? What book/work would you suggest to get a better idea about all this?
Yes, I think on balance it appears there was a written Q source. If Luke used matthew, it leaves too much unexplained (like why he rearranges all of Matthew’s story not also found in Mark)
If Q material is arranged differently in Matthew and Luke, that still leaves one author (or both) “inexplicably” rearranging material from a source 🙂
Even if Luke really did use Matthew, that would leave us with Mark, M, L and John instead of Mark, Q, M, L and John. Still plenty of sources.
It may be hard (though not impossible) to explain if Q had a narrative sequence. But if it mainly was a group of unconnected sayings (like Thomas, e.g.), then it’s easy to see how different authors would situate the sayings in different sequences of their narrative.
Out of curiosity, is there a good, go-to reference to see all of the Q sayings and see how Luke words them paired with how Matthew words them? A lot of times, I’ll see Q sayings referenced, but the author will just quote one version and sometimes won’t cite which version of the saying they’re quoting or where the parallels can be found in each Gospel.
Go to Amazon and search for Synopsis of Q.
One of the issues I have seen raised about the historical Jesus was how well known was he during his ministry? I have read all sorts of views on this subject ranging from he was a household name, at least throughout Judea, or that he was virtually unknown during his life time and his following was quite small.
Can anything be garnered through Paul’s writing to how well known or “famous” Jesus was during his ministry and what is your position on the “fame” of Jesus during his ministry? I think any evidence to the popularity of the historical Jesus may disprove some of the Mythicist arguments.
Yeah, good question. But yeah, I’m afraid not!
But, Mr. Ehrman. Isn’t there an important question concerning Paul that have to be answered first. What do we know about Saul / Paul? And Isn’t this a question that should be taken seriously?
We know that Paul was originally named Saul. We know that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. We know he persecuted the church. We know he converted after he had a vision of Jesus, where Jesus said “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
We know he named himself “the least of the apostles” and “one abnormally born”. And we know that Paul was saved by Grace not Works.
It does not take too much imagination to see that this is strikingly similar to when King Saul persecuted David, and David was yelling “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” King Saul was rejected by the Lord for his deeds, and the only way he could be saved was by grace.
Look what Tertullian have to say about Paul. Tertullian “Against Marcion” Book 5
“Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul. For among the types and prophetic blessings which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to Benjamin, exclaimed, «Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment.» He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord’s sheep, as a persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles. Then, again, in Saul’s conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul— belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe— and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin’s genealogy”.
“Paul in Saul” it says. Saved by Grace.
And why no? We know of Cainites – Why not Saulites?
I just wanted to add something regarding Cephas in the Galatians: “For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group”.
Assuming Cephas is intended as an idiom for Moses, then this text can be easily explained.
Because Moses lived his first 40 years with the Pharaoh of Egypt. He ate with the Gentils for 40 year.
Then one day Moses went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?”
14 The man said, “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid and thought, “What I did must have become known.”
Then Moses escaped(draw back) to Midian.
Galatians: “But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group”.
You need to remember that Cephas/Peter was originally named Simon, as mentioned in the Gospels. Simon was a known common name for religious figures, followers and zealots in Galilea between 1 and 45 AD, specifically mentioned by Josephus in AJ. Cephas/Peter was clearly a later title given by Jesus and his followers to him.
Yes indeed, it is of utmost importance to know about Paul. Only in Acts, by the way, are we told that he had another name Saul. He himself never says so. (And even in Acts is name is never changed; Saul is his semitic name and Paul is his Greek name)
Interesting observation about Saul and Saul, thank you. Are you referring to 1 Samuel 24? Or did you find another citation clearly like “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
Do you think the author of Acts was drawing the analogy between the Sauls? Do you think Paul was a fictitious character patterned after David’s Saul?
I agree that Paul believed that Jesus was a real historical person. But everything on the list you provided Paul would have heard from other people. Which certainly doesn’t make the list true (such as the last item that God raised Jesus from the dead). If someone doesn’t believe that Jesus was a real historical person, I’m not sure that Paul stating things that other people told him would be convincing to them.
Yes indeed — everything Paul knew about Jesus would have been heard from other people, since Paul was not personally acquainted with Jesus. One of my points is that he heard these htings in the 30s from, among other people, Jesus’ own disciples Peter and John and Jesus’ own brother James.
Specifically, Paul heard what other people believed about Jesus. Paul knew a Peter who claimed to be a disciple / apostle of Jesus. But then, Paul himself claimed to be an apostle of Jesus, though he did not qualify by any definition of apostle that Jesus would have used. That would be a student (disciple) of a sage who graduated and was declared qualified to carry on the teachings of the master. Paul knew a James who claimed to be a brother of Jesus. These people who were self-defined apostles built a reputation for themselves, and thus were written into the gospel narratives.
Sure, this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but if our highly-revered Paul lied about being an apostle, certainly an earlier Peter might have done it.
“Paul persecuted the church before he joined it.”
We’ve discussed this before that Paul’s persecution was likely taking the people in for flogging. Under what authority could Paul have someone flogged? Could the people fight him back? In other words, not let themselves be taken in for flogging? Paul being able to persecute anyone has never made sense to me.
The best guess is that flogging was carried out as a punishment within the synagogues.
Yes. But how did Paul get the people to the synagogue to have them flogged. I would think that some (most) people would fight him off. Tell him to get lost.
It’s usually thought these were Jews already in the synagogue being punished for saying/doing things forbidden in that context.
So Jews were in the synagogue having discussions. One or more say forbidden comments and they immediately get flogged? So Paul would have been in the synagogue, heard the comments and “turns the offender in” and states that they need to be flogged?
Yes, synagogues had ways of dealing with unruly or problematic members.
So it seems that Paul would not have been the only one in the synagogue who would have recommended punishment for Jews who said forbidden statements, correct? Paul was doing the same thing that other Jews were doing when they heard statements in the synagogue that they didn’t like. In other words, it appears that Paul wasn’t necessarily going out of his way to “persecute Jewish Christians.” He was just following the same process that non-Christian Jews had to the Jewish Christians in the synagogue. In other words, the Jewish Christians would have been flogged with or without Paul being in the synagogue. Does that sound correct?
Yes, that’s probably right.
This is an example of how I think Paul overstates his position or involvement in something. He wasn’t doing anything different than other non-Christian Jews. Since he participated in having Jewish Christians flogged and he fought with them regarding his message vs. their message, why do you think he was initially taught by Jewish Christians? It seems all his efforts were toward gentile Christians. It would make sense that he was taught by gentile Christians.
I am currently reading Paula Fredriksen’s From Jesus to Christ. If I am understanding her correctly, she believes that the Jewish Christians were flogged only in the Diaspora synagogues due to their message sending an anti-Rome image to the Gentiles that might get the Jews who were a minority in that Diaspora in trouble with the Romans. Do you agree with this thought?
Also, hypothetically, if we say that Paul really did not have the vision of Christ that he claims caused his conversion, what do you think would have caused his conversion since his first thought was to have the Jewish Christians flogged?
I don’t think we know about flogging practices. On Paul: if not a vision, I don’t know what we could say (an insight?). I myself think he had a vision.
If Paul had a vision of Christ speaking to him (I’ll assume via a dream) then is it a safe assumption that the Jewish Christians’ (who he says he persecuted) message had got through to him causing him to have the vision/dream?
I’m not sure it’s a *safe* assumption, but it is a view that some scholars certainly entertain.
You’re the main (only) scholar that I am able to ask questions to! 🙂 Do you not think that the message from the Jewish Christians is what caused Paul to have his vision?
I personally don’t think we have the information we would need to psychoanalyze the situation.
“If Paul had a vision of Christ speaking to him (I’ll assume via a dream) then is it a safe assumption that the Jewish Christians’ (who he says he persecuted) message had got through to him causing him to have the vision/dream?”
No, I don’t think so. We very often dream about what we have been thinking about during the day. If Paul was really abusing Christians, he would likely be bothered by his conscience, whether he wanted to or not, whether he could rationalize his bad behavior or not. It’s more plausible that Paul would dream about the people he is hurting, requiring no suggestions from anyone but his conscience.
Of the information that we have, we believe that Paul accepted Christ a few years after Jesus’ death. It would then seem that at that point, he was probably hearing teachings from Jesus Movement Jews/Jewish Christians. Since we know that Paul dd not really see “Christ” then he had some sort of vision/dream of Christ. In order to have this vision, his mind would have to be thinking about what he had heard. So I come to the conclusion that Paul heard a message from Jewish Christians, rejected that message, was thinking about it so much that he had a “vision” and then joined the group. How’s that for psychoanalyzing the situation? 🙂
(Seriously, I would like to know your thoughts)
Yes, I think that much is true. What I don’t think we can determine is what psychological processes happened to Paul (based on what he knew, heard, and had done) leading to the vision.
is there any evidence for the flogging of Paul except his own words? If he was really flogged repeatedly as he claims, of course there would be scars of some sort on his back, and the people he traveled with would have likely seen them. Is there any independent evidence of floggings of Jews (other than Paul) by synagogue authorities — perhaps in Philo, Josephus, elsewhere?
No, all we have is Paul and Acts. I’m not sure what the evidence is!
The claim by Mythicists that Paul doesn’t think Jesus was a physical flesh and blood human being has always baffled me. I ask them, “Have you actually READ Paul’s letters? Because how anyone could read all of Paul’s letters and come away thinking that Paul doesn’t think Jesus was ever an actual human being, well, that person is terribly confused.”
Bart, I am confused. I recall an earlier post in which you wrote that Paul thought Jesus was a star. Here you write that he was a human being who had a human birth.
Could you clear this up for me? Thank you.
No, I never have talked about Jesus being a star. I have said he thought that before his birth Jesus was an angel. But he did become a human in a fully human way.
“Bart, I am confused. I recall an earlier post in which you wrote that Paul thought Jesus was a star.”
I couldn’t stop myself–
http://www.jesuschristsuperstar.com
Wonderful post. I had often wondered if Jesus was akin to Hercules or other mythical figures, and how much could be based on someone and how much is legend.
My question is about Paul; how much do we know about his “persecution” of early Christians. It’s anecdotal, but I’ve heard Christians talk exaggerate about how awful, empty and vengeful their life was before becoming Christian. I’m wondering if Paul could be exaggerating too, or is his pre-Damasacus life was just unknown and we trust what he says?
All we know is that he said he was trying to “destroy” the religion. I doubt if he’s exaggerating, since he doesn’t seem to be too proud of the fact.
I have thought the same of Paul. He seems to exaggerate a lot. Many youth ministers today all want to tell a story about how they “used to” live lives of sin using drugs, alcohol, sex, etc. but now they have through the grace of God and Jesus, changed their lives. They seem to wear this as a badge of honor but also state that they have shame for it. They all have such similar stories it is hard to believe it is true in all cases. This is where I am with Paul. I think he exaggerates and makes up stories if it advances his message.
Yeah, but he self-authenticates. We often believe that when people admit negative things about themselves, they are more than likely telling the truth. But Paul has an interest in telling the stories of his persecution of the Jesus-followers and his revelation or “conversion.” Maybe he was flogged for stealing from the synagogue poorbox, and he invented a lovely tale to enhance his stature.
You include in your list, without distinction, several things Paul thinks (believes) about Jesus that are not probable (at least to many historical Jesus scholars):
“He was a descendant of King David.”
“He had a last supper with his disciples at which he predicted his coming death.” I could talk about my last meal with you at the Gaines Center in Lexington (an actual event), and I could claim that you said certain plausible things on that occasion (whether you said them or not.) Given the assumption that Jesus existed and had followers (which evidence supports), they no doubt shared a last meal together, but the claim about Jesus predicting his death is more likely belief, not history.
“[His crucifixion was] at the instigation of the Jewish leaders in Judea.” Many scholars who have nothing to do with mythicism consider the passage in question a later non-Pauline interpolation referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
You begin your list with two things Paul says that at least invite the question, Why would Paul make such a statement:
“Jesus had a real, human birth to a real human mother.”
“He was born as a Jew.”
As you have discussed in your book HJBG, what Paul goes on to say in Galatians about the church there welcoming him “as an angel, as Christ Jesus” (4:14), along with other passages (Phil 2:5-7; 1 Cor 8:6; etc.), suggests that Paul believed in Jesus’ divine pre-existence. If Paul can speak of Jesus as an angel or as a pre-existent divine being who assumed human likeness, what exactly does it mean that Paul viewed Jesus as a historical figure?
Because Paul insists that what he knows about Jesus is based either on earlier Christian testimony (1Cor 15:3ff.) or on his own mystical experiences (Gal 1:11-12), Robert Price may well be correct when he suggests that what Paul likely knows is “a myth, not a man” (Christ-Myth Theory, 51).
In two passages not included on your list, Paul identifies Christ as a “man” and draws a distinction between him and Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22). Thus, Paul takes for granted that Christ was as much a historical figure as Adam was. Nowadays, Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who think that Adam was a historical figure, so if Paul was wrong about Adam, maybe he was wrong about Christ.
I agree with your conclusion that Paul’s letters do indicate that he viewed Jesus as a historical figure. However, it might be helpful if you acknowledged (as you do with the last item on your list) how little of what Paul thinks rises to the level of historical probability.
On my reading of Paul’s letters, the only meaningful evidence they provide for the historical Jesus concerns the fact of his existence (because Paul knows Jesus’ brother James) and the mode of Jesus’ execution (the cross).
There is ample evidence, even in Paul’s letters, that any memories of the historical Jesus have already been distorted by theological beliefs. As a result, what those sources can tell us has more to do with the myth than the man.
I just noticed this, and I’m not sure how you think comparing beliefs about Jesus and Adam constitutes any kind of argument. Jesus and Paul were contemporaries–Paul talked to people who had eaten with him, traveled with him, were related to him by blood. Adam is a purely mythical figure dating back to the dawn of pre-history. Paul’s belief in Adam is related to his being a religious Jew, not to personal experience and knowledge. His being ‘wrong’ about Adam has nothing to do with the veracity of his statements about Jesus, one way or the other. You might as well say that because Romulus and Remus weren’t raised by wolves, and may not have existed at all, that means Julius Caesar didn’t exist. Or that if we could disprove their existence, that would somehow negate the huge historical significance of Rome, both the good and evil done in its name.
There is no difference, in my mind, between blind faith and invincible skepticism. They are two sides of the same coin. We cannot, as a species, increase our knowledge and understanding of the world or of ourselves if we ask for indisputable proof of everything. Which of course no one ever does–people SELECTIVELY doubt things they don’t want to believe.
The sources tell us about the myth and the man, and that’s true of many sources about purely secular people as well. Do you believe everything you’ve heard about Leonidas? Religion is not an essential component of mythology. Very real people who lived in our lifetimes have been mythologized.
The gospels contain mythological elements, as do the letters of Paul, but they are very very far from being pure myth, and to fail to understand that is to fail to understand the study of history itself, which is something we can’t afford to do right now. It’s too important.
Even if Mythicists want to say that Paul wrote little about the “man” Jesus, the fact is that he constantly wrote about the importance of his death and resurrection. That in and of itself seems to be good evidence that Paul believed that Jesus did actually live and die. I realize that some people could try to say that Paul was referencing the “myth” surrounding Jesus but when you factor in all of the other evidence, it is clear that Paul believed in an actual person named Jesus who lived and died.
Great post, Bart!
Do we have any reason to believe that Paul may have encountered Jesus during his ministry? If he did encounter Jesus as a Pharisee, you would think this may have been mentioned by him in his writing, yet that is not a given.
No, Paul almost certainly never met Jesus.
during Jesus’ earthly mission you mean, right? Are you also referring to the Acts material which claims that Jesus had some kind of vision, revelation on the road to Damascus?
Yes, I mean that Paul never meant the historical man Jesus.
Would you consider Gal 8:10-16 as an indication of Pauls’s knowledge of Jesus’ habit of addressing God as Father/Abba ?
I think you must mean Romans! I don’t think this shows he necessarily got it from Jesus himself; he may have simply adopted this usage from Christian custom before him.
I meant also Gal 4:6-7, which is even more clear than Romans as an indication that Pauls knows of a habit of addressing God as “Father” elsewhere attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. The question was if this could be seen as one item on the list of things Paul knows about the historical Jesus.
Yes, I get the question. If Christians after Jesus used this expression and Paul was acquainted with them, then I’d say no, his use of it may not be because he has independent knowledge about Jesus’ usage, but simply with established Christian usage.
A question. You quoted 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. But I’ve read somewhere that this verse is considered to be a later interpolation. I too always thought that antisemitic rhetoric here doesn’t sound like Paul from Romans 9. Do you think this was actually written by him?
My view is that it’s authentic. It’s hard to understand, but I don’t think in this case that means Paul didn’t write it. Paul absolutely does talk about Jews being under God’s “wrath” (Romans 1:18-2:16, e.g.)
Since mythicists claim Jesus did not exist, but Paul supplies evidence that Jesus did exist, do mythicists then claim that Paul did not exist? If so, what “evidence” do they give for that?
They more typically claim that these passages in Paul do not show that Jesus existed. An odd claim for my tastes.
Do you think Christianity would have survived without Paul?
First Paul was educated And wrote persuasively in Greek .
Second the potential converts among the Jews was quite limited because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The Jerusalem church likely faded away and the 12 apostles were dispersed .
Third , Paul’s message was simple and attractive for all. Just believe Jesus died and God resurrected him and you will have eternal life.
Paul also emphasizes love and good deeds, the earthly historical teachings of Jesus
I don’t think it’s possible to know!
All of a sudden Paul/Acts story of Paul persecuting Christians and journeying off to another non-Jewish land (Damascus, Syria) to beat up some more Christians, a mere three years after the crucifixion, seems a bit hokey. I had not flinched with Rodney Starke’s estimated 1000 Christians in CE 40, but, in three years it seems a bit much for there to be enough Christians in Damascus to worry about. I know Damascus is closer to the Galilee, and, there were certainly more followers of the living Jesus than the twelve who could/would travel there in a few days but it still seems,,,, odd.
I think Stark’s number is way too high. But there’s nothing strange about having a few Christians in Damascus already in 33 CE. Paul actually doesn’t say *where* he was persecuting Christians.
Wow! I did not realize that Paul said so many things about Jesus. That is quite a list. Thanks for educating me. I was under the impression that Paul said very little about Jesus, especially with regard to not referring to His teachings when addressing issues arising in congregations.
I still struggle with one big question: Given all of the historical problems associated with the Bible, and since the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, I still do not understand how people can get a historical education about the Bible and somehow still remain Christian? I know that you tend to split the theological from the historical, but the historical serves as the foundation of the theological much as anatomy serves as the foundation of surgery and without that foundation the whole thing seems, to me, to unravel. So, the question is how do people remain Christian after they get a historical education about the Bible?
It’s because Christianity is not belief in the Bible. It’s a belief in Christ. It’s important to remember: there was Christianity for a very long time before the Bible even existed.
You say: “He had a last supper with his disciples at which he predicted his coming death (1 Cor. 11:22-24)”
1. I know Q doesn’t mention Jesus’ predictions of his own death and resurrection, but Paul shows the “prediction tradition” was at least a decade older than Mark (making it possibly as old as Q?)… does this challenge the idea that the “prediction tradition” is a theological postdiction? Or does the totality of evidence (how Second Temple Judaism perceived the Messiah and the disciples’ surprise at both Jesus’ death and post-death appearances) still strongly imply Jesus did not predict either his death or resurrection?
2. Since Paul never says Jesus predicted his own resurrection, is it possible Jesus saw the risk and did predict his own death, but not his own resurrection? If you went to Aleppo right now claiming to be Muhammad’s true successor, you could probably accurately predict your own death (but not your own resurrection). Anything like that possible?
I don’t think the fact Paul knew this tradition in the 50s shows that it goes back to 30, necessarily. And yes, it’s completely possible Jesus predicted his death but not his resurrection.
Thanks for the clarification. One follow up if you’re willing. We know Paul knew Peter, John and James, so is there a reason to think this tradition Paul knew about in the 50s doesn’t come from one or more of these guys in the 30s? It seems like one of the subjects they’d likely discuss… and the fact that Paul does not mention the associated resurrection prediction makes me wonder why 1 Cor. 11:22-24 isn’t likely from the 30s before the resurrection prediction part was added later after the 50s but before 70 CE when it was written in Mark. I see you said it doesn’t *necessarily* come from the 30s, which is true of course, but I’m wondering if there’s a good reason not to think it’s *probable* that it comes from the 30s.
P.s. I have Jesus Before the Gospels (which I haven’t started yet) and I’m about halfway through Did Jesus Exist… do either of these deal with this… and if not… do you have a book that does (and if you don’t, do you know of someone else’s you can recommend)? I’d like to study this further…
My sense is that if you want to argue he knew the tradition in the 30s, you’d have to give some reasons for thinking so (evidence). I’m not sure what that would be.
If Jesus was indeed a Jewish apocalypticist, he certainly would have believed in his imminent resurrection. Not in the way portrayed in the gospels some 40+ years later, but nonetheless he certainly would have believed in his imminent resurrection.
In the gospels, Jesus is portrayed as, among other things, an apocalyptic preacher, even a Zealot. For such a person to predict his own violent death required no mystical skills, just common sense.
Thanks for the concise breakdown!
Regarding the question:
“How can anyone say that Paul doesn’t think Jesus was a real, historical Jewish teacher in Israel who was crucified?”
As you know, the part about Paul’s believing that Christ was “real”, “Jewish” and “crucified” are not points contested by mythicists. What they’re arguing is the fact that when Paul mentions Christ (per your list), he’s oddly vague on the point of Jesus’ being a “historical teacher in Israel”. And this isn’t what one would expect from someone living so close to the time of Jesus and associating with Jesus’ followers.
Your bullet list is a perfect illustration of this point. If Paul were more explicit, you’d be able to simply quote him verbatim to argue for the historicity of Jesus. But instead, you add specificity to your paraphrases/summaries of Paul to better illustrate your point, which can be seen as reading aspects of the gospel narratives into Paul (eisegesis). Direct quotations of Paul don’t seem to do the trick, hence the need to make distinctions that Paul doesn’t make. For example:
-Jesus had a real, human birth to a real human mother (Galatians 4:4)
“…God sent his son, born (γενόμενον) of a woman…”
-He was born as a Jew (Galatians 4:4)
“…came into being (γενόμενον) under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον)…” Paul uses “γίνομαι” for “came into being” as he does to refer to Adam’s “coming into being” in 1 Cor 15:5.
-He was a descendant of King David (Romans 1:3-4)
“…according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα, literally “made from the sperm/seed (σπέρμα) of David”)
-He had brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5)
-One of whom was named James (Galatians 1:19) (Paul knows him personally)
Referring to these brothers as “οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου” (brothers of the Lord), never referring to them as “Jesus’ brothers” or brothers of the Lord “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα). Mythicists postulate that this may be a convention to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic Christians
-His ministry was to and among Jews (Romans 15:8)
“Christ has become a servant (διάκονος) to the circumcision (περιτομῆς) on behalf of the truth of God…”
-He had twelve disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5)
-One of whom was Cephas/Peter (Paul knows him personally as well)
Christ “appeared to Cephas, and then to “the twelve” (τοῖς δώδεκα)” (in the same way that he appeared to Paul, through revelation). It’s not clear here that Cephas was part of “the twelve”, which is an odd thing to say if one gives credence to the gospel narrative of the 12 disciples that included Cephas. Paul curiously never refers to the “apostles” as ever having been “disciples/students” (μαθηταί).
-He was a teacher, and Paul knows some of his teachings (1 Cor. 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:22-24)
Paul reportedly taught the kerygma he received from the risen Christ through revelation. So he had carte blanche to make up any teaching that he wanted and appeal to the authority of “the Lord” (rather than appealing to what Jesus’ disciples learned first hand from their “teacher”; a term that Paul doesn’t use in reference to Christ).
-He had a last supper with his disciples at which he predicted his coming death (1 Cor. 11:22-24)
“The Lord Jesus, on the night he was delivered up (παρεδίδετο/παρεδίδοτο), took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said…” No mention of this being a “last supper with his disciples” or with his “apostles” or of it taking place in “the upper room”; or anything else that would more directly corroborate the later gospel narrative of the “last supper”. When Paul says that Christ was “delivered up” he does so in the same way that he said God’s “delivered up” Christ in Rom 8:32. There’s no explicit mention of any “betrayal” by Judas, or any other indication that Paul learned about the event as it was later described in the gospels.
-He was crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2 and millions of other places)
Mythicists postulate that Paul may have held beliefs in a cosmological scheme that allowed for heavenly counterparts mirroring everything on earth, which would thus allow for crucifixion in the lower heavens.
-This was on orders of the civil authorities (1 Corinthians 2:8)
“τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος” (the rulers of this age), similar to Paul’s reference to Satan as the “god of this age” (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος) in 2 Cor 4:4
-At the instigation of the Jewish leaders in Judea (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
“…the Jews who killed (ἀποκτεινάντων) the Lord Jesus…” – not at their instigation, as in the Gospels.
-He was then buried (1 Corinthians 15:3-4
-Paul also thinks, of course, that God raised Jesus from the dead.
This is clearly something that Paul and all Christians believed, so it’s not really a matter of dispute with mythicists, who postulate that Paul envisioned these events as having occurred in the lower heavens.
I’m not sure *why* we should expect Paul to say more than he does. To say this is “unusual” is to say that he is not doing what is “usually” done. But we don’t know what was usually done.
you are stretching by a mile. to a point that it becomes ridiculous.
Yesterday, while googling the debate, I unfortunately stumbled into Carrier’s “review”…
He argued that your claims were weak and unfounded, but were still effective because Price was such a bad debater.
He then went on to illustrate how great *he* would have performed had he been the one to debate you.
Insipid, sophist, insistent arguments, taking an extremely skeptical stance to all your arguments all while offering a truly ludicrous scenario that he provides zero proof of.
I was left with the impression of an egomaniac who cared less about truth than about his his own image. It helped me to learn that he demands $205 per blog post. Never clicking a single link that bears his name.
If Paul was persecuting Christians around 32 CE, what is the estimated number of Jesus followers for around that time period?
If the number of Jesus followers at that time was quite low, then it would seem that it might have been a rare chance occurrence that someone from Asia Minor encountered a Jesus follower in the early 30s CE. This in turn, could imply a high “luck factor” in the successful growth of Christianity at its early phase.
Yes, we’d love to know how he ran into the Christians and where. There could not have been many of them in the world!
I think you need to consider that Paul likely wrote a lot of other letters that we’ll never see and he may have given his readers more details on the human Jesus in those letters. We don’t have the entire story from Paul, just bits and pieces.
Yup, it’s possible! Or it’s possible he never ever mentioned Jesus’ life elsewhere!
Taking a step back from Paul v. the mythicists, do you get the sense that the entire mindset of mythicism is just a kind of hypertrophy of the atheist impulse? An overreaction to personal experiences with religiosity?
For some I’m sure it is.
And there you have it. Very straightforward and to the point. All one needs to have is common sense to see that Jesus really did exist…..
I was impressed by this list as it raises so many questions in my mind. The larger point, that Paul knew of a Historical Jesus early on, appears obvious.
At first glance, it seems you could make three lists out of it: The stuff of legend, even at that early stage (descendant of David?). Exaggerations of his own, or as relayed by other followers (instigated by Jewish leaders, buried). Something close to direct experience (reports of meeting James & Peter). How do you know what’s what?
I know you’ve mentioned this question before, and it finally landed in me: Why is he compelled to say a human born of a human? Were there people in that first 20 years who were already saying that Jesus had never been human, and might this have been a response to that?
Finally, Paul was apparently capable of intense visionary experience and, presumably, he was possessed of certain other ‘gifts of the Spirit.’ How do those states color the evaluation of what he writes? At the moment, Its reminding me of the innocent imaginations of the children in “To Kill A Mockingbird,” about Boo Radley. It’s someone they hardly ever see and most of what they know about him is what they dream up.
Knowing what’s what: that’s the task of the historian! It’s never an easy one. Born of a woman: my hunch is that since Paul believes Paul was a pre-incarnate divine being, he has to defend himself against the claim that he thought Jesus did not actually become a real human. No, for Paul, Jesus was born of a woman, a realy natural human birth, like everyone else had.
Did Price make have any arguments you think are worth talking about on the blog?
It might be interesting to talk about whether the passage in Josephus is authentic or not, but it has almost no bearing on the the case for Jesus’ existence.
I personally think the entire Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation into Josephus. I don’t think Josephus knew about or mentioned Jesus at all. I think that at the time Josephus was writing that if Josephus knew anything at all about the early Christian movement that he associated it with John the Baptist’s movement, because John the Baptist was far more well-known at the time than Jesus. But I still think there was an historical Jesus.
Yes, that’s becoming a more common view. Not a majority view, but one increasingly taken
Just curious why it has almost no bearing on the case for Jesus’ existence. Due to Origen’s remarks, most everyone accepts that Josephus made some kind of statement about Jesus, just not the Christianized form known to Eusebius and the extant mss (which are rather late). I guess mythicists try to dismiss this as being 60 years too late and not contemporaneous with Jesus?
One of the interesting thing about our first-century sources from Palestine is that even Josephus wasn’t citing many sources for much of his Antiquities or Jewish Wars. Whiston has a chart in the back of his edition listing the sources cited by Josephus. After the times of Herod the Great (Ant. bks 15-20), basically there are no written sources cited for any of Josephus’ history. Basically, the last sources Josephus cites are Herod’s memoirs (only once, and which Josephus denigrates as unreliable) and Nicolaus of Damascus… but both of these dealt with things prior to 15 CE… so neither of these would be good sources for anything about the time period of Jesus of Nazareth (ca 20s-30s CE). Mythicists try to use the red herring argument that no contemporary mentions Jesus, but there really are no known contemporaneous Jewish sources that could be consulted. And the Romans certainly had no interest in Jesus.
I’m just saying that Jesus can be shown to have existed whatever you happen to think about Josephus.
If Josephus never mentioned Jesus, I don’t think it would make any difference to either side’s case. Quite honestly this mythicism stuff is not the most interesting topic.
I’m with you.
Yes it might be interesting to talk about Josephus. I assume everyone agrees the testimonium is an interpolation, but some think a part of it is original? Are there any reasons for thinking the reference to jesus in bk 20 ch 9 is not original?
Hello Bart
He was a descendant of King David (Romans 1:3-4)
for any jew in those says to be descendant of King David you have to have physical father. does this mean Paul did not believe in virgin birth
thanks
We don’t know. Matthew and Luke both say that he was descended from David but maintain he was born of a virgin.
> He was a descendant of King David
He was also a peasant born a thousand years after David. Is there any faintest reason to think that birth records were kept over that turbulent millenium that would have allowed the line of descent to be known? Or is a holy miracle/creative story-telling needed to account for the somewhat different ancestor lists in Luke and Matthew?
No, no birth records. And no, no miracle needed for discrepancies!
Have you ever offered what you consider to be a chronological listing of when the books of the NT were written? If so, could you point me toward it, and if not, would you consider offering it? Thank you.
I think the problem is that it is very difficult indeed to date many of the books — when should one date Jude, for example? Or James? Or Hebrews? I give rough dates in my textbook on the New Testament.
Paul, in writing to churches because of problems they were having, might not have had occasion to comment “about Jesus’ baptism, temptation, parables, transfiguration, miracles, and so on,” but it seems there were occasions for him to cite some of “the Lord’s” teachings and actions to the congregants to help them understand what Jesus’ taught about forgiveness, love of neighbor or wealth. With all the various problems the churches were having, it seems very strange to me that he never gave as an example for them what the “Lord” himself would have said or done. But, then, maybe that he didn’t is evidence that he really didn’t know more than the basic points you cited.
Yes, but we don’t know which teachings he knew. He didn’t have our Gospels, so the things we “know” about Jesus may be completely different from what he knew
Point taken. But did he even cite a standard Jewish teaching like “Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor” or “Love your neighbor as yourself” and add, “as the Lord would have you behave”? As far as I recall, he passed on using the authority of the name of Jesus but; instead, seemed to want the congregants to look only toward his own authority. My point is that he does seem to have been aware of the man Jesus but didn’t use Jesus’ stature to further his points. Maybe had something to do with his congregants being mostly gentile and not being as familiar with the historical Jesus? But then, how familiar were they with the risen Christ that Paul taught?
He appears to have said only things that he considered particularly relevant to the context, based on what he knew his readers already knew.
“Paul himself is quite straightforward about that, and more than a little ashamed of it (which is one of the reasons we can trust he’s not making it up). ”
Isn’t it a little naive for historians to think like this? The oldest trick in the conman’s book is to pretend to have gone straight after being bad. 🙂
I suggest even the liberal NT scholars are still trapped in fundamentalist assumptions about Paul’s sincerity; how do you know he didn’t just switch from physical harassment of believers to deceptive psychological warfare against them, by pretending to be one of them?
Yes, it is possible to systematically doubt everything a person says! Absolutely possible.
For Paul/Saul to be actively involved in trying to “destroy the rise of Christianity”, I believe that there must have been substantial number of Christians for Paul/Saul to believe this new religion posed a threat.
But people persecute small numbers of people–and even individuals–just as readily, not because they are threatening to take over but because they challenge (wittingly or unwittingly) the beliefs, standards or values of those around them or because they are just plain weird or OTHER. Personally, I have doubts about how much the beliefs which or people whom he was persecuting at that point were recognizably Christian.
Bart, again your arguments will not persuade many Mythicists. Frank Zindler, for example, thinks that Paul never existed and writes and says that in lectures. Paul is likely a fabrication as are all his surviving texts says Zindler. Many other atheists and Mythicists like Ken Humphreys have also acknowledged the ahistoricity of Paul. In one lecture on the internet, Zindler points out that the routes taken by Paul and Apollonius of Tyana are exactly identical and in the same order, implying that the travels of Paul were lifted from the stories about Apollonius.
No, of course they won’t. But you might ask Frank Zindler when Apollonius lived in relation to Paul, and when our sources for Apollonius’s itinerary date from. 🙂
The problem with the comparison with Apollonius is that Paul’s authentic epistles are reliably dated to circa 50 – 58 AD, and clearly state that he was traveling and preaching from 35 – 50 AD, long before Apollonius was doing any teaching, and maybe even before here lived.
Furthermore, the only existing information about Apollonius comes from Philostratus, who lived 170 – 250 AD, which is later than the oldest piece of the NT current existing, and is long after Paul wrote his epistles. Philostratus, and subsequent authors who quoted them, also deliberately borrowed much about Apollonius’s life from that of Jesus, as part of their attempts to delegitimize the growing Christian movement in the Roman Empire.
Hello Bart
I apologize for changing the topic but this is my first day as a member and I just read about Pauls view of Jesus as an angel.
I struck me as very similar to the fictional character Gandalf by the very catholic author Tolkien (The divine being who was sent to earth in human form to guide humanity and was exalted after being killed).
Would this suggest that the traditional catholic view on angels is the same, albeit more elaborated, as Pauls on a fundamental level?
I´m Swedish so I grew up with the protestant Paul…
Yes, roughly I’d say that hte Christian view developed out of Jewish ideas.
Bart, you wrote, “That would mean that he must have been persecuting the Christians by around 32 CE, just two years after Jesus died. And that means that he knew about Christians, and their claims about Jesus, already at that extremely early point. We don’t have to wait for Mark in 70 CE for evidence that Christians were talking about Jesus. We have clear and certain evidence they were doing so in the early 30s. What they were saying about Jesus was highly offensive to Paul. And so he persecuted them.”
When I read this, I’m swept back to the question of whether to believe Paul when he says he learned the Gospel from no man or when he writes in the early 50’s of the good news that he “had received”–“that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures….” By the 50’s, his own Christology had had time to develop and he might have been putting it in the mouths (or rather, among the beliefs) of those who came before him, a practice picked up by the Gospel writers who seemed to have put things in Jesus’ mouth that were developed only after his death. Maybe the beliefs of those he persecuted were only that Jesus the messiah had been crucified but still lived and would return to fulfill the messianic mission. That alone might have been offensive enough to move someone like Paul to persecute them. Then, after his vision, Paul could have developed the higher Christology and later claim, in order to keep his teachings rooted in the respected antiquity of Judaism, that what he taught was believed even by Jesus’ brother and Apostles.
Yes, I certainly think Paul developed theological ideas of his own, and that his own theology grew and morphed over time.
I used to be a Mythicist. It seemed to me that professors were claiming that there was an historical Jesus that had been adorned with legends, and we could find the truth by stripping away the miracles ala Jefferson’s Bible. It seemed absurd, like finding the “historical Clark Kent” by removing all superheroic elements from the Superman stories and calling what’s left “historical.” And the extrabiblical evidence, like Josephus, seemed ambiguous at best. I agreed with Kersey Graves’ assertion that if Jesus lived, not only was he not a god, he wasn’t even an extraordinary man.
The evidence you’ve presented, though, is conclusive. You wouldn’t make up a messiah out of whole cloth who is so far removed from scriptural expectations/requirements and then engage is extensive damage control to pound the square peg into the round hole.
Good!
But what if those scriptural expectations were an afterthought? Religious philosophy of the day respected ancient religions, not new ones. What if a brand-new mythical religion declaring a universal sacrifice (a free religion!) wanted to gain acceptance by calling its god an ancient one (the Yahweh / Elohim of Israel)? Oh, and also gain the religio licita legal protection that religion enjoyed? Oh, and bolster your claim of universality (Romans 1) by choosing the god of the only monotheistic religion of the region?
If you pursued a quest for the historical Clark Kent, would you consider Superman stories as evidence?
Bart, I’d like to draw your attention to the relevance of 1 Corinthians 11:23:
“For I received from the Lord the teaching that I passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a piece of bread…”
This is a highly pertinent piece of historical information about Jesus. Since 1 Corinthians was written about 52 AD, Paul had passed on this information to the Church in Corinth when he first visited around 50 AD. This means that Paul had especially detailed information already between 35 – 50 AD about the fact that Jesus was betrayed by an associate or follower of his, long before the completion of the synoptic Gospels (where it is stated to be Judas in Matthew).
This is likely part of the information Paul received from Simon Peter/Cephas and James when he first visited them, as mentioned in Galatians 1-2. It is implausible that Peter or James would invent that Jesus was betrayed by one of their fellow apostles or associates, for obvious reasons in that it detracts from the legitimacy of Jesus’ leadership or teaching. Thus, this would seem to be a clearly historical event of Jesus’ arrest and death.
Ah, someone else has asked this. See today’s post!
“I received … and passed on” was a common expression regarding the passing of oral tradition. It wasn’t a claim of eyewitness experience.
One hypothesis for how Christianity began is that a group of disciples of Jesus continued to meet together, with the common bond of his teachings, just as Jesus had done with John the Baptist. This has been called the Jesus Movement. They were still very much Jewish, and their ideas and teachings would still match those of Hillel. As such, they would have no trouble meeting in a synagogue. But if they began thinking about, and talking about, Jesus as if he were a god, then they would no longer be welcome in a synagogue. Persecution would begin as simply evicting them from the synagogue. Nothing more forceful would be justified unless they continued calling themselves Jews.
Hello good Dr Erhman, I have looked into the mythicist claims vs the points you make in this post of yours, quite frankly, I’m surprised to say that they have one very good point and to have to say… “Dr Ehrman, some of your points are problematic and apparently wrong.” The main point they make is that Paul clearly uses revelation from scripture to “know” about Jesus, and then goes and passes it on as such; revelation. And that Paul doesn’t use corroborating evidence he clearly has access to.
Here is what I found about your points.
* Jesus had a real, human birth to a real human mother (Galatians 4:4)
@ Paul seems to imply in Galatians 4 that the spirit of Jesus brings believers into their “inheritance” (whatever that means) as adopted children of God, that lends little to nothing about Jesus’ past; in any case, the historical information needs to come from someone who knew Jesus ** “.3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. (what does he mean by this?)4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son… 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. ” – Galatians 4**
* He was a descendant of King David (Romans 1:3-4)
@ Unequivocally, Paul has used scripture (the Hebrew Bible) to state this, not that he had a way to trace back Jesus’ (and James’ for that matter) heritage. The fact that Paul is doing this means he doesn’t know such information, and to consult about his doubts he uses scripture instead of asking Jesus’ intimates ** “1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh” – Romans 1**
*His ministry was to and among Jews (Romans 15:8)
@ Paul gets that information, once again, through revelation; and Paul makes sure his readers understand that it’s how he “knows.” So if Jesus’ ministry is revelation from scripture, did it really happen? ** “9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name”; 10 and again he says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people”; 11 and again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him”; 12 and again Isaiah says, ” – Romans 15 **
By reading what is after and before the verses you point to, I have found the context in which Paul talks is not historical but theological. So at this point my questions are.
How much of the New Testament can we trust not to be revelation but historical points? Do bible scholars usually approach evidence using with what I call “text funneling” (the one line or few words that agree with their argument) or is there a method unknown to non bible scholars? if there is a method what is it called?
I’m not sure what the evidence is that Paul acquired his knowledge of Jesus (for example, that he had brothers, one of whom was named James, and that he had twelve disciples, and that he taught that his followers should not get divorced, but should pay their preachers, and that he was crucified) from mystical revelations. These appear to be pieces of information he simply learned.
Paul usually goes on and says “in accordance with scripture Jesus said/did X”
what does he mean by that?
in Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” the part of “except for sexual immorality” is this actually saying Jesus did approve of divorce if there was cheating involved vs just using a certificate?
looks to me Jesus did approve of divorce, if not, can you explain how is my interpretation wrong
I”m not sure Paul ever says that does he? Are you referring to 1 Cor. 15:3-5? (those are things that happened to him, not things he did)
The language of 1 Cor 15:3-5 is that of passing on an oral tradition. Many consider that Paul begins by reciting a creed that he learned from others. It’s very clear from Paul’s writings that his audience isn’t listening only to Paul. It’s also clear that Paul is hearing from people in his assemblies.
This is the one place I’ve found where Jesus sided with Shammai instead of Hillel. Shammai believed divorce should be restricted, limited to cases of adultery / infidelity. Hillel was less restrictive, and was more willing to allow divorce. Most modern societies are also moving in that direction. But this was just one of may typical subjects that the sages (later rabbis) argued with each other about.
Despite his boasting, I don’t think Paul was well-educated in Judaism. I think he just brought in references to Tanakh when it suited him. He rarely expresses any Jewish ideas.
I think Christianity was birthed in Greek (not Jewish) thought. Its ideas are far more Greek than Jewish. By the time Paul writes (probably in the 50s and 60s), Christian philosophy had already decided that the god of their philosophy was the same as the God of Israel, so therefore the person (or god or god-man or demiurge) which qualified as the universal sacrifice was Jewish during his lifetime. Thus that’s how the gospels portray him. The strategy was for this brand new religion to gain philosophical respect (and perhaps religio licita legal protection) as an ancient religion. The strategy was also to claim universality by identifying with the only extant monotheistic religion.
Dr Ehrman
What do you think Paul meant by the “law of Christ ‘ in Galatians 6:2.
It’s something like the “rule God has now instituted that requires faith in Christ rather than keeping the Jewish law.”
Bart: In 1 Cor 11, Paul says ‘I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[g] you.”‘ You refer to this as evidence that Paul knew this as a teaching of Jesus. But there’s a chicken-and-egg issue here. Did Paul “receive” this from oral tradition, or did he “receive” it as a revelation? If the latter then the teaching originates with Paul, and was later accepted as historical by the Gospel writers.
Yup, it’s debated. My sense is that he received it from an oral traditoin, possibly recited at a communion meal, which he took to be having come “from the Lord” (as a prophecy?)
I read that the language ‘received … passed on’ referred to the passing on of oral tradition. That’s how his audience would have understood those words. He wasn’t claiming direct (to him) divine revelation of anything. In our legal terms, this would be unattributed hearsay evidence. “Somebody told me that …”
Dear Dr.Erhman, in 1Cor15 & Gal 1. We read how Paul passed on what he received from 2 eyewitnesses (James & Peter) as of 1st importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also,as to one abnormally born.
How do you account for:
Paul claiming to see Jesus? The Greek word used ὁράω which seems to imply physical appearance.
The early Christology? Jesus being devine as 1Cor15: 12-58 showing belief in the resurrection of Jesus brings salvation.
That the disciples, Paul & James believed Jesus was resurrected bodily: How do you explain this, without accepting they saw what they saw? It seems to me all naturalistic explanations fail, the disciples lying is implausible as they would be the originators, and why be willing to die for a known lie, they made up?
Thanks for your work.
My view is that some of the disciples really did believe they saw Jesus. I deal with this at length in my book How Jesus Became God. It is extremely well documented that people see things that really are there AND things that really are not. Tere is no way the brain can differntiate between those two phenomena. (Lots of studies on this, by psychlogists)
Christians of course say that they really saw Jesus; non-Christians say they didn’t.
And each of us has to choose. (BTW: there are lots and lots of experiences of “group” hallucinations.
Lots of citings, by large groups, of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I personally don’t think she was really there.)
Thanks, I will check it out.
However, this doesn’t account for the empty tomb, or the facts that 1st century Jews had no expectations of a Messiah that was to die by crucifixion or resurrection. Even if group hallucination is possible, this isn’t going to convince those who are investigating the evidence after the facts, if the tomb wasn’t found empty, if the accounts from the eyewitnesses were contradictory, people aren’t plausibly going to believe nonsense.
But I will get the book you recommend and will get your detailed answers there.
That’s right, if the tomb was found empty there would be explaining to do. But our only sources of information about an empty tomb are from 40-60 years later. I don’t think there’s good evidence that Jesus actually was placed in a locatable tomb. Notice: in Matthew the disciples flee Jerusalem, so they would not know where he was buried, if he had a decent burial.
Wouldn’t Paul’s writings show that it was believed (the empty tomb) at most a few years after the fact? That is, 1 Cor 15 and Gal 1? Paul or James aren’t going to believe the resurrection of Jesus if the tomb wasn’t known?
I think the problem is that we think someone would have gone to check the tomb. But that’s based on our knowledge of Gospels written decades later. Paul, our earliest witness, says nothing about it. Neither he who lived hundreds of miles away and had never heard of Jesus at the time of his death, nor James who lived a hundred miles away in Galilee and had almost certainly never travelled to Jersualem before, would not have gone looking for the tomb, even if there was a tomb. They saw Jesus. That’s all they needed. Think of it like this: If you see your deceased grandmother in your room three weeks after the funeral, and she gives you words of compfort, it would not occur to you to go to the cemetary to see if the grave had been dug up. You would think she had appeared to you and was still in some sense living.
Hmm, that doesn’t sound right, Paul sees Peter and James in Jerusalem. it seems like, to my mind at any rate, that Paul, James and Peter are going to be discussing more than the weather and the price of fish, they would have discussed the events, shown where it all happened. But I guess we both have our preferred answers.
Thanks for your valuable time.
I think they were talking about other things as well. But an empty tomb simply wasn’t one of them, at least so far as our one witness to the event indicates. It that’s contrary to what we think *must* have happened, the problem may be what we’re thinking! If Paul did know of an empty tomb, you’d have to explain why, when he so much wanted to maintain that the resurrectoin was bodily, he didn’t mention it…. It simply was not an item of reflection until decades later.
Dear Dr Ehrman:
don’t U miss these 100 post- blogs. I remember if I read this one in Shanghai. I was much more focused also on improving myself and better concentration. but the posts were like Klingon, what was being conveyed.
thanks on making me better. except living in china I was better. here society tears me apart. both Shanghai & HK there was truly community with my neighbors..
—
Saul was a chief justice or an appellate justice before Damascus rising fast in the government.
“Paul lied about being an apostle,” Paul didn’t lie as Prof Pagels via Dr Jason Staples confirmed establishing the most churches. as he said Paul worked the hardest of the apostle. In modern management, that means he is not executive or senior mgmt,as they plot the course of an organization.
so U see he was the smartest that the roman bishops could relate to, not the original 12. if they wrote anything.
being smartest leads to delusion as many in my family are. A christian is a follower of Christ & most importantly listens for God’s guidance. Thank U trump for making me distinguish not even goats.
“Jesus & Paul were contemporaries” why doesn’t Paul speak of what he heard of jesus
He may have not heard much.