(17 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...Over the years on the blog, I have reflected a number of times on the significance of the earliest Christians’ belief in the resurrection. On this Easter morning, I thought it would be appropriate to return to one of those reflections.
The most important result of the disciples’ belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead was that it radically changed their understanding of what it meant to say Jesus was the messiah. As I have explained before that in my view, ,Jesus did believe he was the messiah (in a certain sense), and his followers believed it. Given everything we know about Jewish beliefs at the time, that almost certainly mean that they thought that he was (or would become) the king of the Jewish people. That’s certainly how the Roman governor Pontius Pilate took it. It was because Jesus made such a claim that Pilate ordered him crucified.
The crucifixion would have proved beyond any doubt — to anyone paying attention — that Jesus was not the messiah after all. Rather than overcoming the enemy to establish a new kingdom, he was squashed by the enemy, publicly humiliated and tortured to death. That was the opposite of what would happen with the messiah.
But then something equally dramatic happened. The disciples came to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. They started working out the implications of that belief for understanding Jesus, and it led, over a long series of reflections among a number of Jesus growing band of followers, to rather amazing conclusions. It in fact is the beginning of the idea of a trinity.
For Jesus’ first followers, the resurrection that God really had showered his special favor on Jesus (though in a complete unexpected way). That meant that, contrary to what they initially thought, he was not cursed by God (as one hanging on a tree) but was the one specially blessed by God. And that is absolutely the key to the disciples’ subsequent train of thought.
They had previously thought, during Jesus’ life, that he was the one anointed by God to perform his task on earth, his future king. They now came to think he really was the one anointed by God. In fact, he had been taken by God up to heaven – and as I pointed out before, ancient people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who came to think that someone was taken to heaven came to believe that he had been made a divine being, the Son of God, or a god himself.
That’s what the followers of Jesus (those who came to believe in the resurrection) came to think of Jesus. For most Jews, the messiah was indeed to be the son of God – but only in the way that David had been the son of God, or that Solomon had been the son of God (see 2 Sam 7:11-14). That did not (for most Jews) make David or Solomon *God*. They were, instead, sons of God because they were the ones who mediated God’s will on earth. But with Jesus it was different. He was not only the messiah/son of God (a human called by God to mediate his will) . He actually had been made a divine being. He was THE Son of God!
And that means that he was a “messiah” in a different sense from what they disciples had originally thought, during his lifetime. At that time, the disciples thought that the future scenario was to be this: sometime during their, and Jesus’, lifetime a cosmic divine figure called the Son of Man would arrive in judgment from heaven to destroy the forces of evil and set up God’s kingdom on earth, with Jesus at the helm. But once the disciples came to believe in the resurrection they “knew” that he was himself a cosmic divine figure. And it was he himself who was coming *back* from heaven in judgment. Jesus himself was the Son of Man.
In the Gospels Jesus frequently speaks of himself as the Son of Man. Why is that? It is not, in my opinion, because the historical Jesus understood himself to be the Son of Man. Jesus thought someone *else* was that cosmic judge of the earth (as I have argued on the blog before; I better deal with this again in a subsequent post). But when his disciples came to think that he had been exalted to heaven, they also came to believe he was that one (the Son of Man), and so they transformed his sayings to reflect their beliefs.
Moreover, when Jesus was to return from heaven in judgment (a common belief in the early Christian communities) he would not establish someone *else* as the king over the people of God in God’s new kingdom. He himself would be installed. In other words, the disciples still thought of Jesus as the future king. But he would be installed as king in a cosmic sense as a divine figure. This was a different kind of messiah from the one the disciples had originally imagined.
More than that, Jesus who had been exalted to God’s right hand was already in some sense given power and authority, he was already ruling with God in the heavenly places, he already was sovereign over the earth, he was already the Lord, he was already the King. And so in that yet further sense Jesus was believed to be a cosmic, and all-powerful messiah. He wasn’t simply the ruler of Israel. He was the ruler of All.
I have argued that the death and resurrection of Jesus in and of themselves would not have led anyone to call him the messiah, since these things were not supposed to happen to the messiah. They were the last things that could possibly happen to the messiah. But since they happened to someone who had already been *thought* to be the messiah, they came to be interpreted in light of that belief, and the belief itself – that Jesus was the messiah – in turn came to be interpreted in light of those events.
What emerged was an altogether new way to understand Jesus. He was not simply the one to be installed on the throne in some future act of God. He was to come from heaven himself to destroy the forces of evil and set up a utopian kingdom on earth, in which he, the powerful Son of Man, Lord, and King of All would rule forever. As exalted as the view was that the historical Jesus appears to have had of himself, it pales significantly in comparison with the view that his followers had of him after his death. He was the one God almighty had made the Lord of heaven and earth. Eventually they came to think he was actually equal with God himself, from eternity past. And this became the orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus down to this day.
If you belonged to the blog, you would get substantial posts like this five times a week. Joining doesn’t cost much, and every dime goes to charity. You get masses for your money and everyone benefits. So why not join?
Why did Matthew include a zombie invasion of Jerusalem (27 50-54)?
It showed the apocalyptic power of the act of God; the resurrection of Jesus would lead to the resurrection of all the saints.
Dr Ehrman –
Of all the inaccurate/unbelievable things that could be written, why choose a broader resurrection occurrence that could be *so easily checked* within the remnant of the Jerusalem church? “Hey, you remember the time the saints came back on the streets of Jerusalem?” “Uh, nope.” Given the periodic cross-travel / communication between communities, this story is so liable to empirical disconfirmation that it’s surprising it wasn’t excised. The unhistorical treatment of Pilate in the gospel, the trial, the empty tomb, these are all pretty easy to see why they stuck once proffered – there’s a first-(or second)-hand information vacuum plus no one (or very few) to disconfirm. But the dead roaming in the city – *so* easy to access in the collective memory. And all the more confounding given Matthew appears to be sufficiently familiar with Palestine to correct Mark’s geography gaffes and avoid some of Mark’s Herodian family name mistakes. Is your sense that this was likely meant literally or allegorically – both when written and then later when interpreted/copied in future? That intellectual biblical literalists have trouble with this passage is another decent, albeit anachronistic, litmus test…
Many thanks!
Because the account was written over 50 years later by someone not living in Jerusalem to people who had never been in Jerusalem or knew anyone there. (We get incredible reports in our own day a week after an event that can be checked and disverified, and often are disverified, but are believed by people who want to believe them; just read the political news!)
…I know, I know – you keep reminding me and yet it still never ceases to amaze…
In this case, Matthew goes out of his way to correct Mark’s bad Palestine geography and political names, and yet even that isn’t enough to mean he’s sufficiently close to the action to avoid a real whopper…
Zombie version… Ha! That is so funny!
Fascinating piece, but I still think it’s dodgy to say Jesus definitely believed he’d be an earthly king, or said as much to anyone. What he says to Pilate in the gospels is clearly made up out of whole cloth. If others said he made this claim, they might have been lying, or misunderstanding him.
I can believe the words above the cross–meant ironically–very funny, Pilate. But Jesus was misunderstood by basically everyone around him–the author of Mark was right about that, and it was true for Mark as well.
So I respectfully decline to accept this conclusion. To have claimed Kingship would have been Jesus exalting himself. Whatever he believed was coming, he wouldn’t have made such a claim. And I continue to think it’s more likely he believed he was a necessary sacrifice for the Kingdom to come–as Moses never saw the Promised Land, he would not see the Kingdom.
We have precious few solid facts here, and we must draw a clear line between facts and interpretations.
OK. But why then did they crucify him?
One of the reasons for thinking the legal charge of calling himself “King of the Jews” is actually historical — i.e. that it is not something Christians would have made up about Jesus when he was on trial – is that it is not a term (King of the Jews) they ever used when talking about Jesus themselves (anywhere in the New Testament). Anyway, I’ve posted on this before under Jesus’ own understanding of what it meant to say he was the messiah.
Possibly because he was attacking the authority of the Temple authorities, who were part of the Roman authority structure in Palestine, which would tend to argue that he didn’t accept Roman authority over any aspect of Judaism, which would be consistent with how Christians later comported themselves with regards to Roman authority over Christian practice.
The Romans tortured and killed some Christians later on for nothing more than refusing to sacrifice to pagan gods (and if they did, they would usually be released). None of those people were claiming to be the king of didley-squat. They obeyed the laws, paid their taxes, and as you’ve said, it wasn’t even an official legal requirement that they had to sacrifice, but they died anyway. Roman law could be very very arbitrary and capricious, because it was mainly about keeping a variety of fractious ethnic groups under one state umbrella–somebody makes trouble, you make that person go away.
Other people got crucified that day. It wasn’t that hard, particularly in a tense situation like the Passover in Jerusalem. My question to you would be, if Jesus wasn’t attracting a lot of attention from the crowds (as you’ve said a few times), why did they care what he claimed?
I think it’s likely they did say he claimed to be king, or that he would be king, but does that prove that he did? Why would Christians not later report these secret conversations where he said he’d be king? He did reportedly tell his disciples they’d rule in the Kingdom. Why would the part about him ruling be left out? Equally seditious, either way.
Misunderstood or possibly traduced. Either way. Not proven. Possible, sure. But there is much to contradict it. “He who exalts himself shall be debased.” Whatever Jesus believed would happen, he believed that.
I’m not saying it’s not a defensible opinion. I’m saying that’s precisely what it is.
Yeah, maybe. But none of the accounts or references to the account say anything about being crucified for opposing Jewish authorities and institutions. It was the Romans who killed him, and it appears to have been for making a political claim.
True, but all the references we have are from Christian sources. Josephus doesn’t say Jesus claimed to be king, and neither do Tacitus or any other Roman sources. We know the disciples weren’t witnesses to any part of Jesus’ ‘trial’, and therefore all we’ve got is what we ASSUME is the accurate account of the somewhat sarcastic legend affixed to the top of the cross. Who ordered it put there? Pilate, we’re told. And we’re told the Temple leaders objected to his wording but he refused to be edited. We have no reason to believe any of this. For all we know, it was put up there without Pilate having any knowledge of it, by some wit who crucified people for a living–or that it was never there at all.
ALL Christians believe Jesus was crucified for (allegedly) claiming to be King of the Jews. It’s a tenet of Christian faith. The question is, and here’s the rub–did he really make such a claim, or was he saying something else? Would Pilate or any Roman have understood what he was saying? Pretty sure Pilate didn’t speak Aramaic, and we’re agreed Jesus didn’t speak Greek or Latin.
You would say, and I agree, that he meant God was going to transform the world and where we differ is where Jesus believed he’d be after this happened. But if Jesus had believed he’d be king after God did this, and the Romans had understood it–is that really insurrection? They would regard it as madness, and I don’t think even the Romans crucified people for being mentally ill.
So it’s a really flimsy case by modern standards, but by Roman standards, how good a case did they need? “I’m not sure if this guy is a problem or not, so let’s remove all doubt.”
Yes, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (that you think was probably not so triumphal) is an item on your side of the ledger. But entering a city on the back of a donkey is not exactly something the Romans would associate with an aspiring monarch. They’d think that was pretty funny.
Related question–do we know when, if ever, before Constantine,the Roman authorities started reading Christian writings? They arrested enough Christians to have gotten their hands on some gospels, or Paul’s letters.
The earliest clear references we have to pagans actually reading Christian writings go back to the end of hte 2nd century (the anti-Christian antagonist Celsus)
Which I’d heard of (via Origen’s contradiction of it, which is the only reason we do know about it.)
Obviously some Romans in power could have been curious, could have made a study. I’d guess Emperor Julian must have made some study of it, since he tried to incorporate elements of Christian practice into paganism, as a way of reviving paganism, to keep it from being subsumed and destroyed by Christianity. Far too late by then.
My point is that even centuries after the crucifixion, Roman pagans still had a very poor idea of who Jesus was, and what his followers believed.
So how good would Pilate’s have been? It doesn’t seem he had any network of spies out there gathering intelligence. He relied upon brute force and intimidation, more than most Roman governors of the province, it would seem. He didn’t even understand the beliefs of the Jewish authorities he used to control the populace, who he had regular dealings with. Any information he might have gotten about the ‘secret teachings’ of Jesus would be suspect, produced by enemies of Jesus, and perhaps paid informers. We wouldn’t accept such evidence as legitimate today. (Well, some of us would.)
I’m supposed to believe Pilate was a cruel and arbitrary governor, and nothing like what the gospels portray him as–I do believe that. But believing that, why should I believe he would devote much attention to determining whether Jesus was actually guilty of what he was accused of? Why should I believe there was any attempt to get at the truth? Why should I think there was an investigation, let alone a trial?
If he did, in fact, tell his disciples they would be kings, wouldn’t that be enough to convict him? And give further emphasis to the necessity of his disciples abandoning him? And why would the gospel record leave out his claim to kingship? All Christians came to believe he would come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom would have no end. There is ample evidence in the gospels that he spoke many times of his own impending death, to the horror of his disciples.
With regards to his saying he would reign over his fellow Jews once the Kingdom came, I think the only just verdict is ‘not proven.’
My guess is that Pilate knew next to nothing about him, and almost certainly nothing before that morning before he was one of the many items to be disposed of quickly on a busy docket. He was brought to him, they told him he was calling himself a king, he asked him about it, and decided he could be a trouble maker. Ordered him crucified and that was that.
Dr. Ehrman, you don’t seem to take the anti-semitic route and blame the Jews. Somehow, you believe, historically, the Romans were fully responsible for killing Jesus. Is this true?
I wouldn’t call the view anti-semitic (it’s not opposing Jews because of their bloodline), but no, I don’t take it. It was the Romans who crucified Jesus, not the Jews. (It’s always been odd that Christians called Jews “Christ-killers.” Why didn’t they call the *Italians* “Christ-killers”???)
Reasonable enough. Pilate could not have had a real conversation with Jesus, of course. Jesus probably had little or no Greek or Latin. Pilate would have had little or no Aramaic or Hebrew. Their worldviews could not have been more different. Even if they had a shared language–what could they possibly have communicated to each other in it?
It’s reasonable to assume that Pilate was told Jesus was another messianic pretender. He may have known just enough to know that the Jewish Messiah was a prophesied deliverer of the Jews from foreign enslavement, who would then rule over them. Jesus might have tried to explain his idea of the Messiah was different (or he might have already resigned himself to death).
There could have been a translator present. (You know better than most how hard it is to translate such things from one language to another). And as you say–Pilate would tarry not for an answer. Not long, anyway. If you don’t understand it, get rid of it. Pilate reputedly subscribed more to this methodology than the average territorial governor.
So again, it’s not really strong evidence for what Jesus believed. It’s just evidence of what some others said about him. If even his own disciples could misunderstand him…..
I agree, the fact of the crucifixion is not itself evidence of what Jesus believed. He might have denied the charge and they killed him anyway. The reasons for thinking Jesus saw himself as the messiah lie elsewhere, as I’ve discussed before on the blog.
Regarding the supposed guilt of the Jews or Romans–the entire question is absurd. Edmund Burke (defending the American colonies in rebellion) put it best. “I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people.” Yet everyone does it anyway.
No matter what version of the story you subscribe to, you’re talking about the actions of a miniscule percentage of Romans and Jews in Jerusalem, who would in turn comprise an infinitesimal percentage of Romans and Jews overall.
I would just as soon not be held responsible for the actions of every American, every Catholic, every person of Irish heritage. Jesus believed each person is responsible only for his or her own actions–for what we do, and what we fail to do.
In any event, the Jews as a group were not hated by some early Christians (who by their own beliefs shouldn’t have hated anyone) because of their perceived complicity in Jesus’ death. The anger stemmed from the unwillingness of most Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah, and from the hostile and sometimes violent way they behaved towards Christian proselytizers.
(I believe Acts and other texts exaggerate this persecution, but unlikely they make it up out of whole cloth. The Middle East is not a very tolerant place to this day. Though I’m not throwing any stones. Not on the day a synagogue got shot up by one of my countrymen. Who wants to take credit for his actions? Anyone?)
I’m not arguing against Jesus seeing himself as Messiah. But as we have discussed elsewhere, that word could have different meanings to different Jews–Jesus was a very different Jew indeed. I don’t think we can assume his thinking of himself as Messiah meant that he also thought he’d be an earthly king.
We have ample evidence he believed he’d be killed. He didn’t need prophetic abilities to know how likely that was. Possible he believed God would bring him back and put him in charge, but somehow that doesn’t feel right, and isn’t backed up by the accounts we have.
Moses never came back. Moses never saw the Promised Land, except from a distance. Moses sacrificed himself for his people. Jesus is looking to make meaning out of a chaotic reality, as apocalyptic preachers always do. But he did it very differently from most of them.
My understanding (I have no references to cite) is that it was a capital crime (under the Roman occupation) to run an organized gang containing known zealots. If “Simon the Zealot” really were a Zealot, then Jesus violated Roman law and was subject to execution precisely for supporting the move to destroy Rome’s control in Judea and re-establish an independent Jewish king.
That’s a pretty big stretch, and we don’t have enough evidence to support it. Jesus clearly didn’t support any form of violence. Simon would have had to renounce violence in order to become a disciple of Jesus. Possible that Jesus being willing to talk to zealots could be guilt by association. But not enough in itself to get him killed. (Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been any zealots for him to talk to).
I mean, if there was a guy named ‘Simon the Zealot’ answering to that name, it took more than just calling yourself that to get the Romans in a crucifying mood.
To me, son of man means Jesus was born of an earthly woman.
Yes, in later theology it came to mean “human.” But it is usually understood in early Judaism instead to be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14.
Thanks for making yet another informative and interesting post — on Easter Day even! … Here in my rural town, only churches and gas stations are open today. … And I’m blessed with over a quarter tank.
Whatever the teachings were during Jesus lifetime, the beliefs changed radically after he was killed.
I agree with the theory that
>At that time {before Jesus’ death], the disciples thought that
> the future scenario was to be this: sometime during their,
> and Jesus’, lifetime . . the Son of Man would arrive in judgment
> . . to destroy the forces of evil and set up God’s kingdom on earth,
> with Jesus at the helm.
but unfortunately (in my opinion) you infer that the ONLY a COSMIC, DIVINE being can do that, that doesn’t seem to be supported in the gospel texts,
Can you reference where Jesus taught that the Son of Man was necessarily a divine cosmic being ?
if not why not accept the more plain and plausible explanation that the son of man is just a man ( a son of a man ??) ? like used in prior scripture (see Ezekiel)
Do you think Jesus meant literally that the son of man would appear among the ‘clouds of heaven’ ? (Matt 24:30) isn’t it more plausible and sensible that (even if Jesus used the words ‘clouds’ there) that he meant the son of man would be universally seen surrounded by his human supporters (see Heb 12:1)
are there other indications besides the mere ‘clouds’ mention that Jesus thought the son of man was some kind of superman?
Yes, I think Jesus and other apocalypticists of his day literally believed there would be a cosmic event initiated above in heaven and coming down. It might seem counterintuitive today, but it’s important to remember that there are still millioins of people who still expect it to happen this way. No reason Jesus couldn’t either.
> Jesus and other apocalypticists of his day literally believed
> there would be A COSMIC EVENT initiated above
> in heaven and coming down.
if by a COSMIC EVENT you mean others (everyone else?) receiving an experience similar to what he had experienced during his baptism – a theophany in which he came to understand that God is his Father and that he (and everyone else on the planet) is greatly loved by God (and the changes in human relations that would necessarily entail) – then, yeah, I guess that could well be a COSMIC phenomena Jesus might reasonably have expected.
But if you mean some kind of magical being appearing in the sky, dead corpses coming out of their tombs, end of natural phenomena like earthquakes and human mortality, that is not at all likely part of his views. [well at least not from anything I find presented in the book]
I definitely think Tom is on to something. Perhaps, just perhaps, this new movement was smarter than we give them credit. Perhaps they knew that the masses “believed” or would believe that “there would be a cosmic event initiated above in heaven and coming down,” even as millions of people do today. Perhaps they used this gullibility to their advantage. The fact that millions believe it today as they did then only proves that we’re not so different now than we were then.
Powerful post, thank you. I never understood the historical significance of the resurrection (or belief in the resurrection) and appreciate your perspective about why things ended up this way in christianity.
Are there any scholars (legitimate, critical, non evangelical etc) who think that one or a few of the disciples just decided a bit later to carry on Jesus message of the coming kingdom without believing He was resurrected, and that it was the later writers of the Gospels and NT that attributed a view of disciples believing in the resurrection? Maybe some of Paul’s issues with the leaders were a result of this?
No, no scholars, of any sort, that I know of.
Human beings are human beings. We do not change. When the snake oil we’re selling doesn’t cure your cough, do we say ‘Oops, my bad, here’s your money back’ – ? No! We say ‘Hey! Look at your skin! It’s radiant! My snake oil gave you a glowing complexion!’
Roll up! Roll up! Buy my skin oil . .
Hello. I am brand new to the blog so forgive me for any unnecessary hubris on my part. I have a question for Dr. Erhman specifically (but also anyone else who wishes to chime in) in reference to Easter and the general events surrounding the disposal of the bodies after crucifixion before “Easter Sunday”. Several people have pointed out to me when I agree with Dr. Ehrman concerning the probable circumstances surrounding the “burial”of Jesus’ body, by pointing out that the tomb burial was historical due to a human foot bone that was found re-buried in an ossuary box (name was Jochaim I think?). Was it not true that on the very FEW cases that bodies were taken down and allowed proper burials of some kind (besides thrown into common graves), and that only the rich and/or the influential ALONE were allowed this favor by the Romans? It seems to me that despite this discovery, that Jesus who was neither rich nor influential and thus WOULD NOT be allowed to be re-buried in this matter (even more so given that no family lived in Jerusalem to bury Jesus in a family tomb and his closest friends were as far away as Bethany. What can anyone tell me of the relevance that this archaeological find can be for Jesus? Thank you,
S. Scott Bohanan
I have heard that argument a lot too. When someone tells it to me I ask them, how long after the person died (whose ankle bone was discovered in modern times) was he placed in his tomb? Was it the same day he died? Was it five days later? Three weeks later? See the problem: the fact they found an ankle bone with a stake in it doesn’t have any bearing on the question of whether Romans allowed bodies to be buried on the day they were crucified.
Very good point. Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
Thanks for another fine article. There was a time when I would have rejected what you’ve said here, because I would not have *wanted* to believe it. But now I cannot, in honesty, deny the likelihood that what you’ve said is true.
My one question here (I can’t help being reminded of What’s My Line(age)).
You say “The Disciples” came to believe that Jesus was resurrected. I’m
guessing you would clarify that “some disciples” would be better (a real
question, not a rhetorical one).
Yes, I don’t know for a fact that all the disciples came to believe.
“he had been taken by God up to heaven – and as I pointed out before, ancient people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who came to think that someone was taken to heaven came to believe that he had been made a divine being, the Son of God, or a god himself.”
Until the birth of the Christian church, were there any other human being thought to be divine by the Jews? It’s been some years since I read “How Jesus became God”, and I can’t remember if you cited any. Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven (without experiencing death, unlike Jesus). Yet did 1st century Jews view them as divine “in some sense”?
Yes, I give numerous examples in my book How Jesus Became God.
Did 1st century Jews, or any thereafter, view Jesus as divine? What did Jews think from the second century until now? What did 1st century Jews really believe? That’s a good question.
No, not unless they were followers of Jesus.
Dr. Ehrman,
Was it Jesus’ death on the cross that was so “offensive” to him being the messiah or was it more that he died and the messianic age didn’t arrive? Someone told me this: “death on a tree is mentioned by Paul, but that should not have been a problem, since Jews understood martyrdom.”
The precise issue for Paul is that the Hebrew bible says “cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree” (Deut 21:23); so that would mean that God cursed Christ. And Paul can’t get his mind around that one.
The original quote doesn’t refer to crucifixion, though–it seems to refer to hanging someone from an actual living tree for ‘a crime worthy of death.’ The person is only cursed if you leave him there overnight, instead of burying him immediately. Since Jesus only lasted around six hours on the cross, and then they took him down and divided up his garments, we now have a good motive to come up with a burial story, and there it is. (I’d be perfectly okay with being eaten by dogs. Recycling.)
If you’re an early Christian, arguing Jesus’ case with somebody who takes Deuteronomy very seriously, you can say it doesn’t apply, since Jesus was not executed for a crime worthy of death, but for proclaiming the supremacy of the Jewish God over Roman authority, and he was put to death by pagan conquerors. And a crucifix is not really a tree. It’s milled lumber taken from several trees. If somebody was hung from a wooden fence, you wouldn’t say he was hung from a tree. (Yes, overly legalistic and hair-splitting, but so’s the entire conversation, by its very nature.)
The real reason they’re not going to accept Jesus as Messiah is that he’s dead and came from Nazareth, and they probably never heard of him to begin with, but if they did they’re most likely Pharisees who heard he had mainly bad things to say about them, kept questionable company, and didn’t observe the Sabbath. The tree thing is just an excuse.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think (Deut 21:23) was the major ‘stumbling block’ that prevented Jews from accepting Jesus, and that it may well have been why Paul originally rejected Jesus? Why would the Gentiles reject it ‘foolishness’? They had no expectation of a “messiah.”
No, I think it was really Paul who was hung up on it — and possibly others, but Paul in particular.
Dr Erhman,
It was my understanding that crucifixion often happened on all kinds of “trees” whether the crossbeam was attached and re-attached to a living tree or not, particularly in dry and desert-like areas like Jerusalem. In times of shortages of wood (like when the Roman’s crucified people as they tried to escape the seize of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.). When I visted the city in 1999 there certainly was not near enough trees (and therefore lumber products) as compared to Galilee for example. It is hard for me to imagine that the environment was much more lush in the days of Jesus. Am I way off the mark on this one? Thank you for any comments.
The area apparently was deforested over the centuries.
Reading Matthew’s account of the Resurrection today I was reminded of a nearly completely ignored verse: Mt. 27:52-53 (NRSV)
‘The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.”’
The implications of this supposed event are stupendous. There was not just one Empty Tomb but “many.” Jesus’ supposed physical resurrection was by no means unique. Resurrected OT characters were wandering around Jerusalem by the dozens. The resurrection of the saints was not only a future event but had already happened for many. What does all this imply for Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy? For me, it’s evidence that many Christians of this era [at least those who were represented by Matthew’s “M” source] did not believe in a physical resurrection but a spiritual one. Either that, or we missed a literal Zombie Apocalypse, even if a benign one!
Dr. Ehrman, how do we know the Messiah wasn’t expected to die? There are certain passages which seem to imply this. Were they not interpreted this way until *after* Jesus’ death? How do you know?
Daniel 9:26
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death [cut off] and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Isaiah 53:8-9
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was *cut off from the land of the living*; for the transgression of my people he was punished. He was *assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death*, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Wisdom 2:20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death
4 Ezra 7:29
And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath.
These passages are examples of how Jews could come to believe in a dying Messiah. So I think it’s debatable if the death of the Messiah was expected or not during the time of Jesus.
There is also the claim in the New Testament of another contemporary apocalyptic prophet being raised from the dead.
Mark 6:14-16
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
Others said, “He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
Lastly, there is some evidence that John the Baptist’s sect survived after his death and that some even believed he was the Messiah. In Acts 19 Paul is said to have visited some of John’s disciples which shows his sect lived on.
Luke 3:15 “The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah.”
John is referred to as “more than a prophet” in Mt. 11:9.
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54
“Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ.”
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.60
“And, behold, one of the disciples of John asserted that John was the Christ, and not Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus Himself declared that John was greater than all men and all prophets. ‘If, then,’ said he, ‘he be greater than all, he must be held to be greater than Moses, and than Jesus himself. But if he be the greatest of all, then must he be the Christ.’
So we have precedent of people claiming John the Baptist, a similar Jewish apocalyptic preacher to Jesus, had been raised from the dead and was believed to be the Messiah. Coincidence? Both John and Jesus shared the same socio-cultural background – apocalyptic Judaism and both had their followers proclaim they had “risen from the dead” after their unjust executions.
Hmmm…
These are all Christian sources, written by Christians who thought the messiah *did* have to die.
Daniel 9 is talking about the anointed high priest Onias, not about the future nmessiah. Isaiah 53 is talking about the Suffering Servant, not the Messiah. Wisdom 2 never mentions the messiah; it is talking about a righteous man. 4 Ezra is talking about the king dying after reigning for 400 years. Naturally most Jews who thought that the future king who ruled Israel would eventually die, since he was human. They didn’t think that a person who was never king and never set up a kingdom and never defeated the enemy, but was killed by the enemy even before he started getting going, could have been the messiah.
“Daniel 9 is talking about the anointed high priest Onias, not about the future messiah. Isaiah 53 is talking about the Suffering Servant, not the Messiah. Wisdom 2 never mentions the messiah; it is talking about a righteous man. 4 Ezra is talking about the king dying after reigning for 400 years.”
I realize there is a correct historical context in which these passages were written but I’m specifically asking *how would they have been interpreted by Jews living in the early 1st century*? There is a key difference. Was it not until the Jesus sect came along that these passages became interpreted as being about the death of the Messiah?
Ah, yes, that’s a good question, and right, it’s a different one. The short answer is that we have no record of any Jew at the time anywhere thinking that the coming messiah was going to suffer and die (prior to having a long and successful ruling career).
Hi Dr Ehrman. I was just reading a bit of j Warner wallaces cold case christianity and in it on page 51 he states “In the earliest accounts of the disciples activity after the crucifixion, they are seen citing the resurrection of Jesus as their primary piece of evidence that Jesus was God…” He also assumes that the empty tomb is an accepted fact. But isn’t it probably more accurate to understand that the account he is probably referring to (mark) was more likely a theological account than an historical one?
I think Mark saw it as both theological and historical. I would correct this person’s statement: the resurrection for the earliest Christians showed them (among other things) that Jesus had *become* divine. Not that he had always been God.
If it is accepted as historical, based on NT documents that Paul was converted a mere 1-3 years after the events that led to the story of the resurrection and then went to see Peter 3 years after that and received the creed he passed on to the Corinthians in ch. 15 of 1 Cor., then isn’t Apostolic succession through Paul more or less legitimized? Wouldn’t that after all exclude the other Christianities?
It would show he knew the other apostles early on. But it wouldn’t show that he agreed with them or passed on their own views. And other Christianities all claim similar lineages. It’s tricky establishing actual apostolic succession!
Peter at the very least affirmed Paul’s Gospel, twice. Paul rebukes Peter, which Peter accepts. Irenaeus uses this argument against the Gnostics. They have no historical link. I’m not arguing that it’s a valid argument, as it’s clear theology has been in constant evolution, but it seems the Gnostics were the Early Church’s Mormonism. Can they make the same historical claims Irenaeus could?
We don’t have any record of how Peter responded to Paul’s rebuke. But yes, the Gnostics did claim to have direct apostolic roots — for example Valentinus claimed to be a disciple of Theudas who was a disciple of Paul.
I have a lot more questions. Would love if you would do an article on it sometime. Thanks as always for your hard work.
Hi Bart,
Assuming Jesus is basing his idea on Daniel’s “one like a son of man”, and understands it the way the writer of Daniel meant it , it seems like there are 3 distinct possible interpretations, and I’m wondering if Jesus himself or his immediate followers might’ve left its meaning and usage deliberately ambiguous, perhaps suggesting it might by some combination of the 3. What are your thoughts?
Now isn’t such a designation relevant specifically for emphasizing the final ruler, is simply a human, in contrast to an angel or cosmic/ divine being, or to contrast it at the same time with a beast of prey (which the oppressive forces have been compared to)?
Or -by the subtle wording according to Daniel, and perhaps Jesus, are we to understand the “one LIKE a son of man” to mean similar in appearance to a human (a son of man), but actually of a higher nature?
Or lastly, as Jesus seems to be using metaphorical language ( for example, at the “right hand” of God – Jews, from what I understand didn’t, and were commanded even not to associate any form, human or other wise with God; so to with son of man) simply to refer, NOT to a specific human ruler that is to come, but a new realized form of humanity (true to Genesis, embodying God’s image), which he himself, or John the Baptist’s community perhaps, were hoping to inaugurate; and that had, before been personified by Israel’s righteous kings? And that the 12 were to become the models, as evidenced by his words, “greater things ye shall do” – such that Son of Man is the transformed or transfigured version of humanity, according to a latent potential, almost like the next evolutionary stage (hence “Son of”) but with a collective address.
Yes, for Daniel the person is “like” a son of man; the contrast is with those four horrifying beasts who come out of the water. This human-like one is, well, humane, and comes from heaven instead of the seas of chaos. Later in Judaism this heavenly figure came to be called “The Son of Man” (obviously a bit different from “like” one)
On a recent documentary a scholar said there were 2 messiahs expected in Jewish tradition. It’s obvious Jesus wasn’t a political/military leader, but why wasn’t he accepted by the Jews as the ‘spiritual messiah?’
The scholar was probably referring to the Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran, that expected two messiahs, one a political figure like David, the other a great priestly figure (who would be the one in charge). Neither was a ‘spiritual’ messiah in the sense Christians later said about Jesus.
Dale Allison describes it as “a short step” from the pre-Easter confession of Jesus as the anointed eschatological prophet or *prophetic* messiah (Luke 4.16-30, Acts 3.22-23, Elijah traditions, etc) to the post-Easter confession of Jesus as anointed eschatological king or *kingly* messiah.
So my question: Do you think this alternative theory might provide an equally good reason why Jesus would be acclaimed as ‘messiah’ after his death? Moreover, wouldn’t death of a claimed prophetic messiah be quite the expectation for a prophet, unlike the death of an eschatological kingly messiah?
(One benefit of concluding that the pre-Easter claim was of a prophetic messiah, of course, is that one can hold to the still compelling Wrede thesis of the messianic secret, as well as to the Strauss-Bultmann-Crossan thesis that the kingly passion story is primarily historicized prophecy, not historical. This ‘king of the Jews’ stuff could be as much a post-Easter development as it was when placed in the mouths of ‘pagan’ magi in the post-Easter nativity story. And given the ruthless picture of the Romans in Josephus, it wouldn’t have taken much of a disturbance during festival time to warrant killing Jesus; nobody need go so far as to claim he was king of the Jews, would they?)
I don’t recall Dale’s precise discussion; does he cite any authors who actually call the eschatological prophet a “messiah.” They are usually understood to be different kinds of figures. So the transition would involve some “steps.” Romans, of course, did not crucify people who considered themselves prophets, unless they made other actual political/threatening claims.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think the notion of Jesus being “sinless” was also formulated after the resurrection appearances?
Absolutely. See the book by my friend (and sometime blog contributor), Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in the NT. It’s all about this.
Therefore, do you agree that there must have been a tremendous amount of weight placed on those resurrection appearances, and that it wasn’t like some experiences we might have where we think we see something on the corner of our eye, or when we awake and our eyes don’t readily focus, but that at least Peter, Paul, Mary, and James were all boldly confident that they were direct eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus to the point of re-interpreting some of their most fundamental traditional beliefs?
They could have been like that. The issue is not what actually happened but how people *interpreted* what happened. A view from the corner of the eye can definitely have a huge impact on someone’s life, if they’r sure they saw it.
Dr. Erhman,
Thank you for answering the questions I have sent your way on this blog… This is a wonderful communication device and I love that the funds are going to good causes.
I recently read two of your excellent books (How Jesus became God and Jesus before the Gospels) and I agree with your hypothesis that perhaps we can only be sure that Simeon Peter, the Apostle Paul, and perhaps Mary of Magdala seem to be candidates for the “visions” of the “Risen Jesus” (I also am waiting to read your book on these three!).
If I understood you correctly, I believe you left open the possibility of Jesus’ brother James as another possible candidate as well. Given that James (and the rest of Jesus’ family) did not believe in Jesus’ ministry during his lifetime, do you think that James may be an even stronger possible “witness” to the visions of the “Risen Jesus” (as the other three above mention) due to the criteria of embarrassment?
I have been told by Christians (usually more learned liberal ones) that it would have been highly embarrassing to explain how James previously did not believe in Jesus’ ministry, yet is, apparently, the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death and before he himself is martyred. Any thoughts on this theory?
Yes, I think James is a stronger witness; we’d love to know the sequence of events leading up to his conversion! Maybe he did become a follower of Jesus near the end of his life? No way to know! The accounts that refer to him not believing during Jesus’ life are written by different authors than the ones who indicate he became a leader of the community after Jesus’ death.
Oh yes. Good point. Thank you.
Dear Bart. Re: the conversion of James. James becoming leader of the Jerusalem ‘church’ to me seems an important and unexpcted detail in the narrative of Acts and in Paul’s letters. He’s clearly a ‘pillar’ according to Paul, if not THE pillar, and yet he’s not an appostle. His senior leadership role appears to be doubly attested and also seems to meet the criterion of dissimilarity: wasn’t Peter supposed to be the rock on which with church was built and to whom the keys of the kingsom were given? Yet James seems to have usurped this role. Even Jesus himself had said that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country among his own family; and James, being later a highly respected religious jew (as in James the Just) was presumably the more senior member of the rest of Jesus’s family who, during Jesus’s miniistry, thought Jesus had lost his mind and tried to reign him in. So it seems James was also a fairly level-headed guy. How then could James have come to believe in the physical resurrection and become the leader of Christianity’s HQ and be acknowledged as such by none on other than Paul? Surely something pretty dramatic must have happened? Does this not give you at least some pause for entertaining an agnostic thought about the possible veracity of the resurrection?
Why do you say he is not an apostle in Paul’s view?
Apologies, I meant not one of “the 12”.
Because he wasn’t one of the 12. (None of the traditions of the 12 include him among them)
We have Jesus mentioning that this generation will not pass away until all ‘these things’ have taken place– and they’re apocalyptic, End-time things… Son of Man coming in a cloud, your redemption drawing nigh… It sounds to me, at least from this passage, he thought the end of the world was within decades. If that’s the case, how could he rule on earth, if there was no earth to rule?
Earth would still be here. It would be radically transformed.
How many of the resurrected saints were women? There were 7 female Jewish Prophets. How about them? There was at least one NT prophetess. And Tabitha. Then Mary’s assumption… And?
In Matthew? He doesn’t say.
Dr. Erhman,
I have now read 4 of your books (most recently Peter, Paul, and Mary) and have become quite impressed with your thoughts (and esp.taking the time to explain them!). One thing that has confused and puzzled me for some time now, is that many people continue to refer several times to John’s gospel as the one that has Mary of Magdala (alone) discovering the empty tomb first. What puzzles me (see John 20:2) is that she appeared NOT to be alone when she ran to tell Peter and “the beloved disciple” that “WE” have found the tomb empty. Do you think that this could possibly be a reference to other unnamed women that visited the tomb with Mary that the author of John mentions only as an afterthought, or does it refer to something else? Thank you for any insights into this matter.
Yes, that is odd isn’t it. It actually doesn’t way “we” found the tomb but that “they have taken the Lord from the tomb and we do not know where they have placed him.” So she’s not actually saying that she and others found the empty tomb. Not sure what to make of the “we” don’t know where they placed him. Maybe it means “no one knows”??
Glad to see I am not the only one that has struggled with that “we” part. Thanks for your thoughts.
According to Luke, Peter contrasts David’s (‘occupied’) tomb with Christ’s flesh not seeing courrption and says that he, Peter, was one of many witnnesses to Christ was raised up. It seems pretty clear to me what the earliest Christians were proclaiming and it wasn’t mass visions (though that would be pretty unprecedented itself). No, it was an empty tomb and a raised fleshy body.
Acts 2:29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Act 2:30 “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne
Act 2:31 “he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
Act 2:32 “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
Also, why would the pre-Pauline creed mention that Jesus was buried unless it was to make the contrast with the fact that he was no longer buried because he had been raised from the tomb! ……1 Cor 15:4 that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
It’s not clear to me what you’re arguing against? Yes, Luke does maintain strongly that Jesus’ tomb was empty and that his corpse was revivified and raised from the dead, absolutely.
I’m arguing that the early Christians, the disciples and Paul and James believed in the bodily physical resurrection of Jesus and I’m arguing against the resurrection of the Jesus’s spirit / ghost / geist – only hypothesis (thus I’m also arguing against the mass hallucination hypothesis). I am saying that use of the term ‘buried’ in the pre-Pauline tradition in 1 Cor 15* does not need the term ’empty tomb’ to make it clear that Paul was talking about a veridical bodily resurrection. I am also saying that the mention, in Peter’s sermon, of David’s Tomb, flesh not seeing corruption contrasting with Peter and others being wtinesses of Christ being ‘raised up’ also indicate a belief in the actual bodily resurrection. Also, having checked the term ‘raised up’ (änē’stāmē) in the Blueletter bible :-), I think it gets across the idea of a horizontal corpse resuming a vertical position which wouldn’t be a word needed for a spirit floating off from the body (my conjecture here). I believe that this section of Peter’s sermon was genuinely his (rather than the sermon being a fabrication by Luke) because it contains dissimilar Christology to Luke’s.
* ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve’.
I thought you were arguing against me. But my entire point is that Paul and the other earliest Christians on record believed in a real, physical resurrection. But the fact they *believed* it does not show *why* they believed it. The actual *reality* of a physical resurrectoin is not necessary for a belief in it (any more than the belief in the miracles of Mohammed mean that hte miracles really happened.). The NT indicates that hte disciples believed it *because* they saw Jesus. I.e. they had an optical experience.
Thank you Bart. Helpful claification. Yes I am arguing with your position (in a friendly way – I hope and with the gretest of respect for your knowledge and scholarship, if not with my greatest clarity!). So here is the central thesis of my argument. Peter, the other 11, some women and even more unexpectedely, James the brother of Jesus (and ? his other brother Jude), unanimously beleived in the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus ie that the very physical body of Jesus, came back to life, left the tomb and was walking around like the rest of us – not as a spirit. We know that the disciples knew what spirits or ghosts were and they would also likely to have been familiar with appearances of such after the death of someone. They were not a gullible lot and some of them were tough cookies. Thye didn’t just believe they had had a vision, they believed something far more extraordinary than shared visions had occured. They believed they had seen, touched, felt and eaten with Jesus. Because of this, I submit that the ’empty tomb story’ component of the gospels is unlikley to be a later fiction, because if you think someone has been bodily resurrected and certainly if someone else tells you this has happened, then you will naturally go and check the body! And if you were Jesus’s disciples, you would know where the body was. Paul, on the other hand, experienced something more like a vision, since either nobody else either saw or heard what he saw or heard (I know Luke seems confused here). Although Paul mentions his experience on an equal footing with the disciples seeing Jesus (‘last of all he appeared unto me….’), I think he said it this way in order to establish his credibility as an apostle and I am not sure they would have seen it on an equal footing with their veridical experiences! :-). So Bart, if you don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then surely, you have a big problem in explaining Peter, John and James’s respective turnarounds, quite apart how the whole movement became convinced of the bodily resurrection from a very early stage.
I agree. They really did believe Jesus was raised from the dead and they really did not think they were imagining it. That’s true, of course, of virtually everyone who has a vision. They think what they saw was really truly there. (And often visions involve not just sight but also sound and, remarkably, touch) I’d suggest you read up on the scholarship on visions — it’s really illuminating. (I give some bibliography in my book How Jesus Became God.)
Dr. Erhman,
I have been wondering what your thoughts may be concerning some of the alleged miracles of Jesus during his ministry and if they were (possibly) originally post-Easter encounters that were put back into the previous ministry of Jesus?
For example, when the disciples “see” Jesus walking on the water on the sea of Galilee, they are afraid and think he was a “ghost”….in the Gospel of Luke’s post-Easter story, Jesus appeared to the 11 disciples and, again, they are afraid thinking his is a “spirit”.
I also recall the last chapter of John describing an appearance of Jesus to his disciples on the Sea of Galilee that is vary similar to the synoptic “fishing trip” with Jesus (during his ministry) where a large number of fish are discovered at Jesus’ command after the future disciples worked all night and Peter, strikingly (to me anyway), tells Jesus to leave him because he is a “sinful man”. It almost sounds like the response Peter would give AFTER Jesus’ death!
It’s possible. But it’s usually thought that they are later legendary accounts that get attributed to Jesus by followers who, some time after his death, came to think he was divine and are pretty sure he must have shown it through his miraculous deeds.
Yes that probably makes more since. I was, I admit, really thinking out loud on that question. Your points in your previous works (esp How Jesus became God are coming back to memory now). Thank you for answering my various questions. I am very thankful for your time and knowledge.
There are hints of controversy in 4G as to whether Jesus or JBap was the genuine messiah, which suggests some must have believed JBap to have been resurrected. Mark 8:28 says some thought Jesus himself was the resurrected Baptist. Has anyone studied how common it was in that culture to envision the resurrection of hero/martyr figures?
Yes indeed. We have several of people being taken to heaven to be made divine; but no stories of someone coming back to life after having died and living longer here on earth.
Terrific post, Don’t you think that this argument about Jesus being all these things that you describe would have more credence if Jesus had explained these things to His disciples before His death rather than their figuring all of this out after His death?
It certainly would have made things easier….
I would need to reread “How Jesus became God” to recall how you parsed out the various degrees of divinity held among Jews and Greco-Romans. Am I right that the early Jewish Christians viewed Jesus as divine in a unique sense, in that until birth of the church, no other human being was given cultic worship by any Jewish group during the 2nd Temple period?
No other humans; but there is evidence that angels were.
Dr Ehrman,
This is my two cents for Jesus being killed for calling himself King. In Matthew Chapter 2 King Herod orders the killing of all two years and under after the wise men fail to come back. When the wise men first meet King Herod the ask him
Where is the One having been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.
King Herod see this child as a threat to his rule. So he orders the killing of all the two years. Here we see a ruler not letting anyone threaten his rule.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was doing some research and spotted this quote in a commentary. Do you agree with these points? Thank you.
“There are many biblical scholars these days who say that the resurrection was an invented story out of some kind of “faith” process. They relegate the critical event…to the imaginations of some well-meaning but deluded peasants. Paul goes to great pains to put the resurrection in the realm of fact, not opinion or imagination. He talks about the eye-witness testimony of hundreds. He references his own story of personal confrontation with Christ. In the end he says if it’s not fact, then he’s lost. This sounds like a man who staked his entire life on an indisputable fact…the Corinthians did not understand how material bodies, subject as they were to sickness, death, and eventual decay, could live eternally. Paul explains that God will change bodies to make them immortal. By “spiritual body” Paul does not mean an immaterial body but a body animated by the Holy Spirit.”
Not really. It assumes that “visions” have to be delusional imaginations rather than historically objective realities. These are not the right categories. Anyone who has a vision almost always believes he really saw it. That doesn’t mean there was really some objective thing out there that was actually seen.
Dr. Ehrman,
In re evidence that “Spiritual Body” Does Not Mean “Immaterial Body”:
Do you think these are good examples of Paul using “spiritual” without implying immaterial?
1) Paul uses the word in this way in 1 Cor. 2:15: “The spiritual man judges all things…” Clearly Paul does not mean “nonphysical and invisible man” here but “man filled with and directed by the Spirit.”
2) 1 Cor. 10:1-4 Paul says that in the wilderness Israel ate “spiritual food” and drank “spiritual drink” from a “spiritual rock.” Does Paul mean to say that these things were not physical? Surely not. The fact that they ate this food and drank this water indicates that it had to be physical.
3) It was understood that souls were immortal and at death immediately went to be with the Lord 2 Cor. 5:8 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Thus, a “spiritual” resurrection would make no sense, as the spirit doesn’t die and therefore cannot be resurrected.
4) Gal. 6:1 “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual [pneumatikos], restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” A person is a physical being and the word spiritual, again does not refer to immaterial.
It all has to do with what ancient people meant by “spirit.” Dale Martin, in his book, The Corinthian Body, argues convincingly that “spirit” (pneuma) was a *kind* of matter ,and that it was only after Descartes that people started thinking of it as non-matter.
…So would that be a yes per Paul using “spiritual” without implying immaterial? Because if so, these seem like good examples. Thanks.
Yes, “spirit” is a kind of highly refined matter for Paul, that’s what I’m trying to say.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was talking to someone who rejects 1 Cor. 15:4 saying “Paul did not have direct knowledge of it”
BUT we don’t have “direct knowledge” of the crucifixion either, yet historians have no problem calling that a fact, so why should the burial (and by burial I just mean in a very general sense from what we get from Paul) be any different?
There’s a difference between saying someone had no knowledge of the even and saying that the event didn’t happen.
Yes, but Paul is telling us both things and he is the earliest and best source so why believe that he is accurate that Jesus was crucified, but then reject him in 1 Cor. 15:4?
That’s right — every statement every person makes has to be evaluated. Just because they are wrong in one thing they say does not mean they’ll be wrong in the next; of that they’ll be right the second time if they were right the first. Each of Paul’s statements needs to be evaluated based on evidence, not based on whether he said it or not.
I beleive there is also some tradition about Lazaraus becoming quite prominent in the early church and going to Cyprus – he would be a good person to ask about what sort of resurrection took place! 🙂 Perhaps he contributed to the early pre-Pauline traditions? Who knows
Dr. Ehrman,
What are your thoughts on the Shroud of Turin? Barrie M. Schwortz, the world’s leading expert on the topic, a non-Christian, a strict man of science, and a member of the 1978 Shroud research team has followed all of the data over the years, and still holds steadfast that there are certain properties per the image that cannot be explained via any form of art nor naturalistic processes. There’s been controversy over the carbon dating from the ’80s, which has since been invalidated. In any case, it still doesn’t tell us how the image was created.
I’m afraid he’s completely wrong, and so is the debate over the carbon dating. It is definitely a medieval forgery. The science is unambiguous.
Ahem, not so fast 🙂 I am far from being very knowledgable on this, but I think there is indeed ambiguity / uncertainty about:
1. How the image got on the cloth. It’s not painted on with pigment and I beleive there is considerable evidence from both it’s negative nature and the perspective / projection of the image that indicates that the process is likely to have been photographic. That itself throws up a lot of questions
2. The carbon dating / age of the cloth itself. There is, I beleive, some evidence that the part of the cloth from which the carbon dating sample was taken is from a part which may have been repaired at a later date and that this may have resulted in a later carbon dated age
Yes, I completely disagree I’m afraid. Among unbiased experts, there’s not a debate. It’s only among people who would like it to be what they claim it to be that it’s debated.
Hi Bart, having looked at it again, I’m not so sure it’s an open and shut case – yet. There is more research on it published in both 2018 and this year. I think it could also be said that it’s only among people who would not like it to be what it is claimed to be that it isn’t debated :-).
Is It a Fake? DNA Testing Deepens Mystery of Shroud of Turin By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | October 23, 2015 09:13am ET: https://www.livescience.com/52567-shroud-of-turin-dna.html
I found your discussion of Roman era beliefs on Divinity and semi-divinity most enlightening. Following your comments above, it occurs to me to ask: was it the Roman belief that, say, Augustus ascended to the heavens and became/was revealed to be a god that made it possible for Jesus’ followers to make the same leap after His death? Would the movement have turned out different if the idea were not already “in the water”?
I would say that hte belief about Augustus was itself influenced by ealrier beliefs — that this kind of idea was “in the air” so to speak; and the Christians indeed did make use of it for their claims about Jesus.
Dr Ehrman,
is it correct to think that some disciples came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus within a few days or weeks of his death?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
I don’t know about days, but I suspect it was certainly within some weeks.
Dr Ehrman,
I forgot to ask for a clarification, naturally his disciples were convinced that he was physically (not spiritually) resurrected, right?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
Yes, I think that is absolutely the case. They thought his body had been raised.
Dr. Ehrman,
In the theological development of things following the resurrection, should we place Romans 1:3-4 before Philippians 2:6-11, as Rom. sees Jesus as divide at the resurrection, in Phil. it seems he always was?
That’s definitely my view.