(10 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...I have received a number of emails asking me about the Cephas and Peter article I started giving a couple of posts ago, and most of the questions, as it turns out, are answered in the *second* half of the article, which I had originally planned not to provide here on the blog. So now I’ve decided, well—why not?
And so here is the rest of the article for anyone who is interested. For those not interested in all the convoluted ins and outs of the argument, you may want to see the end, the summary and conclusions, as the pay-off of the argument is rather significant. As with the rest of the article, I have not included any of the footnotes, where I give some of the logic and evidence for my sundry points.
As it turns out, I’m not sure I buy the argument anymore. I’ll explain why in simple terms in a later post.
*******************************************************
The evidence of Paul has not been exhausted by this consideration of Gal 2:7-9. There remain the other references to Cephas in Paul’s letters, references that provide other points of interest. Indeed what is striking is that in virtually every instance, Paul’s references to Cephas contain something that is difficult to explain if in fact he meant “Peter,” Jesus’ disciple, the one who had received the “apostolate to the circumcised” (Gal 2:8) just as Paul received that to the uncircumcised.
In some respects the reference in 1 Cor 15.5 is the most interesting. In reciting the tradition he had received concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus …
The Rest of this Post is for MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, You DON’T KNOW what you’re missing. It would change your life!! So shell out, join up, and live happily ever after!
From an historical POV, fascinating.
From a hierarchical POV, irritating, at least if you happen to be the current Patriarch of Antioch.
I assume no bishoprics in any of the other Antiochs would be impacted.
What’s truly amazing about this is how obvious it is. Why would Paul use multiple names for the same well-known person? He’s trying to clarify things to the communities he’s writing to, and this would make it less clear. He’d pick a name and stick with it.
I’ve had this notion of Peter and Paul butting heads for most of my life, and of course they might still have done so. Peter is trying to help create a unified Christian community–why would he want to advertise the fact that he’s been fighting with Peter? A disagreement with Cephas would just be two Christians having a disagreement (as would have happened on a constant daily basis, where two or more Christians were gathered, some things never change).
But then again, maybe Peter was quite content to leave the uncircumcised to Paul, and wasn’t inclined to try and force the gentiles to follow Jewish practices. He was having enough problems of his own trying to convert the circumcised. And he may, like Paul, have felt that Jewishness was a personal matter, something you couldn’t just impose on a person later in life. He, like Paul, would have figured God would sort it all out when the Kingdom came, and they should try to save as many as possible against that fateful day.
Afterthought:
Certain branches of early evangelical Christianity–“Convert ’em all and let God sort ’em out!”
Certain branches of modern evangelical Christianity–“Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out!”
Progress. :\
Which branches of modern Evangelical Christianity are advocating killing everybody (or anybody)?
“Indeed what is striking is that in virtually every instance, Paul’s references to Cephas contain something that is difficult to explain if in fact he meant “Peter,” Jesus’ disciple, the one who had received the “apostolate to the circumcised” (Gal 2:8) just as Paul received that to the uncircumcised”
It should be made clear that Paul not only never uses the word “disciple”, but also never describes the concept of a disciple. If it was not for the gospels nobody would have associated “the twelve” from Gal 15:5 with earthly followers of an historical Jesus. Paul does not write, “…the twelve followers of our Lord Jesus while he was with us in the flesh…”. The twelve are a unknowns and assigning discipleship to them is pure speculation not supported by anything Paul writes.
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas…..”
1 Cor 15 gives us the answers as to where Paul, and everybody else, got their Jesus from: scripture and appearances (revelatory visions).
I do have to agree that if Cephas is not Peter, but rather another recipient of a visionary experience, that strengthens some (non-extremist) mythicist lines of argument (or rather weakens some counter-mythicist points).
I for one don’t know how!
Paul never describes most things that were already well-known to those he was writing to. These are letters, not treatises. It’s very clear he’s referring to the twelve disciples, though it’s less clear which specific persons he considers ‘The Twelve’ to be.
The lack of clarity in Paul is annoying–he didn’t know his epistles would be the only first-hand account of many things relating to the early church. He didn’t know people would be reading him many centuries later, and imputing all kinds of ridiculous things to him–like the notion that Jesus wasn’t a real flesh and blood person). But being, self-evidently, an exceptionally intelligent man, he may have underestimated how dense some people can be.
IDK… the 1 Cor 15:5 seems like a stretch to make Cephas someone other than Peter… but who knows I guess… so if Cephas is NOT Peter:
1. Then there is no evidence that Paul ever met Peter… is that right?
2. Then John (Zeb’s son) is the only earthly disciple Paul ever met… is that right? *I know Paul met James (Jesus’ bro), who obviously *knew* Jesus, but James didn’t *follow* Jesus until after Jesus died.
If this theory is right, then yes to both questions.
I’m confused on your view here…
In Did Jesus Exist, you seem to argue that Paul did know Peter (I’ve also read and heard you say Paul knew Peter elsewhere). Has your view changed since writing Did Jesus Exist? Or do you not buy the theory? Even the Catholics admit it’s Peter Paul rebuked… seems like it’s the better argument?
I have been trying to stress that this is an article I wrote a long time ago and that I no longer find it persuasive.
Why did you previously find this view persuasive? Was it related to your earlier, more fundamentalist views whereby you might have found it scandalous that Peter and Paul might have had such a fundamental disagreement?
Ah, not that! No fundamentalist on the planet would buy the argument, because John 1:42 explicitly says that Cephas was Peter. I bought it because I thought contrary to almost universal Christian opinion, Paul’s letter to teh Galatians seemed to differentiate the two. (I wasn’t at all a conservative Christian when I wrote the article)
1. No, but he probably did. I think they might have had a hard time understanding each other, but the early church wasn’t given much to serious internecine conflicts–they simply couldn’t afford them. Too many external enemies, and they were so few in number.
Diplomatically speaking, the best policy was for these two strong-willed men, each of whom felt he had a special understanding of Jesus (one from personal experience, the other from divine revelation) to not say much to or about each other.
I think it’s unlikely they were never introduced, unless somehow the opportunity never arose. If they’d been in the same place at the same time, they would have met, but we need to understand–Paul NOT mentioning something in a handful of short letters doesn’t prove anything, one way or another. If I write you a bunch of letters, and never mention my parents, that doesn’t prove I was a foundling.
2. We don’t know James didn’t follow Jesus until he died. That is far from clear. He wasn’t considered one of the twelve, and there is evidence Jesus’ family was not unified in support of his activities, but there’s just not enough data to draw any firm conclusion about James. He may simply not have been able to travel with Jesus during the time of Jesus’ ministry.
Actually, now I think on it, Paul never mentions his parents, or any specific member of his family, so that proves he had no family, right? He says he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, that he is of the tribe of Benjamin, and a Pharisee. Most of the other autobiographical information is from Acts, not the epistles. You could INFER parents and other relations from that, but apparently inference is not allowed in certain quarters, no matter how obvious it may seem. 🙂
The reason that Peter/Cephas would be in Antioch is because he has gotten word that Paul is preaching that Mosaic law is no longer necessary, and so Peter/Cephas goes there to sort things out.
The early Church did not see its mission as directed to Gentiles. Jesus had been clear that they should not do that, but instead preach to the lost sheep of Israel. Why would any of his disciples go against that?
Paul innovates the idea of reaching out to Gentiles, and when in Jerusalem arrives at an accord with the Apostles. Where is the evidence that anybody before Paul thought of outreach to Gentiles?
I don’t think there is any evidence, outside of the book of Acts. Then again, our only sources of information are Paul and Acts.
Dr. Ehrman, a worthy effort, indeed. Alas, I find it totally unconvincing. For starters, I can’t seem to figure out whether you think Paul thinks Cephas was one of the Twelve and Peter was a middling apostle, or vice versa. If Peter is the middling apostle assigned to convert Jews, and Cephas was of the Twelve “Pillars” of the Jerusalem Church, you may have a point, but the evidence you presented doesn’t make that conclusion clear. Indeed, much of your evidence concludes the exact opposite, thus undermining your entire argument. Furthermore, if the opposite were the case, one would have to wonder why a Jewish “Pillar” of the Jerusalem Church would go by the Greek “Peter,” while a middling Jewish missionary to Jews outside of Jerusalem would go by the Aramaic “Cephas”. One would reasonably expect it to be the other way around.
What I was arguing is that Peter was the disciple of Jesus who became a missionary to the Jews and Cephas was a non-disciple who became one of the pillars of the church of Jerusalem.
I think I understand that you have changed your mind on this subject. Do you now believe that Peter and Cephas were the same person?
Yeah, pretty much.
For a while, I thought Cephas and Peter were 2 different people, but Dale Allison made a persuasive argument that they’re one and the same. I believe it’s a refutation to this article actually. Written in the early 90’s.
Yes, he wrote a strong response.
How do you get on without your father each day, and knowing as a non-believer you will not see him again? I dread that day with my parents, and also uncertain that I could carry on after it.
I guess I just don’t find what I consider to be reality to be disturbing. I have no expectation of seeing my father, so I’m not upset by the idea of not seeing him. And I certainly wouldn’t think that I *should* think that I will see my father because that would be a nicer expectation, if you see what I mean.
Why don’t evangelical Christians who claim to desire heaven, and fear hell, act as if they genuinely believe that they can attain one and avoid the other by doing as Jesus commanded them?
They seem to me increasingly concerned with worldly things, like politics, and material wealth, and telling other people how to act and think and believe, and fearing their brothers and sisters of other faiths, or none.
Rhetorical questions cut both ways, don’t they?
The last 5 numbered points show the implications of Peter and Cephas being different individuals. Does it help clear up any other mysteries or inconsistencies? The sort of inconsistency I have in mind is your point that it’s hard to understand why Peter would be associating with pagan Christians in Antioch if he was the missionary to the Jews. Distinguishing between Peter and Cephas helps things to fall into place better with regard to that incident..
Yes, the whole point of the article in some ways is to show that the thesis resolves the problems.
Just to confirm – based on the evidence of Paul – cephas and peter are two different people! or am I confused! Its tough handling Brexit over here 🙂
That’s what I was arguing in the article. In an imminent post, I’ll explain why I am not sure I buy the argument any more!
Have you read Bernard Brandon Scott’s book, “The Real Paul”? He has a very plausible explanation of why Peter withdrew from “table” in Antioch.
No, I’m afraid I haven’t read it.
Hello Bart:
A great post. Thought provoking…
Your readers may also be interested in reading your 1990 article “Cephas and Peter” that appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature 109(3) 463-467.
Perhaps you would elaborate on the following issue: Why would Peter run to the tomb to examine it [Lk 24:12] IF, according to 1 Cor. 15:5 he was presumably the first person to see the resurrected Jesus. Of course, Paul’s text omits any women…Presumably then, he [if Cephas was Peter which you disproved] would already would have known that Jesus was resurrected. Again, why, then should he had run to the tomb to examine it? Of course, it could be argued that Paul’s list was not historical/literal.
Thank you.
Michael Alter
Yes, thanks. These posts *ARE* that article! On Luke 24:12: the verse may be a scribal addition to the text. But in any event, it is very hard indeed to reconcile what Paul says with what the Gospels say about the resurrection appearances.
A more intesting post than you give yourself credit for:
About 1Cor. 15:3-8, how much room for interpretation is there for what Paul may have meant by Jesus having “appeared” to various individuals. I’ve read your posts and am aware from other sources that people not infrequently see and speak with a deceased loved one as a normal part of grieving, but I have for some tiime had serious doubts that 500 people in the same place and time had essentially the same vision or hallucination. I think it more likely that such a story circulated later on, but that its origins were a bit more typical of mass conversions. Could Paul have meant, when he said that Jesus “appeared” to these people, that they experienced a certainty that he was in fact alive? Something like the line in the evangelical hymn: “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart.”
Could that even suggest that Paul’s personal confession, “Last of all to me…” was part of a baptismal confession that all believers were required to make?
My sense is that Paul has simply heard that a large group of people saw Jesus, and someone estimated the number at 500, just as today we hear about the Blessed Virgin Mary appearing to 200 people or 300 people at once.
Perfect analogy.
Doc, I’m going to write a follow-up question to something I asked in another thread because I don’t know how you prioritize these things. Why is it that the Gospel writers (after Mark) were so interested in throwing in propagandic details about Jesus rising from the dead in his old body?
The resurrection in Mark seems to have meant an ascension directly to heaven right out of the tomb: flash forward to John and Jesus is saying, “Stick your hand in these nail wounds.” That must mean that there was somebody around whom Not-John wanted to rebut. Who was it? Were there any first-century docetics? And if not, who was it that the Gospel writers were writing in opposition to?
Yes, there appear to have been Christians already maintaining that Jesus had some kind of spiritual resurrection, not in the body, and these additional stories were meant to counteract such views.
If Paul’s “Cephas” is not Peter, it does change a lot of things. Thanks for this interesting series.
Bart: Ah, what a nice surprise to see you address this subject! 🙂 I read your article years ago and was fascinated by it.
But as a previous commentator wrote: “Why would Paul use multiple names for the same well-known person? He’s trying to clarify things to the communities he’s writing to, and this would make it less clear. He’d pick a name and stick with it.”
I’m not sure you have answered that question? Or maybe I missed it?
Yup, that’s the problem — the reason for thinking there were two of them. But there are problems with *that* view too, which I haven’t addressed yet!
Ah, ok. When can we expect that post? 😉
Yeah, the blog got highjacked by something else. I’ll get to it!
Ok, great! Looking forward to it 🙂 Happy holidays until then!
Bart, thanks great topic. Looking forward to one person argument. I have a question on Peter (the disciple) in Acts. Acts chapter 12 has Peter put in jail to be executed by Herod Agrippa I, he miraculously escapes, is seen by a servant girl and other believers, then leaves. He is not written about again.
– Is it plausible Peter was executed by Agrippa I (circa 41-44CE) & the escape was just legend/myth? Therefore, Cephas in Paul is a different person?
– Does Acts refer to the disciple Peter as “Peter” or “Cephas” in the Greek version (my English version just says Peter).
Thanks
Nothing in the text suggests he died then, and we know that he didn’t because Paul knew him personally in the 50s. (Whether or not he was the same person as Cephas). Acts uses the Greek name Peter.
Bart, thanks for the feedback, I have done some more research and thinking. Note, I have a science background, so tend to build a hypothesis and test it with facts. Not sure this lends itself to history very well, but I am having loads of fun with Peter & Cephas none the less. The hardest part is to avoid confirmation bias.
Question – Is it plausible that the author of Acts got confused and it was Herod Agrippa II whom imprisoned apostle Peter? My understanding is this would fit a 50’s date. Agrippa I was better known (especially for his legendary death), so the author just created the legend his death was inspired by God?
As a side note, in my research I read a theory that when Paul referred to Cephas in 1Cor 3-9, he actually meant the High Priest Caiaphas (18-36CE) (ref: Adriana van der Hoeven). Is this plausible? By extension the 12 are the Council of the Temple, not the disciples!
Has there been much research on apostle Peter?
Thanks again….Brett
I’m not sure why one would think it wasn’t Agrippa I. On Cephas/Caiaphas, I’ve never heard that before and don’t see what would make it plausible and can think of roughly 76 reasons it is implausible!
Thanks for the feedback. I thought it was a bit far fetched. When I read a bit further, Adriana van der Hoeven also suggested the 4th gospel was written by John Mark and Mary (mother of Jesus)! I think I will stay away from that website in future!
Thanks again, enjoying your blog. Learning lots.
Dr Ehrman,
You make the point in this thread that you no longer find this argument (Cephas = ~Peter) persuasive – what changed your mind? I.e., which premise(s) of the argument did you come to reject (and why)?
Apologies if you posted on it later (the post mentions your intention to do so at some point, but I was unable to find it with the search function). Thanks much!
Ha! I never did get around to explaining that! Short story: since it wasn’t actually a name anyone ever had, it seems unlikely that two people were independently given it as a *nick*name.
Excellent – thank you!
Am I understanding you correctly that the thorough case that you laid out for Cephas and Peter being two separate people is foiled because you think two people couldn’t have had the same nickname?
I wouldn’t say “couldn’t”; I’d say it seems unlikely.
Prof,
Pity that you never elucidated more fully as to why you no longer subscribe to the Cephas NotEqual Peter argument. The “Short story” you did provide (unlikely that 2 people were independently given the same nickname) sounds far less convincing to me than the strong arguments in favour. In fact, there were plenty people in Palestine who were called (or called themselves) Messiah, so it’s not like there’s no precedent for more people having the same nickname. (Ha, there’s even people whose actual name is Nick …)
And, since you changed your opinion on this, do you now also read the early church writers’ differentiation as motivated by a need to cover up for the major rift between Paul and Peter? But could not John 1:42 and Matthew 16:18, like the whole book of Acts, already be part of a cover-up that (perhaps unintentionally) got exposed by these church writers? The fact that Matthew and John insert Peter’s naming episode at completely different points in the chronology of their stories already seems to indicate that something is amiss.
So, any chance for a follow-up ?
I should get back to that, you’re right. The problem with this particular nickname is that unlike most other nicknames, it was completely unknown before Peter got it. So it seems unlikely that someone else would independently get it at the same time.
I see I’m not the first to notice that you never posted the anticipated follow-up, explaining why you are no longer persuaded by the argument.
Some points that seem relevant are (a) that the various gospel accounts pertaining to the naming of Peter are actually quite confusing, and (b) that in most of your discussions of the Corinthians creed you construct it quite differently…
Guess I should get back to that, hun? I’ll put it on the list of blog-desiderata….
1. Do you still think they may have been different people? Paul could’ve just been referring to Peter as Cephas depending on what crowd he was talking to just as Paul was sometimes called Saul.
2. Also, did Paul receive help in writing his letters? He mentions writing from prison so it’s hard to image he got help there…
Thanks!
1. I flip a coin every Tuesday; 2. He appears to have dictated his letters, but it does not appear anyone helped him compose them.
Bart,
I’m really struggling with one aspect of your theory that the collective appearance tradition to the twelve in 1 Cor 15:5 is a rumor or legend that Paul picked up during his travels (as part of the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed or not). Let’s say Paul picked up this appearance tradition ten years after his initial two-week meeting with Peter. I’m thinking Paul had to wonder why Peter didn’t mention the appearance tradition to the twelve ten years earlier when it would have *greatly* helped him with his Gentile mission. How do explain Paul accepting the appearance tradition to the twelve as true if Peter never mentioned it during their two weeks together?
I don’t think we know in any detail what they talked about so that speculating about what they didn’t talk about or about what Paul might have wondered about what they didn’t talk about doesn’t get us very far. Paul thought he saw Jesus alive after his death; he met with Cephas to talk about his mission to gentiles to get his approval/sanction (as suggested in his own report). Apart from that, I’m not sure what their discussions entailed. I know it seems like “they *must* have talked about this, that, and the other thing,” but I don’t think we should be confident about hte “must.” When I visited an old friend some months ago I later came away thinking, “I can’t *believe* we didn’t talk about X, Y, and Z.”
You and I differ on the plausibility of Paul, upon picking up a rumor/legend that Jesus appeared to the twelve, would not be bothered by the fact that Peter never mentioned it at their two-week meeting together possibly years earlier, but still, I’m drawn to your explanation for its simplicity. What do you think of the following two possibilities that might make your explanation a little more palatable?
1] The narrative of the appearance tradition to the twelve during Paul’s years was a more simplistic version of that seen in Mt 28:16-20 where “some doubted.” So if Paul heard a tradition of an even briefer and less interactive Jesus appearing to the twelve, and “some doubted,” he may have thought Peter didn’t mention it because of its minimal content and doubt by the percipients.
2] Paul *knew* the appearance tradition to the twelve (and possibly the 500 as well) that he picked up during travels was false but used it anyway because it helped bolster his argument for Jesus’ bodily resurrection up to heaven. If it ever became widely known to be false, Paul could just say he was mistaken like a lot of other people and move on.
1. Paul was writing decades before Matthew and so techincally it could not have influenced him. But I don’t think Paul imagined any of the followers of Jesus doubted he was raised (altho it’s a constant refrain in the Gospels, which should make on wonder why it is so regularly a part of these storie
2. I don’t think he thought the traditions were false.
What makes you conclude Paul didn’t think the appearance tradition to the twelve was false (besides his sincere belief in Jesus’ resurrection, which could occur despite Paul knowing this appearance tradition was false)?
Because he cites it as evidence of it being true.
Don’t people sometimes cite things as true knowing they are false to help a sincerely believed larger argument? If Paul knew some of the twelve had individual appearances by Jesus, and possibly also shared in group ecstatic experiences, and others believed and were spreading the collective appearance tradition to the twelve (and possibly the 500 as well), why not go with the crowd and fudge things a little to help your argument? How can you tell what Paul really thinks when he cites the appearance tradition to the twelve (and possibly the 500 as well)?
How can you tell when anyone is lying? Usually you have a reason to think so.
I suppose if you know someone well you can see indications they are lying, but how well do we really know Paul? Think of politicians/fake news pundits today who spread falsehoods to support a larger agenda (and that’s in era where things can be checked fairly easily). Do you or other scholars have any sense of Paul’s trustworthiness on matters that can be checked in some way, allowing us to generally assess if Paul believed the appearance tradition to the twelve (and the 500) was true?
No, I’m afraid not. Just the book of Acts, which often is at odds with Paul, but almost always in ways that promote a particular agenda of Acts. (And it doesn’t mention the 500, of course)
1) Since you agree we have nothing from which to verify Paul’s trustworthiness, why don’t you ever use as a possible explanation for the appearances to the twelve and the 500 that they could be rumors or legends that Paul picked up during his travels and knew were false but used anyway because they helped his argument for Jesus’ bodily resurrection up to heaven? If a false appearance tradition ever became widely known to be false, Paul could just say he was mistaken like a lot of other people and move on. Do you see anything wrong/weak with this argument?
2) Do you have any opinions on how big of a role the twelve played in the early church by the time Paul met with Peter, perhaps disbanding or fading into the background behind more active “apostles”?
1. I look for evidence, not speculation. If there’s evidence, I evaluate it. History isn’t done by “what ifs” and “why nots” It’s done by reasoning based on data. I’d say it’s always important to consider all the optiopns, but to take an option seriously there needs to be some evidence for it.
2. I wish we knew. They are said to be importance in Acts but they never are said to do anything after ch. 2. Paul does say in Gal 2 that when he went to Jerusalem teh first time he met only with Peter, and a bit with James, but with “none of the other” apostles. So presumably some of them were active doing something or other.
I agree one cannot do “history” in the publicly accessible sense of the word when the evidence comes to dead end, but it’s interesting to consider the different plausibilities instead of just shrugging our shoulders and saying we don’t know what happened. Aren’t you speculating when you suggest Paul didn’t get the appearance tradition to the twelve from Peter but picked it up from somewhere else (because we simply don’t know where he got it)? And aren’t you speculating that Paul in this case didn’t find it odd that Peter didn’t mention this appearance tradition during their two weeks together (because we simply don’t know what Peter and Paul talked about or what the dynamics of the conversation were)? What is the difference between your speculation on this topic and my speculation that Paul knew the appearance tradition to the twelve was false but used it anyway because it helped his argument for Jesus’ bodily resurrection up to heaven, which he sincerely believed (because we don’t know anything about Paul’s trustworthiness)?
In one sense nearly all of history is speculation. Some speculation is simply taking a guess or proposing something that needs to be examined, other speculation is basedon close observatoin and empirical facts that no sensible person would deny, and other speculation lies between these two extremes. For me to be convinced that Paul was lying about it I would need to see substantial evidence to suggest that Paul lied about his experiences in order to convince others. I think it’s relatively easy to show that Paul often spoke the truth about the past (as when he reminds the Thessalonians, the Philippians, the Galatians, etc. of the things he had done that they konw about). I can’t think of instances where we know he flat-out lied about things. If he can’t be shown regularly to lie about the most crucial things he talks about, then a speculation that he is lying in one specific case or another does not seem very likely to me. If it seems likely to you, then I’d need to see something for me to suggest you’re probably right, other than the speculation itself.
Given all the research people have done on Paul I’m sure there’s no smoking gun, but one would have to look at instances where it would have been beneficial for Paul to perpetuate something he knew was false in order to support a larger truth and what Paul actually did. Do you know of any instances like this in the historical record? In contrast, it’s doubtful Paul is going to lie about the past when he reminds the Thessalonians, the Philippians, the Galatians, etc. of the things he had done that they know about, so these do not seem like reliable benchmarks for Paul’s trustworthiness when push comes to shove.
Also, do have any opinions about Paul’s overall demeaner and style of argument, which might have some relevance to his trustworthiness, given that he calls people who don’t understand things “fools!” (1 Cor 15:35-36), and sometimes has to insist “before God, I do not lie!’ (Gal 1:20). Such rhetoric today would cause many people to doubt the person’s trustworthiness, something one might see from a fake news pundant today.
Paul did practie Judaism when with Jews and did not when with gentiles; he did say harsh things of others; he did use strong rhetoric. I don’t know of any place where he can be shown to have said something that he knew wasn’t true. He may well have done, but I can’t think of a single instance off hand. My view of it is that he was dogmatic, self-important, and convinced; but I don’t think that suggests he was a liar and I don’t know of other reasons to think he was.
I’m curious if you think the following comments from scholar Mark Given are accurate (from his 2001 book Paul’s True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Deception in Greece and Rome. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, pg. 3-4):
Paul’s rhetorical strategies…display such a degree of intentional ambiguity, cunning, and deception as to make him justifiably vulnerable to the polemical charge of perpetrating sophistries….Paul’s sincere conviction that he knew the Truth and had a divine mandate to promote it in an apocalyptic world filled with deception is an important key for explaining the perennial and entirely justified suspicion that his rhetorical strategies are not always irreproachable when judged by philosophical rhetorical ideals. (2001: 3-4)
Doesn’t mean that Paul would perpetuate appearance traditions he knew were false, but doesn’t it at least open the door to the possibility if we are stuck just speculating about the appearance traditions anyway?
Ah, that was a dissertation I directed. 🙂
I think if you read the entire book, you’ll see he doesn’t mean what you do about Paul “lying.” He is speaking about a specific rhetorical strategy involving double entendre that is not the same as him intentionally telling a bald-faced lie.
But maybe I’m wrong! You can certainly write him to ask what he thinks.
Very cool that you directed this dissertation. I did read most of Given’s book and sent him an email about three years ago asking him basically the same question above but got no response.
I also agree with you that Given does not ever say or imply that Paul would tell a bald-faced lie, but I’m not quite talking about a bald-faced lie. Paul saw Jesus and knew other individuals did too, and if collective appearance traditions to the 12 and 500 were already floating around, he may have simply perpetuated them in service of recruiting others to his sincere belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven. If these appearance traditions ever became widely known to be false, Paul could just say he was mistaken like everyone else and move on. That was my thought anyway, but if you don’t think Given’s comments open the door to this possibility, then I’m probably on the wrong track.
Bart,
There is something else I wanted to ask you on a different topic.
Josephus tells a story of a time in Moses’ life when some Jews thought Moses was bodily translated up to heaven based only on his unexpected absence for forty days while climbing Mount Sinai:
Moses went up again to Mount Sinai….while he staid there so long a time, (for he was absent from them forty days,) fear seized upon the Hebrews, lest Moses should have come to any harm….Now there was a variety in their sentiments about it; some saying that he was fallen among wild beasts…but others said that he was departed, and gone to God…on account of his virtue. (Ant. 3.5.7 §95-97)
Two questions:
1) Do you think this story reflects I real belief by some real Jews at some point in time?
2) If Josephus is completely making up this story, do you think this story at least shows that Josephus *thinks* some Jews could speculate based only on a great prophet’s unexplained absence that he had been bodily assumed up to heaven, which is a pretty good indication that some Jews really could think this way?
Yes, e.g., Sirach 45:1-5; Ezekiel the Tragedian, Philo Life of Moses 2.228.
Thank you for the further references of speculations about Moses and the opinion about Ant. 3.5.7 §95-97.
Bart,
Another question on the appearance traditions in 1 Cor 15:5-7. Let’s say the appearance tradition to “Peter, then to the twelve” was part of a creed Paul picked up from some Christian community with limited or no contact with the twelve. How do you explain the word “then” in the remaining list of appearances? This word would seem to suggest these other appearance traditions came with enough detail for Paul to confidently place them all in chronological sequence with each other.
I”m not sure what you’re asking. People today think Peter saw Jesus before the others of the twelve did, but they (the people who think that) haven’t had any contact with the twelve. That’s just what they’ve been told.
Let me try asking my question in another way. If the creed ended with the appearance tradition to “Peter, then to the twelve,” then the word “then” in this tradition was given to Paul, but what about the word “then” in the appearance traditions that follow in 1 Cor 15:6-7? The word “then” in 1 Cor 15:6-7 suggests these appearance traditions came with enough detail that Paul was able to say that the appearance to the 500 came after the twelve but before the appearance to James which was followed by the appearance to “all the apostles.” I guess it’s not that big of a deal; I was just curious if you agree these appearance traditions must have come with such detail, or do you think it’s plausible that some or all of the appearance traditions in 1 Cor 15:6-7 were already listed chronologically when Paul picked them up during his travels? For example, the appearance tradition to “James, then to all the apostles” seems to mirror the appearance tradition to “Peter, then to the twelve,” so the word “then” in both of these traditions might have been given to Paul.
Yes I think that most story tellers talking about the resurrection appearances of Jesus told the accounts in some kind of chronological sequence, just as happens in all our written accounts (Matthew, Luke, John, Paul: this then this then this)
So do you think Paul picked up the appearance tradition to the 500, James, and all the apostles from one source that had already listed these appearance traditions chronologically and also indicated they came after the appearance to the 12?
I imagine so, but it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on.
1] So if you think the appearance tradition to the 500, James, and all the apostles (1 Cor 15:6-7) came from one source that had already listed these appearance traditions chronologically, and you also think the creed includes “Peter, then to the twelve,” (1 Cor 15:3-5), do you think Paul picked up these two sets of appearance traditions (vs 3-5 and vs 6-7) independently, or do you think someone connected them together and then Paul picked them all up as one unit (vs 3-7)?
2] Would you approach the construction of the appearance traditions and Paul’s reception of them differently if the creed ended with just the appearance to “Peter” (1 Cor 15:3-5a)?
1. I suspect Paul inherited the whole set down but am not sure how one could decide. He definitely added his own experience, so it’s hard to say if he added others tool 2. I think it *may* have ended there originally, but don’t really know. (If it did end their originally, I would not be saying that Paul himself added all the other appearances, but that someone, possibly Paul, did)
Thanks for your help on this topic.
Sorry Bart, I thought I was done but another question came to mind.
Let’s say Paul picked up all of 1 Cor 15:3-7 (minus 6b) from a single source that was not Peter at their initial two week meeting together. I know there is no way to know, but wouldn’t Antioch be at or near the top of the list of possibilities where Paul got these traditions since Paul went through there often and there was a significant Christian community there? What other locations might be on your short list?
Tarsus, Jerusalem, Damascus, Arabia, most anywhere he encountered Christians he didn’t convert himself before or after he himsel converted.
Another thought I’m curious your take on. All of the appearance traditions in 1 Cor 15:5-8, except to the 500, are to *leaders*. So it appears that people were exaggerating or imagining appearances by Jesus to bolster or protect positions of *authority* (as opposed to exaggerating or imagining appearances by Jesus to a random hundred people here, a dozen there, etc). But why did anyone even feel a need to bolster or protect positions of authority with an appearance by Jesus? Wouldn’t this suggest that enough leaders actually had a vision of Jesus for the idea or expectation to take hold?
I”m not quite sure what you’re asking. Our only surviving author who claims to have seen Jesus uses his vision in order to show that his gospel comes directly from God. That is, he knew that the vision made him special in the eyes of his hearers/readers, giving him special authority. Just as today, if someone in some churches said they had a special revelation from God, it (in some contexts) makes them “special” before God and “authoritative.”
Three other brief questions about the leadership appearance traditions to “Peter, then to the twelve” and “James, then to all the apostles.”
1] Do you agree one is probably patterned off of the other?
2] Do you agree that Peter and James are intended to be the leaders of their identified group?
3] Do you think these two appearance traditions represent groups with different missions, e.g., Peter/12 to Aramaic speaking Jews, James/apostles to Greek speaking Jews? Really appreciate any elaboration you can make on this third question and if you know if there is any scholarly consensus on the matter.
1. Don’t know. 2. Don’t know what you mean by “intended” 3. Peter and James are both apostles to Jews; I don’t know of anything to suggest they made a linguistic differentiation, though it is true that Peter appears to have gone into principally Greek-speaking lands as opposed to James who appears to have stayed put.
1] What I was trying to ask previously was: Do you think the *formulator(s)* of the appearance traditions to “Peter, then to the twelve” and “James, then to all the apostles” *intended* to convey the idea that Peter is the leader of “the twelve” and James is the leader of “all the apostles”? It seems a bit of a coincidence that legends of appearances by Jesus would accidently line up to create two leadership appearance traditions that mirror each other in structure and start with major leader followed by group.
2] Have you ever thought how a movie scene might play out where Paul, knowing of a tradition that Jesus appeared to the twelve, spends two weeks with one of the twelve and, not even between bites at dinner asks Peter what he saw? I’m not ruling this out, but wouldn’t it be more plausible if Paul picked up the appearance tradition to the twelve *after* spending two weeks with Peter? One would still have to explain why Paul accepted such an appearance tradition, but the problems seem less.
3] What would the main objections be to Paul receiving 1 Cor 15:3-7 (minus 6b) from Antioch after meeting Peter?
1. I doubt it, but there’s no way to know. 2. No. 3. None that I can think of. Just as I can’t think of objections to a dozen other scenarios involving Tarsus, Jerusalem, Arabia, etc.
4] You wrote earlier that Paul “knew that the vision made him special in the eyes of his hearers/readers, giving him special authority. Just as today, if someone in some churches said they had a special revelation from God, it (in some contexts) makes them “special” before God and “authoritative.”” All that sounds good, but is there any example you can think of in history where appearance claims were *fabricated* to confer positions of authority and created such extensive and well-defined appearance claims like those we find in earliest Christianity to “Peter, then to the twelve,” and to “James, then to all the apostles”? If not, why is Christianity a one-off unique result, i.e., why hasn’t any other movement done a similar thing with their leaders creating well-defined appearance claims?
I’d say it’s impossible to know why people started telling stories of appearances in one case or another, wihtout looking at the details of the sources, and even then you probably can’t intuit why a storyteller said what he did. Pretty much all you can know is what s/he said, at best, and, if you’re really lucky, the context.
5] Do many scholars accept the possibility that there could have been some *competition* for power between Peter and James in Jerusalem?
I don’t think so.
6] Since Paul never mentions the twelve when discussing leadership gatherings in Gal. 1:17-19; 2:2, 6, 9 (or anywhere else in his letters), and Acts doesn’t mention the twelve much, what do you think of the possibility that only Peter and John went to Jerusalem and, with James, worked with “apostles” to spread the gospel, while the rest of the twelve stayed in Galilee and sort of faded into the background, and then a legend later emerged of an early appearance to the twelve in Galilee?
I can’t think of any reason to think so off hand.
1) Do you have any thoughts on how long it took before Peter, the twelve, and James departed Galilee and went to Jerusalem (or a range of possible times)?
2) Based on Paul not mentioning the twelve in Galatians and playing such a small role in Acts, do you think the twelve may have faded into the background in Jerusalem?
1. No way to know, but I’d expect they headed out of town as soon as they could, for fear that they’d be arrested next. Maybe even the evening of the arrest.
2. It seems likely, otherwise we’d hear *something* about them. Paul does mention “other apostles” in Gal. 2, but unfortnately he says nothing about them or their number.
Also, do you have any thoughts on what the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed was used for, maybe something taught to new recruits and only used for in-group community use, or something used for out-group apologetics, or something else?
Possibly as a statement of faith said at a person’s baptism? Or a statement made during a worship service, much as one today says the Creed? One could speculate lots of situations/uses.
I think you misread my question above. What I was trying to ask was: *After* the resurrection belief arose in Galilee, how long do you think it took before Peter, the twelve, and James departed *Galilee* and returned to *Jerusalem* to preach the gospel and/or await Jesus’ return there (or a range of possible times).
Ah. I don’t know. We only know they were there when Paul turned up later, and can surmise they had well-established themselves by that time.
Some scholars think the appearance tradition to “ALL the apostles” in 1 Cor 15:7 intends *individual* appearances by Jesus to each of the apostles.
1] Do you think this is plausible?
2] If this is what Paul intends in 1 Cor 15:7, it seems hard to believe Paul could interact with the church for over 20 years as both persecutor and then missionary and not have run into or heard about at least *one* apostle who did not have an encounter with Jesus. I know your standard answer is we don’t know what anyone talked about, but wouldn’t it be easier to propose a short lived rash of visions and possibly epiphany dreams of Jesus in the earliest Christian community (cf. Acts 2:17)?
1. Doubt it. More likely he would have said “to each of the apostles” 2
1] I don’t follow your logic. It seems like taking your approach one could conclude just the opposite, that the appearance tradition “to all the apostles” most likely intends *individual* appearances by Jesus because the tradition didn’t say “at one time” (like Paul does for the 500). The more responsible approach would seem to be to say we just don’t know what the appearance tradition “to all the apostles” intends, and Paul didn’t have to clarify because the communities that used this appearance tradition already knew the answer. If this isn’t a coin toss, what odds do you put on this appearance tradition intending a collective instead of individual appearance(s) by Jesus as you say, and why?
2] *IF* your were to conclude “all the apostles” is referring to *individual* appearances by Jesus, what do you think of the possibility that there was a short lived rash of visions and possibly epiphany dreams of Jesus in the earliest Christian community (cf. Acts 2:17)?
I think we’ve beat this one about as much as I can beat it — I don’t really have much more to say other than what I already have. Could we move to a different topic of interest?
Here’s an example: “I spoke with the principal and then all the teachers.” Do I mean I spoke with all the teachers collectively or individually? I don’t see how one could know without more information.
Ok, thanks for your help Bart.
Bart,
On a different topic but still related to the earliest appearance traditions, in 1 Cor 15:11-15 Paul writes, “Whether then it was I or they, so we *proclaim* [that Jesus was raised from the dead]….we *testified* of God that he raised Christ…”
Can it be inferred from these statements that Paul *must* have had a corporeal looking vision of Jesus that for him acted as *physical evidence* for Jesus’ bodily resurrection, or could Paul have had a dream of Jesus and still used the words “proclaim” and “testify”? If you think Paul could have had a dream of Jesus, in what sense is Paul using the words “proclaim” and “testify” in this passage if they are not based on any physical evidence?
I don’t know what a corporeal looking vision is (since I don’t know what a non-corporeal vision could be)
A “corporeal looking vision” is one that looks *solid* (and therefore supportive of the conclusion that a fleshy body is there), in contrast to very common translucent visions that one can see through, or mental imagery like when one closes their eyes and sees things like on a movie screen, or a dream (all of which would *not* support the conclusion that a fleshy body is there).
In 1 Cor 15:11-15 Paul writes, “Whether then it was I or they, so we *proclaim* [that Jesus was raised from the dead]….we *testified* of God that he raised Christ…” Can it be inferred from these statements that Paul *must* have had a corporeal looking vision of Jesus that for him acted as *physical evidence* for Jesus’ bodily resurrection, or could Paul have had a dream of Jesus and still used the words “proclaim” and “testify”? If you think Paul could have had a dream of Jesus, in what sense is Paul using the words “proclaim” and “testify” in this passage if they are not based on any physical evidence?
Oh. Yes, Paul almost certainly thought he say a body.
So just to clarify, do you think “Paul almost certainly thought he saw a body” because that’s what you think it would take to convince Paul that Jesus was resurrected, or because you think Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15:1-15 leads to your conclusion? The reason I ask is that the Paul in Acts can “proclaim” (“kēryssō” in Acts 9:20; 19:13; 20:25; 28:31) and “witness/testify” to (“martys” in Acts 22:15; 26:16 and “martyreō” in Acts 23:11; 26:22-23) Jesus’ *bodily* resurrection up to heaven even though others with Paul in the Acts story “saw no one” (Acts 9:7), which suggests Acts intends an *internally* perceived “heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19) of Jesus that could not vouch for Jesus’ corporeality. If so, why can’t Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-15 intend the same thing, i.e., how can you tell from 1 Cor 15:1-15 that Paul thought he saw Jesus’ body and did not have a dream or mental imagery or a translucent vision of Jesus?
I’ve answered this many times already.
Sorry Bart, I must have missed your post on what *Acts* intends Paul saw at his conversion. Does Acts intend Paul saw Jesus’ physical body? If so, why does Acts say the others with Paul “saw no one” (Acts 9:7) and call Paul’s experience a “heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19)?
Yes. But I”ve said this repeatedly. Acts and Paul both think Paul saw a body. Can we move on to a different topic?
I sense a fair amount of frustration with my questions, but that’s the first time I’ve seen you say Acts intends Paul saw Jesus’ physical body. If so, can you please just explain why Acts says the others with Paul “saw no one” (Acts 9:7) and then I’ll drop this subject. (The other possibility would seem to be that Acts intends all appearances by Jesus after his ascension up to heaven on day 40 were visions sent only to mind of the percipient (e.g., Stephen, Ananias, and Paul), with the voice and light the others with Paul experienced intending to add some objectivity to Paul’s experience.)
Acts appears to be saying that the full revelation came only to Paul, in order to show himas particualrly special. In the other telling of the story they see the light but hear no one.
A better way I should have worded my question above is: How can Acts intend Paul saw Jesus’ physical body when Acts says those standing right there with Paul “saw no one” (Acts 9:7)? An alternative seems more plausible: Acts intends the image of Jesus Paul saw was sent only to Paul’s *mind* because Jesus had long ago ascended bodily up to heaven until his return to usher in the final redemption.
On a different topic but still related to the earliest appearance traditions, I agree with you that we do not know who Paul “received” the creed and appearance traditions from in 1 Cor 15:3-7. However, Paul doesn’t just say he “received” the creed and appearance traditions and leave it at that. Paul also says the other apostles were preaching the same creed and at least the leadership appearance traditions (1 Cor 15:11, 14-15: “we proclaim” “our proclamation” “we testified”). Doesn’t this second factor increase the probability (even though it does not confirm) that Paul received the creed and leadership appearance traditions from at least one if not more apostles? It could still be an apostle or apostles that has inaccurate information; I’m just asking whether you think the one two punch of Paul’s statements above suggest Paul got this information for an apostles or apostles.
Bart,
I’m working my way through Habermas’ new book on the resurrection and would like to clarify two things:
1] In Gal 2:2 Paul says he confirmed his “gospel” message with Peter, James, and John, which Habermas thinks included the appearance traditions Paul was preaching (cf. “gospel…proclaimed” in 1 Cor 15:1, 3-7). However, my thought is that Gal 2:2 could just mean that Paul was confirming his gospel message of Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection and specific message that Gentiles need not comply with the law, i.e., no appearance traditions discussed. What’s your take on Paul saying he confirmed with church leaders “the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles” in Gal 2:2?
2] Habermas also emphasizes Paul saying in 1 Cor 15:11 that “they” (the other apostles) “proclaimed” the appearance tradition in vs 5-7. However, I’m thinking Paul would assume this was true even if he never heard any church leaders preach these appearance traditions, and he might highlight it to help is argument in 1 Cor 15. Is this your view of “they…proclaimed” in 1 Cor 15:11?
In this context Paul’s Gospel message is quite clear: it’s his view that hte death and resurrection of Jesus bring salvation to gentiles as well as Jews, without requiring conversion to Judaism. He’s referring to the message he discusses on Galatians 1-4. 2. Yes, I think most everyone in early Christianity said that “they” (the apostles) proclaimed the resurrection. Not everyone asked the apostles if it was true…
Thanks for helping me with these questions. There is also something else I wanted to clarify. On your view that Paul may have received the 1 Cor 15:3-7 traditions all at once, does this include the qualifier “most of whom are still alive, though some have died” in vs. 6, or do you think this qualifier was definitely added by Paul, or could it go either way?
I think that’s probably Paul’s addition.
Bart,
I’ve tried to fine tune a question I’ve asked you before and thought I would try once more.
In 1 Cor 15 Paul writes, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had RECEIVED [from someone or some persons],” and then after listing the various traditions Paul writes, “Whether then it was I or THEY [the other apostles, cf. vs 7-10], so WE proclaim…”
Paul is a skilled rhetorician. If Paul did not “receive” the traditions he cites from an apostle or apostles that was proclaiming the same traditions, why would Paul bother to emphasize that he “received” the traditions from some secondhand source instead of just writing, “For I handed on to you as of first importance” and leave it at that? In other words, doesn’t Paul’s emphasis that he “received” the traditions favor the view that Paul received these traditions from an apostle or apostles instead of from some secondhand source? For example, if Barnabas and Silvanus were in the group “all the apostles”, Paul could have received the traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7 from them.
This is technical language used widely in Jewish and Christian texts (using these very verbs of “received” and “delivered over” in both Greek and Hebrew) to indicate a tradition that has been handed down from an earlier source and considered reliable. Never does the phrase refer to a specific source. The phrasing is a way of affirming that the ideas are not the authors own but reliable traditions.
You appear to agree that Paul had to receive the 1 Cor 15:3-7 creed and appearance traditions from a source(s) he considered reliable. If so, and if this source(s) is not an apostle(s), then what are the other options?
Christians. There were lots of them.
One other question Bart.
Do you think Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15:1-19 *mandates* that all of the appearance traditions have underlying narratives that support Jesus’ corporeality, or do you think some of the appearance narratives could be less corporeal in nature (e.g., a translucent looking image or even dream of Jesus) and Paul would still refer to them?
We’ve talked about this one repeatedly.
1] Yes, we’ve talked about this before. Your position is that Acts intends a corporeal Jesus really appeared to Paul and the full revelation of this came only to Paul, which is why others with Paul only perceived light/voice but “saw no one” (Acts 9:7). However, most scholars seem to think the ascension tradition in Acts1 arose to explain why corporeal visits by Jesus had stopped occurring in the Christian community. This would explain why four other appearances by Jesus in Acts that occur after Jesus’ ascension seem to be visions sent only to the mind of the percipient: Stephen (Acts 7:54-57), Ananias (Acts 9:10-16), and twice to Paul after his conversion (Acts 18:9-10; 22:17-21). If this is the logic of Acts, wouldn’t it make more sense if Acts intends a “heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19) of Jesus was sent only to Paul’s mind and the light/voice are added embellishments intended to bring some objectivity to an originally solo experience?
2] But my question above was really apart from what Acts intends. Is there anything about Paul’s 1 Cor 15 vocabulary or argument (e.g., kēryssō, pseudomartys, martyreō in vs. 15:11-15) that rules out Paul (or James or Peter) having just a translucent looking vision or even dream of Jesus?
I’m afraid it is impossible to get inside an author’s mind to know what she or he intended.
Is your answer above a way of saying that my two points above are plausible even though you disagree, i.e., do you see anything implausible about my two propositions:
1] The ascension tradition in Acts1 arose to explain why corporeal visits by Jesus had stopped occurring in the Christian community and all appearances after that in Acts are intended to be visions sent only to the mind of the percipient (Stephen, Ananias, and Paul, including at this conversion), with the travelers and light/voice being added embellishments intended to bring some objectivity to Paul’s originally solo experience.
2] There is nothing about Paul’s 1 Cor 15 vocabulary or argument (including his use of kēryssō, pseudomartys, martyreō in vs. 15:11-15) that rules out Paul (or James or Peter) having just a translucent looking vision or even dream of Jesus.
Bart,
If Peter concluded from a bereavement vision of Jesus that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, why in your view is there no record of any other apocalyptic Jew (or Jew with a unitary understanding of the human being) ever concluding the same thing about another deceased loved one? Given the silence in the historical record on this, isn’t it evident that apocalyptic Jews had no problem dismissing these experiences as just a figment of their own imagination just like some people do today?
I don’t know. There certainly are lots of records of pepole seeing deceased persons who were believed then to have been taken up to heaven (e.g. Romulus, Apollonius, etc.). As to apocalyptic Jews? Don’t know. Maybe the fact that Jesus was already thought to be the Messiah in advance of his death had someting to do with it.disabledupes{5a2437d432f228d358d894ae868f0929}disabledupes
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Jesus was thought to be the Messiah before his death, then thought *not* to be the Messiah after his death, and then a bereavement vision of Jesus initiated a *thought process* in Peter (which would not have applied to any other non-Messiah deceased loved one) in which Peter concluded Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death (resolving Peter’s cognitive dissonance brought on by Jesus’ death), was resurrected up to heaven, and would return to complete his messianic mission. Said another way, you are saying that it was not *only* the characteristics of the bereavement vision that led Peter to conclude Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, but *also* a thought process by Peter that was intricately tied to his belief before Jesus’ death that Jesus was the Messiah. If I understand your position correctly, what would you call the *thought process* involved here? (I would call it classic “rationalizing” to reduce cognitive dissonance.)
If you have a better explaation that does not involve a vision and a thought process — what would that be?
I’m not proposing an alternative explanation here, I’m just trying to better understand your explanation. You seem to acknowledge that it was not *only* the characteristics of a bereavement vision of Jesus that led Peter to conclude Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, but *also* a thought process by Peter that was intricately tied to his belief before Jesus’ death that Jesus was the Messiah. What is the *thought process* involved in your explanation? (I would call it classic “rationalizing” to reduce cognitive dissonance and, if you agree, what do you think Peter’s rationale was for thinking Jesus was resurrected up to heaven?).
Experiences are never the sole basis of conclusions; conclusions are always based on a thought process, since the conclusion comes at the end of reasoning, not directly on the experience. The thought process in this case is the one I’ve described. I thought Jesus was the messiah. Rats. He got crucified, and that shows there is no way he could be th emessiah. But now I have seen Jesus. He is therefore alive. He certainly was dead. The only way for him to be alive now is if God brought him back to life. Being brought back to life must mean that he is God’s special chosen one. I had *thought* so. I *though* he was the messiah. And by golly, I guess he must be. But how could he be the messiah if he was crucified. It must have been part of God’s plan. God planned for his messiah to be crucified. Whoa. Why would he want his messiah to be crucified? It could not be because God was punishing him for his sins. Maybe it was because he was dying inthe place of others for their sins, like the sacrifices we perform in the temple. Oh, Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for sins. He was the messiah who had to suffer for others. He IS the messiah. The suffering messiah. But the messiah is supposed to be the king of Israel. Jesus still hasn’t become the king though. Wait a second, where IS Jesus. He was here a while ago, and now he’s nowhere to be found. If he’s not here, and he’s the Special One Chosen of God, then he must be like the other chosen special ones of God that we know about (Enoch, Elijah, Moses): he must have been taken up to God for now. But then when is he going to be king? He must be coming back. And this time he will be like the messiah we expected, who destroyes God’s enemies and sets up a kingdom on earth. Jesus is coming back. As Lord and Messiah. And the resurrection proves it. And I know he was resurrected because I saw him. And….
And so it goes. It seems like a lot to be thinking at once, but if you’re an apocalyptic Jew who believes life after death involves a bodily existence and you think JEsus is the one who will overcome the enemies and you “know” he’s been raised — these thoughts come very quickly indeed.
That’s my view.
Thanks for the summary, which I agree with except for the part where the bereavement vision occurs: “But now I have seen Jesus. He is therefore alive.” The other option here is: “But now I have seen Jesus, who appeared only briefly out thin air, didn’t say anything relevant to recent events, and then disappeared into thin air, so therefore my mind must have just played a trick on me.” People throughout history not open to a spiritual interpretation of these experiences have easily concluded they are a figment of their own imagination. Although we have no evidence telling us how apocalyptic Jews interpreted bereavement visions, it’s hard to believe it would not make it into the historical record if any significant numbers were concluding deceased relatives were resurrected up to heaven, plus a few grave checks would quickly kill this idea. So Jesus is an outlier. Why aren’t you saying something like this: “Jesus’ followers were on a hair trigger to accept any explanation that would resolve their cognitive dissonance created by their Messiah’s death. When Peter had BV of Jesus, instead of dismissing it as a figment of his imagination like other apocalyptic Jews would of a deceased loved one, he made a leap that Jesus was *still the Messiah despite his death* and God resurrected him up to heaven to return soon (cognitive dissonance resolved).
Restating the above question in more generic terms, how would the “fact that Jesus was already thought to be the Messiah in advance of his death” cause Peter to interpret a bereavement vision of Jesus as his resurrection up to heaven when no other apocalyptic Jew (or Jew with a unitary understanding of the human being) ever concluded such a thing before (I am thinking visions of Romulus and Apollonius are most likely stories, not real experiences)? It seems like you are suggesting some kind of cognitive factor or process here, but can you please explain it more fully?
I”m afraid we don’t have any evidence of what other apocalyptic Jews experienced or said. No evidence at all. I think I’ve explained my view clearly and I understand that you don’t buy it. That’s fine. But it means you simply need to come up with a better one that makes sense historically.
Well I guess my last question fell flat. Let me try it another way. Do you agree that it was not just the *characteristics* of the bereavement vision of Jesus that led to Peter’s belief that Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death and was resurrected up to heaven; rather, it was also a *desire* by Peter that Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death that led him to interpret the bereavement vision of Jesus as Jesus resurrected up to heaven?
I don’t think we can do a psychological evaluation of someone from 2000 years ago who has left us no writings. Or even of someone who has.
Right, but what other psychological or other factor could possibly be involved here? You have to posit some reason why Peter interpreted a bereavement vision of Jesus as Jesus resurrected up to heaven when there is no record of any other apocalyptic Jew (or Jew with a unitary understanding of the human being, or anyone in history for that matter) concluding from a bereavement vision that their deceased loved one was resurrected from the grave. Everyone always interprets these experiences as either a figment of their own imagination or a visit by the deceased person’s spirit. You do you get past this hurdle with Peter?
I think if you use your imagination you will think of lots of possibilities. Optoins for why peole think what they think or believe what they believer are almost NEVER a choice between two options. Moreover, there are roughly 8 trillion things that happened at the time of Jesus and Peter that are not otherwise attested in any source. (How many sources record a Jew in Galilee burping in 27 CE?)
Again: if you have a historical scenario that makes better sense to you, then lay it out and believe it!
disabledupes{48de2807806747025470919e9cb1b3a5}disabledupes
I’ve already laid out what I think is a better scenario. Peter had a bereavement vision of Jesus and interpreted it a one-off unique way (that nobody else in history apparently has of a bereavement vision) because he desperately wanted Jesus to still be the Messiah despite his death, i.e., it resolved his cognitive dissonance.
You don’t seem interested in this approach and seem satisfied to offer no reason why Peter interpreted his bereavement vision of Jesus in such a one-off unique way. Either that, or you seem to think apocalyptic Jews (and other Jews with a unitary understanding of the human being) sometimes (or routinely or always?) interpretated bereavement visions of deceased loved ones as meaning they were resurrected up to heaven, which seems farfetched to me that this would not make it into the historical record somewhere (unlike a Jew burping in 27 CE).
At the very least, I wish you would just be more clear. Is it your position that apocalyptic Jews (and other Jews with a unitary understanding of the human being) sometimes (or routinely or always?) interpretated bereavement visions of deceased loved ones as meaning they were resurrected up to heaven and this just didn’t make it into the historical record?
Yes, that seems plausible to me and is what I pretty much think too. But it’s not opposed to the idea that it is related closely to his apocalyptic views, since he’d need to have a category of a person coming back physically from the dead in order to live on. That view is distintcitve to Jewish apocalypticism, I believe.
1] I’m glad you “pretty much” agree with me that Peter interpreted his bereavement vision of Jesus in a one-off unique way (that nobody else in history apparently has of a bereavement vision so far as we can tell) because he desperately wanted Jesus to still be the Messiah despite his death, i.e., it resolved his cognitive dissonance. Why do you only “pretty much” agree with me here instead of “solidly” agree, and what other or more explanation would you offer?
2] I agree the above interpretation by Peter would need a framework of beliefs where Peter could imagine Jesus resurrected, and apocalypticism would provide that framework. However, just hypothetically, wouldn’t you agree that resurrection back to *mortal* life (three in the OT plus think of Asclepius on the Hellenistic side) and translation up to heaven where bodies were made immortal (Enoch, Moses, Elijah and lots more on the Hellenistic side) would have been available to almost any Jew and could have produced the same result, i.e., resurrection up to heaven with the immortalized Jesus viewed as a special prelude to the general resurrection even if Jesus’ followers didn’t previously think the general resurrection was imminent?
1. Yeah, I think you need to stop saying things that I”ve said because they strike you as the logical implication of what I do in fact say.
2. Jesus’ resurrection was decidedly not like those in the OT or the pagan instances, in the eyes of the disciples. Different concepts. If you’ve read my book How Jesus Became God, you’ll see the difference.
What do you mean by your response in 1 above? Have you already said elsewhere something to the effect that Peter interpreted his bereavement vision of Jesus in a one-off unique way (that nobody else in history apparently has of a bereavement vision so far as we can tell) because he desperately wanted Jesus to still be the Messiah despite his death, i.e., it resolved his cognitive dissonance? If so, I think that’s great, but where?
No, I’ve said that one of the options is that bereavement vision could been caused by various factors including guilt and other psychological traumas; the cognitive dissonance is that Jesus is thought to be the messiah, then proved not to be, and the dissonance is resolved by realizing that he has been raised from the dead and really is the messiah. If you’re interested in this kind of thinking in respect to Jesus’ death and the beginning of Christianity, check out John Gager’s books Kingdom and Community. But the point you and I have been disagreeing on is that Jesus’ coming back to life makes sense ONLY based on an apocalyptic view of hte afterlife (that’s my view that you have been denying). If you’re not quite clear how I explain all that, it’s throughout my discussion of hte disciples vision in How jesus Became God.
On your response to 2 above, how is Jesus’ resurrection “decidedly not like those in the OT or the pagan instances, in the eyes of the disciples”? A resurrection is a previously dead person being brought back to life, and that’s it, and that’s what happened to the people in the Old testament and in some pagan traditions and to Jesus, so what’s the difference? If your point is that jesus’s body was made immortal and the others were not, that would be a good difference to point out, but they were still all resurrected back to life from a truly dead state in the stories. Can we even tell from Paul’s letters when the earliest Christians thought Jesus’ resurrected body was made immortal, e.g., when he got to heaven, or while he was still on Earth before being translated up to heaven? Note too that in some conceptions of the general resurrection, God raises the dead back to mortal life initially.
The son of the widow of Zarephath died again. He wasn’t raised in an immortal body..disabledupes{fddfc218ac20a4f3b6e92b77dd39b584}disabledupes
1) Ok, I give up on trying to convince you to incorporate the concepts of cognitive dissonance and rationalization into your bereavement vision hypothesis to explain why Peter interpreted his bereavement vision of Jesus in a way that nobody else in history has of a bereavement vision so far as we can tell. Can you at least confirm for me that you think other apocalyptic Jews (and other Jews with a unitary understanding of human beings) sometimes interpreted bereavement visions of deceased loved ones as meaning they were resurrected up to heaven and this just hasn’t made it into the historical record, which you apparently don’t find surprising?
2) I agree the son of the widow of Zarephath died and was resurrected back to *mortality*, not to immortality. Same with the widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7:14-15) and Jairus’ daughter (Mt. 9:25), and possibly others (Mt. 10:8; 11:5), all of which use the word *egeirō* (“rise”/“raised”). As you also know, the same word egeirō is used to refer to Jesus’ resurrection up to heaven in 1 Cor. 15:4. How can tell from 1 Cor 15:4, or anywhere else in Paul’s letters, *when* Jesus’ body was made immortal — immediately or when Jesus got to heaven?
He says the body was immortal when it was raised.
Where does Paul say or imply Jesus’ resurrected body was made immortal at the moment he was raised instead of a spit second later when his resurrected body got to heaven? Pertinent here is my understanding is that Jews generally viewed the cosmos as two different *places* of habitation, the terrestrial with mortal bodies and the celestial with immortal bodies. At the general resurrection, earth will essentially become an immortal *place*, hence immediate immortalization on earth in that case (cf. Rom. 8:21-23: “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay…[and we will gain] the redemption of our bodies”). However, Jesus’ followers viewed Jesus as both the start of and a *special prelude* to the general resurrection that had yet to occur for anyone else (i.e., “first fruits”), hence the possibility that they believed Jesus was egeirō to *mortality* and then made immortal when his resurrected body got to heaven. Can you please be more specific on how you can tell from Paul’s writings *when* Jesus’ body was made immortal?
“Raised in power” just as (v. 52) the believers “raised immortal”
For sure, in the passages you cite (1 Cor 15:43, 52), Paul thinks that at the *general resurrection* people will be simultaneously resurrected and made immortal on *earth* because at that time *earth* will become an immortal *place*, cf. Rom. 8:21-23: “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay…[and we will gain] the redemption of our bodies” (Jews generally divided the cosmos into two different *places* of habitation, the terrestrial with mortal bodies and the celestial with immortal bodies). However, when Jesus was resurrected as both the start of and a special prelude to the general resurrection (“first fruits”), earth was not an immortal place, hence, how do you know Paul and Jesus’ earlier followers didn’t all believe that Jesus was egeirō to *mortality* first and then made immortal a split second later when his resurrected body was teleported up to heaven? Can you please cite a passage in Paul’s writings that tells us when he thought *Jesus’* body was made immortal?
AS with other topics, you keep asking the same question repeatedly. Paul’s point is that our resurrection will be like that of Jesus (that’s the entire thrust of 1 Cor. 15); and that means his resurrection in the past was like ours will be in the future. Raised to immortlaity.
Sorry if it seems like I keep asking the same question, but I still don’t get it. Let me try one last time and then I’ll throw in the towel on this topic. Couldn’t Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15 simply be that our resurrection will be like that of Jesus’ resurrection in that both entail an immortal body without intending to say the *place and timing* of immortalization was also identical? There is already one major difference between Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection that didn’t stop Paul from using the former as a template for the latter (i.e., “first fruits”) — Jesus went immediately up to heaven instead of staying on earth — so why would an understandable difference in *place and timing* of immortalization (due to the different ecologies of heaven and earth when Jesus was raised) prevent Paul from using Jesus’ resurrection as a templet for the general resurrection, i.e., what do you think Paul should have said differently in 1 Cor 15 if he thought Jesus’ body was egeirō and then made immortal when it got to heaven a split second later?
I’m not sure why it’s so important to you, but I’d suggest you simply read the passage carefully and make up your own mind about what aspects of it strike you as being most important to Paul, including the time and place of the humans’ immortalization.
Regarding the importance to me, why does one need to have a reason beyond simple curiosity about one of history’s greatest puzzles? As for reading the passage carefully, I did, to the best of my ability, and I can’t tell from Paul’s first fruit analogy when Paul thought Jesus’ egeirō body was made immortal (immediately, or a split second later when he got to heaven). But it’s good to get the opinion of others, especially experts, and the reasons why they have a different opinion instead of just taking their word for it, hence my question to you above. But if you have had enough, I understand. I think your engagement with the public is awesome. Just wish I understood your position better.