In this post I continue with my response to Larry Hurtado’s critique of How Jesus Became God. In the previous posts I dealt with factual errors – where he assigned views to me that I do not state and do not have. As I have pointed out, Larry was generous to retract these critiques in a subsequent post on his blog. In this post I want to deal not with a factual mistake but with an assertion he makes about my motive for part of my discussion – an assertion that I take issue with.
One of my major premises in How Jesus Became God is that Jesus was not considered divine during his lifetime, but that it was belief in his resurrection that made his followers begin calling him God. But since my study is a historical account of how Jesus came to be considered God, rather than a theological or religiously motivated account, I have to deal with a very big problem, which is that historians cannot declare a God-produced miracle as a historical event (even if it *is* something that happened). I give lengthy reasons for why historians cannot argue for miracles in the book, and will not go into that matter here. For now it’s enough to say, historians cannot establish that miracles (such as the resurrection) have happened in the past. (n the book I argue that “history is not the past,” since all sorts of things happened in the past that cannot be shown to have happened by the historical disciplines — including miracles. If that doesn’t make sense to you – I’d suggest you read my chapter on it!)
They also cannot establish that miracles have NOT happened either. Maybe they have. If so, I’m afraid that the historical disciplines simply have no access to them (either do the mathematical disciplines, or the biological disciplines, etc.).
What historians *can* talk about in the case of Jesus’ resurrection is not whether God really raised him from the dead (the historian, as a historian, cannot make any statements about what God has done – since those are theological statements that require faith, but history does not require faith), but about what the disciples came to belief. *That* is part of the historical record. And one interesting question involves what made them believe what they came to believe.
In the book I argue that one and only one thing made the disciples come to believe in Jesus’ resurrection. Some of the disciples had visions of him afterwards. In my view – I argue vigorously for this in the book – this is a *historical* explanation, not a *theological* one. We can say, on historical grounds, that the disciples had visions of Jesus. But doesn’t that require the miracle of the resurrection to have happened? No, claiming that the disciples had visions of Jesus does not require the historian to say that God worked a miracle, and that Jesus was really raised from the dead, and that Jesus then as the resurrected Lord really appeared to his disciples. But how can we claim, historically, that the disciples had visions without saying that God really did a miracle by raising Jesus from the dead? Because we can talk about visions without claiming that a person sees (in a vision) something that is actually there.
People have visions all the time. And historians do not have to decide whether the visions they have are caused by external stimuli (so that they are what psychologists call “veridical” visions) or not (so that they are “non-veridical” visions). Now, everyone knows what it would mean if the disciples of Jesus saw Jesus because he was really there (i.e. that there was a real historical stimulus, making these veridical visions). It would mean that Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples. But what would it mean if he was not really there? That’s an interesting historical question and NOT everyone knows how that could be. And so I devote a lengthy discussion to how it can be historically valid to claim that the disciples had visions of Jesus whether or not he actually appeared to them.
This is what Larry says in critique of my discussion:
[It is] curious that Ehrman then devotes a section of the ensuing discussion to comparing early experiences of the risen Jesus with apparitions of deceased loved ones to the bereaved, and with other such phenomena. The point of doing so, quite obviously, seems to be to give reasons for taking early Christian experiences as hallucinations, and so not really valid. To do this, however, is (in Ehrman’s own terms) to move from historical analysis to something else. To be specific, this discussion seems more aimed to counter Christian apologists and give justification for doubting Christian claims. But this makes just a bit coy his profession of not being concerned to judge the question whether experiences of the risen Jesus were valid.
This is not a generous reading of my discussion. Larry is arguing that I am anti-Christian and want to demonstrate that the visions of Jesus were non-veridical hallucinations. This is “obvious” to him. The reason I take some umbrage at this charge is that I went completely out of my way to prevent precisely this reading of my discussion. I explicitly state “I am not taking a stand on the question of whether there was some kind of external reality behind what the disciples saw” (p. 186); “I am not going to take a stand on this issue of whether Jesus really appeared to people or whether their visions were hallucinations” (p. 187). Did Larry not read these statements? Or did he simply think that I was being deceitful or duplicitous? I assume that latter.
Either way, I don’t think it is a generous reading of my discussion. One may well ask, in reply, why, if I’m not taking a stand, do I spend so much time talking about hallucinations – for example of people who see deceased loved ones weeks or years after their demise, or of people who see the Blessed Virgin Mary (sometimes hundreds or even thousands of people at once). Why spend so much time on hallucinations if I’m not trying to convince people that the disciples had hallucinations?
For PRECISELY the reason I’ve explained. There are basically two options about what happened. Either Jesus really appeared to his disciples after his crucifixion, or they were seeing things. Now, if Jesus really appeared to his disciples, how much discussion of the matter is required to indicate that this is what happened? Does one need to devote a chapter to saying “Jesus appeared to his disciples”? Of course not. If he appeared to his disciples (something historians cannot prove and cannot disprove) he appeared to his disciples. Full stop. But if Jesus did not appear to his disciples, why did they *think* (or at least *say*) that he did? THAT is a matter that needs to be unpacked, explained, gone into. Most people don’t know the scholarship on hallucinations, and might automatically think that when I’m saying that it was the visions that made them think Jesus had been raised EITHER that I must mean he really was raised (which I’ve just argued historians cannot say) OR that I’ve made a mistake an made a non-historical claim (God did a miracle) and claimed it as historical.
If I’m going to argue that it was the visions that convinced the disciples that Jesus was raised, I *have* to show how that can be a historical claim rather than a theological one, and to do that I have to talk about hallucinations. In my chapter on this I am clear and explicit on repeated occasions: the discussion is *not* in order to argue that the disciples must have had hallucinations. I’m not taking a stand on whether the visions were veridical or not. That’s my entire *point*. I’m not taking a stand. If you think the visions were veridical, then you think Jesus was really raised. You can take that view. But how can you think they had visions if they were not veridical? They would have to be hallucinations – and if that’s the view you want to take, you need to know what we know about hallucinations.
I’m really not being duplicitous, as Larry charges. I’m simply giving people two options. I’m explaining only one of them at length because the other one needs no explanation. If the visions were veridical, then Jesus was raised from the dead.
With the greatest of respect Bart, I can rather see Larry Hurtado’s point on this one – it was the impression I was left with after reading the chapter as well, that you were trying to “explain away” the visionary experiences rather than simply providing one non-supernatural possibility. It struck me at the time as being something of a departure from your more usual agnostic approach (and I should stress that as an agnostic myself, I have no vested interest in seeing the resurrection proven to be “true”).
Having read this post, I do see more clearly what you were aiming for there, but I’m not sure it came across quite as you intended in the published book.
Thanks for your note. OK, then, I should have been even more clear about why I was talking about non-veridical visions!
Personally, I can’t bring myself to say that the ‘hallucination / visions’ hypothesis is ‘probable’. I would say it is the *most likely* explanation, but not necessarily a probable one. There are so many other plausible and implausible-but-not-completely-impossible explanations. I also don’t have a problem with saying that an actual resurrection is an ‘impossibility’ on a practicle level. We all acknowledge that rolling a 7 on a standard 6-sided dice is “impossible”. We all acknolwedge that producing a green marble from a sack of yellow ones is “impossible”, etc., so why can’t we say the same for something that equally requires us to suspend our best understandings of physics and biology? Sure, one can always appeal to the fact that we don’t know everything therefore it’s “possible” in some sense, but this renders nothing “impossible”, and I’m sorry, but if we can’t say that rolling a 7 on a standard 6-sided dice is “impossible” then we humans are a lost cause haha!
How do we know that these visions were not simply fabricated? Or added to later versions of the texts? Wouldn’t there be independent sources of these visions? Because it seems to me to be convenient to early Christian authors that Jesus appeared only to apostles and/or earlier followers.
I think we can safely assume that such appearances of deities in, say, Greek, Nordic, and Egyptian mythology are fictional.
Again, from a curious layman,
Robert Shearer.
Yes, they could have been fabricated by people who were just lying about it. But that seems much less likely to me, given what we know about the early Christians and their religion. The reason only followers of Jesus had these visions is the same reason why only relatives and close friends have visions of recently deceased loved ones (as a rule).
But…people who see the recently deceased are not generally trying to create a religion relying on those visits.
I don’t think the disciples were *trying* to start a new religion. The new religion resulted from their having visions and acting accordingly.
Dr Ehrman
i will quote the relevant verses:
16:1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.
can one argue that matthew’s jesus thought that jesus was going to prove his sign by showing his face to the pharisees and saducees after his resurrection? if sign = resurrection and jesus didn’t show his face to them, then why promise them a sign?
Because they would *hear* about it. The entire “generation” could not have seen the resurrected Jesus!
hello dr ehrman
so they would hear about it like they have heard the story about jonah?
after it was confirmed that jesus was no liberator of israel, the pharisees would hear about his alleged resurrection?
thanks
Yes, something like that.
I agree the historical method cannot be used to evaluate the actuality of miracles, though I think the reason is quite complex. For different reasons, I think the natural sciences cannot incorporate any appeal to supernatural intervention to explain any scientific phenomena – hence Intelligent Design explanations cannot be scientific explanations. However, the natural sciences can eliminate need for supernatural explanations if they provide perfectly adequate naturalistic explanations, thereby rendering supernatural explanations at best superfluous.
But if neither history or science can ever be used to positively affirm actuality of miracles, then what academic discipline is capable of taking on this task? Historians like yourself would cite theology. But what exactly is the theological method – and what gives it the tools and capacity to evaluate the supernatural in a manner not accessible to history and the sciences? I’m not even sure theology is up to the task – for so much of theology operates from a position of prior faith. It can be said that theology is “faith seeking understanding” – that is, it typically presupposes existence of God to some extent.
To what extent is your position that historical method cannot evaluate actuality of miracles, a version of David Hume’s argument against miracles on basis of testimonies?
My views are similar to David Hume’s, but have a somewhat different — or at least more developed — theoretical rationale (if you know his argument, just reread my discussion in How Jesus Became God.)
The only objective way to know wither miracles are possible or not is to find out if they are intrinsically possible/impossible. The conclusion of a miracle never follows from its premises (i.e from the theory attempting to explain it) therefore they are illogical and therefor impossible until they can be explained.
Just finished your book – a bit more exhaustive than others written for the general public which I appreciated more so. To address the area of hallucinations I was glad you mentioned Oliver Sack’s book on the subject. Its a great read too. ,Amazed the phenomena is quite common and doesn’t necessary denote a mental disorder Lastly, my questions to you is whether this ( hallucinations) is a commonly held theory among other scholars? Thanks
No, I don’t know that scholars have extensively developed the idea of hallucinations; it was my study of the psychology of visoins (a study most NT scholars have not engaged in) that turned the tide for me.
I think I follow most of your points, but, as you know, the suggestion that the disciples may have hallucinated the appearance of Jesus is quite upsetting and offensive to many
Yes, I know it is. But if a historian is trying to explain how the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, and if s/he is sure that it was because the disciples had visions of Jesus, and if s/he wants to explain how that is possible if Jesus was not really raised from the dead — since the historian cannot favor the Christian theological view over the non-Christian view — I don’t see how there is an alternative to talking about hallucinations. If I were writing just for Christians, I would obviously take a different approach!
I do not understand how you are able to continue with a critical study of the New Testament when the New Testament is a form of literature that deals with religious belief. In order to study it fully you must consider the factor of belief in what is reported in this literature.
In the question being considered…the resurrection of Jesus….those who saw the risen Jesus said that they actually saw him….not an illusion. Many even said that they touched him and even ate with him and spoke with him.
It sounds like you are making an assumption that they did not actually see him, or touch him, or eat with him and spoke with him….but that is was a vision, and even worse, an hallucination. Those are “loaded” words. Those words imply psychotic implications and/or mass hysteria.
As i see it, reality has two parts: one is the physical world and one is the world of spirit. The world of spirit is used often in both the Jewish and the Christian writings. That term is not used lightly and is considered a real entity likened to wind or breath.
Paul says that he also had such an experience with the risen Jesus, and he also speaks about the resurrection of the dead generally and that of Jesus in particular, as being one of a “spiritual” transformation…a transformed spiritual body (1 Cor: 15).
It seems to me that what the disciples and the others who had this experience saw a “spiritual body” of Jesus.
I agree that science and history can not prove that they saw such a body. Science and history does not now have the tools to verify that, but you, as a New Testament historian, can say definitely that the documents confirm in many places that the disciples and the others who saw and touched and ate with and spoke with Jesus ***believe*** that collective experience, and that experience transformed their lives, which can also be historically verified, in the documents.
I think your use of the term hallucination and even vision takes more speculation on your part that making the affirmation that those involved **believed** in that experience, which I think is verification that their experience historically happened.
I agree with you that this resurrection experience convinced them that Jesus became a god-like persona in some way that he was not previously. I can **believe** in that kind of transformative spiritual resurrection than I can the resuscitation of a corpse.
Christianity deals with both spirit and with belief and I see no reason why those essential elements can not be a part of the way in which you study the history of the New Testament, otherwise your study is incomplete, leaving out many of the most important aspects of religious study regardless of what religion or religious documents you consider.
I have followed you for almost two years and you know that I support your work, but we can disagree.
Please comment. I would like your thoughts on spirit and belief as essential elements in your historical studies of the new Testament. Thank you.
My view is that Christians can be experts on Buddhism, that agnostics can be experts in Islam, that hard-core Republicans can be experts in Marxism, that Kantians can be experts in Aristotle, and that law-abiding citizens can be experts in criminology. It’s possible, of course!, for Christians with Christian commitments to approach the study of the NT. It’s also possible for historians to approach it. One approach is not necessarily better than another. It’s simply different. (Departments of Religious studies — such as mine — are full of scholars on religious traditions that they themselves to not personally subscribe to; that’s what universities are all about, in one respect.) So I understand and sympathize with your views, but I do see how they are different from the ones I have.
Just a clarification….I do agree with you on most of what you present in you books and blog essays and your methodology for your studies. It just seems to me that since Christianity (and Judaism) (and other religious traditions that involves what we might call supernatural issues) are both deeply involved in faith / belief concepts, if seems that it would be difficult to give a complete picture of what those who were involved in the NT events actually did historically without considering their faith / belief positions as a part of those events described.
I’m simply puzzled by that. It may just be
be my misunderstanding.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
The question is whether Christians can be experts on Christianity? Many, perhaps most Christian scholars, are too emotionally invested in their religion to objectively study it. Many Christian scholars go to church every Sunday to listen to sermons, take part in rituals and to worship and sing hymns of praise to Jesus and God. They have often been raised in the church since childhood. With a few notable exceptions, no matter how expert a Christian’s scholarship is, the conclusions are suspect. What sounds or feels correct to a Christian scholar will almost invariably be a variation of conservative, traditional explanations. How could it be otherwise?
I’d say that absolutely Christians can be experts on Christianity, just as Marxists can be experts on Marxism or Platonists on Plato. But non-Christians can be too!
I’m tellin’ ya, Bart, my high school English teachers would have given this clown an “F” on his thesis and, with finger in face, advised him that “Ya hafta read the book, son, not just the Cliff Notes!
Thank you for all of that. It took quite an explanation and yet now I thoroughly understand. It’s extremely useful information to have and I appreciate your going to such lengths to make it clear enough for even me to grasp.
Bart,
OK, I may be mixing (do not understand) Hallucination and vision. But the something external, could be a “conversation” that stirs something so far back in your memory and deep in your thoughts that as they come forward it is as if a sudden overwhelming picture in your mind is forced to the visual part of your brain, and then you actually “see” it.
That would mean that the “external” may not have been Jesus (physically, in some form) present but that the thought of him exploded the picture of him to the visual mind. If this is correct though, how could it explain many people having seen Jesus unless they were all under severe stress from the loss of him?
Yes, if something *else* other than the entity viewed is what “caused” the vision, then it is still a hallucination. If you see your grandmother in your bedroom three weeks after she died, she either is really physically there or she is not physically there — whatever the reasons are for your seeing her. If she’s not there it’s a non-veridical vision; if she really is there, it’s a veridical vision.
A reasonable person will agree (not historically ;^) ) that Jesus and all the others raised from the dead in the Bible did not really get raised from the dead. Those who thought they saw a vision of a raised Jesus were seeing a hallucination or were jumping on the bandwagon of those who were making the claim of seeing Jesus.
“If the visions were veridical, then Jesus was raised from the dead.”
On the transfiguration account, disciples saw Moses and Elijah alive talking with Jesus. However, I’m not sure if they thought that they were resurrected . What do you think?
No, probably not. Elijah never died in the Hebrew Bible; and Moses was often thought in Judaism to have been taken to heaven after his death (or never to have died, despite the ending of Deuteronomy). They were not thought to have been physically raised from the dead, but to have appeared from heaven. Prior to Jesus we don’t have accounts of people physically raised from the dead to heaven.
Do historians know much about Elijah from an historical perspective Bart?
Well, there are naturally different views. My view is that he is a legendary figure.
Last Friday, my mother described a ‘vision’ along the lines of what you describe here. It was a week after my grandfather’s death. She ‘saw’ him drive up next to her, in the passenger’s side of a car. He showed her that he was looking forward through the windshield at a vast, verdant countryside. The entire vision took place while she was seated at her desk at work and it was clearly a real comfort in her grief. As you have said elsewhere, such vivid experiences are common, but how could one attempt to prove that they demonstrate hard reality rather than soft psychology?
I agree with you completely. The only possible excuse I can think of for Hurtado is that when a person reads a book, some very striking things will stick in his or her mind, and other things (like “disclaimers”) won’t. But in a case like this, when he was about to review a scholarly book, he should have gone back and reread the chapters in question, to refresh his memory.
Miracles cannot be described in terms of “probability”. The laws of probability is something that is inherent in natural systems (or rather our models of them). Since a miracle is a temporary suspension of the laws governing nature (by an external agent) , per definition it is something that cannot be explained from probability, and a miracle must therefor be stated on reasons other than that it is the most “likely” explanation. Further, belief in a miracle in this case, excludes a natural explanation, doesn’t it? One has to select one or the other. However it is possible to discuss what kind of natural explanation is the most probable, given that a miracle did not occur. I find it hard to believe that large numbers of disciples were subject to true hallucinations, of an intensity like what is normally reported in Near Death Experiences. I think that sectarian people in general reacts to grossly failed predictions in ways that makes it possible to carry on without considering the past as totally wasted. If someone brings in a rescuing idea, the rest will easily embrace it, and supply statements that support it. So I think very limited true hallucination occurrences would be required to trigger the belief in resurrection in the group as a whole.
Yes, the issue is what *historians*, working with historical criteria, in the context of the historical disciplines, are able to say about the past, as I try to explain in my book….
Bart, have you read Kris Komarnitsky’s “Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection”? He proposes that an unusual combination of events (“a swirl of rationalisations, individual hallucinations, collective enthusiasm, designations of authority and scriptural interpretations”) gave rise to the belief of the resurrection. He goes into some detail of the disciples’ probable cognitive dissonance reduction (OMG how could the Messiah have died? Well let’s try and explain it…) and cites more recent very similar occurrences – those of the rationalisations of the deaths of Sabbati Sevi and Rebbe Schneerson by their followers (coincidentally both messianic Jewish movements).
It’s a great book, it doesn’t claim at all to be *what happened*, but just an hypothesis of what could have happened given the known data. And once you have a plausible naturalistic hypothesis, there is simply no need for a supernatural explanation.
Haven’t read it. Sounds interesting!
I think you’d appreciate it. I love your work, I loved that, ergo you should like it too!
How many worlds are there? Could their be a physical world, spiritual world and the world of the mind? And, could the world of the spirit/soul be one and the same as the world of the mind. Since we believe what we think and what we think is a product of many, many things environmental, internal and external. Are the stories, myths, souls and belief in the supernatural our way of understanding what our minds are showing us? That is, what we do not understand? How can things that are seen, not be there (physically)? And yet, it is a fact that people hear and see things that are not physical and sometimes they act on them. We act Good, bad, neutral, violently and peacefully.
If an unbalanced person hears a voice directing s/he to kill, why do we not believe a sane person can see a dead relative. Both are real to them.
In Jesus time were the stories of his resurrection and miracles accepted because they are the explanations for them about the unknown. When the unknown happens we fill in the blanks. Like a dark hole, but it IS an empty space of the unknown. Dark holes and empty spaces are v e r y scary places, there is no place to put your feet down, to be held and care for. Belief in Jesus gave the comfort to alleviate the fear. In the stories of Jesus the people were assured they would have enough to eat they were to be loved, safe and never need to worry again. Who would not go for it?
The more fearful we are the more likely we are to believe the unbelievable. Ask any con man/woman.
You said here and in your book that sometimes hundreds or even thousands of people have seen the Virgin Mary at the same time. I know this has occurred when people stare at the sun for a prolonged period of time, or when there are unique light reflections associated with a particular location (maybe even a piece of toast!), and it has occurred to groups of 3 or 4 children who may or may not have been reporting accurately, but there is no evidence that the early Christians stared at the sun in order to see Jesus, or that the visions of Jesus were associated with a particular location, and none were children. So can you please give one example that does not involve these situations (or drug use) where more than one adult person has hallucinated the exact same person at the exact same time?
If you’ll read the books that I refer to my book, you’ll find many many such instances, especially, say, the book by Laurentin.
I have read your new book and am still wrestling with the idea of the visions of Jesus after his death. I will have to look into the books you recommended. However, I think that the fact that both your regular critics and your “supporters” have some trouble means you are doing something right and intellectually honest. Although you disprove the fundamentalist approach, your argument that “something happened” after the death of Jesus can certainly hearten other types of believers who believe Jesus was indeed some type of divine being, although perhaps not part of a trinity. Those seeking faith rather than dogma can take heart (I’m not among those, btw). I think How Jesus Became God takes your general readers from college level to graduate school.
I read the group appearance of the Virgin Mary from Laurentin’s book that you put in your book, which you said was his “most striking” (pg. 198-199). However, this clearly seems to be a case of unique light reflections and water mist at the top of a waterfall, i.e. it does not sound like anyone was hallucinating; rather, many people just convinced themselves that the unique light reflections at the top of this particular waterfall were in the shape of the Virgin Mary, much like a group might be talked into seeing the same thing in the shape of a cloud or after staring into the sun. This is pretty much cinched in the next example you use from Laurentin’s book where Laurentin claims to have a photograph of the Virgin Mary apparition. I’ll bet he does, but I doubt the cause of the image is really the Virgin Mary; it is probably another situation of unique light reflections and the desire to see the Virgin Mary. But the main point, which I am sure you agree with, is that that hallucinations cannot be photographed, so these examples for sure cannot be hallucinations. So can you please provide one example from your research where more than one adult person has ever hallucinated the exact same person at the exact same time? I do not think such an example exists anywhere.
but was not too impressed. Although he reports one event where multiple people saw the Virgin Mary at the same time, he also reports of people levitating, foretelling the future, and healing the sick, which leads me to think he is reporting second hand reports or is easily duped (do you really think anybody really levitated?).
The “most striking” event
I’d suggest you read the books — there are lots of examples. (Laurentin has seen photographs, by the way). And if the visions of Mary were caused by the light (Laurentin never says this), then what were the visions of Jesus caused by? And how do you know?
Whoops, forgot to delete some other things I was going to say but decided not to. Laurentin reports people levitating, foretelling the future, and healing the sick, which leads me to think he may in some cases be reporting second hand reports or is easily duped (do you really think someone levitated?), but in the two examples you give in your book, there seems to be firsthand eyewitness evidence, so this is not a factor.
Professor, I completely agree with you that the disciples of Jesus had ‘visions’ of the risen Jesus. I think the other point to be made regarding the resurrection stories is that we don’t have the eyewitness accounts. What we have are the writings of the evangelists which I assume would have been based on oral stories circulating around Palestine for 30-40 years. That provides a lot of scope for distortions. That presumably would also explain why the accounts of the resurrection vary so widely across the Gospels. When we have such a straightforwardly logical explanation for the event, I wonder why there is so much debate about the veridical / non-veridical nature of the resurrection event. If we had the writings of Peter who presumably had these visions, maybe we could analyse them and arrive at more substantive conclusions. Since we don’t, can we classify this debate as a lot of hair-splitting about second hand accounts of second hand accounts of second hand accounts..ad infinitum?
I find this critique of your work almost comical. I listened to the audible version of the book. One night at my son’s soccer practice, I got to that particular section while jogging around the park with head phones on. Without realizing it, I apparently came to a dead stop at one point, made some sort of gesture with my hands, then continued on. One of the other parents at the park observed this and asked me later (laughing at me of course because it looked like I was some sort of insane person) what in the world I was listening to when that happened. It dawned on me, it had to have been when I’d thought to myself, “Okay, we get it. You’re going out of your way to be fair to believers. Move on already.” LOL!
How funny!
DR EHRMAN:
You either believe the apostles testimony that they saw Jesus after he was killed by crucifixion or you don’t believe their testimony. Paul testified that more than 500 people saw him at once. Some of His closest disciples ate and drank with Him as John testifies. These men were liars or were telling the truth. You can’t prove nor disprove it as you say. I don’t think they were hallucinating. I believe that they really saw Jesus alive after His death by crucifixion but I can’t prove it either. We’ll have to wait and see.
“We’ll just have to wait and see.” And wait. And wait. And wait, for how many more hundreds if not thousands of years?
No, they need not have been liars… most likely not. Have you thought through what has been stated here and many other places, and generally agreed on even by believing (Christian) scholars, that nowhere in the Gospels or elsewhere do we have the direct report of any direct disciple who “saw” Jesus post-burial (in one manner or another). Paul is almost an exception, but he makes clear his experience was visionary (1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere), and he was not a disciple while Jesus was alive. If anyone was a “liar”, which I don’t think is the right term although purposeful non-literal story telling was involved, it would be Matt, Mark, Luke, John (and we don’t even know their real identities)… none of them direct disciples (tho some argue that “John” was, but with little real evidence).
And BTW, I don’t know if Bart does so in this book directly, but I’m sure it’s implied, as in other of his books, the saying C.S. Lewis popularized, “Liar, Lord, or Lunatic” does not at all exhaust the possibilities for Jesus.
Bart,
I am not questioning that INDIVIDUAL hallucinations of Jesus took place, only that GROUP hallucinations of Jesus took place. If the latter took place, there should be solid examples of that phenomena in history. I don’t think there are any, and I have looked around a fair amount. You keep punting me to Laurentin’s book, but based on the two examples you drew from that book, it seems like you may not have read that book very critically. One of the two Laurentin examples you include in your book involves a photograph, so it CANNOT be a hallucination. The most likely explanation for the photographed event is some unique combination of light reflections associated with a specific location. The other Laurentin example of a supposed group hallucination you give in your book involves the Virgin Mary being at the top of a waterfall. Now I know many waterfalls have water mist that goes from top to bottom. If you add a little light and a little suggestion, it seems very plausible to me that many people could see an image of the Virgin Mary. This seems way more plausible to me than a group hallucination. Sure, I could go read the entire Laurentin book, but since you have already read it, and since you chose the two examples you did in order to illustrate group hallucinations (which I assume were the best examples you thought were in that book), I am basically asking you if you know of any better examples from that book that cannot be attributed to unique light reflections associated with a specific location like the two examples above can. I have read several Virgin Mary apparition books and all have been wild goose chases — I have not found one credible example of a group hallucination among adults; most examples are drawn from tradition, second or third hand at least and passed on without critical examination, and many are like those you describe above where the image is associated with a very specific location at a distance, which in my mind means it could easily be light reflections. Here’s another example of the exact same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun
I know your schedule is extremely busy, but can you provide just one example (the one you think is your best) of a group of adults hallucinating the exact same person at the exact same time? Surely you must already have this in your notes somewhere.
Why don’t you just read Laurentin’s many books?
Are you going to be responding to Dr. Michael Kruger? http://michaeljkruger.com/bart-ehrmans-worldview-problem/
I’m not sure. I find criticisms like this rather unhelpful!
This is a note to Mr Ehrman.
Are you familiar with the book entitled Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions” by Doane 1862….now free from Goggle Books and other sources. I found this book by accident in an historic house in Newport. If you are familiar with it, what is your opinion of the book and it’s contents? The author collected all his resources.
FYI: I do think your feeling that Jesus alleged physical return to earth makes it very different from other resurrection stories…is given too much importance. It’s just a rewrite..of the same ole same ole.
RE: Visions: My mother saw my father (long since passed) at the foot of her bed. I laughed. Years later I’m on the couch falling asleep and my wife keeps waking me up…around the eighth time I see my mother appear in front of the TV then she fades away. Hence a state between dreamland and reality..for both my mother an I. Nothing great. Statistics and crowd visions. Sooner of later it has to happen as it did in Fatima. No great shakes vision wise..but enough to convince people who were there for that purpose.
Finally…a thought I heard recently…God wondering how S/he got here…….(I am not a believer)
I’ve read a ton of books like it, but not that book. After about ten of them, they all are about the same I’m afraid….
In the Gospel of Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph twice, once to tell him that he should go ahead and marry Mary, even though she is pregnant (not by him), and then again a couple of years later to warn him of Herod’s plan to kill Jesus and that he should take the family to Egypt. The author of Matthew tells us that both of these “appearances” occurred in dreams.
The question is: Did Joseph believe that God had sent a real angel to him to give him real messages?
If first century Jews were truly able to distinguish dreams/visions from reality, why would Joseph marry a woman who had been impregnated by someone else just because an angel “appeared” to him in a dream? If first century Jews knew that dreams are not reality, Joseph would have ignored the imaginary angel and his imaginary message. For Joseph to go through with his marriage to a pregnant Mary was a very rare exception to the behavior of people in an Honor-Shame society. His act of obeying an angel in a dream is solid proof that he believed that the angel was real and the message was real.
And if Joseph understood that dreams are not reality, why would he move his family to a foreign country based only on a dream?
And how about Paul’s dream/vision? Paul saw and heard a talking bright light in a dream. Paul saw the men accompanying him to Damascus collapse to the ground with him…in a dream. Paul reported that these men also saw the light but didn’t hear the voice…or heard some kind of noise but didn’t see the light…in a dream….depending which passage of Acts you read.
So it is obvious that first century Jews were just as likely to believe that a dream is reality as some people do today! People have been seeing angels, bright lights and dead people for thousands of years…in their dreams…and have believed that these events are reality.
So the fact that four, anonymous, first century books contain stories of people “seeing” dead people and even “seeing” large groups of people “seeing” dead people, should come as no surprise.
They were vivid dreams. Visions. Nothing more.
Are you asking about the real, historical Joseph? I don’t think we can psychoanalyze someone with this little information. But my view is that these dreams are a literary trope, so the psychological plausibility is probably a secondary issue.
You are correct. We have no idea whether the author of Matthew believed that the stories of Joseph being visited by angels in his dreams were real historical events or whether he was using a literary trope. However, if you are a conservative Christian living today, you believe that angels truly did “appear” to Joseph, in dreams; Joseph did not just imagine these angels. God really did send him messages by these supernatural beings.
So if Joseph can “see” supernatural beings in dreams, in the first century, that come to him as messengers from God and believe that he has truly “seen” them, why should we be surprised that other Galilean peasants, a few decades later, also saw supernatural beings (specifically the dead Jesus) appear to them…in dreams.
I’m trying to make the argument that the appearance stories of the resurrected Jesus were very likely based on the same types of vivid dreams that allegedly also happened to Joseph, Jesus’ step (or real) father.
So in your scholarly view, Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances to his various disciples (e.g. Mary Magdalene, Peter, John, James, Paul) are historical events in that such claims were truly made mere days (not decades) after Jesus’ death in the cases of Mary, Peter, John, James… and a few years (not decades) after Jesus’ death in the case of Paul… the question is the nature of these appearances (were they delusions in these people’s minds or was Jesus somehow really appearing to them)… in other words… the historical evidence is strong enough to support that these people truly believed they saw him and that the explanation that “it was made up” doesn’t hold up under scholarly scrutiny… so in short… the historical evidence shows that they really saw him *in their minds*… it’s just a matter of whether they were hallucinating or actually seeing him in some real sense… is that an accurate summary of your view?
No, I do not know if the claims were made mere days later — but certainly not as long as decades later. I talk about all this in my book How Jesus Became God.
I have that book (haven’t had time to read it yet, but now I will have to—thanks). Really quick, what’s your sense on how long after his death the appearances did happen (be they hallucinations or otherwise)? It seems they had to happen fairly soon after 30 CE (or else Paul’s reaction a few years later wouldn’t make sense). I assume this has to do with your view that the tomb stories aren’t likely historically accurate, but whatever the case, Paul, who knew Peter, John and James, knows of the tradition in 1 Cor 15, which seems to go back pretty early. I’m not asking for a detailed reply (I’ll read your book I bought for that), but I’d love to get your terse answers on these three things:
1. What’s your sense on how long after Jesus died the first “appearances” occurred?
2. Why don’t you think the three day tradition goes back to Peter, John and James?
3. Do most critical scholars that you know think the three days (or “on the third day”) tradition is historically reliable?
1. I don’t think we know. My guess is that it was no sooner than a week (after the disciples had gotten back to Galilee?) and no longer than a couple of months; 2. I just don’t think we know 3. I’m not sure what you mean by historically reliable. Do you mean that Jesus was really raised on the third day? Christian scholars probably think so; non-Christian scholars probably not.
No, in the third question I don’t mean that. I mean do they believe the appearances *be they hallucinations or otherwise* started three days after Jesus died (not whether they were real appearances). It seems like a very early tradition that fits well with the evidence (i.e. that the disciples *believed* they saw Jesus relatively quickly after he was crucified). We see it in Paul and all four gospels (John 2)… I don’t see a reason for making up the three days outside of some theological purpose (maybe “Jonah in the fish for 3 days…”), but that seems weak, as it’s only in Matt. Is it possible they said three days because that’s really when their visions began (be they hallucinations or real)? I’m asking if most critical scholars see evidence (if so, what is it?) to stretch the three days tradition to a view of no sooner than a week and no longer than a couple of months (which is pretty close to three days in the grand scheme… so it’s not a big deal really)—but I’m just wondering if scholars generally accept the visions began three days after Jesus’ death or if they see them as happening a bit after three days and that the three days are some kind of theological construct.
I’m not sure, but I suppose since most of these scholars are Christian they do think the claims to resurrection started three days after Jesus’ death. But yes, there are reasons for three days to be made up, both the Jonah story and Hosea 6:2.
Interesting… I can see that possibility being plausible… next question is off this topic… but when the LXX translated “young woman” to “virgin” I assume they didn’t mean virgin in its literal modern “never had sex” sense (the original Hebrew context surely didn’t mean that)… so my question is: was there a Greek word that meant “young woman” rather than “virgin” that the LXX scholars chose not to use—and if so, why cause such confusion?! (which Matthew and Luke made even more confusing later).
My sense is that the word they used PARTHENOS could mean simply young woman (there were other words that could meant that too), but eventually it took on more of the connotation of a young woman who had never had sex. The translators of course would not know that it would eventually have that meaning.
1) Why would you consider it historically unlikely Paul made up his story of his vision? Some say he made it up for apostolic respect.
2) Is it virtually certain the disciples didn’t make up the resurrection story, possibly to keep the memory of their friend alive? After his death, they would’ve believed he would resurrect at the end of time *together*. Even if they did believe in a sole resurrection, they would’ve thought Jesus would come back to life to carry on his ministry on *earth*, not get exalted to heaven.
1. Any claim needs evidence to support it. I can’t think of any evidence to support the claim. I”m not sure what “apostolic respect” means, but what the claim earned Paul were numerous beatings and sufferings…. 2. Yes, I’d say it’s virtually certain..
Some scholars have mentioned that cannabis and other substances were used for prayers and spiritual practices in the antiquity. Some have said this may have been the case with Peter and the 12.
1.Was the use of cannabis normal during those days for prayer or any spiritual practice?
2. And also, were these substances abused the way they are abused today such as overdoses or addictions? Maybe it was never used that way and they never thought of using it that way?
1. No, I don’t think so. 2. No, I’ve never heard of ancient overdoses. In fact, I’ve never read any ancient source that talks about using cannabis. It’s been fun to claim since the 60s though!
I see. It’s just that I saw an article about the use of cannabis in temples and found in wine during those times along with bone, so I was wondering about their use. Guess it wasn’t popular? 🤷♂️
I’m afraid I haven’t seen the article and so can’t really comment on how reliable it is….
Dr. Ehrman,
1. Besides Paul, who all do you think we can reasonably say (historically) actually *thought* they say post-resurrected Jesus?
2. Who do you believe was the first to think they say post-resurrected Jesus?
3. Why would they have believed Jesus was resurrected and not just appearing from the dead as a ghost (which would have been the normal conclusion)? After all, people who think they’ve seen a dead person don’t think that person has been raised from the dead, but just a ghost.
4. What specific books do you recommend written by scholars in the field on the study of hallucinations (for the most up-to-date research)?
5. Besides hallucinations, what other possible explanations do historians give for these Jesus visions and alleged post-resurrection experiences?
1. Peter and Mary. I discuss all this in my book Peter, Paulk, and Mary Magdalene. 2. Either Peter or Mary. 3. BEcause they were Jewish apocalypticists and believed that an afterlife had to be lived in the *body*, not as a disembodied spirit. 4. I discuss a bunch of them in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. 5. Lots. Just mis-seeing something. Dreaming. BEing told by others that *they* saw him. Some have claimed intentional deception (I don’t buy that one). One fruitful way of answering is: why do people *often* claim to see things that they didn’t see? Happens a lot..