(17 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...Reminiscing about blogs of years gone by, I found this one from almost exactly six years ago. And it’s still relevant for today. The disciples all died for their belief that Jesus was raised from the dead, right? So they must have *known* he was actually raised. No one would die for a lie. Right? Here’s the question a blog member asked, and my response. I still hold to it!
***********************************************************************************
QUESTION:
Another very very popular evidence put forward for the resurrection is “the disciples would not have died for what they knew was a lie, therefore it must have happened.” I hear this all the time. You note that they really believed they saw Jesus after he died so they were not lying. However, is there evidence (historical or literary) that they were killed because of their belief in Jesus’ resurrection?
RESPONSE:
Ah yes, if I had a fiver for every time I’ve heard this comment over the years, I could retire to a country-home in Maine…. Several other people have responded to this question on the blog by saying that we have lots of records of lots of people who have died for a something that they knew, literally, not to be true. I am not in a position to argue that particular point. But I can say something about all the disciples dying for believing in the resurrection.
The way the argument (by Christian apologists) goes is this (I know this, because I used to make the same argument myself, when I was a Christian apologist!): all the apostles were martyred for their faith, because they believed Jesus had been raishgggged from the dead; you can see why someone might be willing to die for the truth; but no one would die for a lie; and therefore the disciples – all of them – clearly believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. And if they *all* believed it, then it almost certainly is true (since none of them thought otherwise, they must have all seen Jesus alive after his death).
The big problem with this argument is that …
To see my response, you will need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong yet, now’s your big chance. Don’t blow it! You don’t know what tomorrow holds, so grab for all you can get today. JOIN!!
I hope you are safe from the hurricane Dr. ????
Thanks! So far so good. Those poor people on the coast though….
Good to hear! – stay safe… was worried about the flooding more than anything
Chapel Hill, NC to Virginia Beach is 207 miles, according to google maps
230 miles to Kity Hawk Beach
Yes, it circled around us, strangely enough. Just lots of rain.
Most people would be shocked and chagrined by how many people would die and have died for a lie.
Sure. Everybody who died for the causes espoused by the French Revolution, for example. There were endless lies there. Marie Antoinette never said “Let them eat cake” to name one example out of many. The revolution ended up being not about liberty, equality, brotherhood, but about settling old scores, empower ideologues, creating despots, mass executions, and a bizarre calendar nobody could figure out. The Russian Revolution was even worse.
All causes people die for are based heavily on lies that people believe, because they need to. The real truth is so complicated and hard to explain, everything gets boiled down into catchphrases and memes, that invariably mislead and often deceive. Christianity was no different. But there is an inherent flaw to the argument we’re discussing here, and I don’t mean the fact that most Christians in that time period were never required to choose between their beliefs and their lives.
We had two world wars in the 20th century, which killed more people than lived in the Roman Empire at any time in its existence –both were supposed to bring about a better world, and end war for all time. That is what the people fighting in those wars were supposed to be dying for. I feel ironic jibes would be inadequate here. But it should be noted that in all these conflicts and causes that led to bloodshed, people were not in fact all fighting and dying for the same reasons.
The flaw is that we’re assuming Christians died for the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead.
What Roman authority figure ever asked them about that? What Roman authority cared what they personally believed in?
They were dying because they were monotheists. Bart has explained this very well. They would not even pretend to worship the pagan gods, and the Romans believed that worship of those gods was integral to the well-being of the polis. That was the basis of the persecution. If Christians had said “We will sacrifice to your gods, but Jesus rose from the dead” they’ve been like “Okay fine, whatever.”
They were dying because they refused to give up their beliefs. They were in fact monotheists, and would not pretend to be polytheists. So they were dying for the truth.
The disciples were Jews, of course–they could worship their own God exclusively under the grandfathered-in arrangement they had with the Romans. But they were converting gentiles, in increasing numbers. Converting them to monotheistic beliefs which the Romans considered a threat.
If somebody said “I’m dying for my right to worship as I please, to exercise my right to speak, to freely assemble to discuss shared ideas”–would you consider that dying for a lie?
Seems to me that’s one of the things the soldiers of the Continental Army died for.
And let’s admit that many of the ideas many non-religious people have since died for began, in part, with the Christians.
People die for ideas all the time, and since ideas can never be factually proven right or wrong–unlike empirical facts–all ideas are lies, in a sense. Or rival truths. Your pick.
There’s a great song called “Mourir Pour Des Idees” which takes a different slant–nobody should be forced to die for ideas. He’s not talking mainly about religion, but it’s part of what he means.
However, he wrote this song in the context of being attacked for not fighting the Nazis in France during WWII.
Link to a translation of that brilliant song by Georges Brassens, and a video of him singing it.
https://lyricstranslate.com/en/mourir-pour-des-idées-die-some-ideas.html-0
I fully believe that nobody should be forced to die for anything he or she does not believe in, and that we should not be in any great hurry to die for any idea. Life is short enough as is, and being willing to die for ideas very often goes very well with being willing to kill for them.
(Though Jesus wasn’t, and neither were his followers, for quite a long time–and unlike the ideologues Brassens lampoons in his lyric, who somehow walk around breathing while so many bleed for their ideas–Jesus put his money where his mouth was, and reportedly died in the place of his followers, asking them to live and carry on his ideas, and I think that’s what the disciples were really dying for–the sense of duty and guilt they felt for having abandoned him.)
All that being said, if nobody was willing to die for any idea–and remember, all ideas are just that, not facts–where would we be?
Rival truths. There is no final solution.
Bart, if you do decide to “retire to a country-home in Maine,” do some research please. With climate change in recent decades, the coast now gets tons more snow (compared to inland), has very high property taxes (compared to inland), and is exposed to more unhealthy air pollution (compared to inland). Thought I’d give you a heads up.
Actually, over the years I’ve known a number of people who go that route, and I’ve never quite understood it. All I can think of are black flies….
Even if all the disciples were executed, it may have just been because they were leaders or prominent figures in the local church area. No discussion of the resurrection or beliefs may have come up. They could have been quickly arrested and executed with no opportunity to recant, or still killed even after recanting – I assume the persecutions under Nero played out this way..
” There are indications that Peter and Paul were martyred that come from the first century (from the book of 1 Clement). My view is that both of them did indeed die in Rome, possibly under Nero.”
This is interesting. It suggests that they were associates for some time in Rome together (as Catholic legend has it, I believe).
Curious as to why Peter would have gone there?:
He had a mission to Jews, and there were more Jews living in Rome than most anywhere. So my guess is that he took his mission there.
A really good blog. Thanks
“They may just as well have heard from someone they trusted”
Yeah, I think it takes very little for people to believe. I used to know the Christian apologist Hugh Ross, the supposedly smart scientist apologist. He told a story of a friend of his buying a shirt from a witch (why I don’t know.) The friend began to be sick, and thought the shirt had been cursed. So he threw the shirt in a fire and the shirt made some sound as the demons in the shirt were burned. Hugh Ross would tell this story as justification for God needing to destroy everything in Noah’s flood – evil contaminates everything.
Anyway, the scientist Ross sincerely believed all this and even used it in sermons to convince other people, and then they believed it…
Ai yai yai….
Well said. I think of the story of John the Baptist’s execution. It was because of his criticism of Herod’s marriage and had nothing to do with his preaching of the coming kingdom. Even if early disciples were killed we have no knowledge of why. Maybe the authorities simply found them irritating!
Thereme was a certain white skinned politician whose parentage of black skinned woman was a secret – except that it was also common knowledge. But the value of pretending that the truth of the sexual liaison and offspring never happened exceeded the value of facts. Facts are nothing when a community values an alternate reality more.
Perhaps the “reality” of a resurrection far exceeded any common sense understanding. Or perhaps the common sense understanding included the possibility of the Divine mingling with the human, where an offspring of Divine and human nature was possible and where this happened in the past.
It is easy to see how legends would grow to include people dying for a belief, especially in a world where belief and the supernatural stood in the place that scientific facts stand today.
“Facts are nothing when a community values an alternate reality more.”
Best sentence I’ve read this morning.
Without ‘googling’, who knows
Which of the following originated in the Americas:
A) the horse B) penicillin C) slavery D) democracy E) none of the above
Which originated in Europe:
A) pasta B) the tomato C) the potato. D) sugar E) none of the above
Which originated in the East:
A) the human race B) philosophy C) math D) the alphabet E) all of the above
Which is the most persistent and seemingly incurable problem we face:
A) hunger B) pestilence C) war D) ignorance E) insert your favorite bugbear (Jewish control of the media is a good one, for example…)
This audience is a learned bunch. But try putting these seemingly simple questions to the average coworker,high school student, dinner guest, or current American leadership. It is truly frightening how ignorance willfully persists.
Yes, but again, facts were never the point of the persecution. The Romans were killing Christians (on occasion) for refusing to admit to the factual existence of the pagan gods by sacrificing to them. So again, this entire line of questioning is pointless, and both sides of the argument fatally flawed, and rather sloppy.
Now let me take a crack at this quiz of yours:
The horse originated in America, but not in the form we currently know it in. (Also dogs, and ditto.)
None of the above originated in Europe.
There is no such place as ‘The East’ so this question is badly phrased. ‘The East’ is more of a concept. At least you didn’t say ‘The Orient.’ Might I suggest ‘Asia’?
As to the last question, five people with exactly the same set of facts could give five different answers–or a thousand. That is not a question that can be answered factually. I’d say “Climate change”, but I suppose the real answer would be “shortsighted greed.” Which we’re all guilty of sometimes.
You seem to be confusing facts with values, which one would have thought was the error you were trying to correct.
And I’m not sure I consider people not knowing where the tomato came from is really such a major problem in the grand scheme of things. I can’t eat them lately anyhow.
Ignorance is a problem, but then again, our ancestors survived for over a hundred thousand years knowing basically nothing except how to make simple tools, hunt, gather, and procreate.
They also created the first religions, all of which are now forgotten. If they hadn’t, you wouldn’t be typing this. Or anything else. You’d still be an animal, running on instinct, and ignorance wouldn’t be an issue.
PS: I didn’t need to google any of that.
Dr. Ehrman,
If there is no historical or literary evidence that the disciples were martyred, how do you suspect that the legend started in the first place?
Thanks
It’s a modern myth (at least I don’t know of it from earlier periods) invented by apologists who want to stress the point precisely so they can “prove” that the disciples actually saw the resurrected Jesus.
“[The martyrdom of the disciples] is a modern myth (at least I don’t know of it from earlier periods) invented by apologists who want to stress the point precisely so they can “prove” that the disciples actually saw the resurrected Jesus.”
Is it really a modern myth? I vaguely recall that there were such church legends about the fate of all the disciples. Not historically reliable, of course, but invented relatively early rather than in modern times. Did these church legends not relate the martyrdom of all or most of the disciples?
Ah, nothing comes to mind. If you track it down, let me know.
“Ah, nothing comes to mind. If you track it down, let me know.”
A pseudo-Hippolytus in his Of the Twelve Apostles wrote of the martyrdom of 7 of the 11 apostles (Peter, Andrew, James son of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus); I don’t know when this text was written, but it was not discovered until the 19th c. Note that some of the details of manner of martyrdom here recounted sometimes conflict with other traditions about these 7 apostles. As for the other apostles, a fragment (4.2) attributed to Philip of Side, a 5th c church historian, cites Papias for the view that both of the sons of Zebedee (James and John) were both killed by the Jews and this tradition is also found in George the Sinner in the 9th c. This is interesting because Mk 10,38 already seems to imply that both sons of Zebedee were known to have been killed already in the 1st c. Caravaggio depicts the tradition that Matthew had been martyred by the King of Ethiopia, a tradition that goes back at least as far back to the 13th c Legenda Aurea of Jacobus da Varagine. Jude (aka Lebbaeus/Thaddaeus) is traditionally said to have had his head chopped off (hence he often appears with an axe) but I have not bothered to trace the date of this tradition, the Armenian church claims him as their evangelist and says he was martyred. Simon the Zealot is sometimes said to have been martyred with Jude but others claim that he was crucified in Britain (a claim that may not predate the 19th c)! Already at the end of the 16th c, Cristoforo Roncalli painted Jude being sawn in half (vertically from the head down!) by the Persians. Obviously, very few of these accounts have any credibility but it does seem that some of them are rather old and certainly predate modern apologists.
In the TV movie “The Bible”, produced by Roma Downey and her husband, the end of the series portrays the fates of Matthew in Ethiopia and Thomas in India with great authority.
I think the correct argument is “They wouldn’t go through all that for something they BELIEVED was a lie.” Some might, of course. You never know. Joseph Smith certainly knew there were no golden disks, but he was surrounded by armed men most of the time, was armed himself. He wasn’t planning on being martyred. It just worked out that way.
See, the bad argument results from a different bad argument, mainly from atheists–that early Christianity was a scam, a hoax, a hustle. It wasn’t. They weren’t getting rich from it, and no question they did sometimes suffer consequences. One extreme leads to another.
Whatever happened to the disciples–and I should not have to remind anyone here what Josephus said happened to Jesus’ brother James–not to mention what happened to Jesus himself, which I think qualifies as pretty severe persecution–there was persecution. You wrote a good bit about it in your last book. We have more than enough evidence that not only was there persecution, but that many times Christians refused to give up their beliefs in the face of certain death. They also tended people during epidemics, at the cost of their own lives–taking fewer precautions than they might have, because it was an act of love, not public hygiene. Yes, they believed. Some a lot more than others. But it was no hoax.
But people can deeply believe stories that are factually incorrect. And stories that are factually incorrect can have a deep core of truth behind them.
Simply, is there any historical evidence that the apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and that he was martyred upside down on a cross?
There are legends to that effect, yes, from teh second century. But he almost *certainly* was not the “first bishop” of Rome. I think I’ll post on that!!
Yes, please do. I was always fascinated with stories of Peter’s tomb. They say the know he was buried there because they found his bones. But wasn’t Vatican hill an ancient necropolis with many people buried there. Of course they found a bone. There are probably millions of ancient bones in that site. But how does anyone know they belongs to Simon bar Jonah (Peter)? They didn’t have DNA testing back then… and isn’t there an ossuary in Jerusalem inscribed with the name Simon bar Jonah? How could his bones be in both places at the same time? Folklore and the formation of legend are fascinating to me.
That’s a really interesting point, people today believe in the resurrection without seeing it with their own eyes, so why can’t this be true of 1st Century Christians!
When discussing with Christians, trying to find out why they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, their arguments are often built on legends of disciples being martyred, or the gospels being written by eyewitnesses. Their world view is developed on these many stories, making it very difficult to have a productive conversation with them. When you discuss with them, I find myself disagreeing with so many of their sources and interpretations, that any progress is almost impossible. Do you have any advice on this?
I would simply ask them what their sources of information are for the disciples being martyred. They almost never will have an answer. Our earliest records are the apocryphal Acts (Acts of Peter, Acts of John, Acts of Thomas, etc.) They almost certainly will not have read them, or even know about them. If you want to know how highly untrustworthy/legendary they are, just read them. It’s pretty obvious they are not great hisotircal sources!
Thanks! I actually own your “After the New Testament, a reader in early Christianity” and I just took a look, and the texts you mention to read are in there! Well, that decides my next book to read!
I’d just recommend to them Candida Moss’ The Myth of Persecution, How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (Harper-Collins). It’s as eye-opening a read as any of your own books.
I’d be very surprised to learn that the disciples all died of natural causes.
It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
But I understand we can’t know for a fact. And again, it’s irrelevant, because they wouldn’t have been martyred for believing in the Resurrection. They would have been martyred for convering gentile pagans to monotheism, which they were doing, in part, because they believed Jesus had risen from the dead. But why did they believe that? Because they were tortured by guilt over having abandoned him.
Nobody ever does anything for just one reason.
Uxorius –
re: “When discussing with Christians, trying to find out why they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, their arguments are often built on legends of disciples being martyred, or the gospels being written by eyewitnesses”
I’m one who believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that he did indeed appear bodily – not a ghost, a spirit, a phantom, a vapor – but in a body (although, unlike our present bodies) to a number of people.
But, I’ve never, ever, relied on tales of martyred disciples or the authorship of the gospels. In fact, I have virtually no reliance on the gospels at all for the resurrection story, nor for my belief in it.
I suppose, though – because somehow “Christianity” became to be “Jesus PLUS the Gospels” – most Christians feel some kind of need to defend the Gospels (not “the gospel”), so, in that defense, the authors were eyewitnesses, and at least Matthew and Mark must have been martyred for their faith. Something like that. In the bigger picture, it’s super-easy to observe that most Christians do buy into those “stories”.
Totally unnecessary, though. I certainly don’t buy into them, and, as I said, I do believe Jesus was, in fact, resurrected. But, then, I’m an outlier… 🙂
I remember reading something like this type of argument in CS Lewis’s book, Mere Christianity. But I don’t recall that he had any historical support for the assertion.
Paul give a brief account of many eye witnesses but his own encounter with Jesus was a mystical one – in vision. This may have been how other “witnesses” experienced the resurrected Jesus as well. Whether they actually saw him physically as in the gospel accounts and John’s epistle or in vision their experience with Christ either directly or indirectly produced great faith. Unfortunately, like the afterlife (I eagerly anticipate your forthcoming book) the story of Jesus Christ has accumulated much mythology over time to the point where I doubt the original disciples of Jesus would recognize Christianity today as having anything to do with what their Master taught them. Stay dry. I hope you and your family are safe with Florence invading North Carolina and SE USA.
1jdfrancisco —
re: “Paul give a brief account of many eye witnesses but his own encounter with Jesus was a mystical one – in vision.”
We don’t have any such account for Paul at all. What we have is what LUKE says that Paul saw.
Paul, in his own writings, simply indicates that he’s “seen” Jesus.
See 1 Cor. 15:1-8.
1 Cor 15: — “…and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.”
Are you seeing something “descriptive” in that phrase? I don’t see where Paul is describing what he saw.
Descriptive only in the sense that he is saying that Jesus appeared to him as living, as he indicates, as well, in 1 Cor. 9:1.
Please read my post again. Paul gave an account of others seeing a resurrected Jesus in 1 Cor. 15. His own encounter was mystical and not with a physically resurrected Christ.
Is this a similar phenomena to those who swear they’ve seen Elvis? I don’t remember if you made the same point in one of your writings.
Not quite, since not too many were martyred for that one….
touche sir
The Son of God, Octavian, Caesar Augustus had a succession plan and had to redraft his succession plan due to deaths of people in the original plan.
Jesus spoke of Son of Man in the first person. Then he spoke of Son of Man in the third person.
Was Jesus as the first manifestation of the Son of Man and the second Son of Man were both to be mortal or was the earthly Kingdom of God supposed to be a Camelot of immortality?
If immortality was not to be brought to Earth, then Jesus has no succession planning as did Son of the Divine and Pontifex Maximus, Divus Augustus.
Jesus sought to usher in a new kingdom and has no plans for the sons and grandsons of Herod the Great, nor did he lead a delegation to Rome. Neither did God send Jesus to Rome since Rome was the empire and Judea was the province.
Question: While members of the earthly Kingdom of God would pay taxes to Rome, this kingdom would be a light to Rome, but given the blind getting sight and all the other characteristics healings and resurrections, was it supposed to be a place with no death for the third person Son of Man and members of his kingdom?
I think Jesus imagined it as an eternal kingdom. No more death.
Visions or not (of Jesus) – Why do we not have other historical accounts of say Matthew 27:52-53 – if such a thing were to happen – would it surely not be recorded elsewhere (in other historical records)? — It is this line of thinking that makes me doubt other such types of claims..
Yes, a lot of these experiences are reported by only one author, which automatically makes them a shade suspect….
In addition to Matthew we also have sightings of a resurrected Jesus reported by Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. Again, some of these were visions while others are recorded as physical appearances.
Visions — even today — can be remarkably tactile.
This makes me wonder something. If one has a vision, and interprets that vision, is he not a prophet? Doesn’t Constantine’s [presumed] vision at the Milvian Bridge and his subsequent [presumed] interpretation of that vision entitle him to the title of prophet?
I’d say no more or less than someone who has a dream and interprets it (in the ancient world there was no clear division between dreams and visions.)
Hi Bart,
Do you think modern day apologists making arguments like this for the resurrection actually truly believe they are correct, or do they know their argument is weak however still go along with it?
I think they truly believe it. But I wonder if deep down, below the level of consciousness, they wonder….
Dr Ehrman –
re: “I think Peter and, later, Paul certainly did have a vision of Jesus after his death, and possibly Mary Magdalene did as well ”
By “a vision”, I presume you mean to say “an hallucination”. Is that correct?
My personal view is that these were hallucinations; but even if they were actual “sightings” they would have been “things seen” — and that’s the definition of a “vision,” something you see.
How about ghosts? Did First Century Galileans (or people overall) believe in ghosts? They apparently believed in “shades” of the dead. Was the interpretation of the vision as a resurrection more of an improbable “stretch” versus seeing a ghost then. I think it would be today – but as always I find it terribly hard to imagine a First Century context!
Thanx
Stay safe
Yes they did. Often called pneumata, or “spirits”
if we had the mind set of the disciples AND those who thought that x appeared in the resurrected body of y, then do you think we would be convinced Elvis Presley was really alive even if we knew there was a body in his grave?
Some people do!
Simon Greenleaf wrote a book in 1845 making this argument (among others) for the truth of the resurrection. The ironic thing about it is, Greenleaf was a lawyer who wrote the standard textbook (“Greenleaf on Evidence”) that was used in law schools for many years, and his argument about the resurrection violates his tests.
Also, I believe you have quoted from Candida Moss before (I’m out of town and away from my library at the moment). She points out in her 2013 book that many people have willingly died for religions that no longer exist.
Any argument based on the willingness of people to die for a belief is evidence only of the strength of that belief; it says nothing one way or the other about whether that belief is true.
What about the apostle Philip? There are archeologists who claim to have found his tomb in Turkey.
Well, unless he was wearing a name badge, I can’t think of a solid piece of evidence that would suggest that one buried individual was, say, Philip instead of his brother George, or any of the others of millions of people buried at about that time.
I think Carrier has an interesting take on the possibility of the disciples dying for a lie. He writes:
“Of course Habermas tries to sell Strobel on the tired apologetic line that “no one dies for a lie.” Surely not, “if they knew it was a hoax,” we hear said. This is a classic straw man. And as such, another lie. It’s one thing to ask how likely it is the resurrection appearance claims were a hoax. It’s altogether another to ask how likely it is they were like every other divine appearance experience in the whole history of all religions since the dawn of time: a mystical inner vision. Just as Paul tells us. Our only eyewitness source. Of course, a case can be made for the apostles dying even for a hoax: all they needed was to believe that the teachings attached to their fabricated claim would make the world a better place, and that making the world a better place was worth dying for. Even godless Marxists voluntarily died by the millions for such a motive. So the notion that no one would, is simply false.” See Carrier’s post here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12263
I wrote a blog post on this topic if anyone is interested: http://palpatinesway.blogspot.com/2018/03/examining-easter-peering-behind-veil-of.html
Even when he makes an interesting point, I find his rhetoric to be offputting and over the top. Needlessly.
The Noble Lie hypothesis Carrier touches on is interesting. Even in ancient times, Matthew was forced to address it. He deals with it apologetically by presenting it as a conspiracy against Christian claims:
“…some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, “You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day. — Matthew 28:11-15 (NRSV)”
This was clearly a problem in Matthew’s eyes, to the point that he even had to add a guard at Jesus’ tomb to eliminate the possibility of claims of the disciples stealing the body.
Being martyred aside, dying is easy. What was the threat, in your opinion, to a group of associates to an executed criminal in staying in Jerusalem? They were running a small Jewish sect and simultaneously tried to do missionary work, which could upset Temple authorities. Their former leader was an enemy to the Roman state; the Romans did execute whole messianic groups sometimes, didn’t they (I believe I read this in one of your many books, which take up half a shelf-meter by now)? Wouldn’t the Romans have had reason to at least keep tabs on the escaped members of the group of the executed criminal leader (“escaped” due to them all fleeing on the night of arrest according to the gospels)? Point is, regardless of having seen Jesus resurrected or not, they didn’t plan on getting martyred (the Kingdom was still to come next month anyway) BUT they must have been aware of any difficulties living right under the noses of the Romans and perhaps anticipated strained relations with the Temple authorities? I wouldn’t consider this a proof, but wouldn’t the stronger apologetic argument be the risk of staying in Jerusalem rather than martyrdom that might happen way in the future?
My guess is that they thought that if their leader was rounded up, they might be next. But on the other hand, they had only come to Jerusalem from Galilee for the Passover and it had ended. They probably just decided to go home, sooner rather than waiting around for a couple of days.
I’m reading Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus” now and he writes that Joseph of Arimathea is the reason for the missing body becoming the basis for the resurrection, and therefore those claiming to see him after he rose (going back to why the followers would die for this). Tabor writes that he (Joseph) removed Jesus’s body from the temporary tomb and buried it right after the sabbath ended at sundown, then the female disciples came and found the tomb empty the next morning. This doesn’t make sense for reasons you’ve previously written/blogged about and another point. 1) there was no good reason by anyone would’ve been allowed to take the body down from the cross for a decent burial; 2) if the women knew this Joseph and what he did, why not ask him where he buried the body- or would this have been taboo culturally back then?
Good points.
Would people from two different classes have interacted even if this Joseph existed?
Sorry — I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Would Joseph (if he even existed), or another priest have any contact with the women disciples? I don’t know if there were class distinctions at the time that would have forbid any social contact between the priests and then-commoners
Most priests were married, so no. But I don’t think he’s ever called a priest is he?
My mistake- it just says Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, not a priest
I will repeat a point I made before, that Jesus at end of the Gospel of John predicts Peter will be martyred, which suggests that Peter had already been martyred, or at least thought to have been martyred, when it was written.
Yes indeed. Of course that would be some 25-30 years later.
in the gospel of luke and john, jesus points to his body (luke) and eats something (john) to prove that he has a physical body.
when we read paul, we don’t read language of proving which says that jesus has wounds or is able to eat, we see “transforming language”
QUOTE :
Philippians 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.
can you explain what does “body of our humiliation” mean? is it the sinful body which is TRANSFORMED or the humiliated (punished ??? ) body which is TRANSFORMED?
NOW can you please tell me how “conformed to the body of his glory…” will indicate that the transformed will have WOUNDS and still able to eat ?
Paul doesn’t agree with Luke and John that Jesus’ resurrected body was his cadaver brought back to life. It was transformed into a glorious body. So too will be the followers of Christ — their wretched earthly bodies will be glorified and perfected.
now, this is fascinating. What leads you to think that John and Luke think the resurrected Jesus was nothing more than a cadaver brought back to life?
Since he insists on “eating” he appears to be the same body — digestive system and all!
Roger that. But, that’s not all the info found in John or Luke…
John 20:
“when the doors were shut…Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be with you.”
And later – “Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst (etc)”
A body which can simply appear in a room is, I think, quite different than a reanimated corpse. Unlike the original, living body (before death), this one seems to behave quite “supernaturally”.
Elsewhere in John:
Supposing Him to be the gardener, she *said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where… and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!”
If Jesus was, in this snippet, an “animated corpse with wounds”, then why did Mary think him to be the gardner? Was she accustomed to seeing gardners that looked like they had just been crucified? I think this passage indicates that Jesus didn’t look like he’d just been crucified at all thus, indicating, that whatever this body was, it could change in appearance. Again, a “supernatural” thing.
From Luke:
Two men going to Emmaus: “Jesus Himself approached..blablah… But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.”
How “prevented”? Sudden cataracts, or, was it that Jesus *appeared differently*?
Later – “When He had reclined at the table…He took the bread …[and]…began giving it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.”
OK – the “recognition” problem goes away. We don’t know how. But – Jesus *vanishes*. This is a body that can change state from being visible to invisible. Again – perhaps it is capable of appearing in other fashions altogether. Perhaps it wasn’t sudden-onset cataracts after all.
Later – “While they were telling these things, He…stood in their midst and *said to them….”
Again – a supernatural appearance from nowhere. And yes, it was a “body”, with “flesh and bones”. But, still, a body that can just *appear*, and *disappear*, and *appear differently*.
I don’t see that either Luke or John regards the resurrected body as a reanimated cadaver. I just think they are not waxing eloquently as Paul did. Unlike Paul, they can’t, and don’t offer “clarifications”. But, I see no disagreement between the three.
Yes good points. But of course the body he had *before* he died could do amazing things too!
Ha! Good point.
Me to a Christian: “Would you be willing to die for the idea that Jesus was raised?”
Christian: “Yes”
Me: “…and that is one reason I should believe it?”
” I think Peter and, later, Paul certainly did have a vision of Jesus after his death…”
Sorry Prof, but doesn’t. Probably Paul doesn’t. Paul doesn’t speak never a vision. It was Paul’s statement (Gal1:16). Not the same.
The only reference to vision 1Kor9:1, but the Codex Sinaiticus this verse not included. Doesn’t Jesus appear to him, but the Christ was revealed to him. Its very important different. When Paul states that it is Christ (in itself), he doesn’t think Jesus.
No, there is also 1 Cor. 15:8 where Paul is explicit. It’s not true that 1 Cor. 9:1 is missing in Sinaiticus.
Sorry, I was equivocal. Only this verse: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” missing in Sinaiticus (1Cor9:1).
Of course, in 1 Cor. 15:8 Paul said the Christ. But not Jesus.
If one is dead (the body being important to “living” on this kind of anthropology, at Paul), they have to be restored to life. Paul doesn’t see the live Jesus, he saw, the dead body of Christ. along with his bowse outer self. This was Paul’s revelation, not the living Jesus:-)
1 Corinthians 15 is partly designed to show that what was raised from the grave was *not* simply the revivified corpse of Jesus, but a glorified body, made immortal. In that Paul is very different from, say, the Gospel of Luke (ch. 24).
What makes you think that verse is not in Sinaiticus? And for Paul, Christ *was* Jesus (and vice versa).
Dr Ehrman –
re: “Descriptive only in the sense that he is saying that Jesus appeared to him as living, as he indicates, as well, in 1 Cor. 9:1.”
There wasn’t a “reply” link below your post (above) – which may well indicate you didn’t want a reply… 🙂
But, I just wanted to say “agreed”. I was responding to a post by another guy who said ““Paul give a brief account of many eye witnesses but his own encounter with Jesus was a mystical one – in vision”, which I didn’t agree with at all.. 🙂
I personally believe the persistence and faith of those in the early Jesus movement is a strong argument but it is not a conclusive one. Many people have died for causes that were based on fraudulent teachings, cult leaders, political “deities”, etc. The fact that the faith took hold and changed the world like no other movement is amazing. IMO what passes for Christianity today often has very little resemblance to the early Jesus movement.
My Christian friends would argue that the proximate cause of the disciples’ deaths (those killed by Roman authorities we know about or don’t know about) may have been their unwillingness to submit to worship of the gods, etc., but they were Christian in the first place because they believed in the resurrection and by virtue of that, they were martyred because they believed in the resurrection (whether they saw the resurrected Jesus or heard about it from trusted sources). Nonetheless, the argument that Christianity must be “true”, that Jesus really did rise from the dead (however that is explained) because the disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection is about the weakest argument I have heard. One other thought while I am writing. I didn’t become an atheist because I found logical flaws in Christian (or other religious) doctrine or beliefs. I was convinced by the findings of science and the scientific method that arrived at those findings, explaining what we are as hominids (anthropology, genetics, etc.) and what the universe is like and how it came into existence (physics, astronomy, etc.).
Hello Mr. Dear Ehrman,
I hope I am not disturbing you. I ask this question to better understand a point in your article. Please do not get me wrong.
Did Peter and Paul see a vision of Jesus at different times and in different places, without any connection between them? At the same time, did this vision convince both of them that Jesus was resurrected?
Best Regards.
Yes and yes.
Are there any historical arguments against the existence of Mary Magdalene, Joseph Of Arimithea and Theophilus? I saw online that scholars were making these arguments which shocked me.
Mary Magdalene is almost certainly a historical figure. There’s no evidence really for the other two; the name “Theophilus” means simply “lover of God” or “beloved of God” and may be a symbolic term to refer to Luke’s real audience, the Christians.
Dear Ehrman,
Considering Jewish views in the 1st century (including sects such as the Essenes), is it possible that the expression “resurrection” means anything other than a bodily resurrection? Like spiritual resurrection.
In his book, N.T. Wright argues that the word “resurrection” has a bodily meaning. Did it really mean just that in 1st century Judaism?
Best Regards.
Wright goes a *bit* to far to say that it *always* meant that. But it *almost* always did, including among the Essenes. (It’s very hard to say that any Group X necessarily believes Y, given that humans are humans as well as groupies.)
Dr. Ehrman,
On your most recent debate with Dr. Licona, you made the point that super natural claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree. However, I’m not sure what would really qualify as extraordinary evidence today in the case of an alleged resurrection 2,000 years ago.
What are your thoughts? What do you think would have classified as extraordinary evidence to the point where someone living 2000 years later should believe (or where it would be reasonable to believe)?
I can’t imagine what it would be either. All we have or probably could have are people saying they saw Jesus alive afterward, and there’s really nothing extraordinary about that. My sense is that if people believe it, it is not really because of evidence. And that’s the nature of belief. If there were incontravertible evidence, it would be knowledge, not belief.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have wondered what would happen to Thomas if he would have been born today. He demanded to see Jesus and the scars before he would believe. What about those today who need that kind of evidence? If Jesus wants people to come to believe in his resurrection, this seems to be a very convoluted way to go about it.
In your opinion, aside from Jesus making a personal appearance, is there any evidence that you think would make belief in the resurrection of Jesus reasonable today?
No, I don’t think people who are really, actually dead can come to life period, any more than the laws of gravity or thermodynamics can be reversed. It’s just a reality.disabledupes{884e240236a37fcaa85d5226cbf0344c}disabledupes
The account of doubting Thomas in the John Gospel portrays Jesus with a mutilated resurrected body, which rather contradicts Pauls’s view in 1 Corinthians that the resurrected body will be imperishable and presumably perfect. Is there an answer to this other than the account in the John gospel is doubtful in itself?
It doesn’t appear that John means to present Jesus’ body as “perishable.” He is now an immortal body, but with the wounds of his mortal body — just as at the resurrection you too will have your nose and kneecaps. The question that arose in later Christianity, then, was: if I lose an eye or an arm, will I have to go through eternity that way? Based on John, yes. Based on most theologians, no. In that way too, Jesus is unique. (Or maybe they heal in heaven! Thomas did see him, after all, jsut a short while later.)