Erhmans claim of hallucination

[outhouse]

With all those expectations, a figure like Jesus teaching "new commandments", performing healings, forgiving sins, proclaiming the "Kingdom of Heaven", and otherwise starting to build together a new house with 12 disciples (hints of the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 tribes) and snowball a movement would have fit into a version of those common Jewish hopes for Messianic redemption.

None of this has regards to resurrection mythology.

Not only that we don't know that the Jesus character ever thought of himself as Messiah. He surely did not view himself as son of god, and we know the authors are the ones making the same two claims far removed from his life.

I doubt Jon was considered a messiah type figure but had a passion for trouble making enough so that he was killed for it, just like Jesus was killed for it. One for drawing large crowds, the other for trying to incite the crowds to riot. Attacking money tables if that is what he did and I doubt it, is the same as robbing a bank since the temple was the treasury, and one did not interrupt the money flow to Rome on this largest collection period each year.

[outhouse]

There probably was no tomb. .

Agreed.

The empty tomb story appears to have been invented by Mark.

I think the tradition was already in use prior to the compilation. We know it was divinity building rhetoric as written. But he tradition should have existed prior.

[barryjones]

Hello outhouse,

Here's my two-cents on the hallucination theory:

1 - I deny hallucination theories in favor of the simpler theory that says the core historical truths had become embellished with fiction and legend within the at least 30 year-period between Jesus' death and the earliest date any fundie dares to assign to a gospel. How do I explain the resurrection appearances? Easy: legendary development during the textually "dark" period. The earliest gospel is Mark, he ends at 16:8, so the earliest form of the resurrection story said nothing about resurrection appearances. It doesn't matter that the apostles would still be alive in 65 a.d. Apostle Paul was also still alive at the time that tens of thousands of Jewish converts under James firmly believed the allegedly false rumor that Paul relaxed Mosaic law for disapora Jews (Acts 21:18-24), but apparently, his being alive did not suffice to justify drawing the conclusion that he surely would have quelled any such rumor, and it would appear that James thought his Jewish converts could not be dissuaded by mere denial by Paul, but that Paul would have to demonstrate, by action, not words, that the rumor was false...giving us an example of how obstinate thousands of converts in the early church could be in holding fast to what was allegedly a false rumor about an apostle during his lifetime. So there is no problem with the skeptical theory that says the apostles could have either intentionally done nothing to quell false rumors about them during their lifetimes, or that their efforts to quell were unsuccessful. Another example of how false rumors originated with the early church is John's attempt to correct their misunderstanding of what Jesus said about Peter in John 21:23.

2 - The apologists who say there is no evidence to support group hallucination, are starting off on the wrong foot. The NT doesn't portray the resurrection of Jesus in a consistent way, so there's no consistent single resurrection appearance story that needs any group-hallucination theory in the first place. While the group-hallucination hypothesis has problems, a better hypothesis would be collective subjective hallucinations that wormed their way through a generation of changing oral traditions until they were finally edited into the written form of the gospels. Perhaps Luke is the only gospel author to mention the two disciples on the road to Emmaus who don't recognize Jesus as he walks with them, because this story was once the subjective hallucination/vision of a single person (Luke 24:16). Perhaps Matthew is the only gospel author to assert that some of the 11 apostles "doubted" when they "saw" the resurrected Jesus (28:17, Greek: distazo, same word Matthew uses to characterize insufficient faith in Mat. 14:31), because this was the subjective hallucination of a single apostle. Same with John and his unique accounts of resurrection appearances, such as Mary thinking Jesus was the gardener.

3 - The Muratorian Fragment's explanation for the origin of John's gospel describes something far more like group-hallucination than simply eyewitness recollection:

“The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. In response to the exhortation of his fellow disciples and bishops he said: ‘Fast ye with me for three days, and then let us tell each other whatever shall be revealed to each one.’ The same night it was revealed to Andrew, who was one of the apostles that it was John who should relate in his own name what they collectively remembered."

4 - Group-hallucination is sufficiently complex, that without clear and convincing evidence for it, that theory would be excised by Occam's Razor. The time period between Jesus' death and the earliest date fundies assign to the earliest gospel (33-65 a.d.) allow for plenty of time for legendary embellishment. This theory explains just as much as the hallucination-hypothesis, but is less complex.

[outhouse]

Hello outhouse,

Hello Barry

1 - I deny hallucination theories in favor of the simpler theory that says the core historical truths had become embellished with fiction and legend within the at least 30 year-period between Jesus' death and the earliest date any fundie dares to assign to a gospel.

Agreed. The rhetorical prose used to build authority and divinity is a given here so I agree.

As far as origins we see Pauline text within a few decades showing contradicting beliefs. Some text supports a spiritual resurrection, and some physical.

This belief was early, and I posit we see an evolution from spiritual to physical with the later gospels growing the myth more towards the physical side.

How do I explain the resurrection appearances?

I'm happy with unknown. BUT knowing the prose they wrote in, the textual traditions were usually a response to traditions against the popular theology. In this case earlier groups were claiming John was resurrected and the popular teacher, so all this also attributed to Jesus, he could be no less.

The earliest gospel is Mark,

Barely makes mention of it before the later endings were added. It was not important and they did not have to sell that theology in any way. It was like a side thought that was no big deal but believed in. It is as if that community ignored the tradition but knew about it and followed it to some degree.

group hallucination

Ehrman does not even follow this.

[Solo]

I think hallucination doesn't really explain how the body left the tomb.

There probably was no tomb. The empty tomb story appears to have been invented by Mark. A tomb burial is historically implausible in the first place, Mark is the only source for it (Paul doesn't know about it and the other Gospels got it from Mark), and Mark says nobody else was ever told about it. Any argument regarding an empty tomb requires proof that there ever was any such tomb.

A missing body doesn't mean anything anyway. There are any number of ways a body could go missing withut coming back to life.

I agree with you. The "missing body" mystery does not originate in any hallucinations but in Mark's prank on the outsiders who do not know that the author transparently puns Paul's 1 Cor 12:27, ("now you are the body of Christ") juxtaposing 1 Cor 6:9 ("Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own"). Mark sets up the play on words in two ways: first by having the disciples of John steal the body of the Baptist to create the suspicion that the story repeats itself with the dead body of Jesus (ptōma 15:45), then with the transparent Jesus' reference to his body as "temple" infamously misinterpreted by his accusers, simply switches the meanings in the reference to "the body of Christ" (sōma tou Christou), which obviously is not in the tomb, but in the church of Paul in the mythical Galilee whence the gospel came and where the disciples (or their followers) would find Jesus. I became convinced that this was the intended meaning of the concluding scene in the tomb after I discovered that the messenger's "you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene" (Ἰesoun zheteite ton Nazarhnon") transparently paraphrases the second part of Malachi 3:1 ("and the Lord whom you seek - kyrios hon hymeis zheteite- will suddenly come to his temple..."). As you recall, Mark opens his gospel with a saying from the first part of the same Malachi verse "Behold I send my messenger before...", which he misidentifies (obviously with intent) as a saying from Isaiah relating to the "lone voice in the wilderness" which follows.

From all of this I concluded that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples was lore that originated not in the Easter events but in reaction to Mark's narrative. Paul would have not known about Jesus "appearances" to Cephas, the Twelve, the five hundred and James, because no such discussion existed in his time. 1 Cor 15:3(4)-11 reflects later apostolic squabbles in the church.

Best,
Jiri

[outhouse]

. The "missing body" mystery does not originate in any hallucinations

Best,
Jiri

That is all I can agree with you.

The rest of your explanation does not match any Christian origin I understand.

[outhouse]

Hello outhouse,

The NT doesn't portray the resurrection of Jesus in a consistent way

.

Been thinking about this, its the gem in your reply.

True starting with Paul, its my opinion one should be asking himself why is there not a standard position here by Pauline communities, who make it very clear their sharp stance on laws.

I think the context is lost, but I'm of the opinion we have a track record here with Jesus teachings being labeled as john being resurrected.

[rakovsky]

The "missing body" mystery originates in Mark's prank on the outsiders who do not know that the author transparently puns Paul's 1 Cor 12:27, ("now you are the body of Christ") juxtaposing 1 Cor 6:9 ("Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own").

Mark sets up the play on words in two ways: first by having the disciples of John steal the body of the Baptist to create the suspicion that the story repeats itself with the dead body of Jesus (ptōma 15:45),

then with the transparent Jesus' reference to his body as "temple" infamously misinterpreted by his accusers, simply switches the meanings in the reference to "the body of Christ" (sōma tou Christou), which obviously is not in the tomb, but in the church of Paul in the mythical Galilee whence the gospel came and where the disciples (or their followers) would find Jesus.

I became convinced that this was the intended meaning of the concluding scene in the tomb after I discovered that the messenger's "you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene" (Ἰesoun zheteite ton Nazarhnon") transparently paraphrases the second part of Malachi 3:1 ("and the Lord whom you seek - kyrios hon hymeis zheteite- will suddenly come to his temple..."). As you recall, Mark opens his gospel with a saying from the first part of the same Malachi verse "Behold I send my messenger before...", which he misidentifies (obviously with intent) as a saying from Isaiah relating to the "lone voice in the wilderness" which follows.

Maybe the burial of John the Baptist, the concept of Christians and the disciples especially being Jesus' body, and the quote from Malachi have something to do with these things, which would be very interesting, but I think you should please explain this and the connections between those ideas simpler and in more length.

[toejam]

My views are close to Ehrman's, though not with the same degree of confidence. I suspect there were some white lies that went on as well as genuinely mistaken visions and false memories. I imagine that after Jesus died, some of the pillars took it upon themselves to figure out a way to keep the community that Jesus had created alive. "Don't worry everyone!! Peter saw Jesus last night!!" (or something like this) was one attempt... Next thing you know, EVERYONE is seeing Jesus. I think some lied about it, and some were susceptible to having visions. I don't think it was some grand conspiracy, just some of the inner leadership telling a white lie in order to stay afloat as a functioning community. By the time you get to the gospels, legend has taken over making it virtually impossible to determine whether the 'empty tomb' tradition has any historical value. I think it's 50/50 as to whether there was an empty tomb. Such a thing might well have created some suseptibility to conclude "resurrection!!". But it could just be made up. I think if there was an empty tomb, a much more reasonable explanation is the body was moved or stolen. But this is now speculation upon speculation upon speculation...

[DCHindley]

My views are close to Ehrman's, though not with the same degree of confidence. I suspect there were some white lies that went on as well as genuinely mistaken visions and false memories. I imagine that after Jesus died, some of the pillars took it upon themselves to figure out a way to keep the community that Jesus had created alive. "Don't worry everyone!! Peter saw Jesus last night!!" (or something like this) was one attempt... Next thing you know, EVERYONE is seeing Jesus. I think some lied about it, and some were susceptible to having visions. I don't think it was some grand conspiracy, just some of the inner leadership telling a white lie in order to stay afloat as a functioning community. By the time you get to the gospels, legend has taken over making it virtually impossible to determine whether the 'empty tomb' tradition has any historical value. I think it's 50/50 as to whether there was an empty tomb. Such a thing might well have created some suseptibility to conclude "resurrection!!". But it could just be made up. I think if there was an empty tomb, a much more reasonable explanation is the body was moved or stolen. But this is now speculation upon speculation upon speculation...

Now I suppose that justifying current beliefs (we believe Jesus was and is a divine redeemer who performed a vicarious atonement for believing mankind), when the outsiders says Jesus was executed as an unauthorized royal claimant, then a fair amount of rationalizations are required to reconcile the two narratives. Rationalizations are not by necessity explanations, though. So, how best to deliver a fictional veneer to this glaring transition in POV about Jesus than to claim it was delivered by visions.

What about Paul's claim to having visions? As everyone knows, my has-to-be-wrong belief that the letters of Paul had a redactional layer added "Christianizing" what the original author had said, leaves the obvious question, what side of the redactional line are the statements in the current letters? Most folks brought up in Western (Christian) society will find the "obvious" answer to be that the Christology is what "Paul" wrote and any Judaizing stuff is what is redactional. Duh!

After I had performed my too-good-to-be-true analysis (bracketed off Christological statements to see if what was left over, or the bracketed materials, were internally consistent within themselves or not, and determine whether any of the two sets of materials can be reconciled one to another), the secret answers turned out to be "Yes, the Judaic statements are clearly part of a flowing narrative" and "No, the Christological statements are fragmented and intrusive." WTF??? How can this even be? It MUST BE WRONG! Duh! <not a dittograph>

So, ignoring the cognitive dissonance and pressing on, it turns out that the original writer (for convenience I'll just call him "Paul" and the redactor "the redactor/editor") believed that he had been chosen from his mothers womb (i.e., was predestined) to bring a message of inclusiveness to gentiles who wanted to participate in the future inheritance promised by God to Abraham's "seed", a secret hinted at by Judean sacred writings but only clearly expressed, through Paul, in these last (his present) times.

He had had his vision(s), in which God (not Jesus) dropped him the key. It was Abraham's faith that God would deliver on the promise - as unlikely as that seemed due to old age - that justified him before God, not Abraham's later act of circumcising himself and his household. This created a technicality that made it possible for gentiles who also looked forward to this same promise - but had hitherto felt it was out of their reach as non-circumcised Judean converts - could participate, on the basis of their faith in its fulfillment alone. However, Paul was wracked by guilt because when he first heard about this movement he raged against it.

Seems "Paul" thought that day (the delivery of the promised land with all its blessings) was near at hand, although it is not clear whether he saw it coming by the hand of a legitimate royal appointment that blossoms into a mighty empire - or by divine intervention, but that vision did not require a divine redeemer performing a vicarious sacrifice, as this sort of thing was added later by the Christian editor.

I think that the redactor/editor took Paul's revelation language (about gentile faith justifying them before God) and created the story of seeing a vision of Jesus who delivered different message, that he had died for the sins of mankind if they would only believe in its effective power. But the "real" Paul never saw any dream about vicarious atonement, although the realization that gentile god-fearers could join in the blessings of the promised land may well have knocked him off his camel.

It is not as "obvious" because most folks have been brainwashed by a lifetime of the same-old same-old thinking, that the Christological statements MUST BE what the letters were all about. MUST BE! MUST BE! I WILL OBEY MY PROGRAMMING AND IGNORE MY BRAIN!!!

DCH