Here is a short interview on Paul over ten years ago:
I just heard via Jack Sasson the sad news of Prof. John Howard Schütz’s passing. John was professor Emeritus in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was severely brain damaged in a bicycle accident in 1985, at the prime of his career. He received his MA and PhD at Yale Divinity School and spent a year in Germany in the late 1950s as a Fulbright Scholar. He also spent a sabbatical year at Oxford University at Jesus College in 1972-73. After that, he published his first book, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, which was initially published by Cambridge and subsequently by Westminster John Knox Press. He was in the process of writing a second major scholarly book when he had his accident. John’s scholarly contributions before his accident were many and he was one of the most insightful and brilliant scholars I have ever known. His emphasis on the social world of Paul was one that informed the scholarship of so many of us in the 1970s through the “Social World of Early Christianity” SBL sessions inspired by Wayne Meeks, Abraham Malherbe, and others.
I first knew of John Schütz as a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 1970s through his book Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority that was a very important influence on my own work on Paul, subsequently published as my dissertation, Things Unutterable (University Press of America, 1986). I first met John face-to-face in 1985 after moving to the College of William and Mary as a young visiting Assistant Professor of New Testament. I regularly attended an informal South East regional group we called SCRAM (Study of the Culture and Religion of the Ancient Mediterranean) that would meet at various locations once or twice a year–Chapel Hill, William and Mary, Duke, etc. It was a wonderful group with the likes of Robert Wilken, Tom McCollough, Dale Martin, Tom Finn, Bart Ehrman, David Halperin, Robert Gregg, Elizabeth Clark, and many others sharing recent research and socializing together. When I took the position here at UNC Charlotte I continued to be a committed part of the SCRAM gatherings. The group sadly and gradually faded out and John’s accident was a huge blow to all of us.
Just after I published my latest book Paul and Jesus in 2012 I had an email from John’s daughter, Amy Kelso, who is an attorney with UNC Charlotte. She had read about the book and thought her father might enjoy reading it. I shipped her an inscribed copy and she gave it to him that Christmas. Amy told me at the time that John’s short term memory was gone but remarkably, his long term-memory remained and she thought he would enjoy reading my book in “spurts.” John spent his last years in a retirement community with his wife who remained his sole caregiver these many decades.
I am sad to learn of John’s passing. All who knew him will understand the great respect and affection I had for him as a human being and an amazing scholar.
Legendary stories of gods fathering humans, so common in Greco-Roman culture, may well have contributed to accounts of Jesus’ miraculous birth in Matthew and Luke but I would suggest an alternative. I am convinced that the idea of Jesus’ birth from a virgin–without a human father–implicitly goes back to the apostle Paul.
Christians regularly affirm that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.” This faith is embedded as a cornerstone of all the major Christian creeds and is recited by hundreds of millions each week. Surprisingly, the gospel of Mark has no account of the birth of Jesus. It opens with Jesus as an adult, traveling from Nazareth down to the Jordan River to be baptized by John. Since Mark is our earliest gospel the question arises–what is the origin of the idea of Jesus’ virgin birth? When and where did it originate?
In contrast to Mark both Matthew and Luke give us different versions of the “Christmas story,” but they both agree on the source of Mary’s pregnancy. In Matthew’s account Joseph had a dream shortly after finding out about the pregnancy. In this dream an angel told him that her pregnancy was “by a holy spirit” and that he was to go ahead with the marriage regardless. He was to name her child Jesus. By marrying a pregnant woman who carried a child that was not his, and legally naming that child, he was in effect “adopting” Jesus as his legal son. The phrase “by a holy spirit” implies that the pregnancy came from the agency of God’s spirit but falls short of saying, outright, that God was the father of Jesus in the sense that, say, Zeus was said to be the father of Hercules by his seduction of his mother, Alkmene. In that sense the account is different from those miraculous birth stories so common in Greco-Roman mythology.
Nonetheless, scholars who question the literal truth of Matthew and Luke’s birth stories have suggested that they are a way of affirming the divine nature of Jesus as “Son of God” by giving him an extraordinary supernatural birth. This idea of humans being fathered by gods is quite common in Greco-Roman culture. There was a whole host of heroes who were said to be the product of a union between their mother and a god–Plato, Empedocles, Hercules, Pythagoras, Alexander the Great and even Caesar Augustus. In text after text we find the idea of the divine man (theios aner) whose supernatural birth, ability to perform miracles, and extraordinary death separate him from the ordinary world of mortals. These heroes are not “eternal” gods, like Zeus or Jupiter. They are mortal human beings who have been exalted to a heavenly state of immortal life. In the time of Jesus their temples and shrines filled every city and province of the Roman Empire. It is easy to imagine that early Christians who believed Jesus was every bit as exalted and heavenly as any of the Greek and Roman heroes and gods would appropriate this way of relating the story of his birth. It was a way of affirming that Jesus was both human and divine. Modern interpreters who view the stories in this way usually maintain that Joseph was likely the father and that these supernatural accounts were invented later by Jesus’ followers to honor Jesus and to promote his exalted status in a manner common to that culture.
These legendary stories from Greco-Roman culture may well have contributed to accounts of Jesus’ miraculous birth in Matthew and Luke but I would suggest an alternative. I am convinced that the idea of Jesus’ birth from a virgin–without a human father–implicitly goes back to the apostle Paul. Paul’s letters date several decades before our New Testament gospels and it is Paul’s understanding of Jesus as the pre-existent, divine, Son of God, that lays the conceptual groundwork for our Christmas stories.
Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph. What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being. He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the “riches” of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman …” (Galatians 4:4). The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus’ pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God–eliminating any necessity for a human father. Paul’s entire message centers on a divine not a human Jesus–both before his birth and after his death. For Paul he is the pre-existent Son of God, crucified, but now raised to sit at the right hand of God. Like the Christian creeds that jump from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection in single phrase, entirely skipping over his life, Paul paves the way for a confessional understanding of what it means to be a Christian. As Bultmann once put it, it is the “thatness” of the Gospel which interested Paul–that he was born of a woman, he died, that he rose, that he is coming again–with nothing inbetween.
The Jewish followers of Jesus later known as the Ebionites (see my previous post here) by the Orthodox Church Fathers, rejected Paul, used a version of Matthew in Hebrew that did not contain the account of the virgin birth in our present chapter 2 of the Greek text, and followed James the brother of Jesus in observing the Torah. It is difficult to imagine the virgin birth idea arising within these original Jewish circles whereas the perspectives of Paul lend themselves so easily to such mythology.
An alternative way of thinking about being a Christian is preserved in the gospel of Mark–our earliest narrative account of the career of Jesus. Mark mentions neither Jesus’ birth, nor any resurrection appearances on Easter morning (according to our earliest manuscripts that end with chapter 16:8). When a would-be follower addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher,” Jesus sharply rebukes him with the retort: “Why do you call me good, there is One who is good, God” (Mark 10:17-18). Mark emphasizes the suffering of Jesus on the cross, but only as a call to others to also “take up a cross” and thus give their lives as servants to others. In Mark Jesus defines true religion as loving God and loving ones neighbor, in contrast to all systems of religion. His version of the Jesus story is surely one that should not be forgotten despite the ubiquitous triumph of Paul’s theology.
Some years ago, after reading my book, The Jesus Dynasty, my dear friend and colleague, the late great Jerome Murphy O’Conner asked me the following:
You say that the body of Jesus was removed from its temporary resting place to a permanent tomb. This is not at all impossible. Extreme improbability sets in only when you invite us to assume that this group, who knew perfectly well what had actually happened to the body of Jesus, permitted their co-religionists to proclaim, not that he was still alive (immortality of the soul, well attested in Judaism) but that he was risen from the dead. This, of course, is against the background of what “resurrection” meant for first-century Jews. In order for me to take your “evidence” seriously, you would have to explain why the family and/or disciples based their future lives on what they knew to be a falsehood, namely that the body had been raised, and finally to justify how the secret was preserved in one of the gabbiest societies in ancient history
This article was written in response to his query and in memory of the good and fruitful discussions we had together about these matters at the University of Notre Dame in the 1980s and subsequently over the years at the École Biblique in Jerusalem.
It makes perfect sense to read the New Testament in its current order. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John introduce us to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The book of Acts gives us the early history of Christianity, ending with the career of Paul. The letters of Paul and the other apostles, Peter, John, James, and Jude, come next, and the mysterious book of Revelation provides a climatic finale to the whole. It all makes perfect sense—unless one is a historian.
Historians read the New Testament backwards. Over the last hundred and fifty years they have made a significant discovery. If the New Testament writings were ordered chronologically, according to the dates the various books were written, a wholly different picture emerges, with radical and far-reaching implications. Historians disassemble these various sources in an attempt to understand them in chronological order. They focus on a precise set of questions: Where do we find our oldest and most authentic materials? How and when were they passed along, edited and embellished? Who was involved in this process and what theological motivations were operating? As it turns out, this seemingly destructive process of “disassembly” yields positive and fascinating results.
I want to return to my beginning question—what happened following the death of Jesus? Now that we have Paul as our master key, when we attempt to analyze the four New Testament gospels with their narratives of the empty tomb, an entirely different perspective opens up. Getting Paul right turns out to be fundamental to understanding what really happened, and the central affirmation of Paul’s message and apostleship—that he had “seen” Jesus had been raised from the dead—can be placed in its proper historical light.
In looking at the gospels, chronology turns out to be a remarkably fruitful starting point. There is no absolute guarantee that what is early is more accurate than what came after, but unless we begin the process of disassembly and comparison we have no way of even approaching our questions.
Evangelical Christian scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, believe that the only possible explanation for the empty tomb is that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead and that he emerged from the tomb fully and miraculous restored to health. They maintain that there is no other logical explanation for all the facts as reported and are quite keen uphold Jesus’ resurrection as the solid, demonstrable, bedrock of Christian faith.[i] Their thinking runs something like the following.
The disciples were in great despair over Jesus’ death, having lost all hope that he could be the Messiah. After all, a dead Messiah is a failed Messiah. None of them was expecting Jesus to die, much less rise from the dead, so how were they suddenly transformed from disappointed hopelessness to dynamic faith. Rather than wither away, the Jesus movement began to mushroom gaining strength and numbers as the apostles proclaimed all over Jerusalem that they had seen Jesus alive and his tomb was empty. How can such a dramatic change, three days after Jesus’ death, be explained any other way? Why were the apostles willing to face persecution and even death if they were spreading a story they knew to be false?
There are a limited number of non-supernatural explanations to explain what might have happened. The oldest explanation, that the disciples stole the body to deliberately promote the fraudulent claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead, is mentioned in the gospel of Matthew as a rumor that was spread among the Jewish population (Matthew 28:13-15). A second explanation, that some unknown person with no connection to the disciples, usually said to be a gardener, removed the body, also shows up in some later Jewish texts. The earliest source for this story is Tertullian, a late third century Christian apologist. He writes that some Jews were claiming that a gardener, upset that crowds visiting Jesus tomb were trampling his vegetables, reburied the body elsewhere, never revealing the location.[ii] In more recent times, the so-called “Swoon Theory,” popularized by Hugh Schonfield’s 1965 bestseller, The Passover Plot, suggested that Jesus was not really dead but unconscious, either through a drug, or from the trauma of crucifixion, and that he revived in the tomb.[iii] The most common explanation among biblical scholars is that Mark, our earliest gospel writer invented the entire burial and empty tomb story to bolster faith in the resurrection of Jesus. It is without any historical basis.[iv] I find this highly unlikely since it is hard to imagine the early followers of Jesus relating his death on the cross, but then saying nothing about what happened to his body. It would essentially be a story with no ending. But perhaps more to the point, Paul our earliest source, written decades before the gospels, knows the tradition that Jesus was at least buried. I think Mark does his share of inventive mythmaking—but not regarding the fact of Jesus’ burial, or even that his tomb was found empty on Sunday morning by his followers. That seems to me to be at the minimal core of what we can responsibly say about what happened after the cross.
Geza Vermes, in a recent work titled The Resurrection: History and Myth, surveyed these various alternative explanations and concluded that none of them “stands up to stringent scrutiny” despite our need for some rational, scientific explanation.[v] Like so many others he concludes that historical investigation, given our limited evidence, has reached a dead end given the contradictory and mythological nature of our evidence—namely the texts of the New Testament. But is there a way past this impasse?
Since the earliest surviving Christian texts are seven letters of Paul (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon), dating to the early 50s A.D., twenty years after Jesus’ death, it makes sense to give them priority, particularly in our attempting to solve the mystery of what happened after the cross. Not only are these letters the earliest evidence we have, they come to us firsthand, as first-person testimony from one who had direct dealings with Peter, James, and the other apostles.
If gospels were written a generation or more later, when Paul, Peter, and James were dead, and the Romans had shattered the original Jerusalem church following the destruction of the city in A.D. 70, they should be considered as secondary evidence. It comes as a surprise to many non-spets who are quite familiar with the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to learn all four are anonymous productions, written in the generation after the apostles, and based on a complex mix of sources and theological editing. Scholars are agreed that none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts and the names associated with them are assigned by tradition, not by any explicit claim by their authors. In other words, the names themselves are added as titles to each book but are not embedded in the texts of the works themselves. Each gospels writer had his own motives and purposes in telling the Jesus story in a way that supported his particular perspectives. None of them is writing history but all four can rightly be called theologians. From a distance their differences might seem minimal, but once carefully examined they are quite significant, revealing a process of “myth-making” that went on within decades of Jesus’ death.
Of the four gospels Mark, not Matthew, comes first, written sometime around 80 A.D. or later. Mark gives no account of Jesus’ birth at all, miraculous or otherwise, and most strikingly, in his original version, as we will see, there are no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples! This fact alone provides us with an important key to unraveling the mystery surrounding the empty tomb. The author of Mark preserves for us a stage of history when the Jesus story is being told with an entirely different ending.
Matthew was written at least a decade or more later and the author uses Mark as his main source. He does not start from scratch and he obviously does not have his own independent account to offer. Matthew incorporates 90% of Mark but he edits Mark’s material rather freely, embellishing and expanding the story as fits his purposes. That is why most readers of the New Testament who begin with Matthew, and then come to Mark, have the strange sense that they have already read the story before. They actually have, but in Matthew’s edited version. The result is that Mark is almost always read as a secondary source, as if it is a cut-down version of the more complete story in Matthew. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Matthew’s embellishments are many but most particularly he finds Mark’s beginning and ending wholly unsatisfactory. How could one possibly write a gospel of Jesus Christ with no birth story of Jesus and no appearances of Jesus to the disciples after the resurrection? And yet that is precisely what we have in Mark. What this means is that for several decades, when there were no other gospels but Mark in circulation, Christians were relating the Jesus story without the two elements that later came to be considered foundational for the Christian faith—Jesus’ virgin birth and his Easter morning appearances!
Matthew’s gospel represents a watershed moment in Christian history. He composes the first account of the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus, and he creates a spectacular scene of resurrection:
And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. (Matthew 28:2-4).
Mark has none of this. In his account there is no angel but a young man sitting inside Jesus’ tomb and no miraculous intervention from heaven. Matthew ends his story with a dramatic scene of the resurrected Jesus meeting the apostles on a mountain and giving the so-called “Great Commission,” to preach the Gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20). Luke was written several decades after Matthew, perhaps at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, and the author expands and embellishes the core Mark story even further than Matthew had done. Luke adds multiple appearances of Jesus to various individuals as well as to all the apostles, and like Matthew, he also provides his own version of a birth story.
Even with these later embellishments Luke and Matthew nonetheless provide us with an unexpected surprise, discovered by scholars over 150 years ago. In addition to Mark both writers had access to another source that scholars call Q. It was apparently an early collection of the sayings of Jesus, probably complied around A.D. 50 that Mark did not have. It can be extracted and reconstructed with some degree of certainty, but we don’t have an independent copy of Q itself, only its reconstruction from Matthew and Luke. I mention it here because one of its most important features is that Jesus never speaks of his resurrection from the dead, whereas in Mark, who comes later, Jesus refers several times to being “raised on the third day.” This is one more example of the value of putting our sources in proper chronological order might enable us to reconstruct the ways in which faith in Jesus’ resurrection developed in the first few decades of the movement.
Most scholars place the gospel of John as the latest of the four gospels and certainly the most theologically embellished, though the author does seem in places to rely on earlier materials now lost to us. So far as the empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus, he seems to have nothing early and like Luke, he provides multiple appearances of Jesus to his disciples in both Jerusalem and Galilee, in sharp contrast to Mark, our earliest gospel.
All of this disassembly, sorting, and sifting, might seem at times like historians are just picking and choosing at random whatever suits them to support a preconceived theory, but there is definitely a method to the madness. Historians of any period have a similar challenge in evaluating the reliability of multiple sources. What is required is that one be explicit and clear about ones methods with careful arguments as to why this or that bit of evidence is given whatever weight. In this articleI want to attempt a synthesis of best evidence, incorporating the essential clues that Paul, our earliest source, provides to probing a series of related questions:
Why was Jesus tomb found empty?
What happened to the body of Jesus?
How did his earliest followers understand his resurrection?
A Rushed Burial and an Empty Tomb
Jesus died in the year A.D. 30 in the late afternoon just hours before the Jewish Passover meal was to begin in the evening.[vi] Mark says it was “the day of preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (Mark 15:42). The rush was to remove the bodies of Jesus and the two others crucified that day from their crosses before sundown when these holydays would begin, since both Jewish law and custom forbade the corpses of executed criminals to be left hanging past sunset, much less through a holiday (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Josephus, the contemporary Jewish historian, explicitly mentions this practice, asserting that the Jews “took down those who were condemned and crucified and buried them before the going down of the sun.”[vii]
This rush to bury provides us with our first insight into why Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Mark tells us that Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Sanhedrin, the governing council of the Jews, obtained permission directly from the Roman governor Pontius Pilate to remove Jesus body from the cross and take charge of his burial (Mark 15:42-46). Apparently Joseph had sympathies toward Jesus and his followers since he shows up suddenly in Mark’s story and voluntarily exercises his influence to facilitate Jesus’ burial. Given impending festival that began at sunset there was no time for full and proper Jewish rites of burial that would involve washing the body and anointing it with oil and spices. The women of Jesus’ family, who had followed him from Galilee, had plans to carry out these duties but had to defer them until after the Passover and the Sabbath (Mark 16:1). There is no indication that they were in communication with Joseph of Arimathea at the time he took Jesus’ body or through the Passover holiday. The followers of Jesus had mostly fled in fear and were in hiding (John 20:19). One gets the idea that the women watched from a distance, surely a bit frightened themselves, but wanting to know where the body was taken (Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55). The burial was in the hands of Joseph but they hoped he would allow them, as Jewish custom prescribed, to carry out the traditional rites of burial and mourning.
Mark says that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus in a linen shroud and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb, blocking the entrance with a sealing stone. There are hundreds of these hewn out cave tombs of this type in the Jerusalem area, some of which have been excavated, so what Mark describes is quite familiar to us. They typically have a small squared entrance that can be blocked up with a stone cut to fit. They are of various sizes but are intended for family burials. Mark says nothing about where this tomb was or how or why it was chosen. It is the gospel of John that provides a key missing detail:
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:41-42).
People assume that the tomb into which Joseph of Arimathea placed the body of Jesus belonged to him but here we see that such was not the case.[viii] It was a newly hewn tomb with no one buried inside that just happened to be close by. Jesus’ body was laid inside, but only temporarily. He was not really buried there, since full and formal burial involved the preparation rites and mourning rituals carried out by the family over a seven-day period (Mark 16:1; John 12:10). That is why the women show up early Sunday morning at the tomb, expecting to initiate the burial process with Joseph’s co-operation.
Jesus corpse would have been badly mutilated with bruises, wounds, and dried blood. Preparing it for proper burial would require quite a bit of time and effort. The body could not be left exposed over the holidays and the empty unused tomb with its blocking stone would provide protection from predators. Joseph’s actions were practical temporary emergency measures.
We have to assume, since Joseph had taken responsibility for Jesus’ proper burial, that his intention was to fulfill this obligation as soon possible after the Passover. When the Sabbath was over, on Saturday night, he would have his first opportunity to properly bury the body and presumably returned to the temporary unused tomb to remove Jesus’ body for permanent burial—hence the empty tomb. As a man of means, and a member of the highest Jewish judicial body, the Sanhedrin, this makes perfect sense. Where this tomb might have been we have no way of knowing from our texts, but one would expect, somewhere in the Jerusalem area since he was a local resident. Based on Jewish law, he would not have placed Jesus in his own family tomb, but would have provided a separate tomb for Jesus, whom he apparently revered, that could serve eventually as a burial cave for the Jesus clan who ended up residing permanently in Jerusalem—including his mother, brothers, and sisters.[ix]
What Mark knows is that very early Sunday morning, just as the sun was rising, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome, most likely Jesus’ sister, came to the tomb with the intent of washing the body and anointing it with oil and spices.[x] When they arrived the large blocking stone had already been removed but the tomb was empty, the body was gone. This was precisely what one might expect given the circumstances of Joseph’s intentions and activities. But it was a total surprise to the women. They arrived fully expecting to be involved in the rites of a proper and final burying. That is why they arrive so early, so as not to miss Joseph whom they expected would return at first light Sunday morning—but they arrived twelve hours too late! What they did not consider is that Joseph had not even waited through Saturday night, but had returned to the tomb the instant the Passover Sabbath day was over at sundown.
Mark says that when the women looked into the empty tomb they saw a young man sitting inside, who told them:
Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you. (Mark 16:6-7).
Here the line between history and theology is clearly drawn. That the tomb was empty fits what we know of the circumstances of Jesus’ temporary “burial” by Joseph of Arimathea, but that the women were told that Jesus would meet his disciples in Galilee is clearly a theological embellishment. It is Mark’s attempt to connect the empty tomb with subsequent appearances of Jesus. The link is quite weak since Mark knows of no specifics of any appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples in Galilee or he surely would have related them to round out the ending to his gospel. I think we have to assume that Mark tells us all he knows but what Mark knows he gets from Paul! Mark is obviously following Paul here, since it is Paul who reports that Jesus first appears to Peter and the disciples, and in Mark’s account the young man sitting in the tomb specifies Peter by name (1 Corinthians 15:5).
Mark relates next that the women fled the tomb in fear and amazement and that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). The oldest most authentic copies of Mark end abruptly here, at verse 8, and the additions found in most translations of the Bible, where Jesus appears to various people mentioned in Matthew, Luke, and John, were interpolations added to later manuscripts of Mark by editors who could not imagine a gospel ending without appearances of Jesus.[xi]
Mark also knows an old tradition, not mentioned specifically by Paul, that the first time Peter and the disciples saw Jesus was in Galilee, in the north, not in Jerusalem the week of Passover. This is not a minor difference from Luke and John, as we will see. It is a blatant counter-story.
One might ask, however, why does Mark present the “empty tomb” story as the “missing body” of Jesus if he held the view I have argued that Paul held–of Jesus’ resurrection in a “spirit” body leaving behind the physical body of “dust” like old clothing. The simple answer is that he did not. Clearly Mark, who writes decades after Jesus’ death, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, with Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus long death, is the first to present the empty tomb/missing body resurrection idea. My point here is that he knows of no “sightings.” He is oriented to Galilee, not Jerusalem, with no “proofs” of “touch me, feel me” offered to prove Jesus is walking around eating and drinking on earth for 40 days in his physical male body. Mark says Jesus will be “seen” in Galilee–but he does not recount the event. Some, such as my University of Chicago professor Norman Perrin, were persuaded that Mark in fact had in mind the “Parousia” or “return” of Jesus as Messiah in the clouds of heaven. Either way, based on Matthew, the “Galilee” sighting was first seen as a kind of misty “mountain” apparition in which “some”–even of the 11 disciples–“doubted.” There is no contradiction here. In various Hellenistic stories of the period, when a “divine man” disappears from this life, there is no consistency in the reports–in the body, out of the body, ascent to heaven, and what appear to be “bodily” appearances.
If we put Mark and Paul together we get the earliest and most reliable tradition—faith in Jesus’ resurrection began in Galilee with Peter and the apostles as the first to claim they had seen him.
Matthew and Luke, following Mark as their source, follow closely Mark’s account of the women finding Jesus’ tomb empty, though Matthew adds all sorts of supernatural elements as noted previously. Both flatly contradict Mark’s statement that the women said nothing to anyone, insisting rather that they ran to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:8; Luke 24:9). All seem to agree, however, that the discovery of the empty tomb by the women that Sunday morning did not inspire anyone to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The assumption of everyone was that someone had removed the body. It turns out that that assumption was most likely correct.
The gospel of John offers an alternative empty tomb story that is not based on Mark. It has a credible ring to it and merits careful examination:
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes. (John 20:1-10)
John, of course, gives other stories following his account of the empty tomb in which Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and to the disciples as a group, including Thomas, the famous doubter. But this passage of John, relating how the empty tomb came to be discovered, seems to offer us a less theological version of the story, with details added that historians have found credible.[xii] Note the following:
There is no young man or angelic interpreter in the tomb to proclaim the resurrection. Instead, Mary is quite sure the body has been taken elsewhere for burial: “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:2). One has to ask, who is the “they” Mary Magdalene has in mind? Presumably, based on the hasty stashing of Jesus body in this temporary tomb, it seems obvious that she is referring to Joseph of Arimathea and his assistants. After all, just a few verses earlier it is John who tells us that the tomb used was a temporary one, that just happened to be close to the site of crucifixion (John 19:41). Peter and the other disciple raced to the tomb to verify that it was empty. What they “believe” is not that Jesus has been raised from the dead, as John clarifies, but that the body of Jesus has been removed and reburied—presumably the night before. This fits precisely what we have reconstructed above, based on all our sources, including Paul.
I have become convinced that this core story, embedded in John, found in the the first 10 verses of chapter 20, are likely the first and earliest account of the “empty tomb,” that has now been elaborated by the editors and authors of the Gospel of John to harmonize with the notion of Jesus appearing physically in Jerusalem, wounds and all, that I think develops later, see my post here.
I argued a version of this “reburial” scenario in my book, The Jesus Dynasty,[xiii] and one response in particular, from an esteemed academic colleague, seemed to sum up some possible objections to my thesis quite well:
You say that the body of Jesus was removed from its temporary resting place to a permanent tomb. This is not at all impossible. Extreme improbability sets in only when you invite us to assume that this group, who knew perfectly well what had actually happened to the body of Jesus, permitted their co-religionists to proclaim, not that he was still alive (immortality of the soul, well attested in Judaism) but that he was risen from the dead. This, of course, is against the background of what “resurrection” meant for first-century Jews. In order for me to take your “evidence” seriously, you would have to explain why the family and/or disciples based their future lives on what they knew to be a falsehood, namely that the body had been raised, and finally to justify how the secret was preserved in one of the gabbiest societies in ancient history.[xiv]
In my judgment there are several incorrect assumptions embedded in this objection. According to Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was understood as the re-embodiment of one who has died and entered the Hadean world of the dead as a “naked” soul. Paul regularly refers to the dead as having “fallen asleep” (1 Thessalonians 4:13; 1 Corinthians 15:6). Resurrection, in this sense, involves not the resuscitation of a corpse, but “waking” from death to be re-clothed in a spiritual body. The physical body was “of the dust,” and perishable, but it was of no interest in Paul’s view of resurrection.
The gospels, written decades after Jesus’ death, begin to connect the empty tomb and the disappearance of Jesus’ body to subsequent and immediate appearances of Jesus to his followers, even the same day, in Jerusalem, proving that he had been raised from the dead. But as we will see these are late expansions of earlier tradition. What Mark only implies (“you will see him in Galilee”) is lavishly embellished by Luke, and John, but is now set in Jerusalem, on the Sunday after the crucifixion. Jesus walks around, wounds and all, eating meals and claiming he is still flesh and bones—directly contradicting Paul’s emphatic assertion that Jesus has become a life-giving spirit,”—embodied yes, but not physical or material. It is a mistake to allow these later texts to frame our objections and take priority over earlier materials.
Whether the family and followers of Jesus knew immediately where Jesus had been reburied, or learned of the location later, they were not running around Jerusalem in that first week following Jesus’ death proclaiming he had been raised. In fact, a critical reading of our sources will show that there were no sightings of Jesus in Jerusalem at all, but only in Galilee, other than perhaps the single experience of Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Matthew 28:9-10).[xv] The matter of a first appearance to Mary Magdalene is always possible but she is not included in the list of first witnesses that Paul relates—presumably since appealing to the testimony of a woman was considered less than convincing, as we will see below.
Our best evidence indicates that the followers of Jesus returned home to Galilee in despair and mourning, and even went back to their businesses, and only sometime later, in Galilee, began to have faith that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The body of Jesus, resting in a tomb in Jerusalem, was no threat to this faith.
Sorting Through the Sightings of Jesus
Sometimes clues show up from the most unexpected quarters. In 1886 a fragmentary 8th century A.D. copy of the lost Gospel of Peter was found buried in the grave of a monk in Egypt. Eusebius, a fourth century church historian had mentioned its existence but regarded it with disfavor.[xvi] It is written in the first person, claiming to be by Peter, but scholars generally place it in the late second century A.D. It narrates Jesus’ death and resurrection and scholars have debated without resolution whether it is dependent on our New Testament gospels or represents an independent tradition. It has a highly legendary flavor to it with quite a few fantastic embellishments, so whether it has much historical value is up for debate. At the end of the text the author seems to retell his empty tomb story in a much more straightforward way, for a second time in the text, but this time almost identical to Mark. It is as if he is passing along two versions, one highly fantastic and legendary, and the other more sober and realistic. In this second version Mary Magdalene and the other women arrive at Jesus’ tomb, finding it empty, and as in Mark, they encounter a young man who tells them Jesus is risen and they flee the tomb frightened. The critical final lines of the text, before it breaks off, read:
Now it was the last day of unleavened bread and many went to their homes because the feast was at an end. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and mourned and each one, grieving for what had happened, returned to his own home. But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew took our nets and went to the sea. And there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord . . .[xvii]
This text is mouth-dropping! The Passover festival lasts for eight days and according to this text, rather than running around Jerusalem celebrating various appearances of Jesus, Peter and the rest of the disciples spent that week in Jerusalem weeping and mourning. At the end of the eight day feast they returned home, to Galilee, still grieving for what had happened. Each went to his home and Peter, with his brother Andrew, returned to their fishing business. That we even have such a text, running so counter to the reports of appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem the week following his death, gives it strong credibility. It also fits in with Mark, who knows of no appearances of Jesus, but also relates the tradition the disciples returned to Galilee. It is more than likely that the Gospel of Peter, after this abrupt break, went on to narrate a “sighting” of Jesus by Peter, Andrew, and the others on the Sea of Galilee, after they had returned to their fishing and given up hope.
Strangely, we have a version of this fishing in Galilee story tacked on to the end of the gospel of John—an extra chapter 21, like an appendix, after the original text had clearly ended with chapter 20. It has been edited to read as if Jesus had already been appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem and now just showed up in Galilee. But it is clear that it reflects an entirely independent source, preserving a story very similar to the ending of the Gospel of Peter. Peter had returned to the Sea of Galilee with a few others and he has gone back to fishing. They are out in the boat when they think they see Jesus, distantly on the shore. The way the story is related, even though the author of John has elaborated and embellished it, shows this tradition of a return to Galilee, and a resuming of the fishing business, was a persistent tradition.
Matthew follows Mark with his emphasis on Galilee as the place where the disciples first saw Jesus. What he relates is quite telling:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17)
Presumably Matthew is associating a specific mountain as a place of visionary experience, much like his account in chapter 17 where Jesus appears as a transfigured shining being with Moses and Elijah. Many scholars have suggested that the account of the transfiguration, related also in Mark 9, is a misplaced resurrection story.[xviii] But whether that is the case or not, what we learn here is that Matthew only knows a single story of Jesus appearing to his disciples. It takes place in Galilee—a “misty mountain” visionary experience—and some doubted!
If we put all our “sighting” evidence together, from all our sources, in chronological order, we get an interesting breakdown and one can clearly see the how the stories expand and develop. What follows is a basic summary.
Paul had his revelation of Christ approximately seven years after Jesus’ crucifixion. He claimed that he saw Jesus in a glorious heavenly body. Twice in his letter 1 Corinthians he equates his own experience with those who had seen Jesus earlier, based on traditions he had received: namely, Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, a group of 500 at once, James, and the rest of the apostles:
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he was seen also by me (15:8)
Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (9:1)
He does not say when or where these earlier “sightings” by the others took place but since he mentions “the Twelve,” he might be referring to a time when Judas Iscariot, who was dead, had been replaced, which would mean several weeks had passed since the crucifixion of Jesus.[xix]
Mark has no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus but the young man who meets the women at the tomb tells them explicitly to go tell the disciples they will see him in Galilee.
Matthew relates that the women who first went to the tomb are told by an angel to go tell the disciples they will see Jesus in Galilee. As they run to convey this message they meet Jesus, who repeats the message, even more explicitly, “Tell my brothers to go to Galilee and there they will see me” (Matthew 28:10). Matthew closes his gospel with the scene on a mountain in Galilee, clearly somewhat later, in which the eleven disciples see him, though he mentions some of them doubted that it was Jesus.
Luke writes that later on that first Sunday two men who were walking on a road outside Jerusalem met Jesus and shared a meal with him, at first not recognizing him. Subsequently he says that Peter then saw Jesus but no details are given, only the report. That evening Jesus appears in the room where the eleven disciples are gathered and eats with them, showing them his physical body of flesh and bones and convincing them he is not a ghost or spirit.
John says that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb on Sunday morning. Later that evening he appears to the rest of the disciples, showing them his wounds, but Thomas is not present. Eight days later he appears again, where they are staying, and Thomas is able see and even touch his wounds, convincing him he is not seeing any ghost.
The Appendix to John (chapter 21) relates a separate story, unconnected to the main narrative and taking place in Galilee, where Peter and the other disciples have returned to their fishing but see Jesus on the shore from a distance. They come to land and he is cooking fish on a charcoal fire and they ate together.
The Gospel of Peter ends with the disciples leaving Jerusalem a week after the crucifixion and returning to Galilee. Even though Mary Magadalene and the women have found the tomb empty, the disciples have no faith that Jesus is alive. They are in despair, mourning the death of Jesus, and they return to their fishing business. Unfortunately, the text breaks off at that point.
Two important observations emerge from this breakdown of sources.
- The earlier texts (Mark, Matthew) agree that the disciples only encountered Jesus in Galilee sometime after the empty tomb was discovered. They are actually told to go to Galilee, where they will see him. Since they would not have left Jerusalem until after the eight day Passover festival was over, their experiences would have been several weeks after Jesus’ death. Matthew’s account indicates that whatever encounter they had it was more visionary in nature, and subject to doubt. As a kind of addendum to the Galilee tradition, the Gospel of Peter, as well as the Appendix to John, indicate that Peter and the others returned to their homes in Galilee and that he and his brother Andrew resumed their fishing business.
- The later accounts (Luke and John) put Jesus’ appearances in Jerusalem, immediately, on the same day as the tomb is discovered empty. Jesus appears as a flesh and blood human being, shows his wounds, and eats meals to demonstrate that he is not a ghost or spirit. The strong impression one gets is that the empty tomb is directly tied to Jesus appearing and one is dealing here with the idea of resurrection as the literal resuscitation of a corpse.
These dichotomies are quite striking: where: Galilee or Jerusalem; when: immediately on the day the tomb was discovered or weeks thereafter; and, what: visionary-like experiences or resuscitation of a physical corpse? The internal evidence is decidedly in favor of the Mark/Matthew tradition. To even imagine that the kinds of stories that Luke and John relate, set in Jerusalem, were circulating when Mark wrote his gospel is highly improbable. That Mark could publish the first gospel in Christian history, and include no appearances of Jesus, with the focus on Galilee, not Jerusalem, pushes our evidence decidedly in favor of the Galilee option. It is also hard to imagine a text like the ending of the Gospel of Peter even existing unless it was related to a strong tradition of remembering the despair and sorrow of the disciples following Jesus’ death, as they returned to their vocations in Galilee, giving up hope. It is not an edifying story, but it is a realistic one, and it fits our earlier evidence.
Some have argued that these differences in our gospel accounts are the expected result of reports from a variety of witnesses, but all testifying to the same essential fact—Jesus was raised from the dead. Sometimes the analogy of an automobile accident is suggested. When eyewitnesses report what they saw each reflects a particular perspective, and there are always differences as to details, but the essential facts related to the accident are clear. Such an analogy fails in the case of the gospels. First, there are no eyewitness accounts at all. Second, the reports we have don’t even agree on where the sightings of Jesus took place—Galilee or Jerusalem? What we have are a series of theologically motivated traditions written decades after the event, removed from both place and time, battling out competing stories of what happened after Jesus died. They cannot be harmonized. Luke even has Jesus telling the Eleven apostles that they are not to leave Jerusalem, which closes the door on even the possibility of subsequent appearances of Jesus in Galilee as alluded to in Mark and recorded in Matthew (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:3-4).
Paul is a decisive witness for this reason. He does claim, firsthand, to have seen something, and he equates his “sighting” experiences, with those of Peter, James, and the rest of the apostles, based on his personal acquaintance with them. Given his view of resurrection of the dead, as being re-clothed in a glorious heavenly body, he would have found the emphasis on flesh and bones quite meaningless. When Paul says Jesus was “buried” he is indicating that he knows the tradition of Jesus’ body being put in a tomb (1 Corinthians 15:4). His point is to emphasize that Jesus truly was dead and buried, entering the Hadean realm. What was then “raised on the third day,” just as in the Gabriel Revelation, was not the perishable mortal body but a new spiritual body, no longer “flesh and blood,” having shed the old body like discarded clothing (1 Corinthians 15:42-50; 52-54). Robert Gundry and others have argued that I have misread and misunderstood Paul; here is a link to his critique and my response.
Jesus’ own teaching about resurrection, preserved in the Q source, emphasizes an angelic like transformation in which even the sexual distinctions between male and female are obsolete (Luke 20:34-36). This parallels precisely Paul’s view of resurrection.
So why does this shift from Galilee to Jerusalem come about in Luke and John? And why their insistence on connecting the empty tomb with the literal appearances of Jesus as revived from the dead in the resuscitated corpse that had been buried? I think we can assume that the reasons were largely apologetic. These texts come late in the 1st century and even in the early 2nd century. Sophisticated Greek critics of Christianity such as Lucian, Trypho, and Celsus, were on the horizon.[xx] Their common charge was that Christianity thrived only among the ignorant, simpleminded, and gullible classes of society, who were led astray by the foolish tales of deluded women and hallucinations passed off as “visions.”[xxi] There were also similar, rival tales, of other “divine men” circulating, such as Apollonius of Tyana, a Pythagorean wonder-worker, born about the same time as Jesus in Asia Minor, who traveled throughout the eastern Mediterranean world. According to his followers, Zeus fathered Apollonius, so he, like Jesus was a “Son of God.” According to his biographies or “gospels,” he healed the sick, raised the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.[xxii] Various versions of Apollonius’s death were passed along including one where he was arrested by persecutors, set himself free, and was taken up from the earth into heaven. According to another story he appeared mysteriously to a doubtful follower after his death and convinced him of the doctrine of immortality. A fascinating stone inscription containing the following epigram, has turned up in Asia Minor, not far from Tarsus, where Paul grew up:
This man, named after Apollo and shining forth Tyana,
Extinguished the fault of men.
The tomb in Tyana (received) his body,
But in truth heaven received him
So he might drive out the pains from men[xxiii]
As with Jesus there were debates among his devotees as to whether or not his body remained in a tomb, or whether he was assumed bodily into heaven. The early third century Roman emperor Caracalla built a shrine to Apollonius and his successor, Alexander Severus, is alleged to have had a private shrine in which the images of Abraham, Orpheus, Christ, and Apollonius were given divine honors.[xxiv]
If Jesus’ followers only came to believe in his resurrection after a period of despair, and in Galilee, far removed from the empty tomb in Jerusalem, based on visionary experiences—they were surely open to the charge that the entire phenomenon was mass hallucination. That Matthew, who gives us our first and earliest account of such a group appearance, says it took place on a mountain but that some of the eleven disciples doubted, while others believed, was clearly quite problematic for Luke and for John, writing a generation later (Matthew 28:17).
That is also why Luke alone, of our four gospels, records a scene in which Jesus ascends bodily from the earth, taken away in a cloud from the Mt of Olives, just east of Jerusalem, as the eleven apostles stand gazing into the sky (Acts 1:9-10). To leave him bodily on earth, eating and drinking, in his physical form, simply would not do, since one would presume that like others “raised from the dead” by Jesus he would have eventually died again as he grew older. And John, although he has no ascension scene per se, records that Jesus said that he was “ascending to where he was before” (John 6:62).
[i] Craig A. Evans and N. T. Wright, Jesus the Final Days: What Really Happened? Edited by Troy A. Miller (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009) attempt to argue on historical grounds that the conclusion that Jesus emerged from the tomb bodily is the only rational explanation of our evidence. The debate by William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment, edited by Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), rehearses in a fairly exhaustive manner the standard arguments pro and con.
[ii] Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30. The gospel of John mentions that the tomb of Jesus was in a garden and presupposes an unnamed gardener, most likely giving rise to this apocryphal story (John 19:41; 20:15). In a fanciful 7th century text, pseudonymously attributed to the apostle Bartholomew, the gardener’s name is Philogenes, see J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 669-670. A medieval Jewish text, The Toledot Yeshu elaborates the tale with even further embellishments.
[iii] Hugh J. Schonfield, The Passover Plot (New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1965). Michael Baigent most recently published this theory in new dress; see The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History (New York: Harper, 2006).
[iv] See John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: Harper, 1993), pp. 354-394.
[v] Geza Vermes, The Resurrection: History and Myth, (New York: Doubleday, 2008), pp. 141-148.
[vi] Though Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, seem to put the crucifixion on the afternoon following a Passover meal the night before (Mark 14:12-16; Matthew 26:17-19; Luke 22:7-13), it remains unclear that the “Last Supper” was in fact a Passover meal. John’s chronology is more precise and he notes explicitly that this final meal was “before the Passover” and that the Jewish authorities were rushing to crucify Jesus before sundown on the day of preparation for Passover so as to observe the meal that evening (John 13:1; 18:28; 19:14). See my more detailed discussion, Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, pp. 198-204.
[vii] Josephus, Jewish War 4.317, and the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.4.
[viii] Matthew is the only gospel that says the tomb belonged to Joseph (Matthew 27:60). This is an obvious embellishment to the story as it makes no sense that Joseph would just happened to have a family tomb right near the place where Jesus was crucified. Matthew is interested in showing how Jesus fulfilled prophecies of the Hebrew Bible and there is a text in Isaiah that predicts a messianic figure would be buried “with a rich man,” so he likely added this erroneous detail for that reason (Isaiah 53:9)
[ix] For the possibility that such a Jesus family tomb has been discovered in Jerusalem see The Jesus Dynasty, pp. 22-33 (also the Epilogue in the paperback edition published in 2007, pp. 319-330), as well as Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: The Evidence Behind the Discovery No One Wanted to Find (New York: Harper, 2008).
[x] For reasons to identify the woman called “Mary the mother of James” as Jesus’ mother see my arguments in The Jesus Dynasty, chapter 4, pp. 73-81.
[xi] For a more detailed discussion of these additional endings of Mark see The Jesus Dynasty, pp. 230-231.
[xii] See the discussion in Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973), pp. 120-123.
[xiii] See The Jesus Dynasty, chapter 14, “Dead but Twice Buried,” pp. 223-240.
[xiv] An edited e-mail response from Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, Professor of New Testament, Ecolé Biblique, Jerusalem, quoted with his permission.
[xv] Jane Schaberg and others have argued that this special appearance to Mary Magadelene narrated by John preserves for us an early tradition that Mary Magdalene was the first witness to Jesus’ resurrection, see The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (New York: Continuum, 2002). Matthew says that Jesus met the “women,” including Mary Magdalene, as they were running from the tomb. The longer ending of Mark, though not likely original to Mark, nonetheless echoes the tradition that “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (Matthew 28:9-10; Mark 16:9-12).
[xvi] Eusebius, Church History. 4. 12.
[xvii] Gospel of Peter 14 , translation from J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 157-158.
[xviii] See R.H. Stein, “Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrection Account?” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 79-96
[xix] The tradition that Judas was replaced with Matthias, to fill out the apostolic council to Twelve, as Jesus had established, is put seven weeks after Jesus’ death, when the Eleven would have already returned to Galilee. The official list of the Twelve, over the next decades, was an important foundation of the movement and was seen to have lasting, eschatological significance based on the promise of Jesus (Luke 22:30; Revelation 21:14). Some ancient manuscript copies of 1 Corinthians amend Paul’s reference to the “Twelve” to read “Eleven,” in an attempt to harmonize with Luke (24:9, 33) where Jesus appears the same day to the “eleven,” not the “Twelve,” since Judas was dead (compare Matthew 28:16; longer Mark 16:14)
[xx] See Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).
[xxi] See Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, and Origen, Contra Celsum.
[xxii] The philosopher Philostratus published a Life of Apollonius with the support of the Syrian empress Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus, around A.D. 220, though much like Luke he claims to be relying on eyewitness accounts and earlier sources, see Philostratus Life of Apollonius 1.2, translated by C. P. Jones, edited by G. W. Bowersock (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1970).
[xxiii] C. P. Jones, “An Epigram on Apollonius of Tyana,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 100 (1980): 190-194.
[xxiv] See Augustan History, Alexander 29.2.
I never thought much about it until looking at this lovely painting by Titian but have you ever wondered what Jesus was supposedly wearing in his reported empty tomb/post-resurrection “sightings”? The gospels of Matthew and John relate physical encounters with Jesus just outside the tomb by Mary Magdalene alone, or by her and her companions (Matthew 28:8-10; John 20:11-17) Mark has no appearances (16:8 is the original ending) and Luke reserves the honor of such apostolic witnessing to the men alone. See my post on “The Strange Ending of Mark and Why it Makes all the Difference.”
It might seem like a trivial or silly question but it in fact touches on a very profound issue–namely the difference between Paul’s view of a spiritual body–that he characterizes as “clothed,” being raised in contrast to the rather literal–presumably physical “touch me” body–that Luke and John both emphasize. If we are going to take these accounts literally–at face value–as many urge, we seem to have a naked Jesus. Since the shroud wrapping sJesus’ corpse were left in the tomb according to John (20:6-7), we can only assume that Jesus came out of the tomb naked–and so encountered Mary Magdalene (according to John) or her with her companions (according to Matthew). I say this “tongue in cheek” of course, but it points to a much more substantial issue–namely the nature of the notion of “resurrection” of the dead among Jews and early followers of Jesus at that time.
What is interesting is that Paul uses this very image of clothing for the new spiritual “resurrection” body in 2 Corinthians 5:2-4. For Paul Jesus has shed his physical body like old clothing left behind and his “naked” soul has been “reclothed” with a spiritual body–so that he can refer to him in such a glorified state as a “life-giving Spirit”–in contrast to the “flesh and blood” body “of dust” of our present human existence–that is both physical and corruptible (see 1 Corinthians 15:45-50).
So Paul would answer the question of “what kind of a body did the resurrected Jesus appear?” differently than Matthew, John, and Luke–he would say Jesus was fully re-clothed in a new spiritual body. This touches on a rather complex issue that most of us have trouble sorting out, see my post “Why People Are Confused about the Earliest Christian View of Resurrection of the Dead.” It is easy to forget that it is Paul’s view that predates that of our Gospel writers by at least two or three decades–and is thus more likely representative of the original faith of Jesus’ first followers in Galilee and Judea. Thus the recently discovered Talpiot tomb inscription makes sense as a cry or a declaration of faith that from those ossuary bones God/YHVH will raise up! See the updated post here on its best translation. It is very likely, given the date of this tomb, contemporary with the apostle Paul, that it is our earliest archaeological evidence of faith in a spiritual resurrection of the dead–not merely a resuscitation of a largely intact corpse. Paul, and I would argue Jesus’ first followers in Jerusalem and Galilee, were not interested in raising up bones and flesh, but seeing the “naked” self reclothed with a new spiritual body.
Millions celebrate the birth of Jesus without realizing that it was the Apostle Paul, not Jesus, who was the founder of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew not a Christian. He regularly went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, read from the Torah, observed the Jewish festivals such as Passover and Yom Kippur, and quoted the Shema: “Hear O Israel, The Lord our God is One Lord.” In Jesus’ day the closest holiday to Christmas was the Roman celebration of the Saturnalia.
Read the rest at The Daily Beast here.
Paul never met Jesus. His claims to represent Jesus as the 13th apostle — last, but not least— are based wholly upon his visionary experiences. He has been both loved and loathed, and his letters are regarded by some as the Word of God, and by others as self-delusions.
The Apostle Paul is the single most influential figure in human history, suggests UNC Charlotte Religious Studies Professor James Tabor in his latest book, Paul and Jesus How the Apostle Transformed Christianity. Tabor argues that Paul has done more to shape all we think about almost everything than anyone else. In terms of influence, Paul trumps even the great “founders,” whether Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, or Mohammed.
Guests can hear Tabor’s fascinating and provocative take on the history of Christianity on Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2014, at UNC Charlotte Center City, 320 E. 9th Street in Charlotte. This is the second event in the Personally Speaking authors’ series presented by UNC Charlotte’s College of Liberal Arts & Sciences and J. Murrey Atkins Library.
The conversation with Tabor, a former chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC Charlotte, will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be followed by a reception where he will autograph copies of his book. The event is open to the public without charge, but RSVPs are requested via the online registration form or by calling 704-687-1429. Complimentary parking will be provided in the two lots directly across 9th Street and directly across Brevard Street from UNC Charlotte Center City.
Tabor, who joined UNC Charlotte’s faculty in 1989, is the author of seven books and more than 100 scholarly articles. His book The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (Simon & Schuster, 2006) presented the results of his work on the historical Jesus over the course of his career to a general audience. It has been translated into 25 languages and has become an international bestseller.
Over the past two decades Tabor has combined his work on ancient texts with field work in archaeology. He has worked at a number of sites in Israel and Jordan including Qumran, site of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Wadi el-Yabis in Jordan, Masada, and Sepphoris. In 2000 he teamed up with Dr. Shimon Gibson to excavate a newly discovered cave at Suba, west of Jerusalem, that dates back to the Iron Age but was used for ritual rites in the early Roman period. Tabor and Gibson were also the principals involved in the discovery of a 1st century Jewish burial shroud in a looted tomb at Akeldama. Their latest project is an ongoing excavation on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Teaming up with filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and archaeologist Rami Arav Tabor has also investigated the Talpiot “Jesus Family” tombs, see The Jesus Discovery (Simon & Schuster, 2012). His work has been featured in numerous TV documentaries and news outlets including Nightline and 20/20 and most recently in a feature New Yorker story by Malcom Gladwell.
I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Chicago, on “Paul’s Ascent to Paradise” under Jonathan Z. Smith, Robert M. Grant, and Bernard McGinn. Its focus was the celebrated passage where Paul reports his extraordinary experience, as a “man in Christ” who was taken to the “third heaven,” and then into Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:1-10). I completed the degree in 1982 and published the dissertation as a book, Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts (Brown University Studies in Judaism) in 1986. It is long ago out of print but I plan to make an e-book or PDF edition available soon for free downloading.
Paul is not the only one in antiquity reported to have experienced such a “heavenly journey.” In my latest book, Paul and Jesus I discuss the implications of these claims of Paul to extraordinary revelations and how they created both conflict and controversy in what I call the “battle of the apostles.” What few readers of the New Testament might not realize is that the phenomenon of the “heavenly journey” is a rather common one in Paul’s time, and stretching back several hundreds years before him. What follows here is a rather thorough study and analysis of the various reports we have of figures, both legendary and historical, who are said to have ascended to heaven. As you will see, there are several types of such journeys, each with its own specific meaning, context, and implications. Paul’s report fits into a certain genre which helps us to understand the implications of the claims he is making.
The motif of the journey to heaven is a vitally important phenomenon of ancient Mediterranean religions. There are five figures in the Bible who, according to standard Jewish and Christian interpretation, are reported to have ascended to heaven: Enoch (Gen 5:24); Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1-12); Jesus (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9); Paul (2 Cor 12:2-4); and John (Rev 4:1). There are also four related accounts in which individuals behold the throne, or heavenly court, of Yahweh: Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel (Exod 24:9-11); Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:19-23); Isaiah (Isa 6:1-13); and Ezekiel (Ezk 1, 10). Finally, there is the scene in which an otherwise unidentified “son of man” comes before the throne of God in an apocalyptic vision of Daniel (Dan 7:11-14). This notion, that mortals enter into, or behold, the realm of the immortal God (or gods) undergoes various complicated developments from the Ancient Near Eastern into the Hellenistic period. It is closely related to a number of other topics such as the descent or journey to the underworld of the dead, the heavenly destiny of the immortal soul, the apotheosis or divinization of selected mortals (rulers, philosophers, divine men), and aspects of Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian mysticism. Sorting through this complex conceptual web, and trying to understand these Biblical texts with their contexts and complicated traditional development, has occupied historians of ancient religions for the past 150 years (Bousset 1901; Segal 1980).
The various types of the heavenly journeys we have reports about can be divided into four basic categories, based upon the fundamental purpose or outcome of the ascent as reported in a given text. Generally speaking, the first two categories are more characteristic of the Ancient Near Eastern, or archaic period, which would include most texts of the Hebrew Bible (OT). The latter two categories are more typical of the Hellenistic period, which reflects the perspective of the NT.
1. Ascent as an invasion of heaven.
In the cosmology reflected throughout most of the Hebrew Bible mortal humankind belongs on earth, not in heaven, and at death descends below to the nether world known as Sheol. Ps 115 expresses this succinctly:
The heaven’s are the LORD’S heavens,
but the earth he has given to the
sons of men.
The dead do not praise the LORD,
nor do any that go down into silence.
But we will bless the LORD
from this time forth and for evermore.
Generally speaking, just as there is no coming back from the dead, there is no idea or expectation that humans can go to heaven, a place reserved for God and his angelic attendants. This means that any report of a human being ascending to heaven would be seen as not only extraordinary, but often even as an intrusion or invasion of the divine realm. In an Akkadian text, Adapa, the son of Ea, attempts to ascend to heaven to obtain eternal life but is cast back down to earth (Pritchard 1969:101-3). A somewhat similar story is told of Etana, one of the legendary rulers of the Sumerian dynasty of Kish (Pritchard 1969: 114-18). A direct protest against such an ascent is found in Isa 14:12-20 (compare Ezk 28:11-19). There the prideful King of Babylon, who wants to ascend to heaven and become like God, is cast down to the nether world of worms and maggots (v 11). The ironic language of Prov 30:2-4 (compare Job 26; 38:1-42:6), though not a tale of ascent, emphasizes the contrast between the human and divine realms. A similar idea lies behind Deut 29:29 and 30:11-14. There is no need for one to ascend to heaven to learn the “secret things” which belong to God (compare Sir 3:21-22). Lucian’s tale, Icaromenippus, though from the Roman imperial period, typifies this understanding of ascent to heaven as an invasion of the realm of the gods.
The accounts of Enoch and Elijah are best understood in this context. First and foremost, they are extraordinary. The normal fate, even of great heroes of the Hebrew Bible such as Abraham, Moses, and David, is death or “rest” in Sheol (Gen 25:7-9; Deut 34:6; 1 Kgs 2:10, cf Acts 2:29-34). Furthermore, both texts, particularly the one about Enoch, are ambiguous. Genesis 5:24, from the P source, in lieu of recording Enoch’s death, simply says “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Where he was taken, the text does not say. Though the bulk of later Jewish and Christian tradition understood this text as ascent to heaven (Charlesworth 1983: 1: 3-315; Tabor 1989), this was not universally the case (compare Heb 11:5, 13-16). The author might have had in mind a journey “Beyond,” to some special region on this earth (e.g. “Isles of the Blessed”), as in the cases of Gilgamesh’s Utnapishtim or Menelaus in Homer. Such might also be the case with Elijah. Though he is clearly taken from the earthly scene in a chariot of fire that rises to heaven like a whirlwind, the author might well have had in mind his removal or “retirement” to some remote area. If so, “heaven” in this text is equivalent to “sky,” and the author does not intend to imply that Elijah joined Yahweh as an immortal in the heavenly court. This appears to be the understanding of the Chronicler who reports that much later, Jehoram, king of Judah, receives a letter written by Elijah (2 Chr 21:12-15).
2. Ascent to receive revelation.
This type of ascent involves a “round trip” from earth to heaven and back again, or some visionary experience of the heavenly court from which one returns to normal experience (ascent/descent). In contrast to the previous type, the journey or experience is appraised most positively. The earth, not heaven, is still understood as the proper human place, so that the ascent remains a “visit,” though not an intrusion, into the divine realm.
The complex literary traditions surrounding the ascent of Moses on Mount Sinai, now found in Exodus 24, though not explicitly referring to a journey to heaven, are closely related to this category. Moses (or alternatively Moses, Aaron and the seventy elders), in ascending the mountain, enter the presence of God, the realm of the divine. He is given revelation in the form of heavenly tablets, then descends back to the mortal realm. Though he is not explicitly deified or enthroned, he becomes a semi-divine figure, eating and drinking in the divine presence and returning from the mountain with his face transformed like an immortal (Exod 24:11; 34:29-30). In later interpretation this was understood as full deification (see Philo, De vita Mosis 2.290-91; De virt. 73-75; Ezekiel the Tragedian 668-82). The prophetic call of Isaiah is a further example of this same pattern (Isa 6:1-3). Since there is no specific reference to Isaiah being “taken up,” this is a “visionary ascent,” though the distinction between the two types is not always clear (see 2 Cor 12:2-4). He sees “The LORD sitting on a throne, high and lifted up . . . .” (v 1). He is then given a message with a corresponding prophetic commission. As a mortal, he is out of place in the divine realm; he cries out “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips . . . for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” (v 5). The throne visions of Ezekiel (Ezk 1, 10) should be compared here, as well as the scene before the throne of the “Ancient of Days” in Daniel 7:14 where a “son of man” is given cosmic rulership over all nations. Micaiah’s vision of the heavenly court also belongs under this category (1 Kgs 22:19-23). In all of these texts the ascent or vision of the heavenly throne serves as a way of claiming the highest and most direct heavenly authority for the message. Such experiences are clearly evaluated as more noteworthy than the epiphany of an angelic messenger or receipt of a prophetic “word of the LORD.” Widengren (1950) has traced this motif of royal or prophetic enthronement (ascent, initiation into heavenly secrets, receipt of a divine commission) into later Jewish traditions involving kingship, prophetic commissions and the revelation of secret heavenly lore. This understanding of ascent dominates one of the oldest sections of 1 Enoch, the Book of the Watchers (chaps. 1-36). The legendary figure Enoch is taken through the heavenly realms and shown cosmic secrets, even appearing before God’s lofty throne. The Greek version of the Testament of Levi (2nd century B.C.E.) draws upon the ascent motif in a similar way, as does the Latin Life of Adam and Eve (1st century C.E.) and the Apocalypse of Abraham. In each of these texts the ascent to heaven functions as a vehicle of revelation, offering divine authority to the cosmological and eschatological lore the authors were expounding.
The closest non-Jewish, or Greek, parallel to this notion of ascent is probably Parmenides’ prooemium, which survives in only a few fragments (Taran 1965). He tells of being taken in a chariot through the gate leading to daylight, where he is received and addressed by a goddess. On the whole, for Greeks in the archaic period, revelations came through epiphanies, oracles, dreams, omens, and signs of various sorts, not by being taken before the throne of Zeus. The fair number of Jewish (and Jewish-Christian) texts which make use of ascent to heaven as a means of legitimating rival claims of revelation and authority is likely due to the polemics and party politics that characterized the Second Temple period. It became a characteristic way, in the Hellenistic period, of claiming “archaic” authority of the highest order, equal to a Enoch or Moses, for ones vision of things.
3. Ascent to immortal heavenly life.
This type of ascent to heaven is final or “one way:” a mortal obtains immortality, or release from mortal conditions, thorough a permanent ascent to the heavenly realms. Broadly, there are two overlapping ideas involved here, both of which have been extensively investigated. First, that a hero, ruler, or extraordinary individual has obtained immortal heavenly existence (Farnell 1921; Guthrie 1950; Bieler 1935-36; M. Smith 1971; Gallagher 1982). Second, the more general idea that the souls of humankind, bound by mortal conditions, can obtain release to immortal heavenly life (Rhode 1925; Bousset 1901; Burkert 1985). The second is not merely a later democratization of the first, rather, the two exist side by side throughout the Hellenistic period. While they are distinct from one another, both are related to a fundamental shift in the perception of the proper human place. Increasingly in this period one encounters the notion that humans actually belong in heaven, with life on earth seen as either a “fall” or temporary subjection to mortal powers (Nilsson 1969: 96-185; J. Z. Smith 1975).
The only candidates for such immortalization in the Hebrew Bible are Enoch and Elijah, though, as noted above, both texts are ambiguous. As early as the Maccabean period (2nd century B.C.E.) Daniel speaks of the righteous dead being resurrected and “shining like the stars forever and ever,” having obtained immortality (12:3). A similar notion is found in the Wisdom of Solomon, where the “souls of the righteous” are promised immortal life (3:1-9). Gradually, in Jewish and Christian texts of the Hellenistic period, the older idea of the dead reposing in Sheol forever is replaced with either a notion of the resurrection of the dead or the immortality of the soul or some combination of the two (Nickelsburg 1972). Both ideas involve the notion of a final ascent to heaven.
The NT reflects this Hellenistic perspective in which mortals can obtain heavenly immortality. Matthew 13:43, reflecting the language and influence of Daniel, asserts that “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Eternal life is promised to the righteous throughout the NT corpus (Mark 9:42-48; Q [Matt 10:32-33=Luke 12:8]; Matt 25:46; Acts 13:48; John 3:16; 14:1-3; Rom 6:23; Col 3:1-4; 1 Tim 1:16; Heb 12:22-23; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 1:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 5:11; Jude 21; Rev 20). In most cases this involves ascent to heaven and life before the throne of God (1 Thess 4:13-18; Rev 7:9-17). According to the NT, the righteous of the OT, such as Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, are included in this promised resurrection to immortal heavenly life (Heb 11). In the NT the ascent of Jesus to heaven is the paradigm for all those righteous mortals who follow. Just as he was raised from the dead, made immortal, and ascended to the Father, so will followers experience the same at his return (John 14: 1-3; 1 Cor 15: 20-28; Rom 8:29-30). The state of the the righteous souls who have died prior to the time of the end and the resurrection and ascent to heaven is not always clear. Paul seems to prefer the metaphor of “sleep,” which parallels the Hebrew Bible notion of Sheol (1 Thess 4:13; 5:10; 1 Cor 15:18-20). But in two places he might imply that these “souls” or “spirits” depart immediately at death and ascend to the presence of Christ in heaven (Phil 1: 21-24; 2 Cor 5:1-10). In Revelation the “souls of the martyrs” are pictured as under the altar, presumably in heaven, longing for their time of vindication (6:9-11). In distinction to both of these views, the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, unique to Luke, pictures the Hadean world of the dead, which is below not above, as a place in which rewards and punishments are already being experienced prior to the final resurrection and judgment (Luke 16:19-31). This latter text is more in concert with other Jewish materials of the period which see the “dead” as conscious, but in the Hadean world below, awaiting the resurrection and last judgment (cf. Rev 20:11-15). There is no uniform NT view of this subject of the “state of the dead.”
Surprisingly, an actual narrative account of the ascent of Jesus to heaven occurs only in Luke (24:51, but see textual variants; Acts 1:9). It is assumed in Matthew and Mark and spoken of in John (20:17) and Paul (Rom 8:34). A similar resurrection from the dead followed by bodily ascension to heaven is prophesied for the “two witnesses” in the book of Revelation (11:7-12). They are God’s final prophets before the return of Christ and the last judgment. The contrast between the NT and the Hebrew Bible regarding this expectation of ascent to heaven could not be more striking. Other than the doubtful examples of Enoch and Elijah, it is not until the book of Daniel, which is perhaps the latest text in the canon of the Hebrew Bible, that one finds any reference to mortals ascending to heavenly life (some would include Isa 26:19; Job 14:14-16 is a longing, not an affirmation). The NT is fully a part of the process of Hellenization in which notions of resurrection from the dead, immortality of the soul, and ascent to heaven were the norm rather than the exception.
4. Ascent as a foretaste of the heavenly world.
This type of ascent involves a journey or “visit” to heaven which functions as a foretaste or anticipation of a final or permanent ascent to heavenly life. Though related to the second category, ascent to receive revelation, it is fundamentally different. For example, when Isaiah is taken before God’s throne, though he receives a commission and experiences the glories of the heavenly world, there is no idea that he will return to that realm. He remains a mortal who dies and descends to Sheol with all the other dead.
The earliest example of this notion of ascent is in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), probably dating from the 1st century B.C.E. In chapter 39 Enoch relates how he was taken to heaven. The experience transforms him (39:14) and he is told that he will later ascend to heaven permanently and receive glory and immortal heavenly life (chaps. 70-71). 2 (Slavonic) Enoch also reflects a similar pattern. Enoch’s journey through the seven heavens, which lasts 60 days (chaps. 1-20), is followed by a return to earth. The experience transforms him and functions in anticipation of his final translation to heaven. Christians later took up and elaborated this understanding of ascent from such Jewish models, as seen in texts such as the Ascension of Isaiah. In the NT we have the striking firsthand account of Paul’s own experience of ascent to Paradise (2 Cor 12:2-4). This text provides evidence for the actual “practice” of ascent to heaven in Jewish-Christian circles during this period, in contrast to a purely literary motif adopted to lend heavenly authority to a text. Obviously, Paul’s experience functions as a highly privileged foretaste of the heavenly glorification which he expected at the return of Christ (Tabor 1986).
There are definite links between the language and ideas of these Jewish texts from Second Temples times, the testimony of Paul, and the Tannaitic and Amoraic Merkabah (and later Hekhalot) traditions (Scholem 1960; Gruenwald 1980; Halperin 1980).
There are also examples of this type of ascent to heaven in non-Jewish/Christian materials. Perhaps the clearest is Cicero’s report of the “Dream of Scipio Africanus” in his Republic (6. 9-26). The text was highly influential and functions as a kind of universal declaration of the gospel of astral immortality (Luck 1956). Scipio travels to the heavenly world above and returns with a revelation that all humans are immortal souls, trapped in mortal bodies, but potentially destined for heavenly life above. The gnostic text Poimandres, found in the Corpus Hermeticum also fits this category of ascent. There is also an important text in the Greek Magical Papyri, mistakenly called the “Mithras Liturgy,” (PGM 4. 624-750). It provides the initiate who desires to ascend to heaven with an actual guide for making the journey with all its dangers and potentials. There are Jewish texts such as Hekhalot Rabbati which have strong parallels with such magical materials, showing that we are dealing here with an international phenomenon of late antiquity (M. Smith 1963). It is also likely that the rites of initiation into certain of the so-called “mystery religions,” such as that of Isis, involved such proleptic experiences of ascent to heaven (see Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11 and discussion of Tabor 1986: 89-92).
It is noteworthy that Paul’s testimony in 2 Cor 12:2-4 remains our only firsthand autobiographical account of such an experience from the Second Temple period.
• Betz, H. D., ed.
1986 The Greek Magical Papyri. Vol. 1: Texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bieler, Ludwig.
1935-36 THEIOS ANER: Das Bild des “Gottlichen Menschen” in Spatantike und Fruhchristentum. 2 Vols. Vienna: Oskar Hofels.
• Bousset, Wilhelm.
1901 Die Himmelsreise der Seele. ARW 4: 136-69.
• Burkert, Walter.
1985 Greek Religion. Trans. John Raffan from German, 1977. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Charlesworth, James H. ed.
1983 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. Garden City: Doubleday & Company.
• Dieterich, Albrecht.
1923 Eine Mithrasliturgie. 3rd ed, ed. Otto Weinreich. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
• Farnell, Lewis R.
1921 Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Gallagher, Eugene V.
1982 Divine Man or Magician?: Celsus and Origin on Jesus. SBL Dissertation Series, no. 64. Missoula: Scholars Press.
• Gruenwald, Ithamar.
1980 Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, vol. 14. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
• Guthrie, W. C. K.
1950 The Greeks and Their Gods. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Halperin, David J.
1980. The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature. American Oriental Series, vol. 62. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
• Nickelsburg, George W. E., Jr.
1972 Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Harvard Theological Studies, vol. 26. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Nilsson, Martin.
1969 Greek Piety. Trans. J. J. Rose. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Pritchard, James B., ed.
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Reitzenstein, Richard.
1978 Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance. Trans. John E. Steely from German, 1925. Pittsburg Theological Monograph Series, no. 15. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press.
• Rohde, Erwin.
1925 Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality Among the Greeks. Trans. W. B. Hillis from German, 1892. 8th. ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Co.
• Scholem, Gershom.
1960 Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and the Talmudic Tradition. 2nd. ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
• Segal, Alan F.
1980 Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment. Vol. 23, pp. 1333-94 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen
Welt, Principat II, ed. Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Smith, J. Z.
1975 “Hellenistic Religions.” Pp. 749-51 in vol. 8 of The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia. 15th ed. Chicago.
• Smith, Morton.
1963 “Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati.” Pp. 142-160 in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1971 Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretologies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus. JBL 90: 174-99.
• Tabor, James D.
1986 Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
1989 “Returning to the Divinity: Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.” JBL 108: 224-36.
• Taran, Leonard, ed.
1965 Parmenides: A Text with Translation, Commentary, and a Critical Essay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Widengren, Geo.
1950 The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, no. 7. Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska.
For untold millions of Christians asking the “Lord” for guidance, help, and even salvation is a complex and confusing business. Evangelicals often pray the “sinner’s prayer” asking Jesus directly to come into their “hearts” (Revelation 3:20; Romans 10:13). Or alternatively, they might call upon God to save them “in the name of Jesus.” I remember growing up in an evangelical Christian tradition and hearing prayers that began: Heavenly Father, we thank you for this or that…for sending your son Jesus Christ into the world…and we are grateful that you shed your precious blood for our sins…”
The switch from talking “to” God “about” Jesus and praying “to God” as if he were Jesus, or talking “to Jesus” as if he were God was often seamless–in a single prayer. I remember being surprised my first semester teaching my historical Jesus course at Notre Dame when some of my Roman Catholic students would refer to Jesus as God without blinking an eye–as in “Dr. Tabor, what about that time God walked on the water and calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee?” It took me and any non-Catholics in the class a second or two to realize they were referring to the gospels narratives about Jesus. But had they used the term “the Lord” there would be no problem–since the word “Lord” in English can easily mean God, Jesus Christ, or both–and is commonly so used in our culture. I remember the popular evangelical song from the 1960s–“I know the Lord will find a way for me…” It really did not matter if one was referring to God or Jesus–and dozens of Christian hymns, both formal and informal, have the same ambiguity. ((Love Divine All Loves Excelling
… Jesus, Thou art all compassion; Pure, unbounded love Thou art.
Visit us with Thy salvation; Enter every trembling heart.
Jesus the Very Thought of Thee
Jesus, the very thought of Thee with sweetness fills my breast;
But sweeter far Thy face to see, And in Thy presence rest.
Jesus, Lover of My Soul
. . . let me to thy bosom fly
. . . Hide me, O my Savior, hide
. . . Oh, receive my soul at last!
More Love to Thee
. . . O Christ, more love to Thee!
Hear Thou the prayer I make on bended knee
This is my earnest plea: More love, O Christ, to Thee.
Close to Thee
Thou, my everlasting portion, More than friend or life to me,
All along my pilgrim journey, Savior, let me walk with Thee.
Close to Thee. . .
My Jesus, I Love Thee
. . . I know Thou art mine.
For Thee all the follies of sin I resign.
My gracious Redeemer, my Savior art Thou.
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ‘tis now.
My Faith Looks Up to Thee
. . . Thou Lamb of Calvary, Savior divine!
Now hear me while I pray; Take all my guilt away.
Oh, let me from this day Be wholly Thine! ))
Part of the confusion is that the God of the Hebrew Bible, who mostly goes by the name Yahweh/Yehovah, is referred to as “the LORD” (the ALL CAPS indicate the name–but are missed by most readers) in most popular English translations of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament–Catholic, Protestant, and even Jewish ((There are a few mainstream exceptions, including the American Standard Version (that used Jehovah) and the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible (that uses Yahweh). )) This translation practice is an ancient one–and is even found in some copies of the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, where יהוה/YHVH is rendered as ΚΥΡΙΟΣ/Lord. ((A few such Greek manuscripts in fact write the name in Hebrew characters: יהוה –which were then confused for the Greek letters: ΠΙΠΙ–leading some who were unlearned to conclude that the name of the Hebrew God was PIPI.))
The problem comes with the New Testament in which Jesus is also commonly referred to as “the Lord.” Often only the context is all we have to go on to sort out whether one is referring to “God” or “Jesus”–and many would say since Jesus is God–why would it matter? But for others, the distinction between God the Father and Jesus the “Son of God” is an important one. I will never forget my 90 year old mother–who was raised in a solid Trinitarian evangelical tradition–saying to me, “Well I surely don’t think Jesus is God! God is God, and Jesus is the Son of God–he was Divine but he was not God. Jesus prayed to God just as we all do. He did not pray to himself!”–thus settling the issue in her mind.
So far as the Jesus movement goes our earliest evidence for this practice of conflating the name of God–i.e., Yahweh, with that of Jesus–that is, calling them both “Lord” in an interchangeable way, goes back to Paul. Even though Paul clearly distinguished between the “One God, the Father” and the “One Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6), when he used the word “Lord” things are not always so clear–especially when he quotes the Hebrew Bible in passages that refer to Yahweh/Yehovah.
Paul writes to the Jesus followers at Rome that if they confess “Jesus as Lord” and believe that God has raised him from the dead–they will be saved. He asserts that for Jew or Greek “the same Lord is Lord of all,”–clearly referring to Jesus–and ends with a quotation from Joel: “For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:9-13; Joel 2:32). The problem is, in the passage in Joel, the Hebrew text clearly says: “Whoever calls upon the name of Yahweh will be saved,”–but Paul clearly has no problem in identifying “Lord” here with Jesus. In fact Paul regularly quotes passages from the Hebrew Bible that clearly refer to Yahweh/Yehovah and applies them directly to Jesus as the “Lord.” Just one chapter earlier, in Roman 9:33, Paul conflates quotations from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 that clearly refer to Yahweh and applies them to Jesus as the rejected “stone” or “rock” of offense to those Jews who did not accept him as Messiah and Lord. In Philippians 2:10-11 Paul equates confessing Jesus as Lord and the entire human race “bowing the knee” to him–whereas Isaiah 45:22-23 proclaims such devotion is reserved for Yahweh alone. Here the work of David Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, J. C. B. Mohr, 1992 is absolutely groundbreaking.
But Paul goes much further than this. Not only does he urge his followers to “call upon the Lord,” (i.e. Jesus), he claims that he has two-way conversations with Jesus and received “words” of revelation directly from Jesus. The following are a few passages from his earliest letters–which most scholars consider to be “authentic” Paul:
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. (1 Corinthians 1:2)
So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Corinthians 12:7-9) ((This phenomenon of two-way conversations with Jesus as “Lord” become somewhat common in later materials, e.g. Paul at his conversion according to Acts (9:4-6), Ananias (Acts 9:10-16); Peter (Acts 10:14). ))
For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord . . . (1 Thessalonians 4:14)
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. . . (1 Corinthians 11:23)
For I did not receive it [his Gospel message] from man, nor was a taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:12)
If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:37-38)
I discuss Paul’s sense of his own authority and special calling more fully in my book, Paul and Jesus. My own view is that he considered both his calling as an apostle and his revelations to be so “beyond the ordinary,” surpassing any of the original apostles, that he would not have expected any follower of Christ to carry on this high level of intimacy directly with “the Lord Jesus.”
It is true that New Testament texts outside of Paul’s letters also witness to the practice of “praying to Jesus” just as Jews would pray to God alone. Jesus himself, in the gospel of John, invites his disciples to ask him for whatever they need (John 14:13). Stephen at the moment of his death cried out, “Lord Jesus receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). In the book of Revelation Jesus speaks directly to the churches and is worshiped as “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:13), designations that in the Hebrew Bible belong to Yahweh alone (see Isaiah 44:6). What one must recognize is that these writings come several decades after Paul. There is no doubt that it was Paul’s equating Jesus with Yahweh as “Lord,” as well as his claims to have such intimate two-way communications with Jesus, that paved the way for Christians subsequently to develop their own versions of this kind of “Christ devotion” that blurred any distinction between “God and his anointed one” as the pre-Pauline Jewish followers of Jesus (James, Peter, John, Mary Magdalene, et al.) understood things.
Later Christian devotion to Jesus pales into insignificance anything found in the New Testament. Augustine’s prayer pretty much sums it up for the ages in terms of Christian devotion and prayers to Jesus–and makes clear why Jews and others of the Hebrew faith could not bow the knee to any human being–whether Moses, one of the Prophets, or even the Messiah:
You are Christ, my Holy Father, my Tender God, my Great King, my Good Shepherd, my Only Master, my Best Helper, my Most Beautiful and my Beloved, my Living Bread . . . my Entire Protection, my Good Portion, my Everlasting Salvation.
Christ Jesus, Sweet Lord, why have I ever loved, why in my whole life have I ever desired anything except You, Jesus my God? Where was I when I was not in spirit with You? Now, from this time forth, do you, all my desires, grow hot, and flow out upon the Lord Jesus. . .
O, Sweet Jesus, may every good feeling that is fitted for Your praise, love You, delight in You, adore You! God of my heart, and my Portion, Christ Jesus, may my heart faint away in spirit, and may You be my Life within me! May the live coal of Your Love grow hot within my spirit and break forth into a perfect fire; may it burn incessantly on the altar of my heart; may it glow in my innermost being; may it blaze in hidden recesses of my soul; and in the days of my consummation may I be found consummated with You!
Michael Servetus (aka Miguel Serveto) is surely one of the most remarkable men of history, though he is largely unknown in general circles. He was born in Spain in 1511 and died in 1553, at age 42, burnt at the stake as a heretic by John Calvin’s Geneva Council. He was a brilliant scientist and his field was primarily medicine, but it was his theological views that led to his universal condemnation by both Catholics and Protestants. Servetus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and although he maintained belief in the virgin birth, he denied that Jesus was God. He was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and in his primary work, De trinitatis erroribus (“On the Errors of the Trinity”), he ably argued that the Bible itself, in neither Old Testament nor New Testament, supported the subsequent Trinitarian notion of Jesus as God.
Servetus has even penetrated the Evangelical Christian world a bit after 500 years. Pro-Golfer and Evangelical writer Kermit Zarley, under the pen name of “Servetus the Evangelical,” published a book titled The Restitution of Jesus Christ. You can visit his website at servetustheevangelist.com. Zarley’s work is impressive, all 600 pages. It is thoroughly researched and documented, and fully in touch with the massive amount of scholarly discussion currently available on the “Christology of the New Testament.”
In fact there is a growing “biblical unitarian” or “One God” movement that is making significant inroads within a variety of evangelical Christian circles. See the following links for a few examples: