Bart Erhman - Did Jesus really appear to 500 in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

1 Cor 15 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me

Bart has the following criticisms:

These days, among other things, I point 0ut something I hadn’t thought about in most of the years of my existence, that there was almost certainly no Christian group (meaning: a group of people who believed Jesus was raised from the dead) of that size in Paul’s day anywhere in the world!

He knew lots of other Christians who either were Christians before he was or who knew Christians who were Christians before he was. Or who were later Christians who had heard stories that were allegedly told by Christians who were Christians before he was.
My sense is that any of these sources could have been his sources of information, and there is no way to evaluate why one of these sources has a better claim to being the source from any other source.

My point is that this careful construction of the list suggests that it is not simply a chronological listing: it is a careful construction of a list of witnesses. This is not simply a historically-driven list, it is one driven by a literary/apologetic motive

.

So where did Paul get his information from? Maybe Peter. Maybe James. Maybe other Christians. Maybe a combination of them all. I doubt if he “made up” the idea of “500 brothers” at one time out of whole cloth. My sense is that rumors of these sorts of things circulate all the time – as with the appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary in modern times, as she is attested as appearing to 1000 people at once in some times and places. Do I think this is evidence that she really did appear to these people? No, not really. Same with Paul. There were stories about such appearances and he believed them.

I disagree with Barts last conclusion as Paul claims Christ appeared to him directly, however, given the lack of evidence from the other eyewitnesses to Pauls experience there, Bart does have a point to argue…

  1. the other witnesses could not understand or see anything about the event…it was just loud noise and bright light to them
  2. they didn’t write down anything about Pauls experience that we know of
2

Bart is ignoring Jerusalem between the Resurrection and Pentecost; given the number of people exposed to “the Way” in that period it isn’t at all inconceivable that there would have been a group of that size.

After that period, though, he has a decent point.

5 Likes
3

Agreed St Roymond.

Do you think it would be enough evidence to cite the early church writers written witness outside of the bible…writers suvh as polycarp, Jerome, Papius, Ignateus etc?

Whilst we cant cite direct eyewitnesses putside of the bible, we can cite individuals such as these providing us with a direct historical timeline of individuals from the disciples forward and whom wrote about them.

1 Like
4

Ehrman’s criteria are invalid. Prior to appearing to Peter or Thomas or the Twelve or even Paul himself, none of them were “Christian” in the sense of believing Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus’ appearance was what convinced them. Second, Ehrman is only considering how many Christians there were in any particular locality in Paul’s day. Outside of Jerusalem or possibly Antioch, that’s probably true, but it doesn’t take into account that a region like Galilee might have several thousand Christians living there. Perhaps Bart has access to a census that I’m unaware of?

My personal theory goes to Matt. 28:10 & 16-17 – "Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.’ … Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.”

Did some of the eleven doubt, or did some among a larger crowd of disciples doubt? Since this was basically an appointment, I can easily see the apostles spreading the word among Jesus’ disciples in Galilee, and a large contingent of the “brothers and sisters” in Jerusalem making the journey too.

I freely admit I’m reading into the text, but if there was an appearance to 500, some of whom doubted, this seems the only rational possibility. Otherwise, it’s a mystery.

I agree it’s impossible to pinpoint Paul’s source(s), but when he adds that some have “fallen asleep” (died) since then, he strongly implies he knows these people. Yes, he would’ve heard the stories a decade or two later, but the ancients put a great emphasis on eyewitness testimony in writing their histories. (We moderns are more skeptical of eyewitnesses.) It’s why the gospel authors go out of their way to record names of folks, such as Mark naming Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Ehrman at least acknowledges that the list is historically-driven and chronological. And of course it serves an apologetic purpose, like all of Paul’s writings. But is a letter driven by a literary motive? One could make that objection against the gospels, but 1 Corinthians is anything but a literary construction. Paul can have his moments of literary flair, like 1 Cor. 13, but that’s not what’s happening here.

4 Likes
5

I don’t recall any of them mentioning the sizes of congregations, but I really doubt that any local church reached 500 people in Paul’s lifetime. I would bet that Rome had enough, but they met the way Jews did, in synagogue-like groups small enough they were like family (BTW, evidence indicates strongly that for the first two generations there was no “bishop of Rome”, that each of the numerous home-churches had its own bishop, so there was a “college of bishops” heading things, not one person), and I can’t conceive of enough of them getting together in one place.

3 Likes
6

That is an important point to note. There is nothing to indicate that all the 500 were followers of Jesus before they saw the resurrected Jesus.
It is possible, even likely, that the ‘500’ was a rounded number and the actual number may have been somewhat smaller.

Many of the claims of people like Ehrman is based on assumptions that are subjective beliefs. They make strong claims but when the claims are inspected in detail, teared to assumptions, facts and the (subjective) conclusions, the weakness of the claims becomes evident. They may be ‘educated guesses’ but not something that we should swallow without healthy criticism.

5 Likes
7

That’s a possibility I hadn’t considered, but it’s a good one. So that’s two options, though I think Ehrman would discount this second one – though he would be hard pressed to dodge the Jerusalem possibility.

Oh, excellent point! I think Ehrman is using a broader definition of “literary” there, one that includes hyperbole. But Paul’s use of hyperbole as far as I can recall is always about spiritual things and is frequently aimed at himself (“I am the least of the apostles”, “I die daily”), so claiming hyperbole for the 500 witnesses doesn’t fit.

3 Likes
8

Don’t forget Jesus’ home base for three years was Galilee, which reportedly had a population of around three million people according to Josephus. It’s not hard to imagine that region alone having more than a thousand people who regularly heard Jesus speak in local synagogues and considered themselves his disciples in some form or fashion. It was also home to Peter, John and James.

Edit: Duh, Nazareth and Jesus’ family were also in Galilee, and the town is just 4 miles from Sepphoris, which Herod Antipas rebuilt in Jesus’ youth and made the capital of the region. As a craftsman, Joseph probably would’ve been paid labor in the rebuilding efforts, but Jesus is never crediting with visiting the city in the gospels.

2 Likes
9

Yes i agree with this.
Id suggest that Peters role was certainly one of leadership however, given the fact Paul for example seemed to argue with the various churches at times, the church had limited “internet access” ensuring everyone was always on the same page.

Id imagine snail mail in those days relied heavily on shoeing it to the nearest meeting place and that would have been a very slow and cumbersome way of providing access to theological and doctrinal support.

4 Likes
10

Given that at one point during his ministry, Jesus sent out 70 disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons, spread the word about him etc, is it really surprising that many hundreds may have been converted in a short period of time? There would also have been many, many Jews visiting Jerusalem at that time so a crowd of 500 converts is not unlikely. Paul gives a historical whiff to the assertion by saying most of them were still alive but some had died. It’s as if he’s saying most of that group can still be asked about what they witnessed. Just like the apostles.

Given that Ehrman doesnt believe in the resurrection, he just wants to cast doubt on any possible witness or source. No surprise there and many continue to be fooled by him.

1 Like
11

Some researchers have noticed that critical speculations and theories give a nice amount of publicity.

Here in Finland, one researcher (with 1-2 cowriters) has published two popular books that present wild speculations as reliable results of theological and historical research. They give good publicity and sell fairly well. The second book, a fresh one, claims that God was ‘born’ after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 587 BC. The destruction and exile lead to a need to develop monotheism. Scribes developed that idea and wrote texts that transformed the main god of Hebrews as the only God that was a spirit and transcendent.

Such wild speculations have been suggested previously by some scholars but the selling trick is to present the most provocative speculations as the results of reliable historical research - as if these speculations would be the only credible ones. News articles have bought the claims of the writers and report the claims in the books as facts of recent historical research. In reality, the claims are not facts and not even recent theories, as the writers have picked selectively the most provocative speculations presented during the last century.

1 Like
12

I sat and listened to a friend spouting such drivel last night; he says the Anakim have a city under the ice somewhere, that they have flying saucers, that there’s some sort of treaty that keeps them from interfering with humans now, except they have demon slaves they send out anyway. Several times when I pointed out what Peter or Jude wrote, his response was, “That’s a different thing”. It struck me that I’ve heard that same line from others who’ve bought into such wild nonsense.

1 Like
13

There is just one difference between the wild conspiracy theories and the books published by the researchers I mentioned: the books written by scholars are taken as historically or theologically valid, serious research. When the writer is a known academically merited person, outsiders believe what he claims about the matters within his ‘expertise’.

It is not clear to me how much the writer believes in what he claims. If the strategy is to present provocative claims, it may be that the writer has a bit sceptic attitude to the claims himself. On the other hand, within religious studies, there are persons who do not themselves believe in God and are prone to interpret religious texts as purposeful manipulative documents.

One theologian I know talked with the writer about his previous book and they did not reach any agreement, except that they disagree. The previous book was about the ‘hidden modifications’ done to the biblical scriptures. The book claimed that the original teachings of Jesus and his apostles were something else than what we read today from our Bible but the modifications are kept ‘hidden’ from the public so that only the experts of the scriptures know about the modifications. Also in that book, the claims were a selected sample of provocative claims presented during the last 100+ years, from both the OT and NT. Nothing new to those who have studied the history of biblical studies but presented as facts rather than speculative claims and interpreted to the extreme end of all possible alternatives. Many of the claims have been widely judged as not valid, some already decades ago. For those that do not know anything about the history of biblical studies, the claims still pass as interesting recent findings of theological and historical research.

2 Likes
14

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.