Cesc

I having trouble imagining how this morphing would take place.

We can set up two scenarios:
1. There were actual appearances.
This would mean either that people saw someone who looked like Jesus, or that Jesus were never dead.

2. There were never any appearances.
This would mean among other tings that Peter and James and others had been either delusional or lying to Paul.

Toto

Even if you accept Paul's account that he met Peter (or Cephas) and James and John, Paul does not claim that these people told him that they saw the resurrected Jesus - just they they were the pillars of the Jerusalem Church, and he had disputes with them over table fellowship with gentiles and circumcision.

In another unrelated passage, Paul (or someone forging part of his letter) says that Jesus "appeared" to Peter and James, but the word he used is the same word that Paul uses to say that Jesus appeared to Paul himself, so this likely refers to a spiritual appearance, not a resurrection of the body.

You have to go the gospels to get an account of the risen Jesus appearing in bodily form to Peter and other disciples (but not James!). But these gospels accounts are so contradictory that there is no reason to take them as literal history.

There's no need to come up with convoluted explanations for ancient stories that are probably fictional.

There is a school of Protestant Rationalism that Robert M. Price likes to refer to. Protestant Rationalists assume that everything in the gospels actually happened as written, but that there is a naturalistic explanation for the story. This is where you get hypotheses such as the "swoon theory" - that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but only appeared to be dead, and then revived in the tomb and left. Or that he had a twin separated at birth, and people later saw the twin.

These might be interesting mental exercises in imagination, but they ignore the most likely explanation - that the NT contains a hefty dose of theological fiction or allegory.

Cesc

Some good points, Toto. The word in question is the verb οραω in passive, to be seen or to appear to somebody in dative. This construction is indeed usual with spiritual appearances. In Luke 24:34 this construction is used, but the tomb is still empty. A spiritual resurrection can also include that the body resurrects, but in a different state.

Paul says he met Peter (or Cephas) and James, and he says Jesus appeared to them. I don't see any reason to believe that Paul is not telling the truth concerning him meeting them. I also don't see much reason to doubt that Paul is the author of 1 Cor 15. Therefore I think it's reasonable to conclude that Paul has it from somewhere that Peter and James had seen the resurrected, and likely from themselves directly.

Toto

But not in the same passage.

Personal incredulity?

Some reasons to question the authorship of Galatians is the handiest reference - it links to Deterings' Fabricated Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Also

Did Paul Write Galatians?

Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation should give you a few reasons.

But even if Paul wrote that section, it seems to be universally agreed that Paul is just passing on a credal statement. Paul never writes about how Cephas told him about that Easter morning, and he never treats Peter as someone entitled to the respect that would be due someone who saw the risen Jesus.

It might be true, but it is more of a speculative story than it is anything required by the available evidence, even if you treat that evidence with extreme charity (or gullibility.)

aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus so there could not have been any mis-understanding.

Paul claimed he was last to see the Resurrected Jesus.

But again, there is the same problem that has plagued the Pauline writer.

No author of the Canon attested that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus.

The author of Acts claimed or implied Paul did NOT see the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer MUST have or most likely HEARD or read about the Belief of the Resurrection.

The Pauline writer could not be the earliest witness of the Belief of the Resurrection.

Paul was LAST even in the Canon of the Jesus cult.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 KJV The Pauline writer has admitted that he was NOT our earliest witness for the Belief of the Resurrection.

Gorit Maqueda

One scenario seems simple to me: people like good endings. If you tell a story that ends when the hero dies, be it real or fictional, someone (from Hollywood or elsewhere) will change the ending and make a more profitable film... er, story.

Cesc

It doesn't matter if Paul is indeed the author of both passages. If.

Paul's credulity must be carefully assessed at every word of course, since he is obviously a master of rhetoric and manipulation and motivated by passionate faith. In this case I don't see reason to doubt that he have met them.

Of course, if Paul is not even the author of Gal. that changes everything, and then it's a whole different discussion. But I don't subscribe to the radical criticism of Detering, and I feel somewhat convinced that Gal. is a Pauline letter (and that Paul actually existed).

I'm also aware of the reasons to suspect this is an interpolation, but I don't think so myself. Even if he is passing on credal tradition, he still writes that Jesus appeared to Peter. But if you don't believe he wrote Gal. then it changes the whole picture of this passage.
That he doesn't treat Peter that way is interesting, I think. How do you mean?



I don't think it's treating the evidence with extreme charity to take Gal. and 1 Cor 15 as genuine Pauline.

Sheshbazzar

Why the resurrection? If you search the OT you will not find the word 'resurrection' or 'resurrect' in the common English versions.
But it is not as though the concept is missing in those texts, the phrase 'I will raise up' or to 'stand' up, are from the Hebrew root words quwm and amad used in contexts where they signify a raising up or restanding from the dead. (see Isa 49:6, 51:17, 61:5, Hsa 6:2, Job 19:25, Dan 12:1-2, 12:13) and more. (it is a matter of interpretation of the Hebrew)

There is also the matter of the 'intertestamental' apocryphical writings, and those of various Jewish sectarians of the period, most of whom devoutly believed in a coming messiah and the bodily resurrection of the dead.
The messiah by many being perceived as the one that would be the 'Firstfruits (of the harvest) of them that slept', then the long growing season, and finally culmulating in the Great Harvest ingathering at the end of the age, when all men are to be resurrected ('havested')

The NT is just an adaption of the these Scriptural themes and popular messianic tropes and expectations.
And thus quite natural (to some) that the messiah would have to die first, so that he could be that first one to be 'raised up' from the dead, 'the Firstfruits' of the many to come.

'Paul' is a piker, no one 'lied' to him because there was no aunthentic 'Paul'.
'Paul' is nothing more than a late church fabricated talking head.

'Paul', the Book of Acts, and 'Pauline Epistles' are a late 2nd century church fabricated impositions upon the basic Gospel story.


.

Toto

"Paul" is obviously a master of rhetoric and spin doctoring who is a Jew to the Jews and something else to the gentiles - but you don't see a reasons to doubt him? What would it take?

What sort of evidence are you looking for?

Or Cephas? Are they the same?
The credal statement of 1 Cor 15 is obviously meant to elevate Peter - but Paul speaks as if James is the head honcho, Peter has to clean up his act when agents of James come to spy on him, and Paul obviously disapproves of Peter giving up table fellowship with the non-kosher. Is this any way to treat the representative on earth who first saw the risen savior?

What are your criteria for authenticity?

John Kesler

If the disciples were in what we would call an altered state of consciousness--caused by grief, lack of sleep, fasting, or whatever--then the report of an empty tomb could effect "appearances" to some of Jesus' followers. Is this what happened? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I think that delusional is a little harsh. The disciples could have sincerely believed that they saw Jesus--even that they were supposed to "see" him in the way that they did. Again, this is all conjecture, but you asked for possibilities. The problem is that if you are going to concede that there really was an empty tomb, really were Jesus-sightings, etc., why stop there? Why not accept that Jesus really rose from the dead, since the Bible claims this is true also?