Elaine Pagels interview

[Guest]

Hi emmet,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.

The pressing question before the disciples, in the wake of the crucifixion, would have been: what is the meaning of the Jesus movement, now that this catastrophe has transpired? One must acknowledge that the psychological crisis posed by this question prefaced the disciples' experience and interpretation of everything that followed.

I'm sure, that in the three days Jesus remained in the tomb, there were plenty of un-answered question. The disciples probably felt as if the movement was over, and they would have to re-assume their life as usual. But then of course there was the resurrection (which you seem unwilling to discuss) and Jesus answered there pressing questions about the Jesus movement, and the meaning of His life, death, and resurrection.

Specifically I would like to know what you think actually transpired after the death of Christ.

What is more, the remarkable variation in post-crucifixion narratives in the canonical gospels suggests that in this department we have entered a more nebulous body of tradition - which in turn suggests that there is a more tenuous link in this department to actual historicity. As such, the factors of experience and interpretation are the more easily recognized as essential to considering what actually transpired.

Regardless of which variations you are referring to, all of the Gospels and the book of Acts say that Jesus was resurrected physically and appeared to all His disciples. There was obviously something different about Jesus after the resurrection, but He was physically present and Thomas felt the holes in his hands and side. This seems to be more than a response to grief and stress. But perhaps you have more convincing evidence than assumptions of stress and grief over the loss of a loved one, which would indicate that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead and converse with His disciples and many others.

After three days, some of Jesus' disciples thought he was alive, in some fashion. Some encounters with Jesus had been reported, in somewhat varying terms. But why was the notion that Jesus was alive taken seriously, and why was it considered to have certain meanings? These questions should not be considered without taking into account the psychological pressures upon the disciples. Willingness to believe, propensity to perceive, inclination toward particular interpretations of the experience of their own selves and others - all of these are intimately related to the psychological state of the disciples.

Why was this claim taken seriously? Because the writers of the Gospels(with the exception of Luke) had encounters with Jesus after his resurrection.

I think you don’t want to take these questions into consideration, because you don't have any good answers that would combat the historical record.

In any case, the transmigration of one hope or purpose to another is a natural development for persons who are wrestling with personal loss. We may acknowledge that the diminishing of one hope may have had something to do with the ascendancy of the other.

A more logical answer would seem to be, that the Disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God is. Jesus did not come to destroy the political enemies of Israel, but rather He came to defeat death itself, and to free mankind from the bondage of sin.

Certainly the disciples' doubts were assuaged by the prospect of Jesus' resurrection.

Not the prospect of the resurrection, but the reality of it.

E.g., market share in their personal businesses, financial means (whether through donation or through lost income or through neglect of capital management).

Yes because as we know that the disciples were loved and became very wealth individuals as a result of following Jesus during His 3 1/2-year ministry on earth. And losing this wealth and power was there # 1 concern. Hardly! This however was the motivation of those that killed Jesus and persecuted His followers.

the resurrection cannot be engaged without considering how the disciples were impacted by the death of Jesus. When it comes to the resurrection and the further aftermath of the crucifixion, the disciples' perception and participation most likely interfaced with psychological crises, posed by personal losses of the kind I have enumerated.

Says who? Why not look at all the claims of the New Testament and determine if they are reliable. Skeptics often don't want to engage subject matter that is devastating to their worldview.

Thank you,
Robin

[Guest]

One must acknowledge that the psychological crisis posed by this question prefaced the disciples' experience and interpretation of everything that followed.


Sorry to interupt Emmet, but your opinion is rank speculation. You're entitled to rank speculation but clearly not only is there no evidence for your conclusion but the fact that the disciples in mass stayed away from Jesus on the cross indicates they had lost faith in him. Additionally there was also the indication that they had no idea he would even be resurrected at all.

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response.

I'm sure, that in the three days Jesus remained in the tomb, there were plenty of un-answered question. The disciples probably felt as if the movement was over, and they would have to re-assume their life as usual.

The disciples definitely would have had to face the prospect that what they had hoped for and invested in had simply evaporated. But psychologically, we may also expect that they had not attained closure within the span of three days.

But then of course there was the resurrection (which you seem unwilling to discuss) and Jesus answered there pressing questions about the Jesus movement, and the meaning of His life, death, and resurrection.

It is remarkable that none of the gospels actually spell out much of what Jesus is supposed to have said to the disciples in the post-resurrection period. If someone bothered to retain the parables or the didactic material in Sermon on the Mount, mightn't they have hung on Jesus' words all the more after the sign of the resurrection, preserving his teachings for the benefit of the church? This omission seems worth critical consideration.

Specifically I would like to know what you think actually transpired after the death of Christ.

I think that the post-resurrection narratives in the gospels themselves yield sufficient reason to raise questions about their reliability. These narratives are skimpy and strikingly different from each other. Thus it is challenging to ascertain what "actually transpired."

But that is tangential to the topic at hand - which is consideration of how personal losses may have impacted the theology of New Testament writers. Whatever events may have occurred in the eight weeks following the crucifixion, these formed only a beginning for the development of thought in the Jesus movement. Many (if not all) of the New Testament documents were produced in a significantly later period, after some theological reflection and development had "actually transpired."

Regardless of which variations you are referring to, all of the Gospels and the book of Acts say that Jesus was resurrected physically and appeared to all His disciples. There was obviously something different about Jesus after the resurrection, but He was physically present and Thomas felt the holes in his hands and side. This seems to be more than a response to grief and stress. But perhaps you have more convincing evidence than assumptions of stress and grief over the loss of a loved one, which would indicate that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead and converse with His disciples and many others.

Why was this claim taken seriously? Because the writers of the Gospels(with the exception of Luke) had encounters with Jesus after his resurrection.

I think you don’t want to take these questions into consideration, because you don't have any good answers that would combat the historical record.

Although I composed an extended response to your arguments in this vein, I will resist temptation and defer the discussion of the resurrection itself to another venue. Perhaps you would like to start a thread under the Chirstian Evidences/Challenges thread.

I will limit my discussion in this thread to considering the impact personal loss might have had upon the writers of the New Testament. Even if the writers agree on a limited kernel of dogma - viz., that Jesus was physically resurrected - the development of understanding beyond that still occurs in the wake of (and to some extent, under the remaining shadow of) the dark night before.

By the way, none of the gospels claims that Jesus "appeared to all his disciples." And the claims of a handful of religious partisans do not qualify as "the historical record."

Quote: In any case, the transmigration of one hope or purpose to another is a natural development for persons who are wrestling with personal loss. We may acknowledge that the diminishing of one hope may have had something to do with the ascendancy of the other.

A more logical answer would seem to be, that the Disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God is. Jesus did not come to destroy the political enemies of Israel, but rather He came to defeat death itself, and to free mankind from the bondage of sin.

"A more logical answer"? I welcome your demonstration of the superiority of one theory over the other by means of logical argumentation.

Quote: E.g., market share in their personal businesses, financial means (whether through donation or through lost income or through neglect of capital management).

Yes because as we know that the disciples were loved and became very wealth individuals as a result of following Jesus during His 3 1/2-year ministry on earth. And losing this wealth and power was there # 1 concern. Hardly! This however was the motivation of those that killed Jesus and persecuted His followers.

My point, Robin, was that followers of Jesus had incurred these losses because they had followed Jesus. In the shadow of his crucifixion, these losses may have weighed upon their minds, fearing that they had made such sacrifices for nothing.

Quote: the resurrection cannot be engaged without considering how the disciples were impacted by the death of Jesus. When it comes to the resurrection and the further aftermath of the crucifixion, the disciples' perception and participation most likely interfaced with psychological crises, posed by personal losses of the kind I have enumerated.

Says who? Why not look at all the claims of the New Testament and determine if they are reliable. Skeptics often don't want to engage subject matter that is devastating to their worldview.

"Says who?" A mature, sensitive, and articulate argument.

I have not introduced any issues here that are not part-and-parcel of "look[ing] at all the claims of the New Testament and determin[ing] if they are reliable." Sometimes Christians don't want to engage subject matter that is challenging to their worldview.

But I have engaged the reliability of the New Testament for a long time, Robin. I engaged it when I was a Christian, and found it wanting. And I continue to engage it as I grow and learn more.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

One must acknowledge that the psychological crisis posed by this question prefaced the disciples' experience and interpretation of everything that followed.

Sorry to interupt Emmet, but your opinion is rank speculation.

"Rank speculation"? Or is it "rankling speculation"?

You're entitled to rank speculation but clearly not only is there no evidence for your conclusion but the fact that the disciples in mass stayed away from Jesus on the cross indicates they had lost faith in him.

"[T]he fact that the disciples in mass stayed away from Jesus on the cross" indicates that they were in mortal fear for their lives. We should not be so simplistic as to say that "they had lost faith in him." At least some of the disciples probably had warring vectors within their own hearts and minds - some crumbling under the impact of the crucifixion, and some that still sought to validate and retain what they had experienced before.

It is also worth noting that the first disciples to proclaim a resurrection were those who had been faithful even at the cross - viz., certain women, some of whom may have been related to Jesus and had even deeper emotional ties to him.

Additionally there was also the indication that they had no idea he would even be resurrected at all.

And yet they had seen resurrection or quasi-resurrection in Jesus' healing ministry, so the prospect was not entirely unprecedented.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

Thanks for taking time to respond.

The disciples definitely would have had to face the prospect that what they had hoped for and invested in had simply evaporated. But psychologically, we may also expect that they had not attained closure within the span of three days.

I must admit, I'm not sure what your point is here. All the Christians I know admit that the disciples were troubled by the death of Jesus. They probably assumed that Jesus was not the Messiah and he was not going to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven, and deliver Israel from its enemies. I’m sure that if Jesus had not been resurrected that they probably would have slid back into obscurity, like many other disciples who followed false Messiahs.

It is remarkable that none of the gospels actually spell out much of what Jesus is supposed to have said to the disciples in the post-resurrection period.

I'm not sure why you say this. Each of the four Gospels record at least some of what Jesus said after His resurrection. I could quote from each one, but I'm sure you have a Bible and have already read the passages.

Matthew and mark record the same event, while Luke and John record events other than what was earlier recorded. All throughout the Gospels, each differs from one another on some points, yet they can all be harmonized.

If someone bothered to retain the parables or the didactic material in Sermon on the Mount, mightn't they have hung on Jesus' words all the more after the sign of the resurrection, preserving his teachings for the benefit of the church? This omission seems worth critical consideration.

I think that when you take into account all four Gospels, you get a full account of Jesus' activities after his resurrection.

These narratives are skimpy and strikingly different from each other. Thus it is challenging to ascertain what "actually transpired."

One could say the same thing about Jesus' birth, yet you don't deny that he was born.

Many (if not all) of the New Testament documents were produced in a significantly later period, after some theological reflection and development had "actually transpired."

Why do you have a problem with this? Also, what do you consider significant? 30, 40, 50 years?

Although I composed an extended response to your arguments in this vein, I will resist temptation and defer the discussion of the resurrection itself to another venue. Perhaps you would like to start a thread under the Chirstian Evidences/Challenges thread.

Sorry Emmet. I figured it wouldn’t be a problem, seeing since we strayed from the Elain Pegals topic a long time ago.

By the way, none of the gospels claims that Jesus "appeared to all his disciples."

You're right. I stated it wrong earlier. Jesus appeared to his eleven. Judas was likely dead at this point, and Jesus certainly had other disciples that were not included in his inner circle (Twelve Disciples).

"A more logical answer"? I welcome your demonstration of the superiority of one theory over the other by means of logical argumentation.

I see my answer as the logical conclusion based of the continued writings of the apostles, which are found in the New Testament. I would specifically point you to Peter’s, and James’ and John's writings.

My point, Robin, was that followers of Jesus had incurred these losses because they had followed Jesus. In the shadow of his crucifixion, these losses may have weighed upon their minds, fearing that they had made such sacrifices for nothing.

If you’re correct, wouldn’t the disciples resent Jesus for this?

"Says who?" A mature, sensitive, and articulate argument.

Okay, point well taken. I will attempt to be more articulate for you.

Sometimes Christians don't want to engage subject matter that is challenging to their worldview.

I agree with you. But I don't think you will find any Christians like that here.

But I have engaged the reliability of the New Testament for a long time, Robin. I engaged it when I was a Christian, and found it wanting. And I continue to engage it as I grow and learn more.

I'm still fairy young, but I have heard many of the arguments from the anti-Christian intellectuals, and I find all of them wanting.

Thank you,
Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response.

Quote: The disciples definitely would have had to face the prospect that what they had hoped for and invested in had simply evaporated. But psychologically, we may also expect that they had not attained closure within the span of three days.

I must admit, I'm not sure what your point is here. All the Christians I know admit that the disciples were troubled by the death of Jesus. They probably assumed that Jesus was not the Messiah and he was not going to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven, and deliver Israel from its enemies. I’m sure that if Jesus had not been resurrected that they probably would have slid back into obscurity, like many other disciples who followed false Messiahs.

This view suits your overall paradigm, but my experience of faith crisis is not so cut-and-dried. Often enough there is an estuary period, where conflicting currents are mixing and swirling for some time.

Eventually new equilibrium may be reached, but we need not imagine that all of the disciples' attachment to the Jesus movement flipped off like a light switch. We may ask: why did the women go out to the tomb to care for Jesus' body? If Jesus' followers had decided that he was a false messiah, why should they go out to care for his corpse? Perhaps it was mere Jewish piety, but one may imagine that, even in the face of catastrophe, there was some abiding love involved in the action.

On the other hand, neither should we imagine that all the disciples flipped their switch on in the face of the resurrection. Even the gospel of Matthew states that "... 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" (28:16b-17).

My point is that the disciples likely experienced conflicting reactions in the aftermath of the crucifixion and in the face of the prospective resurrection. Human beings, as they sort through these ambiguities, often develop their thought in reactionary ways, seeking to address their internal doubts and insecurities. This does not always lead to full objectivity or accuracy in perception or analysis; rather, it can lead to thought that is personally meaningful and/or satisfying to the individual, yet driven by emotion.

Elaine Pagels may have processed her theology in light of factors that her personal experience of loss has emphasized. It is not inordinate to suggest that the disciples did likewise. Their engagement of the prospect of the resurrection, and their subsequent interpretation of its meaning and of Jesus' significance - all of these things developed amidst the emotional and psychological currents set into motion by their personal loss (including, of course, their hope for redemption from such loss).

Quote: It is remarkable that none of the gospels actually spell out much of what Jesus is supposed to have said to the disciples in the post-resurrection period.

I'm not sure why you say this. Each of the four Gospels record at least some of what Jesus said after His resurrection. I could quote from each one, but I'm sure you have a Bible and have already read the passages.

Matthew and mark record the same event, while Luke and John record events other than what was earlier recorded. All throughout the Gospels, each differs from one another on some points, yet they can all be harmonized.

Actually:
Mark records nothing said by the risen Jesus;
Matthew records the snippets "Greetings," "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me," and "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age";
Luke records "What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?," "What things?," "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?," "Peace to you!," "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," "Have you anything here to eat?," "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high"; and
John is so patently ahistorical as to vitiate its material.

In "quot[ing] each one," it becomes obvious how very little is definitely attributed to Jesus in the post-resurrection period, and how largely dependent upon a single source - which is, interestingly enough, the one most easily demonstrated not to be an eyewitness.

Quote: If someone bothered to retain the parables or the didactic material in Sermon on the Mount, mightn't they have hung on Jesus' words all the more after the sign of the resurrection, preserving his teachings for the benefit of the church? This omission seems worth critical consideration.

I think that when you take into account all four Gospels, you get a full account of Jesus' activities after his resurrection.

As we have seen, the post-resurrection quotations in the gospels do not yield a terribly detailed account of how "Jesus answered their pressing questions about the Jesus movement, and the meaning of His life, death, and resurrection."

Quote: These narratives are skimpy and strikingly different from each other. Thus it is challenging to ascertain what "actually transpired."

One could say the same thing about Jesus' birth, yet you don't deny that he was born.

Are the birth narratives really the primary evidence for Jesus having been born?

Quote: Many (if not all) of the New Testament documents were produced in a significantly later period, after some theological reflection and development had "actually transpired."

Why do you have a problem with this? Also, what do you consider significant? 30, 40, 50 years?

Who said that this was a problem? The point is that time had passed, allowing for development on the part of both individuals and the movement as a whole.

At the very least, Paul's epistles are some three years or more beyond the crucifixion and its immediate aftermath. Even this is significant enough of an interval to allow for creative reflection and theological development.

Quote: "A more logical answer"? I welcome your demonstration of the superiority of one theory over the other by means of logical argumentation.

I see my answer as the logical conclusion based of the continued writings of the apostles, which are found in the New Testament. I would specifically point you to Peter’s, and James’ and John's writings.

Now, Robin - you can hardly expect me to do both your research and your argumentation for you.

Can I trouble you to actually identify the relevant passages, and then explain the logical process that leads you to the conclusion that "A more logical answer would seem to be, that the Disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God is"? A substantive response should explain why it is more "logical" to believe that the disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God actually is, rather than to suggest that the disciples came to their understanding as part of a psychological transmigration of hope in the face of historical circumstances.

Quote: My point, Robin, was that followers of Jesus had incurred these losses because they had followed Jesus. In the shadow of his crucifixion, these losses may have weighed upon their minds, fearing that they had made such sacrifices for nothing.

If you’re correct, wouldn’t the disciples resent Jesus for this?

Not only that, but they would resent themselves for their own foolishness and have to endure the public humiliation of having chased a wild goose to their own detriment. Developing an alternate theology would allow the disciples to preserve their esteem for their beloved leader, and their self-esteem and their public face as well.

And do not imagine by my suggesting this that I am implying that such a development would have been intentionally deceptive and calculating on the part of the disciples, necessarily. Rather, I am pointing out natural psychological pressures that could influence even the best human beings, even unconsciously.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

My point is that the disciples likely experienced conflicting reactions in the aftermath of the crucifixion and in the face of the prospective resurrection. Human beings, as they sort through these ambiguities, often develop their thought in reactionary ways, seeking to address their internal doubts and insecurities. This does not always lead to full objectivity or accuracy in perception or analysis; rather, it can lead to thought that is personally meaningful and/or satisfying to the individual, yet driven by emotion.

The disciples experienced conflicting reactions? I don't see this at all. I believe that the disciples had different reactions and different experiences with Jesus in the aftermath of the resurrection. When Matthew records that "some doubted", it seems likely that he is referring to Thomas' reaction, which is recorded specifically in the gospel of Luke.

24:38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?
24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."
24:40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

Elaine Pagels may have processed her theology in light of factors that her personal experience of loss has emphasized. It is not inordinate to suggest that the disciples did likewise. Their engagement of the prospect of the resurrection, and their subsequent interpretation of its meaning and of Jesus' significance - all of these things developed amidst the emotional and psychological currents set into motion by their personal loss (including, of course, their hope for redemption from such loss).

For you to claim such knowledge of the disciples hearts and minds seems to be quite conceited. I must say that your approach to psychoanalyze the disciples is less than convincing.

Actually:
Mark records nothing said by the risen Jesus;

Mark 16:15-18
16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
16:17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
16:18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

John is so patently ahistorical as to vitiate its material.

Oh really. Would you mind explaining why John is "ahistorical"?

In "quot[ing] each one," it becomes obvious how very little is definitely attributed to Jesus in the post-resurrection period, and how largely dependent upon a single source - which is, interestingly enough, the one most easily demonstrated not to be an eyewitness.

However, it is quite possible that what is recorded is entirety of the interaction that Jesus had with his disciples after the resurrection. Jesus would appear mystically at times and interact with the disciples, and then be gone. The amount of days, hours, and minutes that Jesus spent with his disciples after the resurrection is not clear. However, it was well established with the disciples and many others that He had been resurrected.

As we have seen, the post-resurrection quotations in the gospels do not yield a terribly detailed account of how "Jesus answered their pressing questions about the Jesus movement, and the meaning of His life, death, and resurrection."

As we have seen? You made this statement, not me. It seems clear to me that whatever Jesus wanted the disciples to know, He made clear both before His Crucifixion, and after His resurrection. Did they have perfect theology? No. This is made evident in the book of acts, when Peter receives a vision from Jesus while pray on the roof. There was more that Jesus intended to reveal to the disciples, but perhaps they were not ready to receive all knowledge so shortly after the death resurrection.

Who said that this was a problem? The point is that time had passed, allowing for development on the part of both individuals and the movement as a whole.

At the very least, Paul's epistles are some three years or more beyond the crucifixion and its immediate aftermath. Even this is significant enough of an interval to allow for creative reflection and theological development.

OK, so neither of us have a problem with the time that lapsed between the events that occurred and the recording of these events. Well at least we agree on something.

Can I trouble you to actually identify the relevant passages, and then explain the logical process that leads you to the conclusion that "A more logical answer would seem to be, that the Disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God is"? A substantive response should explain why it is more "logical" to believe that the disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God actually is, rather than to suggest that the disciples came to their understanding as part of a psychological transmigration of hope in the face of historical circumstances.

If I must.

1:8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
1:9 receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.
1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you,
1:11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
1:12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into.

Did not Jews believe that the prophecies of the old testament pointed to a coming messiah, and that he would usher in the kingdom of heaven? Here Peter say that the prophets were look forward to Christ, and that now as believers we can be partakers in the kingdom of Heaven. This seems to show a clear shift in peters understanding of what the kingdom actually is.

Not only that, but they would resent themselves for their own foolishness and have to endure the public humiliation of having chased a wild goose to their own detriment. Developing an alternate theology would allow the disciples to preserve their esteem for their beloved leader, and their self-esteem and their public face as well.

And do not imagine by my suggesting this that I am implying that such a development would have been intentionally deceptive and calculating on the part of the disciples, necessarily. Rather, I am pointing out natural psychological pressures that could influence even the best human beings, even unconsciously.

Remember, I said "if you are correct", Which you are not. Historical evidence is on the side of Christianity.

I hope you will excuse me from the conversation for a short while. I will be out of town for the next week or so, and I will have limited access to a computer.

Thank you,
Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

kaufmannphillips: My point is that the disciples likely experienced conflicting reactions in the aftermath of the crucifixion and in the face of the prospective resurrection. Human beings, as they sort through these ambiguities, often develop their thought in reactionary ways, seeking to address their internal doubts and insecurities. This does not always lead to full objectivity or accuracy in perception or analysis; rather, it can lead to thought that is personally meaningful and/or satisfying to the individual, yet driven by emotion.

roblaine: The disciples experienced conflicting reactions? I don't see this at all. I believe that the disciples had different reactions and different experiences with Jesus in the aftermath of the resurrection. When Matthew records that "some doubted", it seems likely that he is referring to Thomas' reaction, which is recorded specifically in the gospel of Luke.

24:38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?
24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."
24:40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

Both my passage from Matthew and your citation from Luke speak in the plural, so it is not only Thomas who is harboring doubts. It seems realistic (to me) to expect that the disciples were not like so many light-switches, either fully on or fully off. My expectation of most humans is that they harbor competing drives toward both doubt and belief.

kaufmannphillips: Elaine Pagels may have processed her theology in light of factors that her personal experience of loss has emphasized. It is not inordinate to suggest that the disciples did likewise. Their engagement of the prospect of the resurrection, and their subsequent interpretation of its meaning and of Jesus' significance - all of these things developed amidst the emotional and psychological currents set into motion by their personal loss (including, of course, their hope for redemption from such loss).

roblaine: For you to claim such knowledge of the disciples hearts and minds seems to be quite conceited. I must say that your approach to psychoanalyze the disciples is less than convincing.

I don't claim knowledge of the disciples' hearts and minds. Neither you nor I know those individuals personally, and neither you nor I have them available for direct inquiry. So my comments are based on a general understanding of human thought. I am fairly confident that Jesus' disciples were humans, and as such they would have experienced emotional and psychological reaction to personal loss.

As for being "convincing," I should hardly expect to convince anybody of anything. Convincement has at least as much to do with an audience as it does with a commentator.

kaufmannphillips: Actually: Mark records nothing said by the risen Jesus;

roblaine: Mark 16:15-18
16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
16:17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
16:18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Check the notes in your margin. It is generally held that 16:9-20 is not part of the original text for Mark.

kaufmannphillips: John is so patently ahistorical as to vitiate its material.

roblaine: Oh really. Would you mind explaining why John is "ahistorical"?

Addressing this briefly, the gospel's portrayal is novel and incongruous when compared to the synoptics - in particular, John's Jesus speaks and acts in a way remarkably different from the other canonical gospels. Beyond this, at least some of the gospel's novelties and incongruities draw quite clearly from theological vectors, and serve theological agendas. So when a gospel is markedly different from the synoptic source material, and when it has differences that seem to correlate to theological drives, this raises the issue of ahistoricity.

But my comments on this front should be readily understandable to anyone who has given careful attention to a harmony of the gospels, and who has even a passing acquaintance with the New Testament apocrypha. John smells, even though people who roll in it may have difficulty noticing its odor.

However, it is quite possible that what is recorded is entirety of the interaction that Jesus had with his disciples after the resurrection.

Is this what you intended to say?

kaufmannphillips: As we have seen, the post-resurrection quotations in the gospels do not yield a terribly detailed account of how "Jesus answered their pressing questions about the Jesus movement, and the meaning of His life, death, and resurrection."

roblaine: As we have seen? You made this statement, not me. It seems clear to me that whatever Jesus wanted the disciples to know, He made clear both before His Crucifixion, and after His resurrection.

My error. I should not presume that you see anything but what seems clear to you.

kaufmannphillips: Can I trouble you to actually identify the relevant passages, and then explain the logical process that leads you to the conclusion that "A more logical answer would seem to be, that the Disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God is"? A substantive response should explain why it is more "logical" to believe that the disciples came to understand what the kingdom of God actually is, rather than to suggest that the disciples came to their understanding as part of a psychological transmigration of hope in the face of historical circumstances.


If I must.

1:8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
1:9 receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.
1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you,
1:11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
1:12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into.

Did not Jews believe that the prophecies of the old testament pointed to a coming messiah, and that he would usher in the kingdom of heaven? Here Peter say that the prophets were look forward to Christ, and that now as believers we can be partakers in the kingdom of Heaven. This seems to show a clear shift in peters understanding of what the kingdom actually is.

Your citation does not actually address why it is more "logical" to believe that Peter's shift corresponds to a better "understand[ing of] what the kingdom of God actually is," rather than an "understanding [arrived at] as part of a psychological transmigration of hope in the face of historical circumstances."

Remember, I said "if you are correct", Which you are not. Historical evidence is on the side of Christianity.

Would you do me the service of explaining your understanding of "historical evidence"?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Sorry to jump in, guys, but.....

Emmet on Mark 16:
Check the notes in your margin. It is generally held that 16:9-20 is not part of the original text for Mark.

Something probably not found in your margin: Irenaeus, who was taught by Polycarp (who was taught by John) quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies (Book3 10:5-6). Irenaeus pre-dates Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The "long ending of Mark" appears as early as the 5th century in Codex Alexandrinus/Ephraemi Rescriptus. Though there are two manuscripts that pre-date this codex, they do not pre-date Irenaeus, who wrote from the 2nd century.

[Guest]

Hi Emmet & JC,

Emmet, I was almost certain that you had abandoned the conversation. I'm glad you responded.

In regards to Mark 16:9-20, JC makes a very good point, and I would like to add my thoughts.

It seems to me that if anyone wants to hold to the idea that Mark 16:9-20 was not part of the original, at best they could claim that the subject is undecided. The majority of manuscripts include the long ending of Mark. This is called the Byzantine majority.

The main support cited by those who appose the long ending of Mark is in two arguments. First the oldest manuscript is the best, and seconds the use of textual criticism (which is popular among many scholars).

There are four manuscripts that do no include the long ending of Mark, and the are:

Codex Sinaiticus - (4th century Alexandrian)
Codex Vaticanus - (4th century Alexandrian)
304 (12th century Byzantine)
2386 (11th century Byzantine)

Some would say that the majority of Greek lectionaries don't include Mark 16:9-20, but all that are fully intact do include these verses.

The last of these manuscripts (2386) is missing the entire page in which these verses would be found. The 4th century manuscripts are the earliest, but of course this does not mean that the are the most accurate. There are by my research four, 5th century manuscripts that include the long ending.

Though this subject is interesting it is a diversion from the initial topic. However, I wanted to defend my use of Mark 16:15-18.

Neither you nor I know those individuals personally, and neither you nor I have them available for direct inquiry.

We have the next best thing. There personal testimony.

I am fairly confident that Jesus' disciples were humans, and as such they would have experienced emotional and psychological reaction to personal loss.

Of course they had an "emotional and psychological reaction" to the death of Jesus, but I would add that they had "emotional and psychological reaction" to the resurrection of Jesus as well. This is evident by the life of the disciples as it is recorded in the book of Acts.

Addressing this briefly, the gospel's portrayal is novel and incongruous when compared to the synoptics - in particular, John's Jesus speaks and acts in a way remarkably different from the other canonical gospels. Beyond this, at least some of the gospel's novelties and incongruities draw quite clearly from theological vectors, and serve theological agendas. So when a gospel is markedly different from the synoptic source material, and when it has differences that seem to correlate to theological drives, this raises the issue of ahistoricity.

As you are aware, John's Gospel was the last to be written. He likely had seen the gospels written by the Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Perhaps John didn't want to record all the events that were covered by the synoptics. On top of that, John's Gospel seems to be written on a spiritual level, (more so that the other Gospels). However these facts don't through into question the reliability of Johns Gospel, but rather they shows John's independents and gives him credibility.

But my comments on this front should be readily understandable to anyone who has given careful attention to a harmony of the gospels, and who has even a passing acquaintance with the New Testament apocrypha. John smells, even though people who roll in it may have difficulty noticing its odor.

I'm fully aware of the differences that exist between John's gospel, and that of the Synoptics. However, I don't take the illogical leap to cast aside John's gospel as "ahistorical", or rank with odor.

Would you do me the service of explaining your understanding of "historical evidence"?

We have the "historical" writings of the apostles, and none of them indicate the disciple felt slighted or lied to by Jesus. As a matter of fact, we have just the opposite. The apostles show nothing but adoration for Jesus, and constantly refer to Him as Lord.

Thank you,
Robin