Buried in a footnote from one of my writings is the following rant:
[Bart] Ehrman's thesis fits in with all the evidence of the Gospel tradition beautifully. Like the theory of evolution it will be shot down because of a document. In the case of evolution that document is the Bible. In the case of the theory of Ehrman that document is 1 Corinthians 15 with its singly attested appearance tradition that is treated as sacrosanct because it allegedly came from Paul himself; not because that document inherently contradicts Ehrman but because Acts says that the Twelve who saw Jesus included eleven of the original disciples plus Matthias (Acts 1:26). [NOTE: Acts doesn’t actually say that, but that’s one way to harmonize Paul’s letters with Luke’s writings.]
The real problem with Ehrman’s “doubt tradition” (see https://jmgiardi.wixsite.com/stubborncredulity/post/how-jesus-became-god-ten-years-later) is not, however, that it contradicts Paul (although it does); the problem is that it evidently contradicts the apostles. Paul could have been clearer, but it’s understandable that people would read his letter the way C. H. Dodd did. According to Dodd, the apostles were all preaching the entirety of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Verse 11 seems to be saying that. If the apostles were merely preaching the entirety of verse 3-5, then Ehrman’s thesis is still in trouble. Incredibly, in his 2012 book, we read:
I can start with that basic confession that was passed along to [Paul] by those who came before, as he himself states: “For I delivered over to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.” (Did Jesus Exist?, HarperOne, 2012, 249)
If Cephas (Peter) was preaching even that part (the part about the twelve), then it’s difficult to understand how “possibly some of the original disciples did not believe [Jesus was raised from the dead]” (Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 2014; HarperOne, 2015, 192). How can Ehrman deal with this apparent contradiction? It’s possible that Ehrman changed his mind in between his 2012 book and his 2014 book. If we look at 2014’s How Jesus Became God, Ehrman seemed to be arguing that the creed ended with “he appeared to Cephas.” Here, Ehrman can be read as saying that the appearance to the “Twelve” is part of Paul’s expansion (139 & 140). Still, we have to wonder how Paul could be in disagreement with Peter when they knew each other. Not to mention that the way Dodd interprets the passage is easier to defend. Regardless, Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God is at least internally consistent.
Comments