Bart Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God” (Part 9): What Does Ehrman Know About the Resurrection of Jesus? Turns out, not much…

In chapter 5 of his book, How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman discusses “what we can know” about the resurrection of Jesus. Of course, given the fact that in the previous chapter where Ehrman makes the argument that there probably wasn’t an empty tomb because Jesus probably wasn’t even given a proper burial, one would think that a chapter about “what we can know” about the resurrection of Jesus would be rather short. Well, not so much.

Ehrman begins his chapter by articulated three things we can know regarding the resurrection of Jesus:

1. Some of Jesus’s followers believed that he had been raised from the dead;
2. They believed this because some of them had visions of him after his crucifixion;
3. This belief led them to reevaluate who Jesus was, so that the Jewish apocalyptic preacher from rural Galilee came to be considered, in some sense, God

Well, yes, Ehrman’s first point is correct. No, Ehrman’s second point is entirely his unsubstantiated opinion that ignores the historical texts we have. He may claim only some had visions of Jesus, but the textual evidence we have claims that many actually encountered Jesus in the flesh. Now, to be clear, even if one doesn’t believe they really did, Ehrman’s claim that we “know” that only some followers had visions is misleading—we don’t know that. Finally, Ehrman’s third point is basically true: the encounter the disciples had with Jesus after the crucifixion (be it actual physical encounter or vision) did revolutionize their understanding of who Jesus was.

Resurrection, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
In any case, Ehrman claims that in the early Church, “there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, ‘raised from the dead’ meant” (175). He then outlines the three major ways “resurrection” was understood:

1. The raising of a spiritual body: Basically, according to Ehrman, this is what Paul claimed—Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, but it wasn’t the same resuscitated corpse. It was a transformed body: “When Paul speaks of a spiritual body, then, he means a body not made of this heavy, clunky stuff that now makes up our bodies, but of the highly refined spiritual stuff that is superior in every way and is not subject to mortality” (178).
2. The raising of the spirit: This was the view of the Gnostics—Jesus’ body was crucified, but the spirit of Jesus was alive. Jesus only appeared to be human with a body, and he came to dispense secret knowledge, so his followers could rid themselves of this wicked material flesh.
3. The raising of the mortal body: According to Ehrman, this is the view we see in the Gospel of Luke—the same Jesus who was raised was the same Jesus who was crucified: “he still is thoroughly a body, with flesh, bones, mouth, and, presumably, digestive system” (181). In Luke, according to Ehrman, “it appears that Jesus’s resurrected body was simply his corpse that had been reanimated” (182).

Then, after outlining these three views, Ehrman laments, “It is hard to know what the very earliest Christians, before Paul, thought about Jesus’ body after the resurrection—whether they had a view more like that found in Paul, our earliest witnesses, or more like the one found in Luke and John, who were writing later” (183).

Now, I don’t want to be unkind, but I am genuinely surprised how a scholar with Ehrman’s credentials could have such an uninformed misunderstanding of what “resurrection” meant and could float such an ignorant statement as that last quote. To be clear, this isn’t even about whether or not one believes Jesus was resurrected; this is about the basic understanding of what “resurrection” meant and a basic competency to read.

First, Paul’s view and Luke’s view are not two opposing views. Yes, when Paul spoke of a “spiritual body,” he was talking of a transformed body—but it was a transformation of that physical body that had died. “Spiritual body” basically meant a physical body that was empowered by the Holy Spirit and that was no longer susceptible to corruption and death. Or to use an analogy: our current bodies are running on a “mortal battery” that will eventually run out of juice. Our resurrected spiritual body is our real, physical body that will run on an immortal “Holy Spirit battery”—kind of like the Energizer Bunny.

This is the same thing Luke is describing: Jesus had a real, flesh and blood body—and yet at the same time he could just appear and disappear, etc. It was the same body, but there was something different about it. Luke is not claiming it was just Jesus’ resuscitated corpse. For Ehrman to claim that is what Luke is claiming is just incredibly sloppy. Incidentally, Ehrman’s above quote regarding how Paul understood the spiritual body as being “made of different stuff” than this “heavy, clunky stuff” is also shockingly bad. The very point of resurrection is the affirmation of God’s good creation. “Resurrection” was a declaration that “this heavy, clunky stuff” is good and worth redeeming! To claim that Paul was saying a “spiritual body” was of “different stuff” than a material body is flat-out wrong and slips into Gnosticism.

Second, and this leads me to comment on Ehrman’s take on Gnosticism—he calls it “Christian Gnosticism.” No, there was nothing “Christian” about it. It was a movement that arose later, in the 2^nd-3^rd centuries, and was clearly not part of the original, Gospel message of the 1^st century early Church. Ehrman’s attempt to place 2^nd-3^rd century Gnosticism along side the time of Paul and Luke is not only historically impossible, it is flat-out dishonest.

Finally, that final quote by Ehrman strikes me as incredibly laughable: Ehrman wonders what the “very earliest Christians, before Paul” believed about the resurrection? Really? Everyone agrees that Paul became a follower of Jesus within a year or two of Jesus’ crucifixion—if he isn’t considered one of the very earliest Christians, who is? It has to be plainly said: contrary to what Ehrman claims, there was no wide variety of opinion among the early Christians regarding what “resurrection” meant.” Paul was a Pharisee, and the original apostles were all first century Jews themselves. For them, resurrection meant the physical body overcoming death and being transformed into immortality—not a resuscitated corpse, not a non-material spirit. Resurrection was the transformation of the physical body into immortality.

Bereavement Visions of Jesus?
Once it is clear that that is what “resurrection” meant to 1^st century Jews, and that is what the authors of the New Testament writers had claimed had happened with the resurrection of Jesus, the rest of Ehrman’s chapter ultimately becomes irrelevant. For in the rest of chapter 5, Ehrman tries to make the argument that the rise of Christianity was based on private, visionary experiences of just a few of Jesus’ bereaved followers, who then convinced others that Jesus had really appeared to them. As Ehrman writes, “I should stress that it was visions, and nothing else, that led the first disciples to believe in the resurrection” (184); and, “The same thing is true of Paul himself: he believed because of a vision” (184).

No, that’s not what any historical text we have says. What Ehrman claims “we can know” on this is based on nothing more than his own imagination. But the thing is, Ehrman has to take this route because it is the only one left to him, now that he has dismissed the testimony of the only actual, physical, historical sources we have. It had to be a private vision.

And why would Jesus’ disciples have such a vision? According to Ehrman, it is obvious: they were bereaved and upset over his crucifixion, and obviously felt guilty for abandoning him. He writes, “Such visions are more commonly experienced when a person has a sense of guilt over some aspect of his or her relationship with the one who has died (recall: the disciples had all betrayed, denied, or fled from Jesus during his hour of need)” (195).

What happens is that the survivors tend to remember “only the good times” about the deceased person and end up idolizing him. And that is what Ehrman claims to have happened with the disciples. As he writes, “The much beloved teacher of the disciples—the one for whom they had given up everything and to whom they had devoted their lives—was suddenly and brutally taken away from them, publicly humiliated, tortured, and crucified. According to our early records, the disciples had plenty of reasons for feeling guilt and shame over how they had failed Jesus both during his life and at his greatest time of need. Soon thereafter—and for some time to come?—some of them believed they had encountered him after his death. They were deeply comforted by his presence and felt his forgiveness” (197).

Therefore, with that rationale, Ehrman then proceeds to speculate that three people in particular—Peter, Paul, and Mary—must have had these kind of bereavement visions of Jesus, and then told stories about it. And then, over time, “as the stories of Jesus’s ‘appearances’ were told and retold, of course, they were embellished, magnified, and even made up; so soon, probably within a few years, it was said that all of the disciples had seen Jesus, along with other people” (192).

Much can be said about such an absurdly speculative claim—I’ll just say this. Sure, there have been instances where people have claimed their recently deceased loved one appeared to them. I’ve yet to find anyone going out and proceeding to claim that their recently deceased loved one had been actually resurrected and was now Lord and Savior of all creation. Simply put, Ehrman’s attempted explanation is not convincing…at all.

Let’s just take one example: if a few of the bereaving disciples had these visions of Jesus because they felt guilty for abandoning him, then how in the world did Paul have such a vision? He wasn’t an original disciple; he hadn’t abandoned Jesus; initially he persecuted the followers of Jesus. It’s clear: the revisionist history that Ehrman employs to take the place of the historical account that we have falls flat when it comes to Paul on this one point alone.

Ehrman’s Outcome of Faith
Ehrman ends chapter 5 with another statement that, on its face, is actually true: during his ministry, his followers believed Jesus was a prophet, the son of David, and the messiah, but that it was the resurrection that changed everything—or more specifically, the way Ehrman puts it, “That all changed with the belief in the resurrection” (205).

Well, that all changed with the resurrection and their encounter with the resurrected Jesus within history, not with the mere belief that Jesus’ followers put in the claims by Peter, Paul, and Mary that Jesus was “resurrected” because he appeared to them in a vision. Let’s be clear, no 1^st century Jew would interpret “Jesus appeared to me in a vision” as a claim of resurrection. A visionary experience isn’t a resurrection. No matter how much Ehrman tries to claim it is, a basic understanding of 1^st century Judaism blows a giant whole in such a claim.

On top of that, Ehrman displays an even further misunderstanding of the 1^st century Jewish understanding of “resurrection” when he claims that in the “earlier tradition” (i.e. before the writing of Acts, where Luke talks about Jesus’ ascension to heaven 40 days after his resurrection), “Jesus’s resurrection was not simply a reanimation of a body that was then to be taken up into heaven. The resurrection itself was an exaltation into the heavenly realm. ‘God raised Jesus from the dead’ was taken to mean that God had exalted Jesus from this earthly realm of life and death into the heavenly sphere” (208).

I cannot be any clearer when I say that statement is simply false. “Resurrection” did not mean “exaltation into the heavenly realm,” or a “leaving the earthly realm” and going “into the heavenly sphere.” Resurrection meant just what 1^st century Jews always thought it meant: the overcoming of physical death and the transformation of the physical body into immorality. A claim of resurrection is different than a claim of ascension or exaltation.

Granted, whether you believe Jesus was resurrected or not, whether you believe he ascended to heaven or not, and whether or not you think, “What does that even mean that Jesus ascended to heaven? Literally? What’s the significance?”—all that is beside the point. That the simply point is this: Ehrman’s claim that “resurrection” was the same thing as “ascension/exaltation” is simply false. The only people who will be convinced by Ehrman’s claim here are those who clearly do not understand 1^st century Jewish belief.

With all that being said, what can we say that Ehrman “knows” about the resurrection of Jesus? Not much at all.