1 Cor 15:3-8 - Who saw Jesus, and how?

[TarkanAttila]

I came across an interesting article about the Resurrection, done by an atheist, Richard Carrier, at infidels.org.

This article had a part in it that addressed an interesting problem. When Saint Paul spoke of people who had seen Christ in the 3rd-8th verses of the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, he includes himself among the people who had seen Jesus.

This presents to us a problem: did the Apostles, the 500, Peter, and Paul only see “visions” of Christ? Can we demonstrate they saw more?

Here is the part of the article I’d like to address:

III. What About the “Hundreds” of Eye Witnesses?

Paul claims there are hundreds of eye witnesses, many alive at the very time of his writing (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Doesn’t that make invention as well as delusion unlikely? Paul, remember, includes himself among the witnesses (15:8). Yet we know that Paul was not an eye-witness. He only saw a light and heard a voice, well after Jesus had already been “taken up.”… The verb “appeared” used several times in this passage is ôphthê (from horaô), which is as vague in Greek as in English. Used in the passive voice, as it is here, it means only “was seen” or “appeared” [and frequently means “appeared in a vision”] (as in the case of Paul’s vision, cf. Acts 9:17), and could have meant something merely internal and spiritual in the same sense as that of the vision of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2 (indeed, this is the only event in the New Testament that corresponds at all with what Paul claims–otherwise, there is no account anywhere of an appearance to hundreds).

Of course, one second-hand report of over 500 unnamed people, being sent to men in Greece (too far from Palestine to have any chance of checking the account), who may have seen a vision no more material than that of Paul himself… is the flimsiest of evidence… Note also that Paul does not name any one of these witnesses, except Peter and James (though he does mention “the twelve” even though there were only eleven disciples when Jesus supposedly appeared, according to all the Gospels*). These are not new witnesses being reported, but the same ones (or rhetorically invented ones). For all we know, Paul could have been including men who had an experience that was like that of Stephen in his list of witnesses (a martyr whose death he watched), even though we have no reason to believe Stephen was an eyewitness to any appearance of Jesus in the flesh. Paul could also have been reporting hearsay…

The bottom line is, this does not tell us anything about who saw what. Were there hundreds? What did they see? When exactly? Who were these people? Paul doesn’t say.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3.html

*The Vulgate says “et quia visus est Cephae et post haec undecim”, which translates to “And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven”. So I don’t know what translation this guy is using. KJV, perhaps?

Here is the passage in question:
drbo.org:

1Cor 15:

[3] For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: [5] And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.

[6] Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. [7] After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. [8] And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time.

Gentlemen? Ladies? Your scholarship, if you please.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I don’t see a problem with Paul’s statement. He is reading too much into that line. Paul saw a vision of Jesus on his way to Damascus. He himself says though as one who is abnormally born. So he sees his own conversion as an anomaly since he was against the Christians. The others saw Jesus after he Resurrected and before he Ascended into heaven.

The point is they all saw and experienced him. St. Thomas put his fingers in Jesus’ wounds. It wasn’t merely a vision. To interpret it that way shows his own bias. Most likely he wants to contribute it to mass hallucination or something. However, the scriptures do not support that view.

As far as appearing to the 12, we know that Peter chose a successor to Judas. When that happened in relation to Jesus appearances we do not know. But keep in mind this was written after all of these events. So it is likely the successor to Judas had seen Jesus with the other apostles even before he was chosen as successor, which means he would be considered one of the 12 since the gospel was written after his election.

The 500 unnamed people would have been too long of a list to write down in the gospel. Perhaps there was a list that got lost, but probably not as most things were not written down. The people at that time would have known who these people were and the stories would have spread by word of mouth. Apparently the named 12 apostles are not credible enough for him. He wants all 500 people to have names. Well, if the bible had listed all 500 people and their names would that have made it more credible to him? Probably not. So what’s the point of arguing about it?

 

[cornbread_r2]

There isn’t much chance that I’ll be mistaken for a scholar, so for what it’s worth… Since Carrier references Greek translations for some of the words, it’s certain he isn’t using a Latin (Vulgate) or English (KJV) translation. My guess is that he’s using an early Greek manuscript.

 

[theblindlead]

This presents to us a problem: did the Apostles, the 500, Peter, and Paul only see “visions” of Christ? Can we demonstrate they saw more?

Do we really need to demonstrate that they saw more than a vision? Why would the apostles lie did they have anything to gain they all knew that they would be put to death if they preached as Jesus did but they went out and evangelized the whole known world. Now there are 4 option the way that i see it for the apostles to go out and preach:

1. they had something to gain
2. they were the most terrible liars in the history of the world
3. they were crazy
4. or they actually believe what they said and knew in their hearts that it was true

the first three have very obvious flaws which i hope you can see if not write back and i can elaborate more on the flaws. but after everything is considered the only real reason the apostles would go out and preach is because they knew that they were speaking the truth to all the world.

hope this helps

 

[bmullins]

The story of doubting Thomas should be evidence enough. One cannot touch a vision:

[bibledrb]John 20:24-28[/bibledrb]

 

[TarkanAttila]

The story of doubting Thomas should be evidence enough. One cannot touch a vision:

[bibledr.b]John 20:24-28[/bibledrb]

I always wondered how you guys did that!
I remember another story that also wasn’t just a vision:

[bibledrb]John 21:10-14[/bibledrb]

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is great commentary by Cornelius a Lapide

Ver. 5.—Was seen of Cephas. Paul puts this appearance of Christ first, and therefore implies that the first man that Christ appeared to was Peter. I say “the first man,” for He appeared to the Magdalene before S. Peter (S. Mark xvi. 9).

Then of the eleven. On the Sunday after the resurrection, when Thomas was now present, Christ appeared to the eleven, for the twelfth, Judas, had by that time hanged himself, or better still, “to the eleven,” i.e., to the whole Apostolic College, which then had been reduced to eleven, Christ appeared on the day of His resurrection, though Thomas was absent. The Greek copies have, “then of the twelve.” S. Augustine has the same reading (Quæst. Evangel lib. i. qu. 117), and he says there that, though Judas was dead, “the twelve” were still so called as by a corporate name. So the Decemvirs are said to assemble if only seven or eight are present. Chrysostom explains it otherwise. He says that Christ appeared to the twelfth, Matthias, after His ascension. But this is not recorded anywhere, and Paul is here naming the appearances of Christ before His ascension only.

Ver. 6.—After that He was seen of above five hundred brethren. The Greek word for above means (a) “more than,” (b) “from heaven.” Chrysostom and Theophylact take it here in the latter sense. For Christ appeared, they say, not walking on the ground, but above their heads, as though descending from the sky; and He did this that He might show them that He had ascended as well as risen, and might confirm their faith in His ascension. Hence any one may gather that Chrysostom thought that this appearance of Christ took place after His Ascension; but still it is not true, nor is of necessity gathered from what Chrysostom says.

This appearance of Christ, whether on a higher spot, as if from heaven, or in the air, evidently was prior to His ascension; and this is the common opinion of doctors; for we read nowhere of any public appearance after His ascension.

Many suppose that this was the well-known appearance of Christ on a mountain in Galilee, which He had so many times promised. All His disciples met there, as He had bidden. This was not at His ascension, but before it; for Christ ascended into heaven, not from Galilee, but from the Mount of Olives. See S. Jerome (ad Hedibiam, qu. 7).

Ver. 7.—After that He was seen of James. The son of Alphæus, first Bishop of Jerusalem, and styled brother of the Lord. There is a tradition mentioned by Jerome (Lib. de Scrip. Eccles. in Jacobo) that James had taken a vow not to eat anything till he should see Christ risen. S. Jerome, however, does not think the tradition of any value. Its falsity is seen, too, (1.) for it is evident, from this passage of S. Paul, that Christ appeared to him after appearing to the five hundred brethren, and therefore long after His resurrection, too long for S. James’s fast to have been prolonged naturally. (2.) All the Apostles, and therefore S. James, were confounded at Christ’s death, and did not believe in His resurrection. It is not likely then that James would take such a vow. (3.) S. Jerome says that he took this story from the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which is apocryphal. It is also said there that Christ wore at the time a linen garment, and that He gave it to the servant of the priest, which also seems false; for the garments of Christ remained in the sepulchre (S. Matt. xxviii.), and a glorified body, such as Christ’s was, is not clad with linen or any such garments, but with splendour and rays of light.

Then of all the apostles, and the disciples as well, says S. Anselm, at the ascension.

Ver. 8.—And last of all Ale was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. Born out of due time is, (1.) according to Theophylact and Theodoret, contemptible and despised, because young that come too soon to the birth are generally imperfectly formed, thin, and undersized. (2.) According to Ambrose and Chrysostom it is untimely; that is, after Christ had ascended into heaven, Paul was born in Christ and received his Apostleship. (3.) According to Anselm he thus calls himself, because he was struck to the earth by Divine power, compelled, and violently born again: untimely young are forced into the world by the violence of nature. (4.) Or, as S. Anselm again remarks, such births are of young half-dead, and they are often born blind. So S. Paul was smitten with blindness at his conversion. (5.) S. Paul was expelled from the womb of his mother, the people of the Jews, and was sent, not to his fellow-countrymen, but to the Gentiles outside. (6.) Baronius (Annals, A.D. 44) thinks that Paul was so called as an Apostle, because he was made an Apostle in addition to the twelve; for the Senators at Rome, he says, were so called, when they were co-opted into the Senate, in addition to the fixed number; but it cannot be said that S. Paul alludes to this, for he is writing in Greek to the Greeks, not to Romans.

It appears from this verse that Christ appeared to Paul, not by an angel, as Haymo thinks (Comment. on Apocalypse, c. ii.), but in person; not in a vision, as He appeared to him in Acts xxii. 18, nor in a trance, as is recorded in 2 Cor. xii. 2, but in the air in bodily form; for it was in this way that Christ appeared to Cephas, James, and the other Apostles; moreover, if it were any other kind of appearance it would be no proof of the resurrection of Christ. The appearance of Christ alluded to here is the one at Paul’s conversion (Acts ix. 3), when he saw Christ before the bright light blinded him.

 

[COPLAND_3]

continue

Hence it further appears that Christ then descended from heaven, for, as S. Thomas and others say, S. Paul heard the voice of Christ speaking in the air. Whence it follows again that Christ was then in two places, in the empyrean and in our atmosphere, close to Paul; for, according to Acts iii. 21, Christ has never left the highest heaven to which He ascended. If Christ was then in two places, why cannot He be at once in heaven and in the Eucharist?

Hegesippus (Excid. Hierosol. lib, iii. c. 2) and others say that Christ appeared in the same way to S. Peter at Rome, when He called him back as he was flying from martyrdom with the words, “I go to be crucified again.”