Previously in This Series:

Secular Reflections: Why was Jesus Appearing to Everyone According to Paul?

(2/2) Secular Reflections: Why was Jesus Appearing to Everyone According to Paul?

(Conclusion) Secular Reflections: Why was Jesus Appearing to Everyone According to Paul?

Now, the Transition:

Jesus was viewed as a messianic claimant who was specially chosen by God to restore the Davidic throne.  The response by the Jewish elite is they arranged his killing via the Romans.  Helen Bond argues that the early Christians viewed the Jews wrongfully orchestrating Jesus’ death as the reason the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, like the first temple fell to the Babylonians because of God punishing Jewish sin.  Many thought the Jewish elite of Jesus’ time were corrupt.  Josephus notes in a plausibly authentic section of the TF that Jesus was executed by Pilate because he was accused “by the leading men among us,” the Jewish elite.  Similarly to the apocalyptic Jesus Christ, the Jewish elite enlisted the Romans to deal with the doomsday nuisance of Jesus ben Ananias (62 CE).

This fits in with scholars pointing to 1 Thessalonians where the apocalyptic Paul blames the Jews for Jesus’ death, a theme we also see in Matthew (his blood be on us and our children): 

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins, but wrath has overtaken them at last. (1 Thess 2)

We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls the various Jewish factions were always going after one another, so it makes sense Paul would be writing against the Jews he thought killed Christ, as earlier prophets had died,

The Jewish elite around Jesus’ time were often considered corrupt by other Jews.  In the late Second Temple period (roughly 2nd century BCE to 70 CE), many Jewish groups and texts criticized the religious and political elite—particularly the high priesthood, Sadducees, and associated aristocrats—as corrupt, greedy, or illegitimate.  The high priesthood had become highly politicized. After the Maccabean Revolt, Hasmoneans combined kingship and priesthood (seen as improper by some). Under Herod and Rome, appointments were often bought or imposed, favoring aristocratic Sadducean families. This fueled resentment amid economic pressures, Roman oversight, and social inequality. Not all priests or elites were corrupt—many served faithfully—but systemic issues and specific scandals led to widespread criticism from Pharisees, Essenes, apocalyptic groups, and ordinary Jews.   This diversity and intra-Jewish critique are key to understanding the period’s religious ferment, including the rise of Christianity (which itself drew on these tensions in its portrayal of conflicts with “chief priests” and “Pharisees”).

The idea of the Gospel of John that the Jewish elite weren’t allowed to kill Jesus and so manipulated the Romans into doing it fits in with the Jesus ben Ananeus episode in Josephus and the satirical transgression after transgression, loophole after loophole Jewish trial of Jesus. Hamilton notes the transgression/loophole parade but misses the satire:

However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so… As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine]. (Hamilton, 1992, pp. 335-336. Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335)

This is satire, not history. The Jewish elite went through multiple legal tradition contortions to find loopholes to convict Jesus, all the while knowing as the Gospel of John says they couldn’t kill Jesus and so and so tricked the Romans into doing it. 

But let’s think about the travesty of justice that brought about Jesus’ death and apologetics:

The creed/poetry in 1 Corinthians is often seen as one of the crown jewels of Christian apologetics:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Ryan Turner of the CARM apologetics mega-site says “Finally, I analyzed how Paul used this creed in his argument to support his apostleship.  For Paul, his message was valid because he had seen the risen Christ, just like the names in the creed.  He would use this argument to make himself the most influential Christian evangelist ever.”

What I tried to show in the previous posts is that a good secular explanation is the idea of the wrongful death, life cut short and disgraceful burial would have primed the disciples to expect Jesus’ ghost.  Bereavement auditory and visual hallucinations are also common.  For example, around that time period when a chain-rattling specter appeared in his rented house, stoic philosopher Athenodorus did not panic or flee; he calmly finished writing his notes, followed the apparition to a spot in the courtyard, and later had the local authorities excavate unburied remains to give them proper funeral rites, which permanently ended the disturbance. The ancients, such as the Greeks, had a deep, mainstream belief in the spirits of the wrongfully killed or buried reaching out to the living. They categorized these restless spirits into specific groups, established complex religious legal frameworks around them, and wrote famous tragedies centered on their cries for justice.

Ehrman notes the crucifixion and resurrection were never on the radar of the historical Jesus and his followers, and it was only after he died and people started having visions that the disciples concluded the death must have had meaning and was in fact a sacrifice. We saw last time how in the ancient culture of ghost stories, that the wrongful death of God’s agapetos, sinless Jesus would have prompted those who passionately loved him to think they might see him again, which would explain the right psychological atmosphere for what Paul reported with appearances to Cephas, the 12, the 500, and James himself – which as I said could have been anything from a full on vision, to a glance in a crowd, to an unusual bird, etc.

We’ve been thinking about the risen Jesus in Paul as ghost sightings. The concept of ghosts (phantasma in Greek) was well-known in the ancient world. In the gospels, when Jesus walked on water (Matthew 14:26) and when He appeared after His resurrection (Luke 24:37-39), the disciples initially panicked and thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus corrected them by inviting them to touch His physical body, proving He was not a disembodied spirit. This may be a apologetic defense against the fact that the original Jesus sightings were visionary or fleeting glances in a crowd, etc.

What Paul wanted to argue is Jesus’ new spirit body would allow him to be everywhere at once so he could possess believers (like Dionysian enthusiasmos). In this regard, we seem to have ghost sightings in Paul that were later transformed into an apotheosis empty tomb type story in the gospels, which makes sense with Jewish tradition forbidding contacting the dead.  In Chariton’s work, when Chaereas finds Callirhoe’s tomb empty, the initial confusion leads to speculation that she may have been translated or taken up into the divine realm like a goddess.

There is a delicious ambiguity in the Corinthian creed where “Christ died for our sins” on the one hand suggests a payment or atonement, where on the other hand it could mean Christ died for our hidden sinfulness to become conspicuous, like was the purpose of the visit of the angels to the people around Lot.  It thus also suggests Christ died for or because of our sins, “for” being used as in “I can’t sleep for the heat.”

Of key interest is Romans, whose backstory is a church Paul did not create, and so he is at his most systematic.  Paul claims elsewhere (1 Cor 9:20) to modify his theology to fit any group he is addressing, and so this is on full display here.   Ehrman has also noted contradictory accounts of salvation in Romans.  Salvation in Romans is understood in different ways throughout Romans.   In Romans, the topic is human beings are alienated from God because of their sinful lives, and the death and resurrection of Jesus can fix the relationship.  This is like a RAFT writing prompt that has been given to students who solve it in completely different ways.  Paul in Romans has different models for expressing this which appear to contradict each other with completely opposed views to what sin is (human transgressions vs a cosmic power).  Romans is important because it simply lays out moral influence salvation beside substitution salvation blending the two major salvation paths in the Jesus tradition as though a Roman church that Paul didn’t create would simply understand this as though it was the most obvious thing in the world! Recall that all Paul really “required” of a convert was “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).”

There is the judicial model in Romans 1-4.  God is a law giver.  He also judges criminal cases.  Everybody breaks God’s laws, so there is a penalty and it’s the death penalty.  Everyone sins, so everyone dies.  Put differently, you’ve incurred a fine and it must be paid.  Jesus pays it for you.  Jesus being raised from the dead shows the penalty has been paid because he’s no longer dead.  We see this kind of substitutional view in 4 Maccabees.  It’s long been debated whether if Christ paid the penalty everyone is saved.  For Paul, you have to believe in Christ and accept the payment because if you don’t agree with Christ to pay your fine he can’t.  It would be like your mom offering to pay your fine in court, but you say no.  Salvation comes when you believe and trust Christ’s payment works.  This fits in with the ancient notion of sacrifice satisfying a god’s wrath.

There is also a participation model in Romans 5-8.  Sin brings about separation from God.  Sin in this model is not a transgression but a cosmic power in the universe.  It has imprisoned, trapped, and enslaved people: think of Satan entering Judas in the gospels (Luke 22:3, John 13:27).  It controls people and forces them to do things against God’s will.  Readers being implicated in the world turning on Christ / Christ’s death breaks the spell of Sin and opens people’s eye to their vileness.  Sin is a power that forces you to do wrong even if you want to do right, and the power of Sin hands you over to the power of Death.  Being implicated in Jesus’ death solves the problem of alienation from God here with your metanoia/renewal of mind/repentance, but not as a payment as with the judicial model.  It’s not that you’re breaking the law, but that you’ve been enslaved, so you have to be liberated.  The reader shocked at seeing themselves in the world that brought about Christ’s wrongful death interrupts the power of sin/breaks the spell, and you then desire that the resurrected Christ indwells within you, uniting you with him as buried and raised when baptized, to combat Satan’s temptations.  You participate in Christ’s death because when his death convicts you, your fleshly is crucified / circumcising your heart, revealing the Law written on it (Romans 2:14-15).  Christ’s resurrection shows he nullified the Power of Death, which is important because the bible says if the dead are not raised we might as well be gluttons and drunks for tomorrow we die (1 Corinthians 15:32; Isaiah 22:13).  By contrast, Paul urges “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).”  Paul says “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:17).”

In his book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), particularly in Chapter 4, Carrier describes early Christianity as a “charismatic cult” where many leaders and members showed evidence of schizotypal personalities. He links this to their reported experiences of visions, hallucinations, trances, glossolalia (speaking in tongues), and beliefs that dreams were divine messages.

This seems unlikely.  For example, Universalist Pentecostals all regularly speak in tongues, but this isn’t a sign of mental illness. I don’t think the problem of 1 Cor 15 can be adequately solved from the Christ Myth perspective. A much less ad hoc solution is just that the disciples saw the specially beloved and chosen man of God Jesus wrongfully killed and disgracefully buried, and so expected a Ghost visit, the resurrection vindicating Jesus in God’s eyes even though he was a crucified criminal in the eyes of the world.

This is my last post specific to the New Testament for a while, and next time I will be discussing some ideas about Genesis from the New Insights into the Hebrew Bible 2026 conference.  My thanks to The Secular Web for providing the opportunity to study the conference.