My heart is heavy as, looking backward, I can see more clearly now ways that I have dishonoured my Lord Jesus, as a biblical scholar, by giving honour to those who bear the name of Christ, yet teach openly against core aspects of the faith. In this way, I’ve also brought confusion to those in circles I’m in, who have looked to me for expertise and guidance. I went into biblical studies, formally, with a passion to be a light in an academic world that is clouded in darkness regarding Jesus. But, in actual fact, in so many ways, I added to the gloom. The reality is chilling.

But what can I do? I can admit it (confess) and do the opposite (repent). This blog post is my attempt to begin this process. I have honoured false teachers in my academic publications, whereas I should have honoured the Lord and served his church, by exposing where some are destroying the foundations of the house – and, as necessary, calling them to account. As I have said, though, instead I offered praise, flattery, where I should have given a rebuke.

I want to consider here one seasoned scholar, who is respected by many, Gerd Theissen. In my PhD dissertation-turned-book (Responses in the Miracle Stories of the Gospels) I interacted at some length with Theissen’s The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (1974). Most scholarly publications on the miracles of Jesus will reference Theissen’s book, with honour, with deference. I did the same. I really wish I hadn’t.

In my monograph’s opening chapter, I dedicated a lengthy section to Theissen (Responses in the Miracle Stories, pages 16–26). I wrote this: “His book constitutes a marked contribution to the study of the gospel miracle stories, generally, as well as the [people’s] responses [to the miracles], in specific” (Responses in the Miracle Stories, 16). It’s customary to do a history of research on the topic at hand, in a dissertation’s opening pages. But there’s no need to flatter. In fact, I strongly disagree that Theissen’s book contributed to the study of Jesus’ miracles. Here's why. And this engagement with Theissen’s book here now is an aspect of my re-do (or, to be technical, repentance).

I want to start with an illustrative example. Theissen claims that the account of Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1–8 | Mark 9:2–8 | Luke 9:28–36) was originally a story about Jesus’ ascension into heaven, following his resurrection. Later on, Christians changed this story, he alleges, so that it fit into the events that occurred during earlier Jesus’ ministry in the Galilee. Here is Theissen’s claim in his own words:

“The whole story may be regarded as an expanded ἀφανισμός portraying Jesus’ translation into heavenly glory” (Miracle Stories, pages 96–97).

(In Greek ἀφανισμός means disappearance. So, Theissen is claiming that the story in question was originally, allegedly, about Jesus’ disappearance from this world – not at all about Jesus’ temporary transformation into his glory and return to his regular appearance.) Theissen claims, in essence, that a story of Jesus’ ascension to heaven was itself transformed into a new sort of account. This is a sophisticated scenario.

His assertion, however, is patently false. Even a child, who takes the claims of the Gospels at face value, would know more than Theissen here. But there’s more. It actually gets really disturbing and – please stay with me a little longer, here – even, might you agree in the end, diabolical?

Peter, one of Jesus’ most intimate companions and an eyewitness at his Lord’s transfiguration, says this in his second letter (2 Pet 1:16–18; NRSV):

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.

16 οὐ γὰρ σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος. 17 λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα. 18 καὶ ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐνεχθεῖσαν σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ. (THGNT)

Peter makes the truth of the matter abundantly clear. This is not an account of Jesus’ disappearance (ἀφανισμός), but of his “coming” or “appearance” (parousia – παρουσία) in glory. So, Peter makes the opposite claim of Theissen. Or, vice versa. Who do you think would be right – the fisherman-turned-apostle, contemporary and intimate of the Lord Jesus, or a knowledgeable German, sitting in an office in Heidelberg millennia later?

Simon counters the accusation, which people were evidently making already while the apostle was yet alive, that the account of Jesus’ transfiguration was a fabrication. It is not a “myth” (Greek: muthos – μῦθος), he states clearly, but the report of eyewitness testimony. By “myth,” Peter means a story that cannot be believed as historical fact. But Peter’s account of the transfiguration is, he affirms, what actually happened. His letter has him, in effect, writing in all caps: I’M NOT LYING. (This effect is achieved, in part, by word order. The Greek has “and this voice” “we ourselves” “heard” – highlighting that it was “we” that heard… and no one else is the source of this account.)

Let’s not forget – this is a man who knows the bitter, bitter pain of lying – lying about Jesus, in specific – and the brutal path to restoration after a failure of such a magnitude as denying even knowing Jesus, under the force of an oath. This is not a man who will lightly resort to lying about Jesus again. The path of repentance is good and precious – but those of us who have walked it, we don’t want to walk it twice, for the same tragic mistake.

Let’s sum it up. Theissen not only goes against the accounts of the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, where Jesus’ transfiguration clearly takes place in the Galilee, long before his crucifixion. But also, Theissen openly contradicts the apostolic authority of Peter’s eyewitness testimony and his explicit defense that the account was not a sophisticated invention, a myth.

Here's the twisted irony. Theissen calls Peter’s testimony myth, while calling his own, imaginative reconstruction of the alleged development of the story itself a historical account. Are you starting to catch the whiff of what is happening here?

A little further on in his second letter, Peter refers to false teachers (Greek: pseudodidaskaloi – ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι). He prophesies that they will secretly bring in destructive heresies, bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Pet 2:1). What do you think? Judge for yourselves. How we should evaluate someone that flatly contradicts an apostle when he claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ glorious transfiguration on the holy mountain? Is this a small matter?

Towards the end of his letter, Peter talks about those that are interacting with Paul’s letters in ways that undermine what he says. Peter says this (2 Pet 3:16; NRSV):

There are some things in them [i.e. Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

ἐν αἷς ἐστιν δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν. (THGNT)

Peter designates Paul’s letters as part of the Scriptures. Interesting, no? If twisting difficult sayings in Paul’s letters leads to destruction, what should we say about twisting unambiguously clear statements about the transfiguration in Peter’s letter? Hmmm, I still can’t seem to understand why I didn’t see this earlier. But it’s all clear to me now. How about for you? Is the gloom and fog starting to clear?

We have, in actual fact, a false teacher in our midst with Gerd Theissen. This is the truth, no matter how hard it may be for us as biblical scholars, who profess the name of Jesus, to stomach. One has to look past the renown and respect he has in the world of biblical scholarship. Theissen is ostensibly a protestant, a theologian and a scholar of the New Testament. He has the title of Professor of New Testament Theology at the University of Heidelberg. However, he is in fact a wolf in sheep’s clothing (and nothing more than that).

I would like to make a point of clarification. When I speak about false teachers (just as when Peter does), I am not referring to biblical scholars who are atheists or from different religions. I refer merely to those who call themselves followers of Christ, yet pervert the gospel and promote false teaching – that is, teaching that undermines core aspects of the faith.

I am not at odds here with someone who does not consider himself a follower of Christ. Paul says this, we have absolutely no right to judge those outside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12–13). We do, however, have a responsibility to judge those inside the church. To judge those outside the church, Paul observes (1 Corinthians 5:10), one would actually have to leave the world (impossible and ridiculous).

But is the transfiguration a core aspect of the faith? Let me ask a different question: is flatly contradicting a statement of an apostle written in ALL CAPS not high treason? But, even if you would disagree on the importance of the transfiguration, please consider this. It is just one example of many we see in Theissen’s publications.

In the same book I interacted with in my dissertation, Theissen openly teaches that the stories of Jesus’ miracles, generally, “do not reproduce historical reality” (Miracle Stories, page 31). How is that for high treason? He says, further, “Today we can no longer regard miracle stories as evidence of divine intervention” (Miracle Stories, page 34). He affirms the opinion of Rudolf Bultmann, who claims that diseases and their cures have only natural causes.

So, in the same vein as his treatment of the Lord’s transfiguration, Theissen claims that the accounts of Jesus’ appearances, following his resurrection, are inventions. Jesus did not, Theissen asserts, come back from the dead. The stories of Jesus’ appearances after his resurrection, Theissen claims, are stories invented either to inspire worship of Jesus or to claim authority for the apostles (Miracle Stories, pages 95, 97–98). But, to deny the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection is to lose all connection with the head, which is Christ Jesus the Lord.

How much more do I need to write? The resurrection of Jesus is core to the faith. Paul says as much (1 Cor 15:17; NRSV):

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

εἰ δὲ χριστὸς οὐκ ἐγήγερται, ματαία ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν· ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν· (THGNT)

Anyone who claims that the accounts of the appearances of the resurrected Lord Jesus have been messed with — let alone invented whole cloth — is guilty of undermining the foundation of the gospel.

At multiple points in his letter, Peter warns of a coming destruction for the false teachers he is exposing. Here is one example (2 Pet 2:2–3; NRSV):

2 …and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

2 …δι’ οὓς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημηθήσεται· 3 καὶ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύσονται, οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάζει.

Being a false teacher is no joke. The consequences are severe, eternal, irreversible. As a Christian biblical scholar, I have been guilty of loving personal security, prestige, promotion over the eternal fate of those whose scholarship I have interacted with. I have also valued these privileges over the impact on others – from the elderly to children – that inevitably filters down from my obfuscating what is important, true and foundational to the faith. And I know I am not the only one who’s done this.

Theissen has published many other works, distorting, indeed perverting, the truth like this one does. Theissen is not a great teacher to be honored, but a man to be pitied — a false teacher who has led many astray. His work is poison.

Still, there is hope.

I call on Gerd Theissen to repent from disseminating filth among God’s people! This is not what you were born for. You have a greater destiny from God. There is still time. Don’t let shame hold you back! There is great mercy still available for all, as long as one is still breathing, and is willing to turn to the merciful Saviour. Remember the thief on the cross — he received such amazing grace, even at the hour of his execution, because he was willing to recognize that he was a sinner.

You are not young anymore, please don’t be a fool. Great darkness and fire await you, if you will not repent. The judgment will be particularly fierce for those who lead others astray. The Lord Jesus says this (Matthew 18:6). Alternatively, eternal life with Christ and the saints awaits you, if you will simply acknowledge that you’ve been wrong and damaged the faith of others. The love I have for you is real — real enough to write this blog post (despite any backlash). May you know forgiveness and true peace.

Of course, I also write this post, first and foremost, for Christ and his Bride, his church, acknowledging first the error of my ways and second, in accordance with true repentance, going in the opposite direction. It is important to expose false teachers, especially when we have previously honored them in writing. How else will others know that something is dreadfully wrong, unless those with familiarity speak up?

As I step back and consider the larger field of biblical studies, I believe that we are actually in a sort of ice age. That is a big claim. And it will take some explanation and justification. I will seek to write more about this in the near future. For the present, the question remains: what do we do with Theissen’s books?

I can tell you what I am doing with his work (and that of other false teachers). In my personal library, I’ve begun to move these books to a designated space on a shelf. They do not belong among the works that seek to honour the Messiah and his Father. So, I don’t let them stand together. Perhaps you would consider my example?