Two chapters of my book Jesus Before the Gospels involve discussions of “distorted memories” – that is, recollections of events from Jesus life that appear not to represent what actually happened. One of the chapters deals with events leading up to Jesus’ death (the most remembered part of his life), the other with his public ministry. Just to give a taste of how I proceed in these chapters, I will excerpt here my discussion of the Triumphal Entry. The discussion is a little long for a single post, so I will divide it into two. Today’s post explains what the memory is (one many people still have today!); the next one will try to show why it is best seen as not being a “true” memory.
The Triumphal Entry
There seems to be no reason to doubt that Jesus spent the last week of his life in Jerusalem looking ahead to the celebration of the Passover feast. Passover was by far the busiest time of the year in Jerusalem, when the city would swell many times its normal size as Jewish pilgrims from around the year would come to enjoy the feast in the capital city. They would normally arrive a week early to prepare for the big day.
The festival was, and is, celebrated to commemorate the exodus of the children of Israel from their slavery in Egypt during the days of Moses, over a millennium before the birth of Jesus. The historical basis for the feast is given in the book of Exodus. There we are told that the people of Israel had been in Egypt for centuries and had been enslaved there. God, though, heard their cries of despair and sent a great leader Moses, who through his miracle-working power brought the Israelites – well over a million of them – out from their slavery and eventually brought them to the Promised Land.[1] Jewish people throughout the world have celebrated this great exodus event, in some respects the founding event for the people of Israel, once a year at Passover. Since the festive meal in the days of Jesus was to involve eating a sacrificed lamb, the only place on earth to celebrate it properly was in Jerusalem, as it was only there, in the temple, that animal sacrifices could be made to God. And so those who had the time and money to do so would come to Jerusalem for the feast.
It would be a mistake, though, to think that…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, why don’t you JOIN??? It costs less than a dime a post and every penny goes to help the needy!
I have always wondered about the donkey and the colt. Tried to visualize how Jesus would have sat upon both at the same time. Maybe stood on their backs, one foot upon each–except the colt’s back would presumably be lower. Awkward.
Looking foward to the rest of this.
There’s no reason to think the triumphant entry ever happened. In Mark, Jesus’ “triumphant entry” is paired with Jesus’ “humiliating exit” when he went to the cross. The “triumphant entry/humiliating exit” is a literary device showcasing an example of Mark’s use of IRONY. As a case of bonus irony, don’t you find it weird that all the people knew Jesus well enough to celebrate his entry into the city, but the officials needed the kiss of Judas to identify him? lol
Another possibility is that The New Testament isn’t being honest with us.
If anyone would like to read the short story I published about the possibility that the stories of Jesus’ divinity and miracles were LIES, it is published here:
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/the-eternal-return.html
For an overview of the most recent arguments I have on the topic of “Jesus’ divinity and miracles as NOBLE LIES,” see the five or six posted comments I have on this blog page:
http://vridar.org/2015/09/21/comments-open/#comment-73290
My name is John MacDonald
Why is it important to you to prove some parts are lies? You seem to have a personal stake in proving that.
In one of these posts on your new book I wonder if you could comment on how the apocalyptic view of many early Christians would have affected collective memory. In other words, why focus on carefully preserving the sacred words of Jesus for future generations when there would be no future generations. The oral tradition that was present in some cultures, to carefully preserve the exact text of a divine figure (e.g., the Koran), would not be present in an apocalyptic culture.
My sense is that they were telling the stories not for the sake of people living centuries later, but in order to convert people so that they too would be prepared for the imminent end.
And would the interest of conversion rather than historical preservation have been likely to leave the telling more open to dramaticizing, embellishment, and the like? Or would historical revisionism have been likely to play essentially the same role?
I’m not sure the story tellers were trying to convert others with an account like this — but it’s possible. It may also be because they were telling the story to fellow-believers and instilling significance into it.
Talk about “triumphal entries,” how about the Tar Heels entry into Cameron last night????
Now *that* was a Triumphal EXIT!
So…had Mark gotten the idea from that Jewish Scriptural source (which he understood correctly)? And might Matthew – despite being familiar with the passage – never have thought of it in this context if it hadn’t appeared in Mark?
I’m guessing you’re going to say there was *some* oral tradition of bystanders greeting Jesus – maybe his disciples were shouting about him, *trying* to get people’s attention, and a few did stop and listen to them (though they’d probably forgotten it five minutes later). And the story grew with every retelling.
My view is that we don’t know really what happened, except that Jesus came into Jerusalem about a week before the Passover.
Dr. Ehrman,
A slightly off-topic question. A lot of scholars talk about the Jews living under “Roman oppression” (I even get this sense from my fellow Jews when they talk about the Tannaitic period). But when I read Josephus, he makes it quite clear that the Jewish aristocracy invited the Roman’s into Judea as a hegemonic power (which, incidentally, was a regular way for Rome to expand its empire), first when Pompey was invited in to settle the civil war of succession between Alexander Janneus’ sons in 63BCE, and next when the Jewish aristocracy requested a Roman governer in lieu of a Jewish ethnarch upon the deposition and exile of Herod Archelaus by Augustus in 6CE. So in a sense, the “oppression” of the Jews was more of a class struggle (a la Marxist analysis) than most laypeople are led to believe. So, technically, wasn’t Jesus actually proclaiming the liberation of the marginalized, god-fearing Jewish commoner from the oppression of the powerful, yet corrupt and sinful Roman AND Jewish elite? I mean, sure, Caiaphas and the Temple priesthood are portrayed as corrupt and impious in the Gospels, but I don’t think the average layperson really understands the class power dynamics that were on going at the time. That is to say the ethnic/cultural dynamic (Jew vs Gentile) was also criss-crossed with the class dynamic of commoner vs aristocrat.
Jesus *may* have been concerned as well with the Jewish elite who were co-operating with Rome. But Josephus is difficult to use on this score, since his patrons were Roman and he was clearly telling his tale with a certain slant.
Of course Josephus has his own slant, but there is no good reason to doubt that his perspective was presumably representative of many of the Jewish aristocratic priests.
Hi Bart, can I make a suggestion? Could you put the date published by the post title? I don’t see one, but I’m on my mobile so I’m not sure if there is one in desktop format. I know this may seem very trivial, but as I’ve just signed up I’m wading through all the archived posts and it would be nice to have an idea of how old the post I’m reading is.
Thanks for your consideration… and also thanks for your writings! I know you have said deconverting people is not your goal, but your books helped to deconvert me. I only wish I had read your books earlier.
It’s already there!
I’ve went through this as well. Once a post is clicked, the date disappears if I’m on my phone or a tablet that’s turned vertically. If you turn the tablet horizontally, the date will pop up along with the post titles to choose from on the side. On my phone, the titles are at the bottom.
James White is obviously upset that you don’t give him attention. He challenges you on two points on a YouTube video in the comments of your latest post on Facebook. The first is about whether any NT author at all had the view that Jesus was Yahweh; he’s certain he can completely demolish you on this question. The second is about whether Matthew’s “telescoping” in his shorter version of the story of Jairus’s daughter is a better explanation of an “apparent contradiction” as they like to put it between the Matthew and Mark accounts. Although, I admit that his hypothetical explanation for the differences seems more reasonable than saying the two accounts relate two different events, his explanation leaves me in confusion about his view of inerrancy. I mean, does the Bible report that Jairus reported to Jesus two different states of health or not? If you have the time to comment on one or both of these points, it would be interesting to me, but if you feel it’s not worth the digital ink, that’s fine, too. It doesn’t bother me too much.
Bart:
Speaking of triumphal entries, I am just going to spend a few days in Rome on holiday this week and will be looking at the Arch of Titus.
Can I ask for your recommendations on the three or four most essential sites to see for those interested in the history of earliest Christianity and Judaism in ancient Rome?
Thanks!
Must-sees include, of course, the forum, the catacombs, and the Vatican. Be sure to get a couple of high-quality tour-books well in advance!
Bart:
I have just started reading Schweitzer’s “The Problem of the Lord’s Supper”. From what I have understood so far, he is trying to understand the origin of the Lord’s Supper as it is practised in light of the Gospel evidence about Jesus’ words before his crucifixion.
Can I ask what you think is the best work on this particular problem, after Schweitzer himself?
Thanks!
Off hand I’m drawing a blank, I’m sorry to say!
Great post, dr Ehrman!
In some of your books and here, on blog, you’ve mentioned this Triumphal Entry problem couple of times. And I think it was always in the context of how Matthew cited and used passages from Hebrew scriptures to actually make Jesus fulfill them. That is why I think that this passage show us more about Matthew’s attitude towards fulfillment of Scripture, than a memory problem.
If Matthew was not an eyewitness, we are not talking here about his memory, but “oral tradition” memory, seasoned with Matthew’s views, right?
It’s how Matthew is “calling to mind” the event; the technical meaning of “memory” is to call something back to mind.
Unrelatedly to Matthew himself and the Triumphal Entry.
Dr Ehrman, how would you describe Jerusalem’s functioning before and during the celebration of Passover feast? Thousands of pilgrims came to this city, its’ size was couple of times bigger than normal. So where did all these pilgrims stay? Was the city itself capable of receiving that amount of people coming? How would the trade look like during that time? Was there enough food, water, supplies for these thousands and thousands of people? Do you think that the Passover time was profitable for local community?
Of course, I don’t expect you to answer all these questions in particular (though I would love to read all of them!), but just general description of how it might have looked. Or maybe even better – can you recommend some good materials dealing with this subject?
Thanks for your help!
I’m afraid I don’t know the answers. A good place to look would be E. P Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief.
Has there been any real advances in our knowledge of the Historical Jesus since the “third quest” started? Or are we now witnessing a return to Bultmann’s assertion that only a few scattered facts can be known for sure?
No, I think people in the third quest are much more confident than that. The problem is there are so many perspectives now!
I wonder if any medieval or renaissance painters have portrayed this event with the weird two-beast straddle?
I’d like to see that.
I would too!
Matthew 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.
I think it is JD Crossan who suggests that the final”them” refers to the cloaks on the donkeys, so Jesus was sitting on the cloaks, not necessarily on two donkeys at once. Could Matthew really have been that silly?! I don’t know how this explanation stands up to the Greek though.
It is a possible reading of Matthew, but when one looks at the text of Mark and how Matthew has stuck to it pretty closely, except for this point, it seems as if Matthew might have meant that Jesus sat upon both animals.
Dr. Ehrman. I was wondering what you thought about Darrell Bock’s comments on oral tradition? https://vimeo.com/50733796
Haven’t seen it. But knowing Darrell, I’m pretty sure it won’t be what I myself think!
It’s a short clip. If you have time, I would like your thoughts on it. I am enjoying your book so far.
I have included my version of this event in my Murdered Messiah series, but I don’t treat it as a spontaneous event–I treat it as planned by some of Jesus’ followers (including Zealots) and it is not what Jesus wanted, nor did he plan to be named king. The last thing that Jesus of Nazareth would have wanted was to be acclaimed “King of the Jews.” In the event, Pilate did it for him, but that’s another story.
When you discuss the corruption of the temple in your books, I think you ussually speak almost exclusively about the money-changing activities. Do you consider it at all likely that there were many other forms of corruption, more akin to that which is depicted in the Norman Jewison version of Jesus Christ Superstar, with prostitutes, all kinds of merchants, and even bookies and other shady characters? As long as the authorities were getting their cut, they may have allowed practically anything. Indeed, I’ve even considered it possible that unblemished sheep were being sold, switched for blemished ones that were sacrificed, and then circled back around for resale (although I have no idea of the percentage of blemished to unblemished sheep, and if this would be necessary.) To what extent, then, do you think the temple market was corrupt? (Note: it is recorded that Jesus also had a problem with people “carrying anything [i.e., merchandise]” through the temple. Thanks!
No, I don’t think there was that thing going on at *all*. But I love the scene in Superstar!
Offhand I’m blanking as to whether the author of Matthew is assumed to have been a Jew or Gentile, but is it normal that he would misunderstand the conceptual parallelism of OT poetry? I mean even as occidental readers millennia later we seem to pick up on it pretty quickly and understand it’s a restating of the same concept, so what are the chances that he was actually that dense, Jew *or* Gentile? Is there any other possible way of interpreting his strange double-ride story?
It’s debated whether he was Jew or Gentile. He appears to have wanted Jesus to fulfill the prophecy *literally*….
I just finished reading this section last night. I would love to go back in time and meet the author of Matthew because he’s so *out there* with some of his writing. He writes like he used a source (Q–I think you wrote?) document then found every scripture in the Old Testament that he thought related to Jesus and spliced the whole thing together without any regard to whether it made sense or was accurate.
Dr. Ehrman,
In the NA Greek NT ed. 27, describing the Triumphal Entry in Matthew chapter 21, the last word in verse seven is “αὐτῶν”. I’m slowly learning Koine, but can you please tell me if there is any specific lingual indication from the Koine if the last word “αὐτῶν” is technically/specifically referring to either the animals, the disciples, or the cloaks? In English it is not specific at all and I was wondering if the Koine has rules indicating which subject it refers to exactly.
This is Matt 21:7 “ἤγαγον τὴν ὄνον καὶ τὸν πῶλον, καὶ ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν.”
In the English, “αὐτῶν” could technically refer to any of the preceding subjects. What in the Koine specifically indicates it refers to the animals?
It is referreing to the earliest preceding plural substantives, the donkey and the colt; not much doubt about it in the Greek (and shown to be virtually indisputable because of the αυτων five words earlier: also has to be the animals)
Oh and also do you know of any textual variants of Matthew 21:7 that shed any light on what Jesus is doing here.
Yes indeed: four mss change the the first αυτων to αυτον so they spread their cloaks on “it” rather than them; but oddly, the scribes did not change the next αυτων so taht he still straddles “them” to ride into town.