Loading...
I now can mount a second argument for why Jesus almost certainly called himself the messiah during his lifetime. Remember: by that I do not mean that Jesus wanted to lead a military rebellion against the Romans to establish himself as king. On the contrary, I think Jesus was not a supporter of a “military solution.” Jesus was an apocalypticist who believed that God himself would take action and do what was needed – overthrow the evil ruling authorities in a cataclysmic show of power and destroy all that was opposed to himself, and so bring in a good, utopian kingdom on earth. And Jesus would be made the king.
I don’t need here to give the extensive reasons for thinking that Jesus held to this kind of apocalyptic view in general – I’ve talked about it at length both in a number of my books and on the blog. The question here is the more narrow one: did Jesus think he would be the king of the coming kingdom? I have given one strong reason for thinking so: he taught his disciples that they would themselves be seated on thrones as rulers in the future kingdom.
Someone on the blog has asked why that means Jesus himself would be king over them. It’s a good question. The answer is that we have to think in terms of what a first century person in the Roman Empire thought a kingdom was. Kingdoms have kings. They don’t have twelve kings. That would be twelve kingdoms. Every kingdom and empire in antiquity had one ruler (until the Tetrarchy; but that’s a completely other story). Often they had rulers under them: client kings, administrators, governors, and so on. But ultimately there was one king.
That’s what Jesus appears to be imagining the kingdom of God to be like. There would be a king. And under him twelve other rulers, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. So who would be the solitary king? The only reason the twelve would rule is because they followed and obeyed their lord and master Jesus. He ruled them now. He would rule them then. He would be the king.
And now for another reason for thinking so.
It is beyond any real doubt that Jesus was crucified precisely for calling himself the King of the Jews.
There are several compelling and interlocking pieces of evidence that make this virtually certain. First, it is the charge placed over his head in all our independent sources: This is the King of the Jews (written in a mocking way, of course: THIS is what your king looks like!). Moreover, it is the one and only issue that is said to come out in the trial of Jesus before the Roman governor Pilate.
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
It is important to note: Pilate does not ask Jesus whether he was claiming to be a divine man. Or whether he thought he was the Son of Man. Or whether he was opposed to the Jewish leadership. Or whether he disagreed with the teachings of the Pharisees or Sadducees. Or anything else. Pilate asks him: “Are you (really?!) the King of the Jews?”
Now I don’t think for a second that we have a stenographic record of Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus. That’s not my point. My point is that the later followers of Jesus, after his death, knew full well why the Romans had killed him. It was for claiming to be the king. And so when they framed the account of the trial, that is the charge they have Pilate level against him.
A compelling reason for thinking so is this: if Christians later wanted to MAKE UP a charge against Jesus – that is, if they wanted to invent a reason for Pilate wanting Jesus’ death – they would NOT have made up the charge that he called himself the King of the Jews. Why is that? Because early Christians, so far as we know, never called Jesus the King of the Jews.
That may seem weird to say, but it’s true. Look at all the teachings of Jesus in our earliest sources – Mark, Q, M, L, or even the Gospel of Thomas. Does Jesus ever call himself King of the Jews? Never. Read the letters of Paul. Does he ever speak of Jesus using the term “king of the Jews” Never. Preaching of the apostles in Acts? Never.
This is not a description of Jesus that was popular among his later followers. But that means that they would not have ascribed it to Jesus at his trial because they favored it. If they wanted to change the grounds for the charges against him, they could easily have Pilate ask him: Are you really God? Are you really the Son of God? Are you really the Son of Man? Are you really opposed to the Temple and the high priests? Are you really…. All sorts of things.
But you don’t find any such thing. You find Pilate accusing Jesus of something that the Christians did not call him. Why is that? Because the later Christian story tellers knew full well why Jesus had been executed. He had been executed for calling himself the future king.
We don’t know exactly what happened at the judicial proceeding against Jesus that led to his execution. But we do know that he was executed on political charges. He was not executed for his teachings of love and mercy and forgiveness. He was executed for calling himself a king when only Rome could rule the Jews, either through their own administrators (Pilate, e.g.) or through someone they appointed (Herod). Anyone who claimed to be a king was seen, quite sensibly, to be a political threat and had to be dealt with as such.
Pilate would not have cared about the apocalyptic nuances of Jesus’ views. If he found out that Jesus was saying that he was king in any sense, that would have been enough to order the ultimate punishment. Which is what Pilate did.
So what happened at the trial? Again, I don’t think we can know for sure, but the Gospels accounts at this point are completely plausible. Pilate asks Jesus if what he has heard about him is true, and Jesus can’t deny it. Of course he couldn’t deny it. He did think he was the future king. And so they did to him what they did to everyone who challenged the sovereignty of Rome. They beat him, tortured him, humiliated him, and hung him on a cross in public, so everyone could see what happens to someone who thinks he can oppose the power of empire.
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
49 Comments
Leave A Comment
Is there any indication of the place non-Roman gentiles would have in the new kingdom of Jesus? (I assume Roman gentiles would be eliminated.)
Matthew 25:31-46 indicates that people from “all the nations” will.
Firstly : I have the impression you deny the role of the Jewish High Priests.
And secondly according to Reza Aslan in his book “Zealot. The life and Times of Jesus from Nazareth” I found convincing arguments that Pilate never would have given a marginal Jew the honor of a personal trial .
” Pilate was not a man of trials. In his ten years as governor of Jerusalem he sent many thousands to the cross with a simple scribble of his reed pen The thought of him even being in the same room as Jesus, let alone deigning to grant him a “trial,” defies the imagination. Either Jesus’ threat to the stability of Jerusalem is so great that he is one of the very few Jews who had the opportunity to appear before Pilate and defend themselves for their alleged crimes. Or the so-called trial before Pilate is a fabrication.
There are reasons to suspect the latter. The scene has an unmistakably theatrical character. ”
And that is his final judgment for all the other scenes with Pilate.
I cannot judge the professional expertise of Reza Aslan but I’ve found his arguments convincing .
YOu may want to look up my long thread reviewing his book on the blog (just do a word search for Reza)
Thanks for the Rabbit hole to dive into, although searching for Zealot works better than Reza for this search. I had never heard of this book, so I only know what you wrote about. Do you think this idea of Jesus being a militant is for evangelical audiences who have trouble with Jesus’s passivity?
Not really. Reza is Muslim, and my sense is that the proponents of this view (going back to the 1770s!) are simply trying to make best sense of the Gospels stories from a historical perspective, including the quesiton of why Romans would have wanted to crucify Jesus (not for preaching the need to love one another!)
1. How did Jesus become the leader of his group? Was he the oldest?
2. Was the idea of him being king and the disciples being rulers his idea so he got to decide that he would be king?
1. He attracted followers. 2. He appears to have believed that God had called him to that role.
So the idea is that Jesus would have thought himself to be the next king of Israel, the Messiah, and said so to chosen disciples, but that no one around him really understood in what way he was and what it really meant. In fact, neither do I. What would he actually have meant, besides the pauline theory that he came to suffer?
In any case, he seems to have wanted to keep this a secret amongst the initiated. That seems very close to what the Gnostics were saying, at least on this aspect. Is there some lineage to be seen here between “secret teachings” movements, like that of the early Gnostics, and the gospel of Mark?
Was there really a trial at all?
It’s not clear there was anything “official” (even though the Gopsels claim there was). But he was executed on order of the Roman governor for some reason, whether he had a chance to defend himself or not, and it’s that reason that matters for what I’m arguing.
You lost me. a) Jesus thought he would be king, & his 12 disciples knew that because he told them they’d rule under him. b) But early Christians never called him king. Why not? Did the disciples never tell anyone that Jesus thought he was king, and that’s why early Christians never called him king? Or did the disciples in fact tell people that Jesus thought he was king, but later, when “early Christians” were writing things down, EITHER they somehow hadn’t heard that Jesus (thought he) was king OR they *had* heard that Jesus thought that but either they didn’t believe that he thought it or didn’t themselves believe he was king? c) So where did Pilate get the idea to ask Jesus whether he was king if only Jesus and his disciples thought (or had heard) that? If Pilate asked Jesus whether he was king because he had *heard* that Jesus thought he was, where had he heard it if not from among the local people? So what happened to the idea that Jesus thought he was king between the time of the 12 disciples and the time of “early Christians”? What have I misunderstood?
a. right. b. they called him “messiah” because that was the more common term for the future Jewish king. c. messiah did mean king, so when Judas spilled the beans, Pilate took action.
And I guess the disciples, who had expected to be rulers under the future king, decided they had better shut up and forget the whole thing unless they be crucified next.
This explains Peter’s denials and everybody disappearing after the arrest.
“So who would be the solitary king? The only reason the twelve would rule is because they followed and obeyed their lord and master Jesus…He would be the king.”
And kings were vassals under an emperor—Herod the Great built three temples to worship Augustus: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/3473-the-temple-of-caesar-augustus-at-caesarea-philippi
So would Jesus worship Augustus if he was king?
Your subtle take is really important. If you want to be a theocratic king-of-kings, that means you’re not against the orderliness of empire, but can be for/against individual emperors (maybe the Liar who shows him multiple kingdoms?)
Kings can rule tiny cities or be tribal chiefs, so the apostles are good there. (I wonder who the twelve+ under the Kazneh are).
Emperor ‘imperator’ (federal layer) starts out as a victorious military title that Augustus adopts—imo signifying direct rule empire expansionism, like Ramses II.
Then there’s ANE deification. Theos titulary (circa First Century). Living Horus/Seth titulary (Patriarchal Age). Dinger (Semetic-speaking nomads starting in 2300 BCE Mesopotamia.)
I think Pilate was ‘in on it’ because phone cameras have discovered abundant modern examples of Eastern substitute prisoners that mirror the Substitute King: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/08/chinas-wealthy-and-influential-sometimes-hire-body-doubles-to-serve-their-prison-sentences.html
Needs connections. Maybe we can do the thought experiment where Jesus is the son of a handmaid to a human Lord.
Yup, Jesus would be the king. Disciples would be co-gerents (think: governors of provinces or the like). And Caesar would be no more.
Bart,
Judas likely provided the Sanhedrin/Caiaphas with confirmation of the critical “king of the jews” context for them to get the Romans to stop Jesus on their behalf. This would require Judas to of understood Jesus as a ‘(future) king of the jews’ and for that concept to of been floated about in discussions within the Twelve – at least from Peter. Mark’s gospel is not as obvious as Matthew’s in setting up the throne metaphors, but a strong consensus is seen that the apostles saw Jesus as ‘anointed’ (Christ).
Is it fair to think that the apostles used the word ‘Christ’ only in their private conversations and intentionally avoided the term in their dealings with others? A scenario that Jesus believed he would be a ‘king’ yet also made efforts to deflect that belief from the minds of others (Matthew 16:20) does not make Jesus seem to be as brutally honest and open as he seems to be elsewhere. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus does not seem to be as secretive of his anointed pathway.
I feel like it is a leap from “Kingdom of God” to “King in the Kingdom of God” to account as the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion. Wouldn’t promoting the Kingdom of God, which would triumph over all earthly kingdoms like the Empire and its Caesar, be sufficient grounds to execute the individual? That’s seditious enough, I believe. Pilate may have had it explained to him by the Sadducee leaders, but that much can be seen in the gospel accounts. I don’t have a hard-and-fast idea about Jesus’ identity, but it seems Son of Man lingers in the gospels, even though it was a term no longer used by Paul, much less by the later gospel editors. The change in title/identification for Jesus must have happened relatively early in the post-crucifixion period as the mourning community tried to make sense of what had happened, reinterpreting/reimagining the identity/role/title of Jesus.
I”m not sure Romans punished people for thinking that better days were coming; it’s an interesting question, but since this was the view of most apocalyptic Jews (that the kingdom would come) and none of them appear to have been executed for it, and since JEsus’ was charged for calling himself the king, not for preaching a future age on earth, I think the claim to be king must have been the grounds for his exectuion.
I’m having trouble squaring the “messianic secret” theory with the idea that Judas “spilled the beans”. On the one hand, the messianic secret theory says Jesus’ private claims of messiahship to his disciples was a literary invention to present him as Messiah while also confirm what was “common knowledge”: that Jesus never publicly declared himself the messiah. To me, the “messianic secret” theory implies that we don’t have any good reason to believe that Jesus did in fact privately claim he was the messiah, because that aspect of the story was “made up”.
On the other hand, the “Judas spilled the beans” theory seems to take the gospels at face value – that the “messianic secret” wasn’t a literary invention, and that Jesus did *in fact* privately tell his disciples that he was the messiah, and Judas let the secret out!
Are these two theories incompatible?
The term messianic secret is usually used to indicate what Jesus said (or rather did not say) in public, and how he hushed up the disciples and demons when they made a true declaratoin about him. It is not usually understood as a historical reality, but a literary feature especially found in the Mark’s Gospel. (that is, it’s the view Mark is promoting, not necessarily a statement of historical reality) In talking about Judas’s betrayal I’m not talking about the views of one or another of the Gospels, but what I think is the most plausible reconstruction of what actually happened.
Well, here is the problem: If the Jews of the first century, expecting a king for a Messiah, had trouble seeing someone with a background like that of Jesus as the Messiah, then why did Jesus see Himself as the Messiah? During my work as a physician, I have actually seen several psychotic patients claiming to be the Messiah. The belief that a Messiah was coming was common during the first century. So, this belief, like Schweitzer wrote, is/was not psychotic and is understandable. It is the belief of Jesus that He is/was that Messiah which is the question. How or why dd Jesus reach this conclusion when He was nothing like the Messiah the first century Jews were anticipating?
Ah, right — today Jesus might need to be in your office to be examined! But in a very different cultural/religious context, what would be psychotic in our world is not necessarily so…. I think the answer to your question is that htere were various expectatoins of what hte messiah would be, one of which was simply “the future king of Israel.” Jesus apparently did think that is what he was. He did not expect to get executed. He expected the cosmic judge of the earth to arrive, destroy God’s enemies, and appoint him (Jesus) to be king. It certainly does sound grandiose; but I think it’s really hard to know how to psychoanalyze the patient when we can’t talk to him (even once, let alone for months) and have just a vague sense of his world and worldview….
Or, perhaps the Messiahship was put on Jesus shoulders by followers until it got out of control and/ or convinced Jesus himself. Consider for a moment Jesus as a follower of John breaking off on his own preaching gig … clear headed about who he was but with exceptional charisma and a good news story about the near future… and a growing following intent on pushing his anointing forward until Jesus couldn’t deny it without loosing the following and perhaps being politically naive about Roman sensitivities surrounding Jerusalem at Passover…..
I speculate that Jesus thought he was the Davidic messiah because of an auditory hallucinogenic experience during his baptism. While seeing a dove, he heard an auditory hallucinogenic voice telling him he was chosen by God for this role. He told his followers about this, and they all believed they had special protection from God until the imminent apocalypse happened after they arrived in Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. Under this theory, Jesus really thought he was the Davidic messiah, and he was stunned, and felt forsaken, to find he had no special protection from the Romans. That would explain why Jesus may have said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” and it explains his boldness during his final week. So, Bart, I think the baptism story is another reason for thinking Jesus thought he was messianic and I’m wondering if you agree.
Yes, that’s a theory that is sometimes floated about, and it certainly makes sense of a lot of what happens in Jesus’ life based on the Gospels. My view though is that it presupposes that the narratives of Jesus’ baptism are essentially historical, whereas I think the vision, the voice from heaven, the dove, etc. are literary constructs of the Christian story tellres meant to show that Jesus’ ministry began with divine sanction and authorizatoin, not because something like this (even with a naturalistic explanation that it was a hallucinatory event) took place. Combined with that, I don’t think we have any way of knowing what Jesus actually said on the cross; the diea that he felt forsaken is also first found in Mark, who gave us the original baptism theme, and it is meant to be a closing bracket of what happened at the outset — it begins with God coming upon Jesus at the baptism and ends with Jesus feeling forsaken by God. Interestingly there are clear connections between the two passages in Mark. The word SCHIZO “to rip” occurs only twice in Mark, when the heavens rip open at the baptism (showing that God is present in Jesus) and when the curtain rips at the crucifixion (showing that now people have access to Go’s presence, otherwise hidden behind a curtain in the temple); in both a voice declares that Jesus is the Son of God (the voice from heaven at the baptism; the centurion at the crucifixion) — notable since no one in this entire Gospel calls him that except divine beings (God at the transiguration and demons when cast out) (but now finally a human “gets it”! But it’s not a follower sof Jesus but the Rman soldier who has just crucified him). In short: I think this is a literary invention, not a historical reality that can be given a naturalist (i.e non-supernatural) interpretatoin.
Bart, I also see evidence supporting your view that Jesus body was thrown into a communal pit, instead of a tomb burial. A communal pit outside Jerusalem, for crucifixion victims, would naturally have lots of bones and skulls commonly being seen in that area. That would explain why the place was called a place of a skull. In other words, the very name of the place implies Pilate’s victims weren’t permitted a tomb burial. Bart, does that make sense to you? In Mark, Luke, and John, Joseph of Arimathea doesn’t know whose tomb he is using to temporarily store the body of Jesus until after the Sabbath. Matthew realizes this means Jesus body would be removed from the tomb by Joseph, or the tomb’s true owner, thereby explaining the empty tomb. So, Matthew changes Mark to make Joseph rich, a secret follower of Jesus, and the owner of the tomb. That way an empty tomb is evidence of a resurrection. But Bart, if there was a historical Joseph of Arimathea wouldn’t his tomb be in Arimathea?
I suppose Arimathea indicates where he originally came from — like “Jesus of Nazareth” — rather than where he spent most of his life of died. I don’t think he’s a historical person, in any event, and we actually don’t have evidence of a place named that from the time….
Wow, I didn’t know that archaeologically and historically there is no evidence for a town called Arimathea. If no such place existed in Jesus’ time, then I can see why many scholars doubt that there could have been a Joseph from such a place and, if no such Joseph exists, then it makes sense that Jesus wasn’t given a tomb burial. So, I just did a web search for the meaning of “Arimathea” and some sites said it means “to be high” or “a lion dead to the lord” or “best disciple in town”. I’m not sure if any of those meanings is correct but what is your understanding of the meaning of “Arimathea”, and do you think it hints that Joseph from such a place is a literary invention? Also, what do you think of the name “a place of a skull” implying that Pilate prohibited tomb burials for crucifixion victims?
I toyed for a while with “the best disciple” before I knew anyone else had thought of it too. I guess also the fact that we don’t know of such a place doesn’t mean necessarily that there wasn’t such a place. How many people on the blog know about that in Essex, England there is a little hamlet named “Ugly.” (!)
Can I go more extreme and say that Jesus thought and said he was the resurrected King David. Not a son of David. *(Psalm 110 is about David, not a son of David)*
Quite literally that he was King David resurrected from the dead and he said John the Baptist was the return of Elijah. That would fulfill the prophecies of Malachi 4:5, Ezekiel 37:24, Zechariah 14:9. Elijah returns, Kind David is prince of Israel, God is king over the whole earth.
Perhaps he was also saying that he had no parents or brothers or sisters because he was resurrected from the dead as King David Zechariah 9:9, and had no past (the missing years of Jesus). As the Son of God he was also the resurrected Adam of Genesis, Luke 4:38. As the Son of Man he was also the resurrected Ezekiel, Ezekiel 2:1.
Three resurrected spirits in one body here to remove the original sin of Adam from the world, resurrect the dead as the valley of dry bones Ezekiel 37, bring about the Day of Judgment and Day of the LORD. A Trinity of resurrected spirits.
Hello, what are your views on what Jesus is communicating in the ‘Whose Son Is the Messiah?’ story in the synoptics where Jesus references Psalm 110 v1. Thank you very much for the blog and podcast.
It’s a great passage (Mark 12:35-37). It is in the midst of a series of dialogues/controversies Jesus is having with his Jewish opponents in Jerusalem in which Jesus repeatedly confounds and maligns them. In this oe he does so by asking them a questoin that he know they won’t be able to answer without contradicting something they already think. He asks them how “the Christ can be the son of David” (that is, how can the messiah be descended from David) if in Psalm 110, written by David, he says “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand….” If David calls the messiah “My Lord,” then how could he be his “son”? The scribes are apparently flumoxed and can’t answer, and the crowds all marvel! The passage is often taken to mean that Mark is claiming that Jesus was *not* the descendant of David, but I think that’s a misreading. I see this as the kind of thing you get in ancient dialogues between opponents : the superior person in the dialogue asks an unanswerable question and leaves it at that (much like, for example, when Socrates confronts people who think they know answers to things and by asking them a series of questions that all build on one another get them in the end to contradict themselves and admitting they actually don’t know; he himself is superior ot them, he says, becusa he at least admits that he does *not* know!) In this case I think Mark actually does have an answer in mind, that he doesn’t come out and say. In his view (as implied by the passage) the Jewish opponents don’t “get it” because they don’t realize the true nature of the messiah. He is indeed a descendant of David. But because he will be raised from the dead to rule over the world, he is also the Lord of David (and of all else).
Very interesting, thank you.
Another extreme is that it was the family of Jesus whom first condemned him before the Sanhedrin for being a false prophet. Mark 3:21 Zechariah 13:3. The Sanhedrin then begins their formal investigation into the matter. The final charge against Jesus in the Roman court is execution for claiming to be the King of the Jews.
I don’t believe Jesus’ family is ever said to have been called before the Sanhedrin (which wsa the council responsible for running civic affairs in the city of Jerusalem)?
Prof. Ehrman.
I meant it as hypothetical situation where Jesus declares himself as the Messiah, his family understands Isaiah 2 as meaning that God is the messiah. His family reports his blasphemy to the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. They think he’s “out of his mind.”
But yes, it’s not in the scriptures.
Does the fact that Mark uses SCHIZO only twice carry much weight if there aren’t other occasions when he could have used it for tearing or ripping and failed to so? Did he have alternative words at hand and consciously avoided them to make his point. And Jesus’ cry of desertion means that he expected to be delivered. Imagine him waiting, hanging beaten and in pain while being taunted and to die seemingly without hope. Had he known of the glorious resurrection that was less than 72 hours away, Jesus would have died triumphant in much the same way we are told stories of saints throughout the ages have a glorious passing. That is not the scene as described by Mark.
If it were the only similarity between the two passages, that would make sense. It’s the combination of things worth noting.
“72 hours away”
less than 40 hours away 6PM Fri all day Sat 6AM Sun. That is 36hours
I don’t think so:
Matthew 12:40
For, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus acted out prophesies from the old testament to demonstrate to the people that he was indeed the Messiah that they were waiting for. He knew that this would lead to him being crucified on the cross, but he did it anyway. I think that Jesus was expecting God to come lift him down off the cross and by doing so credentialize Jesus as the warrior king. If this would have happened Jesus would have gotten unanimous support from the Jews, which might have been enough for him to be successful without the need for God to destroy the enemies. But that didn’t happen and Jesus felt forsaken.
It would have been better if Jesus had stuck to a mission of expanding consciousness rather than take the path of physical conquest (imho).
My RSV translation has in Vs 35: “And as Jesus taught in the temple…” Isn’t it likely that Jesus was not preaching inside the temple, but instead was with the jews in the temple court outside (where the money changers and animal-sellers were), where he could freely talk to those who were on their way in or out of the temple building?
Also, isn’t likely that the authors of the later three gospels had read the earlier (“Mark’s”) book and adopted much of it, including the trial and crucifixion, as one of their sources (their accounts do have numerous variations in events and dialogs, but they also do follow Mark’s chronology of key events. Is it likely that Mark’s account was the principle source of the events sequence?
Bill Steigelmann
The “Temple” did not refer only to, say, the holy of holies. Itw as the entire compound. And I do think Matthew and Luke used Mark, but I don’t see good evidence that John did.
Dr. ehrman,
1. How do you reconcile this with Luke 23, where Jesus denies the charge of making the claim he was “King of the Jews” and Pilate, as well as Herod, investigating the case and determine he, was innocent of this charge?
2. Pilate executes Jesus per this account to appease the crowds and releasing an actual agitator and murderer, which was Barabas?
In which verse in Luke 23 does Jesus deny he called himself the king of the Jews? And yes, that is what happens in the Barabbas episode.
I guess I would argue it’s implicit, as Jesus (AS) never explicitly say he is and Pilate says there is zero basis for charging him after investigating the situation. And neither does Herod. I mean what exactly does investigating mean here? Of course the narrative itself seems quite bizarre, as it claims neither Pilate nor Herod were aware of a man who allegedly was inciting the people against Rome, despite being the rulers. And then Pilate actually releases a man that was guilting of inciting the people against Rome, Barabas to appease the crowds. So Pilate actually releases a threat to Rome, but executes a man on no charges, a man he declares innocent?
What exactly is your view on the term Messiah in regards to Jesus, as the OT does use the word Messiah in different contexts? For example, I believe Cyrus was also declared a Messiah, Does being the Messuah equate to destroying the power of Rome? Literally, it just refers to be anointed.
Does being Messiah mean Jesus viewed himself as the Prophet like into Moses and the two were the same thing, because the Jews had that expectation.
The word messiah rarely occurs in the OT, but in almost every case in Jewish texts it refers to one God uses to execute his will. The most common use was to refer to the king of Israel, and that’s what I think Jesus and his disciples thought about it.
The anonymous authors of the Gospels claim the Romans crucified Jesus, while the Jews who wrote the Babylonian Talmud claim the Jews executed Jesus. Which one do you think is correct?
Where are you finding that in the Talmud?
One main point, of course, is that the Talmud was written 400 years after the event, whereas the early witnesses to Jesus’ death independently attest he was executed by Romans. And btw, Jews did not have the right to execute criminals for crimes against hte state at the time of Jesus.