Loading...Platinum members on the blog (Check it out! Register | The Bart Ehrman Blog ) are allowed to submit guest posts to other Platinum members, and among those submitted we (they) vote on which ones to include on the whole blog. Here is an extremely interesting and challenging one posted by Platinum member Doug Wadeson. Read it and see!
Doug will be happy to reply to comments.
******************************
Jesus is generally thought of as a great moral teacher, but I have heard that questioned on occasion. For example, Jesus said, “Do not show opposition against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other toward him also” (Matthew 5:39). Really?! Does Jesus want us to be target practice for bullies? Won’t that just enable and embolden them? And on a societal scale, if America is attacked are we not supposed to defend ourselves? Otherwise evil will win. A real sore point for some people is that Jesus never condemned slavery, which was a common institution in his day (e.g., Matthew 10:24, 24:46, etc.). Apologists sometimes rationalize this by explaining that slavery was not that bad in the Roman empire; it was more like indentured servitude. Yet a truly wise seer would have anticipated the horrors of slavery in centuries to come and spoken out against it, instead of allowing his own words to be used in defense of slavery. Right? And a real sticking point here in affluent America is that Jesus said “none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:33). Now what sense does that make?! Won’t that just make all disciples poor and in need? How then are they supposed to help others?
The British author D. H. Lawrence’s final book was about the Book of Revelation and he makes an interesting contention.[1] In Revelation the Christian martyrs are calling for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Revelation 6:10), which seems contrary to the teaching of Jesus to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (I don’t think he meant pray for their punishment!) (Matthew 5:44). Why this change in tone from the time of Jesus to the late 1st Century? Lawrence contended that it was a result of the Christians’ frustration with the impractical teachings of Jesus. The saints had faithfully gone the route of non-violence, passivity and asceticism, and all it got them was hardship, persecution and death.[2] Lawrence thought the problem was that Jesus’ teachings might work on an individual level, but not on a societal level. The Christian society built on the teachings of Jesus simply did not work. No wonder the saints were so disheartened and even vengeful.
I would like to suggest that Jesus’ teachings are in fact good and useful, but you have to consider three things: 1) the context of Jesus’ teachings, 2) his teaching style, and 3) you have to look below the surface to the core.
Jesus tells us the context of his teaching right from the outset of his ministry: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel [good news]” (Mark 1:15). Jesus, following the lead of John the Baptizer, preached that the end of the age was at hand and the kingdom of God was imminent. The focus of his teaching therefore was to prepare people for the kingdom of God, not to overthrow or reform the Roman empire or human society in general. In the kingdom of God all will be set right. True justice will reign. The wealthy and powerful will no longer prey on the poor and the weak. The mighty will be brought down and the meek raised up. Hunger, sickness, poverty – even death will be done away with. That is why one could accept a slap in the face, or if forced to carry a load one mile, carry it two. These are temporary injustices, but those who live for God’s kingdom will soon experience an eternal righteous existence. Slavery is a non-issue because it will not exist in God’s kingdom. Possessions do not matter because in God’s kingdom He will provide all you need. And the end of the age is coming soon – in your lifetime! (e.g., Mark 13:30, 14:62) There is no long-term society or distant future to worry about!
The problem, of course, is that the end did not come. Jesus and his generation passed. The next generation passed. Still no kingdom of God. Devout Christians who seriously implemented Jesus’ teachings in their lives were suffering. You see a suggestion of this in 2 Peter 3:4 as some complained, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” The martyrs in Revelation cry out, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The problem was not the scope of Jesus’ teachings, individual vs. societal, as Lawrence thought, but rather the temporal aspect: they work when the kingdom of God is at hand, but break down when applied over the long term.
Jesus’ teaching style needs to be considered, particularly the use of hyperbole. Hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration for emphasis and effect. A good example of this in Jesus’ teaching is found in Mark 10:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The image of pushing a camel through the eye of a needle is so extreme as to be comical but it makes the point: it is very hard, virtually impossible.[3] When speaking of adultery he says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you…” (Matthew 5:29). It is not that Jesus wants you to go around with one eye (you can be blind and still lust, of course!), but he is again using an extreme illustration to drive home his point of how serious this is. When Jesus teaches that you cannot be his disciple unless you give up all you own possessions, perhaps it is another use of hyperbole, the point being to not allow your possessions to possess you, but instead be generous and eager to share.
This leads to the third point: look deeper to the underlying meaning. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) Jesus goes through a number of Mosaic laws and teaches his followers to go deeper. Refraining from murder is not enough; the real goal is to not hate. Avoiding the act of adultery is not enough; seek not to lust. Don’t swear an oath; just be true to your word. I think it is reasonable to view Jesus’ more extreme teachings in the same way. There may be those who can live without any possessions, but for most of us simply being less materialistic and more generous would be a major accomplishment and would help our society. Turn the other cheek? Think how much better relationships could be if we responded to some insult with thought and consideration rather than mindlessly retaliating. Even on a national level, must every incident be met with escalation in kind? “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44). We may always need police and the military to maintain order, but how much better might the world be if we could move beyond hatred of enemies to actually care about them as fellow humans in a world we share together?
If you take Jesus’ teachings at face value and mindlessly try to implement them I do not doubt that you may find yourself frustrated and disheartened (and poor and beat up!). Life is too complex to break it down into simple laws for living. But for those who take the time to read, think, discuss and even argue, I think Jesus’ teachings have much merit. And even if we find a teaching of Jesus that is hard to swallow I suspect the process of reasoning through it will still have a positive impact on our understanding of how best to live, as individuals and as a society.
[1] “Apocalypse and the Writings on Revelation” was first published posthumously in 1931.
[2] Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was very sporadic, but did occur such as under Nero, and then during Domitian’s reign (89-96), which may have been the persecution alluded to in Revelation.
[3] I had a Lebanese friend tell me that “camel” is a corruption of the Aramaic word for “rope.” Trying to thread a rope through the eye of a needle instead of a thread makes more sense than pushing a camel through, but is still impossible.
Great post Douglas! Your posts are always really good, and I enjoy reading them.
Thank you!
This is a great post. However, I’m confused. Wasn’t this content already posted on the blog on February 4, 2022?
https://ehrmanblog.org/are-the-teachings-of-jesus-realistic-platinum-guest-post-by-douglas-wadeson/
Nothing wrong wth “spring” reruns! Especially, when they are so good!!
The Feb. 4 post was for Platinum members only (or was supposed to be!). Every quarter Dr. E takes a vote to see which Platinum guest post gets posted for all the members.
There was a proverbial glitch in the Matrix: The Feb. 4 post was visible to everyone. It’s a problem that happened 2 or 3 times with Platinum posts a few months ago but it hasn’t happened since.
There is an undeniable “feel good” element to Jesus’ teachings, which contrasts markedly with what we think we know about flawed human nature. The difficult and always unanswered question is whether our feeling good about being meek in the face of a cynical belief that people are essentially sinful is learned through centuries of Christian teachings, or just innately apparent. If it’s the former, we’re just impressionable. if it’s the latter, there’s hope.
I tend to think that when we hear a religious teaching and think it sounds right (e.g., help the poor), it is because it reflects a universal truth that transcends a specific religion, whereas when we hear one that does not sound right (e.g., you shouldn’t eat meat on Friday), it is because we sense that it does not speak to a universal truth and is just religious dogma.
Douglas,
Great post.
I agree NT Jesus does and says many wonderful things – but there is another side.
NT Jesus often contradicts himself. Turn a few pages after the Sermon on the Mount
and he says he didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. He said those who didn’t embrace his disciples
in the surrounding areas (neighbors, family, enemies) would be obliterated Matt 10:14-15. This is
certainly not loving your neighbors or enemies. It was right some would
be skeptical. Speaking of an unpardonable sin and not fully explaining that was horrible. He says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Think of the ramifications of that.
He could be verbally abusive at times. Calling some of his fellow Jews children of the devil is
but one example. He appears very tribal sometimes saying he was sent only to the lost sheep
of Israel and calling a Canaanite woman a dog. He refused to let a follower go home to say goodbye
and bury a dead parent and we all know luke 14:26.
for more:
https://ehrmanblog.org/more-member-publications/
The Bad Jesus the ethics of NT ethics – Avalos (scholarly book)
TY,
SC
Yes, it’s interesting to examine some of these less tender statements of Jesus. Some early texts of Mark 1:41 have Jesus respond in anger when the leper asks to be healed, while other texts have it as “moved with compassion” and Matthew and Luke skirt the issue by omitting the phrase altogether. One wonders how much of Jesus’ teachings were cleaned up to make him appear more compassionate. Still, the recorded teachings of Jesus contain much useful instruction, but not when accepted and applied blindly. As with any religious leader or philosopher one has to exercise discernment and careful consideration. As I said, the process of working through this is itself helpful, helping to clarify and solidify what one believes.
Cracking good post, Douglas. I think this analysis is spot on and reminds me of what Albert Schweitzer argued (Quest1906); that Jesus promoted a short-term interim ethic to be observed until the imminent day of judgment relieved those following him.
I also think it’s telling that John the Baptist (JBap) taught that a “stronger one” was to follow him. JBap taught those with two shirts should share with one who had none, but Jesus went further and promoted a ‘stronger’ teaching – would be disciples should sell *everything* and give it to the poor, then follow him. Perhaps the historical Jesus deliberately went further than the law, as we see in the sermon on the mount, in order to fulfill the expectations placed on him by JBap?
As you point out, the trouble with applying Jesus’ interim ethic at a community level is that you end up allowing injustice to grow, rather than diminish. If someone is being abused by their priest, the command not to resist evil and to turn the other cheek leads to a culture where no one speaks up or resists such abuses. IMHO it’s high time the Church updates its teaching on these matters.
I believe Jesus cared about people and injustice, but he thought God was SOON going to take care of it (and that didn’t happen). The problem arose when the church took his teachings out of the apocalyptic context, leaving people to be passive in the long term, waiting for God some day rather than acting now. No wonder Karl Marx saw religion as the opium of the people: it can cause people to be passive rather than active in addressing the world’s problems. And ironically, those churches that do try to address injustice are then accused of preaching a Social Gospel (as if that’s a bad thing!).
I read Jesus before the Gospels through the fog of a shoulder replacement so I’m not sure if our host made the following point or it just seems to make sense; but, if I recall testimony of events from memory tend to reflect things distinctly out of the ordinary. For example auto crash witnesses report the sound of the crash.
Perhaps this is why I find the transmission phenomenon so fascinating particularly with regard to “Q”. Not in what we have deduced that it said, but what it said that Mathew and Like didn’t want to say!
It seems likely Jesus had a “stump speech”. Equally likely he made his points in it memorable through punch lines; and, through the many retellings it was the punch lines that survived to be translated into Koine Greek and written.
Man, if only they had accurate recording devices back in Jesus’ day! But maybe the “remembered” sayings of Jesus, or the punchlines as you say, are even more interesting than the original. I guess we’ll never know.
Dear Dr. Wadeson,
It is always interesting to explore human creativity in trying to paint over the unjustifiable to make it palatable.
Your approach of breaking down teachings attributed to Yeshua through creative analysis which i really applaud, simply asserts the locality and time restriction aspect of such teachings not to mention that it is based on false assumption of imminent global destruction. Therefore those teachings are radically flawed, the exact point you are arguing against.
Here is an alternative plausible explanation.
The anonymous hellenized jewish follower of Yeshua who edited Mark and produced Matthew was heavily influenced with the ebionites’ teachings who were the genuine local obsessed pupils of the Yeshua movement.
Those teachings are counterproductive, impractical and ascetic in the general term. You can’t live by them but you have to subjectively cherry pick handful only of what works for your life.
If you try to align ALL teachings attributed to Yeshua from the gospels, you WILL ALWAYS fail because those teachings are products of varying communities trying to give authority to their specific superstitious understandings and beliefs, so they put words on Yeshua’s lips and argued with them against other communities.
examples of other teachings always doomed to fail.
Voluntary communism, Perpetual marriage, voluntary Asceticism, celibacy supremacy and finally loving your enemy.
But my point is that you do have to factor in what Jesus believed about the imminent kingdom of God to make sense of his teachings. Take his teaching, “none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:33). If you don’t consider his apocalyptic perspective and just take it at face value then you might arrive at an ascetic lifestyle that leaves all of his followers in need and unable to help others. If you think his failure to address slavery is tacit approval (as in the antebellum South) then you have failed to understand his idea that all such injustices would be set right in the coming kingdom. Granted you have to consider the possibility that others added to or modified the recorded teachings of Jesus, but I don’t think what we have is as radically flawed as you suggest. I think it is worth pondering things such as “What does it mean to love your enemy, and is it even possible?” “What does it mean to give up one’s possessions?” Etc. But I appreciate your perspective on this, and you are certainly not alone with such thoughts.
For what it’s worth, your comment hit the target, in my opinion– radical flaws or highly redacted, the end result is problematic and of doubtful practical value.
The problem, of course, is that Jesus is supposed to be God and holding such a belief, it is hard to find oneself second-guessing what God means when “He” gives commands and makes straightforward statements. I don’t find anything in Jesus’s sayings that isn’t said better by other religious leaders – so not only is he unoriginal, he is needlessly obscure. But the key is what Bart writes about and what you state – Jesus was all about the End Time and what he said made sense given the impending end. Of course no end came, but rather than dismiss his rantings and hyperbole and look for better ethical teachings, his followers (or at least later Christians) interpreted their faith to be one that imposed an end of anyone who didn’t submit to their authority. No, I can’t make excuses for Jesus – his words led to centuries of oppression however unintended that may have been at the time.
You say, “his words led to centuries of oppression” but if Jesus said things like “love one another,” “judge not lest you be judged,” “take the log out of your own eye first,” “the greatest of you shall be the servant,” etc., then I don’t think he is to blame for people attaching his name to their authoritarian perversion of religion. Even though Jesus thought the end was near he still pointed people toward ethical and moral behavior. He could have said, “Forget the poor, God will take care of them soon enough,” but instead he told people to care for the needy. He could have told people to go ahead and be promiscuous because there wouldn’t be marriage in the coming kingdom, but instead he taught to be faithful to your spouse. Even his command to give up all your own possessions still is based on the correct principle that materialism is not the way to contentment. So, not making excuses for him, just saying that there is value in considering his teachings.
And yet, other thing Jesus is attributed as saying came to justify bad things
——
“love one another,”
And yet: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword.
“judge not lest you be judged,”
And yet, his followers soon came to see “the body” as the church and that unbelievers should be cast away, Jews and Pagans were murdered for not believing in order to save the world from damnation, because Jesus said:
…if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Jesus was judgmental based of righteousness, why not his followers? Moneylenders, and a damnation
. . . Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever.
Etc.
Jesus was too inconsistent and inferior to other teachers to be considered some great moralist, much less an example to follow. Maybe he should have stopped with the nice things (or people should have stopped putting words in his mouth)
I don’t know any religious leaders or philosophers who got everything right or were entirely consistent, and with other ancient teachers we have the same problem as with Jesus: who wrote down their teachings, did they get them right, and were they revised over time? I certainly don’t suggest blindly accepting everything Jesus reportedly taught; as I said, there is value in thinking and considering, even if in the end you reject some (or all) of his teachings.
Jesus told everyone his Kindom was not upon this earth (John 18:36, Luke 17:20-21, Romans 14:17). It’s not that the Kingdom of God did not come. It’s that they were looking for it in the wrong place. “The End” was the Earthly kingdom of Judea which was erased by 135ce. That was the End of all Earthly Kingdoms of God. Rome tried (and looks like it succeeded) in creation of a false Kingdom of God on Earth to replace Judea and Israel.
This 5th chapter of this epistile from the 2nd century give a facinating portrait of how Christians were viewed by those not Christian. It seems they were trying to follow the teachings of Jesus… Great read (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html)
Dr. Ehrman’s book Heaven and Hell goes into detail about what Jesus appeared to teach about the coming kingdom. I personally think that Jesus really expected a kingdom of God on earth, within his lifetime. He even prayed for it: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.” On earth, not somewhere else. But I understand other perspectives. Thanks for the reference, I’ll look into that!
Dear Douglas or Bart (If necessary). Regarding footnote [3]. I’ve really got to know the answer here. Is “rope” really a corruption of the Aramaic word for “camel”? Were my Sunday school teachers of 65 plus years ago all wrong?
And to Douglas: Thank you for your insightful observations on the “Teachings of Jesus”. They were much appreciated.
I have read that the idea of a rope versus a camel goes back at least to Cyril of Alexandria in the early 5th Century. And some translations have translated it accordingly. But I would also like to hear Dr. Ehrman’s opinion on this. And thanks for your feedback!
The idea that the word refers to a rope rather than a camel goes back at least to Cyril of Alexandria in the early 5h Century. Some translations have thus rendered it as rope or cable. The philosopher Schopenhauer quoted it as “anchor cable.” To me trying to shove a cable through the eye of a needle makes more sense, you can picture someone trying to do this (without success), but why would one try to shove a camel through the eye of a needle? The other common explanation is that Eye of the Needle refers to a narrow gate in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence for such a gate, and Matthew, Mark and Luke use slightly different terms, which seems odd if they were referring to a specific place name. However you interpret it the point is that riches can prevent you from entering the Kingdom of God, a teaching largely abandoned by the modern church, which values its top contributors.
It’s what you do with your riches that matters the most.
It’s interesting that Jesus usually speaks of “possessions” not “money.” He may not have thought that it was wrong to earn lots of money, but the sin was in spending it on yourself for more “stuff” rather than being generous and using your money to help others.
And how you acquire your riches matters too!
In creating the acts and sayings of Jesus, the alleged son of God, the writer/s of the first gospel naturally would have had to include some hard sayings, otherwise any reader of the work could have come back with, “This man is no different from any run of the mill market place sage.” We see it in other religions too. What is the sound of one hand clapping? A rich man cannot enter the kingdom, turn the other cheek, one must hate father and mother, call no man father and so on…these sayings are all meant to surprise and question your commitment. If Jesus really was speaking with the voice of God one had to expect a few challenging commands. The more mundane teachings were already well known (at least in literary circles) when the gospel was written. (I have found 24 gospel teachings in the writings of Cicero.) No doubt the early Christian author/s searched the known literature for the very best teachings to put into the mouth of their literary creation.
Yet some of the teachings put into the mouth of Jesus are not what you would expect later Christians to want their “creation” to say. Particularly the emphasis on what you do over what you believe. I think Dr. Ehrman has addressed this in various past posts. But certainly there is a lot of commonality among religious and secular philosophers; none of them are as unique as their followers believe.
Entertaining post. Certainly, food for thought for literal readers of the New Testament.
Thanks for the feedback!
I would love to speak with you on my thoughts about the whole thing. If you think I make sense I will post it. We agree on theory but I go further. I think Dr. Ehrman might even agree a little. My Bible scholar husband who never agrees on anything with me about NT says I make a lot of sense.
You ought to write up an article and submit it to Dr. Ehrman for the blog!
I think the meaning of Matthew 5:39 is not interpreted in the way you describe. In those days the slapping,usually with the back of the hand,was a way of demeaning someone. The left hand was considered unclean and the right clean. The specific use of right cheek meant the aggressor used the back of his right hand (clean) to strike someone on the right cheek. When Jesus said,” turn also the other cheek”, he is proposing not to retaliate, returning violence with violence, but to stand there and force the bully to use the back of his unclean left hand. In this culture, this would of been considered a problem and inappropriate use of the unclean hand and a dilemma for the aggressor. The challenge is to overcome(subdue) violence and not react in violence. Wayne Dyer told of a story where a tough kid in school called him a wimp and was ready to pound him. Wayne’s response, “if it will make me less of a wimp than go ahead”. The bully walked away confused.
Jesus starts with the point he is trying to make: “do not show opposition against an evil person…” and also gives three other examples: someone suing you for your tunic, forcing you to go one mile, and someone asking for something of yours. Correct, Jesus does not want one to respond with violence, because that only begets more violence, but the main reason is that all such injustices will soon be done away with. Such things won’t happen in the coming kingdom of God. Be patient and God will take care of it. Except, the kingdom didn’t come right away, leaving people to struggle with these teachings for about 2,000 years and counting.
I agree,the kingdom didn’t come right away, but that’s only if you take the position of an apocalyptic preacher? I don’t think people struggle today as you suggest. The teachings are an effective way to live, as many try to do. The weakness lies in the application of the teaching. How many are willing to act(surrender) on those teachings, or just pick the one’s that are easier to do? They are difficult, without a doubt. What may become if a man/woman completely surrendered their will to God’s will? Bornhoffer called it,”Cheap grace vs. costly grace”.
I think it’s interesting to speculate what would happen if the majority of Christians fully endorsed all of Jesus’s teachings, such as giving away one’s possessions, if someone wants your shirt give your coat also, turn the other cheek, etc. Would the church be a stronger force in the world, or would it be squeezed out of existence altogether?
Do you think these take-aways are only possible when viewed in this way? I have attended many churches and am very good friends with many people who will hold these concluding principles whilst also denying the fundamental premise of Jesus being apocalyptic and his teachings should therefore be viewed in this context.
I’d go as far as to say the vast majority of churches throughout history have in fact denied this premise and yet come out with conclusions about how to interpret Jesus’ teachings similar to yours.
Yes, many (most?) churches deny the apocalyptic nature of Jesus’ teachings. So, their solution to Jesus’ tougher teachings is to water them down. Give up ALL your own possessions? No, just don’t be so materialistic. Leave your family to follow Jesus? No, put Jesus first, but of course he wants you to care for your family. No condemnation of slavery? Well, that’s because Biblical slavery wasn’t “that bad.” A better explanation is that slavery is always bad, but Jesus expected it would be done away with at the coming end of the age. I think that understanding Jesus’ apocalyptic mindset really clarifies what he said or did not say, and why. Still, there is value in his teachings even if the end didn’t come when he expected, if you ponder the implications (basically my 3rd point in the article).
I suppose, just because Jesus was perhaps somewhat delusional and a victim of his times and circumstances, his teachings still have some value. If he had never spoken of “end times” at all, and offered nothing but ethical teachings, he most likely would be unknown today. Odds are, he never saw himself as the messiah, or as a savior, but only a kind of messenger. So I should say that some misguided followers turned Jesus into a false messiah. In actuality, he was simply trying to prepare people for a coming kingdom of God. Or something like that.
As a medical doctor I am hesitant to classify Jesus as delusional. The belief that the end is near is a common one, and Jesus didn’t live long enough to find out that he was wrong. However, Jesus may have believed he was “anointed” by God to preach about the coming end of the age, which is what “messiah” means. That might count as delusional, but then again, many people in the religious world think they have a special purpose from God while still being otherwise rational. So, it’s a hard call! I think it was not his end times teachings that spurred the new religion: it was his sudden death as a martyr followed by the belief among his core group that he had been raised from the dead. Now, does that make his disciples delusional? That’s another tough call to make! And even though Jesus was motivated by his belief that the end was at hand I think his teachings still have merit, certainly as fodder for discussion and debate.
The belief that the end was near was not an uncommon one in the late Second Temple period. It made a lot of sense, given all the trials and tribulations that the Jews were going through. Jesus’s message wasn’t even original; he was repeating what John the Baptist had already been saying. So, although I am not a doctor, I would not classify Jesus as delusional.
On the other hand, to take instructions that are based on the premise that the world is about to end, and apply them in a world that is clearly not ending, can be classified as delusional.
So, those who are not delusional, so to speak, have to figure out what to do with those instructions; after all, he was the son the God and must be obeyed. This leads to some fascinating twisted interpretations — Augustine argued that “do not resist evil” meant it was OK to react violently to evil!
And I agree that the core of the new religion was not Jesus’s teachings but his execution and the need of his followers to explain it.
Enjoyed the post!
Thank you!
Does anyone believe we know verbatim the words Jesus Spoke? As Bart has frequently written, memories of spoken words are proven to be highly inaccurate, and in addition there is the fact that 2,000 years ago writers frequently added things that they believed Jesus may have said. Then there is the matter of errors made during copying the nth copies that persons unknown previously made, and errors introduced during translations from one language to another. The best we can say is that the Bible contains some very approximate general accounts of some of the things Jesus probably said.
William Steigelmann
Correct, it is a challenge to know what Jesus said versus what was added or revised later. For the sake of argument I assume that Jesus said the things I mention in the article. However, there are some common themes in the reported sayings of Jesus that suggest Jesus did teach certain things, for example, caring for one another, especially those in need. But it’s possible I’m guilty of assuming that what I want Jesus to have said is what he actually said!
I addition to the points you make, bsteig, the real kicker for me is the gospels & the 35 to 65 year delay between actual happenings and then the original manuscripts purporting to be records thereof. Not only does this test the feasibility of accurate memory, it is conveniently long enough to avoid any groundswell of challenge over the details from the precious few credible witnesses who might remain. Jesus’ prayer in John 17 is problematic – who was eavesdropping (I thought they fell asleep?) to hear all that detail just once and then have it written down 65-ish years later? It just doesn’t fly.
I’m not platinum but this doesn’t seem blocked to me….
Out of muh super righteousness ill avoid looking 😆
Please read it, it was originally for Platinum members but is now available to all! Every quarter Dr. E has Platinum members select one of their posts to be shared with the entire membership.
Got it yeah totally misread
Thanks for this posting, and especially the context-centered evaluation of sayings attributed to Jesus. This analysis is persuasive to me, as it removes the need for many of the mental gymnastics otherwise needed to reconcile Jesus’ words with our (and the early Christians’) reality. It also conforms quite well to Occam’s Razor as it is a “simple” explanation… so simple that it goes mostly unnoticed.
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond.
It might be instructive to imagine that you seriously believed the world–as we know it–is going to end before you die; what would you do? It seems Jesus’ answer was to spread the word, while urging folks to “be nice and don’t sweat the small stuff.” Interesting that he seems to have considered family values to be “small stuff.”
Jesus’ views on family make for quite a discussion. It seems he encouraged people to leave their families to pursue the Kingdom of God, but he also had strict teachings about marriage and divorce. Maybe that demonstrates the difficulty of developing a comprehensive morality in the context of an apocalyptic viewpoint. Kind of like Paul discussing marriage in 1 Corinthians 7: it’s good not to marry, but it’s not a sin if you do, and don’t seek a divorce, but if the unbelieving spouse leaves…It’s hard to get all the details right!
Regarding the camel and the eye of the needle, I thought the “Eye of the Needle” was understood to be a narrow gate into Jerusalem, not literally the eye of a sewing needle. At least that’s how a divinity student once explained it to me, and google hits seem to agree. Perhaps Bart can clarify.
Regarding the wisdom of turning the other cheek, I’d think that would be a very good strategy if living in a land controlled by a ruthless ruler, as Jesus was, when beliefs in a kick ass god coming in to smite the enemies would be unlikely to come true. America is in a very different situation, because it can play the role of a kick ass god itself, there are no limits to its ability to kill its enemies. In that sense Christianity would seem an awkward fit for America, America has no need for a religion that is accommodative to powerful rulers, but that can be gotten around by reinterpreting the sayings. Not taking them at “face value”, as it were.
I believe Dr. Ehrman is on record as saying that the idea that the Eye of the Needle is a gate is fiction. There is no archaeological evidence for such a gate, and Matthew, Mark and Luke all use slightly different terms for “eye of a needle” which one would not expect if it was referring to a specific name of a city gate. But it’s a very popular way to weaken Jesus’ statement. As for turning the other cheek, I wish people would listen to that one. In some places in America if someone slaps you on the cheek you are justified in shooting him (or as in a recent trial in Florida, if someone throws popcorn at you in a theater!). A properly measured response is better than angry or fearful retaliation, if one values human life. Again, not suggesting to accept any teaching blindly, but thinking through such statements can help clarify and solidify one’s moral beliefs.
I think what you say is very reasonable and probably close to the best interpretation. Yet it also seems to take a lot of the bite and distinctiveness and radicalism out of Jesus’s teaching. At a minimum I think Jesus was trying to deeply challenge his hearers and their ordinary ways of thinking. He was preaching personal transformation.
Lately I’ve been thinking that the love commandments might mean to love others (as well as ourselves and world around us) in much the same way as God does—eg, unconditionally. To join ourselves with God’s own love for creation as much as we can.
When someone teaches something that sounds both profound and yet unreasonable it can compel us to think for ourselves, make up our own minds. Perhaps these “extreme” teachings of Jesus do that. Perhaps they force us to consider whether we have really exhausted every way of responding to evil other than by coercion. His teachings put the burden on us to be truly honest with ourselves when we think we have no choice but to use coercion.