Sorting by

×

What Did Jesus’s Violent Action in the Temple Actually Mean?

Several aspects of Jesus’s actions in the temple – the so-called “Cleansing of the Temple” – have long puzzled scholars. As I indicated in the previous post, in all four Gospels – with some important differences among them – Jesus enters the temple compound, is angered by what he sees, overturns the tables of those who are changing Roman currency for temple currency to allow people to purchase sacrificial animals, drives out those who are selling (and even buying) the animals, prevents (in one account) anyone from carrying anything needed for the sacrifices though the temple, and forcefully declares that the temple is to be “a house of prayer for all the nations” but that “you have made it a den of robbers” (quoting Isaiah 56:7). Most critical scholars agree that this cannot be construed as an attack on Judaism per se, since Jesus was thoroughly Jewish and stood in the line of Hebrew prophets who opposed the activities of the temple.  But that’s where the puzzlement begins to arise.  The temple was built on [...]

2026-08-09T21:28:30-04:00August 11th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

Gist and Exaggeration: Jesus and the Cleansing of the Temple

It is virtually impossible to disentangle religion and politics when studying ancient sources:, they were not separate entities but tightly interwoven aspects of the same entity, involving questions of authority, who wields it, how they should wield it, and how these “authorities” are “authorized.”  Kings could be gods, and vice versa.  Priests were governmental officials and vice versa.   Laws were divinely sanctioned.  Opposition to the state meant opposition to the gods who supported it and opposition to the state gods meant opposition to the state. That’s why Jesus’s “religious” views that God was soon to bring in a new kingdom and appoint him its ruler was seen as a “political” offense leading to his execution for insurrection. It is also why his so-called “Cleansing of the Temple” was not only a religious statement but also a threat to the established order. The event is recounted in all four of our Gospels, again with important differences in detail (particularly in John), but with the same gist.  Mark provides our earliest account (Mark 11:15-17).   The day [...]

2026-08-06T21:41:48-04:00August 8th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

The Triumphal Entry and Jesus’s Mistaken Identity

Even though the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem almost certainly could not have happened as described (see previous post), they clearly contain some elements of historical truth.  This is often the case with the Gospels and with other historical narratives that have come down to us from antiquity. The task of the historian is to determine what is invention, what exaggeration, and what is (more or less) historical. With respect to the historical elements, the following seem reasonably secure (even some of these, of course, can be debated, but in my judgment the evidence for them is overwhelming): Jesus did come from Galilee to Jerusalem to celebrate a Passover Feast, sometime around 30-33 CE (the year is much debated); While there he preached his message to anyone who would listen (it seems unlikely it was “the masses” but it could well have been small crowds); He offended the local Jewish authorities; At the end of the week they arranged to have him arrested; He was turned over to the governor Pontius Pilate; [...]

2026-08-02T14:39:06-04:00August 4th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

The Implausibility of the Triumphal Entry

It is precisely the intricate and complete intertwining of (what we would call) “religion” and “politics” in the ancient world (see my previous post) that explains why Jesus’ forthright views about God and understanding of himself as God’s spokesperson let to his arrest and execution, as well as, ironically, his indifference to the governmental and cultic status quo.  His revolutionary views and yet indifference can be illustrated by his two incendiary actions near the end of his life and, oddly, his two discussions of taxation. I will deal with the first of his two actions, typically designated the “Triumphal Entry,” in two posts. The Triumphal Entry refers to Jesus’s coming into Jerusalem on the occasion of the Passover Feast riding on a colt (according to Mark and Luke) or a small donkey (according to John) or both a colt and a donkey (at the same time! According to Matthew), to the acclamation of the crowd of Jewish pilgrims, who welcomed him as the one who was bringing in the Kingdom to Israel (Matthew 21:1-9; Mark [...]

2026-07-31T10:22:53-04:00August 2nd, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

Jesus and the Gospel of John: Some Readers’ Good Questions

I've received some interesting and important questions involving the Gospel of John -- who actually wrote it and whether it's record of Jesus' claims to be divine are likely historical.  Here are the questions an my attempts to answer   QUESTION: I heard Mike Licona say the other day, that he seems to think Tertius wrote Romans in the same way a literate Greek-speaking secretary wrote the Gospel of John on behalf of John, the son of Zebedee. So strictly speaking, these are his words and the letter ought to be called, the Letter to the Romans according to Paul. What is your understanding of Rom 16:22 – ‘I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord”?   Was Tertius simply taking dictation or did he put his interpretation of Paul’s thoughts into words? RESPONSE: I’m afraid I don’t think Mike is right about this at all.   Romans 16:22 certainly does come as a surprise to many modern readers of Romans.  What??  Someone named Tertius wrote this letter?  I thought [...]

2026-06-24T09:06:33-04:00June 24th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

The Parable of the Sower as Advice for Capitalists

Is Jesus’ parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-9) best understood as providing (pre-)capitalist advice about how to think about monetary investments? Is it a divine guide for growing your portfolio?  Is it instructing us to consider the market and plant our wealth where it is most likely to grow – thirty-fold, sixty-fold, one hundred-fold? There are certainly people today who have read it that way.  If you’re a hard-core capitalist who sees everything in economic terms then it would make sense that this is how you think about the parable.  (Understanding Jesus as the “greatest businessman who ever lived” has been around for a century now; see Bruce Barton, The Man Nobody Knows, 1925 – one of the best selling non-fiction books of the 20th century!). But what if you want to understand the parable in Jesus’ own context? In that case, yeah, not so much.  This is not a guide to how to run your business or choose your investments.  When you look at the details, it is actually quite the opposite.  The parable, [...]

2026-06-12T09:33:45-04:00June 16th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

The Capitalist Parables of Jesus

Capitalist Parables of Jesus There is a lot of truth in Albert Schweitzer’s observation in his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German original 1906), that scholars of every generation since the Enlightenment have portrayed Jesus “in their own image.” Thus Enlightenment-era “rationalists” who realized we do not need supernatural interventions to explain what happens in our world -- from lightening strikes and earthquakes to the healing of physical ailments or mental illnesses -- explained the amazing records of Jesus’ “miracles” as misunderstood natural events. And hopeful, positive, progressive liberals who thought Jesus, like modern folk, just wanted all of us to get along emphasized that Jesus was mainly interested in the “brotherhood of man” (as they said it back then) and the “Fatherhood of God.” Moreover, is it an accident the “apocalyptic” understanding of Jesus --  expecting the imminent of the world -- became increasingly popular during the 20th century World Wars and then the Cold war when we (people of my generation) were all being taught to hide under our [...]

2026-06-08T19:01:49-04:00June 14th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

More Criticisms of the Criticisms of the Gospel of John (by John! Spong)

Yesterday I wrote a post in which I began to discuss the recent Huffington Post article from 2103 by John Shelby Spong in which he discusses his then new book on John; the book is called The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic. Today I will finish out what I started to say yesterday. Let me say again that I long appreciated Spong’s work and was sympathetic to his mission. He was trying to do from inside the church something very similar to what I've long tried to do outside of it: help educated lay people outside the field of biblical scholarship see what scholars – believers and non-believers alike – are saying about the New Testament. Since Spong was operating within the church, however, and saw himself as a Christian, some of his perspectives and goals were different from mine.  At the end of the day, he was interested in reforming Christianity in order to make it sensible for the twenty-first century.  That is not my goal, since I am not [...]

2026-06-06T22:04:11-04:00June 10th, 2026|Canonical Gospels|

Controversies About the Gospel of John: The Views of John Spong

Just how reliable is the Gospel of John?  Is there *anything* in it that is historical? A radical view of John was presented by John Shelby Spong in one of his last books (he published some nineteen or so over the course of his long career.)  In my previous post I gave a brief biographical notice about John Shelby Spong, in commemoration of his death in 2021 -- in case you don't know who he was. There aren't too many Christian scholars who are more skeptical of its historical value than I am: but he is one!  Here is how I discussed and engaged with the book when it came out.  This will take two posts. ****************************** John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal bishop of New Jersey and highly controversial author (because of his skeptical views about the New Testament and traditional Christian doctrine) has just published a new book on the Gospel of John, called The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic. He also wrote an interesting article on it that appeared [...]

2026-06-04T08:52:07-04:00June 9th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

These Are Weird Parables. Do They Make Sense?

  There are passages of the New Testament that I’ve always found puzzling and have left it at that – not digging in deep in order to try to understand them.  That may be kinda weird for a NT scholar, but it is just as common as it is weird.  Some of these puzzlers involve the parables of Jesus.  Recently I’ve decided to put in the brain work to figure them out, and I have – to my own satisfaction, at least.  And hey, who else do I need to satisfy? Here are two examples.  I have long thought neither of these parables made sense, and I’ve thought that whatever sense they made, they sure seemed to stand at odds with one another. Both are found only in the Gospel of the Luke, the Gospel most concerned to portray Jesus’ views on wealth and money, and both are in fact about money: The Rich Fool Who Builds Barns (Luke 12:16-21) The Dishonest Steward who Bilks his Boss (Luke 16:1-8) In this post I’ll [...]

2026-06-01T01:13:44-04:00June 4th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

Some Important Readers’ Questions on Some Gospel Head-Scratchers

QUESTION: If the strongest explanation for Luke’s alteration/omission of the centurion’s declaration that Jesus was the Son of God at the crucifixion is that he wants to anchor Jesus’s divine sonship at least as early as his birth, then why does he later associate that same divine sonship AND innocence with Jesus’s death and resurrection in Acts 13?  Luke is combining a variety of early traditions that are at odds at WHEN it happened in order to stress that he really WAS the Son of God.  (Similar problem in Luke-Acts with other titles for Jesus as well: Christ and Lord.  He gets *made* those at the resurrection but is *already* those before he dies!)   RESPONSE Yes indeed!  It's one of the major questions to be addressed about Luke's Christology.  Why does he state that Jesus became Son of God at his conception (1:35); at his baptism (3:21 – that’s the wording of the original text, probably); and at his resurrection (speeches in Acts).  I deal with the issue in Orthodox Corruption in my discussion [...]

2026-05-05T09:31:01-04:00May 12th, 2026|Canonical Gospels|

Anniversary Post #8: When Is a Contradiction Not a Contradiction?

How can you debate about whether there are contradictions in the Bible if you don't agree on what contradictions are?  In this Anniversary POst #8, taken from April 2019, I deal with this issue.  At the time we were doing a blog fundraiser involving a debate between me and an Oxford-trained theologian named Matthew Firth, who insisted the Gospels have no contradictions of any kind.  I, well, disagreed with this view.  What ensued was a multi-post back and forth that you can still see (either go posts from o April 2019 or do a word search for Firth). Here is my preliminary post about the issue of "contradictions," exploring what the term means and does not mean, in my view. ****************************** As many of you know, Rev. Matthew Firth, an Anglican rector trained in theology at Oxford, will soon be participating on the blog in a fund-raising event, for which many of you, bless your souls, have already donated.  This will entail a debate with me over whether there are contradictions in the Gospels. The [...]

2026-04-17T10:51:47-04:00April 21st, 2026|Canonical Gospels|

Anniversary Post #6 Is Mark’s Seemingly Simple Gospel Unsophisticated?

On the surface, Mark's Gospel seems straightforward and simple, a kind of nuts-and-bolts account of Jesus' life from his baptism to the empty tomb.  But is it just that? Here is my Anniversary post #6 celebrating our 14th Blog anniversary, taken from April 2017, where I dealt with this issue in response to a reader's question: ****************************** This post focuses on the literary artistry of the Gospel of Mark – is it a fairly unsophisticated account of Jesus’ life and death? The question itself will require a bit of set-up and explanation.  In an earlier post I argued that Mark’s Gospel almost certainly ended in chapter sixteen at verse 8.  Jesus has been crucified, dead, and buried.  On the third day some women go to his tomb to anoint his body more appropriately for burial, but when they arrive the tomb is already opened, Jesus’ body is not in it, but a young man is, who asks them if they are looking for Jesus of Nazareth.  He then tells them that he has [...]

2026-04-14T10:34:30-04:00April 16th, 2026|Canonical Gospels|

Anniversary Post #4: Why Gospels Matter Even Where They Are Not Historical

If the Gospels are not historical, why should they matter?? Here is my anniversary post from April 2015; in it I expostulate on the importance of the Gospels even if they are not historically accurate, and challenge the idea that history is all that matters.  (It's longer than my typical post.)  It is taken from the ending of my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne) based on feedback / pushback I was getting from some readers, and explains why "memory" is just as important (more?) as history. ****************************** Like most authors, I get a lot of email from people who have read my books.   I find one of the comments I repeatedly receive somewhat puzzling and even disheartening.   To explain it, I need to provide a bit of background. When I discuss historical understandings of the New Testament and of the historical Jesus, I frequently refer to the problems of our sources.  The Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who were not eyewitnesses and had probably never laid eyes on an eyewitness.  [...]

2026-04-14T10:29:15-04:00April 14th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

Anniversary Post #2: Why Were the Gospels Written Anonymously?

Here is the second of my "Anniversary Posts" given in celebration of the fourteenth year of the blog.  Unlike the snarky first in the series, this one is meant to be strictly informative, on an issue that I regularly get asked about by people who come to realize that the Gospels were not originally circulated in the names we now know them by.  But they weren't called something else.  They were anonymous.  But why?  Here was my answer from April 2013, and it's pretty much what I think now in April 2026! ****************************** It is always interesting to ask why an author chose to remain anonymous, never more so than with the Gospels of the New Testament.  In some instances an ancient author did not need to name himself because his readers knew perfectly well who he was and did not need to be told.  That is almost certainly the case with the letters of 1, 2, and 3 John.  These are private letters sent from someone who calls himself “the elder” to a church [...]

2026-04-09T15:15:49-04:00April 11th, 2026|Canonical Gospels|

Understanding the Gospels, Jesus, and the Spread of Christianity: Great Readers’ Questions

Weren't Jews trying to make converts?  Did Christians really do it mainly by telling stories about Jesus through word of mouth?  And what did Jesus mean when he was talking about the Son of Man?  Here are some of the excellent questions I've been asked by readers recently.   QUESTION: Bart, My understanding is that Judaism WAS a proselytizing religion between about 150 BCE and 100 CE., which spread Judaism all around Mediterranean and parts of eastern Europe. I got that understanding from the book Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (2010) by Michael F. Bird. Michael Bird is apparently a well-known New Testament scholar in Australia. Are you familiar with him or with that book? What is your rationale for thinking he is incorrect? RESPONSE: Yes, I know Michael.  And no, there's no real evidence of Judaism as a proselytizing religion.  This was the view that was popular about 50 years ago and still is among some evangelicals today.  The passage in Matthew that [...]

While We’re Talking About the Reliability of Eyewitnesses…

After posting on the (surprisingly good) eyewitness testimony to the miracles of the founder of Hasidic Judaism (the Besht) yesterday, I couldn't resist saying a bit more about it, not from a purely anecdotal perspective but from the academic perspective of scholars engaged in actual research on the matter, research that is virtually ignored by conservative Christian biblical scholars who have written entire BOOKS on eyewitness testimony but appear to know very little about it as a phenomenon. Here is another excerpt from my book devoted to the issue, Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016). (the book includes footnotes/references I won't include here for the post) ****************************** In the history of memory studies an important event occurred in 1902.   In Berlin, a well-known criminologist named von Liszt was delivering a lecture when an argument broke out.  One student stood up and shouted that he wanted to show how the topic was related to Christian ethics.  Another got up and yelled that he would not put up with that.   The first one replied [...]

2026-03-12T14:52:16-04:00March 15th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus, Memory Studies|

If It Wasn’t “For Your Sins” Why Did Jesus Die (according to Luke)?

I have been dealing with the question of Jesus’ death in the Gospel of Luke and have been arguing that Luke does not appear to have understood Jesus’ death to be an atonement for sins.   He has eliminated the several indications from his source, the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus’ death was an atonement, and he never indicates in either his Gospel or the book of Acts that Jesus died “for” you or “for” others or “for” anyone.   Then why did Jesus die? It is clear that Luke thought that Jesus had to die.  For Luke it was all part of God’s plan.  But why?  What is the theological meaning of Jesus’ death for Luke, if it was not a sacrifice that brought about a right standing before God (which is what the term “atonement” means)? You get the clearest view of Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ death from the speeches delivered by the apostles in the book of Acts.  As you probably know, Acts is about the spread of the Christian church throughout the Roman [...]

Has Luke Gotten Rid of the Idea That Jesus Died for Your Sins?

In my previous post I tried to argue that the longer version of the account of Jesus’ Last Supper in Luke could have been created by a scribe who wanted to make the passage sound more like what is familiar from Matthew, Mark, and John, and to stress the point made in those other accounts as well, that Jesus’ broken body and shed blood are what bring redemption.   The passage, as you recall, reads like this: 17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body that is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”  20  Likewise after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is shed for you.  21 [...]

2026-02-15T11:41:06-05:00February 19th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts|

The Controversy Over Jesus’ Last Supper in Luke (Did He Speak of Dying “For you”?)

In my previous post I pointed out that scholars have often claimed that Luke has gotten rid of the idea that Jesus "died for your sins."  That will seem counter-intuitive to, well, everyone on the planet, and some astute and learned Bible readers will point out that Luke explicitly does indeed have Jesus talk about his death "for you" in Luke, at his Last supper. I indicated that there's a textual problem with the verse (it's not in our oldest and best manuscripts).  Years ago I dealt with the problem on the blog.  I deal with it again here -- over the course of a couple of posts.  The issue is focused on the wording of Luke 22:19-20. Here is the form of the text as found in most of the manuscripts.  (I have put verse numbers in the appropriate places) 17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will [...]

2026-02-15T11:41:38-05:00February 18th, 2026|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts|
Go to Top