(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...Did Jesus really come into Jerusalem on a donkey to the acclamations of the crowd welcoming him as the coming messiah? Or is that a distorted understanding of what happened?
[[In this thread of posts I’ve been trying to show how experts in the phenomenon of “memory” can help us reflect on the Gospel traditions about Jesus. Memory is a much wider and more expansive phenomenon than most people imagine. Memories involve what we’ve done, what we’ve experienced, what we’ve learned, what we’ve heard, and what we simply recall about the past whether we ourselves experienced it and whether our recollections are just personal or collectively shared by a broader swath of our community (e.g., our “memories” of the Clinton presidency or of the Civil War) .
When seen in this broader sense, the Gospels contain some “historically true” memories of Jesus but also some distorted or fake memories. In my previous two posts I talked about the “memories” about Jesus’ trial before Pilate. In the following posts I’ll discuss other key passages of the Passion narratives of the Gospels. All these will be taken from my book that discusses such things in large, Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).]]
******************************
The Triumphal Entry
There seems to be no reason to doubt that Jesus spent the last week of his life in Jerusalem looking ahead to the celebration of the Passover feast. Passover was by far the busiest time of the year in Jerusalem, when the city would swell many times its normal size as Jewish pilgrims from around the year would come to enjoy the feast in the capital city. They would normally arrive a week early to prepare for the big day.
The festival was, and is, celebrated to commemorate the exodus of the children of Israel from their slavery in Egypt during the days of Moses, over a millennium before the birth of Jesus. The historical basis for the feast is given in the book of Exodus. There we are told that the people of Israel had been in Egypt for centuries and had been enslaved there. God, though, heard their cries of despair and sent a great leader Moses, who through his miracle-working power brought the Israelites – well over a million of them – out from their slavery and eventually brought them to the Promised Land.[1] Jewish people throughout the world have celebrated this great exodus event, in some respects the founding event for the people of Israel, once a year at Passover. Since the festive meal in the days of Jesus was to involve eating a sacrificed lamb, the only place on earth to celebrate it properly was in Jerusalem, as it was only there, in the Temple, that animal sacrifices could be made to God. And so those who had the time and money to do so would come to Jerusalem for the feast.
It would be a mistake, though, to think that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Do you have any insight as to what got Jesus arrested and crucified then? My theory was that he made some sort of demonstration calibrated to force a confrontation with the Romans (expecting God to deliver him) and it seems that therefore something like this MIGHT have happened, despite the obvious danger.
I do think the action in the temple raised some problems, but he was put up on specific charges of claiming to be the (future) king of the Jews.
“Roman soldiers would have been stationed around the city. How can we believe that with this wild celebration of their future conqueror would not make them sit up, take notice, and act accordingly? ”
If Jesus really made a commotion with the money changers in the Temple, however small it was, wouldn’t the Roman soldiers have seen this and acted accordingly right then?
It was a very large place, and so it would depend where it happened and where the soldiers were. They couldn’t be everywhere! Or even most places.
Since reading John Shelby Spong, I have been curious of the proposition that Jesus’ last week may have been a reflection of the Festival of Booths instead of the Passover, and that the event was changed to the Passover due to the more fitting nature of the Passover for the story of Jesus’ death. Kind of like moving Jesus’ resurrection venue from Galilee to Jerusalem, or John moving the day from Passover to the Day of Preparation of the Passover. I was wondering if you have heard of this suggestion before, and, if so, what your thoughts are on it.
I also question the Passover narrative. Mostly because Yom Kippur would have made more sense for Jesus to die for the sins of the world. Yom Kippur is the day of atonement. Passover is just a remembrance holiday. Do most Christian’s realize that Passover isn’t an atonement? Was it simply that everyone knew Jesus died around Passover so they had to work that into the story or was it possible that he was actually crucified at Yom Kippur?
I’m not sure I’ve met *any* Christians outside of scholars who realize that Passover doesn’t involve an atoning sacrifice! And most NT scholars I’ve met gdoibn’t know it. That’s one reason for thnking the Passover dating of his death is probalby right — no one at the time would make up a sacrificial death specifically to connect it with Passover.
I am wondering this as well, but more for the triumphant entry, with a potential large time gap between entry and temple cleansing. It was pointed out that, in Mark, when Jesus enters Jerusalem is not made explicit, and he actually leaves the temple after he enters directly from it.
The appeal of this view is that it explains why the crowds have palm branches (for their booths). But that presupposes that the crowd really had palm branches. Surely there’s no real reason to think that’s right (since it presupposes that there really was a triumphal entry, which is the point I’m denying). More likely that was added on to the tradition by someone who didn’t know really how the holidays worked. The passover connection with Jesus’ death is very deep, going back all the way to Paul and in every layer of the Gospel tradition. Moreover, the “passover” doesn’t really work too well with Jesus death either, even though everyone simply assumes it does. The passover lamb was not an atoning sacrifice. Christians had to make that connection later.
Dr. Ehrman,
These days i have learned that many of the things said in the old testament were not things to be fulfilled in future but were things that had already occured, or could be explained in the context of the old testament itself. Why would gospel writers (said to be strongly Jewish) not know this and what compelled them to start writing that the old testament scriptures were being “fulfilled” in their Gospels?
This was a common way of understanding the Hebrew Bible among Jews (e.g., in the Dead Sea Scrolls): it was speaking to *their* day, not to the time it was written. It’s a view most Christians have still today!
This was a common way of understanding the Hebrew Bible among Jews (e.g., in the Dead Sea Scrolls): it was speaking to *their* day, not to the time it was written. It’s a view most Christians have still today!
I’ve never understood what the post-crucifixion Christians thought the Jews were supposed to have done. Didn’t the Christians believe God sent Jesus to die, not live and continue urging people to repent for the imminent coming of the son of man? Therefore the Jews did exactly what God expected . . . so why condemn Jews as feckless and unfaithful?
Kinda like many Christian theologians throughout the centuries: they believed God “chose” some people to be saved and then condemned the others! But he was the one doing the choosing….
Sorry. I’m not quite following the logic. Are you saying that early Christians believed that Jews did in fact do what they were expected to do ( deny Jesus, leading to his death) and that they were always meant to be condemned? Makes me wonder what they whole point of being a “chosen people” could possibly mean and why Christians thought the prophesies of a messiah (Jesus) came through the OT. Christians condemned Jews for denying “their” messiah. But what if they had not denied him? I don’t know how some of the more intelligent thinkers in the early years might not have wondered that.
The early Christians started to argue that the Jews had been teh chosen ones, but they rebelled against God and gave up their special status. The idea was that they *should* and *could* have accepted jesus, but willfully decided not to. But some Christians also began to claim that *they* were the chosen ones. That’s why they were saved. The logic of that, though, necessarily is that if I’m chosen — and therefore saved — and you are not a follower of Jesus, then you were *not* chosen — and therefore not saved.
Thanks for the reply. I gather, then, that the early theologians left it there? It all happened, so it must have been God’s will . . .
I suppose that Christian theologians (though maybe never recorded it) figured that if Jews had accepted Jesus as they *should* have and *could* have” that the Kingdom would have come as Jesus predicted and described, that judgement would come, Jews liberated from Rome, and a new kingdom established, so no need of the death and the atonement and all. . . and the theologies took off from there believing it was all meant to be.
I can see why early Christian theologians would not considered it as it is hard to reconcile with their views of atonement and/or forgiveness with a “what if” the Jews had not willfully rejected Jesus.
It interests me because of my old Unification Church beliefs that claimed “because” of the willful denial of Jesus, therefore the crucifixion was necessary and Jesus brought spiritual salvation, but not “physical” salvation in bringing in the kingdom prophesied. Christians would say that is why Jesus will “come again” and Moon said, he is that second coming.
As I have been mentioning, the issue that most disturbed me, especially as a late teen, was the persecution of Jews as “Christ killers” concurrent with the belief that God meant for Jews to reject Jesus.
So much for free will!
I rejected Christianity, but still believing in a god of some sort, joined a group that had an answer that made sense to me, the Jews were meant to believe and for the kingdom on earth to come but because they didn’t, God’s plan was for Jesus to die in atonement for *that* sin and doe those who live as Jesus did to be elevated to paradise, but not heaven. The kingdom (physical salvation) would await a third Adam (second messiah) and becoming part of the kingdom (heaven on earth) would lead to a heavenly life after death – eventually all souls would be saved, even Lucifer.
It is disturbing how easily Christian beliefs led to antisemitism over the centuries.
https://bible.org/question/if-jews-had-accepted-christ-their-messiah-would-earthly-kingdom-have-been-established-then
“What if they had repented” misses the point and is pure human speculation. They didn’t and God knew they would not, but in His faithfulness, He made the offer.”
One thing we need to keep in mind is that in whatever way, Jesus came to the attention of the authorities. And whether it was the incident in the temple, the way he came into the city, or his preaching about the coming kingdom (or some combination of these), he started attracting a crowd – during the day. Another (to my mind, major) point is that he was apparently arrested at night. This indicates that the authorities either lost track of him in the crowds during the day, or more likely just waited until night when the crowds had dispersed (and when they apparently needed the help of Judas to lead them to his location). I guess my question really comes down to this – if the temple incident wasn’t enough to trigger his immediate arrest, why would his riding into town on a donkey be sufficient to do so? If, as you posit, the disturbance in the temple might have been only a small kerfuffle, why couldn’t the “triumphal” entry have been the same sort of low key event that the Romans didn’t feel the need to immediately respond to?
I’d say it’s very hard indeed (well, impossible) to say anything about how *large* a crowd Jesus attracted. If it had been huge, then surely events would have unfolded much more quickly. My guess is that it was pretty small, all things considered.
Have any historians ever posited that since the gospels were written in the mid to later part of the century, in proximity to or after the destruction of the temple, that the narratives exonerating the Roman authorities were a tactical fabrication given that it would be tantamount to a death sentence for the new Christian faith to put into it’s very core such an antagonistic message against Rome? Given the temple destruction and the annihilation of the Jewish authority – who was around to protest such a redirection of blame?
Yup, that’s widely argued! Blame “the Jews” to get off the hook wiht the Romans
Answer to the question, “Did the Triumphal Entry Really Happen?
Bart D.E.
The Gospels’ description of the event is highly implausible.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
No Roman legion had been defeated as will have been done in the future, at the start of the Jewish Civil War.
Second, all was relatively quiet in Jerusalem under the reign of Tiberius.
Third, where is the clash between Rome and those participating in a triumphal entry?
So, we have more verses that can be eliminated from the New Testament as we get to the historical Jesus and historical accuracy.
Gospel accounts of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem or that he and his disciples just walked into the city unannounced and unnoticed are both unlikely. What probably happened is somewhere between these two extremes.
There are good reasons to suppose that Jesus was actually well-known, not only in Galilee but also to Temple authorities in Jerusalem. His unarmed followers were not a threat to the Romans but he probably had supporters in Jerusalem who agreed that the corrupt Sanhedrin should be reformed. Thousands of pilgrims were entering the city for the Passover festival so supporters could have welcomed Jesus without others noticing. Reasonable estimates suggest about 70,000 in Jerusalem at this time and Acts suggests about 100 active supporters after the crucifixion so, even 200 people greeting Jesus would still be less than 0.3% of the total population, enough to give the illusion of a large crowd but small enough to disperse quickly if confronted by authorities. Some people might have laid down garments and palms but Jesus riding a colt or donkey was likely added on the basis that since it was prophesied, he must have done it.
Gospel accounts are then a gross exaggeration rather than entirely fictional.
I”m not sure what the good reasons are for thinking that either the Jewish leaders in jerusalem or Roman authorities had ever heard of Jesus before. (Unless you think the idea that thousands of people were following him is historical; but then you’d have to ask what hte good reasons are for thnking that as well, given what we know about the demographics, culture, and social realities of rural Galilee at the time)
Do you think Jesus visited Jerusalem throughout his life for the festivals? If he did, did he preach in that area? Do you believe that he had some kind of a following in Judea/Jerusalem?
Nope, I definitely do not. Lower class peasants in rural Galilee would simply never have the resources it would take for a trip that would take over three weeks (they’d starve, to put it rather simply)
Maybe this story was created to make Jesus fulfill the prophecy. After all this Triumphant entry was regarded to be a sign of Messiah. So it was later thought to have to happened because Jesus was believed to be Messiah. Perhaps the story is a fiction written to “fulfill” the prophecy.
Maybe some other stories in the Gospels were also fabricated to explain how the prophecies about Messiah came true.
Yup; that’s especially clear in Matthew.
As I understand things, Jews from all over would come to Jerusalem for the Passover holiday. I think plenty of them would have reenacted the celebratory entrance in the manner Jesus is said to have done.
I guess the difference is that Jesus’ entry is not celebrating the passover event (as described in the Gospels); it is celebrating him as the coming king.
According to the Jewish commentaries, the riding the donkey is not supposed to be taken literally: the word used in the Prophecy is Khamor ( Kh is like the guttural J in Spanish ). The root is Kh-M-R which is the same as for the word Khomer ( matter), so the meaning is not that one of the hint of a potential Messiah candidate is that he will “ride” the matter meaning he will dominate it, the matter won’t have any power other him, he won’t be influenced by it. Everybody was riding donkeys at the time, nothing exceptional so it can’t be an indication of being the Messiah
If Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews and he was arrested and executed for it, wouldn’t he have eventually announced it?
I agree with you that he told his apostles to keep it secret for the bulk of his ministry. But since he was arrested after going to Jerusalem, wouldn’t that suggest that his apostles and a few other’s hailed him as King of the Jews while entering into Jerusalem. An announcement to Israel that he attempted to prove to Israel by entering on a donkey per Zechariah followed by an attempt purify the temple. Both of which are Jewish Messianic prophecies.
I believe you do mention that the temple action was authentic. So why wouldn’t it be true for him to try entering on a donkey as a means of trying to fulfill prophecy? It seems logical and believable for someone who had that view of himself to make such an announcement eventually. His way of trying to fulfill a prophecy regardless of whether he actually was the Messiah. Probably avoided execution by getting arrested at night and in private for it after being betrayed. to avoid a riot.
Do you think he was betrayed by Judas BTW?
At every point of the Gospels stories we have to figure out if the account is historical or is a later creation of Jesus’ followers telling stories about him. “Messianic prophecies” often seem like prophecies to later Christians; but if they weren’t understood to be prophecies by Jews before the time of Jesus, then it’s unlikely Jesus did something to “fulfill” something that wasn’t expected to be fulfilled (e.g., the cleansing of the temple); and if there are historial reasons for thinking something didn’thappen (the Triumphal Entry) then that needs to be questioned too. I’d suggest you read some of the scholarship on all this, for example my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet and “Jesus Before the Gospels”
I have the ebook actually. I enjoy your reasoning and the fact that you take the time to explain your reasoning without jumping conclusions. I did agree with much.
Your reasoning is sound.
The problem I have is that they likely did expect a Messiah during passover for the resurrection of the patriarchs in at least 3 different Jewish texts. And while they were written ce, that doesn’t really count as evidence that the belief wasn’t bc. The two Messiah theories in the Dead Sea scroll suggest the humble figure when they name one of them Ephraim. Ephraim was another name for the Messiah Joseph. They called him Ephraim because they expected he would descend from Josephs second son who would be greater than mannaseh.
They named Ephraim in the revelation of Gabriel. It’s only real controversy is unrelated to the name of Messiah Ephraim. And it appears in all the translations I found.
Therefore it was likely a Messianic expectation among some since the humble one is found in pre-christian era and is also referred to post Christian era in several Jewish texts. Aka humble on a donkey.
I could be wrong and defer to you of course.
There are very big problems with these texts and taking them as any kid of evidence. Look them up just on the Internet and you’ll see the debates. Usually when you read *summaries* or *declarations* of what texts like these say, and then you actually read the texts themselves, you can see the problems for yourself. There are lots of assertions out there based on texts that assert the texts say things they don’t actually say.
I’m all aware of the problems.
That’s why I was careful to identify documents that were specifically recognized by Jewish rabbinical teachers and my translation came from Jewish rabbinical translators from Jewish websites in completely non-Christian source material.
I’m not picking the stuff up online from some Christian website. I have my own Jd doctorate and training on analysis of evidence and I know better than that. Although I do admit that I do not speak Greek or hebrew.
I was careful to read the translations in context. And I was careful to make sure the people who made those translations were not corrupted by Christian bias.
Example I go to chabad.com to compare it to the talmud and get an interlinear Hebrew reading with rabbinical commentaries of over thousand years ago or 1300 years ago relating to this passage. While comparing at least 2 different translations and get the same result.
I have read the texts. As far as I’m able to read the opinions did exist as valid Jewish rabbinical theories but were minority opinions shouted down by the majority who had different Messianic expectations. 1 of many opinions that were put forward by the ancient rabbis.
As you probably know, critical scholarship on Judaism, engaged in by Jewish and christian scholars both, is very different from traditional views of many Jews about the same texts. The online sources are one thing; historical scholarship is another. The historical scholarship is quite abundant and easy to access. You might start with Collins and Harlowe, Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Or if you are interested in understanding rabbinic sources from a historical-critical perspective, you might look up one of the many, many works by Jacob Neusner.
Thank you I am especially interested in rabbinical sources from historical perspective. I would like to know where they got these ideas from considering that they mach Christianity so well so early on after the birth of Christianity withing 2nd and 3rd century ce.
I find it difficult to believe that they would copy the Christians despite the fact that they rejected everything about the Christians from the outset. There’s no logic to that.
Of course I have my own theories about how this might have taken place after the Bar Kobah revolt. The documented references of Justin Martyr and early church fathers regarding Christian influence in 2nd Century Israel.
I acknowledge the possibility. I just find one thing more probable than the other based on the cultural biased of the era though I could be wrong.
I’ll look into it a little bit more..