(11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading...Yesterday I posted about the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, which clearly differentiated between the man Jesus and the spiritual being, the Christ, who inhabited him temporarily – leaving him at his suffering and death since the divine cannot suffer and die. That understanding of Jesus Christ is not, strictly speaking, “docetic.” The term docetic comes from the Greek word DOKEO which means “to seem” or “to appear.” It refers to Christologies in which Jesus was not a real flesh-and-blood human but only “seemed” to be. In reality, what they saw, heard, and touched was a phantasm.
That is not what is going on in the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter. Here there really is a man Jesus – flesh and blood like the rest of us. But he is indwelt by a divine being who leaves him at his death, abandoneding him to die alone on the cross. That is similar to a docetic view, but also strikingly different. I call it a “separationist” Christology because it separates Jesus from the Christ (who himself separates from Jesus at his death).
A separationist Christology is what you find in various ways among different groups of Gnostics. Many of them thought that Jesus was born as a human, but at his baptism the Christ entered into him (remember in the Gospels, the “Spirit” comes upon him: that’s when he came to be filled with the divine being). That enabled Jesus to begin to do miracles and to deliver such amazing teachings. Then at the end, when he began to suffer, the Christ left him. And that is why on the cross he cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me [i.e., left me behind]?” He died alone.
Both the docetic and separationist Christologies wanted to ensure that no one think that the divine Christ could actually suffer.
There was a third, and far less popular view of what happened at Jesus crucifixion that confused people into thinking that the Christ suffered when in fact he did not. It was the view, only occasionally, attested, that at his crucifixion Jesus pulled …
To Read the rest of this post you need to belong to the blog. Members get posts 5-6 times a week, for less than it costs to park your car for an hour. You too could belong. All money goes to charity — so why not??
Is that last paragraph you speaking or is it Irenaeus?
C’est moi.
One of the things I am slowly and reluctantly learning these days, by following what I can of the political news, is that humans have a HUGE capacity to just make things up and to then get people to believe what they have made up. It sounds like that happened during early Christianity as well. So, the problem, now, as then, is how in the world do we figure out what is made up and what is not made up?????
Among other things I suppose it is always timely, especially, to consider the source!
As in law, the simpler explanation is most likely to be the correct one. Regarding the Jesus birth, you can most surely bet he was born of a woman, perfect in every way, a divine being, and has his dad’s nose, much like every child coming into the world. Take that to the bank.
The only way is to test it against known scientific knowledge. Any book purported to be the word of God and having so many manuscripts and all of them different tries the reason of men and not their faith. Reason is something which can be broken down and tested against factual standards but faith clouds sunshine of reason.
Apparently Mandaeans hold that Thomas the Apostle was the twin brother of Jesus and was crucified in Jesus’s place. That would also explain Jesus’ resurrection without a need for mass hallucination theories etc. Have you heard about this?
I have not! At least to my recollection. Do you mean modern Mandaeans or ancient ones or both? And do you have any references?
Well, my source is wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_hypothesis. Regarding to Judas Thomas it refers to contemporary Mandaeans and a book called “Journey of the Magi: In Search of the Birth of Jesus”. I have not read the book itself but isn’t this a great theory?
This sounds very similiar to the Muslim view of Jesus. I wonder if this is where Muhammad got this idea from. Muhammad lived among Christian Arabs and Jews, as well as pagan Arabs, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Muhammad adopted this belief as a way of finding a middle ground between these disparate beliefs.
I’m afraid I don’t know!
Any god who purports to be a merciful god who claims to be all powerful but he cannot save his own son from the jews. This make more sense seen against the milieu of the time and the believes held. If people believe in faith healers such a those giving them Rat poison to drink to cure their sicknesses or eat rats or snakes or grass than one can ask what level of superstition did not prevail. But as Dr Bart points out we sit with a copy of a copy of a copy etc.
” I wonder if this is where Muhammad got this idea from.” Please clarify your statement is here a suggestion that he heard this from other sources at that time? Is this only surmising for lack of clear evidence or if seen against the milieu what creates that impression. The question is where did this idea originate from in the first place, was there other witnesses who saw what happened or is this an author trying to give credence to his own theories surrounding the death of a father who cannot save his own son.
It’s difficult to adequately answer this question without a detailed description of the socio-political milieu of that time and place. I’ll give a rough outline and provide some links for further information. At the time Muhammad began prophesying in Mecca the Christian Byzantine Empire was at war with the Persian Sasanian Empire (probably Zoroastrian). When the war began Palestine was a province of the Romans (Byzantines), but the Persians managed to enlist a small army of Jews who saw this conflict as something of an endtimes war, heralding the Messiah. The Persians also formed alliances with some Arab tribes, particularly the Ghassanid Arabs, who were, at that point, Christian. Some of these Arab Christians also got swept up in this Messianic fervor. (Keep in mind that every party in this conflict had a similar eschatology; even the Zoroastrian Persians believe in an endtimes Final Judgment.) Eventually, with the aid of the Persians, these Jewish rebels did manage to capture and occupy Jerusalem and Palestine. They saw their leader as the Messiah — a Jew named Nehemiah ben Hushiel — and they declared a new Israel, and even made preparations to rebuild the Temple. This was all happening right at the exact time that Muhammad was preaching the Qur’an in Mecca, and we even see passages in the Qur’an that may reflect these events. But the Jewish rebels were only able to hold onto Palestine for a short time. The Christians of Jerusalem began to rebel. When the Romans retook Jerusalem they massacred all the Jews. Again, this was all happening while Muhammad was active (The Jews’ capture of Jerusalem was probably in the year 614, while Muhammad purportedly started receiving revelations in the year 610). Muhammad was probably hearing news about this back and forth between Jews and Christians in the Holy City (al-Quds). Also, many of the Christian Arabs with whom Muhammad was familiar were Monophysite Christians, meaning that they probably had a Separationist Christology (to use Dr. Ehrman’s term), and so Muhammad may have gotten his concept of Jesus and the foiling of the Crucifixion by a Jesus double from these Monophysitic Arab Christians. Anyway, as you can see this all gets really fascinating when you dig down into it, but it also becomes terribly complicated as well.
Here are a few Wikipedia articles that should fill in the details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_revolt_against_Heraclius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah_ben_Hushiel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
A neglected episode of history.
Jerusalem has too damn much history, you ask me.
Still ongoing.
Amen.
Fascinating history, Talmoore! Monophysite Christology, at least in its current Coptic form, is extremely subtle in its contrast to Chalcedonian Christology. So I doubt Muhammad got his “Jesus double” concept from “orthodox” Monophysites. Although I do wonder if the violent arguments over what to him probably seemed like minutiae soured Muhammad to any affinity towards Christianity early on. Islamic monotheism is much more practical and explainable than the Trinity.
I was in the Anglican , St Marks Church recently and even the priest there joked about the trinity being a mystery. It was even a mystery to Jesus because it is something he never knew about. This is a concept coming many years after Jesus, it is a known pagan ideology.
This is the theory stated by Robert Spencer in “Did Muhammed Exist.” He suggests that the various heterodox christian groups were driven to arabia by the orthodox church leaders, and their beliefs were manipulated by the Abbasid dynasty for political reasons to form a new religion. (I think I am summarizing it correctly, it’s been a few years)
I think it was an Ebionite form of Christianity he proffers as the original Islam.This would suggest a non-Divine Jesus, or at least one not himself god.
Muhammad speak in Arab, this Nag Hammadi document was burried at least 4th century, i dont think the were written in Arab, the only Christianity that have connection with Muhammad is Christianity in Kingdom of Axum.
Moslem reject crucifixion happen to Jesus simply for theological reason. Jesus is True Messiah, he can not die on the cross, G-d of Abraham save him. Jesus will return in End of times to fulfill his messianic age.
I was wondering, since the gnostic view seems to be that the death of Jesus isn’t the key to salvation, but the true knowlage he offered, then what was their view of the resurrection? How did that figure into gnostic teaching? Was it even considered an important event?
For some Gnostics, the divine Christ raised the divine human Jesus from the dead, and from that point inspired him to deliver his *really* important teachings privately to his disciples over a long period of time.
God said in the Holy Quran Chapter 4, Verse 157:
And because of their saying (in boast): “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God!” In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but another was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge about it other than conjecture. They did not kill him, for certain. Rather God raised him up toward Himself. God is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
Thank you. Do any other sources suggest it was Judas Iscariot they mistook for Jesus?
I said the same thing below! Jinx, buy me a Coke! 😉
Abdullah,
Is this necessarily to be taken literally (religious folk often refer to life as something beyond the physical)?
does the Quran occasionally use ‘life’ and ‘death’ to mean more than merely life or death of the body?
for example
Do not say that those who are killed in God’s cause are dead; they are alive, though you do not realize it. (2:154)
can you say for sure this verse DOES NOT apply to Jesus???
from
http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/07/never-say-die-the-death-of-jesus-in-the-quran/
It is amazing that the word “doubt” is used as even those who are staunch diehard believers in this concept reveals their own discrepancies of thought regarding this issue.
The Quran doesn’t say that another was made to resemble Jesus but this is only an interpretation of the passive verb ‘shubbiha’ which means ‘it appeared’ or ‘he appeared’ to them to have been crucified.
Clearly the Gnostics believed the goal was to escape this world and our fleshly bodies. Jesus seemed to teach that God was going to set the world right, though, and people (in the flesh?) would live on in this new kingdom. Did the Gnostics read those passages differently, or maybe just didn’t accept them? (Of course, even today a lot of Christians think they’re going to a spiritual place (heaven) rather than living in God’s kingdom on earth.)
Hermetic Sufism better explains gnosis, I think, as such:
The man of light begins his descent into the black entrapping matter, and becomes a prisoner of that matter which is the world. Slowly he wrestles control from the entrapping matter and ascends triumphantly out of it, free now.
The Crucifixion story might be thought a symbolic example of this process, the entrapment taking control of Jesus and seemingly destroying him, whereupon he rises from the entrapment and ascends triumphantly out of it..
It should be viewed no more than symbolically, not actually, because the Master could not be here demonstrating his godlike powers, he would be teaching the flock what they are capable of. Jesus sayings like “your faith has made you well”, or “if you truly believe”, “Ask and you will receive”, things like that. These are confidence builders, we ourselves having this power.
The message shows up in all great religions. It is basic principle. You have the power to move mountains. You do this by controlling your thoughts. Ultimately the “entrapping matter” will harken gladly to your voice, knowing you are looking out for its own interests.
Most do. I think most of us have come to the conclusion that perfection is impossible on earth.
Making things better isn’t. We can definitely make ourselves better, and if enough of us did that…..
Isn’t the Muslim view along these lines. Jesus escaped and someone else was crucified in his stead? Were the early Muslims using this text? ie: Basilides?
I”m not sure where Muslims got their ideas from!
Hello Bart
This is very strange because in koran jesus was neither killed nor crucified it just seem or appear to them that they did . here is the verse
4: 157 That they ( jews ) said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
any comment on this ?
Thank you
I’m not sure where Muslims got their ideas from! But yes, they seem closely related.
If looking at the evidence in the bible than it is clear that there could not have been any credible eyewitness to this event. How did this idea get to Mohammed if he copied directly the biblical sources as suggested by some.
It just dawned on me that “parallel universe” theory is a plausible answer to the riddle of the Trinity.
Basilides account sounds almost exactly like one scene in “Life of Brian”…
Yeah, I know. What a bizarre scene it is!
Off topic question: I understand you’re spending Christmas in my homeland – England, land of Kings and Queens, bishops, knights, castles and us humble pawns in the great chess-board of life.
I also understand you’ve given lectures at our Sceptred Isle before – have you any plans to do so again in the near future?
I hope you’ve had a fab Christmas and have had the opportunity to find a decent pub. I recommend the ale here – I prefer dark and malty, but if you have the thirst for something harder you should be able to find some excellent single malts on offer, thanks to our Scottish kin.
No, no lectures planned just now. And single malt — yes, I have to admit, it’s my drink of choice. I go for the peatier iterations.
Is this where Muhammad got his idea of the Crucifixion from? He was obviously doing a lot of reading of Christian texts. Geographically, it makes sense he’d have access to Coptic writings.
Wouldn’t explain why he found that account so convincing–I think Muhammad disliked the notion that a great prophet like Jesus could have been killed by infidel pagans. Allah would never allow it, therefore it did not happen.
And in fact, in the Old Testament, while prophets may die, and may in fact come into conflict with secular powers, you don’t see them murdered.
It became this meme in early Christianity, the murdered prophets. Which ones? John the Baptist was the first I can think of offhand, and that would have made a huge impression on Jesus. Muhammad had no comparable experience to call upon.
I’m not sure where Muslims/Mohammad got their ideas from!
Are you serious in saying “obviously” . Although Muhammad was born in a time of history where recording of events took place more readily and has become established as a practise it is well-known in the light of recorded history that he could’nt read but even if he could why make such a assertion that he did and that it is obvious, on what basis is this assertion made?
Regarding the Title “Did They Crucify the Wrong Guy?” I can’t help thinking of that office manager from The Office movie who would say: “Can you move back about three words? That’d be great.”
http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/
Hello Dr. Ehrman. I hope you have a great new years. Also, I hope the new year brings even more joy and success than 2017.
Many thanks! I’m looking forward to the new year.
Hi Bart,
I’ve ordered books from your two mentioned authors (regarding Paul timeline). “Framing Paul” is quite expensive, 33 bucks for Kindle version. I managed to find a used book for $24. The other book I picked up used for $5.
Regarding the Crucifixion, I came to a serious Bible reading as a young adult because of a serious handicap: introversion. I wasn’t indoctrinated by the church. I found the Bible to be my only hope, and I didn’t care a whit about the Crucifixion. It meant nothing at all, except that I (then) believed it had happened. But the Bible offered only hope where it mattered, not quick results, so I searched and filled in the blanks from books in the metaphysics section of any large bookstore. One book, Jane Roberts/Seth Material, was comprehensive. Resolution comes when we come to see the world as a mental construct. Then everything falls into place, with exception of the enormity of life itself.
The Seth Material is unrelated to Gnostic texts (it is a contemporary metaphysical collection through author Jane Roberts) with exception of the name “Seth” which is probably no accident, or is perhaps “Seth’s” marketing ploy but could actually happen to be the name he uses. There is no religion in these books, they read as psychology or even quantum science, with exception that the Crucifixion is briefly mentioned in the first two books of the collection.
The logic of the Crucifixion, as Seth explains, is flawless, not anything of the nonsense of orthodoxy or heretical texts. Quite believably, a Master comes on scene and “miracles” are somewhat common in his presence; because our thoughts create our reality, and the Master’s energy is closer to the the creative source and so trumps the “beliefs” of the world at that time in our recorded history. Crucifixions are commonplace at that time, and Jesus is a common name. Seth seems to indicate that Judas turned in a self-styled doomsday prophet, of which there were a number of, who was misidentified as the actual Master and was crucified. This is completely plausible and would explain why the “Messiah” was crucified. The Crucifixion indeed took place, but there was no resurrection, and yet many people saw him postmortem, because he was not crucified. Paul, being from a distant region outside of Israel, would not be aware of this. According to Seth, the idea of a crucified Messiah was good (even though it makes no logical sense intellectually) and it happened in peoples imaginations. This can explain how the myths develop from familiar stories and myths from the past. Ultimately Jesus “willed himself away” just as he does in the Bible stories. It would be interpreted by the mind as an ascension. And, per Seth, Peter denied Jesus three times because the man was not Jesus. Then the term “Son of Man” is added to the circulating texts, to keep the story alive, Seth suggesting it was added to confuse the Romans if the texts were confiscated which was likely.
The Master is not a miracle man at all, he is an advanced entity with a stronger aura. Miracles are merely things that we don’t believe are possible, but our outer reality being a mental construct, there are no miracles, for anything is possible, and miracles are merely what we deem to be not possible, our reality carefully reflecting our beliefs.
Hi Bart,
I’ve ordered books from your two mentioned authors (regarding Paul timeline). “Framing Paul” is quite expensive, 33 bucks for kindle version. I managed to find a used book for $24. The other book I picked up used for $5.
Regarding the Crucifixion, I studied the Bible as a young adult because of a serious mental handicap: introversion. I was never indoctrinated by the church. The Bible became my only hope, and I didn’t care a whit about the Crucifixion (I guess I ignored Paul). But the Bible offered only hope, not quick results, so I searched and filled in the blanks from books in the metaphysics section of any large bookstore. The Jane Roberts/Seth Material provided all my answers. Resolution comes when we comprehend the world as a mental construct. Then everything falls into place, with exception of the enormity of life itself.
The Seth Material is unrelated to Gnostic texts (it is a contemporary metaphysical collection through author Jane Roberts) with exception of the name “Seth” which is perhaps “Seth’s” marketing ploy but could actually be the name he uses. There is no religion in these books, they read more as psychology, with exception that the Crucifixion is briefly mentioned in the first two books of the collection.
The logic of the Crucifixion, as Seth explains, is flawless, not anything of the nonsense of orthodoxy or heretical texts. Quite believably (for me), a Master comes on scene and “miracles” are somewhat common in his presence; because our thoughts create our reality, and the Master’s energy is closer to the creative source and so trumps the common “beliefs”. Seth indicates that, to protect Jesus, Judas turned in a self-styled doomsday prophet who intended to fulfill the supposed ancient prophesies, and this man was crucified, but no resurrection (of course).
The idea of the Messiah dying like an ordinary man was good (though nonsense logically) and became a powerful imagined “psychic” event, though it didn’t actually happen in that way. This explains the recurring historical religious themes. The blueprint is there already.
Per Seth, Jesus eventually leaves the world (his presence was becoming an embarrassment) merely willing himself away, the mind translating the event as an ascension. According to Seth, things of the five senses are symbolic (as in dreams). When an event from outside our reality intrudes into our world, the mind will translate it using the person’s beliefs. If you believe in angels you will see angels; if you believe in space aliens you will see space aliens, though it is the same event. Essentially, we’re dreaming, and this is the “good news”, for all things are possible if we truly believe (that).
Our purpose for living is to learn we create our reality with our thoughts, per Seth.
This reminds me of the “swoon theory”‘ i.e. that Jesus survived the crucifiction. Details include he was given a sedative to drink and the spear piercing wouldn’t have damaged any vital tissues. Are there any ancient accounts of that story to your knowledge?
Nope. The version you’re citing sounds very similar to the view set forth by Hugh Schonfield in The Passover Plot.
As ridiculous as it seems now, that book was the main impetus for my becoming agnostic at age 14. It was quite traumatic.
I briefly considered the theory plausible, but I think in my case it was due to rebelliousness. My deconversion was starting and I liked any idea that challenged traditional views, like the swoon theory and the notion that Jesus went to India (for emotional rather than rational reasons).
Dr. Ehrman, any live events coming up soon, or live streams?
Next one is end of January in Naples Fl.
Ooh, is that open to everyone or only congregants?
I think to everyone. Let me ask.
Can you post details? FL in January sounds to inviting to pass up!
I’ll look into whether it is open to the public.
On the separationist view, I have heard some fundamentalist preachers explain Jesus’ cry of dereliction as the Father turning his back on Jesus because he couldn’t look on all that sin he was carrying. Would that qualify as separationist, as the Father and he could not have been one in that moment?
Also, I have heard that some Muslim tradition (I don’t know if it comes from the Qur’an or hadith) holds that Jesus traded appearances with Judas Iscariot, so that Judas was crucified for betraying him. Do you know of any Christian sources for that account?
No, that’s a different view. In that account Jesus is not a separate being from the Christ: they are one and the same. There are no early Christian accounts of Judas being crucified instead of Jesus.
SidDhartha,
That Idea (your second paragraph) comes from the Gospel of Barnabas, a known forgery from about the 12th century or thereabouts. It is used and believed by some Somalis today.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/barnabas.htm
tompicard following paragraph is on Islamic view about life (According to Said Nursi). According to Nursi, there are five level of lives. May be if you read the aforementioned verse in Qur`an. It makes more sense.
Do not say that those who are killed in God’s cause are dead; they are alive, though you do not realize it. (2:154)
According to Nursi, there are five level of lives:
The First Level of Life is that of our life, which is very restricted.
The Second Level of Life is that of Khidr and Ilyas (elijah) which is free to an extent. That is to say, they can be present in numerous places at the same time. They are not permanently restricted by the requirements of humanity like we are. They can eat and drink like us when they want to, but are not compelled to like we are.
The Third Level of Life is that of Idris (Muslims believe was the third prophet after Adam and Seth) and Jesus , which is removed from the requirements of humanity, and is an angelic level of life and acquires a luminous fineness. Quite simply, Idris and Jesus are present in the heavens with their earthly bodies, which have the subtlety of bodies from the World of Similitudes and the luminosity of astral bodies.
The Fourth Level of Life is that of the martyrs. According to the Qur’an, the martyrs are at a level of life higher than that of the other dead in their graves. Since they sacrificed their worldly lives in the way of truth, in His perfect munificence Almighty God bestows on them in the Intermediate Realm a life resembling earthly life, but without its sorrows and hardships. They do not know themselves to be dead and suppose only that they have gone to a better world. Enjoying themselves in perfect happiness, they do not suffer the pains of separation that accompany death
The Fifth Level of Life is that of the spirits of the dead in their graves. Yes, death is a change of residence, the liberation of the spirit, a discharge from duties; it is not annihilation, non-existence, and a going to nothingness. Many evidences illuminate and prove this level of life, such as the innumerable occasions the spirits of saints have assumed forms and appeared to those who unveil the realities, and the other dead have communicated with us while awake or sleeping and have told us of things that are conformable with reality.
Off-topic question, Bart:
I was watching something on TV and a character, who happened to be Jewish, made a comment that a certain building was actually a ‘synagogue’ and not a ‘church’. I had always thought of ‘church’ as a rather generic term for a house of worship or a congregation of believers, but a little research shows it is (apparently) strictly a Christian term.
That got me thinking about Matthew 16:18. If ‘church’ is strictly a Christian term, what did Jesus mean when he supposedly used the word/s before Christianity was even a thing? Did he make up a new term or phrase, or is the whole thing a later addition (perhaps to support apostolic succession)?
Yes, the English word “church” refers to a Christian place of worship. The Greek word in the NT, ecclesia, simply means a “gathering place” and could be used for a lot of different kinds of gatherings. But in Xn circles it did come to mean “place of Christian worship.” That is one reason for thining that Matthew 16 can’t go back to the historical Jesus: it presupposes a later understanding of the church (so too Matthew 18 about what to do about conflicts within the church)
Thanks.
Plus, it doesn’t make any sense in that context. What could Jesus possibly have meant by “upon this rock [a person], I will build my ‘gathering place’”?
Like I said above, I had never really thought much about this verse, but now that I have, it seems to be one of the clearest examples of a verse that almost certainly can’t be historically authentic.
I don’t recall you ever discussing it as such. If I missed it, can you point me there for further reading? If not, is there a reason? It seems like an interesting topic.
Thanks and also thank you for all the good work you do, on this blog and everywhere else! Happy New Year!
“For I kept changing my forms above, transforming from appearance to appearance.” This is a self-referential Fregoli syndrome, a delusional misidentification syndrome related to drugs, brain trauma, schizophrenia, etc. Seems about right.
I don’t think the theory that Simon of Cyrene dying on the cross is that far-fetched.
According to Luke, Simon was ready to die:
Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turn back, strengthen your brothers. “But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you even to prison and to death.” (Gospel according to Luke 22:31-33)
And If you examine all the gospels (except for John) , they show Simon carrying the cross:
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross….. (Gospel according to Mark 15:21-27)
As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus…..” (Gospel according to Luke 23: 26-34)
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. …. (Gospel according to Matthew 27: 32-37)
That’s the wrong Simon. In Luke 22 it is Simon Peter; the person carrying the cross is Simon of Cyrene.
Necessity of the Roman Church for the creation of Simon-Peter:
Robert Price suggests: “Perhaps distinguishing “James, son of Zebedee” from “James the Just” was an attempt to create two characters out of one, so as to make all the traditions sound right. John had been split into two characters (“John the Elder” and “John, son of Zebedee”) in order to preserve “John” as author of both the Revelation on the one hand and the “Johannine” gospel and epistles on the other. So maybe Mark thought of the James who belonged to the inner circle of Jesus as being one of the three Pillars. Roman Catholic scholars have usually identified the two. One can add that this same doubling process also appears with Simon who gets split into Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot (Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4, and Luke 6:15). Luke also splits Judas into Judas, son of James, and Judas Iscariot (Luke 6:16). An editor of John’s Gospel splits Judas into Judas Not Iscariot, and Judas Iscariot (John 14:22).51 Even the character Jesus Christ gets split into a freed prisoner named Barabbas (Son of the father). Simon also gets split into Simon of Cyrene who carries Jesus’ cross, while Simon Peter flees. John the Baptist becomes John, son of Zebedee. One notices that the way the name Jesus absorbs references (Messiah, Savior, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, etc.) is matched by the way other names get broken up into multiple references (e.g. Mary, James, Simon).” (Deconstructing Jesus, p.53.51)
Robert Eisenman discovers all these doublings and many more in James the Brother of Jesus. We have basically the same names of the apostles also being used as family names for Jesus’ brothers in Mark 6:3 (James, Joses, Judas, Simon) and Matthew 13:55 (James, Joseph, Simon and Judas), one can suggest that the separation of family and apostles is also an artificial device. One can easily suppose that the leadership of the Galilean based JudaicChristian movement revolved around one family. In reconstructing their history, the gospel writers of the second century placed their own apostolic structure into the narrative.
(Robert Eisenman: James the brother of Jesus)
Apologizes Dr. Ehrman,
One more Reference, not sure who this fellow is though:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark15.html#15.p.21.32
Helms also observes that 8:34 follows on 8:33, in which Jesus famously calls Simon Peter “Satan.” Donald Senior (1987,p116) points out that the phrase “take up the cross” is the same in both passages. Is Simon of Cyrene a double for Simon Peter? Jesus says that whoever would follow him must first deny himself; Peter instead denies Jesus. Has the writer of Mark piled up irony here, showing a Simon denying himself to take up his cross, even as another Simon denies Jesus? Has he injected a historical figure into the passage? Or did these events occur as written? There’s no way to know. One connection between 8:34 and 15:21 is that the mention of “cross” in 15:21 is the first time in the Gospel since 8:34. Jesus has managed to make 3 Passion predictions without mentioning the term even once.
hi professor Ehrman,
Thanks for this great blog and for the works you wrote. I wrote a book about 8 years back which had not been published but is on the net on this subject called Crucify crucify whom? My research brought me to the conclusion that Jesus Barabbas was the one who was crucified instead although some also claim it was simon of cyrene. My conclusions seem to point more to Jesus Bar abbas ( son of the father). look how the Gospel translators deliberately conceal the name Jesus when it comes to Barabbas.John 18:40 Now Barabbas was a robber
He was going to fight the roman army and that was why he was imprisoned. other gospel writer claim he was just a criminal. Matthew27:16 This year there was a notorious criminal in prison, a man named Barabbas. [Some manuscripts read Jesus Barabbas; also in 27:17.](New Living Translation)
Footnotes of The New King James Version says: {Matthew 27:16 NU-Text reads Jesus Barabbas.}
Mark 27:16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. We see in the Bible that Jesus did not want to Die. He begged to God to save him from death. So we know that he would do what it takes to save him. In my book i explain, was it a coincidence that Jesus son of the Father Barabbas, was in the same prison , if not the same same at the same time as Jesus son of the father( son of god). we see that Barabbas was an insurgent and he was considered by some of the Jews as the Messiah because he was holding insurgency while Jesus was soft. The Jews until now do not accept the Jesus portrayed in the Bible as the messiah who came to free them. Barabbas was the more rebellious figure. So he was not just a robber as . we also see how the bible writers at the time of the trial again conceal the name Jesus when bar abbas is reffered to Mat 27:
17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
Pilate would have referred to him as Jesus known as Barabbas and jesus who is called the christ. To cut a long story short proof that jesus son of mary was not the one being Crucified is found in the apocrypha
we have from the Nag Hammadi in the Testimony of Truth we can read:
The foolish – thinking in their heart that if they confess, “We are Christians,” in word only (but) not with power, while giving themselves over to ignorance, to a human death, not knowing where they are going nor who Christ is, thinking that they will live, when they are (really) in error – hasten towards the principalities and authorities. They fall into their clutches because of the ignorance that is in them. For (if) only words which bear testimony were effecting salvation, the whole world would endure this thing and would be saved. But it is in this way that they drew error to themselves. …
… (3lines unrecoverable)
… they do not know that they will destroy themselves. If the Father were to desire a human sacrifice, he would become vainglorious.
and also the bible says Jesus was so disfigured he could not be recognised Isaiah 52:
14 “Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness. this tallies with the below verse from the same Nag Hammadi library
“For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above. (Nag Hammadi Library “second treatise of Seth”)
again from the Nag hammadi library From the same source, in the Apocalypse of Peter we can read: “Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will put them to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them.”
When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said “What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?”
The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”
so as we see Jesus was saved and another person bit the dust for him. My take is that Jesus promised Barabass forgiveness of all his sins and paradise if he died in the place of Jesus. and we have evidence from the apocrypha that backs that Jesus was not the one on that cross.
There is more to come……….
Hi Bart and others
The word “subsitution” is not used in Quran 4:157. 4:157 says “they killed him not nor crucified him but he appeared so to them”
So no subsitution in Quran 4:157 but he looked like dead.
This is according to the arabic text of Quran 4:157
wait… I’ve got an idea… As long as we’re reviewing such stuff as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, can we also get a review on The DaVinci Code? Yeh, I know, it’s not so terribly ancient, but, it’s as relevant, isn’t it?
I”m afraid DaVinci Code fever has died off. When it was still hot I wrote my book Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code!
I’ve been studying Christianity, the Bible, Islam & the Qur’an for about 10 months now. I’m a born & raised Christian. I however find myself now basically a Muslim. Doctrine wise I feel everything I never accepted or understood or fought in Christianity has been answered in Islam. But…the crucifixion is the thing that has me all caught up. It’s basically my only reason for not converting. As you know, Islam doesn’t believe Jesus died. The English translation of Qur’an says “he did not die not was he crucified” …so if that’s a correct translation it is very specific. He did not die and he never went up on the cross. This kills the swoon theory. So now I’m left exploring the idea of it being another person. Perhaps just a random person God chose to suffer…perhaps Judas? I read something MONTHS ago online about a gospel…I’m not sure by who. Saying that Judas and Jesus looked a lot alike. And that after being beaten and covered in blood even his own mother didn’t know it wasn’t Jesus. Is there any relevance to this? If not…. Is there ANY doubt in your mind that it was Jesus on the cross? Is there any doubt that he died? I’ve looked and looked and can’t find anything myself.
No, zero doubt. As you know, I’m not a Christian, but no, it’s completely bogus: Jesus was definitely crucified.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Was Simon of Cyrene a historical figure?
Did he really exist?
Did he really carry the cross?
If not, then…WHY?
Thanks
I doubt it. but of course there’s no way to say for certain. You’ll note that he appears in Mark; matthew and Luke got their stories about him from there; and John does not mention him. On the contrary, John specifically says that Jesus carried the corss the entire way himself to the place of crucifixion.
Can the episode of Simon of Cyrene pass all criteria?
Multiple/independent attestation?
Dissimilarity?
Contextual credibility?
Thanks
No. None of the above, actually.
-Why can’t the episode of Simon of Cyrene pass the criterion of contextual credibility?
-Why can’t it pass the criterion of dissimilarity?
After all… What’s so strange about someone helping Jesus?
Thanks
1. Well, we simply never hear of that sort of thing anywhwere else.
2. Because it could be illustrating the Christian teaching to “take up your cross.”
3. Nothing strange about it per se. I’d just say there isn’t that much to convince someone that it’s historical, especially since it’s found in only one independent source and the other independent source dealing with the same issue contradicts it.
If the figure of Simon of Cyrene was invented, what need is there to mention the names of his two sons (Alexander and Rufus)?
Maybe they were of some standing in the early christian community.
Thanks
It’s usually thought that this provides verisimilitude for teh account, precisely so readers won’t question it.
Greetings Prof. Ehrman
I have a question, to my knowledge there are a few early christian documents (some reconstructions) that dont seem to mention the crucfixion at all or deny that Jesus was physically the one to be crucified.
1)Q
2) 2nd treatise
3)didache
4) coptic apocalypse of Peter
5) Gospel of Thomas
6) Gospel of Basilides
Am I wrong in any one of these or more and are there are other texts of this nature?
Also lastly, i know some churches in the east considered Pilate a saint. Is there any possibility that this is because might have let Jesus the Christ go and instead handed Jesus Barabas to the Jews (or romans depending on how you read the text)? This would explain why that Jesus is saying eloi eloi lama sabachtani in the earliest account and later authors embellished and improved that account. This would also explain why the disciples appeared shocked to see him alive afterwards, because had he been preaching his resurrection surely the disciples would have been expecting it.
Some don’t mention the crucifixion because they are about other things; some give a different intpretation of it; the final one doesn’t exist any longer but is summarized by a church father who says that hte Romans crucified the wrong guy (because Jesus pulled an identity switch)
Ive read different renderings of Thomas and it seems it speaks about a whole host of things of theological value. I find it very peculiar that it doesnt mention a crucifixion. Also the didache mentions baptism and early christian beliefs (which the Pauline letters are almost exclusively centered around the cross) but doesn’t mention anything about the crucifixion.
Also Prof. From a purely naturalistic perspective, wouldnt someone else being crucified and the disciples seeing the real Jesus afterwards be more plausible than some theories like mass hallucinations or visions?
Hallucinations and visions happen all the time. I’ve never heard of a look alike being crucified. So what happens fairly regularly is as a rule more probable than something that is not knwon to have happened.
It doesnt have to be a look alike specifically. Pontus Pilate released a man named Jesus Barabas (son of the father) to the crowd who is similar to the title of Jesus given to him by the crowds. So why isnt it possible that Pilate couldve given the crowd the actual Jesus, saving him, and barabas get executed. This would explain a lot in the gospels including the shock of the disciples to see him alive and many other things.
Professor ehrman The fact that you wrote this blog and and used the scriptures acceptable at the time like the second treatise of seth and the apocalypse of Peter confirming that Jesus was not crucified, you not being a christian anymore and the noose that Paul wraps around the Christians neck concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus link to salvation. Does that mean you have changed your opinion on the crucifixion, since when you were a christian you were compelled to beleive in that or you would not be saved. Now your salvation is not dependent on it. Do you still feeel the same way about it?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I don’t think the Second Treatise of Seth or the Coptic Apcalypse of Peter were seen as acceptable Scripture outside of Gnostic circles and I never considered them inspired sources — or that they were describing historical events. I’ve always thought Jesus was actually crucified.